₦airaland Forum

FrostyZonn: Nope you got it wrong. It's never God's intention for mankind to goto hell fire, likewise ones mother never intend her kids to miss their way. But in the end, your destiny lies in your hand(thanks to free will). It's up to you to make the decision on which path to follow. If you miss your way and end up in hell fire, that is your own making, not God's. Likewise if you make wrong decisions in life and end up in jail, it's your fault, not your mothers. ¿Comprende?

FrostyZonn: 1000 likes for what? For talking rubbish?

Your comments doesn't make much sense either.

No offense, but I think you are the one with reasoning faculty deficiency.

I hope you don't expect me to thank you for this. I didn't ask you to go out of your way to prove my points

New Alfa: I came here to 4get, but u have to bring up that depressing team here.

Useless set of players. Worst goalkeeper in our history. No good attacker. Clueless coach.

Ahhh! Move this to sports section! I want to forget!

Who would have guessed you had such a romantic streak (well, activism asides I suppose).

Based on the evidence, it's more likely xtians will come across the holy grail before you get the chance to see any sort of cup whatsoever, even a rubber one, yet here you are, still swooning for arsenal. Next we know you'll reveal you have all the bieber albums.

What would your master do? Such unending sorrow... The only valid explanation is you're some sort of masochist...

It's never too late to become an ashawo

When will you give obadiah the chance to ban me?! I've been waiting for a while now.....

mazaje: The problem is even if we are to believe that it is the scientific view, how does it equate to the atheistic position?. . .Scientific position= atheist position, when ?. . .

This is a wee bit beyond their comprehensive abilities..

Logicboy03: Enigma and co, are just spouting crap out of butthurt....probably because they see a growing atheism on Nairaland.

One would want to believe they were trolling. Sad part is they weren't....

Uyi Iredia: The Internet wasn't built by atheists >>> In fact >>> it's safe to assume that Christians played a major role in its founding.

Hmmm?

Enigma: "Arguments" for atheism are always shallow and unworthy - usually attended by being blinkered ignorantly.

Saying atheism is a conclusion not a belief is an example of shallow thinking; of course it can similarly be said that theism/deism is a conclusion not a belief.

I agree, talking donkeys are a lot 'deeper', strain a lot more grey matter

FrostyZonn: This wiegraf character is really immature, already blowing things out of context.

Anyhoo, I don't need to justify my comments to dunces like you(pardon my French) that doesn't seem to be equipped with any sense of humor. Come to think of it, I wasn't even addressing you in the first place!

So if you are so insecure as to feel threatened by my comments, then do the next best thing and hang yourself, why don't you?

And btw, who died and made you the atheist defender anyway?

I couldn't help but notice, you didn't answer the question. Just as predicted, you avoided it with more nonsense

So, my good tool, you're xtian for the money? Good for you. Don't expect the rest of us to be as shallow as you are though....eediot

FrostyZonn: Typical Atheism. Twisting anything you don't see eye to eye with, to suit your purpose.

Well done.

Bros, you're now an expert on atheism? Last I checked you were a clueless tool. And that entails you actually having no idea as to how fatuous you are. You likely actually do think yourself some sort of expert, just as dame patience probably fancies herself an english prof.

Anyways, please good ser, explain to me why the need to mention that (you think) atheists don't usually make it? Do I have to quote it? Are you or are you not clearly asserting he will revert back to religion because he will find it hard to get by otherwise?

In before another silly bout of indignation and nonsense

FrostyZonn: It's just a matter of time before you revert to Christianity, lol!

Reality Check 101; Atheists seldom hit the big leagues in an highly religious nation like Nigeria.

So, you're religious becuse it's profitable to your pocket

Well done

No you aren't. Welcome.

As anon put it; 'this is the internet, built by atheists, where religions come to die'

Free sundays aren't the only benefit... Your mind...

Clarity

This is some deep, erudite stuff. I do think discussions about who's stronger, he-man or power mike, are more interesting though (and grounded in reality actually, considering power mike).

Mr Troll: @bolds, Uyi it is one thing to read a lot of books and another thing to understand and truly gain knowledge from them. Again, you overestimate your intelligence.

He's like the only person I know I could tell "You read too much". "A" for effort, but without the reasoning skills necessary to utilize all that information it's more or else useless. A bit like memorizing multiplication tables without knowing how to multiply, but not exactly the same.

Apparently he's fairly young, so he might grow into it.

On the other side of the fence. ie, those that question if they are even effective, comes

religion virus: Christian Shocker: God-Based AA Program Harms Alcoholics

Did you know that the Alcoholics Anonymous twelve-step program, which has God as the foundation of its program, doesn't work? Not only doesn't it work, but many scientific studies have shown pretty clearly that it does more harm than good! What's more, it appears that the religious component of the AA program is the culprit.

I was quite frankly shocked when I heard this. While I'm not religious, I have always admired AA members for their dedication and selfless efforts to help one another. I've had close friends and family members who were alcoholics, and wished they could find the strength to acknowledge their disease and go to AA for help.

But no more. After reading this damning article, which refers to dozens of scientific studies including several sponsored by AA board members and advocates, I now see AA for what it is: another faith-based folly that continues because of faith, not reason. In study after study, scientists, sociologists and doctors find that AA is worse that getting no help at all.

And it's pretty clear why. Look at the first three of the famous twelve steps:

We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

In other words, "I'm not good enough, I'm a failure." That leads to a "victim" mentality where the alcoholic doesn't take responsibility for his/her own actions – they're told that they aren't capable of handling their own problems. So when they "fall off the wagon," they fall hard. They often resort to binge drinking. After all, they're powerless (or so they are told by AA) to control their drinking. It becomes an excuse to continue their alcoholism.

Here is just one of the examples cited by "A. Orange" in Effectiveness of the Twelve Step Program. In San Diego County, 301 people arrested for public drunkenness were randomly assigned by the courts to one of three programs:

Control group that got no treatment
Sent to a professional alcoholism medical clinic
Sent to Alcoholics Anonymous

After a year, guess what?

In every category, the people who got no treatment at all fared better than the people who got A.A. "treatment". Based on the records of re-arrests, only 31% of the A.A.-treated clients were deemed successful, while 44% of the "untreated" clients were successful. Clearly, Alcoholics Anonymous "treatment" had a detrimental effect. That means that A.A. had a success rate of less than zero. Not only was A.A.-based treatment a waste of time and money; A.A. was actually making it harder for people to get sober and stay sober.

That's shocking enough, isn't it? But what's even worse in my eyes is that the people who run AA have known this for years. It's another example where faith trumps reason. AA has turned into a religion, and people keep believing in spite of clear, compelling evidence that AA doesn't work, that it actually harms people and delays their possible recovery.

One of my biggest criticisms of Christianity and religion in general is that it takes away personal responsibility for our accomplishments and takes away blame for our failures. You're not good enough, you're a sinner, you're a bad person. It's a lesson that is drilled into Christians from an early age.

And when someone with the terrible disease of alcoholism comes to AA this message is reinforced: You're a failure. And not surprisingly the alcoholics agree and continue to fail.

But lest anyone think I condemn everything about AA, I don't. The one aspect of their program that I believe is exceptional is that of the "buddy system" where new members are assigned a sponsor to help them in time of need – someone to talk to, someone to be a friend, provide encouragement, share stories, and help them when they have trouble. I believe that whatever successes AA can claim are due the the dedication and tireless efforts of the volunteer sponsors. That is a life-affirming, positive way to help someone in the grips of alcohol or drugs. Many addicts have no social support, no family and no friends. A sponsor can make all the difference in the world. Sponsors, all of whom are former addicts themselves, work selflessly and tirelessly, often for years or decades providing that helping hand and support that helps addicts get and stay on the path to recovery.

Update: I forgot to mention: Thanks to Eric Hass who made a comment in this blog that made me look into this issue.

Yeah, that's more like it

national geographic: Does Science Show What 12 Steps Know?
Data seem to support the 12-step program's benefits for addicts.


Science has never revealed as much about addiction—potential genetic causes, influences, and triggers, and the resultant brain activity—or offered as many opportunities and methods for initial treatment as it does now.

Even so, the grassroots 12-step program remains the preferred prescription for achieving long-term sobriety.

Since the inception of Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.)—the progenitor of 12-step programs—science has sometimes been at odds with the notion that laypeople can cure themselves.

Yet the success of the 12-step approach may ultimately be explained through medical science and psychology. Both offer substantive reasons for why it works.

Climbing the Steps to Recovery

The "miracle" of A.A. can be traced to the evening of June 10, 1935, when a struggling alcoholic named Bill Wilson, fighting to stay dry while on a business trip to Akron, Ohio, met with an apparently hopeless drinker named Bob Smith in order to quell his own thirst.

It had been suggested to Wilson, through a religious organization called the Oxford Group, that talking to wet drunks about his experiences and trying to help them get sober would, in turn, help him stay dry. Smith, once a respected physician in the community, was referred to him as someone at bottom, beyond help.

Their discussion sparked the insight that the best hope for sobriety was a daily reprieve from alcohol, which stood with the singular practice of helping others.

Over the next five years, a non-denominational program emerged that drew much of its spiritual doctrine from Christian practices. It embodied an action plan in the form of 12 "steps" that are essentially guidelines for right living, including taking a personal inventory of one's strengths and shortcomings, making restitution for past wrongs, and helping others find sobriety.


A.A. reports that more than two million members worldwide currently stay sober by regularly attending meetings and implementing these steps.

In recent decades, the 12 steps have been applied to other addictions—everything from drugs, food, and other substances to various compulsive behaviors around gambling or sex.

Psychic Solution

Most addicts receive less than 30 days of inpatient treatment. But they must also accept that they need ongoing outside help.

The 12-step approach, said Paul Gallant, an interventionist with 27 years of sobriety, is "so popular with treatment centers because it's proven to work. When a person completes treatment, they have a place to go.

"Self-knowledge is not a sufficient treatment for alcoholism," continued Gallant. "I've worked with people who have had years and years of psychotherapy and intensive analysis, but it's brought them no closer to ongoing abstinence."

However, experiencing what Gallant called a "psychic change," which in the 12-step world is linked to the marvel of a "spiritual awakening," often results in a distinct personality and behavioral transformation that leads to long-term sobriety.

"The not-drinking is really just a part of it," Gallant said. "It's not drinking and changing as a person. That psychic change needs to come from a program of spiritual development, and so far the greatest success has been Alcoholics Anonymous."


Established treatment facilities like Sierra Tucson offer everything from traditional medicine to such alternative approaches as equine therapy and healing circles.

According to Nia Sipp, staff psychiatrist with Sierra Tucson, the goal is not just removing the substance or behavior but also facilitating self-reflection and creating social systems. "Oftentimes people feel that it's about God and other things," Sipp said. But she believes that the A.A. concept is more about "the spirit of community."

Rev. Jack Abel, director of spiritual care at Caron Treatment Centers, agreed. "When we say spirituality, we're talking about connection. People who are addicted become disconnected. And spirituality, as it's emphasized in the program of the 12 steps, is profoundly reconnecting."


According to Marvin Seppala, chief medical officer at Hazelden and sober 37 years, attending 12-step meetings does more than give an addict warm, fuzzy feelings.

The unconscious neurological pull of addiction undermines healthy survival drives, causing individuals to make disastrous choices, he said. "People will regularly risk their lives—risk everything—to continue use of a substance."

Addicts don't want to engage in these behaviors, but they can't control themselves. "The only way to truly treat it is with something more powerful," he said—something, like the 12 steps, that can change patterns in the brain.

Left Brain, Right Brain

Andrew Newberg studies neurotheology—the science of how spiritual practices affect the brain.

He avoids theological opinions, noting that the positive mental and emotional effects that might come from believing in God are real to the individual. "Irrespective of whether God truly exists or not," Newberg said, "the brain is less interested in the accuracy of reality than the adaptability of how we respond."

Bill Wilson had a famous "white light" experience in a hospital room, where he was recovering from what would be his last alcoholic bender. He claimed it was a spiritual awakening that not only changed his outlook but also removed his desire to drink.

Newberg said that "large-scale, existential-type crises" such as Wilson's can bring instant changes to the brain. New neuronal pathways are activated or reactivated. This instant rewiring, Newberg said, generates a sudden and intense "aha" moment.

Newberg speculates that such an event may occur because of differences between the brain's left and right hemispheres, which approach problems differently. The left side struggles to work through a problem from an analytical, black-and-white perspective.

But the right side may suddenly kick in and apply a very different, more holistic solution. In such a moment, the neurons of the brain are immediately realigned, spurred on by intense emotion relating to the crisis.

This same experience, sometimes described as a "eureka!" moment—or a cognitive insight phenomenon—is often referenced in relation to creative breakthroughs.

One 2008 study found that when the left side of the person's brain dwells on a problem, it produces an excessive amount of obstructive gamma waves. The more the person ruminates on the problem, the harder it becomes to solve.

Conversely, when concentration is relaxed—or as Newberg said, when the person manages to quiet the left side of the brain and involve the right—the sudden appearance of new answers and insights can feel profound.

Neglected Realm

David Shurtleff, acting deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), described addiction as a mainstream medical problem suffering from a lack of coordinated efforts.

The first four years of medical school routinely provide doctors with only a few hours of instruction on addiction. Shurtleff said his agency would like to see more training for primary care physicians, including equipping them with a standardized assessment to diagnose addiction. "We do the best we can," he said, "but it's an uphill fight."

Meanwhile, brain science marches on. Understanding of addiction at the cellular level continues to yield revelations that seem to cast light on why 12-step meetings succeed.

Power of Dopamine Receptors

D2 dopamine receptors connect dopamine, a key neurotransmitter, to neurons. When these receptors are not functioning—or there are too few of them available to connect the dopamine to neurons—memory, mood, and thinking may all be impaired.

A shortage of D2 receptors, some researchers surmise, could predispose a person to addiction.

Nora Volkow, NIDA's director, led two studies that involved artificially increasing the number of D2 receptors in rats by administering adenoviral vectors directly into their brains. Viral vectors transmit their genetic material and makeup into foreign cells, in this case increasing the number of D2 receptors in the new cells to match their own.

In one study involving rats and alcohol, the increased number of D2 receptors led the rodents to consume less alcohol, compared with their baseline intake.

In the other study, the D2-receptor increase caused rats to significantly reduce their intake of cocaine.

Michael Nader, a researcher at Wake Forest School of Medicine, is investigating ways to raise D2-receptor levels naturally. One experiment he helped conduct focused on five separate groups of four monkeys. Each had been self-administering cocaine to the point of habit and were then deprived of the drug for an eight-month period. To create a picture of D2-receptor availability, the monkeys were given a radioactive tracer that competes with dopamine for receptors.

The monkeys were then randomly put in social groups of four and given the opportunity to self-administer the drug again.

Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of the monkeys over time showed fluctuations in dopamine levels, which allowed the researchers to estimate the changing numbers of available D2 receptors. After only three months, the socially dominant monkeys in each group had naturally increased their numbers of D2 receptors.

There was no increase in the subordinate monkeys. Further, the subordinate monkeys reverted to using cocaine at much higher levels than the dominant monkeys.

"There is an interesting relationship between D2-receptor numbers and vulnerability to drug addiction," Nader said. "It appears that individuals with low D2 measures are more vulnerable compared to individuals with high D2-receptor numbers."

Why did the socially dominant monkeys show D2-receptor increases? "One hypothesis," Nader said, "is environmental enrichment." For the monkeys, it seems, being dominant was the enriching trigger.

One physiological consequence of involvement in 12-step meetings, therefore, could be an increase in the natural production of D2 receptors. "That's another whole area to be studied beyond the animal world," Shurtleff said.

Need for Attachment

Philip Flores, author of Addiction as an Attachment Disorder, said the human need for social interaction is a physiological one, linked to the well-being of the nervous system.

When someone becomes addicted, he said, mechanisms for healthy attachment are "hijacked," resulting in dependence on addictive substances or behaviors.

Some believe that addicts, even before their disease kicks in, struggle with knowing how to form emotional bonds that connect them to other people. Co-occurring disorders, such as depression and anxiety, make it even harder to build those essential emotional attachments.

"We, as social mammals, cannot regulate our central nervous systems by ourselves," Flores said. "We need other people to do that."

While it's commonly understood that early childhood attachments to parents and family are necessary for healthy development, Flores maintains that emotional attachments remain necessary throughout adulthood.

This is where a 12-step program becomes valuable.

It's not enough, Flores said, to remove the addiction, which in itself has become an object of unhealthy emotional and physical attachment. To achieve long-term well-being, addicts need opportunities for forging healthy emotional attachments.

"What A.A. does on the basic level is what good psychotherapy does," Flores said. It provides "a community for people to break their isolation and to start to connect on an emotional level with other people."

Helping Heals

Lee Ann Kaskutas, a scientist with the Alcohol Research Group, has faced skepticism from colleagues for studying A.A., in part because of the numerous spiritual references that go with the 12-step program. It puts A.A. on "the fringe" in the minds of many scientists, Kaskutas said.

Kaskutas, a self-proclaimed atheist, said that the 12 steps bear fruit regardless of one's spiritual beliefs. "If you don't believe in God, the way it weasels in is in the help and behaviors that the 12-step group inculcates."

Helping others, Kaskutas said, "is the internal combustion engine of A.A. I think that is the connection to spirituality."

People feel better about themselves after helping someone else, Kaskutas said. "So it's reinforcing—when you help somebody, I think your brain chemistry changes."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/08/130809-addiction-twelve-steps-alcoholics-anonymous-science-neurotheology-psychotherapy-dopamine/

My verdict, there's good reason they're well associated with religion; they're bs. Using the same sort of tools to achieve certain goals.

However, placebos can produce results, and psychological aspects cannot be ignored.

Op, there's no evolution in their story books, therefore, they don't believe in it. All this despite the undeniable evidence.

Talking donkeys? That's fine, they existed. It's in the storybook.

Then there's those who claim not to believe in the story books but claim evolution is false, again despite the evidence. Why? We're just too special, therefore this stupendously large universe was built...just for us. We are the centre of the universe.

In the end bros, you won't get past the hubris. They simply want to feel special, 'your grandfather was a monkey, not mine', etc.

You are some sort of agnostic, ne?

Tis you bdays?

https://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o640/Irishheather/Funny_Happy_Birthday_Quotes1.jpg

While I agree twas not from the heart, I could care less about those sort of things. All the mooshy-lovey-dovey crap. But that's just me.

And that's not why I'm here actually. Op, I think you'd make a great mod. Why not toss your name into the hat?

striktlymi: Now, the question we should ask ourselves is: Would Jefferson have owned slaves if he had lived in our time? The answer probably would be NO!!! This is exactly why it would be unfair to compare two ages that are not exactly comparable.

You get much wrong, but disregarding that, this is all your argument boils down to and it changes nothing. Again, fact is jefferson was a......slaver. Reluctant or otherwise, he was a slaver. Fact. We dont whitewash it, we don't deny it. He was a slaver; fact.

Doesn't affect his legacy much because it was understandable considering his era, but we sure as hell don't praise. Slavery is wrong by most standards of the day, period. Apply the same to uncle mo.

Fact is, and very clearly, he was a p.edo. Undeniable. If he wasn't, no one would be accusing yarima of being one, and he is simply following mastah. It might have been acceptable in some desert a long time ago, that does not affect the fact that it's pe.dophilia.

This is rather simple, and i won't waste any more time on it, so i'll just leave with this. You are patently wrong when you claim he wasn't one. He clearly was, and he doesn't get a free pass just because some brainwashed sheeple consider him greater than sliced bread. That's folly, usual islamic style nonsense. Tools like yarima don't get to redefine ped.ophillia simply because their god indulged it. Nope, even if acceptable then, doesn't change the fact that it's pe.dophillia. Also, wrong by civilized standards of today

striktlymi: I saw the question but decided to turn a blind eye for good reasons. You know the question is a bit unfair but anyways, I will answer and give a follow-up explanation.

If by 'Slaver' you mean exactly what you defined without intending anything derogatory then the answer would be a resounding YES!!! But the ish with that question would be that we are looking at this in terms of right and wrong.

The question isn't in any manner, unfair. Actually, you are the one applying double standards. We'll get to that.

Allowing for subjectivity, slavery, in any shape or form, is and has always been... wrong. In any time frame... Wrong.. As, believe it or not, through time, there's always been people opposed to any such practices. Indeed, many of them have been involved in such practices even while opposed to it. Eg....Jefferson.

Others around them might have thought it acceptable, but they always viewed it as one of the most heinous, despicable practices imaginable.

striktlymi: If someone was brought up in a society where 'slaving' does not contravene any 'known' moral and the individual does the act without knowing any better then we can't say the individual did something wrong.

Hitler could always claim he did not know any better. As far as many are concerned, Jews are a cursed race, no? We still don't view his actions as good, yes?

And even the individual could tell you he did something wrong. Perhaps a necessary evil, but still wrong. Again, see Jefferson and most of the founding fathers who owned slaves.

striktlymi: In the case of Muhammad, the accusation is paedophilia which conotes something amoral and distasteful. But the truth is that at the time he wedded Aisha his action was not seen as against the morals of the time. Well, I agree that we still need to establish that Aisha has attained puberty at the time.

Ped.ophillia is unambiguously amoral and distateful by the standards of most civilized folk, just as slavery is. No difference, and we don't go about saying jefferson wasn't a slaver, as he very, very, clearly was. To claim otherwise is simply dishonest propaganda. Fact is, he was a slaver. Fact.

We might not necessarily hold it against him, considering the era (and the fact that he himself apparently found the practice distasteful), but it doesn't change the fact that he was a slaver. When we speak of him today, and talk about emulating his virtues, I highly doubt anyone speaks encouragingly about his slaving. It is universally condemned, but it is understood that it's something he might not have been able to avoid. But it is never denied that he was indeed a slaver, that is a FACT. Today, with muslims, I give you; Yarima.

He's only following the model human being who can do no wrong; uncle mo'. Because, you see, and as you seem to be saying, there's nothing wrong with ped.ophillia simply because it was a common practice during the era. See?

Jefferson was a slaver, as with lots of other biblical characters (and it's well known there's a lot of questionable things in the bible, don't let me get started on yah'weh). If I understand it correctly, Joseph was a pe.do. Not many atheist models due to various factors through history, so I use Jefferson as an example since he's admired by many atheists (and some would argue born in today's world he certainly wouldn't believe in a personal god, but that's another issue), so let's look at it another way; Stalin was an atheist. Sure, atheism had nothing to do with his nonsense, but he was undeniably an atheist, we don't go around pretending he was not.

MOH WAS A PE.DO. FACT. To claim otherwise is an outright lie. You would be the one being unfair, not me. I am simply stating a FACT and not applying double standards. We can't call uncle a moh a pe.do, a clear as day truth, whereas all other characters through history get screened objectively. That's, again, simply propaganda and double standards. Of course, attributes well associated with Islam.

striktlymi: Hmmmmm...

Strong arguments it might seem but most of it hinge on maybes. In order for us to draw your conclusion that Muhammad was indeed a paedophile, we would need to demonstrate the following:

1) That it is impractical for a lady in 6th century Arabia to experience precocious puberty.

2) That puberty was not a yard stick for consummating one's marriage in the 6th century.

3) That child marriage was considered to be against morals at the time.

From the links you gave, we can decipher the following:

1) Early puberty for some ladies do occur and also a possibility in the 6th century.

2) Puberty is one of the yard sticks for consummating one's marriage.

3) Child marriage was not against morals in the 6th century.

I concede that the case of Aisha is VERY unclear and we do not have concrete evidence to show that Aisha experienced early puberty but still the evidence we do have show the following:

1) A possibility that Aisha experienced early puberty.

2) Aisha would have been ready to consummate the marriage at puberty.

3) Aisha's bethrotal and marriage to Muhammad, though early was not wrong by their standards, if and only if she attained puberty.

Like i said, disregard all this for now. Just answer this simple question for now:

Was jefferson a slaver? (Slaver being anyone who owned and used slaves)

striktlymi: The bench mark really in those times is puberty and not necessarily the age of the lady. The sooner you attain puberty, the sooner you are ready for marriage by the standards of the time.

It is quite true that on the average, the age of puberty falls largely between 12 and 13 but it is not uncommon for some ladies to attain puberty at a much younger age, say 9, 10. Even today, we still have rare cases where some girls attain it at the tender age of 10.

I agree with you that anyone who picks a wife today as soon as the lady attains puberty (considering that the lady is still a minor) necessarily is into paedophilia; but I do not agree that Muhammad is guilty of same.

The conditions today are very different from that of the time of Muhammad. They are actually not comparable. Child-marriage is not one of the key tenets of Islam. It is far from being compulsory. It is something people decide to do and those who choose it in this age and time, for me, are paedophiles.

wiki

wiki: On average, girls begin puberty at ages 10–11; boys at ages 11–12.[1][2][3] Girls usually complete puberty by ages 15–17,[[/b]3][4][5] while boys usually complete puberty by ages 16–17.[3][4][6] [b]The major landmark of puberty for females is menarche, the onset of menstruation, which occurs on average between ages 12–13;[7][8][9][10] for males, it is the first ejaculation, which occurs on average at age 13.[11] In the 21st century, the average age at which children, especially girls, reach puberty is lower compared to the 19th century, when it was 15 for girls and 16 for boys.[12] This can be due to any number of factors, including improved nutrition resulting in rapid body growth, increased weight and fat deposition,[13] or exposure to endocrine disruptors such as xenoestrogens, which can at times be due to food consumption or other environmental factors.[14][15] Puberty which starts earlier than usual is known as precocious puberty. Puberty which starts later than usual is known as delayed puberty.

Source. This is europe though

sex researcher: In his detailed defence of a medieval concept of adolescence, Schultz (1991)[116] observed that only two signs were mentioned in the description of physical maturity: breasts and beards (p527). Another, more situationally relevant indicator would be the change of voice (Moller, 1985; Daw, 1970)[117]. As cited, the narrator of Rennewart stated that "[w]hen a maiden is about to come of age and her small breasts begin to form, she is overcome by a nascent desire that slips into her heart and that, on account of the pain of the desire, upsets her spirits and teaches her the ways of her mother". Analysing 16th-century German Kundrun, Wailes[118] notes that wooing commenced at age 12, and that erotic adventures of heroines started at "a very young age" (p359-60). This is also chronicled by Boesch (1900:p112-4)[119]. Eerenbeemt[120] detailed some references to kinderminne [prepubertal love] in Dutch belletrics (1935:p146-.

Addressing the end of 16th century, Stone (1961:p198)[121] speaks of "premature" wedding arrangements as if predating the "age of consent", but this is not further detailed. Marriage would coincide with "puberty", or menarche. Medieval menarche occurred at age 12 to 14, 15 in exceptions (Post, 1971[122]; Amudsen and Diers, 1973)[123]. In the fourth and fifth century, girls mostly married between 12 and 15, boys between 18 and 15[124]. Even during the 1650s, nearly one quarter of girls married before age 17, some possibly before menarche (Archer, 1990:p491; Laslett, 1971a:p82-5[125]; cf. Laslett, 1971b)[126]. The fourth edition of Tissot's Onanisme contains a letter proposing the following problem: "Being lately married to a Virgin, not quite 13 year old (myself 25) and her Father absolutely refuses to let us Cohabit 'till his Daughter shall be full 15 Years of Age; What is therefore to be done?"[127]. In Ireland of the first half of the 19th century, marriage ages for girls of thirteen and fourteen were common, said Inglis (1835, I:p247)[128], but this was much later refuted by Drake (1963:p305)[129]. Sumner (1906:p385-6)[130] argues in favour of "child marriage" in England and Scotland.

Even for that age, 6 then 9 is still young. Unlikely she had hit puberty properly. Not impossible, but unlikely.

More wiki

wiki: From the 20th century onwards, a common point of contention has been Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, who was six or seven when betrothed to Muhammad,[28] and nine, or according to al-Tabari, ten, when the marriage was consummated.[28][29][30][31][32] American historian Denise Spellberg states that "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity."[28] Colin Turner, a professor of Islamic studies,[33] states that since such marriages between an older man and a young girl were customary among the Bedouins, Muhammad's marriage would not have been considered improper by his contemporaries.[34] Moreover, Karen Armstrong, the British author on comparative religion, has affirmed that "There was no impropriety in Muhammad's marriage to Aisha. Marriages conducted in absentia to seal an alliance were often contracted at this time between adults and minors who were even younger than Aisha. This practice continued in Europe well into the early modern period."[35]

Critics such as Baptist pastor Jerry Vines and Netherlands Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders have cited the age of Aisha to denounce Muhammad for having had sex with a nine-year-old, referring to Muhammad as a pedophile.[23][36][37] Chamupati wrote that Aisha was about the same age as Muhammad’s granddaughter, and a better way for Muhammad to make Abu Bakr (Aisha'a father) a relative was to adopt Aisha as his own daughter and marry her off.

Cool, so some may have had sex with even pre-menarcheal, and it's looking like she probably was. More

wiki: The sources do not offer much more information about Aisha's childhood years.[22][23]

The issue of Aisha's age at the time she was married to Muhammad has been of interest since the earliest days of Islam, and references to her age by early historians are frequent.[who?]American historian Denise Spellberg states that "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity."[17] Early Muslims regarded Aisha's youth as demonstrating her virginity and therefore her suitability as a bride of Muhammad. This issue of her virginity was of great importance to those who supported Aisha's position in the debate of the succession to Muhammad. These supporters considered that as Muhammad's only virgin wife, Aisha was divinely intended for him, and therefore the most credible regarding the debate.[24]

Let's just say he wanted to tear the leather, at all costs. For whatever reasons, political or congy, or a combo of both. And the 'leather' likely was not exactly ready to be torn, even by standards of the day, but politics or plain old lechery accelerated things a bit.

Regardless, all this is by the way, as I've been indicating all along, as he's undeniably a.....pe.do. Or are you trying to tell me that say Washington or Jefferson were not slavers? They owned slaves, yes?

striktlymi: At age 6 and consummated at age 9. The time this was done, ladies were deemed ready for marriage when they get to the age of puberty. This was common at the time and not just peculiar to Islam or Muhammad. It was not wrong at the time.

So to say that Muhammad was a paedophile would be very incorrect.

Considering the age, and she wasn't even at puberty when married, but let's ignore that, that looks like a ped.o to me. So when say yarima says "I do so because uncle mo', the model human being, did such as well", it will be very correct to point out to him that mohammed was indeed.. a pe.do.

Everyone might have done it those days, according to you ie (I would say 12-13 would be more accurate, not 9, but we can ignore that), that does not mean it's not ped.ophilia though. Clearly not.

tbaba1234: Actually there is a lot of hate speech against Mac and it is unacceptable.

Calling a person a terrorist, when he hasn't committed any act of terror is wrong and against the rules on Nairaland. The same obtains with threatening people. Both the name caller and the person issuing threats are breaking rules.

If Mac is a temporary measure as i suspect it is, take it easy, he'd soon leave the section.

Bros, you seem confused. @mac is the only temp available? This is clearly a statement from the big boss. It's not about you, your silly moderator, or even sillier belief system per se, it's about the big boss.

He comes across as having the distinction of being all of callous, vain, cowardly and greedy, though to what extent remains to be seen.

RoyPCain: and if ayatUllah can stomach it and it is not my cup of tea, he ayatUllah should just have left and say 'peace' leaving them to their time of ignorance and muslims who are not timid would respond and take the 'boasters' to task.

I at least agree with this (minus 'ignorance', but that's another story). A commendable starting point, considering your brethren

Logicboy03: OKAY, ITS OFFICIAL! MACLATUNJI MUST GO!!!!!

IT IS IN MY SIGNATURE

I tire. Which kind apology?? You mean there's no one else up to the temp task? Really?

THIS IS A CLEAR CUT MESSAGE FROM @SEUN


I've never agreed with so many denominations of theists before

Guess which side I, and most people it seems, don't agree with?

Feraz: you used to present be at the Naruto thread right?

Yup. Still have some carry over with certain comics at times

tbaba1234: There was no life threat, mr man.

With the kinds of obnoxious things, some people regurgitate on this forum.. It is actually a miracle that only Ayatullah reacted angrily. Visit muslim threads that make front page sometimes.

I am a very gentle person but if you insult my mum in my presence, you would probably end up with a fist in your face (unless you are 7ft, 500lbs). Anger is a natural reaction to certain things but of course there are limits which must be observed.

You can insult me personally but you cross the line when you insult those i love.

Ah, but you noticed the threat, yes?

JIHADIST!!??:
@OLUWASEUN OSEWA, I reported the abusive dialogue rigormortis' dirty and satanic mind created between a 'Muslim' and 'Muhamed', but no action was taken to sanction him. If people like rigormortis are bereft of idea and cannot be able to withstand healthy and intellectual debate but chose to insult a noble prophet then you OLUWASEUN OSEWA who owns Nairaland should be prepared to face the anger of the Muslims, because your silence at a clear abuse of the rules you set and above all an abuse on the Noble Prophet of Islam should be borne by you. Perhaps you think only Nigerians are visiting your Forum. [size=15pt]There is still time to make the necessary correction or face the anger of Muslims all over the world in a way that will surprise you.[/size]

Face the anger of muslims? What does that mean? Peaceful demonstrations? Just like when the US ambassador, who had nothing to do with a movie about the great standard bearer of peace, uncle mo', was killed during a peaceful demonstrations? Or all these other peaceful demonstrations.

Why the need to mention foreigners visit this forum? lol. Hmmm, does it have something to do with some certain well known international terrorist organizations? Is BH not enough? I really can't see why he felt the need to add that, it's puzzling.. I find it a little hard to believe he means simply 'peaceful' demonstrations across the globe..

Disregarding this particular post, kindly remind us exactly why you, and only you muslims, are the only ones with your own section? Do you think it's down peaceful means? Cause I can tell you, lots of xtians/etc have tried peaceful means to achieve just that and they've all failed. There must be something special about your 'peaceful', ie, assuming you regard the manner in which you came about your own shinny corner to infest as peaceful.

I mean, @mmw 'threat' was certainly more innocuous, considering history, yet he was branded as trying to start a civil war.. Che..

So, considering all this, don't you at least think, even if just a bit, that you're a disingenuous tool?


Random; as for the talk of your mama, lawyers feel free to correct any of this I might have wrong please. But you hitting another over that is, last I checked, against the law. And by other standards, including just general decency, barbaric.

Also this is a secular country, I do not think it recognizes allah as a person. It recognizes it as a belief, more or else. Simples. ALL BELIEFS ARE OPEN TO CRITICISM, end of. If my belief in the easter bunny required I robbed you of the rights to worship allah, or mandated you spoke only of how just how enjoyable you found getting (immaterially) a$$ rap.ed by said bunny was, when you clearly don't, then you would have every single right to criticize that belief as you see fit. Actually, even if the bunny was the sweetest, nicest immaterial bunny possible to you, you still have every right to criticize it as you see fit. It's a belief, not a person. End of.

This particular post is about uncle mo', so I'll leave it at that, but just have that in mind. And if silly beliefs concerning uncle mo' cause problems, you should very well expect him (or his adherents causing the ruckus) to get comeuppance. More simples.

DOHOHOHOHO

@mac the boss is on top of this...

Seems my time to say good bye is nigh, whether I want to or not..

musKeeto: ^^^
Saving this on pc before it gets hidden.

Oops, lol. Don't worry, did that as well. I tend to for my longer rambles

He didn't even bother pandering to the atheist population. Remove atheist, replace with born agains....

Even if the debates we bring about may be popular, on our own our numbers simply aren't enough to merit the attention.... And he can't have us being too abrasive... He could claim he was under the impression most atheists wouldn't care, but that barely sticks...

Makes me think it's all about the naira, hope he isn't trying to paint another picture.. Freedom of speech my a$$

striktlymi: Didn't bother to read through when I saw the bold. Buzz me again when you decide to stop walking in Anony's shadow.

Erm, exactly what do you think you are? Some great and original crusader? Is it because of all the 'hello' you throw around?

You aren't fence sitting, then explain yourself to him rather than the silly ad hominem, as you do look like you're fence sitting or some similar nonsense.

As for the rest, just exactly why in the world should mmw 'apologize' or anything similar? I wouldn't advice him to take the position even if it were salaried, considering the 'oga at the top'.

@Seun didn't even hear @mmc's side of the story until @lb's thread, long after he'd booted him off. That's how much respect he has for @mmc. I wouldn't call that professional, would you? Not to mention he stated that he had intended to get rid of @mmc regardless. Seems he couldn't man up and do it properly, so he jumped at the slightest sliver of a 'chance' he could grasp at. Why couldn't he man up? Fear. Mostly money fear I would guess, but don't take my word for it. Definitely fear though. Then he has the gall to vilify a volunteer trying to sort out problems caused by his (ie @seuns) own policies... (sounds like yah'weh)

Consider the official reason for wanting to get rid of mmc. Apparently, @mmc didn't recommend enough xtian threads. Last I checked, both @mmc and @jesoul didn't pick the threads per se, they were recommended by us. Recommended threads were then forwarded by the mods to the supermods, who then decided if the thread was fit for the front page. That's 3 levels of checks right there. Sure the mods screened some, but considering the nature of this sub-forum, they did an excellent job. Not too many were complaining. And even if this were the real issue, could he not have addressed @mmc and told him to recommend more xtian threads?? What exactly is difficult about doing that?? Did he even try that?? Yet you expect mmw to show @seun respect that's clearly not deserved.

So, exactly why is he firing @mmc? Well, like I've already said; simply because he's been wanting to appease xtians for some time over, of course, the inherently discriminatory system that is NL's religion section. Where ayatollahs seem to have more rights than the rest of us. If I were to be dramatic (but not far off actually), I'd say it's a system akin to apartheid. Now, the system isn't mmw's fault, it's seun's. And, of course, a mod highlighting the problems with the system, the ticking time bomb that it is, is obviously bad for business. So let's make him the bad guy; enter "civil war" drivel

@seun even goes out of his way to state, even bolding out the words; "I'M APPOINTING 2 BORN AGAIN MODS". Nobody had even asked him to appoint even just an xtian mod at the time, let alone 2 born again ones.. No one asked, but he had to mention it first. A preemptive attack, to deal with questions he expected about the basic problems with his system; its intrinsic unfairness.

Why not just get rid of the silly /islam section? Fear. What of build separate xtian/atheist sections? Freedom of speech, ostensibly. Freedom of speech? Really? I have a suspicion it's naira related, but meh. I mean, exactly what is the harm of having both a separate xtian section and another section where freedom of speech reigns supreme? At least you'd be balancing the scales that way, no? I can think of only...traffic. Anyways, how are any of these problems mmw's fault?

Next mods are going to face the same issues, and if they have any balls, attempt to deal with them as well. What then? Will he pull something out of his a$$ again and get rid of them? What will he accuse them of trying to start? Armageddon?

It's plain ridiculous, and all your talk about mmc explaining himself to the boss etc is proper, arrant nonsense.