₦airaland Forum

Logical fallacy after logical fallacy:

The Nazi also wanted to make trains run on time, to build great infrastructure projects such as roads, dams, agro-industrial complexes, etc.

Does it mean that these ideas are necessarily bad because the Nazis once had these self-same ideas.

Every idea should be evaluated on its merit not on whether so-and-so share the idea.

Oxford Amnesty Lecture, 1997. Published as Nicholas Humphrey, 1998, “What shall we tell
the children?”, Social Research, 65, 777-805; also as, 1998, “What shall we tell the
children?” in The Values of Science, ed. Wes Williams, pp 58-79, Oxford: Westview Press.


WHAT SHALL WE TELL THE CHILDREN? 1


"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me," the proverb goes. And
since, like most proverbs, this one captures at least part of the truth, it makes sense that
Amnesty International should have devoted most of its efforts to protecting people from the
menace of sticks and stones not words. Worrying about words must have seemed something
of a luxury.
Still the proverb, like most proverbs, is also in part obviously false. The fact is that
words can hurt. For a start, they can hurt people indirectly by inciting others to hurt them: a
crusade preached by a pope, racist propaganda from the Nazis, malevolent gossip from a rival.
. . They can hurt people, not so indirectly, by inciting them to take actions that harm
themselves: the lies of a false prophet, the blackmail of a bully, the flattery of a seducer. . .
And words can hurt directly, too: the lash of a malicious tongue, the dreaded message carried
by a telegram, the spiteful onslaught that makes the hearer beg his tormentor say no more.
Sometimes indeed mere words can kill outright. There is a story by Christopher
Cherniak about a deadly "word-virus" that appeared one night on a computer screen.2 It took
the form of a brain-teaser, a riddle, so paradoxical that it fatally twisted the mind of anyone
who heard or read it, making him fall into an irreversible coma. A fiction? Yes, of course. But
a fiction with some horrible parallels in the real world. There have been all too many examples
historically of how words can take possession of a person's mind, destroying his will to live.
Think, for example, of so-called voodoo death. The witch-doctor has merely to cast his spell
of death upon a man and within hours the victim will collapse and die. Or, on a larger and
more dreadful scale, think of the mass suicide at Jonestown in Guyana in 1972. The cult leader
Jim Jones had only to plant certain crazed ideas in the heads of his disciples, and at his signal
nine hundred of them willingly drank cyanide.

"Words will never hurt me"? The truth may rather be that words have a unique power
to hurt. And if we were to make an inventory of the man-made causes of human misery, it
would be words, not sticks and stones, that head the list. Even guns and high explosives might
be considered playthings by comparison. Vladimir Mayakovsky wrote in his poem "I": "On the
pavement / of my trampled soul / the soles of madmen / stamp the print of rude, crude,
words."3
. . .
. . .
. . .

I am talking about moral and religious education. And especially the education a child
receives at home, where parents are allowed – even expected – to determine for their
children what counts as truth and falsehood, right and wrong.
Children, I'll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to
other people's bad ideas – no matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly,
have no god-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally
choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children's knowledge, to bring them up in an
atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of
their own faith.

In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense. And we as a
society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their
children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible, or that the planets rule their
lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a
dungeon.

More more, turn to http://www.humphrey.org.uk/papers/1998WhatShallWeTell.pdf

Pastor AIO:
Oh yeah! . . and the bit about rights . . . please don't go pilfering religious concepts that you obviously have no understanding of.

What are religious concepts? Are you implying that the so-called beneficial aspects of religion (or Christianity) were absent in pre-Christian Africa, India, and America?

If they were not absent, can it be said that these concepts are really religious?

BTW, did you read my thread about how Christianity plagiarised most of its tenets from the early pagan cult of the Roman empire (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113860.0.html)?

How could you have enjoyed the act with the weight of guilt and defilement on your mind?

BTW, did you call out " oh my God, oh my God, oh my God" at the moment of climax?

Pastor AIO:
What nonsense!! This is so delusional and baseless it is beyond belief.

I am very surprise you have taken a very vitriolic tone to this post. I fail to see why you say this philosophy is delusional and baseless, although it clearly states there that the premise of the position is founded on scientific rationalism and the human compassion (I suppose this could be extended to animal compassion, given our improved understanding of our relationship with animals). Like it said, the pillars of humanism are firstly humans, secondly seeking understanding of reality through scientific inquiry. This does not by any means claim that all knowledge of the human conditions and reality are known and will be known. But we can derive workable philosophies from what we already know. For instance, we do not know all there is about gravity. But we know enough to build aircrafts, builds, satellites, etc. With each passing day, a little more knowledge is uncovered.

Interesting to note that most of these advances have happened in the last 250 - 300 years. Although a lot was know about the nature of reality in the old days, there was little or no systematic methodology for investigating reality. With the advent of the scientific method, human understanding have improved many folds.

For many thousands of years, religion and superstitions held sway and persecuted proponents of scientific rationalism such as Galileo, Geordano Bruno, Darwin etc. Yet time has eventually proved these great deliverers from darkness true.

All religions eventually get found out and eventually die due to being found out to be false. Thousands of religions have suffered this fate and the contemporary religions are no exception and will too. The trend is inexorably down.

Pastor AIO:
These guys really need to go and study human nature. Yes, we do have faculties that allow us to experience compassion but that is just one of loads of other tendencies in human nature.

Like the article said, the humanist philosophy is founded on the understanding of reality through scientific rationalism. So humanism is informed by all the great works of scientific achievements.

How do you know they have not studied human nature? Interestingly, by which methodology do you propose such a study be undertaken? Glue - the options are science, religion, superstition, dreams, guesswork, abrahamic impositions etc.

Pastor AIO:
How do the humanists propose to make people compassionate and not their normal selfish gory destructive selves. [/b]What?! Appeal to their rationality?Oh, I get it! Human thought and actions are so rational. All you have to do it explain to them and they will understand. Someone should have just talked to Hitler and told him that killling Jews was not humanistic. He would have understood.

[b]How do the humanists propose to make people compassionate and not their normal selfish gory destructive selves. - The fact that you cannot see ways in which this might be achieved is a deficiency of your thinking, not an argument against humanism.

For a start - education - cross-cultural education. But this is not only a humanist value. Just see the global response to natural disasters in various parts of the world, the contribution to charities, the diffusion of tensions in regions of socio-political strife. These compassionate human acts have been achieved largely through education. Can we (humans) go even further than what has been achieved so far? Sure, we can. This is what the humanist theorist are calling for.

Take the case of the alleviation of diseases such as AIDS/HIV. Can proper education result in the reduction of the disease? Sure it can. 20 years ago, there were probably less than 500 cases of AIDS in African. Today, Africa leads the world in the incidence of the disease. One factor accounting for the rapid spread of the disease is the lack of education. Even worse, religious dogma has held to impede efforts at tacking the spread of AIDS. If AIDS is finally brought under control, it will be in spite of religion.

How naive is this doctrine of humanism!

I what way is humanism naive? Are its goals not intended to the betterment of the human conditions? Are these not achievable. I have to keep reminding you to look at the progress humans have made in the last 200 years with the decline of the suffucating stranglehold of superstitions and religions.

So how does humanism propose to deal with the multinationals and mega corporations that are daily reducing the value of live for most of the inhabitants of this planet?I can't believe how daft this is.

Have they made a proper study of the problem? such as where did the problems of selfishness, trashing the planet, greed, neurosis, war etc come from? Because I think you need to have a good understanding of these and why they arose before you start proposing solutions. Don't you think so?

The quality of life of humans worldwide have improved many fold thanks to global cooperation, technology, etc. Think of the afflictions and deprivation most of the world suffered before the days of modern medicines, electricity, transport, etc. Many of the ills of the past are being tackled with not only technology and science, but with increased human cooperation. Globalisation and multinationals, overall have been a force to good. There have delivered goods, services and jobs in many parts of the world where such would not have been available ordinarily. (In fact, I am writing this post during my lunch break. I have spent all morning today working with colleagues in France, Brazil, Algeria and India. We are building and infrastructure for financial trading. My employers are one of the world's biggest banks, with massive investments all around the world, creating jobs and services for people in as diverse a culture as Georgia, India, Malaysia, Brazil, etc. The amount of capital invested in these countries measures in the trillion of dollars. This company also contributes greatly in humanitarian activities worldwide.)

Admittedly, there have been some devastating consequences of globalisation, like environment damage, etc, etc. But the challenge is not only on the humanist to deal with these. It is on the whole of society to find a better way of managing cross-border cooperation.

BTW, consider the massive investment that Japan made in countries like Malaysia and Singapore that has literally pulled these countries from middle-age societies to advance technological economies. Granted, the problem the world faces today is to marry up technological advancement with social and humanistic development. This is a challenge for everyone. This fact is recognised in the humanist philosophy.

On the other hand, religions are not primarily concerned about the state of humans on the here and now. They put much store on the afterlife. None of the problems you refer to are solvable by religious pontifications.

On the issue of morality, science is making great strides at understand its origins. Take a look at http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/21/healthscience/snmorals.php.

The humanistic philosophy has the advantage of being capable of admitting new understanding about reality and if anything can be said about the human conditions, it is that a lot more stands to be incorporated into humanism. Contrarily, the religious will inevitable re-interprete their dogmas and re-invent new gods as more and more is unveiled about the nature of reality.

mishooo:
All that said, the topic is "Juju, real or not" and i've said my own part. My submission again is this : 'Juju' is very real but the infinite Being (God) is more REAL.

Ibi ti ko ba ti si ile, la ti n jiyan okiti .
we only have to argue about who can somersault the most when we are far from land.

@Tasma, if you are really sure i don't know what am saying, you can send me your real name, your father's name and your mother's maiden name. i don't even need your location. i'll pass them to the right section.

How can one demonstrate that the claimed "power" of juju are real? Do you think that there are means by which this might be verified?

Not long ago, these same claims pervaded most of western Europe. Why do you rarely hear of such claims in Europe today?

What is real is the fear of juju, the the claim powers of juju.

Check out James Randi's website (http://www.randi.org/) where he debunks people who claims such powers. It is very instructive;

One day, scientific rationalism will get into the African mind. I live in hope.

Tasma:
@ mishooo

"How many of you have seen a bird turn into a human (LIVE) ??
How many of you have seen a REAL witch Doctor (babalawo) ??
How many of you have seen a REAL 'Bante' (the charm thats tied around the waist) ??
am not talking of films guys !!!"

Have YOU seen a bird turn into a human (LIVE)?? Paradoxically I will use a statement you made to try to explain things to you. Yes our level of education and enlightenment affects how we perceive things in life, for example a villager might be awestruck at the sight of space shuttle, that does not make a space shuttle supernatural. Your level of education and enlightenment obviously affects your perception on things. That is why one persons subjective view on an event cannot be taken as truth. The fact that you may have thought you saw a bird turn into a human, does not actually mean that is what really happened. Your perceptive of such an event is based on your own tendency towards a supernatural explanation for things you cannot understand. I wonder what will happen if you watched LIVE an hour long magic show by the likes of David Copperfield or some other great magician. You'll probably leave that show convinced that "white man jazz pass black man jazz o". Not wanting to put you down man but just try to broaden your horizons a bit.

Cheers

Brilliant, Tasma.

Allow me to summarise this by quoting Arthur C Clarke, who died recently.

"Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic", A C Clarke.

jydeboy:
NO WAY! Nothing to offer except the perpetual hold ups they cause on the Lagos - Ibadan expressway during those baseless programmes they organise anytime they feel they need more money.

You are kidding, aren't you? Do they really do this, hold up highway traffic to peddle their stinking dogma?

What is Nigeria coming to? Has the government authorities lost it mind? I thought there was only a handful of idiots and gullible dummies in that country. Now I have to revise my mind.

Why don't you check this out? http://www.rationalistinternational.net/

Which aspect of the Christian (or religious ) life do you only grudgingly adhere to? If you had your way, which elements of the religious life would you be glad to see consigned to oblivion?

For example, are you faithful to your spouse only because it is required as part of your religious commitment? Do you give tithes only because it is biblically required?

The Sly:
I think say u be white boy before.

Abi, I no be white boy oh. I commot for Africa, from som contry corner nigerland wey dem di callam say Cameroon.

imhotep:
Sounds like NAZI propaganda mingled with atheistic-Communist incorrectness.

Wen it don pass you, you dey commot your nazi and communist palaver.

This is what Jesus is supposed to have said;

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.


Which scriptures is Jesus referring to here? The Old Testament?

"Man is born in ignorance of everything around him; and his ignorance of natural causes begat
terror; terror, superstition; superstition, priests and priesthood; whose interests and unbending efforts are
exerted to perpetuate the ignorance, the fear and the superstition that gave them birth";

Mitchell Logan
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0766192814/ref=sib_dp_ptu#reader-link

"Man is born in ignorance of everything around him; and his ignorance of natural causes begat
terror; terror, superstition; superstition, priest and priesthood; whose interests and unbending efforts are
exerted to perpetuate the ignorance, the fear and the superstition that gave them birth";

Mitchell Logan
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0766192814/ref=sib_dp_ptu#reader-link

The Final Superstition: A Critical Evaluation of the Judeo-Christian Legacy
“, covers almost every objection and issue that a non-believer could raise
--Dr. Gordon Stein

“, a gold mine of information for all those on the verge of departure from religion."
--Prof. Delos McKown

“, cogent, insightful witty analysis, "
--Asst. Prof. Sharon Nichols

", absolutely the best refutation that exists. (I know because I've read them all!)"
--April Dorsey-Tyler

Our society continues to grapple with a host of complex socioeconomic issues such as the means of controlling population growth by means of contraception, sterilization, and abortion; terminating life through voluntary or involuntary euthanasia; diverse sexual proclivities such as premarital and extramarital sex, homosexuality; the fair distribution of income; environmental destruction and the responsibility of the present generation to future generations, etc. Traditional religions have staked out a dogmatic position on most of these issues and often sought to implement their positions through political involvement. The religious right has made major inroads in determining the platform for the Republican party and seeks to tear down the road of separation between church and state.

The Final Superstition shows that such an effort is nothing new. Claiming special knowledge of God's will, the Judeo-Christian religions (as well as other religions) have sought for three millennia or more to usurp the political process to further their theological ends.

This book is a comprehensive critique of all aspects of the Judeo-Christian legacy including:

- The origins of some of the most recent religions such as the Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Science, and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons), and what their history teaches us concerning the nature of religion and religious belief in general.

- The continuing efforts of fundamentalists and evangelists to wrest control of the political agenda in the U.S.

- How Catholicism rose to power and the political influence it exerts even today

- What we really know about Jesus, separating fact from fiction.

- The relationship between Christianity and the pre-Christian cults of the Gnostics and Essenes.

- The origins of both the New and Old Testaments and the linkage of the Bible stories to the ancient myths of Buddha, Krishna, Mithras, Zoroaster and the many other gods and goddesses of the ancient Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Babylonians and Chaldeans

- A review of some of the teachings of the Bible to determine its value as a guide to ethical behavior

- An in-depth examination of the arguments for the existence of God.

- The psychological basis underlying all religious belief systems.

- Alternative methods of analyzing and resolving the moral issues of the 21st century.


Based upon research of the last two hundred years, The Final Superstition demonstrates that although reliance on ancient superstitions might provide individuals with comfort and solace, relying on ancient myths to provide answers to modern human dilemmas results in simplistic and dangerously erroneous solutions that often have resulted in great misery for humankind. The most recent example is the Catholic Church's relentless opposition to contraception in a world faced with devastating overpopulation.

Even today when science has demonstrated its efficacy in comprehending and solving the myriad of problems facing the human race, socioeconomic policies are heavily influenced by those myths which serve the interests of those who control organized religions. only by rejecting these ancient superstitions and relying upon the scientific method of analysis can we hope to formulate the policies necessary to preserve humankind in the centuries to come.

The Final Superstition is unique in both it thoroughness and comprehensibility. It takes on some of the most difficult subjects that are all but inaccessible to those not versed in theology, such as the arguments for God's existence. Cutting through the arcane jargon with clarity and wit, it exposes the glaring logical fallacies which two thousand years of spurious rationalizations by theologians have failed to correct.

Humanism for Africa
Submitted by admin on 27 June, 2005 - 13:08.

* Sub-Saharan Africa
* Humanist Visions for Africa 2004
* Roy Brown (3)

Roy Brown (3)
Sub-Saharan Africa

Humanism for Africa
By Roy Brown

Source: http://www.iheu.org/node/1570


Africa and Human Development

We, the human race, first appeared in Africa over 100,000 years ago. Through migration over the following millennia Homo Sapiens came to dominate the entire planet. But as civilisation triumphed elsewhere, Africa lagged behind. The reasons why are complex, and the debate is muddied by the accusations of racism or neo-colonialism likely to be heard whenever a westerner dares to speak about Africa's problems. But the facts are there for anyone prepared to look. For whatever the reasons, sub-Saharan Africa lags behind every other continent in terms of human development.

What do I mean by "human development"? The Human Development Index, published annually by the UN Development Fund, is an attempt to provide a way of comparing the quality of life of the average man and woman in different countries. It measures average life expectancy, infant and maternal mortality, average income, average years of education for both boys and girls, and so on, and arrives at a composite figure that combines all of these into a single index. Top of the list this year is Norway, closely followed Iceland, Sweden, Australia and the Netherlands. Uganda comes in at 147th and Nigeria 151st of the 175 countries listed. All of the bottom 25 countries in the list are in sub-Saharan Africa.

Why has Africa lagged so far behind? The reasons include history, culture, colonialism, corruption and war, as well as environmental factors and lack of investment. And of course what progress we were seeing until the early 1990s has effectively been stopped dead in its tracks by the scourge of HIV/AIDS.

In one short speech I cannot begin to discuss in any depth the series of measures Africa needs to bootstrap itself out of trouble. But what I can do is suggest that some of the current trends that we are seeing are without question leading Africa in the wrong direction. One particular trend that I find wholly negative is the increasing influence of religion: of evangelical Christianity and radical Islam. As Leo Igwe pointed out in the May 2004 edition of International Humanist News:
", throughout history, religious mercenaries - evangelical Christians and Islamic jihadists who seek to convert Africans to the alien faiths - have invaded the black continent. They preach submission to the wills of their "Gods" and salvation in the afterlife as answers to Africa's problems. Yet Africa's problems still remain and in fact have grown and multiplied. Christianity and Islam have remained impotent in the face of Africa's troubles. Instead the two religions have contributed to Africa's woes, to its stagnation, alienation and general under-development. Indeed Christianity and Islam have thrived and flourished while Africans suffer, starve and die."

We only have to look at the overflowing churches and mosques and the increasing levels of religious violence: the riots, killing and burning, to see how true that is. Or to consider the contemptible lies spread by the Catholic hierarchy about the efficacy of condoms in the fight against HIV/AIDS - based not on medical science, but on the historical aversion of the church to contraception.

It is ironic that much of the current success of the twin superstitions of Christianity and Islam is based not on their "eternal truth", but on the profits from science and technology. The American people give about $60 billion a year to charity, almost all of which goes to churches and religious organisations, much of it to fund their evangelical activities around the world. Yet it was the scientific, rational revolution, the triumph of scientific naturalism, that fuelled the economic growth that created the wealth that finances their modern evangelism. The Islamic revolution has been financed by Saudi oil money. Oil that would never have found a market without the modern technological revolution. The Saudis are estimated to have spent over $100 billion on promoting Islam during the past 40 years. And now, instead of Africa being offered the benefits of the technological revolution, it is being offered the dross - the authoritarian, oppressive and inhuman alternatives of radical Islam and fundamentalist Christianity.

There is a better alternative. While Humanism may not have the financial resources to compete with Islam and Christianity, it does have, quite simply, a better message - a more humane and a more rational world view on which to build our understanding and our way of life. Humanism values altruism above selfishness; concern for others above greed; and the spirit of free inquiry above superstition. It is a world view that liberates rather than oppresses; that frees the mind from fear and guilt; and recognises above all that we share a common humanity.

The Humanist Worldview

For Christians, Muslims and most religious people, the material world that we touch and feel is only part of the story. There is another world, a spirit world, parallel to our own, inhabited by a god or gods, by angels, demons, djinns and the like. The inhabitants of this parallel world are in constant struggle for our souls. If the demons, the agents of Satan win, we are damned to burn for eternity in hellfire.
Such infantile ideas have no place in Humanism.

Bertrand Russell once wrote that he was never quite comfortable with Humanism. "Those who attempt to make a religion of Humanism, which recognises nothing greater than man, do not satisfy my emotions", he said. But in this, I suggest, he misunderstood the nature of Humanism. Humanism is not merely atheism, not merely rationalism, but rationalism in the service of compassion. From its concern for the well-being of others comes humanist morality, independent of any divine decree or threat of hellfire. And as Richard Dawkins has shown in "Un-weaving the Rainbow", a rationalist outlook can be deeply emotionally fulfilling.

For Humanists, there is indeed another world, but not a world inhabited by gods, angels and evil spirits, by forces that must be placated. Rather, it is the world of ideas and of emotions. It is the world wherein lies our understanding: the world of thought, of dreams and imagination. And it is in this world that the gods and spirits lurk, creatures of the human imagination, unable to harm us except through human agency, through the actions of the believers.

But the other world, the world of ideas, is also the world of science and mathematics. It is a world still being explored, a world we may possibly never come to know completely. But above all, it is a world of great beauty. Our sense of awe at the wonders of nature, our love for our families and for one another, is part of this other world. It is the world of human consciousness. It is an integral part of our nature, not separate from it. This other world owes nothing to any deity, it is an emergent phenomenon, a feature of the natural world.

The great appeal of Christianity and Islam lies in their ready answers to the great existential questions. The fact that their answers are unwarranted and unsupported by reason seems not to matter, such is our overwhelming desire for certainty in an uncertain world. But both Christianity and Islam - as preached by the evangelicals and fundamentalists - are exclusive rather than inclusive. Both pander to the superstitious instinct. Both use "miracle" cures as part of their stock in trade. They preach their own superiority and denigrate and demonise the non-believer and the different. We can see the results today in religious conflict in Nigeria, Uganda, and the Sudan, and in the ill treatment of minorities, unbelievers and "others" throughout Africa.

As Abdelfattah Amor, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief said recently, "All religions have a problem with women". This is as true of the traditional religions of Africa as it is with Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism. Humanism is unique in that it values all equally - both men and women. Humanism is founded in the worth, dignity and autonomy of every individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others.

What Africa needs is rationalism rather than superstition. Christianity and Islam both seek to replace one set of superstitions by another. And by asserting the superiority of the spirit world, both Christianity and Islam encourage neglect of the material world and seek to devalue both human life and human experience. Africa needs to retain its instinctive understanding of our oneness with nature, but to replace magic and superstition by rationalism and science. A continent weighed down by superstition does not need more of the same!

Humanism in practice

How does Humanism work in practice? For one telling example, we need look no further than the problem of HIV/AIDS. We know that sex is one of the great driving forces of human life. Yet for the Christian churches, Catholic, Protestant or Evangelical, sex is equated with sin. For most Muslims, sex is a private matter and to discuss such matters in public is considered shameful. So how do these two great religions address the problem of AIDS? Very badly. With the finger-pointing guardians of Christian and Islamic morality breathing down their necks, many African governments have refused to discuss the issue of HIV infection frankly and openly, and to offer advice to the public about unsafe sex. This has been a major obstacle to preventing the spread of AIDS. This folly has been compounded by the blind refusal of some leaders, for their own political reasons, to address the issue rationally.

When George W. Bush visited Africa last year he pledged $5 billion over five years for the fight against AIDS. But ever mindful of his supporters on the Christian right, one third of this money was to be spent on "abstinence-only" education. This, despite overwhelming data that such programs are ineffective and that for many young African women abstinence is simply not an option. But what true believer ever let the facts stand in the way of religious certainty? One is forced to the appalling conclusion that many Christians would rather see millions suffer for their "immorality" than to permit them to be offered advice about safe sex.

The humanist approach: the approach promoted by the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and all responsible aid agencies - is called: ABC:
Avoid unprotected sex
Be faithful
Use a Condom.
This is the approach that was adopted several years ago in Uganda with results that speak for themselves.

The Principles of Humanism

The fundamental principles of modern Humanism are spelled out in the Amsterdam Declaration of 2002, adopted unanimously by the 15th World Humanist Congress and the IHEU General Assembly in July 2002. I recommend that document to you. Let me read some extracts that I find particularly relevant today.
Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.
Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world's problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention.
Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right.
Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognises our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is un-dogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination.

I would suggest that these are the qualities that Africa needs today. Nowhere on earth does the need for the humanist message seem more urgent: the message of our common humanity, of respect for the dignity and autonomy of the individual, and of the need for rationalism rather than superstition. Africa needs free minds and free bodies, not minds enslaved, nor bodies constrained by medieval customs and beliefs.

Africa needs Humanism.

Thank you.

Roy Brown is president of the International Humanist and Ethical Union

Udode:
Huxley,

I think you are right. As far as I am concerned, juju can only work if you believe in it. Because if you don't, you would never allow somebody to take control over you.

By the way, wouldn't you say that being religios (beliving in God) and beliveing in Juju is a contradiction?

"juju can only work if you believe in it" What do you mean by this? I would class the "work" in the sense that the paralytic emotional disturbance cause by the fear occasioned by such beliefs.

How can one verify in objective terms whether juju have any power to materially produce an action from their craft?


Believing in juju and god are exactly the same thing. Superstition and supernaturalism. The one difference is that the one appears "black" and unliterate and the other appears "white" and supported by a well-established and wealthy institution.

mishooo:
Juju real or not real
You must be kidding me.

When have you gone to your Village last.

please just enjoy in switzerland, and don't make the mistake of goin to a place like MY Village o.
Else they would have seen you as you cross the bridge . All they need is your name. and God help you if you did not give one of them a substantial gift. believe me, they will be calling your name every night and probably remote control you for the rest of your life.

Aunty Udode, Juju dey ooo.

-------- But God pass them

Christianity scares you with the flames of eternal hell and promises deliverance from this is you adopt the christian belief.

Similarly, the juju practitioners scare you with death from their craft. To assuage their wrath, you are required to make "sacrifices" to them.

What is the moral? The weak and credulous mind is susceptible to such venal threads lacking any objective effects. It is the emotional fear of these superstitions that cripple the mind and not the superstitions themselves.

Exodus never happened and the walls of Jericho did not come a-tumbling down. How archaeologists are shaking Israel to its biblical foundations.

Source: http://freethought.mbdojo.com/archeology.html

Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, with archaeology historian Neil Asher Silberman, has just published a book called "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text."

"The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."

<< These statements correspond well with what was written by John Rembsburg:

"In the 12th chapter of Joshua is given a list of 31 kingdoms which were conquered by Israel. This was in the fifteenth century B.C. From this time forward they are represented as a mighty nation by Bible historians.

Rameses III overran Canaan and conquered it between 1280 and 1260 B.C. The Egyptian records give a list of all the tribes inhabiting it. The children of Israel-- the Hebrews-- were not there. In the 5th century B.C., when Herodotus, the father of History, was collecting materials for his immortal work, he traversed nearly every portion of Western Asia. He describes all its principal peoples and places; but the Jews and Jerusalem are of too little consequence to merit a line from his pen. Not until 332 B.C. do the Jews appear upon the stage of history, and then only as the submissive vassals of a Grecian king."

John E. Remsburg, The Bible (1901), pg. 263.

Jerusalem was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. These findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades.

The tales of the patriarchs -- Abraham, Isaac and Joseph among others -- were the first to go when biblical scholars found those passages rife with anachronisms and other inconsistencies. The story of Exodus, one of the most powerful epics of enslavement, courage and liberation in human history, also slipped from history to legend when archaeologists could no longer ignore the lack of corroborating contemporary Egyptian accounts and the absence of evidence of large encampments in the Sinai Peninsula ("the wilderness" where Moses brought the Israelites after leading them through the parted Red Sea).

Finkelstein is an iconoclast. He established his reputation in part by developing a theory about the settlement patterns of the nomadic shepherd tribes who would eventually become the Israelites, bolstering the growing consensus that they were originally indistinguishable from the rest of their neighbors, the Canaanites. This overturns a key element in the Bible: The Old Testament depicts the Israelites as superior outsiders -- descended from Abraham, a Mesopotamian immigrant -- entitled by divine order to invade Canaan and exterminate its unworthy, idolatrous inhabitants.

The famous battle of Jericho, with which the Israelites supposedly launched this campaign of conquest after wandering for decades in the desert, has been likewise debunked: The city of Jericho didn't exist at that time and had no walls to come tumbling down. These assertions are all pretty much accepted by mainstream archaeologists.

"Research is research, and strong societies can easily endure discoveries like this." By comparison with today's skeptical turmoil, the early years of the modern Israeli state were a honeymoon period for archaeology and the Bible, in which the science seemed to validate the historical passages of the Old Testament left and right. As Finkelstein and Silberman relate, midcentury archaeologists usually "took the historical narratives of the Bible at face value"; Israel's first archaeologists were often said to approach a dig with a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other. The Old Testament frequently served as the standard against which all other data were measured: If someone found majestic ruins, they dated them to Solomon's time; signs of a battle were quickly attributed to the conquest of Canaan. Eventually, though, as archaeological methods improved and biblical scholars analyzed the text itself for inconsistencies and anachronisms, the amount of the Bible regarded as historically verifiable eroded. The honeymoon was over.

Marcus says that Finkelstein is "difficult to dismiss because he's so much an insider in terms of his credentials and background. He's an archaeologist, not a theologian, and he is an Israeli. It's hard to say that someone who was born in Israel and intends to live the rest of his life there is anti-Israeli."



http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH01xv0 (a website in connection with the State of Israel)


The biblical account of the capture of the city is the only one we have, and in the opinion of most modern scholars, the Bible is not an entirely reliable historical document.

The Bible is not - and was never intended to be - a historical document. A work of theology, law, ethics and literature, it does contain historical information; but if we want to evaluate this information we should consider when, how and why the Bible was compiled.

Until comparatively recently, the Bible was accepted as the word of God by most Jews and Christians, and therefore scholarly works dealing with it concentrated on its interpretation. In the 19th century CE, the "Age of Reason," scholars began subjecting the biblical texts to linguistic, textual, and literary analysis, noting inconsistencies and interrupted rhythms, comparing styles, and placing the text within the archaeological, historical and geographical background.

There are still many differing opinions regarding the origin of the Bible, when it was written, and under what conditions; but it is fair to say that, outside fundamentalist circles, modern consensus suggests that the assembling and editing of the documents that were to constitute the Bible began in the seventh century BCE, some three centuries after David's time. (The earliest actual material in our possession, part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dates to the second century BCE at the earliest).

In particular, the account of Joshua's conquest of Canaan is inconsistent with the archaeological evidence. Cities supposedly conquered by Joshua in the 14th century bce were destroyed long before he came on the scene. Some, such as Ai and Arad, had been ruins for a 1000 years.

The Book of Judges, which directly contradicts Joshua, and shows the Israelites settling the land over a prolonged period, is nearer historical reality; but even it cannot be taken at face value. The archaeological surveys conducted over the past two decades indicate that the origin and development of the Israelite entity was somewhat different from either of the rival accounts in the Bible. The survey was conducted by more than a dozen archaeologists, most of them from Tel Aviv University's Institute of Archaeology.

Around 1200 bce, semi-nomads from the desert fringes to the east and the south, possibly including Egypt, began to settle in the hill country of Canaan. A large proportion - probably a majority of this population - were refugees from the Canaanite city states, destroyed by the Egyptians in one of their periodic invasions. The conclusion is somewhat startling to Bible readers who know the Canaanites portrayed in the Bible as immoral idolaters: most of the Israelites were in fact formerly Canaanites. The story of Abraham's journey from Ur of the Chaldees, the Patriarchs, the Exodus, Sinai, and the conquest of Canaan, all these were apparently based on legends that the various elements brought with them from their countries of origin. The consolidation of the Israelites into a nation was not the result of wanderings in the desert and divine revelation, but came from the need to defend themselves against the Philistines, who settled in the Canaanite coastal plain more or less at the same time the Israelites were establishing themselves in the hills.

Thus the founders of Israel were not Abraham and Moses; but Saul and David. It was apparently Saul who consolidated the hill farmers under his rule and created fighting units capable of confronting the Philistines. It was David who defeated the Philistines and united the hill farmers with the people of the Canaanite plains, thus establishing the Kingdom of Israel and its capital city.

about as real as god

Conversion - A crime against Humanity
PDF | Print | E-mail
Thursday, 30 June 2005
Coercive Religious Conversion: A Crime against Humanity

Source: http://www.crusadewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=57


Professor in Clinical Psychology and the Director of Addiction Research Institute, Pennsylvania.

Religious conversion of Hindus is threatening individuals, families, communities and the nation. Coercive religious conversion of Hindus contains a threat to spiritual tradition and the freedom of choice. If carried unchecked, coercive religious conversion would threaten the very existence of India as a nation.

Armed with a rigid dogma, and millions of foreign money, missionaries are on a warpath to forcefully convert hundreds and thousands of innocent Hindus. If unchecked, coercive religious conversion will have a cataclysmic impact on our freedom.

"Freedom to convert" is counterproductive as a generalized doctrine. It fails to come to terms with the complex interrelationships between self and society that make the concept of individual choice meaningful. Hence, religious conversion undermines, and in extremes would dissolve, that individual autonomy and human freedom.

Missionaries are trying to deconstruct Hindu society by waging a psychological war. The purpose of the war is to create personal, social and political disorganization. Their dogmatic notion of truth is inappropriate, even dangerous to a pluralistic society. Christian dogmas, by nature are non-deductible, non-negotiable and in fact non-verifiable, whereas an open exchange of ideas, a readiness to give and take, is vital to the survival of a pluralistic society.

Christian preaching tends to be a process of indoctrination in unshakable beliefs. Religion as indoctrination is suited to a totalitarian regime intent on not having people think independently.

By contrast, Hinduism helps in liberating, not closing of minds of individuals. All Hindus, by their very nature, stand for and accept free expression, spiritual progression, and freedom of choice. But once converted to Christianity, the church is not eager to cultivate habits of intellectual freedom among its followers.

Missionary propaganda is deceptive and can be described as the state of mind of a salesman who habitually believes in his own propaganda and the superiority/supremacy of his 'only' product which he wants to push in the market, by hook or crook, at the cost of all existing alternatives. The church's ideological pretensions are smokescreens to destroy Hindus and the all inclusive, liberating Hindu value system.

When a church group takes a position on a political or social issue, it typically does so by claiming divine inspiration. Not only does this inhibit debate, but also it replaces rational discourse. Citing "God's Will"/ "God's Word" in a discussion is meant to silence, not convince, an opponent. Public discussion, so intrinsic to a democratic society, requires public debate. A democracy is degraded when its members, seduced by the desire to play God, get in the habit of pontificating infallible truths on subjects of public policy. Such a practice must culminate, if unchecked, either in theocracy, or in chaos.

One does not find in the Christian theology a conception of human beings as having both the right and the ability through Sadhana to control one's destiny. Concepts such as individual freedom, civil rights, human initiative, and secular programs are basically foreign to holy writ.

It is wrong to draw ideological parallels between Christianity and Hinduism. It is pointless to contrast dogmas as original sin, eternal damnation, and the absolutism of the Kingdom of God with that of the experiential reality of the Hindu Darshanaas which proclaim: "Each soul is potentially Divine", and teach the authentic way and means to discover, realize and manifest in day to day life the inherent divinity equally present in all. Hinduism and Christianity represent incompatible modes of thought and irreconcilable value systems.

Hinduism is dedicated to individual freedoms and rights. The philosophy of Hinduism and Christianity does not mix. Equating Hinduism (or, indeed, any religion of the book) would be doubly regrettable. A strict ban on religious conversion is in the best interest of all Indians because, to quote the wisdom of a common sense poet, "Good fences make good neighbors".

Evangelism is an irrational impulse, a form of tyranny over the mind. Freedom of religion is equivalent to freedom from someone's religion. Hindus have every right to expect that they will not be proselytized away from their own faith and into an all-exclusive, rigid dogma.Every citizen should be free from foreign sponsored missionary groups. An individual converting under psychological duress is loosing his very freewill and freedom of choice and conscience.

From a moral standpoint, Hindus respect all religions. But that respect is limited by our own mutual obligation to observe boundaries that have a reasonable relationship to the needs of the society and of the individuals in it. Once a person is converted by devious means, he or she is reduced to creatures of the church in which conformity to generalized mediocrity becomes the rule.

Freedom to propagate hatred, dogma and hostility must be restricted because the ideas expressed in such rigid dogma have led to murder and suffering of millions of people throughout history. Terrorism, social upheaval, community conflict, and hostility towards non-believers are caused in part by the philosophy that underlies the concept of freedom to forcefully convert on-believers. Even the capability to conceive of direct harm to others will be seriously diminished if we restrict coercive religious conversion.

Government should ban religious conversion and the free flow of foreign money for missionary activities. Ban on religious conversion will reinforce our values and identification and that protects our freedom. These are values that would be threatened if religious conversion were carried out extensively. Not everything that can be labeled "free expression" is worth protecting or immune from legal regulation for the general good. Given the gravity of the danger and destruction of missionary activities, anti-conversion alarm is sensible.

Hindus must initiate a much more wide-ranging debate about religious conversion, missionary activities and the free flow of foreign money for conversion activities. Hindus must go on the offensive and stop being baited by those who call our defense of Hindu society as communal. Hindus must stop allowing them to set the agenda for what is and what is not religious freedom.

Our survival as a nation is in crisis. But realistic solutions are within our reach, if we all work together. So I urge you, become activists on behalf our Hindus who have no one else to speak on their behalf, for yourselves, and for the nation.

Coercive religious conversion of Hindus is one of the most important issues of the day. Religious conversion of Hindus is threatening individuals, families, communities and the nation. Coercive religious conversion of Hindus contains a greater threat to spiritual tradition and the freedom of choice than European colonialism ever posed. If carried unchecked, coercive religious conversion would threaten the very existence of India as a nation.

A dark future

Today as we look down the road toward the future, we see the warning sign: "Danger Ahead". The danger is not limited to our freedom to practice our Dharma; we see threats to our progress as a democratic, pluralistic society. Christian tyrannical missionary groups are determined to destroy our society, our spiritual way of life and the nation. Armed with a rigid dogma, and millions of foreign money, missionaries are on a warpath to forcefully convert hundreds and thousands of innocent Hindus. If unchecked, coercive religious conversion will have a cataclysmic impact on our freedom.

"Freedom to convert" is counterproductive as a generalized doctrine. It fails to come to terms with the complex interrelationships between self and society that make the concept of individual choice meaningful. Hence, religious conversion, rather than supporting, it undermines, and in extremes would dissolve, that individual autonomy and human freedom. In effect, it would serve no one, neither the subject, nor the nation. As a rule, missionaries attack cultural symbols, rituals, and samskaraas of Hindus. Hindu symbols and rituals are real and powerful and they influence behavior. Symbols, rituals, festivals and religious practices have the power to unite and motivate people. These are the elan vital of a nation. Individual and society are symbiotic. When an individual is forced out of his/her role into a strange, dogmatic belief system, he/she would have to readjust to the new realities. Forced out of the system of meaningful social bonds, they would begin to lose the sense of identity and symbiotic relationship with the larger society. They ! would become rudderless ships adjusting to momentary pressures without a sense of direction. It is this most terrible condition, even worse than death that the missionaries impose on Hindus.

Christianity promotes their sectarian values and symbols over the interests of the society as a whole. Missionaries are trying to deconstruct Hindu society by waging a psychological war. The purpose of the war is to create personal, social and political disorganization. As the war continues, individuals, families, groups and society find it difficult to maintain proper reality orientation.

As the battle progresses, only parts of the problems are seen by the victim, and a collective cognitive disorder sets in. The social and political reality is distorted. As a result, family and community are disorganized. Individuals find it difficult to find the right concepts, ideas, words and thinking will become fragmented. The person and society lose a sense of identity and direction. A sense of cultural continuity and connection disappears almost entirely. This results in distorted thinking and dysfunctional behavior. Individuals act impulsively and blame the culture and religion that provide psychological equilibrium. They act irrationally and join with the oppressor. Eventually, they act as enemy within. Clearly, if the missionaries win finally in their psychological warfare, India as a nation is crushed.

History of repression

Let us turn to a logical examination of several key features of Christian thinking. The religion was founded and its theology elaborated under the dual influence of theocracy and imperialism. Its very conception of truth reflects political environment in which it evolved. It has crystallized orthodoxy, or a core of inalterable dogmas that its followers are expected to steadfastly profess.

Now, it is precisely, such a notion of truth is inappropriate, even dangerous to a pluralistic society. Christian dogmas, by nature are non-deductible and non-negotiable. Where as an open exchange of ideas, a readiness to give and take, is vital to the survival of a pluralistic society.

Christian preaching tends to be a process of indoctrination in unshakable beliefs. Religion as indoctrination is suited to a totalitarian regime intent on not having people think independently. By contrast, Hinduism helps in liberating, not closing of minds.

Hindus accept free expression, spiritual progression, and freedom of choice. But once converted to Christianity, the church is not eager to cultivate habits of intellectual freedom among its followers.

Missionaries use Biblical quotations to rationalize vested interests of the Church. Very frequently such views systematically distort social reality in much the same way that a neurotic deny, deform or reinterpret aspects of life that are inconsistent to him. Missionary propaganda is deceptive and can be described as the state of mind of a salesman who habitually believes his own propaganda. The church's ideological pretensions are smokescreens to destroy Hindus and the all inclusive, liberating Hindu value system.

When a church group takes a position on a political or social issue, it typically does so by claiming divine inspiration. Not only does this inhibit debate, but also it replaces rational discourse. Citing "God's Will" in a discussion is meant to silence, not convince, an opponent.

The entire history of biblical exegesis shows that almost any personal or collective conviction can find support in divine revelation. Thus, the bible always obliges a true believer by miraculously saying whatever he or she wants it to say. When the true believer quotes "God's Word" to confirm an opinion, what he or she expresses is the wish to raise personal opinion to the level of absolute truth. Put more bluntly, the true believer pretends to speak with godlike authority as if he or she was God. Public discussion, so intrinsic to a democratic society, requires public debate. A democracy is degraded when its members, seduced by the desire to play God, get in the habit of pontificating infallible truths on subjects of public policy. Such a practice must culminate, if unchecked, either in theocracy, or in chaos.

The shackles of Christianity

It is an awkward fact that neither personal liberty nor civil rights have biblical sanction. On the contrary, scripture is at pains to tell us just the reverse: that we must submit all things to the will of a Supreme ruler against whom we have no acerbate rights. The bible is an undemocratic and anti-libertarian text. The Ten Commandments, like the parables of Jesus, say nothing about individual freedoms and rights but a great deal obedience and surrender, and "law" that all must obey. The essence of the bible is thus constraint, not freedom, oppression not liberation.

One does not find in the Christian theology a conception of human beings as having both the right and the ability through Sadhana to control one's destiny. What the bible gives us, in contrast, is a picture of human nature caught powerlessly between two factors--God and Satan--along with the caveat that no "salvation" is possible without total surrender to God's wishes. Concepts such as individual freedom, civil rights, human initiative, and secular programs are basically foreign to holy writ. The believers are docile vassals of the "Lord".

It is wrong to draw ideological parallels between Christianity and Hinduism. It is pointless to contrast dogmas as original sin, eternal damnation, and the absolutism of the Kingdom of God with that of the experiential reality of the Hindu Darshanaas which proclaim: "Each soul is potentially Divine", and teach the authentic way and means to discover, realize and manifest in day to day life the inherent divinity equally present in all.

Hinduism and Christianity represent incompatible modes of thought and irreconcilable value systems. Hinduism is dedicated to individual freedoms and rights. The philosophy of Hinduism and Christianity does not mix. Equating Hinduism (or, indeed, any religion of the book) would be doubly regrettable. A strict ban on religious conversion is in the best interest of all Indians because, to quote the wisdom of a common sense poet, "Good fences make good neighbors".

The value of Religious Freedom

Evangelism is an irrational impulse, a form of tyranny over the mind. Freedom of religion is equivalent to freedom from someone's religion. Hindus have every right to expect that they will not be proselytized away from their own faith and into an all-exclusive, rigid dogma. Every citizen should be free from foreign sponsored missionary groups. An individual converting under psychological duress is loosing his freewill and freedom of choice and conscience. From a moral standpoint, Hindus respect all religions. But that respect is limited by our own mutual obligation to observe boundaries that have a reasonable relationship to the needs of the society and of the individuals in it. Once a person is converted by devious means, he or she is reduced to creatures of the church in which conformity to generalized mediocrity becomes the rule.

Freedom to propagate hatred, dogma and hostility must be restricted because the ideas expressed in such rigid dogma have led to murder and suffering of millions of people throughout history. The genocidal usurpation of the western hemisphere, the genocidal enslavement of Africans, Hindus, Buddhists, worldwide colonialism, holocaust against Jews and Gypsies, dropping of the atom bomb on Japan, the Vietnam war, colonialism, slavery and apartheid-these are the bitter fruits of Christian propaganda. Christianity is arguably, history's greatest crime against humanity. The solid evidence of history in the long and short term gives proof beyond a reasonable doubt, nay any doubt, that there is no greater social evil than biblical movements. Their dogmatic ideas are like small pox. It is not worth preserving it.

Time for activism

Terrorism, social upheaval, community conflict, and hostility towards non-believers are caused in part by the philosophy that underlies the concept of freedom to forcefully convert non-believers. Even the capability to conceive of direct harm to others will be seriously diminished if we restrict coercive religious conversion.

It is painfully obvious that political leaders, westernized media pundits, and the bureaucrats in India lack the requisite social and political knowledge, and philosophical skills to understand the devious activities of the church. They lack a firm national, religious, cultural commitment. They are driven to extreme and idiosyncratic decision by the lack of historical context of their judgments.

Government should ban religious conversion and the free flow of foreign money for missionary activities. Almost invariably, ban on religious conversion will drive missionaries out of business. For the politicians it is a dilemma. But life is filled with dilemmas that we can attempt to ameliorate but we cannot entirely avoid. Ban on religious conversion will reinforce our values and identification and that protects our freedom. These are values that would be threatened if religious conversion were carried out extensively.

Not everything that can be labeled "free expression" is worth protecting or immune from legal regulation for the general good. Given the gravity of the danger and destruction of missionary activities, anti-conversion alarm is sensible. We should not wait until Christianity takes over India. On the individual level as well as the genocidal level the effects of dogmatic missionary preaching justify its prohibition.

Hindus must initiate a much more wide-ranging debate about religious conversion, missionary activities and the free flow of foreign money for conversion activities. Hindus must go on the offensive and stop being baited by those who call our defense of Hindu society as communal. Hindus must stop allowing them to set the agenda for what is and what is not religious freedom.

Hindus must wage a battle against violence, intolerance, rigidity, and thought control. Hindus must put an end to the imperialistic, missionary culture, and end to religious conversion. It's time to name our real enemies. Our enemies arise in part from our silence, but also from passivity. Our survival as a nation is in crisis. But realistic solutions are within our reach, if we all work together. So I urge you, become activists on behalf our Hindus who have no one else to speak on their behalf, for yourselves, and for the nation.

Dr. Babu Suseelan

Am not surprise that Hagee to say such a thing given this bizarre brand of Christian theology. This is a guy who believes that the European Union (EU) is a harbinger of the end of times and claims this is prophesied in the bible. The lesson learnt in Europe during the many centuries of internal conflict saw to it that a Union of nations would foster more common interests and create and environment of peace and security in Europe. All the economies of Western Europe have prospered tremendously since the formation of the Union. That today Eastern European countries are clamouring to join the union is a testament of the success of the union. To think that bible-believers would see this as a since of calamity is bizarre ti say the least. And Hagee is amongst those promoting this strange doctrine.

Can you imagine if members of the commission that created the Union 30 years ago were thinking like Hagee. Do you think the union would have been created in the initiating members believed in this stupid brand of christian doctrine?


Many parts of the world are coalescing together in similar unions because the see the social, political, economic, security value of such unions. It would be a shame if the superstitionists were allowed to interfere with such progressive moves.

His doctrine of unconditional support for Israel also helps forments the intransigence in the Israeli mentality towards the PAlestinians.

I hope you see how religion damages the progress of mankind!

Can you enumerate which of Hitler's views were similar to mine?

Can you also enumerate which of Hitlers views and action were similar to Moses' and God's

tpia:
some of Huxley's topics are very interesting. I'm not too familiar with what he posts, but he seems to be an evolutionist and general doubter of Christianity.

Right now I'm checking out his thread about Elijah, the bears and the children (killing in the name of religion), and I find it very interesting.

His pointing out things like these is actually forcing me to examine some of them more critically and I'm getting a better understanding of the context though there's still much to be learned.

Am glad you found some of my posts interesting and are learning from them. More power to you.

I would not use the word "evolutionist" to describe myself, though I get the sense in which you mean. I am an evolutionist in the same way as I am a gravitationalist, or germ-theorist, etc. The fact is, these theories best describe the reality around us and it would be a mistake to describe oneself as per these theories.

I think the correct way to describe these would be:

I accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation of the reality of diversity in the natural world
I accept germ theory as the best explanation for some diseases,

etc,etc,etc

Also see: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-143171.0.html

Well said!

I found this site very useful: http://reasonworks.com/BS%20Your%20Parents%20Never%20Taught%20You.html

noetic:
yes.

I understand that i shouldnt have approached huxley this way.
sincere apologies
cheers

Noetic, you are welcome to discuss with me in public here. Nothing is to be gained in a private discussion of these religious matters.

Fossil of most primitive 4-legged creature found
by Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_sc/sci_fish_evolution


WASHINGTON - Scientists unearthed a skull of the most primitive four-legged creature in Earth's history, which should help them better understand the evolution of fish to advanced animals that walk on land.
This undated handout artist rendering provided by Philip Renne shows a Ventastega. Scientists have found the fossil skull of the most primitive four-legged critter in Earth's history, a key point in the evolution from fish to animals that eventually walked on on land. At lower left are two Bothriolepis.

The 365 million-year-old fossil skull, shoulders and part of the pelvis of the water-dweller, Ventastega curonica, were found in Latvia, researchers report in a study published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. Even though Ventastega is likely an evolutionary dead-end, the finding sheds new details on the evolutionary transition from fish to tetrapods. Tetrapods are animals with four limbs and include such descendants as amphibians, birds and mammals.

While an earlier discovery found a slightly older animal that was more fish than tetrapod, Ventastega is more tetrapod than fish. The fierce-looking creature probably swam through shallow brackish waters, measured about three or four feet long and ate other fish. It likely had stubby limbs with an unknown number of digits, scientists said.

"If you saw it from a distance, it would look like a small alligator, but if you look closer you would find a fin in the back," said lead author Per Ahlberg, a professor of evolutionary biology at Uppsala University in Sweden. "I imagine this is an animal that could haul itself over sand banks without any difficulty. Maybe it's poking around in semi-tidal creeks picking up fish that got stranded."

This all happened more than 100 million years before the first dinosaurs roamed Earth.

Scientists don't think four-legged creatures are directly evolved from Ventastega. It's more likely that in the family tree of tetrapods, Ventastega is an offshoot branch that eventually died off, not leading to the animals we now know, Ahlberg said.

"At the time there were a lot of creatures around of varying degrees of advancement," Ahlberg said. They all seem to have similar characteristics, so Ventastega's find is helpful for evolutionary biologists.

Ventastega is the most primitive of these transition animals, but there are older ones that are oddly more advanced, said Neil Shubin, professor of biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago, who was not part of the discovery team but helped find Tiktaalik, the fish that was one step earlier in evolution.

"It's sort of out of sequence in timing," Shubin said of Ventastega.

Ahlberg didn't find the legs or toes of Ventastega, but was able to deduce that it was four-limbed because key parts of its pelvis and its shoulders were found. From the shape of those structures, scientists were able to conclude that limbs, not fins were attached to Ventastega.

One question that scientists are trying to figure out is why fish started to develop what would later become legs.

Edward Daeschler, associate curator of vertebrate zoology at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, theorizes that the water was so shallow that critters like Ventastega had an evolutionary advantage by walking instead of swimming.

E. Ahlberg, Jennifer A. Clack, Ervins Luksevics, Henning Nloom & Ivars Zupins, Ventastega curonica and the origin of tetrapod morphology, in Nature Vol. 453, #7199, 26 June 2008, pp. 1199-1204

Stop distorting young minds!
by Guardian - AC Grayling

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/25/faithschools.education

Stop distorting young minds!

Anousics, people with a worrying range of beliefs and practices, are indoctrinating our children with the full support of the government

Everything you are about to read is true. Without any public consultation or debate, without once having made this a manifesto pledge, without ever having invited independent or critical opinion to scrutinise the implications, the British government is handing over large tracts of the school education system, along with tens of millions of our tax money, to groups of Anousics.

Anousics are people who variously believe in ghosts and alien visitations, in the dead coming to life, in magical occurrences, in forms of cannibalism, in obsessive rituals and incantations, in strange psychological observances and sexual perversions, in weird ancient myths, which they regard as true accounts of the origin and nature of the world, and in personified forms of evil and malevolence; who traditionally employ and always threaten torture and execution for those who do not accept their theories, who to gain their ends sometimes engage in war, massacre and murder, and at other times use bribery, brainwashing, and techniques of preying on the poor, sick, depressed and traumatised. They sometimes hide their true face behind masks of charitable works, and even encourage their recruits to think this is their real nature; but their record is overwhelmingly against them otherwise.

Their chief means of recruitment, however, is proselytisation of the very young, knowing that once they have inserted the seeds of their views deeply in young minds, they will either be able to keep hold of those minds or reclaim them at opportune moments later.

It is this latter that is especially troubling, because the government's active aid to Anousics in preying on children's minds is shocking beyond belief, not only for the intrinsic wrong of the abuse involved in allowing people with such ghastly views and practices to enjoy open season on defenceless child minds, but because by this means the whole panoply of their views and practices is helped to survive and to continue troubling the world. Now, as throughout history, organised Anousia has repeatedly been dangerous, destabilising, and persistently retrogressive, and as one of the most backward forces in today's world it ought not to be supported from public funds in gaining access to children: yet our own government is actively promoting it.

Here are the facts; these facts are in the public domain, and like the foregoing they are absolutely and horribly true. One of the main Anousic organisations in England is in the process of becoming the largest sponsor of "academy schools". By next year it will have nearly trebled the number of academies it controls to over 30, and is in discussion with the government to assume control of a further 54. Another Anousic organisation which currently runs just three academy schools is engaged in taking over a further 22; a third is due to assume control of 25 within the next couple of years. Between them Anousic organisations already run one-quarter of all secondary schools in England, and this expansion will greatly increase the proportion.

How is this happening? With government carte blanche, with government money - that is: your and my tax money - and government help. When academy schools were first invented as a form of "public private partnership", sponsoring bodies were required to provide an initial £2m donation, with funding thereafter to come mainly from government. This requirement has now been waived so that Anousic organisations are simply given control of publicly-funded schools, for free. One spokesman for an Anousic educational body, Steve Chalke, was quoted in the Financial Times last weekend as saying that the government has set "no ceiling and no floor" for how much Anousics have to provide to be allowed to take over or set up a school; another Anousic organisation spokesman said, "We now have a more relaxed regime, where we are not obliged to provide an endowment." On whose say so? With what discussion?

The figure of 25% for the number of England's secondary schools which "have an Anousic character" (a slight paraphrase of Whitehall's own phrase) is Whitehall's own published figure: it amounts to 700 schools and rising fast. The proportion of primary schools run by Anousics is higher; 4,470 primary schools are run by the main English Anousic organisation alone: 4,470 institutions for children aged 4 and upwards, to be inculcated into Anousic beliefs and practices!

There has been no public debate about the acceptability of the current situation, and none about the rapid expansion of government-funded Anousic control over such a large slice of the education system. Assertions to the effect that Anousic-run schools are better than non-Anousic state schools, so that "middle-class parents can get a better education for their children for free" – "for free" means on your and my tax money, remember - have become a kind of mantra; apart from the shocking fact of handing children to Anousic organisations for an education (do they mean: indoctrination? but of course not! - an Anousic school is surely not interested in producing future Anousics - what an idea!) this notion has been repeatedly challenged, but of course it is neither in Anousic nor government interests for this fact to be too widely known.

By the way: I use the word "Anousic" as a generic term for "religious". It is a neologism suggested by ancient Greek to connote "mindless", "unreasoning", "illogical". I grant that the systematicity and long-term thinking implicit in the cunning strategy of capturing young minds suggests the opposite of all three: rather, it is the content - and therefore the results - of what religion wishes to insert into those young minds that merits the epithets. The three Anousic organisations mainly referred to in this article are the Church of England, the Baptists, and the United Learning Trust, but Muslim, Jewish and other religious organisations share in the tens of millions of our tax pounds to spread their word about ghosts, myths, obsessive rituals and incantations, distorted sexuality, prejudice , and all the rest of the happy brew.

If the government were handing schools and money to astrologers, witch doctors, Scientologists, the Manson cult, and the like, to educate our children, we would be concerned, would we not? Yet the grounds of belief, the beliefs themselves, and the level of rationality of these groups do not differ one jot from any of the so-called "major religions" to whom the government is handing over schools and money like candy. Where is the debate about this? On what grounds does the government think it can disburse our taxes to these ends without a single by-your-leave? That is the question: and a burning question it is.

All education should be secular. But failing that, religious indoctrination - which in a free society will occur, because one cannot outlaw religion itself, though one should argue against it vigorously – should happen at the private expense of those who choose to inflict it on their children. It should emphatically not be happening at public expense.

Editor's note: the final paragraph was added to this article at 17.20 on June 25 2008

mazaje:
Nice piece of writting Huxley

I wish I could say it is mine.