₦airaland Forum

Logicboy03: Why do I doubt the truthfulness of your story?

I really don't know what they hope to achieve when they pull these tricks. Do they get heaven points for using such tactics?

And they'll ask how do I know the op isn't doing the same.

seriallink: His own decision & that looks normal & morally right to you right?

Is this not disgusting to you? With or without religion, this should be disgusting to any normal & right thinking human. Unless ofcourse, you guys are devil's incarnates in disguise

You forget that LOGICFIRE!? is devil incarnate agnostic. My morals, disgust, etc.... All these, irrelevant and/or opinions. One thing that matters is her happiness, and her opinions. She seems mighty happy to me, and the means she used to achieve this does not affect me, or anyone else (except maybe the people footing the bill) for that matter, in any single way. Or would you prefer she remained on suicide watch or live a lie just to placate your disgust?

And when you go off judging like that, it's akin to oyinbos of 100 years ago wandering how dare you get on a bus with them. Actually, didn't the black man in america get voting rights only in the 60's/70's? We have a very short memory, don't you think? Or people scolding you for having the temerity to be a christian. You might be the majority worldwide now but even so in some communities today, and if you turn back the clock say 1900 years and visited anywhere on this planet... Heck, it's akin to people hating on you because you're a vegetarian.

seriallink: ^^^Is this morally right? *Smh* Atheists & religious people what are your views?

Your holy ghost fire sword won't protect you from my wrath this time.

How in the world are the decisions s/he makes any your business, and what gives you the right to judge?


I'll ignore the fact that she's clearly much happier now, and had been pushing for a while without any outside influence. It was her own decision

okeyxyz: I seem to be popping in and out these days, thus taking quite sometime to reply, That's because i'm struggling to make enough time.



You make it sound as if there is absolute free will in any participation in a culture or institution but it is not so. Once you decide to join, then you must conform, else you are vilified/blacklisted/expelled etc. The way I see it, the only difference between brainwashing\indoctrination\mind-control and socialization is Label, simple. We'd been "brainwashed" to give a negative spin to one and a positive spin to the other.




like I said before, the differences are just moral connotations but underneath they all work by the same process of outlining\proving\assuming some fundamental 'truths' of which all your thoughts and actions are expected to conform to. Not that your argument are wrong, but what makes one 'indoctrination' and the other 'socialization' is just the degree of cultural acceptability or political correctness. I remember at one time in the west, homos.exuality was treated as a mental illness by academics and social institutions, but now that modern culture has embraced and even promotes it, it's treated as the most natural of evolutionary phenomena and a even a 'human right'. Yet they still criminalize polygamy, punishable with imprisonment, even when the participating adults are fully aware and consent to this form of relationship. How about patriotism? is that socialization or indoctrination?

Never mind time, I have to cut back on the time I spend here as well.

You're mixing up a couple of things. Everyone has to be socialized, this will include learning moral codes and their elements (though those have biological elements as well), etc. How one is socialized is what we are looking at. Indoctrination/brainwashing hides those choices and/or demands you don't question doctrine/dogma. I'll use education to represent socialization which leaves you with a choice.

In your first paragraph you say "once you decide to join", that is a choice, so not sure where you're going there, not relevant to indoctrination. Step back though to how you came to make the choice. Did you make an informed choice, were you forced into it (indoctrination), or were you subtly, purposely manipulated (brainwashing)? These are all different things.

So it's the same with patriotism, on its own it has nothing to do with indoctrination. How was attained though, does.

carefulme: You consider it "genocide" because you don't leave in their place and time.
if u existed in Arabia at the time of the prophet, you would most probably own a slave, see nothing wrong in cousin marriage and not consider the marriage of an adult to a minor "pedophilia"............At least, it has not been reported that he was addressed as such or as something similar........
.........i doubt it very much that his aforementioned act would be considered "genocide" too.............

....still typing....
It should be understood that the messenger of Allah was human...
......he once made mistake in his prayer,
.......in one instance, he was asked if his opinion was from Allah or from him.He answered, "from me"
......He once gave a suggestion to a man concerning his method of grafting(a form asexual reproduction in plant)...His idea didn't work out fine...
.......and if it had, most Muslims would have come forward with the usual claim of "miracle of the prophet"....


acknowledging this, it would not be too difficult to observe that the personality of the prophet is not much shielded from his cultural background prophet or no prophet....it should then be forgivable to say that some of his acts were purely cultural and can only be said to be right relative to his time.....

......You cant say for sure that he would do the same if he existed in our time....

Derail some more...

Are you willing to unequivocally admit some of the practices/tenets of islam are outdated?

Are you willing to admit the koran is not perfect?

Plurality and democracy, respect for human rights. Personally how far are you willing to go?



For all the above, in your opinion what percentage of the muslim world share your views? Note I am not expecting you to give liberal leaning answers. For instance a hypothetical answer could be 'I fully agree with the practice of child marriages (something most of the rest of the world disagrees with), I'd say 70% of muslims agree with me.'

Logicboy03: didnt realise what was going on.....


Muskeeto and Wiegraff, una dey craze

Heh heh, I was talking about someone else, but if i named him I might literally get my head cut off. So much for love in xtianity

What @muskeeto says is funny though

That was surreal
I've always thought a certain member had some sexuality issues

Evidence at last

okeyxyz: Bros, you can't hold two opposing positions. It's unnatural. You can't hold opinions as the bolded while at the same time advertising "A Fine Example Of Religious Tolerance" as you titled the thread. please let your nay be nay and your yah be yah.

I have told you you interpret things too concretely/literally and also noted your pedantry. You'll claim I'm being an a$$ when I say you should consider maybe aspergers, but I'm not. Again, IT IS NOT AN INSULT and there's NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING ONE. Are you good at math btw? Think of sheldon from big bang theory, do you have any of his traits?

Logicboy03:

Sarcasm is lost on some people.

I was wondering what that was about. That clears up a lot.

I suppose I should add a big 'SARCASM' to the title...

okeyxyz: Hmm.., every once in a while you let your closeted bigotry slip with posts like this. You like to present yourself as a well balanced, unaffected and objective atheist with respect for people of different creeds from yours.

I wonder why you put up this thread in the first place? Sure your intention was to promote the ideals of atheism or an ideal atheist while highlighting the evils of a christian who follows hers beliefs of a supposedly loving and forgiving god. But then you turn and make a mockery of this "good atheist", for trying to love her christian sister, while at the same time accusing christians as intolerant and perpetrators of evil. Why put up the thread when you know you are gonna turn around and stab the "good atheist" in the back? So you deride a "bad christian\moslem" but but also deride a good atheist? I'd rather you be like @logicboy who does not hide his disdain and aggression towards religious people, at least we know his position and know how to live with him, than to be a "green snake under the green grass".

I claim to be perfect? Where? If anything I'm rather proud of being immature, but that has nothing to do with this post, frankly. You have a huge bon.er for me, is all. Mayhaps I ji.zzed in your breakfast?

This is my stance on family that are intolerant because of religious beliefs, they are unconditionally eediots. Is that clear enough for you?

Logicboy03: Fellis, see what religion can do to the human mind?


An atheist is now a goat in the family.

You miss how the adult human's mind is now reasoning on the level of a goat's

Haters gonna hate btw

frosbel: Hypocrites, communism was and still is state sanctioned atheism, or why do you think that the first move they tend to make is the abolishment of religion.

You in particular shouldn't be using the word hypocrite. It doesn't help your case at all.

Logicboy03: Notice how f00028 can only point to communist regimes. Has he mentioned any democratic atheist or any atheist living in a non-communist regime? Doesnt that show that the violence had to do with the communist ideology rather than the atheism?

This to maybe aid your reasoning problems, since you seem to be having problems. I'm not sure you know what atheism is. Meh...

F00028: ps: you don't wanna start trading insults with me.

I already have you re.tard. And you still have comprehension issues. What did atheism have to do with their (terrible) murders? What was the motive of the killers?

fellis: My claim is not tenous, your claim that a lot of theists are morally corrupt is what is tenous seeing as how morality is subjective.

Your claims are still tenuous

Hmmm, I'd like to believe there were an objective, universal moral code, but if one's brutally honest that's just wishful thinking. It maybe also isn't practical in day to day dealings to assume there isn't one, but that depends on other things, particularly education and maturity. Maybe if we had picked a code, one based on natural evil, or suffering and basic human rights? Mayhaps the UN's, which most governments have signed on to, it being universally accepted. I would normally use this but....

The logic delightful, and I like me some good logic even if its implications are distasteful. Well played, good ser, well played. I'll let this one go, for now...

F00028: here's a word you should look up,
i r r e l e v a n t.

they are dead and atheist killed them!

if being an atheist doesn't stop you from becoming a mass murdering animal, stop pointing fingers at us Muslims.

mtcheeew!

How is that irrelevant, oh ret.arded one?

And islam encourages you to be a douche, but you've missed that either because you're brainwashed, dishonest, stoopid etc, or a combo of all. Pointing that out was one of the main points of the posts. Mayhaps you'd like diagrams, pictures, or maybe a miracle or two to aid your comprehension problems?

vedaxcool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

the above link shows atheism as bad as it can get

Just so you know, I probably won't (ever, unless you hit your head and that drastically changes the way your brain works) be replying you seriously

vedaxcool: Gaysterism in Display that word gaystan sorry gangster

nothing to see here

You forgot your
BUHAHAAAHHAHAH, though you still kept the smileys

@fellis, when did my grammar become as good as the ops? And children, me?? Heh heh, no. Etc etc

And of course there are atheists that are rather bigoted as well, but you wouldn't pin it down to atheist doctrine, that doesn't exist. The issue is religions encouraging discrimination, even if subtly. Like the kaffir, anti-semitism or sexuality issues (though these are not so subtle). Atheism doesn't encourage, or even condemn, such. Also, claiming being an atheist drastically affects moral xter is tenuous at best, many morally corrupt were theists.

But mostly, a general how have you been?

This thread has a nice, homely feel to it.

@fellis, of course I know not all religious are like that. I know many who in their default mode make me look incredulously douchie (when some of their indoctrination kicks in though, let's say they become less than charitable). My issue usually is with the irrational ones, the blind followers, or those that seek to impose their will on others. In 9ja, that's a very large chunk of the population...

And yeah, the 4 of the 5 'oga' muslims (vedax,sweetnecta,tbaba,mac - but I've not really engaged mac) are decent dudes, well except of course @vedax. As usual though when they decide to attach more weight to their unfounded beliefs than real life people...well, let's say I think the results are sad

@vedax! I've given up on reading your posts, so I dunno what you're on about. I hope you've been taking your meds

[quote author=Mee234][/quote]Yeah, at last a decent answer. But doesn't religion encourage a poor outlook on life? If one thinks his rewards are in the next world, he would try less in this one. Just like we tend to 'leave everything to god'

lagerwhenindoubt: This is childish really, we should learn to take up this issue as it is. People are getting killed in a genocidal manner over a decade in months in some cases. trying to tie it to religion or non-religion is a non-issue. every time i come across this issue I'm convinced that arguing either side is merely an opportunistic way to tingle sensitive nerves. I'm convinced that any discussion of the religious causes of genocide is a divisive distraction from the more worthwhile investigation into the true cultural and psychological causes. We are human beings, and we need to understand our human motivations. "Guns don't kill people, People Kill People"

It makes no sense to participate in this childish debate of what religion has killed more people in history, because it doesn't matter. in like sense you can try to determine which T-shirt brand was worn most by the world's genocidal killers and draw similar casual conclusions there as well.

Like you say, people need to be educated. Pointing out blind fanaticism sometimes requires a less than diplomatic approach.

F00028: ATHEISTS KILLED THEM! all 148,000,000 of them


how come with all that all the top mass murderes are atheists?

Here good ser, you've gone simple minded full ret.ard, in all its glory. A nice demonstration of how to shout LALALA. Instead of using caps lock and other silly tricks, could you please answer basic questions? Something an adult of sound mind should be able to do. Thank you

Did they, or did they not, kill them because of atheist doctrine?

Also, could you name the religions which these people killed in the name of?


If you can't answer these, then we probably need a primary school teacher to provide comprehension skills. That number is probably wrong as well, but it doesn't matter (to an atheist case) because NON of those people were killed in the name of atheism. NOBODY ever has. "I'm gonna kill you because no religion suggests I do?", do you understand your stoopid good ser? Where did the doctrine come from?

And no, being atheist did not somehow make them have a lesser moral code. Look up the HDI countries to aid your ignorance. Being communist/whatever did though.

Let's look at some basics obvious to anyone without brainwashing. Communists, and virtually all dictatorships actually, happened to dislike religion, or rather other independent churches, because of their political influence. Just like they dislike other political parties. Get rid of them and you have more power. This was only feasible at the turn of the century and only in certain places under somewhat unique conditions in their history, often including some considerable brutality. For instance, t probably wouldn't be possible in 9ja today due to the sheer amount abrahamic zombies we have. Think of saddam, he likely would have preferred to have gotten rid of other religions altogether in order to gain even more power, but the task proved nigh on impossible and he was only able to suppress it. He would then have diverted all that silly religious energy into, of course, his personality cult. In fact he did manage to divert a lot of it. Soon as he's gone, shiaa vs sunni nonsense. Our dear family in korea have more or else full success in that region, so that is an excellent example of a full blown dictatorship in tandem with a personality cult. Maximum power now gained to support their policies, no need to share power with a church. Iran is probably a nice illustration of church's influence over europe in earlier times, ayatollah vs president.

Nazi's and fascist both used religion (and borrowed anti-semitism from there of course) for instance, but both still committed atrocities. Their atrocities were driven more by their political ideologies though, now pushed as full blown religions. So they had to share some power with the church but hey, they didn't do too badly. Having religion did not stop them from doing bad things, in fact some would say it encouraged them considering anti-semitism (with some good clergy men taking pictures with nazis, the popes shenanigans, etc). Imagine if the nazis had achieved dominion over uneducated populations as large as russia's and china's? With significant economic problems no less. Religion or no, bad people are going to be bad. Well, actually, it usually requires religion to be that bad, just that in some cases god is replaced with the some other political force.

So again, enjoy the list I posted earlier of atrocities committed in the name of religions. In other words religious reasons being a primary factor (no such thing with atheism, sorry) including your dearly loved religion of piss

Oh yes, my opinion; she worry. I don't particularly care for the eediots in my family that have an issue with me. They are more or else dead to me. Young atheists, make sure you figure out a way to make ca$h, or else....

To Forgive

It’s been a rough couple of months. Losing the first cat wasn’t so bad (I wrote a nice article for the newspaper about that). The second cat was a lot harder (see the previous post). But that was nothing. My brother-in-law called yesterday morning and told me my sister had died. I didn’t even know she was ill. Everyone else did. All her friends, the entire family, her church. Not me. Because she had expressly told them she didn’t want me to be told. They had their chance to visit her in the hospice where she lay dying of cancer. Not me. They begged her to let them tell me. She refused. Why?

Because I am an atheist.

It was her final gesture to me, her final retribution for my lack of belief in her god.

We had been estranged for a long time because I did not share her fundamentalist Christian beliefs, or in fact, any belief in a god at all. I am not an “evangelistic” atheist. I don’t push my beliefs aggressively on others, although if they push theirs on me I’ll readily push back. If a claim, religious or otherwise, seems patently ridiculous to me, I have little patience for it. But although I do not believe in God, I do believe in tolerance. Besides, she was my only sister. Our parents and grandparents were gone, and she was the only close family I had left. She could have believed in alien abductions and fairies in the back garden and it wouldn’t have mattered to me.

Those who knew her and loved her, knew what they had lost when she died. I can never know because she denied me that. Even at the end, when she was dying, she denied me the chance to speak with her one last time. That was the deepest cut of all. But I don’t blame those who knew she was dying and didn’t tell me. It was her wish and they felt compelled to honor it. I forgive them, and moreover, I feel deep sympathy for them because of the terrible position they were in. I am sorry they had to deal with that on top of dealing with Erica’s death.

I cannot know what possessed Erica to do this to me. She said it was because I had no faith. Because I am an atheist. She held her love for me hostage, demanding a payment I could not give, because belief is not a choice. It comes from the heart. It is a conviction that you cannot argue yourself out of even if you try. It is what makes sense to you, even if it is because you must throw up your hands and admit you don’t understand. Credo quia absurdum. I respect that.

You see, I had no problem with Erica’s faith. We cannot know what compels a person to believe in one thing and not another. We argue, debate, but we rarely change each other’s convictions. Still, if the debating is done in the proper spirit, it has its use, as a means to help us understand what it is that each believes. Because we must all learn to live together, in spite of our differences. We can do this through compassion, through understanding, through tolerance and forgiveness. This is what I believe. It is not a Christian thing; it is not a Buddhist thing; it is not an atheist thing. It is a human thing.

I always hoped that some day Erica would relent, and would welcome me into her heart and let me know her. Now that she is gone, so is that chance, that hope. That is what I have lost. She was my only sister. We should have been close. We should have forgiven each other our differences and shared the love of family. Her nephews, my sons, will have no memories of her. She denied them that. What a tragedy. She said she believed in a god of love and compassion, why then had she none for me? She said she believed in a forgiving savior, why then, could she not forgive me? It baffles me.

But I forgive her, because she must have had her reasons, reasons I cannot understand. And if I am to see any good come from her death, and the way she denied me, it is by appealing to all of you, theist and atheist alike, but especially Christians: Do not shut others out of your heart because they do not share your faith. If your god is true and real and as powerful as you believe, what defense does he need? I am an atheist, but I am not the enemy. I do not seek to deny you your faith, or the faith of any other. If you act in love, compassion and forgiveness, then I have no quarrel with you. Let this be our common ground.

There are so many things that set us against one other. Please don’t let differences in belief be among them. Do not let forgiveness be solely the prerogative of the Divine.


http://justinegraykin./2012/11/05/to-forgive/

F00028: that's no point at all.

This is very simple, did they kill because of atheist dogma or not?

F00028: when you murder a couple million people it doesn't really matter in whose name you kill them: they're no less dead!

Pathetic attempt to dodge the issue. What does the fact that they are dead have to do with atheism?

F00028: couldn't those atheists with all their innate, natural moral values see that murder was simply wrong?

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. And this goes for any atheist/theist, not just these ones. Here's a nobel laureate in physics' take on the subject

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

You know, like how it makes otherwise normal people suddenly murder in the name of religion, or even just approve it as an acceptable way to settle completely trivial, victimless "crimes" (these "crimes" usually being in no way any of their business as well). Or think stoning people to death is a reasonable punishment. Or they get 72 houri by blowing up themselves. Or thinking that homosexuals are bad because, well, just because. Or thinking that members of another faith are kaffirs, fit for derision and persecution. Or, of course, thinking apostates should be killed as well for having the temerity to have a change of mind. At one point, even those working on sabbath were supposed to killed. The list goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on.

And here's a nice intro article on religious violence. Note this applies to political religions as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence

okeyxyz: Nice article, except that the OP assumes brainwashing is automatically wrong. Likewise @wiegraf who decides to dissect and filter the article also thinks brainwashing is wrong\evil by default, and everybody who has commented so far. Are we afraid we might fall into the category of brainwashed folks too?

This is the way it is: All knowledge and training is brainwashing\mind-control. It is not a bad thing in itself, it's just learning\training process. Wether it is science, religion\spirituality, atheism, medicine, politics, sports & entertainment, etc, since they all condition us to think and behave in a certain way. Now after this acceptance, we can now begin to ask and to decide what is good brainwashing and what is bad brainwashing.

The bold is wrong unless you have a very liberal definition for 'brainwashing\mind-control'. The key difference between these and other methods being choice in particular, being conscious of what is taking place, the intentions of the teacher, etc.

Indoctrination
"Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such the term may be used pejoratively, often in the context of education, political opinions, theology or religious dogma. The term is closely linked to socialization; in common discourse, indoctrination is often associated with negative connotations, while socialization refers to cultural or educational learning."

Socialization
"Socialization (or socialisation) is a term used by sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists and educationalists to refer to the lifelong process of inheriting and disseminating norms, customs and ideologies, providing an individual with the skills and habits necessary for participating within his or her own society. Socialization is thus ‘the means by which social and cultural continuity are attained’.[1][2]"


Me: "he fails to differentiate between indoctrination and socialization"

I should have said

"he fails to differentiate between indoctrination and other forms of socialization"

I'm equating "brainwashing" to indoctrination. Imo, brainwashing is almost always wrong. Could you give examples of when it's acceptable?

all4naija: So, what did you now understand from my reply as per the sarcasm?

Hmmm, so you were being sarcastic as well?
Then that makes my 3rd assumption correct, yes? You could have just said so earlier.
You do realize there's a lot of stoopid here, yes? It's not exactly easy to tell the trolls, or those using sarcasm to make a point, from the genuinely stoopid.

all4naija: So, what was he trying to say?

He's an atheist it seems, from his post history. He was being *sarcastic*


edit: People assume atheists have no morals (or conscience) simply because they cannot fathom how one could think for himself. This despite the fact that their codes were built by humans as well...

all4naija: I would take that on the ground of you no reading the person in question comment prior to my reply.

I did

all4naija: You are using Atheism as an excuse for you error! Nonsense!

If he's a theist, he's dumber than that
If he's an atheist, you may be misunderstanding him

Or you could know each other, and are being sarcastic yourself, making me the one misunderstanding