3. Blacks' Lack of Community Ambition

If you ask, say Europeans what they hope to accomplish by 2030, they may speak of cure to certain diseases like HIV or renewable energy. If you ask blacks the same question, the response won't be as interesting.

Nations and tribes that are/have a civilization care to preserve, innovate and build upon their community to sustain and carry on their civilization to future generation. Black people don't do any of these. You look at the state of poverty, disease and ignorance in large swath of sub-saharan Africa today and you wonder how any civilization could let itself deteriorate to such an extent.

1. Blacks' Lack of Historical Literature

What relevant literature from ancient black empires or kingdoms do blacks posses today? Name one? A hallmark of civilizations are their surviving classical texts or records. Such literature are relatively scarce among blacks, if not absent.

2. Blacks' Lack of Historical Figures

Mention black philosophers or scientists like Aristotle or Mendel? You most probably can't. Civilizations often have these kinds of individuals among their ancestors.

When we speak of civilization in literal term, you may define it as any settlement - hamlet, village, small town etc. In that case, of course, blacks have a civilization. But you talk civilization in terms of economic power, scientific and technological advances in current or previous era, then blacks as I explained, don't have a civilization.

If you're reading this post, you might have been told that blacks have or had a prestigious civilization, that have been overlooked by western scholars or were raided and destroyed by European and Arab invasion. In the following paragraphs, I'll present several evidences to the contrary.

Happy Independence Day!

In my previous posts, I wrote at length that Black people do not have a civilization. And I got a bunch of detractors.

Blacks Don't Have a Civilization

Blacks Don't Have a Civilization 2.0

Actually this thread should've been titled, "There is no such thing as Morality." Since, at the end of the day, there does not exist an objective frame of reference for deciding right and wrong. And even religion is not an objective frame of reference.

But that said, at least religion offers the only frame of reference for morality that is consistent and has been unanimously trusted for ages. Which brings me to the reason for this thread.

The opponents of religions often say that we don't need religion or revelations to decide right from wrong, and that all we need is Reason and Empathy. For instance, they may say that "We know intuitively that murder or theft is wrong, without reading the 10 commandments."

So, the atheists or deists assume that in absence of religion, a form of moral unity may be attained by a population of humans based upon reason and empathy. And this is deeply flawed.

Reason isn't consistent, let alone objective outside the laboratories of natural sciences. For instance, is it moral or immoral for a destitute, homeless, 3 weeks pregnant woman to abort her fetus? Human reason is severely limited by experience and intelligence.

Empathy is deeply subjective because it is hampered by mood, emotion and most importantly, your sensitivity. For instance, why is killing an innocent person immoral, but killing a sheep moral?

So, where then is morality derived? One that is consistent and least subjective. It derives from an authority, such as the word of God - the scriptures. This is where religion comes in.

In the end, religion don't offer an ideal or accurate moral system, but neither does atheism. What is respectable about religion is the unanimity on moral issues it brings about, which becomes a stepping stone for an harmonious society.

budaatum:

Actually, its because people can not reason for themselves and are programmed to be theists by their parents, which is obvious by the mere fact that the theistic god one subscribes to is usually the one inherited from one's parents.

No. Atheists are not minority because theists children refuse to reason. They're minority because they can't organize themselves as theists do.

Thankfully, Mohammed was atheistic to his parent's beliefs or the religion he promoted would have been about the idols his parent's worshipped

How do you know that? Qur'an simply stated that he started out misguided.

budaatum:

So, its not because throughout history people have been condemned and killed if they refused to worship the gods of their community?

Please read and digest the paragraph properly. It doesn't seem like you understand the point I'm making.

I suggest you learn about Jesus Christ and Socrates, both who were atheistic to the religion of their day and were murdered because of it. Most would abandon their difference of opinion rather than die for their beliefs.

OK. So why are you saying all this? Why so suddenly confrontational? Because you don't like the cold harsh facts I presented in a previous thread about the Black people, isn't it? I suspect because you left this comment only after leaving an aggrieved comment on that particular thread.

If you're not happy with one of my views, that's fine. But check your feelings, and don't bear grudges.

tintingz:
I hope you're not trying to commit argumentum ad populum fallacy?

Why are Atheists minority?

1. First of all we know humans want hope, they want quick answers to everything that's where Religions comes in it gives that delusory hope, like Karl Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people".

2. Religion was created to control the society with beliefs, in the past Religion was the standard for ruling a community, everyone depends on the leader spirituality, gods etc. Now Religion has been separated from the state in almost all the country. So Religion was a good tool hold the society in the past.

Well, you were the one that implied atheist don't have or never had a civilization because they have always been scanty. And I'm explaining why they're scanty to begin with. Given the context, I'm not appealing to any fallacy here.

3. Why are theists majority? We can see from the past campaign how some Religion was spread via conquests and invasion.

OK? Majority of those conquered by religious invaders were not atheists, but by far mostly theists of a different religion from their invaders. You can counter that theists force their religion on atheists, and I won't disagree with you, but keep in mind, if atheists organize themselves as a collective unit, they'd be able to resist the theist from bullying them out of theism. But we know this never happens because atheism in itself won't allow atheist to organize themselves as theists do.

4. Why are Atheists minority? Well Atheism only has one position which is "lack of belief in god or gods" that's all, there's no priest nor scripture Atheists follow, there are no rituals nor doctrines, what most Atheists affiliated with is humanism and other philosophical ideology.

We seem to agree on this. Except that I see it as a limitation of atheism that prevent atheists from founding or building civilization, while you see nothing wrong with it and assume atheism can build a civilization notwithstanding.

5. Yes Religion creates a community, bringing people together and indoctrinate them with different practices and fear, it also causes disasters in history.

There is good and bad to everything. But even then, you think only religion indoctrinates people with practices and fears? Don't you see that those disasters are part of human nature and with or without religion, we'd have disasters?

today more people are becoming irreligious according to a stats

Of course. But some of them are returning back to religion as well. Last year I resolved that the Qur'an was not perfect enough as the Book of Life. I grew disillusioned with religion and found appeal in anti-religion, but it didn't last. Things are too grey even at this point to easily write off religion as it is.

6. The idea that Atheists can't build civilization is false, the humanists movement are filled with heretics, irreligious people that want better well being for humanity using scientific evidence, reasoning, knowledge etc.

OK. We hope to see them build a civilization from the grassroots. To be pragmatic though, humanism is nothing new. It is hard to be optimistic when the humanists had over 5000 years to achieve this, but they never did. What has worked in organizing communities that would later evolve over generations to civilization, was religion.

Knowledge and science can't answer every question. And how we interpret scientific revelation may differ from person to person. Here is a pinch test, what is the humanist position on the legality of abortion? What about addressing poverty?

China is not even a Religious state but Atheist state and they're unified, developing and inventing new technology.

China only became officially atheist about mid twentieth century with the communist revolution. But Chinese masses are not practically atheists and are deeply spiritual though they ascribe to milder and less prescriptive form of religions like Buddhism, Confuscianism and Taoism. The foundation of modern China is the Qing dyansty, which wasn't atheist.

Today most countries use secularism system to govern the society and not theocracy. So I still haven't gotten your whole point.

Ironically you didn't get my point. Before the contemporary civilizations or countries began to govern by secularism, they had to organize themselves with religion. It's like the American civilization of our time. The US is a secular country today, but the US wasn't born yesterday. The original founders of the US who established the communities that would later mature into the civilization it is today were Trinitarian Protestant Christians.

Humanism can achieve this without Religion infact I find humanism way better than Religion. If humanism was promoted very early the world would have dropped many barbaric and unreasonable practices.

Humanism wasn't born yesterday. And, all religions we know of were attempt at humanism, aside the fact that they are ascribed to "God". Now we can't really be certain that humanism wasn't promoted early. Perhaps it did, but it either didn't appeal to the people or it failed to live up to the expectations at the time, and thus it simply died out.

AbdulSleeky:




Let me counter your arguments with simple points.

1. For most of human history, humans were barbaric and animalistic. That religion has been with us since human history shows that it came from a time when humans were backwards.

OK? But there has always been atheism. It came from the same prehistoric time as theism.

2. With the industrial/enligtenment age came secularism. An age that involved rapid development in science, philosophy and technology.

OK. As long as you distinguish secularism from atheism or irreligion, they're not the same.

3. Intelligent people are also a minority in any human society. Atheism being a minority is not something to be worried about.

First, I hope you are not interchanging atheism and intelligence?! Atheist being an unorganized, individualistic minority is somewhat something to be worried about in the context of founding a civilization. Otherwise, I get your point.

4. Intelligent people do not always get to be presidents/kings/prime ministers. That position usually goes to the most evil, powerful, charismatic or murderous person. There is no civilization without war, bloodshed and propaganda.

You're conflating atheism with intelligence.

5. Religion is the best and simplest form of control for human beings. It is harder to govern and control with the truth.

OK.

With these 5 points in mind, religion coexisting with so many civilizations is not a positive for religion.

How? Religion didn't just co-exist with these civilizations. Whether you speak of contemporary civilizations like the US or ancient like the Abbasid Empire. It played a huge part in unity and order in these civilizations, particularly among the earlier generations that laid the foundations upon which later generations would thrive.

AbdulSleeky:
Even till this present day, atheists are a minority.

How do you expect a minority to build a civilisation? A minority in almost every nation in history.

The only countries that even presently have a majority of atheists are Japan, China, South Korea, Germany Sweden. All highly developed countries.

tintingz:
Usermane, there's fault in your post.

First of all in history Atheists and non-religous people are minority in the past, infact I would say non-religous people were 1%. Almost every field were dominated by Religious people, so who else will develop civilization?

OK. So why are atheists minority? You two ever considered this? It is because atheism as a mindset doesn't favor community growth.

Theism proactively build and sustain communities through daily or weekly congregational worship, annual festivals and rites like pilgrimage, special protection and privileges for members only. These things not only strengthen the bonds among the believers, but it attracts non-believers to join them.

Another thing, theists promote early marriage and raising as much children as possible as a means to expand their population. Atheists are less likelier to marry or have children than theists. So, that atheists are relatively so few is even more of a symptom of the inherent drawback of atheism, not an explanation for why they don't build civilization.

Secondly Religion didn't develop civilization, it's skepticism which led to science that developed civilization, yes many of them were religious and theists but they didn't brought about civilization because of their Religious status or beliefs. The ancient Greek scholars even tho some believed in the Gods but they were skeptics and heretics.

Religion as a whole is not even the problem, it's the ridiculous doctrines that's the problem. Imagine believing the gods cause diseases or earthquake, how will science develop from this belief?

I didn't say that religion built civilization, I said religion organizes communities which later develop to form civilization. Civilization are built upon intelligence and hard work, not mere skepticism. Skepticism is a product of intelligence and intelligence is a product of genetics.

For intelligent minds to thrive and bring about any development, there is need for an organized society with order and decorum maintained through a legal system, which for much of history is religion.

IMAliyu:
As I've come to understand the evolutionary origins of religion.

It's like you've pointed out, we are communal creatures and religion is something of an extension of our communal nature, and working together under a disembodied unifying concept or idea is what builds a civilization. Religion had been the concept that has worked for past civilizations. In modern times ideas such as utopianism, liberalism, fascism, communism have contended for that spot with varying success.
Here is how I look at it. If religion didn't serve some evolutionary purpose it wouldn't exist or had survived to this day. Something like a meme(in the Richard Dawkins meaning) or a Jungian archetype.

Just like not everyone has the same temperament, some being high in openness, creativity and some being highly conservative and that's just part of our nature. The two work to moderate each other.
I see Atheism and theism in something of the same light. The two have to exist because they serve a purpose, it's like the atheists exist to moderate to the theists and the society from being swallowed up by their own doctrine and being enslaved by it, and theism is something that keeps nihilism at bay and passes down past wisdom.

I could keep on writing my thoughts surrounding atheism and theism, but let me get to the point and address the topic.
Atheist and areligious people are more often individualistic in nature and not tribal/group minded (which isn't a bad thing), it's a state of a lack of belief or faith in something and you wouldn't really unify individualistic people to work together under a lack of a belief would you?

There isn't much of a unifying ideal in atheism.
Although modern Atheism seeks to remedy this, by integration of philosophy such as secular humanism.

So my own thought is this just like how highly open and creative people come up with innovative ideas and start new industries, but need highly conscientious and conservative people to run them in a lasting manner.
This is the relationship between theism and atheism. Atheism doesn't build a civilization, because it's not its place to, while Theism has the ability to, but for the that civilization to make any sort of progress and not stagnate a reasonable amount of skepticism(not necessarily atheism, but similar enough) is needed. Just like the Greeks and their philosophers, Middle age Muslims, and the Post-renaissance West.
Same goes for the reason the Muslim world is lagging behind in the modern age. Islam and it's all encompassing nature has prevented a right balance from forming.

And I'm not a believer in the "If everyone leaves religion, humanity would be better off" in Fredrik Neitzsche's infamous line of "God is dead.. We have killed him" which implied that the search for truth through science had resulted in elimination of the possibility God (you could argue against this if you wish), also came with a warning of sorts "... How shall we comfort ourselves, ...Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" To put simply, we will have to create something to fill the void which religion leaves and we can't be sure that what feels that void will not be worse than previous religions. E.g. 20th century fascism and communism. With about 100million deaths in the span of 31 years in Europe, not counting Mao's China.

I absolutely agree. Well said.

DuBLINGreenb:
!slam didn't build anything they stole, plundered and jihaded their way through history and claimed cultures they met as theirs

Example is Constantinople or modern day turkey, the Christians had already built it up it was one of the valuable cites of Christianity especially Coptic Christians the !s/amists killed them and took it over

Till today we see them taking over churches like the Hagia Sophia, a Coptic Christian church that is actually older than Moha. And !$lam today it has been converted to mosque I can list many

The oldest university in Africa has a Muslim name today and people claim Islam brought it but that's not true the university was built before Islam reached Africa

Even words like shalom that is Hebrew/Jewish, !$lam turned it to Salam and claimed it whereas Christians still use it as shalom and acknowledge its Jewish origin.

In Mali the !$lamists are changing ancient history to make it look like !slam is the cause of everything good that happened in ancient Mali when it's not true and infact it is the cause of the insurgency all over the sahel region


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dacIWFvhKbA

But it wasn't atheists and irreligious folks that built those things Islam stole. So your point is off topic. Just name one civilization or empire in history built by an atheist community.

When you observe atheists and anti-religious people in general, they seem really impressive. They're are spot on in their assertion that religious texts or scriptures are factually erroneous, that the Problem of Evil is real, and that at the end of the day God's existence can't be objectively proven to the fullest - hence the terms "faith" or "belief" have come to be favored by theists.

So the problem with atheism or non-religion isn't that is is wrong. It is that it misses the point and purpose of God and religion. Religion is often slagged as irrational and fruitless endeavor. This seem true on the surface, but it is deeply flawed.

As bad or futile religion may seem, it served as the bedrock for all ancient and contemporary civilizations - the Sumerians, Egyptians, Greco-Romans, Persians, Byzantines, Abbasids, Ottomans, British and Americans. Atheism and irreligion created no similar civilization, at least that we know of. And it is easy to see why.

Civilizations are built from communities - a collection of people or tribes with near similar view on how to live and deal with others. These similar views are defined as 'religion or cultural traditions'. The more similar or common the views among a group of people, the more united and cohesive they stand as a community.

Unity and Cohesion is the minimum foundation upon which a community evolve into a successful civilization. And here the limitation of atheism comes to view. Unlike religion, atheism lack a default set of beliefs, doctrines and laws upon which people in agreement may unite and organize into
cohesive communities.

So when atheists say that humanity will be better off in future without religion, they're speaking out of context. For as long as there has been theists, there have been atheists. But unlike theists, atheist never built any civilization, and have remained just a negligible minority in civilizations built by theists.

Peace.

budaatum:

That last paragraph encapsules my reason for being in the religious section. Ex-muslims and Christians mischaracterize the contents of the Quran and Bible then yell strawman when one disagree with their misunderstanding, but enlightened one's like you would eventually appear.

Tingz accuses me of insulting Muslims without realising its his own ignorance I am actually insulting for claiming to promote sceptism without realising he is not sceptical about his own supposed absolute knowledge, or, ignorance, to be precise, which makes him the zombie, though he'd not see he is. I can bet money on the fact that he'd completely miss the verses you quote above promoting sceptism, and claim Islam promotes zombeism. He does not see that the Quran is made the Word of God only if properly understood, otherwise it is the word of satan.

They can only be educated, I guess, though their actual learning is entirely up to them.

As for you, Allah continues to grow you in knowledge and wisdom, I see. For, I was going to repost mine you quoted hoping Tingz would get my point. But you've gone and done it for me with additions I knew not to include.

"the Quran is made the Word of God only if properly understood"?

WTH?

You're playing a very nasty game. What is the proper understanding of the Qur'an? Every Muslim have their own 'proper understanding' of Qur'an.

tintingz:


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

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.

If muslims become philosophical skeptics i bet you most will 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 west knowledge who are dominating science today.

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

budaatum:

I can't see how this can be true, and think you say so because you are unaware of the paradigm shifts that skeptism has caused in Islam since its beginning.

A skeptic who questions by applying the senses (the scientific method), will come to conclusions most couldn't believe even if they wanted to, and would be the wiser for it.

Taqī ad-Dīn Aḥmad ibn Taymiyyah (January 22, 1263 - September 26, 1328), was a Muslim Skeptic. Here's a book you might want to consider on the topic. Sorry I can't find a free pdf, but I found this shed some light despite its anti-skeptic beginning.

We're talking about the present, not the past. Intelligence and diligence are the keys to scientific development. The skepticism you keep referring is product of intelligence.

budaatum:

In "any way"?

This is the 21st century with people in it who are aware of all that has happened since then which an angel would know before leaving heaven to command the Mohammed of today.

With that in mind, start from Gabriel coming from wherever Gabriel would be coming from today.

What do you think Gabriel would say to a 21st century Mohammed?

I do not know. I'm no longer convinced that a Man named Muhammad met an angel in the 7th century.

tintingz:
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 testeid severally and details are given. And in medics patients are allowed to ask questions. So I don't know how this is zombiesm?

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.

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.

OK.

Yes of cos 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

The question you should ask is what is evidence?

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?

tintingz:
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?

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"?

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.

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

The idea of science is logical.

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.

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.

Skepticism in my context is about philosophical arguments.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

tintingz:
Like Fela Kuti once said "Zombie O Zombie". People who follow follow without any doubt or questioning are called zombies, this zombiesm exist among Muslims.

Islam is base on faith and beliefs and you shouldn't question the belief, you must follow everything the religion said, this is similar to cultism, in fact religion is cultism.

Now the question is, should one be a skeptic or zombie?

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?

Let's see

The great philosophers, physicists, scientists were skeptics, these people knowledge really have impacts on human civilization and knowledge, for there to be civilization and advancement in knowledge there has to be skepticism, questioning and doubts, these are the fundamental principles in science and philosophy.

Agreed.

Even the medieval Muslims that contributed to science were skeptics as they love the ancient Greeks works and they worked on it but at a point in history the Muslim community had problem with this ideology(as it conflicted their faith) and the era of the Muslim scientists ended, the Europeans took up this movement till date and they're far more developed today. Many modern research comes from the west, why? Because they're skeptics, they question things and do research on it.

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.

I once argued with a Muslim(a pro zombiesm) who believes skepticism is bad and can even make one go psychotic(if I could remember), he claim being skeptic can make one insane. Well I won't say he was completely wrong, people may develop mental problems trying to figure out a problem due to overused of the brain, the brain is like an engine that needs a break too. It's well known in the medics not to over stress your brain. So does that mean we should throw away education, science, philosophy? Definitely not.
Developing a mental issue can be a family history/genetic or your life style and personality, it does not negate the benefits of being a skeptic which we can see it good results around us.

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.

Study shows that religion is also linked to delusion, most religious people show symptoms of delusions.

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.

So should we follow his "Zombiesm" ideology?

Let's see,

Assuming everyone follows his "zombiesm" ideology can there be any development in intelligence, knowledge, society etc? Definitely not, one will be contented with whatever he/she is indoctrinated with or taught.

For example, I told you unicorns cause the rain to fall and leprechauns makes the rainbow, I claim this is the truth, someone who doesn't question nor skeptical will just accept this as true and that's it, no doubts to propose a research, this is something he will believe and hold to even if you show him evidence.

This ideology above is very bad and shouldn't be encourage.

I watched a video today where a woman bought watermelon and it burst itself like explode(not the bomb explosion type). She then started praying and saying it's the work of her enemy. I was so curious on what could happen to the watermelon to explode itself, then I did a research and found out watermelon has "explosive gene" and another cause is the chemical used to fertilized the watermelon. I also discovered that this has happened to many people like farmers. Now if I'm with the ideology of not being skeptical, I would believe it's some kind of an enemy attack and be a superstitious zombie.

So in conclusion, the ideology of not questioning and doubting is a very bad ideology which should never be encouraged, in philosophy there's epistemology, ontology etc where it encourages questioning and being skeptical.

So should we follow skepticism or zombiesm, which ideology is good for human development?

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.

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.

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.

koonbey:


This question sounds like it's supposed to be a "gotcha", but it's just sophistry.

It's only an intelligent argument if you discount the fsct that African history was systematically dismantled, looted and abolished from common discourse and memory, to make way for Euro-centric perspectives which of course, were designed to support the notion that white people were superior.

Every tribal community lost aspects of their civilizations to natural disasters or conquerors.

koonbey:


Okay. Your logic is that Africans today can justifiably be mistreated because they their civilizations from centuries ago are not up to scratch in your eyes.... But Germans in 1944 were angels despite what they(some of them will certainly have been présent during the genocides) did 40 years earlier, in 1904.

Brilliant.

I never said German during Nazism were angels, I said that were less discriminatory than say US.

JUICYPINEAPPLE:


It is like saying because Blacks fought along side whites during the civil war North vs South in the U.S.A hence there was no segregation in America.

There was no segregation before the civil war. Your analogy is off.

Even when Adolf Hitler's, the Nazist impression of a Black man is a very clear one of racial Prejudice.

Jesse Owen reported Hitler saluted or waved him and he was not forced to the back of the bus. Still better than Roosevelt and America.

JUICYPINEAPPLE:


Yet you disagree with today's standard of calling such actions as barbaric but you agree to Blacks as not having a civilization by today's standard (your today's standard). You see how you keep swinging like a pendulum.

Even by the standard of the middle ages, blacks didn't have a civilization. So, you're the one confused here.

Where are the records of black advances in science and tech? Where are black Aristotle and Socrates?

olyrayy:


Bro. They were all racist. Personally though, I don't see racism as a bad thing. But, Germany was no less racist than their European counterparts. Unless you'll want to explain your post better.

I already explained in my other responses in this thread. There was no racial segregation in Nazi Germany.

koonbey:


Where did I say anything about Nazis?

I was speaking about colonialism, which is the context of the Namibian genocide that was referenced in the post I responded to. Wasn't that obvious?

Anyway, read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide

The Germans I address in my post were the ones during nazi regime. They were the ones that fought the Allied powers. They had nothing to do with Namibian Genocide

koonbey:


Where did I say anything about Nazis?

You were approving the comment on Nazis

koonbey:


Very key question.

Saying the Germans were less racist is as absurd as absurd as saying the shekau is less of a bigot than Bin laden. Same difference.

WTH. Nazis didn't commit the Namibian genocide. The Nazis had black soldiers, did not enforce segregation like the US.

JUICYPINEAPPLE:


Taking advantage of a so called primitive people doesn't in any way define a civilized people but of Barbarians my dear friend. The very reason why such intellectual as Oscar Wilde had to call a spade a spade.

To Oscar Wilde America doesn't have CIVILIZATION. Hahaha...very interesting perspective.

No. I disagree. It is only barbaric by today's standard. Go read about wars and empires in human history. The native Americans would've done the same if they were in the place of Europeans.

fieryy:


Wrong! Jews weren't the only one discriminated against, but also blacks, the disabled etc.
Afro-Germans did not only lose their passports during the Nazi regime, but also were not allowed to marry the 'Aryans' according to the Nuremberg Laws
In fact the so called 'Rhineland Bastards' had been forced to sterilisation.

Besides Germany also has an history of having controlling colonies, especially in the African Great Lakes region. The Afrikanisches Viertel in Berlin is a proof to this. Up till this date a lot of streets are still named after countries and locations tied to the German colonial empire. It had only been only after World War I, the Belgians, British and French took control of Germany's colonies.

So no Germany had definitely not been 'less discriminatory '.

You don't understand my post. I never said the Nazis didn't discriminate against blacks. The discrimination, relative to US, was less. For instance, Jesse Owens reported good relations with the Germans during the Olympics, better than he received on return to the US.

olyrayy:


Bro, have you heard of the genocide the Germans committed in Namimbia?

You don't understand my post. I was looking at it from the perspective of Panafrcan who assumed the Allied powers, were the real racist, rather than Germany.

JUICYPINEAPPLE:


Could the native Americans also be lacking in civilization and that was the reason for their extermination by 'CIVILIZED' people?

Yes, troll. Native Americans would've stood a better chance of defending themselves if they had some civilization. They became an easy target because they still lived in relatively primitive state and so whites took advantage.