|
27-03-08, 12:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Lion
[size="2"].lol. Was wondering if you'd post, my comments were based around this. If someone dosent indoctrinate the child then on a desert island on his own with no one to bring him into any theology he will become savage. He will conduct himself like an animal, again a flaw in the theory of evolution showing that man can regress completely without a construct, that the western interpretation of the evolution of ''modern'' man and his technological gadgetry and science has nothing to do with the furtherment of the inner faculties of man, as it is external and so isn't ''evolution'' at all.... Until he finds a female somewhere on the island and raises children they will have to start again from scratch they won't be Man and Woman until they begin to strive to be so, until generation after generation sets down an understanding or a way/means for them to develop an inner faculty that asks of them to strive to become something they cannot comprehend as of yet, to realize the 'god' within themselves as well as that within nature and their surroundings in order to work with it and not against it as a savage otherwise would.
|
I do not agree that this is the work of religion. It is the work of cultural structure, which I do agree is near impossible to create from scratch (as advanced as the ones we have today after many years of history). Religion is only ONE out of many makeups for a cultural structure. It’s easy for someone who is religious to bestow so much importance on religion, but for those of us who are not religious and who clearly fit in with society and are productive and “un-savage” we are proof that religion is not the end-all to savagery.
And I don’t believe man would regress completely w/out the benefit of societal structures. That’s a bit exaggerating. You cannot compare a man today w/out societal structures to early man. Physically they are undeniably different so that alone debunks the theory of total regression w/out culture, or as you said, religion.
Quote:
|
Exactly, it is ''nothing'' which is why it cannot survive past itself, a parent cannot teach atheism to his or her child.
|
Exactly. Atheism is not something that is taught (usually) or can be learned. So then how can a nation influence this very personal, very independent state of though? How can it be "Western" if it does not belong to anyone's culture?
Quote:
|
it would have to be based off of the rationalization of God and the universe as mentioned, that everything is somehow explainable
|
Or that some things are unexplainable...which IMO as an Atheist is the only definite truth. Everything else is he said/she said/God said heresaid.
Quote:
|
No. Because there is something already in place where religion would otherwise be, religion is held separate from social affairs in the west where a rationalized left brained mentality is promoted, they couldn't live by religion and gave it up in the middle ages. To be African on the other hand is to be Igbo, to be Yoroba, Zulu and so on. Our problem on the continent is that we aren't abiding by the cultural values that were exsistant pre colonialism (place emphasis on that), we would otherwise have abided by rules and laws within Yoroban religious theology, within Zulu/Shonan theology, traded within them, went about technological advance with them, went to war with them and so on.
|
-IMO this idea ( which is not yours alone so I’m not picking on you) sends the message that Africans are and should be unchanging and unchanged by the goings on in the world, or remain stagnant, which is both unrealistic to expect (especially from African diasporics as well as most Africans in general) and a bit condescending to the sensibilities, potential, and mobility of the African people.
Quote:
|
To be Afro-centric is to survive in the face of westernization (white supremacy) to help undo what has/is being done and raise children who are well equipped enough to do the same. Of course a person can be atheist and concern themselves with the cause but theres being an atheist, as someone who isn't interested in religion and therefore uses (western) societal standards and culture to base themselves off of and someone who would defend their stance, ''I don't believe in God because....'' which would then need filling in with, the big bang theory or exault science in place of religion in order to reason with the issue, one would be an athiest and the other would be more agnostic, wouldn't have some theory formed around their disbelief in religion and therefore wouldn't avoid it or risk passing that on to their children as they would then take to western social constucts in place of an African outlook proper.
|
I think we need to stop giving Europeans so much credit in the makings of this world. The world is what it is and we have ALL contributed to what it is today whether we were at the bottom or the top. To do what you suggested (to undo what has been done) is to go BACKWARDS. I think this is a dangerous thinking for African people and is another reason why I disagree with you all’s definition of Afro-centrism.
Also, I think it a bit unfair to juxtapose historical pre-colonial (and you would need to go faaaaaaaar back to find a pre-colonial African majority.) African culture and thought with present-day post-colonial Africa, and especially the African diaspora.
This idea to get back to a purely African roots in which everything is untouched, unsoiled from any non-African influence and any non-African contact or exchange is idealistic, unrealistic, and irrelevant to today.
I am pretty sure that most all African peoples on this planet, diasporic and otherwise, would NOT meet these extremist requirements to becoming what you consider to be an African-centered, focused, minded etc. (I refuse to use “that” word because I disagree with definitions associated with it). Accordingly this thread would be better worded "The Afrocentric...Does it exist?"
Culture is a wonderful thing. It involves the dichotomy of constant and change. Tradition and fad, history and futurity.
Quote:
|
Again, westernization, science has allowed for the rationalization of religion so yes, the big bang is the corner stone for many ''practicing'' atheists... atheists who would defend their stance on their disbelief in religion.
|
I don’t know crap about Big Bang to be honest, and the only evolution theories I support are the ones with substantial and somewhat recent information. All I know is that logically, I DO NOT believe that there is anyone out there for the benefit of man. IMO man is the only one concerned with man, no one and nothing else is concerned with our existence except for us. Why do you think many religions (minus quite a few African religions that practice animism in which nature/animals hold a higher regard than man) puts man at the center of everything? Who puts man as the image of God? Man as the root of good and evil? Man who has been on this planet for a blip of Earth’s existence after so many species have come and gone, as we will also?
My personal stance, and probably the stance of many other atheists does not need to be defended with or replaced by something else (like the Big Bang theory) because once again:
It is NOT a belief in science (or something else) that makes us atheist...it is a disbelief in a higher conscious power. I believe man doesn’t know a damn thing. And I am comfortable with that belief. I don’t need to know anything about the creation of man (actually If I could only know one thing it would be the creation of everything before man) in order to live a fulfilled life. It is not for me to ever know and I have the highest respect for that.
Last edited by Afriki; 27-03-08 at 02:27 AM.
|