Joshthefirst:
care to explain?

Infinity qualifies something, not itself.

A thing may be said to exist for infinity, but infinity cannot be said to exist for infinity.

Infinity is abstract, nonexistent when nothing exists.

So infinity by itself is nothing.

Else you'd be holding the block view of time, which is pathetic.

GenBuhari:
You just don't get it!

If something is a hoax it doesn't exist, so why are talking about a cure?

Which is the question I asked. Do you think HIV doesn't exist?

Joshthefirst:
how about infinity?

straight on point. Its nothing.

GenBuhari:
Can you not understand how illogical your post is?

Do you understand the meaning of the word hoax?

LOL!

Oh, I know quite well, but I was giving you the luxury of doubt.

Do you really think a disease that has claimed thousands of life is a hoax?

So, if you think the HIV naming stuff is a lie, cure the real killer yourself.

GenBuhari:

Many find it hard to believe but HIV is a hoax designed to reduce the population of Africa, ever wondered why all these deadly incurable diseases always disproportionately affect Africa?

Perhaps that's because you guys are too crude and non educated in there to know to keep your environment clean so you are not disease ridden.

If you think HIV is a hoax, cure it yourself. Why wait for cure from the "whiteman".

Pathetic excuse for humanity.

malvisguy212:
my good friend, long time.

Psalm 139:23

Search me, God, and KNOW my heart; test me and know my anxious THOUGHT.

Search me, O God, and know
my heart: try me, and know my thoughts. Examine me, and see if I have not represented my feelings as they really are. Keep on always searching me out and "trying my reins and my heart" (Psalm 26:2). My desire is to be proved and tested.

Then David or whoever said that is also dumb.

Only nothing is beginingless, timeless and changeless. Anything that exist at all must have at least time as one of/its only property.

Considering that records about Jesus life werent written until about 40 years after his death, and considering that Jesus has long been deified, I think any reprehensible behavior in his life would have been destroyed off record, so as to paint him as not just a saint, but a god.

However, some flaws in Jesus life escaped the editors.

Jesus both did and said some things that are

1. Incredibly racist/ Xenophobic.

2. Lies or miscalculations. However, its a fault - which is what you asked for.

3. Male chauvinistic.

4. Disobedient/ disregard for his mum.

Points to support claims.

1. A woman needed help, went to him (Jesus). He told her that food that belong to children shouldnt be given to dogs.

Fault-
He called a woman a dog, which is purely chauvinistic.
He clearly showed that he didnt care about others but the Jews by referring to others as dogs and the Jews as children.
He displayed racism/xenophobia through the above point.
Mat 15v26.

2. A miscaculation. Jesus was wrong when he said if he didnt leave, the holy spirit cant come. John 16v7. Apparently, however, the holy ghost was already around, doing the good work of impregnating virgins (what a way to live). Matt 1v18. Luke 1v41.

Fault.
He miscalculated the time of the coming of the holy ghost.

Fault 3 already supported in point 1.

4. Wedding at Canna- So there was a wedding and there was no wine and Jesus' mother told him that they had no wine and he rebuked her, saying "Woman, what have I to do with you". John 2v4.

Fault.
Perhaps his "hour" hadnt come for real but most of us know not to talk to our mother like that. In this, he showed a disregard for his mum.

This is all for now.

No offense intended

Op asked for just 1, but faults in Jesus' life are more than 1.

Hiswordxray:

Why don't you use your head to reason out love and see how it goes.
Or do you use your head to find out if you are in love or not?

My friend there are certain things you can't use your head to find out but you can search your heart and find the truth there.

This one got me laughing.

Search your heart? For real? Like the heart is a memory center or some sort of storage device.

Why are religious people inherently dumb?

And you xtians believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you are just lying.

timmy2409:


No idea. Was being silly

Here's what Google thinks
1. a feature of language or culture regarded as characteristically African.
2. the belief that black Africans and their culture should predominate in Africa.

I know what africanism mean in that sense.

But in here, I thought its a philosophy ....

timmy2409:


..the best for every black man. duh

what is africanism?

Asiri1991:
I represent Africanism, the best for every black man.

whats that?

Do you believe in fairies? What about Santa?

Explaining evolution to the religious and expecting understanding is like explaining organic chemistry to cavemen and expecting comprehension.

Their brainwashed brain, filled with an immoral god who killed his son so that they could live can never comprehend reality.

When someone picks up a religion, he/she does so at a cost of exchanging religion with reason and logic. When observed closely, any religious person does not have a full comprehension of reality. Their brain, having been filled with lies of religion.

This is my input on this.

davidylan:


Another mindless lie. No one has called intelligent design a science... it is simply faith in a divine creator... at least creationists are willing to acknowledge the truth no matter how unpalatable.



the above is ridiculous musical chairs. you dont need to discuss published research, simply posting links to published research is good enough... and you have so far failed to do that in 7 pages...

It is true that you dont owe us proof of anything... just wonder why you're here howling for proof that religion is true. Cant have it both ways dear.



that is the same excuses others like you give when they cannot provide the facts to support their claims. Cant post links to science, but can sure waste her time ferreting the web for anti-religious dribble.



I have over 20 published research papers on US pubmed so spare us the "publish your own" nonsense. You sound like ooman, plaetton and co. The same useless excuses rather than showing us the science. I dont need to disprove 150 years of research... the research to support macro evolution just does not exist... i challenge you to provide publications to support that it does. You're the one who came here lecturing us on how science has made religion obsolete... we ask you to go ahead and show us and you turn around to ask us to disprove your claims? Laughable cowardice.

Your illiteracy and ignorance of science would be alarming to me. But after years of reading your post, I stand on a solid lectern and declear you an illiterate. I will under no condition consider you a high school graduate. Not until your busy fingers show improvement in the way science is studied.

Upon new discoveries daily on evolution, you still think there is no evidence for macro evolution? You are like the rest of them in your sunday school.

Your problem is not that there are no evidence of macro evolution available, your problem is that you think you owe your god your life so much that you are blind to evidence.

Like Ravi Zacchariah and your ilks, you are all schooled illiterates.

Next time you display your ignorance on evolution, be nice enough not to mention my name, so am not notified of how you are once again disgracing yourself.

striktlymi:


I am very sure your opinion would have been very different if it had been a Muslim who killed 3 Atheists; execution style.

Yes. Definitely.
There is a difference.
Atheists dont read from the same book. You guys do, so deal with that.

wiegraf:


Why thank you for your consideration. Educating you is quite the ordeal

That's not what I meant.

Never mind the discussion. Its a waste of my time. Obviously, you have time to waste.

wiegraf:


Don't revert to your default state of folly. In case you missed it, only one of us claims to be a professional scientist, and he certainly doesn't behave like one. If you're looking for civility then clear your eyes and look about, as you're definitely lost

As for what are we discussing here, excuse me, but what is the point of the thread?!

No, very clearly most people don't understand how the scientific method works. At least most in this section.

And there is merit to this theory even if only because it's met a few critical conditions and, better yet, it isn't classical. Won't bother explaining what that is as you're a pro, yes?

Never mind.

robinicule:
5

why now. Isn't 5 too small?

Why not give him 5 months.

Really, there is no need for prolonged offense as this thread is filled with.

Lets keep it professional.

The model is not a standard, I think everyone knows that. Its not that equation of everything we ve been looking for, because it doesn't satisfy all of our observation yet. More work needs to be done on it. Everyone knows that too.

So why the long debate about nothing?

striktlymi:


Yes I have and its not Tuesday.

Yes it is!

Now if you insist on Tuesday, the statement would read:

If only Yesterday (Monday) was tomorrow (Wednesday), today would have been Sunday Thursday.

In order words, if Wednesday takes the place of Monday I.e yesterday is Wednesday, it only follows that today can only be Thursday.

That's why the answer is not Tuesday.

I have said too much already.

Is the emphasis on tomorrow or yesterday?

And beside, you have falling into the shifting condition effect I predicted.

You said: If only Yesterday (Monday) was tomorrow (Wednesday), today would have been Sunday Thursday.

Did you even realize that your yesterday has picked up a new identity? From monday, it has become wednesday.

See now that your conditions aren't getting satisfied. Or perhaps you need to tell us to only regard tomorrow not yesterday.

Once again, if the statement has no other condition attached, which you aren't telling us, then you are wrong.

striktlymi:


Yes I have and its not Tuesday.

Yes it is!

Now if you insist on Tuesday, the statement would read:

If only Yesterday (Monday) was tomorrow (Wednesday), today would have been Sunday Thursday.

In order words, if Wednesday takes the place of Monday I.e yesterday is Wednesday, it only follows that today can only be Thursday.

That's why the answer is not Tuesday.

I have said too much already.

Apply this same logic of yours to your answer, and you would arrive at another day. This is why I warned we could run into infinity and asked whether the condition was constant, or perhaps, we are looping.

If we take it for a fact that wednesday took the place of monday, which in reality can't, then your answer can never satisfy the question because the days would have shifted to satisfy your never satisfied condition.

So its still tuesday or infinity.

Note that if you publish another answer, I will use your logic to prove you wrong. You wont escape that.

striktlymi:


Thought same when I first looked at it. Look again!

You mean you've solved it and its not tuesday.

Just one question: is the first condition constant?

Its a possibility of 4. That s 2e2.

Lets assume the 2 witches are A0 and A1 and the two watches are also B0 and B1, then we can have A0B0, A0B1, A1B0, A1B1.

The only certainty is that 1 possibility will happen.

Which one? That's 1/4. Each one has 25% chance of occurrence.

Observational data of the witch will be the only satisfying answer.

striktlymi:


Take another look.

Something is wrong. Your variables are not complete.

striktlymi:


Nah...


If he said on Tuesday, it means Yesterday was Monday.

If yesterday (Monday) was tomorrow (Tuesday) then today would be Sunday??

This means the statement can be understood in another way. But if the logic is literal, then the day is tuesday. Else the answer is infinitely looping, and we can never arrive at any day.

I dont like infinity.

striktlymi:


Nope!

Tuesday.

If yesterday (monday) was tomorrow, then today is sunday.

Only if the tomorrow is monday could that day (today) be sunday.

Monday is yesterday of Tuesday. If monday was tomorrow (but it wasn't), then we'd be in a sunday, however, we are looking forward to a wednesday.

Except if the variables are not complete, the day is definitely a Tuesday.

undercat:


Religion is quite possible. You can even see religion all around you. Whether or not God exists is up for debate. Its not a question that has been settled conclusively. Can you take me through the steps by which you arrived at the conclusion that it is not possible for God to exist?

You should know that reason can't dictate what reality is, anyway. The fact that you trust reason to be able to tell you everything is what makes you religious.

Presupposition is your problem.

Sorry I bothered you.

undercat:


For you, Reason plays the role that Yahweh plays in life of a christian. Where the christian believes that Yahweh is all he needs to navigate through life and learn about his purpose and about the universe, you believe instead that Reason will give you those results. You don not believe that there is any other alternative or possibility. This belief guides your every action.

This load of BS you have posted contradicts the very essence of reason.
To reason is to keep an open mind and ruminate on all possibilities, removing the obvious impossibility, like religion.

Once again, think before posting.

undercat:


That would be Reason.

I love to read too. Is reading a religion too? Also I love to post on Nairaland, is that a religion too?

I guess you'd call those 'Reading' and 'Posting' right? With a capital letter starting the words?

One advice - think.

But thats if you wont tell me 'Thinking' is a new religion.