₦airaland Forum

nuclearboy:
b] Floating around homeless on the earth like an Abiku

Lol! I really love your sense of humour, egbon mi atata!

The the moronic DAFT idea that Jesus became Christ the day He received the Holy Spirit  This is more than idiocy- it is insanity.

. . . But I earnestly implore you - and this i say as a bible student - to consider the thought that the word "christ" means "anointed one" or "messiah" of sorts - and as such is different from his role as the word of God, son  of God, or God.

Thus, becoming "christ" is only a manifestation to humanity as the "anointed one" designated for us.

Please consider that carefully and objectively - When did he receive his anointing?

CAVEAT[size=5pt]; You know say I no belif all dis tin, na jus analysis from my past incarnation as a Christian, although I know say na false christian you go call me.[/size]

Enigma:
Oh, by the way, if you want an example of evangelical atheism in action try this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7813812.stm

Would you call evangelical communism a religion? ? ?

Enigma e ku ise o. Howdi.

I have been you in this thread, not seeing the need to respond intoto, you know how you do when you view something as beneath you. . .

But your last post is indeed worthwhile to respond to: I'd like to say that neither atheism nor evangelical atheism are religions.

For the simple reason that religion by its very nature, purpose and intent, is a set of doctrines cast in a sacred mould which is driven towards spirituality. It is in every case a purposeful journey towards that which is deemed the spiritual light.

That can not be said for atheism or even for evengelical atheism for that matter.

3. When he is Jealous, he should learn to calm down. I learnt this already known lesson painfully again recently, having thrown a tirade over my better half's innocent liason with a friend. Of course, rage, as always, is arsenic in such situations. Only calm, sweet calm.

Pastor is driving at something more subtle, friends.

The reputation of the man alone should move y'all stop and think.

When a man of such a vast mind and such depth of heart and perception writes such things. . . satire is eminently afoot.

I am not sure I have struck at the base that he is driving at but off the top of my head it looks like two things -

1. The mentality of restricting oneself to ideas that were prevalent at the time of the bible and

2. The mentality that that which is associated with the cultures of fairer races is also more spiritually uplifting than ours.

This, it turns out, is a brilliant sattire against spiritual colonial-mentality, other wise known as KOLO-MENTAL!

Bravo, Pastor.

^^^^ aRRRGGGGHHH!

The goal of ALL religions is the the development of the spirit towards the LIGHT.

NOW I AM INDEED OFF FOR THAT BEER! DO NOT TEMPT ME: THAT MAY AMOUNT TO TREASON.

Or blasphemy. Thou shalt not tempt the lord thy god.

Uyi Iredia:
@ Texas Pete >>> What is the goal of religion ? >>> i'm waiting in earnest

The goal is to drink as much beer as possible and then die. I am off now to accomplish that sacred purpose.

When I am done,we fit yarn small. LATER.

Haba, Chessmaster.

Haba. Islam does not claim him to be ALLAH. That is a fact.

^^^ I Gat nothin to prove to you mate. Later.

InesQor:
@Deep Sight:

By the way, why are you always ready to misrepresent others?   You took my quote and CLEVERLY edited the context (outlined in red below) which I placed in a bracket.

became

To the effect that readers on the thread will assume that I am arguing that religion and politics operate under that same defining token.

Guy, this is EVIL. Stop it.  

I don't see how you presume evil. For heaven's sake you stated and still state that "actively discussing politics alone makes one a[b] politician[/b]."

That is just plain absurd. That would render virtually every person a politician. That is gross.

Saying thereafter that this is not the case with religion does nothing to dispose of the incongruity so stated.

And besides - just stop demonising me. If I have not understood you - it is just that - a failure to understand. You needn't keep up this game of imagining that I am "The Joker" with evil intentions in a batman series. You will see that what you wrote clearly conveys and still conveys teh incongruity I pointed out.

Stop tempting me. I would have loved to do some thesis on this matter to close out the many ludicruous postions being tendered. However the topic is simply far too inherently unimportant and misfooted for me to be bothered.

Now get thee behind me: POUNDED YAM AND GUINESS STOUT IT IS!

Uyi Iredia:
No (don't push your luck, depending on how this goes I might at some point say that Communism IS a religion)

Nobody needs to tell texas pete that communism was predicated on an atheistic worldview >>> This quote by Karl Marx sums it up

"Religion is the opium of the masses"
- Karl Marx


Lemme assume my definition is wrong (It is NOT) >>> oya ! define the goal of religion

^^^ This above . . .

Just makes me weak. I very much hate to be adopting the antics of Enigma as he has often related to me, but I really must excuse myself for now. I have no words to address the incongruities that you propound.

Perhaps  some pounded yam and guiness stout will revive me later on.

Uyi Iredia:
Religion is driven towards an understanding of reality.

You have defined the goal of PHILOSOPHY and NOT the goal of religion.

This is tiresome.

Uyi Iredia:
@ all posters >>> you must understand that I didn't wake up one morning to declare 'Atheism is a religion' >>> over time and in the course of debating atheists >>> i noted similarities between atheism (especially militant atheism) with religious mold of thinking

Can the same not be said even to a greater degree of COMMUNISM?

CAN YOU TELL ME IF COMMUNISM IS A RELIGION? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

InesQor:
Purist replies about politics, and I show him the definition of a politician. Actively discussing politics ALONE makes you a politician.

This alone kills the bird. In this event Larry King, Aisha Sesay, Christian Amanpour and every other public pundit are all politicians.

Infact all the beer palour analysts of current affairs are all POLITICIANS.

Good grief.

This is the height of absurdity.

JeSoul:
The best we can do I think is compare across the board - the similarities, and I'm seeing a whole lot between the structure of modern atheism and many established religions.

Okay. You tempt me.

What is the defining element of religion - viz: what does Religion seek to acheive - what is religion driven towards?

Start there.

JeSoul:
TheHomer, thanks for your last response.
You are right in that some foundation needs to be laid on the meaning of certain words we're using here. The only side effect of undertaking that is that too often we see good threads spiral into the abyss of definitions of defintions.

---

Deepsight and Homer,
you both continue to insist that atheism is simply a lack of belief - I have tried (and thanks to posts from E and I) to stress that modern atheism is simply not just a lack of belief - it is an active belief that there in no God. Indeed you could reverse the case and say "christianity is simply a lack of a lack of belief in God". Both are based on beliefs that cannot be proven - and both are very active in converting followers. Christians have the bible as their holy text, while atheists have a revolving door library of holy texts - the most recent scientific books.

You will both notice I mentioned twice I have no need or desire to flatter atheism with the title of religion - but just for kicks - what characteristics does a movement need to possess in order to qualify for the title of "religion"? Uyi already tried to address this in his famous "discombobulate" post but rather than show us where he was wrong, opponents simply dismissed it as a grammatical exercise - many of which the 'dismissants' themselves are famous for.

I repeat; Uyi said EXACTLY NOTHING and today I am not in the mood to address nothingnesses.

As for you perhaps you can spend the evening reflecting on just why communism should not also qualify as a religion under the premises that you set up.

Inesqor - there seems quiet alot of confusion about you in this thread. You clearly contradicted yourself in one breath claiming that you did not say atheism is a religion and in another breath averring the reverse. And add to that the fact that you plain goofed in raising the definition of a politician as trhat very definition stands in stark contradistinction to everything you have tried to advance on this thread.

With deep respect, you have it all terribly mangled up.

However I am sorry to say that I consider the notion advanced in the OP as so irredeemably misconceived and disastrously preposterous such that I do not have the energy to invest in such a ridiculous discussion. Any person who asserts that Atheism is a Religion simply has no grasp of the English Language and basic precepts. I have no energy for this.

Think what you will, sir, it matters not. I suggest we rather invest our time in some chess where I am yet to redeem my name from the embarrasment you handed out to me sometime ago.

Contrast -

InesQor:
As for the topic, do you care to show where I said Atheism is a religion?

And -

InesQor:
They have a faith, a belief system as well. Do they not as well then have a religion?

Respectfully sir: you are confused.

That does not answer the question, for Muhammad is not claimed to be God.

It remains curious that the one you claim to be God pointedly denied knowledge of the day of judgment stating that only the one he worshipped knew such.

Incidentally he also denied being 'good' deliberately reserving that description for another.

I wonder why.

Indeed. There is no point dignifying the subject with any responses. I am rather surprised that some otherwise objective minds are found supporting the notion.

Jesoul. I hope u realize that further to everything u hzve said, and just as thehomer pointed out, capitalism, communism, etc would all qualify as religions.

Come on!

@ Inesqor i am very surprised by your take but i do not have the strength at the moment. I seem to be suffering a recess of some sort. My warmest regards to Viaro. Perhaps u only need whispwr the regards under your breath. Cheers.

Uyi Iredia:
@ Deep Sight

I looked at your post, then read it, then read it again !. Quite a mouthful. But as has now become my habit I will categorically discombobulate your
statements along its lines of weaknesses. But I must make mention of the part of your post which struck me.

"the mere element of "belief" is insufficient to ground a religion"

I'll concede to this: that by brandishing atheism as a religion, i risk brandishing a mere belief as a religion. But, Atheism isn't a mere belief.

That being said I'll tackle your statement. The ones made by others amount only to peccadilloes (Mudley's in particular). I trust you wouldn't mistake this for flattery.

That being said I proceed to deal the coupe de grace to your comment. Here goes

*1 >>> A thoroughbred opprobrium, and proof, of lack of prerequisite profundity of bent, on the topic at hand. This ensembles an emotional outburst engendered by an initial reaction to the topic, rather than the cool, calm thinking I expected of you. A disappointment_a sorry one at that.

*2 >>> Apt reasoning demands that you look deep and put up links to such threads were (as you imply) you dealt with such issues. Come on now, what i need are fresh ideas, not lugubriousness and melancholy (evidenced by how you bemoan your lack of strength).

*3 >>> The meat of your post, for the most part all that you put forward were adumbrations.

The mere element of belief isn't 'mere' as it were. In effect & principle, belief is the core of any ideology, creed, school of thought et al. There is no disputing about tastes.

This is the aptest way I can express it: Belief is the 'espirit de corps' of any mode of thought.

I quickly noted a trend (meme) in atheist discussion forums, sites, literature e.t.c which I have been chanced to peruse, and intend to keep on perusing (at least for the sake of knowledge). Any notion of faith or belief is snubbed. Atheists on Nairaland naively associate faith (and by extension belief) with religion_an annoying demotic. This is the root cause for my denouncement of atheism as a religion_with just cause. It amounts to sin on the part of atheists (and even agnostics) to repudiate the very faith they effuse because of the religious connotations it has.

Note that it is from a belief that a school of thought flourishes. Varied people contribute to such a belief and articulate reasons for such a belief till it becomes the very cornerstone of the existence of such people. It isn't hard to see parallels between the way militant atheism (in particular) is currently spreading, and how Christianity spread.

- Both become entrenched in a polity given favorable political environs (elucidate on Constantine & Voltaire)
- Both necessarily systematize their beliefs as they grow (i.e find more adherents)
- Their growth is hinged on the need to spread a percieved truth (i need not state how it applies in both cases, you're sharp enough to fill in the blanks)
- Both gained huge momentum at a point in history after a period of latency and repression (in the case of Christianity it was after
the rise of emperor Constantine, while i surmise that atheist thought picked up momentum at the turn of the 20th century after secularism had become fully entrenched in the political climate)

I will treat this robustly in the next thread i'll start on the subject. I hope by now you understand that mere belief is the seed which grows into
what is called religion. the way it does is not under one's jurisdiction. It evolves with influence from other beliefs and phenomenons which happen.

*4 >>> It wouldn't amount to mere religion. But it could evolve to become one (ironically this implies it would 'amount' to (become) religion). At the very least your belief that your mum's food tastes good could plausibly morph into a cultural stereotype/practice. How do you suppose the montage of the African cultural landscape appeared_"open sesame" perhaps ?

*5 >>> nope. but it could become an irreligious doctrine DISCLAIMER:Comical satire is an effective means of passing across nuggets of wisdom BIG TIME

*6 >>> Even matt dillahaunty would hesitate to use that definition, and i'm not joking, nor am i being sarcastic. A poor definition. Even if atheism were a privation of beliefs. that itself would constitute a belief ITSELF (it would logically follow). This outline of Kervn Glaser should end any conception of atheism as a 'non-belief'
(culled from Atheist experience.com)

*7 >>> Hominis est errare . Being wrong isn't something i would be ashamed of. it only goes to show my humanity. But if i'm being told off as wrong there should be a good basis for doing so.

I am sorry, but I was unable to "re-comcobulate" anything from this post: and call me texas-pete if any one else can.

You have said exactly nothing sir - unless you will be so bold as to assert that a belief in santa claus is a religion.

JeSoul:
True . . . but the catch is many atheists do not just "not collect stamps". They take it 100 steps further and say "stamps don't exist" "those who collect stamps are not intelligent" "collecting stamps is incompatible with reason" etc etc you catch my drift.

Don't even bother to go there. Will an active propagation of a DISBELIEF in santa claus amount to anything? ? ? ? ? ? ?

For what the combobulated Mr. Iredia suggests to me is that not only is a belief in santa claus a religion, but a rejection of such a belief is also a religion.

I have not heard anything more preposterous on this forum.

No, no, no and thrice again no!

But before I respond in detail, why did you ignore the first part of the sentence - "I form the light and create darkness. . ."

What sort of Light and Darkness was being referred to here - physical or transcendental?

If transcendental, then your explanations collapse.

^^^ Chessmaster you chess your way around everything, including the obvious: though i concede that the present instance is not a case of the obvious.

I have TWO questions for you. But we will take them one at a time.

Here is the first -

Isaiah 45 verses 5,6 & 7:

5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

As a Christian, how do you explain away verse 7 above?

Does it not lend biblical credence to that which lagerwhenindoubt has posited?

That is the first question.

Please revert, Chessmaster.

^ ^ ^ DISTRICTUS CONFUTO INCONSTANTIA

nuclearboy:
Isaiah 45 verses 5,6 & 7:

5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
[size=14pt]7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. [/size]

In light of this scripture, is there any reason why any person who subscribes to the bible should contest that which lagerwhenindoubt and my humble self have posited?

lagerwhenindoubt:
Satan (Personification of pure evil) was created with the awareness to conceive Good and Evil so he could not be the origin.

Methinks clues lie in the NATURE of this Cosmic Entity known as God, If we are created in his image, then it is rational to assume that for each Left Hand, there is a Right Hand and for each breath of Oxygen we breath in, there is Carbon-monoxide to breathe out; for each perfection there is an imperfection, for each Tree of Life (Good), there is a Tree of Knowledge (Evil)
For Good to pre-exist, Evil must be (or following pretty closely behind)

GBAM! !  ! Brilliantly conceived and deliverd.

Inesqor, Alethia - please read and consider carefully WORD BY WORD.

Especially the bit on satan. If satan could conceive good and evil. . .then both were clearly latent within existence . . .there to be perceived. . .

And then just check out the bit in red. . . ! ! !

^^^ That could just as easily read -

"In a universe where free will or the ability to choose exists; then there exists the potential for GOOD. This is not the same as GOOD existing from the beginning. "

ilosiwaju:
_{DS how far now? I will be storming lagos soon and could surely use seeing you. How sayeth thou?}

Great Ilosi!

Hit me @ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

PS: Am out of the country between 20th & 30th November, so lemme know ok, ol boy?

InesQor:
@Deep Sight:
Interesting point you have there, but here is my take on it:

God is eternal in the past, ([color=#999900]and present and future[/color]) TRUE
Thus Good/Evil has always existed. FALSE

As you noted, this all hangs upon the PURPOSE of the creation, which is shrouded in great mystery. But only God, the creator, would understand this mysteriously shrouded purpose, and whatever he deems in harmonious consonance with that purpose is good, whatever is not is evil.

It was when he began creation that he set standards, and these initial standards made those (default settings of) things to be considered "good", simultaneously defining whatever falls short of these perfect standards as, perfectly speaking, evil.

Chessmaster, I altogether disagree with your definition and apprehension of the meaning of the term “good” – with reference to the Creator

In my humble view, you have taken an all too finite and limited apprehension of that word – and applied it most inappropriately to a transcendental topic. This is much like adducing an analogy of physical light as sufficing to encapsulate the essence of the primordial and eternal intangible light. This will not do.

You have talked about “goodness” as being apropos “usefulness, expertise or morality”. . . save with regard to morality, the other two definitions are altogether earthly and material applications which could find no place in transcendental philosophy.

Might I explain, if I can. . .if I dare. . .

God is ONE.

The oneness of God lies within God’s absolutist and unified intangible compound nature. Without delving into a long-winding exegesis, let me very simply state that the oneness of GOD is the factor or element that renders an inclination towards oneness as being that which is in tandem with God – as such this renders harmony something that is in tandem with the nature and will of God.

God’s oneness is at the core of God’s nature – and as such inasmuch as God is eternal in the past, so is the oneness of God – and accordingly – all such things as derive as a natural consequence of that oneness – and this includes harmony – which I have described as any inclination towards oneness.

So the simple meaning of that which is good, is that which inclines towards oneness – God itself being that very oneness thus being the very core good itself. Hence the words of the blessed Jesus of Nazareth. . .”only God is good . . .”

Accordingly good (“GOD” – “ONE”) has always existed and is eternal in the past. I hope you understand this.

Now if this is the case, going by your premise (and also as evinced by the eternal principle of duality) it also follows that that which does not incline to the oneness has also always existed - and is therefore eternal in the past – the reverse of the ONE and the GOOD.

Good does not “come to exist” at the moment of creation, as you have posited – nor do the standards for what is good come to exist at any moment.

Rather, the very nature of God itself inexorably and eternally IS the ONENESS itself – the GOOD itself – which is, which was, and which ever will be.

If we work with this understanding, the problem of the origin of evil ceases to exist in terms of the riddle – “how did a good God give rise to evil?” – we would rather understand that the eternal principle of duality renders the reverse of the ONE and the GOOD a self existent principle which cannot but also exist.

If you really reflect on this, you might wonder. . .if God is truly without a counterbalancing self existent force, and God be wholly good, and God be the source of ALL that exists. . . then evil could in no wise ever have come into existence.

InesQor:
@Deep Sight:


"Good" is defined by initial purpose. At the moment it is defined, some corresponding evil is defined as that which the good is not. I think its simple.

You are laboring over the same problem i tried to discuss with you in the meta ethics thread and it surprises me that you still dont see it: -

If God is eternal in the past; and God be "good" - then "good" has always existed and given your premise that the existence of good will define corresponding evil, then it follows that evil has also always existed and is eternal in the past.

This is something that we may have a dialectic discussion about: I do not assert the position I have argued; I state it to show you the flaw in your surmise.

Hope my point is clear now, Chessmaster.

You remain the boss, Chessmaster.