₦airaland Forum

MaxInDHouse:
So you think the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" means people who are programmed not to be abusive even though you insult them shey?

Try that with JWs when we're not in the field service nah, in fact some will deal with you to an extent you will never try nonsense with the JW you meet next time.

Christ Jesus didn't teach us to be quiet when a faithless miscreant is accusing us wrongly neither did he teach us to be stupid rather we look at situations surrounding the matter so as to know the next action we will take.

If you don't abuse or insult people no one will do so to you {Matthew 7:12} you can't start calling me names simply because of my faith and expect me to be quiet of course i will put you where you rightly belong!

And you think I don't have family members and friends who are JW to know better . Dey play

Kobojunkie:
I honestly don't get this mentality of yours at all. What meaning is there to claiming one thinks outside of the box all the while sitting tight within the same box?

There's some sense in what the op said

Thinking does not involve physical movement. You don't think with your legs..

So it's very possible to sit within the box and still think beyond what is contained in the box

NowYouKnow:
I registered on nairaland last month and my intention was to make educative posts in the education section but now I am being forced to make a thread here in the religion section.

I have observed that the Organisation I belong to ( Christian Congregation of Jehovah's witnesses) is constantly under attack and to make matters worse, certain individuals claiming to be witnesses have been a contributing factor to the unnecessary attacks on my organisation. Whether these individuals are really members of my organisation is a question I can't answer. But one thing I will tell you is their conduct and speech in this forum does not in anyway represent that of a member of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's witnesses.

The purpose of this thread is to answer any question anyone may have truthfully and honestly starting with the most common: Are Jehovah's witnesses a cult?

Stay tuned and follow along.

Good you are here .

Though I'm not a witness ,the JW I know outside this furom are mostly well behaved .

The ones here are quick to insult ,abuse you and engage in barefaced lies without shame .

jaephoenix:
I'm not his personal physician, but I'm a physician myself. I was not there when the man died, I based my provisional diagnosis based on media reports about his death which may be biased. So from those reports, the only diagnosis I came come up with is an arrest. I may be wrong based on incorrect premise. The only way to know 100% about his CoD was an autopsy, not even what his personal physician says

And when the autopsy is done ,the personal physician is prevented from knowing about it ?.

I never said the personal physician must be the one to carry out the autopsy . If one was done ,I believe he or she should be in a better position to know how it went and let the public know if need be.


At the begining you sounded so confident as if you were certain about what actually killed him ,and went on to lecture me the difference between heart attack and cardiac arrest as if I don't know that .

But it has turned out you were just guessing oncerning cause of death since you don't have all the facts of the case .

Why waste my time with all this back and forth about what you are not sure of? I only reported a rumor concerning his death and not fact .

Please rest .

jaephoenix:
History means the story surrounding his death.
It was said he sat down and simply slumped.

That's a classic arrest

You have based your diagnosis on mere rumors . If that you mentioned never happened ,how would you know?

But assuming it were true , how did you confirm he didn't die from that given the fact that in some few cases it could be fatal ?

One can only begin to listen to you if you were his personal physician or can provide evidence of what
actually caused his death .

jaephoenix:
From The history, it looked like an arrest, and not attack. The latter isn't usually fatal but the former is

From which history ?

I'm afraid you are addressing something that has nothing to do with me

I did not confirm anything about what caused his death

I only reported what I got on the grapevine ,meaning, it was mere rumor and not fact.

So I don't understand why you continue to drag this as if I reported something factual .

jaephoenix:
Cardiac arrest, not heart attack. Heart attacks come with overwhelming chest pains and it is usually obvious. I have seen patients with attacks. Their expressions are interesting… they think they are about to die. Arrests are different. The patient kinda like 'gives up' especially PEAs

Oh! you confirmed he died of cardiac arrest and not heart attack ?

Wisegeek01:
Here's the opinion you wont see anywhere on the internet . .. and you are hearing it for the first time
Sit tight !!


The phrase what are you brining to the table .. has grossly been misunderstood, some men that even ask the question don't even know why they are asking the question, while on the other hand some women fly into a fit of rage or keep dodging the question, why they are angry they don't even know, its just a psychological impulse,

first of all it is not mandatory for the lady to actually bring finance into the mix but it helps so that should not be the centre of the question, so the men asking and referring to finance really shouldn't do that, focus on what she is supposed to bring

.. its not her job to bring finance, so if you are referring to that you are asking the wrong contextual question, a lady actually has what she should bring to the table, but sadly not a lot of ladies have taken their time to sit down and think about the question, because the are always offended or defensive, its just a simple question, that you need to understand, its not you mdfkn job to bring finance, that is what the man should bring to the table,

what the lady brings to the table .. ranges from
great values
Emotional Intelligence
Attention to Detail
Organizational Skills
Nurture and Care
Empathy and Compassion
Collaborative Spirit
Multitasking Abilities
Intuition
Social Skills
Diplomacy
Support

when you list these features and tell the man you posses these traits
now it's your turn to ask him
what does he bring to the table
...
he should have most of these below
finance
protection
security
Leadership
Decision-Making Skills
Stability
Emotional Support
Problem-Solving Abilities
Initiative
Adaptability
Sense of Humor
Integrity
Shared Responsibilities

marriage or relationship is team effort, not competition
the next time i hear that question in the wrong context I fit flog person

Whar you explained up there is exactly what it means . It's not financial contribution as most Nigerians ignorantly assume .

Anything you bring that can keep the union going is what you have brought to the table, not necessary money .

Kepukepu:
. As a matter of fact, the best thinkers in the society usually do not engage in politics. They are usually in the background solving problems. I don't know why this is hard for you to grasp

I prefer to respond to the above irrational talk separately here .

You said,

That "as a matter of fact the best thinkers usually do not engage in politics ? Who tells you that ?

And you ended it arrogantly with "why is it hard for you to grasp"

Imagine the nonsense talk coming from someone who cannot defend his own op or even know what politics is .

SMH

If you say the "best thinkers" don't usually engage in politics ,then tell me, who are the people formulating the policies for the effective governance of any given country especially in societies that highly organised , where nearly everything is running perfectly well .

See what I mean ? You want to use deceptive argument to hold on to your falsehood. It has failed again .

If you don't know what politics is because you never hard the opportunity of studying government in secondary school ,please go read it up and get better informed .

Some of the finest thinkers humanity has ever had were into politics , political theorist who came up with ideas to guide political thought .

Karl max,Jonh Locke, Adam Smith ,Plato ,Hegel,,Heidegger and others both in the ancient and modern times .

Political scientist are the brainbox of politics and you say the "best thinkers" don't usually engage in it ?

Every field of human endeavor has a vital role to play in any given society to makes things run smoothly.

Politics is very important and that's why it will always attract the "best thinkers" just like any other field .

And if those who engage in politics don't come up with effective ways to manage and organise their societies ,there would complete breakdown of law and order . .

It is not a compulsory that you contest in an election before it is siad you are engaging in politics . It's what I think you don't know

Kepukepu:
Again, religion attracts the least thinkers. And not the least intelligent.

I have not said it attracts the least intelligent . You are the one now saying so ,and keep repeating it like a bot in order to run away from responding critically to my counter argument .

The only time I made use of that word ,intelligent , in my initial response , was when I hastily typed, intelligent instead of thinker . an obvious mistake which I already explained . But assuming it wasn't even that , were you blind to the fact it was placed in quotes ?

If you really know what it means to place a word in quotation marks ,it's obvious you don't , you would have known better not to interprete it literally. You should have asked me first if you were confused and not sure why I placed it in quotes or look at the surrounding context to make you understand I was actually referring to the same thing, "least thinkers " , your own expression ,and easily spot the typo.



Unfortunately, you are still stuck with that and continue to use it to reply unthinkingly that you , not me ,cannot differentiate between the two .

Is the op on the difference between least thinker and least intelligent ,Mr critical thinker ?

Ok, prove to me and anyone following that based on what I argued that my inability to know the difference between the two terms is why I have misunderstood the op .

Prove my wrong If you can and I will shut up forever . If you cannot ,them shame on you .

Bring what I have argued and use it to prove your accusation .

I'm waiting .


.

The president of United States is not necessarily the best thinker in United States. As a matter of fact, the best thinkers in the society usually do not engage in politics. They are usually in the background solving problems. I don't know why this is hard for you to grasp

And where did I use the word ,best thinker to describe him ? I only asked you if he lacks the capacity to think critically but you have turned it to "best thinker " Go back to reread my initial response and confirm for yourself .

It's clear to me your imagination is already running riot . Please take charge of it and stop putting words in my mouth .

You argued that religion attracts the "least thinkers" ,those who lack the ability to think critically , and I countered that by saying it also attract the "highest thinkers" everywhere . And I explained why, but you ignored it so you can continue to hold on to the falsehood that religion only attracts the least thinkers .

The evidence that is out there is that religion attracts all manner of persons from the "least to the highest thinkers"

You are a typical atheist who is only willing to see things from your own perspective and that's why you blind to this obvious fact which everyone knows .

FYI, I'm not a theist and I'm saying this because I already can sense that you think I'm one and hence want to do everything to win an argument even to the extent of using sheer humbug, believing I won't be able to detect . You failed already and woefully .

I'm not interested if you cannot respond to what I have said against the topic initially . I don't completely agree with it and have given reasons . Deal with that .

Kepukepu:
Again, you are still struggling to grasp the difference between intelligence and critical thinking.

Who is now talking about the difference between intelligence and critical thinking if not you ? And how does that even concern me?



Focus on the op and stop deflecting.

I ask again ,

Is the critical facutjy skills of the president of the United States , and others like him ,not fully developed to make them embrace a religion ?

You cannot answer because you don't even understand your own op

Kepukepu:
I think you are the person who didn't understand my post. Why not go back?

I understood everything perfectly well and I have responded accordingly . You are not the first person to have created this kind of topic here and so nothing new I cannot understand .

That aside , instead of deflecting to finding fault where there's none or to questioning my understanding , I expected you to have by now responded critically to my initial response to the topic .

Incase you missed it the first time , here again is my major argument agaijst the op ;

If religion attracts the "least thinkers" according to you ,how come it's also attracting the highest thinkers in our midst ?

I cited the example of the president of theUS and then asked you if his critical faculty skills are not fully developed . No answer from you yet and you want to talk about not understanding what?




There are millions of people, if not bilions, in the world today ,whose critical faculty skills are fully developed but still practice a religion or are attracted to it .

If you don't have an answer to this ,then simply admit it so we don't waste each other's time .

Thank you

Kepukepu:
show me where I tagged religious people "least intelligent".

I think that "least thinkers" and "least intelligent" are 2 different things.
The difference between critical thinking and intelligence is that critical thinking is a skill, while intelligence is a trait. Critical thinking is the ability to analyze information and make rational decisions, while intelligence refers to a person's overall mental abilities. So, someone can be very intelligent, but not necessarily a good critical thinker. And vice versa, someone can be a great critical thinker but not particularly intelligent. Does that make sense?

So you can be intelligent but you do not posses critical thinking skill. Religion attract will most likely attract these set of people

I will respond to all of the above later when I'm less busy.

But in the meantime if you go back to read what I posted earlier you will see where I quoted you correctly "least thinkers " at the beginning to let you know the last one was an error .

Kepukepu:
Whether or not you are religious or not, we can all agree that in religion, logic does not really work but belief. You cannot apply critical thinking to explaining religious tenets, else you will start questioning most of them.

This is why religion will almost always attract least thinkers among us. Religion does not like critical thinking, if you apply critical thinking you cannot believe and religion is base on beliefs.

This is not to say that beliefs do not have some personal benefits. Thank you

In these parts, poverty and poor education are the main reason religion "always attract the least thinkers ". Boko Haram understands this very well ,hence they say "no to western education "

In countries where things work, with citizens having easy access to good quality education ,people living there are only interested in practicing a religion because of what they hope to benefit from it and not necessarily because they cannot think critically or are "least thinkers " .The president of the United States of America ,the most powerful country in the world, is a religious person, a Christian .

Does he lack the capacity to think critically ?

Religious beliefs are founded on two major things ,the personal experiences of the believer while practicing the religion ,and what is contain in religious text.

You are focused on the latter, which they don't really hold on strongly to, and hence don't have the correct perspective on things .

There will always come a time in man's life when things go south and all the things one knows no longer work to deal with the situation ,logic and rational thinking fails and one is left confused ,with depression starting to set in.

It's at this point some persons are forced to embrace a religion to bring calm to their minds and not because they lack the capacity to think critically .

So before you start to judge anyone as "least intelligent " because they practice a religion try to understand what exactly it's that has caused them to do what they are doing .

chieveboy:
Agreed, the drift (a very big one) is: this electrocution measured let's say in 50kw will register and be experienced differently relative to body-mass, bio-electric state of the cells, etc.

The difference is not the relevant thing here but the fact that anyone who handles it has an experience of it as proof of it's existence .

Maynman:
Boy, you need, eyes, ears, noses, skins and brains to perceive REALITY, without it you cannot.

Close your eyes and think of a color that has not existed before...

@cheiveboy. See what I mean? . You failed to grasp what he meant the first time

chieveboy:
Okay, I will insult you small

This is the first time you have really showed us you have 'number 6'. Impressive!

Lordreed, triplechoice

The stone the builders have rejected o...
Mayman has cracked the code for you guys.

Are you sure you understand what he explained ?

chieveboy:
Ah, and I will really love to hear your views on the yardsticks aused to determine Objectivity. I will do this popcorn in hand.

Cc lordreed.

Anyone,who handles, without any form of protection , a high tension cable carrying electricity, will surely be electrocuted .Not "agreeing "won't save you .

I have just given you something to work with to get your answer yourself .

chieveboy:
Very well, even though I'm surprised you're asking this.

Example: Dangote cement is agreed to be a cement product with distinct quantity and quality. Left to erstwhile definitions, that product is Objectively Dangote Cement.

Why? Because of its quantity and quality (compositions, branding etc). This is the yardstick for establishing a global on the objectivity of Dangote Cement.


Not going too far, if I can't see the qualities (because I am visually impaired), I am not able to join the group of those who say Dangote Cement is objectively Dangote Cement. My handicap prevents me from that agreement.


Since no two people are alike psycho-biologically, it means we can possible never observe anything the same way. This is more true given the fact that even what we thought were seeing isn't entirely what is there to see, for us to delimit the bounds of its reality and existence.

So we merely agree to work with what we are and have for the sake of 'peace' and order to reign. We can't kill ourselves...



If i stated what you quoted here, this must be a mistake. I must have meant "perception is influenced by subjective dynamics" or so. This is in line with even my original argument from the beginning.

Look at the attached image, it is the same spider we all thought we objectively agreed is a spider. If you send someone this image and say it's a spider, they may beg to differ

It's not through the mere agreement of the non visually impaired that has determined the quality of dangote cement ,but through an objective scientific process called quality control used in testing the products before it's released to the market .

So whether you can see the cement with your eyes or not doesn't count for anything . You only confirmed the quality ,that's already established , when you use it.

The product has been independently confirmed to be of a particular kind of quality . It has nothing to do with any kind of subjective collective agreement .


You "re creating confusion @ cheiveboy . You op doesn't agree with what you "re saying after it.

LordReed:
OK. I don't argue with solipsists or enter solipsistic traps so have a good one.

Oh. A very suitable description of what he has been doing on a thread he created himself .

chieveboy:
Exactly, it's why I said all we've been branding as reality or objectivity all the while is merely us agreeing to label our limited views (of larger and broader object, perspective or experience) as being objective and real in the sense of the word while it is not.

Then ,tell us how we should correctly describe it

chieveboy:
Yea I thought we should have done this earlier:

Subjective: Experience as perceived by a subject relative to the state of their sensoria (nose, eyes, skin, state of mind...).

Objective (Based on conventional definitions): Perception not influenced by subjective influences.

One needs to be sure of what you have described
So,

1. Provide examples of how "a subject" perceives those experiences relative to the state of their "sensorial" nose ,eyes ,skin ,etc.
2."perception not influenced by subjective influences " .How does this happen . Example or examoles also needed too so one can picture accurately what you 're referring to.

budaatum:
Interesting.

Mention me so I don't miss what you share please.

Ok

budaatum:
To illustrate. I thought I knew how my opponent's mind worked until he shocked me with [url=m.gameknot.com/analyze-board.pl?bd=33987370&fb=1&rnd=0.8511828548482838]the reality of my ignorance[/url].

You jumped the gun already . It's not about me ,my own mind . The story I shared is to be used as a good example of the information I wanted to share later.

The "about how the human mind works" is not my findings alone but those of neuroscientist who have done the "dirty job"

In other words it's not my conclusions .So, it's not what you "re already assuming to be .

Hold on . Let my get the microphone working first . I have not even started

chieveboy:
Oh okay. I think you have come home then.

Since you are not seeing the entire spectrum, 'reality' or 'objective' then is us saying "look, let's just agree this is objective ('whole' and 'independent' 'fact'), even though this is not so.

Cc triplechoice

You're using not seeing the "entire spectrum" to argue that nothing is objectively real ?

Yes or no ?

Who Tinubu is , is not the same as what he is ,the entire spectrum which "we" cannot know . You seem not to know the difference .

Because the former can't be known, doesn't mean he is not "there" He is .

The entity ,Tinubu, is not an illusion that "we" have collectively agreed to exist .

Do you dispute that ?

chieveboy:
The constituent of Tinubu we collectively agreed is Tinubu.

Who are the "we" that has collectively agreed and how did the "we" all arrived at this agreement ?

chieveboy:
You came close to where I am coming from. The issue is, the Tinubu you knew a second ago is not the same Tinubu you (think) you knew the next second.

This is so even if we work with the common reality that the very particles that makes our physical body's are constantly in a state of flux, which gave rise to the saying that "nothing remains the same".

If so, we are only agreeing to agree that this flux (dynamism), which appears as a static or Constants to our mortal sensoria is static or 'real', and that we are seeing the same thing even though we are not (since all is changing and moving).

A dog (due to their senses) isn't seeing the objective Tinubu, whatever the dog sees is actually part of Tinubu humans are not seeing, so Tinubu isn't actually Objective in the sense of the word.

"Nothing remains the same " does not mean nothing .There's something objectively real that doesn't remain the same however you perceive it . That's my point .

Please answer this question ,

Who is the current president of Nigeria ?

chieveboy:
This question is coming from the heels of those who downplay religious experiences like Visions, OBEs, Trances as "it's just your subjective experience", "it's not Objective" so "it ain't real".

Thread...

But non religious people can also experience visions ,"OBEs" and trance .

For instance , die hard Peter obi and Tinubu supporters are currently going through a trance of loyalty for their preferred candidate, and that's why they struggle to see things objectively .

Now ,to answer the op, one's reaction( "collective agreement" ) to a thing that exist is not the same as the thing itself . In other words, your reaction is a creation of your mind and not the thing itself .

Does Peter obi and Tinubu exist ,yes they do .
Are their fanatical supporters capable of an objective perception of them ?

You should know the answer already .

budaatum:
Though you were not consciously aware, you had previously acquired the knowledge to place yourself in front of the switchboard to turn off the power plus you consider others. Those who lack the knowledge you had stood confused because they did not know.

.

Yes ,you got that completely right . After I finished recounting the incident in my previous post , I instantly got why I was quick to react that way based on what I now about how the human mind stores information to control one's behaviour automatically. But as at that time, I didn't know much to explain it. So was mystified .

Before that day , I remember that the same person, who was being electrocuted ,had been instructing me (not everyday though ) to go into the room, where the main switchboard hung on the wall , to switch it off once it was time to close and completely shut down the factory . leaving only the security lights on.

But I wasn't the only doing that for him . Anyone close to him during final shut down ,he would send .

Besides , other workers who had been doing the same thing for him before I was employed were also present on that day.

But not a single one of them followed me to switch off.

That, I remember now , was what made him really grateful I was present on that particular day, if not .

Good that this thread has made me to recollect that incident . I would be using it one of these days to show what I know about how the human mind works . Thank you

justlove91:
It is hard but it's practicable.

It seems you do not understand the concept of moral mandala well. It doesn't mean there is no motivation for doing good but that the motivation is humanity orientated and not self orientated. Let me give examples of moral mandala.

I understand it very well . It's you that's starting to create confusion with some vague descriptions, like the one below .

1. I'm wealthy, I noticed people in my village are suffering from poor health due to no access to pure source of water. I decide to improve their living condition by building hospital and provide pure source of water.

In the above scenario, I have a motivation but the motivation is directed at them (improve their living condition) and not directed at me (to gain fame or be viewed as a good person, or to gain favour from God etc).

The bolded doesn't make any sense . You are the one doing the good and the motivation for you is the happiness you get from what you do for others. . In the above scenario ,the benefit is mutual . You gain and they gain too.

So what are you "transferring " to them so you become unhappy in building the hospital ?

Who is happy to receive a gift from an unhappy person ?

Maybe you want to say ,you did it without the expectation of reward from them ,paying you back directly , and not "transferring motivation" to them .

And yes ,doing good without expecting to be paid back for it by the person you "re doing it for , is what I consider pure morality .

But that shouldnt be a business activity that you want to profit from if not ,you won't succeed in it.

2. A house is burning, you rushed inside to save a child inside.
Saving the child is your motivation and not becoming a hero.

And you think anyone in such a situation would be thinking of that before rescuing the child .No.

You have created something that doesn't happen in real life .

I believe anyone, theist or atheist , who is moved to save a child in a burning fire would react automatically without thinking of becoming an hero . It's the people around that gives the recognition of hero after . And whether you accept the recognition or not ,it's your cup of tea . You have become their hero and nothing can change that.

I once rescued a colleague, who was being electrocuted in a factory where I worked when I was 19. . Till today I cannot explain how I suddenly found myself in front of the switchboard to turn of power as my other colleagues stood confused and not knowing what to do . It was as if a greater force took control to direct everything . I wasn't thinking at all .

Adrenaline? That's the rational explanation i ,but there were other people there too , six of them ,,not me alone . Maybe their own adrenaline wasn't functioning

The next day ,my colleague came with nearly everyone from both his immediate and extended family members to thank me as if I saved the world . And I really did not see myself as any hero ,or thought I did something great because I kept asking myself how did I get to the swichboard , without thinking ? I didn't do it consciously. It's was automatic .

I wasn't a Christian then ,nor know anything about moral mandala . So what was my motivation ?

See, no matter what you think about doing it for God or fear of hell fire ,a theist who risked his life to save a child in the situation you described .has practiced the highest form of moral purity . He put his life on the line for another person and that's not selfish . It's a selfless action however you see it.

Doing it for God or fear of hell fire is a means to an end created by some religion to train the average human being ,who is selfish and self centered, to become a doer of good .Try to see the good in that one and don't rate it has inferior and moral mandala as superior . If not to take advantage of another ,good is good .


Not everyone has evolved to the point where they can engage in selfless service without some benefit to entice them or fear to motivate them . That's the reality of the world we all life in ..

I rather we have more people in the world motivated to doing good to benefit others around them because of God or hell fire than only a few who can do it for any other reason , humanity sake .

My bad

Don't bother

justlove91:
@triplechoice

This only applies to the second guy, the first guy has already bought the charger, had given it to her so the good is already completed, but he went back and nullify the good.

Even though it didn't last , your friend already used the charger to power her laptop to use it , and that's the good she benefited . . She should be grateful for the temporary good she got from a stranger whose true intention she was too naive to detect .

He didn't nullify what she already used it for , that's charging her laptop (the good). He only stopped it after realising it was bad investment; He was not going to earn anything from it in return .
And why does your friend think she's entitled to a brand new charger from just anyone . It's her fault she was treated that way. Some girls won't accept such a gift from any man because they don't want to be asked to return the favour in some way later . . I hope she learnt something from that . How many Nigerian men would buy you something for free ?

If she had bought the charger with her own hard earn money and it later got spoilt after using it for some time ,would she go back to the buyer to say the 'buying ' is nullified since it has stopped working ?

My friends are actually the ladies telling me of their unpleasant experience with guys.

. 1. They should learn from it .
2.You created the confusion because you didn't specify your friends among the four characters in the story .

Freezyhot:
Refuelling...?! Na wa o... CNG buses..?

He's very correct .

Gas ,oil ,coal ,wood etc are different types of fuel .

And feul is anything consumed to produce energy .
Before you mock someone make you know first .