₦airaland Forum

Of those:

India, Brazil, then South Africa

in order of most to least deserving.

SA is a relatively insignificant country in terms of world affairs...why should it get a permanent seat?

This is how you always do things, going off on wild tangents rather than making clear arguments.

You started off with this:

shymexx: Muslim also live in violent times right now... Everything started with the creation of Israel at the expense of Palestine, and subsequently the pillaging of their resources by the West...

How does this relate to the Nigerian Northern Muslims which Katsumoto brought up? Are they living in violent times (that were externally inflicted, that is)? Yes, or no? If no, then what is your explanation for their backwards behavior?

In short, how does your response relate to what you quoted, especially with respect to our local jihadis, boko haramists, etc?

I don't know much about the pagan religions of Europe.

But I know that in the religion my family practiced before they converted to Christianity, human sacrifice was a key component.

So, it is very important to know whether those barbaric Christian Europeans were even more crude, violent and intolerant before conversion, if you are trying to measure the effect of Christianity on them.

shymexx: We can't really compare Muslims in Northern Nigeria with the ones in MENA... The problem in Northern Nigeria has an ethnic and political twist to it...

See dodging

Nothing can be compared, it seems

PhysicsQED: Well I don't know if anyone really knows how tolerant or intolerant the pagans were so I won't attempt to answer that.

Well, that seems a critical variable for discussing the effect of Christianity on Europeans, does it not? For all we know, the 500AD-1500AD time period was far less barbaric than the time period that preceded it...

As for other "world" religions between 500 AD to 1500 AD, I would say most were probably less intolerant and less prone to religious violence than European Christianity. In certain areas of the world Muslims were probably more tolerant, though not all areas of course.

Evidence of this? Ideally, a study of religious violence by religion/region during those times?

My point is that if Soyinka's argument is against religion in general, he isn't wrong for not letting Christianity off the hook in his attack or not excusing it from his criticism. From his point of view I don't see why there would be any reason not to think it deserves just as much disdain - it was used to justify racial oppression, the subjugation of women, the persecution of religious minorities, slavery, etc. - just like Islam. And when you consider that the apparent "non-barbaric" nature of Christianity and Christians today is merely an artifact of the European enlightenment period - and some of these prominent enlightenment thinkers in Europe were atheists - it seems reasonable to think that this particular faith itself may not be inherently much/any better than other religions that could be condemned (such as Islam), but just a religion that later received a nice polish and reformation through the continuing effects of the enlightenment period.

An argument against Christianity of 500AD-1500AD is certainly no argument for Christianity of 2012.

@PhysicsQED: In other words, Christians used to be barbaric, and today they are not?

Wonderful...I imagine everyone will agree with this.

Now, were those same European Christians more violent/intolerant than their non-Christian neighbors? E.g., the pagan tribes of Europe, or other major world religions from 500AD to 1500AD? If not, then I don't see what your point is.

shymexx: I never said it was unknowable, my assertion was based on the premise some people would disagree with you, and rightfully so...

You might be more likely to get AIDS in SA(based on statistics), but those who're HIV positive in the UK will definitely disagree with you...

So, someone who already has AIDS in the UK will think that AIDS is easier to get in the UK, you are saying? OK, fine.

What of:
a) those who don't have AIDS in the UK
b) those who have AIDS in SA
c) those who don't have AIDS in SA?

You aren't being very logical here..........

I think the issue is that if one accepts that Islam is a pretty evil religion, then perhaps one will also conclude that Muslims are also bad or something.

But I don't think that is true...most Muslims are going to be overall good people.

I dunno...I feel like the way to confront problems is to admit that they exist. You can never reform a religion unless you are first willing to admit that the way it is currently practiced/interpreted is flawed.

shymexx: Crime-prone/more violent is more appropriate... Less safe is also vague because the victims of these 'crimes' won't agree with you..

Fine. So make the appropriate mental substitutions when you see people castigating Islam and calling it evil.

We can't draw conclusions... We need to put other intangibles into consideration... London is believed to be safer than New York for example based on the crime rate... But most Londoners who live in crime infested areas of London would disagree with that assertion...

Good call.

We cannot draw any conclusions from large differences in rates.

For example, the AIDS rate in South Africa or Lesotho is much much higher than that of say the UK. Yet, we cannot draw any conclusions about what the likelihood of getting a disease having unprotected sex in the UK vs. South Africa is.

It is simply unknowable, despite the published error rates. May as well flip a coin to decide.

Outstanding logic.

Again, "evil" is a vague word. People usually use it as shorthand for something much longer and more precise.

Actually, "good" is also a vague word.

If your beef is that people are using vague words in association with Islam and they should use more specific language, fine, no problem. I'll concede the point (though you should also keep in mind that this is an internet forum, where people use vague language all the time for convenience).

But if you are denying that there are differences between Islam and Christianity when it comes to violence, terrorism, and various other things that most modern humans find unsavory, then I think you are being dishonest with yourself.

shymexx: But is that enough to call the country with the higher number of criminals and Country X evil countries??

"Evil" is a vague word, one which people can quibble over. What if we said more crime-prone? Less safe? More violent? Would those be reasonable conclusions to draw from my little example?

Bear in the mind that these criminals are in the minority...

The crime rate in the USA is much higher than that of similarly wealthy countries in Europe. Yet in both cases, criminals are in the vast minority. Just because criminals are in the minority in both cases, does that mean we cannot draw any conclusions? What makes this magical 50% cutoff so special for you, anyways?

Well, how does the Lord's Prayer go?

"
"Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Please bless me as I have s3x with little children....
"

Thus, the Catholic priests did their acts in the name of God. No be so?

shymexx: I can't answer the question because my choice of residence isn't always based on the crime rate of the location... Most times, it's based on the opportunities in that location...

My question has nothing to do with your choice of residence.

I am asking, given two countries with very different crime rates, assuming that things are otherwise relatively equal between the two countries, is it not fair to say that the country where 10% of the pop are criminals is more violent/less safe than the one where 0.1% are criminals?

Yes, or no? Very simple question.

Then the second question is, if 95% of criminals come from Country X, should we just view this as something random that has nothing to do with that nation, or is it reasonable to then believe that there is something about said country that promotes crime?

Again, a simple question.

shymexx: I'm not here to argue propositional statements... You made a blanket assertion that a particular religion is evil when it's clear that the extremists in the religion are in the minority...

You can't judge a religion by the acts of those in the minority, just as you don't want people to judge your religion based on the acts of the minority within your religion...

Ignore anything having to do with religion, and simply answer the question posed.

I'm going to get lunch now. In the meantime, perhaps Shymmex will be able to solve this frightfully challenging puzzle I posed:

[quote author=ekt_bear]Correct!

Thief and armed robber are the same thing. Or similar enough that the difference is negligible.

Yet, in Country 1, 10% of the population are thieves. In Country 2, 0.1% are armed robbers.

Which country would you conclude is more crime-prone?

Or equivalently, of all the thieves on earth, 95% of them come from Country X, 5% from Country Y. Would you then wonder if there is something about Country X that encourages criminality (assuming comparable populations of course)..?[/quote]

Correct!

Thief and armed robber are the same thing. Or similar enough that the difference is negligible.

Yet, in Country 1, 10% of the population are thieves. In Country 2, 0.1% are armed robbers.

Which country would you conclude is more crime-prone?

Or equivalently, of all the thieves on earth, 95% of them come from Country X, 5% from Country Y. Would you then wonder if there is something about Country X that encourages criminality (assuming comparable populations of course)..?

bayooooooo: Soyinka was just trying to be politically smart by balancing his speech with statements that could not stand proper scrutiny. He did not want to be seen singling out Islam for deserved castigation. Of course that's obvious to discerning minds.

Islam is inherently violent and against humanity. That's the pure truth.

Eh....he seems to be taking shots at religion in general. In any case, if his focus is on Islam, then I agree. If religion in general, then I disagree.

The guys carrying out the terrorist attacks claim that they are fighting in the name of their God. That they are practicing jihad.

So, they say that they have religious motivations for their crime.

Are you saying that they don't?

From the perspective of those killed, the difference is negligible.

But, in a discussion about the evils of religion, the difference is critical: motivation is the heart of the matter.

But what if the previous Pope favors red over blue Does this mean God changed his color preferences?

The priest farted in the name of God, no doubt.

The Pope likes the color blue, therefore this is the official color of Jesus

[quote author=One_Naira]Religion isn't a hinder to society or humanity but rather how ppl interpret and act out each religion is.
Buddaism is a clear example of a religion that have not provided a negative impact to the world. Christianity, despite attacking and insulting muslims today for their craziness, we had a hand in destruction of many past societies in this world. Remember the crusaders anyone. Is it what the bible taught us or rather how the crusaders interpreted the bible? The nazi justified their killings by illustrating it was the work of God. The neo-nazi till day believe the bible they read told them they are surperior. We equally attack gays on the sole purpose that God condemns it. Yet there are many of us in the world that are tolerant of them but still maintain our fate. Similar to islamic fanatics, I've couple of friends that are muslims, mostly north Africans and few yemens who till this day look down on each muslim fanatics but still maintain their fate. In over all, humans are built in to hurt eachother. Even if we remove religion from the equation, we will find something else to justify our destruction. It is not religion's doing, that is just an excuse.[/quote]So I think there is an element of this. Human beings are just mean by nature. So it doesn't make sense to attribute many of the bad things people do to their religion.

After all, if I run a red light or something, Christianity probably shouldn't be blamed for that.

However, in my opinion, certain religions encourage and enhance the baser instincts of humanity (Islam being a prime example of this), while others promote the positive instincts of humanity (Mormonism being a pretty good example of this, imo).

"I am bringing glory to the name of God by having s3x with this young child."

Clearly, this was the thought process and motivation of those Catholic priests.

After all, any time a Christian does anything, it no doubt has religious motivations, yes?

I chose to have an omelette rather than cereal for this very reason...Jesus spoke to me this morning and told me that an omelette is what he'd prefer for me to have for my breakfast. And that if I eat cereal I'd risk damnation. But if I ate the omelette, I'd receive 77 virgins in heaven

shymexx: Lmaoo at this re.tard with a linear thought process talking about atheism... Just because I don't believe in medieval teachings of some allegories that's doesn't mean I'm an atheist...

God damn you are a dumb nigger. Do you not get that my post had nothing to do with atheism? My point is that the same mor0nic reasoning can be used to argue non-sensical things.

E.g., that some random atheist dude was doing whatever he was doing in the name of someone else, rather than for his own reasons.

In other words, your argument is terrible

shymexx: The Catholic Priests molested kids in the name of their God, hence why the Pope never punished them...

"Lawd Jesus, as I anally penetrate this young child, please don't let anyone find out. In Jesus Mighty Name I pray, Amen"

I wish this was on youtube

OK

So...wasn't Bad Person X an atheist?

Wasn't Bad Person Y an atheist?

Clearly then, atheism is evil as well, since Bad Person Z committed his evil acts in the name of atheism!

Wtf is up with all these brainless people posting

Heh. You are the last person who I think any sensible person would consult regarding logic.

You can't even differentiate between religious wars and wars motivated for other reasons.

Anyways...there is nothing further worth saying to you

Ultimately, no amount of logic will get through to this fellow.

But my words are more for those who may have been mislead by his posts but are open to reason

lol

F00028: 


the Christian born again american president that invaded it was most likely following scripture.

otherwise its hard to imagine the christian God never cautioned him in the regular chats that he kept telling us they were having.

Are you high

really, don’t you know anything
there is no proof to this day linking him to 9/11



Sigh…
really, don’t you know anything
there is no proof to this day linking him to 9/11

Does invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban count as a religious invasion?

I didn’t say anything about the cold war

Then why did you bring up Vietnam?

When?

When?

Open up some books...I no get time for id1iots

Imagine, a man from a part of Nigeria ravaged by Boko Haram, illiteracy, terrible leadership and governance offering advice to someone else.

Wonders will never cease.

In any case, who wants advice from such a person? Will Greece then be offering economic advice to Germany?