Why I am a rationalist
By Jide Akeredolu

A RATIONALIST is someone whose worldview is guided by reason. He refuses to swallow any idea or dogma that does not make sense. He critically examines any idea presented to him and takes what can stand scrutiny and discards the rest. Or he just suspends judgment until more information is available to make a judgment. There are seven major reasons why I am grateful I am a rationalist rather than a religious believer. I guess there are many others and readers may add to the list.

I don't have any unnecessary fears in my worldview. I am not afraid of demons, witches, spirits - both evil and holy, principalities and powers, Satan, or imaginary places like hell, etc because I don't believe any of these things exist. There are enough real things to be afraid of in this world without conjuring up all these imaginary things as well. Those who have a religious view of this world are not so lucky. I have a relation who had a bird stray into his compound. He identified it to be a raven, and because it was mentioned in the Bible, the whole family was terrified. There were prayers and fasting for days to ward off the "imminent dangers". A rationalist is free of such fears. They are all superstitious nonsense.

The second is that I don't have unnecessary feelings of guilt. The phenomenon of 'sin' is a religious idea which I don't subscribe to, and I don't wake up every morning feeling guilty of being a sinner, confessing and begging for forgiveness of sins -"both known and unknown". I keep the laws of my society, and I try to keep the golden rule - treat others the way you will like to be treated - a rule that predates all the major religions. I don't worry whether I have disobeyed any of the arbitrary religious laws, whether I am reading any holy book regularly or praying certain number of times, or going to church regularly, or worshiping an idol lately. I can do anything I want freely within the law without feeling guilty because I have a more rational idea of morality - respecting the right of others, acting with integrity, and trying to leave the world a better place than I found it. Religion, instead of shaping morality, actually confuses it by bringing in all these baggage which have nothing at all to do with real morality.

The third reason is that I live for this world, and I try to live it to the full. While it can be comforting to believe in a sort of afterlife, the reality is that when you spend all your time in this world preparing for the next world for which there is no shred of evidence, you really lose out in enjoying what this life has to give.

That leads me to the fourth reason. I love real people. I don't give imaginary gods and friends priority over the relationship I have with real people. Religious people risk letting their relationship with their imaginary friends and beings get in the way of their relationship with real people, friends and family members especially if that person doesn't share their beliefs, or happens to be gay or polygamist for example,  I am able to relate with anybody no matter his or her religious or sexual leanings.

I am proactive, and I like to take my destiny in my own hands. I set goals and I go for them. I don't believe in praying for the things I want in life, nor do I think praying for other people does anything to help them. If I want to help people, I do it directly, and take responsibility or credit for it myself. I don't feel that because I have prayed for somebody, I have done something for them. This does not mean I don't wish people well. I try to help practically. Like Chinua Achebe said, "while prayer may give food for the soul, it gives nothing for the stomach".

My sixth reason is privacy. Christopher Hicthens put it like this - "If religion were true, it would be like living in George Orwell's world - where even the smallest details of your every action and every thought are monitored, and where you can be prosecuted for even "thought crimes". Very scary indeed! I feel lucky that nobody is watching me 24/7, and so I have a sense of real privacy.

Finally, this is a rather selfish reason why I am happy to be a rationalist. I get to save 10 per cent of my income, I am able to put in a full day's work on Fridays and I also get a few extra hours of sleep on Sundays!


Akeredolu is a member of the Centre for Inquiry, Nigeria.

http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/editorial_opinion/article03//indexn2_html?pdate=010808&ptitle=Why%20I%20am%20a%20rationalist

u sound like an atheist

sure he is an athiest. . . . . . . . .

mazaje:

sure he is an athiest. . . . . . . . .

yep just like me

You go ration your sef die

Viante:

You go ration your sef die

madam no be ration oh! abi na so you like food reach, softly, softly dey chop make belle no go burst
The subject na about how to rationalise, that is to say think/reason things out.
_{before running to God or those who claim to (mis)represent Him my addition to the writer's take.}

Good article and very well said.

Viante:

You go ration your sef die

Abeg madam viante, u don see person wey live forever before, even Methusela finally had to leave this world as we know it.

@ anomini
Thats a wonderful article there. I wish some of our fundamenatlists out there will read it and understand the concepts behind. But on the other hand, are u Akeredolu ?

Hello Akeredolu,

This is a lovely piece. I must give you kudos for the write up.

Your perception to life is quite fascinating, your world is all about your 5 physical senses, what you see, hear, touch, taste and smell,
You certainly do not entertain anytime for God, heaven and earth and all that, infact, from what you wrote, you are the master of your own destiny. You mentioned that you are not afraid of demons , witches, etc, just curious though,
(1) what things are you afraid of, have you conquered your fears, do you fear nothing now?

(2)  What is your view to life after death, what has the physical senses taught you on that, (oh yeah I remember,, you suspend judgement, )

(3)  Do you believe there is a creator who created you, heaven and earth?

(4) Your sense of right and wrong, where does it originate from, is from the Nigerian law, or the Nigerian Police?)

I respect your perception to life , RATIONALISM, but another means of perception exists called FAITH. It is true that certain people get frightened at the mention of demons, spirits and all that, they have not been taught well. I employ you to believe that a God exist, do not wait till you die to locate the geographical location of this imaginary lake of fire. It is real.

Cheers man.

Ascony:

@ anomini
But on the other hand, are u Akeredolu ?

No I am not, I am still a Christian as expressed in my comment #5 here and other postings on this forum.
However, you may agree with me that it is becoming increasingly difficult, at least in Nigeria, to identify Christian leaders (=pastors) in the mould of Christ and the Apostles and that is going to cause some people to toss away the baby (Xtianity) and the dirty bath water (scammers parading as church leaders)

I'm sure there are quite a number of items that many would find enriching in the OP.

However, there are indeed many issues that one may find quite untennable in the strain of thought expressed in Akeredolu's piece. These issues can be funneled down to just onw thing: the simplistic ideology that feeds the attitude of some (I said "some" people to misrepresent what they cannot handle. Let me highlight just an example:

anonimi:

My sixth reason is privacy. Christopher Hicthens put it like this - "If religion were true, it would be like living in George Orwell's world - where even the smallest details of your every action and every thought are monitored, and where you can be prosecuted for even "thought crimes". Very scary indeed! I feel lucky that nobody is watching me 24/7, and so I have a sense of real privacy.

Although both Akeredolu and Hitchens may not subscribe to the concept of sin, but to connect Christianity in such a manner as if it prosecutes people for "thought crimes" is quite childish. Christians do not prosecute anyone for "thought crimes", and if Mr. Hitchens should know better! What such analogies tell me is that Mr. Akeredolu (in agreeing with Hitchens) does not like to examine his own conscience: and so he must necessarily look for someone else to blame for his unease. Of course, after the blame-game, he may find the ticket he desired to claim that he is quite happy to live as "a rationalist". Cheap logic.

Perhaps, this is where I may have to repeat my previous questions to rationalist atheists:

What actually is atheism?

Who is an atheist?

Is atheism, as a worldview, a movement that atheists are passionate about?

I think the time has come for them to speak for themselves and let us know what they actually believe. The lines have been blurred for much too long, and we would not like to see this obfuscations constantly bantered. Clarity and consistency are the keywords here. Responses in a rational manner would be quite appreciated.

Cheers all.

1. Athiesm is a word conjured by you theists. Athiest is just the opposite of thiest. You dont need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

2. Athiesm is not a world movement. Never was, never being. There is no cult like status or group that practices and preaches a particular doctrine. Athiests are people who dont just believe in stories that emanated from some ancient books as true especially as it relates to a particular deity. Whether you are talking about allah, buddah, zeus, jehovah or whatever.

Once you cannot substantiate its existence in a logical way that makes sense then it has every right to be counternanced and marked rejected until there is a more reasonable evidence that appeals to non theists.

To some atheists, they use science to rationalise their dislike for religion and to some like me we use common sense and reasoning to reject such stories emanating from these so-called holy books.

Whether you call them atheists, rationalists, freethinkers or whatever, bottom line we dont believe these crappy holy stories and we only attack back when you push your ideologies into our faces!

Shikena!

@Zino Ben,

Lol. . . I was hoping that you'D throw this boju-boju syndrome behind you and be rational. haba. . . afterall, I asked for rational (ie., thoughtful) answers, abi?

Anyhow, thank you for your attempt to answer.

Zino Ben:

1. Athiesm is a word conjured by you theists. Athiest is just the opposite of thiest. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Sorry, atheism was not a word conjured by theists - and atheists themselves will tell you that! For one, many atheists do not like to use definitive terms which are in currency among theists; and as such, they would not fancy calling themselves by titles devised by theists.

Another example that people often drivel about is the idea that the word "evolution[i]ist[/i]" was coined by theists. Not true, because that assumption is often held by people who are not comfortable with rational discourses and only hope to blur the lines as a get-away quick backdoor. I've often reminded a gentleman who kept shlepping that idea that he should remember that Dawkins both addresses himself as an atheist and an evolutionist, and he would never have accepted the terms for himself in the same way as theists refer to themselves as believers.

Zino Ben:

2. Athiesm is not a world movement. Never was, never being.

I'm sure you haven't checked the issue properly. Atheism is actually a movement - Richard Dawkins and his new atheists adulators are passionate about their atheistic worldview. Second, I wonder that if atheism was not a movement, why then do we have several incorporated atheistic bodies as outlined below:

        International Humanist and Ethical Union
        World Atheist Conferences
        Atheist Center (a social change institution founded by Gora)
        Atheist Alliance International
        American Atheists Conference
       
Please note the highlighted words; and even if one were not to highlight them, it is no use gainsaying the fact that those involved in those conferences, unions, alliances and associations have often presented themselves as a cohesion of a movement.

Zino Ben:

There is no cult like status or group that practices and preaches a particular doctrine.

They do, it's just that you have not found out. Humanists as well as atheistic rationalists have their various creeds that they hold passionately - and these are the very core of their message, their worldview as well their raison d'etre.

Zino Ben:

Athiests are people who don't just believe in stories that emanated from some ancient books as true especially as it relates to a particular deity. Whether you are talking about allah, buddah, zeus, jehovah or whatever.

That is a reductionist idea of atheism and does not reach an average definition of what atheism actually is.

Zino Ben:

Once you cannot substantiate its existence in a logical way that makes sense then it has every right to be counternanced and marked rejected until there is a more reasonable evidence that appeals to non theists.

Atheism is not science, nor has it disproved the veracity of theism.

Zino Ben:

To some atheists, they use science to rationalise their dislike for religion

That is why I stated earlier as I've often done: atheism is not synonymous for "science".

Zino Ben:

. . and to some like me we use common sense and reasoning to reject such stories emanating from these so-called holy books.

Not many like you have demonstrated common sense and reason - and that is why your worldview fails to live up to its claims to rational thought process.

Zino Ben:

Whether you call them atheists, rationalists, freethinkers or whatever, bottom line we don't believe these crappy holy stories and we only attack back when you push your ideologies into our faces!

Concluding remarks shows just how "rational" your worldview tends to be - because often is the case that your fellows assume that the goal of reason is to "attack" others. That is quite unhealthy and unintelligent. But thansk all the same for your attempts.

Cheers.

Sorry, atheism was not a word conjured by theists - and atheists themselves will tell you that! For one, many atheists do not like to use definitive terms which are in currency among theists; and as such, they would not fancy calling themselves by titles devised by theists.

Then who conjured the name athiests? Since your beating around the bush and not specifically trying to zone the idea of the word athiest to a particular founder. At least we can trace the catholics to rome and the protestant churches to the calvins and lutherians. Where will you now say an athiest or group of athiest woke up one morning and decided to tag themselves as athiests. Wasn't it during the inquisition the issues of infidels, heretics,athiests, non believer and a host of nonsensical names were given to people who faulted these christian beliefs?

I'm sure you haven't checked the issue properly. Atheism is actually a movement - Richard Dawkins and his new atheists adulators are passionate about their atheistic worldview. Second, I wonder that if atheism was not a movement, why then do we have several incorporated atheistic bodies as outlined below:

       International Humanist and Ethical Union
       World Atheist Conferences
       Atheist Center (a social change institution founded by Gora)
       Atheist Alliance International
       American Atheists Conference
       
Please note the highlighted words; and even if one were not to highlight them, it is no use gainsaying the fact that those involved in those conferences, unions, alliances and associations have often presented themselves as a cohesion of a movement.

I see from your previous posts your aversion to richard dawkins especially in reference to his book "the god delusion". The beauty of a free world is that you have the right to criticize the book from A-Z but that rule cannot be applied to the bible without a deluge of prophetic doom sayers reciting insults and curses laden verses in the bible and talks of blasphemy. I really cannot hold forte for richard dawkins and you have a right to pick issues with him. Not my problem one bit. I am not a member of Richard Dawkin's movement and i dont intend to be although i agree with some parts of his book and disagree on some. So your argument of using his movement as a general preposition to lump all athiests is faulty once again.

Also in respect of the other world movements that  highlighted as athiest organizations, you are quite wrong there again because these groups have their own philosophy and rational on why they were formed independently to propagate their own views. While some speak about the issues of science, some speak under the banner of humanity and morality and some speak about issues relating to logic and so on and so forth. There is no general banner or tag that so called athiests fall under such as the word "Christians" that covers everyone who believes in jesus christ. All the various christian denominations from catholics to pentecostals  to white garment to mormons etc still fall under the name christians and believe in one book "the bible" and propagate its sole ideology. QED

You cant say all athiests believe in the issue of evolution but i can say all christians believe that jesus christ ressurected. That major difference in ideologies does not make the  International Humanist and Ethical Union,        World Atheist Conferences,Atheist Center (a social change institution founded by Gora), Atheist Alliance International or  American Atheists Conference bind on each other. For you to say athiesm is a movement is totally ill concieved. I dont belong to one and i dont have any fellow athiest Sitting beside me now trying to convert or preach the goodness or beauty of athiesm or on saturday mornings i have to attend a sermon on "why the noah's ark story is the greatest fabrication of all time" like christians will do on sundays. I see the few non believers on nairaland like huxley, manmustwac and the other guy all expressing different views in relation to their dislike of the bible. I havent recieved any form of pamphlet or email about a meeting of minds to propagate athiesm or to form a movement. Even the akieredolu chap who professed he is a rationalist didnt specify that he was in a movement or an athiest movement for that matter. So picking out isolated groups or conferences of athiests doesnt make them a movement.

A movement is formed to influence the happenings and activites of a certain society. What significant gain has the so called athiest movements achieved? Have they prevented national anthems or pledges from using god in it, such as god bless america or so help me god? Have they prevented presidents from being sworn in without using the quoran or bible?

Some movement i say! compared this to the christian cult that controls the very facet and existence of the western world

They do, it's just that you have not found out. Humanists as well as atheistic rationalists have their various creeds that they hold passionately - and these are the very core of their message, their worldview as well their raison d'etre.

Please feel free to share some of them with us and see whether there hasnt been any major criticism from so called athiest themselves over this creed in contrast to finding one single christian that criticizes the bible openly!

That is a reductionist idea of atheism and does not reach an average definition of what atheism actually is

Once again give a better defination and see if your defination doesnt summarize the obvious that non believers simply dont believe in these holy books because of the errancies and fallacies inherent in these books.

Not many like you have demonstrated common sense and reason - and that is why your worldview fails to live up to its claims to rational thought process

Vey funny! You say our world view fails to live up to its claims to rational thought process. Okay quick question that deals with rationality. I read a chapter like 2 kings 2:23-24 and the only thing i can get from there is that a holy prophet under the command of god ordered 2 bears to kill 42 children because they called him a baldy. Logic tells me that such a person who ordered such a massacre is demon to say the least and if it is the same god of the bible that you christians so revere as the alpha and omega of intelligence and mercy, then i see such a god as a cosmic idiot to say the very least for this singular act.

Now that is my rational thought process at work. Now defend the irrationality of my allegations. Try your very best to justify such brutality and see who really fails to live up to its claims to rational thought process. Anyway i wont even bother asking you to do so because you will always pretend that such a verse doesnt exist and skip right through it. By the way, it is a very effective trick of christians when you are confronted with these embarrassing issues.

Concluding remarks shows just how "rational" your worldview tends to be - because often is the case that your fellows assume that the goal of reason is to "attack" others. That is quite unhealthy and unintelligent. But thansk all the same for your attempts.

Very funny! Do you want me to pull out over a 1000 posts attacks from christians towards unbelievers on nairaland? Talk about kettle calling pot black. If we were just as gullible as some folks on nairaland, we would have accepted the bible hook line and sinker without asking any question and just become converts because the bible said so. But when we reply that the bible also said these horrendous things and ask for explanation, you immediately assume that to be unintelligent and unhealthy and a form of attack. Talk about double speak!

@Zino Ben very nice rebuttal. . . . . . . when you ask the Christians to defend the embarrassing passages of the bible they come up with stupid explanations, sometimes when they realize that their explanations fall flat they resort to damnation and insults. . . . . .

Where as i dont completely agree with the entire write up, there were some very interesting points. . .

I do think religion can be rationalised, I try to anyways, its d only way i am most comfortable, everyone has the right to their own beliefs or lack of

@Zino Ben,

Thank you again.

Okay, I have been testing your waters to see if you guys actually have a solid grasp of what you have been arguing. Because it had seemed to me that such was not the case, I decide to broach questions to solicit answers from those inclined to atheists/rationalists atheists to speak for themselves so that we know what exactly you guys have to offer.

Zino Ben:

Then who conjured the name athiests? Since your beating around the bush and not specifically trying to zone the idea of the word athiest to a particular founder.

To be sure, I was not beating around the bush or trying to waste anyone's time. I have been reserved on giving that answer because I wanted huxley to actually go back and study hard to be informed on the issue - since he is the only person I have read hitherto bandying that idea on this Forum. I do promise to come back and share the etymlogy with you from at least 3 different sources. For now, I maintain that all things considered, it was not devised by theists.

Zino Ben:

At least we can trace the catholics to rome and the protestant churches to the calvins and lutherians. Where will you now say an athiest or group of athiest woke up one morning and decided to tag themselves as athiests. Wasn't it during the inquisition the issues of infidels, heretics,athiests, non believer and a host of nonsensical names were given to people who faulted these christian beliefs?

No, Zino. . . you are far from it. If you can be patient until I have helped huxley out on this issue, youwould see the difference. But then, I know where you probably might have caught that idea from; but wherever it is you might have got it from, it is incorrect - and informed atheist are not too happy that so many rationalists have been misled to assume such is the case, because it was a mistake from an atheist who did not check his references carefully before publishing it in his book.

Zino Ben:

I see from your previous posts your aversion to richard dawkins especially in reference to his book "the god delusion".

I'm sorry, but it's true that I'm quite averse to that book. It has proven to be a minus for him, and quite a surprise to me personally that so many informed atheists have rebuffed his rants in that book.

Zino Ben:

The beauty of a free world is that you have the right to criticize the book from A-Z but that rule cannot be applied to the bible without a deluge of prophetic doom sayers reciting insults and curses laden verses in the bible and talks of blasphemy.

As you can see, I don't count in that list. My approach is to enter a dialogue and reason out issues without disrespect to anyone or their convictions. I have always stated to huxley repeatedly that "attacking" one's beliefs is not to be mistaken for intelligent discourse - and I'm a disciple of that idea.

Zino Ben:

I really cannot hold forte for richard dawkins and you have a right to pick issues with him.

On the contrary, I don't have issues with him. The reason why I make reference often to him is because I have come across the same ideas that are inadequately expressed in his book being circulated on the forum - and perhaps it might help whoever is doing such to be careful not to hold ideas that have become weltered from the cold.

Zino Ben:

Not my problem one bit. I am not a member of Richard Dawkin's movement and i don't intend to be although i agree with some parts of his book and disagree on some. So your argument of using his movement as a general preposition to lump all athiests is faulty once again.

I'm sure the examples I gave does not show that they were all the handiwork of Dawkins - so even if he were not on the scene, it nonetheless is a fact that other atheists have assumed their cause as a movement.

Zino Ben:

Also in respect of the other world movements that  highlighted as athiest organizations, you are quite wrong there again because these groups have their own philosophy and rational on why they were formed independently to propagate their own views.

So, what is wrong in the same thing I said? They formed those organizations as movements - you may not identify as a member: that's okay; but it does not deny the fact that those who have been the vanguard of those movements have thought it otherwise. My problem may be that I applied it in a general and umbrella way - yet, even speaking broadly, atheists see atheism as a movement.

Zino Ben:

While some speak about the issues of science, some speak under the banner of humanity and morality and some speak about issues relating to logic and so on and so forth. There is no general banner or tag that so called athiests fall under such as the word "Christians" that covers everyone who believes in jesus christ. All the various christian denominations from catholics to pentecostals  to white garment to mormons etc still fall under the name christians and believe in one book "the bible" and propagate its sole ideology. QED

Your "QED" doesn't quite close it, Zino. The question is about "theists" or "atheists". I hope you know that "Christian" is a subset of "theism". . . and it is incorrect to lump them the way you assumed above. Under the broad term "atheism" comes your adjectives of humanists, rationalist, philosophical atheists etc; so you cannot hold this idea that there is no single "banner" under which atheists stand.

Zino Ben:

You can't say all athiests believe in the issue of evolution but i can say all christians believe that jesus christ ressurected. That major difference in ideologies does not make the  International Humanist and Ethical Union,        World Atheist Conferences,Atheist Center (a social change institution founded by Gora), Atheist Alliance International or  American Atheists Conference bind on each other.

This again is a simplistic formula that does not reach the mark. All those unions and cnferences bind themselves in one common cause - the stand against the core values of theism. If that is not it, please show me kindly of any one of those groups differ from that one premise. When you mention evolution, you make it sound as if there are no Christians who believe in evolution including the faith of the resurrection!

Zino Ben:

For you to say athiesm is a movement is totally ill concieved.

That is what most atheists would like to think. . . but I'm not doing the thinking for others who see themselves as a movemnt. It would only mean that such atheists have got it all wrong again.

Zino Ben:

I don't belong to one and i don't have any fellow athiest

That's good for you. But should we ignore the fact or pretend that others have indeed a membership to those unions? I appreciate the fact that you speak for yourself; but Zino, this is not a discussion about you, rather it is about atheism as seen on the front line today. Where I have taken an utterly incorreect assumption, it would only do well to point them out as such. But I have always maintained a stance to actually back my statements with attested and verifiable references, as in the examples I gave above.

Zino Ben:

Sitting beside me now trying to convert or preach the goodness or beauty of athiesm or on saturday mornings i have to attend a sermon on "why the noah's ark story is the greatest fabrication of all time" like christians will do on sundays.

Lol. . . you may not attend such gatherings. Others have constantly been about that same business many times and still have the same discussion slated for their next conference.

Zino Ben:

I see the few non believers on nairaland like huxley, manmustwac and the other guy all expressing different views in relation to their dislike of the bible. I havent recieved any form of pamphlet or email about a meeting of minds to propagate athiesm or to form a movement. Even the akieredolu chap who professed he is a rationalist didnt specify that he was in a movement or an athiest movement for that matter. So picking out isolated groups or conferences of athiests doesnt make them a movement.

Zino, calm down. There's no need to take a tangential curve on this discussion, abi? Relax, the case of Akeredolu is clear - go back and see it. As for those on Nairaland, no one is making a point here about you guys gathering for a fellowship of atheism. However, atheists outside the forums came together to form those unions and conferences for the "necessity of atheism" - and your protests here are seeming to conveniently ignore that fact!

Zino Ben:

A movement is formed to influence the happenings and activites of a certain society. What significant gain has the so called athiest movements achieved?

I don't know what gain they have achieved, even though they actively came together to form those unions. They haven't lost faith, though. . . because more conferences are planned (one of them I read recently was on the theme: "the necessity of atheism". Now, let me ask you for their sake: Is that necessary at all?

Zino Ben:

Have they prevented national anthems or pledges from using god in it, such as god bless america or so help me god?

Maybe they didn't work as hard enough. Phew. What can I say? But we know that their predecessor tirelessly tried to fight against paryer in American schools? Ring a bell?

Zino Ben:

Have they prevented presidents from being sworn in without using the quoran or bible?

They might have tried, and nobody listened to them!

Zino Ben:

Some movement i say! compared this to the christian cult that controls the very facet and existence of the western world

Lol, Zino. . . are you so resigned to that fate?

Zino Ben:

Please feel free to share some of them with us and see whether there hasnt been any major criticism from so called athiest themselves over this creed in contrast to finding one single christian that criticizes the bible openly!

I admit and applaud your humour. Yes, indeed there are creeds held by those atheists; yes, other atheists have criticized them; and yes, there are so-called "Christians" who criticize the Bible openly - Rev. Shelby Sponge! Brother, we need to read wide O. . . things are happening that you surprisingly seem not to be able to sketch!

Zino Ben:

Once again give a better defination and see if your defination doesnt summarize the obvious that non believers simply don't believe in these holy books because of the errancies and fallacies inherent in these books.

I'll do so summarily.

Zino Ben:

Vey funny! You say our world view fails to live up to its claims to rational thought process. Okay quick question that deals with rationality. I read a chapter like 2 kings 2:23-24 and the only thing i can get from there is that a holy prophet under the command of god ordered 2 bears to kill 42 children because they called him a baldy. Logic tells me that such a person who ordered such a massacre is demon to say the least and if it is the same god of the bible that you christians so revere as the alpha and omega of intelligence and mercy, then i see such a god as a cosmic idiot to say the very least for this singular act.

If I square that on atheism, you simply are not rationally defending yourposition - which is: the denial of (or lack of belief in) the existence of God. I'm not playing around your question, but a necessary factor is to be consistent with your apologetics: you cannot stand with either legs on two divides - either God exists or He does not.

Zino Ben:

Now that is my rational thought process at work. Now defend the irrationality of my allegations. Try your very best to justify such brutality and see who really fails to live up to its claims to rational thought process. Anyway i wont even bother asking you to do so because you will always pretend that such a verse doesnt exist and skip right through it. By the way, it is a very effective trick of christians when you are confronted with these embarrassing issues.

I may not justify anything here - not that such would make me lose face. Not at all. In like manner, I wonder how many atheist have actually justified the brutality of atheistic communist leaders against theistic people. . . even to the point of brutal murders of millions. No, I'm not trying to play the statistics card here. . . and huxley knows only too well not to wave that card in my face.

Zino Ben:

Very funny! Do you want me to pull out over a 1000 posts attacks from christians towards unbelievers on nairaland?

Please do so. . . and enjoy the needless effort. As if that is to atone for the unnecessry and irrational "attacks" that rationalists on the Forum have constantly reminded me is their glory for posting on the forum?

Zino Ben:

Talk about kettle calling pot black. If we were just as gullible as some folks on nairaland, we would have accepted the bible hook line and sinker without asking any question and just become converts because the bible said so.

Doesn't make sense. I can speak for myself - and I've always called for reasona and tried to address questions. Where people feel that it is their glory to be irrational, I simply let them be, because there would be no fruit in discussing with someone who is not going to be coherent at the end of the day. But to assume that Christians are averse to questions about their faith is unwise - it is not the attitude the Bible teaches (see 1 Peter 3:15 for example).

Zino Ben:

But when we reply that the bible also said these horrendous things and ask for explanation, you immediately assume that to be unintelligent and unhealthy and a form of attack. Talk about double speak!  

This is not doble speak - I often quote huxley himself who has said several times that he delights in "attacking" (his very words). So, who's doing double speak here, Zino?

Cheers.

mazaje:

@Zino Ben very nice rebuttal. . . . . . . when you ask the Christians to defend the embarrassing passages of the bible they come up with stupid explanations, sometimes when they realize that their explanations fall flat they resort to damnation and insults. . . . . .

Insulting and "attacking" people's beliefs is not the same thing as thinking intelligently.

Dear Zino,

Zino Ben:

Then who conjured the name athiests? Since your beating around the bush and not specifically trying to zone the idea of the word athiest to a particular founder.

As promised, I'm taking the time to answer such questions and also share some other insights on this and other matters in the other thread, "Moral Victory". Cheers and do have a wonderful evening/night.

@Zino,

In view of this question:

Zino Ben:

Then who conjured the name athiests? Since your beating around the bush and not specifically trying to zone the idea of the word athiest to a particular founder.

Please find my answers in subsequent repostes here. The other issues will be addressed in like rational manner, and thank you again for being patient to discuss with me.

@pilgrim

I have gone through your entire post but honestly there isnt anything for me to reply to because you didnt say anything that warranted or evoked a response except throwing curve balls here and there and having a serious man crush on huxley.

I better leave you 2 lovers alone to slug it out  

Lol, Zino. . . you're such a spoiler dearie! How could you leave us (huxley and I) rocking the romance alone?

Anyhow, I had a good time dialoguing with you. Do have a wonderful evening.

the superstition some nigerians believe in is ridiculous. na so so rebuke every day . anyway nice article. there are no uniform guidelines for atheism compared to theist philosophies. besides disbelief in God, there are no other criteria to be considered an atheist compared to christians that refer to jesus or muslims that refer to allah. although respected, richard dawkins has been criticized by other atheists including the guy responsible for the hadron collider(peter higgs).