sinequanon:


Technologically, the Chinese and Indians are developing much faster than the British, but they still have religion and "superstition".

The Japanese are religious, but are technologically developed.

The Germans are more superstitious than the British, at least more openly superstitious (the British hide it).

Religion and superstition do not obstruct technological development.

Nigerians are too interested in money to have a pure interest in science or philosophy. That is the problem.

In Europe many people pursue these things for academic interest only, and as hobbies.

Nigerians only pursue money, and by the quickest route, selling oil.

In Nigeria, even Christianity revolves around money.

Cultural change in Europe and Asia has come through philosophy.

Name an influential African philosopher if such a thing can be said to exist.

That is where you may wish to put your focus.

We blame religion because religion, then and today, was sold to us as quick fix to all problems of existence.
When we fell for this dupe, we abandoned our cultural heritage, our sense of self and pride, and with it we lost our philosophy, we lost the philosophical underpinnings of our cultures and indigenous religious beliefs and practices.

Our philosophies have been so decimated that we can only find the remnants in traditional dongs and lores.

Even today, the foreign religions still see indigenous culture as it's primary enemy.

The countries mentioned above like China, Japan and India practice religions centered on their own cultures and self-identities. They have not outsourced their human dignities and salvation to foreign deities. They have not accepted themselves as second class humans according to the hierarchies of a foreign religion.

This is the main difference on how religion affects Africans. In order to be considered worthy in imported religions, an African first has deny, debase and destroy his cultural identity. This is still happening today.

Africans love money just every other race. But the problem is that religion and superstition does not allow us to fully understand how money is created and how money works.

Reyginus:
Lol. You can do better than this. Let me rephrase one more time.

What is responsible for the change in your macro level?

Accumulated micro changes leads to apperently observable macro changes.But evolution is responsible for both . Its quite different from micro level leads to macro level. Baba simple english. Oya ask another unrelated question or simply twist What I just said now.

Dapo777:


Accumulated micro changes leads to apperently observable macro changes.But evolution is responsible for both . Its quite different from micro level leads to macro level. Baba simple english. Oya ask another unrelated question or simply twist What I just said now.

So finally you had to dumb down to my level but he is trying to sound arrogant. Could you please tell me how your 'micro level change leads to macro level change' is different from 'micro changes leads to apparently observable macro changes'? I am serious.

Reyginus:
So finally you had to dumb down to my level but he is trying to sound arrogant. Could you please tell me how your 'micro level change leads to macro level change' is different from 'micro changes leads to apparently observable macro changes'? I am serious.

Stop lying in broad day light!!!!

Change was not in your statement. You wrote "micro level accumulates/moves to macro level"
Which is wrong. If u had written "change" den I won't say u are wrong. Swallow ur pride and accept u are wrong.

Dapo777:


You are talking as If you have known me for a long time.

Where is your logic for this?

I asked you a question, and I suppose you turned it into a conclusion (Naija style -- every question is rhetorical).

If you have a critical mind, excellent.

What have you discovered/noticed BEFORE reading about it?

And is there anything that you have noticed that is still denied in the popular scientific literature?

Those are my questions.

sinequanon:


Where is your logic for this?

I asked you a question, and I suppose you turned it into a conclusion (Naija style -- every question is rhetorical).

If you have a critical mind, excellent.

What have you discovered/noticed BEFORE reading about it?

And is there anything that you have noticed that is still denied in the popular scientific literature?

Those are my questions.

All those discoveries I made as a kid before I started reading any scientific book,are they not part of it? Or u didn't even bother to read What I wrote?

Yes there are some mathematical formulas I have discovered that is not yet discovered in any scientific work,But I have verified some and asked my colleagues to verify it also.
Bt discovering something That's says opposite of What scientists are saying. No I haven't.

So?

Dapo777:


Stop lying in broad day light!!!!

Change was not in your statement. You wrote "micro level accumulates/moves to macro level"
Which is wrong. If u had written "change" den I won't say u are wrong. Swallow ur pride and accept u are wrong.

Lol. So, you believe I will write about Evolution and go ahead to talk about micro level and macro level, even when we are speaking of Change-Evolution, without implying that what I am talking about is their change? To be sincere with you, I find it very hard to believe that you never understood what I was talking about. I feel you had to make this up to help yourself but it wouldn't help the argument.

This was my initial submission:

'You must be certain of the time they began to
know that the movement from micro level
to macro level in a certain organism is not
experiencing any visible Evolution right now'.

What you are trying to tell me is that I am not talking about the change even when Evolution was mentioned in my quote. I don't believe you, dude. So, what in God's name was I talking about when I say that :

'You must be certain of the time they began to
know that the movement from micro level
to macro level in a certain organism is not
experiencing any visible Evolution right now'.

After we are through with this we may then consider if it is pride to avoid a misrepresentation of a submission or unintelligent to misinterprete a submission.

plaetton:


We blame religion because religion, then and today, was sold to us as quick fix to all problems of existence.
When we fell for this dupe, we abandoned our cultural heritage, our sense of self and pride, and with it we lost our philosophy, we lost the philosophical underpinnings of our cultures and indigenous religious beliefs and practices.

Our philosophies have been so decimated that we can only find the remnants in traditional dongs and lores.

Even today, the foreign religions still see indigenous culture as it's primary enemy.

The countries mentioned above like China, Japan and India practice religions centered on their own cultures and self-identities. They have not outsourced their human dignities and salvation to foreign deities. They have not accepted themselves as second class humans according to the hierarchies of a foreign religion.

This is the main difference on how religion affects Africans. In order to be considered worthy in imported religions, an African first has deny, debase and destroy his cultural identity. This is still happening today.

We are in agreement here.

But I am also saying that Western science is more of the same. The Arabs, the Indians, the Chinese, the Japanese all practice science alongside their cultural beliefs and religions. They use science as a tool, not a religion. Laws are reliable, not immutable truths. But for the African, it is becoming the next religion. They escape from one religion into another, swearing that it is not a religion. Follow follow mentality.

But don't blame the West. Africans ditched their own beliefs because they were running away from a lot of ugliness. They used their knowledge to curse and take advantage of one another. So, when the shiny new religions came along, they took headlong flight from their own and flew straight into the net. The reason they believe in all this hell fire nonsense is to do with the severity of what they were fleeing from.

I see India leading the way, and taking science into areas taboo in the West. Whole avenues of inquiry, such as the investigation of NDEs, which was shut down as taboo in the West, had no such restrictions in India. That forced the hand of Western scientists, who are feverishly trying to involve quantum effects and to slam the door shut on any idea of "consciousness being a fundamental property of the universe". Given this pattern of behaviour, from taboo to desperate speculation, I wouldn't say that the motive is open and honest inquiry.

plaetton:
Africans love money just every other race. But the problem is that religion and superstition does not allow us to fully understand how money is created and how money works.

I would post things of scientific interest on African and other forums. One example is the homopolar motor -- you can Youtube it, if you want.

No replies on the African sites.

The only interest was on the non-African sites.

If the post were about somebody making money from an innovation, then the story will be different on the African sites. People with no deep knowledge or hands on experience of technology will be pitching in about how they nearly did something similar, etc. etc.

Dapo777:


All those discoveries I made as a kid before I started reading any scientific book,are they not part of it? Or u didn't even bother to read What I wrote?

Yes there are some mathematical formulas I have discovered that is not yet discovered in any scientific work,But I have verified some and asked my colleagues to verify it also.
Bt discovering something That's says opposite of What scientists are saying. No I haven't.

So?

I read what you wrote. You did physical experiments, but it wasn't clear to me what your conclusions were. I suppose "oil doesn't mix with water" is a conclusion of sorts (negative one).

But mainly, I wanted to know where you got ahead of the popular science.

Then you could conclude that your observational abilities are strong enough to challenge what you read. As I said, it is the lax mistakes scientists makes that enable you to put the credibility of their research into context. If you are familiar with some of their blunders (and are in a position not to buy their excuses) only then can you assess the credibility of their evidence for, say, the Theory of Evolution.

sinequanon:


I read what you wrote. You did physical experiments, but it wasn't clear to me what your conclusions were. I suppose "oil doesn't mix with water" is a conclusion of sorts (negative one).

But mainly, I wanted to know where you got ahead of the popular science.

Then you could conclude that your observational abilities are strong enough to challenge what you read. As I said, it is the lax mistakes scientists makes that enable you to put the credibility of their research into context. If you are familiar with some of their blunders (and are in a position not to buy their excuses) only then can you assess the credibility of their evidence for, say, the Theory of Evolution.

So what you are saying now is that I should go and find things out with my hands,look for fossils before I believe "verified claims" of scientists before I accept evolution to be true?

Reyginus:
Lol. So, you believe I will write about Evolution and go ahead to talk about micro level and macro level, even when we are speaking of Change-Evolution, without implying that what I am talking about is their change? To be sincere with you, I find it very hard to believe that you never understood what I was talking about. I feel you had to make this up to help yourself but it wouldn't help the argument.

This was my initial submission:

'You must be certain of the time they began to
know that the movement from micro level
to macro level in a certain organism is not
experiencing any visible Evolution right now'.

What you are trying to tell me is that I am not talking about the change even when Evolution was mentioned in my quote. I don't believe you, dude. So, what in God's name was I talking about when I say that :

'You must be certain of the time they began to
know that the movement from micro level
to macro level in a certain organism is not
experiencing any visible Evolution right now'.

After we are through with this we may then consider if it is pride to avoid a misrepresentation of a submission or unintelligent to misinterprete a submission.

Hehehe. I wonder why I am involving myself with someone who believes in visible light without the sun,at the start of the universe.

Dapo777:


So what you are saying now is that I should go and find things out with my hands,look for fossils before I believe "verified claims" of scientists before I accept evolution to be true?

It doesn't have to be directly related to evolution. My point is that if you are unable to identify ANY blunders scientists have made about things easily accessible in your environment, then you will credit them with undue authority.

But if you hold an opinion on something from your own observation, that runs contrary to the current science, only to find scientist come round 10 years later, then you tend to be more sceptical.

Also, you get to appreciate the difference between the understanding of an enthusiast, who builds his familiarity with his subject over a lifetime, and a scientist who does an intermittent 5 year "study". The enthusiast often has a much more rounded comprehension.

sinequanon:


It doesn't have to be directly related to evolution. My point is that if you are unable to identify ANY blunders scientists have made about things easily accessible in your environment, then you will credit them with undue authority.

But if you hold an opinion on something from your own observation, that runs contrary to the current science, only to find scientist come round 10 years later, then you tend to be more sceptical.

Also, you get to appreciate the difference between the understanding of an enthusiast, who builds his familiarity with his subject over a lifetime, and a scientist who does an intermittent 5 year "study". The enthusiast often has a much more rounded comprehension.

Ok I get you.

Let me now tell you that I don't think science is perfect. Science is a work in a progress,it keeps improving everyday and correcting its blunders,I also discover things that confirms What I learn in science and some that do not,unlike Christianity that takes the Bible as the ultimate truth despite the overwhelming amount of blunders found in the Bible,If there was any book that needed correction its the Bible,it needs serious correction,historically,scientifically,paradoxical correction,contradiction corrections, health correction,moral correction,social correction. The list is exhaustive.

Dapo777:


The non religious ones are the ones seeding the development.
In Nigeria how many non religious do you know of?

Na so u stupid reach ? Are you so biased to ignore that fact that since science started till date many Christians and other religionists have contributed positively to various spheres of human living ? And that their contribution outweigh those of atheist since, for example, Hindus alone, exceed atheists. Don't let your dislike of religion rob you of your sense of reasoning.

Dapo777:


Hehehe. I wonder why I am involving myself with someone who believes in visible light without the sun,at the start of the universe.

Lolol. I know the bait so how do you expect I get caught?

Okay. Back to the matter. Respond to my quote.

Dapo777:
...unlike Christianity that takes the Bible as the ultimate truth despite the overwhelming amount of blunders found in the Bible...

Science takes its precepts as ultimate, unchanging truth, too, and it has no way of disproving them.

For example..

A basic assumption of science is that every observation has a cause and is governed by fixed immutable law.

Science will never change this assumption.

Nice rebuttal.

sinequanon:


Science takes its precepts as ultimate, unchanging truth, too, and it has no way of disproving them.

For example..

A basic assumption of science is that every observation has a cause and is governed by fixed immutable law.

Science will never change this assumption.

Why don't you prove otherwise by showing us how some observations have no cause.

UyiIredia:


Na so u stupid reach ? Are you so biased to ignore that fact that since science started till date many Christians and other religionists have contributed positively to various spheres of human living ? And that their contribution outweigh those of atheist since, for example, Hindus alone, exceed atheists. Don't let your dislike of religion rob you of your sense of reasoning.

You are only making claims without citing any example. Baseless.

Dapo777:


Why don't you [size=16pt]prove[/size] otherwise by showing us how some observations have no cause.

But you only accept scientific outcomes, which means that the outcome has to obey the scientific assumption that everything has a cause.

You see, that word "prove" is loaded. It is a clever way of introducing circular argument.

You know full well that a scientific proof cannot have an outcome of "no cause".

It can be "the cause is A".

OR

"The cause is unknown".

So let us stop the pretence, however clever it may seem.

.

sinequanon:


But you only accept scientific outcomes, which means that the outcome has to obey the scientific assumption that everything has a cause.

You see, that word "prove" is loaded. It is a clever way of introducing circular argument.

You know full well that a scientific proof cannot have an outcome of "no cause".

It can be "the cause is A".

OR

"The cause is unknown".

So let us stop the pretence, however clever it may seem.

Weren't you the one that says science sees itself as the ultimate truth because it accept that everything observable must have a cause,that means you don't agree with that aspect of science. So I am asking you to give us an example of something that has no cause Since you don't agree with What science says. If you can't give me an example then it means you are not sure of yourself and only decide to disbelieve this aspect of science out of emotion.

sinequanon:


Science takes its precepts as ultimate, unchanging truth, too, and it has no way of disproving them.

For example..

A basic assumption of science is that every observation has a cause and is governed by fixed immutable law.

Science will never change this assumption.

What you said is even wrong. If a Better theory is brought forward with adequate proof, the former "truth" would be thrown into the trash can,its unlike religion man.

Just like you are about to show me that some outcomes have no cause,this truth would be thrown into the trash can,and I would be glad to here those examples.

Dapo777:


Weren't you the one that says science sees itself as the ultimate truth because it accept that everything observable must have a cause

No. I did indicate that science sees itself as the ultimate truth.

And I did say that science BELIEVES that everything must have a cause. (I don't know why you have used "accept" and "observable" -- science doesn't recognize anything that isn't observable).

that means you don't agree with that aspect of science. So I am asking you to give us an example of something that has no cause

And I am telling you it is disingenuous, because you will simply say that the cause is "unknown".

i.e, you dogmatically ASSUME there is a cause, and that it is unknown.

Since you don't agree with What science says. If you can't give me an example then it means you are not sure of yourself and only decide to disbelieve this aspect of science out of emotion.

Totally incorrect.

Not being able to convince you, using your assumptions, has nothing to do with emotion or level of confidence.

Dapo777:


What you said is even wrong. If a Better theory is brought forward with adequate proof, the former "truth" would be thrown into the trash can,its unlike religion man.

Just like you are about to show me that some outcomes have no cause,this truth would be thrown into the trash can,and I would be glad to here those examples.

Oh dear.

You can't see the obvious circularity.

Read it again and think harder.

I do see your problem. What you haven't grasped is that we are dealing with a BASIC ASSUMPTION, not an ordinary hypothesis.

In science, a "Better" theory STILL HAS TO OBEY THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENCE. If it doesn't it will not be deemed better.

If you still can't see the circularity, we are done with this branch of the debate.

sinequanon:


No. I did indicate that science sees itself as the ultimate truth.

And I did say that science BELIEVES that everything must have a cause. (I don't know why you have used "accept" and "observable" -- science doesn't recognize anything that isn't observable).



And I am telling you it is disingenuous, because you will simply say that the cause is "unknown".

i.e, you dogmatically ASSUME there is a cause, and that it is unknown.



Totally incorrect.

Not being able to convince you, using your assumptions, has nothing to do with emotion or level of confidence.

Ok What are your own assumptions,and give me examples based on your assumption.

Is that fair enough?

sinequanon:


Oh dear.

You can't see the obvious circularity.

Read it again and think harder.

I do see your problem. What you haven't grasped is that we are dealing with a BASIC ASSUMPTION, not an ordinary hypothesis.

In science, a "Better" theory STILL HAS TO OBEY THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENCE. If it doesn't it will not be deemed better.

If you still can't see the circularity, we are done with this branch of the debate.

Ok I can see the circularity.

Now to make things easier,Let's forget about What science thinks.
Give me your own assumption,leave science out of this matter.

I hope that is fair enough?

Dapo777:

Ok I can see the circularity.
Now to make things easier,Let's forget about What science thinks.
Give me your own assumption,leave science out of this matter.
I hope that is fair enough?

Dapo777:


Ok What are your own assumptions,and give me examples based on your assumption.

Is that fair enough?

Fair enough.

Consciousness is fundamental.

I can be the author of an idea.

Rather than..

All ideas and actions result from fixed laws acting on a "BIG BANG" that happened over 13 billion years ago -- and consciousness emerged and is an illusion! (I don't know how you can have an illusion without having consciousness in the first place.)

sinequanon:


Fair enough.

Consciousness is fundamental.

I can be the author of an idea.

Rather than..

All ideas and actions result from fixed laws acting on a "BIG BANG" that happened over 13 billion years ago -- and consciousness emerged and is an illusion! (I don't know how you can have an illusion without having consciousness in the first place.)

I agree with you that illusion requires consciousness.

Go on.

Dapo777:


I agree with you that illusion requires consciousness.

Go on.

I've already given an example.

Consciousness is fundamental. Ideas can be spontaneous.

These contradict modern scientific thinking, which says that you only "think" your ideas are spontaneous, but you are being deluded.

They can do experiments to show that your ideas can be influenced. But they extrapolate this to say that it is TOTAL influence going back to the BIG BANG.

Do you believe the science?

sinequanon:


I've already given an example.

Consciousness is fundamental. Ideas can be spontaneous.

These contradict modern scientific thinking, which says that you only "think" your ideas are spontaneous, but you are being deluded.

They can do experiments to show that your ideas can be influenced. But they extrapolate this to say that it is TOTAL influence going back to the BIG BANG.

Do you believe the science?

What do you mean by consciousness is fundamental?

Dapo777:


What do you mean by consciousness is fundamental?

It doesn't supervene on anything.

i.e it is not a product of anything. It is the base.