logicboy01:

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

Yeah kinda, I live in Surrey actually.

Mr_Anony:

Yeah kinda, I live in Surrey actually.

And you're acting like a village man! Kai

You get small craze

logicboy01:

And you're acting like a village man! Kai

You get small craze

LOL, you are not well at all, you need professional help.

Lmao, logicBoy u no well o... carry lagos pple drop for New York.. then you go know say no be where you stay matter... na wetin dey stay for inside you matter pass

musKeeto: Lmao, logicBoy u no well o... carry lagos pple drop for New York.. then you go know say no be where you stay matter... na wetin dey stay for inside you matter pass

I am a lagos boy. You didnt know?

Mr_Anony:
LOL, you are not well at all, you need professional help.

logicboy01:

I am a lagos boy. You didnt know?

I know... ;-)

musKeeto:
I know... ;-)

no problem then

logicboy01:

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

In the interest of civility on the forums, and having read through your friendly banter with Mr Anony, I recant that statement.

logicboy01:
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".

Missionaries doing God's work? And to be fair, you have a wider audience on the internet.

logicboy01:
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.

It is not an oxymoron. The perfect example of one would be Richard Dawkins. It is not enough for him that he is an atheist, he actively seeks to convert others (quite like you do) and is in your face about it.

Also, there's nothing factual about atheism. Even evolutionary theory does not disprove God. No one has a sound theory for the origins of the universe.

logicboy01:
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.

Ah! You were referring to Religion as my captor. You see, I did not get that. Not least because I voluntarily go to church every Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Sundays . And of course, on days when I'm caught up in a really good book I skip it! So, this analogy of yours really doesn't fit.

logicboy01:
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?

I'm not even going to read the link. You make this too easy logicboy. First off, nothing you've said "debunks" my counter arguments. Secondly, the British Monarchy did not gain control of Nigeria until the 19th century. Thirdly, before you go blaming Christians for the slave trade (just because that was the religion of the monarch in control - *shaking my head*) you have to remember who was supplying them with the slaves in the first place. We were the ones selling ourselves off; we have just as much blame. And this goes to the heart of part of my argument: human beings are cruel and will commit horrible crimes given half the chance, with or without religion. Religion is in fact, the best form of control.

logicboy01:
Please learn about history before you praise christians for anything. Christianity does a lot of good but it is always overshadowed by its evils.

This is personal opinion NOT fact. It's a difficult argument to make because even with all the crimes Christianity is accused of, when I drive out of my house all I see is the good it does to the world.

logicboy01:
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?

I think you underestimate the majority of Christians. I do not read my bible and follow blindly; not all that's in the bible is relevant today and I also believe much of it has been lost in translation so to speak. Frankly, if a voice in my head says to me "Go and sacrifice your Son" I will pray and fire all kinds of spiritual thunder at it. But this is not to say that I do not believe it happened to Abraham, just that it won't be happening to me in this day and age.

logicboy01:
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.

Secular charities can be equally, if not even more fraudulent than religious institutions. Every year, I read of at least 3 charities that were defrauding its patrons. I'd rather give to the Catholic church with all its flaws.

logicboy01:
There are lives that catholic church has ruined. Pedophilia, wrong teachings on condoms and sexual repression.

Agreed. But does this mean we've moved the argument forward to degree of damage vs degree of contribution. An endless argument in my opinion. But still...

logicboy01:
The catholic church is worth billions yet millions of catholics in Nigeria remain poor.

The catholic church does not operate only in Nigeria. It may be worth billions, but remember, it has a fellowship of over 1.1 billion by last count.
It has limited funds and capacity to take care of all these people.

logicboy01:
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.

Lol. Previous comment applies.

logicboy01:
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.

I don't see how this would solve anything.

logicboy01:
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.

OK.

logicboy01:
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.

But there is no evidence that this has been for the better. If you've ever met a yob, you would know just why.

logicboy01:
"prosperous" is an ambiguous 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.

Let us use a standard accepted by most economists. A quick look through their GDPs on wikipedia (per capita, nominal, what have you) will show that the US is consistently considered to be wealthier and thus more prosperous. The UK has less debt, but less growth. Healthcare is really the only thing it has going for it.
By the way, strength of currency is in no way a measure of prosperity.

caezar:

Also, there's nothing factual about atheism. Even evolutionary theory does not disprove God. No one has a sound theory for the origins of the universe.

Atheism is a factual statement- there is no evidence to believe in God. Or do you have evidence for God?

Your God has the same evidence as the tooth fairy

caezar:
I'm not even going to read the link. You make this too easy logicboy. First off, nothing you've said "debunks" my counter arguments. Secondly, the British Monarchy did not gain control of Nigeria until the 19th century. Thirdly, before you go blaming Christians for the slave trade (just because that was the religion of the monarch in control - *shaking my head*) you have to remember who was supplying them with the slaves in the first place. We were the ones selling ourselves off; we have just as much blame. And this goes to the heart of part of my argument: human beings are cruel and will commit horrible crimes given half the chance, with or without religion. Religion is in fact, the best form of control.

I always meet shameless black people like you who are ready to be racist towards thier own black race rather than tell the truth about christianity. Were slaves ever sold as a commodity in West Africa before Europeans and Arabs came? No. My tribe for instance, killed other tribes or villages in war but never used them for slavery or sold them. Furthermore, there was little reason for slaves a man would use his 4 wives and 10 children to work on his farm in those days in Nigeria.
Furthermore, there were Jews that collaborated with the Nazis in selling out their own people. Do we blame Jews for the holocaust? No. Some people sold out their own people out of fear.

Furthermore, the british were shipping slaves since the 16th century from Nigeria. That is control. You dont get slaves willingly.

Religion is the worst form of control. christians have the highest divorce rates in America. Christians have carried out more religious wars than any other religion. Open your eyes.

caezar:
This is personal opinion NOT fact. It's a difficult argument to make because even with all the crimes Christianity is accused of, when I drive out of my house all I see is the good it does to the world.

It is an easy argument to make. Religion has caused the death and suffering of so many people. Maybe when some of your children get molested by priests you will offset it with christian scholarships for other children.

What is the cost of a life? Religion has molested and killed many people. Religion divides and discriminates. The very reason why you cant see this is because of the biased nature of religion. "my religion is good". Even your bible contains genocide, sexism and slavery which it all supports.

caezar:
I think you underestimate the majority of Christians. I do not read my bible and follow blindly; not all that's in the bible is relevant today and I also believe much of it has been lost in translation so to speak. Frankly, if a voice in my head says to me "Go and sacrifice your Son" I will pray and fire all kinds of spiritual thunder at it. But this is not to say that I do not believe it happened to Abraham, just that it won't be happening to me in this day and age.

Oh, so you know that your bible is quite useless in many parts. Why pick and choose? Is it not meant to be God's words.

The best option is to discard the bible totally.

caezar:
Secular charities can be equally, if not even more fraudulent than religious institutions. Every year, I read of at least 3 charities that were defrauding its patrons. I'd rather give to the Catholic church with all its flaws.

Nope. Secular charities dont buy private jets. They dont buy mansions. Registered charities are always monitored. The church gets away with corruption.

caezar:
Agreed. But does this mean we've moved the argument forward to degree of damage vs degree of contribution. An endless argument in my opinion. But still...

Nope. The degree of damage is more. Unless you can bring back the dead people that religion cause or "unmolest" a molested child or get the tithe fraudsters all arrested, the damage is far too much more than the contribution.

caezar:
The catholic church does not operate only in Nigeria. It may be worth billions, but remember, it has a fellowship of over 1.1 billion by last count.
It has limited funds and capacity to take care of all these people.

Yet, it wastes hundreds of thousands of pounds in conversion in the UK, rather than spend it on poor people in Africa or Asia. Do you realise that the catholic church in Nigeria alone is richer than Oyedepo? Christians dont think far.

caezar:
But there is no evidence that this has been for the better. If you've ever met a yob, you would know just why.

Every society has problems. However, some societies are more developed than others and some societies are backwards. The most developed countries are secular and have a significant amount of atheists. The UK is far more advanced than Nigeria.

The UK is slowly throwing away religion. Nigeria should follow suit.

caezar:
Let us use a standard accepted by most economists. A quick look through their GDPs on wikipedia (per capita, nominal, what have you) will show that the US is consistently considered to be wealthier and thus more prosperous. The UK has less debt, but less growth. Healthcare is really the only thing it has going for it.
By the way, strength of currency is in no way a measure of prosperity.

What about household income?

http://www.alternet.org/economy/67723

www.nairaland.com/attachments/736759_American_prosperity_myth_jpg29a2e83a0cb0db0513d7e21f69fb6bc8

@logicboy


can u honestly reply the following questions.

1. which is the 1st, then following step in the sequence of events;
a country becomes "developed"(economic prosperity, higher standard of living etc.), then tends towards atheism, OR

2. a country has a significant atheist population, then the country gets "developed", LASTLY


3. what is your opinion on supernatural/metaphysical occurrences e.g. black magic, voodooism, witchcraft, magic for entertainment(the David Copperfield kind)etc. have u personally experienced any of these, or do u know people who have.
also some people have vivid dreams i.e their dreams foretell eventual future occurrences, or closely do so.


personally, I feel people tend towards atheism when their living conditions are improved, and as such u have the poorest countries of the world being the most religious, and u find most atheists being people in the middle to high classes of society. note that there are exceptions to this, but this seems to be the general trend.

snubish: @logicboy


can u honestly reply the following questions.

1. which is the 1st, then following step in the sequence of events;
a country becomes "developed"(economic prosperity, higher standard of living etc.), then tends towards atheism, OR

2. a country has a significant atheist population, then the country gets "developed", LASTLY


3. what is your opinion on supernatural/metaphysical occurrences e.g. black magic, voodooism, witchcraft, magic for entertainment(the David Copperfield kind)etc. have u personally experienced any of these, or do u know people who have.
also some people have vivid dreams i.e their dreams foretell eventual future occurrences, or closely do so.


personally, I feel people tend towards atheism when their living conditions are improved, and as such u have the poorest countries of the world being the most religious, and u find most atheists being people in the middle to high classes of society. note that there are exceptions to this, but this seems to be the general trend.

Your first question is a good question. I have thought about it as well. I think it goes both ways.

First, a religious country can grow in trade and economic standards but freedom and proper human development come with secular laws. We can see rich religious countries like Saudi Arabia having lower income per heads and less freedom than smaller European countries. America and Britain were very religious at first until the 20th century.


Secondly, When there is information, freedom and prosperity, atheism grows because the average man is free to express himself and the flaws of religion is out there for every one to see. I became an atheist on the internet. I read about christianity/islam and slavery. I read about the lack of evidence for God and I read about evolution.



As for magic or voodoo, they are only tricks or illusions. Magic is not real.


Dreams are not supernaural. They could be powerful coincidences. I had a dream about a chubby girl that liked me. 2 months later, I was dating a chubby girl. Coincidence. The UK is suffering from obesity.

logicboy01:


Your first question is a good question. I have thought about it as well. I think it goes both ways.

First, a religious country can grow in trade and economic standards but freedom and proper human development come with secular laws. We can see rich religious countries like Saudi Arabia having lower income per heads and less freedom than smaller European countries. America and Britain were very religious at first until the 20th century.


Secondly, When there is information, freedom and prosperity, atheism grows because the average man is free to express himself and the flaws of religion is out there for every one to see. I became an atheist on the internet. I read about christianity/islam and slavery. I read about the lack of evidence for God and I read about evolution.



As for magic or voodoo, they are only tricks or illusions. Magic is not real.


Dreams are not supernaural. They could be powerful coincidences. I had a dream about a chubby girl that liked me. 2 months later, I was dating a chubby girl. Coincidence. The UK is suffering from obesity.

I knew I would get a sincere reply.


So we can safely conclude that atheism would not bring prosperity or development to Nigeria.


If u were based in Nigeria here you would know that the occult is real. e.g from actions of people that have no scientific background to create an illusion, such as suspending things in thin air against gravity.


AND I assume u dream about women a lot. cheers.

snubish:

I knew I would get a sincere reply.


So we can safely conclude that atheism would not bring prosperity or development to Nigeria.


If u were based in Nigeria here you would know that the occult is real. e.g from actions of people that have no scientific background to create an illusion, such as suspending things in thin air against gravity.


AND I assume u dream about women a lot. cheers.

Of course, atheism alone can not bring prosperity and development. If you had bothered to read my comments, you wouldnt be acting like you debunked my thread. Atheism and secularism however, are prerequisites for a developed and free country.


I am Nigerian and have lived in Nigeria most of my life. You and my illiterate neighbours in the village are both afraid of voodoo that doesnt exist. Have you ever seen somebody disappear or levitate with your own eyes? Why are babalawos poor if they have power?

logicboy01:

Of course, atheism alone can not bring prosperity and development. If you had bothered to read my comments, you wouldnt be acting like you debunked my thread. Atheism and secularism however, are prerequisites for a developed and free country.

Dude why you still dey push this your propaganda?
I thought we had settled this long ago. Atheism is of no use whatsoever to a country's development. You have not been able to show how atheism helps anything at all.

Atheism as snubish rightly pointed out normally seems to spring up after a nation is considerably well developed and usually amongst the wealthier members of the society. It can be argued that atheism isn't a cause of progress but an unintended byproduct of development.

Secularism and atheism are totally different, stop binding them together.

This your "atheism-can-fix-it-all" claim has been already been debunked (...and yeah I'm using your favourite word in it's true sense) on this thread. Stop sweating it unnecessarily.

logicboy01:
Atheism is a factual statement- there is no evidence to believe in God. Or do you have evidence for God?

Your God has the same evidence as the tooth fairy

Frankly, I tire of having to dissect your logical fallacies for you. Yes, there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of God. But the lack of scientific evidence does not in itself prove that a thing does not exist. That is why you cannot prove a negative. Atheism is the stance that God does not exist! Since the negative cannot be proven, atheism cannot be proven and is therefore not a fact! Agnosticism is the more accurate stance (if you are basing your position on pure logic). If you must quote Richard Dawkins, at least have the independent sense to examine his positions first.

logicboy01:
I always meet shameless black people like you who are ready to be racist towards thier own black race rather than tell the truth about christianity. Were slaves ever sold as a commodity in West Africa before Europeans and Arabs came? No. My tribe for instance, killed other tribes or villages in war but never used them for slavery or sold them. Furthermore, there was little reason for slaves a man would use his 4 wives and 10 children to work on his farm in those days in Nigeria.
Furthermore, there were Jews that collaborated with the Nazis in selling out their own people. Do we blame Jews for the holocaust? No. Some people sold out their own people out of fear.

Furthermore, the british were shipping slaves since the 16th century from Nigeria. That is control. You dont get slaves willingly.

Religion is the worst form of control. christians have the highest divorce rates in America. Christians have carried out more religious wars than any other religion. Open your eyes.

You have no appreciation of history. Not Nigerian history, not African history and certainly not Christian history. It is a shame that you should spew such nonesense out of sheer ignorance when a bit of light reading would enlighten you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nigeria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyo_Empire#Slave_trade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

a) Slavery in Africa dates its origins to before there were any European empires and well before Christianity.
b) Slavery initially started off with Africans selling off their own slaves (captives from military conquests) to Europeans
c) The Oyo Empire of Nigeria and the Borno Empire of Nigeria were actively involved in b) above.
d) It was only later on that Europeans began to forcefully capture slaves for themselves.

logicboy01:
It is an easy argument to make. Religion has caused the death and suffering of so many people. Maybe when some of your children get molested by priests you will offset it with christian scholarships for other children.

What is the cost of a life? Religion has molested and killed many people. Religion divides and discriminates. The very reason why you cant see this is because of the biased nature of religion. "my religion is good". Even your bible contains genocide, sexism and slavery which it all supports.

This is mostly rhetorical. There's no attempt at logic so I will not bother dissecting it.

However, I need to provide you with one more history lesson. The bible is divided into the Old and the New Testament. Christianity is based on the New, not the Old. I am not saying the Old testament is not part of our religion, simply that Christianity is not founded on it. The Old testament provides the background for scripture, for some of Christ's teachings. But one of the most basic things you learn as a Christian is that Christ's teachings tore down a lot of the old ways and old practices and built a new way rooted in love. Of course, many Christians falter on this new path and fail to love like Christ and to emulate him properly but that is why faith is a process.
However, trying to argue against Christianity based on teachings and events that occured in the Old testament is like trying to pronounce judgement on a man for crimes commited by his forefathers.

Furthermore, you should know that during the dark ages of history, mankind regressed. The notions of equality that Greek and Roman citizens enjoyed were quashed by the early feudal lords. It was Christianity that helped to revive this by preserving the teachings, the writings and the history of ancient Greece and Rome. Furthermore, long before the enlightenment era which was to come in the 18th century, Christianity was preaching about equality and human dignity. Yes, I know it is the same Christianity that initiated the crusades but it is important to note that regardless of what Christians have done or what people have done in the name of Christianity, the religion itself does not advocate ideas such as slavery or war. And so I find it ridiculous that someone with such glaring gaps in historical knowledge should think to accuse Christianity of slavery. Fundamentally, Christianity is rooted in love. What is atheism rooted in?

logicboy01:
Oh, so you know that your bible is quite useless in many parts. Why pick and choose? Is it not meant to be God's words.

The best option is to discard the bible totally.

See comment above. My faith is Christianity NOT Judaism.

logicboy01:
Nope. Secular charities dont buy private jets. They dont buy mansions. Registered charities are always monitored. The church gets away with corruption.

Yes they do. As a simple google search of "charity private jets" would reveal.

logicboy01:
Yet, it wastes hundreds of thousands of pounds in conversion in the UK, rather than spend it on poor people in Africa or Asia. Do you realise that the catholic church in Nigeria alone is richer than Oyedepo? Christians dont think far.

And if you are the quintessential atheist, I would say atheists don't even think. The Catholic Church is already serving a far greater function with those "hundreds of thousands of pounds" than you would like. And yes, we all know you don't agree with that function, but that is why you are you, and I am me. As a Catholic, I am happy with where my contributions are going. You don't give your money to the church, so please don't spend our money for us.

logicboy01:
Every society has problems. However, some societies are more developed than others and some societies are backwards. The most developed countries are secular and have a significant amount of atheists. The UK is far more advanced than Nigeria.

The UK is slowly throwing away religion. Nigeria should follow suit.

I repeat: correlation in data does not automatically translate to causality.

logicboy01:
What about household income?

http://www.alternet.org/economy/67723

One measure out of perhaps 20. Please.


And on this note, logicboy, I have to bow out. I tire of this endless debate not least because you make counterarguments that are not founded on basic logic. I have to say, it was fun though. I learnt a few things along the way. For instance, I didn't know about the religious debate with regards to the Rwandan genocide. For that, I will say thank you.

However, this argument is degenerating. I find myself repeating points I made in my first post, rebutting ridiculous comments or talking about things not even related to the original subject. I'd rather call it a day. Besides, it's Saturday!!!

You are welcome to the last word. I might login on Monday to read your response, if any, but I certainly won't respond.

no sir, Islam teaches the fear of God only, I have no fear of voodoo , neither do I deny its reality. God bless

Mr_Anony:

Dude why you still dey push this your propaganda?
I thought we had settled this long ago. Atheism is of no use whatsoever to a country's development. You have not been able to show how atheism helps anything at all.

Atheism as snubish rightly pointed out normally seems to spring up after a nation is considerably well developed and usually amongst the wealthier members of the society. It can be argued that atheism isn't a cause of progress but an unintended byproduct of development.

Secularism and atheism are totally different, stop binding them together.

This your "atheism-can-fix-it-all" claim has been already been debunked (...and yeah I'm using your favourite word in it's true sense) on this thread. Stop sweating it unnecessarily.

Lol.........atheism is snubbish? This comming from a christian that believes that every non-christian is going to hell? A christian that will never marry an atheist? A christina that his bible says that all atheists are fools?

Atheism is less divisive than religion, atheism does not accuse children of witchcraft and abuse them.

Secularism is a part of atheism. A secular government respects no God.

snubish: no sir, Islam teaches the fear of God only, I have no fear of voodoo , neither do I deny its reality. God bless

Fear of Allah that doesnt exist?

A voodoo man would say that his gods are real and claim that your Allah does not exist

You will say that Allah exists and voodoo gods do not exist.


The kicker? Both of you have the same proof of your Gods- NONE!

Why are you running away? you know that your last post was full of errors dont you? You think I wouldnt enjoy having the last word? Allow me to point out the lies errors in yourpost

caezar:
Frankly, I tire of having to dissect your logical fallacies for you. Yes, there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of God. But the lack of scientific evidence does not in itself prove that a thing does not exist. That is why you cannot prove a negative. Atheism is the stance that God does not exist! Since the negative cannot be proven, atheism cannot be proven and is therefore not a fact! Agnosticism is the more accurate stance (if you are basing your position on pure logic). If you must quote Richard Dawkins, at least have the independent sense to examine his positions first.

You dont know what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods due to lack of evidence. Simple. Atheism does not have to be proven since it is a negative. The onus is on you theists who have failed so far. The fact that you're expecting atheism to be proven shows your lack of knowledge about atheism and the burden of proof.

caezar:
You have no appreciation of history. Not Nigerian history, not African history and certainly not Christian history. It is a shame that you should spew such nonesense out of sheer ignorance when a bit of light reading would enlighten you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nigeria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyo_Empire#Slave_trade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

a) Slavery in Africa dates its origins to before there were any European empires and well before Christianity.
b) Slavery initially started off with Africans selling off their own slaves (captives from military conquests) to Europeans
c) The Oyo Empire of Nigeria and the Borno Empire of Nigeria were actively involved in b) above.
d) It was only later on that Europeans began to forcefully capture slaves for themselves.

Nope. You lie again. Your history from wikipedia does not even support you. Europeans and Arabs travelled to West Africa and not the other way around. We did not offer our brothers, rather the Europeans subjugated and traded our forefathers. How could we even start the trade when it was them that came to us?


You are a disgrace to your black race and Nigerian roots. Fake negro

caezar:
However, I need to provide you with one more history lesson. The bible is divided into the Old and the New Testament. Christianity is based on the New, not the Old. I am not saying the Old testament is not part of our religion, simply that Christianity is not founded on it. The Old testament provides the background for scripture, for some of Christ's teachings. But one of the most basic things you learn as a Christian is that Christ's teachings tore down a lot of the old ways and old practices and built a new way rooted in love. Of course, many Christians falter on this new path and fail to love like Christ and to emulate him properly but that is why faith is a process.
However, trying to argue against Christianity based on teachings and events that occured in the Old testament is like trying to pronounce judgement on a man for crimes commited by his forefathers.

Furthermore, you should know that during the dark ages of history, mankind regressed. The notions of equality that Greek and Roman citizens enjoyed were quashed by the early feudal lords. It was Christianity that helped to revive this by preserving the teachings, the writings and the history of ancient Greece and Rome. Furthermore, long before the enlightenment era which was to come in the 18th century, Christianity was preaching about equality and human dignity. Yes, I know it is the same Christianity that initiated the crusades but it is important to note that regardless of what Christians have done or what people have done in the name of Christianity, the religion itself does not advocate ideas such as slavery or war. And so I find it ridiculous that someone with such glaring gaps in historical knowledge should think to accuse Christianity of slavery. Fundamentally, Christianity is rooted in love. What is atheism rooted in?


See comment above. My faith is Christianity NOT Judaism.

You forget the sexism and racism in the new testament?
1 Corinthians 14:34
women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.


What about Jesus being racist to the Canaanite woman and tell her that he came for only the lost sheep of Isreal?

caezar:
Yes they do. As a simple google search of "charity private jets" would reveal.


And if you are the quintessential atheist, I would say atheists don't even think. The Catholic Church is already serving a far greater function with those "hundreds of thousands of pounds" than you would like. And yes, we all know you don't agree with that function, but that is why you are you, and I am me. As a Catholic, I am happy with where my contributions are going. You don't give your money to the church, so please don't spend our money for us.

As usual, you lie again. Charities dont buy private Jets and google doesnt help you. I checked.

I was a catholic for 22 years. I am happy that I am no more a brainwashed slave like you. . You know something is bad.People in your country are suffereing and you are satisfied with the corruption of your church.

caezar:
I repeat: correlation in data does not automatically translate to causality.

I never implied that. The question is why christianity is not correlated with good things. Why is it correlated with racism and high rates of divorce?

logicboy01:


Lol.........atheism is snubbish? This comming from a christian that believes that every non-christian is going to hell? A christian that will never marry an atheist? A christina that his bible says that all atheists are fools?

Atheism is less divisive than religion, atheism does not accuse children of witchcraft and abuse them.

Secularism is a part of atheism. A secular government respects no God.

I meant snubish the person and not snobbish the word (you really should read more carefully).

No my friend, secularism is not atheism neither is it a part of atheism. A secular government respects the beliefs of every citizen both the religious and irreligious alike. A secular government tries to stay neutral on religious issues. An atheist government on the other hand denies the existence of God and is anti-religion.

An example of a secular nation is he USA. An example of an atheist nation was the USSR. Two totally different countries on the issue of church and state.
If a secular state = separation of church and state, an atheist state = elimination of church entirely

We have already been through this before I really don't understand why you are regurgitating it again. Anyway I won't talk about this again because I can see you will stubbornly hold to your claim even though it has no logical basis (you really are a fanatic)

I leave you with your own words:

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

Mr_Anony:


No my friend, secularism is not atheism neither is it a part of atheism. A secular government respects the beliefs of every citizen both the religious and irreligious alike. A secular government tries to stay neutral on religious issues. An atheist government on the other hand denies the existence of God and is anti-religion.

1) USSR was a communist state. The acted the way they were because they were communists and not because of atheism. Communism is a state religion and an ideology. Are there not capitalist atheists as well?

2) Secularism is part of atheism. The very nature of atheism is secular. A secular government is not ruled by God or religion

3) Atheism is not the same as anti-religious. Two different things.

Mr_Anony:

An example of a secular nation is he USA. An example of an atheist nation was the USSR. Two totally different countries on the issue of church and state.
If a secular state = separation of church and state, an atheist state = elimination of church entirely

1) USSR was a communist state. The acted the way they were because they were communists and not because of atheism. Communism is a state religion and an ideology. Are there not capitalist atheists as well?

2) Secularism is part of atheism. The very nature of atheism is secular. A secular government is not ruled by God or religion

3) Atheism is not the same as anti-religious. Two different things.




In summary, you became a hypcorite by putting correlation as causation. What do you mean that atheism is a by-product of prosperity? Are you not using the same statistics as me? So, how did you reach this conclusion? ------There are atheists in rural India and China.....rural india is not prosperous.

logicboy01:

1) USSR was a communist state. The acted the way they were because they were communists and not because of atheism. Communism is a state religion and an ideology. Are there not capitalist atheists as well?

Nonsense, Venezuela is a communist state and yet it is More than 90% catholic. Communism by definition is not necessarily atheist

2) Secularism is part of atheism. The very nature of atheism is secular. A secular government is not ruled by God or religion

A secular government is neutral on the issue of religion An atheist state will try to enforce it's "no-God" Ideology much like an islamic state will be biased towards islam.

3) Atheism is not the same as anti-religious. Two different things.

atheism is much closer by definition to anti-religion than it is to secularism

In summary, you became a hypcorite by putting correlation as causation. What do you mean that atheism is a by-product of prosperity? Are you not using the same statistics as me? So, how did you reach this conclusion? ------There are atheists in rural India and China.....rural india is not prosperous.

Even more nonsense from you. You need to read more carefully. I said that it can be argued that atheism is a by-product of prosperity. I was clearly not making a statement of fact. What I was pointing to was that atheism does not play any role in prosperity at all.
As for rural India and China atheists, read about Mao Zedong and how atheism came to be forced on a country much like in communist Russia.

Your logic is disappointing I don't know why I bother to reply you at all (probably because I am addicted to kicking your butt)

You have not showed a way in which clearly atheism can be helpful to Nigeria's growth. You just keep jumping all over the place, confusing correlation for causality and trying to redefine a secularism to be atheism, sorry my friend go and learn some basic logic and come back.

Even though this has been fun for me, I'm off this thread for good. I know you'll still come up with yet another flimsy argument for atheism but I can't be bothered.

You are welcome to the last word, knock yourself out.

Mr_Anony:
Nonsense, Venezuela is a communist state and yet it is More than 90% catholic. Communism by definition is not necessarily atheist

A secular government is neutral on the issue of religion An atheist state will try to enforce it's "no-God" Ideology much like an islamic state will be biased towards islam.



Even more nonsense from you. You need to read more carefully. I said that it can be argued that atheism is a by-product of prosperity. I was clearly not making a statement of fact. What I was pointing to was that atheism does not play any role in prosperity at all.

As for rural India and China atheists, read about Mao Zedong and how atheism came to be forced on a country much like in communist Russia.

Your logic is disappointing I don't know why I bother to reply you at all (probably because I am addicted to kicking your butt)

You have not showed a way in which clearly atheism can be helpful to Nigeria's growth. You just keep jumping all over the place, confusing correlation for causality and trying to redefine a secularism to be atheism, sorry my friend go and learn some basic logic and come back.

Even though this has been fun for me, I'm off this thread for good. I know you'll still come up with yet another flimsy argument for atheism but I can't be bothered.

You are welcome to the last word, knock yourself out.

Wow. After talking nonsense, you guys always run away


Ehem, if Venezuela is a communist state and religious does that not make my point?

An atheist state will try to enforce it's "no-God" Ideology much like an islamic state will be biased towards islam.

You say that with no proof or reasoning whatsoever. As an atheist, I respect people's religions more than you. Your bible tells you not to associate with pagans and non-believers. I can live with a pagan, muslim or astrologer.


Atheism is not anti-religion. Infact, there are atheistic religions like buddhism. Use your brain.

Mr_Anony:
Nonsense, Venezuela is a communist state and yet it is More than 90% catholic. Communism by definition is not necessarily atheist

A secular government is neutral on the issue of religion An atheist state will try to enforce it's "no-God" Ideology much like an islamic state will be biased towards islam.

atheism is much closer by definition to anti-religion than it is to secularism

Do you think Hugo Chavez will be this tolerant if Venezuela have close to the number of Nukes the Russians have? Aggression has a linear relationship with military strength and not just ideaology. The Russians almost single handedly defeated the Nazi in WW II as 8 in every 10 German soldier killed in WW II died in the hand of a red army soldier. They even launch the last battle against Hitler in Berlin and hoisted the Russian flag at the German Reichstag in Berlin at the end of the war. They also occupied all of Eastern Europe after WW II without facing an opposition. Such was the strength of the Russians when Joseph Stalin was alive that anything was possible without the Americans and other Western European powers combined opposing them.

2good:

Do you think Hugo Chavez will be this tolerant if Venezuela have close to the number of Nukes the Russians have? Aggression has a linear relationship with military strength and not just ideaology. The Russians almost single handedly defeated the Nazi in WW II as 8 in every 10 German soldier killed in WW II died in the hand of a red army soldier. They even launch the last battle against Hitler in Berlin and hoisted the Russian flag at the German Reichstag in Berlin at the end of the war. They also occupied all of Eastern Europe after WW II without facing an opposition. Such was the strength of the Russians when Joseph Stalin was alive that anything was possible without the Americans and other Western European powers combined opposing them.

Excuse you.
I do not know what story of Hugo Chavez have been sold in Africa.
I do not know what can you learn from Venezuela and its history.
But before comparing the Venezuelan government to the Russian of the second war ... I would advise you first learn a little history and geography.
I know I say this very respectfully, and with the best intentions.

Ptolomeus:

Excuse you.
I do not know what story of Hugo Chavez have been sold in Africa.
I do not know what can you learn from Venezuela and its history.
But before comparing the Venezuelan government to the Russian of the second war ... I would advise you first learn a little history and geography.
I know I say this very respectfully, and with the best intentions.

Why do you think i dont know Hugo Chavez and world history and geography? Also do you think they have to teach us South American history in Africa for me to know about Chavez and Venuzuela?
I used Russian as an analogy to let you understand what Hugo Chavez can do if he has the power to. Do you think Hugo Chavez will not be having some kind of cold war with the US if they have close to the level of Nukes the Russians have?
Why did the Americans criticise Chavez, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein etc while the man that committed one of the greatest atrocity in human history was called 'Uncle Joe' by both the British and Americans? Chavez have limited powers that is why he has not been so aggressive against the US.

2good:

Why do you think i dont know Hugo Chavez and world history and geography? Also do you think they have to teach us South American history in Africa for me to know about Chavez and Venuzuela?
I used Russian as an analogy to let you understand what Hugo Chavez can do if he has the power to. Do you think Hugo Chavez will not be having some kind of cold war with the US if they have close to the level of Nukes the Russians have?
Why did the Americans criticise Chavez, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein etc while the man that committed one of the greatest atrocity in human history was called 'Uncle Joe' by both the British and Americans? Chavez have limited powers that is why he has not been so aggressive against the US.

Stop looking at history from a USA point of view. Most people with Nukes do not want to use them. Are the USA or Japan or Pakistan more moral than Venezuala to have nukes?

2good:

Why do you think i dont know Hugo Chavez and world history and geography? Also do you think they have to teach us South American history in Africa for me to know about Chavez and Venuzuela?
I used Russian as an analogy to let you understand what Hugo Chavez can do if he has the power to. Do you think Hugo Chavez will not be having some kind of cold war with the US if they have close to the level of Nukes the Russians have?
Why did the Americans criticise Chavez, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein etc while the man that committed one of the greatest atrocity in human history was called 'Uncle Joe' by both the British and Americans? Chavez have limited powers that is why he has not been so aggressive against the US.

Dear friend.
Do not get angry.
I regret that the reality of Latin America to Africa gets so distorted.
First, Chavez has no military power. He can barely stay in power internally. The U.S. propaganda against everyone but his allies have so much disfigures situations. I do not agree with many decisions of Chavez, but Chavez has only said "no" to some abuses of the USA that are very common in South America and the world.
I do not defend Chavez, but put the figure of him as a dangerous individual to global security is ridiculous.
Argue that Cuba is like (a small island economically blocked for 50 years) is capable of threatening U.S.!. Cuba is blocked because the pride of Americans have been prevented from ending the conflict, and cares little about the United States the death and starvation of children and elderly Cubans, nor cares about that in Africa.
Neither Chavez nor Fidel are threat to anyone.
The eternal game of Americans has been to invent dangerous enemies, and then invade, killing civilians, looting, torture and rape ...
All in the name of world peace, and Western Christian civilization!
(irony!)

@logicboy01 Great piece with the reply, thanks for schooling the ignorant and gullible ones, if only we had more minds like yours in this country... What can I say... E' Pluribus Unum.

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.

which Muslim foreign power conquered/colonised nigeria.?

@logicboy

Mr_Anony:

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

ouch!