₦airaland Forum

nairalee:
We're saying almost the same thing. The only problem I have is that why didn't the other woman make her desires known earlier? Now that we've all gotten to this point she now wants to reveal her true self. Remember the mother gave her all she needed in the beginning. Now that the last woman is behaving this way, birds of the same feather flock together

I don't know which "other woman" you refer to. Do you mean the wife? If so then you're missing the fact that she was just lying and using the man all along to get the visa she wanted, and if she had told him, then he would not have married her and she would not have gotten it.

vaxx:
This is confirmation bias. Why don't you use Japan with its shintoism or isreal with its Judaism. Or even qatar with her islam. There are many factors that warrant long life. And it is more of economy and political discipline rather than religion brouhaha

There is indeed more to life expectancy that a belief in the afterlife. You'd however find that nations that believe more in the afterlife are generally less developed.

Japan Shintoism does not have an afterlife that one goes to per se, unlike the Christian and Islam belief in a heaven, and is currently heavily influenced by Buddhism. And Israel is not predominantly Judaic at all!

Nations that predominantly aspire to an afterlife do not tend to spend much effort making this life heaven, on the whole at least.

EmperorHarry:
I got your point since but I'm only disagreeing cos I feel that if we went back in time before the colonisation of Nigeria you'd find a much longer life expectancy due to way of life.

No you wouldn't. What you'd find is more mothers and children dying at birth and shorter life spans in general. Not only for Nigeria, but everywhere.

EmperorHarry:
Find out the life expectancy in Saudi Arabia and maybe Italy.

nairalee:
U didn't mention "third woman" explicitly but there are three women essentially so that's what I'm trying t imply. So when she doesn't admit it was a matrimonial home why can't she allow the other woman to be invited to the family? The earlier woman should look inward and address this marital scuffle

Three women. Mother, wife and girlfriend after wife had left. Wife claimed it was her matrimonial home that her husband brought a woman into after she, wife, asked for a divorce and left.

Sorry dude, but I think you are confusing yourself here. The guy got a girlfriend after his wife left him for another man. I doubt she has any right to claim "matrimonial home" after she'd abandoned it and only came to collect her stuff. Or has he no right to move on after his wife had asked for a divorce?

We had this sort of discipline in Lagos in 84 when Buhari introduced WAI. Anyone who drove on the wrong side of the road was emphatically told off by everyone else. It really was amazing how we all pulled together in those few months. You'd have thought God had arrived!

Then Babangida took over and we sadly all returned to our barbaric nature!

nairalee:
The other woman he brought to the matrimonial home was not the third woman naa. She supposed to be the other woman prior to the aforementioned woman apart from the wife.

I never mentioned a "third lady" or "third woman" in the story. There was mother, wife, and the woman who moved in with him after wife left. And he does not agree that it was a "matrimonial home" since she had gone off with another man.

Vaxx, remember you and I having this discussion sometime ago? It eventually led to my subobj thread.

DoctorAlien:
It appears I'm not the only one who holds my view of what Stephen Jay Gould thought about preconceptions and biases. Here is a biography of Stephen Jay Gould, entitled "Stephen Jay Gould: Reflections on His View of Life", edited by Warren D. Allmon, Patricia H. Kelly and Robert Ross. Check pages 4, 5 and 6 of the book.

Note the view which the author said SJG advocated, that science is "... never separable from human biases and preconceptions." (p.4). It may interest you to know that the author (Warren Allmon) received his PhD in 1988 under SJG's supervision.

Note, too, what the author says is SJG's favorite quote. (p.4) That's a quote by Darwin in which Darwin affirms that observations must be interpreted for or against a view. It appears that the staunch men of evolution recognize that worldviews affect a lot.

It seems you don't understand what SJG means. He's saying basically that human beings are subjective by nature so their preconceptions and biases get in the way of their learning. Now that you know that, are you not supposed to ensure your preconceptions and biases do not get in the way of your learning?

Tell me doc, can one be a good doctor if one allows one's preconceptions and biases to get in the way when one is diagnosing a person's illness? Do you seriously believe SJG is saying "allow your preconceptions and biases to get in the way of your learning"?

OLAADEGBU:
Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution?

I don't know where you get the idea of a "belief in molecules-to-man evolution", or why you'd be asking me to name a technology that began in such a way. Care to explain what you mean?

That said, every technology started from an idea in someone's mind, but that of course is not what you meant, I'm sure.

OLAADEGBU:
More intelligent evolutionist scientists were interviewed in that videoclip and they still got stumped.

For you, evolution is an attack on your God. I don't have any such issues and both can equally dwell inside my head. But then, so can quite a lot of things, perhaps because of my two shoulders and four heads!

vaxx:
and neither is there any theory discrediting it

Agreed. There's no theory discrediting the fact that I claim to have 4 heads on my two shoulders neither, so I have 4 heads on my two shoulders.

EmperorHarry:
It would be cos of the damage over the years like China which is largely polluted and as such inhabitants run the risk of airborne diseases etc.This doesn't really connect this damages to afterlife beliefs although it is responsible for it in some cases. The lifestyle and eating habits of an individual can increase or decrease the length of one's life.Other factors come into play like the standard of living,state of utilities in a country etc.

I've posted life expectancy of advanced China and a few other countries below for you to compare. Perhaps you'd understand why China, which used to be very heavily invested in the ignorance of the afterlife that they buried their dead with their living, now live longer than those other nations.

DoctorAlien:
Why striking the word "must", which appears in the original quote, and replacing it with "might"? Are you editing Stephen Jay Gould's quote for him? SJG uses the word "must" in the sense that that is what he observes "each" scientist doing, and which each scientist cannot avoid doing, i.e. "applying social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking to any problem." This is corroborated by the very next line of the quote, in which he affirms that the alternative idea, "The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method’, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.”

Now with this explanation, read the quote again.

I struck it through so you might understand what SJG meant. You can't just take a quote out of context as you have done and claim SJG is saying allow your "learning about the world to be strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking"! He himself was heavily against doing so as you'd find if you bother to read his books instead of relying on a couple of paragraphs quoted by a site that is the epitome of "preconceptions and bias"! My own quote by him presented is sufficient to make anyone question what you are claiming he meant.

Even as a doctor you must not allow your "preconceptions and bias" to influence your diagnosis. I would expect you to know that if you do allow your "preconceptions and bias" to influence your diagnosing you'd more likely be a crap doctor!

But please tell me I'm wrong, and that you do allow your "preconceptions and bias" to influence your diagnosing, if you really are a doctor, that is!

vaxx:
budaatum , scientific theory is not the same with your everyday English usage of the word ""theory"". Theory in science means something valid that have been tested overtime to be compelling and convincing base on rigorous scienctifc method. There is plenty of speculation among Scientists. Without speculation, there could be nothing to hypothesize or to test. Speculation generate raw discoveries. After this , hypothesis will be developed and be scrutinized and theory will be formed if the hypothesis is valid enough so in the bottom line, it s the testing and interpretation of observations with which we all can ultimately agree we should be debating here and not calling hypothesis unscientific. .

Your speculation is not a theory then! There's no tests verifying reincarnation.

EmperorHarry:
Lol...The length of life doesn't really depend on one's afterlife beliefs.People who believe in an afterlife tend to neglect and care freely damage the natural world they deem is temporary and has no significance in comparison to an infinite world.They are deluded by the grandeurs of a perfect world ignoring the fact that their generations would have to live in whatever state the world is in positve or negative.Global warming is a threat to generations yet to come but hardly are religious institutions creating enough awareness esp in Africa except JW.They have in one of those their watch tower books but it's still mixed up with the Jehovah propaganda.
Immortality has blinded Africans..Why? Because most of us are selfish people.From the politicians to the common man we tend to care only about ourselves whether it negatively affects the society at large or not.This is also a mentally that I feel hinders the negroes from progressing as a race.Some might say it's cos of religion but I partially disagree with this cos of the "first son" craze that been a part of our culture even before foreign religion.

So, the life expectancy of a society who does all those things you mentioned, which I bolded, will not be short?

nairalee:
Then why did she reveal herself as the other woman when she's the first woman?

No one revealed themself as "the other woman"!

While she was away after he had begged and begged and begged, and after sending her documents to travel back, he met another woman who moved in with him, and her only relevance to the story was wife, who had already said she (wife) had found someone else, accused him of bringing another woman into her matrimonial home. This infuriated him so he threw her (wife) and her (wife's) stuff out and she (wife) left.

realmindz:
The point still stands that the Bible is a primitive book.

"Primitive", it may be, but relevant still, if read through the proper lenses (allegorical, metaphor, psychological, etc). We (some of us), still read very ancient texts and find a lot to learn from them.

Newton's apple, for instance, fell out of his [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies?wprov=sfla1]alchemical studies[/url] from which he also learnt to make gold from dross and went on to run the Royal Mint, and Einstein's Relativity is found in the Corpus Hermeticum by those with the mind to see.

budaatum:
Egyptian Mystery School were a big thing. Newton's Apple fell from Egypt and I have discovered Einstein there too. Even Jesus had to be called out of Egypt.

Here's something about Ancient Isis, Osiris, and Horus.

Be delighted for the internet! Before it we relied on books!

nairalee:
Pls there's something a little confusing about this story. Was the second woman that came the other woman? Or was it the same woman? Pls u didn't differentiate it well

The second woman was after the wife and had nothing to do with the husband and wife's separation or divorce.

DoctorAlien:
If I say you should read that quote again, you'd say that's insulting. But how you read that quote, and see SJG use language like "OUR ways of learning about the world ARE strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that EACH scientist MUST apply to any problem...", only for you to conclude that he was "pointing out the errors some scientist make, and not advocating that scientists should make those errors, nor were they claiming all scientist make those errors", eludes me.

Reading is not only about what one says! SJG is pointing out that "OUR ways of learning about the world ARE strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that EACH scientist MUST might apply to any problem..." And not that one must apply "social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking" to one's education or problem!

If you had bothered to read the quote of his which I posted here, you might understand what he meant by "Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them" . Basically, your "preconceptions and biased modes of thinking" would not change the facts and make apples rise tomorrow!

vaxx:
speculation is not forbidden in science, most of science is and has always been speculation that grow to real scienctifc theory.

Speculation is the exploring of frontiers of knowledge, and toying with possibilities. It is a very useful way of finding ideas to test and then confirm or refute.

Speculation is what we call a theory in science. No scientist would however call a theory a scientific fact. If one did, doctoralien would have a valid point, which, scientifically speaking, he very definitely doesn't have. Unless you are prepared to argue that he does?

nairalee:
Please I don't understand this story it seems something is missing. Pls what happened after the marriage?

You are correct. I've had to go back to him to get more of the story and a lot was missing as they didn't exactly immediately divorce after "your mama, your mama, your mama", though, nothing more happened than initially narrated.

After she came back and "your mama, your mama, your mama!" He was advised to beg her, so he did. But she wouldn't have it, so he was advised to beg her again, and she still wouldn't have it, so he was advised to beg again, this time, on his knees with tears in his eyes, which he did. It was while he was on his knees with tears in his eye's begging her please that she told him she had found someone else. So he got up, went to his advisers, who told him to beg some more, at which point he told his advisers to fuq off, that even if she accepted now he'd very likely strangle her in her sleep!

It was at that point that they separated and she went to Nigeria for a few months and lost her passport and called him to send her documents to get a visa to return, which he did. And on her return did she start divorce proceedings claiming he had behaved unreasonably, which he would not accept so they had to wait a statutory few years to get a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences.

While she was away, he met another woman who moved in with him. One day, after wife had gotten new documents and returned, she came to collect her stuff and saw the other woman's stuff in the wardrobe and accused him of bringing another woman into her matrimonial home. This infuriated him so he threw her and her stuff out and she left.

Years later he was on the way to his sister's daughter's birthday, and for some reason I know not of, he visited his ex-wife who lived in the vicinity and she asked if her by now 4 year old daughter could go with him to which he agreed. And all his family wondered where he got a 4 year old girl from and if he and his ex-wife were getting back together when they discovered who's daughter she was.

As I already said, this was like 20 years later and she has two daughters, last time he checked, he told me, both of who have graduated from university, while he is unmarried, his new woman having died of cancer. He remains childless while his mother prays everyday.

vaxx:
To validate reincarnation logically and scientifically. I attempt it here.....

https://www.nairaland.com/4068046/yoruba-version-life-after-death

You know this is why you and I would fight vaxx! There's nothing scientific about your assertions on that thread in which you were at best, speculating.

EmperorHarry:
The afterlife isn't necessarily due to a need for consolation but from a need that is inherent and the most basic needs of all living things..A need to survive.

A need to survive would be best served by confronting the truth and not by living lies and untruths. You'd find this borne out by scrutinizing societies that do accept the truth and comparing against those that don't. Those that do tend to have longer life expectancies than those that believe in an afterlife, as the former would do more to extend life on earth while those that don't die young, or at least, earlier, on average.

DoctorAlien:
If that quote is true, it does nothing more than portray SJG as subscribing to evolution. I, in fact, noted that he was an atheist. But it's refreshing to know that at some point he admitted the truth of preconceptions and biases.

They were pointing out the errors some scientist make, and not advocating that scientists should make those errors, nor were they claiming all scientist make those errors. We should at least recognise them as errors, having had them pointed out to us, and refrain from making them ourselves.

The truth is, most of us grew up with the misconceptions and biases of creationism and only latter were we introduced to evolution, and not the other way round. The fact that we are willing to consider the validity of our early indoctrination says a lot about the facts and our ability to accept what is more likely to be the truth. You'd hardly find anyone on here accepting the Young Earth Creation theory, and anyone who does would have had to deny an awful lot of evidence to the contrary for reasons best known to them. They likely didn't go past third year secondary school science or went to a shitty school.

DoctorAlien:
It's okay to appeal to ridicule. It's a popular cop out means.

I wonder what you'd call your asking me to calm down. A sign of superior intellect, perhaps, and not the patronising which it was?

vaxx:
i am still contemplating of whether to die as a food for the termites or be crested and polish with a diamond chain hanging around my beautiful first daughter. Lol....

I've heard that "crested and polish with a diamond chain" before, but I'd guess it's as possible as cryonics!

As they say, "a fool and his money". Except in this case it would be "a very dead fool".

DoctorAlien:
You mean what Prof. Richard Lewontin wrote?

You are talking about yourself right? Because Prof. Richard Lewontin spoke about himself and other scientists.

It's likely you are taking what he wrote out of context just as you have done with SJG. I'm certain that's what creationdotcom does or how else would they get you and your sort, their only source of income, to send them money?

DoctorAlien:
Easy, easy, easy. Now calm down, and slowly read that quote by Stephen Jay Gould again. Note the word "our".

I find it insulting when people ask me to "read again". They are implying that I am not using my mind when the truth is it is they who don't use their's. If you read the writings of Stephen Jay Gould, you would not be taking him out of context and you definitely would not be using creationdotcom's spin on him to try to prove the point you are trying to prove here. Read the quote from him above and learn!

That "candid observation" applies to crappy scientists! Stephen Jay Gould himself would never claim that's what he does!

If you learn your science in a proper school you would have had your subjective "preconceptions and biases" properly educated out of you and would have learnt to use your senses properly.

DoctorAlien:
The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:

“Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method’, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.”

Gould, S.J., Natural History 103(2):14, 1994. (Source)

Cc: Budaatum

This is abject rubbish! Our "prior commitment" is to creationism, which we adhered to but which we are now abandoning in light of superior information and an improvement in our ability to reason and understand.

DoctorAlien:
The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said (emphases in original):

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Lewontin, R., Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31. (Source)

vaxx:
they rather console their THINKING with paradise and hell fire. Well, i am consoling my self with reincarnation.

People do feel a need for consolation and I blame them not. The idea of being worm food does kind of make life pointless if you think of it and can't come up with a use for your allotted time to live. But for those who can handle the truth, lies would just not do. You are born, you will live and you will die, and we will throw your dead body in a box and bury it 6 feet under so you don't stink up the living!

chiedu7:
You keep on arguing blindly.

Yet the facts speaks.


Here is another story of fulani herdsmen in the West

I've said my piece. And I'm saying it despite the so called "facts".

No Fulani can come to Yoruba land or Enugu and kidnap people without the Yorubas and Enuguans eliminating every Fulani on their land in reprisal. Neither Yorubas nor Enuguans are that spineless that some foreign people will be kidnapping our people on our land!