₦airaland Forum

Or maybe we should ban "democracy" since it leads to the election of these our leaders?

No need: once we ban religion, all our leaders will always be the best and world class visionaries.



"To insist that religion is peculiarly malignant is fanaticism, or mere stupidity." --- John Gray.

larride: Red-Moss

The bible doesn't have a problem. I repeat, religion is not our problem as african. Religion is just a way to link with the supernatural, its our belief and our faith. It has nothing to do with the development of a nation.

1. NEPA (or PH whatever) is not working: answer --- just ban religion, and NEPA will start working with total efficiency

2. Nigerian Airways is moribund: answer --- just ban religion and . . .

3. There is corruption in the Nigerian Ports Authority: answer --- just ban religion.
Ha oga but wait a minute, why don't we ban politics for this one because it is politics that causes them to appoint useless people as leaders.
Noooooo!!! Just ban religion and everything will be alright!


4. GSM is becoming a joke: answer --- you know what to do; ban religion?


"To insist that religion is peculiarly malignant is fanaticism, or mere stupidity." --- John Gray.

1. Africa has a problem of illiteracy: answer --- just ban religion, it will be solved.

2. Africa has a problem of poverty: answer --- just ban religion, it will be solved.

3. Africa has a problem of poor health care: answer --- just ban religion, it will be solved

4. Africa has a problem of corruption: answer --- just ban religion, it will be solved

5. Africa has a problem of poor leadership: answer --- just ban religion, it will be solved.

6. Africa has . . . . : don't bother to say it; whatever the problem, just ban religion and it will be solved.


Once again: "To insist that religion is peculiarly malignant is fanaticism, or mere stupidity." --- John Gray.

larride: Lol.

Now let's get on topic, I don't think religion is the problem of africa, why would anyone want to ban religion. Is it christainity that says our leaders should be corrupt? Is it islam that makes the people corrupt and guillble? Until we stop thinking backward, until we gain leaders of vision, then we are not going to move forward, look at Gov. Fashola, Gov. Akpabio, irrespectively of their religion, they are moving their state forward, do they ban religion before they would progress? Religion is not our problem but we ourselves.

"To insist that religion is peculiarly malignant is fanaticism, or mere stupidity." ---- John Gray.

Kay 17: How did you manage that?. . . .

It is the logical conclusion of your position in that our little exchange.

@debosky, Mr Anony and Goshen360

I think you should consider again the title of the thread especially if I recast part of it like this: . . . . it is the job of atheists to twist the Bible.

^^^ Therefore the universe does not exist --- or the universe is not "logical"!

@kay17

Happy new year.

Before we go into what God created from, consider these two:

1. The universe came from "nothing"; there is "nothing" behind that nothing. (i.e. nothing2 behind nothing1 = universe)

2. The universe came from "nothing"; however, there is God behind that "nothing" (i.e. God behind nothing1 = universe)

So, my question again: which of those two is more "logical"?

Note: I have not asked which is true. I have simply asked, which is more logical.

^^^ Basically, the mere fact that something is beyond the limit of the understanding of a particular person (or even of humanity) does not make it "logically" impossible.

Even talking of the universe from simply a vantage of "logic" rather than "religion"; it is more "logical" to say it was created than to say it just emerged from nothing --- notwithstanding the claimed "singularity".

Stalwert: where are these guys running to? it must have occur to them that their argument are not cogent indeed!

In general, evangelical atheists do not do cogent arguments . . . . .

@ Mr Anony

Just wanted to wish you happy new year, bros.

^^^ The "full truth"?

wiegraf: Jefferson attended church, so what? He also edited the bible, should you adopt that version as well?. Would you also like xtianity declared as usa's official religion? Tax payers back in those days may have had no problems with his using government property for religious purposes but in this day and age assuming that is silly.

Separation of church and state is also a principle, one I would think they are proud of. Like 'inalienable freedoms' or however jefferson put it. Like for instance, honesty. Lying is not a crime but it is not encouraged, yes?

In this case though, that's by the way, it's open and shut. Public organizations cannot endorse any religion for very good reasons. That is all

You couldn't follow a simple instruction: read the thread.

wiegraf: I would think this would clearly mean do not support any religion, no?

Read the thread and follow the arguments. I went to considerable lengths on that thread.

Ymodulus: u also ave nothing worth while to say.

besides logicboy was right. Atheism is not a religion so no need to argue with u

I can give links on this forum where I have proven that evangelical atheism is now a religion both from an intellectual assessment and a legal examination (at least under American law) but the arguments would be lost and wasted on you just as they have been lost and wasted on even the better known self-acclaimed "intellectuals" on Nairaland.

Stalwert: Ignorance is an understatement of what is really befuddling the minds of this individuals indeed!

And some of them are ridiculously and laughably arrogant despite their ignorance.

It really is a case of "he who does not know and does not know that he does not know ---- is a fool".

^^^ Look, I thought you had something worthwhile to say but unfortunately you have proven yourself to be a mere liar.

It is also beginning to occur to me that you are probably a neophyte and maybe just out of your teens --- in which case I won't waste my time with your type.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]It is sad how many fail to see that they have become the same monster they claim to fight against[/quote]Going back to where I started: this is a demonstration of why I have said before that some of the evangelical atheist religionists can now be called fundagelical atheists.

@ Ymodulus

Go and read my explanation of "separation of church and state" on the thread linked below and educate yourself --- and even maybe educate your law lecturer(s) in the process.


https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/4#10838785

https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/13#10999290

Hmmm, let's make this thing more interesting.

Here are the three statements in issue so far:

1. (My grandfather was a theist) “He prayed to God for peace, he prayed to God for strength.”

2. "My grandfather was an atheist; he did not believe in god but he looked for strength within himself"

3. "My grandfather was a satanist; he found that his satanism gave him inner strength"


Whether or not you are a Christian or even theist, which one would you object to if it had been said by the school girl in this story.

Which one will you NOT object to?

Ymodulus: you woud be satisfied.

So you have no logical explanation. So, in truth, you are the LIAR.

Oh, I repeat: I wouldn't have a problem if a school girl reads: "my grandfather was a satanist; he found that his satanism gave him inner strength"

Stalwert: This is a pity, a child sat down put in some hard work and came up with a beautiful poem that represented her thoughts and intellect and yet some individuals simply edited this thought just because she mentioned God! Haba this is tyranny of the highest order, and it is exceptionally laughable that someone is shouting secularity when this is simply some child sitting down to write an idea. Is secularity now an enemy of freedom of though? Freedom of expression? Secularity has never meant this and or else the ignoramus must explain why every politician that hold office must take his oat of office holding a bible or mentioning God? Abeg secularity simply means religion cannot dictate state policy, in fact religion can influence state policy like we see in the abortion issue, gay right etc! And someone tell this ignoramus that they are privately run schools which have religious affiliation, so what garbage are you guys hinting at?

Thank you; this is what I explained at length on the other thread I linked to earlier.

As I said, many of the evangelical atheists are in truth ignorant of the real meaning of "separation of church and state" while others simply want to use it to make atheism effectively the only religion.

Ymodulus: no but this made it a lie

Is that the logic of atheism? Is there any sense in what you have said?

OK: as an atheist given to "logic" (yeah, right), explain logically how it was made a lie.

Ymodulus: yeah it surpprised me

Do you notice that another poster said something similar ----- using Amadioha? Did that also "surprise" you and was it too a "lie"?

Here: [quote author=uj_sizzle]Rubbish. If they have a problem with her tribute containing 'God', why did they chose her to read it?
Since when are tributes edited to suit the listeners? It's supposed to come from a person's heart, what they did was wrong.
And yes i would still think it wrong if she had amadioha in there and was asked to exchange it with God.[/quote]

Ymodulus: yeah it surpprised me

Does the fact that it "surprised" you make it a "lie"?

By the way, having followed the link I found the comments interesting.

I'd like to just mention something. I've been living in Germany now for a while after being a GI, and a few years ago I was looking at a flee-market, and saw this small old hard covered book. It was the New Testament, which was given to soldiers from 1941-44. Inside the cover is a message from the Commander in Chief at the time, FDR. It says as follows: The White House, Washington. March 6, 1941. To the members of the Army: As commander in Chief I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States. Throughout the centuries men of many faiths and diverse origins have found in the Sacred Book words of wisdom, counsel and inspiration. It is a fountain of strength and now, as always, an aid in attaining the highest aspirations of the human soul. Very sincerely yours, Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Whether one liked FRD or not is not why I send this, it is because it is a wonderful thing to behold a time when the Lord still received reverence. Thank You.

One of my teachers explained this to me when I was in High School. Separation of church and state meant that the school or a school official couldn't endorse a religion, or lead a prayer at a school. But, a student could endorse a religion, or lead a prayer if they wanted. Separation limited the school and the teachers, but not the students. The idea that she couldn't use the word god because one person complained is ridiculous. You can't please everyone and someone is always going to be upset, that doesn't mean you have no freedoms. I hope the people involved with the girls censorship get reprimanded for this ridiculous small mindedness

And especially the one below

The Constitution guarantees us "freedom OF religion" not freedom FROM religion. I totally agree with REMant. The STATE cannot coerce us to pay taxes to a STATE RELIGION but that's exactly what we're being forced to do. The religion is known as "Humanism."

Now let us change the line that caused the protest and let us assume that the girl's grandfather was an atheist. So she writes:

"My grandfather was an atheist; he did not believe in god but he looked for strength within himself"

Compare and contrast . . . . .



PS by the way: I wouldn't have a problem if a school girl reads: "my grandfather was a satanist; he found that his satanism gave him inner strength"

[quote author=Mr_Anony]It is sad how many fail to see that they have become the same monster they claim to fight against[/quote]This is precisely why it was necessary to go into much trouble (including unpleasant but necessary heated exchanges) on that thread where I took the pains to explain the real meaning of "separation of church and state". As I said then, many of the evangelical atheists who shout "separation of church and state" are quite ignorant of the real concept while some others are duplicitous and seek to use it to destroy any trace of religion wherever they can get away with it.

https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/4#10838785

https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/13#10999290

etc



Edited

davidylan: seriously? what a joke you are. This thread alone is enough evidence that you are guilty of what you accuse others of.

Are you minding him. I saw him making (probably jealous) denigrations of your education etc (granted he later apologised) and calling others "religious nutjobs" on this thread alone.

In any event it is the modus operandi of his and some other sciolists who come here to form "intellectual" without realising the fundamental importance of honesty or indeed truthfulness in the quest for truth. People who are blinded by bigotry that they cannot see any good in religion generally and especially in Christianity.

Simply ridiculous.

plaetton: Well, each to his own. I thought the general format of the the forum was to thrash, debunk and point out weakpoints in a discussion , rather than focusing upon and stalking individuals for character assasinations, which what is what you do best. I am not your only victim,many have noted and felt your bitter personal vandettas on this forum. So I am not bothered.
I get off the cliff sometimes, but I 'm quick to retrace my steps and make amends.
Like I said, you are who you are.

I think an intellectually dishonest person is one who is never wrong and tries to bully anyone or those who are not in agreement with his or her viewpoint.
Anyway, enough for now.

Your problem.

It is a public forum; anyone can make whatever contribution they wish to a thread or choose whom they think worthwhile to "discuss" with.

You are the one frequently asking me to engage in discussion with you; you have made the request many times; even today on this thread. So, who is "stalking" who?

I have maintained my stance always; I am not interested ---- as long as you maintain your usual intellectually dishonest disposition.

plaetton: Good. I'm glad no war.
When you say intellectually dishonest disposition, I hope you are not referring to me because I am far from being or doing anything intellectual, Unless, you are giving me a promotion.
In that case, Thank you.

But you and I quite different.
I do like to engage in discussion with people who have an intellectually dishonest disposition. That is why I love to argue with religious people, especially the educated ones.
Honestly speaking,I am still trying to see where and how religious belief interfaces with the intellect. Its an honest search.
I may never understand it.

As for conspiracies, they exists, otherwise we would not even have the word or have conspiracy as crime on our criminal codes.
For example, I can tell you that right this moment, thousands of intellectually dishonest men and women are conspiring about how they are going to pick the pockets of others tomorrow in churches throughout most of the world, especially Nigeria.
If that makes me a conspiracy nut, then I will wear it a great badge of honour.

1. You know very well that my view is that you are extremely intellectually dishonest.

2. You know very well that I have caught you expressly and undeniably at clear intellectual dishonesty several times; on some of the occasions, you went mum or underground after I pointed things out to you.

3. You know very well that on one occasion, you actually expressly stated that you would deliberately maintain and continue an intellectually dishonest approach; this was when you were still using the globexl (or whatever) name; even one of the atheists tried to call you to order on that occasion.

4. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, I think you are extremely intellectually dishonest (granted some of your problems could be put down to poor comprehension); that with your predilection for conspiracy theories have the effect that I am not readily inclined to engage with you in discussion.

plaetton: Seasons greetings and welcome to the discussions.
So what is your own personal opinion on the distinction and or similarity between a Temple and an High Place?.

And by the way, should we sign a peace treaty this coming year or maintain status quo?

Seasons greetings.

I don't need to express an opinion; I am happy to watch and chip in whatever I feel like chipping in.

I'm not at war with anybody and don't need to sign any peace treaty. My stance remains that I do not readily engage in discussions with those who have an intellectually dishonest disposition and a predilection for conspiracy theories.