₦airaland Forum

plaetton:
Correction.
I don't mock people for whatever they believe.
I mock people who push public agendas based on their religious beliefs.
In other words, if a religious person comes on this public forum to push a worldview based on his / her religious faith, I have the right, and even duty to challenge, repudiate or even mock that view if I think it goes against the common grain of reason and rationality.

Well, I think you are scoring a massive own goal and engaging in what fundamentalists have done for centuries, as well as being afraid of the environment of intolerance that you are helping to create.

I seems as if you quickly get to a point where you are unable to articulate your ideas, then you resort to irrationality covered up as mockery, humour, sarcasm etc.

Toyolad:
I mean,If u believe that there 'was' an intelligent creator then it's logical to reason that He didnt create all these just for him to leave them to operate by their own laws,He probably had a reason for embarking on the d task of creation..then,do u think,he created d universe nd went to sleep without having any influence in its operations?

Reason why Deist holds this belief is because of the lie in religion. They acknowledge the existence of a Creator, but that this Creator doesn't have any religion. They believe religion to be the work of man and not divine because of its flaws. On a normal basis, you believe in God through religion. But if a freethinker examines these religions he would discover that they are just mere works of men. Atheism also rejects God because of the lack of reasonable proof from religion.He maintains that there can't be a God because religion fails. Deism, in the other hand believes in the necessity of a Creator tho religion has no credit

sinequanon:
Well, I think you are scoring a massive own goal and engaging in what fundamentalists have done for centuries, as well as being afraid of the environment of intolerance that you are helping to create.

I seems as if you quickly get to a point where you are unable to articulate your ideas, then you resort to irrationality covered up as mockery, humour, sarcasm etc.

That is is just your own jaundiced view.

Let me give you an example.
If you believe that you are child of Abraham, that is your own issue.
But if you come here to use the words " WE are all " children of Abraham, then you have gravely insulted me, and therefore deserve a thorough repudiation.
That is how we roll here.

I don't know about you, but I get accosted every single day by people pushing, hawking and even trying to enforce their irrational beliefs on me.

Take a trip to Nigeria, and you will understand why the pushback is necessary.

wirinet:
I said secondary because the school gave me a solid science foundation, so much so that even though i went on to read Architecture, my passion for the sciences was never diminished. Please forget paper qualifications, there are tons of Mscs and Phds in the sciences in Nigeria who lack understanding of basic science principles.

What kind of researcher are you? It cannot be in the Natural and applied sciences, because there is no way a real scientist in the 21st century would be saying he believes in electrons because of faith.

Yes. Natural sciences. And a solid foundation in applied mathematics from University of Cambridge.

wirinet:
People like you aka people of faith are very difficult to argue with. If you are given an electron to hold in your hand. you will still deny it is an electron. For example someone shows you see a flat disc in a telescope that has the distinguishing features of say mars and you are able to follow its projected orbit for a few days, you will still say "no that is not a planet" it can be a comet , it can be a balloon, or even a blot on the telescope, but it cannot be a planet. Now, how can one debate with such a person.

The fact that you think you can identify an electron by holding it in your hand, says it all.

You are irrational and dishonest. How can I debate with you? You have added criteria to you telescope image from your last post, and added "cannot be a planet". It is called dishonesty and hypocrisy.

You need to learn how to articulate your point honestly. The direction you are heading in is that your confidence in the existence of the phenomenon in this case depends on a number of personally observed repeatable behaviours and features.

What you are failing to do with your dishonest mode of debate is to explain what the difference is between that and a religious person reporting personal experiences with their god.

wirinet:
I never said i have seen all the planets and moons in our solar system. I have only seen some, but there are actual photos of others by probes that have visited those planets and moons. But of course you will argue that the photos and even videos are fake to support your science if faith theory.

You are illogical. I am saying that you should acknowledge your faith in those photos, rather than pretend it is something else. It may be extremely strong faith, but it is faith. I am not bashing it.

You seem to be the one criticizing faith and calling things fake as a result. Don't blame me for your confusion.

wirinet:
So you want me to monitor how ALL PHOTOS are produced before i accept them as authentic? In that case no evidence would be accepted in court except the judge himself is a witness to the crime. Are you implying fake pictures and videos cannot cannot be identified. Are you also implying that NASA would spend billions of dollars sending probes to space only to produce fake pictures and videos.

Well i am done arguing. If you believe science is faith, then that is your problem.

You are not arguing honestly. Lay out your criteria for accepting the photo, and do it upfront and honestly. If one criterion is NASA's budget, then list it upfront. What are you afraid of.

I am not knocking faith. I am only identifying it as what it is.

The fact that you find yourself obfuscating your position, lying about what I am saying etc. should tell you that your concepts are twisted somewhere along the line.

plaetton:
That is is just your own jaundiced view.

Let me give you an example.
If you believe that you are child of Abraham, that is your own issue.
But if you come here to use the words " WE are all " children of Abraham, then you have gravely insulted me, and therefore deserve a thorough repudiation.
That is how we roll here.

I don't know about you, but I get accosted every single day by people pushing, hawking and even trying to enforce their irrational beliefs on me.

Take a trip to Nigeria, and you will understand why the pushback is necessary.

I don't know why so many Africans think that diatribe is "pushing back".

Look at the Chinese. In their culture, they just keep quiet and say, "ok, carry on doing the weak things that you are doing." Then they go away and concentrate on BUILDING the picture they believe in.

How can weak folk, whom you are calling delusional, ignorant illiterates be pushing you around long term. How can people you claim are being exploited be screwing up your life, Why are you wasting time arguing with weak folk? Why aren't you busy succeeding in your own picture?

Frustration is usually a result of having a failing picture. So you have to fix your own picture or be accept someone else's.

sinequanon:
I don't know why so many Africans think that diatribe is "pushing back".

Look at the Chinese. In their culture, they just keep quiet and say, "ok, carry on doing the weak things that you are doing." Then they go away and concentrate on BUILDING the picture they believe in.

How can weak folk, whom you are calling delusional, ignorant illiterates be pushing you around long term. How can people you claim are being exploited be screwing up your life, Why are you wasting time arguing with weak folk? Why aren't you busy succeeding in your own picture?

Frustration is usually a result of having a failing picture. So you have to fix your own picture or be accept someone else's.

Good talk(for once you making a bit sense,lol , ) , but you still don't get it.
The Chinese, whom you just referred to above, embarked on one of the most successful, and some would say brutal social engineering project ever,.. you can call it communism, socialism or Maoism, that have transformed and their society into a regimented system of hardwork, patience, perserverence and relentless drive to excellence.
I can say the same for post world war 2 Japan, South Korea, etc.

So, a pushback, no matter how little or insignificant , is still a commendable social engineering project or first step.

Nigeria, Africa, in general, needs to be socially re-engineered.
That, I hope, we can all agree with.

In Africa's list of problems, the mental toxins of irrational, and mostly imported faith, is the priority.
That is my own personal opinion.

plaetton:
Good talk, but you still don't get it.
The Chinese, whom you just referred to above, embarked on one of the most successful, and some would say brutal social engineering project ever,.. you can call it communism, socialism or Maoism, that have transformed and their society into a regimented system of hardwork, patience, perserverence and relentless drive to excellence.
I can say the same for post world war 2 Japan, South Korea, etc.

So, a pushback, no matter how little or insignificant , is still a commendable social engineering project.

Nigeria, Africa, in general, needs to be socially re-engineered.
That, I hope, we can all agree with.

In Africa's list of problems, the mental toxins of irrational, and mostly imported faith, is the priority.
That is my own personal opinion.

Well, you mentioned pluses and minuses in the Chinese system. What prevails, prevails because nothing better is currently able to push it out of the way. Even an ugly system can prevail if the alternative is even worse. I don't see it as social engineering. If you succeed, even starting as a small community, people will look to see what you are doing better.

My point is that your particular tactics on this forum ADD to the "irrationality" in Africa. The way you debate, you join the mob, ranting, evading points, using rhetoric, cartoons and jokes, instead of calmly building and putting a community into action. If you managed to get a community together of people like you, you will discover the problems with your approach and people using dishonesty to get their way.

I actually used to be a member of a Chinese forum. I have to admit that the standard of debate and logical argument generally put to shame what goes on here.

^^^

We all tend to forget too quickly, that great the great nations of the world were socially engineered into greatness by people who had a vision, and who were sometimes brutal in the constructions of important social pillars.

Likewise, weak nations, like Nigeria, were also socially engineered for failure. This is the folly of our elites, the failure to realized that we were organized for failure.
A mental realignment is an urgent imperative to ensure.

We can hardly do any type of mental realignment for good is we do not destroy , or at the least, water down one of the strongest and most debilitating vestiges of imperialism from the African mind : The tokumbo custodial Religions.

plaetton:
^^^

We all tend to forget too quickly, that great the great nations of the world were socially engineered into greatness by people who had a vision, and who were sometimes brutal in the constructions of important social pillars.

Likewise, weak nations, like Nigeria, were also socially engineered for failure. This is the folly of our elites, the failure to realized that we were organized for failure.
A mental realignment is an urgent imperative to ensure.

We can hardly do any type of mental realignment for good is we do not destroy , or at the least, water down one of the strongest and most debilitating vestiges of imperialism from the African mind : The tokumbo custodial Religions.

I have seen you mock philosophy. I have seen you misunderstand the importance of, and mock, vision. Well, that is what built the so-called great nations. They studied behaviour, weakness, strength, questions of destiny, purpose and motivation in life. They built their systems on morals and ideals.

That does not mean that you accommodate weakness. Don't let weakness obstruct you. Let the wantonly weak wither. That is not brutality. There will always be those who don't work for the vision, or even fight it, only to be there when it is time to reap the benefits. Leave them to work their way up from the bottom of the heap or come up with some better way. It is the "struggle" that builds strength of character. And it is strength of character on which nations thrive. Why do so many Africans act like children looking to be spoon fed?

All this complaining about the elite and leaders is a kind of rot that has set into many cultures. You should go through your own paces and demonstrate why your own vision is more elite.

sinequanon:
I have seen you mock philosophy. I have seen you misunderstand the importance of, and mock, vision. Well, that is what built the so-called great nations. They studied behaviour, weakness, strength, questions of destiny, purpose and motivation in life. They built their systems on morals and ideals.

That does not mean that you accommodate weakness. Don't let weakness obstruct you. Let the wantonly weak wither. That is not brutality. There will always be those who don't work for the vision, or even fight it, only to be there when it is time to reap the benefits. Leave them to work their way up from the bottom of the heap or come up with some better way. It is the "struggle" that builds strength of character. And it is strength of character on which nations thrive. Why do so many Africans act like children looking to be spoon fed?

All this complaining about the elite and leaders is a kind of rot that has set into many cultures. You should go through your own paces and demonstrate why your own vision is more elite.

For the second time today, I am agreeing with much of what you have written.
But I must emphasize that social engineering is what guides the building of a great society.

In a nation like Nigeria, the strong in mind and character are grossly overwhelmed by the irrational majority who blindly follow the pied pipers of religious faith to perdition.

I do not see how a pushpack against these pied pipers of religion can be counterproductive.

plaetton:
For the second time today, I am agreeing with much of what you have written.
But I must emphasize that social engineering is what guides the building of a great society.

Social engineering is manipulation. That is what religion is doing in Nigeria, for example.

There seems to be something Machiavellian in the way you, and most Nigerians, seem to think. It will only lead to a heap of struggle and more lessons in a different scenario.

Courage is about building strong morals and having the conviction of your morals -- no Machiavellian shortcuts or religious pretences. I am sure that Africans once had such ideals. They just didn't pursue them with utmost vigour and rigour.

plaetton:
In a nation like Nigeria, the strong in mind and character are grossly overwhelmed by the irrational majority who blindly follow the pied pipers of religious faith to perdition.

I do not see how a pushpack against these pied pipers of religion can be counterproductive.

You are looking at it from the point of view of these other people instead of scrutinizing yourself. You are allowing other people to be a grave distraction.

Say I, for example, as a diasporan Nigerian, am looking for a business partner in Nigeria. I decide that I will not include in my business anyone who is going to be leaking money to churches or any religion -- or even somebody whose outlook is religious. So, I look to folk who are atheists. What do i see? A load of unstable ranters, who seem incapable of articulating their opinions clearly, don't understand philosophy and morals and its importance in business ethics and relationships. Too many atheists are too busy ranting to be available to build anything. Of course they will remain dominated.

sinequanon:
Yes. Natural sciences. And a solid foundation in applied mathematics from University of Cambridge.



The fact that you think you can identify an electron by holding it in your hand, says it all.

You are irrational and dishonest. How can I debate with you? You have added criteria to you telescope image from your last post, and added "cannot be a planet". It is called dishonesty and hypocrisy.

You need to learn how to articulate your point honestly. The direction you are heading in is that your confidence in the existence of the phenomenon in this case depends on a number of personally observed repeatable behaviours and features.

What you are failing to do with your dishonest mode of debate is to explain what the difference is between that and a religious person reporting personal experiences with their god.



You are illogical. I am saying that you should acknowledge your faith in those photos, rather than pretend it is something else. It may be extremely strong faith, but it is faith. I am not bashing it.

You seem to be the one criticizing faith and calling things fake as a result. Don't blame me for your confusion.



You are not arguing honestly. Lay out your criteria for accepting the photo, and do it upfront and honestly. If one criterion is NASA's budget, then list it upfront. What are you afraid of.

I am not knocking faith. I am only identifying it as what it is.

The fact that you find yourself obfuscating your position, lying about what I am saying etc. should tell you that your concepts are twisted somewhere along the line.

I had already decided not to waste my time continuing with this senseless debate.. I deliberately used the "hold the electron in your hand" metaphor to draw you out, and you fell for it. A person with a sense of humour will understand it for what it is - a metaphor.

Which criteria did i add to the telescope image? We are arguing whether the existence of Planets is based on faith, i told you that anybody who want physical evidence can get a telescope and look up the planets themselves, you came up with the stupid argument that the image on the telescope might be a blot on the telescope, a balloon (an Iridescent one) or a comet (i still laugh at this excuse). Anybody that wants to prove mars exist will know what Mars already looks like and will know where to search. The person will definitely know the difference between a balloon, a comet or even a blot on the lens. Except you suggest someone pasted a micro picture of mars on the lens.

wirinet:
I had already decided not to waste my time continuing with this senseless debate.. I deliberately used the "hold the electron in your hand" metaphor to draw you out, and you fell for it. A wise person will understand it for what it is - a metaphor, but someone who is just arguing for argument sake will see it a victorious point of argument.

Wrong. I deliberately drew you out, because, as usual, your inability to articulate your point accurately has made you take refuge in metaphor. Scientists don't use metaphors when proving points. They don't use cartoons, sarcasm, and all the other shananigans you find yourself using. The reason you find yourself using such things is because your thought processes are not clear and you struggle to articulate them.

wirinet:
The fact that you felt i actually mean you can physically hold electrons in your hand betrays your Intelligent Quotient. No wonder you equate science to faith.

See if you can articulate yourself properly this time. That means a clear description of how you personally identify your electron that differs fundamentally from how someone personally experiences the effect of their god. No excuse of "I was using metaphor" to hide behind your inability to account for your beliefs.

wirinet:
Which criteria did i add to the telescope image?

You can read. Stop pretending. You fool nobody.

sinequanon:
All that means is that you personally reject the evidence, not that there is no evidence. A religious person will tell you that they have prayed and felt their god. That, for them is evidence. You are told that the light in your room comes on because electrons are flowing down a wire. That, for you is evidence, although you have never seen an "electron".

What science have you questioned? How have you questioned it? Let us be honest, most of it you repeat without any first hand experience, so you are relying on faith.

the light you see are the eletrons

Psylas:
the light you see are the eletrons

You have to be a bit more precise than "the light you see". What light? Where?

In physics, light is photons and has a characteristic speed c and rest mass of zero.

An electron, on the other hand, has a non-zero rest mass and cannot travel at speed c. You can use electrons to generate light, and indirectly deduce the presence of electrons.

But even if you did that, seeing the light is not primary proof of any kind of particle, let alone electrons. It is qualitative evidence that something is happening, but you need very precise quantitative evidence to identify that particle.

(To digress a little, a simple example of why qualitative evidence is considered inadequate is when soap gets into your eyes. That may trigger a chemical or physical response in which you see colours, but that does not mean that it is due to electromagnetic radiation (or electrons) entering the eye.)

Sinequanon is forever conflating "faith" and science.

Faith is what you believe based on religion or on your own values.


For instance, I believe that Jesus is the son of God while a Muslim believes that Jesus us a prophet of Allah. Both if us have opposing beliefs on the same issue based on faith.


Science is about things you can prove by observation, measurement and so on.


Faith and science can overlap. For instance, muslims believed in washing hands and genitals after excretion as cleanliness unto Allah before germ theory was popularised. Their faith is backed by science on that issue.


However, science and faith are not the same.

God exists in the minds of those who believe in it.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Sinequanon is forever conflating "faith" and science.

Faith is what you believe based on religion or on your own values.


For instance, I believe that Jesus is the son of God while a Muslim believes that Jesus us a prophet of Allah. Both if us have opposing beliefs on the same issue based on faith.

There are many "opposing" views in science. That is one massive oversight on your part. To miss that, it is almost as if your have been hypnotized to just repeat "science is not faith-based"

AllNaijaBlogger:
Science is about things you can prove by observation, measurement and so on.

Proof only means "convincing people", even though it has probably taken on the connotation of "TRUTH" in your head. Proof is relative to the people doing the assessment. Theists have their standards of proof, too, and it is based on observation of parallels they draw between scripture and experience. YOU may not like their proof, but that doesn't make your standard of proof special. Both involve interpretation and faith.

AllNaijaBlogger:
However, science and faith are not the same.

Don't try to build a straw man. I said that science is faith-based.

Nobody has been able to articulate what they think the difference in faith is (between religious and scientific belief), If you think that you are correct, pinpoint the difference.

sinequanon:
There are many "opposing" views in science. That is one massive oversight on your part. To miss that, it is almost as if your have been hypnotized to just repeat "science is not faith-based"



Proof only means "convincing people", even though it has probably taken on the connotation of "TRUTH" in your head. Proof is relative to the people doing the assessment. Theists have their standards of proof, too, and it is based on observation of parallels they draw between scripture and experience. YOU may not like their proof, but that doesn't make your standard of proof special. Both involve interpretation and faith.




Don't try to build a straw man. I said that science is faith-based.

Nobody has been able to articulate what they think the difference in faith is (between religious and scientific belief), If you think that you are correct, pinpoint the difference.

What you fail to understand is that the facts in science don't oppose each other. The conclusions and applications by different scientists can oppose each other but not the facts.


When it comes to faith, everything can be opposed because it is based in personal and sometimes, sectarian interpretations.


Faith is belief in things not evidenced or seen. Science must measure and observe before it works. So how can you argue that science is faith based?

I can't prove to anyone that I feel the essence of Christ when I read the scriptures and obey his teaching. I can only explain my feeling to the person. This is different from science where every theory is grounded on facts.

AllNaijaBlogger:
What you fail to understand is that the facts in science don't oppose each other. The conclusions and applications by different scientists can oppose each other but not the facts.

A fact is just a conclusion that has been accepted by a significant majority of the group in question.

You are arguing round in circles. You are saying that scientists agree on the conclusions that they agree on. So what? They still disagree on the conclusions that they disagree on.

Any group of people can agree on particular conclusions, and call them "facts". For Christians, the existence of god is a "fact".

I know what is next. This has triggered in your head, "yes, but it hasn't been proven", and "yes, but 'there is no' evidence". Then we have to go back to our previous post about proof only being about the convictions of a group of people, and being relative to the assessor. Eventually, we will get back to the points in this post, and keep going round and round and round in circles until you can pinpoint a difference.

Also, it is not for you to lump together Christians with Muslims, for example, and then claim that they disagree. I could lump you with Buddhists and say that you disagree.

AllNaijaBlogger:
When it comes to faith, everything can be opposed because it is based in personal and sometimes, sectarian interpretations.

Facts are personal interpretations which become accepted by a group. This is exactly how science works. You interpret an experiment. If your personal interpretation becomes widely accepted by your group, you stop calling it a personal interpretation. But, for some reason, when it comes to "religion", you keep calling it personal, even when it is widely accepted in the religious group.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Faith is belief in things not evidenced or seen.

Religious folks do have evidence. They say that they pray and god can intervene. It happens to be evidence that doesn't convince YOU. That doesn't make evidence that does convince you universally special. You can keep repeating your assertion, but that won't make it correct.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Science must measure and observe before it works. So how can you argue that science is faith based?

Religious folk observe, too. You have to address this point and stop ignoring it to plug a hole in your logic.

AllNaijaBlogger:
I can't prove to anyone that I feel the essence of Christ when I read the scriptures and obey his teaching. I can only explain my feeling to the person. This is different from science where every theory is grounded on facts.

Christians can, and do, prove things to other people. How do you think so many people became Christian?

Christians interpret events in their lives, that other people can observe, and some of those other people believe those interpretations. "X happened to Y, we all prayed, and Y pulled through against the 'odds'". You might not like the interpretation, but that doesn't make it any different from what is happening in science.

Just using "feelings" for one and "facts" for the other is just fooling yourself with words. You are not able to pinpoint the difference.

sinequanon:
A fact is just a conclusion that has been accepted by a significant majority of the group in question.

You are arguing round in circles. You are saying that scientists agree on the conclusions that they agree on. So what? They still disagree on the conclusions that they disagree on.

Any group of people can agree on particular conclusions, and call them "facts". For Christians, the existence of god is a "fact".

I know what is next. This has triggered in your head, "yes, but it hasn't been proven", and "yes, but 'there is no' evidence". Then we have to go back to our previous post about proof only being about the convictions of a group of people, and being relative to the assessor. Eventually, we will get back to the points in this post, and keep going round and round and round in circles until you can pinpoint a difference.

Also, it is not for you to lump together Christians with Muslims, for example, and then claim that they disagree. I could lump you with Buddhists and say that you disagree.



Facts are personal interpretations which become accepted by a group. This is exactly how science works. You interpret an experiment. If your personal interpretation becomes widely accepted by your group, you stop calling it a personal interpretation. But, for some reason, when it comes to "religion", you keep calling it personal, even when it is widely accepted in the religious group.



Religious folks do have evidence. They say that they pray and god can intervene. It happens to be evidence that doesn't convince YOU. That doesn't make evidence that does convince you universally special. You can keep repeating your assertion, but that won't make it correct.



Religious folk observe, too. You have to address this point and stop ignoring it to plug a hole in your logic.



Christians can, and do, prove things to other people. How do you think so many people became Christian?

Christians interpret events in their lives, that other people can observe, and some of those other people believe those interpretations. "X happened to Y, we all prayed, and Y pulled through against the 'odds'". You might not like the interpretation, but that doesn't make it any different from what is happening in science.

Just using "feelings" for one and "facts" for the other is just fooling yourself with words. You are not able to pinpoint the difference.

Are you really serious? Facts are personal interpretations?


I see that you aren't serious with this discussion.


Facts are not personal. They are universal truths.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Are you really serious? Facts are personal interpretations?

I see that you aren't serious with this discussion.

Facts are not personal. They are universal truths.

We have reached a point where you are unable to articulate where your ideas are coming from, and you seem to be getting excited.

First you have to read carefully. Personal opinions become facts when they are accepted by a significant majority of some group.

They are facts relative to that group.

Then you have to find a way to articulate your deas and frame your response, without simply repeating your belief in an increasingly animated frenzy.

sinequanon:
We have reached a point where you are unable to articulate where your ideas are coming from, and you seem to be getting excited.

First you have to read carefully. Personal opinions become facts when they are accepted by a significant majority of some group.

They are facts relative to that group.

Then you have to find a way to articulate your deas and frame your response, without simply repeating your belief in an increasingly animated frenzy.

There is no need to engage in ad hominems.

You do not know what a fact is.

How can facts be the same as personal opinion in your dictionary?
Smh

AllNaijaBlogger:
There is no need to engage in ad hominems.

You do not know what a fact is.

How can facts be the same as personal opinion in your dictionary?
Smh

If you act like an illiterate, as you are now, I will tell you.

Now go back, read what you wrote and what I wrote, and stop acting like an illiterate.

Thank you.

sinequanon:
If you act like an illiterate, as you are now, I will tell you.

Now go back, read what you wrote and what I wrote, and stop acting like an illiterate.

Thank you.

No need for insults. There is a mature and literate way to debate.

You write that facts are personal opinions accepted by some group. This is wrong.

You are just making up your own definitions

AllNaijaBlogger:
No need for insults. There is a mature and literate way to debate.

Then use it. That way, you won't feel insulted when you make gaffes.

AllNaijaBlogger:
You write that facts are personal opinions accepted by some group. This is wrong.

You are just making up your own definitions

So why did you read it as "facts are personal opinions", regardless. You see why you get called illiterate.

And you still haven't got it.

Try again -- third attempt -- and look up the word "become" in the dictionary, if you don't understand it.

sinequanon:
Then use it. That way, you won't feel insulted when you make gaffes.



So why did you read it as "facts are personal opinions", regardless. You see why you get called illiterate.

And you still haven't got it.

Try again -- third attempt -- and look up the word "become" in the dictionary, if you don't understand it.

Still, you stated that facts are personal opinions. Whether accepted by a group or not, personal opinions can never be fact.

I don't like to engage in insults so I will leave you. Sorry.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Still, you stated that facts are personal opinions. Whether accepted by a group or not, personal opinions can never be fact.

I don't like to engage in insults so I will leave you. Sorry.

The guy feels he is the only person learned on nairaland because he studied mathematics at Cambridge university. Yet he doesn't know the definition of a basic word as fact.

Sinequanon is a case of someone passing through school,school didn't pass through him,he just happened to be a graduate he doesn't behave like someone who even have basic education.

Fact according to Merriam Webster dictionary

: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
: a true piece of information

But according to a Cambridge university graduate
Fact is a personal opinion that becomes fact,relative to a significant amount of some group of people(scientists/religious people)

So that means according to Sinequanon we can never have a universal fact,because they were once personal opinions that was later accepted as a fact by majority of people,Which makes the "fact" relative to Those who accept it as fact.

That means, saying the sun is at the center of our solar system is just a personal opinion that was accepted as a fact by some significant amount of some group of people,some people don't accept that the sun is at the centre of our solar system because it's just a personal opinion that became fact and it's only relative to Those that accepted it as a fact.

Am I making sense?

HELL NOOOOOO!!!!

Fortunately it's not my opinion it's the opinion of a Cambridge university graduate.

@lanrexlan Ar u a medical student of Ui? Ur username sounds familiar.

Dapo777:
@lanrexlan Ar u a medical student of Ui? Ur username sounds familiar.

No, I am an Engineering student, not UI thouugh.Nicknames may be the same bro.

lanrexlan:
No, I am an Engineering student, not UI thouugh.Nicknames may be the same bro.

Ok

Dapo777:
The guy feels he is the only person learned on nairaland because he studied mathematics at Cambridge university. Yet he doesn't know the definition of a basic word as fact.

Sinequanon is a case of someone passing through school,school didn't pass through him,he just happened to be a graduate he doesn't behave like someone who even have basic education.

Fact according to Merriam Webster dictionary

: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
: a true piece of information

But according to a Cambridge university graduate
Fact is a personal opinion that becomes fact,relative to a significant amount of some group of people(scientists/religious people)

So that means according to Sinequanon we can never have a universal fact,because they were once personal opinions that was later accepted as a fact by majority of people,Which makes the "fact" relative to Those who accept it as fact.

That means, saying the sun is at the center of our solar system is just a personal opinion that was accepted as a fact by some significant amount of some group of people,some people don't accept that the sun is at the centre of our solar system because it's just a personal opinion that became fact and it's only relative to Those that accepted it as a fact.

Am I making sense?

HELL NOOOOOO!!!!

Fortunately it's not my opinion it's the opinion of a Cambridge university graduate.

Happy new year!.

Thanks for taking time to explain the misunderstanding that sinequanon has with facts. I couldn't have said it better.


I honestly doubt that SQ went to Cambridge. Maybe he went to Kemibridge in Ekiti because his statements portray an unsophisticated philosopher