Logicboy03:



Fool. The point of the CNN video was to show that they talk about atheists without even one atheist on the show.

Remeber the point in blue

The mainstream media in the U.S. regularly excludes atheists, even from stories about atheism, while giving voice to religious believers.

davidylan:

and that is your problem? Let me know when you have a salient point to discuss. until then i refuse to let you waste any more of my time.

Logicboy03:


Wrong


1) It is impossible to be rational when judging everything from a "faith" point of view. you can be christian and keep your beliefs private and separate from aspects of life.


2) Until religion is kept private and becomes a personal issue in Nigeria, we will still have some "dark ages" problems like witch beating

Logicboy03:

I knew you would bash me.


Reread the OP and you will see that I was actually addressing Nigerians in the UK.

Furthermore, America is quite secular despite the huge amount of christians. They have a well enshrined separation of church and state- which atheists group use to bash fundamentalist christians when they try to go overboard.


We also forget the other side of separation of church and state- freedom of and from religion. Should anyone discriminate against me because of religion, there are govt-al organisations that can assist me in building my case in defense.


Compare that to Nigeria

Deep Sight:

1. The question of the secular state is altogether different and distinct from the issue in your OP. The issue in your OP is the question as to whether one should drop religion in the circumstance where the nation that brought you the religion has done so.

2. Nigeria is indeed a secular state and it says so specifically in the Nigerian Constitution. Although separation of church and state needs to be improved upon: particularly irksome is the involvement of the government in sponsoring pilgrimages. This still has no bearing on your OP.

3. Where you speak about separation of church and state, it is most curious that you mention Britain - whose Head of State remains till today the Global Head of a Religious Organization by right. You cannot wave this off because this actually affects key things like ascension to the throne. As you will know, being a divorcee will be a huge problem for anyone who a royal wishes to marry: and in the past this issue has even caused a sitting King to abdicate the throne. More recently, such has hobbled the status of the wife of the Heir to the Throne, Prince Charles.

Now, tell me, how separated can you say Church and State are in such a Country? And this is the country you wish us to mimic in terms of separation of Church and State? Alright, in that case, I recommend a constitutional amendment - The President of Nigeria should also by right be the Supreme Head of the Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion, as well as be the Cheif Imam in Nigeria by right.

4. There are various reasons why a community may or may not be religious. Very advanced nations such as the United States and Japan remain very religious - re: the former is heavily christian and the latter is Shinto.

5. Where you argue that Scandinavian nations - which are very well governed, are largely atheist, this is of no use to foreign nations because this varies: it is true for instance that communist nations which vociferously promoted atheism and tried to stamp out religious have also been among the most barbarous regimes in history.

elampiro: Logicboy, I want to know. The bible said God created man. To the atheist, what is the origin of man?

Secondly, do atheist believe in life after death?

Finally, when you die, how will you react if you eventually find out there is God?

Just curious. It's a deviation from the topic.

elampiro: Logicboy, I want to know. The bible said God created man. To the atheist, what is the origin of man?

Secondly, do atheist believe in life after death?

Finally, when you die, how will you react if you eventually find out there is God?

Just curious. It's a deviation from the topic.

Logicboy03:
#


Yawn.

What did the British drop christianity for? Witchcraft or secularism?

While secularism was not the main focus of my OP. You forced it out of me when you were blabbing about American and it being christian. Am I now banned from mentioning secularism? The way you people argue sometimes eh...................

The Queens position in government is only ceremonial. Please, go and educate yourself before you bring flawed arguments.

You shouldnt have brought on Japan. You have just earned yourself a super debunking.


[size=18pt]Japan is highly irreligous! They only fill in Shintoism or Bhuddism for cultural purposes. 64% of Japanese do not believe in God! about 84% claim no religion in Japan.
[/size]

America remains a secular state.

The elite of America are atheists- Hollywood, college proffessors, Scientists etc. Religion is for the bulk of common people.

Lastly, anti-religion is not the same as atheism. Communist regimes were anti-religious. Communism itself is a state religion!

kingoflag:

1. Hitler was a Christian. A staunch one.

2. Bill Maher is Atheist. A staunch one.

Which of them has a better chance of going into heaven?

Deep Sight:

Yawn right back bro. You mix up issues and lack elementary comprehension skills. It seems to me that this must be evidence that you possibly dropped out of school at some point. Nothing else could explain your absolute inability to understand or follow the simplest of discussions.



As I explained, the issue in your OP is not secularism. In fact, your use of the word strongly suggests you do not know the meaning of the word "secular".

The issue in your OP is a simple question of aping one's colonial master, simple.



Exactly what you should answer. It is a pertinent question because the same Britain you mentioned is the colonial master for a very advanced religiously inclined country like America. Why are you not offering similar advise to Americans - who by the way, have insignia such as "in God we Trust" on their currency and emblems of state?

Boy, you have no point.



Don't be silly: it is ceremonial, but is still hugely relevant. Ceremonial positions are not irrelevant. The Monarch's position as Head of State gives him or her huge leverage in state affairs. One example is the area of diplomacy, where royals do massive work and regularly act as foreign representation for the British State. Another fact is that tax payers money has massively funded their Castles, Lifestyle, Travels, Jewels, etc.Finally, you must know that the Prime Minister has a weekly briefing with the Monarch. Don't be naive, this alone gives the ceremonial Monarch massive leverage in terms of advising the government.

Please go and read how much problems Margaret Thatcher had because of the fact that she had different views on South African Apartheid than the Monarch did.

So a person in such a position, funded by the state, living on the state, Head of State, doing diplomatic work for the state, and whose image appears on the currency, and is by right head of the Church of England - you dare say that such a person has no relevance to the state - in terms of the discussion on separation of church and state? What then is separation of church and state all about?

In fact, I put it to you that the Nigerian Government's sponsorship of pilgrims is far less interaction between Church and State than all this Brit stuff is.

Obviously, its not well implemented in England!



Believing in one God, or God at all, is not the only benchmark for saying that something is a religion. If this were the case then we could well argue that Buddhism is not a religion.

Shinto is a religion. Fact.



Yeah, common people, such as Obama and virtually every President in history?

Don't be a laugh.



Don't be such a toad. YOU are anti religious because the issue in your thread is basically questioning why one should be religious. Communist Countries actively worked against religion and religious expression This debunks your idea that atheism necessarily leads to a better society, or that better societies are necessarily atheist.

Logicboy03:



1) Nairaland is Nigerian and I am too. I am talking to Nigerians not Americans. You bringing America is already a straw man

2) Worse than being a straw man, you have no argument on America because it is quite Secular. Even atheist are now suing to get "god" off their money and court houses. Seperation of church and state works there.


3) The Queens position is ceremonial and that is a FACT! You can blab all you want but this renders your "not secular because of christian queen leader" useless.


4) 84% of Japanese say that they have no religion. Get that through your thick skull!

5) Is Obama really a christian or a politician claiming to be a christian? At best, he is a cultural christian. (Gay rights president)

6) They are communist countries and not atheist countries. They killed because religion wasnt part of their communist agenda. They didnt kill because of atheism. Mao did not destroy Buddhists that worked for the party's goals.


7) The Queen's position is ceremonial. She doesnt control the govt. Get that through your thick skull!

Logicboy03:

7) The Queen's position is ceremonial. She doesnt control the govt. Get that through your thick skull!

Deep Sight:

You know, I really should not bother with you because they say that one gravitates towards the intellectual level of people one often discusses with.

I don't want to become d.aft.

Deep Sight:

So would you say it would be symtomatic of good separation of church and state if the Sultan of Sokoto was also a ceremonial Head of State of Nigeria?

Olodo.

Logicboy03:


Dont worry, bro.


1) Man evolved from a common ancestor with monkeys. Genesis is a lie.

2) There is no reason to believe in life after death. We know that when the brain shuts down r is damaged, one can not think. So, I'm guessing eternal sleep!

3) Pascal wager fails http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

elampiro:

Your response to (1) above is ridiculous to me. Go and think about it very well.

What or who could that common ancestor be? That is, if I were to tow your line. One thing now, we are in agreement that man has a beginning. This calls for a deep reflection. As for me, creation is the most logical of all possible options associated with the beginning of man.

Logicboy03:



Monarchy is not a theocracy!



Wow, another debunking recieved by Deep Sight!



#logic boss

Deep Sight:

Dull. The Sultan of Sokoto, like the British Mornach, was a RULER of a space historically - in other words he historically had mornachical authourity over the Sokoto area. This made him a proper administrative ruler as well. Now, again, just like the British ruler, his role today is traditional and ceremonial only. And just like the British Mornarch, he is the leader of Islamic establishments in the Nigerian Space.

I did not in any way suggest theocracy. I asked you if you would call a similar situation as obtains in Britain, good separation of church and state.

Here is the scenario again -

So would you say it would be symtomatic of good separation of church and state if the Sultan of Sokoto was also a ceremonial Head of State of Nigeria?

Plus his pictures on our Naira, his palaces funded by tax, and his work consisting of diplomatic representations for Nigeria all over the world? If he has to make national speeches as Head of State, open parliament, and if the President had to gice him a weekly briefing on affairs of state? And in all this let's say he remains (as he is) the leader of Muslims and Islam in Nigeria? Would that be good separation of Church and State? ? ? ? ?

The foregoing obtains in Britain. Note that I said nothing of religious laws being used to govern the state: that is what theocracy is, you dolt.

The description in red is EXACTLY what obtains in Britain.

Would that be good separation of church and state, since you want us to mimic them?

SIMPLE QUESTION - ANSWER!

Logicboy03:



Epic Fail by Deep Sight!



Separation of church and state is between government and religion.

It doesnt matter if it is a constitutional monarchy or not.

Logicboy03: Japan is listed as a secular state but it is also a constituional monarchy.


Dont be foolish Deep Sight. You're better than this

Deep Sight:

Stop dodging. Give a specific answer. This is a yes or no question:

I repeat the question:

So would you say it would be symtomatic of good separation of church and state if the Sultan of Sokoto was also a ceremonial Head of State of Nigeria?

Plus his pictures on our Naira, his palaces funded by tax, and his work consisting of diplomatic representations for Nigeria all over the world? If he has to make national speeches as Head of State, open parliament, and if the President had to gice him a weekly briefing on affairs of state? And in all this let's say he remains (as he is) the leader of Muslims and Islam in Nigeria? Would that be good separation of Church and State? ? ? ? ?

Yes or no.

Deep Sight:

Stop dodging. Give a specific answer. This is a yes or no question:

I repeat the question:

So would you say it would be symtomatic of good separation of church and state if the Sultan of Sokoto was also a ceremonial Head of State of Nigeria?

Plus his pictures on our Naira, his palaces funded by tax, and his work consisting of diplomatic representations for Nigeria all over the world? If he has to make national speeches as Head of State, open parliament, and if the President had to gice him a weekly briefing on affairs of state? And in all this let's say he remains (as he is) the leader of Muslims and Islam in Nigeria? Would that be good separation of Church and State? ? ? ? ?

Yes or no.

Deep Sight:

And in answering this question, remember that Headship of the Church is a hereditary RIGHT of English Heads of State.

Logicboy03:

Okay...erm.....well......the Sultan being the ceremonial head of state in theory would not make Nigeria not to be a secular state.

Deep Sight:

Well then, many thanks, and as such, by this token, and according to you, Britain is not to be deemed a Secular State!

So why are you asking us to mimic them!

Good nite son!

Logicboy03:


What is wrong with you? I've been trying to dodge this. You no dey give up?


Okay...erm.....well......the Sultan being the ceremonial head of state in theory would not make Nigeria not to be a secular state.

Deep Sight:

Well then, many thanks, and as such, by this token, and according to you, Britain is not to be deemed a Secular State!

So why are you asking us to mimic them!

Good nite son!

Deep Sight:

I edit this as follows: I did not read your post properly. Your quote here -

"Okay...erm.....well......the Sultan being the ceremonial head of state in theory would not make Nigeria not to be a secular state."

Shows that you recognize that perfect separation of church and state is not the same thing as Secularity - since Britain evidently mixes both on many levels - and yet is a Secular State.

Logicboy03:


Separartion of Church and state makes a state secular!

Deep Sight:

Well by that token, Britain is not secular, because their Head of State, BY RIGHT, is Head of the Church, and also performs many state functions, aside from having enormous leverage through her right to advise the Prime Minister at weekly briefings, open parliament, have her portrait on national currency, is Head of the Common Wealth of Nations, and many more.

I could make an argument that in an egalitarian society, every head of a Religion should also be given all these same rights!

Logicboy03:


I was honest with you and so be honest with me. I could have dodged your question like Anony but I stayed on point.


The head of state position for the queen is ceremonial and so, her leadership flies out the window

The head of government is the Prime minister in UK