₦airaland Forum

Depriest2020:
That's a black mamba.
You could have simply drove it away instead of killing it, not only that you killed it, you cooked and ate it, also drank the pepper soup. You're more dangerous than that mamba.

it's not a black mamba, black mambas are not usually black. They are usually gray in colour.

This is a forest cobra. Look at the neck

Chido26:
That's King Cobra, well done!

it's not a king cobra, it's a forest cobra. King Cobras are found in India alone.

Forest cobra.

LordReed:
Huh?

yes, you can't. On what ground would you do that?

The estimated population of ebonyi state as estimated in 2016 is 3.4million, how come Ebonyi state has 3.6m poor people?
And you now say that 3.6m account for 78% of the population in Ebonyi state.

Does it mean that Ebonyi state is now about 5million people?
And according to the maths here, Ebonyi state is more populated than Abia state.

😂😂😂

correctguy101:
And that is evidence of what?

You've started o, you this man..

I don't even respond to him 😂

LordReed:
Did I say otherwise?

So you cannot conclude that you don't believe in aliens and God

Science involves disciplines that use the scientific method to determine the most probable explanation for what we observe in the physical universe, and this method involves observation of the available evidence, experimentation, presenting results, peer review, further observation and experimentation, etc. Scientists examine the evidence before arriving at a conclusion. If new evidence is presented, scientists consider it and revise their views if warranted.

Thomas H. Huxley, who coined the term agnostic, was a scientist. He found it puzzling that many people spoke with certainty about things which could not be verified by any known methodology (this is what atheists and theists do) . Huxley believed that to claim to have "knowledge" (in Greek, gnosis) that a belief or claim is true or lie, one must have verifiable evidence to support to disprove the claim. To Huxley, to present a claim as certain without evidence was ethically wrong and intellectually dishonest. He stated that claims of certainty in any matter, whether science or religion, should be backed by evidence, and proposed the agnostic method to examine claims based on evidence. If there was no justifiable evidence, one was "without knowledge" of the certainty of the claim or belief, or agnostic. He called practice of using such a method agnosticism

Agnosticism is not about belief, it is about using a method to verify the probability that a claim is true or factual by examining the evidence. A person is free to believe or not believe the claim, and may choose to believe a claim without evidence, based on philosophical reasons or personal preference.

So, according to Huxley's definition of agnostic and agnosticism, those who practice the scientific method are indeed agnostic in the sense that they use a method to examine the evidence for a claim before determining the probability that the claim is true or factual.

In Huxley's words:
“Agnosticism is not a… creed of any kind, but the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.”
T. H. Huxley. Essays, Volume V, IX

LordReed KnownUnknown

LordReed:
That is an unfounded leap. You cannot go from I don't know how this happened to here is the explanation without any actual explanation.

you don't know of aliens exist or not and you don't know if God exist or not bro.

KnownUnknown:
Have they decided if he has a scrotum? I mean they refer to a male when it could be a female. Does he have a belly button?

It will be easy to disprove if they actually gave a characteristic to test.

LordReed:
The claim aliens may exist is based on facts.

the claim God may exist is also based on equal fact. You don't utterly reject aliens because of lack of evidence

1. The are many billions of planets.

we don't know anything about before big bang

2. Some of those planets are capable of supporting life.

we don't even know everything about what happened after big bang, not to talk of a before big bang.

3. There is no reason to think life and evolution are singular events.

I don't think life and evolution are singular events. No one except creationists think that.

Therefore it is reasonable to speculate about there being aliens.

Wormholes are a prediction from theoretical physics, same way blackholes were also predicted.

therefore is also reasonable to speculate about the existence of a creator because we don't know how everything started.

LordReed:
Then there is a basis for making the claim.




That is not what baseless means.

is the existence of aliens and warmholes baseless then. Because such concept is not based on fact.

KnownUnknown:
Did they decide the reason their imaginary friend does not intervene?
Is it laziness or indifference?

I don't know but they say he doesn't, which is not wrong m, because we have evidence of nothing intervening.

lexylaw40:
the police will be made to independent of the executive. So that should solve the problem

dey play

duro4chang:
Now that you ask me na who I go ask? I no dey work for refinery even self I no dey work for government. But sha the trouble don dey tay.

no now you see say it's just senseless how our politicians do things.

duro4chang:
Yes if they refine in their country. It will come down in our country I can assure you of that.

o what happened to fixing the refineries before removing subsidy?

Educate me

IconicR:
How many times do we have to tell you that it'll come down with time? Gush Nigerians are so difficult to rule.

this is to prove Eniola Badmus wrong

This is the price of petrol in most countries as of 24th of July
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/

LordReed:
What claim is being made about aliens and wormholes?

that they may exist

I don't understand the question.



That is exactly the point, why would you be calling a god noninterventionist before you have found the god?

I am not the person calling it, I don't even believe that myself nor disbelieve it.
I'm just saying that you cannot disprove that claim because you don't have any evidence.. A claim is not baseless unless an evidence against it exist

LordReed:
It is baseless if there was no evidence to make the claim in the first place.

So aliens and warmholes are baseless?

The reason why traditional medicine needs to be investigated is because some of the claims do have a basis. We know that some plants have medicinal effect so it is worth it to see which do and what those effects are.

So the universe can not exist on its own is not a basis right? It doesn't bother you

No scientist would be looking for pink unicorns on Mars because that would be a baseless claim in the first place.

Why would you look for pink unicorns on Mars when you are yet to find life on Mars?

It's a faulty equivalence. You have to first find life on Mars before checking for a pink unicorn. And who says pink unicorns can't exist on Mars?

LordReed:
LoLz. I have never seen where a scientist says I am going to go find evidence against a baseless claim. Find me which scientist is doing this.

no claim is baseless if it hasn't been disproven.

My undergraduate research work as a biochemist, I worked on finding evidence for or against traditional claims that cashew leaves have diuretic and laxative effect hence they are handy in the treatment of hypertension and bowel movement diseases.
Going by your definition, most traditional medicinal claims are baseless, they usually sound ridiculous. You will see one person selling gbogbonise that can cure all diseases on earth, is that not baseless but science still disprove them.

It's not baseless until proven baseless.

LordReed:
I thought you are an agnostic deist.

no, you see. You still dont get my argument.

I am a weak agnostic. I don't have any knowledge of existence if a god so I don't believe or disbelieve it. I think we do not have sufficient knowledge to know if a god exist or not hence deists, atheists and theists do not know what they are talking about.

LordReed:
Yes that is an attribute you are giving the god BEFORE you have evidence, so it is indeed baseless.

If we found a new planet and we are not sure what this planet is made of yet and I make a claim that this planet can Harbour life. Of course it's a baseless claim and that's what theism does.
Epsitemologically, the individual that made the claim has the burden of proof to prove it but scientifically, the person who made the claim does not necessarily need to find evidence to validate the claim. If you think that the claim is not correct, in science, you will go out and find evidence against it else the argument is still very open.

LordReed:
Yes that is an attribute you are giving the god BEFORE you have evidence, so it is indeed baseless.

I'm not the one giving, deist gave it that attribute. I cannot disprove it, neither can you.
If you cannot disprove a claim with evidence then how is it baseless? if you do not have counter evidence, then don't you think that you are baselessly rejecting the claim?

LordReed:
You didn't answer the question: how does your description of who an atheist is not apply to me?

Where have I said I disbelieve? You're just making unfounded assumptions, that is what is not scientific.

if you don't disbelieve the existence of all god then you do not qualify as an atheist.
Atheists disbelieve all gods without evidence against all gods.

LordReed:
It is is baseless if you are giving attributes to the god. If you are simply saying there could be a god then it would be different. You are giving the god attributes BEFORE you have any evidence.

Where did i give god attributes?
Deist say that their God does not intervene, it's an attribute. You will easily verify this if you can find how everything started but we cannot. We are incapable of doing that, at least for now

LordReed:
You didn't answer the question: how does your description of who an atheist is not apply to me?

Where have I said I disbelieve? You're just making unfounded assumptions, that is what is not scientific.

Because you asserted that a god might exist so you do not outrightly disbelieve it.

HisSplendor:
You can be stupid only if you're speaking from the air. If you think I'm speaking from the air, then you're drawing conclusions without evidence.

I'm also not speaking from the air for flying spaghetti monster

HisSplendor:
I'm done with you already. I've passed my message.

I'm sure you now realize how stupid you were sounding to me

HisSplendor:
I'm done with you already. I've passed my message.

You don't want to accept the flying spaghetti monster as your lord and personal savior?

HisSplendor:
As I said, I can substantiate it to you.

I want substantiate mine to you as well.
Flying spaghetti monster is the real God. If you don't know this, then you have not dig deep enough