OLAADEGBU:

The theory of evolution is not a scientific theory it remains a belief that cannot be proved scientifically.

It has been validated several times over. I think you simply need to study it. If you think it is not satisfactory, then present your theory that better explains the great biodiversity we see and also explains the fossils, microbes, genetics etc.

thehomer:

It was not my definition. It was one I picked out of four from a satisfactory site for the purposes of this discussion.

You supplied the definition saying, inter alia, that the definition may be closest to what you wished to say! If you now want to refute the definition which you supplied, then say so patently. Otherwise, I repeat that evangelical atheism fits in properly within the definition of "religion" that you supplied and therefore evangelical atheism is a religion on that definition.

thehomer:
The conclusions have to be your business because they are direct implications of your interpretation. If you also agree that communism and others are religions too then that is fine since you're being consistent with it.

The conclusions do not necessarily have to be my business. It is not for me but for those who claim that communism etc fits in with your supplied definition of "religion" to show the proof. No one has so far done so; they are still very much welcome to do so. In my case I outlined clearly how evangelical atheism fits your definition --- that is all I needed to do.

Actually, I am going to use this point to make a direct allegation of double-standards against you: in our old debate on faith versus reason you pointedly omitted to make a similar acknowledgment or to do a similar exercise in relation to the question that if you accord to certain philosophical theories the status of an intellectual discipline, why deny the same status to Christianity in particular.

thehomer:
You may also note that I actually did tentatively come up with my own description of what I think describes a religion in my previous response to you on my post #178 with some other points I made about the concept of highly valued actions being considered religious

Oh, I did not bother with that because the points you repeated there had been destroyed directly or indirectly in earlier posts by me and others on the thread e.g.

(a) you said religion needs 'sacred texts': we asked you for the sacred texts of Amadioha, Shango, Obatala etc and you did not have a satisfactory answer.

(b) you say religion needs ritual: not necessarily so as not all religions have 'ritual' unless the definition you wish to provide of 'ritual' is as fluid as the definition you provided of 'religion'.

(c) still relating to 'ritual', you describe it as repeated acts in expectation of a response from a deity: this is an exemplar of the problem you have in (b) above: not all religions necessarily have a 'deity' as is certainly arguable with Buddhism, maybe even ancestor worship (and I think Uyi Iredia was probing you on one or two; I can't be bothered to go back and check which); not all 'ritual' is necessarily directed at eliciting a response from a deity e.g. some 'rituals' may be done for self motivation or edification.

You see the problem you have you have yourself partly identified: you state that religion is difficult to define ---- perhaps that is indeed the reason why you should be cautious about arguing that evangelical atheism is not a religion when that "movement" as you acknowledged (or prefer to call it) actively carries out several activities akin to religion including evangelisation and proselytising which are normally seen as quintessential religious activities!

thehomer:
The points were in forms of questions I'll state them here.

OK, I'll deal with them as numbered.

thehomer:
1. What is your description or definition of "militant atheism"?

(a) "Militant atheism" is an old expression and definitions are extant; google the expression and you will have an idea; I think even wikipedia has an entry on it.
(b) Much much more importantly, my primary focus has been evangelical atheism and I have provided enough on what is meant by that; I referred to aggressive/militant atheism secondarily - incidentally, you haven't asked for a meaning of "aggressive" so I wonder (not really) why the  insistence on definition of "militant" as a prefix to atheism!

thehomer:
2. Do you consider discussing or promoting one's views about God(s) publicly a highly valued religious practice on par with e.g the practice of regular communion, regular prayers at certain times of the day etc?

Your definition required proof of practices, beliefs and teachings that are highly valued: it did not necessitate let alone require proof of parity of practices, beliefs and teachings. So this question is really neither here nor there. I have pointed to practices, beliefs and teachings that are highly valued in evangelical atheism; if evangelical atheism chooses to place a high value on daft and idiotic things, that is its own look out; other religions may of course choose to place a high value on better things such as spiritual things.

thehomer:
3. Do you think rational thoughts or actions are wrong?

No, I do not think rational thoughts and actions are wrong! I think and act rationally all the time; in fact, I am doing so right now. I think the more pertinent question is whether you think/believe all non-rational thoughts and actions are wrong?

Enigma:

You supplied the definition saying, inter alia, that the definition may be closest to what you wished to say! If you now want to refute the definition which you supplied, then say so patently. Otherwise, I repeat that evangelical atheism fits in properly within the definition of "religion" that you supplied and therefore evangelical atheism is a religion on that definition.

The conclusions do not necessarily have to be my business. It is not for me but for those who claim that communism etc fits in with your supplied definition of "religion" to show the proof. No one has so far done so; they are still very much welcome to do so. In my case I outlined clearly how evangelical atheism fits your definition --- that is all I needed to do.

I already said I agree that "militant atheism" is a religion if you also agree that communism etc are religions because the fit with your interpretation.
Again, it has to be your business because they are direct implications of your interpretation. So it still falls on you to discard them in some way if you do not consider them to be religions. But if you consider them to be religions too then that's fine.

Enigma:

Actually, I am going to use this point to make a direct allegation of double-standards against you: in our old debate on faith versus reason you pointedly omitted to make a similar acknowledgment or to do a similar exercise in relation to the question that if you accord to certain philosophical theories the status of an intellectual discipline, why deny the same status to Christianity in particular.

Christianity becomes reasonable only with a certain type of assumption that I don't think one has a reason to make. Intellectual disciplines as I understand it are based on human reason without appeals to some other entity.

Enigma:

Oh, I did not bother with that because the points you repeated there had been destroyed directly or indirectly in earlier posts by me and others on the thread e.g.

(a) you said religion needs 'sacred texts': we asked you for the sacred texts of Amadioha, Shango, Obatala etc and you did not have a satisfactory answer.

(b) you say religion needs ritual: not necessarily so as not all religions have 'ritual' unless the definition you wish to provide of 'ritual' is as fluid as the definition you provided of 'religion'.

(c) still relating to 'ritual', you describe it as repeated acts in expectation of a response from a deity: this is an exemplar of the problem you have in (b) above: not all religions necessarily have a 'deity' as is certainly arguable with Buddhism, maybe even ancestor worship (and I think Uyi Iredia was probing you on one or two; I can't be bothered to go back and check which); not all 'ritual' is necessarily directed at eliciting a response from a deity e.g. some 'rituals' may be done for self motivation or edification.

You see the problem you have you have yourself partly identified: you state that religion is difficult to define ---- perhaps that is indeed the reason why you should be cautious about arguing that evangelical atheism is not a religion when that "movement" as you acknowledged (or prefer to call it) actively carries out several activities akin to religion including evangelisation and proselytising which are normally seen as quintessential religious activities!

I already agree that it is difficult to define especially off the top of my head but that won't stop me from trying.
Like I said before, making it a religion also makes some other human activities that are not often considered as religious activities religions. Which is what you are demonstrating here and at the same time trying to ignore this effect.

Enigma:

OK, I'll deal with them as numbered.

(a) "Militant atheism" is an old expression and definitions are extant; google the expression and you will have an idea; I think even wikipedia has an entry on it.
(b) Much much more importantly, my primary focus has been evangelical atheism and I have provided enough on what is meant by that; I referred to aggressive/militant atheism secondarily - incidentally, you haven't asked for a meaning of "aggressive" so I wonder (not really) why the  insistence on definition of "militant" as a prefix to atheism!

Aggressiveness does not imply a willingness to use violent tactics but militant does and I think this is a very important distinction when describing prominent atheists today.

Enigma:

Your definition required proof of practices, beliefs and teachings that are highly valued: it did not necessitate let alone require proof of parity of practices, beliefs and teachings. So this question is really neither here nor there. I have pointed to practices, beliefs and teachings that are highly valued in evangelical atheism; if evangelical atheism chooses to place a high value on daft and idiotic things, that is its own look out; other religions may of course choose to place a high value on better things such as spiritual things.

The fact that you presented practices you ascribe to "evangelical atheism" means that you are willing to compare them to common practices in religions.

Enigma:

No, I do not think rational thoughts and actions are wrong! I think and act rationally all the time; in fact, i am doing so right now. I think the more pertinent question is whether you think/believe all non-rational thoughts and actions are wrong?

I simply cannot realistically answer such a question that requires absolute knowledge besides, I don't think that is the pertinent question. I asked that because it looked like you view regularly acting rationally as a detrimental activity.

@InesQor

Referring to some atheists who are notorious for mudslinging on threads about religion, I asked, WITH MANY SMILIES to introduce humor, what are THESE atheists doing in the religion section? It was simple sarcasm. Purist replies about politics, and I show him the definition of a politician. Actively discussing politics ALONE makes you a politician. (Not so with religion). So doing, I was telling that his example is out of the ballpark. I ask, does he understand or should I break it down? Rather than admit he didnt get it, he went defensive and lied it was sarcasm.

Okay, I won't descend to the level of calling you a liar but it really does appear to me that you seem confused, and I'll advise you take some time to peruse page 2 of this thread to see where your confusion started.   It's funny that you try to turn the table around.  It's a poor attempt, really.

I'll break it down.

You said first:  If Atheism is not a religion, pray tell, what are all these dudes doing in this section?
My response: And every ardent contributor in the politics section is a politician too.

Your statement seemed to support the notion that atheism is indeed a religion, 'evidenced' by the number of atheists that flood the religion section.  My response, in effect, was my sarcastic way of telling you that this was a baseless conclusion since 'all those dudes' in the politics section cannot be said to be politicians either just because they discuss politics all the time.  It is not my fault that you failed to sense the sarcasm, so it isn't nice that you'd label me a liar.

Then you went ahead to supply a definition of 'politican':  Politician: A person active in party politics.   Having said this yourself, how then did you turn around to begin making the erroneous claim that "actively discussing politics ALONE makes one a politician", when even your own definition contradicts this claim?   Even the link you put did/does not contain, or even suggest that claim.  Need I go further?  Put 2 and 2 together, and see where you got it all mixed up.

Cheers mate.

@deepsight how u dey bros? Long time o

InesQor:

KrayoBABA!!!! Lon g tim eno show for this end. Okay one question for YOU. Hehehe what about the seen order(s), where people directly worship the seen and not the unseen? :p

How nah? Can u please give me an example, and explain what u mean by "worship"?

@Krayola: I was teasing you. Lest this spiral into another thing like Im settling with Purist now. 

@Purist: You do not know my posts well enough to tell. Sometimes Im just cracking dry jokes, sometimes Im being sarcastic and sometimes I express my opinions. Enigma understood my point and we laughed over the joke and that was it. To clarify for those who thought I was being serious, I FURTHER declared that I dont think atheism is a religion BUT some people who claim atheism act (aggressively) like they are following a religion.

My first post was a sarcastic joke, I was referring to the aggresive atheists as the THESE guys, asking what they are doing here. But even at that, I was JOKING. I didnt mean atheism is a religion, and I clarified that afterwards.

And then you mentioned politics and I showed you that with politics it's different, cos that actually makes them politicians (in my opinion). As such, I was saying that going by your own sarcastic submission, that means all atheists who post here have a religion which is not true.

I dont know how you dont get my point: my first post was directed at SOME atheists (THESE atheists. I referred to Mudley et al who made comments JUST BEFORE ME!)

This is exasperating. If you still dont get my point, please let it rest.

I WAS WRONG. YOU ARE RIGHT.

C'est finis.

religion is the framework on which we hinge the choices that steer our lives.
you cannot not be religious - simply because you cannot afford not to make a choice in life.
the system of canons that form the bedrock for filtering life may be written or unwritten, but you send conflicting and non conflicting events that confront you in life to this system to give you an answer on how to respond to daily events.
every body has this system, this system is influenced by your religion , education, beliefs.
for a christian, non-religious matters like eating and fun - will be weighed by the system that influences his philosophy the bible, the bible is the Word of God to him,
the God of the christian wants to play a role in his day to day life and influence his
decision making,in day to day affairs. this is not the picture of religion that is left in
the church after a church service.
for a christian, sleeping around, stealing, fighting would be forbidden actions why?
because of his guiding belief system . what's so religious about thinking of stealing
fat sums of money? or fighting your enemies physically? or having extra,pre marital affairs? these choices confront all alike - whether you adhere to a religion or not.
but you have to respond to the choices and make an a decision - your religion influences your decision.
therefore since everybody makes such decisions - EVERY BODY ON EARTH HAS A RELIGION.
you can't make every day choices and not have a religion.its impossible.
and when you change religions - and adhere to it tenets and teachings - it will influence how you make everyday choices. religion is nt sth esoteric locked away in mystique remote halls. religion is life and how you live it.
who you worship shows , eventually.
e.g
some fundamentalists , kill and maim, for their religion. their religion says this is okay.
if you're an atheist, given the choice to loot, philander,etc lie,you'll make a choice?
given an option to retaliate when insulted , you'll make a choice.
you'll follow a system even if your system is undefined.
so your religions is based on 1. ) logic - if it not explainable and graspable by the human intellect - its not true. that's intellectualism ,which is a god.
notice how many highly educated people fall for atheism- its because of the god of intellectualism.
2.) pride - pride here is - the belief that human mind knows all there is to know about
God and so human mind can reveal God - well,
human mind can't even reveal all there is to know about the universe, not to talk
of understanding a subject as had to define as God.
for the christian- God says there is way above logic - its called faith.
its like teaching a kid to fly a plane- the kids brain can't understand in theory how it works so he has to believe that his teacher is right and knows what he is doing,the kid
has to accept the teachers instruction in faith.
God's way is past finding out - meaning- logic is limited. logic is the principal method of
discovering knowledge in the sciences. good for man. but it is not the only way.
there is a higher plane, sorry logic won't work there- you'll never be able to fully
understand God thru your mind.
but atheism is a religion.

Atheism is a religion of the 'moronic terrorist', muddley313 can testify to that. The   is so moronic with full pride. Quick to attack all religious peep out here. The dumbest among all the atheist i have ever seen(here of) and i wish he be the last. The clown is so addicted to some freaky and weird cartoons and pictures.

Rhino please explain to me how you define atheism as a religion when atheism = disbelief & theism = belief. Theism = belief in a supernatural being which is usually linked to a belief system called religion. Whereas atheists don't pray worship or practice the things that religious people do. We believe in ethics morality & integrity but disbelieve in religion.

@ manmustwck.
This is my own opinion:
i define religion as the act of worship consiously or subconsiously i.e be it a diety or not. incase of deity or deities then one needs to believe in their existance or not i.e Physically or spritually.

It may sound funny and unbelievable to have a religion without believing in any deity abi? Ok
take this exanple. . . . .

. . . I used to be and ardent supporter of chelsea fc.(rhe blues), i was a fan and i later became fanatic, from fanatic i became a 'football terrorist' in that i became in-tolerant of any other club fan with all tendency of violence to defend my club or any of its player.
i hardly stay in a place without saying 'my club' is better than yours.

My room was decorated with everything that is blue, funny enough to extent that no matter how beutiful a girl is i seem to dislike her if she is not my club.

I bought a big chelsea blanket and cover my late friend when they had accident on thier way to play for my local team then. (11 Zabgai players died along abuja-lokoja road)

But when ever am called out i will deny it.

What makes a religion is the passion and satisfaction one drive whenever you are doing any act or performing any ritual related to it.

It may not be organise but 'religion is relgion'.


It may not be in the academic circus for now or later, but when all actions are pointing toward religion then a new 'theory is born' which may subject to refutations. No one can deny the dynamics of life.



it may be a secret religion, but a religion is a religion.


Funny enough many are in religion by indoctrination, consiously or sub consiously.
Some are in it by association.

Some are in it by activities( actions that are partinent to a particular religion)

so manmustwack, you may deny atheism being a religion with all the evidence you may present, but no arrow that is ponting toward religion that is not pointing toward atheism.

Unknowing to me football fanatism was my God, chelsea football club was my religion or sect, stanford bridge was my 'mecca/jerusalem'.
Whenever chelsea is defeated dont even come close to me.
I pay my tithe by paying for dstv subscription/watching live match.
No matter my mood if you chant up blues i will feel happy.

So over to you manmustwack was i in a religion? ?
Please be realistic in your response

^^^ Some of the people on this thread have previously said, with some amount of seriousness when trying to define "god", that a footballer e.g. Messi can be a 'god'.

Purist:

@InesQor

Okay, I won't descend to the level of calling you a liar but it really does appear to me that you seem confused, and I'll advise you take some time to peruse page 2 of this thread to see where your confusion started. It's funny that you try to turn the table around. It's a poor attempt, really.

I'll break it down.

You said first: If Atheism is not a religion, pray tell, what are all these dudes doing in this section?
My response: And every ardent contributor in the politics section is a politician too.

Your statement seemed to support the notion that atheism is indeed a religion, 'evidenced' by the number of atheists that flood the religion section. My response, in effect, was my sarcastic way of telling you that this was a baseless conclusion since 'all those dudes' in the politics section cannot be said to be politicians either just because they discuss politics all the time. It is not my fault that you failed to sense the sarcasm, so it isn't nice that you'd label me a liar.

Then you went ahead to supply a definition of 'politican': Politician: A person active in party politics. Having said this yourself, how then did you turn around to begin making the erroneous claim that "actively discussing politics ALONE makes one a politician", when even your own definition contradicts this claim? Even the link you put did/does not contain, or even suggest that claim. Need I go further? Put 2 and 2 together, and see where you got it all mixed up.

Cheers mate.

I do not know which was more embarrasing: the self evident contradictions or the poor attempts to redeem them. The scandalous definition related to discussing politics in particular is just a tendergarten sore thumb.

thehomer:

The use of the word faith with respect to science and religion usually fails due to the fallacy of equivocation.
Faith in religion is basically based on poor or no evidence.
When the word faith is used in science, it generally implies that one does not know the future based on uncertainties but, the core difference is that with science, there are loads of evidence backing up the expectation of what is to happen.
*1
What do you mean by immutability? Scientific theories are deliberately modified when the need arises but religion generally does not change even when some evidence is available that points out some problems with doctrine. Did any of the scientific theories you mentioned cause modifications to the religious texts?*2


I guess some religions may be rigorously followed but many cannot in this present day and age.
You're about to define religion in a way that makes it too vague to be useful.*3

Ok.

*1 >>> This doesn't topple my assertion: That one errs by polarizing religion. At least not yet. I anticipated this (fallacy of equivocation) as well. But the fact is that >>> 'evidence' is based on what one observes in reality >>> which further goes to show that science and religion are enmeshed.  >>> furthermore the fact that 'loads of evidence' could well amount to 'no evidence' goes to show that what constitutes (i.e could be taken as) evidence is ambiguous. You commit the sin of 'convenient ignorance' because >>> you ignore the possibility that >>> what you take as 'little or no evidence' to the religious amounts to 'loads of evidence'. >>> You never denied that science used faith >>> you just don't perceive that faith as regards both science and religion is the same. I do

*2 >>> By 'immutability' >>> I mean that one immutably (inevitably) follows from the other >>> To this end I don't agree that religion existed b4 science >>> I opine that either history (i mean historical works, archeological finds e.t.c) is misinterpreted or incomplete >>>  SSMH (Seriously Shaking My Head in defiance) >>> homer I DO NOT agree that scientific theories are deliberately modified. You make it seem as if scientists at large readily wiggle their heads in assention to any new scientific theory. You are aware that many new scientific innovations and theories were vigorously opposed_in some instances by people who should've known better >>>

example  >>> Einstein's theory of relativity was largely scoffed at by scientists until it correctly predicted the 'orbital discrepancy' of Mars and sub-atomic phenomena >>> I once read (in a book) of how the medical practice of washing hands was scoffed at, including its 'father' Semmelweis >>> The great mathematical physicist Max Planck once made a statement denoting the fact that new scientific innovations/theories aren't accepted,  not until a new generation of scientists are born who accept such theories/innovations

Scientific theories aren't deliberately modified >>> they are dogmatically modified (it isn't so much about reason, but about your clout in scientific circles) >>> though it appears to me that scientists are making efforts to obviate this trend >>>

It is possible that scientific theories of a zeitgeist can influence (and indirectly modify) religious text >>> I'm aware for example that the father figure of the church St Augustine was hugely influenced Plato's work and that in facct many church doctrines were predicated on the type of ethics Plato advocated for >>> more importantly scientific theories /innovations directly influence how such texts are (or can be) interpreted >>> an example being the case of Galileo Galilei vs The Church_we all know who won  >>> To round it off: the scientific theories I mentioned seriously influenced how religions perceive themselves and how they were practiced_this doesn't apply 'hard-and-fast'

*3 >>> I might as well (but won't) drop my castigating of atheism as a religion >>> u articulate your points well enough_some I agree with >>> but if my surmise be correct I don't agree with your perspective in its entirety >>> You constrict terms_might as well say you're pedantic

my definition of religion would become clearer in time. It would go on to make its own value or essence. (that's my stake) >>> I do not agree to a strict use of your definition of religion >>> you should understand that Christianity in its infancy couldn't be called a religion (it could at worst be called a cult) >>> the Romans were confused since the Christians didn't worship idols nor humans (Romans deified their Emperor), weren't interested in aggrandizement or ostensible display of worship, and, worse yet, actively and successfully propounded their beliefs (something which was rather queer at that time) >>> it didn't even have the sacred texts or practices you were talking about >>> most of these came in with pagan influx (and their practices) into the Church during Constantinople's reign. I also don't see why u don't juxtapose religion (or at least religious cast of thinking) with say communism_ i see parallels between them.

Deep Sight >>> I'm waiting >>> I asked that u clarify the terms 'spirit', 'light' and 'spirituality' given the context of your definition of religion. It is with this I want to show where you misunderstand or ignore my posit(s).

Krayola:

Religion is a belief in an unseen order; and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves hereto.

This applies to evolutionism >>> think 'blind watchmaker' and 'altruism'

thehomer:

I do not agree with this because, religious faith as I understand it depends on poor or no evidence.*1

Mutually inclusive? I hope you are quite aware of the wide chasms between the practices of science and religion?*2

Religion may be tied down but science is not tied down to ideologies this is one of the reasons for its universality on earth. The very same electromagnetic principles work whatever the ideologies of the practitioners.*3

Religion no longer enquires it already has the answers written in books and with the religious authorities.*4

Humans have been engaged in religious activities before they codified their thoughts in philosophy but scientific thinking came later much later.
So what if they used philosophy to try to defend their positions?
*5
This post is getting too long. I'll break up my responses to the sections.

*1 >>> same goes for evolution >>> it largely offers circumstantial evidence and labels it as direct evidence e.g point to layers of fossils stratified in a sedimentary rock as proof beyond all doubt as evidence of evolution >>> hmmmph !!! i 'm skeptical about this 

besides my previous talk on evidence treats this so >>> its up to you to make the contrast.

*2 >>> Mutually inclusive >>> YES >>> I'm WELL AWARE of the wide chasms between science and religion. That's why their inseparable bond also piques me. >>> How can 2 apparently differing concepts be so similar ? >>> Science and Religion follow from a thinking being

*3 >>> Straw man ! This is what I meant by ideology

the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

Science can't be excused from this. U are well aware that it is the ideologies of a practitioner which defines principles and how such principles are put into effect (that e.g when he/she wants to invent a device).

*4 >>> seems you have animosity towards 'the Big Three' >>> religion does inquire into nature, and it does so, continually.

*5 >>> the scientific method has its origins in such religious activities >>> then_in answer your question_it goes to show that science and religion are philosophical activities. They are philosophies. In the realm of thought, science and religion aren't sharply contrasted the way you eagerly do

Deep Sight:

I do not know which was more embarrasing: the self evident contradictions or the poor attempts to redeem them. The scandalous definition related to discussing politics in particular is just a tendergarten sore thumb.

@bold part: Thought I was the only one that noticed. The thing tire me o!

Big ups @uyi iredia liking ur arguements so far

@DeepSight and @Purist: I see you both dont have the capacity to let anything go. Have at my faux pas, aii? Keep nagging at it. Like a bulldog with an outlander's pantleg. 

Rhino.4dm:

Atheism is a religion of the 'moronic terrorist', muddley313 can testify to that. The   is so moronic with full pride. Quick to attack all religious peep out here. The dumbest among all the atheist i have ever seen(here of) and i wish he be the last. The clown is so addicted to some freaky and weird cartoons and pictures.

Wow i taught only the theists are aware of the bolded. So a deist have also seen same? hahahahahaha

---

BTW, u guys used to be friends not so? i remember u encouraging the chap to insult me before 'my god mother'(according to u) banned u for insulting her no?

so wetin i go say catch una two now? My head or my God. lolrmaf

toba:


so wetin i go say catch una two now? My head or my God. lolrmaf

This is beyond what your head or (dont want to speak bad about your God cos am now a born again ) can catch. Anyway

NORMALCY ALERT !!!
The beast named muddley 313 on rampage has been tamed. So all nairalanders can go ahead with thier normal activities/postings without any fear of terrorism.
But in case you notice any tendency of abnormality from him.

Toll free calls should be directed to his handler

Hotlines: Rhino.4dm, Rhino.3dm(not active for now due to technical service)
BE VIGILANT. . . . SAFETY FIRST!!!

Rhino.4dm:

This is beyond what your head or (dont want to speak bad about your God cos am now a born again ) can catch. Anyway

NORMALCY ALERT !!!
The beast named muddley 313 on rampage has been tamed. So all nairalanders can go ahead with thier normal activities/postings without any fear of terrorism.
But in case you notice any tendency of abnormality from him.

Toll free calls should be directed to his handler

Hotlines: Rhino.4dm, Rhino.3dm(not active for now due to technical service) 
BE VIGILANT. . . . SAFETY FIRST!!!   
   

smh @ this attention seeking jobless slowpoke. i bet you mastubate over arguing on the internet with faceless males. i'm sorry i'm not going to give you the attention you so badly sought after from me, i have a life. go outside and make real friends and quit being a pathetic loser at life

Woow wow! Someone must have left the door to the asylum open.

Something have to be done about this loon and it has to done fast!

Now we must raise the alert level to 6. two f-22 raptors have been scrambble for total annihiliation of the beast.

The highest that was ever recorded the only time that was taking to level 5 was during anthrax and ebola virus saga.

The beast is out there!!!

Mudley313:

smh @ this attention seeking jobless slowpoke. i bet you mastubate over arguing on the internet with faceless males. i'm sorry i'm not going to give you the attention you so badly sought after from me, i have a life. go outside and make real friends and quit being a pathetic loser at life

Rhino.4dm:


NORMALCY ALERT !!!
The beast named muddley 313 on rampage has been tamed. So all nairalanders can go ahead with thier normal activities/postings without any fear of terrorism.
But in case you notice any tendency of abnormality from him.

Toll free calls should be directed to his handler

Hotlines: Rhino.4dm, Rhino.3dm(not active for now due to technical service) 
BE VIGILANT. . . . SAFETY FIRST!!!   
   

so mr Rhino 4dm what happened

who let him loose?     U didn't do a good job?

Mudley313:

smh @ this attention seeking jobless slowpoke. i bet you mastubate over arguing on the internet with faceless males. i'm sorry i'm not going to give you the attention you so badly sought after from me, i have a life. go outside and make real friends and quit being a pathetic loser at life

My american boy, dont worry nothing do u. Rhino.4dm is a joker. Im on your side. lol

---

Well its ok guys. Let things be

toba:

BTW, u guys used to be friends not so? i remember u encouraging the chap to insult me before 'my god mother'(according to u) banned u for insulting her no?

this groupie used to be all over my posts co-signing and kissing my azz prior, but when i failed to give him any acknowledgment/attention he decided to resort to stalker mode. this is actually like the online version of that eminem song stan, smh. and i used to think only females get stalked online

he can rant and rave all he wants, his groupie azz is on permanent ignore now

^^ May be thats what u think about him. But its ok. Learn to show maturity. I mean the both of u by stopping this e attack

^^ il mondo. . . . i o sono grande padroni di mafioso! In sicilia we invented mafiarism!


The dolt will never understand the game plan. The Idiot thought by learning his weak point is actually an extension of freindship hand. Nah! fella grow up as popular demands and start using your brain to think. Try to learn the intention not the motive.



When i was in sicilia (sicily) the first thing i learned was to be freind to your enemy cos when you strike, it will be fatally stress-free.

"You cant run away from the shadows of the Romans"

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> This doesn't topple my assertion: That one errs by polarizing religion. At least not yet. I anticipated this (fallacy of equivocation) as well. But the fact is that >>> 'evidence' is based on what one observes in reality >>> which further goes to show that science and religion are enmeshed. 

How does this show that they are enmeshed? I ask because when there is a difference in knowledge that involves science and religion, religion is most often wrong.

Uyi Iredia:

>>> furthermore the fact that 'loads of evidence' could well amount to 'no evidence' goes to show that what constitutes (i.e could be taken as) evidence is ambiguous. You commit the sin of 'convenient ignorance' because >>> you ignore the possibility that >>> what you take as 'little or no evidence' to the religious amounts to 'loads of evidence'.

I have looked at what is considered as religious evidence and found them wanting unlike scientific evidence which can and have been evaluated by qualified people. This is why i say it amounts to poor or no evidence.

Uyi Iredia:

>>> You never denied that science used faith >>> you just don't perceive that faith as regards both science and religion is the same. I do

Pointing out that the use of the word faith interchangeably in both fields is a fallacy of equivocation explains my view on it. Why do you perceive that they are the same when their implications are so different almost contradictory in both fields?

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> By 'immutability' >>> I mean that one immutably (inevitably) follows from the other >>> To this end I don't agree that religion existed b4 science >>> I opine that either history (i mean historical works, archeological finds e.t.c) is misinterpreted or incomplete

Since you don't agree that religion came up before science, here are some references for you to check out.
http://www.livescience.com/history/061130_oldest_ritual.html for one of the oldest signs of religion
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/25creature.html?_r=1 for one of our oldest signs of scientific thinking

Uyi Iredia:

>>>  SSMH (Seriously Shaking My Head in defiance) >>> homer I DO NOT agree that scientific theories are deliberately modified. You make it seem as if scientists at large readily wiggle their heads in assention to any new scientific theory. You are aware that many new scientific innovations and theories were vigorously opposed_in some instances by people who should've known better >>>

So how do they get modified? Accidentally?

Uyi Iredia:

example  >>> Einstein's theory of relativity was largely scoffed at by scientists until it correctly predicted the 'orbital discrepancy' of Mars and sub-atomic phenomena >>> I once read (in a book) of how the medical practice of washing hands was scoffed at, including its 'father' Semmelweis >>> The great mathematical physicist Max Planck once made a statement denoting the fact that new scientific innovations/theories aren't accepted,  not until a new generation of scientists are born who accept such theories/innovations

Scientific theories aren't deliberately modified >>> they are dogmatically modified (it isn't so much about reason, but about your clout in scientific circles) >>> though it appears to me that scientists are making efforts to obviate this trend >>>

This is totally false. In science, theories are modified based on the evidence supporting it. Are you now claiming that science is based on authority?

Uyi Iredia:

It is possible that scientific theories of a zeitgeist can influence (and indirectly modify) religious text >>> I'm aware for example that the father figure of the church St Augustine was hugely influenced Plato's work and that in facct many church doctrines were predicated on the type of ethics Plato advocated for >>> more importantly scientific theories /innovations directly influence how such texts are (or can be) interpreted >>> an example being the case of Galileo Galilei vs The Church_we all know who won  >>> To round it off: the scientific theories I mentioned seriously influenced how religions perceive themselves and how they were practiced_this doesn't apply 'hard-and-fast'

But, were the texts rewritten?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> I might as well (but won't) drop my castigating of atheism as a religion >>> u articulate your points well enough_some I agree with >>> but if my surmise be correct I don't agree with your perspective in its entirety >>> You constrict terms_might as well say you're pedantic

If they appear too constrictive, it's for a reason. I may need to be pedantic in some cases to get my ideas across clearly.

Uyi Iredia:

my definition of religion would become clearer in time. It would go on to make its own value or essence. (that's my stake) >>> I do not agree to a strict use of your definition of religion >>> you should understand that Christianity in its infancy couldn't be called a religion (it could at worst be called a cult) >>> the Romans were confused since the Christians didn't worship idols nor humans (Romans deified their Emperor), weren't interested in aggrandizement or ostensible display of worship, and, worse yet, actively and successfully propounded their beliefs (something which was rather queer at that time) >>> it didn't even have the sacred texts or practices you were talking about >>> most of these came in with pagan influx (and their practices) into the Church during Constantinople's reign. I also don't see why u don't juxtapose religion (or at least religious cast of thinking) with say communism_ i see parallels between them.

Ok I await your definition of religion. But now, Christianity is a religion. Sure we see parallels between one human endeavour and others that does not mean we have to force them all into a single category.

Uyi Iredia:

This applies to evolutionism >>> think 'blind watchmaker' and 'altruism'

*1 >>> same goes for evolution >>> it largely offers circumstantial evidence and labels it as direct evidence e.g point to layers of fossils stratified in a sedimentary rock as proof beyond all doubt as evidence of evolution >>> hmmmph !!! i 'm skeptical about this 

The evidence for evolution is quite overwhelming. Fossils are not the only line of evidence. There is also microbiology, genetics, comparative anatomy, embryology and others. Have you considered the evidence and your particular objections against them?

Uyi Iredia:

besides my previous talk on evidence treats this so >>> its up to you to make the contrast.

I think I've attended to it in my recent post.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> Mutually inclusive >>> YES >>> I'm WELL AWARE of the wide chasms between science and religion. That's why their inseparable bond also piques me. >>> How can 2 apparently differing concepts be so similar ? >>> Science and Religion follow from a thinking being

Are you wondering why human constructs are similar at some level?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> Straw man ! This is what I meant by ideology

Science can't be excused from this. U are well aware that it is the ideologies of a practitioner which defines principles and how such principles are put into effect (that e.g when he/she wants to invent a device).

How was my statement a straw man? You say science and religion are tied down to ideologies and I say whatever the ideology, science still works. Can you please demonstrate how I'm wrong or how I've misrepresented what you're saying?

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> seems you have animosity towards 'the Big Three' >>> religion does inquire into nature, and it does so, continually.

Do you think so? What does Christianity have to say about the composition of water? Or the diameter of the Earth?

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> the scientific method has its origins in such religious activities >>> then_in answer your question_it goes to show that science and religion are philosophical activities. They are philosophies. In the realm of thought, science and religion aren't sharply contrasted the way you eagerly do

So what if religion influenced science at the outset? The fact is that now, it doesn't. I think the differences are pretty clear. From the reliance on authority to reliance on demonstrable evidence, the differences are obvious.

thehomer:

The evidence for evolution is quite overwhelming. Fossils are not the only line of evidence. There is also microbiology, genetics, comparative anatomy, embryology and others. Have you considered the evidence and your particular objections against them?*1

I think I've attended to it in my recent post.*2

Are you wondering why human constructs are similar at some level?*3

How was my statement a straw man? You say science and religion are tied down to ideologies and I say whatever the ideology, science still works. Can you please demonstrate how I'm wrong or how I've misrepresented what you're saying?*4

Do you think so? What does Christianity have to say about the composition of water? Or the diameter of the Earth?*5

So what if religion influenced science at the outset? The fact is that now, it doesn't. I think the differences are pretty clear. From the reliance on authority to reliance on demonstrable evidence, the differences are obvious.*6

*1 >>> You err by surmising that I don't believe in evolution because I haven't studied it well enough. that is the connotation in your post. I am well aware of (and keep abreast with) the 'evidence' and counter arguments against them. Evolution still requires faith, especially so, since it deals with the origins of man.

The evidences for a lie can be overwhelming.

*2 >>> inconclusively

*3 >>> yes

*4 >>> Straw man again ! Science and Religion are tied down to ideologies. Why ?  Look at the definition of ideology.

the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

It applies to both science and religion. You don't equivocate my use of 'ideology' to your own definition of science and religion. I hope I have made this lucid.


*5 >>> I know so. You ask

What does Christianity have to say about the composition of water? Or the diameter of the Earth?

I reply that it is exactly what science says. It is a religious inquiry into reality that engenders science.

*6 >>> i was particular to use engender (or cause). Your use of 'influence' implies that religion indirectly led to science_not so. Religion (or religious thinking) which birthed science still influences science (and the scientific method) today. You only asserted otherwise. by the way, as i gave with examples (like Semmelweis'), science relies as much on authority as religion relies on evidence. The differences and similarities are obvious.

An iteration (and rephrasal) of points in my former post should keep our discussion in check.

>>> The errancy of polarizing science and religion is highlighted by my 2 core points:
[list]
[li]The fallibility of polarity[/li]
[li]Their immutability in philosophy[/li]
[/list]

At this point it should be obvious that my intention is to blur the line between science and religion by means of two crucial elements common to both of them. Reason and Faith.

*Polarity is fallible because it ignores parallels between two concepts. it ignores their ambiguity and the fact that ambiguous concepts are handled by arbitration. I gave an example using good and evil to explicate this point. When you polarize 2 concepts, you ignore their similarities ab initio

*Religion and Science are philosophies. I expect that anyone should know that various 'isms' (e.g theism, deism, stoicism, platonism, communism, materialism, monism, evolutionism inter alia ) overlap and intertwine as regards the concept of science and religion. The plan was to make one realize this: the fact that religious and scientific worldview causes one's perception of reality highlights their similarity (they are one and the same expressed in different ways).

thehomer:

How does this show that they are enmeshed? I ask because when there is a difference in knowledge that involves science and religion, religion is most often wrong.*1

I have looked at what is considered as religious evidence and found them wanting unlike scientific evidence which can and have been evaluated by qualified people. This is why i say it amounts to poor or no evidence.*2

Pointing out that the use of the word faith interchangeably in both fields is a fallacy of equivocation explains my view on it. Why do you perceive that they are the same when their implications are so different almost contradictory in both fields?*3

Since you don't agree that religion came up before science, here are some references for you to check out*4
http://www.livescience.com/history/061130_oldest_ritual.html for one of the oldest signs of religion
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/25creature.html?_r=1 for one of our oldest signs of scientific thinking

So how do they get modified? Accidentally?*5


This is totally false. In science, theories are modified based on the evidence supporting it. Are you now claiming that science is based on authority?*6

But, were the texts rewritten?*7

If they appear too constrictive, it's for a reason. I may need to be pedantic in some cases to get my ideas across clearly.*8

Ok I await your definition of religion. But now, Christianity is a religion. Sure we see parallels between one human endeavor and others that does not mean we have to force them all into a single category.*9

*1 >>> Enmeshed in reality. In subjects like knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. All of which follow from reality >>> Perhaps so, given the fact that we can never have absolute knowledge of reality in its entirety, perhaps not_going by your definition of religion of course. I'm ignoring their differences_obvious ones given in your arguments. I'm thinking similarities_obvious ones you ignore in my arguments.

*2 >>> Going by your definition of religion and faith. This further goes to show how subjective perceptions can be. Why others don't come to the same conclusion puts a question mark ? on what you have said.

I have looked at what is considered as religious evidence and found them wanting unlike scientific evidence which can and have been evaluated by qualified people. This is why i say it amounts to poor or no evidence.

A pity that scientists have to preach the scientific method to the uninitiated.

*3 >>>  In a dark room a person places a candle, then walks away. Two persons chance upon that room. One describes it as a dark room with a candle.The other person describes it as a candle in a dark room. Either way they are right, its a matter of perspective. I propose the same happens for science and religion who are the persons. The perspective is faith.

>>> the fallacy of equivocation in this context goes deeper than the change in how faith is effected. It is based on what faith is predicated upon reason (evidence). I excused myself from this fallacy by saying that while faith (belief) is the same the reasons for such faith is prone to ambiguity.

*4 >>>    not good enough. seen stuff like that

*5 >>> no  >>> but accidental discoveries (like those of Oersted and Faraday) have further advanced science. don't get me started on this one

*6 >>> What's false ? My assertion ? or the examples given to support it ? perhaps the part where i mentioned clout ?  let me make this clear. science is primarily based on authority. the dissension here is the basis for such authority, as i denoted it isn't always evidence. Political clout wielded in scientific circles has a secondary role (if not a primary role_and arguably so) to play.

>>> furthermore, if i had any doubts about my assertion; this statement you made (note the bolded part)  erased it.

I have looked at what is considered as religious evidence and found them wanting unlike scientific evidence which can and have been evaluated by qualified people. This is why i say it amounts to poor or no evidence

this further goes to show that science is asserting itself as the only viable means of perceiving reality. it is becoming an authority_an interesting fact

*7 >>> no >>> but they were most definitely revised

*8 >>> i can clearly see that

*9 >>> They ARE in a single category_in Life, in Nature (and as I've repeated by the dozen) in Reality