₦airaland Forum

@Olabowale,

Thank you for that small lecture. I think it went just the other way as it was irrelavant to the point being discussed with ayinba1. It did not take the media or the piper to blow any tunes before she made claims that I responded to. Thank you again, but the irrelevant whistling was unnecessary.

Pastor AIO:
I was once going to start a crusade against False Dichotomies but then nothing came of it. It is not too late to start.

Good one. Please begin and let's share with you.

bindex:
Mohammed SAW the last prophet of Allah was sent to save lives too

Please read context before drawing a parallel - when Christians talk about Jesus Christ being the Savour, it does not mean what you assume.

@kemisuga,

Your thread redirects here from the other one you had opened, so let me just make a few comments thereto:

Is it really good confessing our sins to a father in a church? Some say the father help convey the prayers to God for forgiveness. Or make our confessions to God directly?

Well, look at it this way - we are all learning everyday to see things the way God calls us to see them in His Word. In this regard, there are two ways to confess our sins - (a) directly to God Himself; and (b) to one another (which may include confessing our sins to our spiritual leaders).

[list][list](a) confessing our sins directly to God - Psalm 32:5
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid.
I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD;
and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah"[/list][/list]

[list][list](b) confessing to one another - James 5:16
"Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another,
that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of
a righteous man availeth much."[/list][/list]

We know when our hearts convict us of sins committed against God. Such sins could actually arise from the way we have treated other people. I am always humbled by the humlity and repentance of King David who did not seek to argue or justify his sin, but said: "I have sinned against the LORD", although it was actually in reference to what he had done against Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 12:10-13). God forgave him - as pronounced by prophet Nathan.

We also know when we sin against people and need to remedy sour relationships with them. For instance, if I wronged my neighbour "Saasha", I would go directly to her (or, it may be that she directly confronts me about it), and then would confess my ill-treatment committed against her interests - just as the Lord Jesus Christ pronounced we should do (Matt. 18.15-17).

So, where does confessing our sins to our spiritual leaders come in?

The Catholic Church may have her own tradition in these matters, and it is not for me to go into that just now. However, I believe the Bible shows us that we can confess our sins before our leaders when we need them to pray over very grave matters which we may feel unable to confide to public interest. Leaders are endowed by God, not only with spiritual power, but also with divine authority to help us in such matters - as in James 5:14-15 ~~

[list][list]Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.[/list][/list].

The very next verse 16 then goes on to speak about confessing our sins to one another. However, let us remember that in all matters, only God can forgive sins.

Blessings.

away4real:
Pilgrim welcome back,

@away4real, many thanks - much blessings.

@ayinba1,

ayinba1:
I highlighted the word "vilify" to make it clear again that you were never a muslim. No muslim sets out to do this to anyone.

So what do you call your own adventure of referring to the Christian God as an "artifact" and "contraption"?!? I guess if anyone said the same about Allah, you would drink arabian tea with Agege bread and pretend all is well, abi?

I wonder if you're seriously in need of a crash course in English basics. What is the meaning of vilify? A few examples:

[list][list](1) yourDictionary.com
"to use abusive or slanderous language about or of; calumniate; revile; defame"

(2) AlphaDictionary.com
"To defame or malign, to slander or otherwise say bad things about someone"[/list][/list]

Now, gently tell us: who was vilifying Jews in the following well documented reports below? Has the name "Muslim" changed into something else that we are not aware of? See them:

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244561,00.html]FOXNews.com[/url]
"Australian Muslim Cleric Sparks Outrage
by Calling Jews 'Pigs' and Encouraging Jihad."

ABC News Online
"Sheikh Taj el-din Al Hilaly is reported as saying that women
who do not wear the hijab, or headdress, are like uncovered meat."
[also featured in Wikipedia]

Western Resitance
~~ Saudi Arabia: Islamic Teaching Still Calls Christians "Swine", Jews "Apes"

The SUN
"A BRITISH Muslim school is teaching children that
Jews are “repugnant apes” and Christians “pigs”,
a former teacher claims.
Mr Cook ? himself a Muslim ? warned yesterday:
“The school could produce a dangerous harvest.
“It is clearly racist and very divisive. It’s deeply
immoral to put such ideas into the heads of young children."

[url=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23384657-details/We+do+use+books+that+call+Jews+'apes'+admits+head+of+Islamic+school/article.do]thisislondon.co.uk[/url]
The principal of an Islamic school has admitted that
it uses textbooks which describe Jews as "apes" and
Christians as "pigs" and has refused to withdraw them.

The Textbook League - Muslim Schoolbooks
"While students in our public schools read texts that
portray Muslims as friends to Jews and Christians everywhere,
students in Muslim schools read texts that vilify Jews,
vilify Christians, and teach the students to view Jews and
Christians with hostility and contempt."

The New Republic
[list][list]Vilifying or killing Jews is a recurring motif in Muslim holy texts. An oral tradition from the Prophet Mohammed, for example, contends that the rivalry with the Jews will continue until the end of the days: "The Last Hour will not come until the Muslims fight against the Jews," it reads, "and the Muslims will kill them until the Jews will hide themselves behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say: 'O Muslim, the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.'"[/list][/list]

Em,. . . ayinba1, did you say that no Muslim ever goes out to vilify anyone? And the above nko?

ayinba1:
The full verse from Quran 5, verse 82

[Yusufali 5:82] Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

Lol. . . even when you quote it in full, does that same verse in Yusuf Ali's translation not clearly say the same thing as I highlighted earlier? Or is that verse saying the directed opposite of referring to Christians as "men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant"?!?

ayinba1:
I highlighted the word "vilify" to make it clear again that you were never a muslim. No muslim sets out to do this to anyone.

I hear - just scroll up and see how really knowledgeable you are about the reality of your claim among your Muslim brethren. Abi those Muslims will now be denied by you - as your other officers often demonize their own brethren? Fact: Muslims actually vilify people - the evidence is before you.

Shalom.

@ayinba1,

ayinba1:
@pilgrim,

you jumped on the triune artifact wagon, it must be that, that's what you worship. My reason for making it really bold and large is because you and david decided to rephrase and wrongly  quote me. Succintly put, that is LYING.

I'm surrpised you didn't come back with a point 1,200 font. Since Christians do not refer to God as an artifact, did it ever occur to you that you might as well be lying in slurring them that way?

ayinba1:
Which one

The one you're pretending not to notice.

ayinba1:
I posted re read your bible, don't be in such a hurry

Sorry, I'm not in a hurry to read the Quran. Lol, are you desperate already? I've re-read the Bible, but where does it refer to God as an "artifact"?

ayinba1:
Good riddance! You never practised Islam.

In other words, practising Islam is synonymous with vilifying Christians and Jews? Because I don't see what sense you're making here with the "good riddance" cliché. Anyhow, you can whine all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that I was a muslim who left Islam when I saw no reason to keep castigating the "people of the Book". Good "riddance" about that? I'm thankful to God all the same.

ayinba1:
[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=159045.msg2840474#msg2840474 date=1222154638]Have you read me referring to Allah as an artifact anywhere?

You said "traditional muslim[b]s[/b]"? Such a short memory or  is david not christian enough for you?[/quote]This is the amazing thing about you guys! How does your comment above relate to my quote in yours? I asked you a simple direct question and you're so panic-striken that you're spinning off at a tangent and not even aware?! Have you read me anywhere refer to Allah as an artifact? No. So, what's this "traditional muslim[b]s[/b]" got to do with that? Lol. . . I no fit laff! Besides, I didn't say "traditional muslim[b]s[/b]", but rather "traditional muslim thing to do" [remember?] - big difference. Come back and confirm you can't read!

@Backslider,

Backslider:
I will rather live in hell with Jesus than live in heaven with Demon possesed Muhamed

Please be careful what you say - words carry very latent potency (Matt. 12:37).
Don't be too driven by what anyone wants to believe about Muhammad.



^{Matthew 12:37
'For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.'}

Dear ayinba1,

ayinba1:
@pilgrim
Did Christianity turn you to a liar Or have you always been one?

Christianity actually opened my eyes to the fraud that Islam has always been, thank you.

ayinba1:
I repeat, ALLAH is NOT the same as your TRIUNE ARTIFACT or TRIUNE CONTRAPTION.

You can shout it with even point 1,200 font - you know that no Christian ever refers to God as an "artifact" or "contraption" - so who's manifesting the liar-syndrome now? It is not a new thing for muslims to "manifest", because I've been there, done and out - goodnews: I'm never returning.

ayinba1:
Look, this is not a play on words.

What's my worry? Are you disappointed at your own mishap?

ayinba1:
If you must say "according to Ayinba1" have the decency to quote me correctly (even on the same page!)

I had the decency to understand that Christians never refer to God as an "artifact". If I were to slur allah the way you Muslims do by pretending hypocritically that he was the same God who sent the biblical prophets, we no go rest on the Forum again. Next time, confirm the same Muslim restlessness I've always been familiar with by slurring the "God" your Quran claims was the same Allah who was playing on words with the Biblical prophets.

ayinba1:
If ONE God is so complex to you, you really need to re read your Bible.

I have never bothered reading the Quran the very day I rejected allah.

ayinba1:
What you worship needs two or three more entities to be worthy of worship, mine is just One, ALLAH, the Greatest.

Good - the God I worship has always been known as FATHER by the Biblical prophets. Islam may deny Him, and muslims today are confirming the same thing. My dear, I left the religion of denials (ROD) long ago when I realized that I had no reason or justification to vilify Christians and Jews.

ayinba1:
You make me laugh, I think you would have done better to not  write this. Did you read upside down all the posts david and his likes post about "allah"?

Have you read me referring to Allah as an artifact anywhere?

ayinba1:
Ha! Maybe you need glasses. Please go back  and read it and sttop playing the victim.

If you're already the victim, I can sympathize with you. Why? Because as a muslimah, that has always been the default hooha Muslims cried when they felt it was their birthright to vilify other people.

ayinba1:
I am appalled that you claim you were once a muslim. You cannot even educate your co xtians that Allah is God.

Why should I educate Christians with Muslim lies? They have always known the duplicity we as Muslims waved in their faces (until I became the wiser and left Islam). Did the Quran not describe Christians as ". . .men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" [Sura 5 vs 82, Yusuf Ali]?!? My dear, Christians (and Jews) do not need an Oxford degree to see how illiterate it is for someone to refer to God as an "artifact" - and if you knew nothing better, it didn't come as a surprise that you're just one more Muslim confirming that Allah is not God.

ayinba1:
I seriously doubt that you were a muslim.

Nothing new. Your type would only "believe" I was truly a former muslimah if I continued your campaign to vilify Christians and Jews. I did it before and was highly praised by many muslims - but the moment God convicted my heart and I stopped doing so and became a Christian, the same Muslims suddenly started "doubting" I was a muslim.

Regards.

@davidylan,

I no even see this one before:

davidylan:
We are not interested. This section is not about allah . . . go post this on your section.

Go post what? Na today? You know wetin go happen if ayinba1 post there that Allah cannot be the same God whom the Biblical prophets preached? Haa!! You wan send the poor lady to buy market for her backyard?

@Olabowale,

olabowale:
@Pilgrim.1 « #232 on: Today at 09:21:32 PM »
And after the jubilations, please calmly know that Allah does not say in the Qur'an that He is 3 persons! Rather He nullifies with any doubt that Jesus, the one you have claimed absorbed all the duties and positions of "father," is not god!

It is of no consequence what allah says or does not say. You can cover up for him as best you could, but you guys are beginning to confirm what I have always said and known: that Allah is not (or, to quote ayinba1 - "cannot be" the God revealed to the Biblical prophets. That's just all there is - Allah is not God. QED. Cry for him all you want - no be me talk am, na your own brethren dey crawl out to admit the age-old fact!

olabowale:
He reasoned with us, the humans that we should see that Jesus, and his mother, Mary were mere humans, doing things human do, like eating, toileting, etc.

And Muslims are reasoning for him and confessing that the same 'allah' cannot be the God revealed to the Biblical prophets. We thank una well-well for that confession. Anything else?

olabowale:
You want more? After Iftar! You remember it, don't you? Soja Jesu! lol.

Emi no ni - omo Jesu Christi. Amin.  Your brethren are confirming it: allah cannot be the God revealed to the Biblical prophets who knew and confessed Him as FATHER. Thank you plenty. No argument further after una confession. Thank you again.

Hallo huxley,

Nice to read you here inspite of your busy schedules. Great thing to order those materials - I'm sure not only Nagel would interest you, but you definitely would find quite a few others valuable read along the lines I've been sharing with you. Incidentally, I again browsed through a friend's copy of that same recommended in my reply above (Paul Edwards' Modern Introduction to Philosophy). . my philosophy lecturer has been harping on us to make it one of our handbook in his class.

Oh, thanks for asking - the exams went very well today. That's one down, two more to go later in the week; and then next week 5 papers (one each day of the week).

Warm regards.

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him:
for he that cometh to God must believe that he is,
and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Great reflections, Cayon.

emotional:
ERROR! when posting on topic

Then give us the correct topic nah. . . abi na this error we go dey celebrate ti-ti lailai?

But make una wait furst. . ! Wetin d'em calculate for Obama native, English and/or transnational names to arrive at 666?

Good to know that Bisi is doing so well. And yes, it is well with her in all things.
It is well with you, Adebola and your entire family.
It is well wherever you go and in whatever you put your hand.
Beyond this, your testimonies to come will constantly glorify the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is well. . . it is well.
Praise God - it is well, in Jesus Name. Amen.

. . . but it was not initially clear why Christianity was singled out above all others for astrological plagiarism - it was not the first, last or worst offender among the emerging faiths. Eventually, the answer is provided - the Romans apparently invented the myth of Jesus Christ solely to exercise social and economic control over Europe.

Now I can rest - nothing new. If people could just put on their thinking caps and think through the conspiracy theories of these restless guys for one minute: the basic question still remains - If the Romans actually invented the Gospel of Jesus Christ, would they still have bitterly persecuted their own Roman "actors"? What would be the rationale in the Roman-persecution?

ayinba1:
I agree with you, Allah cannot be the same as your triune artifact.

That is quite mild - slurring the convictions of other people has become the traditional Muslim thing to do, because by default Islam cannot allow you to breathe until you foam out your venom at the Biblical faith.

However, whatever you call God does not matter. You have only dismissed your own Quran that claims on the one hand that the same 'Allah' sent the Biblical prophets, but on the other hand you and your modern Muslim staff now admit it as false - because you have only admitted the age-old truth: that Allah "cannot be" the God revealed to the Biblical prophets. This is so cool - now that you have admitted allah is not (or "cannot be" that same God known to Moses and the prophets as FATHER, then you would have to deal with the false claims in the Quran. Good luck in your adventures.

Brilliant, funny.
When's the next episode?

I will praise You O God
Forever and ever let Your Name be known among all nations!

John 16:3
And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

Dear huxley,

I'm sorry for replying late as I had closed from my shift and headed straight for Church service, then home. I'm going to be off for a few days to enable me prepare for a very crucial exam; hope to be back soon after, and do have a wonderful week.

Like I said earlier:

[list][list]"His arguments against the definitions of atheism held by Smith et al, I have only read in articles."[/list][/list]

You may obtain the gist of the argument of Nagel's definition of atheism and theism in:

https://images.alibris.com/isbn/9780029092002.gif
Nagel, Ernest (1965). A Defence of Atheism, pg. 460-472 sourced in ~
A Modern Introduction to Philosophy: Readings from Classical and Contemporary Sources, 3rd Edition.
Edited by Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (New York: Free Press, 1965).

As it happens, there are several editions of Paul Edwards' Modern Introduction of Philosophy with various pubishing dates - 19[b]57[/b], 19[b]63[/b], 19[b]65[/b], 19[b]66[/b] (Revised Edition), 19[b]72[/b], and 19[b]73[/b]. However, Nagel's definition of a[/b]theism has been repeatedly quoted in other research theses which are available online, and a few examples are:

(1) PDF document: http://www.springerlink.com/content/u8k1410116j31543/fulltext.pdf?page=1
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 17:115-129 (1985)
© 1985 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht. Printed  in  the Netherlands.
MOSES AKIN MAKINDE
Department  of Philosophy,  University of Ire,  Ile-Ife, Nigeria, and Visiting Fulbright  Professor,
Department  of Philosophy, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701

(2) Cambridge Encyclopedia :: Cambridge Encyclopedia Vol. 7 (an online entry)
[b]atheism - Etymology, Types and typologies of atheism. . . etc

Positive definition: the belief that no deities exist
<snip>
One prominent atheist writer who disagrees with the broader definition
of atheism, however, is Ernest Nagel, who considers atheism to be the
rejection of theism (which George H. Smith labelled as explicit atheism,
or anti-theism): "Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief,


I hope you will find these few references an excellent help to your request.

Best wishes.

imhotep:
And I conclude that huxley is trying (hard and in vain) to get people to BELIEVE in the religion of evolution.

You dis man sef. . How body anyhow?

@Nimshi,

Thank you for dat observation. However, for the benefit of our brodas make I nak my answer in simple grammar, abi?


So, what was Smith saying again? Let us see:

As a prolegomena, we observe that G. H. Smith was not merely making a case for atheism per se, but rather argued basically for two broad categories which he derived thus: (a) "implicit atheism" [the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it]; and, (b) "explicit atheism" [the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it]. What is the difference? It's simply a matter of whether someone has consciously or unconsciouly rejected belief in God. And it is in the implicit category that Smith assumes that new born babies are atheists. In other words, everyone is made an atheist (implicit or explicit) unless they categorically declare themselves to be 'theists', right?

Now, there is a problem in that idea. Implicit atheism means that people can be called atheists even without their having consciously identified themselves as such - a very unfair and unbalanced ranking. However one looks at it, the simple question here is not so much the types of atheism one assumes; rather, the question here is more about what exactly is atheism itself? Since Smith argues that "atheism is a perspective", then one wonders why he would pronounce a baby an atheist even when that baby hasn't adopted such a perspective for himself/herself?

A second problem with that idea in Smith's is that many people who are not explicit atheists and do not hold theistic beliefs are nonetheless pronounced as atheists. This is erratic, because it forces atheists themselves to a very tight position as to where to place the agnostic. The agnostic originally does not count himself as either theist or atheist - he has not explicitly affirmed that there is no God or gods, nor implicitly affirmed a theistic perspective. Why then would Smith assume that everyone is either an implicit or explicit atheist if they do not believe in God?

The case of Jainism is another example that weakens Smith's definition of atheism. Jains do not believe in God. Yet, Jainism (even though it "lacks belief in a creator God" is not to be misconstrued with any form of atheism - because it is a religion nonetheless, except that it does not believe in God. What does Smith's definition of atheism do with the religion of Jainism that "lacks a belief in God"?

Consequently, how does G. H. Smith reiterate my point already? Simply that, no matter how one looks at it, atheism proper (not the adjectives of "implicit" or "explicit" is not passive, but rather the active commitment to non-belief in God and the supernatural. There is always a conscious denial of the existence of God for someone to qualify as an atheist. To ignore this vital point is why Smith's proposition is weak and has been criticized by other well-informed atheists such as Nagel and Kai.


Ok, na so I see am, but again I fit wrong. Even then, I like how you neatly curve this one for us:

Nimshi:
As for Huxley, e fit betta small make we leave am; why? Because 'agnostic' no fit tell us whether person believe in God or not; person wey be "agnostic" fit be theist or atheist. IF we look am well well, we go see say agnostic no be option number 3 after (1) theism, and (2) atheism. But e fit become number 3 if and only if (chei, na arithmetic class be that o) we mis-define atheism.

Enjoy.

@Cayon,

Cayon:
@pilgrim1

what do you consider man's apparel?

For me it is not so much a matter of the material (cotton, nylon, silk, etc). It basically is a matter of what confuses one's identity either as male or female. Think of a man dressing as a feminist and you get my drift.

@simmy,

simmy:
@ pilgrim
the poster means pants as in trousers. in Nigeria, many people still see trousers as mens wear. They aren't. women who wear trousers wear trousers made for women. so its not a sin. until they start making lipstick 4 men and until it becomes socially accpetbale, men who wear lipstick are sinners in addition to being freaks.

I quite understood Cayon, just wanted to liven up the thread for inputs (even though I sensed it was just another way of a repeated thread). Thanks all the same, yours is much appreciated.

lipuka:
And why do they fight? Because of leadership.

Much more than that - basically because they have an identity crisis that derives from losing touch with their divine calling in Christ.

The point to be lamented is not that Sarah Palin comes from outside Washington, or that she has glimpsed so little of the earth's surface (she didn't have a passport until last year), or that she's never met a foreign head of state. The point is that she comes to us, seeking the second most important job in the world, without any intellectual training relevant to the challenges and responsibilities that await her.

Someone like Sam Harris is the least qualified to critique a political candidate when he himself is seriously lacking the political exposure to address his street, even less so his State in the USA.

Hi huxley,

Good to read from you again. Need I say how much I've enjoyed discussing with you and appreciating your many inputs? Quite a challenge to my thinking as well, I admit.

huxley:
Since you mention Kai Neilson, I must admit, he is one of the leading philosophers on the subject whose books I don't own, although I have read parts of his work at bookshops, libraries and on Amazon. I did not think he covered the subject in as much depth as Michael Martin and that is why I have also hesitated in buy his books. Now, in view of your recommendation, I have place an order on Amazon for a couple of his books.

Good to know about your interest in Kai Nielson's books. I don't own any, but have read a few which were borrowed from friends.

huxley:
Ernert Nagel, is unfamiliar to me as a writer on this subject although I have come across him many times in the Philosopher of Science circles. I have not found any works of his dealing with atheism yet.

Well, Ernest Nagel is well known in the field of logic, mathematics, philosophy of science. I don't remember reading many sole-authored book by him, although there are quite a number that he has co-authored with other scholars in those various disciplines. If I could recall (please I may be wrong), one of my recent reads include a book he authored himself which was quite a technical and delightful piece: "Sovereign Reason and Other Studies in the Philosophy of Science" (can't remember the publishers - might ask to borrow it again from my friend). Anyhow, his arguments on fallibilism, naive realism, and genetic fallacy among others make for very enlightened reading (IMHO), though I'm aware that not many people appreciate his insights. His arguments against the definitions of atheism held by Smith et al, I have only read in articles.

huxley:
Since you seem to be impressed by the credentials of Kai Neilson, why don't you check out those of Michael Martin. He is arguably the leading writer in the field at the moment.

Will do so in due course, and I appreciate the recommendation.

Incidentally (or coincidentally), these discussions have sort of brought on other varied interests. A friend of mine mooted the idea that it might be helpful for either of us to make an anthology of theism and atheism in this or another thread. The spark of interest was when she IM'ed me to enquire why I thought Jainism should not be misconstrued for a form of atheism. I don't know what to think about that - but what do you say?

huxley:
I shall respond to the rest of the post later.

Pleasure. Cheers.

Nimshi:
Well, as you don post this one now, person fit ask: you don find that definition of atheism? Abi you never find? If fit supply di definition wey dey basic:

Anywhere wey you find absence of belief in God, god, Gods, gods, na atheism you don find be that. Betta example to use na pikin wey them just born: new pikin no believe in God, d pikin na atheist. Na so we be, including you, when them born us. I hope say that one go fit helep well well.

You gather substance well well, and I like that.

But e fit be sey you go see where I dey go with how I understand atheism for definition. I don take some time elucidate from anoda thread: "Moral Victory".

Boo. . . @Nimshi,

No vex. I no mean to log out immediately like that. Na my bosom friend, colleague and critical reviewer of my post ('saasha') been dey on my neck for my dirty dorti opata wey I reply Chris. No be small tin O. . rather sey make I lose her friendship, me I jus adjust jeje and come back to do wetin she "demand". Phew! Luckily, we dey yan beta now, I thank God! ^{me sef, I stubborn somtimes!}

Anyways. .

Nimshi:
Dis na di reason why we must separate rationalism from atheism. When wed ey discuss religion ans atheism, rationalists be special type of atheists, them dey call them explicit atheists. Your post here na hammer on top of di nail because: rationalists wey be atheists na explicit atheists them be; why? Because them go argue say belief in God, god, Gods or gods dey irrational, rationalism must use reason to justify everything; so rationalists dey critical, because them reject existence and/or belief in God, god, Gods or gods. So then, I must agree with you say rationalism no be strictly issue about non-belief in God.

You too correct! Carried!

Nimshi:
Sooo, my sister, what about di other part: say atheism no be strictly issue about 'non-belief' in God?

Well, I dey think of matters about the "-isms" wey dey inside "atheism". Dis na when our atheist friends rub minds together to distinguish all the matters wey different kinds of philosophies mix to produce the different kinds of atheistic inclinations. When this kind tin dey happen, our friends no dey particularly concerned about God-talk; rather they dey busy themselves with oda matters about atheistic philosophies. For example, such talk na im bring about the philosophy wey them dey call "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%81rv%C4%81ka]Cārvāka[/url]". Dem no dey concern demsef with so much talk about God and deities; but them also get many matters to share wey gather like-minded people around that idea. I no know if I yan correct?