₦airaland Forum

@macof, until you stop using anything developed by the oyinbo, you remain a pathetic hypocrite.

Science now has african and western versions. Lmao, nothing person no go hear!

@OP is funny. After abusing the white man and calling him godless, he then concludes by calling the god of the white man the Almighty God and goes ahead to quote the bible, a book brought to us by the white man.

If a pagan like Macof or Pagan9ja writes this I'll understand but a bible thumper? Lol, the irony.

Joshthefirst: I do know that traditional medicine is about to be introduced into the medical school curriculum.

pharmacognosy

FOLYKAZE: Doctor Troll don come again o. Is there anything like Quinne in the mixture of lime water and garri? That is what I use for treating malaria. And it work fine for me

exactly my point. You don't know what chemicals are contained in said lime...do you?

Rituals is not necessarily sacrificing to Ogun. It could work like burning incense. And I once said that is closely related to aromatherapy.

what exactly do those sacrifice aim for?

Incision is bullshite too? They burn same herbs and apply it through skin.

I didn't highlight incision. Though it is quite an unhealthy practice, at least it can be explained medically

Incantation is neurolinguistic programming. Sound can make baby sleep. I know kinda of music I play when she is around....and when I want that thing.

who/what are they trying to program? The patients or the energies/gods?

Some arts in this sense I mean like bathing patient with some substances. Child with Measles bathing with palmwine. Sitting patient direct to the sun and others. Squeezing of some leafs and placing it on maybe forehead for treating headache.

ok. Like I said before, strictly herbal treatments work fine though they have their own short comings but then try to separate it from the bullshit. When the babalawos start giving esoteric and 'spiritual' explanations to what is obviously a natural phenomena, it is either one of two things...they are ignorant or they are being dubious for personal/selfish reasons.

These things are working fine....I agree they cant give logical explanation or scientifical analysis but instead of calling it superstition or ridiculing it.....we should have scholar research in it.

there is already scholarly research on herbal medicines, but not on supernatural bullshit.

And from the spiritual side, I will laugh at you.

lol.

I'm optimistic in everything. That is why I delve into it gently even without knowing much about science.

having an open doesn't equal being gullible and credulous

You said this


Science do speculation, proposition, conjecture, inference and hypothesis of an event or phenomena which are not likely to be the real fact. Let me use 'educated guess' to provide answer when it not really is. We should dismiss every educated guess be it hypothesis, speculations and proposition, conjecture and inference right?

I'm sure you are aware of what is called the Scientific Method?

high tech weapons that can escalate extinction of life on the whole planet.

in fact, they should be taken most seriously. Who knows whose hand it may fall into? Or whether we might have to fight off aliens in future? ; D

No logical explanation yet for that. And instead of discrediting it, you research. Whatever the outcome is, you good to go with.

no, there is a logical explanation for it. Its called ignorant superstition

Ok, let's take it slow Rey...why do you think Euthanasia is a wicked act?

Joshthefirst: once I see some hard evidence that reptiles evolved from early amphibians, I'll rescind my position. You're welcome to show me evidence.

what will constitute hard evidence for you? I don't want to waste my time...

aManFromMars: Good one chelsea.

aManFromMars: Did you notice the similarity to the delusion of religion?

texanomaly: More truth than lie, but it doesn't mean one should stop trying to do their best.

if I say I love you now, will it be weird?

@topic, my own is corruption first, then education.

Space program no be now. I'm doing my own bit to brighten my own corner. My objective is education the minds of the upcoming generation, i've given up on any adult above 40 in Nigeria. Etc

Joshthefirst: I do not

yes. Classification is for human convenience.

lol. do you see any contradiction in your 2 replies now?

what if I show you some evidence that the reptiles evolved from early amphibians?

Area_boy: I am really hoping he was being witty with that comment. But if that wasnt a Joke, then I pity Christianity

did he look like he was joking? he just checkmated Atheists

FOLYKAZE: - local medicine works fine. Pls do you understand that does not stop at herbal medicine but extended to incantation, incision, rituals and some arts. Anyway you said it works fine and I agree with you.

- The superstitious riddled with the medicine as you claimed is what I wont agree on. Note spirituality is not science. Both are on the opposite side of a coin. Spirituality is search for the unknown, enquiry for full understanding of oneself and environ through the connectedness with nature or world around you. Information deduced are what that gave birth to philosophy. So am going to say philosophy is the intermediary between spirituality and science. The content of science is now usually taken to include ordered, formulated, objectivity verifiable knowledge; and to exclude the 'hearsay' knowledge of tradition, or subjective knowledge deriving from visionary experience, intuition, instinct and the like. Speculation about ultimate reality and general causes and principles, unless it can be referred, however indirectly back to experiment tends to be classed as spirituality. So riddle you called superstitions are spiritual explanations....which is different entirely from science. Cars seem not to move fast when you are in it. Looking at spiritual explanation from science perspective will appear like rubbish. Change the pole...you are good to go.

I largely agree with you but lemme address the bolded. you see, I happen to know some things about herbal medicine but I have no knowledge of incantations and rituals and 'some arts'. let me give you an example, the drug Quinine is actually gotten from the bark of the cinchona tree. this bark has been used over the centuries by native doctors for treating malaria without them actually knowing the actual component of the bark that does it. then came science who now studied the plant bark and proceeded to isolate and purify Quinine from it. i'm sure that while the native doctors were using the raw bark, some incantations and rituals would certainly have accompanied such treatments but the reality is that those incantations and extracurricular rituals were...bullshit. what was curing them was quinine, simple. not the incantations, rituals or some arts. I can excuse the ignorant native doctors but in this day and age, you cannot in good faith tell me that there is an actual benefit to say, sprinkling goat blood on iron in order to invoke the efficacy of ogun.

@red, that is called Mysteriousneeesssseeessss! i'm gonna call bullshit on that.

- Ignorance. Why are you like this? Do you expect the old man in the village to list twenty elements?

no. I expect you, folykaze to have some form of healthy skepticism.

Should this applies with speculations, proportions and hypothesis?

I don't understand this question.

It not everything science provided us that should be taken serious.

like what?

spirit is energy and natural force. Then they are rights.

it seems you are not seeing the problem this type of definition poses. can energy and natural force be manipulated by killing an animal and sprinkling its blood on its representative idol?

Joshthefirst: went through some of the link. A croc is a reptile.

Do you agree that reptiles actually evolved from amphibians?

Do you agree that the term 'species' is not as distinct as you may think? that it is just a human term of convenience?

@deepsight/deepardo, sorry i'm not interested at this moment in the direction our discussion is about to take. muskeeto, LB and Josh are having more fun.

na dia my mind de now

Reyginus: Honestly speaking , I don't think you know the weight of what you are saying. I don't dodge questions, bro.

How do you answer a question like this: What part of the desert do you find polar bear?

lol.



i'm afraid you did not fully understand the explanation I presented. it was meant to explain it in cases where the patient is unable to give consent e.g coma...

Number 1 plainly leaves the right of A's existence to B which is not a healthy position.

it is, if A is unconscious and B is otherwise responsible for A i.e intimate family member

Number 2. When he is acutely suffering, A cannot be in a position to make a decision for him. Acute pain unlike a chronic one is minor. This contradicts number 1.

why not? saying acute pain is not like chronic pain is irrelevant and pointless.

Number 3. a.The problem is still the same with number 1. It suggests that every decision is left only to B who cannot tell if A is still yearning for existence, not that even if he is not, it is automatically right. Even though there is room for number 2 to contradict it.

yearning for existence? what does this mean? A is terminally ill, yearning for existence will not keep you alive. you are still going to die, albeit painfully.

b. This also suggests that one there is an evidence for B there shouldn't be any for A. Which again appears to be the problem with 1 and 3a.

no. that is not what 3b is saying. it is saying that if there is sufficient evidence to show that the cause of the death will not be more painful than if A is left alone or allowed to die naturally.

Number 4
This shifts the question to the morality of suicide. Do you think that acute suffering is enough for suicide?

what how did you come to this conclusion from 4?

Number 5. This is irrelevant.

agreed.

jhidey08: Lubbish Atheist people. I don't blame dem, I blame dier parents, and d scientists dat confuse dem. If God doesn't really exist, den who takes pples' lives?? Dey're nt different 4rm Boko Haram pple na, brainwashed patapata.

CHECKMATE ATHEISTS

Josh, is a crocodile a reptile or an amphibian?

furthermore, have you gone through the link I gave you?

Reyginus: This is one of those tautological questions like, is a barchelor a married man?, does a carpenter make furniture, is the black goat black in colour?

To a answer a question like this the way you did, you must fall into the assumption that a dead man is something that has life, in the first place. Though answers are somethings provided but a look at it will show that they are repeating what already is in the question.

A dead man is a man who doesn't exist anymore. First, he doesn't exist. So anything you say about him with respect to existence would be completely wrong.

Just the same thing when I tell you that there is a food on the desert that doesn't exists but go ahead to say that it is very delicious. To be delicious, it has to first exist.

you are just running around dodging the question. you can see that giving the patient a painless death instead of allowing him to continually suffer pain until death is the moral thing to do. haggling about the definition of dead and how a dead person does not experience the relief is simply obfuscation.

I thought that by calling synecdoche you would understand perfectly what I am talking about. Anyways, no problem.

I didn't agree with that assumption.

I don't think so. The thing is, we cannot say that a person who cannot afford a treatment bill is asking for Euthanasia.

have you heard of passive euthanasia?

anyhow, take a look at this explanation and tell me what you think...

wikipedia: "In summary, we have argued ... that the death of a human being, A, is an instance of euthanasia if and only if (1) A's death is intended by at least one other human being, B, where B is either the cause of death or a causally relevant feature of the event resulting in death (whether by action or by omission); (2) there is either sufficient current evidence for B to believe that A is acutely suffering or irreversibly comatose, or there is sufficient current evidence related to A's present condition such that one or more known causal laws supports B's belief that A will be in a condition of acute suffering or irreversible comatoseness; (3) (a) B's primary reason for intending A's death is cessation of A's (actual or predicted future) suffering or irreversible comatoseness, where B does not intend A's death for a different primary reason, though there may be other relevant reasons, and (b) there is sufficient current evidence for either A or B that causal means to A's death will not produce any more suffering than would be produced for A if B were not to intervene; (4) the causal means to the event of A's death are chosen by A or B to be as painless as possible, unless either A or B has an overriding reason for a more painful causal means, where the reason for choosing the latter causal means does not conflict with the evidence in 3b; (5) A is a nonfetal organism."

I don edit my post @folykaze.

FOLYKAZE: This is not making any sense.

really?

- they aint making superstitions. Personification of a phenomena to explain something to the best way you can is not superstition. We have educated children to build and reconstruct this theories. Not for a mockery point.

superstition


/ˌsuːpəˈstɪʃ(ə)n,ˌsjuː-/


noun

1.
excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.

"he dismissed the ghost stories as mere superstition"


synonyms: unfounded belief, credulity;
"medicine was riddled with superstition and ignorance"
a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck, or a practice based on such a belief.

- they know things work but cant give explanation for it. Medicine is a good example. They pluck leaves for healing an ailment. It work fine but the old man in the village cant explain how it works. Intelligence evolve.....we here are regressing intelligence by mocking it instead of developing it from where they stopped. Let me give you example of what I discovered but cant explain till date. Wrap rags (osuka) like ones used for lifting load. Catch a goat and make it sleep on the floor. Then place the wrapped rag on it face covering it eye and ear. Lol. The goat go sleep be that. He no go shake not to talk of stand on it feet even till after hours. I did thing like this for fun and it work. But can I explain it? Nope. What if I can devise it for capturing wild animal......and I still don't have explanation for it, will you call it superstition? If this and what local medicine is superstition, then go figure for yourself.

you are missing the point. what I will term superstition for example is when you start saying that there is a spirit of sleepiness in the rag that is making the goat docile and then start making sacrifices to the spirit in order to increase or manipulate its efficacy.

- Supernatural is a term used to describe a phenomenon which are unexplanable yet and which are attributed to Spirits or Gods. Have I not explained that spirits and Gods are personified energies? I even said somewhere that when there are explanations for a supernatural event, it becomes norms and add up to knowledge. Isaac Newton made most of his theories from occultism. We are tired of insulting, mocking and bashing. Do the needful....you cant expect an illiterate in the village or person like me that hardly know the 20 elements and common physics law to make up a model from the ancient science.

we are saying the same thing, except that not all things claimed as supernatural should be taken seriously.

- Truth. We need to separate dogmatism from the plain fact. We need to unveil the naturalistic illustrations and deep philosophies embedded in spiritualism. Carl Sagan said science is the profound source of spirituality. We go in their and bring sense....not that we pack all as nonsense. Buddhism have superstitions but Sam Harris still embrace it. Hinduism in practically pantheism but Darwin sexed it up with his atheism. They do this by separating fable from fact.


Goodnight

do this also. try to separate fact from fable. a plant cures stomach ache, true but surely you can dismiss a babalawo who says that pikiwoki, the spirit of healing dwells in that plant.

JMAN05: That is the extent science can can go. they cant go spiritual. That is why they cant explain who/what caused the process to begin.

but you can? through...

never mind, don't answer that.

plaetton: @Deepsight,
Pls Kindly tell us how your idea of God has evolved over the years, from your childhood to the present level.

lol. you de go too far. ask am from July till now.

Logicboy03: You agree with speciation but not common descent Speciation in terms of humans would mean what?

I give up. You are silly

answersingenesis has not agreed yet...

FOLYKAZE: Local Medicines are not

strictly herbal medicines are not, true. but most times bullshit is mixed in and then we don't know where nature stops and where bullshit begins...

just seeing this thread now so I don't know if this has been addressed...


[size=16pt]I thought it was the MODs that vote within themselves who gets to be MOD of the year?[/size]

Joshthefirst: My conscience and dogged determination and faith and hope might not allow me to recommend euthanasia personally.

thank you. at least a honest answer.

Josh, this is in good faith.

take it or leave it... http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

dorox: She fine no be small and she dey brilliant well well, she don marry

FOLYKAZE: Folykaze stated that he cant provide whole logical explanation on the subject.

its simple really.
just call it ignorant superstition by those men. it doesn't mean you are disrespecting your ancestry. it is what it is. they didn't know how some things worked so they made up supernatural explanations for them and proceeded to 'appease' the gods of whatever it is they couldn't explain in other to get favourable outcomes.

you don't have to try to rationalize everything they did. some are just ignorant superstitions. shikena!

quivah: no, thanks

common, loosen up.

you know you want to

dorox: My youngest sister is an agnostic

she fine?

I had this conversation with a Christian girl

After describing her (unrealistic) ideal man for more than 30 minutes, she ended with a 'HE MUST BE GOD FEARING!'

So, I responded this way: you either find a man that is pretending to be god fearing but nothing different from me or a 'true god fearing' man.
Let's assume you get the god fearing man
She interrupted with an 'it would be exciting'


So I thought about it for a while and responded, he will never watch a Indecency, he will never lick your pussy, he doesn't know you have a g spot and that means he will never make you squirt, he will never go on top of you to make you come but procreate, is that what you call exciting?
maybe be the one sided boring and repeated conversation is what you call exciting or the god said this and that.

She interrupted again, 'at least he worships god' and I responded, at your detriment.

Then she goes (kindly this time), in a comparative way, tell me how better you can be.

my response: He'll treat you as his subordinate, I'll treat you like my equal He'll tell you how sinful you are, I'll tell you how good you are He'll speak more on his love for god, I'll confess my love for you He'll tell you how you are man's vehicle to hell, I'll tell you how good your pussy is and how it makes the world a better place He will tell you your enemy is Satan, then pray for you, I'll observe who your true enemies are then treat them accordingly. He will blame Satan for his mistakes, I will take full responsibility for mine. He has a fantasy world else where, you are my fantasy He will share his money with God, I'll share mine with you...

copied from THE Facebook page.

quivah: I bet he'd rather the machine is turned off...

would you like your machine turned 'on'?