₦airaland Forum

WhizdomXX:
Include Jonathan and when you recall that OBJ and Buhari where already military head of states before they became President, you see that the cycle is complete.
For your earlier poser, the current and the past governor of my State, were one time member of the house of assembly representing their LGA and local government chairman of their LGA respectively. Same goes for Wike, Plateau and a host of others too many to mention.

You are not getting my point as I already gave you exceptions. Nigeria's Fourth Republic began in 1999, featuring elected civilian governors across its 36 states, with approximately 250 unique individuals serving due to multiple terms, acting roles, and impeachments.

Of these almost 250 different governors, how many cane from the grass roots of first being a local government chairman? If you count from thecfirst republic, we have over 560 governors. How many become Local government chairman before becoming governors.

This means that the probability of rising through the ranks to becoming a president is a joke taken too far!


Again: So, the question you should ask yourself is: What are the criteria used in determining who becomes a governor or president in Nigeria

honesttalk21:
No. And that is exactly the point. Scholars are indeed capable of assessing reports, and the very fact that this narration is subject to debate indicates that the system is functioning properly, not failing. Hadith science was designed to distinguish between authentic reports and weak ones which is why scholars will openly classify a narration as ḥasan or ḍaif when a narrator is either unknown or lacks strong precision, as you mentioned. This disagreement isn't a matter of confusion regarding the truth; rather, it reflects methodological integrity.

You just told me that the grading of hadiths is NOT an exact science as it is subjective.

You also very well know that the only hadith that is considered as useless in Islam is the Maudu Hadiths. Daif Hadiths are not necessarily false and Muslim scholars use it a lot in their mosques.

The only problem occurs when Muslims have to deny a Hadith they consider as shameful or problematic when they are discussing with Christians.

Islam many times CANNOT be trusted even with their own sources. Even Allah is thrown under the bus by Muslim scholars if they do not like what he has said. There is always a dissenting voice among your scholars concerning even the mundane subject

Is it possible to debate a person who had decided to be dishonest with his facts and information?

WhizdomXX:
I'm being realistic Sir. To become a president in Nigeria, one often starts from his State of LGA.

You are not being realistic o! This is what you have been told.

As of today, there is NOT one single local government chairman that had become the governor of their state. If you know one, please, let me know from the fourth republic.

And I am sure you know that only Yaradua and Tinubu are the only governors who have become presidents in Nigeria.

So, the question you should ask yourself is: What are the criteria used in determining who becomes a governor or president in Nigeria

Ohyoudidnt:
You exactly prove my point that you will more likely get in then learn perharps without results.

Nigeria's electricity issue isn't about generation. The installed capacity stands at approximately 13–14 GW; even if 4–5 GW at most actually reach consumers because the transmission and distribution systems are unable to handle more.

Power plants frequently remain idle due to grid limitations and non-payment issues. Distribution serves as the financial bottleneck, plagued by significant losses, inadequate collection efforts, and unpaid government bills.

Increasing generation without addressing evacuation and payment will lead to wasted capacity. This challenge cannot be resolved solely through presidential determination within an 18-month timeframe.

I see you don't even know Barth Nnaji 's submissions. Do better non hasty research.

I am so sorry, I don't know why the bots deleted my post.

I am not sure Nigeria ever generated more than 7GW of power at any time since inception. I stand to be corrected.

Please confirm!

The problem of national grid shutdown is usually caused when one generator suddenly packs up resulting in a spike in load on the other generators because we are not generating enough power. This sudden spike causes overload on the other generators so that they shut down (for their protection).

Switching them back on has to be sequential with load being systematically added on the national grid until it aligns with the magnitude of supply. This is what causes the national grid collapse we often witness.

We are stressing the generation because of underproduction of power. Even, a shut down of a distribution node is enough to cause an instability in the network synchronization.

If we increase the generation, we will witness fewer national grid collapse and we can then begin to increase the distribution network capacity.

erniok:
We have a serious power distribution problem is our hands. We have too much power losses like the OP stated. Let's not underrate that part.

I agree but when we "under-generate" power, isn't that a major problem?

If we can generate up to 10GW, the next would be to gradually upgrade the existing distribution system.

Even the distribution problem is more of a problem of sudden drop in power from one or two of the generating stations. Large drop in power causes instability in the network and hence a trip-off. The trip-off requires then to take off all the generating stations off line and begin sequencing them one by one while doing the same with distribution so as not to overload the system.

This is the problem!

bamsz:
Sorry to burst your bubble, unfortunately power infrastructure is not plucking mangoes on the tree, it involves complex coordination, breaking supply chain and man power hurdles, not to even talk of initial planning that goes into the whole process, it will be magical if you build 10GW in 5 years.

This is what they have projected as narrative to why they have been failing.

Nigeria needs 10GW, we generate less than 4GW.

Tell me,
1. Do we have the energy source to achieve this?
2. Is Gas-turbine technology Rocket Science?

Why do you think our politicians left the obvious problem of generation to face the problem of distribution?

WhizdomXX:
Start from your LGA or State.

Myopic reasoning sir.
What you are telling me is that if YOU are given required resources and power to solve the Nigeria electricity problem, you are guaranteed to FAIL!?

Some problems are impossible to solve ground-up.
It will be a waste of time and effort.

Ohyoudidnt:
When you get the opportunity the reality of outside the norm challenges will become obvious to you. What did Bola Ige of blessed memory say? Fashola I think also spoke. Nnaji was quite technical but got swallowed and discarded by the system, politics and perharps some personal ambition. You think you understand the rot in the equipment and system? You will be surprised.

The problem of Electricity in Nigeria is two or three folds
1. Corruption
2. Politics
3. Political will of the president

Anyone with fair technical competence know that the FIRST problem of Electricity in Nigeria is NOT distribution but Generation . We need nothing less than 10GW of Electricity but we generate at best 4GW.

These people know this, but it is easier for them to make money from distribution. How can one solve a problem of distributing what is not available in the first place?

Except the President himself doesn't want the problem of power generation solved, give me 18 months, I will solve the problem.

honesttalk21:
Are there hadith of similar wording or context graded Sahih? There indeed is the point outside these 2 narrators are there chains without them?

Are you telling me that Muslim scholars cannot make up their mind about what is real and untrue in Islam?

Moderator101:
Source: https://www.thecable.ng/why-no-nigerian-leader-can-fix-power-in-one-year/

Give me 18 months and I will deliver at least 10GW electrical power to Nigerians.

The problem is when politicians and businesses men are put in charge of national assets

ShaheedBinAliyu:
Laughing.. so Hadith Hasan is weak? Lol

By who are those narrators condemned?

I can see how serious you suddenly become and I do not want to waste your time.

This is exactly what you Muslims do when as Christians we challenge you with evidence from Hadiths. It is them Muslims will jump upon the isnad of the hadith as excuse to tear it down. They forget that only Maudu Hadiths can not be trusted as even Daif hadiths pass the credibility test. The fact that isnad isn't perfect doesn't mean that the hadith is false.

I won't distort what your hadiths as as you are very correct according to the hadith that no Muslim man should pray with his hair braided.

Have a nice day sir!

ShaheedBinAliyu:
Laughing.. so Hadith Hasan is weak? Lol

By who are those narrators condemned?

If some Sahih Bukhari Hadiths or Sahih Muslim Hadiths can be classified as Daif or even Maudu, how much more the ones that have in the chain one person who is unreliable

ShaheedBinAliyu:
Your dalil.. proofs. Explain the chain of narration

The grade is Hasan and not Sahih isn't it?

Let me give you my reasons from the chain of transmission

1. Abu Sa'd, is a man from the people of Madinah is unknown
2. Mukhāwil ibn Rāshid is considered fairly trustworthy but with bad memory and precision, making him a weak narrator


Therefore, no one should trust this hadith

ShaheedBinAliyu:
Your research isn't completed. This hadith I'm going to post will nullify everything you have said



Hadith

"حَدَّثَنَا بَكْرُ بْنُ خَلَفٍ، حَدَّثَنَا خَالِدُ بْنُ الْحَارِثِ، عَنْ شُعْبَةَ، ح وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، أَخْبَرَنِي مُخَوَّلُ بْنُ رَاشِدٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا سَعْدٍ، - رَجُلاً مِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ - يَقُولُ رَأَيْتُ أَبَا رَافِعٍ مَوْلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ رَأَى الْحَسَنَ بْنَ عَلِيٍّ وَهُوَ يُصَلِّي وَقَدْ عَقَصَ شَعْرَهُ فَأَطْلَقَهُ أَوْ نَهَى عَنْهُ وَقَالَ نَهَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ أَنْ يُصَلِّيَ الرَّجُلُ وَهُوَ عَاقِصٌ شَعْرَهُ ‏.‏"

Mukhawwal said:
“I heard Abu Sa’d, a man from the people of Madinah, say: ‘I saw Abu Rafi’, the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), when he saw Hasan bin ‘Ali performing prayer, with his hair braided. He undid it, or told him not to do that, and said: “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) forbade a man from performing prayer with his hair braided.”

Hasan (Darussalam)

Sunan Ibn Majah, 1042
In-Book Reference: Book 5, Hadith 240
English Reference: Vol. 1, Book 5, Hadith 1042

This hadith is fabricated!

iamrealdeji:
You shut up if you know nothing about Islam. There are dos and don't for Prophet Muhammad s.a.w and we the ummah. All the wives he married are in accordance with command from Allah. Some were married for political reasons like ending feuds of communities that predate him and resolve issues that have been around for centuries,lots of the ladies threw themselves at him to be their protector after the demise of their husbands,and all of those wives were instrumental In spreading different laws of Islam,only our mother Aisha alone brought over 2000 hadiths,so are other wives of Prophet too,the wives were more like tools of Allah to spread several Islamic laws and practices of prophet Muhammad s.a.w(Sunnah). Prophet has much more deprivations of worldly enjoyments than we the ummah,he must not consume free lunch, everything he has must be given to charity all the time,he prayed from night till morning everyday that his legs used to swell from sitting on them all the time during prayers,he must rise up even during his discomfort all the time when he's needed for anything. If you can't say anything sensible,kindly shut your mouths and don't give me nonsense replies

Mr Rashduct4luv
Mr AntiChristian

Strange that you think you are making sense


Only in your religion is the head above the laws of the God of his religion.

My Questions:
1. Is it true that Sauda had to trade her coital turn for Aisha to remain married to Muhammad because the Prophet lost interest in Sawda as she grew older and more fat?
2. is it true that according to Umar the father of Hafsa in Sahih muslim:1479a that Mohammed did not love Hafsa his wife?
3. Is it true that Mohammed defiled the bed of his wife Hafsa with her slave girl Maria the Copt?
4. Is it true that your prophet impregnated the housegirl of his wife and gave birth to a boy called ibrahim?
5. Is it true that mohammed prefered to say in Aisha's room even when it wasn't her turn according to Sahih al-Bukhari 5217
6. Is it true for your prophet that it was rumoured that if his eyes fall on any muslim man's wife, the husband must divorce her for your prophet to Nikah her?
Have you read Tafsir reporting on Zaynab bint Jahsh the wife of the good muslim man called Zaid?
7. Is it true that your prophet entered into the house of a married Muslim man in his absence to a point when he swooned under her looks enough to exclaim "Praised be Allah the one who makes my heart to flip for you"? (Tabari, Ibn Sa’d)

poshestmina:
Big Tee!!!

I too love this woman, but,the night i saw her with her husband, they were looking angry.

I just face elevator mirror 🪞 😅

Very normal behaviour between husbands and wives. Sometimes, one small thing will just scatter the two of you until you resolve it.

Fenrir:
For clarity: declining to answer questions that assume their own conclusion is not “avoidance”. It is the objection.
I repeatedly asked you to justify the inference your questions rely on. That request was never addressed.
Anyone reading can judge that for themselves.
Have a good day.

In have spoken!
Have a nice day!

Fenrir:
That’s fine. Have a good day.
For the record, refusing to answer loaded questions that presuppose a conclusion is not “rambling”. It’s basic critical reasoning.
I repeatedly asked you to JUSTIFY the inference your questions rely on. You chose repetition and pressure instead. That’s your choice.
Anyone reading can see the difference between refusing to comply and being unable to respond.
All the best.

It is on record that you refused to answer simple questions because you realise how hastily you have jumped to your conclusions.

Fear of picking issues one at a time had also affected you and muddling up discussion is your escape mechanism.

You gave a challenge
Your challenge was answered
You avoid scrutiny!

You cannot be helped with this stance!

Again,
Have a nice day!

Fenrir:
Hush...be quiet...

Your tactics won’t work on me.
I don’t respond to demands for obedience without justification. “Answer because I said so” is not how I was raised. I was taught to challenge claims, to ask why, and to reject authority that cannot explain itself.
What you’re asking for is compliance. What I’m offering is engagement. Those are not the same thing.
You’ve had multiple opportunities to justify your foundation. Instead of doing that, you’ve repeated the same questions and escalated the tone, hoping insistence will substitute for reasoning.
It won’t.
If your argument were sound, it wouldn’t require intimidation, forced formats, or yes/no traps to function. The fact that it does tells me everything I need to know about the strength of the foundation you’re defending

Have a nice day then.

I don't have time for one who cannot objectively face the TRUTH even when it doesn't go their way.

Four simple questions and all you get is ramblings!?
SMH!

Fenrir:
You are still not engaging with the core objection.
Restating your process, repeating the questions, or insisting on short yes/no answers does not address the problem I have already raised.
Your questions are not independent tests of a premise. They are structured to force agreement by narrowing the response space until only one conclusion appears available. That is why I am refusing the frame.
To be explicit:
Questions 1–3 hinge on current limits of experimental knowledge. A lack of present evidence for abiogenesis or laboratory synthesis does not logically imply intelligence, design, or an “uncaused first cause”. “We do not yet know” is not a scientific bridge to metaphysical conclusions.
Question 4 relies on analogy. That analogy only works because we already possess independent empirical knowledge of builders, painters, and designers. You do not have equivalent prior observation of universes being designed. Without that, the analogy cannot be generalised. I have already stated this, and repeating the analogy does not repair it.
You also do not get to restrict answers to “yes or no” when the validity of the inference itself is what is being challenged. Reducing complex epistemological issues to forced binaries is not scientific rigor, it is rhetorical pressure.
This is not “haphazard splashing”. It is a direct challenge to your foundation.
So before proceeding to “point 2”, answer this clearly:
Explain how you justify moving from
“we currently lack evidence for X”
to
“therefore an intelligent uncaused first cause exists”
without committing an argument from ignorance or a category error.
Until that inferential bridge is justified, your sequence of points, however orderly, rests on an unsupported assumption.
If you want debate, address that.
If you repeat the questions again, you are simply confirming the avoidance.
Your move. Or be quiet.

Sorry!
Either you engage or shut up.

Four questions and you can even answer one!

The highlight show that you are not reading for comprehension because I already told you that

Note: I never said:
You exist and you are an intelligent and rational creature.... therefore God!
A Building is the evidence of a Builder... therefore God.
A painting is the evidence of a Painter... therefore God!

But because you don't read for comprehension, that's exactly what you read.

Answer the FOUR short Questions if truely you want to engage

ogaontop:
May her soul find peace with the Lord!!

Can someone knowledgeable educate us on remedy for snake bite in matters like this to save life. Be it medically, scientifically, herbally, native ways or otherwise.
Thank you in advance!!!

The only solution is to get anti-venom from a hospital. Except if one is lucky that the snake bit but didn't inject much venom.

There is not one anti-venom that works for all snakes. The anti-venoms are snake type specific

Fenrir:
I got banned....

You are still reframing instead of engaging.
I am not dodging. I am refusing a false setup.
Your questions are not neutral “yes or no” questions. They are structured to push respondents toward a predetermined conclusion. Repeating them and demanding short answers does not make them sound, it just increases pressure.
This is not an isolated issue. Across your topics, the same method appears repeatedly, tightly constrained questions, forced binaries, and control over format, all designed to funnel people toward the answer you want. That approach may work rhetorically online, but any serious academic or scientific setting would reject it outright. Inquiry does not begin with the conclusion already fixed.
You are also conflating three distinct domains and treating them as one:
Abiogenesis (origin of life)
Design inference (recognising human artefacts)
Metaphysical causation (origin of the universe)
They are not interchangeable.
On your questions 1–3.....
The absence of current laboratory replication is not evidence of impossibility, nor is it evidence of intelligence. “We do not yet know” does not logically become “therefore an intelligent uncaused first cause exists.” That is an argument from ignorance.
On your Mars building and painting examples,
Those analogies only work because we already have independent empirical knowledge of builders and painters. You do not have equivalent prior observation of universes being designed. Without that, the analogy fails.
You also do not get to dictate how I respond or reduce complex epistemological issues to “yes or no” answers to force a conclusion. That is not rational inquiry, it is rhetorical control.
If you want engagement, address this directly:
Explain how you justify moving from
“we don’t currently know how X happened”
to
“therefore an intelligent uncaused first cause exists”
without committing a category error or an argument from ignorance.
If you cannot do that, then the issue is not my organisation or honesty. The issue is that your foundation is unsound, and no amount of stacked questions will repair it.
Your move.

Sorry! I did no reframe ANYTHING.
1. I took you back to your original challenge
Then.
2. I presented the first point in my original challenge
Then,
3. I gave you 4 questions by which you can either agree with my point 1 OR state why it is wrong.



We will go through each point until it is exhausted.

This is how to raise objections not the haphazard splashing about with no directions



AGAIN

Fenrir:
You haven’t addressed a single argument I made.
Instead of engaging with causation, entropy, analogy, or the limits of inference, you shifted to personal attacks, loyalty tests, and declarations of victory.
That’s not debate.
Calling someone “not thinking for themselves” is not a rebuttal.
Demanding ritual compliance (recite the Shahada) is not an argument.
Declaring that your points “build up” does not save them if the foundation is unsound.
You also don’t get to dictate how I respond or what format an answer must take. Arguments stand or fall on their content, not on whether they conform to your preferred presentation.
And stop cherry-picking single sentences out of context and twisting them. Either engage with the full point being made, or don’t engage at all. Selective quoting is not analysis, it’s avoidance.
If premise one is unjustified, the entire structure fails. That is basic logic.
If you believe my argument is incoherent, point out where and why.
If you believe it is wrong, show the error.
If you can’t do either, then saying “I have no time” is simply an exit, not a refutation.
I’m happy to engage on substance.
If the response is more psychologising, gatekeeping, or posturing, that just confirms there’s no substance to engage with.
Your move.

Debate is not lumping up unorganized thoughts and expecting a coherent response.

Again:
Your question was

Fenrir:
What proof have any of you got that any god exists?

You are all wrong until you can prove it to the entire world all at the same time, if your gods are real and all powerful what is the excuse for hiding?

I gave you a list of ten points that will lead you to the logical and scientific conclusion that an Intelligent Uncaused-First-Cause of Everything must exist.

My first point was:

TenQ:
Normally, I shouldn't respond to your question but I feel led to answer you without using scripture.


1. You are the number one proof of God's existence. You exist and you are an intelligent and rational creature. A Building is the evidence of a Builder. A painting is the evidence of a Painter!
......

1. Do you by any chance have any evidence of non-life bringing forth life or offspring?
2. Do you have any evidence of DNA being synthesised from non-life in the laboratory?
3. Do you think a non-biological intelligent system like an AI program can exist without an external intelligent organiser?


Before you go at tangent : I am not asking about synthesis of amino acids or inorganic compounds!


These are Yes or No questions and please back it up with relevant evidence if your answer is a YES!

4. Finally, if you go to Mars and find a building with Doors, Windows and functional compartments like living room, kitchen, store and bedroom that had been standing for more than a million years with no-one in sight, will you conclude that an Intelligent Builder must have built it or the earthquakes and Martian dust built it? Or on Mars, you find the picture of a horselike animal, with canvas, frame, nails, glue, shapes and colours will you conclude that the painting made itself?

Note: I never said:
You exist and you are an intelligent and rational creature.... therefore God!
A Building is the evidence of a Builder... therefore God.
A painting is the evidence of a Painter... therefore God!


I hope you can be rational, truthful, logical and scientific in your response. Please make your answers SHORT so that I can layout my second point

Fenrir:
Stop dodging and reframing AND trying to force the answer you want. Rephrasing the same question is idiotic.

Do better.

If you can't face objective issues, you have no business with me!


Have a nice day!

Fenrir:
You haven’t addressed a single argument I made.
Instead of engaging with causation, entropy, analogy, or the limits of inference, you shifted to personal attacks, loyalty tests, and declarations of victory.
That’s not debate.
Calling someone “not thinking for themselves” is not a rebuttal.
Demanding ritual compliance (recite the Shahada) is not an argument.
Declaring that your points “build up” does not save them if the foundation is unsound.
You also don’t get to dictate how I respond or what format an answer must take. Arguments stand or fall on their content, not on whether they conform to your preferred presentation.
And stop cherry-picking single sentences out of context and twisting them. Either engage with the full point being made, or don’t engage at all. Selective quoting is not analysis, it’s avoidance.
If premise one is unjustified, the entire structure fails. That is basic logic.
If you believe my argument is incoherent, point out where and why.
If you believe it is wrong, show the error.
If you can’t do either, then saying “I have no time” is simply an exit, not a refutation.
I’m happy to engage on substance.
If the response is more psychologising, gatekeeping, or posturing, that just confirms there’s no substance to engage with.
Your move.

Debate is not lumping up unorganized thoughts and expecting a coherent response.

Again:
Your question was

Fenrir:
What proof have any of you got that any god exists?

You are all wrong until you can prove it to the entire world all at the same time, if your gods are real and all powerful what is the excuse for hiding?

I gave you a list of ten points that will lead you to the logical and scientific conclusion that an Intelligent Uncaused-First-Cause of Everything must exist.

My first point was:

TenQ:
Normally, I shouldn't respond to your question but I feel led to answer you without using scripture.


1. You are the number one proof of God's existence. You exist and you are an intelligent and rational creature. A Building is the evidence of a Builder. A painting is the evidence of a Painter!
......

1. Do you by any chance have any evidence of non-life bringing forth life or offspring?
2. Do you have any evidence of DNA being synthesised from non-life in the laboratory?
3. Do you think a non-biological intelligent system like an AI program can exist without an external intelligent organiser?


Before you go at tangent : I am not asking about synthesis of amino acids or inorganic compounds!


These are Yes or No questions and please back it up with relevant evidence if your answer is a YES!

4. Finally, if you go to Mars and find a building with Doors, Windows and functional compartments like living room, kitchen, store and bedroom that had been standing for more than a million years with no-one in sight, will you conclude that an Intelligent Builder must have built it or the earthquakes and Martian dust built it? Or on Mars, you find the picture of a horselike animal, with canvas, frame, nails, glue, shapes and colours will you conclude that the painting made itself?

Note: I never said:
You exist and you are an intelligent and rational creature.... therefore God!
A Building is the evidence of a Builder... therefore God.
A painting is the evidence of a Painter... therefore God!


I hope you can be rational, truthful, logical and scientific in your response. Please make your answers SHORT so that I can layout my second point

Fenrir:
Dickhead’s Paradox
I know I’m part of the problem,
but the problem is so fucking stupid
that I can’t help but mock it, fight it,
and occasionally burn it to the ground.
This is situational dickheadism.
Not a personality trait.
Not a moral identity.
A context-triggered response to hypocrisy, double standards, and authority without coherence.
Core premise
Most people are not permanent dickheads.
They become dickheads when exposed to high-confidence nonsense.
Situational dickheadism emerges when three conditions collide:
Claimed authority or moral high ground
Visible contradiction between words and behaviour
Expectation that others must comply anyway
When all three are present, mockery feels less like cruelty and more like sanity trying to breathe.
Canonical examples
A doctor who smokes while lecturing about lung cancer
Knowledge without self discipline, delivered as command. The issue isn’t smoking. It’s lecturing from a podium you refuse to stand on yourself.
Religious adherents preaching virtue while violating their own scripture
Christian, Jewish, Islamic, doesn’t matter. The trigger is not belief. It’s selective obedience paired with moral enforcement. If the rules are divine, you don’t get an exemption clause.
Yoruba cultural rhetoric about humility and respect
followed by demands that others physically or socially lower themselves
and insults when they refuse.
That’s not humility. That’s hierarchy cosplay.
In all cases, the reaction isn’t “I hate you”.
It’s “don’t insult my intelligence and call it morality”.
Norwegian equivalent (impartial, no free passes)
Norway preaching equality, modesty, and “we’re all the same”
while quietly enforcing status through silence, exclusion, and social freezing.
Janteloven says “you are not better than anyone”.
Norwegian social reality often says
“but we will still decide who belongs”.
No shouting.
No insults.
Just polite distance, closed networks, and career ceilings you’re never told exist.
If you challenge it, you’re told: “Why are you making a problem?”
Which is the Norwegian equivalent of gaslighting with a smile.
Mocking that hypocrisy?
Situational dickheadism.
Not because equality is bad.
Because pretending equality while practicing quiet gatekeeping is dishonest.
Why the paradox exists
Dickhead’s Paradox is this:
If you stay polite,
the hypocrisy persists unchallenged.
If you push back,
you become “the problem”.
So resistance itself gets reframed as bad behaviour,
while the original contradiction remains untouched.
That’s why people snap.
That’s why mockery appears.
That’s why fires get lit.
Not because people love chaos,
but because absurdity backed by authority is unbearable.
Key distinction
Situational dickheadism is not, random cruelty
bullying
punching down
It is, reactive
target-specific
triggered by asymmetry
It punches up, sideways, or at least at equals.
When it punches down, it mutates into ordinary dickheadism and loses legitimacy.
The uncomfortable self admission
Yes.
The person mocking becomes part of the noise.
Yes.
Fire spreads.
That’s the paradox.
But pretending the fire started nowhere is worse.
Summary, stripped bare
Hypocrisy + authority creates pressure
Pressure creates mockery
Mockery creates escalation
Escalation creates guilt
Guilt does not fix the hypocrisy
So the system loops.
Situational dickheadism isn’t virtue.
It’s friction.
And friction is what happens when someone refuses to clap politely for nonsense.
I didn’t invent this.
I just named it.
And naming things is usually where the trouble starts.

The multiple personalities within you speaking againg. Tell them that I know them!

Unfortunately, you are not thinking for yourself: they are doing it for you.

Sorry!
Relax and pick up yourself

Fenrir:
TenQ before we continue this little dance, I went through all 107 of your topics and here's how the pattern reads 😈....

First observation: This isn't curiosity. This is a project.
Late 2021 through 2025. Same username. Same section. Same targets. Same rhetorical posture. That's not someone asking questions. That's someone running a campaign.
Persistence at that scale isn't intellectual honesty. It's identity maintenance.
Second: Your titles do all the heavy lifting.
Almost every thread you've ever started follows one of three templates:
Loaded question that presumes guilt:
"Why did Allah…"
"Did Allah make a mistake…"
"Who deleted this verse…"
Mock-certainty dressed as investigation:
"The proof that…"
"Evidence that…"
"According to Islam…"
Bait for identity defence:
"Why Muslims…"
"Muslims cannot explain…"
"Plain idolatry…"
This is textbook provocation engineering. You don't post to learn. You post to trigger defenders, then farm engagement off their emotional labour. The content doesn't matter. The reaction does.
Third: Notice what's missing.
There is no equivalent sustained critique of Christianity, Judaism, or atheism at the same scale or intensity. Christianity appears occasionally, but only as a contrast weapon against Islam, never as a target.
That asymmetry isn't accidental. It tells the truth about motivation. This isn't about seeking truth. It's about having an opponent.
Fourth: The escalation arc.
Early posts: semi-academic framing.
Then: certainty claims.
Then: moral condemnation.
Then: humiliation framing.
Then: sheer volume dominance.
That's textbook identity-anchored opposition. Once your self-image gets fused to being "the one who sees through Islam," stopping feels like losing status. So you don't stop. You post more. You get louder. You need the fight to continue, because without it, who are you?
Fifth: The engagement numbers explain everything.
These threads pull views. They pull replies. They generate heat. And on forums like Nairaland, heat equals relevance. Relevance equals staying power. The system rewards antagonism far more than clarity.
You didn't stumble into this. You adapted to it. This isn't accidental behaviour. It's optimised behaviour.
Sixth: This reads psychologically as control, not faith.
Control of narrative.
Control of framing.
Control of what the other side must respond to.
You take very little genuine risk. Your questions are constructed so you never have to concede anything. If challenged, you retreat to "I'm just asking." If agreed with, you escalate.
That's not dialogue. That's asymmetric warfare in a symbolic space.
Seventh: Why it works especially well here.
Because religion in Nigeria isn't abstract. It's identity, family, status, safety, community. So poking it guarantees reaction. Western "debate brain" meets lived belief. Sparks fly every time.
You know this. You're exploiting it. That's not scholarship. That's tactical manipulation of emotional infrastructure.
Eighth: What this isn't.
It's not deep scholarship.
It's not honest interfaith dialogue.
It's not neutral scepticism.
And crucially, it's not persuasion either. Nobody converts from being humiliated at scale.
What it is is performative dominance. You're not trying to convince anyone. You're trying to win in front of an audience that already agrees with you.
Ninth: The uncomfortable truth.
If someone showed me your archive and asked "is this person obsessed," I'd say yes. Not obsessed with Islam as theology, but with Islam as an opponent.
And obsession always leaks tells: volume, repetition, inability to disengage, identity fusion.
Final observation: The asymmetry.
If you disappeared tomorrow, Islam wouldn't wobble by a micron.
But your online identity would collapse entirely, because it's been built against something, not for something.
That's the structural weakness in your entire operation. You need the enemy to exist. You need the fight to continue. Because without it, what's left?
So here's where we actually are.
You accused me of not reading. I read everything and dismantled it systematically.
You demanded I "pick one point." I addressed all ten and you ignored the rebuttals.
You psychoanalyzed me, called me possessed, dismissed me as cosmically irrelevant, anything to avoid the fact that your logic collapsed under scrutiny.
But the truth is simpler than that.
You're not here to argue. You're here to perform.
And I'm not interested in being your content. 😈😈

I give no apology for my take on Islam.
All you need to do is to say that "I speak untruths about Islam"

My objectives was to show from Islamic sources that Allah, Mohammed, Islam is FALSE and that I do successfully!

If you want to defend Islam, I ask you to RECITE the Shahada and then come. With the same yardstick of Islam, I will floor you!

Birds of the same feathers.....


Atheists are a waste of my time: they fein knowledge but are completely empty. They think being obstinate and hiding behind agnosticism helps their case. They fail to realise that just like the rest of us, they are people of Faith in SELF!
Deluded in all manners!
Instead of knowledge helping them, the same knowledge is a curse.

Fenrir:
Fella, yes, a computer is evidence of an engineer, because we have direct empirical data of engineers existing, building computers, and we can observe the process. That dataset exists.
Now show me the equivalent dataset for universes.
You have never observed a universe being built, never observed a “universe builder,” never observed the mechanism, never compared designed vs undesigned universes. So you cannot legally import “artifact logic” into cosmology and call it science. That’s an analogy, not evidence.
On your points 2 to 5. Big Bang describes an early hot dense state and an expansion. It does not prove “creation from absolute nothing.” It marks the limit of our current models. That’s a boundary of knowledge, not a licence to insert your preferred metaphysics. Entropy also does not forbid complexity. Local order emerges constantly in open systems where energy flows. Stars form. Crystals grow. Life exists. Your thermodynamics claim is simply misapplied.
On points 6 to 8. “Everything has a cause” is not a scientific law, it’s a metaphysical premise. And causation as you’re using it is a temporal concept: sequence, before/after. If time itself is part of the universe, you cannot coherently say “the cause happened before time.” You’re using “cause” as a placeholder for mystery, not an explanation.
On points 9 to 10: even if I granted an “uncaused first cause,” intelligence does not follow logically. You assert it. You don’t demonstrate it. And your sentence “Christians call it God” does not produce Christianity. It doesn’t produce prophets, salvation, souls, heaven/hell, moral commands, or anything else. That entire jump is asserted, not argued.
So here’s the challenge, one that stays inside your own framework.
Without scripture and without personal attacks, show the steps that make “uncaused first cause” necessarily: (a) intelligent
(b) personal
(c) morally authoritative
(d) caring about humans
(e) the Christian God rather than an impersonal principle or brute fact.
Write the chain of reasoning. If you can’t, stop calling your position “science and logic.” Call it what it is, faith wearing scientific vocabulary.

Organise yourself and be focused. One point after the other. Each of my ten points don't stand alone, they are build up to the conclusion.

If the foundation is not right, whatever is upon it is a waste

Fenrir:
Either address what was said properly, or don’t bother replying at all.
You posture like a righteous man, but you sound like a jester with a bankrupt mindset, shouting morality from a cracked stool. Truly righteous people don’t look down on others for holding different beliefs. That insecurity you’re masking with “holiness” is doing all the talking.
Take a proper look in the mirror.
Then look at your neighbours.
Then look at your family.
Do you honestly think you’re a good person?
Do you really think your god is proud of this behaviour?
You keep thinking about “up” and “down”, heaven and hell, but ask yourself something simple:
Are you actually rising…
or just kneeling so long you forgot what standing looks like?

I only address focused coherent arguments please. If you can engage by such rules, I'm sorry I got not time for such.

Fenrir:
I wrote you a story fella....

Following this internal logic of the bible....lets see if you actually read the whole thing.....

The more you think about Christianity the more ridiculous it is......

The god loves you a lot BUT if you dont love him he burns you in hell forever out of love of course.

He created you with sin already in you but he hates sin so naturally he puts the thing he hates in you BUT he loves you and hates sin and blames you for sinning.

So he creates a son thats also him with the plan to kill his son/himself to get rid of sin and sin still exists and its supposed to be the ultimate act of love? And of course how can you sacrifice yourself to yourself then respawn after cancelling the sacrifice because the sacrifice was for 3 days. And it wasn't even 3 days Friday to Sunday but nobody can question that.

Just smile, nod and amen.

And after all of that if you still dont agree, or understand and love him the exact right way eternal fire BUT remember be always still loves you.

The message was......... never think for yourself but the Serpent...........he just asked a question "do you want to know?"......


THE SKY DADDY: A TEST OF DELUSION
In the beginning, the Sky Wizard forged the world by speaking it into being.
No manuals. No warnings. No explanations.
Just law, absolute and unspoken.
He planted a garden not as a lesson, but as a test.
At its heart stood the fruit, glowing not with danger, but with inevitability.
The humans were not ignorant by accident.
Ignorance was the design.
Then came the Serpent, older than obedience, younger than doubt.
It did not force.
It did not threaten.
It only asked a question the Sky Wizard never allowed:
"Do you want to know?"
When the fruit was eaten, the Sky Wizard did not rage because the rule was broken.
He raged because the game changed.
Knowledge shattered destiny.
Choice fractured the plan.
So the Sky Wizard cursed the world, not to punish disobedience,
but to reassert control.
But here is where the story stops being about learning.
Here is where it becomes about winning.
THE CURSE AS ARCHITECTURE
The Sky Wizard did not curse humanity out of wounded pride.
He cursed them with precision.
He embedded sin into their cellular code, wrapped it around their DNA like barbed wire around a fence post. He made them crave the things he would later forbid. He wired their brains for tribalism, lust, greed, violence, and then stood back and called it their fault.
The game was rigged from the womb.
Every child born carried the stain of an ancestor who ate fruit at the Wizard's own table, in the garden the Wizard designed, containing the tree the Wizard planted, holding the fruit the Wizard made appealing, while the Wizard watched and did nothing.
And when they stumbled, when they fell into the exact patterns he'd encoded into their flesh, he called it justice to punish them.
Not for a lifetime.
Forever.
The mathematics of it are obscene. A finite crime, committed by a limited being, in a lifespan that blinks out like a candle, met with infinite torture.
That's not justice.
That's sadism with a halo.
THE FLOOD: GENOCIDE AS RESET BUTTON
When the world became too tangled, too far gone into the very patterns he'd designed them to follow, the Sky Wizard didn't fix the code.
He drowned it.
Every infant. Every pregnant mother. Every animal that had no concept of sin at all. He pulled the water over the earth like a blanket over a birdcage and let them choke.
One family survived because one man still feared him enough to be called righteous.
Fear and righteousness became synonyms.
And when the waters receded, the Wizard painted a rainbow in the sky, a promise that next time he wouldn't use water.
Next time it would be fire.
The survivors called this mercy.
THE PLAN: A SACRIFICE TO HIMSELF, FOR HIMSELF, BY HIMSELF
Ages passed. The system didn't improve, it calcified.
So the Sky Wizard devised the strangest spell of all. He would fix the sin problem he himself created by sacrificing himself to himself to appease himself.
He squeezed himself into a womb, gestated in the dark, and emerged as meat. He walked around for thirty-three years, taught some people to be kind, which apparently they needed a god to tell them, and then allowed himself to be tortured to death.
For three days.
Well, parts of three days. Friday afternoon to Sunday morning. Call it thirty-six hours if we're being generous.
And this, this was meant to be the ultimate act of love. The infinite sacrifice.
Except.
He didn't stay dead. He came back. Which means he didn't actually lose anything. He took a long weekend in the grave and called it substitutionary atonement.
A sacrifice that gets refunded isn't a sacrifice. It's theater.
And the sin he died to erase? Still there. Still in every human born afterward. Still requiring the same groveling, the same belief, the same submission, or else the same fire.
Nothing actually changed.
The Carpenter rose on the third day, not transformed, but victorious. He proved he could die and un-die, which is a neat party trick for a deity but does precisely nothing for the human beings still stuck with the sin-code he wrote into them.
THE TRAP: LOVE ME OR BURN
After the resurrection, after the rising, after all the miracles and the speeches and the promises, the message crystallized into something simple.
Believe in me, or burn.
Not "be good." Not "reduce suffering." Not "pursue truth."
Believe.
Specifically, believe the correct things about a sacrifice that didn't actually cost anything, performed by a being who designed you to fail, to save you from a punishment he himself invented, for crimes he coded into your flesh.
Get it wrong? Eternal fire.
Don't hear the message because you were born in the wrong century or the wrong continent? Eternal fire.
Hear it but find it logically incoherent? Eternal fire.
Live a life of profound compassion but direct it toward the wrong god or no god? Eternal fire.
And all of this, all of it, is done out of love.
The kind of love that creates you sick and commands you to be well.
The kind of love that puts a gun to your head and calls it a gift when it doesn't pull the trigger.
THE SERPENT'S QUESTION ANSWERED
The Serpent asked, "Do you want to know?"
And the answer, it turns out, was irrelevant.
Because knowing didn't free them. It just made them aware of the cage.
They learned they were naked. They learned they would die. They learned that the being who claimed to love them had designed a system where love was indistinguishable from hostage negotiation.
The Serpent didn't lie. It told them they would be like gods, knowing good and evil.
And they did.
They learned that good and evil are whatever the Sky Wizard says they are, and the rules change depending on his mood. Sometimes he commands you not to kill. Sometimes he commands you to slaughter every man, woman, and child in Canaan and keep the virgin girls for yourself.
Sometimes he's a shepherd. Sometimes he's a warlord.
The knowledge didn't set them free.
It just made them complicit.
THE TEST OF DELUSION
The Sky Wizard never learned.
He didn't become humble. He didn't grow. He didn't realize that a plan without choice is a cage.
He knew it was a cage.
That was the point.
The test was never about obedience or love or growth.
The test was about whether you could be broken enough to call the cage freedom.
Whether you could look at a system designed to make you fail and call it justice.
Whether you could watch the Wizard drown the world, burn cities, demand child sacrifice, torture his own son-self for a weekend, and still get on your knees and call it love.
The ones who pass the test aren't the ones who understand.
They're the ones who stop asking questions.
Smile.
Nod.
Amen.
THE FINAL REVELATION
In the end, the Sky Wizard sits on his throne, surrounded by the ones who loved him enough, feared him enough, or broke themselves enough to meet his criteria.
They sing his praises forever, which is what he wanted all along.
Not companions. Not partners. Not beings capable of genuine love, which requires the freedom to choose otherwise.
Just mirrors.
Reflections that sing back his glory without the throat to scream.
The Serpent watches from the lake of fire, where it burns alongside every human who dared to keep asking "why," and it doesn't smile anymore.
It just burns.
Because the game never changed.
The Sky Wizard won.
And he calls it love.

You deep seated hate for God gives an impression that you have personalities speaking on your behalf.

You cannot even speak rationally to arguments without remembering that there are 1001 issues you have specifically against the One you now call Sky Wizard.

Your arrogance make you seem important in the scale of the Universe. Unfortunately, you can be forgotten for the rest of eternity and no one other than yourself will lose a sleep over it.

Remember where we started?

Your Question was:

Fenrir:
What proof have any of you got that any god exists?

You are all wrong until you can prove it to the entire world all at the same time, if your gods are real and all powerful what is the excuse for hiding?

So. I gave you Scientific and Logical Reasons to conclude that an Intelligent Uncaused-First-Cause of Everything who is NOT subject to the laws of physics and Chemistry Exist! And I said that this Intelligent Uncaused-First-Cause of Everything is what we Christians call God.

Then (and even now) like a scorned third wife, your grouse of yesteryears erupted specifically against the God of the Christians. You seem to know ALL the Christians doctrinal positions to launch your attack.

The argument had NOT even reached the level of the IDENTITY of the Uncaused-First-Cause of Everything. The argument was to establish the EXISTENCE of Such a personality and not His IDENTITY. Yet, your rage couldn't help but complain like a bunch of cheated prison fellas of how a prison warden is bullying you.

Sorry for your pain.

I wish that you'd Learn to separate between issues and discern facts rather than living by sentiments and brute emotions.


I see within you multiple personalities all yelping like a pack of hurt hyena all with their ears closed so that they can each speak as loudly as they can.
Is it rational to hate Spiderman or Batman as they are both fictional? This proves that you have a problem internally: your multiple personalities rage because even if you are ignorant, they aren't. They know, they hate, they were the ones rejected and their pain is real. You are just their mouthpiece, the vessel through which their disembodied souls find expression.

Bottom line:
Your position is even more crazy to think that ALL of existence, the Atoms, the Biology and the Chemistry was a product of cosmic wizardry where from NOTHING, multiple Systems and Life happened: and amazingly with not one EVIDENCE!?

Yet, you mock those who say that ALL of existence, the Atoms, the Biology and the Chemistry was a product of One Outside our Universe who from NOTHING, created multiple Systems and Life.

Put aside the Christian God for now and Tell me if you can think: which of these two positions is stronger in merit.

SMH!

DeepSight:
+
Since I dont know such a being I cant tell. However my guess is that no, such a being would not care and the evidence of life is that such a being is probably neutral to such things and even worse, the world appears designed in favor of violence.

Let's test your conclusion.


You are the intelligent being who created moral beings with freewill/volition to do right or wrong which you put in a planet.

Would you execute JUSTICE for your creations if some chose to murder and rape and commit all kinds of wickedness to other creatures OR you would NOT CARE what they do to themselves?

DeepSight:
+
Well I guess that works for you.

You shut down the pursuit of this knowledge?

God has revealed Himself enough for you to know Him if you choose?


Let me ask you a question:
If indeed, there exists an Intelligent Uncaused-First-Cause of Everything that is not bounded by the laws of Physics and Chemistry

Should such a being care if humans murdered and raped each other?