₦airaland Forum

striktlymi: @bolded, one of such laws should be that the individuals should be able to demonstrate that they can have a reasonable control of their faculty which should imply a freedom from narcotics

striktlymi: I agree that it would be inappropriate in some cases to deprive the majority because of the actions of a few but there some peculiar cases where the greater good must be brought into play. Before anything is outlawed or accepted into law there should be a cost/benefit analysis. If the cost of a venture outweighs it's benefits then that venture shouldn't be undertaken. The ills of narcotics far outweighs it's benefits hence the need for it to be a no no for me.

striktlymi: Rat poison? People take all that stuff to get high? My argument is not that narcotics on their own kills people...this is far from it. I am more concerned about the effect it has on people and the potential threat it poses on the society who ultimately becomes the victim here.

striktlymi: On their own, No! but with human help, Yes! Like I mentioned the threat of using outweighs the advantages. Why have we suddenly given up on good ol' fashion cigarette?

striktlymi: Sorry but I read everything up there Though I agree with a lot of ish you raised up there but I don't think countries should have the right to make their own nuclear weapons. All the world need is another 'mad man' to become the president of God know where with the ability of making nuclear weapons.

striktlymi: C'mon wiegraf, are you seriously comparing alcohol with narcotics?

striktlymi: Wiegraf let's play a game! Mention one verifiable individual who used narcotics 'reasonably' and I will mention 10 who didn't. Okay, go...

striktlymi: The potential for harm is great for those who are seemingly harmless while those who are already reckless will definitely have a swell time harming people under the influence.

plaetton: Hilarious

Rick Turnip: [right][/right]I have just logged on from England as I was having a look around the world for religious information and Nigerian with it's Muslim-Christian divide is on the front line. I'm an Atheist and I have been all my life. I was taken to church every Christmas as a kid but I've not been since I was about ten years old. Religion is just so stupid. It;s just fairy stories that they tell you are true. In England the first row of seats in a church is filled with old people but the rest of the church is empty. Nobody goes anymore, nobody really believes it. Evolution and DNA has shown everybody that we are just animals the same as any other animal and the rules we live by are societies rules not Christian beliefs.

I've had mates who were Nigerian and they used to be horrified about the things we said about the Bible. Like Joseph was a gay as he married Mary but never slept with her and Cain and Abel must have been Mutherfuckers as there were no other women about. In Nigeria atheists might have to be quiet but in England it's religious people who get treated like they think santa claus is real.

I would advise you to log on to Yahoo Answers and go to the R&S section. There you can see the Christians being destroyed by logic and Muslims getting called barbaric murderous pedophile loving bigots. It's great fun. I love it.

onetrack: Quran 18:86 "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: near it he found a people: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority), either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."

The sun does not set into a spring with a people nearby! The setting of the sun is due to the earth's rotation!! Muhammad thought the sun went into the earth....

justaqad: smh

wiki: Drosnin has been criticized by some who believe that the Bible Code is real but that it cannot predict the future.[2] Some accuse him of factual errors, incorrectly claiming that he has much support in the scientific community,[3] mistranslating Hebrew words[1] to make his point more convincing, and using the Bible without proving that other books do not have similar codes.[4] Drosnin challenged his critics to find a code similar to the Bible Code in the notable novel Moby Dick. An article published in the "teaching aids" section of the Dartmouth College math department's "Chance" program, claims that Brendan McKay has found equidistant letter sequences (ELS's) in Moby Dick which approximate the alleged prediction of the assassination of Rabin.[5] Drosnin has responded to these claims, saying that the Moby Dick code results are simply "nonsense'; he said codes found in the Bible Code were "truth" and contained real predictions.[6]

article: No laws of probability are violated here, or even stretched a little. That is also true of Drosnin's book, which is the whole point of this page. Once you learn Drosnin's rules (none) and the method (a bit of messy programming) you can find things like this anywhere. The reason it looks amazing is that the number of possible things to look for, and the number of places to look, is much greater than you imagine.

justaqad: its also a fact that the (bible and Quran) contains works that are beyond human composition,even atheist attest to this facts.

Heathen: lol, you're probably thinking about China....@LB the biggest barrier in the average Nigerian christian (tbf, its a problem with the average religious Nigerian and non religious) is the lack of awareness of the world and what is going on in it. The other day, i tried educating a friend on the possible advantages of nano techology, at first he looked lost, then he just outrightly dismissed nano technology as fantasy and that humans were trying to play god. Lol.

tobechi74: If it wasn't for the Catholic Church we wouldn't even have science today. It would have been eradicated during the dark ages. Much of science comes from religion, the Islamic religion created basic understanding of light and they created the astrolabe. They had amazing architecture. Most early arts were due to the church. Though it may be true that clergy members often did not create technology during the ancient times the power they had over the stupid people allowed order to take place. This allowed intellectuals not to be killed by stupid idiots calling black magic. Religion kept mankind in check there is not a single case where a civilization existed without religion. The only times when religion interfered with the advancement of mankind is during the early modern period but all sorts of weird and crazy powerful people existed in this time. Albert Einstein says, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." You people who think religion prevents the advancement of man kind are fools,If it wasn't for the Jesuits, we wouldn't have the science that we have today. Heck, if it wasn't for the Holy Catholic Church, we wouldn't have a lot of what we have toda

Deep Sight: Yes there are. They were made and I gave the link. If you disagree, go there and tell me whats wrong there. I will not pander to your laziness in simply saying "no there aren't". Read the thread provided and show what arguments are wrong. If you cannot do that, or perhaps you don't have the time, then you cannot expect me to write all over again here. That will "expose" my joblessness.

Deep Sight: I used to say this once upon a time (regarding burden of proof). But I have come to rethink that seriously. The burden of proof should rightly lie on he who asserts a position contrary to default and known science: namely: the physical principle of causality.

There are many reasons why the atheist should bear a burden of proof, several of which were discussed here -


https://www.nairaland.com/808965/atheism-revisiting-burden-proof

me: Oh boy, @brent, you just won the internet.
However, sadly, it matters not. Once a zombie it
seems no cure for that. Beloved islam could rap.e
their mothers and they'd still see nothing wrong
with it.
On a related note, look at india and the r.ape
situation. The citizens came out in numbers to
address issues within their society. I remember
after a terrorist attack in spain, the whole country
came out to send out a message of peace, despite
the fact that they were the victims. Our muslim
brah's on the other hand? They show up in
numbers when someone burns a book across the
atlantic, and to kill people.
Nonsense.
I await mac the mod-erers judgment

davidylan: I suppose you took a statistics course at least once in your life right... and you do know that a probability of 1 is NOT the same as 0.9 right?

manmustwac: Am sure you read the smallprint before you posted there wiegraf

me: Oh boy, @brent, you just won the internet. However, sadly, it matters not. Once a zombie it seems no cure for that. Beloved islam could rap.e their mothers and they'd still see nothing wrong with it.

On a related note, look at india and the r.ape situation. The citizens came out in numbers to address issues within their society. I remember after a terrorist attack in spain, the whole country came out to send out a message of peace, despite the fact that they were the victims. Our muslim brah's on the other hand? They show up in numbers when someone burns a book across the atlantic, and to kill people.

Nonsense.

I await mac the mod-erers judgment

mac: Banned by maclatunji in Islam for Muslims for Making an atrocious comment.. Ban expires on 3:56am On Aug 29

davidylan: that actually isnt true. The secular position is one of survival of the fittest. Most of the "free" governments you see in western nations were birthed during a period of great religious influence. Hitler and Lenin arent really fascist as much as they merely practice what most atheists hold true.

musKeeto: Punk azz student. I overrated your intelligence :-P

Ubenedictus: i hear hitler did this, he followed d principle to d letter, if i would use my secular lens, d above has just one disadvantage, it make u lose face to d masses. That is what d state doesnt want. From my secular lens d state only hold those rights to guarantee d goodwill of d populance.

Ubenedictus: intarasting, i remember saying sumtin abt law and morality. That aside, even those rights are subjective in a secular world, for instance saudi arabia doesnt recognise freedom of religion, communist states like china will crack down freedom of association and press wen it likes. I think all these issue depend on ur prespective. Apart from my raw secular lens, i think law in a democracy has to do with d whim of d majority, as long as there are more religious pipo, those laws will remain, becos religion doesnt measure crime on been vitimless.

davidylan: two atheists arguing about absolutely nothing... no point... just trying to score intellectual points over the other.