So, Anony and I met in london again to have a one-to-one debate. We had a lot to talk about but we couldnt finish. So here are the issues we discussed.

a) Naturalism vs Philosphy;
Arguing for God and morality (Theists' arguments) relies heavily on philosophical arguments that bypass the physical evidence (naturalism). Many atheists are naturalists (based on the physical evidence) and prefer to use arguments based on the physical world. Philosophy can take you into the imaginary and ask questions that have no answer.


b) Objective morality: does it exist and is God the moral law giver;
Anony argued that objective morality exists and that god is the moral law giver. We didnt finish this argument from my side and so, I will give my counter-argument to his argument;

-Objectivity in itself can not exist within a human standpoint unless we accept a certain limitation;
Humans will always see the world from a human's point of view but we humans cant see certain colours or perceive certain things- our knowledge is limited. Our knowledge has a human bias to human perception.
This limitation forces us to accept that everything we know is subjective to human perception or a human bias. We then have to agree that our objectivity as humans is based on assumption or consensus that objectivity/subjectivity starts from a limited human knowledge. Then, humanism becomes your philosophy for moral objectivity and not a monotheistic religious objectivity.

-God can not be an obejctive moral law giver;
God is a subjective experience to humans. No two christians or muslims have the same experience of God. Some see him in dreams and some in visions. Some believe Jesus is God some believe God is one. Some believe God hates gays some believe Jesus loves everyone.
God is not an objective concept like tax or length. It is universally and objectively understood that the length of something is a distance between two spaces which can be measured in different ways. God is not universally understood that way. God is not always a creator or a spirit. God could be a force or a man or an abstract concept.



c)Christianity/Islam (religion) is bad for Nigeria;
I made the claim that these two religions make we West Africans to be inferior.
-We have to believe that we are descendants of people with Hebrew names(Adam and Eve) when our history is older than both Hebrew language and the bible
-We have to accept Arabic and Jewish cultures while suppressing our own
-We have to believe in foreign Gods (Allah or Yaweh)
-We have to believe that our forefathers are all burning in hell or were ignored by God until the superior foreigners came with the true god.
-We have to accept a religious based morality as a society rather than one purely on logic and humanistic ideals




The sweet parts of our argument (where we agreed)
-Advocate666 has to further elaborate on his Satanism for us to be more accommodating to him.
-Obadiah aka Buzugee needs to calm down. His christianity has become too extreme for even hardcore christians
-Deepsight is a great debater. Where I disagreed is that Deepsight just like Anony that focuses on the metaphysical side of philosophy that moves away from naturalism into the imaginary or ether.




For further research for Anony. The blink below has a guy explaining the irrefutable evidence for eevolution. (start watching from the 30 minute mark)
http://vimeo.com/10391948

HOW WAS THE DATE ? DID YOU BUY EACH OTHER FLOWERS AND TREAT EACH OTHER TO FIVE COURSE MEALS IN A ZAGAT RATED RESTAURANT ? OKO TI YAWO

obadiah777: HOW WAS THE DATE ? DID YOU BUY EACH OTHER FLOWERS AND TREAT EACH OTHER TO FIVE COURSE MEALS IN A ZAGAT RATED RESTAURANT ? OKO TI YAWO

Commot for road, gay christian

Logicboy03:

Commot for road, gay christian

YES I AM GAY, HAPPY THAT IS

gay [gey] Show IPA
adjective, gay·er, gay·est.

3.
having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. Synonyms: cheerful, gleeful, happy, glad, cheery, lighthearted, joyous, joyful, jovial; sunny, lively, vivacious, sparkling; chipper, playful,

obadiah777: HOW WAS THE DATE ? DID YOU BUY EACH OTHER FLOWERS AND TREAT EACH OTHER TO FIVE COURSE MEALS IN A ZAGAT RATED RESTAURANT ? OKO TI YAWO

LMFAO

Hope its only discusion u both did. I hope u didnt open your assses:-D

mumumugu: Hope its only discusion u both did. I hope u didnt open your assses:-D

Shows that christians have gay s.ex on their minds most of the time

Logicboy03:

Shows that christians have gay s.ex on their minds most of the time

I guess this thread has taken a most unexpected twist: from philosophy to sodomy.
Now where else does that happen?

inurmind:

I guess this thread has taken a most unexpected twist: from philosophy to sodomy.
Now where else does that happen?

lol.....derailed

I think philosophy finds the justification for naturalism.

It was good you two had a discussion and not kill yourselves.

Kay 17: I think philosophy finds the justification for naturalism.

It was good you two had a discussion and not kill yourselves.

And why would we kill ourselves?

Logicboy03: So, Anony and I met in london again to have a one-to-one debate. We had a lot to talk about but we couldnt finish. So here are the issues we discussed.

a) Naturalism vs Philosphy;
Arguing for God and morality (Theists' arguments) relies heavily on philosophical arguments that bypass the physical evidence (naturalism). Many atheists are naturalists (based on the physical evidence) and prefer to use arguments based on the physical world. Philosophy can take you into the imaginary and ask questions that have no answer.

Just because the naturalist worldview fails to answer a question, it doesn't mean that the question has no answer. Remember we touched on things like consciousness and the spaceless, timeless and immaterial realm. You admitted that it exists but then the naturalist has no explanation for it so he must reject them.
It is like giving a Mathematics answer to an English question or worse still; denying that English exists as a subject because maths is all you know and demanding that English be expressed mathematically kinda like asking questions like "What is a verb multiplied by an adjective and divided by a noun?" It makes no logical sense.

b) Objective morality: does it exist and is God the moral law giver;
Anony argued that objective morality exists and that god is the moral law giver. We didnt finish this argument from my side and so, I will give my counter-argument to his argument;

-Objectivity in itself can not exist within a human standpoint unless we accept a certain limitation;
Humans will always see the world from a human's point of view but we humans cant see certain colours or perceive certain things- our knowledge is limited. Our knowledge has a human bias to human perception.
This limitation forces us to accept that everything we know is subjective to human perception or a human bias. We then have to agree that our objectivity as humans is based on assumption or consensus that objectivity/subjectivity starts from a limited human knowledge.

I will butt in here so as to let you know the implication of what you have said so far because the very next sentence after this does not follow. The implication here is that if this is true, then there is no such thing as truth and not only is there no such thing as truth, we can never know truth we just have to make do with whatever the majority agrees upon or what we assume to be true.
Now to the next sentence...

Then, humanism becomes your philosophy for moral objectivity and not a monotheistic religious objectivity.

This is not not true. Not only can you not prove that it is true because according to you we can't know truth apart from what we perceive, also it doesn't logically follow because you have just made a huge jump from subjectivity to objectivity and we don't know how you made that jump. In fact your first argument that led to this defies all logic because logic is really a search for truth and your argument implies that there is no such thing as being logically right as long as we have human brains.
Furthermore humanism starts from the basic premise that humans have value. How do we know for sure that humans have any value if we cannot trust human perception to tell us the truth?

-God can not be an obejctive moral law giver;
God is a subjective experience to humans. No two christians or muslims have the same experience of God. Some see him in dreams and some in visions. Some believe Jesus is God some believe God is one. Some believe God hates gays some believe Jesus loves everyone.
God is not an objective concept like tax or length. It is universally and objectively understood that the length of something is a distance between two spaces which can be measured in different ways. God is not universally understood that way. God is not always a creator or a spirit. God could be a force or a man or an abstract concept.

Here you contradict yourself and make things worse for you. Let me remind you that you first started by saying that everything is a subjective therefore humanism. Now you are saying God is a subjective experience therefore not God. Why the double standard?

c)Christianity/Islam (religion) is bad for Nigeria;
I made the claim that these two religions make we West Africans to be inferior.
-We have to believe that we are descendants of people with Hebrew names(Adam and Eve) when our history is older than both Hebrew language and the bible
-We have to accept Arabic and Jewish cultures while suppressing our own
-We have to believe in foreign Gods (Allah or Yaweh)
-We have to believe that our forefathers are all burning in hell or were ignored by God until the superior foreigners came with the true god.
-We have to accept a religious based morality as a society rather than one purely on logic and humanistic ideals

I'll let this slide for now so that we don't make two different arguments simultaneously but I'll love to discuss this with you someday.

The sweet parts of our argument (where we agreed)
-Advocate666 has to further elaborate on his Satanism for us to be more accommodating to him.
-Obadiah aka Buzugee needs to calm down. His christianity has become too extreme for even hardcore christians
-Deepsight is a great debater. Where I disagreed is that Deepsight just like Anony that focuses on the metaphysical side of philosophy that moves away from naturalism into the imaginary or ether.

Funny how to you, it is either it fits into a naturalist worldview or it is imaginary. The truth is actually that the naturalist worldview cannot account for all of reality.

In summary I must say that I really did enjoy our discussion (it beats typing by far). One thing I loved about it was that we were able to understand each other's arguments clearly and give more pointed rebuttals. I hope we do this again soon.

For further research for Anony. The blink below has a guy explaining the irrefutable evidence for eevolution. (start watching from the 30 minute mark)
http://vimeo.com/10391948

I'll give the video a look see and give my comments.

Mr_Anony:
Just because the naturalist worldview fails to answer a question, it doesn't mean that the question has no answer. Remember we touched on things like consciousness and the spaceless, timeless and immaterial realm. You admitted that it exists but then the naturalist has no explanation for it so he must reject them.
It is like giving a Mathematics answer to an English question or worse still; denying that English exists as a subject because maths is all you know and demanding that English be expressed mathematically kinda like asking questions like "What is a verb multiplied by an adjective and divided by a noun?" It makes no logical sense.

I explained consciousness from a naturalist view. Consciousness is a function of your brain. Your brain dies, your consciousness dies.

Spaceless, timeless and immaterial is of no use to any human. You couldnt perceive or understand such if you wanted to. Even god in the bible made use of time and space.

Mr_Anony:
I will butt in here so as to let you know the implication of what you have said so far because the very next sentence after this does not follow. The implication here is that if this is true, then there is no such thing as truth and not only is there no such thing as truth, we can never know truth we just have to make do with whatever the majority agrees upon or what we assume to be true.

Fail.

The implication of my sentence is that truth we all know is the human truth not an objective truth. You say that blood is red but then to a dog, your blood coul;d be green.

We are limited to our human perception.

Mr_Anony:
Now to the next sentence...
This is not not true. Not only can you not prove that it is true because according to you we can't know truth apart from what we perceive, also it doesn't logically follow because you have just made a huge jump from subjectivity to objectivity and we don't know how you made that jump. In fact your first argument that led to this defies all logic because logic is really a search for truth and your argument implies that there is no such thing as being logically right as long as we have human brains.

1) The truth we know is only a human truth. A pure objective truth is impossible to know.
2) Objectivity then can only start from assuming that the human truth is the basic truth (since that is all we can know)
3) Such a human bias is the basis of humanism. We humans have the priority.

Mr_Anony:
Furthermore humanism starts from the basic premise that humans have value. How do we know for sure that humans have any value if we cannot trust human perception to tell us the truth?

Cart before the horse. Take your second sentence before the first.

We have to agree that human truth is the basic truth since we can not know beyond our human truth. That bias gives our truth a value.

Mr_Anony:
Here you contradict yourself and make things worse for you. Let me remind you that you first started by saying that everything is a subjective therefore humanism. Now you are saying God is a subjective experience therefore not God. Why the double standard?

Wrong. Stop putting words in my mouth. Here is my argument;

God is a subjective experience for humans and therefore not an objective moral giver to humans.

Mr_Anony:
I'll let this slide for now so that we don't make two different arguments simultaneously but I'll love to discuss this with you someday.

Meaning you will continue to run away from this argument that is steered away from non-naturalistic philosophy?

Mr_Anony:
Funny how to you, it is either it fits into a naturalist worldview or it is imaginary. The truth is actually that the naturalist worldview cannot account for all of reality.

It does for our perception of reality

Logicboy03:

I explained consciousness from a naturalist view. Consciousness is a function of your brain. Your brain dies, your consciousness dies.

Spaceless, timeless and immaterial is of no use to any human. You couldnt perceive or understand such if you wanted to. Even god in the bible made use of time and space.

But you cannot describe your consciousness in terms of space, time and mass yet you both percieve and understand it. How come?

Fail.

The implication of my sentence is that truth we all know is the human truth not an objective truth. You say that blood is red but then to a dog, your blood coul;d be green.

We are limited to our human perception.

I agree in principle.

1) The truth we know is only a human truth. A pure objective truth is impossible to know.
2) Objectivity then can only start from assuming that the human truth is the basic truth (since that is all we can know)
3) Such a human bias is the basis of humanism. We humans have the priority.



Cart before the horse. Take your second sentence before the first.

We have to agree that human truth is the basic truth since we can not know beyond our human truth. That bias gives our truth a value.

Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of truth, There is only one way that is the true nature of a thing. It is either something is true or it is false, there cannot be multiple truths about the same thing.

Now, humans disagree on almost everything. Some will even disagree that they are human in the first place. Why should we now all agree that "human truth is the basic truth" How do we know for sure that this is true? What is human truth in the first place? Everyone has different perceptions and different "truths" heck you cannot even know for sure that everyone else other than you has a human consciousness/perception or sees their blood as red.
Where truth has multiple contradictory versions, it ceases to be true.

Wrong. Stop putting words in my mouth. Here is my argument;

God is a subjective experience for humans and therefore not an objective moral giver to humans.

What are you saying here? Everything is a subjective experience. You just said that we can know nothing beyond human perception. Why then is this human perception which is God any less valid from the other human perception you are proposing which is that humans have value.

Meaning you will continue to run away from this argument that is steered away from non-naturalistic philosophy?

Unworthy of a comment.

It does for our perception of reality

No it does not.

Mr_Anony:
But you cannot describe your consciousness in terms of space, time and mass yet you both percieve and understand it. How come?

I just described consciousness. Repeating your failed stance doesnt help you.

Consciousness is a function of the brain. Function of a body that is alive.

Brain, body = matter

Mr_Anony:
I agree in principle.

Like you had a choice.

Mr_Anony:
Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of truth, There is only one way that is the true nature of a thing. It is either something is true or it is false, there cannot be multiple truths about the same thing.

Now, humans disagree on almost everything. Some will even disagree that they are human in the first place. Why should we now all agree that "human truth is the basic truth" How do we know for sure that this is true? What is human truth in the first place? Everyone has different perceptions and different "truths" heck you cannot even know for sure that everyone else other than you has a human consciousness/perception or sees their blood as red.
Where truth has multiple contradictory versions, it ceases to be true.

Truth is dependent on time and perception. There are multiple truths.


-Anony is 27 years old.

-Anony is 24 years old

Both statements are true depending on the calender you use. Gregorian Vs muslim vs Babylonian calender.

-The colour of a dollar is green

The above statement is true depending on your perception of colour. For someone like me with partial colour blindness, the dollar is an odd shade of blue. To a dog, it is the same colour as a Naira note.
-------------------------------------------------

Also, you comment about humans disagreeing on everything is both not true and very irrelevant. When I say that human truth is the basic truth, it means that everyone defines truth from a human perpective, not a dog or an alien. Can you define truth outside your perception?


You have lost the argument.

Mr_Anony:
What are you saying here? Everything is a subjective experience. You just said that we can know nothing beyond human perception. Why then is this human perception which is God any less valid from the other human perception you are proposing which is that humans have value.

My first argument has nothing to do with the argument about God being an objective moral giver. I have no idea what you are sayng because you seem desperate to claw back from my debunkery of your objective God. The below argument stands on its own;

a) God is a subjective experience to humans and therefore can not be an objective moral giver


But if you want to apply my first argument, you still lose;

a) Everything we know is subjective because of a human bias (absolute objectivity is beyond our knowledge)
b) If God is absolute objectivity (An objective moral giver) we can not possibly know him.

Mr_Anony:
Unworthy of a comment.

hmph

Mr_Anony:
No it does not.

It does.

So Anony now runs away from arguments. Cool

^^^^lol, seriously what else is there to argue over?You claim that there is no objective truth. I have nothing to add to that. All that has happened here is that you've lost credibility to argue that anything is true. I just didn't see the need to over-flog it with you to the point of absurdity.

Mr_Anony: ^^^^lol, seriously what else is there to argue over?You claim that there is no objective truth. I have nothing to add to that. All that has happened here is that you've lost credibility to argue that anything is true. I just didn't see the need to over-flog it with you to the point of absurdity.

Lolz.....escape tactics. You misrepresent my stance

These are 3 statements that explain my stance


a) The only objectivity that can exist to humans has to have a human bias. We can not know truths beyond our human perception and knowledge

b) The only truth that can exist has to have a human bias for the same reason

c) Truth, already having a human bias, is subject to time and perception. Given the right context, a truth remains true and another context, the truth becomes a lie. Truth is subject to context.

Anony is 27 years old (true if the modern calender is used, false if the babylonian calender is used)



Wow, I am just too good

Lol, since you insist on dancing, let us dance for a bit.

Logicboy03:
a) The only objectivity that can exist to humans has to have a human bias. We can not know truths beyond our human perception and knowledge

Something cannot have a bias (human or whatever else have you) and yet be objectively true at the same time. This is contradictory

b) The only truth that can exist has to have a human bias for the same reason

You are wrong here. Truth remains truth whether humans can percieve it or not. This is like saying that the earth was flat until we found out it was spherical i.e the earth changed from a flat object to a spherical object because human bias changed.

c) Truth, already having a human bias, is subject to time and perception. Given the right context, a truth remains true and another context, the truth becomes a lie. Truth is subject to context.

If a truth can become a lie tomorrow and a lie can become true, how do you know anything for sure? The very nature of truth is that it must be unchanging. You can't just redefine truth just to make an argument.

Anony is 27 years old (true if the modern calender is used, false if the babylonian calender is used)

This is a poor example because Anony's age has a direct conversion between the two calendars therefore there is no inconsistency.

Wow, I am just too good

On the contrary, you are not. Sometimes when I keep silent to spare you embarrassment, you really shouldn't taunt me. However, I know you won't back down but will come up with something even more illogical so before we continue, I'll ask you to define truth and then tell us why your definition is true.

Mr_Anony: Lol, since you insist on dancing, let us dance for a bit.

No probs

Mr_Anony:
Something cannot have a bias (human or whatever else have you) and yet be objectively true at the same time. This is contradictory

You are purposely acting ignorant here because we are saying the same thing.

a) There is no objective truth in the sense that what we know will always have a human bias from human perception
b) Therefore any objectivity must be assumed only objective for humans

Mr_Anony:
You are wrong here. Truth remains truth whether humans can percieve it or not. This is like saying that the earth was flat until we found out it was spherical i.e the earth changed from a flat object to a spherical object because human bias changed.

If we cant perceive the truth then it is beyond our knowledge and automatically useless. We cant know anything beyond our senses.

What I am saying is that as 3 dimensional beings, we will see the earth as spherical. Who is to say that a 4 dimensional being wont see the earth as flat either due to size or perception?

Imagine growing to such a size that the earth becomes an atom. Would the earth be flat or spherical to you?

Mr_Anony:
If a truth can become a lie tomorrow and a lie can become true, how do you know anything for sure? The very nature of truth is that it must be unchanging. You can't just redefine truth just to make an argument.

No, the very nature of the bible's everlasting truth should be unchanging.


Truth as we now it, is based on context.

Mr_Anony:
This is a poor example because Anony's age has a direct conversion between the two calendars therefore there is no inconsistency.

You are not making sense. How old are you? Your answer would depend on the calender being used. Since you dont have two ages, one has to be a lie or at least dependent on one calender

Mr_Anony:
On the contrary, you are not. Sometimes when I keep silent to spare you embarrassment, you really shouldn't taunt me. However, I know you won't back down but will come up with something even more illogical so before we continue, I'll ask you to define truth and then tell us why your definition is true.

Keep accusing me of being illogical.


As for your question, dont give me a question that would end up with either a long essay or a paradox or regress

Define truth and why is the definition true? F4ck you!

I will give a comprehensive reply to logicboy here when I have the time.

Uyi Iredia: I will give a comprehensive reply to logicboy here when I have the time.

I wouldn't bother if I were you. It'll probably be wasted on him anyway.

Uyi Iredia: I will give a comprehensive reply to logicboy here when I have the time.

Please do. Anony has nothing

a lot of yadayada for the Yuletide perhaps.

Logicboy03: So, Anony and I met in london again to have a one-to-one debate. We had a lot to talk about but we couldnt finish. So here are the issues we discussed.

Okay.

Logicboy03: a) Naturalism vs Philosphy;
Arguing for God and morality (Theists' arguments) relies heavily on philosophical arguments that bypass the physical evidence (naturalism). Many atheists are naturalists (based on the physical evidence) and prefer to use arguments based on the physical world. Philosophy can take you into the imaginary and ask questions that have no answer.

No arguments for God and morality are because of the physical evidence. If there were no physical world there would be no way in which one could infer God and argue for morality. In fact there would be no one. Take for example Aquinas 5 proofs. 4 of them in particular where from things we can relate to in the natural world. We know in the natural world everything has a preceding cause, we know in the natural world there are degrees of perfection etc.

Logicboy03: b) Objective morality: does it exist and is God the moral law giver;
Anony argued that objective morality exists and that god is the moral law giver. We didnt finish this argument from my side and so, I will give my counter-argument to his argument;

Of course objective morality exists. There are some things all humans would agree is evil eg murder, lying , stealing etc

Logicboy03: -Objectivity in itself can not exist within a human standpoint unless we accept a certain limitation;
Humans will always see the world from a human's point of view but we humans cant see certain colours or perceive certain things- our knowledge is limited. Our knowledge has a human bias to human perception.
This limitation forces us to accept that everything we know is subjective to human perception or a human bias. We then have to agree that our objectivity as humans is based on assumption or consensus that objectivity/subjectivity starts from a limited human knowledge. Then, humanism becomes your philosophy for moral objectivity and not a monotheistic religious objectivity.

How did you go from 'objectivity/subjectivity starts from a limited human knowledge' to 'humanism becomes your philosophy for moral objectivity' ? You simply didn't show why humanism should become a philosophy for moral objectivity. You simply expect one to accept that without asking questions. Knowing Mr Anony I'm sure he asked a cogent question and knowing you I'm sure all he got was an evasive reply.

Logicboy03: -God can not be an obejctive moral law giver;
God is a subjective experience to humans. No two christians or muslims have the same experience of God. Some see him in dreams and some in visions. Some believe Jesus is God some believe God is one. Some believe God hates gays some believe Jesus loves everyone.
God is not an objective concept like tax or length. It is universally and objectively understood that the length of something is a distance between two spaces which can be measured in different ways. God is not universally understood that way. God is not always a creator or a spirit. God could be a force or a man or an abstract concept.

Indeed the concept of God is very subjective however not without some objectivity. It is generally agreed that that there is a Supreme Being that created the universe and everything in it and that this Supreme Being is in fact God. BTW way tax and length are equally subjective. Take length for example: The unit of length was once defined as the
human forearm, then it was the swing of a pendulum in a given time and since 1983 the length has been defined as the speed of light in a given period.

Logicboy03: c)Christianity/Islam (religion) is bad for Nigeria;
I made the claim that these two religions make we West Africans to be inferior.
-We have to believe that we are descendants of people with Hebrew names(Adam and Eve) when our history is older than both Hebrew language and the bible
-We have to accept Arabic and Jewish cultures while suppressing our own
-We have to believe in foreign Gods (Allah or Yaweh)
-We have to believe that our forefathers are all burning in hell or were ignored by God until the superior foreigners came with the true god.
-We have to accept a religious based morality as a society rather than one purely on logic and humanistic ideals

Answers to your points
- Our history wasn't recorded in writing like theirs so we can't tell if our history is in fact older.
- Actually we are only suppressing an aspect of our culture which is the religious aspect. I'm sure you know a culture coves many, if not all, aspects of human endeavour
- The concept of God wasn't foreign. Yorubas worshipped Eledumare, the Edos hailed Osanobua whilst the Igbos acknowledge Chineke long before the whiteman came.
- There is no where in the Bible where it says people who were alive before Jesus' time were condemned to hell.
- this is why I say atheism is a religion. When you begin to touch on morality you begin to touch on something that has defined most religions over time.

Logicboy03: The sweet parts of our argument (where we agreed)
-Advocate666 has to further elaborate on his Satanism for us to be more accommodating to him.
-Obadiah aka Buzugee needs to calm down. His christianity has become too extreme for even hardcore christians
-Deepsight is a great debater. Where I disagreed is that Deepsight just like Anony that focuses on the metaphysical side of philosophy that moves away from naturalism into the imaginary or ether.

Okay.

Logicboy03: For further research for Anony. The blink below has a guy explaining the irrefutable evidence for eevolution. (start watching from the 30 minute mark)
http://vimeo.com/10391948

I doubt that video would in fact show irrefutable evidence for evolution. I will watch it and reply to the points later.

Uyi Iredia:

No arguments for God and morality are because of the physical evidence. If there were no physical world there would be no way in which one could infer God and argue for morality. In fact there would be no one. Take for example Aquinas 5 proofs. 4 of them in particular where from things we can relate to in the natural world. We know in the natural world everything has a preceding cause, we know in the natural world there are degrees of perfection etc.

Lol...what physical evidence? God/morality aint physical

a) The most peaceful countries in the world are secular and less religious

b) God himself isnt physical and so how are you going to give a naturalistic argument for him being the moral giver?

Uyi Iredia:

Of course objective morality exists. There are some things all humans would agree is evil eg murder, lying , stealing etc

Look, you are jumping a step. Follow the argument. It is not that I disagree with your point.


The point I am making is about objectivity beyond human knowledge which is impossible. God represents that objectivity, therefore useless.

Uyi Iredia:

How did you go from 'objectivity/subjectivity starts from a limited human knowledge' to 'humanism becomes your philosophy for moral objectivity' ? You simply didn't show why humanism should become a philosophy for moral objectivity. You simply expect one to accept that without asking questions. Knowing Mr Anony I'm sure he asked a cogent question and knowing you I'm sure all he got was an evasive reply.

You dont know how to follow arguments

a) Humans cant be totally objective because all their knowledge is limited to a human perception, a human bias.
b) To agree on objectivity, one has to agree that objectivity starts from human knowledge (prioritizing human perception)
c) Once you prioritize humans, you are moving into a humanistic philosophy.

Uyi Iredia:

Indeed the concept of God is very subjective however not without some objectivity. It is generally agreed that that there is a Supreme Being that created the universe and everything in it and that this Supreme Being is in fact God. BTW way tax and length are equally subjective. Take length for example: The unit of length was once defined as the
human forearm, then it was the swing of a pendulum in a given time and since 1983 the length has been defined as the speed of light in a given period.

Christians have argued here that God didnt create leprosy. So, be careful about your claims about God as a creator.

God is a subjective experience to humans and therefore can not be an objective moral giver to humans.

Length is the distance between two points and can be measured with different standards. That is an objective concept.

As for your pendulum, I dont know what you are talking about

As for arms' lenght- it is just one of the different standards and the concept remains; distance between two points
.

Uyi Iredia:

Answers to your points
- Our history wasn't recorded in writing like theirs so we can't tell if our history is in fact older.
- Actually we are only suppressing an aspect of our culture which is the religious aspect. I'm sure you know a culture coves many, if not all, aspects of human endeavour
- The concept of God wasn't foreign. Yorubas worshipped Eledumare, the Edos hailed Osanobua whilst the Igbos acknowledge Chineke long before the whiteman came.
- There is no where in the Bible where it says people who were alive before Jesus' time were condemned to hell.
- this is why I say atheism is a religion. When you begin to touch on morality you begin to touch on something that has defined most religions over time.

-Lies. Igbo items have been dated to 4,000 BC. That is even before Jewish/Hebrew history
- Japan has shinto and buddhist shrines for tourism. We have the biggest churches in Africa. One country uses their culture to raise money, the other uses a foriegn culture to suck money from its citizens and pay homage to the pope/isreal.
-Nonsense. Allah and Yaweh are foreign gods of Jews and Arabs.
-Read Lazarus and the rich man. Anyways, why did Yaweh ignore our forefathers only to come with christian slavery?
-Atheism has nothing to do with morality. I am not moral because I am an atheist. I am moral because logic and humanism

Uyi Iredia:

I doubt that video would in fact show irrefutable evidence for evolution. I will watch it and reply to the points later.

Yes, debunk a scientist. This will be nice

Logicboy03:

Lol...what physical evidence? God/morality aint physical

a) The most peaceful countries in the world are secular and less religious

b) God himself isnt physical and so how are you going to give a naturalistic argument for him being the moral giver?

Morality is based on what we see in the physical world. We infer from what we see in the physical world that there is a creator and that this creator by virtue of his creative act is a moral giver. You see morality is useless without existence and intelligence.

Logicboy03: Look, you are jumping a step. Follow the argument. It is not that I disagree with your point.


The point I am making is about objectivity beyond human knowledge which is impossible. God represents that objectivity, therefore useless.

Please explain yourself here.

Logicboy03: You dont know how to follow arguments

a) Humans cant be totally objective because all their knowledge is limited to a human perception, a human bias.
b) To agree on objectivity, one has to agree that objectivity starts from human knowledge (prioritizing human perception)
c) Once you prioritize humans, you are moving into a humanistic philosophy.

It's not that I couldn't follow you, it's that you weren't clear in your arguments earlier. You are wrong because given human knowledge also gives way for other religions to define their morality. Humanism is one amidst other religions that define their morality. So prioritizing humans doesn't necessary mean humanism.

Logicboy03: Christians have argued here that God didnt create leprosy. So, be careful about your claims about God as a creator.

God is a subjective experience to humans and therefore can not be an objective moral giver to humans.

Length is the distance between two points and can be measured with different standards. That is an objective concept.

As for your pendulum, I dont know what you are talking about

As for arms' lenght- it is just one of the different standards and the concept remains; distance between two points
.

God is objective in the sense that he created a means for morality to exist. Without life there could be no morality. Why are you ignoring what I said. I showed you that length has been defined differently over time and yet you can't see that the fact that it can be measured with different standard shows that it is IN A SENSE subjective.

Logicboy03: -Lies. Igbo items have been dated to 4,000 BC. That is even before Jewish/Hebrew history
- Japan has shinto and buddhist shrines for tourism. We have the biggest churches in Africa. One country uses their culture to raise money, the other uses a foriegn culture to suck money from its citizens and pay homage to the pope/isreal.
-Nonsense. Allah and Yaweh are foreign gods of Jews and Arabs.
-Read Lazarus and the rich man. Anyways, why did Yaweh ignore our forefathers only to come with christian slavery?
-Atheism has nothing to do with morality. I am not moral because I am an atheist. I am moral because logic and humanism

- The Hebrew civilization arose from ancient Mesopotamia (of which Ur -Abraham's homeland- was a part)which is the cradle of the world's oldest civilization.
- okay
- As I have said they share similarity in the fact that they are understood as Supreme Creators.
- The account of Lazarus and the rich man is an allegory.
- No you are moral because you have a God-given brain and a conscience.

Logicboy03: Yes, debunk a scientist. This will be nice

Of course it will be nice.

Uyi Iredia:

Morality is based on what we see in the physical world. We infer from what we see in the physical world that there is a creator and that this creator by virtue of his creative act is a moral giver. You see morality is useless without existence and intelligence.

You cant infer god from creatures or the phyiscal world. Sorry.

The natural world is harsh, deadly and brutal to survival. Maybe that explains your God.


God is not physical. Sorry

Uyi Iredia:

Please explain yourself here.

Read it again

Uyi Iredia:

It's not that I couldn't follow you, it's that you weren't clear in your arguments earlier. You are wrong because given human knowledge also gives way for other religions to define their morality. Humanism is one amidst other religions that define their morality. So prioritizing humans doesn't necessary mean humanism.

Yawn. Your religion focuses on God and not humans. That is why people describe buddhism and some pagan religions as "more humanistic" than Abrahamic faiths

Uyi Iredia:

God is objective in the sense that he created a means for morality to exist. Without life there could be no morality. Why are you ignoring what I said. I showed you that length has been defined differently over time and yet you can't see that the fact that it can be measured with different standard shows that it is IN A SENSE subjective.

Length is the distance between two points. This remains true wherever you are.

God s a concept is not properly defined and it is a subjective experience to humans. Some see him in dreams, some in visions etc

Uyi Iredia:

- The Hebrew civilization arose from ancient Mesopotamia (of which Ur -Abraham's homeland- was a part)which is the cradle of the world's oldest civilization.
- okay
- As I have said they share similarity in the fact that they are understood as Supreme Creators.
- The account of Lazarus and the rich man is an allegory.
- No you are moral because you have a God-given brain and a conscience.

-Yawn!Igbo traditions existed before Jewish ones I put a date, try and beat that date. Table your evidence.
-okay
-How does that change the fact that they are foreign gods? Our local religions are polytheistic so sharap.
-Jesus too is allegorical stop picking and choosing when you can defend your bible mtchew!
- Nonsense.

Uyi Iredia:

Of course it will be nice.

We will see

Logicboy03:

You cant infer god from creatures or the phyiscal world. Sorry.

The natural world is harsh, deadly and brutal to survival. Maybe that explains your God.


God is not physical. Sorry

The natural world actually creates a context in which life can thrive. That also explains God. There is no reason you have presented as to why God can't be inferred from Nature.

Logicboy03: Read it again

Explain it.

Logicboy03: Yawn. Your religion focuses on God and not humans. That is why people describe buddhism and some pagan religions as "more humanistic" than Abrahamic faiths

Actually my religion focuses on the RELATIONSHIP between God and humans. In any case humanism is not the only philosophy that defines morality so you wrong to imply morality is gotten from only humanism.

Logicboy03: Length is the distance between two points. This remains true wherever you are.

God s a concept is not properly defined and it is a subjective experience to humans. Some see him in dreams, some in visions etc

Length has been defined by the human forearm, by the period of the swing of a pendulum atc. It also has its subjective side.

Logicboy03: -Yawn!Igbo traditions existed before Jewish ones I put a date, try and beat that date. Table your evidence.
-okay
-How does that change the fact that they are foreign gods? Our local religions are polytheistic so sharap.
-Jesus too is allegorical stop picking and choosing when you can defend your bible mtchew!
- Nonsense.

- The Mesopotamian civilization dates back to 6000BC, that's older than those 'Igbo items'
-okay
- I have mentioned their similarity yet yo play deaf.
- You still haven't shown that people were condemned to hell before Jesus came.
- Really ! Sorry for you.

Logicboy03: We will see

Or rather, you will see.

Uyi Iredia:

The natural world actually creates a context in which life can thrive. That also explains God. There is no reason you have presented as to why God can't be inferred from Nature.

God is not physical. A physical world is all we know. Nature is physical. It would make more sense if a physical being was said to created the world.


Something comes from something.

God is nothing. He has no matter (spirit), no energy, no space and no time (timeless).

Uyi Iredia:
Explain it.

Read it

Uyi Iredia:
Actually my religion focuses on the RELATIONSHIP between God and humans. In any case humanism is not the only philosophy that defines morality so you wrong to imply morality is gotten from only humanism.

No, your religion puts morality as being from God. Not humanistic

Buddhism sees many paths to morality. The human is his own moral giver. Humanistic.

Uyi Iredia:
Length has been defined by the human forearm, by the period of the swing of a pendulum atc. It also has its subjective side.

Uyi Iredia:
- The Mesopotamian civilization dates back to 6000BC, that's older than those 'Igbo items'
-okay
- I have mentioned their similarity yet yo play deaf.
- You still haven't shown that people were condemned to hell before Jesus came.
- Really ! Sorry for you.

-Unfortunately biblical hebrew dates back to 2300BC. You are talking nonsense by linking it to the origins of Mesopotamia. All solid references put Hebrews origin at the second millenium BC.
-What similarity? One is a local polytheist religion, the others are foreign, monotheistic gods.
-Lazarus and the rich man

Uyi Iredia:
Or rather, you will see.

okay

Logicboy03:

God is not physical. A physical world is all we know. Nature is physical. It would make more sense if a physical being was said to created the world.


Something comes from something.

God is nothing. He has no matter (spirit), no energy, no space and no time (timeless).

However God like thought has the capacity to affect the physical world. You can't touch your thoughts but they do affect the physical world. I posit the same with God.

Logicboy03: Read it

I have. Explain it.

Logicboy03: No, your religion puts morality as being from God. Not humanistic

Buddhism sees many paths to morality. The human is his own moral giver. Humanistic.

Did the human grant himself life ? Of what consequence is morality where there is no life ?

Logicboy03: -Unfortunately biblical hebrew dates back to 2300BC. You are talking nonsense by linking it to the origins of Mesopotamia. All solid references put Hebrews origin at the second millenium BC.
-What similarity? One is a local polytheist religion, the others are foreign, monotheistic gods.
-Lazarus and the rich man

- They came from the Mesopotamian civilization and that my friend is older than those Igbo items.
- they share a similarity which I noted.
- an allegory

Logicboy03: okay

Fine

Yet another silly thread. Smh.