budaatum:

The first few chapters of Genesis are in fact the result of skeptism. There were various creation myths vying for position at the time, until the two in the Bible were codified, but the fact that there are two shows the skeptism at play even then.

Ref: The Two Creations in Genesis

Yeah it was a Circular reasoning.

budaatum:

I have the feeling it is not meant literally but metaphorically, perhaps with early Arabic meanings which might have been lost in time, don't you think? Or you really think it meant Mohammed literally "rode on a flying creature to the sky"? If so no one with a brain would read it past primary two, I'd have thought.

It's imaginary or a lie.

sino:


Perhaps you read again from the beginning, it is clearly stated.

Finally, of course @bold, I have been pointing out to you the certainty of cause and effect, and the fact that it doesn't require philosophical skepticism to arrive at such conclusions...

What's your point here?

You asked a question that's not about the topic. I've said it countless times this topic is about philosophical skepticism on religion matter, you're talking about parents and robbery. Maybe if I'd ignored your post, you won't be strawmaning further.

The robbery is happening in your neighbourhood where you and your parents reside! This isn't about fake news or a stranger spreading information on social media!

Your question is confusing.

Was the robbery happening in my residence that my parents called? And was I in the residents that I saw people running? Cus why would my parents called me to stay back when I'm in the residents?

I can't seem to get what you're picturing.

I'm sure I didn't mention anything about you hearing gun shots.

So what's making people flee?

When I see "people fleeing" In your analogy I was assuming a scene with heavy gun shots or something loud.

You didn't give good picture of what you're saying.

You are the one who believes that there is no logical reasoning behind faith, and so it must be zombiesm.

What's logical reasoning behind faith?

You think that you can arrive at the truth of all matters by only philosophical argumentations. Apparently, this is false as there are matters that are fundamental knowledge, just like the cause and effect as portrayed above in the robbery scenario. Also even in the definition of skepticism and philosophical skepticism to be precise, there is the uncertainty clause of not arriving at true knowledge, this is even corroborated by authorities in skepticism. And this has always been my argument.

Can you define philosophy?

And where did I even said we can know the truth of all matters? Is there any mention of absolutism in this argument?

Stop strawmaning mister.

For starters with regards to your questions, which I had answered before, we both know for certain that your flying rabbit in the cosmic is indeed a figment of your imagination, else you wouldn't be here asking me to prove that it doesn't exist!

Don't use "We", tell me how you know for a "fact" it is my figment of imagination that a flying green rabbit exist in the cosmic?

And was Muhammad imagining when he claim he rode on a flying creature to the sky?

And I am telling you that what you are doing here isn't what brought about these advances and reliable knowledge in the world today.

So what's it?

sino:


Respectfully or not, their answers and those you would be confirming from are based on their experiences or hearsay , moreover you are seeing people running, and you are limited at that moment to believe these people like a zombie. The logical thing to do would be to heed the advice of your parents to stay back, else, you would only be foolish to continue your journey home because you are a skeptic.

The fact here is that holding on to skepticism as the means of reaching the truth in all things is impossible. Even at the point of believing your parents (if you would after your interrogations), it is based on rational thinking innate in every man. It would be pointless arguing and doubting your rational decision to do the right thing in the above scenario cos you have at your disposal evidences which are nothing more than personal experiences, hearsay and you witnessing the effects of the robbery but not the robbery itself. At the end of the day, no one is really a zombie! But trust me, some people can be foolish though, like one who would go ahead with the journey in the above-mentioned scenario claiming skepticism.

I don't really get your argument.

My questions alone is the skepticism here, the fact that you asked questions shows you're being skeptical and wanted to confirm if it isn't fake news or false alarm. If people are running from a robbery it's very easy to confirm as you're obviously close to the scene, the effect of a robbery is an evidence of something going on. So I don't see your argument here.

If my parents called that there is a robbery, I've to asked where they get that information from, it's a logical thing to do, fake news are spread everywhere and one shouldn't be zombie believing in any information even from your parents! No one is perfect and fake news without confirmation have put many people in trouble.

If you hear heavy gun shots, why would anyone wants to witness the scene? You run for safety (the first rule). It's left for the police and media people to do their job, they're there to cover the scene and give you report in details with "evidence".

Ofcos one can't be skeptical everytime, we're not literally a programmed robots, humans aren't perfect, we do irrational things unintentionally and intentionally but when it's persistence, it's problematic. My arguments here is about philosophical skepticism. How you believed Muhammad rode on a flying donkey and there isn't a flying green rabbit in the cosmic is something delusory. What logical argument do you want to show for it? Why are you betraying your skepticism and shooting yourself in the foot?

I maintain that skepticism brought advanced and reliable knowledge.

sino:


Would you, at that point in time, doubt and question your parents or believe them like a zombie? I have actually presented a 21st century scenario, a phone call from your parents.

Ofcos i will question them.

How did they know or where did they heard it from? In a respectful way.

Then I can also confirm from different source.

usermane:


If you're asking for objective proof, then you getting this all wrong. Outside the physical sciences, there is no such thing as objective proof. Proof is all subjective and relative.

It depends on what you mean by subjective.

E.g is the sun we see actually proof of it existence? Am I existing?

This has to do with philosophy than science.

Science deals with natural phenomena, so how can scientific evidence be subjective and relative? Kindly Give examples.

You continue to undermine the role of intelligence and diligence in scientific development. Fair enough.

Sorry, explain.

sino:
@tintingz

If you had gone out, and then on your way home, you saw people running, and then you got a call from your parent telling you that you should stay back because there is a robbery going on in your neighbourhood, would you believe your parents like a zombie and take to your heels and find a sanctuary like those already fleeing or would you argue with them based on your skepticism to philosophically prove to you that there is indeed a robbery going on? Or better still, would you rather go confirm what is really happening so as to have physical evidence that there is indeed a robbery going on?

You actually asked this question in this 21st century where I can easily confirm?

Skepticism has to do with an act of doubting, questioning.

budaatum:

I'm delighted you note that skepticism increases knowledge. Many Muslims have been philosophical skeptics and remained religious, just as Christians too, albeit both of the philosophical sort as opposed to 'believers'.

I'd go further and add that unskeptical people, as in, those who unquestioningly believe, are zombies. They are more likely found amongst Nigerians, regardless of religion, than in even Hope Probe to Mars UAE, and in fact, anti-skeptism is why we live in the dark since we have not yet learnt to question and say "Let there be light".

So, God or whatever, please continue to bless tingz the skeptic as he blesses everyone else with skeptism!

Yes, like i said one can be less Religious. There are Religious philosophers.

usermane:


Doctors do make mistakes in prescription. And several medications that initially passed clinical trials have been withdrawn from manufacturing after years of utility in healthcare. So, this is zombeism, admittedly a pardonable one.

But the gist is that everyone is zombie in one area or the other. For some people, this area is their faith. But even the zombie theist would tell you that their faith have been tried and verified by generations of sages and scholars.

Isn't the same medics that question the medication and conduct another trial before it's withdrawn from manufacturing? Didn't they admit there's an error or fraud after another trial and investigation? This still doesn't still fall under zombiesm.

How did theists verified their beliefs? If there's scrutiny in thier beliefs why aren't any objective proof for their beliefs? Atleast science can proof their claims objectively, what's theists got to show than belief? Do you know what belief and faith means?

You mean far more developed because there is less zombeism in religion among the people in the west?

No. It is more complicated than that. Scientific development takes intelligence, determination, hard work and the will change lives & be self-sufficient. If you spread skepticism in the Muslim world today, it will make almost no difference in their scientific achievement.

If muslims become philosophical skeptics i bet you most will become irreligious or less Religious. The west is an example . I will say it again skepticism led to Greek philosophers knowledge, led to medieval muslim scientists knowledge then to the Western knowledge who are still dominating science today.

Agreed. But remember, what is unproven to one skeptic, may be proven to another. Proof is if kind of subjective.

Can you please explain this better?

OK, what is your view on a Muslim like Al-baqir? You can judge from his content and methodology. Doesn't he seem skeptical in his approach and opposed to zombiesm?

Kinda "appear" skeptical tho but a circular argument.

Let me give you a tip, I criticize Batman because I believe in Superman.

I didn't ask because I know it only leads to no where. I preached Qur'anism for 6 years. I thought I had all the evidence to convince sunnites. Where have that led me?

Only a delusional and dishonest person will reject an evidence.

usermane:


OK, take this example. If you receive a prescription from the physician, do you exercise skepticism over the efficacy and action of the medication? Do you go, "I'm sick, the doctor gave me this medicine, but before I use the medicine or while I use it, I want to confirm if and how this medicine will work"?

Medication is built under questioning, trials and testing, it's not like the doctor just prescribed a treatment for me, he's prescribing a medication that has been tested severally and details are given. And in medics patients are allowed to ask questions. So I don't know how this is zombiesm?

You don't. And that's zombiesm. No one can be constantly skeptical. In some areas, you're zombie, in other areas you're more cautious and skeptic. It depends on a number of factors.

No. That's not zombiesm. Zombiesm is when I told you to bring 21 white cows and you must do it and don't question the gods.

Questioning is just one step in the scientific method. And it isn't even the first step. My point is that skepticism in itself can't be credited to the scientific advance in the west. There are several other components.

I think questioning is the second step in science. To start a theory or hypothesis one has to question. Why is the rainbow with multiple colors, what causes the rainbow? That's how theories starts. It's still fundamental.

And as I mentioned before, no one can be all skeptic or all zombie. It depend on subject matter and vary by degree. And thus, if you look closely at the western countries, you can see that these people are no better skeptics than Muslims, they're also zombies in certain subjects including history and politics.

Yes ofcos there are still zombies in the west but the west are far more developed because they're scientific inclined and relevant for centuries till date.

Alright. Every argument boils down to some philosophy at the end of the day. Even simple arguments like "Who should do the dishes?"

True but in this case I'm talking about the religious aspect of philosophy.

Define delusion then. There are some kinds delusions associated with religious folks, but everyone really suffer delusion.

Delusion : A delusion is a firm and fixed belief based on inadequate grounds not amenable to rational argument or evidence to contrary, not in sync with regional, cultural and educational background.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

Delusion : an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
Source: Google

Every humans aren't perfect,. Imperfect me tries to question any new information or experience and try to rationalize it, there are some set of people that believes anything pertaining their beliefs cannot be questioned.

Let's define zombeism for the sake of clarity. Zombiesm is basically accepting and living by ideas without scrutinizing them for accuracy.

Ok, you got the definition right.

Just rejecting claims of Muhammad flying on horses and seeing angels don't make you a skeptic. And accepting such claims don't necessarily makes you a zombie. Regardless of your conclusion, you are zombie if you didn't scrutinize the claims and you're skeptic if you did.

A Christian can reject Muhammad rode on a flying donkey and term it false and believe Jesus walked on water or levitate to the sky, that's delusion and irrational except such Christian can demonstrate why one is true and the other isn't true. This argument is usually goes In circles, sentiments, hypocrisy.

A skeptic won't believe in any until it's proven.

Now, as to my statement; "Everyone is both skeptic and zombie to varying extent depending on the subject." This is a response to the question of whether a person can be skeptic on all philosophic issues. As for individual philosophic issues like whether Muhammad did see angels and fly on horses, I agree that you can either be skeptic or zombie, not both.

Ok.

OK, your assumption is this; Anyone who still bear religious beliefs haven't questioned such beliefs, and is thus a zombie.

It's not an assumption, it's a doctrine in the belief especially the Abrahamic. You can't question Allah nor his Prophets.

That is not true. All skeptics do not share the same conclusion on a particular subject. If you want to argue about the evidence, don't forget that skeptic have different standard for evidence. What doesn't pass as evidence for you, may pass for another skeptic.

The question you should ask is what is evidence?

budaatum:

But those so called myths in the book were most definitely not "obviously empirical evidence to the people in the stories", since nothing can be obvious to the people in the story who themselves would be mythical, or at least some of what's written about them must be mythical, like Zeus and Aphrodite and GoT, for instance.

But lets say the sea actual splits before me, or the sun stands still or I and everyone see a chariot come down from the sky, I'm sure we'd investigate before coming to conclussion especially since our diverse human natures would make us all describe what we saw differently. I mean, I for one would wonder if my drink had been spiked so I lost track of time and dreamed an aeroplane was a chariot, while some will likely fall to the ground and shout "miracle", or "angels", or "aliens".

Claiming "supernatural existence" would indicate how shallow I reason, is what I think, and would strongly advice myself to stop being so stupidly lazy and use my brain more.

Sigh Okay.

budaatum:

My point is, have you wondered why you call "strong evidence" the contents of a book that you refer to as mythical?

I was assuming if the myths in the book which obviously is an empirical evidence to the people in the stories were to be done today. Imagine how very convincing I would be that there is a supernatural existence.

budaatum:

Split the sea, or stand still the sun, make everyone see a chariot come down from the sky first before asking what would happen, would be the more logical process of thought here before asking what would happen, tingz, don't you think? Its what I would think.

But anyway, let's say I read in a mythical book (or any book, and I must say Game of Thrones which I recently finished is a mythical series I enjoyed), that the sea was split and the sun stood still and a chariot came down from the sky, you call that "strong evidence displayed"? "Strong evidence displayed" for what exactly, that I am stupid and gullible and ignorant about "evidence" and blatantly refuse to use my eyes and my own mind to seek for proper blatant evidence?

If so, I 100% agree, because that is what would be evident to me if you call a mythical book with stories that the sea was split and the sun stood still and a chariot came down from the sky, "strong evidence displayed" before you. Just imagine if I did the same with GoT!

Please note that while I play along with your use of the word "mythical", it is not a word I use to define Scripture, but if it is mythical, it should be read mythically, and not literally, which is the error you seem to be pointing out some do make. I am glad you do not.

Do also note that another way to read such texts is mystically, as in in recognition that that which we read today was written in the past by those who did not have the access we have to cross references and what they wrote has gone through rewrites, translations, corruption, etc over the centuries such that it has become mystified, as in whatever might have originally been meant might have been miswritten, hidden away, lost or simply beyond the capacity to be understood by most.

What's your point here?

usermane:
No. I think Muhammad as an ordinary man could pass for the 7th century. But as a man of God, it just dont make sense any way you look at it.

Thank you.

Xmuslim:


I wish you good luck in your Islamic journey

Budaatum anti-spam bot is banning me and hidden my post. I'm suspecting someone is doing it.

So I won't bother responding, so maybe in another thread.

Xmuslim sorry this isn't for you tho.

budaatum:

Perhaps because people can not 'see', in the sense that they lack the ability to understanding and to actually comprehend what they see.

I'm absolutely certain that if I tell you I have evidence "some God told me to take a knife and sacrifice my child to it" you'd call police on my stupid ass!

Kind of makes it a good thing God doesn't intervene today, I think.

What would happen if someone divide a sea today after praying to his god?

Or what would happen if the sun stand still for days?

Or what would happen if a flying chariot came down from the sky? And everyone sees it?

Aren't this strong evidences displayed to the people in these mythical books?

usermane:


You have to be both. You can't be either skeptic or zombie. The real question is to what extent should zombieism and skepticism be exercised?

You can be a skeptic without being a zombie. The concept of skepticism in philosophy and science is to question, doubt everything before concluding on a matter.

So maybe you should tell us better why someone has to be both?

True, but it is more complicated than mere skepticism though. Just being skeptic of religion won't make a nation progress. Developing scientifically is an entire mindset that is much broader than mere tendency to question everything.

The fundamental principles in science is to question, without questioning the science is meaningless.

The idea of science is logical.

It seem his promotion of zombiesm is restricted to Islam. I don't think otherwise. A lot of Muslims only question and challenge ideas outside of Islam.

Which is the reason why it's still zombiesm. A skeptic question everything even his own beliefs which is not what he encourage.

Skepticism in my context is about philosophical arguments.

True in part, but is not religion per se, it is any individual fixation or obsession that cultivate delusion. So, even non-religious people suffer delusion. We all do.

Ofcos some non-religous people suffer delusion too. The majority people that shows a delusional symptoms are Religious people.

OK. I already answered this question. I think everyone is both skeptic and zombie to varying extent depending on the subject. Zombiesm is also a necessary primer for skepticism.

Again, my topic is about philosophical matter.

If one can be skeptical if Buhari went to school why can't one be skeptical if Muhammad received revelation from his god?

I asked him, would you believe me if I told you I saw a winged green flying rabbit? He said no that I'm likely psychotic and then I asked him was Muhammad psychotic when he saw angels and rode of flying donkey? He said no. You see the problems with his reasoning?

So the point of my topic is philosophical base.

What I want to now point out is the practical problem with this question. No one consciously choose not to be zombie. Most religious people will tell you they're not zombies and that they have questioned and verified their faith and scripture thoroughly to attain certainty. Your skepticism on a subject is a product of your nature and nuture.

Peace.

Nah. If you read more of philosophy you would see there are many holes when it comes to "God" a supernatural being. Till date there are still philosophical debates among religious people and non-religous people. This shows there's no objective conviction in the matter of religion, god, supernatural, truth, morality, purpose, etc.

So how did "most" religious people verified their faith to attain certainty? Can they demonstrate this logically and evidentially in an objective level?

If this is true then there should be religion or world view that has to be objectively true and there won't be need for philosophical questions as there's an answer, so which is the true Religion here?

gensteejay:

You don't even understand Arabic and can't read Qur'an, except merely cherrypicking a handful of quranic verses in English to support your uninformed opinion about a religion you've never practised.

I said that because most of the things you're saying on this thread can only come someone with shallow knowledge about Sharia, Qur'an, and Sunnah.

You can't simply understand Islam like someone like OP that practised (practice against the theoretical knowledge you've) the religion for years or for someone like me that practised it for 30 years before eventually applying tests of logic and scrutiny to it.

You're even a follower (worshipper) of Jesus Christ. Lols and you're commenting about Islam, a religion you've never practised.

You can't even read Qur'an. That's a big joke.

You've no idea about what you've been saying on this thread. It's so glaring.

I'm sure you're merely joking around on this thread.

You don't discuss Islam without citing facts to back your claims from Qur'an and haadith.

You've been merely giving your opinion about Islamic concepts ignorantly. Even Sunni Muslims (Ahlu Sunnah) would laugh at your ignorance on this thread.

Please, stop commenting on a religion you've never practised.

Having practical knowledge about things (especially knowledge of Arabic) is different from merely checking a few things about Islam on Google to argue on Nairaland and cherrypicking few parts from Qur'an to support your ill-informed thoughts about Islam.

No true Muslim cherrypicks few parts of Qur'an and ignore the rest.

You don't even have the aqeedah (creed) required for a (Sunni) Muslim. I guess you need to start from the 6 articles of faith in Islam first because your comments on this thread show you don't even know any of those (hence, your love to cherrypick few parts of Qur'an that appeal to you).

You just said everything I've been trying to tell Budaatum.

budaatum:

Did the religion kill apostates, homosexual, adulterers, non-believers etc, or did religious people kill "apostates, homosexual, adulterers, non-believers etc", or do those distinctions not matter to you?

Religion commands Religionists to kill apostates, homosexuals, adulterers, non-believers.

You fail to recognise that society forms its religion. That people in a society come together to say, "this is our God", and will diligently pass it down to their descendents until people like you open your eyes and demand change which forms the next starting and learning point. Bluntly speaking, you are the next Prophet. You just don't see it yet.

Ok, the society came together to form religion? At what time?

Some are religious, tingtingz. Some animals will religiously return to give birth at the same waterhole at the same time every year. Elephants are known to have a graveyard. You perhaps need to pick up a Sociology or Anthropology book.

C.f. Religious behavior in animals

The article didn't show any evidence that animals are Religious, infact it says there's no evidence in the beginning of the article.

Ok let me grant this for argument sake, according to you animals and humans just evolve and started being Religious, is that your argument?

No it is not a fact! The disaster in the world was not done by religion even when religion was used to do it. You will never blame the knife for stabbing you in the back so why blame religion for what some humans do with it? Is the religion the responsible agent, and not the human.

What is a fact is humans have adopted religion as one of their tools to inflict "disasters in the world", but even still, more good than bad has come out of the reading of the Scripture itself and the human race would have been worse off without it.

Ok. No where Religion (Abrahamic) commands the adherents to kill non-believers, apostates, LGBT?

budaatum:

Yes, tintingz. We are presenting our understandings, discussing, arguing, debating, hoping to reach that which Allah trully Wills with the brains that are inside of our heads.

That, is my understanding of Islam.

You didn't answer the two questions I asked.

budaatum:

My point is that you are attacking Islam for the errors of some, even the many I'd admit, that Islam is precisely meant to cure.

Take you two. Both of you were Muslims, and I can see at least Xmuslim read the books, but it seems the two of you were brought up on what Xmuslim describes as Sunni Islam and you both rebel against such nonsense as you rightly should, but unfortunately, since your version of Sunni Islam is all you know, you both dump on the whole religion which you mischaracterise.

As you know, I am not a Muslim and don't care if Allah existed or not. But the Scripture itself does exist, so instead of bothering about some Allah I can't see and letting three generations of pious predecessors brainwash my head, which by the way is the ignorant belief that makes some strap bombs to their waist, I can at least get a proper understanding of the Scripture I see in front of me.

The issue you have with Islam is actually a particular misunderstanding of the Quran that promotes the error of literalism. If those who think that way were honest or not ignorant they'd admit that there was no way a 20th century Nigerian, for instance, can possibly know the literal meaning of an 8th century Arabic book. But instead of embracing your own 20th century understanding, you focus on the only understanding you were indoctrinated into and know to be false and thereby sadly throw away the water and the baby.

We've been over this tingtingz. And thanks for the compliments. I wouldn't discuss with you if you were otherwise and will not rest until you see my point, for that is Islam. It cures unseeing. And your eyes already work.

Ok. Do you understand Islam?

Is Islam doctrines free of barbaric practices?

Let's discuss maybe we will learn from each other.

They should face the law and know how it feels when they Inflict pains on fellow human.

Xmuslim:
you need to understand the basics of Islam before going further into it.

First, you need to follow Qur'an (verbatim)

Second, you need to follow authentic hadith

Third, you need to follow the above two based on the understanding of the pious predecessors (I.e the first three generations of Muslims)

If you follow all the above. You will do as the scripture says. You won't act otherwise, and that's the Islamic (sunni Islam) definition of righteousness/piety.


Note: I discourage the above because I believe such scriptures cannot be from God(if he exist)

I know Buda to be an intelligent person but sometimes he ignore some basic facts just to argue. After he's shown references he still ignores it and argue another thing for you.

I don't know if this is deliberate or he is Ignorant in this aspect. Budaatum I respect you, what exactly is your argument?

budaatum:

Please show me one religion that does not discourage killing, or stealing!

I doubt you'd see the error in your thinking. Are religions meant to fall down from heaven before humans create them with their minds?

Killing of apostates, homosexual, adulterers, non-believers etc do religion(some) do/did it or not?

Shows how little you think. One of the oldest religious rites is the burial of the dead since humans tend to have a difficulty just throwing dead bodies away. Go check how long humans have been performing religious rites for their dead!

Ok, so right from when homos evolved, they've been religious? They're naturally being Religious, no starting and learning point?

Which makes me ask, why aren't animals Religious? I know you're intelligent Buda but You need to pick up a biology book.

Like everything, there is the good and the bad, which is the exact teaching of religions, so you may learn the difference between the two, but you can't seem to tell the difference for obvious reasons.

I feel the dare posed in this thread might interest you.

I have not said Religion doesn't have good teachings, I said we can't deny Religion is "part" of the disasters in world history. It's a fact.

You're the one making up arguing for me. Go back and read my previous post.

budaatum:

Could you point to any of these that did not happen before people took on religion? For instance, was there pre-religion slavery or not, was there pre-apostate killing or not and so on.

As an aside. There really was never a time when people did not have a religion. Reference is here.

1. If there was no religion before people took it up, religion still did the above listed and not discouraged it.

2. If there has always been a religion(i dont think it is the case as there would be a TIME religion started), this still support what i said.

Religion(no all) did bad things in the past and we are still seeing some effect till date.

AntiChristian:


Big lie!

Why do you have to lie like this?

He is not lying. Many muslims out there dont know how Muhammed died, they dont say it. Even when i was a muslim i never knew earlier how he died because we were never told even in arabic schools. Muhammed ate a food that was poisoned although he lived few years after eating the poisoned food and he was sick.

Christian children knows how Jesus died they are taught in bible schools, ask any muslim kid how Muhammed died and see your response, i bet you wont get answers.

budaatum:

Care telling me the disasters in the world that you blame on religion?

1. Slavery
2. Apostates execution
3. Witch killing
4. Invades and conquest
5. Subdued Women
6. Terrorism
7. LGBT killings
Etc

sino:
@tintingz,

Your "heart of disbelief" has been adequately established by your responses and duly noted. Thank you.

Well, Read and learn mister. Your "heart of belief" is hokum.

Wake up from your zombiesm.
https://www.nairaland.com/5978597/skepticism-vs-zombiesm-which-good

budaatum:

Basically, he is wrongly blaming religion for ignorance that predates it.

I hope he sees.

No, he's not wrong blaming Religion. We can't deny Religion isn't part of the disasters in the world history.

IMAliyu:

This as well.
I'd say it's something characteristic to any ideology, religious or areligious.
Something like the communist ideology seemed to had a similar thing going on.

True.

The communists ideology(especially the past) can be categorize under Religion. They have the quality of religion, a cult.