₦airaland Forum

Enigma: I did not need to address you directly to make the point I made in the post you referred to. With that type of daft and nonsensical post I only expend the minimum effort and energy - if I bother to respond at all

Enigma: Like I'm about to be bothered by the uninformed opinions of people who have not read the relevant cases let alone the literature.

Enigma: Typical obtuse and duplicitous evangelical atheist.

You are of course free to quote all the American id[i]i[/i]ots in the world. But of course you cannot see the duplicity of at the same time criticising someone for using the decision of American courts to buttress a point. Typical, indeed.

Enigma: An evangelical atheist proves himself so by his words and actions.

Enigma: Take the advice I gave to one of your colleagues some time ago: self-deceit is not good for your health.

Deep Sight: However you may have to accept the reality that sometimes no amount of logic or reasoning can dislodge people's biases. I wouldn't advise you to expend too much energy on this case.

Enigma: *One example on this very pages is the chap who, in typical evangelical atheist obtuseness and duplicity, says he is entitled to quote "whoever" he wants, even if they are American (including an American id[i]i[/i]ot), while in the same breath complaining about my use of the US court judgment.

Deep Sight: The point is very simple and succintly made as Kay 17 has very well argued - for the purpose of giving effect to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by law, the court will consider the atheist entitled to the self-same religious freedoms as anybody else. This is strictly with regard to the laws being discussed. This does not mean that atheism is in fact a religion - any more than any other legal position which "deems" a thing to be such or such - may or may not transpose into reality.

Might I further add that this position is not invalidated even if one million atheists argue that atheism is a religion. It is not a religion.

Furthermore as Jayriginal pointed out, that at all events is legal interpretation for one jurisdiction only - the United States. Will we then hold that atheism is a religion only in the United States? We will be heading down a perilous path of stark absurdity. Is atheism a religion in Nigeria, per example?

I have often vowed not to entertain this sort of discourse: for the very words "religion" and "religious" stand to testify that atheism is anything but. It is the stark reverse, and it beats me that anyone can argue the contrary.

Enigma: But you are ready to quote Bill Maher , and you and your mates are happy to quote Harris, Dawkins etc when it suits you lot --- vey eminent Nigerians they are all too.

Deep Sight: Even if it is granted that the US Supreme Court deployed such an interpretation in that regard.

I really wonder whether the fact that atheism is considered, in the realm of law, a religion - thereby makes it in fact a religion.

In the same way as I wonder if the fact that a company is considered a legal person in the realm of law, - thereby makes it in fact a person.

Uyi Iredia: Mere opprobriums. There was nothing worth replying here save for this: that the concept of purgatory is central to an aspect of Christianity (i.e Catholicism)

Uyi Iredia: I was urging not forcing you. Evolution is indeed central from a theological standpoint since it clearly gives a different account of creation. The very obvious question for the atheist who doesn't believe in evolution is this: Where does life originate from ?

Uyi Iredia: Let's see. We have i) Secular marriages ii) secular burials iii) secular naming ceremonies etc A common emphasis in these rites is an aversion towards the mention or implication of anything religious. There even so-called secular priests whose purpose it is is to oversee such. But all your comments miss the point which is: underlining the fact that atheism is taking the very steps which underscore most religions which include codification of their beliefs & proselytization of it)

Uyi Iredia: You are simply quibbling. Let me help you structure your reply with a question: How is pantheism opposed to Christianity ? Keeping in mind Rom 1:20 which bears clearly pantheist implications.

mazaje: Once there is life there is hope, but we have a VERY LONG way to go my brother. . .What we need to do as Africans is to acknowledge that we have a very big problem as a people,then try to modify our beliefs and traditions, you can not move forward in the 21st century with a 1st, 2nd or 10th century mindset. We need to take education very seriously and accept the new knowledge it gives or points to. . .No need fighting it or discarding new knowledge even if it contradicts what we "know" to be true. We seriously need to be skeptical and not accept everything at face value.We need to stop formulating lies to explain that which we do not know or understand . . .Then the issue of irrational fear, Africans are too FEARFUL, we fear too much. . .We are always fearful of imaginary beings trying to harm us. . .If a white european sees fire coming out from a tree(an unusual phenomena), he will wait for the fire to stop coming out from the tree, then go and conduct an investigation. He will want to know the source of the fire, the mechanism it uses to flow out from the tree and the tempreture of the fire etc because its not a normal phenomena. But if it is an African,hmmmm. . . He/she will run as far as he/she can from the tree without looking back while going about spreading he said, she said mythical tales about the tree. . .

Back in the days when I was conducting my personal research on the efficacy of juju, the existence of witches, wizards and their claims, 2 of my friends who got to know about it( these guys are college educated from UK and have lived there for many years) really thought I was crazy and demonic, because of the total lack of fear I displayed. . .They just felt it was abnormal, they personally felt I was in some kind of cult or something. . .They just thought I was insane. We need to drop all these fear, we also need to modify our beliefs and culture in order to move forward as a people. . .

Enigma: ^^^ But you at least know of the debates well enough than to misrepresent me as you did.

Kay 17: Given that Religion presently has a horrible name and reputation, peeps like Uyi try morning, afternoon and night; even with expenses of placing logic on its head: to include atheists and skeptics in the wagon of religion!

sauer: And I think there's a name for this fallacy. . . .?

shymmex: This purist guy and his gay buddy sauer are full of shyte...

Atheism will always be a religion in denial - shove your stupid opinions in your arses, your opinions don't count..

Pseudo-European mofos trying to explain knowledge to the black man with an African mind GTFOH!!

marabout: A part of the limbic system (necleus accumbens) has been well-established to be associated with pleasure, emotion and addiction (among others)-the heavenly feeling people have when they take reacreational drugs or the sense of reward you have after investing in a Gucci bag/shoe for example. Not to forget sex.
Because the limbic system is probably the oldest part of the brain to develop, its structures have many functions as mentioned in the poster's write up. The system simply had to multi-task.

Also remember that the limbic system acts on the autonomic nervous system (fright, fight or flight regulator). If you also consider other primitive functions like mating, smell, regulating BP and heart beat and more advanced ones like building up a database of memory and processing new stimuli/information, it's not surprising that it has a profound effect on religious experience.
This does not mean that the experience itself is not real or that it is real.
Just maybe the need to be religious or believe in something/someone is a quintessential and basic human need that is almost as old as humanity itself considering that the oldest part of the brain controls it.

Uyi Iredia: * Nonsense. It's simply shows you are ignorant of aspects of atheism which make it a religion or where you are confronted with such you ignore them. Saying you are ignorant of the creed doesn't exonerate you since it virtually aligns with the beliefs you enunciated here. BTW many Christians don't know of the Nicene creed there are various Bibles (as you-a former Christian) should know which clearly suggests that Christianity isn't wholly dogmatic as say Islam.

Uyi Iredia: * Answer the question. Your answer is to hit home the point I made that evolution is central to atheism something you've denied thus far. I've stuck to my guns defending points raised as to my stance that atheism is a religion. BTW the points by me thus far have been very germane. All I get from you is WORTHLESS flak & I must say I expected much better.

Uyi Iredia: * Another retarded comment. Follow the logic. Religions have rites. Atheism has rites. Atheism is a religion. But that's not all I also in my opening post drew out more similarities. Your answer is simply a sharp dismissal. You must have also missed the part where I decively dealt with the fraudulent comparison of Theism to atheism. The example of the Ethical Church which I pointed out is also not a 'probability'. I have more up my sleeve. The question remains: Will you HONESTLY consider them ? Especially after ignoring a vital one I posed.

Uyi Iredia: * And you show your lack of depth because the founder of pantheism was infact a Christian. Pick up any book which includes the correspondences Spinoza had. Pantheism isn't a mere equation of the physical world to God and Leibniz understood that hence the term panentheism. Simply put pantheism is not at all in conflict with the idea of a personal God. The main difference is that Christianity is dualist (in that it seperates God from Nature) while pantheism is monist (it harmonized a metaphysiacal God with Nature).

sauer: I'd agree with you. I tried pointing out a few of what he got totally wrong, especially his attempt to religionize atheism. What can I say? He just appears bent on ranting along without stop!

Uyi Iredia: Did someone forget that these so-called theories can be wrong ? e.g Early Atomic Theory or based on fraud e.g Jung's theory of synchronicity. Science isn't infallible you know. In this case of evolution, I have never seen a theory so fervently upheld despite its patent fallacy. Kudos to Huxley for selecting, reproducing and evolving a lie.

Uyi Iredia: The part I bolded is what I'm focusing on. You have a belief, there's a label for it stop with the hanky-panky and use the label. Stereotypes are a general & inevitable aspect of life so stop quibbling over it.

Goldieluks: If praying does not solve your problems, what does?
It is a two way thing my dear, it is either one believe in God or the devil.
You have to choose one.

shymmex: Just by calling it a 'theory' shows it isn't proven (I'm a science student and I know theories and hypothesis are assertions which are yet to be proven).

Uyi Iredia: Yet another peurile rant. Your labels were a fraud. Simply say your are an atheist, no need sermonizing it.

Uyi Iredia: BTW I was simply using one of your labels to correct Deep Sight and you. The label agnostic is quite needless IMHO.

([1] thanks for that line, @jayriginal )

Uyi Iredia: * Nonsense. It is inevitable to use labels for clarity. If you leave the Relgion tab blank on your CV (or some other form) and insist it be that way you would have given yourself of, wouldn't you.

Uyi Iredia: * From what I gather most are. However, I may be wrong.

Uyi Iredia: * Check your dictionary for the meaning of 'Any'. I generally assume my discussant has a good mastery of the English Language.

Uyi Iredia: * Precisely. You can read the Secular Humanist Manifesto of 2011 and other atheistic creeds.

Uyi Iredia: * I should think you were apt. Consider that they are human beings and generally disbelieve in heaven or hell.

Uyi Iredia: * Saying otherwise doesn't change the fact that I know there are a variety of atheists. Lemme ask you a question; Do YOU beloeve in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution ?

Uyi Iredia: * My answer was self-explanatory. Get this straight again: You are merely harping on the inhumane aspects
Of slavery & capitalism has its inhumane aspects. The
Logic behind slavery was simple. Huge tracts of arable land were procured in the New-World, manpower was needed to farm the land and fashion trade between the New World & Eurasia. Ready supply of slaves were gotten from the African continent (West Africa in particular). You can whine all you like but the fact remains is that the Industrial Age & eventually the IT Age was founded on the Inter-Atlantic slave trade.
Also, don't forget, you are a slave to money; think about it: Why do you work for something intrinsically worthless ?

Uyi Iredia: * That my dear Purist is what makes it a religion, no matter how the likes of you & Deep Sight object. What makes my line of reasoning valid is that such rites is precisely how virtually all religions developed. Once a sufficient number of people systematized their philosophy & and made it exclusive it became a religion. Google Ethical Church for starters.

Uyi Iredia: * I'm your friendly neighborhood Christian pantheist. As a Christian I fully agree with & believe in the Nicene creed and by vortue of that believe in hell. As a pantheist I believe God's persona is understudied by all religions and sciences. A study of history (Christian history in particular) reveals this.

Uyi Iredia: Have a good time pondering all I've written thus far.

Uyi Iredia: Allow me to pop in here. Agnosticism was coined by (
Thomas Huxley to denote a state of undecision about the validity of God's existence. History shows his ideas weren't at all novel. The Hellenistic age provided Skeptics with precisely that same attitude on a much grander scale. However Huxley's_ and by extension Purist's_position is fraudulent because it is an epistemological position not a metaphysical one as Deism, Theism etc. It is disingenious to say one cannot know about God's existence when one practically disbelieves in God.

jayriginal: Purist, if 'god' is meaningless to you, you cannot believe in 'god'. It is still the same thing.

If I made up something say 'dambadi', it would mean nothing to you. If I asked you if you believe in 'dambadi' you cannot possibly answer yes to that question.

As for the link you posted, I am not oblivious of the way atheism and agnosticism have come to be defined today. Instead, I argue for the strict application of the words.
By strict application, an atheist does not believe in god. End of story.

If you cannot say that you believe in god, then you are an atheist, whether you are undecided or you actually deny the existence of 'god', or you couldnt care either way.

Many people make the mistake of thinking that if something isnt one thing, it must be its opposite (eg, if you dont believe in god, you believe there is no god). This is not true.

And yes I agree with you. Saying you dont know or that you are not sure is a very honest and acceptable response. Better that than to invent some ridiculous concept that needs to be explained using extreme verbosity all in the need to replace the religion one lost on the way.
The thing however is that saying you dont know or that you are not sure means that you do not believe,and are thus an atheist.
In many quarters there is a negative reaction to atheism and it stems from a misunderstanding as many on nairaland have shown. I can be an atheist and hold different views from the next one.



Quite so and only if you believe, can you separate yourself. The rest are atheists.