₦airaland Forum

Logicboy03: okay, move to point two

Point 2: Please provide a definition of forgiveness. It's important that we both understand what we are talking about.

Logicboy03: 1)We are told in that Mary got pregnant with Jesus without intercourse or an earthly father. Where does the other half of his chromosomes come from?


2)We are told that God sent his only begotten son to die for our sins. Is there a problem with forgiving sins without the death of somebody?


3)We are told that Yahweh is the God of Isreal. Why would a good God choose one set of people over another? Is there a problem speaking to other people around the world at the same time? Why must all his prophets be Jews?



4)We are told that we come from two human beings- Adam and Eve. However, science/history proves this impossible because Jews/Hebrews were far from being the first humans on earth and also, the world could not be possibly populated by 2 human beings into 7 billion given the particular space of time and incest.


5)We are told that Jesus was a peaceful man. However, Jesus scattered the merchandise of traders in the church/synagogue and chased them with whips. Such an action in any civilized country is jail time for destruction of private property and assault.


6)Paul in the bible remains one of the greatest examples for sexism. Yet, we are to believe that the bible is the word of a divine and merciful God.
(http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Bbl/Sexism/Sexism.html)


7)Did Jesus really sacrifice himself? Did he really do anything for us? If I know that I am going to a place called heaven which is an everlasting paradise, why wouldnt I go and get myself crucified? I am only accepting the crucifixion for a reward- this is no sacrifice.


All christian historians and scholars will agree that the bible is incomplete. Yet, we are still using the bible as divine inspiration. What if further explanations, abrogations and commandments are in those missing books of the bible? Even the translation of the bible from the original languages is not complete...some words cant be accurately translated......

9) How could Adam and Eve have grandchildren without inbreeding occurring with their children?

10)The most irrational thing that I find is that the God as described in the bible suspiciously has all the characteristics of a Jewish man in the early centuries.
-He chooses his Jewish people over others (Jewish prophets, God of isreal)
-Sexist laws (http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Bbl/Sexism/Sexism.html)
-believes in sacrifice (eg Cain and abel's sacrifice, Jesus sacrifice on the cross)
-mostly supports the Jews in wars
-never mentions any ancient lands/people that jews have never been to (eg hanan, aztecs, etc)
-never mentions any technology that the jews never had access to
-never once suggested that slavery is one of the most evil things a man can do to another
-believed in the death penalty as ascribed by many Jewish laws.

Let's just start with your point 1.

If God is the creator of everything, then would this along with everything else not be a nonissue for Him.

macof: I thought everything u Christians do or say is according to wat is written in ur Bible. Pls do not assume anything here, the Jewish priests were not threatened, they never were, Judaism has never for a day been threatened by Christianity, they don't take u guys seriously. But u take them too seriously, Afterall they are your masters

That I don't even like talking abt cus, it irritates me to think about it.

I'm not assuming anything. Christianity is the next phase of Judaism since the prophecy of messiah that the Jewish scripture points to has been fulfilled by Christ.

Also to your point. I don't see how a profession of faith in Christ means Jews are my master?

macof: I don't need anyone to reconcile me with God, I was Never apart from him

The Jews were against him not because of power or any threat but because Jesus was blasphemous against their religion. He tried to modify their laws, he wasn't as discriminative as a typical Jew, he didn't observe the sabbath day rule.
He opposed them, that's why the people wished him dead.

And the Jesus of the Bible is so smart, he allowed himself to be crucified, knowing that he would resurrect and gain promotion in heaven. Your Jesus was very ambitious, he knew wat he wanted from the beginning and honestly didn't give a dime about Christians.

We are probably derailing the thread a bit. I hope the OP won't mind too much.

Jesus didn't come to undo the belief system of the Jews. He was the very embodiment of it, the perfect fulfillment of the law. If any thing, Jesus showed us that the law was more difficult to live by than what the rabbis taught. But more importantly than that he came to show us the heart of God.

With regards to the sabbath, it was a matter of the rabbis worshipping the creature more than the creator. Yes, God commands the sabbath to be a day of rest, but did that mean you couldn't heal the sick, or prepare a meal. The rabbis saw Jesus as a threat because his understanding of the scriptures superseded their own and he taught the people with authority.

I don't understand by what you mean by saying was looking to get promoted in heaven.

macof: and why must believe in Jesus to gain knowledge? even the Jews don't believe in him. But u see Africans condemning their ancestors and worshiping a Dead Jew with their lives. The Ancient Pagans have got more knowledge and wisdom than modern day Christians. THE ONLY THING U GAIN FROM CHRISTIANITY IS STUPIDITY

You should believe in Jesus because of your sins. I am neither judging nor condemning you. I am also a sinner; every single person is a sinner. Jesus is the one who has reconciled us with God the Father that we may be able to stand before Him knowing that our sins don't condemn us.

Indeed most of the Jewish leaders rejected him, but not all Jews rejected him. The early church in fact was almost all Jewish. The jewish leadership rejected him because they knew his truth was a threat to their rule. But you have to ask, what was so special about Jesus especially in a time when so many claimed to be the Messiah? Why did the Jewish leadership want him dead so badly that they chose to vindicate a known murderer? You see, Christ was proved at every opportunity even when it was told that he rose from the dead. Even his own disciples didn't believe it (no doubt you know the story involving the disciple thomas) which is to show you that they weren't the gullible unthinking minds as Christians are often arguing of being.

You rightly state the crucial piece. If Jesus did not rise, then Christianity is vain. But if he rose again, then we must all look to him for he us truth.

He rose again.

Christianity is not irrational. There is evidence for the historical Jesus if Nazareth and moreover, the evidence of the Holy Spirit evidences that he was who he claimed to be.

The question is, are atheists open to the evidence? If you scoffed about my statement about the Holy Spirit then you mostly likely aren't open to the evidence?

It comes down to this. In the natural world, we follow the scientific process in order to gain knowledge and understanding of the things that are natural. But with the things that are spiritual, a different process is required to gain knowledge and understanding of those things. Now, the process Jesus laid down is this: believe on me and you will see. It's not "believe in your pastor" or "believe in your church" or "believe in your denomination", it's to believe in Jesus, to seek Him.

So the question the honest skeptic must ask him/herself is whether they are willing to follow the process Jesus has laid down or not? If the answer is no, then the skeptic will run up against a wall every time since "the things of the spirit are spirit and the things of the flesh are flesh, and they are contrary."

macof: my opinion is that religions(pagan religions) came to be when ancient civilisations recognised the extra ordinary energy that the universe possessed and began to see them as spirits wit living attributes and these led to the formation of such religions.

But religions like Judaism, Christianity and of course Islam were created to give people a reason to live morally, in hopes to avoid eternal suffering or acquire blessings. I also think these religions were falsely created without any special order from God. God himself wouldn't have wanted more things to divide the world. I spell conspiracy and a deliberate attempt to gain power and influence over people.

For the statement you put forward to be true, you would have to show that hundreds, if not thousands of people, across geographical boundaries, and over a couple millennia were willfully complicit in propagating a tale. Then you would have to show that these people benefitted immensely from their act. Can you show this?

Fulaman198: I don't think either of these gentlemen are atheists. They just question some of the things they see in the Bible/Qur'an. Everyone questions these things too, the Lord God gave us brains to reason, and we're not subject to believe everything we see or hear.

Do not disagree with your statement.

It is interesting the assumptions being made about religion especially that it's adherents aren't critical thinkers. Being an atheist does not automatically endow you with intelligence. In fact, most people just regurgitate what others have said thinking they are enlightened.

Let us consider this: if it is true that there is no evidence for God, why are certain eminent scientists Believers. Are they not intelligent? Do they not think critically? Are they doing a different science? Perhsps the answer is simply that there is evidence for God.

The only thing to do is to respect their opinion. No need for name calling or cast judgement which both sides are guilty of here on Nairaland. Personally I enjoy conversing with atheists. Not because I try to convert them but I hope to stand as a refutation to the notion that believers in Christ are mindless drones who do not use their brains or are learned. To that effect, I will converse with any atheist especially those whose foundation is on the works of the New Atheists.

Logicboy03: 1) Point taken

2) "my mother said that I shouldnt play with John because his parents are atheists. His parents are evil fools because the bible says that "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good." (psalm 14;1)"

"I know our human origin. My dad told me that we came from Adam and Eve since God created them as the first humans. It is true because it is in the bible."

Just because you believe nonsense, it doesn't mean that you should abuse your child by teaching him nonsense.


3) Wrong. Atheist and theists can be similarly united in their disbelief/belief in God. The topic is religion. Religious people are divided, not united. Theism is not a religion. You can believe in god without religion. Christians can not agree who God is. Shia and Sunnis have different Hadiths and divine laws the follow from God...etc


4) It would make the same sense as muslims having an islamic church. The atheist church is a parody. Atheism can not be preached. It is neither a belief or a religion.

Furthermore, the atheist monuments are a reply to christian monuments not being taken down (observing the separation of church and state- no religion on public grounds). If christians can break the law, then atheists can break the law too by having their own monuments

Nothing you said is a refutation of my points.
You seem to be agreeing with the notion that parents teaching their children about God is child abuse.

Again those who believe in God are united in that belief though they may disagree about the whos, whats, wheres, whys, and hows. Atheists have the same issue.

How much of a parody is the church of atheism. I mean won't they be collecting offerings in order to pay the rent and utility bills of the building, staff? Seems like they are being serious to me otherwise they have become the very thing they accuse others of being: irrational.

ThaProphet: Absolutely! Everyone engages in some form of proselytizing, some aggressive, others very less aggressive. Hence why I mentioned earlier in this thread how atheism has its religious tendencies as well even though it seeks to debunk religion lol. Proselytizing did and continues to play a huge role in the Christian/Islam struggle we see today. Perhaps this is more noticeable because they are both Abrahamic faiths.

Oh yes! The ocean example applies to all who claim to have the absolute truth including the "big bangers" lol. Its been great discussing with you and I hope we've both gained some new insights. I sure have.

Indeed. I have gained insight as well. I like to understand another person's perspective. One must keep learning.

Logicboy03: Some things I find wrong with your posts

1) While it wouldbe hard to find people who became believers fom forum discussions, many believers became atheists/agnostics from forum discussions. You might not be giving forum discussions their appropriate valuation


2) Your point on Sam Harris is a blatant lie- Just like yur claims on Richard Dawkins. The point made by many atheists is that religion can be child abuse when it is taught to children as the only truth that is valid and unquestionable. This destroys the critical reasoning ability of the child since he or she is not allowed to question. Mind you, many atheists actually teach their children religion- that is many religions- Buddhism, christianity, Islam....

Children can be taught religion, the problem is that is sometimes taught as the only truth and also at the expense at other forms of knowledge So Sam Haris's point is about the way religion is taught. Get ur facts right.


3) Atheists are more united in disbelief than christians in christianity. Atheists disbelieve in the existence of God or gods. That is simple. Atheism is the disbelief in God. Nihilism, compatiblism, determinism are not under atheism....atheism is just a stance on God- anything else is extra. Now, christians on the other hand do not even agree on who Jesus is.

1. Never said anything about a believer becoming atheist/agnostic via forum.

2. Can be? Come on, now you are just being cute. Are you saying that in raising their children people say, "Now listen jr, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, but you know what, I won't force that on you, I want you to question it." Come on bro, if a parent truly believes something, if its their guiding principle, how will that not inform the way they raise a child. So Sam Harris isn't saying "can be" unless he doesn't know that parents are the ones that children get their frame of reference from. As for the statement of Dawkins, please read his book.

3. The point is this: atheists are just as united in their lack of belief in a god just as believers are united in a belief in God. My point was that even in both camps, you find conflict in the who's, what's, why's, where's, and how's.

4. Of course atheists proselytize, the just set up an Atheist church in the UK and an offshoot in Australia. Also there was an ad campaign in the UK along the lines of "there is probably no god, so live your life...". In the US there is a monument to atheism I think in a park in Florida.

Logicboy03: You do realise dat i am the op of this thread?


Anyhoo....i will send you links of my other threads to see how i explain my points. You seem new to atheism....

You might want to read leveticus 25:44
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

.

I do realize you are the op of the thread. That was sort of the point. I mentioned that you started this thread in an earlier post.

ThaProphet: Well, my position is that Africa already knew God. They did not need the Judeo-Christian God. I will post a letter sent from Belgium to missionaries in the Congo just to buttress this point (if I can find it).

As to the last point you made, well, I simply do not believe it (for the lack of words lol). See, someone used a great analogy which I believe perfectly captures this issue....
the truth is like the oceans of the earth, vast! If someone takes a sample of it from the shores of Brazil and another takes a sample from Spain and yet another takes a sample from Sierra Leone, we all took samples of the same ocean. The samples are true and accurate but if you examine the samples closely, the contents and composition will vary. But it would be silly for one of the people who took this sample to claim that my sample is the only accurate one and represents all of the vast oceans and the others a incorrect.

That is exactly the problem with these religions. They all claim to have the truth which is too vast for any one doctrine or book to handle. This is especially the problem with religions that believe they have the mandate to proselytize (Islam and Christianity). I once wrote an essay about the clash of these two "civilizations" and the mandate to proselytize is one of the main reasons why both are at loggerheads since the rise of Islam in the 7th century. I see it as the ultimate display of ego.

The beautiful thing is that we can always agree to disagree but at the same time learn. Bro, nah you still have my attention lol. We can even go into the Bible if you want, it is a book with many flaws but I'm not the type to completely dismiss it.

Exactly. In fact I have never heard someone become a believer through conversations via forums. The nature of debate almost insists that each participant cling to their position. And that is why we don't need to get into discussing the bible. It suffices me to know your position and of course you know I take a different one with regard to the contents of the bible.

I will contend with the negative connotation of your statement regarding the mandate to proselytize. It is this part that puzzles me as skeptics, agnostics, atheists who are the most vocal about freedom cannot stomach people of faith proselytizing. People like Sam Harris who say that it should be considered child abuse for parents to teach their children about Christianity (I paraphrased). Do atheists not proselytize? Are they not egoistic as well?

Your ocean taking sample does not only apply to practitioners of faith. Even atheists don't agree. Some are strict determinists, others compatibilists, another are existentialists, another are absurdists. There are eminent scientists who are believers and others who are not. There are pastors who became atheists and atheists who became pastors, so on and so forth. Ultimately we all must make a choice. We all have free will. God's gift to man.

Logicboy03: €

I read the article. It is nonsense.


One final point for you-

Slavery is accepted both in the bible and quran.

Like I said, you may disagree with the man. Opinion isn't fact. But at least he provided reasoning for why he made his statements instead of just saying "It is nonsense". I don't see how a conversation can move along when people keep making declarations without supporting with reasoning. And that's why I bowed out of our conversation.

I wonder at the purpose of your final point. Do you think I haven't read the bible? I think you expect me to bite. Unfortunately for you, this thread deals with a different topic. But if it was raised elsewhere, I would speak on it. I suspect however that you would not want to hear my points but turn the thread into a circus. I have no intent of joining the circus.

ThaProphet: About Haiti...it can be called a one off but like you mentioned, it brought about change. Chances are that without the success of Haiti, changes would not have occurred drastically. Also, there were other successful revolts besides Haiti, the island of Curacao led by Tula although this revolt did not result in a Haiti-like situation, it brought about change and some level of equal rights on the Island. Other revolts might not have resulted in independence but they were very effective in destroying the economy of slavery and reducing its profitability thus, I would say that they were successful. The Malcolm X and MLK example is a great example of how religion does not necessarily have to make one docile. But these examples are very rare. Especially in Africa. Well, contemporary Africa. As a matter of fact, in the world today. These days, religion is used to promote and excuse docility. That is a problem.

[b]Would getting rid of religion make us less corrupt, less greedy and less of cowards?

A lot of damage has been done already and I am not that naive to argue that getting rid of religion automatically solves the above problems. Also, it is almost impossible to get rid of religion, it is not practical to think so. However, I'd like to think that people should think more and act more without recourse to religious sentiments. That will definitely go a long way in making us less cowards. As to greed, yes, it will help because religion in Nigeria, especially Christianity, preaches the Gospel of Greed. Placing so much emphasis on material gains fosters corruption. Hence, we have (mis)leaders in different government offices having their seats reserved in special sections of the church auditorium. We have people giving inhumane testimonies as to how they are the only survivors of a car accident ad how they were saved by grace (different topic altogether).

Another issue I have with religion is the role it plays in the subjugation and demonization of our people and culture. I echo John Herik Clarke's words...
"nearly all religion were brought to people and imposed on people by conquerors and used as a framework to control their minds...if you are a child of God and God is a part of you, then in your imagination God is supposed to look like you. And when you accept a picture of a deity assigned to you by another people, you become the spiritual prisoners of that other people"

That is the way I tend to look at this issue. Was God not with Africa before Christianity and Islam? Did we as a people only exist, waiting to be saved and brought to the knowledge of God by other people? Did we not have a connection with God before the white man came? [/b]

I have no problem with religion. I advocate individual freedom. As long as that freedom does not encroach on the freedom of others. A good example is the discussion we've been having so far. I think this is the first time I've engaged in such a discussion without getting the following threats:

"Change your ways or burn in hell", "I pity you, you better accept Jesus before its too late", "I warn you! God cannot be mocked", "oh! you are an atheist, hell is real!", "You are a devil's incarnate!"

Honestly, I appreciate your level of reasoning. Usually, the above is what a discussion such as this descends to.

It is a shame that many threads seem to descend into back and forth name calling but I understand that it's because few people on both sides (believers and unbelievers) welcome a close examination of what they believe. It happens on every other forum, not just Nairaland. Indeed religion and politics are very divisive, as they should be.

In realizing that I haven't stated my position blatantly, I will now do so. Africa needs God. The Judeo-Christian God. Why? Because I believe that if and when Africa develops, the Gospel of Christ is what will keep us from devouring each other. I posted a link in an earlier response I gave to 'LogicBoy'. Please read it. The last couple of paragraphs are very potent.

To address the point you made about the way the Gospel is preached in Nigeria. I think I alluded to in an earlier post that the approach some take to scripture and make it appear that God is going to descend and put money in people's pockets is a mistake. Indeed Nigeria is filled with pastors who have turned a profit using the scripture and those are the ones you always hear about. The ones with the big churches. I will ask you to consider the churches you don't often hear about: the ones with the 50 to 100 people. The ones where the pastor shares in the same plight as the congregation and where members are doing for each other. I tell you that that is part of how Nigerians have been able to get by. As I see it, the two critical things that the church can do for Nigeria is to emphasize that "God has not given us a spirit of fear but of a sound mind..." and that "God has given everyone a measure of talent and he expects us to use it."

Lastly (without digressing too much), God has always been present in the world and I think this is why every race of man had a concept of a higher power; someone or something greater than themselves. Initially, God revealed himself to Abraham and to his descendants, but in the fulness of time he revealed himself through Jesus Christ who then gave his disciples the great commission to go into all the world to proclaim the gospel of Christ. So to answer your question, the spirituality of Africa and other peoples was fine but now the light of the God has shone for all men to see and come to know Him. Sure the white man brought the gospel to us, but salvation didn't come by the white man. And we find even in our own country, God raised up his own people. Consider the AIC (Aladura) churches. Christianity for Africans by Africans. Now there is so much more to be said on these points but I still want to retain your attention. Haha.

ThaProphet: This is "whitewashed" history bro. The main reason behind the abolition of "slavery" is that the so called "trade" stopped being economically viable and the activities of enslaved Africans played a huge part in the abolition. "Slave" revolts were occurring all over the Americas, plantations being set on fire, white people being killed by the enslaved in order to get their freedom. I'm sure you are aware of many of these revolts which was highly motivated by the huge success of the Haitian Revolution. The Haitian Revolution was mainly successful because it was based on African "religion" and spirituality, many argue. Toussaint L'Ouverture and his comrades depended highly on African spirituality and this was made possible by the sizable amount of African born "slaves" in Haiti (these guys abolished slavery in Haiti! Making Haiti the first "independent" black nation). The impact of these revolts played an important part in the decline of the "slavery" economy and thus, its collapse and eventual abolition. This is a fact that is often downplayed a lot in favour of the "valour" of the "abolitionists". Wilberforce, a very questionable character is revered more than Olaudah Equaino, a "slave" from Nigeria who significantly contributed to the abolition of the trade (I suggest you read Olaudah's book/account. I'm sure it is downloadable for free over the internet).

This brings me to Wilberforce...After Haiti abolished slavery, this should have been a positive thing for Wilberforce, right? He should have supported the movement if he really cared about Africans but no....he distanced himself from the event. British troops invaded Haiti in order to counter the movement and also, get one ahead of the French after they've been defeated by Toussaint L'Ouverture and the people of Haiti. They wanted Haiti to return to slavery. Wilberforce should have been against this as a true Christian abolitionist motivated by Christian morals, right? Uh...nah. A motion was raised in parliament to withdraw British troops from Haiti and Wilberforce opposed the motion. So much for the great abolitionist, uh?

The abolition bill of 1807 that actually led to the abolition was not Wilberforce's bill. He had presented bills year after year that were defeated in parliament quite easily. No one was interested in abolishing the trade because the reality of its non-viability has not quite set in yet. So, during this 1807 debate, there was a motion that children of "slaves" should be considered free and guess what? Wilberforce opposed it! What kind of guy is this? Does he know what he is doing at all? He also opposed the prohibition of whipping women and he demanded that when slavery is abolished eventually, white slave owners should be compensated for the loss of their property. Seriously, compensation for their loss? Do you know that the current UK Prime Minister, David Cameron's ancestors amongst many other British elites are beneficiaries of this compensation?

Thomas Clarkson, which I believe you mentioned said that Wilberforce "cared nothing about the slaves, nor if they were all damned, provided he saved his soul". So, the whole altruism attributed to Wilberforce as a great abolitionist is garbage. He was in fact very racist in his comments about Africans. He made so many comments about how Africans actually deserved their enslavement and how they were not yet fit for freedom.

Damn! I have typed a lot of story lol. My point is that the abolition of slavery was way way more than the noble acts of abolitionists who often benefited from slavery while putting out half-hearted abolition campaigns. One need to read deeper and think deeper as well. Why is it that most plantation owners preferred "slaves" that were born outside of Africa to the "fresh slaves" from Africa? These "fresh slaves" were simply trouble, they still had fresh connections to their roots and they often had a stronger desire to be free, hence the many revolts inspired by them. Plantation owner thus heavily discouraged the practicing of African traditions, music and languages and enforced Christianity instead in order to kill the freedom spirit. Again, back to the point, many factors led to the abolition and the weakest of those factors are the efforts of the so called "missionaries" who brought good tidings. The movie "Amazing Grace" dedicated to Wilberforce should have been called "Amazing Disgrace".

Sorry for the long post. This is why I usually refrain from talking much about slavery and similar topics.

I do not mind reading long posts especially when you present your points in the manner that you have. I am familiar with all the points you have made and even the questionability of Wilberforce's intentions. Nevertheless, the point still remains that Christianity played a role in the abolishing the slave trade as did the human spirit of our noble ancestors who broke off their chains. I would not call the abolitionist movement half-hearted. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say and it seems we are always too eager to criticize the past. I often wonder what would be said by the future generations about the many brilliant Nigerians living today and being unable to change their country for the better. I think you will agree that if you didn't one good thing, people will point out five other things you didn't do right. If you are pointing out that Wiberforce was a hypocrite, I wouldn't disagree with you though I do not judge the man. Indeed many Christians have espoused something with their lips and done another. That tends to be human nature. After all, the same men who professed freedom, liberty, and justice for all were slaveowners themselves.

Haiti stands as a one off but it had great impact on America and Europe. And it only proves my initial point that we must look at ourselves before blaming religion. Still, a great contributing influence that brought about the end of slavery was the abolitionist movement. When you look at other attempted rebellions after Haiti, they were all put down. So what produced the change? I think you will find it was a mixture of the right elements of which the abolitionist movement was a main ingredient. Just like the civil rights movement. The religion of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X didn't kill their yearning to be free.

I am not God's advocate. If all of us Nigeria decided to reject God, it wouldn't stop me from believing in Him. I would see it as a choice we made and we will live with that choice. As long as I am not restriced from worshipping and proselytizing, I'll keep trudging along. Again I ask, would getting rid of religion make us less corrupt, less greedy, less of cowards?

Sorry for the long post.

Logicboy03: Look....I have had this same debate for over a year now on nairaland. When facts are told about the christian slavery, we always have theists/religious/spiritual people denying the facts with nonsense opinions based on zero evidence


"the real british/european christians didnt engage in slavery, the real ones came and ended slavery"
"christainity didnt catch on until they (the Europeans) came back"

^^^
I am sick of nonsense like these quotes


Another point of annoyance is the lying against Dawkins- which is a christian dogma in its own right nowadays

Another point of annoyance is the nerve to ask silly questions when faced with a superior argument- what kind of person asks what is wrong with social darwinism? Why not pretend to be a Jew in front of a neo-nazi? That will answer your question-labellling certain people with certain xteristics as inferior and treating them different

There is no need to get worked up. I do find it interesting that though you say you are annoyed by the points religious folk have made, yet you start threads like this and actively engage one similar to it. Why would that be?

Still you failed to provide points but I will bow out of my conversation with you. I can do this because I am confident of the knowledge I have in this area.

I leave this with you if you care to read it. These are the words if an atheist who when he returned to his home country of Malawi made the following statement (see link):
http://cafn.us/2012/03/08/as-an-atheist-i-truly-believe-africa-needs-god-matthew-parris/

Now you may disagree and that's fine but clearly the man must have really given the situation some thought before publishing it.

ThaProphet: Not sure I understand the question the way you intended.

Religion introduced the concept of seeing "God" as something/someone outside of ourselves. By this I mean, a new concept and image of God. It also sowed the seed of self-hatred inadequacy and subjugation. This applies to both Islam and Christianity.

Will continue this discussion later hopefully....

Yes. I also hope we can continue the conversation in another thread perhaps. But I think you also share the view that we must first look at the man. My earlier point to you was that if Nigerians stopped being religious would that makes us less corrupt, less greedy, or lesser cowards?

Logicboy03: Its either you are lying or just ignorant.

Please support your statement with points. You have insinuated that I am a liar or ignorant, both of which I freely admit to because I've told lies since I was a child and I am aware that there are many things I am not aware of.

Still, you must provide a reasoning to support your statement.

Logicboy03: Problems with the bold
-Not all atheists believe in evolution even though majority probably do
-Darwinism is a silly and ambiguous term
-No sensible person would advocate darwinism in a social context- killing people who are termed to be inferior.
-Even Dawkins (one of the most popular atheists) has reiterated the above point.


Religion enslaved Africa. Have you ever wondered why no Nigerian school goes deep into the subject of slavery as part of history?

Do you even know that the christians that built schools in Nigeria built their first school 300 years after the first christians arrived? Why? Because slavery was abolished 300 years after they came. So put that into perspective. The first school in Nigeria was in the 19th century- amission school. The first christians came in the 15th/16th century

To address your points in order.

1. I never said all atheists subscribed to Darwinism.

2. Perhaps "Darwinian" is a better term?

3. Why couldn't a sensible person advocate for Darwinism in a social context? (Another thread discussion perhaps?)

4. I am familiar to Dawkins' work and he has not been truly to justify the above. In fact, in his book, "The God Delusion", he states that good and evil really have no meaning when you look at the whole picture of existence (I paraphrased).

5. Indeed the Portuguese Roman Catholics arrived in Nigeria in the 15th century but it never took a strong hold. In fact, it eroded over the next 200 years until they returned in the 1800s. This time the Protestants came as well and by 1865, the first school in Nigeria was built.

I do not contend that the abolition of slavery played an important role in the establishment of schools on the African continent. It did. And it is interesting to note that the abolitionist movement was championed by believers like Wilberforce, Clarkson, Heyrick, Buxton, etc.

ThaProphet: Hehe...we actually do disagree on a lot bro.

I can't really speak for atheist because I don't consider myself one lol. However, I will disagree on the part that Christianity civilized Africa. That is according to those old (but relatively recent) history books that were written with ink laced with racism (a relatively new concept). Older records reveal that there were many "civilizations" before the western/European variant. It is now widely accepted that the use of the word "civilization" is faulty because it usually refers to a particular type of civilization, the European type. So, what definition of civilization are we using here? Many parts of Africa were civilized before they adopted western civilization which was actually heavily influenced by African knowledge and civilization.

Perhaps we should not derail this thread. This is a completely different discussion and topic.

In my opinion, religion had/has too little positives.

.

Definitely do no want to derail the thread and I take your point that civilization is a subjective term. So to stick with the thread, my question would be this: what exactly did religion introduce into Africa that wasn't already part of the fabric of our existence?

ThaProphet: Indeed! Black communities that are extremely religious can be argued to be already poor. However, we can argue that they were already religious as well. Besides that even if religion did not directly cause their poverty, religion certainly has something to do with them remaining in poverty because.....

of apathy which is the main cause of lack of direction as you rightly pointed out. Apathy actually means the lack of interest in pursuing things that should be important, being docile when action is required or lack of interest. This is a manifestation of over-religiosity, don't you think? Like you said, over-religiosity is when people think that Jesus will do everything for them. You mentioned that it is contrary to the scripture, I 100% agree with you. Yet the scripture says "do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers". Thus, many Christians refuse to engage in progressive activities like politics or protests and campaigns for example. In order to further support their resolve to not engage, scriptures like "for we fight not against flesh and blood but principalities...." are brandished. In other words, they only way to achieve change is to pray endlessly in the churches. I have to balance this, this is not meant to be an attack on Christianity. Over-religiosity can also be seen in our Islamic brothers as well. Except that it is mostly manifested in aggression and contemporarily, terrorism. It is the same over-religiosity expressed in different ways.

Both types of over-religiosity are obviously not beneficial. My point is that apathy and over-religiosity compliment each other and can lead to a lack of vision and direction. I do however agree that this is not universal as there are exceptions, just like yourself but according to my experience, it is true is most cases.

The unity aspect, I completely agree with. Humans have always had excuses and reasons to commit the most heinous acts. Which is why I think the world will probably fair better without it. Without religion, there will be less sentiments and people's acts can be seen exactly for what they are. For example slavery was about greed and economic reasons not dogmas like racism or religion. Yet, racism (invented) and Christianity were used to justify and foster it.

Brilliant observation about nairaland! You know what? Sometimes I think that the reason why the country is so messed up can be seen on Nairaland by just spending 1 hour on this forum. One one hand, you have silly people and on the other, you have people who think they are smart and because of that everybody else's opinion is worth nothing. We then end up with curses and name-calling and at the end, no one has actually managed to communicate. I do appreciate your respect and open mindedness even though we disagree on quite a lot lol.

Peace!

Hahaha I do see we disagree on so much. Again you make very fine points especially when you indicate that it was man's greed that created the slave trade and even those who were believers cast it's message aside at the prospect of making it big.

In all seriousness though, I think it is too often quickly forgotten that it was Christianity that civilized Europe as well as many parts of Africa. It was the missionaries who built the schools and hospitals in Nigeria and unified us under one language. One must ask why atheists didn't do this?

Here's another question: would a truly darwinism-minded group of atheists have built the schools and churches? Wouldn't their espousal of a "survival of the fittest" doctrine have justified subjugating and even wiping out the "primitive" race in order to possess their resources?

Religion shined the light of knowledge in Africa and try as they might, no one can take that away.

ThaProphet: Good points made overall. I agree with you for the most parts.

However, have you also noticed that black groups/communities worldwide tend to be the most religious? Could the lack of direction be a result of over-religiousity? Instead of putting in work, we'd rather hope for some divine intervention. That is the utmost loss of direction if you ask me.

About certain individuals being successful regardless of their belief. Very true, most of the time, those individuals took charge of their lives. They worked more and attended church less. They did not subscribe to the "leave it all to Jesus" doctrine. That is besides the point though since we are talking about collective progress here.

This brings me to the unity issue. Religion has also contributed to disunity massively. The evidence can be seen all over the continent and even in the diaspora communities. Few of these divides: Islam vs Christianity, Christianity vs Christianity, believers vs unbelievers, condemned (unbelievers) vs Chosen (believers) light skinned vs darkskinned has its religious roots as well. So, religion has definately not made unity easier. Religion also contributes to the fear and distrust among Afrikans worldwide.

I wholeheartedly agree that religion is easy to blame. Our own first enemies are ourselves (afterall, we are the ones practicing religion). That said, religion is not the only factor responsible for all our problems but it plays a huge part, a fundamental part in the creation of our problems and our inability to solve them.

You have raised excellent points and I will certainly mull them over.

As you rightly pointed out, black groups/communities worldwide tend to be very religious, and it is because of that very state of poverty that makes them turn to religion. It is a source of hope that this world is not all that there is and that the next will be better. I don't think you would argue, as some try to do, that religion made them poor; they were already in that state even before turning to religion. And that is the point I think you and I both agree on: with or without religion man will be poor if he does not take hold of his own life.

There are two points though that I would contend with you on. The first is that I don't think that "over-religiousity", to use your words, is the cause of the lack of direction. I think it's apathy (the sense of utter hopelessness). Coming to terms with just how desperate their situation is, many lose hope in their own abilities to they can change their situation so they cling further unto their faith. Now this "over-religiousity" is only an issue if they retreat into a hope where they think one who is greater than them, i.e. Jesus, will do everything for them as though he were a genie. This is actually contrary to scripture (discussion for another day). In essence, my point is that apathy is the true cause of a lack of direction and I do not think that going to church less will give you direction. Personally, I spend a lot of time both at church and pursuing my goals.

The second issue of contention is the the unity issue. I would contend that the disunity among us as blacks for which religion takes the blame is due simply to the dark nature of man. I would say that religion is just another tool that man uses to justify conflict with his fellow man. And again, I think religion is an easy tool to use because man can appeal to a higher authority in order to justify his actions and thereby excuse himself from responsibility. Without doubt, history shows that some of the greatest atrocities have been committed in the name of God but it also shows that others had nothing to do with God. It was man being man.

I really do appreciate the civility and thoroughness with which you raised your points. It's what Nairaland needs more of if we are to get to a point where as a collective we can achieve something. I have never seen back and forth name-calling achieve anything.

God Bless.

Can light and darkness cannot coexist. Darkness is the absence of light so where light is, darkness cannot be there as well. Someone in whom the Spirit of God lives cannot also have a spirit of darkness.

Too easy to blame religion. There is a deep lingering thought that needs to be considered: why is it that every black society, no matter where in the world, is essentially in abject poverty. Is that the fault of religion or there are other deeply rooted issues that need to be considered? I’ve know successful Nigerians; some were religious and others were not. The problem with us, blacks in general, not just Nigerians, is that most of us don’t have a certain direction of our lives, and the ones that do have that direction don’t know how to go about making it a reality. Is this the fault of religion?

Lastly, what has been most detrimental to us as blacks is our inability to unite. Until recently, it is not religion that divides us, rather we draw up the most idiotic lines: bloods vs crips, light-skinned vs dark-skinned, the more educated vs the less educated, who is more like the white man vs who isn’t etc… Not that divisions like this don’t exist among other races, they do. But for us who need to rebuild our land, they are a chain around our necks. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

As a Christian, I will say that IF Christianity has failed Nigeria, it is that it has not been able to remove the deep fear and distrust that we seem to have towards each other and to wake people up out of their apathy and know that God has given them the faculties they need to be able to change their situation. I suspect that this is some of the frustrations some atheists here on Nairaland have.
The full has not been spoken about this issue but I submit this post for your consideration.
Stay seeking. Stay thinking. Believe.

Logicboy03: Get some sense. You are telling us to go back far back in the past to see how religious countries and civilizations were on top.

The question is why is it that religious countries are in the bottom today but in the distant past, they were at the top?

The answer is simple- religion ruled in the past when man was ignorant and there was little enlightenment. Thanks for proving the op point!


Religion preys on ignorance and also promotes it.

[quote author=Logicboy03]I think you misunderstand my point. To put it simply, the prosperity that the western world enjoys today, did that spring up from a vacuum? No, if you look at history, Europe civilized and became prosperous under the influence of Christianity. Many of the great minds of those times and till present were believers and Europe was a religious society. They had their faith and also used their minds. It wasn't either-or.

The answer isn't as simple as you say. If you are stating that religion appeals more strongly to the poor than to the affluent, you would hardly find anyone disagreeing with you. Of course it does, it offers hope to those whose situation is desperate. But that isn't the issue. The issue is apathy, which is perhaps the most debilitating effect of poverty. In seeing no way out of their predicament, people cling to the only source of hope they have (their faith) and slowly stop using their faculties to try to make things happen or even when they do use their faculties, it is to prey on their neighbor. That is the real issue: How do you get people to still go out and try to make things happen using their God given faculties, instead of wallowing in apathy and using religion as an excuse to not take hold of their livelihood?

Actually you will find that history does not support your argument that the most religious countries tend to be the poorest. You are looking at perhaps the last 100 years. Read up on the histories of Western Europe, the Arab nations and even earlier African civilizations of which ancient Greek writers remarked about their wealth and civility. When you look at the poor nations of the world today, notice that they all share the same experience of colonization. Not that colonization is the cause of all of it but it is a strong contributing factor. You will see that the Asian nations like China and Japan and the South American nations like Brazil and Argentina who are more developed threw off the shackles of colonization much earlier than the countries who are poorer today.

There is so much more to this question. I would recommend reading a book called “Guns, Germs, and Steel” as that also provides some further insight.

If religion plays a role in creating poorer societies, it is that members of those societies use it as a means to avoid taking responsibility for their own lives and believe that they are more faithful or pious because they “surrender” all to God. I am a believer and I go out every day with the intent to use every faculty the Lord has given me to create something, and I know that the Lord blesses and provides.
Many here on Nairaland seem to think that because the West is becoming more secular, we Africans better follow suit. This is the very thing that has caused Africa trouble. We are not ready to define our own future; we are content to copy and try to be like everyone else but ourselves. Again, when you look at the history of the West, it is undeniable that its success was due largely to the Judeo-Christian ethic.

I find these types of posts good for believers to look sincerely into what they believe and these are questions I have looked into often. So for the honest skeptic, here are a couple of links to look at:

http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/apologetic/contrads/
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php/bible-evidence/108

For others who are only interested in being contentious, I can offer you nothing since the end result is futility.

The real shame from what i gather looking at many posts is the notion that one cannot espouse a belief in God and still be considered "intelligent", “a free thinker”, etc, and that in order for Nigeria to progress, we must shake off the shackles of religion. Nothing is far from the truth. History does not bear this out. Sure most of the west is growing secular, but it is undeniable that the foundation of such societies was on Judeo-Christian ethic.

Keep Seeking. Keep Thinking.

To be able to prove something implies that something to be understood. Now if God exists and man can understand God, which implies being able to study God, then God as we know the concept, ceases to be God since God is now within the boundaries of man's knowledge. In essence, no one can prove God the way we prove other things. The question is: If God does exist, has be provided proof of his existence? Has he revealed himself?

As a believer, I believe God revealed himself through the person of Jesus Christ. Now the question is, Did Jesus exist? And did he offer proof of his divinity?

As a believer, the evidence of Christ's divinity is the Holy Spirit working in the church. And as someone who worships at an AIC, the Holy Spirit moves. And the presence and power of the Holy Spirit is a heritage for the churches, especially those in the "third world". As the Western churches become more secular, it will be in the churches of the "third world" that people with encounter God. That's a topic for another day though.

This is not all there is to consider when talking about the existence of God but it is a starting point. Ultimately, the bible is pretty clear that in God's economy, when you have faith, then you will see. A truly radical concept as it is entirely contrary to the way we as humans understand all that is around us.

This is a good thread for the honest skeptic. Keep it going.