Sir Anony, why do you have to argue with flawed points? Allow me to debunk you;
===============================================================================

Mr_Anony:
So is every other religion. Each is a theological stance in it's own right

Was it really necessary to make this point? Seriously, do we disagree on this?

Mr_Anony:
if all Nigerians were one religion, there will also be less division

Really? Christianity is one religion. There are thousands of denominations of christianity. Have you forgotten how protestants and catholics killed each other in the past? Or how pastors can beef each other? Mormons are christians with some of their fundamenatlist branches supporting polygamy.

Islam has Sunni, Wahabbi and Shia fighting each other.

Furthermore, if everyone was under one religion businesses will suffer. Religious people always destroy businesses that they deem immoral. Secularism will allow scientific research into stem cell research and other things. There is a recession in the USA/UK and there are people who make money from gay bars, selling intimacy gadgets, alcohol etc that religion will destroy. At least the Southern part is secular enough to allow the sales of Alcohol. A christian/muslim nation would not agree to such. There would be more restrictions on alcohol if we were all christians- as seen in the USA in the past when alcohol was illegal.

Mr_Anony:
Atheism will not necessarily reduce child abuse. Religion is just another excuse for the abuser An atheist child abuser could still abuse children for "pragmatic" reasons

Yes, atheism would reduce child abuse. There would be no cases of accusing children of witchcraft and killing or beating the children. Why are you ashamed of this fact?

As for general child abuse, I am not talking about it because an atheist/muslim/christian abuser will for the same reason of wickedness. I am talking about a specific type of child abuse (witchcraft) that would dissapear with atheism in vogue.

Mr_Anony:
fraudsters will just find another cloak to wear and practice their trade outside religion

What? Will they join a church of atheism? smh

You are accepting that at least tithe robbery from churches will be gone.

Mr_Anony:
More atheist extremism (case in point communist China)

Communism is a state religion.

Mr_Anony:
Personally, I think it is taught well enough
We don't even have proper museums at all in the first place

Evolution is not taught well. We would have more skeptics of religion if so.

Agreed on the museum point.

Mr_Anony:
And what will be the relevance of this teaching in developing the child other than breeding a hate for religion/ I personally think Nigerian history is taught well enough Good for you, you are free to pursue that if that's your field of interest

So, we should protect religion? The truth should not be taught because it would show that religion can be evil? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr_Anony:
Nigeria is secular because the Nigerian constitution is not based on any religion. As for government money supporting churches, even in "secular" UK 20% of tax money goes to support churches and charities as gift aid. The Sharia law (not that I condone it in any way) is akin to customary law and is still subject federal laws an example of a parallel would be Amish laws observed by Amish communities in the "secular" USA. Another example is criminalizing polygamy in "secular" countries (There is no good unreligious* argument for this)

Nope. Separation of church and state defines the secularism. Once congress or house of reps can make laws that supports a religion, it is not secular.

Sharia law is not secular by nature. It is Islamic.

I would like to see the proof of your 20% tax going to support the church in the UK.

Polygamy creates a problem for civil laws. No prenuptial agreement? Husband and wife split 50/50. How does it work with one house and a man with 4 wives? If polygamy is allowed then, what is the limit for number of wives? What about polyandry?

Amish laws can not go against the constitution. Sharia laws dont.

Mr_Anony:
So far as it looks to me Atheism isn't one of Nigeria's most urgent needs. Nigeria offers freedom of religion and that is enough.

Atheism is urgently needed from the debunking I just gave you

Ptolomeus: Absolutely.
Historically, Africa is not Christian or Islamic.
These religions have been imposed by the conquerors.
Undoubtedly, it is preferable to be an atheist, to follow the religion of the slavers.

I wish many Nigerians also took this position.

logicboy01: Sir Anony, why do you have to argue with flawed points? Allow me to debunk you;
===============================================================================

I like how you seem to believe that anytime you open your mouth, a debunking comes out....it's adorable

Really? Christianity is one religion. There are thousands of denominations of christianity. Have you forgotten how protestants and catholics killed each other in the past? Or how pastors can beef each other? Mormons are christians with some of their fundamenatlist branches supporting polygamy.

Islam has Sunni, Wahabbi and Shia fighting each other.

In the same way, all atheists don't necessarily agree on everything. All it takes is a few radical atheists of differing opinions and you have a bloodbath.
Besides I can also argue that for the kind of utopia you are proposing, all will have to believe exactly the same thing so for instance if Winners chapel church was the only church in Nigeria there will be less division.
The truth of the matter is that human beings will always find something to disagree about no matter their theological stance.

Furthermore, if everyone was under one religion businesses will suffer. Religious people always destroy businesses that they deem immoral. Secularism will allow scientific research into stem cell research and other things. There is a recession in the USA/UK and there are people who make money from gay bars, selling intimacy gadgets, alcohol etc that religion will destroy. At least the Southern part is secular enough to allow the sales of Alcohol. A christian/muslim nation would not agree to such. There would be more restrictions on alcohol if we were all christians- as seen in the USA in the past when alcohol was illegal.

Again as I said, secularism is different from atheism. Now it is not necessarily religions that regulate businesses, businesses will still be regulated and still "suffer" as long as there is a government. For instance businesses like prostitution an cocaine trafficking are still suffering in what you would consider secular countries. Or are you proposing that an atheist country will simply legalize every business possible?

Yes, atheism would reduce child abuse. There would be no cases of accusing children of witchcraft and killing or beating the children. Why are you ashamed of this fact?

As for general child abuse, I am not talking about it because an atheist/muslim/christian abuser will for the same reason of wickedness. I am talking about a specific type of child abuse (witchcraft) that would dissapear with atheism in vogue.

Yes the specific type of child abuse because of witchcraft will be gone I agree but the problem is not the reason excuse for child abuse but the child abuse itself. Child abuse will still go on but under a different guise.

What? Will they join a church of atheism? smh

You are accepting that at least tithe robbery from churches will be gone.

Of course since there are no churches, fraudsters can't take advantage of tithing anymore. they'll just move on to a different hustle that's all. The problem is not the method of the fraud but fraud itself.

Communism is a state religion.

Really? what's the name of the communist god?

Evolution is not taught well. We would have more skeptics of religion if so.

Lol, funny enough when I first stated questioning religion as a youngster, it was because I learnt about evolution in secondary school. I believe evolution is taught well enough, anymore and it'll be indoctrination

So, we should protect religion? The truth should not be taught because it would show that religion can be evil? You should be ashamed of yourself.

I never said what you are implying. African slavery is taught well enough already. What you seem to want teachers to do is to directly blame religions for slavery and that is not honest. It is similar to saying "let us blame democracy for the second world war since most of the countries that fought were democratic".

Nope. Separation of church and state defines the secularism. Once congress or house of reps can make laws that supports a religion, it is not secular

Please give examples of these laws in the Nigerian constitution that supports a religion especially one religion over another

I would like to see the proof of your 20% tax going to support the church in the UK.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/individuals/giving/gift-aid.htm

Polygamy creates a problem for civil laws. No prenuptial agreement? Husband and wife split 50/50. How does it work with one house and a man with 4 wives?

If you can share 50/50, you can share 20/20/20/20/20 there isn't a big problem here.

If polygamy is allowed then, what is the limit for number of wives? What about polyandry?

Exactly, why should the government limit anything marriage? Both multiple wives and multiple husbands should be allowed including group marriages. There is no real defence for criminalizing polygamy other than these countries have a christian background

Amish laws can not go against the constitution. Sharia laws dont.

Actually Amish laws have been known to go against the constitution a few times (case in point: the Amish beard cutting saga http://fresnobeehive.com/opinion/2012/04/amish_trial_shines_spotlight_o.html )
I have no problem for sharia law existing for muslims, where I have problems is when sharia law is elevated to the status of state law. that is unconstitutional. To the best of my knowledge, our Nigerian constitution is as secular as it gets.

Atheism is urgently needed from the debunking I just gave you

Lol, how adorable......It seems you just like to throw the word "debunking" around.

Atheism will not end child abuse, will not end frauds, will not end conflicts it will only allow them to be re-branded so it hasn't solved any problems at all.
It doesn't matter in whose name the crime is committed, what matters is that the crime is not committed at all.
I think freedom of religion is still our best bet so far.

Mr_Anony:
if all Nigerians were one religion, there will also be less division

This is not true. Within Christendom, you have alot of denominations(Catholic, Pentecostal, Jehovah's witness, 7th days Adventist, Mormon,etc) that are competing for superiority. A friends wife (who is a Jehovah's witness) was sacked from her job because she refused to attend a religious program organised by her boss because of her religion. Even in Islam, you have the Shia, Sunni, Wahhabi etc. Religion will always divide people

Mr_Anony:
I like how you seem to believe that anytime you open your mouth, a debunking comes out....it's adorable

Awww thanks!

Mr_Anony:
In the same way, all atheists don't necessarily agree on everything. All it takes is a few radical atheists of differing opinions and you have a bloodbath.
Besides I can also argue that for the kind of utopia you are proposing, all will have to believe exactly the same thing so for instance if Winners chapel church was the only church in Nigeria there will be less division.
The truth of the matter is that human beings will always find something to disagree about no matter their theological stance.

Wrong. Atheists disagree on many things but we dont disagree on a dangerous thing called religion. One less reason to be divided because of atheism.

As for only Winners Chapel, churches always separate and get fragmented from the inside. That is how we have protestants who all came from the catholic church. That is how some winners chapel pastors have left to other churches. Some pastors want their own private jets.

I am not asking for everyone to be atheist, just a significant percentage of 15-20%.

Mr_Anony:
Again as I said, secularism is different from atheism. Now it is not necessarily religions that regulate businesses, businesses will still be regulated and still "suffer" as long as there is a government. For instance businesses like prostitution an cocaine trafficking are still suffering in what you would consider secular countries. Or are you proposing that an atheist country will simply legalize every business possible?

Nope. Wrong. The cons of cocaine outweigh the pros. Simple. Secular governments dont ban things just because they are immoral, religious people do. Secular governments use a system of precedence and pros/cons for the society. If people can argue their case for the pros, then it will be put into law. Gay people earned their rights.


There is very little difference between secularism and atheism. An atheist is always secular. A secular government is not ruled under God.

Mr_Anony:
Yes the specific type of child abuse because of witchcraft will be gone I agree but the problem is not the reason excuse for child abuse but the child abuse itself. Child abuse will still go on but under a different guise.

Dont argue for argument sake. Stop this annoying habit. Atheism reduces a specific type of child abuse and therefore it reduces child abuse in general. End of story.

Mr_Anony:
Of course since there are no churches, fraudsters can't take advantage of tithing anymore. they'll just move on to a different hustle that's all. The problem is not the method of the fraud but fraud itself.

Same with the child abuse argument. Atheism reduces a type of fraud and therefore reduces fraud in general. End of story.

Mr_Anony:
Really? what's the name of the communist god?

The same as the Buddhist God. None.

You really need to read a lot.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, funny enough when I first stated questioning religion as a youngster, it was because I learnt about evolution in secondary school. I believe evolution is taught well enough, anymore and it'll be indoctrination

Lies. I went to the two best schools in Nigeria. Atlantic hall and Grange. Evolution was taught haphazardly. We were only taught the kinds of man; homo erectus, homo habilis etc. They didnt teach us the theory behind it.

Mr_Anony:
I never said what you are implying. African slavery is taught well enough already. What you seem to want teachers to do is to directly blame religions for slavery and that is not honest. It is similar to saying "let us blame democracy for the second world war since most of the countries that fought were democratic".

I never learnt African slavery in school because history was optional. The people that were taught eg my parents were not taught about the christian influence. Had to debunk my own parents (heartbreaking experience) about christian influence in African slavery.

Religion played a part in the slavery. To omit that is wickedness and injustice.

Your theory of blamind democracy is not entirely wrong. My father taught me that democracy is rule of the mob. Mob rule. That is a fact. Democracy is not always fair. You need some rules in place to make sure that the minorities are not discriminated against in certain areas.

You see, I debunk you because I have a sound background. What I did not learn from school, I learnt from educated parents, what I did not learn from parents, I learnt from the internet. Use the internet and soon, you would be debunking me. I dont know everything.

Oh, and before you call me an arrogant atheist, I clearly said that I dont know everything

Mr_Anony:
Please give examples of these laws in the Nigerian constitution that supports a religion especially one religion over another

Err....ehem....Sharia law? When government money is used to pay for pilgrimage?

Mr_Anony:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/individuals/giving/gift-aid.htm

You lied as usual. Your link shows that charities (not churches) get a 20% deductable tax bonus from donations. 20% of your tax money doesnt go to churches or charities.

Mr_Anony:
If you can share 50/50, you can share 20/20/20/20/20 there isn't a big problem here.

Exactly, why should the government limit anything marriage? Both multiple wives and multiple husbands should be allowed including group marriages. There is no real defence for criminalizing polygamy other than these countries have a christian background[/quote]

How do you share one house into 20/20/20/20/20? Share it into 5 parts between one man and 4 wives?

Nope polygamy makes civil laws on marriage impossible. How much child support can one man pay if he divorces 6 wives? How do you share property equally among six wives if there is no will?

If there is no limit on amount of wives to get married to, then how about a man getting married to 60 wives? How do you start taxing such a family? That is 61 people who can engage in tax avoidance and evasion due to their ability to transfer assets and cash within themselves.

What about the effect on the society? Depression of spouses who dont get enough time with their husband/wives because of the demand of other fellow wives/husbands? Children of the 20th wife who get neglected by their father. Incest between step brothers and sisters or stpe uncle and aunties on the rise. BRRRRR!! I am shivering from such a nightmare!

Stop thinking like a man in the village.

Mr_Anony:
Actually Amish laws have been known to go against the constitution a few times (case in point: the Amish beard cutting saga http://fresnobeehive.com/opinion/2012/04/amish_trial_shines_spotlight_o.html )
I have no problem for sharia law existing for muslims, where I have problems is when sharia law is elevated to the status of state law. that is unconstitutional. To the best of my knowledge, our Nigerian constitution is as secular as it gets.

Lies. Damn lies. You're giving me a headache. Your link doesnt show such.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, how adorable......It seems you just like to throw the word "debunking" around.

Awww! thanks

Mr_Anony:
Atheism will not end child abuse, will not end frauds, will not end conflicts it will only allow them to be re-branded so it hasn't solved any problems at all.
It doesn't matter in whose name the crime is committed, what matters is that the crime is not committed at all.
I think freedom of religion is still our best bet so far.

Straw man. I never said that atheism will totally eliminate fraud or child abuse or conflicts. Only reduce them.

2good:

This is not true. Within Christendom, you have alot of denominations(Catholic, Pentecostal, Jehovah's witness, 7th days Adventist, Mormon,etc) that are competing for superiority. A friends wife (who is a Jehovah's witness) was sacked from her job because she refused to attend a religious program organised by her boss because of her religion. Even in Islam, you have the Shia, Sunni, Wahhabi etc. Religion will always divide people

I made the same point. I have no idea why Mr Anony cant see the flaw in his statement

logicboy01:
Wrong. Atheists disagree on many things but we dont disagree on a dangerous thing called religion. One less reason to be divided because of atheism.
As for only Winners Chapel, churches always separate and get fragmented from the inside. That is how we have protestants who all came from the catholic church. That is how some winners chapel pastors have left to other churches. Some pastors want their own private jets.
I am not asking for everyone to be atheist, just a significant percentage of 15-20%.

Ok now I get it all you want is 15-20%. Then we don't really have an argument. I was under the impression that we were comparing the extremes.

Nope. Wrong. The cons of cocaine outweigh the pros. Simple. Secular governments dont ban things just because they are immoral, religious people do. Secular governments use a system of precedence and pros/cons for the society. If people can argue their case for the pros, then it will be put into law. Gay people earned their rights.

Really? Pros and cons? how about prostitution, alchohol, tobacco smoking, pornography etc was the decision about them made based on pros and cons?
In a religious government people make a decision like this: "we are God's people therefore, what kind of things do God's people do?"
In a secular Government, people make a decision thus: "we are a secular society, what kind of things are acceptable in a secular society and to our culture?"
In each case there is a guiding principle powered by the people's culture religious or nonreligious

There is very little difference between secularism and atheism. An atheist is always secular. A secular government is not ruled under God

There is quite a difference. an atheist government will prohibit the existence of God and religions at all. A secular government on the other hand will acknowledge God and respect both the religious and non-religious equally

Dont argue for argument sake. Stop this annoying habit. Atheism reduces a specific type of child abuse and therefore it reduces child abuse in general. End of story.
Same with the child abuse argument. Atheism reduces a type of fraud and therefore reduces fraud in general. End of story.

Not true, reducing a type of crime does not reduce the crime in general it only allows for rebranding. Case in point: after the end of the prohibition, the alchohol dealers simply transformed into drug dealers. same trade different product nothing really changed.

The same as the Buddhist God. None.

You really need to read a lot.

In that case your reading hasn't helped you much or you would have at least known that communism is political and not religious. Besides, communist China was known to persecute religions because according to Chairman Mao Zedong "religion is poison" (sound familiar? Hmmm........I wonder who is saying such things nowadays)

Lies. I went to the two best schools in Nigeria. Atlantic hall and Grange. Evolution was taught haphazardly. We were only taught the kinds of man; homo erectus, homo habilis etc. They didnt teach us the theory behind it.

Really? Wow! too bad your schools didn't teach you properly. Don't assume automatically that all schools were just like yours

I never learnt African slavery in school because history was optional. The people that were taught eg my parents were not taught about the christian influence. Had to debunk my own parents (heartbreaking experience) about christian influence in African slavery.

Too bad perhaps you should have simply taken the history option instead of blaming the Nigerian educational system.

Religion played a part in the slavery. To omit that is wickedness and injustice.

Bla bla bla....so did democracy play a part in the second world war and slavery too and to omit that is also injustice

Your theory of blamind democracy is not entirely wrong. My father taught me that democracy is rule of the mob. Mob rule. That is a fact. Democracy is not always fair. You need some rules in place to make sure that the minorities are not discriminated against in certain areas.

If I said that slavery wasn't about religion but man's wickedness you would say no it was carried out by the church. In the same vein I argue that wars are not motivated by man's wickedness but by governments and the second world war was because of democracy. I am only mimicking your faulty logic here

You see, I debunk you because I have a sound background. What I did not learn from school, I learnt from educated parents, what I did not learn from parents, I learnt from the internet. Use the internet and soon, you would be debunking me. I dont know everything.

I don't know everything either but I would rather you argued properly. Most times I don't question your facts. what is usually faulty is the way you string them together.

Oh, and before you call me an arrogant atheist, I clearly said that I dont know everything

Yeah I heard you say that the first time but just because it gives me mischievous pleasure, here you go: "ARROGANT ATHEIST!!!"

Err....ehem....Sharia law? When government money is used to pay for pilgrimage?

To be honest, I really can't defend the Nigerian government on Sharia law. Quite alright it doesn't apply to non-muslims in the state but that is not enough to brand Nigeria a non-secular country. Just like you do not call a country a dictatorship simply because democracy fails in a few areas. Get my point?

You lied as usual. Your link shows that charities (not churches) get a 20% deductable tax bonus from donations. 20% of your tax money doesnt go to churches or charities.

And every church, mosque and temple is a charity. the task was to show you any government money going to religious organizations and that's what I did.

How do you share one house into 20/20/20/20/20? Share it into 5 parts between one man and 4 wives?

Nope polygamy makes civil laws on marriage impossible. How much child support can one man pay if he divorces 6 wives? How do you share property equally among six wives if there is no will?

It's just a matter of paper work, A man who has married 6 wives one after the other has the more or less the same child support/alimony problems as one who divorces 6 wives all at once.

If there is no limit on amount of wives to get married to, then how about a man getting married to 60 wives? How do you start taxing such a family? That is 61 people who can engage in tax avoidance and evasion due to their ability to transfer assets and cash within themselves.

I still believe that in the true spirit of a "free government", people should be allowed to do whatever they want the laws can always be amended to handle such special cases. Perhaps tax polygamous families more whatever just don't outrightly ban the option don't you agree?

What about the effect on the society? Depression of spouses who dont get enough time with their husband/wives because of the demand of other fellow wives/husbands? Children of the 20th wife who get neglected by their father. Incest between step brothers and sisters or stpe uncle and aunties on the rise. BRRRRR!! I am shivering from such a nightmare!

Dude, we cannot just make these your assumptions especially when arguing from a strictly legal standpoint. If adultery is not a crime, incest is not a crime, bestiality is not a crime, gay marriage is in the works we may as well go all the way and declare "free love" for all dont you agree?

Stop thinking like a man in the village.

The only thing really holding the UK government back is the christian culture of monogamy. If Britain evolved from a polygamous religion, polygamy would be culturally acceptable and won't be a crime

Lies. Damn lies. You're giving me a headache. Your link doesnt show such.

Perhaps you didn't read the story. As part of Amish discipline, some members had their hair and beard shaved so they sued their Amish leader to court. Doesn't that show an example of Amish laws at variance with the national laws to you?

Straw man. I never said that atheism will totally eliminate fraud or child abuse or conflicts. Only reduce them.

Yeah I now recall you did but I'll still hold that atheism won't reduce anything. religious crimes will just change their cloak

Mr Anony,


You are like a glutton for punishment. You enjoy being debunked. I will not feed your fetish any more.

I have established my points;


-Atheism will reduce the child abuse done to children accused of witchcraft, reduce the tithing frauds and reduce division along religious lines.
-Sharia law is not secular.

We shouldnt just argue for argument sake.

You self, have doubts about the christian religion. It is Frosbel and Olaadegbu that need my debunking.

logicboy01: @ Ceazar
I have been "praying" for someone like you to come along. Most religious people here avoid debates. Allow me to debunk you.

Clearly, and this is because your are an atheist fanatic. Your form of atheism is just another religion, sadly without a god.

logicboy01:
I think you need a history lesson. Stockholm syndrome is wrong. The first christians came into Nigeria around 1471 (Portugese) while the British came some years later. The first school in Nigeria, CMS lagos was built in 1859. Before you talk about christian education or schools, you should know some facts;

-Christians/christiany r.aped and exploited Nigeria for over 300 years with slavery and colonization before building a school in Nigeria in 1859.
-The number of secular schools outnumber the christian schools

Furthermore, I was a catholic for 22 years. My states has many villages that have had catholic influence dating back to 200 years. Guess what? No development there.

For every child that the church feeds or educates, it is making thousands of dollars back in offerings and tax loopholes and also destroying the lives of other children with their teaching on condoms and accusation of witchcraft.

First and foremost, what is Stockholm syndrome doing in this comment? Perhaps you do not understand the term. I have not been kidnapped by the British, never was. Furthermore, I did not mention the British in the comment you quoted, so introducing them into the argument is clearly an effort to move the post. In fact, I am forced to assume you are referring to the British because otherwise the comment makes absolutely no sense. Please stick to what I have said and do not bandy big words about, they do not make you seem more knowledgeable and I am not susceptible to argument by innuendo.

Now to your point. The 388 years between 1471 and 1859 are completely irrelevant to the argument! Note that I am not challenging your facts. Did Portuguese Christians really visit Nigeria in 1471? Was the first school really built in 1859? Doesn't matter. Because a prima facie examination of your statement shows how ridiculous it is! How many Portuguese Christians actually landed in Nigeria in that time? How much influence did they wield? How long did they stay? Were they present during all of those 388 years? Even further, how many schools were being built back in Portugal at that time? You're talking about a period when education, even in the developed world, was not considered important for common peasants but a privilege reserved for the nobility. So what does it matter that they didn't build any schools in that period

That said, I am fully aware of the Portuguese tyranny - partly in the name of Christianity - back in the 15th century, before they were overrun by the British. But your argument is still flawed because this occurred over 500 years ago. Are you suggesting that we should abandon religion today for its failures 500 years ago? That’s ridiculous.

My point referenced present day events. Things you and I can witness for ourselves. If you want to rebut, focus on what I have said!!! This is a rookie mistake going back 500 years and not considering the unique circumstances in place at that time. This is why I say you need a history lesson.

Now to the next point. The number of secular schools outnumber religious schools. Another irrelevant point. I am not arguing that religion educates more people or provides more schools for us in Nigeria. No. My point is that religion makes a significant contribution to Nigerian society so please don't say it has failed Nigeria. By that reasoning, you would have to excise many elements of our society that are causing a glut, including our judiciary, local governments etc well before you got to religion.

This also applies to your point about your village. Is the Catholic church supposed to be building infrastructure for Nigeria Nawa O! Yet, the Catholic church makes a significant contribution to Nigerian society even though that is not its responsibility. Please revisit that church you attended for 22 years and ask around. You will find a few people that the church has empowered and whose lives it made better.

"destroying the lives of other children with their teaching on condoms and accusation of witchcraft". Now you're just grasping at straws. Ignoring the non sequitur, ignoring the straw man, even ignoring the falsity of your statement, you must realize that this argument concedes to my argument. You are saying that the church does more damage than it does good. But for that argument to succeed you must first accept that the church does good; it makes a significant contribution to society. If you want to proceed with the next logical argument, I am happy to show that the church does indeed contribute more to society than it takes from it.

logicboy01:
Yes, Atheism does not solve problems by itself. Atheism is a theological stance. However, atheism lacks the divisive power of religion. Religion can cause wars.

As for Tutsis and the Hutus, there was christian influence in some killings in Rwanda. Go and read about the genocide again. Your example shows how Christianity can aggravate ethnic divisions.

I gave you that one.

But your argument is still flawed. It is true, that the Catholic and Protestant churches were a bit irresponsible in events leading to the genocide. It is true that the churches failed to denounce the killings quickly and early on. It is also true that the churches were engaged in ethnic politics before the genocide.
But it is not true that religion was responsible for the genocide. On this, there is a general agreement. In fact, if Rwandans had been 100% atheist, the genocide would still have occurred because like I said in my previous post, atheism does not cure illiteracy, ignorance and fanaticism!
And here we arrive at the flaw in your argument. No one is saying that religion is perfect. Religion is flawed. And if you took a cross section of all the world’s societies, great and small, you would see that religion has a strong influence on their economies, their politics, policies, laws etc. And you will find that some of it is good, some of it is bad.
However, what you are doing is making a sweeping generalisation that religion is completely bad/useless based on some of its bad qualities. What about the good qualities? What about the really good contributions that religion had made over its long history and continues to make to this day? For instance, in Rwanda, many Muslim and Christian clergy harboured and protected Tutsis even at risk to their own lives. This is a contribution from religion. This is the same thing I have been arguing against and that I have repeated time and time again: religion makes a significant contribution to society.

And that’s why I call you an atheist fanatic. You either do not understand how to make a logical argument (ironic considering you go by the handle logicboy) or you are intentionally bashing religion through the use of non sequiturs.

logicboy01:
You are very wrong. Christianity is known to destroy culture. Religions can not stand other religions. Even in the bible, Idols of other nations got destroyed.

Please re-examine your statements. You want to preserve culture right? And you think eliminating religion is the way to do it. That’s what you started with. Now you say “Christianity is known to destroy culture” (again this is another generalisation but I will not challenge it now). Then you use culture and religion interchangeably saying “religions can not stand other religions. Even in the bible, idols of other nations got destroyed”. What do you want to destroy and what do you want to preserve? If you say contemporary religion should be destroyed, then those idols should be destroyed along with them. If you want to preserve culture then contemporary religions should be preserved along with those idols. Religion and culture are very much intertwined my friend.

If you really want to preserve the idols of our past, then the way to do it is through the state. Our government has failed in the preservation of our ancient culture, not religion.

logicboy01:
It is funny that you did not talk about the seclarism and atheism in the UK where over 30% are atheists and many do not consider religion important in their lives. This is the same country that brought christianity to our country and they are discarding it because they know it is not for the 21st century.

As for the USA, it remains a secular state. Separation of church and state. 10-15% of Americans are atheists which translates to over 30 million american atheists. That is about half of the entire population of the UK.

Sometimes, I don’t even know where to start in dissecting your arguments. Your logic is often so riddled with holes it seems pointless. This must be the real reason people do not argue with you on the forums.
i) What are you doing comparing a US statistic with UK population. There is no correlation or relevance to your argument!
ii) Using your flawed logic, your statistics can be used to show that atheism is not good for the state! Of the two countries, US and UK, the US is the more prosperous and more powerful. If you want to argue there is a correlation between levels of atheism and levels of prosperity (as you have done) then the fact that the US has fewer atheists and is more prosperous than the UK should in fact show that atheism is bad for the country!
But this is not true in either case. Your logic and the one I have just presented above are both wrong because a statistical correlation does not translate to a causal relationship!

logicboy01:
When you claim that the UK and USA were built on christianity what you mean is that these countries were built on slave trade, genocide of the local indians, imperialism and exploitation. Thank you. Both countries were built on slave labour.

I did not use the word ‘build’. I said founded. Please look in the dictionary for the difference. And once again, you have shown how little you know about history. These countries were founded in the middle ages as part of a series of failed efforts to unite Europe under one Christian empire. Britain for instance was already a powerful nation long before slavery, the discovery of the Indians or imperialism. It was long after, in the 16th and 17th century that the British Empire was born and the East India Company was founded.

Telling the truth about religion is not bashing religion

Then please have the courage to speak the truth in its entirety.

Ptolomeus: After that last intervention of Logicboy, our friend caezar need the paramedics!

Abrazo amigazo!!
Vamo' arriba la celeste!

Sorry to disappoint you Ptolomeus, I simply had work to do. It would take someone much smarter to defeat me at logic .

Thing is, I am not a regular on these forums, I just had some free time yesterday. Don't expect me to post every minute.

caezar:

Clearly, and this is because your are an atheist fanatic. Your form of atheism is just another religion, sadly without a god.

Wow, because I like debates and say that there should be more atheists in Nigeria, I am fanatic? Epic fail plus hyprocrisy!

If I am a fanatic, what does that make the millions ofchristians who preach on buses and on public squares or go to people's front door to push propaganda? I only debate on the internet. Furthermore, when christians preach right here on the internet and Nairaland, I dont see people calling them "fanatics".

Why would you call me a fanatic? Because I enjoy debating?

Furthermore, an "atheist fanatic" is almost an oxymoron. You cant exactly be a fanatic for a factual position or disbelief. There is no evidence to believe in a God- that is the postion. What you mean to say is "anti-religious fanatic" which would still not apply to me. I do not hate religions, I just want people to question their religion. Most people who honestly do that become atheists or agnostics.

caezar:
First and foremost, what is Stockholm syndrome doing in this comment? Perhaps you do not understand the term. I have not been kidnapped by the British, never was. Furthermore, I did not mention the British in the comment you quoted, so introducing them into the argument is clearly an effort to move the post. In fact, I am forced to assume you are referring to the British because otherwise the comment makes absolutely no sense. Please stick to what I have said and do not bandy big words about, they do not make you seem more knowledgeable and I am not susceptible to argument by innuendo.

Stockholm syndrome does not only apply to kidnapping scenarios. Please, think deeper and go and learn how Stockholm syndrome is used in modern English. What I am trying to say is that praising religion for education is quite wrong as religion has done much harm to education in Nigeria's case. You are praising it for some of its contributions to education when it has done a larger damage to education in the bigger picture.

caezar:
Now to your point. The 388 years between 1471 and 1859 are completely irrelevant to the argument! Note that I am not challenging your facts. Did Portuguese Christians really visit Nigeria in 1471? Was the first school really built in 1859? Doesn't matter. Because a prima facie examination of your statement shows how ridiculous it is! How many Portuguese Christians actually landed in Nigeria in that time? How much influence did they wield? How long did they stay? Were they present during all of those 388 years? Even further, how many schools were being built back in Portugal at that time? You're talking about a period when education, even in the developed world, was not considered important for common peasants but a privilege reserved for the nobility. So what does it matter that they didn't build any schools in that period

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_oldest_schools_in_the_United_Kingdom#Former_.28non-extant.29_schools
There have been schools in England since the 11th cenutry. There were grammar schools in the 15th century in the UK. There were christian founded secondary schools in the 16th century. Your christians and christian led monarchy felt that schools were not needed in Nigeria for over 300 years. The first school in Nigeria was the Church Missionary Grammar school in 1859. Apparently, slaves did not need schools. Why was it after the abolition of slavery that schools in Nigeria sprung up?

Please learn about history before you praise christians for anything. Christianity does a lot of good but it is always overshadowed by its evils.

caezar:
That said, I am fully aware of the Portuguese tyranny - partly in the name of Christianity - back in the 15th century, before they were overrun by the British. But your argument is still flawed because this occurred over 500 years ago. Are you suggesting that we should abandon religion today for its failures 500 years ago? That’s ridiculous.

I never suggested that we should do that. The actions of christians might have been watered down and changed but the bible remains the same. I ask people to question their religion. Atheism has no books or laws or rules or standards on evangelism. We do not do evangelism. Just read your bible and question its stance on slavery and scientific facts. How can we teach our children facts when we rely on a bible that treats evidence and myth as the same?

caezar:
My point referenced present day events. Things you and I can witness for ourselves. If you want to rebut, focus on what I have said!!! This is a rookie mistake going back 500 years and not considering the unique circumstances in place at that time. This is why I say you need a history lesson.

Now to the next point. The number of secular schools outnumber religious schools. Another irrelevant point. I am not arguing that religion educates more people or provides more schools for us in Nigeria. No. My point is that religion makes a significant contribution to Nigerian society so please don't say it has failed Nigeria. By that reasoning, you would have to excise many elements of our society that are causing a glut, including our judiciary, local governments etc well before you got to religion.

This also applies to your point about your village. Is the Catholic church supposed to be building infrastructure for Nigeria Nawa O! Yet, the Catholic church makes a significant contribution to Nigerian society even though that is not its responsibility. Please revisit that church you attended for 22 years and ask around. You will find a few people that the church has empowered and whose lives it made better.

"destroying the lives of other children with their teaching on condoms and accusation of witchcraft". Now you're just grasping at straws. Ignoring the non sequitur, ignoring the straw man, even ignoring the falsity of your statement, you must realize that this argument concedes to my argument. You are saying that the church does more damage than it does good. But for that argument to succeed you must first accept that the church does good; it makes a significant contribution to society. If you want to proceed with the next logical argument, I am happy to show that the church does indeed contribute more to society than it takes from it.

You claim that relgion makes a significant contribution and I counterclaim that religion make a more significant destruction on our society despite the good contributions. That is my claim. I did not make any fallacy.

You claimed that religion helps in some remote areas and I gave instances where they dont. No fallacy there

Furthermore, secular chairities can do the same. We see it everytime in the UK and America. Secular charities and foundations give but unlike churches, they dont take back in excess. Tithes, offerings, controlling governments, propaganda etc.

There are lives that catholic church has ruined. Pedophilia, wrong teachings on condoms and sexual repression. The catholic church is worth billions yet millions of catholics in Nigeria remain poor. The Catholic church is a government on its own when you think about the vatican. Why not build self supporting models?

Solar powered irrigation for African farmers so that you dont have to feed them every month that there is drought, No, the church wants them indebted to the chruch so that they will praise the church every month when the church gives them grains every month.

caezar:
I gave you that one.

But your argument is still flawed. It is true, that the Catholic and Protestant churches were a bit irresponsible in events leading to the genocide. It is true that the churches failed to denounce the killings quickly and early on. It is also true that the churches were engaged in ethnic politics before the genocide.
But it is not true that religion was responsible for the genocide. On this, there is a general agreement. In fact, if Rwandans had been 100% atheist, the genocide would still have occurred because like I said in my previous post, atheism does not cure illiteracy, ignorance and fanaticism!
And here we arrive at the flaw in your argument. No one is saying that religion is perfect. Religion is flawed. And if you took a cross section of all the world’s societies, great and small, you would see that religion has a strong influence on their economies, their politics, policies, laws etc. And you will find that some of it is good, some of it is bad.
However, what you are doing is making a sweeping generalisation that religion is completely bad/useless based on some of its bad qualities. What about the good qualities? What about the really good contributions that religion had made over its long history and continues to make to this day? For instance, in Rwanda, many Muslim and Christian clergy harboured and protected Tutsis even at risk to their own lives. This is a contribution from religion. This is the same thing I have been arguing against and that I have repeated time and time again: religion makes a significant contribution to society.

And that’s why I call you an atheist fanatic. You either do not understand how to make a logical argument (ironic considering you go by the handle logicboy) or you are intentionally bashing religion through the use of non sequiturs.

I never said that religion is totally bad. Religion is both good and bad but it does more harm than good. End of story. You are wrong to call me a fanatic

caezar:
Please re-examine your statements. You want to preserve culture right? And you think eliminating religion is the way to do it. That’s what you started with. Now you say “Christianity is known to destroy culture” (again this is another generalisation but I will not challenge it now). Then you use culture and religion interchangeably saying “religions can not stand other religions. Even in the bible, idols of other nations got destroyed”. What do you want to destroy and what do you want to preserve? If you say contemporary religion should be destroyed, then those idols should be destroyed along with them. If you want to preserve culture then contemporary religions should be preserved along with those idols. Religion and culture are very much intertwined my friend.

If you really want to preserve the idols of our past, then the way to do it is through the state. Our government has failed in the preservation of our ancient culture, not religion.

But what if the state is religious? I do not want to eliminate religion. I just want more skeptics/atheists. if 15-20% of Nigerians were atheists, it would be okay.

caezar:
Sometimes, I don’t even know where to start in dissecting your arguments. Your logic is often so riddled with holes it seems pointless. This must be the real reason people do not argue with you on the forums.
i) What are you doing comparing a US statistic with UK population. There is no correlation or relevance to your argument!
ii) Using your flawed logic, your statistics can be used to show that atheism is not good for the state! Of the two countries, US and UK, the US is the more prosperous and more powerful. If you want to argue there is a correlation between levels of atheism and levels of prosperity (as you have done) then the fact that the US has fewer atheists and is more prosperous than the UK should in fact show that atheism is bad for the country!
But this is not true in either case. Your logic and the one I have just presented above are both wrong because a statistical correlation does not translate to a causal relationship!

You were the one that used America as a strawman. You brought up America first. You mentioned America in reply to my point that UK is doing away with religion.

I compared the populations just to show that atheism is not as small in America as many people suggest. That was it.


The fact still remains that the people who developed christianity in our country are throwing it away. Fact. The UK is very secular nd has a lot of atheists.


"prosperous" is an ambigous word. To say that America is more prosperous that the UK can be problematic. The UK has less debt and a better healthcare system for its people. America wins on the size of its economy and it's trading ability. However, the British pound is stronger (almost double) than the American dollar.

caezar:
I did not use the word ‘build’. I said founded. Please look in the dictionary for the difference. And once again, you have shown how little you know about history. These countries were founded in the middle ages as part of a series of failed efforts to unite Europe under one Christian empire. Britain for instance was already a powerful nation long before slavery, the discovery of the Indians or imperialism. It was long after, in the 16th and 17th century that the British Empire was born and the East India Company was founded.

"Founded" doesnt change the fact that America's founders cheated the native indians and had black slaves. It still doesnt change the fact that the Royal family at that time had bllod and slavery on it's hands as new lands were conquered in the name of the Queen/King.

caezar:
Then please have the courage to speak the truth in its entirety.

Follow your advice and speak the truth about the evils of religion. People are tired of apologists' propaganda when religion is killing people.

logicboy01: Mr Anony,


You are like a glutton for punishment. You enjoy being debunked. I will not feed your fetish any more.

I have established my points;

Silly chap, I doubt you understand the true meaning of "debunked" at all, it's just a word you like to throw around. You haven't really established any points plus your logic is faulty and filled with blind fanaticism.

-Atheism will reduce the child abuse done to children accused of witchcraft, reduce the tithing frauds and reduce division along religious lines.

Yes but all atheism can reduce is religion not necessarily the crimes themselves. This I have pointed out to you but you have ignored.

-Sharia law is not secular.

I never said sharia law was secular all I said is that sharia law can exist within a secular society as applicable to a subset of that society but it must still be subject to state law.

We shouldnt just argue for argument sake.

Of course we shouldn't but that doesn't mean I'll let you get away with half-baked statements.

You self, have doubts about the christian religion. It is Frosbel and Olaadegbu that need my debunking.

again with your favorite word "debunking". I feel for frosbel and olaadegbu because they will have to endure you.

Mr_Anony:
Silly chap, I doubt you understand the true meaning of "debunked" at all, it's just a word you like to throw around. You haven't really established any points plus your logic is faulty and filled with blind fanaticism.

Yes but all atheism can reduce is religion not necessarily the crimes themselves. This I have pointed out to you but you have ignored.


I never said sharia law was secular all I said is that sharia law can exist within a secular society as applicable to a subset of that society but it must still be subject to state law.


Of course we shouldn't but that doesn't mean I'll let you get away with half-baked statements.


again with your favorite word "debunking". I feel for frosbel and olaadegbu because they will have to endure you.

Calm down Mr Anony. I did not make half baked statements. My points still remain. Atheism will reduce religious crimes eg tithe fraud and torturing children accused of witchcraft.


Please feel free to mention my half backed statements. You're feeling confident because I was not willing to debate on some of the trivial points I raised?

Oya, let's start.

logicboy01:


Calm down Mr Anony. I did not make half baked statements. My points still remain. Atheism will reduce religious crimes eg tithe fraud and torturing children accused of witchcraft.


Please feel free to mention my half backed statements. You're feeling confident because I was not willing to debate on some of the trivial points I raised?

Oya, let's start.

Atheism will reduce religious crime yes because it will reduce religion in general however it doesn't gaurantee that crime in itself will be reduced in any way. the real problem is crime and not the adjective "religious". Do you get it now?

Mr_Anony:

Atheism will reduce religious crime yes because it will reduce religion in general however it doesn't gaurantee that crime in itself will be reduced in any way. the real problem is crime and not the adjective "religious". Do you get it now?

Atheism is not a magical solution. I only put what it could solve. Furthermore, secularism is a prerequisite for any developed country. Check and see for yourself

logicboy01:

Atheism is not a magical solution. I only put what it could solve. Furthermore, secularism is a prerequisite for any developed country. Check and see for yourself

And Nigeria is a secular country already so what's the point of your argument really?

Mr_Anony:
And Nigeria is a secular country already so what's the point of your argument really?

Sharaap.

Nigeria is not secular. Furthermore, secularism is only a prerequisite and not a gurantee for development

logicboy01:

Sharaap.

Nigeria is not secular.

Lol, you have to properly define a secular country and then compare nigeria to that definition then perhaps I will take you seriously. Perhaps you may want to start by telling us Nigeria's official religion.

What you seem to me to be rooting for is an atheist state and as I said it is different from a secular state.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, you have to properly define a secular country and then compare nigeria to that definition then perhaps I will take you seriously. Perhaps you may want to start by telling us Nigeria's official religion.

What you seem to me to be rooting for is an atheist state and as I said it is different from a secular state.

There is no such thing as an "atheist state".


Secular country = separation of church and state

logicboy01:


There is no such thing as an "atheist state".


Secular country = separation of church and state

Actually there have been atheist states e.g. Communist Russia and China under Chairman Mao

If that is your definition of a secular country, then Nigeria is a secular country. Church and state are separate here.

Here's a link just so you get a basic idea of what a secular a country is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state

Mr_Anony:

Actually there have been atheist states e.g. Communist Russia and China under Chairman Mao

If that is your definition of a secular country, then Nigeria is a secular country. Church and state are separate here.

Here's a link just so you get a basic idea of what a secular a country is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state

See this guy!

Read your own link- Nigeria is not listed as a secular country there in the list;

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100804173933AAsmpxD



You are confusing a communist state for an atheist state. Communism is a state religion on its own merit



Am I just too much for you?

logicboy01:

See this guy!

Read your own link- Nigeria is not listed as a secular country there in the list;

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100804173933AAsmpxD



You are confusing a communist state for an atheist state. Communism is a state religion on its own merit



Am I just too much for you?

Perhaps you may want to read that list again, you'll notice that the United Kingdom is also not listed as a secular country on that link.....and if you were honest about that list you would notice that Nigeria falls under "ambiguous/insufficient data.

Also there are communist states that are not atheist states and yeah communism is not a religion else we can bundle capitalism as a religion as well. Please stop making silly statements I beg you.

Mr_Anony:

Perhaps you may want to read that list again, you'll notice that the United Kingdom is also not listed as a secular country on that link

Kai, I don feck up!

The UK is sha listed as an ambigous state because of the Queen as the head of the church of England. By other means, it is secular and very atheistic.

logicboy01: The UK is sha listed as an ambigous state because of the Queen as the head of the church of England. By other means, it is secular and very atheistic.

No it is not atheistic it is simply secular. The state does not officially recognize atheism.
I'll give you another link. Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

logicboy01:

Kai, I don feck up!

Yeah you did but no worries all na learning sha.

Mr_Anony:

No it is not atheistic it is simply secular. The state does not officially recognize atheism.
I'll give you another link. Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

I meant that it has a lot of atheists

logicboy01:


I meant that it has a lot of atheists

Ok fine, also acknowledge it has a lot of muslims, sikhs, buddhists and hindus as well

Mr_Anony:

Ok fine, also acknowledge it has a lot of muslims, sikhs, buddhists and hindus as well

You have started again. Why would you mention that? Must you always try to water down my statements?


muslims 3%

Buddhist 0.2%

Hindus 0.95%

Sikh 0.57


Atheists - at least 20%.....some estimates put it at 30% or more

logicboy01:


You have started again. Why would you mention that? Must you always try to water down my statements?

Yes I must, if not you will bury us in nonsense and applaud yourself for it

muslims 3%

Buddhist 0.2%

Hindus 0.95%

Sikh 0.57


Atheists - at least 20%.....some estimates put it at 30% or more

Ok I'll let you be for now. I believe you are beginning to realize that atheism is only useful as a personal belief and not much more. So please next time before you go around shouting "debunked!" all over the place, take the time to construct your argument properly.

We have nothing much left to argue about.

One love man have a fun day.

P/S Off topic: in case you live in London, you might want to check this out if you don't know about it already. http://thinkingbobevents.com/events/?ai1ec_cat_ids=3
I have attended a few debates with them myself (though it's been a while I must say) Perhaps one of these days we may just run into each other and spar in person. Who knows? You may also want to check out www.meetup.com and search for debate meetups in your area or other stuff that might interest you.

@Caezar Do not be offended. My style is to review and refine with a joke.

I observe from many thousands of miles away, how Nigerians feel religion. I'm really surprised (and I hope nobody is offended) of fanaticism that exists.
In my country, everyone has their theological position, but there are hardly any fans. We all respect.
Except some Christian groups (very low), whose doctrine is just attacking the other, here there is mutual respect.
In Nigeria, if you're Islamic, Christians will hate and vice versa.
In such a situation, I understand, and I think it's logical that there are atheists in Nigeria ...
Possibly this, the more consistent and intelligent position.

Saludos, querido amigo!

Mr_Anony:

Yes I must, if not you will bury us in nonsense and applaud yourself for it



Ok I'll let you be for now. I believe you are beginning to realize that atheism is only useful as a personal belief and not much more. So please next time before you go around shouting "debunked!" all over the place, take the time to construct your argument properly.

We have nothing much left to argue about.

One love man have a fun day.

P/S Off topic: in case you live in London, you might want to check this out if you don't know about it already. http://thinkingbobevents.com/events/?ai1ec_cat_ids=3
I have attended a few debates with them myself (though it's been a while I must say) Perhaps one of these days we may just run into each other and spar in person. Who knows? You may also want to check out www.meetup.com and search for debate meetups in your area or other stuff that might interest you.

See this man!So you're in london yourself!