₦airaland Forum

CAPSLOCKED:
SAD TO BRING THIS TO YOUR NOTICE, BUT YOUR DEFINITIONS ARE WORTHLESS AND NOBODY CARES.

Dainty09:
When praying at times I feel a kind of movement like an electric shock or goose bumps over my body, please what spiritual meaning does this have?

gabe:
lol, 4 years? that's a long time to be talking trash.

Horlufemi:
A pattern is any distinctly organized sequence. Patterns occur everywhere in nature — the spiraling seeds of a sunflower, the hexagonal cells of a honeycomb, the circular ripples on a pond when a fish jumps, et cetera.

On the other hand, “Codes are special….Codes, by definition, must carry information. They must do more than simply form a pattern — codes must transmit data and convey meaning.” The kicker:

Codes do not occur naturally in the world. Musical notation does not sprout from trees, and symbols do not draw themselves in the sand. Codes are the deliberate inventions of intelligent consciousness.

So codes always have an intention or awareness behind them?

Exactly. Codes don’t appear organically; they must be created.

What about DNA? Bingo! The genetic code. That’s the paradox.

You think DNA was created by an intelligence?

When I witness the precision of mathematics, the reliability of physics, the symmetries of the cosmos, I don’t feel like I’m observing cold science; I feel as if I’m seeing a living footprint…the shadow of some greater force that is just beyond our grasp.

The heart of the problem is that physical laws are simple and general, and by their nature they produce the same thing over and over again. Law-governed processes can produce simple repetitive patterns, as in crystals, but they can’t produce the complex, specified sequences by which the nucleotides of DNA code for proteins any more than they can produce the sequence of letters on a page of a textbook.

Snowflakes are a crystal, and form easily by natural laws. They actually have a very low level of complexity. Like all crystals, they can be described easily by the laws that govern chemical bonding and atomic packing. For that reason, among others, nobody claims that snowflakes or crystals require explanation by design. Because they are characterized by low CSI, or “Complex and Specified Information,” we wouldn’t expect them to trigger a design inference.

There you have it life is a product of intelligence.
cc: blueAgent

hopefulLandlord:
No it won't affect my knowledge that all religious gods are manmade

Berlyn1:
I am Just here to read comments. ...ignore me

vaxx:
you will not stop making me laugh......another stomach crumbling laughing .......

hopefulLandlord:
@sonofthunder, just for educative purpose I'll answer the question why an atheist can believe in the supernatural while not believing in god (who is claimed to be supernatural)

The logic of people asking the question goes like this

P1 atheist doesn't believe there is a god

P2 An atheist can still believe in the supernatural

P3 God is supernatural

P4; P2+P3 means an atheist that believes in supernatural should also believe god exists

C An atheist that believes in supernatural but doesn't believe in a god is a joker

while it looks sensible and watertight (although P3 is a claim that still needs to be supported as one can replace "god" with Bigfoot or Unicorn or dragon), we nevertheless see a modal fallacy committed at P4, that one believes in a particular realm's existence doesn't automatically mean one should accept any claim based on that realm, let me use an example to buttress that point

Sonofthunder: There was a ship that sank on 15 April 1912, this ship was called "Titanic" and that was where a poor man called Jack Dawson sacrificed his life for rich girl Rose DeWitt Bukater out of love

sonofthunder's listener: I don't think any of that happened

You then show him some proof of the ship, maybe you flew him and used submarine to get to the location of the ship and the ship actually does fit the description of what you told the listener or whatever you did was enough to convince him Titanic did sank
you guys get back on dry land and he says "while I'm convinced a big ship did sank and it looked as aged as a century old ship both in design and decay, I still don't believe jack and rose part is real"

You'd agree that accepting the Titanic did sank doesn't automatically mean any story told about it should also be taken at face value

also if I claim to have £1B cash in my house, you can believe I have a house after "proving" that to you while still doubting the "£1B cash" part

in the same vein, that a Nigerian doubts spiderman is real doesn't mean one just shows him New York and expects New York to be proof of spiderman to him all because Spiderman is said to live in New York

that someone accepts England is real doesn't mean he should also accept Hogwarts is real

One can still believe Gotham City is real and Batman is not and vice versa

one can accept a character called Jesus existed without accepting he's son of god

I hope I've been able to explain well and do feel free to ask any question

Revadebola:
DO YOU FORGET YOUR DREAMS? (PART 9)

Continued From Yesterday.

I have said it several times, don’t ignore your dreams. When Pharaoh woke up from his sleep and dream, he was troubled. Because he had a... Click to continue reading /p90YTL-gm

hopefulLandlord:
you don't need to share in his ignorance, a simple googling of many religions atheists can be involved in would show this or maybe Kingebukasblog topic "Religion without god god without religion" or something would be educative enough, you can ask for clarifications from him after all atheists are liars and you'll believe a Christian more

alternatively, you can check out Raelism, Confucianism, Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism to mention a few

butterflyl1on:
I am still waiting for the list of supernatural things atheists can believe in without believing in a God who is also supernatural. Or are you feigning ignorance all of a sudden?

hopefulLandlord:
and the best way you thought you could explain it is to invoke a fictional book and movie? seriously? do you know what kinda slippery slope that brings? I do understand you were just trying to explain but using Harry Potter sounds like schoolboy error and actually lends credence to your "opponent"s arguments while weakening your own

butterflyl1on:
I said the pool was invisible ONLY! did you bother to ask if it was full of water or not? Just like you budaatum failed to ask the same logical question before asking that I jump into it

Both of you are cut from the same dumb rock.

You were the one who said it had water in it. Jack oh Jack the dumbbizzle you must have an awesome invisible viewing gear which is much better than mine to not only see the pool but also to see that there is water in it even when I never said anything about water being in the said invisible pool.

I can see that you would be carrying your megatons of stupidity into 2018

hopefulLandlord:
This looks like a very bad example to use as Harry Potter is fiction so you're actually buttressing Jackbizzle's point but what do I know?

butterflyl1on:
Dumbbizzle can you show me where ANYONE mentioned that there was WATER IN THE POOL?

all we have said is that there is an invisible pool. Asking the right questions would take you far but assuming dumb things without asking questions only show to everyone the level of your stupidity.

Regarding touching an invisible pool thanks also for calling budaatum a fool since he was the one who asked that I jump into the said invisible pool

I never hinted or suggested that. I am loving how you are slapping yourself and your colleagues and calling them fools. First it was deicide and now it's budaatum.

Good job

JackBizzle:
Only a purposeful dumbfuk like you would think of touching an invisible pool.

Only a fool that believes in an invisible God could come up with touching an invisible pool.


Cc hopefullandlord, johnydon22

butterflyl1on:

Too late, I just hit my head on an invisible pavement

3nim:
If it doesn't affect me. Will you?

3nim:
The woman... the partner... the individual gay people, who would do what they desire to do, whether or not same-sex marriage is legal.

3nim:
No wahala.
When you're ready, let me know what your question really is. Keep it simple or keep anticipating an answer.

3nim:
Well, you should keep in mind that these toys have been in existence before now....AND that before the legalization of same-sex marriage, the homosexual people had been doing their thing, using their toys and plastic dongles. The only thing new might be that it is now legal to get these people married, the way they want it. I don't think that the gay sex (or use of the instruments) was ever illegal.

If any woman suffers damage from one of these gadgets, I wouldn't actually blame the legalization of same-sex marriags.

johnydon22:
"God" is not peculiar to religion as a subject. More so, an atheist can be religious too as stated on my post.

Again, both God and religions are matters of public concerns as we feel the effects of these two subjects none withstanding our position or opinion on them

johnydon22:
Atheism is the disbelief in God(s).. Niaraland religious section treats the subject of God, so we are here to air our own opinion on the subject of God..

3nim:
butterflyl1on, regarding this:



I forgot the Elephant example.

The man after God's heart, King David, was a terrible Back-slider. I would say he was the worst in the Bible, but if all sins truly were equal then that statement could be false.

King David just kept wandering farther away from the truth. Imagine you were living back then. He ended up getting another man's wife pregnant, and then "indirectly" killing that man, and then taking his wife. That was terrible.

David continued to sin, as though he had never seen God or known him.



But he had:

ScienceWatch:
I agree. You are very flexible when dealing with complex issues Sonofthunder.

I ate everywhere today and noticed that my IQ is dropping below the danger zone. So I need one week break to recover.

3nim:
Sorry...I thought you wanted me to follow up the point that you quoted...which had nothing to do with the question you're asking here.

You're asking if I'd let people serve God with their time, effort and money in peace.

Before you asked:


I'm sorry, I never claimed to have a Genius-level IQ. If you really do have a question, please directly let me know what it is, to avoid further misunderstanding.

ScienceWatch:
3nim, I think that sonofthunder's concern is that many of those plastic dicks/penisses/Dongles could be illegal because it is longer than a mans arm. And with marriage now legal between two women, those 1.5meter long Dongles can seriously damage a women if her marriage partner has sex with her. I may be wrong as usual, what do you say Sonofthunder.