₦airaland Forum

globexl:
@deep sight.
The causative factor or agent that you refer is a plausible idea that can be comtemplated even by people with athiestic viewpoints. It is an idea that has kept   philosophers and the people of science busy and will continued to keep them busy for quite a while.

Very true. And this is my trouble with the generality of atheists that I come across. They appear obsessively fixated on the idea of God as delivered by religious constructs, and finding absurdity therein, cannot be troubled enough to contemplate the idea of a first cause as a strictly logical and philosophical precept, away from the confines of religious lore and doctrine. That, for me, is not the hallmark of the keen and curious mind.

Hower, such concepts belong in realms of astro-physics and deep philosophy . Most of the debates and arguments on this forum center on the judeo-christian concepts of divinity.Almost all theists that I encounter are mainly interested in th validation of the lores that are the foundation and pillars of their faith and nothing more.

True again.

The problem is not the "HOW.

A point seemingly lost on those on this board who seek to set out scientific explanations of "how".

I cannot put it any better than MyJoe already has - the prime issue governing the cosmological question is and always has been - "what caused the how."

There are no poor reasons for adopting an athiestic viewpoint.

O yes indeed there are many very poor reasons for adopting an atheistic worldview, and the reason (allegedly) given by Professor Soyinka in the OP is plain disastrous and makes a mockery of his otherwise massive intellect.

I have certainly heard many better reasons for atheism. And like i said, some people do advance poor reasons for their atheism. For example if a man were to tell you that he is atheist on account that he has not seen God appear to him in physical form, would you consider that a cogent reason for atheism - having due regard to what God is said to be - namely - the prime mover and first cause of existence? Is that an element a person might expect to show up for dinner and drinks?

There dozens of reasons for choosing an ahtiestic viewpoint.

I will task you with providing me with just one - which addresses the logical and philosophical precept of a prime mover and not the religious constructs.

PA1982:
What does that comment have to do with the OP?
I addressed the OP.

I will be mildly surprised if you do not recognize that I commented on your comments which were directly directed at the OP.

Why don't you?

I will be just slightly more than mildly surprised if you also did not see my comments on the OP.

^ I hear you. I do sense that she is not an atheist, so I understand her comments in context. However it still remains a concern for me that many people fob off theistic questions on the formation of the world by addressing the formative process and not looking to that which should be signal - namely - the cause of the formative process.

MyJoe:
what we don't know - speaking from the point of view of the intellect - is what causes the how.

The bolded in red poignantly captures my concern. It seems to me that for many people, explaining the scientific "how" obviates any recognition of the "what" that causes the "how."

That is not something anyone can answer.

Fair enough. However you are well acquainted with my view that certain qualities may yet be discerned. It will however, be purposeless to drive that discourse here.

And that is why I seriously doubt you can "prove" the existence of God to anyone.

That depends on what "God' is understood to be. If God is defined as a primordial causative element, that may be possible to prove. But if God is expected to be a Grand Old man sitting in the clouds, then sure, I agree, nobody can prove such a fantasy.

Now having said, that, let me add one thing. The OP did not advance particularly good arguments or questions for the existence of God, I agree. Now, I do not know if Wole Soyinka is theist or atheist, but I must say this and this only: if it is true that he gave the specific reason quoted in the OP as a reason for atheism, then I am of the view that that is a very poorly articulated reason.

I must say that your comments are always so perfectly balanced, its almost inhuman. kudos.

PA1982:
Well, the first thing that struck me was that the writer of this editorial even  more space to their own musings, which read like some preliminary notes for a sermon, than  even naming  Professor Wole Soyinka's literary works. After all, they were the reason he was awarded the Nobel prize, weren't they?

Let's go to Muda Oyeniran's burning questions.
Not who, but what.
It's called the circadian cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_rhythm

Is the writer aware the Earth spins on its axis?
No mystery there.
Here's a youtube video that explains it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pej15xWLqSw

To understand the 'growth' of hair, here's a good starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_hair_growth
What a question.
Why does the writer suppose Professor Wole Soyinka was created by anyone other than his parents?
For an overview of human reproduction:
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/

As for the second part of the question, well that depends on your religious point of view, doesn't it?
Here's an excellent variet of source material on the subject of creation myths
http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html

Not who, but what.
Tectonic plates, anyone?
http://www.platetectonics.com/book/page_4.asp

Um.
What about it?
Birth and death happens all that that live, from uni-cellular life forms on up.

It constantly surprises me that people seem to think that providing a rational scientific explanation for phenomena may lend credence to an unscientific idea that one may have effects without causes.

That you can explain the science of a phenomenon does nothing to take away the cause, purpose or trigger of that phenomenon.

That eternal element which is understood to be the ultimate or uncaused cause - is what is understood by the philosophical mind to be the element that is referred to as God.

I'll hit you a text. Cheers.

Memorable.

LoveKing:
@topic

if buddha, christ, mohammed didnt exist will i still lose my faith? Not really.
the mind is a beautiful thing, i can vouch that christians who became atheists still have in the core of their personality christian truths/teachings of Jesus about life that they will unconsciously follow, forgeting about the rituals. The particles of that faith still remains or evolves even if you come to the point that Jesus, Buddha or Mohammed never existed, the universal truth in your previous beliefs will still remain with you.

Most wisely and beautifully articulated, I must say.

Ansel1:
@Deep Sight. On a previous thread i raised the question of the possibility that biblical Kings David and Solomon may not have existed as portrayed in the scriptures. I have enumerated the reasons why i made those assertions, I had fully expected to be innundated with reasoned thoughts as to why i was wrong, facts, figures and opinions, rather, as with the subject of that thread the silence is deafening.

Dear Ansel1, I am not concerned with the existence of David or Solomon. I am not a christian: indeed, I am not religious: I do not subscribe to any religion. If you had been on this forum prior, who would have known that contrarily, I have been a vehement and much despised critic of the Judeo-Christian lore, myths, history and dogma.

So please dear friend, do not misunderstand me.

I find it rather curious that rather than address the subject matter you are more interested in examining my motives and have simply concluded that it is my intention to discredit a faith belief system.

To be sincere, if there was a History ar Archaelogy section on this forum, would you have rather raised this topic in those sections? I think not. And the reason no doubt is that you regard these factual inconsistencies to perhaps be fatal to a faith or belief system? I may be wrong in reaching that assumption, but if that is indeed your view, then all i seek to state is that factual inconsistencies of that nature are not necessaily sufficient to diminish a faith or belief system. Hence my example of a question regarding the Buddha.

I had felt that you had already appreciated this when you wrote -

Ansel1:
Clearly a truth remains a truth irrespective of the progenitor, whether it be the Ten Commandments which likely drew its inspiration from the Hammurabi Codes or the Beatitudes for which comparable teachings abound in sanskrit texts.

And for me, the foregoing from you neatly sums up that which I am seeking to convey.

There is no doubt that there has been a galaxy of crossed myths and legends involved in the development of most religious systems, if not all. What I believe is that these myths and legends do not vitiate the core ethos of these belief systems - to the extent that such devolves around the principal ethos of such a faith. Now, let me be very clear on one point: and this is the point that KAG mentioned which i thought very apt - namely - that in this, I do not speak of the strict literalist. The strict literalist is a fantasist who I cannot be bothered to take seriously in a discussion of this nature. Now, whereever such strict literalism results in a fanatical adherence to bizzare ritual, etc, I must carefully note that i do not refer to such when i speak about the core ethos of a faith.

Far better biblical scholars than I are posing far more harder questions about Christianity than i am without accusations of their being atheists, you have no right to make such an assupmtion how you have established that correlation is beyond me. In any event Christianity does not need my assistance to discredit it, i believe you will agree with me that a myriad of snazzilly dressed silver tongued pastors do that happily week in -week out.

Indeed, and I have not called you an atheist, have I? I have simply asked if you think that these innacuracies serve to discredit a faith, and in some measure you responded in both the negative and the positive.

I have stated that my intention is not to discredit any religion, in my opinion there are glaring inconsistencies within the Hebrew scriptures, historically and theologically that have come to light as we learn more and more. It is my opinion that Christianity as a religion would benefit greatly by addressing them in a forthright manner as opposed to trying to convince a skeptical audience that they don't exist, and anyone who questions the[i] schema[/i] is a heretic.

This is beyond cavil: no doubts here. Spot on. We may point out these discrepancies, but what I seek to convey to you is for example as follows. . . Hinduism has hundreds of gods and goddesses. . . prove to a hindi man that many of them do not exist, and that may still take nothing away from the overall - superstructure of his faith.

Don't know how authentic this is but here -

http://www.nbccongress.org/black-catholics/african-popes.asp

Seems to refer to North Africans though, who it can be said are not "black"

PA1982:
I've addressed this point several times.
The location of the thread had nothing to do with me, as you'll understand.
I think it's a subject you should take up with the OP, rather than a contributer to that particular thread.

Again, that's something to take up with the OP, not a contributer to that thread.
Do you have a problem with that?

And?

Alright then. At this point, I guess I will restrict my discourse to Ancel1 - as you have suggested. I guess it was an error to have supposed your suggestion to open another thread indicated an interest in taking up the discussion. My sincere apologies.

I'll adjust the thread title, and take up the discussion with him.

Cheers.

PA1982:
Deep Sight, your question was:

Who said it did?

Well you will recall that I had indicated that the previous thread on the existence of David or Solomon would actually have no pith, and certainly little business in the Religion Section, if not for the unstated possibility of discreditting a faith. This is about the fourth time I am repeating this to you, and it seems that you have not taken cognisance of the import of this.

There are two things. The originator of that thread (Ancel1) must have had at least some direction towards discretting one or more faiths by the information he presented therein. This is something that he has confirmed via his posts on this thread (which posts I am yet to address, but will do so shortly). Contrarily, it is my view that these are not sufficient grounds to discredit any faith. Hence my example re: Sidtharta Guatama, the Buddha.

Secondly, there are different types of atheists. I have described them previously thus -

1. The Anti-religionist Atheist. This Atheist is entirely focused on the absurdity of the Religious Theist's Ontology of God. He finds the construct of God as delivered through Religion to be ludicruous and as such rejects them in its entirety. He does not pause to think about God outside the precept of religion.

2. The Pure Atheist - This Atheist is entirely set against the idea of God. The objection of this Atheist is not so much the internally inconsistent ontology of the Religious Ideas of God, but more the fact that a non-material God cannot be proved. This Atheist is often a strict materialist and rejects notions such as an immaterial soul, life after death, etc. This Atheist will beleive only in that which can be physically and scientifically verified, and as such rejects the notion of God since in his mind, God cannot be physically or scientifically verified.

3. The Fvck- All Atheist - This Atheist simply doesn't give a Poo, anyhow.

My concern is with reference to the first definition. There are persons who are declared atheists only on account of the absurdity or falsity of religion. I think that that is a lazy approach.

PA1982:
This is turning into an intersting thread, thanks to those who have contributed to it.
Deep sight-
My point as well.
More information, less opinions.

The point I am trying to convey to you is that I don't really think that spirituality is or should be about "information" per se. Information (that is, information of the kind that we discuss here - i.e: religious lore) may be useful in arriving at logical or illogical positions on certain matters of religion, but in my humble view, such religious lore is altogether an insufficient premise for -

1. Determining a belief in a creator

2. Sustaining the essential ethos of a faith

Regarding (1) above, i would rather say that perception of the world and universe about one, common sense and intuition, should rather take the lead in grounding one's atheistic or theistic worldview. Not religious lore. The truth or falsity of any religious lore should have no bearing on this matter. That is what I seek to convey.

Regarding (2) above, my view is further that the inaccuracy of religious lore does not necessarily discredit the essential ethos of a faith. And this is why i gave the Buddha example and titled this thread as such: to wit - the four noble truths would not be less poignant if in fact derived from common culture in a scenario where it was found that the Buddha in fact did not exist. Such a discovery, i dare say, would do nothing to vitiate the essential truths and ethos of the Buddhist faith, would it? And in the same way, i imagine the the non-existence of David or Solomon are probably neither here nor there in terms of sustaining the essential ethos of the christian faith.

Mind you, if you would care to do some light research on my previous posts and views on christianity on this forum, you will find that I have been a notorious critic of the religion as a whole (save that which I regard as its core - the teaching of love) - and I say this simply to assure you that I am not here seeking to justify any faith. I am only here seeking to say that there are certain factors, which even if proved true, would not be sufficient to dismiss a faith. The non-existence of the Buddha, would not be sufficient, in my mind, to dismiss the Buddhist faith. Same for the non-existence of Solomon or David. I would even be so bold as to say that the non-existence of Christ himself, should not necessarily vitiate the christian faith - so long as it is viewed from the point of view of his supposed teachings on love, humility, etc. If it is viewed from the doctrines of his redemptive sacrifice, and other such ritual, aha, that might perhaps be a problem. But we will come to that later.

I don't understand why you think I'm an atheist.

I don't believe I have suggested you are an atheist: I am rather asking if you believe that the inaccuracy of religious lore should form some ground for atheism?

KAG:
Only if the adherent of the religion declares that the holy book(s) containing the individual(s) is entirely factual, and a single error is an indication that the deity of the religion doesn't exist. Otherwise, no, it shouldn't matter. I personally believe David, Solomon and the Buddha existed as historical figures, but their non-existence shouldn't matter to anyone but the strict literalist.

Excellent surmise, and incisive too.

I certainly hope that time will permit me as the thread progresses to elucidate further on this point to my dears Ancel1 and PA1982.

Iverily believe that your reference to "anyone but the strict literalist" should be most instructive and thought provoking to our friends.

PA1982:
An odd reply.
You asked an off-topic question on another thread and I recommended you start a fresh thread if you wanted to discuss a subject which didn't pertain to the historical evidence of the Kings David and Solomon.

Now someone starts a thread whose topic's declared purpose is to 'smoke out' my opinions about Buddhism?
Deep Sight, think about what this thread says about you.

My dear, in all earnestness, there seems to be a somewhat combative tone in your words above. Let me warmly assure you that there is no need for such: you appear to have stated that I opened this thread "to smoke out your opinions about Buddhism". That certainly is not the case in the least. You have also asked me to think about "what that says about me". Now, now, now, let us settle down. This thread has nothing whatever to do with "smoking out your opinions or perceptions of Buddhism - not in the least.

Indeed, the allusion in my OP to Buddhism has only to do with setting an example to elucidate the question I was asking. I am sure I needn’t rehash the OP all over again to convey this. For the simple question, if I may restate it – is, and remains – to what extent is the account regarding a messenger, to be regarded as important as the actual message?

Thus I said: behold the message, and not the messenger.
So my dear do calm down, no one is trying to smoke any one out in the least. If you can take a minute to have a look at the previous thread, you will see that I did not agree that my queries were off-topic. I did tell you that the questions as to the existence of David and Solomon would have no pith, if not within the context of the possibility to discredit a faith. And hence my query as to whether indeed a faith can or should be discredited on such grounds. As we go forward, I will also urge you not to make assumptions on my own faith or perspective; for I do not subscribe to any religion; I am not a religious person.  

People can't be expected to make up their own minds on any subject and especially about religion if facts aren't available to them.

I do beg to disagree. People can and do make up their own minds all the time whether with or without “facts” – especially on matters of spiritual unction. There are seeds that rest within the conscience of every man, I believe, which, independent of any “facts” which we may read in any lore, serve to guide and direct the spiritual footprint of the earnest man.

What IS important is that the peoples of that sect have free access to that information.

I do agree that it is apt that people do have access to information. In today’s world however, this is not a problem because we live in the information age. Anyone who cares can access a galaxy of information at the touch of a button. The problem is not hat people do not have access to information. The problem rather is that people fear information because they imagine that it might corrupt their faith or belief systems. This is a mindset that I find regrettable.

Second question-
Sorry?
Do you really think one has to choose between religious fundamentalism, that is, unquestioning acceptance of a determined faith and atheism?

I still do not understand how the non-existence of David, Solomon or even Jesus could rationally lead to atheism. Can you enlighten me on that thought-line please?

And just by the way, Ansel1, the Buddha did not actually write any of the things you claimed. Those were attributed to him and passed down by oral tradition and[b] only committed to writing more than 4 centuries later. [/b]

See excerpts -

Gautama, also known as Śākyamuni ("Sage of the Śākyas", is the primary figure in Buddhism, and accounts of his life, discourses, and monastic rules are believed by Buddhists to have been summarized after his death and memorized by his followers. Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition, and first committed to writing about 400 years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha

Some scholars believe that some portions of the Pali Canon and the Āgamas contain the actual substance of the historical teachings (and possibly even the words) of the Buddha.[42][43] This is not the case for the later Mahāyāna sūtras.[44] The scriptural works of Early Buddhism precede the Mahayana works chronologically, and are treated by many Western scholars as the main credible source for information regarding the actual historical teachings of Gautama Buddha. However, some scholars do not think that the texts report on historical events.[45][46][47]


Some of the fundamentals of the teachings attributed to Gautama Buddha are:

The Four Noble Truths: that suffering is an ingrained part of existence; that the origin of suffering is craving for sensuality, acquisition of identity, and annihilation; that suffering can be ended; and that following the Noble Eightfold Path is the means to accomplish this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha

I really want to draw your attention to the story that Adam and Eve were created Unclad.

I also want to draw your attention to the bare chested dressing of the women of most African Tribes before the advent of the white man.

By the way, why is your attention drawn to the short dresses. . . .

Have I drawn your attention to your hypocrisy?

Ansel1:
More to the point, we have his writings, foremost amongst them all which is ''Four noble truths''. If there was no historical evidence that he existed then Bhuddism simply would not exist.

It seems to me that you have missed the point or trajectory of my question. Judaism does exist. Christianity does exist. And yet there is at least some debate that some of the key characters supposedly involved in setting up those systems never actually existed. If such suppositions were true, it would simply mean that the lore on which those systems are based, was developed by other people.

As such, if the Buddha never existed, then it would simply mean that the Four noble truths were utterred or created by someone else. By the way, I do not set out to dispute the existence of Sidharta Gautama. What I proffer, is a suppositive question. An "IF" question.

Irrespective, these religions exist today. Regardless of whether they were set up by the names so claimed, or other persons.

Thus the question I ask you is this - Let's assume that the original names claimed never existed: and that other persons wrote and created the lore. Would the truth of those faith based systems fade away on that account? That is the pith of my question.

Now it bothers me that you answer my question with a statement that the Buddha actually existed. That is a most tiresome response, if you would forgive my statement sir. It is most tiresome when "IF" questions are answered in that way. "IF" questions are directed at an assumption - namely - "IF" x or y was the case, then what? It does not help to simply answer by saying - "well, x or y is not the case". That misses the discussion because the question ab initio was seeking an answer to an assumed situation.

To be concise, I might put it thus -

"Would the Four Noble Truths be any less true if the Buddha never existed? Would they be rendered false only on account that they were written by some else in reality?"

"Would the ten commandments lose their value if it is found that Moses never existed?"

Would the Beatitudes become worthless even as advise, if it is found that Jesus of Nazareth never existed?"

Would all of these pieces of spiritual injunction be vitiated in terms of truth simply if we find that they were originated by someone else than that claimed?

Sir: I say to you - behold the message, and not the messenger.

PA1982:
I feel so flattered.
A thread named in my honour!

I had rather hoped for a little more than this, given that this thread was initiated at your instance.

Hi there.

Following from the topic - "Did Biblical Kings David and Solomon actually exist?"

I had made the following comments -

Should the historical existence (or lack thereof) of these personages have any impact on the question of belief or non-belief in the existence of, and worship of, a universal creator?

Archaelogy is beyond fascinating. It is actually one of my keener interests. So you do not touch upon that which I sought to convey. To rephrase - let me ask if there is any worth in grounding one's atheistic or theistic worldview on the veracity or otherwise of these stories - proven or unproven.

Should the faith of a pure Buddhist be altered if he finds for instance that the Buddha never existed? I would be interested in your response to that

And PA1982, you had said -

PA1982:
Hmmm.
This thread is about the historical evidence for David and Solomon.
You have every right to speculate on worldviews an archeology, of course.

This would be the subject of a different thread.
Why go off-topic here when you can simply start a fresh thread?

To which I had responded -

I doubt very much that this subject would be topical on this board if not for the sub-text: to wit - the possibility to discredit a faith. This is why I ask if indeed a faith can or should be discreditted on such grounds.

I don't think that i'm off-topic. However I will oblige you and open a new thread with same questions.

So here's your thread. Let's discuss my question. Should the historical accuracy of the stories within the lore of a religion be of necessary relevance within the worldview of the person subscribing to the fundamental tenets of that religion? And also - should such lack of accuracy form a valid ground for adopting an atheistic worldview?

PA1982:
Hmmm.
This thread is about the historical evidence for David and Solomon.
You have every right to speculate on worldviews an archeology, of course.

I doubt very much that this subject would be topical on this board if not for the sub-text: to wit - the possibility to discredit a faith. This is why I ask if indeed a faith can or should be discreditted on such grounds.

This would be the subject of a different thread.
Why go off-topic here when you can simply start a fresh thread?

I don't think that i'm off-topic. However I will oblige you and open a new thread with same questions.

PA1982:
^^^Archeology is fascinating because the next discovery is simply there waiting to be found.
And to answer your question- it's outside the scope of the thread, which is evaluating the evidence David and Solomon existed as historical personages.
Why not start a new thread on the subject?

Archaelogy is beyond fascinating. It is actually one of my keener interests. So you do not touch upon that which I sought to convey. To rephrase - let me ask if there is any worth in grounding one's atheistic or theistic worldview on the veracity or otherwise of these stories - proven or unproven.

Should the faith of a pure Buddhist be altered if he finds for instance that the Buddha never existed? I would be interested in your response to that.

^ Reading it over, it was beyond a classic. Just freakin brilliant as threads go. Fiesty, combative, emotional at times, hilarious, pulsating, the works. Just reminds me why and how i became addicted to this site.

Should the historical existence (or lack thereof) of these personages have any impact on the question of belief or non-belief in the existence of, and worship of, a universal creator?

When these questions are advanced as a debative ground within the context of the thought development in favour of an atheistic worldview, the calm and conscientous atheist or agnostic should be keen enough to remind himself of the distinction between -

1. ~ the idea of fossil findings, the age of which may appear to discredit certain views of biblical creative chronology and -

2. ~ the idea that such findings therefore equate to the non-existence of a creative element - even outside the context and worldview of human religions.

The first idea, though disputable, can be heard. The second idea, which to my mind is the meat of the matter, is a logical leap of unfathomable proportions.

This question lies in many ways at the heart of human responsibility and the moral question. Perhaps I limit it, and should actually say – the spiritual question, or more precisely, the question of spiritual responsibility.

A first analogy may suffice to set the principle that I believe is apt: and I derive that principle from the realm of human law, that realm whence I earn my daily bread – although I should be quick and first to name and state the fact that that is not a realm always apt for spiritual law.

At common criminal law, one of the elements necessary to ground a crime is the Mens Rea – which essentially roughly equates to the evil intention, the motive, that negative purposefulness and deliberation involved in setting out to commit a crime. My university professor used to simply state it to be “the wicked mind.”

To be exact, “Mens rea” is Latin for "guilty mind"  In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime.

The presumption of the law in this regard is that full responsibility rests and devolves upon that actual intention – that negative deliberation, the Mens Rea – as opposed to say, something that happens per accident, or without pre-meditation – such as an instinctive action which occurs in the heat of extreme provocation or perhaps self defense.

I have already stated that not all elements in the realm of human law apply exactly to the spiritual law, but the basic principle elucidated above, I believe may give some direction in this matter – for it is within the collective and intuitive sensing of all human beings that no one may blame a man, or more precisely – punish a man, for that which he is not aware of.

Aware. Awareness.

Consciousness.

Is a child aware. Is a mad man aware. Is an unconscious man aware.

Morally aware, that is.

I have two separate thoughts regarding these questions, and essentially these are (x) that on some level each case will determine itself according to its peculiarity and (y) Karma will determine it all.

I think I need to elucidate my thoughts on these a little.

I’ll start with (x) – namely that each case will sing its own song. At the outset it might appear that it is ludicrous that a child, a mad person, or an unconscious person will bear any liability for that which he does. But I do not see this as a nuanced view.

Children
There are certainly children that act in full awareness of the evil that they do – none of us can claim that as children we were not aware at very early ages that this or that action was wrong or bad. A child however, remains a growing being with its consciousness not fully developed. Thus even where a child is aware of the wrong that it does, it may not consciously and fully appreciate its import. Thus I will be inclined to think that the deeds of children will be weighed in terms of Karma in relation to their individual level of maturity, consciousness and awareness of that which they do – and this is something that varies from person to person.

The Insane
Still on the first view – that is (x) which I mentioned above – and now in relation to the insane. The question again remains – awareness – that is – consciousness of the deeds that they do. Can we in all sincerity state that ALL insane people have no knowledge or awareness or consciousness of that which they do? I do not think that that is a nuanced view. There are a great many types and degrees of psychological infirmity and it will be a sweeping and hasty generalization, I think, to state that all such people are not aware of their deeds or the import and moral implications of their deeds. The truth will rather lie in between – there will be those who on account of their state of mind have little or no awareness of what they do, and there will be those who in spite of their state of mind, have EVERY consciousness of what they do, along with the moral implications of such actions. Along the spectrum of different cases, as I stated with the varying level of consciousness of children, the varying levels of moral awareness of these people will also serve to judge them precisely.

The unconscious

At first sight this one may seem like a ridiculous case. How can an unconscious man do wrong? How can an unconscious man even do ANYTHING? How can he be aware of what he is doing?

Again, I believe that the truth lies in greater nuance. How many times are we perfectly asleep and within a dream and yet in that dream about to take some action or the other – and even then in the dream state – we feel a pang of conscience about that deed. . . what does this mean, what does this tell us?

It tells us that there is a sub-conscious, and that moral unction also exists at the level of the subconscious. Indeed, if anything, the psychological postulations of Sigmund Freud urge us to think more carefully about the subconscious mind. It is not nothing. It exists. And if I may pursue Freudian thinking a little, I will state further that it is actually the Unclad mind. That mind which speaks and acts itself devoid of the societal impression of the Ego or Super Ego  - that mind which Freud called the Id.

It is the Id, I believe, that each man will be judged on first.

For it is the Unclad man.

Now having said all this, I also said that (y) – Karma will have its way. One could write and quote generations of whole books on this matter, But I will leave it this simple: God’s grace will fall on people. People who have a positive karma, even in sleep, childhood or mental insanity will avoid certain evils which their karma does not permit, and people who have a negative Karma will certainly fall into such evils even when conscious, adult, or mentally sound.

The ONE God, bless, and help us all.

Beaf:
Hmmm! Dude, I too am in a struggle.
From the bolded, you are discussing your own topic. It seems you wish to critisise Abati and want me to do the same.
You obviously find your own words very confusing.

What part of GEJ's manifesto do think he should have completed in two months? I hope that question is not too confusing?

For the umpteenth time son, we are discussing Abati:

Abati's defense of GEJ. That's the issue.

Do you think Abati's exemplification of the president's "hard work" was suitable as such. If you will avoid this question any further (i notice you are silent on Uganda), then I promise I'll drop the topic. Don't like going around in circles son.

Beaf:
@Deep Sight
I stolidly refuse to engage in unintelligent conversation.
You're are just running around and stepping all over your own tongue.

I enjoy civil discussions, and I have not insulted you, so I'd crave your indulgence that we keep this civil please.

Stop typing meaningless tonnes of stuff and tell us what part of GEJ's manifesto you think he should have delivered in two months. If you can't, then give up the clowning.

It appears you did not read my posts. I made it clear that this thread, in proper context, is not about the President, but about the views and words of his Spokesman, Mr. Abati, whilts trying to demonstrate that the president is working hard.

I therefore asked you the very specific question as to whether the visits Mr. Abati cited in his statement actually qualify as "hard-work".

The question is that simple. If you cannot answer it, you needn't resort to insults, son.

Can you tell me, as a postscript, whether Jonathan's visit to Uganda was also "hard work"? Note that I wrote -

In no time, you might also add that his attendance of Yoweri Museveni's 4th inauguaration (an event no respectable leader attended) - - - - was also "hard work" as he was associating with a person of "international clout"? ? ? ?

Museveni is a sit-tight African Leader, haven been in power for some 25 years now. His re-inauguration was shunned by all self-respecting Presidents. Indeed, your Jonathan had his convoy stoned by protesters there: because the people saw African leaders as supporting the sit-tightism. I expect that you will ignore this detail. Tell us Beaf: was this visit to Uganda also "hard work" for which we should be pleased that the president was associating with someone of "international clout"? ? ?

So those are the issues, son. No need for insults if you have your points. Just answer them.

Beaf:
No, you just receive people with international clout for no reason; thats what "intelligent" people like you expect.

Alright, I'm going to take this as your answer to the question I asked you. This is a benumbing answer.

We had Angela Merkel, we had David Cameron. These are international leaders who as part of their official visits to various countries, also visited Nigeria. Are you suggesting to me that the fact that they visited Nigeria, and were received by Mr. President amounted to "hard work" on the part of the President, for which we should collectively be eternally grateful, and for which the spokesman needs to point out that indeed, the President has been working.

By the same token, the Presidents of the other African countries they visited have been "working very hard", no?

Come on Beaf, I expect much better from you.

Aside this, you talked about "people with international clout" . . . it seems to have missed you that those two western leaders were not the only leaders mentioned. I extract again: Abati also said -

". . . he attended the independence anniversary of South Sudan, he was in Liberia, a few days ago he also was in Chad and he has also in the last three weeks received representative of Côte d’Ivoire and also from Niger."

- - - - Can I therefor glean from all this that Mr. President's visits to Liberia, South Sudan, Chad, and receiving the President of Niger Republic, as well as the representative from Cote De Ivoire, all also amount to receiving people of "international clout", which amounts to "hard work" and which will clearly help the urgent developmental interests of Nigeria?

Good grief, and yet you accuse others of comedy!

In no time, you might also add that his attendance of Yoweri Museveni's 4th inauguaration (an event no respectable leader attended) - - - - was also "hard work" as he was associating with a person of "international clout"? ? ? ?

Museveni is a sit-tight African Leader, haven been in power for some 25 years now. His re-inauguration was shunned by all self-respecting Presidents. Indeed, your Jonathan had his convoy stoned by protesters there: because the people saw African leaders as supporting the sit-tightism. I expect that you will ignore this detail. Tell us Beaf: was this visit to Uganda also "hard work" for which we should be pleased that the president was associating with someone of "international clout"? ? ?

Son, I'll give you a small piece of advise: when you support a leader, do so objectively. If you are NEVER, not even once, able to see anything wrong that the leader does, in short: if EVERYTHING that the leader does is absolutely fine by you: then there is no doubt that you are not an objective critic: for the simple reason that no leader can be perfect. . . . chew on that.

^^^ Bro,

You have not addressed the issue. Like i stated in my eariler post, this thread is more about the spokesman's words than about the President himself. Please dileanate the issues.

I ask again -

“Now in the last one month alone, President Jonathan has played host to the German Chancellor, he has received the British Prime Minister, he attended the independence anniversary of South Sudan, he was in Liberia, a few days ago he also was in Chad and he has also in the last three weeks received representative of Côte d’Ivoire and also from Niger. Now you will see that he has done a lot to hold on to Nigeria’s strategic importance within the region.”

If you were president, would you be proud of this description by your spokesman of "hard work'? ? ?

Now this is more befuddling to the public, given that the said spokesman is a former ardent critic of government and a supposed intellectual.

Your unbiased assessment of[b] the spokesman,[/b] please?

Beaf:
What a funny lot some Nigerians are (or should I say Chadians?).

GEJ was sworn in on 29 May 2011, so I wonder what part of his manifesto was scheduled to be delivered in 2 months? Some people are daft.
It is the same type of abysmal application of [b]un[/b]intelligence that leads their kind to sponsor boko haram, and make crazy religiously, ethnically and sectionally bigoted statements.

Shame.

Sir - this thread is more about the words of the presidential spokesman, Dr. Reuben Abati, than about President Jonathan himself. In that context, can you sincerely tell what you make of Abati's words below -

“It is not yet 100 days, though it is fashionable for Nigerians to ask what within 100 days government has done this,” Mr Abati said. “To answer this questions directly and to also assuage the fear of the people who say that the momentum has not been generated yet, the truth of the matter is that the government has been working very hard and I will give you an example just in the area of foreign relations, which is also an important arm of the government, considering the strategic importance of Nigeria.

“Now in the last one month alone, President Jonathan has played host to the German Chancellor, he has received the British Prime Minister, he attended the independence anniversary of South Sudan, he was in Liberia, a few days ago he also was in Chad and he has also in the last three weeks received representative of Côte d’Ivoire and also from Niger. Now you will see that he has done a lot to hold on to Nigeria’s strategic importance within the region.”

Do you regard the foregoing as an apt example of how hard the president is working? If you were the president, would you not feel let down if the foregoing was what your spokesman described as hardwork?

Continuing from the above. It will have to start out as a very loose Confedracy. A confedration is a loose union of independent states in which only a few necessary common functions are ceded to the central (confederal) government. The confederate states mostly retain their indpendence and economy and identity.

At the inception, it must be a very loose confedracy. Then there will be time lines per decade for closer integration in certain key areas. At the commencement of the union, ONLY the following responsibilities will be ceded to the Confederate Government -

1. Defense

2. Foreign Affairs and Immigration

3. Aviation

4. Currency & Central Banking

There will be a free zone, free movement of goods and people and free settlement rights for all citizens of the confedracy. The Confederate government will handle a conjoined army, nay and airforce, as well as conjoined security and intelligence services. It is also necessary that the central govt will hadle such cross-continental matters as civil aviation and there shall be one Central Bank for Africa.

Certain cities lend themselves as easier and more natural capital cities. My suggestion will be that there will be a temporary capital city whilst a purpose built pan African master piece will gradually be built over the next 30 - 40 years as the capital of teh union. For the temporary capital, we should look to cities with appropriate infrastructure, and expanse of land, as well as excellent roads andties. Having travelled extensively in Africa, I believe I do not speak with Nigerian bias when I say that the best choice would be Abuja. .

This idea is the dream of the great Ghanaian nationalist, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, and is my personal dream as well. I have travelled extensively in East, West and Southern Africa, and I am totally convinced that a political union of African States is the truly best vision for the development and emancipation of Africa. Such a union would instantly catapult Africa onto the global stage as one of the biggest nations in the world (by many indices, actually the biggest), with the greatest expanse of diverse cities and urban developments in any country on Earth. Th esynergies would be so great that I can predict that such a political union would become the world's leading super power within a space of the the 100 - 150 years.

There is no doubt that there will be challenges, but the challenges can be surmounted.

Fisrt off, I should say though, (and this is not as a matter of exclusionism or discrimination of any sort) - that this union will be best and most effectively delivered as a union of sub saharan African States. I say this because the Arabic North African States really do not have an African Identity. I refer to Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya and Algeria. These are actually Middle-East nations with a strong Middle-East Arabic identity. They merely happen to be on the African geographical space, but there is nothing African about them. Morocco actually applied to join the European Union in the eighties.

There is only one other nation that I will like to exclude at the initial stage: and that nation is South Africa. My reason is simple - I predict that they will not wish to join the union at the initial stage on account of their vastly superior development as compared to the rest of the union - this will give rise to a fear of massive immigration problems in terms of free movement of people. Thay may legitimately fear being over-crowded by immigrants, and this is actually already a problem for them within Africa such that procuring a South African visa has become more stringent than that for many nations of the world. However, as teh union progresses and waxes stronger economically and in terms of development, SA will come around, and indeed SA would be most welcome, and probably form the icing on teh cake.

In my next post I will make some suggestions as to how the union could work.

9jaganja:
Did Nigeria solely depend on Lagos to transport it's goods?

Did Nigeria gain from Lagos?

600billion a year on sea port in lagos alone

Did Lagos develop Nigeria? Yes!!

Even though it was FCT, it owes Nigeria nothing! it wasn't a Yoruba man that made it FCT,

If Nigeria is to pay back how much Lagos has paid into Nigeria, I don't think me and you will be here, I'll probably be in Dubai negotiating to buy the burj Khalifa ,

I just don't want anyone to think Lagos owes it's development to Nigeria, Nigeria owes huge chunk of it's financial health (no matter how small) to Lagos!!

My dear, it seems you have misconceived the issue. i dont think i said anything about anybody owing anybody. Nobody can change the fact that Lagos is a product of Nigeria's history. Same with Abuja - this does not take away the rights and cultural pride of the original indigenes in either places. There is a tribe that are the original indigenes of Abuja, you know?

As far as I recall, the simple issue is the right to naturalize within your place of residence anywhere within the country.

As far as I know, that right already exists under the current Nigerian system.

Simple.

So just calm down with the tribal paranoia.