₦airaland Forum

^^^ You are joining the league of intellectually dishonest atheists ---- and you know it because you know the history and the older threads in which the arguments about atheism, in particular evangelical atheism, as a religion were thrashed out.

There are atheists on this forum who have stated clearly that they believe in juju.

@Kay 17

Please answer the question that I am posing below.

First consider the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution which says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...."

You will be aware that many people treat that provision as amounting to "separation of Church and State"; in fact you may be aware of the following thread in which this very issue was addressed extensively: https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/11#10969297


My question is this: would you say that "atheism" is one of the "religions" that the American State is supposed to be separate from under that 1st Amendment provision (or if you like under the concept of "separation of Church and State" )?

Kay 17: Given that Religion presently has a horrible name and reputation, peeps like Uyi try morning, afternoon and night; even with expenses of placing logic on its head: to include atheists and skeptics in the wagon of religion!

Within the package Faith, lies the absurd assumption of an unquestionable divine authority and what consequently follows with that in mind is faulty.

Natural processes such as the water cycle, snowflakes, will obviously be deemed natural! If you claim ID, then impliedly there is no Nature.

@Kay17

Consider the statement below made by an atheist from https://www.nairaland.com/948243/how-did-became-atheist#11151169

IamPhantom: You guys are making this thing personal. It isn't. Crusading for atheism makes it into a form of religion, the very thing i do not want or need. Atheism is not a religion. . . .

Now let us work on that quote together.

1. As you can see, the poster goes on to say that "atheism" is not a religion. I add that this is true if you are talking of a passive atheist or one who does not think or care about God's existence, is irreligious and is not bothered about other's religion and religious beliefs. It is of course also true of dogs, cows, monkeys etc who we are also told, at least logically, are also atheists.

2. Theism is not a religion --- however Christianity, a form of theism, is a religion. But then see what follows mutatis mutandis in 3 below.

3. Atheism is not a religion ---- however, evangelical atheism which is a form of atheism is indeed a religion.

4. Remember that the American Supreme Court has also ruled that atheism, really in the form of evangelical atheism, is indeed a religion.

5. You should think again ----- carefully; then you will see that it is entirely logical and it is indeed the reality that evangelical atheism is a religion.

6. Finally, you can also consider the article previously posted at link below to see a reasonable outline of the defining elements for ascertaining a religion and how/why evangelical atheism fits in.

https://www.nairaland.com/546562/atheism-religion/11#9255256

On 'eternal separation' and what is also sometimes called 'annihilation' (rather than eternal burning in a literal fire), it is worth mentioning that there is a significant number of those who will be seen ordinarily as orthodox and sound in the doctrines of historic Christianity, even evangelicals, who subscribe to the view. I am sure that John Stott subscribes to the annihilation view; I think Billy Graham said he was unsure and that is why he didn't preach hell (or something to that effect and I might not have represented that accurately). Also in 1995 the Doctrine Commission of the Church of England produced a report which was really focused on salvation but what gave it huge media attention was a rather small part of it which also basically supported the eternal separation rather than literal fire line.

JeSoul: Done. How body dey now my in-law?

We dey ooo; thanks a lot.

@ Moderators

Spambot! Please help untag last post on page. 10 Q.
https://www.nairaland.com/879808/post-yoruba-christian-hymns-here/3

Spambot ha! Well, so much for joining thread with gusto.

Enuwe, e no fit catch me this time AS I only remember first verse.

Ẹmi Ọrun Gb'adura Wa by Thomas Ẹkundayọ Phillips http://africlassical..co.uk/2011/08/christopher-oyesiku-reviews-thomas.html

Ẹmi ọrun, gb'adura wa
Wa gbe 'nu ile yi
Sọkalẹ pẹl'agbara Rẹ
Wa, Ẹmi Mimọ, wa.

Another one that, firstly, I like but also which has international critical recognition and sometimes sung by even 'highbrow' Anglican churches in UK (and also in churches in the US as I've just discovered) is:

Wa Wa Wa Ẹmi Mimọ

Wa Wa Wa Ẹmi Mimọ
Ẹmi Olore
Wa wa wa Alagbara
Alagbara Giga (or Mẹta) oh
Wa oh, wa oh, wa oh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw-_bSn90lE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPXiQ0I1HcM

Fantastic thread!

Let me join in with gusto and start with this one first posted by the Allemania footballer.

Miroslav klose: . . . The song i love to listen is

Ire to fe wa la o ma sin titi

Baba ire la o maa sin
Baba ire la o ma bo
Iwo to fe wa la o ma sin titi
Ninu ogo o la re

I love it very much too and I've been able to get a version of the wording at the following site which has some 30 odd Yoruba hymns: http://belovedbrown..co.uk/2010/04/yoruba-hymns.html


Iwo to fẹ wa la o ma sin

1. Iwọ to fẹ wa la o ma sin titi
Oluwa Olore wa
Iwọ to n ṣọ wa n’nu idanwo aye
Mimọ, logo ọla rẹ

Baba, iwọ l’a o ma sin
Baba, iwọ l’a o ma bọ
Iwọ to fẹ wa l’a o ma sin titi
Mimọ l’ogo ọla rẹ.

2. Iwọ to nsure s’ohun t’a gbin s’aye
T’aye fi nrohun jẹ o
Awọn to mura lati ma ṣ’otọ
Wọn tun nyọ n’nu iṣẹ rẹ.

Baba . . .

3. Iwọ to nf’agan lọmọ to npe ranṣẹ
Ninu ọla rẹ to ga
Eni t’o ti ṣ’alaileso si dupẹ
Fun ‘ṣẹ ogo ọla rẹ

Baba . . .

4. Eni t’ebi npa le ri ayọ ninu
Agbara nla rẹ to ga
Awọn to ti nwoju rẹ fun anu
Wọn tun n yọ n’nu iṣẹ rẹ.

Baba . . .

5. F’alafia rẹ fun ijọ rẹ l’aye
K’ore-ọfẹ rẹ ma ga;
k’awọn ẹni tirẹ ko ma yọ titi
ninu ogo iṣẹ rẹ.

Baba . . . Amin.

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14944470

Evangelical atheists who want to convert the world to unbelief are copying religion at its dogmatic worst. They think human life would be vastly improved if only everyone believed as they do, when a little history shows that trying to get everyone to believe the same thing is a recipe for unending conflict.

Encore per John Gray

It is unlikely that Mao, who launched his assault on the people and culture of Tibet with the slogan "Religion is poison", would have agreed that his atheist world-view had no bearing on his policies. It is true he was worshipped as a semi-divine figure - as Stalin was in the Soviet Union. But in developing these cults, communist Russia and China were not backsliding from atheism. They were demonstrating what happens when atheism becomes a political project. The invariable result is an ersatz religion that can only be maintained by tyrannical means.

^^^ Per John Gray http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/01/09/3213725.htm

Also http://www.investigatingatheism.info/johngray.html

Zealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody.

To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion.

Per John Gray http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/01/09/3213725.htm

Also http://www.investigatingatheism.info/johngray.html

Zealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody.

To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion.

Also:

In seeking universal conversion, evangelical atheism belongs with Christianity and Islam.

Ibid.

. . . evangelical atheists have positioned themselves as defenders of liberal freedoms - rarely inquiring where these freedoms have come from, and never allowing that religion may have had a part in creating them.

Among contemporary anti-religious polemicists, only the French writer Michel Onfray has taken Nietzsche as his point of departure. In some ways, Onfray's In Defence of Atheism is superior to anything English-speaking writers have published on the subject. Refreshingly, Onfray recognises that evangelical atheism is an unwitting imitation of traditional religion:

"Many militants of the secular cause look astonishingly like clergy. Worse: like caricatures of clergy."

More clearly than his Anglo-Saxon counterparts, Onfray understands the formative influence of religion on secular thinking. Yet he seems not to notice that the liberal values he takes for granted were partly shaped by Christianity and Judaism

Per John Gray from http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/01/09/3213725.htm

Also http://www.investigatingatheism.info/johngray.html

Nowadays most atheists are avowed liberals. What they want - so they will tell you - is not an atheist regime, but a secular state in which religion has no role. They clearly believe that, in a state of this kind, religion will tend to decline.

But America's secular constitution has not ensured a secular politics. Christian fundamentalism is more powerful in the United States than in any other country, while it has very little influence in Britain, which has an established church.

Contemporary critics of religion go much further than demanding disestablishment. It is clear that he wants to eliminate all traces of religion from public institutions. Awkwardly, many of the concepts such critics deploy - including the idea of religion itself - have been shaped by monotheism. Lying behind secular fundamentalism is a conception of history that derives from religion.

^^^ No be today, see here: https://www.nairaland.com/715030/find-existence-god-threatening/1#8765354

Pastor AIO: Wikipedia is one source of information. It has it's faults. There are also many other more academic sources of information which also have their faults. The issue shouldn't be whether the source is wikipedia or not but rather whether the information is right or wrong, or backed up with good arguments or not.

Often when I try to find links to back up what I'm saying and google some key words the first links to come up are wikipedia links. They provide the easiest access to information. And of course anyone that wants to study something further could just scroll down to the bottom of the wiki page and follow the sources that Wiki itself cites.

Let everybody make of and do with Wikipedia what they prefer.

Pastor AIO: As for the complexity of issues being discussed, this is a public forum where people are discussing various issues with various levels of understanding according to the individual perspectives. As such every opinion is valid in it's own way.

The religion forum used to be like that in the early days ---- and I have said this before e.g. here https://www.nairaland.com/849403/45-questions-skeptics-ask-christians#9997369

There is also no question that some came on the scene claiming to be "intellectuals" etc and to a considerable extent they are responsible for making the religion section what it has become.

Pastor AIO: The idea that some ideas are too complex for certain people to discuss is very dangerous even if it were true. . . . . Should we therefore say that those who haven't studied it deeply with all it's complexities cannot be a christian?

No one, at least not me, has ever prevented anyone from discussing whatever they like at whatever level. It is up to each individual to decide whether it is worth his/her while to get involved. One thing I know is that many of the self-acclaimed "intellectuals" seem to suggest that they know it all when quite often we can see that they are simply, erm "bloviating" (thanks to davidylan). People discuss issues as if they are experts when we can often tell that they have not even read 1/10 of the scholarship on the subject.

Pastor AIO: Everybody can bring their opinions to the table backed with their arguments. Those that are more knowledgeable can then help to correct the opinions of those that are less knowledgeable. Again they will do this by providing evidence and laying out superior arguments. There is nothing wrong with being wrong in an environment where everybody is learning. However sneering and jibing at someone you don't agree with without attempting to provide a counter argument is unhelpful to put it mildly. Simplistic opinions can be squashed simply by providing facts or examples that contradict it, or by extending the argument/opinion to the point of absurdity. Then even without offering an alternative opinion you can show the person you are discussing with how simplistic his standpoint was.

Well, here the only thing you have going for you is your stated intended change of attitude. This thread itself is a good example of my point on this. Who started the sneering and jibing? Who first maligned another's "intellectual capacity"? Only it turns out that the maligned were actually the more knowledgeable. The very point is that some were going on as though they had all the knowledge and the others had no brain cells etc Is that an atmosphere for everyone to bring their own opinions to the table?

Pastor AIO: When any sort of criticism is viewed as an attack rather than an opportunity to grow then such a person's position is very precarious indeed.

There is "criticism" and there is idiocy.

When someone says that "Jesus was a bastard" for example you can call it "criticism" if you like, just recognise that others are also free and entitled to see it differently.

VULCAN: @ENIGMA. My bad. A thousand apologies.

Cheers man, no problem at all. I thought your post was very clever to be honest.

VULCAN: @ENIGMA: read it again, slower this time. If u still don't "get" it then ask drzed- he did!!

Actually I "get" "it" but you don't get me.

Read my post again --- carefully; and you will see that it was supporting what you wrote!

Cheers Obnelly

I swas spending time engaged in quite some ruckus on the religion thread; I'll try to pop in here more.

Meanwhile nna men, guys have gone far here oo; quite nice.

VULCAN: Of course Dana Air is a "Nigerian" company as it meets such definition by its communications mgr as being registered in Nigeria with Nigerians as shareholders.

Here are some other "Nigerian" companies
MTN
Etisalat
Airtel
DSTV
Heineken
BA
Virgin Atlantic
Air France
Accenture
PWC
P&G
SPAR

Since we all know that these companies are "Nigerian" then there is no reason to doubt the Tony chap. I think with these type of peers we are now totally convinced dat Dana Air is a Nigerian company

^^^ Honestly, sometimes Nigerians can be so easy to fool! The fact that the chap puts out some wooly statement about the company having Nigerian directors should not mean we close our minds and not ask pertinent questions.

Ah, after posting above I realise that the picture is actually the later version with 7 LNBs; I had posted another version earlier before with fewer LNBs.



EDIT Actually, my confusion was due to the fact that I thought only the picture had been moved to this thread; now I realise my whole post was moved --- how did that happen? Perhaps the mods have the ability to move posts from one thread to another?

Bamsat: Nice work. Kindly eplain ur work, pls

Hi, sorry I haven't been in this section in a while.

That dish setup is based in the UK where European satellites are much easier to receive. The picture was posted in the "early" days when multi-LNB setups were not common or well known among members here. Now, I've seen very good examples/pictures and quite capable people here.

Anyway to exlain the setup:

- the dish is a Raven 90cm (very good dish)
- the central LNB is focused at Hotbird 13e
- the other LNBs in that picture received (IIRC) 1w, 7e, 9e, 16e, 19e & 28e.
- I've since added one more LNB so now on that dish I receive: 1w (sometimes), 5e, 7e & 9e (on one LNB), 13e, 16e, 19e, 28e.
- apart from that dish, I also have a small dish on a motor for receiving Western satellites that I can't receive on the dish in the picture

If there is anything else you'd like me to clarify, I'd be happy to.

@ frosbel (edited)

Also, if you look carefully at the list of names:

- one Nigerian is listed twice i.e. Elias (and I know for sure it is one and the same person)
- some of the companies that are directors at least have Indian names
- one director listed as 'British' is of Indian origin - at least by his name
- and some of the Indian names suggest a family relationship of some sort
- what is the nationality of the controlling shareholding of the other companies listed as directors
- who are the nominees/representatives of these companies on the Board since the companies are themselves artificial persons

Overall, if the company is Indian owned or controlled, it is not 'racism' to call it an Indian company.

No fight --- just facts.

^^^ The directorship is not the determinant of whether the company is an "Indian" company or not. Also, the fact that the company is incorporated in Nigeria (a mandatory requirement anyway) while relevant does not mean that effective control may not be Nigerian. What determines it is the nationality of the controlling shareholding/shareholders.

When Virgin was operating in Nigeria, was it really a Nigerian company as such?

^^ However, the question arises though --- who are the shareholders of Dana Air and/or Dana Group?

OAM4J: Well they wanted to make it a surprise package, thinking majority will buy it and praise him for it.

If that is the case, they are mumus united then.

The name change was a dumb move in the first place; the school had built up enormous goodwill on the 'Unilag/University of Lagos' brand, now they are being asked to build a new brand from scratch pointlessly. Pointlessly as Abiola could have been honoured in another even more befitting way.

Second, the 'surprise' approach is enormously incompetent and ignorant of managerial and legal proprieties. How could you not think it necessary to consult the University leadership first or to go through the proper legal machinery for changing the name?

Pastor AIO: Well it wasn't. If you must know, the first time that I was aware of that point was while I was sitting watching television as a child with my mum and my dad, and someone on the tv said that the british constitution wasn't written. My mother made a surprised remark, and my father calmly told her that it was true, that they were only a set of traditions. So I hope that puts that to rest for you. And also note that I didn't state it as a fact but put it as a question (in line with my promise to myself to take a more humble position).

My first reference to Wikipedia was also a question - a passing question in brackets ---- in particular bearing in mind the frequent use of Wikipedia here.

Second, one thing I know is that many issues are far far far more complex than the discussions here; in fact, that is why I keep out of a lot of discussions.

Pastor AIO: Personally I would take this as a great opportunity to practice the teachings of Jesus. Matt 5:39

Well, let everybody deal with the situation as they feel appropriate and even biblical. When necessary, neither Jesus himself, nor John the Baptist, nor Peter nor Paul spared fools.

By the way, perhaps you had not realised this, but you are in fact one of those who strengthen and encourage the people throwing the vile abuse at Christians all over the Board. I have quite often shaken my head in sadness at this.

^^^ Well the line about the British Constitution reminds of Wikipedia entries (and gaps in them) and it crossed my mind that it might have been from Wikipedia.

About slanging matches, the question to ask is who starts it. Also, from my perspective, it seems that when the militant/evangelical atheists and other non-Christians throw even the vilest of abuse at us it is not an issue; it only becomes an issue when we repay them even if only mildly ---- and quite often after having overlooked their obnoxiousness for a considerable time as is the case with the "ant (or was it fly?) hunting the eagle" on this thread.

Pastor AIO: Actually it wasn't a jibe. If you felt jibed on any level then it was unintentional and I'm sorry to have made you feel that way. I thought that your reference to wikipedia, having nothing to do with what I wrote, was a jibe. If it wasn't then I'm sorry.

My reference to Wikipedia wasn't a jibe. If anything, it was a part reflection of my view about Wikipedia.

Wikipedia can be very good for general information, introduction or general/beginner's idea about a subject. But sometimes, it is lacking in important technical detail. The post that the British Constitution consists of "vague" court rulings and traditions is the kind of thing that you sometimes see in Wikipedia and which can mislead people not versed in the subject and which irks people with better knowledge/information.

The line "their students as mumus" et seq was more what I had in mind anyway. As I have said before, it is all good. My attitude is simple: 'respect begets respect' and 'deal with each poster according to your reasonable perception of their attitude'.

Who's making jibes? And don't we know your level?

And your post to which I responded was not a "jibe"?