Dtruthspeaker:


Try and get it. When you argue that "Tinubu is not a good option", which is your position, everything you say supporting that statement and position is still you saying Tinubu is not a good option. So I will only respond to your point which is "Tinubu is not a good option". This is not cherry picking.

Facepalm. Firstly, the basis of my reply to the OP wasn't just based on rationality vs faith / religious dogma vs humanism but you chose that part because you felt you could easily attack it, that's perfect cherry picking, you did the same to DeusXmachina but later (selectively) corrected it. Also, I'm also trying to prove to you how rationality beats faith (though I'm not completely discarding faith hence my initial use of '...to think rationally and use less faith.) by presenting the importance of rationality and the major flaw of faith, you failed to see this by insisting that I'm not addressing you directly. It's fine though.

Dtruthspeaker:

If you review your post, you would see that this is the first time that you are properly challenging me based on my own position of "faith is the analysis and processing of information" and not on the "universal notion that faith is belief that doesn't require thinking"

No it isn't, read my former responses again from the part I kinda agreed with you that faith is thinking. The only difference there is that I directed my reply to your exact words in my latest reply but the points are still the same in all replies.

Dtruthspeaker:

And your basis of challenge is that is 2 points
1) irrational
2) confirmation bias.

On irrationality.
You do not point out the irrationality present in my position, you only state that irrational ideas is common in beliefs as shown below.



Then you praise your view of Rationals, which is not relevant because they are not the issue saying.

So when you look at your posts here, you can see that you did not show any thing that is irrational in my position.

I've said this before countless times, the irrationality of this is that you start with a belief and consistently hold onto that belief even when there's an opposing opinion that disproves yours. To add to this, this kind of faith thinking do not only make you see it as true but also makes you see every other belief as completely false.

Dtruthspeaker:

You only stated your own beliefs, which is not the issue, therefore, you are "Off Point!" Which itself has now shown your irrationality of opposing a subject matter, with the use of "Off Point".

Lol. It's not off point, I stated the problem with yours and stated how rationality is better and consistent with reality.

Dtruthspeaker:

On Confirmation bias.
This is an acceptable query because this word is self explanatory, so i can go on.

And the word "confirmation" has said it all. If it is confirmed that a car can take you from Garki to Effurun, can a person still reasonably and validly oppose it?

No!

That is the power of confirmation.

Therefore, if it is confirmed that a car can take you from Garki to Effurun, then you are already biased (which means positional) as you rely on it.

Surely, you would be against a position that says a mattress or wrapper can take you from Garlic to Effurun.

So you see, your query here is not valid for we act and live on confirmed events eg travelling by plane to Oslo, eating in KFC, opening a bank account with a bank.

Another unnecessary comparison here, there's a difference between facts and beliefs, some of the things you stated here are undisputed facts. Besides, one can eat in other restaurants apart from KFC, or use a train or plane or bus (without using a car) to go from Garki to Effurun and still get to his destination.

Dtruthspeaker:


Repeating just shows you can not answer.

No man went to the market to buy the software called thinking and install it in himself!

And it Is without reasonable doubt that it is natural and instinctual for men to think for thinking has been hardwired into man by Nature, exactly as the animals have

Here is the problem, instincts for animals restricts them to hunting, eating, mating, reproduction, etc (Sympathy and love are instinctual to some animals too though). Thinking evolved from instincts and we humans find ways to analyze our thinking processes that enable us to live lives that are more helpful to us than just instinctual actions. These thinking processes have helped to advance us as humans beyond animal society.
My initial basis was to enforce humanism over religious dogma and you began bringing up the animal society... It's an unnecessary comparison because animals do not think about their decisions but follow their instincts but we humans think beyond our instincts making better decisions that our instincts can't provide.