highcollide:
Okay. A toast to your next breakfast.

Nbote:
Where else will dey discover it if not in d Southwest.. It is tradition and culture.. See as dey wear d skull Igbo cap

Nbote:
Where else will dey discover it if not in d Southwest.. It is tradition and culture.. See as dey wear d skull Igbo cap

Bacteriologist:
Money is simply a collateral for solving problems in the society. Any other means of acquiring money is A FAT LIE.

RITUALS DON'T WORK.
RITUALS DON'T WORK.
RITUALS DON'T WORK.
RITUALS DON'T WORK!

Ritual shrines everywhere yet we are the Poverty capital of the world. Delusional lots.

Bacteriologist:
Money is simply a collateral for solving problems in the society. Any other means of acquiring money is A FAT LIE.

RITUALS DON'T WORK.
RITUALS DON'T WORK.
RITUALS DON'T WORK.
RITUALS DON'T WORK!

Ritual shrines everywhere yet we are the Poverty capital of the world. Delusional lots.

oderinde151:
Every shrine na for rituals

IjebuWarrior:


You just portrayed your name.. "Ode-rin-de" Yoruba meaning... "Fool-has-arrived"

IjebuWarrior:


You just portrayed your name.. "Ode-rin-de" Yoruba meaning... "Fool-has-arrived"

eliash11:
i believe u are saying this because you have not seen someone coughing money...i will just assume you are not that expose

hundredrivas:


Rituals dont work.But the people just believe blindly in it we need a complete brain wash of the populace as 60% of nigerians believe in this fabu.This is the time to start attacking the native doctors as they are the ones asking for human heads and body parts.God punish devil.

Bacteriologist:


Assumption is the weakest form of knowledge sir.

I have watched shows where people "cough" out sharp objects like blades and knifes. Aaand Guess what? They're called TRICKS.

It's a facade. An illusion. Make believe. Nothing of such is actually the way they seem.

Bacteriologist:
Money is simply a collateral for solving problems in the society. Any other means of acquiring money is A FAT LIE.

RITUALS DON'T WORK.
RITUALS DON'T WORK.
RITUALS DON'T WORK.
RITUALS DON'T WORK!

Ritual shrines everywhere yet we are the Poverty capital of the world. Delusional lots.

IjebuWarrior:


You just portrayed your name.. "Ode-rin-de" Yoruba meaning... "Fool-has-arrived"

TAO11:


nb: your idea that it's not real could also equally be an assumption. in fact it is an assumption, given the argument you adduced.

actually, the assertion that it's NOT real is more of an assumption than the opposite assertion because it is more difficult to prove a negative assertion.

if he has not produced one single observed, verified and confirmed case where it actually worked, then his statement that it works is no more than an assumption.

but on the otherhand, the fact that you've observed and witnessed a FINITE number of different stuffs that looks real but turns out in reality to be smart tricks is no evidence that EVERY single "similar" stuff out there is not real.

your conclusion that it's not real is thus a weak one as that is a typical characteristic feature of an inductive argumentation, thus leaving your conclusion also at the level of assumption.

DavidLion:


You don't seem to know that these things existed before the advent of western education.

Bacteriologist:


Assumption is the weakest form of knowledge sir.

I have watched shows where people "cough" out sharp objects like blades and knifes. Aaand Guess what? They're called TRICKS.

It's a facade. An illusion. Make believe. Nothing of such is actually the way they seem.

eliash11:
seeing is believing...i pray u see for yourself...but I also pray you would not be the victim

Bacteriologist:



WRONG. The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive assertion. Saying I'm making an assumption in my original reply is a straw man argument, as whatever can be ascertained without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

There's no reliable proof to validate the efficacy of rituals and so it is mostly false and based on hearsay and/or anecdotes. Which is typical of certain theistic bullcrap.

TAO11:



Smiles ...

Regarding your remark about burden of proof, you obviously have a muddled understanding of what this beautiful philosophy says, as well as how it is applied.

This specific misunderstanding of onus probandi is very widespread and not unique to you.

Contrary to what you may have believed, onus probandi does not, in any way, shape, or form, require that a claim, assertion, or allegation has to be positive for it to be applicable.

Regardless of the form a claim or assertion takes, the burden of proof lies with whoever makes the claim or assertion.

If a negative claim is made, then the burden of proof lies with whoever makes it; and if it's a positive claim, then the burden of proof lies with whoever makes it.

The only exception (when these two kinds of claims may not put a burden of proof on the two kinds of persons at the same time) is in a legal proceeding where a party called the claimant makes a claim, assertion, or allegation (e.g. a positive claim) which impinges on another party called the defendant (whose position is naturally the negation of the claimant's position. i.e. a negative claim in this scenario).

In a situation like the foregoing (where another party is legally affected), the party with the negative assertion (i.e. the defendant in this example) have no obligation to disprove the claimant's position. The burden of proof lies with the party who alleges.

But in the context of a claim or assertion that has no impingement on anyone else (just like the one we're both considering here), the burden of proof lies with whoever makes a claim or assertion, be it a positive claim or a negative claim; a first claim, or a counter claim.

The sun is never going to die off --- a negative assertion. The burden of proof lies with whoever makes the claim.

The sun will surely die off someday --- a positive assertion. The burden of proof lies with whoever makes the claim.


Coming to the specific claims in eliash11's comment and yours.

He had made a claim to the effect that juju works.

He made the claim without any undeniable evidence. In fact, without any evidence whatsoever.

The absence of evidence for his claim implies that you or me (or anyone else for that matter) are under no kind of obligation to trust his claim or conclusion as true or fact.

However, where you're missing the point is that you've stretched the absence of evidence for his claim beyond its limit.

You went on to conclude to the effect that his claim or conclusion (that juju works) is false as he couldn't provide evidence.

To conclude as you did here is to comit a fallacy known in argumentation as argumentum ad logicam or the fallacist's fallacy.

The most that can be concluded from the absence of evidence for his claim is that we have no reason to trust his claim as true. Hence, his claim is no more than an assumption, supposition, or hypothesis, until he provides, not just any evidence but, convincing evidence to substantiate it.

But you went a step further to assert that his claim is false. There is a huge gap between these two. In fact, this latter claim (that his claim is false) is itself an assertion requiring convincing evidence for it to be true. Otherwise it itself is no more than an assumption, supposition, or hypothesis.


Having demonstrated that your claim is itself an assertion requiring proof for it to be true, it will be quite fair that I mention that you made what looks like an attempt to provide evidence for your claim.

You alluded to a number of instances (obviously a FINITE number) in your personal experience where seemingly persuasive "stuffs" turn out to be smart tricks.

However, to present these FINITE number of PERSONAL experiences as evidence for your general claim that (juju doesn't work) is to comit a fallacy known in argumentation as hasty generalization.

Induction (which is what your argument boils down to) is a weak form of argumentation. It thus still leaves your claim (that juju doesn't work) at the level of assumption, supposition, or hypothesis.

Do I need to remind you that he needs to produce just on verified instance or evidence to prove his claim; while you, on the other hand, need to produce an infinite number of disproved "stuffs" (considering your induction approach) to prove your own claim?

I really hope that you are now able to see my point that your claim (just like eliash11's claim) is no more than an assumption, and my argument is obviously certainly not an attack on a straw man.

Bacteriologist:


A long post, made an interesting read. But YET AGAIN, FAILED TO MAKE THE CUT.

While the burden of proof usually lies with the claimant, it becomes that of the defendant as soon as the claimant meets his burden.

In this case, I made the initial claim in my OP that Rituals do not work and I have provided some degree of evidence in that we have ritual shrines everwhere and news of ritual killings (indicating the prevalence of rituals) yet we remain the world's poverty capital.


My friend on the other hand quoted me and thereafter failed to make any reasonable objection of any sort. He resorted to asking if I had ever seen anyone coughing out money. Which is one of the weakest points ever raised in defence of rituals I have always heard. (Even if I did, how will I know the victim hadn't physically swallowed the buck beforehand?)

As such, my comment is NOT an assumption. But a fact. Which remains to be disproved by anyone who believes in rituals (Including you) by providing convincing evidence.

Till then, keep your peace.

//Assumption: Noun

The act of taking for granted, or supposing a thing without proof; a supposition; an unwarrantable claim.//

//Fact Noun

An objective consensus on a fundamental reality that has been agreed upon by a substantial number of experts.//

highcollide:
Hunger in afonjaland....


If buhari wins the election, afonjas will trade and eat their children.

Bacteriologist:


//Seeing is believing//

I can't believe a theist is actually saying this.

So have you seen God? Since you believe in him?

eliash11:
I feel you need prove to understand that there are really spiritual force...and if a negative aspects is what would propel you to believe this then I say yes... Ps: don't judge into conclusion that I am a theist

Bacteriologist:


So you would wish a bad thing upon me just so that I can have the same belief as yours.

You then are a terrible person and I hope our paths never cross.