₦airaland Forum

hopefulLandlord:
what is this one saying?
.
do you know how many atheists are closet atheists in Nigeria because their life would be destroyed or probably killed for coming out?
.

They will probably be destroyed by muslims my brother. Christianity is the reason why we hear your voices

hopefulLandlord:
.
I've been called Devil worshipper all for saying I'm an atheist, businesses and relationships with certain people disappear because I came out atheist; and it must be pointed out that those business and personal relationships had no hiccup (at least not for my lack of belief) until I came out

Well, if the people who judged you were christians, we can evaluate their actions using the commandments of Jesus Christ who instructed us to "Judge not!!!"

hopefulLandlord:
I'm getting more passed over for promotions at work much more now than when everyone thought I was a theist;

Thats sad but understandable considering that fact that this is a majorly religious country, whose citizens would neither hand over power to an atheist nor trust an atheist with their businesses.
I would not condemn an atheist but I would not vote for an aspiring atheist president considering the history of numerous atheist heads of states the world has had. You can click HERE and HERE for proof.
Ill take my chances with an acclaimed theist. We still have such Heads of state today ruling over North korea.

hopefulLandlord:
funny how you got pictures of militant atheists abroad
.
how about those "militant atheists" that you know of here? mention 10 of them

I dont have their pictures my friend, However I have solid proof that if 95% of atheists here are given the power, they would not hesitate to end religion forever. You can click HERE for the proof you seek.

hopefulLandlord:
nairaland is where we can show our frustrations with these happenings
.

At least we have an atheist who is honest enough to admit that they are frustrated. But the nature of your frustration is yours, you cant speak for others.
Some atheists are angry that they have numerous theist relatives, some are angry because they think the problem of Nigeria is religious, some are angry because they have no audience outside of nairaland to listen to their cries..... and so on...

hopefulLandlord:
if you think those things I wrote up there that we are facing are made up, try being outwardly atheist for 6 months, I'm not saying you should become one, just saying pretend like one outwardly, then see what happens in your life

Yes, while I agree that i might not be socially accepted, i can safely say that many people live their lives as atheists without necessarily preaching it. I have made my findings, you can make yours.
You can get a sample of prostitutes, robbers, thugs, assasins, motor park touts and related, and try to preach christianity to them. I must warn you though, you might not leave in good health.

KingEbukasBlog:
Here are snippets of tweets from atheists and their vituperative attacks on Christians . Please pay attention to the date too . Some of these tweets are a few days old - this is proof that atheists have the disposition to show any form of bigotry against Christians , or other religious groups .

But hahn who probably lives underground will tell you repeatedly: "Atheism is not a thing".
Cloudgoddess will almost swear: "Atheism is biology"
Dalaman who viewed this thread earlier will say: "hxs«÷uw%¿¿¡uwiso¿¡nsb/**wgw" coated with hate.

Seun:
Somethinf like proof. Facta that support your beliefs

The life of Jesus
The excellence of the Bible
My personal experiences
The rationality of the christian worldview itself
The arrow of available archaeological and scientific evidence which points to creation
The life and testimonies of other christians around me
The amount of devotion, bigotry, obsession, vituperation and other forms of attack against Christianity
The numerous attempts by non-believers to replicate the christian doctrine and water it down
The clarity of the supernatural
The products of religious minds: Past and Present.
The intellectual honesty of some atheists.......

And I can go on and on...Anything can serve as evidence for God for various individuals. Some find meaning with God.

The question is not what would serve as evidence, it is what would serve as enough evidence.

tammie24:
they always wonder what if they are wrong

Thats why they need to fight it everyday of their lives to convince themselves that they are correct. Many of them have advocated and filed petitions that religious structures and inscriptions be removed from environment, currency and also government houses.
How is this any different from the ideas of Islamic militants, Josef Stalin, Mao and their likes.
Thank God for Christianity. Christianity is the reason they have a voice in the first place.

Strawman:
Lol I've always wondered myself why many atheists are so pained.

Pained to an extent that they would rather attack religious people and spend their money to erect billboards and other expensive stands just to defame christianity, rather than using such money for charitable organizations, to build schools, hospitals, science laboratories e.t.c. They will later claim that atheism is not a thing, its just a lack of belief.

The real people who lack a belief are those like Mark Zuckerberg who live their lives as though they really lack a belief, Zuckerberg and other reasonable people who really lack a belief do not go about evangelizing atheism. Just the same way i do not go about asking people not to believe in santa claus simply cos i lack a belief in santa claus. That is what a lack of belief means. These nairaland cry babies actually do believe in God, but they need to fight hard to suppress that belief.

You just got to respect sincere atheists!!!

Often times, atheists make use the word “stupid” a lot more than they use the word “irrational” on christians. There are a couple definitions to consider…

athe•ist
noun \??-th?-ist\
: a person who believes that God does not exist or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

big•ot
noun \?bi-g?t\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

I do not see, in the definition of atheist, any type of statement about science, logic, reason, tolerance/intolerance, or religious beliefs of other people. I do, however, see this type of statement in the definition of bigot. Atheism is a lack of a belief in God, nothing more. Any other statement (Such as; until evidence is provided, irreligious societies are developed e.t.c) has absolutely nothing to do with atheism.


Lets examine this for a moment. Is there any real difference between these two statements?

A). Black people are stupid.
B). Religious people are irrational.

Of course not. Oh, atheists may come with their excuse: “But religious people are irrational!” This of course is the same justification used by racists. Both types of bigotry offers no evidence for their assertions, they only repeat them louder and more forcefully.

Atheism becomes bigotry when it makes prejudicial statements about religious people. Prejudice is prejudice and intolerance is intolerance, and both are irrational regardless of who commits it. Despite its scientific pretensions and its pronouncements of love for reason, many atheists offer arguments laden with logical fallacies of hasty generalization, strawman arguments, and most of all ad homenim attacks. They are, in fact, fundamentally no different in all of this from the islamic or other religious fundamentalists.

That there is a brand of atheism that is equivalent in character and substance to fundamentalist religion. We can call it “fundamentalist atheism.” Like their religious counterparts fundamentalist atheists are characterized by their ideological orientation, militancy, and dogmatic thinking. The fundamentalist atheist says that belief in God or any higher power is a sign of irrational thought and idiocy and that good and intelligent people will agree with their views. We see this in atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and their followers. The arguments of Dawkins and Hitchens, et al. are, in their structure, no different than the arguments of bigots like Osama Bin Laden, James Dobson and Gary Bauer. The atheist will say “but I don’t condemn people to hell.” Yes, but only because you don’t believe in hell. What is important is the condemnation itself, not what you think should happen to those you condemn.

Most contemporary atheists belong to this brand of militant atheism. In addition to the example given above, there are ones that are just as troubling, if not more so. We constantly hear that religion is a mental illness/disorder, virus, or disease, but this statement is never simply stated. It is always laced with insults, intolerance, or hatred. Not that this statement has ever been scientifically supported, but let’s assume it has, just for argument sake. Now let’s assume I dislike and ridicule someone with depression, HIV, ADHD, brain tumor, or cancer. You would certainly call me a bigot for holding those types of beliefs. Sam Harris actually admits that religion has an evolutionary (biological) role in our past. This means that religion is a naturally occurring human trait, that one does not have control over, such as hair or skin color.
Oddly enough, even though Sam Harris admits the biological nature of religion, he still has the audacity to propose violence against some who hold religious beliefs;

[b]“Some propositions are so dangerous, that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim but it is merely an enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extra ordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense…” (Harris, End of Faith p. 52-53)

“What will we do if an Islamist regime…ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime-as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day-but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.” (Harris, End of Faith)[/b]

Can someone explain to me how this is any different than what Hitler did? That is a perfect transition into another common practice of bigots…they attempt to support their views. Atheists use things such as “science” and “logic,” as if those somehow justify their beliefs. The fact of the matter is that bigots will always find a way to support their views, even science. I know the atheists will claim that science could never support something such as racism…except that it has…

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

In the late 1800s, until the 1980s, no that is not a typo, the 1980s, science was used to justify and support racism and other things. The United States sterilized women up until the 1980s for displaying “bad genes.” An example of “bad genes” would be something such as having a child out of wedlock.

There is another interesting term in scientific racism…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Eugenics

It is called Eugenics. Eugenics was the science of the day. It was the future of humanity. In eugenics, we could perfect the human race by eliminating “negative traits,” or “bad genes.” Does this sound familiar? There is a slightly famous event based on this science. It is called the Holocaust. Atheists claim that Hitler was using religion. No, Hitler was using science. He was perfecting the human race by eliminating the bad genes…by killing anyone that had them. The Nazis also preformed scientific experiments on people to “advance science.”

Atheists will probably argue that we NOW know this is bad science and that science has come a long way. That is true, but there is still bad science and a way of presenting facts to make a specific argument. In addition to that, scientists say unscientific things, which are construed as science by people that are not smart enough to actually look it up.

Case and point is Richard Dawkins. Dawkins claims that religion is like a mental illness or virus. To make this claim, we can assume he has some type of scientific basis for it. What we would look for is an experiment using the scientific method…

-Ask a question
-Do background research
-Construct a hypothesis
-Test with an experiment
-Analyze results/draw conclusion
-If hypothesis is true, report results. If results are false or partly true, reevaluate hypothesis
-Report results

But Dawkins, even though he is a scientist (Zoologist), never actually does this. Not only does he not perform an experiment he also fails to cite a legitimate scientific experiment. To date, there has been a grand total of ONE experiment ever done on this topic. This experiment is called the “God Helmet.” However, once we evaluate this experiment, we find out it is not only flawed, but has never been able to be reproduced. Dawkins claims actually go against the science. Sam Harris was nice enough to point out that religion is biological in nature and served a positive purpose in the past.

What Dawkins is doing is psychoanalysis AT BEST, but is really just using abductive reasoning and making inaccurate comparisons. Abductive reasoning is what some Intelligent Design proponents do. They say “this looks like it was designed, therefore it was designed.” That is the exact same argument and line of reasoning as “religion looks like a mental disorder, therefore it is a mental disorder.” I have never heard an atheist claim that ID proponents are using science, so I can only conclude that when Dawkins uses the same type of reasoning, he is not using science.

Based on this, we can conclude one of two things…

1. Dawkins is either stupid/ignorant, and not as smart as you think or
2. Lying to you to promote his propaganda and bigotry…or to make money selling books…

The atheist’s mistake is Argumentum ab auctoritate or appeal to authority. It is assumed that what Richard Dawkins is saying is true and/or is science because he is a scientist and an “intellectual.”

Not only are the atheist’s claims not science, they are not logical. It is all propaganda and catch phrases use to promote their bigotry or convince themselves they are not bigots.

Even if an atheist could prove that God does not exist (a logical impossibility) it would not justify the bigotry. And it is utter hypocrisy to condemn the bigotry of islamic and other religious fundamentalists and act the same way.


Sources: 1. philosophyotb.com
2. Kevin Stern

cc; KingEbukasBlog, Richirich713, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, UyiIredia, Tellemall, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, Drefan2, Strawman, dazzle101, Dejideji1, Farmerforlife

Farmerforlife, I respect your intelligent replies. I searched the thread for reasonable answers but i was dissapointed.
The escape mechanisms have been: "Its in the bible", "I find it disgusting", "Our culture frowns at it" and other unfortunate answers.

.

Vick4rill:
frank wat exactly is ur mission here?? this is religious section and it is boldly written "share ur belief," what exactly is ur belief?.. and why are u toiling day and night to prove sumtin that does nt exist??

Hatred is his reason for being here.

KingEbukaNaija:
Fine thread . Lovely !

thumbs up

[center]Good God[/center]

[quote author=RZArecta post=46708365][/quote]lol, you dont got to quote the whole thing.

KingEbukasBlog:
Really nice she led them out of their foolishness , ignorance and delusion .

Foolishness it is, my brother

KingEbukaNaija:
No religion =! Atheism . Deists have no religion . Non affiliation to any religion does not mean you no longer believe in God .

Leave atheists, let them side with whatever they can think of.

KingEbukaNaija:
Cool talk

Yeah

lalasticlala

.

God's Word is very clear that when it comes to marriage: Wives are to submit to their husbands just as the church submits to Jesus Christ. Nowadays, many couples have the concept of submission twisted and corrupted, resulting in marriages built on shaky foundations.


Many women hear the word submission and roll their eyes, most especially if a man says it. The thought of submission is not easily accepted because our understanding of it is twisted. At the other end of the spectrum, we see men who wave the commandment around without ever putting out the proper effort to be worthy of authority.

Ephesians 5:24 is very clear when it says, "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands."

But just as women are to submit to their husbands, they are also to submit themselves therefore to Christ, realising that it is only through Him that we can be the husbands God wants us to be.


As a husband, I think of the idea of my wife submitting to me and it scares me because I know I'll just let her down. But then I am reminded that Jesus is the completion of my weakness and as long as I fall under His grace, my wife can trust me.

Here are three faces of godly submission that will help us appreciate it more.

Submission is collaboration not coercion

When wives submit to their husbands, we see a picture of man and woman co-labouring to fulfil not their own desires, but God's desires.


Instead of coercing and manipulating each other to do what we want to happen, let us instead point each other to God's will and support each other in our God-given roles.

Submission brings respect not inequality

We think of the idea of women submitting and we think of them as being only second in value. That's not true. Children are to submit to their parents, but they are not less valuable to God than their parents. Submission is instead a process of trusting and respecting the responsibility of men, and of men trusting Jesus to be the overall authority of the home.

Let us follow the example of Christ, who was and is the highest authority but still submitted Himself to the Roman rule when He said, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Luke 20:25).


Submission is ruled by love, not fear

Just because the man is the head, it doesn't mean that women no longer have a say in things. That is only authority ruled by fear and not love. God desires that marriages be ruled by a love-motivated relationship that respects and submits because we understand that Jesus is the One truly in charge and not the husband.


Source:http://www.christiantoday.com/article/what.does.submission.in.marriage.look.like/89298.htm

lalasticlala

lalasticlala