₦airaland Forum

UyiIredia:
Those aren't legs, they are hind parts whose functions are unknown.

Please tell us why god gave unicorns horns but neglected to do so for regular horses? Did he not think regular horses would need to defend themselves?

Why did he give just the one donkey the ability to speak sef? I'm sure other donkeys would love to be able to speak

Op, why did your god call for killing people who eat shellfish in the first place

Edited; didn't read and thought you were supporting the barbarism that your 'holy' beliefs entail. Initial post was a lot less....polite

That said, methinks you should be worried I actually thought you capable of such

Just a thought

dabosuker:
that is very possible, imagine a planet composed mainly of Carbon, we would be finding in it a whole lot of Diamonds , diamonds even as large as a salon car cannot be ruled out , or a planet with as atmosphere of Hydrocarbon, we could have liquid methane as rain , the possibilities are limitless

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_planet

Volcanoes that rain diamonds

Reyginus:
I am not disputing that. I am interested in what he termed as moral of the story. Tell me more about your last sentence.

I dare you to use something other than missionary

Try it and see if you'll get into heaven

Demon

persona:
Best anime this season-http://doujutsu.com/2015/top-5-anime-this-season/

Bump

So at the end of the season, what was good?

I only saw UBW, which was excellent despite its losing some steam towards the end

Derp sight don come again

Where to even begin...

All the pretentious questions....to what aim?

Appealing to both magicians and feminists past and present, Lilith, or Lilitu ('wind-spirit' in Assyrian-Babylonian mythology) was a ravenous sexual entrepreneur. In legend, Lilith was the first wife of Adam. She was either created as Adam's Siamese twin (joined together at the back), or was made from filth. Either way, Lilith demanded equality with Adam.

Presumably, Lilith and Adam led a happy enough life until they got Hot. When it came time for Lilith and Adam to share carnal knowledge, Adam was upset that Lilith wouldn't assume the missionary position. She wanted, according to some accounts, to lay side-by-side. In other accounts, she wanted to be on top. In either case, Adam was miffed and refused Lilith's wants. When he tried to force himself upon her, she uttered the magical name of God, rose into the air, and flew away to find more amenable sexual partners.

Her sex life soon changed dramatically. She had riotous erotic adventures with fallen angels, and together they spawned a huge family of demons called the lilim, creatures virtually identical to the succubi of Christian demonology.

In Muslim lore, however, Lilith indulged in her sexual wants with Satan, and together they spawned the djinn or genies.

Because Lilith left before the Fall, she wasn't plagued by the curse of death as were Eve and Adam. Lilith went on to become a demon in her own right, or perhaps an avenging angel. She sought revenge for the deaths of her children. She launched a war on women in childbirth and on newborn babies (especially boys).

Nevertheless, she was forced by three angels to swear she would not harm mothers and children protected by certain amulets. These amulets bore the names of Sanvi, Sansanvi, and Semangelaf. As late as the 18th century, mothers and children across many cultures took advantage of the protection offered by these amulets. Charms and rituals accompanied the use of the amulets, protecting mothers and infants from the retribution of Lilith. Baby girls were considered vulnerable in their first three weeks of life. Boys were believed to be vulnerable for longer periods of time, however. Any boy under the age of eight was possible prey.

To protect their children, parents drew a charcoal or natron circle of protection on a wall of the child's bedchamber. Inside the circle was written 'Adam and Eve, barring Lilith,' 'protect this child from harm,' or 'Adam and Eve. Out, Lilith!' The names of Sanvi, Sansanvi, and Semangelaf were written on the door. Sometimes amulets with such inscriptions were placed in all corners and throughout the bedchamber. If a child laughed in its sleep, it was a sign that Lilith was present. Tapping the child on the nose made the demon go away.

However, it wasn't only women and children who feared Lilith. Men sought explanation for their wet dreams. The retribution unleashed by Lilith in response to her children's deaths was also aimed at men who slept alone. According to the Talmud, "It is indiscreet for one to sleep in a house as the sole occupant, for Lilith will seize him." (Tough luck for people who live alone.)

Men who experienced nocturnal emissions believed they had been seduced by Lilith, queen of the succubi, in their sleep. These men said incantations in order to prevent any resulting offspring from becoming demons. Some men weren't so lucky. The unlucky ones had their blood sucked out of them. In this way, the insatiable Lilith, along with the equally ancient Lamia, was a vampire. As queen of the succubi, Lilith was believed to have been aided in her nightly endeavours by her minions. Her demon lover Samael (whose name means 'sinister' or 'left') would frolic with Lilith and the succubi near the 'mountains of darkness.'

http://www.weird-encyclopedia.com/Lilith.php

The moral of this story is that missionary is the only way to have sex. Anything else is sin.

Stay blessed.

Shalom

Beanscake:
Mental constructs that explain real effects. For now. Maybe?

I'm sort of as much 'maybe?' as you. Maybe. So can't really help

You accept these constructs as existing by default, without consciousness acknowledging them, or are they created by consciousness?

Kay17:
The first problem is perception. Whatever reality we perceive, develops first of all as a mental image and construct. What is problematic is going beyond perception to identify whether universals are real in themselves and the integrity of our perception.

As usual, u don go too far already (I had to get high before I got what you're saying sef)

Let's focus on the nature of the mental images and constructs, for now. I think....

Or OK, assuming perception were not an issue, how would we go about determining if universals are real in of themselves?

First off, @reyginus, you're alive?!

+ @onetrack, something like that. More like properties, in a sense

The problem of universals better put (perhaps)

wiki: In metaphysics, the problem of universals refers to the question of whether properties exist, and if so, what they are.[1] Properties are qualities or relations that two or more entities have in common. The various kinds of properties, such as qualities and relations are referred to as universals. For instance, one can imagine three cup holders on a table that have in common the quality of being circular or exemplifying circularity,[2] or two daughters that have in common being the daughter of Frank. There are many such properties, such as being human, red, male or female, liquid, big or small, taller than, father of, etc.[3]

While philosophers agree that human beings talk and think about properties, they disagree on whether these universals exist in reality or merely in thought and speech.

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_%28metaphysics%29]Expantiating[/url]

wiki: In metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities. In other words, universals are generalizations whose truths tend to apply on net, though particular exceptions may exist, that are repeatable or recurrent entities that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things.[1] For example, suppose there are two chairs in a room, each of which is green. These two chairs both share the quality of "being a chair," as well as greenness or the quality of being green. Metaphysicians call this quality that they share a "universal." There are three major kinds of qualities or characteristics: types or kinds (e.g. mammal), properties (e.g. short, strong), and relations (e.g. father of, next to). These are all different types of universal.[2]

Paradigmatically, universals are abstract (e.g. humanity), whereas particulars are concrete (e.g. the person of Socrates). However, universals are not necessarily abstract and particulars are not necessarily concrete.[3] For example, one might hold that numbers are particular yet abstract objects. Likewise, some philosophers, such as D.M. Armstrong, consider universals to be concrete. Most do not consider classes to be universals, although some prominent philosophers do, such as John Bigelow.

Also, theists that worship an omnixx.xx god, how do you reconcile their existence with that of your god? Do you even consider this a legitimate problem or no? If no, why?

Do you think universals exist as real and distinct entities, or only as mental constructs?

Go

LordReed:
Gone old school, currently (re)playing Disgaea Afternoon of Darkness. Man SRPGs are great for mobile gaming.

Those are great games dood

Witcher 3

Somebody help me stop...

finofaya:
It is not possible that Shekau wasn't high there. I wonder if that video is supposed to terrify tho, cos it just seems third rate everything.

Some redditor pointed out his crew was all lined up like the power rangers

Cocaine is a hell of a drug

Scarface go fear sef

When you people whine to one who points out the nature of morality one wonders wtf?

Is it our fault? Is it also our fault that 1+1=2?

http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=f62_1419254405

Dunno how I missed this
Highly recommended

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFGLpCM2V4

You're a misanthrope, of course you think suicide justifiable

That said, yes, I agree there's plenty of selfishness to go all round, to all parties involved.

I'll have to return to show why I think so tho...

LordReed:
Thanks for your thoughts.

I don't think that inherent value is synonymous with good or evil it simply is (bear with me I am trying to put words to something I have not really tried to explain before). It is akin IMHO to height, length, weight, etc defining characteristics of any material body which are completely independent of an observer. I would say every material body's imposition on the fabric of space time imparts it with value that is it adds to the overall make up of the universe.

I was thinking of holding back on Witcher 3 since I haven't finished 2 but the reviews are making me "hungry".

U don't dey think too far

I mention all that because I'm trying to ascertain who decides what's valuable? Who decides what's good?

For instance considering entropy, could you say anything today is more valuable than matter/energy in those few milliseconds after the bb? If so, why?

Note that of course you could decide for us what's 'good' and we can try to work with that. I'm just stressing that whatever you choose will be subjective. Hitler could be labelled good. Humanity and even life can be labelled bad.

I'll stress that my values are essentially humanistic. But still....it's not a straightforward thing. I believe we all have the potential to move mountains, and equal even. However....


No vex, I've been working so late reply











No, sorry. I've been playing a lot more witcher than work....sadly...

Good lawd did they go all out...

MrAnony1:
Why do you still continue to lie?

You said that I claimed that taxi drivers, increase in brain size is due to spirits sending down special beams.

I'll ask you again. Please show where I made that claim?

When you claimed Santa was responsible for their increase in brain size

I hope that helps...

MrAnony1:
You are lying. Please show where I made this claim.

You calling me a liar is arguably worse than joagbaje calling me a bridge salesman

My claim:

me: where you claim our friends, the taxi drivers, increase in brain size is due to spirits sending down special beams as opposed to, you know, their brain size increasing in that area as a result of their using that part of their brains more? similar to muscle mass increase from regular exercise?

here's the post: https://www.nairaland.com/1367214/hell-said-big-bang-evolution/14#17153528

(This current thread is basically part 2 of that one. Again one wonders if the op is amnesic. That thread is probably funnier tho'. One of my favorites)

MrAnony: Consider this research for example about London taxi cab drivers whose brains increase in physical size as they learn the London road network. That is clear evidence of non-physical knowledge causing a physical effect. So my friend, I'm afraid you are wrong here. non-physical causes do accomplish physical effects.

Oya tell me what is responsible for the increase in brain size of those drivers. Bonus points: do it without resorting to a convulted jumble of words which amounts to 'spirit'. No merry-go-rounds please. Thanks. (Uyi in that thread seems to think telekinesis is somehow involved....)

Anyhow, I repeat

you earlier: Yes and our point is and has always been that consciousness or intelligence of any sort cannot be created by random undesigned natural events. An intelligent mind must necessarily be involved.

is either a dishonest, ill thought attempt at subterfuge, ie cheap sophism, or a case of your not knowing the implications of your garbage, just as is the case with the above. I personally warrant the former option. It's quite silly and I do wonder how you expect to get away with it.

Wait first, you even make this statement just now

you just now: Yes matter cannot explain consciousness

So wtf where you on about??



And, again, this isn't even the full story in any manner at all. Your case also clearly involves the postulation that this "Mind"-thingie, in DS' words, is capable of existing wholly on its own without any material base, and it being responsible for this universe. This has always been the case.

I dey lie??


There's more, but frankly can't be bothered...

MrAnony1:
AI can only exists if an intelligent mind creates it as shown by your link. It wasn't matter that explained it, it was purposeful minds capable of creating.


Have they created a spirit?


Strawman, I never said anything about magic


Since now, oh little man who can't express a coherent thought.

......

davidylan:
this is an intellectually lazy assumption. Considering that there are at least 1 billion christians on earth, that America's population is roughly about 300 million (83% of whom claim to be christian)... i'm not sure how approximately 249 million of 1 billion translates to "most" (and that is assuming that every christian in America identifies as conservative).

The problem is that the atheist alternative is no better... it is simply a different set of beliefs (grounded in blind faith), wrapped in poorly understood pseudo-science to give it a veneer of credibility.

Before you demand the predictions made by ID, kindly tell us how the big bang led to then DNA... thanks.

Serious question. Are you friends with that lagosian scientist that asserted that because like poles of magnets repel homosexuality is bad?

Are you guys the standard our nation produces?

This post is the real deal as far as folly is concerned, ray comfort would be well and truly proud. There's far, faaaaar too much wtf here to handle in a single session. Not that I really care to. I will however point out one little thing; that isn't the atheist position. That is the position real scientists hold. A few of them are even xtian. (Actually it's the position of anyone with a brain that's been exposed to the evidence and hasn't been brainwashed, but that's another story)

You see this as an xtian vs atheist thing, take the harebrained xtian stance then claim to be a scientist. Hmmm

You'll then claim one can be both xtian and a scientist whilst doing your hardest to disprove that notion.

Hmmmmm

LordReed:
ATTN: plaetton, wiegraf, davien and any other interested person.

I was having a discussion with some people on the nature of human value. My position is that everything in the universe assumes a value on the fact of its existence even if this value cannot be objectively measured. The opposing position is that value is always a subjective measurement and nothing has any inherent value.

I would like your thoughts on this matter.

I am definitely in the 'subjective' camp. I've gone on and on about it, near ad nauseam even, in the past. (In my defense, I do so because I think it important for people to realize there isn't the one correct way of leaving. That sort of conviction is easily one of the greatest causes of misery in our history. I do realize that includes my way of living, but accept there isn't any way to avoid being a hypocrite to some degree or the other. Best I can do is try to limit it).

For instance, if you claim it exists but cannot be objectively measured, I'll point out that it cannot be measured because it simply doesn't exist. Whose criteria are you going to use as the yard stick? Yours? A population's? God's (assuming he existed for this convo, of course)? All these are subjective.

Both predator and prey have a will to live, should prey just lie down and accept their fate? Why should a predator values be inherently superior to that of the prey's? In fact, I've not come across a convincing argument for life of any sort being inherently valuable, even that's a subjective position

I do find it interesting that quite a few skeptics believe there are inherently objective values though. I can't see how they justify their stance

Note: As this position implies, yep, I don't believe there's any inherent good or evil. ISIS, Stalin, Inquisition, all not inherently evil. I'm just happy I live in a time where most of humanity shares similar values to mine and therefore despise these philosophies as much as I do......I hope.

Randomly: Started wild hunt, haven't gotten anywhere yet tho... hopefully soon I will

UyiIredia:
The problem with such Christians is that they've bought into the lie that science must assume only nature exists. Science involves a search for truth, assuming only nature exists limits that search.



There isn't. If by evolution, you mean a change of allele frequencies then even creationists are evolutionists. If by evolution you mean the development of all life from a common ancestor through mutations and natural selection, then you are brainwashed. The so-called overwhelming evidence for such are based on false assumptions and a wilful ignorance of the facts.





I'm willing to furnish you with articles that explain how ID is
science. Will you read it ? And be objective about what you've read ? That's the problem.





So what if we share DNA with corns ? That doesn't show that we evolved from corns.




That has been done unfortunately . . .

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair



State some of this evidence and I will tell you the problem with it. If you promise to read it, I will present an article showing how ID is science and we can discuss it.



Indeed you are brainwashed. It's no mystery why you believe in evolutionary fairytales. You actually think God doing it must not be science which is false.

Uyi, seriously telling even kindergarteners this twaddle would lead normal people to deep shame and embarrassment when they get the chance to reflect on their actions. Enough to cause one psychological trauma...

Do you honestly believe this deserves a proper response?

Are you genuinely this warped, confused and/or desperate?

FearGodAndLive:
Yes. We are all one.

The mindfuck will be real tongiht.

Shoutout to plaetton, wiegraf and co. May our paths cross in the future. I am off Nairaland for good.

For reals?

Peace and love brah.

But yeah, we'll eventually meet, methinks. Even if I Need To Procrastinate and keep putting important things off...

And I may soon follow you actually. Pretty much said and done all I could here. Social issues keep bringing me back tho...for some reason. And as the internet isn't running away, I like to keep the option open. In other words, I'm terrible at making final decisions

ParrishNorwood:
Stalking you? Lol! You have a one dimensional mind, wiegraf, always did.

You even show up with an immediate response

Creepy.....

davidylan:
The above in highlights is an example of what is wrong with militant atheism. Conjecture, poor thinking, rush to conclusions...

I make a conclusion that there is no evidence for MACRO evolution (it is important to make that distinction since dishonest atheists like to conflate macro and micro evolution as if both are one and the same) based on my experience in the lab and spending over 7 years reading science publications. You dont have any evidence otherwise...

David, you just stated that macro and micro evolution are not the same.......

Are you sure you're a biologist? Are you really sure aren't some labrat being somehow experimented on?

And I've got no evidence for macro evolution? Again, just exactly does the fact that you share 50% of your DNA with corn imply?

DOHOHOHOHOHO

davidylan:
all you keep saying is that one should write a paper. That is as senseless as asking scientists who disagree with a colleague need to write a paper to be taken seriously. Scientists can disagree without needing to spam the scientific community with papers refuting each other. Sigh... the level of discourse out here hasn't improved i see. Its still dominated by thoughtless, juvenile ranting.

Hmm, kettle still fuming over 'juvenile ranting'. As for even insuating there's an iota of thought that's not cancer ridden by delusion in here....well

That asides, no, you do not need write a paper, though that would be ideal. I stated clearly there, mr thoughtfull, that you could just go to the equivalent of physics.org for biologists and we'll watch the discussion (or your r.ape) of the details. And, as your malady seems rather bad, you may not have noticed that that is not all I posted there.

Seriously, not that you haven't been pounded enough, but you want to argue the details because you've deluded yourself about being a scientist for about 7 years, take it up with other scientist. That shouldn't be an ordeal for you, a professional, no? What is the problem here?

Actually, I seem to remember once posting a fairly technical article that made horse$hit of the nonsense you were selling us and there wasn't even a murmur of a response from you

Not a whiff

Not a whisper

Do you want to go there again?

lol

davidylan:
Just to add, i need to react to this laughable stuff that if anyone is a christian then he/she should stick to a pulpit rather than the lab. Its even worse when you consider the people making such a point could not differentiate between a nucleus and mitochondria under a light microscope (that is if they have ever even used one in their entire lives). There are millions of conscientious christian scientists doing great work in labs all over the world... least of all the US. Just because they believe in God does not mean they do not have the chops to spend countless hours designing better bacterial-resistant drugs so intellectually lazy internet warriors here can live longer to spew more thoughtless bile on the web.

Err, thoughtful dumba$$, where did I state an xtian couldn't be a (or an even good) scientist? You even bolded where I stated that....

I say YOU, you in particular, are a disgrace to your profession. Many a times I've told you this actually, and in the same way, but it seems it quite difficult to get through the moimoi in your skull.

Jokes aside, answer please. Why in the world do you remain a scientist when you're looking for ways to say godidit? Claiming no evidence for evolution and ID is science. What is wrong with you??



PS:And as usual, and again, your hypocrisy amazes....

ParrishNorwood:
Somehow, I've always known you're a Fa.ggot, wiegraf.

You seem to be projecting. Dunno who you are, yet you seem obsessed and stalking me.

Firstly, being a 'fa.ggot' is an insult only to barbarians (like you seem to be)

Next, if you need to deal wth your desires, I could send you a picture of my pipi that you could fap to. I don't mind provided you keep it to yourself. That could help calm you down

Perhaps you'd prefer a replica Love Machine my pipi instead?

davidylan:
Not sure what your point is... perhaps you're also surprised that Sir Isaac Newton was a christian and scientist too?

No, I've been living under a rock and wasn't aware of that.....

Anyhoo, 'twasn't a point per ser, but to answer your question ser LacksImagination; no.

I'm also not surprised Jefferson died owning slaves and Lincoln was known to have made racist jokes. Those were their times. So unless you fancy yourself a scientist living in the 17th century, I fail to see the point of your question. (granted, your living in the 17th century would explain a lot)

If you're genuinely (and bizarrely) having trouble as to why I ask, then here's an explanation:

There are 'xtians' that are scientists even in this day of course (though their numbers continue to dwindle and rapidly, especially among the elite), many doing well even. By and large they know how to seperate their beliefs from their science

You clearly can't

For instance, you assert that there is NO evidence for evolution.

Not only do you do this, you also try to pass ID off as science (something you're desperately trying to avoid admitting, despite thehomers probing)

Do you know silly that is?

Imagine an atheist as a pastor. He simply needs to show up, open the Bible and continue to regale his flock with fairy tales and whatnot. He might not believe it but at least he's 'apastoring, he's doing the job. Now, if said atheist started reading The God Delusion instead of the bible to his sheeple, could you really call him a pastor?! One would have to ask WTF is he doing on the pulpit, no?

That's how silly you look when you claim that there's no evidence for evolution and ID is science.

I'm being silly? Well, then do show how ID is science. Better yet, you're a researcher (or so you claim), no? Show it to your peers.

Write that paper titled "The Myth of Evolution" or "Intelligent Design; The Evidence from the Beautiful Design" and claim your glorious Nobel Prize. (Please share it with me for giving you such a lovely, if obvious, idea abeg)

As for yourr claims that there's no evidence for evolution, like I've stated to you before, you do this while making points like we share ~60% of our dna with corn (or whatever you said earlier). Claiming there's no evidence for evolution while stating this is...well....lol.

So, instead of doing some science, rubbing heads with your peers to put your money where your mouth is, etc, you're here on NL's religion section spewing horse$hit and challenging laymen to do 'real science'. You should be educating us but nooooooo. It even seems like we're easily much better at discerning real science than you are, ser professional, and using our brains to analyze it better sef.

In fact, just take this your 'science' to biology's equivalence of physics.org and please let us observe the debate. Go talk to them about this 'beauty' you see and just how it must be evidence of a designer (and even more ridiculously, a supernatural one that wrote a story book 2000 years ago)

You can't, you never will, because ID is simply NOT SCIENCE. In any shape, form or manner. And the evidence for evolution is clearly bountiful and everywhere to be seen

So again, if you wanted say godidit, please and please why in the world are you a scientist? Godidit is for the pulpit not the lab, so why are you there?


BTW, even though Newton belonged to an generation whose parents were jailed for stating the earth wasn't the centre of the universe, he persisted with strange and idiosyncratic ideas where religion was concerned. In fact, had his views on religion been made public he could have found himself in prison. That should tell you that perhaps he was less than satisfied with what he had seen in the 'perfect' book of god and his investigations

davidylan:
I'm not sure why you all shy away from a real scientific discussion to traffic in juvenile remarks... if you feel its folly - please tell us why.

ser kettle, seems you've amnesia like the op. seems there's also the usual lack of imagination, as I have a good idea of where you picked up the 'juvenile' association from

note that you'll, as usual as well, tuck your rabid tail between your rabid legs and run too when the bulala comes down.

BTW, I need not know the details of the science to dismiss the silly tripe you've been posting. I could even give you unjustifiable concessions and you'd still sound silly.

seriously though, why in the world do you still remain a scientist when you're looking for supernatural causation? shouldn't you be a pastor instead?

David!!
up till now this folly?!
na wa
chai....
scientist? lol
that asides how u dey?