₦airaland Forum

Is that coming out when you can't take care of yourself is a bad idea, in any language. Or would you recommend young gay people in nigeria advertise themselves? You're potentially goading some stubborn teen into doing something reckless, life changing even (and probably not for the better) just to score points against your 'evangelical atheists'. Is it really worth it?

davidylan: err i'm lost, what is selfish here? I'm confused... are you claiming that yourself, logicboy, muskeeto, mazaje and co are not adults?

I'm claiming myself, logicboy, muskeeto, mazaje and whoever co is are not the only atheists here

Threads like these reach 15 pages and I tend to wonder, "what the hell?"

Anyone actually considering coming out, make damn sure you can take care of yourself.

David, this is really selfish. You do know not everyone here's an adult, yes?

Kay 17: WHO told you I'm male??

You aren't??

A white man went to a surgeon wanting to become black.
The doctor asks him, "do you understand what this entails, we'll darken your complexion by 70%, reduce your brain mass by 30% and add 3 inches to your pipi. Are you fine with this?".
Our hero nodded rather furiously.
After the operation, doctor shows up, with a rather contrite look and explains, "err, we mixed up your notes... We darkened your skin by 30%, your brain mass was reduced by 70%, and we removed 3 inches from your pipi, rather than add...errmm.. Could you...maybe...forgive us?".
"Si senor", the patient replied

Ah, yes, what does this have to do with anything? Look at hispanic catholics on that list. I wonder how much hate this post can generate though

Evil Brain: Regardless of anything else they do or did in the past, the catholic church is now essentially an international child molestation ring. They are an organised crime syndicate just like the Italian Mafia, except that the Mafia don’t r@pe children.

I burst out in an evil laugh at this, people staring at me and all.

Ihedinobi: Wiegraf, man, how you been?

Now, why'd you post this comment, to confuse or tickle me? I am both like 'hahaha' and 'huh?' right now.

Do hohohohoho

Yeah, twas a hahahaha. I hope you're settling whatever is plaguing you.

As for the 'truths', don't know what you're talking about. It is about probabilities for me, and being practical of course. I'll sit this one out though

Logicboy03: Anony is a smart psychopath. Just like a pope. He will shake your hand as an atheist but put ideologies that will hinder your disbelief behind your back.

Yup, something like that.

kmcutez: You are right. I swear someone like Davidylan from reading his posts, can kill/set up logicboy to be killed, if he knows who logicboy is in real life.

Heheheheh don't mind the psychopath.

Nah, but jokes asides, David is actually live and let live for the most part. He assumes (naively) that other xtians follow that credo, hence his indignation at what he views as unwarranted attacks on xtianity. He genuinely thinks that xtians are just minding their business and atheists keep on barging in to interfere, etc.

I know, weird abi?

Now, an anony or sn00(whatever his handle is) on the other hand, who look nice and fluffy on the outside but think in order to 'fix the world' we need more 'soldiers of christ'? Insisting religion and state mix?* Those you should be very weary of...




*anony in particular here, haven't followed the other guy much. Haven't followed anony much in a while though to be fair, but I doubt much has changed

Gaddamit lb end it. Igwe's exploits are well known, I wouldn't say he's exactly the safest person when he's in the country.

www.humanistlife.org.uk/2010/01/the-tireless-courageous-humanism-of-leo-igwe/

Even if I'm openly atheist, no one is sure as hell going to know about the 'wiegraf' persona. Obviously, don't let anyone goad you into revealing your identity, even if you're in the UK atm. If our good friends here are so brave, perhaps one would like to run over to the nearest available mosque (in 9ja) and take a $hit on their lovely rugs. Your criticism of some of their doctrine has the same effect.

Ihedinobi: Well, your view is the reason we're debating, I think, and I doubt it's right. I mean, atheists believe that religion hoodwinks believers and they know the truth. That is only consistent with an existential philosophy. Each existential philosophy lays claim to possession of the truth or else they're not a philosophy.



Do you think then that atheism is true?

What truth damned you? I hope you're not going to win by confusing me again...

wiki: 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.

Hold onto this

davidylan: Daft. Leaving is leaving... whether you do so for only 2 mins, 10 yrs or forever. you dont get to make up definitions to suit you. So what they return to fully practicing by 30 yrs? Dont they have that right to make their own life choices?

Let's go back a bit now...

davidylan: If you are also conversant with the facts, you would also learn that 70-80% of kids raised in the church leave the church after high school. Hardly sounds like indoctrination no?

your article: "This is sobering news that the church needs to change the way it does ministry," says Ed Stetzer, director of Nashville-based LifeWay Research, which is affiliated with the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.

"It seems the teen years are like a free trial on a product. By 18, when it's their choice whether to buy in to church life, many don't feel engaged and welcome," says associate director Scott McConnell.

The news was not all bad: 35% of dropouts said they had resumed attending church regularly by age 30. An additional 30% attended sporadically. Twenty-eight percent said "God was calling me to return to the church."

The survey found that those who stayed with or returned to church grew up with both parents committed to the church, pastors whose sermons were relevant and engaging, and church members who invested in their spiritual development.

These findings fit with findings by other experts.

In research for an upcoming book, unChristian, Barna Research Group director David Kinnaman found that Christians in their 20s are "significantly less likely to believe a person's faith in God is meant to be developed by involvement in a local church. This life stage of spiritual disengagement is not going to fade away."

Sounds to me like with education, internetz and information, financial freedom and all, your INDOCTRINATION attempts do seem to be misfiring and your overlords are panicking. Rebellion, in response to... INDOCTRINATION. But they're likely back before they're 30 because of their, INDOCTRINATION. It is not that easy to toss away the chains, like you love to demonstrate.

Don't worry, take what you will from all that. It's hard, I know, slave...

davidylan: Stupid. My statement was simple - 70% leave by the end of high school... whether they do so permanently or for only 2 yrs is up to them. I certainly didnt provide that context.

Good, nice of you to admit your willful blindness.

davidylan: dishonest waffling. i provided evidence for my claim.

No you didn't. I believe I had to ask you first, and you had to b1tch as if it were some concept completely new to you.

davidylan: Again nonsensical idiocy. whether they leave for 2 yrs or 30 yrs is not the point. the point is that they have the choice to leave or return without consequence. Certainly not the attributes of folks who are "forced".

Certainly attributes of those who were being forced, but pushed back. Thanks again, frankly, to the nature of the modern world. As your overlords state, if y'all don't get you $hit right, they won't be coming back. And it bothers them, even if not you personally. Prepare for more shenanigans from them.

This may be a bit too hard for you to understand considering the veil blocking your view...

davidylan: This is completely ridiculous and it seems to me you are merely grasping at straws. So now the "argument" is that yours leave for one reason and protestants leave for another reason? Shockingly daft.

No it isn't my good eediot, it's that they don't leave. A phase or whatever, but they're back to fully practicing before they're 30.

davidylan: I didnt present my case as if 70-80% leave unto other things (whatever that means)... i simply presented the first line of the article

Yes, you did. You presented that, OUT OF CONTEXT, in a dishonest attempt to make it look like their leaving had permanent value. How did you expect to get away with that?

davidylan: (the source i provided even though you bleat about providing sources) -

If you aren't willing to back up your claims then you shouldn't be here.

davidylan: 70% of protestant kids leave the church after the age of 23. What the leave to do is up to them... i wonder why that is suddenly an issue. If they want to leave for ifa worship how is that relevant?

It's not why they leave that is the issue here, again, my good gnat. It's a question of the nature of their leaving, is it a phase or not? It clearly is. Rebellion maybe, changes like moving cities, but fact is they're back fully slaving before 30.

davidylan: Thou fool... please read the article here - Seven in 10 Protestants ages 18 to 30 — both evangelical and mainline — who went to church regularly in high school said they quit attending by age 23, according to the survey by LifeWay Research. And 34% of those said they had not returned, even sporadically, by age 30. That means about one in four Protestant young people have left the church.

the very first line says 7 in 10 protestants quit the church by 23... i.e. 70%... which is exactly what i said in this quote - 70-80% of kids raised in the church leave the church after high school. However, 66% of those who leave return by the age of 30... so in all 25% quit the church completely.

Perhaps you need to read and use your brain as well rather than merely ejaculating because you hate me. Articles are not hard to read.

No, you need to be clear and honest, my slavish brah, instead of trying to score cheap points for jizz-us. You also need to provide your sources rather than be a rank eediot, even if your case is genetic I believe the environment should at least help influence you.

You present your case as if 70-80 leave on to other things. That, I believe, is called dishonesty. Why you may ask? Well, the over 50% that become affiliated that I present, move on to whatever religion, permanently. They really leave. Whereas in your group, we have people who take sojourns for reasons such as these

your article: Among dropouts, nearly all (97%) cited life changes, such as a move. Most (58%) were unhappy with the people or pastor at church. More than half (52%) had religious, ethical or political reasons for quitting.

Emphasis on the bold. Move to a new location, some major event in life, a phase, whatever, they're back even before they're 30. Only 25% really leave. So, why bring up this 75 percent that aren't really leaving, hmmm?

SNCOQ3: Your interpretation of what i meant is clearly wrong: Its clearly above your comprehension.
Neither do i disagree that an evil philosophy like atheism, if practiced to its logical conclusion, can render its adherents evil:
-------------------------
Jeffrey Dahmer, an infamous serial killer and atheist sentenced to 900 years in prison, said “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”. He brutally killed seventeen men and boys, dismembering them, storing their parts and indulging in cannibalism and necrophilia. In 1991, he was caught by the police after one of his would-be victims escaped. Despite pleading not guilty on the basis on insanity, the court found him sane and fully accountable. He later expressed remorse.
------------------------

So Mr. "subjective morality" are we clear on that now?

You seem to misunderstand actually, I do know what you are trying to say, I'm telling you it's FANTASTICALLY MO.RONIC. As in, astronomically so. Even labeling atheism a 'philosophy' is extremely foo.lish.

So Mr. "objective morality" (which involves all the myriad wars in the name of religion and suicide bombers, hypocrites, etc) are we clear on that now?

Logical conclusion drivel

Bélla3: wow!!! Is english you first language?

It's yours?

davidylan: Where are my facts? 8-years of living and going to church in the US. Do you live here?
Besides... that statistic is common knowledge... use google and stop being intellectually lazy.

Just to forestall your nauseating response, here is the survey done by USAToday - http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20070807/d_churchdropout07.art.htm

David, the fact you live in the US does not in any way make you in particular an expert. Especially considering your judgment as a 'biologist'. You make a claim then you provide evidence, just like I did, see. Else you're, as usual, being quite the eediot. How do you think I came by the pew results btw? Perhaps I managed it without googling?

Now, as for your poll, it says 1 in 4 are leaving the protestant church. 1 in 4, under 30 even. Now, good ser, how in the world did you translate that to 70-80%.

Gaddem, david, gaddem....

Now, digest this. Breathe while doing it...

pew article you didn't even read it seems:
To illustrate this point, one need only look at the biggest gainer in this religious competition - the unaffiliated group. People moving into the unaffiliated category outnumber those moving out of the unaffiliated group by more than a three-to-one margin. At the same time, however, a substantial number of people (nearly 4% of the overall adult population) say that as children they were unaffiliated with any particular religion but have since come to identify with a religious group. This means that more than half of people who were unaffiliated with any particular religion as a child now say that they are associated with a religious group. In short, the Landscape Survey shows that the unaffiliated population has grown despite having one of the lowest retention rates of all "religious" groups.

And lo and behold, I awake to this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/iceland/9866949/Iceland-considers-pornography-ban.html


Apparently they intend to ban it to protect the women involved. Rather silly imo, but at least they try to justify it using victims. Another ban which demonstrates how silly some 'sins' as crimes are would be the ban on women driving in saudi.

Anyways, a new contender has arrived

Pron.

I can't find my favorite 'islam for muslims' thread on the subject. While reading that thread you'd think the poor addict was hitler himself based on the amount of guilt heaped on him. I suppose our muslims overlord have deleted the thread.

^^^

That reads to me like some form of utilitarian, like what I had in mind...

...yes, yes, I know it's more complicated than that, but who wouldn't want Jefferson on his side?

Ishilove: Speak English, ma niqqa.

I gave up on dat a looooonnnnggg time ago.. no diluting d message...

Ishilove: What can we say? It's that bad boy allure

You're abusing sacred atheist powah's which make us the superiar species on this rock, powahs meant to keep us as overlords over these plebs, for your own selfish gain. To "succeed" (as you title this thread) with these heathen women. That's not why this powah was granted to you. Typical 9ja corruption, greed, misusing public funds for your own personal gain.

We atheist overlords are watching you, we may choose to take away your powahs if you continue to cross the line. Be careful

Hatergade much?

@toba

We don't see them much these days though, I think because they've received (imo) admirable and worthy comeuppance. Preferable for them to remain safe in their caves, which is fine (again, imo).

I don't get though that we can't even talk about them. If I start talking about the honorable korean family of kim and everything I say gets shipped off to north korean isps to adjudge (before it even reaches my intended audience, which does not happen to be north koreans btw), what exactly would you call that?

That's plain censorship, a blatant abuse of rights, I believe. Daylight robbery.

WE SHOULD RIOT!!!HARRRR


Jokes asides, it's a not so funny abuse of rights. NL is a private business though, so meh..

Slave

SNCOQ3: I fear that those who deny the Lord Jesus for 'logic' may end up bowing down to the 'Counterfeit-Jesus'. Atheism will give way for magic, mysticism, spiritism when he who restrains is taken out of the way ....Atheism is just a diabolic means to a diabolic end.

This is your post brah, it's still remarkably foo.lish. Among other things, it clearly states that atheism entails one ends up diabolic, or with a 'diabolic end'. Do you want to continue remixing your meaning? Perhaps one can subscribe to a diabolic "philosophy" without being diabolic? Interesting.

A stoopid post getting a stoopid reply. Again, I hope you're not complaining.

SNCOQ3: Lol...you and your attitude. You seem to always want to turn a forum to a 'fight room'. I was addressing a Christian not you; otherwise, the approach would have been different.

And then?

If you call people diabolique, or whatever nonsense you put up there, what do you expect? Really? I hope you're not b1tching as that would be silly, no? Say something stoopid, get a stoopid reply, where's the problem? I expect the same from others, it's only fair.

And you do realize I left it at that but anony persisted because he wants to make me look stoopid, yes? Who do you think was looking for a fight? Wow

justaqad: you just insulted Muslims......

It matters not, you're the only muslim that seems to think so, or even care. And I don't think he's particularly worried about the amount of influence you hold over your bretheren

Denying them front page is reasonable, really

Mr_Anony: Are you saying that to feel like putting in question marks right after someone types some unintelligible garb is silly? lol how so? ....go and sleep. Right now you look like a child throwing a petty insult and watching for a reaction.

I have no problem with looking like a child, silly you. Also, other than toying with you, what makes you think I care about what you in particular think? World is centered around me anonysm. And where did I throw out an insult? That's some more stoopid right there.

SNCOQ3: I fear that those who deny the Lord Jesus for 'logic' may end up bowing down to the 'Counterfeit-Jesus'. Atheism will give way for magic, mysticism, spiritism when he who restrains is taken out of the way ....Atheism is just a diabolic means to a diabolic end.

me: well, it is xtianity that stands between anything goes of world domination intention of the atheist and their satanic supporter and right to worship God.

Really? What can we do to stop this??!

A silly post deserves as silly riposte, no? And y'all flocked together, 3 stoogies style, around some (as usual) silly arguments. Therefore I used xtian, not just sn00, as it seems you all believe in this bit of nonsense. See?

By the way, the whole world domination quote is from a memorable sweetnecta post. It's good, no?

Deep Sight: Have you not got Seun's point? Not giving the Christians a separate section is a LOUD statement from him that he reposes confidence in Christians ability to discuss issues without resorting to violence, his exact words above. Giving the Islamists their own section is also his way of advertising their anti-social nature and inability to disagree without resorting to violence!

Problem being the people who ought to be ashamed clearly aren't. In fact, they seem mighty damned pleased with themselves. They actually expect medals even. So I don't think much is being attained.

Xtians should be allowed to explore the nadirs the good muslims conquer with such insouciance if they want to. (Frankly, they aren't capable, there are a few reasonable xtians after all.) So why not one subsection for fundies and one main section to rule them all? One in which freedom of speech clearly reigns. That's not too much, no? Xtians won't hide in their caves, they will come out play.

Really, if enough xtians want their own board, they should get their own board. Assuming they really want one, they're being punished for good behavior while the muslims are being rewarded for bad. That's not exactly the best precedence to set, do bad and get rewarded, do good and suffer. It's quite unfair

Mr_Anony: Because I felt like it

Ah, I see. That's silly though. You're not one that enjoys being perceived as silly I believe, no?

@scarred, that is a great post. I used to think philosophy was big obfuscated books telling you stuff you already know. Well, I still do, but I wasn't aware it did as well as you just demonstrated. True, I've come across those philosophies, but I never really paid attention, heh. Thanks for that.

You rightly point out that this is mostly a struggle between individual rights and society's demands. My stance is rather obvious, I'm with individual. You also rightly point out that that may not be practical. However, it's to be expected. You cannot have extremes with matters like these, just like you cannot have a completely capitalist or socialist state, there's always compromise.

I would also say that as far as pleasing others/society is concerned, as you cannot please everyone, why go through that route? Sure, you could compromise and say please only the majority, ignore the minority, but majority really isn't always right. Neither is an individual, but at least he's making his own choices, if he screws up then he has no one else to blame. He was not forced to do anything against his will. Really, why bend over for society's whims if you're already productive (tax payer, job generator, etc). You've done your part.

So generally, I would prefer when building laws, individual rights take precedence over societal wants. Obviously not in every instance, but where ever it can be helped. Most victimless crimes of course I view as an individual's concern. So long as one isn't infringing on another's rights, government shouldn't be imposing itself on its citizens.

Question if you will,
what philosophies would you say fueled US founding fathers? Not exactly a question that can be answered easily I know, but just give me your opinion.


I think it was jefferson or his chosen heir that used the term 'tyranny of the majority'. Extreme cases of that concept explained here (I think)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority