₦airaland Forum

WowSweetGuy:
Why his face never smooth yet with all the winter blowing him around Europe

Mayhaps the sufferment don enter wella before him commot Africa.

wirinet:
It's no use monarchs gluing their ass to the throne expecting the world to come to them. Monarchs should be the chief diplomat for his people, building relations and alliances with other leaders and people. In The past kings lead in front on the battlefield.

Fair enough and quite agreed, was just noting what that poster may have had in mind. Although there is one particular monarch I believe, whose ubiquity is in my humble opinion, a bit over the top.

LordReed:
DeepSight

I think a more important conundrum for us to contemplate is how do we determine if indeed the human is a mind matter duality and what benefits can be derived from establishing such as fact.

Now this is indeed the koko of the matter. I will address this later this morning. Let me be diligent and finish with some work presently before me. Cheers.

wirinet:
Is the Alaafin of Oyo a prisoner or is his Palace a prison. Even the Queen of England visits other countries.

I think what that poster is referring to is what has emerged as the "footloose-and-fancy-free attitude" of some of our monarch's these days, which is quite at variance with what ought to be their stately dignity.

TammieJo:
This god is outside of time and space, right? How does a god interact with time and space when it's outside of it?

I should hasten to say, before you presume anything about my views, that I am agnostic in the matter of "this god."

In order to create anything, even a neutrino, the lightest and smallest subatomic particle, time needs to be extant. Time needs to exist during the proess of creating anything, even that neutrino. So how does this god of yours create time when time needs to exist to create time? It's a theological Catch 22.

Great: and that is exactly the conundrum which forms the basis for my conclusion that time pre-exists the universe. And so does space. However I should perhaps grant that this time and space of which I speak might possibly differ from that which most scientists have conceived and described. All I say here is that a timeline must already exist for any event to occur. Simple. I therefore used that as a basis for suggesting that somethings - some factors - certainly transcend this universe. You see, what I was driving at was the fact that God as conceived by the theist, is a factor beyond the universe. Thus citing the laws of the universe to circumscribe its "omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence" would not mean anything to the theist.

Mind you, I am no theist.

If you say your god doesn't need to follow any of the laws of the physical universe,

Just for emphasis - I am agnostic in the matter of God/gods. So please be wary of referring to "my god."

then all bets are off. I can claim a Magical Giant Invisible Donut created the universe. I can claim it all happend magically, that Invisible Fairies are real and Little Invisible Gnomes lurk invisibally under bridges.

Quite agree - save that none of these would help with the question - why something instead of nothing.

If you are honest with yourself, you'd say "I don't know" how the universe started. No one knows and you and I sure as hell don't know either. What you're doing is called the Argument from ignorance fallacy. Simply because we don't know something and are scientifically ignorant about a natural cause does not mean we get to ruin in with a "god diddiit flag" and plant it in there.

And what you are doing is making a truck-load of assumptions here. I am agnostic, and I do not say "goddidit."

TammieJo:
Hey now, don't quote me out of context. Remember you said this?:
And that was what made reply with this:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pardon me, but I fail to see how the context you have cited is different from that which I presented as a question. Please indulge me and help tell how it is different. However, if it helps any, maybe you should just indicate again what exactly you mean was trivially easy. Because I am genuinely confused. Thank you for your patience in advance.

Also, genetic predispositions are not knowledge about facts.

They certainly arent and I did not suggest they were. Perhaps I havent expressed myself clearly enough on this point. Or perhaps we mean different things when we say "blank slate." You see, a genuine blank slate would be, for me, a page on which nothing whatsoever has been written. However, a new born baby has a whole lot written on its page already. Many proclivities, tendencies and predispositions are already firmly genetically coded in, not to speak of a lorry load of instinctual dispositions. This is not for me, a genuine blank slate. You know, in the way that a child turns out, we often say that both nature and nurture play their part. I believe this to be true - whereas you appear to be leaning towards attributing one hundred per cent to nurture alone.

I grant that you are probably still speaking entirely about facts and opinions which a child may imbibe - and if this is the case, of course you would be correct, as none of that is inherited in a genetic sense. However you would have been addressing something quite different from what I had in mind: to be clear - in the way in which I have said a child has genetic predispositions, I believe that certain fundamental codes are imprinted on its nature from the get-go which play a role in its subsequent development and thus undergird some of the results which play out in its life. And thus, I do not regard even the newest of new born babies as a true blank slate. For it has millions of years of coding already written there.

Actually some well-known religious, so-called thinkers make this same mistake.

American Philosopher Edward Feser teaches his classes that the fact everyone knows what a triangle is proves there is a ideal triangle out there, just as the idea of a god proves that about him. He is dead wrong.

This sort of argument horrifies me, and I am certain I have said nothing to suggest I would lean towards anything of the kind. I am acquainted with this ancient argument even if uncertain that it is here expressed precisely in its definite form - nonetheless rest assured it finds no fluff with me.

You have no examples of facts that infants/toddlers have innately which can be shown they have by genetics, and have not learned by experience.

As explained above, I am not referring to "facts."

Duh... this doesn't alter the fact that a newborn baby's mind is effectively a blank slate. And of course, as a human infant's brain processes develop it will construct questions, firstly about its own self awareness. A newborn baby, naturally, has no sense of self awareness. You're conflating the mind of a neonate with that of, say, a three-year-old infant. Which, in the kindest way possible, doesn't make sense.

I am not certain that I agree here. Certainly not a true blank slate in the way I have explained above. Also I think you have perhaps missed the subtlety of what I said - because you see, it is the fact that the child asks questions as it develops which I have used as a plank for suggesting - not pre-formed knowledge of the world, no - but a reference to a reality imbued with causality.

No, it's not "fair" to say that at all. In fact it's totally erroneous. No 1-month-old baby has ever inquired as to why it couldn't eat a chocolate bar instead of all that fucking milk!

You see, "that fucking milk" could be the basis for asking you to think a little. Because new born pups for example, will immediately begin to struggle for their mother's mammary glands. Because they are so pre-programmed. You may try to wave this away as simple instinct, actuated by senses such as thirst, hunger and smell, but you see, I said this could be a basis for asking you to think - because there are too many startling examples in the natural world which go further to underscore the point: newly hatched turtles will instantly head to the sea - every single one of them with all the strength they can muster - and this, without the presence or guidance of their parents. You are free to point out how these are scientifically explained but you will be missing the point because I dont doubt that they are. The point is simply that there exist definite codes imprinted even on the newest of new born babies. And that these codes, as they play out in further life, inevitably play some part in the trajectory of the development of the creature - and consequently in some of its foundational apprehensions of the world.

Perhaps I should second-guess you here, and save you the trouble of pointing out to me how evolution explains this - by informing you that I believe in evolution. Doesnt change the point about blank slates. If anything, it enforces my point. Because millions of years of evolution represents millions of years worth of embedded nature upon the new baby - and certainly not "a blank slate."

TammieJo:
Mankind was driven to religion by those seeking power and wealth, the ones who created the religion.
And it just so happens this is exactly what the priesthood tell us to believe.
It was religion that gave us that need in the first place. You are buying a cure for a disease from the people who gave you the disease.

To say that there isn't an inherent or fundamental metaphysical curiosity within mankind which drives the search for spiritual meaningfulness would be very wrong in my view - and I would even add that such a stance definitely takes something fundamental away from the nature of the human.

Now this does not stand in contradiction to the fact that religion is of course created by man - and you are right when you say it is molded by a priestly-political-economic elite for purposes of power, control and mass manipulation. People of power play on essential needs - such as the need for security for example. Do they manipulate the masses with such? - of course - but it would be erroneous to claim that the need does not exist in the first place. Indeed, there would be little traction with religion if there wasnt a seething need reaching out for meaningfulness at the root of the human being in the first place.

The search for meaningfulness is a vital part of the human story and it cannot be so lightly wished away.

It's actually quite easy. Trivially easy.

Now this took me aback. Trivially easy to answer the question - why something instead of nothing? Okay, please give me your take on it then.

Strongly disagree. A child's mind is a blank slate to be written on. Unfortunately in our societies it's the priests via their parents that do much of the writing. Be careful what you put into a child's head because you will never get it out again.

This is a mish-mash of thoughts that I agree with and disagree with. I dont believe a child's mind is a blank slate. The very fact that people are born with genetic predispositions is sufficient to disprove such a view of things. Furthermore the very fact that most children will tire you out with an endless stream of "why" questions points to an inherent curiosity about the cause of their reality. Thus it is fair to say that humans arrive with an inherent assumption of the reality of causality in this world. Otherwise there would be no "why" questions.

However you are right that it is indeed the society that plants much of its orthodoxies there and your last sentence is an absolutely precious admonition.

TammieJo:
The religious use the term "transcend" an awful lot. It's nothing more than a flim flam expression, a magic wand that spreads pixie dust and renders their arguments unfalsifiable, and as we know, anyone who attempts to make their arguments unfalsifiable is not interested in honest debate.

Again, I find little to quibble with, and quite heartily agree, "falsifiability" being the hallmark of a worthy argument, whereas unfalsifiable arguments are clear non-starters. Nonetheless, in the realm of the philosophical, I do think there is some reasonable remit for certain factors which may be said to transcend the universe. And therefore its laws. The immediate example that springs to mind for me concerns time and space. Current scientific thought generally tends to ascribe time and space to be factors of the universe - to have been "created" at the moment of the big bang. I could not disagree more however, for I believe that both time and space necessarily pre-exist the bang - for in the case of time, there must perforce be a timeline of some sort or the other for the event to occur, and in the case of space - into what is the universe expanding if not already existent space?

While I concede that the scientists are possibly using those words in a different way - hence "spacetime" - as they have conceived it, the questions above remain, and this would lead me to propound perhaps the existence of that transcendent timeline and such transcendent space into which the event of the bang could conceivably be interpolated. Dealing with that, we step already into the realm of the eternal and the infinite: core foundational precepts of that which is often described as GOD.

TammieJo:
Whether religion has a positive or negative effect on people's lives is irrelevant to the original question. If you had asked me what negative effects religion has on people, I'd have answered accordingly.

"Lasting a long while" is still not evidence. This is an appeal to antiquity. The notion that since something is very old it therefore must be true. This is not evidence. What theists need is unbiased evidence. All holy books are books written by people who believed a god existed but writing stories about a god is not evidence otherwise Homer's The Odyssey would be proof of Zeus. The Bible is not evidence, it's a book that claims a god exists. You cannot use a book of claims as evidence because you're simply making more claims. The Bible is like Homer's Odyssey except on steroids. Sure, it makes people feel good about life but that still is not evidence a god exists. It's a plecebo effect.

There are always religious rule books. If they follow all the rules and regulations correctly they get to go to a nice place while those other believers in those other religions are going to burn up and be tortured. Gods were invented when ancient human brains developed enough to became aware of their own death. Notice aminals don't worship gods. Some religions make you wear certain kinds of clothing and if you don't you are banished or flogged or even murdered. These rules mostly apply to women. Religions often teach women to be ashamed of their bodies because, gee wiz, men can't be trusted to not be overcome by temptation.

Religion puts a cage around the mind. Anything that conflicts with god belief is deemed suspicious or evil. We're seeing this today with Evangelicals, Conservative Jews and Muslims who refuse to get vaccinated. Religion makes people hate other cultures and races. Religion makes people feel self important. Religion has caused wars and tribal upheavel. Millions have died in religious wars. And all this is because people don't want death to be final. They want to ride off into the sunset with a god at their side - a god which has never had any evidence it exists.

Does that answer your question?

Beautifully written and I wholly agree - save to add two little thoughts again. I would not say that a longing for immortality is all there is to the instinct which has driven mankind to religion. I feel certain that a search for meaningfulness is central to it, and that this need for meaningfulness is pretty important to the average human being. Religion has served that need for most, even if I am compelled to add that it must take a significant degree of thoughtlessness to be satisfied with that which is offered up by most religious thought.

The second thought is that while one can quite validly discount the gods conjured by most religious thought, I doubt that one can as easily discount the philosophical imperative of something sitting at the root of this reality, rather than nothing. And it is this simple thought - which springs quite naturally even to the minds of little children - which forms the basis for the larger idea of GOD.

LordReed:
You tone does sound really melancholy, you don't see a way out?

Alas, not really, save perhaps by throwing oneself wholly into the many distractions the world has to offer. Perhaps, just perhaps, somewhere in the midst of that, one day. one may just stumble upon an epiphany.

TammieJo:
Exactly. Ideally, too much analysis isn't even needed. The god of Christianity is claimed to be Omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. The rules by which the universe works say: "No! You can't do that!"

Ah well - But on this they may have at least two possible defenses: someone has said to me before that those attributes are not stated in the Bible, and for my own part, if I were of that persuasion, I would simply say, well, Yahwehsco transcends the universe! Notwithstanding being a bloodthirsty genocidal maniac. . . !

Originalsly:
With the problems within ... I fear problems outside should a serious windy storm visit glass would be flying like bullets everywhere. Don't see any beauty in these type buildings .... all about floor space and generating maximum income... so space for beauty. The older high rises seems like they were in early contests!

You have said it all.
Monstrosities!

Explorers:
Brooklyn's first supertall skyscraper has now reached its peak height, with the firms behind it announcing the topping out of the 1,066ft- (324m) tall tower.

The skyscraper - called 'The Brooklyn Tower' - is located at 9 Dekalb Avenue and it's described as an 'imaginative new building' that is 'formed by interlocking hexagons and dramatic cascading setbacks in a facade of shimmering bronzes and deep blacks'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-10191265/The-Brooklyn-Tower-Brooklyns-supertall-skyscraper-reaches-height-1-066ft.html

Yet another monstrosity of modern architecture.
Lost, the by-gone days of architectural beauty, rhythm, cadence and elegance.

wirinet:
Please elaborate.

. . . "than other developed countries" has an embedded suggestion that Nigeria is one of the said "developed countries."
It is not.

wirinet:
Nigerian bridges and roads are of a lower standard than other developed countries.

This is a misnomer.

TOTOnigga:
If you had a dad like the aforementioned, would you allow such ?

The bold summarizes everything that is problematic with your thinking.
Who is the child to "allow" or "disallow" anything here?

aikyg:
When did protecting your marriage and integrity become petty squabbling?

Ol boy he should be beyond all those with such small girls, leave story.

Mrbenny001:
You knows so much law but you don't know verbal assault and character defamation is punishable

By civil penalties yes, unless there is a clear criminal element in what is said.

aikyg:
You probably do not know much about Ned Nwoko. Only a few lawyers in Nigeria can practice law at Ned Nwoko's level.

Well petty squabbling with little girls certainly doesn't speak well of the so called practice at his "level "

ruggedtimi:
I don't think is about money here....Ned is a lawyer and he knows how to make use of the law. No enter wahala with person wey Sabi law na there u go know say that small trouble fit land you for prison.

I can tell you that lawyers do not just know how to make use of the law, they also often know how to misuse the law. What he is doing certainly appears to be blatant misuse of the law - and that is certainly condemnable. Aside from the fact that for someone of his stature, the whole thing is rather belittling. He has descended into a petty and girly fight with a small girl.

aikyg:
Ned Nwoko is one of Africa's best lawyers. Jaruma should just go and beg him.

Its money talking here, not any legal expertise.
Money talks and broke law walks.

Lifestone:
Billionaire no be God

And the gods of the poor obviously sleep too much.
Alas - the poor have no money to incentivize them!

aribisala0:
The criminal remedy is available for the rich against the poor
It does not apply to rich people

Wise words, sad but true.

emekachief:
Say whatever you like but I'm not one of those men that falls for cheap emotional blackmailers by women

Neither am I.

Ned Nwoko is a nice man

You know him personally?

He knows better than you

How so?

he is a lawyer

So am I. And not a cheap one. So stop making assumptions about strangers.

and understand the law better than you and I.

Perhaps better than you. And certainly knows just how to waste the law with money and power.

You are not wiser than the judge.

Another assumption. Says who?

I wish their will send her to life imprisonment.

For slander and libel? Obviously you are nuts.

PS: Brush up your written English. Its so terrible its painful to read.

Rilwayne001:
Probably everyone don’t have the time or resources to sue them.

But whoever has the money to bribe the police and judges like this, surely has the money to sue lawfully.

Mrbenny001:
But Jaruma is allow to use social media to oppress right?, Because he's rich any body can insult and defame him as they like?

There is a civil remedy under the law. If everyone who said something wrong about another person was thrown into prison, what sort of society would that be?

emekachief:
But you support the hoeing Olosho ���� that depends on scamming people in the name of kayamata ���.

Don't be silly. I have no idea who she is.
I can simply see from the list of charges that its absolute BS. . . . Abuse of the judicial system, and corruption by power and money. Its at best, a civil matter - No charge of fraud is mentioned there, mind you.

ikennamadu1:
Just look at what you wrote .... You come online to defame someone's character.. talk shit about him ... You want him to shut up and look at you... Naaa e no fit work ... When you get to that stage .. you will do same ..

Slander and Libel are civil wrongs - otherwise called torts. Its a civil, not criminal matter. This is gross abuse. And should NOT be supported.

Three pictures and three different complexions. Fear woman.

MufasaLion:
I can't donate my organs to anybody. Call it selfishness, I don't give a fvck.

Just pray it wouldnt be you one day looking for a donor.

TammieJo:
Why would anyone need to give you a reason for not accepting ridiculous claims?

To support your response further: no one should be asked to prove a negative.