Eriokanmi:
Every form of correction is called bully in our society,SMH!. This takes different dimensions, mind you. If a student physically assaulted a fellow, it should be frowned at. But when a senior punished or scolded a child, don't raise eyebrows its not bully. When a senior punished you ober a wrongdoing, they call it bully nowadays.
I've been called all manner of names in my sec school days and I've called my mates names too nobody died as a result. Till today, we still call ourselves those names at our physical set meetings, likewise on WhatsApp group. We'd just laugh over it meanwhile in those days, e dey pain us cos no be d name our parents give us. Nobody died as a result of these.

We're raising a generation of over pampered students and we're ok by it. It's not right.

This is an absurd position to hold on this issue. However, simply because this kind of thinking is very prevalent in this country, I won't blame you entirely. Now first of all, there's a world of difference between a senior playfully ribbing their mates with (hopefully!) good-natured nicknames and straight-up bullying. The latter breaks people down. It's about power and humiliation, dominating someone else and making him/her feel inferior in every sense of the word.

Is correction necessary? Absolutely! But any good teacher, parent, friend, or really anyone close to you has a thousand and one ways to correct you without having to debase you by calling you names or shaming you up in public. That's how to show respect for someone: by focusing on their behavior in a constructive manner. Feel free to teach your kids to be tough, but please try not to normalize outright cruelty while you're at it!

Eriokanmi:
Bully here bully there , yen,yen,yen.

Our society is so rotten now. In my time a senior would ask me to go and pick my cutlass, he would take me to an open field and measure up to 100m portion for me to cut every morning before assembly. They would flog us with cane. You dare not report them

Nowadays, we keep sparing the rod and spoiling the child. The so-called bullying nowadays were a commonplace in those days. They only made us become a much stronger generation. In many schools,.you dare not beat a student nowadays. Nonsense! In remember the first time I toasted a girl as an SS2 student...heeey, my senior caught us, punished me like kilodee. He said, so you want to end your career at sec schl abi? You want to end up in a village with her after integrating her? I can't forget that day. The fear made me to not have time for girls till I gained admission, graduated and went for my nysc before I knew what's called gf. The punishment really shaped me up.

In 2016 @ Day waterman college where each student pays up to 5.3m naira per session, a student approached his teacher openly and wooed her, even promising to give her triple what the shool was paying her if she could allow him sleep with her. What bullying could be worse than that from a student to his teacher ? Yet, they couldn't do anything about it cos once the student reports to his parents that they're punishing him, they'd withdraw him and the school wouldn't want to lose money so they just ignored that.

Who born that student in our time? Na to flog am openly for assembly ground and call his parents to take him away. That would be his end in that school and it's environs. Today, the reverse is the case. I imagine what the next generation would look like.

How exactly is cutting grass and getting caned a solution to all forms of unruly behavior? Arguing that it "toughened you up" is just you romanticizing abuse. At best, the ordeals you went through were just hazing rituals that taught you blind obedience, not empathy or conflict resolution.

Qwertyuiop1:
Please consider this a layman's question.
Last night before I went to bed, at about 11PM I checked dollar to naira rate and it was #1,151/$. Waking up this morning (in less than 7 hours) I checked again and it has plummeted to #1,075/$.

What exactly happened over the night while I was sleeping? I've got like $5K cash and it's reason I've been monitoring the rate even tho I'm absolutely a layman who has no idea what's happening. I only had the money last year and a colleague advised me to convert to dollar and keep which she claimed to be the safest way to retain my money's worth but as it stands, I'm at loss already. What happened please? Or is google not reliable?

Well, I suppose it could be because the CBN has been adjusting interest rates and directly selling dollars to foreign exchange bureaus.

As for the data you got from Google, you have to realize that exchange rates can vary between different sources and platforms, and Google aggregates data from various exchanges which might not always reflect the most current rates available on the market, so discrepancies are very likely to occur.

Geovanni412:


Going to church is good

When you see other people and connect genuinely with them, some forms of depression can disappear

My issues with pentecostals is this ..

This speaking in tongues, that they do makes no discerning sense to an outsider, and neither do the people in the church understand it.

At least, during the time of Paul, outsiders could look and say hey these apostles are speaking my language.

I have asked them, if they walk into a room with red curtain and hear someone chanting the stuff they say, will they run or stay?

Sometimes I wonder if these tongues are not incantations.

My reason for this suspicion is a good number of men of God these days belonged to secret cults , repented and became men of God.

How are we to know if they truly abandoned their evil ways behind?

I agree to an extent that the power of community is very important. Since humans are social creatures, feeling connected to others can absolutely do wonders for our mental health. But is that the sole purpose of church? Can't you find a similar sense of community elsewhere? At the office, in a classroom, with volunteer organizations etc. Don't get me wrong, communal prayer and worship have their place, but it shouldn't be the only option on the menu for spiritual well-being.

CaptainJune:
The subject matter here may be "Pentecostalism" but it takes a low jab below the belt of the Christian faith. Describing the gift of tongues as "gibberish" is but one of the stones the writer has pelted at the Christian belief while cowardly dodging behind her introducing statement to intend no offense.

With her spearheaded cynicism, she has pricked the body of Christ by characterizing its obedience to worship and dance before God, the Head, as some transactional interaction whose sole purpose is to fatten the purse of its spiritual leaders. She says it is specifically directed at pentecostalism but where other Christian denominations like the Apostolic faith, the Methodists, etc are at the receiving end of her onslaught against pentecostalism should we call it a case of stray bullet or manslaughter?

Her last paragraph is quite bolder and leans more towards the intent of her article chiefly to smear grease on the Christian faith as if she would be the first (she came two thousand years late). It was designed to inspire introspection in the same way someone who is intoxicated should inspire thoughts toward being sober.

I wasn't quite sure how to respond to this, partly because there isn't much substance in this reply as a counter to my original post. I was primarily discussing a specific branch of Christianity with its own unique practices, so I don't necessarily agree with your claim that I was making a veiled attack on all of Christianity. (1) That's a strawman fallacy because you seem to have misrepresented my position, and (2) I explicitly stated my intent to be respectful, while also inviting critical thought. Isn't that what true faith should be able to handle?

If you want to insist that the "tongues" that most Christians today speak are some kind of divine language, or a spiritual experience, then that's your kettle of fish. But it would be completely disingenuous of you to deny the fact that our amazing brains can replicate the aforementioned phenomena without any actual heavenly intervention. That's why I cited Occam's Razor because it suggests a simpler explanation: our brains are wired for complex vocalizations, especially during heightened emotional states -- and I think that this fact waters down the supposed "divinity" behind speaking tongues. Perhaps, instead of getting defensive, maybe you and I can have a real conversation without embarking on a hurt feelings parade? Do you care to explain how speaking in tongues actually benefits the believer or the community? Does the emphasis on public displays and prosperity gospel resonate with you? The flamboyant worship style of Pentecostals is my primary focus here because I personally find it intriguing. Maybe next round I might dissect the prosperity gospel of some megachurch televangelists, or perhaps the inherent contradictions of original sin. Consider it a full-auto barrage of curiosity, not a targeted attack. It's very interesting how you used the phrase "obedience to worship and dance". I'm genuinely curious: Is it obedience, or a genuine expression of faith? Because if it's just about following orders, then what makes it different from any typical cult group? And where's the room for personal connection with the divine in all that swaying and shouting? Or do you believe a truly loving God will not appreciate a quiet, heartfelt prayer as much as a full-blown liturgical performance? Does the Almighty, being all-knowing and ever-present, really need a front-row seat at a charismatic service to understand the depth of our devotion? Couldn't genuine faith be a whisper in the quiet of our hearts, rather than a shout in a crowded room? I'm not suggesting that there's no place for worship or community in faith. That was never my point. But when outward displays become the be-all and end-all, it starts to feel less about connecting with a higher power and more about impressing the folks in the pews next to you. Maybe that's why some denominations focus less on theatrics and more on, you know, the actual teachings of Jesus!

Of course, it's very easy for you to resort to tired accusations of "faith-bashing" whenever someone dares to ask questions. What you and your comrades constantly fail to realize is that critical examination is not the enemy of faith. In fact, it's often the crucible that strengthens it.

Before you grab your pitchforks, I want to make my intentions clear. First and foremost, I'm not creating this topic to mock or ridicule anybody's faith. And if you're going to take offense to any of the things I'm about to say in this post, then perhaps you should consider the possibility that it's because my words might have grazed upon a truth you haven't fully examined. We shouldn't confuse offense with introspection, or discomfort for disrespect. Consider my comments not as barbs, but as invitations to a deeper exploration of your own beliefs.

Of all the various forms in which Christianity manifests, few are as culturally dominant as Pentecostalism. For cynical observers such as myself, this movement, heavily characterized by its' ecstatic outbursts during worship, as well as its' fire and brimstone sermons and prayer sessions, often resembles a theatrical production. Although, I do understand that many might find solace in the movement's emotional fervor. Anyways, let's talk about the Pentecostal belief. What's the cornerstone of this movement? It's the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This mystical experience, often accompanied by speaking in tongues (glossolalia to the theologically inclined), is considered the ultimate religious power-up. It's like getting some divine update that grants fluency in a language only the angels and other hosts of heaven can understand. The problem is, many linguistics worth their salt have dissected these utterances, and more often than not, they bear a striking resemblance to… well, gibberish. In fact, let's even accept the tiny probability that there might be some phonetic similarities to known languages. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's fluent. It's far more likely glossolalia is a product of our remarkable brains' ability to generate novel speech patterns under heightened emotional states (Occam's Razor). How do we seriously differentiate between a genuine spiritual experience and an overactive amygdala?

But I've said enough about tongues. Let's talk about the disturbing emphasis on public displays of piety. Whether it's swaying like a willow in a hurricane during worship or bellowing declarations of faith until your voice cracks, Pentecostalism thrives on outward expressions of devotion. One can't help but wonder if this is about genuine spiritual connection or putting on a show for the divine audience, and more importantly, the congregation who might loosen their purse strings a little wider for tithes to drop. Now, I'm all for supporting your local house of worship, but Pentecostalism often takes it to a whole new level. The prosperity gospel, a staple of many Pentecostal denominations, suggests a direct correlation between piety and financial blessings. Basically, the gist is that if you can donate generously, God will shower you with earthly riches. Sounds like a convenient theology for televangelists with private jets and a taste for the finer things in life.

Oh, and what's the deal with forcing people to go to church? Isn't a genuine connection with the divine a more personal experience, one that transcends the four walls of a church and doesn't require a weekly attendance check?

Honestly, I wonder if Christians have ever stopped to take a break from rapping in tongues like they're Busta Rhymes, and dancing wantonly in the church aisles to really evaluate what they believe in. I wonder if they have ever taken a moment to ponder on the true nature of their faith. Is it about outward displays and material gain, or is it something deeper, a connection that transcends the public performance?

tollyboy5:
This lady made this statement on a thread. I would love to know if that's how ladies think so I can also update Elon musk chip in my head with the latest IA

A wife’s role is to support and not to provide. The moment my feeding no longer becomes my husband’s problem, he ceases to be my husband. A man who is fking me must take care of me. He’s not entitled to free sex just because he paid bride price. He can as well collect it back and get the eff out of my life. The way I regarded sex before marriage is the same way I regard sex in marriage. Sex is sacred to me. You can’t be fking me kpa kpa kpa every night in the name of husband and expect not to care for me.

I'm not sure I will ever fully understand this whole concept of men providing and women receiving. In our current dispensation, that axiom is just about as relevant as a fax machine. No solid relationship exists without love and mutual respect. I don't know why people prefer to overlook the bigger picture and get themselves so worked up about who's winning the bread and who's not. It's an infantile discussion if you asked me. And if someone chooses to see her own marital bed like a toll booth rather than a sanctuary, then you can bet your ass that there are much deeper issues at play here. Sex should be an expression of intimacy and connection, not a bartering chip for financial security. The lady in question wants a relationship where someone takes care of her, that's totally fine. But basing that solely on outdated gender roles and financial dependence is a recipe for resentment. Communicate your needs, find a partner who values equality and reciprocity, and build something real together. That's a relationship upgrade worth getting excited about!

EmperorCaesar:
JessicaRabbit, My brother showed me how u owned and schooled him in one Atheism vs Theism convo and you've almost successfully turned him into an Atheist


He's asked me to read more and wider so that we two can take on u at the same time...I've read a lot now and we're both ready to simultaneously tackle your atheistic views on matters

We've even prayed for a month that u don't change our minds instead, so we're well fortified now


When will u be ready for this discussions?

Hello there, EmperorCaesar!

I'll start by saying that for what it is worth, I think it's commendable that you and this "brother" of yours are seeking to expand your horizons by reading widely. As for religious discussions in general, I honestly don't mind discussing and exploring different viewpoints as long as I'm convinced that you or your "brother" aren't arguing in bad faith. I've said this countless times here and on other forums where I'm active that I have little to no interest in converting anyone. I only share perspectives and perhaps shed light on different aspects of the topics at hand.

If you're going to get me to indulge in this dialogue, I'd kindly request that you follow these terms and conditions:

[1] All parties involved should enter the discussion willing to consider different perspectives, without the intention of winning an argument but rather to explore ideas and evidence.

[2] Every claim presented should be supported by empirical evidence or logical reasoning. Personal anecdotes or testimonies are welcome but should not be the sole basis of an argument. If you're going to make a big deal about some personal experience you had and how it affected your beliefs, then I see no point engaging in the discussion.

[3] The conversation should remain civil, without resorting unnecessarily derogatory language or personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic.

[4] All parties should strive to avoid logical fallacies. If one is pointed out, it should be acknowledged and corrected.

[5] The discussion should remain on the agreed-upon topics and not diverge into unrelated subjects. Also, let's avoid doing a Gish Gallop and stick to at least 2 or 3 core topics of debate.

If these terms are agreeable, then you have my permission to open a thread and tag me in it.

maestro299:


I can see why you'd say that. There's always at least a whimper of truth to many stereotypes though. I also used words like 'generality', 'most'. There are always exceptions and nothing is really absolute, especially in a subject as complex as human nature.

Maybe you killed Roger Rabbit with too much skepticism

I think you're backpedaling here. Recall that you rebutted my post by saying you weren't implying that logic and emotion are mutually exclusive, but take another glance at your first comment in this thread and see the words you used. You spoke of "men" and "women", not "some men/women". And I think it's amusing how you are using the term "generality" as a safety net while you tiptoe along the precipice of overgeneralization. As for your parting shot that "nothing is really absolute", that's more or less the typical philosopher's parachute. You've leaped from the plane of certainty, free falling into the abyss of relativism. But here's something you should probably consider: Certainty is pretty much overrated. It's the spice of doubt that flavors our existence.

maestro299:


I didn't imply that at all so I fail to see how you inferred that from my comment.

The entirety of your first post here could be summed up as "men, logic; women, feelings", which reads to me like a sly nod to gender stereotypes.

Also notice the first sentence in that post you made:
"You are viewing the mindset of the generality of women from a man's lens."

maestro299:
You are viewing the mindset of the generality of women from a man's lens.

That's your mistake.

Men are typically logic-based in their thinking and decision-making. For example, look at the question you asked. They are "What...?", "Why...?" questions. As men, we try to 'make sense' of a situation most times.

Women on the other hand, don't think that way. They will most times, follow her feelings on an issue.
"How did that make me feel?"

As feelings are easily mercurial, it makes it seem like women don't know what they want at a point in time, which isn't strictly so. She might have agreed with you to do something yesterday only to change her mind the next day because she's not 'feeling right'.

This is why many of them fall prey to men who are skilled in emotional manipulation.

This argument would have been valid if it weren't predicated on the false premise that logic and emotion are mutually exclusive.

Chenzee:
What do women/ladies really want?

Respect, a personal connection with their partner, and someone who doesn't just see them as a sex object or a puzzle to solve.

It's not rocket science really. You don't need spreadsheets or a stock market ticker.

jesusjnr2020:
What Fell The Soldiers That Came To Arrest Jesus?

John 18:6 (KJV)

As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

It was a strange occurrence considering that they were fully armed with weapons, and it was armless Jesus they had come to arrest, so what could have made them suddenly reverse and fall to the ground?

Was it Christophobia or a panic attack they had because of Jesus?

Beats me, hon.

You'd think a ragtag bunch of soldiers wouldn't be so easily startled by a carpenter.

Maybe they were just rehearsing their fainting couch routine for the drama club after their shift.

Geovanni412:



Do you believe that Adolf Hitler and pol pot were striving to become the best version of themselves?

LOL. You know, when I initially posted that comment you responded to, I suspected there might be the possibility of you invoking the "Godwin's Law" clause. I'd wager you're most likely unfamiliar with Godwin's Law so I'll help you out here...

Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies,[1] is an Internet adage asserting: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

But enough with the side jokes and/or comments, let me attend to your main question. You asked if Hitler and Pol Pot were striving to become the best versions of themselves. My answer to your question would be that it depends on your idea or understanding of self-improvement. If by "self-improvement" you actually mean "systematic genocide", then yes! If we want to eschew the nuances of the subject and resort to black and white thinking, then we might be justified to say that they were indeed striving to become the best versions of themselves. If you haven't gotten my point yet, then allow me to elucidate further: the two men you mentioned weren't exactly focused on development in a personal sense. Their idea of growth was more like pruning humanity's branches with a rusty machete. Citing Hitler and Pol Pot the way you did only tells me that you can't tell the difference between someone striving to improve himself in a noble way and someone striving to reshape the world around him in his own twisted image. Maybe we should examine Hitler and Pol Pot's personal growth strategies. Hitler's entire campaign revolved around promoting hate and annexing countries. Pot was a Khmer Rogue leader bent on eliminating intellectuals, artists, and anyone who could read more than one book. He was strictly "anti-enlightenment", if such a term actually exists.

I feel like I've previously noted this pivotal concept elsewhere on this forum, but "good" and "bad" actually exist across the spectrum of human experience. It doesn't matter what your beliefs or ideologies are, the fact is that there's no monopoly on virtue or vice.

Geovanni412:


What do you mean by finding meaning through personal growth and human connection?

It is a very vague term which both evil and good people use interchangeably

Kindly clarify

It's always interesting to watch people create this false dichotomy of "evil and good people". I mean, there's a whole spectrum of human behavior, not just heroes and villains. Sure, some bad apples may use self-improvement rhetoric for nefarious purposes. But I hope you know history is littered with tyrants who clung dearly to religious dogma. My point? good and bad can exist within both religious and secular frameworks. Personal growth is all about becoming the best version of yourself. Learning new things, challenging your assumptions, pushing your boundaries - you know, the opposite of stagnating in a set of pre-determined beliefs. As for human connection, that's the glue that holds society together. Sharing experiences, offering support, and learning from others - these are all inherently meaningful aspects of being human. Religion can foster connection, sure, but it's hardly the only game in town. Friendships, family bonds, even that camaraderie you feel with your local book club - all contribute to a fulfilling life.

PoliteActivist:


Good to have you back. Your erudite submissions add to the level of the discussion.
Well, without "all things being equal" we can't have a discussion because, as I pointed out, it's like we all live in different realities though we physically occupy the same world. There are people who speak with God everyday and people who see shape-shifting demons everyday. Then there are people who are 100% sure a supernatural doesn't exist. The totally weird thing is that BOTH may be right!

Respectfully, you're trying to play a fast one. I am the one who has always said that life is totally subjective - that what exists for one person may not exist for another.
As for what aspects of religion are beneficial, they are rather obvious. Just believing God is on your side and you can't fail is better than going it "alone". But the real point is that you can at same time have ALL there is in atheism without the stigma and "lonliness" and isolation from the social mainstream (speaking of the "human connection" you talked about).
You're right, mutual understanding is far more productive. Though "logical whack-a-mole" can be a lot of fun too. I'll admit I enjoy beating up LordReed . I'm truly amazed I've won EVERY SINGLE discussion I've had with him. They always end with me saying "QED"!

We don't exist in a thought experiment. We live in a world brimming with social constructs, cultural influences, and yes, even a dash of good old-fashioned confirmation bias. To suggest a level playing field for belief formation is simply ahistorical. Remember the Crusades? The Inquisition? Religious persecution? These weren't exactly hotbeds of "free choice" when it came to faith. In reality, people's experiences shape their beliefs, just like countless historical events shaped the rise of various religions.

The idea that believing in a deity provides an advantage over non-belief is a comforting notion for some, I agree. But you keep confusing comfort with truth. The placebo effect is well-documented in medicine, and perhaps there's a parallel in belief systems. The mind is powerful, and belief can indeed have profound effects on one's perception of life's challenges and successes. Throughout history, countless wars have been waged under the banner of one god versus another. So much for your "God is on your side" myth and divine assurance of victory. Furthermore, human connection doesn't require a shared belief in the supernatural. It requires empathy, understanding, and the recognition of our shared humanity. Atheists find community in many places: family, friends, interest-based groups, and yes, even in the broader societal mainstream. The "stigma" you speak of is lessening as the world becomes more secular and diverse in thought.

FYI, declaring "QED" after every debate doesn't magically make your position valid. That just betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how constructive discourse works.

PoliteActivist:


(JessicaRabbi, this is a quick response. I'll reply you more fully when I have time)

For the record, I have not ONCE copied and pasted ANYTHING from the web on this thread.
I have never been banned for anything you mentioned. The bans are probably due to technical glitches of some sort that don't follow any logical pattern. I post long epistles and don't get banned, then get banned for an innocuous one-paragraph post!

You keep talking about fallacies when you are the one full of logical fallacies. Did anyone ever say there are no benefits to being an atheist? Or that there are no atheists that lead fulfilling lives? The discussion is: all things being equal, which is MORE beneficial in our reality and society!!

And you keep talking subjectivity.
Life itself is subjective!
Infact, you can say we all live in different worlds though we are physically in same world. I think that is the greatest hidden flaw of the human mind that we are unaware of - assuming everybody experiences reality same way we do.

Folks, please note, I will soon have the result and conclusion of the debate - who won and why.
So far religionists have an edge. There are too many questions atheists can't answer. The only ones religionists can't answer is, WHY their particular religion is the right one, and WHY did creation suddenly start whenever it started.

The whole "all things being equal" argument is fantastical at best. People don't choose their beliefs in a vacuum. Upbringing, cultural influences, personal experiences etc. all play a role. But even in a hypothetical world, "benefits" are subjective! Your version of a "beneficial" life might involve church socials and shared beliefs, while mine might involve the freedom to explore ideas without theological constraints. There's no one-size-fits-all answer. At the very least, I'm pleased that you've finally come out to declare the subjectivity of life. That has been my point all along! That's why claiming everyone experiences the divine the same way, or that a specific religion is universally "beneficial", is a bit of a stretch. My reality involves finding meaning through personal growth, scientific discovery, and human connection - all perfectly fulfilling pursuits that don't require a deity.

You know what? Why don't you go ahead and tell me, what aspects of religion you find most beneficial? Maybe I can share my perspective on how I find similar fulfillment without resorting to faith. Mutual understanding is far more productive than this game of logical whack-a-mole we seem to be playing.

PoliteActivist:


😆 It is funny how you keep touting science, "scientific method", neuroscience. It is usually people who know nothing about science that are like that about science.
Scientists themselves know the vast limitations of science. See some comments from g.o.a.t. scientific minds below. Not only is the true nature of existence not known to science, the true nature of existence is NOT knowable through science!

Wow. I'm quite sure you don't realize the irony of quoting giants of science as though it negates their own reliance on the very method you seem eager to discredit. That's a brilliant own-goal in logic if I've ever seen one.

Socrates emphasized the value of self-awareness, but he also engaged in rigorous questioning, a cornerstone of the scientific method.

Einstein recognized the vastness of the unknown, but can you guess the method through which he dedicated his life to uncovering these unknown mysteries of the universe? I'll give you a hint. It starts with "scientific" and ends with "inquiry".

Same goes for Newton. While acknowledging the limitations of his individual understanding, he actively used the scientific method to unlock the secrets of the universe.

These minds, like countless others, embraced the power of evidence-based exploration. They didn't see the limitations of science as a reason to abandon it, but as a constant reminder to push the boundaries of knowledge further. It's like saying a map is useless because it doesn't reveal every hidden corner of the world. It's the tool that guides us, helps us navigate the unknown, and constantly refine our understanding.

So at the end of the day, I think I'll stick to the pursuit of knowledge through verifiable evidence, not celestial sugar daddies or the whimsical pronouncements of cherry-picked quotes.

PoliteActivist:


*(nlfpmod, OAM4, Seun, after one or two posts the "antispam bot" bans me for 24hrs for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON!!! Please, I don't understand. What is going on??)

Moniker JessicaRabbit, na wa for you o. It is not everything you argue, otherwise it seems you're arguing just to be arguing. I detailed to you why it is more BENEFICIAL to NOT be an atheist in this our reality and system. Which I didn't need to do because you'd instinctively know it. It doesn't mean atheism is bad, it is just not the thing to be in this our system of things!
Let's take a practical example - YOU! Assuming you are a lady, a young lady. Let's say you finally realise you really don't know anything about this our reality - that God may very well exist. Based on that you decide you're no longer an atheist and start attending, say, Roman Catholic.
You are a smart young lady - you are not about to be brainwashed by anybody, and you're not about to become and extremist. See what happens:
1) You now have God, whom you can call on any time you wish and know he loves you and is with you in all situations.
2) You now have a whole social mileu opened up to you - networking opportunities, husband materials, etc.
3) Fairly or unfairly, you are now viewed more favorably by much of society and are trusted more by individuals you deal with.
4) You'd no longer be wasting your time fighting religion - a foolish fight because you can't make a dent.
5) You'd still have everything you had as an atheist, except the stigma!

Stop sounding like a fanatic. Read my posts to understand them, not just make up a response. I already showed you that your claim of atheism being somehow less "beneficial" than theism reeks of subjectivity. You're essentially proposing that the Christian worldview and its perceived benefits are universally applicable, which is about as scientific as claiming the Earth is flat. My sense of fulfillment and purpose doesn't hinge on the existence of a deity, and suggesting otherwise is both presumptuous and disrespectful to the diverse range of values and experiences that define individuals. You must understand this single fact, else I don't see the point of continuing this discussion if you'll just ignore what I'm saying and come back only to keep repeating yourself. Secondly, your practical example relies heavily on stereotypes and generalizations. You paint a picture of an uninformed atheist suddenly experiencing an epiphany and then flocking to an organized religion, solely for societal advantages. This narrative not only ignores the vast spectrum of reasons behind individuals' religious beliefs (or lack thereof) but also reduces complex choices to a mere "what's in it for me?" mentality. Your naive assumption that I, or any atheist, would automatically experience a surge in social life, romantic prospects, and societal trust solely by embracing a specific religion is nothing short of ludicrous. What about the countless examples of atheists who thrive in various social spheres and garner respect based on their merits, not their faith? Are the experiences of those atheists too inconvenient for your dodgy narrative?

Fighting religion is not a "foolish fight". You are only betraying your fundamental misunderstanding of the role of critical thinking in a healthy society, as well your ignorance of the historical and ongoing social progress fueled by secular movements. Questioning established norms and challenging authority, whether religious or otherwise, is (and always has been) a cornerstone of intellectual growth and social progress. It will do you a measure of good to actually address the core tenets of atheism, instead of relying on a series of fallacies and strawmen.

P.S. You need to chill out with your incessant quoting of monikers. You should have realized by now that majority of the people you're quoting do not wish to partake in this conversation, so your constant tagging, apart from constituting an unnecessary nuisance, is also a tad disrespectful. Seeing your mentions make me feel dizzy because I'm not sure which posts I should (or shouldn't) respond to.

P.P.S Stick to screenshots instead of copying and pasting lengthy articles from the web. It could help with your constant bans.

I was warned that my post was "too long", so I decided to divide my post into two parts. Here's PART TWO

============================================================================

GreatAchiever1:
I support Uju's stance on this matter, even though it may not align with the views of egalitarians and feminists. It's refreshing to see a woman addressing the emotional abuse that wives can inflict in a marriage, which may contribute to the husband reacting in frustration. While much is often said about men's aggression, little attention is given to the harm women can cause through their words. Encouraging women to exercise restraint in such situations could potentially reduce instances of violence.

Sincerely, I doubt there is any evidence to support your (and Uju's) advice that encouraging women to exercise restraint could reduce instances of violence. In fact, the opposite might likely be more true. Telling women to stay and endure their abuse may actually increase the risk of harm or death. The only way to reduce domestic violence is to stop the abuser, not the victim. As you already know, a comprehensive approach that will involve legal, social, and psychological interventions, as well as education and awareness campaigns should suffice.

In your first paragraph, you seem to suggest that the Bible lacks authority and should be discarded, but I understand that this is your personal opinion, which you're entitled to, especially considering you're not a Christian. The theologians who interpret the Bible through such ideologies are often referred to as egalitarians. While there may be disagreements with theologians who identify as complementarians or Patriarchs on certain gender roles, the concept of headship in marriage is unequivocally clear in the pages of the Bible.
In your second paragraph, I strongly disagree. Marriage is a divine institution ordained by God, not a human construct, and it is He alone who determines its nature, as outlined in the Bible.

You're right, I do hold the personal opinion that the Bible, shouldn't be the sole arbiter of complex social issues like marriage. Attributing absolute truth and universal applicability to its pronouncements, especially on complex social issues like marriage, strikes me as intellectually lazy. Your belief that God ordained marriage and dictates its nature might hold weight for those who share your faith. But for many, including myself, the concept of a divine blueprint for human relationships feels restrictive and unnecessary. I believe that marriage, like all other human institutions, is a work in progress, constantly evolving alongside our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. It doesn't thrive on rigid dogma, but on mutual respect, love, and the ability to adapt to the ever-changing human experience.

In your scenario, if someone cuts the line, I would inquire about the reason behind their actions and expect a satisfactory explanation. If the explanation falls short, I would firmly request that they leave my space, and if met with resistance, I would feel justified in pushing them aside. In such instances, if the situation escalates, there would likely be eyewitnesses who could provide an account of the incident. Both the act of cutting the line and my reaction to it would be scrutinized and addressed accordingly. The key takeaway is that in any situation, the cause and effect must be addressed. Just as driving a car with brake failure inevitably leads to an accident if not promptly resolved, addressing the root cause of a problem is essential to preventing further escalation.

You may think that making satisfactory explanations and firm requests will do the trick but in an abusive relationship, the power dynamic is far from balanced if we're being honest. The victim's attempts at reasoning or setting boundaries are often met with manipulation, gaslighting, or even threats. Suggesting the victim can simply "push back" ignores the very real fear and emotional manipulation that keeps them trapped. The "eyewitness" addition also loses its potency in the private sphere of an abusive relationship. Often, the manipulation and control tactics occur behind closed doors, making external validation and intervention considerably harder. Don't forget, we're not dealing with a simple cause-and-effect equation here. We're talking about individuals, their vulnerabilities, and the very real, lasting trauma inflicted by abuse. Open communication and addressing underlying issues are crucial in healthy relationships, but in an abusive one, the focus needs to be on safety and support for the victim. This cannot be stressed enough.

Submission is a source of blessing and doesn't raise any concerns for me. As someone aspiring to be a patriarch, I understand the importance of submitting to God's will. By submitting to His word, I learn how to lead my future wife, who in turn submits to me as she would to the Lord in all aspects of life.
When it comes to women's agency, I find it ironic. While there is talk of women having agency, there seems to be a lack of accountability for their actions. Women often have situational pseudo-agency under the umbrella of headship. Without this headship, they become woeful free agents. In the model of marriage based on the archetype of Christ and the church, women's agency, when combined with headship, results in a complex dynamic where women possess agency within the parameters of obedience to their head.

A spouse is not a deity, my dear. You are only setting up a toxic and unhealthy power dynamic where the husband becomes an infallible leader, leaving little room for the wife's individuality and agency. And this "lack of accountability" for women? Pure rhetoric. We hold ourselves, and each other, accountable just fine, thank you very much. Are you suggesting women are incapable of making sound decisions without a man holding their hand? We're not children in need of constant supervision. We are capable, intelligent individuals with the autonomy to navigate life's complexities without needing a designated "head." Normally, I would tag people who make these kind of assertions as bogus, narcissistic and insecure, but I suspect you are coming from a position of raw honesty based on your faith and the beliefs you grew up with, so tradition offers some comfort to you. I also find this complicated dynamic of women having agency within the confines of obedience, rather hilarious, and also a bit of an oxymoronic pronouncement. True agency thrives in an environment of freedom and respect, not limitations and blind obedience.

However, in any relationship, there needs to be a leader, and there's only room for one. It seems you still hold misconceptions about patriarchy. In true patriarchy, communication is important, and there's a shared mission to fulfill on this planet, which is only achievable through complementarity among the leader and the led. Nonetheless, there's a recognition that the husband holds the leadership role and ultimately makes the final decisions, after considering both his own perspective and that of his wife. Even then, the wife understands that it's ultimately his responsibility to make the call, and she submits to his decision. Consider situations where there are conflicting opinions about the family's vision and plans; inevitably, someone must yield. Therefore, if you're unable to trust a man enough to lead you, it's a clear sign: don't get married to him.

I don't necessarily expect you to appreciate this fact I'm about to tell you (at least not yet), but I'll say it anyway for the benefit of people reading: If you truly want to experience bliss and joy in your relationship with your spouse, you both must have mutual respect and a willingness to compromise for each other. Any good relationship thrives on collaboration, on navigating life's challenges as a team, not with one person barking orders and the other saluting. Communication, as you rightly point out, is crucial. But communication doesn't stop at simply considering your wife's perspective. It's about actively listening, understanding her concerns, scrutinizing your own ideas, and then, together, coming to a decision that respects both your viewpoints. Stop expecting her to blindly submit to your will all the time. The key here is TRUST. Trust isn't built on blind obedience; it's built on open communication, mutual respect, and the confidence that your partner will consider your interests and well-being in their decision-making. If you can't trust your partner to do that, then perhaps the issue lies deeper than who wears the "metaphorical pants."

I think it's going to be an uphill battle for either of us to convince the other party here. You are clearly a strong believer in the patriarchy, and I'm a strong opponent of that ideology. If there's nothing more interesting we can add to this discussion, I will say let's just agree to disagree.

I was warned that my post was "too long", so I decided to divide my post into two parts. Here's PART ONE

============================================================================

GreatAchiever1:


You quickly resort to likening my argument to that of a politician, but what accountability am I supposedly evading here? It seems to me that you're unwilling to accept my perspective because you're trying to equate patriarchy with traditional gender roles. You mentioned that in Nigeria, women face significant obstacles in accessing education, land ownership, and economic independence. It makes me wonder where exactly in Nigeria you reside. Am I truly in Nigeria, or am I perhaps in a different country posing as Nigeria? When you mention patriarchy in Nigeria, it occurs to me that you may be referring to Sharia Law in Northern Nigeria and erroneously presenting it as the national legal system. This portrayal could lead to the misconception that Nigeria is patriarchal.

I think you're missing the point of my argument, which is not to equate patriarchy with traditional gender roles, but rather to expose the injurious and oppressive effects of rigid, enforced, and patriarchal gender roles on women's lives and rights. Traditional gender roles are not inherently bad or wrong, but they can become so when they are used to justify the subordination of women in various aspects of life - political, economic, social, you name it. This is what the patriarchy does: it imposes a hierarchical and unequal system of power and privilege based on gender, and denies women the opportunity to participate fully and freely in society. The influence of Sharia Law in the North is worthy of note, but in spite of the South boasting a more progressive outlook, Nigeria is still not immune to this problem, as evidenced by the significant obstacles that women face in accessing education, land ownership, and economic independence.

I'm well aware of Ada Lovelace and many other pioneering females, but for every woman you mention in the field of inventions, you can easily list more than ten males. An exception doesn't negate the overall trend. When I spoke about women being more emotional and nurturing, I didn't mean to imply that men cannot possess these traits. It's just that certain characteristics, like physical strength, are more visibly apparent. While men typically exhibit greater physical strength on average, it doesn't mean women are devoid of strength. These roles are based on inherent characteristics and nature. The current cultural emphasis on allowing women freedom from traditional gender roles has resulted in societal changes. However, one could argue that these changes have led to negative consequences such as broken families, increased divorce rates, fatherless children, paternity fraud, the rise of sexual revolutions and LGBTQ issues. I support women pursuing education and excelling in their endeavors, but it shouldn't come at the expense of their roles as mothers and wives. Even the Bible advises older women to mentor younger women in embracing their familial responsibilities which is to love their husbands and their children, to live wisely and be pure, to work in their homes, to do good, and to be submissive to their husbands. Then they will not bring shame on the word of God." Titus 2:4-7.

Of course, I don't believe anyone should find it surprising that you can "easily list more than ten males" for "every woman you mention in the field of inventions". In fact this only lends more credence to the fact that women have been systematically oppressed and excluded from education, science, and public life for centuries. It's not that women lacked the ability or the interest, but rather the opportunity and the recognition. Many women have had to work under male pseudonyms, or had their work stolen or dismissed by their male colleagues. Even today, women face discrimination, harassment, and bias in STEM fields, which discourages them from pursuing their passions and careers. So, the fact that there are still many women who have made significant contributions to STEM, despite all these obstacles, is remarkable and admirable. It's not about the quantity, but the quality. Skills and qualities in STEM works are not exclusive or inherent to any gender, but rather developed and cultivated through education, experience, and encouragement. Also, I should note here that physical strength is not just a fixed or innate trait, but also a result of environmental factors, such as nutrition, exercise, and health. There are many women who are stronger than many men, and vice versa. You also seem to have a very conservative and moralistic view of society. You claim that the current cultural emphasis on allowing women freedom from traditional gender roles has resulted in societal changes, and that these changes have led to negative consequences, such as broken families, increased divorce rates, fatherless children, paternity fraud, the rise of sexual revolutions and LGBTQ issues. Well, that's not very accurate, considering that there is a lot of evidence and research that contradicts your claims. For instance, studies have shown that women's education and empowerment have positive effects on their health, happiness, and productivity, as well as on their families, communities, and economies. And I don't know who that Bible quote was cited for, but if you intended it for me, I'd suggest you not to waste your time using it in this discussion. Like I told you earlier, I have little regard for it.

I chose to focus on America primarily because my studies, particularly when I began embracing patriarchal principles, centered around American history and culture. Even if I were to revisit this topic in the future, I would likely continue to use America as a reference point. This is because America was founded on principles rooted in God and the Bible (even though not all of their founding fathers were Christians), unfortunately, they are currently drifting away from them. Additionally, America's wealth of resources and materials are readily available online, and it holds a prominent position as one of the world's leading powers. While I cannot speak definitively about the patriarchal nature of other Western nations, my focus remains on America's foundational values. You may label it as you wish, but my stance is rooted in truth. I am committed to standing up for what is objectively true.

It must take a weird sort of optimism for you to claim "objective truth" when discussing complex social constructs like the patriarchy. Truth is often built from countless narratives, and excluding any piece only distorts the bigger picture. Let's even pardon the fact that your sole focus on America creates a dangerous blind spot for you, limiting your understanding of the broader societal trends and dynamics that led to the formation of various power structures, including patriarchal ones. To start with, I'm highly skeptical of your claim that America was founded on the Bible and Christian ideals. The 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, one of the first foreign treaties signed and ratified by the United States, washes away this assertion rather quickly (look at the screenshots). It was signed by President John Adams and was read in full on the Senate floor and was unanimously recommended for ratification by the state. Surely if the US government was founded on Christianity, you'd expect the earlier members of said government to do better than unanimously approve of a treaty that includes such a statement. Furthermore, you can't just flippantly push aside the contributions of marginalized groups in shaping American life. That's just historical revisionism at its finest. It's important to remember that history is often written by the victors, and even then, it's rarely a singular, unbiased narrative. Do you honestly believe the Founding Fathers envisioned a society where women, people of color, etc. wouldn't constantly fight against the prejudice, discrimination and injustice meted out against them, and claim their rightful place?

Suggesting that the Apostle Paul's writings were influenced by Greco-Roman culture rather than by the Holy Spirit is a textbook example of feminist or egalitarian rhetoric detached from scripture. Paul's reasoning was not shaped by any cultural norms but by the biblical account of the first human couple, Adam and Eve. In 1 Timothy 2:13-15, it says "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint."
Shows it was taken from the biblical account of the creation and the fall and not from Greco-Roman culture.

Now we're getting to the juicy part. You throw down the gauntlet of scripture, claiming Paul's pronouncements on women stem solely from divine inspiration, not the cultural soup he swam in. The Adam and Eve narrative is precisely what I'm talking about! It's a cultural construct, woven with the prevailing societal beliefs of its era. The very notion of Eve's "deception" reflects a patriarchal framing of the fall, placing blame on women for succumbing to temptation. This narrative conveniently ignores the serpent's role, neatly fitting into a cultural context where women were often seen as the weaker, more easily swayed sex. By the way, it's interesting how you quoted just one passage (1 Timothy 2:13-15) while ignoring Paul's other writings. Let's avoid creating skewed narratives here. He commends women like Phoebe (Romans 16:1) as a "deacon" and Priscilla as a fellow worker in the ministry (Romans 16:3).

Women's ministries are indeed evident, such as older women instructing younger women, along with roles involving hospitality, assistance, and service, however excluding formal leadership positions within the Church. The notion that someone's value is diminished because they aren't in a leadership role is flawed. Both leadership and supportive roles are equally vital for the proper functioning of any institution. The issue isn't about moving away from the patriarchal principles rooted in biblical teachings; rather, it's about always enhancing and aligning them with godly principles. While many historical cultures, especially in Africa, have been patriarchal, the embrace of Christianity should have solidified these principles based on the Bible.....

On the topic of diminished value in non-leadership roles, I wholeheartedly disagree. Think Florence Nightingale, Mother Teresa, or even Harriet Tubman. Their contributions, though not involving formal leadership titles, undeniably shaped the world. Impact isn't solely measured by titles or positions, but by the ripples of positive change we create. Now, about these "patriarchal principles" being solidified by Christianity. Frankly, history suggests otherwise. Look, the early church wasn't exactly a model of gender equality either, but claiming that Christianity actively reinforces patriarchal structures found in specific cultures feels a tad selective, wouldn't you say? The message of love, compassion, and equality embedded in the core of Christianity can, and should, be interpreted in a way that transcends limitations imposed by specific cultural contexts. Equating the fight for equality with nefarious ideologies feels like an unnecessary stretch. The inherent value and dignity of all individuals, regardless of gender or sexual orientation should be acknowledged without invoking conspiracy theories. Besides, if the Bible truly is the living word of God, shouldn't it be able to withstand the scrutiny of honest inquiry and reinterpretation in light of evolving societal understanding? A loving God should want us to strive for progress and understanding, rather than remain stagnant and bound by interpretations that may no longer serve us effectively.

While I agree with your initial paragraph, I would also add skepticism to the equation. Simply showing empathy and support without questioning can lead to a lack of thorough investigation. Being skeptical about a situation can prompt a deeper inquiry, potentially uncovering more serious issues or revealing that the situation is less severe than initially perceived, perhaps even a hoax.

So if a friend confided in you about a difficult situation, perhaps a toxic work environment or a struggling relationship, would you launch into a full-blown investigation complete with cross-examination and polygraph tests before offering a listening ear and a supportive shoulder? I would hope not! In this case, skepticism isn't about questioning the validity of someone's pain, but about questioning the systems in place to address it. We should work towards strengthening those systems, ensuring fair investigations, and providing unwavering support to those in need, because in the end, compassion goes a long way, and it's the first step towards building a world where everyone feels safe enough to speak their truth. Focusing on the minuscule possibility of a fabricated accusation detracts from the immense reality of genuine suffering. We shouldn't let the fear of the rare overshadow the needs of the many. Even if one accusation proves false, the vast majority stem from very real experiences. Compassion and thoroughness aren't mutually exclusive.

PoliteActivist:


**( I was banned for 24hrs right after that my response to JessiaRabbit few hours ago, and the response was deleted. I just checked only to find out I HAVE BEEN MYSTERIOUSLY UNBANNED AND THE POST RESTORED!!! Since it seems the madness has ended, here's the half post. Following this, I'll post the rest of it if not banned):

Consider: more than 95% of our universe is made up of dark matter/dark energy, yet we don't know what it is. We know it is there but we don't have the foggiest idea what it is!
Consider: scientists have determined there are at least 10 dimensions, and possibly up to a thousand. Yet we can perceive only 4. FOUR!
Consider: our earth is is so infinitestimally small compared to the observable universe you can almost say it doesn't exist (on a universe scale, you can't see the earth even with the strogest microscope). Yet the observable universe is only one 64 millionth of the estimated size of our universe. Then there is the multiverse theory - there could be unlimited number of universes!
Compound all that with the fact that: limitations and manipulations could have been built into our perception of reality such that we only perceive what "they" want us to perceive. Scientists have no way of knowing what is really there!
Add to all that, brains and circumstances could be being manipulated on a day-to-day ongoing basis, while studies and observations are being done (we still don't know how or where our dreams come from!).

Add all that up and you'll realize, when Einstein and other geniuses said they knew nothing, maybe they were not as stupid as you think!

Ok. So the universe is vast and strange. That's precisely why we have the scientific method, a meticulous process for chipping away at the unknown, not resorting to celestial sugar daddies to plug the gaps in our knowledge. As for manipulated perception and limitations, well, that's precisely what science is trying to understand, not a justification for abandoning it altogether. And yes, even the greatest minds acknowledge the vastness of the unknown, but unlike some, they don't use it as a springboard for magical thinking.

PoliteActivist:
*(HOORAYYY!!! I wasn't banned!!! Here's more of the JessicaRabbit response. The rest to follow if I'm not banned)

Before such unimaginable immensity, complexity, and unknowability, what a wise human ought exhibit is absolute AWE, followed by HUMILITY, followed by acknowledgement he knows almost NOTHING.
NOT start spouting about lowly human science - science that can barely answer the most rudimentary questions about existence and human psyche (see "spirit attachment" below - by a top-notch scientist), and at same time dismissing first hand experiences of the divine and of spiritual attacks and experiences people have had over the ages. We are completely defenseless when asleep, and we have no say as to what type of dream we'd have. If someone says a fetish imam or pastor comes into their dreams to have sex with them and then in real life the imam acts and talks as if they knew what they did, the right response is to say you don't know anything about such, and that you hope such never happens to you. Not start spouting about lowly human science!

What is "unimaginable immensity" and what is "unknowability"? Are these supposed to be arguments for the divine, because newsflash, they're not. At best they're simply descriptions of the universe - a universe we're constantly chipping away at understanding. Not having conclusive answers to all these mysteries does not grant us the liberty to dismiss the incredible progress science has made. That's like throwing away the telescope because it can't see individual atoms. From the Big Bang to the building blocks of life, science has provided profound insights into the very fabric of reality. While the human psyche remains a complex puzzle, advancements in neuroscience are steadily unveiling its workings. As for Dr. Sanderson's "Case for Spirit Release Therapy," it's worth noting that therapy, like any field, has its fringe and well-established practices. Citing a single, possibly dubious, source doesn't invalidate the vast body of scientific evidence. Atheists aren't denying the fact that people have subjective experiences; they simply don't accept those experiences as objective evidence of the supernatural. There are countless psychological and neurological explanations for subjective experiences, including sleep paralysis, confirmation bias, and cultural conditioning.

Your "fetish imam" scenario is a curious example. Firstly, it evokes fear and disgust, which are powerful tools for manipulation in arguments. Secondly, it paints atheists as dismissive of all personal experiences, which is a misrepresentation. Atheists, like anyone else, can acknowledge the existence of unusual experiences without attributing them to the supernatural.

PoliteActivist:
b]*Continuing my response to moniker JessicaRabbit. I'll break it up into very small pieces, let's see what happens[/b]

Now, in response to your enormous faith in science and "reality", and your treatise on "genuine faith", "fictional being", "confirmation bias", etc., let me say the following:

Consider: more than 95% of our universe is made up of dark matter/dark energy, yet we don't know what it is. We know it is there but we don't have the foggiest idea what it is!

The dark matter and dark energy conundrum is only a perfect example of how much we don't know about the universe! Unlike faith, science embraces the unknown and actively seeks answers through observation and experimentation. At the end of the day, it's far more interesting to admit we have much to learn than to fill the gaps with fantastical explanations.

PoliteActivist:
I don't know why you are arguing against the obvious.

Maybe it's because the "obvious" isn't quite as self-evident as you believe. After all, even the Earth appeared flat for a long time.

anything an atheists can do or have, a religionist can also do or have PLUS also possess faith in God

Faith is not a quantifiable object to be "gained" or "possessed." It's a complex belief system with its own set of pros and cons, which you conveniently ignore.

the way our reality is set up it is more beneficial to believe in God than not. Example: two fighters equally matched but one believes he can't lose because God is with him. Or old people who live alone but one has God. Or people who are sick - placebo. Or affirmations (prayers). All these are of proven benefits.

These anecdotes lack scientific rigor and fail to account for the countless examples of individuals who find immense strength and purpose outside of religion. Faith does not automatically guarantee positive outcomes.

the way our society is set up, it is more beneficial to be a religionist

Bandwagon fallacy. You claim that by what individuals have internalized, it's more beneficial to be perceived as religious. This perpetuates harmful stereotypes and ignores the fact that morality and ethical behavior are not exclusive to any single faith system.

by what individuals have internalized, it is more beneficial to be perceived a devout, say, Christian than an atheist. Even you yourself know which one you'd feel safer with, or you'd feel won't cheat you.

This is not an "either/or" situation, my dear. You are ignoring the vast spectrum of human experience and belief systems. Many individuals find meaning and purpose through human connection, philosophical pursuits, or a love for science and the natural world.

You can't muddy any of it up by citing complexity - everything is "all things being equal" or you can't have a discussion. Or by citing subjectivity - life itself is subjective!

Any meaningful discussion requires acknowledging the nuances of the topic, not resorting to oversimplification and faulty logic. You have no point here.

GreatAchiever1:


I mentioned that those nations exhibit patriarchal traits, but I never claimed they represent the epitome of true patriarchy. There's a widespread misconception conflating traditional gender roles with patriarchy. A society may adhere to traditional gender norms without necessarily being patriarchal. Take China or Japan, for instance. While Nigeria also embraces traditional roles, it doesn't qualify as patriarchal.

Now you're just tap-dancing around the definition of patriarchy like a politician dodging accountability. Traditional gender roles can exist within a patriarchal system, they are not synonymous. Traditional roles can evolve and exist in a framework of relative equality. But when these roles are rigid, enforced by societal pressures, and used to justify the subordination of women in various aspects of life - political, economic, social, you name it - then we're firmly in the realm of patriarchy! Hell, even China and Japan that you mentioned, while not perfect paragons of gender equality, do offer avenues for women to participate in the public sphere and build careers. Meanwhile, the legal system and social norms in parts of Nigeria can make it significantly harder for women to access education, land ownership, and full economic independence. That's a structural difference, my dear, not just a matter of who cooks dinner most nights. So instead of delving into needless semantic gymnastics, can we just acknowledge the spectrum of patriarchy, but not use it as a justification for ignoring the very real limitations faced by women in certain societies? Otherwise, we risk turning this discussion into an intellectual game of "who can define patriarchy the narrowest" instead of actually addressing the lived experiences of millions.

I don't have the time to delve into articles supporting claims about men being more rational and women more emotional, but consider this perspective: Historically, men have been at the forefront of inventions and scientific discoveries, which are typically associated with rational thinking. Conversely, women often excel in roles requiring emotional intelligence, such as design, nurturing, teaching, therapy e.t.c. While there are certainly women who have made significant scientific contributions, this doesn't negate the overall trend. Similarly, there are men in professions requiring high emotional intelligence.
Despite the emphasis on encouraging girls in STEM fields, there's often little focus on promoting their skills in caregiving and homemaking. Yet, even with encouragement in STEM, men still tend to dominate in groundbreaking inventions, with fewer women achieving similar recognition. It seems the nurturing nature often associated with women persists, regardless of societal encouragement.

I'm assuming you never heard of Ada Lovelace, a pioneer in computer programming, or Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray crystallography images were crucial for the discovery of DNA's structure. And that's just to name a few. History is rife with a plethora of female contributions to STEM subjects, so attributing inventions and scientific discoveries solely to men is simply disingenuous. By the way, men are perfectly capable of nurturing, and women are not limited to the realm of emotions. This kind of essentialism not only undermines individual potential but also reinforces restrictive gender roles that hinder societal progress. You still haven't provided any basis for you to cling to this bogus stereotype. You talked about the lack of "focus" on promoting caregiving and homemaking skills in girls: please who decides what skills are worthy of "focus"? Shouldn't individual girls, free from societal pressures, be empowered to choose their paths, whether it's mastering astrophysics or becoming a master chef? And might I add, the notion that men are somehow naturally averse to caregiving roles is demonstrably false. Countless fathers and male caregivers throughout history and across cultures would vehemently disagree. Furthermore, the claim that "the nurturing nature often associated with women persists" regardless of societal encouragement falls flat when we consider the societal and cultural factors influencing career choices. Until recently, many STEM fields were actively hostile and unwelcoming to women. Even today, implicit biases and a lack of female role models can still discourage girls from pursuing these fields.

I chose to focus on America because it's a major economic powerhouse, and indeed, the country was founded on patriarchal principles. While I acknowledge that there have been changes in its history, I intentionally excluded other Western civilizations tha I wasn't sure were founded on paternal principles. If you believe that actions such as abortion rights, delaying marriage to pursue career, same-sex relationships, and placing women in roles like the military and competitive sports as well as in political leadership offices are advancements for women, then we have a fundamental disagreement.

But focusing on America is not only arbitrary, it's also misleading. America is not a monolithic entity, but a diverse and dynamic nation that has been shaped by various influences and forces, both internal and external. Claiming that America was founded on patriarchal principles is to ignore the contributions and perspectives of the many people who have challenged and changed the status quo, such as the indigenous peoples, the enslaved Africans, the immigrants, the women, the civil rights activists and recently, the LGBTQ community. These people have not only enriched the culture and history of America, but also expanded the rights and freedoms of its citizens. So if you're excluding them from your narrative, you're only distorting the reality and diversity of America. Moreover, I don't believe you have a solid reason for intentionally excluding other Western civilizations that you weren't sure were founded on paternal principles. It just seems like an obvious sign of confirmation bias, where you only look for evidence that supports your preconceived notions.

The Apostle Paul, while affirming the spiritual equality of men and women in Christ, didn't speak about equality in terms of authority and power. He advocated for women to remain silent in church, learn from their husbands, and refrain from holding authoritative positions in the church. Additionally, he emphasized wives' submission to their husbands. These teachings may not align with the concept of equality, which is why feminists and egalitarians often challenge Paul's perspectives and the Bible as a whole. It's likely why you also don't regard the Bible highly in discussions like this, given Christianity's patriarchal nature and America's historical reliance on biblical laws and principles.
Furthermore, people interpret the Bible through various cultural lenses, but not all interpretations are valid. This underscores the importance of applying hermeneutical principles when interpreting the Bible.

I will concede that Paul does advocate for specific roles within the church, however, I think it's a stretch to equate silence with a lack of spiritual equality. We can acknowledge his context, influenced by the prevailing Greco-Roman culture where women held limited societal roles, without erasing his recognition of women's contributions to ministry elsewhere in his letters. Also, we can still strive for equality of opportunity and respect while acknowledging differences in function or roles. Just because someone has a different role within a group, like a coach in a team, doesn't automatically mean they're less valuable. Your "various cultural lenses" point is a double-edged sword. It's true that interpretations can be skewed, but it also allows us to evolve our understanding of the text over time. While we may choose to acknowledge historical interpretations that were rooted in patriarchal structures, the choice to move beyond them if they clash with our modern values, is still available. I won't deny the historical influence of biblical principles (both good and bad) on American society, but that doesn't necessarily mean we're chained to those interpretations forever. After all, if we weren't constantly re-evaluating and reinterpreting texts, we'd probably still be worshipping Zeus on Mount Olympus, wouldn't we?

Are you aware that false claims of domestic abuse can occur? Rushing to label someone as the perpetrator without evidence can lead to unjust judgment. Therefore, even if someone alleges domestic abuse, I believe the accused should be considered innocent until proven guilty with solid evidence. That's why it's crucial to hear both sides in any case, which is why we have lawyers. While it's not exactly a debate, the legal process can resemble one, albeit a serious one.
I believe you may be misunderstanding Uju's suggestions. I don't think she meant that victims of domestic violence should remain silent, but rather that women should avoid engaging in heated arguments by keeping their mouth shut to prevent becoming victims of domestic violence.

I still think we should be careful not to confuse legal proceedings with the initial response to a "victim's" cry for help. Your concerns about false accusations are certainly valid. No one should be condemned without due process, and the legal system exists to ensure a fair and thorough investigation. But when someone comes forward alleging abuse, our immediate response should be one of empathy and support, not skepticism. Then we can delve into the investigations shortly after. Let's not forget, the legal system is designed to investigate and provide justice after the fact. But before the courtroom drama, before the gavel slams, there's a human being in need, and that's where compassion and support come in. Empowering victims to speak up, not stay silent, is the first step towards breaking the cycle.

And as for Uju's suggestion, I'm afraid her suggestion still rests on a deep misunderstanding of the dynamics of power and control within abusive relationships. Placing the responsibility on the victim to avoid triggering the abuser is akin to blaming the pedestrian for getting hit by a reckless driver. It's victim-blaming disguised as "prevention," and it's highly ineffective.

The Bible stands as the ultimate truth, whether accepted or rejected. If there's a contradiction between biblical teachings and worldly beliefs, I don't conform to the norms of the world. I acknowledge the wide range of interpretations, which is why I advocate for applying hermeneutical principles when studying the Bible. Nowadays, people often cherry-pick verses out of context, but a thorough study would reveal the true meaning.
God is the creator of marriage and has designated the husband as the authoritative figure in the relationship. While men are naturally inclined to be assertive, which is essential for their role as protectors, they must also understand when to exercise gentleness, as the Bible advises treating wives as the weaker vessel.

This discussion is starting to feel like a game of theological Jenga, carefully pulling out individual verses to construct a very specific and, dare I say, precarious, worldview. I'm sorry but I simply cannot subscribe to the notion of any one text, historical or otherwise, holding absolute truth, especially when it comes to complex issues like marriage. Applying hermeneutical principles is fine and dandy, but it's only the first step. We also need to consider the historical context in which these verses were written. The Bible is a product of its time, reflecting the social structures and values of the ancient world, many of which differ significantly from our modern understanding of human rights and equality. Biological differences do not automatically translate to specific roles within a relationship. Attributing inherent authority to one gender over another is completely overlooking the range and complexity of human relationships. The Bible explicitly designating the husband as the authoritative figure requires a selective reading of the text. The whole "head of the household" interpretation has been debated and disputed for centuries, with many theologians offering different interpretations. So much for Biblical hermeneutics.

At the end of the day, marriage is a human institution, constantly evolving alongside societal norms and understanding. It shouldn't be rigidly dictated by ancient texts interpreted through a specific religious lens.

It's not surprising that society often blames male aggression as the root cause of problems, even when it may not be entirely accurate. It's concerning how there's a push to undermine male characteristics. However, it's important to recognize that male aggression can often stem from emotional frustration or perceived disrespect. It's crucial to address both the behavior of the abuser and the actions of the victim, as neither excuses the other. Two wrongs don't make a right, but both parties should be rightly held accountable for their actions.

Theoretically, it's quite easy to attribute abusive behavior to "emotional frustration" or "perceived disrespect", but in a subtle way, the only thing you'll be doing is to legitimize the abuser's actions, which is a very dangerous move. Imagine this: someone cuts in front of you in line, causing you to be frustrated. Do you then feel justified in punching them? Of course not! Emotions, however strong, are no excuse for resorting to violence. If you want to focus solely on addressing the "actions" of the victim in abusive relationships, then you're completely missing the point because you're distracting from the core issue, which is the abusive behavior itself. Let's not get lost in a maze of trying to balance the scales in an inherently unequal situation.

My faith aligns with Christianity, which is inherently patriarchal. However, within Christianity, there exists the concept of benevolent patriarchy. While some may view submission negatively, many consider it a blessing. Being in a submissive role doesn't mean being silent or withholding opinions; it's about recognizing and respecting the leadership of another person and following their guidance. In a relationship, having two leaders can lead to chaos. Therefore, someone must take on the role of submission, and the question arises: who should that be, in your opinion?

Framing submission as a blessing raises some serious eyebrows. It implies that women are naturally inclined to follow, not lead, which not only ignores the vast diversity of female personalities and desires but also feeds into the harmful stereotype of women lacking agency. You keep painting this picture of marriage as a power struggle waiting to happen, where healthy communication and collaboration are seemingly out of the question. A truly equal and fulfilling partnership thrives on mutual respect, open communication, and shared decision-making, not on someone having to submit to another's leadership. So to answer your question, I would say no one needs to wear the metaphorical pants in the relationship. Both partners should feel empowered to voice their opinions, share their dreams, and work together to build a future that fulfills both of their needs and desires.

GreatAchiever1:


You're asserting that Nigeria is a patriarchal society, but I disagree. Let's clarify what a patriarchal society entails. According to modern historians and sociologists, it's characterized by men holding positions of power and privilege across various domains, including family, social groups, workplaces, government, and religious gatherings if I should add. While Nigeria may uphold traditional gender roles to some extent, it doesn't fit the mold of a patriarchal society. If you're seeking examples, consider countries in the Middle East like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Congratulations! You've successfully identified Afghanistan and Pakistan as bastions of patriarchy. But using them as a benchmark for "true" patriarchy is like judging a fish by its ability to climb trees. It doesn't make sense. Every society exhibits patriarchy on a spectrum, with varying degrees of severity and nuances in its manifestations. Nigeria, with its undeniable limitations on women's opportunities and the prevalence of traditional gender roles, certainly falls somewhere on that spectrum. To blithely claim it's not patriarchal because it doesn't perfectly mirror other societies is like saying an object didn't burn because they aren't a pile of ashes. So, while you're not entirely wrong about the characteristics of a patriarchal society, painting the picture with such broad strokes does a disservice to the complexities of individual cultures.

That's why I questioned your use of "abusive" because even that term has been overused and misunderstood. You might perceive something as abusive, but in reality, it may not be. Understanding what leads to potential abuse is crucial because such abuse doesn't happen without cause.

History and psychology support this viewpoint of men being more rational and women being more emotional, and simple observation between the sexes reveals it. It's akin to asking, who's stronger, a boy or a girl? Additionally, acknowledging that men are typically rational while women are emotional isn't stereotyping; it's recognizing how we're designed by God to complement each other. Rather than rejecting this truth, it's beneficial to embrace it.Women are often labeled as emotional because it aligns with their nurturing and caregiving roles, whereas men are seen as rational because of their roles as leaders and protectors.

Ok. Let's address the elephant in the room. History and psychology are vast landscapes, and cherry-picking data to support a predetermined conclusion is a recipe for intellectual dishonesty. A nuanced understanding of these fields reveals the complexities of human behavior, free from the shackles of rigid gender stereotypes. Are there differences in how individuals express emotions? Absolutely. But to claim it's solely based on gender is not just inaccurate, it's harmful. It ignores the vast spectrum of human experience and reduces individuals to mere caricatures. Your claim about men's supposed rationality and women's supposed emotionality is a classic case of mistaking correlation for causation. Yes, certain societal roles may appear to align with these stereotypes, but to attribute them to biology or divine design is not only scientifically unsound but also deeply problematic.

Now, about the term "abusive." While subjectivity can play a role, there are well-established definitions and legal frameworks to identify and address abusive behavior. Minimizing or dismissing these frameworks only emboldens abusers and silences victims. Personally, as a humanist, safeguarding individual safety and well-being is paramount.

You might dismiss it as selective historical interpretation, but research shows that Western countries, particularly America, were founded on patriarchal principles. Abrahamic religions also promote patriarchal structures. While some may consider these outdated, some of us refuse to conform to societal norms that contradict our beliefs. As a Christian, I adhere to traditional gender roles as depicted in the Bible, ordained by God.

Regarding the concept of partnership, my understanding aligns with a business association, as defined in my dictionary which to quote verbatim says this "An association of two or more people to conduct a business". I'm curious about your faith, although I sense skepticism towards evolution in your remarks but that's by the way. The idea of equal partnership seems unfamiliar to me, as I find it somewhat strange.
I don't view the notion of "staying under" someone as reductive or offensive. Jesus Christ Himself submitted to God the Father, even unto death for the redemption of mankind. Children are under their parents, civilians under their rulers, and wives under their husbands. Any earthly hierarchical structure necessitates someone being under authority for effective governance, unless you contest the notion of husbands being the head of the household.

I should clarify here that I am not dismissing your historical interpretation as selective, but rather as inaccurate and incomplete. You claim that research shows that Western countries, especially America, were founded on patriarchal principles. However, this is a gross oversimplification of the complex and diverse history of the West. While it is true that patriarchy has been a dominant system in many Western societies, it is not the only one, nor is it the original one. There is ample evidence of pre-patriarchal and non-patriarchal cultures in the West, such as the ancient Minoans, the Celts, the Basques, and some Native American tribes. These cultures had more egalitarian and cooperative social structures, where women and men had equal rights and responsibilities, and where gender roles were more flexible and fluid. And even within patriarchal Western societies, there have been many movements and individuals who challenged and resisted the status quo, and who advocated for gender equality and justice e.g feminists, abolitionists, the LGBTQ+ community, etc. These movements have contributed to the social, political, and legal changes that have improved the lives and opportunities of women and other marginalized groups in the West. So if you say that the West was founded on patriarchal principles, you are simply ignoring the diversity and dynamism of Western history, and erasing the struggles and achievements of those who fought for a more just and inclusive society.

I also want to address your point about Abrahamic religions and traditional gender roles. You say that as a Christian, you adhere to the gender roles depicted in the Bible, as ordained by God. However, I wonder if you are aware of the multiple and contradictory views on gender and sexuality that exist in the Bible, and how they have been interpreted and applied differently by various Christian denominations and traditions over time. The Apostle Paul affirms the equality of man and woman by identifying women as laboring alongside men in ministry, affirming many theological truths that entail the equality of men and women, and explicitly affirming their equality. All of that said, I don't actually rate the Bible when it comes to discussions like this, due to it's inherent inconsistencies and flaws, but I guess that's a topic for another thread.

You accuse me of being illogical and insensitive. OK, maybe I'm not as knowledgeable as you are. Can you enlighten me on the root cause of domestic abuse? Because it's indeed a grave issue, and that's why the minister suggests women should remain quiet because she believes many cases could have been avoided if women had kept silent. Personally, I'm more interested in understanding the underlying causes of abuse rather than just focusing on the abuse itself. Once those root causes are addressed, the case can be considered resolved. In situations like this, I believe it's essential to hear perspectives from both sides before making a judgment, ensuring that all facts are considered from every angle.

The "root cause" of domestic abuse? It's not a singular, magical answer. It's a complex web of factors, including societal inequalities, power imbalances, and individual experiences with violence, mental health, and substance abuse. Blaming the victim or suggesting their behavior somehow justifies abuse is quite insensitive, if you ask me. As for Uju's suggestion? It's frankly baffling. Asking victims to be silent is like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. It might appear to "solve" the problem momentarily, but the underlying issue festers. We need to tackle the root causes, empower victims, and hold perpetrators accountable. In domestic abuse cases, there are no "sides." There's an abuser and a victim. Period. It's not a debate club.

My line of thinking is indeed becoming outdated, as you rightly pointed out. Your perspective is gaining prominence, which may explain your frustration with my comments. In contemporary media, the notion of partnership in marriage is idealized, a belief I also held while growing up. However, I eventually diverged from this belief.
Let me illustrate how the Bible portrays marriage, as God is its originator: Christ and the Church, where the Church submits to Christ and Christ rules over the Church. Equating this to your beliefs, Christ and the Church are viewed as equal partners. You see how flawed the partnership idea to describe marriage can be

In any relationship, heated arguments are inevitable, and I acknowledge this. However, the key question is how to resolve such conflicts. I suggest that in instances of heated communication, the wife should remain quiet, given her submission to her husband's authority, because it's in his rulling to discipline you as he sees fit. Yet, let's be honest, more often than not, it is the wife who initiates insults (disrespect). If the husband lacks emotional control and responds with anger, it can escalate into domestic violence.

I hope you're aware the Bible you keep citing represents a specific religious perspective, not universal truth. And even within that framework, interpretations vary widely. Equating a divine entity ruling over a congregation to a human marriage is a dangerous stretch. It implies the husband is somehow divinely ordained to "discipline" his wife, which reeks of outdated, paternalistic views. Secondly, the claim that wives initiate disrespect more often than not is not only demonstrably untrue (studies show aggression is more prevalent from male partners in abusive relationships), but it also plays right into the dangerous narrative of victim-blaming. It implies that the victim's behavior somehow justifies an abusive response.

Anyway, contrary to what you might believe about patriarchy, it's not inherently evil; in fact, it can be beneficial. While I acknowledge that there are instances of evil patriarchy, I'm referring to the constructive aspects of the system. Patriarchy revolves around paternal authority, which fosters order.

You might perceive patriarchy as oppressive and outdated due to preconceived notions associated with the term. However, I'm learning about patriarchy from reputable sources, including respected men. Some women also find fulfillment in being submissive within a patriarchal structure because they don't view it as oppressive. Patriarchy is unavoidable; you can resist it, but it will persist. The question then becomes when it will resurface, a matter I'm unsure about.

In a patriarchal marriage, no one's feelings are disregarded. I'm puzzled as to where you obtained this notion. If I may offer a suggestion to you, consider relinquishing the idea of partnership in marriage and instead embrace a submissive role. This entails allowing your husband to lead and set the vision for the relationship, of course you can suggest, and he will listen but overall he holds the steering. In return, he's likely to show you more respect and hold you in high regard. Even the Bible emphasizes the value of an excellent wife, likening her to a crown for her husband, and I can't argue with that. So, do yourself a favor and strive to become one.

Benevolent patriarchy" is an oxymoron. The very foundation of patriarchy is built on inherent power imbalances and the suppression of individual liberties, regardless of its perceived benefits. Just because someone benefits from a system doesn't negate its inherent flaws. We can't ignore the countless voices who have been historically silenced and marginalized under patriarchal structures. Furthermore, the notion that a woman's fulfillment solely lies in submissive behavior within a "respectable" patriarchal framework is frankly insulting. It assumes women are incapable of agency and independent thought. We are not trophies or prizes to be "held in high regard" based on our ability to conform to outdated ideals.

And it's quite patronizing of you to suggest that we should embrace a "submissive role". True respect in a relationship is fostered by acknowledging and celebrating each other's individuality, not by expecting one partner to suppress their voice and agency.

DevilsEqual:


Do u know how to upload screenshots??
I want to tag you with some scientific articles, Antispam bot is mkaingit hard for me to drop links for u to read

Quote me for a response, then click on the "Choose File" option below the response box. Select your image and submit.

DevilsEqual:



I dont know if u really derive joy in talking down on people and its actually mentally draining arguing with u since you already had your belief on what an average xtian could argue on and thats very troubling


I said some 'Philosophical hypothesis' not all we all know about Leucipus and Democritus(The Atomists), Pythagoras,Parmenides,Anaxagoras and many others , starting from the times of the first man to suggest the earh must couldnt have been flat, thats Aristarchus of Samos and Thales with his ancient proposed calendar method, who lived earlier than the rest and Erasthotenes who was the most accurate in his calculations of the dimaeter of the Earth, despite using crude methods

My point was that those who were quick to opine anything that couldnt be verified by basic scientific methods were discarded and this very god argument is well within that category....Again, I really dont know how u mixed things up here

As for the Einstein claims on Galileo, I only paraphased and u captured it correctly that Galileo was the father or whatever,Einstein was a bit elaborate here tho "https://brewminate.com/galileo-galilei-a-scientific-break-from-aristotle/"

And yeah, I agree i havr no argument as my first comment was about the somce scientific books I read and why i stopped being an Atheist, you've never read those books nor know what they entailed, so u actually expected me to start summarizing the books to u, go ahead to list the point i disagree with while u start dissecting each point??

U never asked me to give reasons why i disagree with those scientists, so how was i supposed to go about explaining myself to just anyone that cares to know why, Instead, U started the whole thing by telling me why i need to explore other aspects aside Science and I keep telling u the reason why i discarded Art and music as not effective enough...So yea, the counter points u raised were so watery I never really know the point of the first tag/quote was about

That aside, U wanted me start typing about the big bang theory, selfish gene, and also typing out the counter scientific claims that made me drop them??
U think I would type that long to convince an atheist who hasnt yet pick up the books to read??


Read it up then we can start altogether....

Imagine telling me i have no valid point when your first tag was just about suggesting that i check things from other perspective and not about the main issue at all

She even thought i kept mentioning names to impress her....I don suffer

U keep hitting me with impolite words and making it seem like I am being emotional about lil things...read your first papragraph again and see how insulting it sounds

If u want a proper discourse, stop the personal attack already cause it all started when u started talking about some fallcies common to all xtians at the second tag cause i was careful enough not to use stereotypes on all atheist,In fact, you have mentioned the word "xtians" than i hacve ever ever mentioned anything atheist.... stop reading more meanings to what is written here as it makes the whole things tiring, doing the same thing u have always accused xtians for

I think you need to educate yourself on the difference between critiquing arguments and critiquing people. When I identify inconsistencies, fallacies, or misinterpretations, I point them out, hoping to stimulate deeper understanding, not personal attacks. If you choose to take my words personally, then that's your kettle of fish, but I'm not going to water down my style of debate and pander to the emotional needs of my co-discussant. I've been debating religion and philosophy for the entirety of my adult life, and a common, unspoken axiom in all the forums I've ever participated in is that bad ideas exist to be destroyed. All im doing here is analyzing the logic and evidence you present. My approach stems from a desire for clear and well-reasoned arguments. You mentioned that I have made preconceived notions about the arguments Christians might present. However, I've already pointed out that this is based on my previous encounters with individuals who share similar viewpoints. At the base level, I approach all discussion with an open mind, ready to be surprised and learn from different perspectives, like I'm doing now. Regarding your claim that I haven't presented any counter-arguments, I would implore you to revisit my previous responses and read them more carefully. Read my posts to understand me, not just to give me a response. In your most recent post for example, I meticulously addressed your points, highlighting your fallacy of appealing to authority (scientists and philosophers) without addressing the actual arguments, the alleged statement Einstein made about Galileo, the Russell-Wallace letters and your oversimplification of the relationship between science and ancient Greek philosophy.

Now, I believe you're still showcasing a selective understanding of history, as well as a flawed comprehension of the scientific method. I'll try my best to demonstrate why. You said that scientists discarded some philosophical hypotheses because they weren't verifiable. First of all, you're neglecting the fact that science itself builds upon and evolved from philosophical inquiries! But it goes beyond mere hypothesizing. Science relies on rigorous testing, empirical evidence and reproducibility to validate its claims. You listed names of more Greek scholars and claimed that their were all discarded, but that is totally misleading. The atomic theory of Democritus, for instance, laid the foundation for modern atomic theory, albeit in a much more rudimentary form. Similarly, Pythagoras' mathematical theorems remain fundamental to this day. As for Thales and Aristarchus of Samos challenging the flat Earth model, the reason their ideas were not readily accepted back then was precisely because they lacked conclusivr evidence at the time. It took centuries of further observation, experimentation, and advancements in technology to definitively establish the Earth's spherical shape. Science progresses incrementally, not through sudden leaps of "discarding" previous ideas. Eratosthenes' calculation of the Earth's diameter was indeed impressive for his time, and it further highlights the evolution of scientific accuracy Modern technology allows for far more precise measurements. This doesn't diminish Eratosthenes' achievement, but underscores how science constantly refines and improves upon existing knowledge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you were using these examples to suggest that atheists are in too much of a haste to discard God arguments? If that was your end-goal, then my response will be to point out the fact (again) that atheism simply means a "lack of belief" in gods. Speaking for myself, if I were to encounter new evidence that proves conclusively that God exists, I'd readily accept it. But in the absence of convincing evidence, I think I am justified to withhold my belief for the meantime. Concerning Einstein's comments on Galileo, I will only note that paraphrasing, while helpful in conveying ideas, may often allow inaccuracies to creep in when trying to analyze what someone actually said. Perhaps strive for a faithful representation of the original source in the future to avoid misinterpretations or misinterpretations.

I remember you stating that you found religious explanations more convincing after exploring various disciplines. I was simply inviting you to elaborate on that statement, explain your reasoning, and showcase how you applied these disciplines to your beliefs. I'm curious by the way, how can you claim that you stopped being an atheist based on scientific books I haven't read, and then expect me to summarize and dissect your argument points based on these unknown sources? How does that make any sense to you? The one making the claim (you, in this case) has the responsibility to provide evidence and support, not the one questioning it (me). Your comments constantly imply that I haven't engaged with scientific sources. I've actually encountered and evaluated various scientific arguments for and against religion, in tandem with the relevant literature, through many years of experience handling these topics. But let us assume that I haven't read the specific books you referenced. Do you honestly think a responsible debater would assume a lack of knowledge based on such limited information? If you have specific arguments you now want to discuss, I'm happy to engage in a civil and open discussion. However, I cannot dissect points you haven't presented yet. Additionally, attacking my character or accusing me of not having read certain books doesn't add any substance to your argument.

Science is not the only way to gain knowledge, but it's certainly the most reliable and rigorous one. And if you want to challenge science, you have to use science, not just your personal opinions or preferences. I never asked you to start typing about the big bang theory, selfish gene etc. I only asked you to give some examples of how you applied the methods and principles of the disciplines you claimed to have explored. You were the one who brought up those topics, not me. You were the one who said you found them unconvincing, not me. You were the one who implied that you had some counter arguments, not me. So don't blame me for your inability or unwillingness to explain yourself. And don't pretend that you're too busy or too lazy to type a few paragraphs. You clearly have enough time to respond to me, so why not use that time and energy to actually make a coherent and valid argument? Or better yet, why not read some of the books that you claim to have read, and learn something from them?

GreatAchiever1:

Nigeria is in no way a patriarchal society. If we were, do you think women will be in political seats, if we were, do you think women will be able to vote during an election. If we were, do you think this political seat where this woman is occupying will even exist? My dear, you have no idea what a Patriarchal society looks like.

Nope. That's not how it works, buddy. A single example doesn't dismantle a systemic issue. The presence of women in some political spheres doesn't negate the reality of entrenched patriarchal norms deeply woven into the fabric of Nigerian society. It IS true that women hold some political positions, but you do realize that their overall representation in government remains significantly lower than men's? This is just a pointer to a broader trend in leadership positions across various sectors. There's also the fact that there are many societal norms in Nigeria which still emphasize traditional gender roles that confine women to primarily domestic duties, limiting their autonomy and opportunities for personal growth.

What do you even mean by abusive? Have you even considered what may lead to the "abuse", this is why it's important to keep quiet especially in context where the man is not in the right frame of mind at that moment. I thought women were the emotional one and have empathy. Of course, you can communicate how you feel, but you should do that with respect and a gentle and submissive attitude, with that he is more liable to listen attentive to what is bothering you.

Your definition of "abusive" seems rather opaque. Is it simply raising your voice, or does it encompass the entire spectrum of harmful behaviors? Oh, and the tired trope of "emotional women" versus "rational men" is as outdated as dial-up internet. Both genders experience emotions, and claiming women are inherently emotional simply perpetuates stereotypes that are not just harmful, but undermines your acclaimed "rationality" as a man. I also find it deeply concerning that you believe that women should be gentle and submissive to be heard. It reeks of patriarchal control, implying that women must shrink themselves and cater to a man's emotional state to be worthy of his attention. Suggesting silence in the face of potential abuse is not only dangerous but also shockingly dismissive of a woman's right to safety and respect.

Of course gender roles are fixed and predetermined, this is seen in the bible, historical America, as well as one's own culture. I never cease to stop saying this, MARRIAGE IS NOT PARTNERSHIP, I don't know where this nonsense came from. Marriage is a hierarchical union. If you can't stay under a man, please don't get married and stop spreading this partnership nonsense, marriage is not a business company.

It's funny how you just effortlessly whip up a cocktail of historical cherry-picking, religious dogma, and outdated social norms, shaken, not stirred, with a truckload of misinformation. For starters, any pragmatic individual who acknowledges the dynamism of history and human evolution, knows that gender roles are NOT fixed and predetermined. Throughout time, societal expectations regarding gender have constantly shifted. The roles depicted in the Bible or even historical America are not some universal blueprint, but rather products of their specific contexts. Suggesting they are permanently etched in stone is simply ignoring the evidence.

You are also having a fundamental misunderstanding here. A partnership is not a synonym for a business company. A healthy marriage is a partnership of equals, built on mutual respect, communication, and a shared vision for the future. This doesn't negate the importance of collaboration and compromise, but it does away with the outdated notion of domination and submission. Such sentiments are not only uncomfortably close to endorsing archaic and potentially harmful power dynamics, but they also ignore the diversity of healthy relationships. Every couple navigates power and decision-making differently, and reducing it to a simplistic notion of "staying under" someone is both reductive and offensive.

What usually makes "domestic violence" occurs if not disrespect from a wife to husband. The funny thing is that this domestic violence of a thing doesn't reduce, it increases daily. The more women keep seeing themselves equal to their husbands, the higher the possibility of the so called "domestic violence" and divorce.

This is quite frankly, a troubling and misinformed perspective on domestic violence. Like, are you taking the piss? Disrespect from a wife to a husband is the "usual cause" of domestic violence? If this isn't textbook victim-blaming, then please tell me what it is. As a rational person, I would have expected you to demonstrate your knowledge of the complex dynamics at play in occurrences of domestic violence. This paragraph in particular strikes me as illogical and insensitive. And I don't know where you got the information that women asserting their equality leads to an increase in domestic violence because the evidence clearly says otherwise. So your claims are factually inaccurate. There is nothing like "so-called domestic violence". Domestic violence IS domestic violence! Or are you trying to cast doubts on the very real experiences of victims and minimize the seriousness of this issue?

Why would you even dare to exchange words with your husband (this is due to the partnership idea of marriage). Can you exchange words with your boss at work? Can you even exchange words with your father at home. If no, how can you think even of exchanging words with your husband. When you emphasize on communication in marriage, it sounds as if the husband and wife don't talk at all. They just wake up, eat, pray, go out, come back, have sex together, sleep without communication and interactions as if they're programmed to do all these every day without saying a word to each other.

While I find this comparison irritating and totally ridiculous, I can understand that you are not the only one who thinks this way. Such thoughts have become part and parcel of the culture in this society. But for the record, drawing parallels to authority figures like bosses and fathers is a deeply flawed analogy. I've said this already, but marriage is NOT a hierarchical relationship where one partner holds absolute power or control over the other. You also seem to assume that communication inherently leads to conflict. Heated discussions are always bound to happen, but healthy communication also involves expressing appreciation, affection, and building a deeper understanding with your partner. It's the foundation for navigating challenges and fostering a strong, fulfilling bond. Effective communication allows for deeper connection, shared experiences, and the ability to navigate life's complexities together while maintaining individual autonomy. By suggesting silence or avoiding communication as a solution to prevent conflict, you're essentially placing the burden on the victim to modify their behavior to appease a potentially abusive partner. This is not only unrealistic but also dangerous, as it will only perpetuate a cycle of abuse and deny the victim the right to a healthy, communicative relationship.

When you mention love, I just knew you meant romantic love, you know from the ones seen in Hollywood media. Do you think those kind of euphoric emotion of love chemicals won't disappear with time. My dear, a man loves his wife if he can provide, protect, lead, and be a priest/prophet in his home, a woman likewise loves her husband if she can be gentle, help, be submissive, quiet and nurture the home as she builds it in accordance to the husbands leading.

Well, just to clear any doubts, I'm a liberal pragmatist at heart, and I believe that love is far more nuanced than the euphoric rush portrayed on screen. While those initial sparks are exciting, true love requires mutual respect, understanding, and growth. I will continue to insist that love is a partnership, not a power struggle. As for your definition of love based on prescribed gender roles, it will only get us stuck in a time warp. This notion of men solely providing and leading while women silently submit and nurture is antiquated and frankly, oppressive. In a healthy relationship, both partners contribute their unique strengths and personalities. They can be providers, protectors, nurturers, and leaders, regardless of gender. It's about collaboration, not conformity.

Ultimately, love without respect is an empty shell. It is simply not sustainable if one partner consistently disregards the other's feelings and attempts to dominate the relationship.

PoliteActivist:
*Continuing response to JessicaRabbi. I'll post more responses after this - if I'm not banned for posting this!

I want to emphasize, I was not saying God does not exist (otherwise I'd be biased against our religionist friends), I was simply logically trying to point out that EVEN IF God did not exist, it'd still be "richer" to be a religionist than an atheist. In other words, faith in God is in itself a valuable possession - whether God exists or not! A possession an atheist can't have. A religionist can have everything an atheist has - PLUS faith in God.
But an atheist can't have everything a religionist has.
Even the richest atheist lacks something the poorest religionst has - faith in God!
That's why I put "poorer" in quotes, but you took it literally
Also, the human mind is very powerful. It is possible our mind creates what we perceive as reality. And since the mind does not know the difference between what is imagined and what is real (assuming there is a difference), if you believe strongly enough something exists, it exists!

I'm afraid, the point you are trying to make here is seriously flawed. You are just commodifying a complex human experience and reducing it to a mere object. Faith is not a magic lamp granting wishes; it's a subjective belief system. It's like saying someone who doesn't believe in unicorns is "poorer" for it. According to you, religious individuals have everything an atheist does, plus faith. But have you stopped to really consider what actual value this "faith" has? Or are you going to conveniently ignore the potential negative aspects of some faith systems such as blind obedience, prejudice, or the suppression of critical thinking? Additionally, many atheists possess alternative sources of meaning and purpose, derived from ethics, human connection, or a sense of wonder for the universe.

You seem to be delving into the realm of subjectivity and the power of the mind, by suggesting that believing something into existence could make it real. This is a dangerous path, bordering on solipsism (the belief that only one's mind is certain to exist). We must distinguish between personal perception and objective reality. Science, with its emphasis on evidence and verification, provides a far more reliable way of navigating the world than blind faith.