Africans are too religious and it is holding us back somehow.
We do not run our society according to sociology, phychology, history or scientific analysis.
We do not often have a rational, scientific view of things and this sometimes makes us to
behave as if we are backward
There is actually nothing wrong with being religious but our interpretation of it is crude and ritualistic

WE NEED TO CONCIEVE OF OUR GOD AS AN INTELLECTUAL GOD OR THINKER

We do not beleive that the things we studied in school can be applied to practical, actual everyday living.
it is really holding us back

MEANWHILE CHECK OUT MY WEBSITE

www.artpartyworld.com

I agree with much of what you said but to say that there is nothing wrong with being religious is erroneous in light of your initial premise.

You cannot suggest that religion is a source of backwardness then recommend that some religion is good.

Philosopher1979:
WE NEED TO CONCIEVE OF OUR GOD AS AN INTELLECTUAL GOD OR THINKER

Do you mean to imply that Africans should recognize a personal god, i.e a god that has attributes of a person -- can communicate in human language, reasons, loves, gets angry etc?

mmsen:
I agree with much of what you said but to say that there is nothing wrong with being religious is erroneous in light of your initial premise.

You cannot suggest that religion is a source of backwardness then recommend that some religion is good.

He has said that too much religion is no good. That does not imply that any amount of religion is bad.

sinequanon:


He has said that too much religion is no good. That does not imply that any amount of religion is bad.

There is no distinction between being religious and being too religious.
It is the nature of the religion, the philosophical framework of a particular religion that matters.

For example, the Abrahamic religions are built on very ridiculous, morally schizophrenic, racist and oppressive frameworks that render them poisonous and disharmonious .

plaetton:

There is no distinction between being religious and being too religious.
It is the nature of the religion, the philosophical framework of a particular religion that matters.

If you can see no distinction then we obviously are not in a position to discuss. And you are of course at liberty to keep to what matters to you.

Meanwhile, you are not everyone.

sinequanon:


If you can see no distinction then we obviously are not in a position to discuss. And you are of course at liberty to keep to what matters to you.

Meanwhile, you are not everyone.

He he.
I forgot. We can't discuss unless we first agree.

plaetton:


He he.
I forgot. We can't discuss unless we first agree.

That's correct. There needs to be some minimal agreement in any discussion, on things like the existence, or potential existence, of the things you are discussing, and the meaning of terms you are using (or you can replace the terms by descriptions, for clarity).

If you enter into a "discussion" simply to rant, post cartoons, cliches, etc., I say that it is better to agree to disagree. It is more civilized.

Try not to "forget" again.

sinequanon:


He has said that too much religion is no good. That does not imply that any amount of religion is bad.

You cannot be a part time xtian/muslim/jew/buddhist. To attempt to do so is to be a liar.

Religions tend to be all encompassing - the myths that shape societies (rightly or wrongly).

If your foundation is off base then the building itself is in danger.

mmsen:


You cannot be a part time xtian/muslim/jew/buddhist. To attempt to do is to be a liar.

Let us debate genuinely. "Part-time" is a loaded and rhetorical word.

I am prepared to accept the word "casual" or "non devout".

Given that people can be, and often are, liars, is your point that Christians, Muslims and Jews who are not devout are atheists?

sinequanon:


Let us debate genuinely. "Part-time" is a loaded and rhetorical word.

I am prepared to accept the word "casual" or "non devout".

Given that people can be, and often are, liars, is your point that Christians, Muslims and Jews who are not devout are atheists?

We aren't going to argue semantics just so you can avoid the issue.

I will substitute casual (defined as irregular or occasional) for "part time" (as if there is a difference).

My point remains - casual [religious group here] are liars.

mmsen:


We aren't going to argue semantics just so you can avoid the issue.

I will substitute casual (defined as irregular or occasional) for "part time" (as if there is a difference).

My point remains - casual [religious group here] are liars.

"Casual" allows that you consistently and faithfully adhere to some of the doctrines of a faith, but not others. It need have nothing to do with time or being part-time.

There is no need to evoke any slur to make your argument. It doesn't make it more logical.

My question is, are you saying that these "liars" are therefore atheists?

You seem to be the one evading the questions.

sinequanon:


"Casual" allows that you consistently and faithfully adhere to some of the doctrines of a faith, but not others. It need have nothing to do with time or being part-time.

There is no need to evoke any slur to make your argument. It doesn't make it more logical.

My question is, are you saying that these "liars" are therefore atheists?

You seem to be the one evading the questions.

I did not call them atheists I called them liars.

I stick to that terminology.

You seem intent on putting words in the mouths of others.

Casually adhering to a religion is the same as being a part-time adherent - you pick and choose when you feel like following that religion. This would entail a large dose of dishonesty - on the one hand you claim that your religion was gifted to you by an all-knowing, all-seeing super-being but on the other hand you know better than the super-being.

Either you do not believe that the religion was sent by a god or you do not believe that there is indeed a god-being and follow (or pretend to follow) the religion to placate those around you.

mmsen:
You seem intent on putting words in the mouths of others.

No. It was a question. All you had to do was answer "yes" or "no".

However, I am guessing that you are Nigerian, so you took the question as rhetorical, and the whole backward and forward evasion ensued. That is why I say that Nigerians debate badly. Many of us have lost the ability to be direct.

You still haven't answered the question.

mmsen:
I did not call them atheists I called them liars.

I stick to that terminology.

This is what you said...

mmsen:
You cannot be a part time xtian/muslim/jew/buddhist. To attempt to do so is to be a liar.

I think you are "sticking to your terminology" because you are unable to answer the question of whether or not they are atheists.

mmsen:
Casually adhering to a religion is the same as being a part-time adherent - you pick and choose when you feel like following that religion.

You are playing with words. I gave an example where people pick and choose "what" to believe, not "when" to believe it. It is not time related. You are twisting the words to justify your pejorative use of "part-time" Christian. You were taking a dig instead of trying to base your argument wholly on logic.

sinequanon:


"Casual" allows that you consistently and faithfully adhere to some of the doctrines of a faith, but not others. It need have nothing to do with time or being part-time.

There is no need to evoke any slur to make your argument. It doesn't make it more logical.

My question is, are you saying that these "liars" are therefore atheists?

You seem to be the one evading the questions.

I think "cherry picking" is a more accurate way of describing part-time religious people. I much prefer them to fundamentalists.

onetrack:


I think "cherry picking" is a more accurate way of describing part-time religious people. I much prefer them to fundamentalists.

I think that "cherry-picking" is relative to a fundamentalist or literalist interpretation of a religion.

I wouldn't say, for example, that a scientist who doesn't believe in the Higgs Boson is cherry-picking. It may be the case that he or she has a different interpretation of the evidence.

Similarly, some religious folk argue that elements of the scriptures belong only to their time or are allegorical.

I do not fall for the political tactics of atheists, like Dawkins, who have popularized certain words and assumptions as a slur against religion. Ironically , their position is closer to what a religious fanatic would say.

Religion is why no one has been able to really unite Africans in any considerable numbers, and is also why the people of African descent have not been able to make real progress toward freedom and equality

plaetton:

There is no distinction between being religious and being too religious.
It is the nature of the religion, the philosophical framework of a particular religion that matters.

For example, the Abrahamic religions are built on very ridiculous, morally schizophrenic, racist and oppressive frameworks that render them poisonous and disharmonious .

I have said it before. You are foolish.
Anyway i don't expect much from a boy who started having sex from age seven.

lastmessenger:

I have said it before. You are foolish.
Anyway i don't expect much from a boy who started having sex from age seven.

Can you pinpoint what he said that is erroneous?

mmsen:


Can you pinpoint what he said that is erroneous?

Everything he wrote is erroneous. Why can't you see that?

lastmessenger:

I have said it before. You are foolish.
Anyway i don't expect much from a boy who started having sex from age seven.

Huh?


Are you insane or something ?.

What warranted such a malicious personal attack ??

plaetton:

There is no distinction between being religious and being too religious.
It is the nature of the religion, the philosophical framework of a particular religion that matters.

For example, the Abrahamic religions are built on very ridiculous, morally schizophrenic, racist and oppressive frameworks that render them poisonous and disharmonious .

I agree!. We have accepted their dress, their diets, their languages, their gods, their customs, etc. And what has it done for us? Nothing but inequality and hatred. We have accepted the “brain dirtying” lies and fictions taught to us by other races of people and those of our race who have converted to hate self and kind. We gave up facts for faith. We gave up math for myth. We gave up being god to worshiping a god that has no connection to us or our ancestry. No more do we have to listen to liars who only wish to rule and control the masses with their made-up stories called religion