₦airaland Forum

triplechoice:
I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge the importance of critical thinking. However, your conclusion that "suppressing religion" and "removing it totally from the state is paramount" is not only a non-sequitur but a dangerous and simplistic prescription. It ignores the fact that Nigeria is a democratic nation where religious rights and freedoms are entrenched in the constitution. If such rights are removed, the country ceases to be a democratic society.

You are still attacking the symptom, not the cause. The state's energy should be channeled into providing quality education and eradicating poverty, not the futile and authoritarian task of policing belief.

Moreover,it is impractical and harmful to suppress religion. Religion is deeply tied to culture, identity, and the country's economy. Attempting to eradicate it in the manner you suggest would create immense social strife . The goal should be a society where people are free to believe what they want, as long as they do not try to force it on anyone else and function as constructive citizens.

And again, your premise is factually incorrect. You claim, "You won't see developed countries tell its citizens that security comes from any god". This is simply not true. Many developed nations, like the US, UK, and Germany, have robust religious freedoms, and their leaders openly reference it when the occasion calls for it. Their development did not come from suppressing religion but from building strong secular institutions that protect all citizens, regardless of belief. In fact, the American constitution is an intrinsically religious document; it references faith with the phrase,. "In God we Trust".

I welcome your agreement with my diagnosis, but I do not accept your prescribed cure because it is not only wrong but also counterproductive. Build the schools, not the thought police. Empower the people with knowledge, and you will not need to suppress their beliefs, they will be equipped to navigate them responsibly. The irony in all of this is that in Nigeria today, it is the churches and mosques that are doing what the government is supposed to do: building standard schools from elementary to university levels so citizens can have a quality education, yet you want them removed completely.

jaephoenix:
Yes,suppressing religion grows a country. Lemme explain

In the UK, preaching in certain areas are prohibited. Same with use of loud speakers. You have seen videos of Nigerians who were arrested for constituting nuisance via public preaching.

As a doctor,if I tell a patient that he should have faith in god and ignore his meds,I could lose in license in the UK. But in Nigeria, it's rife. You see,UK and many western countries practice religious freedom but it is restricted or controlled from the example I gave.

And no,there is nowhere they tell you to trust their security to god. If there is,please show me. Any president that says that is impeached.
US motto says 'In god we trust' but yet it's a secular country and not Christian. Have you asked yourself why?
Do you see US or UK holding prayers in senate or urging citizens to pray when they face any invasions? Instead they act. Israel sef is more atheistic than the UK or US. They have more gays. They have gay minister, which is unheard of in the US

triplechoice:
Explain what again? This is the same thing you began with. Yet, in your initial explanation, you failed entirely to establish a causal link between the so called "suppression of religion" and Nigeria's challenges. Now, after agreeing with the validity of my counterarguments regarding education and poverty, you're returning to your starting point as if we never had the discussion. Very well. Let's see if you can succeed this time where you failed before

The prohibition of preaching in "certain areas" and the restriction of " loudspeakers" in the UK is not "religious suppression" or "restriction" . It is public nuisance regulation. Such laws are common in many nations including some major cities in Nigeria.

I know this firsthand because I have lived in Ghana where similar regulations on preaching and loudspeakers in residential areas exist. These policies are not designed to suppress religion anywhere in the world. A government that actively suppresses religion closes places of worship, bans religious texts, or persecute believers ,as seen in North Korea or the former Soviet Union.

Your example, which applies equally to bars, sales people, nightclubs, and any loud gathering in the UK and Europe proves these societies manage public order, not that they grew wealthy by "removing" or "restricting" faith.

And again, for someone like you that has been campaigning against religion , it's surprising you have a casual understanding of it. You cannot ban religious beliefs or " restrict" it by regulating its outer expression. Beliefs exists in the mind of the individual not in public rituals like going to church or affirming God publicly. There are millions of believers in the UK who practice their faith privately, without ever attending a public gathering. The only way a government can genuinely diminish the influence of religion is not by force, but by outcompeting it with better ideas, through education, critical thinking and opportunity, something I already suggested but which you have ignored.

Your example, which applies equally to bars, nightclubs, and any loud public gathering in the UK and Europe, proves these societies manage public order, not that they grew wealthy by "removing faith."

It is therefore illogical to claim that an educated society like the UK, which understands that faith is an internal, personal matter, is "restricting religion" through public order policies you have misinterpreted. You are confusing correlation with causation.

It is not true that Nigerian doctors habitually tell patients to ignore medicine for prayer. This is a sweeping generalization that is not supported by data. Even if isolated cases occur, they are failures of professional oversight and education, not evidence that religion has crippled national development. In the UK, such conduct would be punished because of strong institutions and regulatory systems the very institutions Nigeria lacks due to underinvestment in education and governance, not because of religion.


Your claim that no Western leader says "trust security to God" is not true. The U.S motto is "In God we trust", sessions of the U.S Congress open with prayer, and Western leaders routinely invoke faith, not as a policy of inaction, but as cultural or symbolic expression. When a Nigerian leader reference God. It is similarly for cultural reasons to boost the morale of the rank and file in the fight against insurgency, not a substitute for policy. Your attempt to link rhetorical statements to national underdevelopment is a false equivalence. Development comes from action infrastructure, and institutions, not from whether a leader mentions prayer.

It is naive to take the public statements of Nigerian leaders who reference faith as literal policy directives. Such statements are symbolic gestures of cultural identity or morale, not blueprints for governance. The real failure in Nigeria is not the symbolism, but the lack of concrete follow -through, a failure of governance, not of belief.

Your deflection to Isreal and "gay ministers" is irrelevant. You want to claim that atheism or social liberalism correlates with development. This is another non-sequitur. There are highly developed deeply religious nations like the United States, Italy, Poland, and less developed secular ones. There are also developed nations with restrictive social policies. A country's development is driven by economic policy, education, innovation, and strong institutions, not by a nation's stance on theology or sexuality. Russia restricts LGBTQ rights but is developed in many sectors.

If "suppressing religion" truly cause development, then officially atheist states like North Korea or the former Soviet bloc would be paradise of progress, but they are not. They prove that suppressing ideas without educating minds only creates new forms of control and stagnation

Until you can provide the causal link between underdevelopment and religion, your argument remains an expression of personal bias, not a viable analysis of Nigeria's challenges.

jaephoenix:
No such laws exist in Lagos,at least to the best of my knowledge. Churches do road parades beside hospital ICUs without restrictions. Even in Ikeja GRA mosques use loudspeakers. Same for my areas.

I'm a doctor,trust me. My colleagues take this religious shit serious. Though not very common but they do it.

About prayers in US Congress and the US motto,u r getting me wrong. I said no president has said that they will depend on prayer instead of fighting. Trump is a war monger and resorts to belligerent means and not prayers. Read properly. Even US is not a Christian country, though their motto says otherwise.

Please be honest. So you mean you haven't seen the federal and state governments organize prayers for national security? Which western countries do that?

triplechoice:
Your claim that "no such laws exist in Lagos" is simply a statement of your personal ignorance, not fact. Regulations on noise pollution exist in Lagos state and are enforced in specific zones. That you see loudspeakers used elsewhere proves only that not all areas are restricted zones, not that the laws don't exist. This talk is irrelevant. The main point stands: such regulations , whether in Nigeria or the UK, are about public order, not religious suppression, If the intent were to suppress religion, only religious gatherings would be targeted. The fact that these laws apply equally to nightclubs, political rallies, and street parties proves their secular adminstrative purpose.


You're now contradicting yourself. At first, you stated this practice was "rife" . Now, you admit it is "not very common' .

So, which is it? A widespread, systemic problem ( rife)or an uncommon, individual failing ( not very common)You cannot have it both ways. This double-speak reveals that you are generalising from unverified, personal anecdotes to support a pre-existimg bias..

If it is "not very common" then you are describing the personal unethical conduct of a few individuals. This is a failure of professional oversight and personal ethics, not evidence that "religion" is causing national underdevelopment. It is wrong to blame an entire belief system for the misconduct of a handful of people who also happen to be believers.

If it is "rife" , then you are making an extraordinary serious allegations about the Nigerian medical establishment which you are a part of. The burden of proof is on you. where is the evidence? Where are the official reports, the hospital inquires, the media investigations ?

I don't need to convince you cos I can't convince you. What you'll do is ask any doctor if Nigerian doctors tell patients to do spiritual stuff. One even went on Instagram saying that childbirth is spiritual and he fights spiritual battles.

The truth of the matter is that you have no proof for either clam. You are using vague contradictory, and unsubstantiated stories to smear an entire profession and, by extension to support your flawed thesis about religion.

Furthermore, if you are a doctor and are aware of colleagues engaging in such malpractice, and you are not reporting them to the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria, then you are ethically complicit in the very misconduct you are complaining about

Its no use reporting to MDCN. There's more Christians there who'll discard the complaint


You're still missing the point, and now misrepresenting mine .

I never claimed any president,. Nigerian or American, said they would "depend on prayer instead of fighting" I said that references to faith by leaders, whether Trump, Netanyahu , Tinubu or a Nigerian official, are symbolic expressions of culture, identity, or morale. They are not, and have never been presented as , substitute for policy or action.

Finally, to be precise, I never said the US is a "Christian country". I said it is a predominantly religious nation, a demographic and cultural fact. Its development stems from its secular institutions, innovative economy, and rule of law, not from the presence or absence of religious rhetoric.

So please stop conflating symbolic speech with systems failure The failure is not in the gesture, but in the lack of effective follow-up action, a failure of governance and institutions, not a failure caused by either the Bible or the Quran.


You asked for honesty. Have I not seen governments in Nigeria organise prayers for national security"? Yes I have.

Have I also seen them in the same context, announce security budgets, military deployments, and policy initiatives?. Also yes,. Your implication that prayer replaces all actions is a straw man. Show me one official policy document that states; "We will cease all military and security actions against bandits and kidnappers, and rely solely on prayer". You cannot because it does not exist..

You're no longer arguing in good faith but deflecting to irrelevances about loudspeakers in the UK , personal stories about doctors and presidential rhetorics which are never a substitute for action anywhere in the world. The reason is to avoid confronting the collapse of your original premise that religion is the cause of Nigeria's underdevelopment or "demise" as you described it .

Nigeria will quicken its development when its leaders invest in education, build accountable institutions and reduce poverty. Whether a leader quotes scripture or not is irrelevant if the state is functional. Our problem is that the state is not functional, and that failure cannot be blamed on a holy book.

triplechoice:
Your claim that "no such laws exist in Lagos" is simply a statement of your personal ignorance, not fact. Regulations on noise pollution exist in Lagos state and are enforced in specific zones. That you see loudspeakers used elsewhere proves only that not all areas are restricted zones, not that the laws don't exist. This talk is irrelevant. The main point stands: such regulations , whether in Nigeria or the UK, are about public order, not religious suppression, If the intent were to suppress religion, only religious gatherings would be targeted. The fact that these laws apply equally to nightclubs, political rallies, and street parties proves their secular adminstrative purpose.


You're now contradicting yourself. At first, you stated this practice was "rife" . Now, you admit it is "not very common' .

So, which is it? A widespread, systemic problem ( rife)or an uncommon, individual failing ( not very common)You cannot have it both ways. This double-speak reveals that you are generalising from unverified, personal anecdotes to support a pre-existimg bias..

If it is "not very common" then you are describing the personal unethical conduct of a few individuals. This is a failure of professional oversight and personal ethics, not evidence that "religion" is causing national underdevelopment. It is wrong to blame an entire belief system for the misconduct of a handful of people who also happen to be believers.

If it is "rife" , then you are making an extraordinary serious allegations about the Nigerian medical establishment which you are a part of. The burden of proof is on you. where is the evidence? Where are the official reports, the hospital inquires, the media investigations ?

The truth of the matter is that you have no proof for either clam. You are using vague contradictory, and unsubstantiated stories to smear an entire profession and, by extension to support your flawed thesis about religion.

Furthermore, if you are a doctor and are aware of colleagues engaging in such malpractice, and you are not reporting them to the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria, then you are ethically complicit in the very misconduct you are complaining about


You're still missing the point, and now misrepresenting mine .

I never claimed any president,. Nigerian or American, said they would "depend on prayer instead of fighting" I said that references to faith by leaders, whether Trump, Netanyahu , Tinubu or a Nigerian official, are symbolic expressions of culture, identity, or morale. They are not, and have never been presented as , substitute for policy or action.

Finally, to be precise, I never said the US is a "Christian country". I said it is a predominantly religious nation, a demographic and cultural fact. Its development stems from its secular institutions, innovative economy, and rule of law, not from the presence or absence of religious rhetoric.

So please stop conflating symbolic speech with systems failure The failure is not in the gesture, but in the lack of effective follow-up action, a failure of governance and institutions, not a failure caused by either the Bible or the Quran.


You asked for honesty. Have I not seen governments in Nigeria organise prayers for national security"? Yes I have.

Have I also seen them in the same context, announce security budgets, military deployments, and policy initiatives?. Also yes,. Your implication that prayer replaces all actions is a straw man. Show me one official policy document that states; "We will cease all military and security actions against bandits and kidnappers, and rely solely on prayer". You cannot because it does not exist..

You're no longer arguing in good faith but deflecting to irrelevances about loudspeakers in the UK , personal stories about doctors and presidential rhetorics which are never a substitute for action anywhere in the world. The reason is to avoid confronting the collapse of your original premise that religion is the cause of Nigeria's underdevelopment or "demise" as you described it .

Nigeria will quicken its development when its leaders invest in education, build accountable institutions and reduce poverty. Whether a leader quotes scripture or not is irrelevant if the state is functional. Our problem is that the state is not functional, and that failure cannot be blamed on a holy book.

jaephoenix:
I don't need to convince you cos I can't convince you. What you'll do is ask any doctor if Nigerian doctors tell patients to do spiritual stuff. One even went on Instagram saying that childbirth is spiritual and he fights spiritual battles. Its no use reporting to MDCN. There's more Christians there who'll discard the complaint

triplechoice:
You're correct about one thing: you cannot convince me. And it's not because I am close minded, but because you have failed to support your original claim and now arguing with strategic ambiguity.

Your argument that religion must be suppressed for development is a popular but historically illiterate talking point among a certain fringe, militant atheists. It confuses correlation with causation and deliberately ignores overwhelming evidence.

If your theory were true, we would expect atheist and secular states to be universally developed, but they are not. North Korea and the former Soviet bloc are telling examples.

If your theory were true, we would expect religious nations to be universally poor,but they are not. The United states, Poland, Italy, Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia are all developed nations where religion is culturally central and often constitutionally recognised.

If your theory were true, development would be impossible without prior religious suppression. History, however, shows the opposite: development through education, science, and strong institutions often leads to increased secularisation , not the other way around.

What you are likely misinterpreting, either willfully or ignorantly, is a universal, ethical practice in palliative and critical care. Medical professionals worldwide may integrate spiritual or psychological support to help patients cope with trauma or terminal illness. This is not " they ask them to pray Instead of medicine", it is ", medicine for the whole person". It is a far cry from your sensational claim of your colleagues telling malaria patients to abandon treatment. No Nigerian doctor anywhere does that.

I have asked you repeatedly to provide one credible, causal link between "not surpressing religion" and "national demise". You have failed each time. Instead you continue to offer ambiguous anecdotes, self contradictions, and deflections. You have moved from ,. " they tell their patients to abandon medicine for prayers" to the vague, harmless phrase, "they ask them to do spiritual stuff" which can be interpreted to mean anything.

Worse still, you first claimed this practice was "rife", then retreated to saying it is "not very common". This contradiction is fatal. If the behaviour is not "very common" , according to you, it cannot possibly explain a national ", demise". By your own admission, most Christian doctors do not engage in it, so why blame Christianity or a religious text for the personal failing of a few? .

Furthermore, you have just revealed the depth of your bias with one final telling statement. You claim there is "no use reporting to MDCN" because " there are more Christians there" who would "discard the complaint"

This is an unsubstantiated and cynical slander against an entire professional regulatory body. For someone who claims to be a medical professional, this statement is astonishingly unprofessional and defeatist. To be honest, it makes it very difficult for anyone to believe you are actually a doctor. You sound less like an insider concerned with ethics and more like an
outsider cynically smearing a profession he demonstrably knows very little about .

The MDCN , like any credible medical board worldwide, is bound by professional ethics and legal standards, not religious affiliation. To suggest they would universally cover up malpractice is not only insulting, but also a baseless excuse to avoid providing the evidence you lack.

If you truly believe a colleague is endangering lives, you have an ethical and professional duty to report it, regardless of who sits on the council. Your refusal to do so, while publicly making the accusation, proves this was never about ethics or evidence, but merely a rhetorical ploy to smear a profession and support a week argument.



The debate is now circular and the sole reason is because you have not proven your point.

Let me state it one final time; Nigeria's challenges are rooted in governance, infrastructure, and economic policy. Scapegoating religion is a convenient, simplistic fantasy that lets the truly responsible, corrupt elites and broken systems, off the hook.

When you are ready to discuss the actual levers of progress, we can continue. Until then, you're merely promoting a prejudiced ideology disguised as analysis. I am no longer interested in reading it.


Modified:
@DrAda, I would appreciate your professional opinion on a concerning claim made in this discussion. The individual I'm debating has asserted that it is a common, or at least not uncommon, practice among Nigerian doctors to advise patients to abandon their medications in favour of prayers alone. When challenged, he modified the claim, stating it was "not very common", but still happening among his colleagues.

More alarmingly, when advised that such malpractice should be reported to the MDCN, he just dismissed the idea in his latest reply, claiming the council is dominated by Christians who would ignore any complaint. As a matter of public health and professional ethics, this is a serious allegation.

Given your standing, I would value your perspective. Could you comment on the ethical and professional implications of such claims, and perhaps pose the necessary questions to him to clarify this matter.

Thank you.

DrAda:
Thank you for taking the time to address and correct the misinformation that is rife on this platform.

Please kindly disregard the claim that it is standard practice for doctors to advise patients to rely on religion in place of appropriate clinical care. This is entirely wrong.

Any healthcare professional who promotes such dangerous practice is acting unethically and should be sued and reported to the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) for appropriate disciplinary action.

Personally, I counsel my patients to beware and always verify the claims of miracle vendors.

triplechoice:
You're correct about one thing: you cannot convince me. And it's not because I am close minded, but because you have failed to support your original claim and now arguing with strategic ambiguity.

Your argument that religion must be suppressed for development is a popular but historically illiterate talking point among a certain fringe, militant atheists. It confuses correlation with causation and deliberately ignores overwhelming evidence.

If your theory were true, we would expect atheist and secular states to be universally developed, but they are not. North Korea and the former Soviet bloc are telling examples.

If your theory were true, we would expect religious nations to be universally poor,but they are not. The United states, Poland, Italy, Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia are all developed nations where religion is culturally central and often constitutionally recognised.

If your theory were true, development would be impossible without prior religious suppression. History, however, shows the opposite: development through education, science, and strong institutions often leads to increased secularisation , not the other way around.

What you are likely misinterpreting, either willfully or ignorantly, is a universal, ethical practice in palliative and critical care. Medical professionals worldwide may integrate spiritual or psychological support to help patients cope with trauma or terminal illness. This is not " they ask them to pray Instead of medicine", it is ", medicine for the whole person". It is a far cry from your sensational claim of your colleagues telling malaria patients to abandon treatment. No Nigerian doctor anywhere does that.

I have asked you repeatedly to provide one credible, causal link between "not surpressing religion" and "national demise". You have failed each time. Instead you continue to offer ambiguous anecdotes, self contradictions, and deflections. You have moved from ,. " they tell their patients to abandon medicine for prayers" to the vague, harmless phrase, "they ask them to do spiritual stuff" which can be interpreted to mean anything.

Worse still, you first claimed this practice was "rife", then retreated to saying it is "not very common". This contradiction is fatal. If the behaviour is not "very common" , according to you, it cannot possibly explain a national ", demise". By your own admission, most Christian doctors do not engage in it, so why blame Christianity or a religious text for the personal failing of a few? .

Furthermore, you have just revealed the depth of your bias with one final telling statement. You claim there is "no use reporting to MDCN" because " there are more Christians there" who would "discard the complaint"

This is an unsubstantiated and cynical slander against an entire professional regulatory body. For someone who claims to be a medical professional, this statement is astonishingly unprofessional and defeatist. To be honest, it makes it very difficult for anyone to believe you are actually a doctor. You sound less like an insider concerned with ethics and more like an
outsider cynically smearing a profession he demonstrably knows very little about .

The MDCN , like any credible medical board worldwide, is bound by professional ethics and legal standards, not religious affiliation. To suggest they would universally cover up malpractice is not only insulting, but also a baseless excuse to avoid providing the evidence you lack.

If you truly believe a colleague is endangering lives, you have an ethical and professional duty to report it, regardless of who sits on the council. Your refusal to do so, while publicly making the accusation, proves this was never about ethics or evidence, but merely a rhetorical ploy to smear a profession and support a week argument.



The debate is now circular and the sole reason is because you have not proven your point.

Let me state it one final time; Nigeria's challenges are rooted in governance, infrastructure, and economic policy. Scapegoating religion is a convenient, simplistic fantasy that lets the truly responsible, corrupt elites and broken systems, off the hook.

When you are ready to discuss the actual levers of progress, we can continue. Until then, you're merely promoting a prejudiced ideology disguised as analysis. I am no longer interested in reading it.


Modified:
@DrAda, I would appreciate your professional opinion on a concerning claim made in this discussion. The individual I'm debating has asserted that it is a common, or at least not uncommon, practice among Nigerian doctors to advise patients to abandon their medications in favour of prayers alone. When challenged, he modified the claim, stating it was "not very common", but still happening among his colleagues.

More alarmingly, when advised that such malpractice should be reported to the MDCN, he just dismissed the idea in his latest reply, claiming the council is dominated by Christians who would ignore any complaint. As a matter of public health and professional ethics, this is a serious allegation.

Given your standing, I would value your perspective. Could you comment on the ethical and professional implications of such claims, and perhaps pose the necessary questions to him to clarify this matter.

Thank you.

DrAda:
Thank you for taking the time to address and correct the misinformation that is rife on this platform.

Please kindly disregard the claim that it is standard practice for doctors to advise patients to rely on religion in place of appropriate clinical care. This is entirely wrong.

Any healthcare professional who promotes such dangerous practice is acting unethically and should be sued and reported to the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) for appropriate disciplinary action.

Personally, I counsel my patients to beware and always verify the claims of miracle vendors.

jaephoenix:
I did not say it's standard practice. I said it's rife. A patient told me her doc told her to come to her church for her subfertility. Another colleague told me that he used anointing oil to guard against covid and he encouraged his patients to do so. I have consultants that have told many cancer patients in my presence to pray,that god is the one that heals and not medicine. In advanced countries these guys would lose their license so fast. Not in Nigeria. Go and report to MDCN and see.Do I go on? You know I'm not lying

jaephoenix:
As a doctor,if I tell a patient that he should have faith in god and ignore his meds,I could lose in license in the UK. But in Nigeria, it's rife.

jaephoenix:
I'm a doctor,trust me. My colleagues take this religious shit serious. Though not very common but they do it.

triplechoice:
You're still missing the critical point through a mix of anecdotal evidence and intellectual dishonesty.

Not only are your stories unverifiable, but you also cannot maintain a consistent claim about their prevalence. You initially called this practice "rife" . When challenged, you retreated to "not very common". Now in your reply to DrAda, you have reverted to calling it "rife" again. This glaring contradiction shows you're using emotionally charged language not to describe reality, but to prop up a failing argument.

Now, you're conflating supportive statements with malpractice. A consultant telling a Christian cancer patient "God is the one who heals" while continuing their full medical protocol is not telling them to " abandon medicine". It is a form of psychological and spiritual support integrated into care worldwide. You're deliberately stripping these statements of their contexts to make them sound like instructions to stop treatments.

Your other evidence remains personal and unverifiable. "A patient told me", "another colleague" in my presence" , these are stories, not data. They prove noting about systemic practice or national policy

Furthermore, you are arguing against a straw man. No one, including@DrAda, claims Nigeria's medical oversight is perfect. The point is that isolated cases of unprofessional conduct exist in every country and are handled by regulatory bodies, not by blaming an entire religion. Your claim that the MDCN is completely ineffective and biased is a cynical generalisation you use to avoid your duty to report factual malpractice. Not reporting it is also malpractice which makes you complicit in the matter.

Honestly, this entire tangent is a deflection and you know it. Your original thesis was that not surpressing religion clauses national underdevelopment. You have failed to provide a shred of evidence for that. Instead, you have latched onto vague doctor stories because you simply cannot prove your main claim.

If you have evidence of malpractice, act on it. If not stop using unverified stories to support a failed ideological argument.


Here are your contradictions. First, your initial statement


Later you retreated to "though not very common" when challenged.



But in your reply to DrAda, you have reverted to it's "rife" again.

This evidence is taken from this same page. Anyone following, just need to read from the beginning to confirm..I have also screenshot it

jaephoenix:
If you don't believe my stories, why would you believe DrAda's views? Cos it aligns to your narrative? If it didn't align to your own narratives, you'd have chucked it aside like you're doing mine. That's dishonest.
I can't tell you how often those actions by those doctors happens cos I haven't done a poll,so I stick to estimates. But if you choose to ignore them,then so be it.
Those consultants tell them to pray and DID NOT REFER THEM. That's negligent! You don't k ow this cos u ain't a doc

jaephoenix:
Yes,suppressing religion grows a country. Lemme explain
As a doctor,if I tell a patient that he should have faith in god and ignore his meds,I could lose in license in the UK. But in Nigeria, it's rife.

jaephoenix:
I'm a doctor,trust me. My colleagues take this religious shit serious. Though not very common but they do it.

jaephoenix:
I did not say it's standard practice. I said it's rife.

jaephoenix:
I can't tell you how often those actions by those doctors happens cos I haven't done a poll,so I stick to estimates. But if you choose to ignore them,then so be it.

Akinpedia:
​I hear you, and it's true that 'bad eggs' exist in every field. But there is a massive difference between a dubious mechanic and a Pastor, and that difference is Accountability.

​The Professional Path: If a Doctor intentionally messes up a surgery to make more money, there is a Medical Council (MDCN) that can strip him of his license. There are lab results you can take to another hospital for a second opinion. You can sue a professional.

​The Pastor Path: If a Pastor tells you to stop taking your HIV meds and you get worse, who do you report him to? If the 'miracle' fails, they tell you it's because 'your faith was small' or 'you didn't sow enough seed.' They are untouchable.

​A mechanic might rip you off for ₦50k, but a 'Man of God' can make you throw away your life, your family's peace, and your health based on a 'vision' that has no proof. We can't compare a regulated profession to an unregulated 'calling.'"

jaephoenix:
He has refused to educate himself. I have engaged him and many theists. There's a certain indifference and disdain they have towards science, like science is wrong and whatever the bible or pastor says is right. One Christian here Ogascomax or something like that told me scientists hate Christianity

DeepSight:
+
Osanobua. Chai. Are you for real. This explains alot.

triplechoice:
Therefore, the problem was never religion itself. The problem is, and has always been, a ruling class that perpetuates a lack of critical education to maintain a pliable populace.. Yes, Religion can be one vehicle for this, but it is not the engine. The engine is deliberate disempowerment .

jaephoenix:
Yes,suppressing religion grows a country. Lemme explain
In the UK, preaching in certain areas are prohibited. Same with use of loud speakers.

budaatum:
I confess I arrived at this thread looking for you, and find delight in the above.

Going to pastors and imams is just an evolution from us going to babalawo, which proves your point that religion (and the promotion of ignorance and non critical reasoning) is a vehicle (for control).

It was clearly used to deliberate disempower and control Adam, who it was written was scared from acquiring knowledge least it kill him. The same narrative however also teaches how Eve used her senses (to do a scientific experiment) and prove knowledge does not kill, but some hid her sense use behind a serpent.

budaatum:
You can't even preach religion in schools in UK.

https://humanists.uk/2014/06/18/victory-government-bans-existing-future-academies-free-schools-teaching-creationism-science/

budaatum:
You can't even preach religion in schools in UK.

https://humanists.uk/2014/06/18/victory-government-bans-existing-future-academies-free-schools-teaching-creationism-science/

triplechoice:
"You can't even preach religion in schools in UK" is not the same as banning the preaching of religion in the UK. Is it?

budaatum:
Akinpedia highlighted deficiencies in our education system that dishes out degrees to the unlearnt.

And a solution might be to make science compulsory to first level uni, though a standard of learning would need to first be established so failures aren't passed.

jaephoenix:
I didn't say banning the preaching. I never said anything about total suppression. I said RESTRICTION. I suggest you check the meaning of that word

jaephoenix:
You're right. Critical thinking skills are important for nation growth and unhindered religion is the outcome. However, suppressing religion is a good point, and removing it totally from the state is paramount. You won't see developed countries tell its citizens that security comes from any god
But you're right anways

jaephoenix:
Please tell triplechoice. I'm tired of educating him

triplechoice:
No. Making "science compulsory" at the first year university level would be counterproductive. A scientific mindset can, and must, be instilled much earlier, at the foundational, elementary level.

By the time students reach university, their core cognitive habits are largely formed. So, forcing a social science or arts students into a compulsory, intensive science course at that stage would be a source of frustration and a distraction from developing their actual strengths . It risks turning science into a barrier rather than a tool for critical thinking.

triplechoice:
Before you educate another, go through the link and educate yourself first that the UK policy "bans " teaching creationism in science classes. No policy bans the "preaching of religion" outside that context. In fact, religious studies, learning about faiths, remains compulsory subject in UK schools.

triplechoice:
This is why the solution is not to ban the current vehicle, (religion) , but to disable the mechanism by empowering people with education, critical skills and immediate access to information. Once must people in Nigeria can think for themselves, no vehicle of control, religious, political, or otherwise, can operate as effectively.

budaatum:
I do not think a country can ban a dominant religion like Christianity and Islam. Some countries where they were not dominant (China, Japan) tried it at some point or the other and failed. Besides, knowledge of UK (and world) history would be incomplete if one does not understand the role religion has played and currently plays in the British society.

Its not like we can ban church and mosques for those who want to go there. Its preaching must however be restricted in schools as it is in UK schools, and is a reason many (Nigerian) youths leave the church their parents force them to attend as soon as they depart for university, as it is not easy to convince children who have been taken to see dinosaurs in the museum that some god created the heaven and earth in six days then rested.

The battle is between those who want people to not be empowered and those who do want to empower people, and that does indeed involve increasing access to information and teaching to think critically, which would involve restricting the preaching of (Nigerian type) religion to some extent as has been done in UK schools.

P.S. I specifically used the word "preaching" to delineate it from 'teaching' about. It is a confusion you made about my action regarding a morc, where you thought I was preaching (to grow a congregation) when I was actually teaching (and providing information) so most don't waste their money. The same sort of teaching, in schools, as opposed to preaching, is emptying UK churches. Though on that note, please read kayjordan's detailed opposing view.

triplechoice:
So, let me restate the core debate.

Does suppressing religion cause a country's development, and is Nigeria's underdeveloped because it has failed to restrict or totally remove religion?