₦airaland Forum

fratermathy, God bless your mind! I was speaking with a friend on the phone some days back and she said she finds it embarrassing to speak Urhobo with her peers in public because it is considered 'local'. Being fully aware of my plight (born and bred outside Urhoboland, yet, speak Urhobo flawlessly), she is motivated now and clearly enjoys speaking the language.

The multi tribe in the ND is really fizzling out the Urhobo language and other ND languages. I blame Warri though, the part of Delta that see all parts of the state, come together and speak pidgin till thy kingdom come.

Modified:

Warri, not Asaba.

EzePromoe:
Isn't 500MB @ N500 economical enough?

I don't think it is for heavy browsers. I would exhaust it within an hour and I wouldn't download a thing. How then is it economical?

EzePromoe:
Go for Etisalat monthly data of 500MB for N500 if you have No business with downloading stuffs.

The thread, beyond speed, mentions 'economical'. Etisalat, overtime, has told Nigerians that they're not out for the poor but the rich and classy. Their data are no go areas for youths.

GoodandBad007:
Do not try to practice this is naija...many people are waiting in line for that particular job u might be considering to practice this with. In short, you will be sacked!

Lol! It's funny how the OP gets a foreign publication to describe and address Nigerians who are quite different from the initial target audience.

Absolute rubbish. This is for those who have static jobs, like taking stocks and all. The business close at 5:00pm, yet I sometimes leave the office at 7:00pm or more than that. Reason for this is because some issues are forwarded and or escalated, and one cannot just pack up and leave until it's resolved. There is a need a to address the issue immediately. That does not imply laziness.

0ganiru:
trump is way better than buhari and obasanjo

Is that what you guys told yourselves before you embarrassed yourselves with that mumu piece you call 'alarm cum article'

Gaddafithe2nd:
Lol... you lied, the history book you read was doctored by an IPOB. Have read, watched documentary on civil war written by non-Nigerians. Biafra army got support from France, Sweden, Portugal, Israel, Gabon, Cote d ivoire, Ethiopia. The pilot of Biafra's fighter jet were Swedish mercenaries. The liquidated petroleum giant Elf gave out cash to Ojukwu. Have you ever asked yourself why Elf liquidated and was merged with Total because the supported wars in Angola, Nigeria and CAR which their allies lost these wars.

Erhm.... I believe we're saying the same thing here.

Sanchez01:
There's no chance in hell Ojukwu fought against Nigeria without help from international communities. It's in the history books though.

phobia2002:
At last the truth about Biafra war is coming out, Ojukwu didn't fight without international support then. The machines gun and other weaponry were not Biafra invention after all. International support eh

There's no chance in hell Ojukwu fought against Nigeria without help from international communities. It's in the history books though.

And they had to mention Trump

VocalWalls:
This man doesn't know what concerns him.

Blabbing up and down over the media.

Okorocha go and pay salaries. You are a disgrace to yourself already.

You might hate him as an Ibo man for aligning with the APC. I have my reservations towards him but this move is a laudable one. You don't get to see South Eastern governors challenge certain parts of the culture everyday.

God bless him for this move. I don't understand how parents, who claim they love their female children, subject them to tortures which would later impact their homes and families in the nearest future. There are some things our forbears did out of sheer ignorance and stupidity. Education sure is the best way to correcting it.

henrydadon:


this girl heart still lies with falz

YCEE right now

[img]http://i./d2lcHJTG5Tscg.gif[/img]

Simi and Ycee never dated. I've always had that suspicion about Falz and Simi. She even confessed to dating a guy he wasn't ready to talk about on TV sometimes ago. She has been in almost all of Falz's videos. There's more than meets the eyes as far as Falz and Simi are concerned.

RobinHez:
The bolded is a statement that is entirely false in itself. Atheists, claim there is no God, unfortunately some Atheists are Scientists... That doesn't mean all Scientists believe in the non-existence of a supreme being.

Don't generalize.

Be that as it may, i didn't lump atheists and scientists together as one. Atheists and most scientists have a lot in common, and that is 'there is no God'. And yes, you're quite right. Some scientists do believe in God.

RobinHez:
Yes God designed it, but Science is giving us in-depth analysis of it...


I don't think there should be any fuzz about the whole thing.

Scientists say there is no God and that the whole world is as a result of chemical imbalance or reactions, or whatever they propounded to satisfy their vague minds. However, we know this is God at work and man is a projection of the awesomeness of God. Science, however, explains the acts of God, but never that of chemical reactions that resulted in the formation of the world and a man. Such a huge contradiction!

This is clearly the handwriting of a grand designer. Chemical reactions is not capable of thinking and causing these in man. Awesome!

Sorry about your job loss. However, before you delve into another hunt, you have to ask yourself if you'd want to continue with your profession or just change gears just for sustenance. Personally, I'd recommend you update your resume and stay on the teaching track. Bank marketing is a 21st century slavery. If you love your peace of mind, then stay off bank marketing. The targets they are given is unrealistic and banks do not care where you go to, as long as you meet your targets. Most bank marketers wouldn't share what they go through with you but I'd strongly recommend you stick to teaching.

Ugo2039:
At the end of the day she will blame two things;

1. The Devil

2. The Recession

I for say make I join load the woman like say I dey dia, but when I reason say she fit get children when dey H for haus, e better make I just lock up

It wasn't in Nigeria.

Amazing superhuman. God bless them!

We would all be here when this one starts battling with kidney and liver failure. I wonder when Nigerian celebrities would be wise

jopretty:
Well, I won't disrespect you in any way cos I don't know you. As a parent, part of your job is to teach your kids these basic things, start from when they are little. Our parents made the mistake then, we shouldn't now. Again, thanks for the insult ko!

You're clearly insensitive here. Not all BASIC things are BASIC to all children. What I'm trying to say is that, family problems vary. That you consider this basic does not mean it's basic in other homes. Do not use your family's yardstick to measure another's. You people should be wise enough to understand this for crying out loud!!!!!

sinaj:
As big as she is, she doesn't knw her mom's no by heart



I hope someone that knows her see this thread tho
For d dumb ones quoting me, ensure ur children know ur phone number by heart, it's one of the basic things they ought to knw.

Evn if it will require u writing it on their school bag.
Or composing it as a poem for them.
If their school fail to teach them that, ensure u teach them.
It's ur responsibility

I have a 3yr old that knows his dad's number by heart so don't misquote me

I doubt if u will ever know the importance till something like this happen to u.

The problem with some of you is that you don't know when to put a limit to your jokes. Since you're so smart and intelligent, I'm sure you forgot what is called INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES. That your 3-year old cousin knows his dad's number does not mean another 3-year old must. Judging by your dp, I have girls your age who are already out of school and doing well on their own. So that means you're good as gone if you're not on their level? You really should learn to think.

Ammyluv2002, please tell me you saw the match

ddippset:
abeg all these PDP people should just stop spewing thrash all over the net. APC are bad yes, but PDP are not better. we don't have any option in Nigeria. APC and PDP must both be rejected.

One second 'we don't have any option in Nigeria', and the next 'APC and PDP must be rejected'? Please take some times out to read your points once again, but this time, slowly.

chieveboy:
When your father was toasting your mother, he stole the quote "I love you" from Romeo

This is basically what sums up the argument. Even if he did use someone's words or plagiarized someone's idea, the most important thing is him seeing through what he plagiarized. The thing is, the President has failed concerning that utterance by clearly staying mute over the affairs of Fulani Herdsmen. He belongs to someone and he has shown it, time and time again.

His handlers should stop lifting quotes they know the president wouldn't see through. It's not compulsory to sound like a great man.

The info is wrong. Just found out that it took place in Angola, and not Warri. Misinformation at play here...

This is indeed the definition of more photos after the CUT

Suljosh:
the only voice I heard in that song is peter. I could be wrong you know. and I could also be right.☝.

Wrong the voice is Paul's. Paul is the one with the dreads. Peter rarely sing. Paul is the vocal powerhouse of the duo.

dtruseeker:
If not for recession I'll be going direct to iTunes now. Abeg who get link wey I go download free?

The song is on notjustok.com. The sound seems shallow. My favourite part of the song is 'Iyo gogo', a reenactment of Onyeka Owenu's evergreen. Unfortunately, the beat is very similar to one of their songs, 'Shikeni', the difference is just the lead guitar and heavy intro.

Often wondered how fashionable and orderly the universe is and how everything plays out naturally? Well, the truth is that, it is not the work of some cause and effect. Just as scientists would readily play God down, Architects, overtime have also claimed they don't believe in God but in design. Quite true, but one must come to realize that the aesthetics they cherish so much is not realized by chemicals. How possible is it for chemicals to dictate and order the nature of things in the universe? How are chain reactions from heaven knows where able to trigger and fashion humans with the necessary organs up to reproductive tools within a living organism? The same reaction, perhaps made sure that animals also had reproductive organs to make sure they procreate and all? No! All these are clearly the works of a perfect architect, who not only understands order but placements and how organisms live and sustain their lives.

I understand the posts are lengthy but trust me, I'm sure you'll find them interesting

Continued...

In other words, the only concept of God in this argument is the concept of that which transcends concepts, something "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived" (1 Cor. 2:9). In other words, this is the real God.
C. S. Lewis, who uses this argument in a number of places, summarizes it succinctly:

"Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A dolphin wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." (Mere Christianity, Bk. III, chap. 10, "Hope"

Question 1: How can you know the major premise—that every natural desire has a real object—is universally true, without first knowing that this natural desire also has a real object? But that is the conclusion. Thus you beg the question. You must know the conclusion to be true before you can know the major premise.

Let's take another argument, now, shall we?

16. The Argument from Desire

Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."

The first premise implies a distinction of desires into two kinds: innate and externally conditioned, or natural and artificial. We naturally desire things like food, drink, sex, sleep, knowledge, friendship and beauty; and we naturally shun things like starvation, loneliness, ignorance and ugliness. We also desire (but not innately or naturally) things like sports cars, political office, flying through the air like Superman, the land of Oz and a Red Sox world championship.

Now there are differences between these two kinds of desires. We do not, for example, for the most part, recognize corresponding states of deprivation for the second, the artificial, desires, as we do for the first. There is no word like "Ozlessness" parallel to "sleeplessness." But more importantly, the natural desires come from within, from our nature, while the artificial ones come from without, from society, advertising or fiction. This second difference is the reason for a third difference: the natural desires are found in all of us, but the artificial ones vary from person to person.

The existence of the artificial desires does not necessarily mean that the desired objects exist. Some do; some don't. Sports cars do; Oz does not. But the existence of natural desires does, in every discoverable case, mean that the objects desired exist. No one has ever found one case of an innate desire for a nonexistent object.

The second premise requires only honest introspection. If someone denies it and says, "I am perfectly happy playing with mud pies, or sports cars, or money, or sex, or power," we can only ask, "Are you, really?" But we can only appeal, we cannot compel. And we can refer such a person to the nearly universal testimony of human history in all its great literature. Even the atheist Jean-Paul Sartre admitted that "there comes a time when one asks, even of Shakespeare, even of Beethoven, 'Is that all there is?'"

The conclusion of the argument is not that everything the Bible tells us about God and life with God is really so. What it proves is an unknown X, but an unknown whose direction, so to speak, is known. This X is more: more beauty, more desirability, more awesomeness, more joy. This X is to great beauty as, for example, great beauty is to small beauty or to a mixture of beauty and ugliness. And the same is true of other perfections.

But the "more" is infinitely more, for we are not satisfied with the finite and partial. Thus the analogy (X is to great beauty as great beauty is to small beauty) is not proportionate. Twenty is to ten as ten is to five, but infinite is not to twenty as twenty is to ten. The argument points down an infinite corridor in a definite direction. Its conclusion is not "God" as already conceived or defined, but a moving and mysterious X which pulls us to itself and pulls all our images and concepts out of themselves.

Abso1uteZero:
So, I Will Try To Be As Short As Possible...The Truth Is I Dont Know If There Is A Name For My Stand Regarding Religion So I Would Be Grateful If Someone Could Help Me Out.. I Do Not Think There Is/are G/gods But The Same Argument Could Be Made About G/gods Existence For Me Because Neither Sides Have Inequovical Proof( I Do Not Know If That Word Really Fits The Story I Am Telling Haha Forgive Me. I Couldnt Find A Better One)..The Main Argument For Me Against Religion Would Be The Lack Of Physical Evidence And The Long Standing Question Of Who Created G/gods Since Logically Something Cannot Be Created From Nothing And Our Limited Science Have Not Been Able To Say Otherwise But This Also Is My Main Argument About Against Since Science Havent Been Able To Show That The Universe Was Created Out Of Nothing And How ...So, Until There Is Proof For Or Against I Have Decided To Keep An Open Mind..So,what Do You Guys Think?

Truth be told, I understand you perfectly and where you're coming from. Getting a better, objective scale and asking questions on grey areas makes it easier in defining and find a path.

Unfortunately, no man can see God. Not even those closest to Him did; Moses, Elijah and Elisha. Enough of the Bible now, let's come down to things we can see and interact with; I'd be raising my point from a very interesting topic I've kept close to my heart over the years. A book titled: 20 Arguments to God's Existence, which has now been laid bare on a website.

12. The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God

This argument, made famous by Rene Descartes, has a kinship to the ontological argument (13). It starts from the idea of God. But it does not claim that real being is part of the content of that idea, as the ontological argument does. Rather it seeks to show that only God himself could have caused this idea to arise in our minds.

It would be impossible for us to reproduce the whole context Descartes gives for this proof (see his third Meditation), and fruitless to follow his scholastic vocabulary. We give below the briefest summary and discussion.

We have ideas of many things.

These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us.
One of the ideas we have is the idea of God—an infinite, all-perfect being.
This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause.
Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God.
But only God himself has those qualities.
Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.
Therefore God exists.

Consider the following common objection. The idea of God can easily arise like this: we notice degrees of perfection among finite beings—some are more perfect (or less imperfect) than others. And to reach the idea of God, we just project the scale upward and outward to infinity.

Thus there seems to be no need for an actually existing God to account for the existence of the idea. All we need is the experience of things varying in degrees of perfection, and a mind capable of thinking away perceived limitations.

But is that really enough? How can we think away limitation or imperfection unless we first recognize it as such? And how can we recognize it as such unless we already have some notion of infinite perfection? To recognize things as imperfect or finite involves the possession of a standard in thought that makes the recognition possible.

Does that seem farfetched? It does not mean that toddlers spend their time thinking about God. But it does mean that, however late in life you use the standard, however long before it comes explicitly into consciousness, still, the standard must be there in order for you to use it. But where did it come from? Not from your experience of yourself or of the world that exists outside you. For the idea of infinite perfection is already presupposed in our thinking about all these things and judging them imperfect. Therefore none of them can be the origin of the idea of God; only God himself can be that.

http://www.strangenotions.com/god-exists/#12

Would still post other aspects of the Argument as times goes on, hopefully. To the question, does God exist? The simple answer is yes! He does exist but not exactly the way we'd want Him to.

Do you believe in the three parts of man, namely the body, soul and spirit?
If no, it then means that questions bothering on heaven and hell are lies and fairy tales. And if yes, then it means you wholly agree to the concept of ghosts and spirits. And assuming you still stick to your guns on the physical and empirical, that would mean stories of supernatural forces, stories of ghosts that have been escalated all over the world are nothing but figments of someone's imaginations.

Would the world would have been able to form and come out beautiful by chain chemical reactions? I think not. The perfection of the world is not some cook up chemicals but the hand of being, whom we cannot see. Regardless, how then do we describe the way humans are fashion as? Could it have been sheer coincidences for all humans, regardless of colour, size and background to have the same anatomical structure? Does it imply that something, somewhere fashioned us as a model after another thing?

ammyluv2002:
Okay! Just hold on. Promise to have an open mind at least?

Sanchez01, biko bia o! I need you right now....our brother here needs answers.

I'm here... Sorry I was away still celebrating Real's win over Sporting. I think I could help explain a thing or two to him though. We pray he keeps his mind open.