₦airaland Forum

HellVictorinho6:
Letz proceed

You sure?
I mean $400 per night range (I only deal in dollars)

budaatum:
My human mind does not have the flaw of assuming everybody experiences reality the same way I do because that would imply that everybody has trained and cultivated the senses with which they experience reality the same way I have mine, and I have not found that to be so.

I in fact do not even assume everybody perceives the reality that is acting on them without them experiencing it.


We all do live on this same earth in this same world, but just the fact we may live in different places means our lifes are subjective to us, but claiming what subjective I perceive or claim to be true, is objective, is a bit of a wuruwuru jump to me.

My life might be subjective to subjective me, but my subjective opinion is not the objective world.



Is one of them called TBJoshua?

I have no problem with anyone who claims to "KNOW 200% that God exists - because they talk with {"with"NOT "to"} him everyday", but i wouldn't do business with such people, and I wouldn't generally socialise with them or marry them, and they wouldn't ask me to I don't think.



I don't "believe there is a supernatural to begin with" because I know there isn't a supernatural to begin with and I love my God books.

You don't know ANYTHING. That's just a fact. You don't even know the true nature of your existence or of reality.
You are simply NOT qualified to have opinion about supernatural

PoliteActivist:
What's this your obsession with Buddha? And how come you can't spell the name?

I don't have an obsession with Buddha and I can spell my name, though I do often shorten it.

budaatum:
I don't "believe there is a supernatural to begin with" because I know there isn't a supernatural to begin with and I love my God books.

You don't know ANYTHING. That's just a fact. You don't even know the true nature of your existence or of reality.
You are simply NOT qualified to have opinion about supernatural

PoliteActivist:
You don't know ANYTHING. That's just a fact. You don't even know the true nature of your existence or of reality.
You are simply NOT qualified to have opinion about supernatural

You definitely don't know the true nature of my existence. You don't even know what I look like or whether I can spell my name or not, so I doubt you'd qualify to appraise my opinion about anything at all.

budaatum:
You definitely don't know the true nature of my existence. You don't even know what I look like or whether I can spell my name or not, so I doubt you'd qualify to appraise my opinion about anything at all.

Shorten what? We are talking "Buddha" not "Shokolokobangoshe"!

PoliteActivist:
You sure?
I mean $400 per night range (I only deal in dollars)

I said letz meet on watsap 2 see how we can proceed

whatever the case

budaatum:
Science, as in what we learn by using our senses, constantly evolves.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/mar/09/controversial-new-theory-of-gravity-rules-out-need-for-dark-matter

Your senses? Do you know you can only see 0.003% of light spectrum?
Maybe things were changed by "someone"- either the dark matter or the scientists

HellVictorinho6:
I said letz meet on watsap 2 see how we can proceed

whatever the case

I don't have time to waste.
I have to know in advance.
And the only way I can know is if I drop my account and you drop me something right here on NL

PoliteActivist:
Your senses? Do you know you can only see 0.003% of light spectrum?
Maybe things were changed by "someone"- either the dark matter or the scientists

That is no a reason to now invent things in my subjective head and then claim they objectively really exist.

But if you are that sort, help me with my Ferrari desires please.

PoliteActivist:
Shorten what? We are talking "Buddha" not "Shokolokobangoshe"!

You are the one talking Buddha. I am talking about buda, as in short for budaatum.

budaatum:
That is no a reason to now invent things in my subjective head and then claim they objectively really exist.

But if you are that sort, help me with my Ferrari desires please.

But nobody invented anything. These are encounters people have. Just because you don’t have them... I told you we all live in different realities

budaatum:
You definitely don't know the true nature of my existence. You don't even know what I look like or whether I can spell my name or not, so I doubt you'd qualify to appraise my opinion about anything at all.

I don't have to know you. I know you think there is no supernatural and I know earthly folks don't know ANYTHING

PoliteActivist:
Yeah but you didn’t consistently do it. And you didn't tell them you were doubting what you were told about a certain MOG dying because it seemed impossible, then shortly after, TB died!

A prediction which came to pass is not a proof of the existence of any God.

If it were? Then I'm a god myself.

As an atheist, I do speak into people's lives and those things which I speak always come to pass the exact way I say them. I don't feel any special kind of way when I speak those things. I just say them playfully. And I've been consistent like crazy.

PoliteActivist:
I don't have time to waste.
I have to know in advance.
And the only way I can know is if I drop my account and you drop me something right here on NL

what!




u what!



wait!


what was i even thinking!






watz hapnin!

PoliteActivist:
I know earthly folks don't know ANYTHING

Haha! Isn't this plenty like this?
Celestial being wey know everything.

budaatum:
Science, as in what we learn by using our senses, constantly evolves.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/mar/09/controversial-new-theory-of-gravity-rules-out-need-for-dark-matter

The theory is nothing. Someone already proposed a theory that the universe itself does not exist!

FRANCISTOWN:
Haha! Isn't this plenty like this?
Celestial being wey know everything.

I include myself. We don't know anything. We shouldn't arrive at opinions on God and supernatural through logic. We should only arrive at such through instinct and direct experience

FRANCISTOWN:
A prediction which came to pass is not a proof of the existence of any God.

If it were? Then I'm a god myself.

As an atheist, I do speak into people's lives and those things which I speak always come to pass the exact way I say them. I don't feel any special kind of way when I speak those things. I just say them playfully. And I've been consistent like crazy.

Like I've said,, I think the greatest flaw of the human mind (and a flaw we are NOT aware of) is that we each assume everybody experiences reality same way we do.
When infact, you can say we all live in different worlds though we are physically in same world. Life is almost entirely subjective.
When you add to that the fact that our earth is not even a speck in our small galaxy, and that our galaxy is not even a speck in the universe, and that our universe could be one of infinite number of universes.
Then add to that that you don’t know the true nature of existence or reality.
Add all that and you'll KNOW you are NOT qualified to have an opinion on God or anybody's relationship with him!

PoliteActivist:
😅 OK, I'd help you save face. Only that you were arguing it for pages - and it's all there for all to read.
You'd be alright las las, insha Allah

Make I die if I allow make you help me save face. You made a huge blunder and I tried to point your attention towards it.

Look at this

PoliteActivist:
Simple: those with heritable traits that favor survival and reproduction will tend to leave more offspring than their peers, causing those traits to skyrocket in frequency over generations, while unfavorable ones die off.

In humans those traits would be: loving broccoli and hating juicy, sumptuous steak; loving going to the gym more than chilling and watching TV; loving drinking lots of plain water instead of sweet drinks; loving bland foods instead of salty, tasty foods.

Well, if you look around you you'd notice hardly any humans have those traits, yet according to natural selection those should be traits of over 90% of humans!

Natural selection sounds very good on paper, and very logical but it often doesn't pan out in real life.

You have a feeling humans have always liked those things and will always like those things. Just as lions have always liked meat, and sheep have always liked grass - none of that is from natural selection!

You said according to Natural Selection

Case 1: Eating broccoli, loving going to the gym( this is different from going to the gym, as you can love something and not do it), loving bland foods. Should be seen in about 90% humans because they are good.

Case 2: Hating juicy, sumptuous steak, watching TV, loving sweet drinks and tasty drinks are not supposed to be seen in up to 10% humans.

And I explained by saying that: taking juice, sumptuous steak, watching TV isn't bad in the grand events of Natural Selection because it doesn't stop humans from reaching the reproductive stage(RS).

Likewise everything in CASE 1 does not guarantee that any human will reach the reproductive stage.

If humans didn't eat broccoli they would still survive up till the RS, mind you there are other vegs.
If humans didn't drink lots of water they'd still survive up till RS. (Lots of water is different from required amount of water)
If humans don't go to the Gym they'd still survive up till RS.

And I said those things are not determinants in evolution by Natural Selection because they are not necessary for humans' survival based on adaptation and instinct in their environment.

I repeat, Natural Selection is about survival, not your habit.
Now if your habit was necessary for survival, then it becomes a trait(though many traits are not necessary for survival). Now tell me how loving broccoli is necessary for survival up until the RS

Another blunder you made was viewing Natural Selection from the view of genetic inheritance.

Please point out where I made any error or plead your ignorance and take a bow.

HellVictorinho6:
what!

u what!

wait!

what was i even thinking!

watz hapnin!

What what?? WHAT are you talking about?! Has it ever occurred to you I make my billions doing something

PoliteActivist:
Like I've said,, I think the greatest flaw of the human mind (and a flaw we are NOT aware of) is that we each assume everybody experiences reality same way we do.
When infact, you can say we all live in different worlds though we are physically in same world. Life is almost entirely subjective.
When you add to that the fact that our earth is not even a speck in our small galaxy, and that our galaxy is not even a speck in the universe, and that our universe could be one of infinite number of universes.
Then add to that that you don’t know the true nature of existence or reality.
Add all that and you'll KNOW you are NOT qualified to have an opinion on God or anybody's relationship with him!

I've said it several times. Nothing, I repeat nothing has fit into the existence of what should be called a God. This world we live in is a testament that there can't be a thing called God. If there were demons, I would have said the multiverse was created by demons.

Anyways, I'm qualified to have an opinion about God. I had a cup of tea with him yesterday.

LordReed:
Dumdum is nature making a choice? When a river bends is the water making a choice or selecting where to pass?

What is translation in DNA science?

Oga
Answer me first
There's no selection in natural selection as you said. Yes or No?

PoliteActivist:
What what?? WHAT are you talking about?! Has it ever occurred to you I make my billions doing something

mtchw

FRANCISTOWN:
Make I die if I allow make you help me save face. You made a huge blunder and I tried to point your attention towards it.

Look at this


You said according to Natural Selection

Case 1: Eating broccoli, loving going to the gym( this is different from going to the gym, as you can love something and not do it), loving bland foods. Should be seen in about 90% humans because they are good.

Case 2: Hating juicy, sumptuous steak, watching TV, loving sweet drinks and tasty drinks are not supposed to be seen in up to 10% humans.

And I explained by saying that: taking juice, sumptuous steak, watching TV isn't bad in the grand events of Natural Selection because it doesn't stop humans from reaching the reproductive stage(RS).

Likewise everything in CASE 1 does not guarantee that any human will reach the reproductive stage.

If humans didn't eat broccoli they would still survive up till the RS, mind you there are other vegs.
If humans didn't drink lots of water they'd still survive up till RS. (Lots of water is different from required amount of water)
If humans don't go to the Gym they'd still survive up till RS.

And I said those things are not determinants in evolution by Natural Selection because they are not necessary for humans' survival based on adaptation and instinct in their environment.

I repeat, Natural Selection is about survival, not your habit.
Now if your habit was necessary for survival, then it becomes a trait. Now tell me how loving broccoli is necessary for survival up until the RS

Another blunder you made was viewing Natural Selection from the view of genetic inheritance.

Please point out where I made any error or plead your ignorance and take a bow.

First of all you are LYING. You said clearly and severally that those are habits NOT traits transmitted genetically. I don't know why you lying about something you said severally and clearly!

Secondly, you are arguing nonsense again. You obviously didn't read my post where I said reaching repro age doesn't mean you'd reproduce. You have to be HEALTHIER enough, STRONGER enough, and "richer" enough to actually get a mate (competition) and be healthy enough to actually physically mate, and have enough healthy seeds to actually reproduce.
Bottom line: over millions of years those with unhealthy traits SHOULD die off, leaving only those who love "eating broccoli and going to the gym"!

FRANCISTOWN:
I've said it several times. Nothing, I repeat nothing has fit into the existence of what should be called a God. This world we live in is a testament that there can't be a thing called God. If there were demons, I would have said the multiverse was created by demons.

Anyways, I'm qualified to have an opinion about God. I had a cup of tea with him yesterday.

Einstein, Newton, Socrates, etc all said they knew nothing. They were right. Not only don’t humans know anything, they're incapable of knowing anything.

You are simply NOT even close to being qualified to even have anything close to opinion as to whether anything fits into the existence of what should be called a God!

PoliteActivist:
I don't have to know you. I know you think there is no supernatural and I know earthly folks don't know ANYTHING

Are you an earthly folk?

Do you not know ANYTHING?

budaatum:
Are you an earthly folk?

Do you not know ANYTHING?

No I actually don't, because I have no way of knowing the true nature of what I experience as reality or whether it physically exists at all!

PoliteActivist:
No I actually don't, because I have no way of knowing the true nature of what I experience as reality or whether it physically exists at all!

Why do you have no way of knowing the true nature of what you experience?

Are you incapable of interpreting the data you collect from your own experiences?

Why can you not know whether your experience is reality or whether it physically exists (and you actually experienced it)?

Do your senses not work?

Aemmyjah:
Oga
Answer me first
There's no selection in natural selection as you said. Yes or No?

Dumdum nature doesn't take actions, it has no agency. Selection in there is metaphorically so dumbos like you can start to understand. Unfortunately it has the opposite effect.

Are you going to clarify what translation means or are you gonna keep playing ostrich?

budaatum:
Why do you have no way of knowing the true nature of what you experience?

Are you incapable of interpreting the data you collect from your own experiences?

Why can you not know whether your experience is reality or whether it physically exists (and you actually experienced it)?

Do your senses not work?

Wow, I'm surprised you're asking something so obvious. Did you watch the movie the matrix? The only thing we can be sure exists is thinking or something like it. Descartes summarized it with "I think, therefore I am". Though he was wrong in linking himself to the thinking

PoliteActivist:
Wow, I'm surprised you're asking something so obvious. Did you watch the movie the matrix? The only thing we can be sure exists is thinking or something like it. Descartes summarized it with "I think, therefore I am". Though he was wrong in linking himself to the thinking

Descartes might have thought therefore he was, but I buda am, therefore I think, since I couldn't possibly be thinking if I wasn't in existence.

But don't be surprised, just answer the questions if you would. I'll ignore you otherwise.