1). Is Morality an abstraction?
2). How do you define good and evil?
3). What are their purposes?
4). We different colours by seeing them, how do we defferentiate good and evil?
6). If we say there's such thing as good and evil, there must need be that there are moral laws. And if there are moral laws, then there must be a moral law GIVER, because without a moral law GIVER, we cannot differentiate between good and evil.
NOW, do we need moral laws?
What is the value of these moral laws without a moral law giver to set standards and bring us to accountability?
Cc. Pleatton, Johnnydon, ifeness.

by natural inherency there is no such thing as 'good' or 'bad', it is the mind/thought that perceives phenomenal occurrents as good or bad.
creatures have apparently been evolving with these principles of 'right' or 'wrong' a.k.a morals because they are beneficial in one way or the
other to the group of creatures as a whole.
e.g - lions don't go about eating fellow lions in the bush, they go after other animals, to them its a moral code, and am sure they don't believe in any god or moral law giver. we are all pack animals so same goes to all.
in the human societies, morality is subjective, depending on upbringing, environment, man-made laws, and of course whatever the majority of the society believes.

there is no such thing as a moral law giver!, right or wrong are opinions, nothing more.


my one cent

@Mrpresident.
I need you to throw more light on what you termed as "Natural Inherency" because when you say inherent, u r almost like saying, everyman is born with a conscience.

Anas09:

1). Is Morality an abstraction?

Lets start by defining morality;
A moral act is an act that decreases individual human suffering and/or betters societal well being, freedom, equality and justice.

An immoral act is one that increases individual human suffering and is a detriment to to societal well being, freedom, equality or justice.

Both are human concepts clear depicts favourable or unfavourable actions.

Anas09:

2). How do you define good and evil?

Good action or event is one that coincides with the definition of morality. . It favours societal well being, and decreases suffering.

A bad event or action is one that negates the concept of good; it is unfavourable to societal well being and increases human suffering.

So this two are dependent on each other for meaning

Anas09:

3). What are their purposes?

The purposes of good(morality)/evil(immorality) is dependent on the concept.. from my answer to 1 and 2 it is easy to deduct that;

the purpose of Good is; To be favourable to human/societal/enviromental well being and minimizes suffering.

While the purpose of bad exactly negates the concept given to the purpose of good.

Anas09:

4). We different colours by seeing them, how do we defferentiate good and evil?

Same perceptive method. you differentiate colours by optical perception while the human concept of good and evil is perceived by empathical perception which still involves optical, emotional perception etc... i believe an example is needed.
Giving food to a hungry man by every definition decreases the suffering of that hungry man therefore its clear this act falls on the scope of a moral act.

while stealing food from that hungry man increases his suffering because you have just subjected him to hunger. . this act is clear negates the former therefore its distinguishable.

Anas09:

6). If we say there's such thing as good and evil, there must need be that there are moral laws. And if there are moral laws, then there must be a moral law GIVER, because without a moral law GIVER, we cannot differentiate between good and evil.

Like other answers above shows; Good and evil are both human concepts tagged to favourable or unfavourable actions. . . Since these are human concepts it is therefore right to deduct humans invent these moral laws to suite the concepts of good and evil.

Anas09:

NOW, do we need moral laws?
What is the value of these moral laws without a moral law giver to set standards and bring us to accountability?
Cc. Pleatton, Johnnydon, ifeness.

It is quite simple, since these are human concepts the values too are human concepts too...
So i wonder what you mean by moral giver when morality being a human concept depicts humans perceived it, therefore gave it meaning. this means humans gave these laws which most of the times are subjective and about accountability still boils down to humans; try robbing a bank and see

e.g; In the Jewish society, a law given by the jewish deity stipulates death sentence for a bride found not to be a virgin, why are you not following this law now?

It is very clear that this law whereas masked as a moral law is very far from being moral. and that concept of morality as depicted by the jews surely goes against this modern day concept and that is why i dont see you following it.

Anas09:
@Mrpresident.
I need you to throw more light on what you termed as "Natural Inherency" because when you say inherent, u r almost like saying, everyman is born with a conscience.

Of course he is right because you don't need anybody to tell you that anybody stealing your phone is not a very good thing to u, so then why perpetrate this act on others?..this sad feeling induced by the act of someone stealing your phone is innate in you cus you weren't taught to feel that way . . . That is empathy.

And empathy is innate as a result of intellect. . . Just like MrPresident showed us; lions dont prey on other lions... why is this? what is the purpose of that?

Expect vacuous answers from both sides. Soon, the thread will be a slugfest between Allah, Yahweh and the children of Nothing.

Let me come from another Angle.

Somewhere in the bible, yahweh, the presumed moral law giver, supposedly commands his prophets to attack, destroy, loot, and kill every man, woman, children, and even animals in certain cities.
In one occasion, a city surrendered in advance just to avoid being exterminated, but Yahweh, the moral law giver, insisted that the people be exterminated anyway.
We also read that morally lofty yahweh never forgave king Saul for daring to spare the lives of women and children, whom, good ol yahweh had commanded to be murdered.

We have debated severally with NL christians about the many evil and genocidal acts of yahweh, the moral law giver.
Their usual response is that Yahweh's morals are different from human morals, and therefore need not be questioned nor frowned upon.
I have no doubts that the op shares this same opinion.

This is funny and ironic though, in light of the argument the op is trying to make here.
For instance, a supposed moral law giver must have morals in order to give such. Not so?
And his/her morals must be same or in consonance with the morals that he/she gives. Not so?

So, to say that Yahweh, the presumed moral law giver, is not himself subject to, or in consonance with the moral laws that he supposedly gives is a laughable contradiction.

If Yahweh's moral code is different from the moral codes of man, then it means that both man and Yahweh's moral codes evolved seperately and independently.

In other words, there is no moral law giver.
Morality is part of social evolution, for both man and gods.

Anas09:
@Mrpresident.
I need you to throw more light on what you termed as "Natural Inherency" because when you say inherent, u r almost like saying, everyman is born with a conscience.

I think johnydon22 has answered you

johnydon22:


Of course he is right because you don't need anybody to tell you that anybody stealing your phone is not a very good thing to u, so then why perpetrate this act on others?..this sad feeling induced by the act of someone stealing your phone is innate in you cus you weren't taught to feel that way . . . That is empathy.

And empathy is innate as a result of intellect. . . Just like MrPresident showed us; lions dont prey on other lions... why is this? what is the purpose of that?

that's the problem,atheist morality is based on some "sad feeling",which is extremely dangerous.

tartar9:
that's the problem,atheist morality is based on some "sad feeling",which is extremely dangerous.

I wonder how you basically don't know what Empathy means. . .i would have had it you read through posts with the help of a dictionary seeing you can't even comprehend a simple assertion represented in simple English... I wonder how what you could deduce from the post was some randy "sad feelings". . . Am sure my post meant "Do not do to others what you wouldn't like them to do to you"

Emotionally, mentally and physically we are the same, we each have potentials to great good or great evils or to be overcome by disturbing emotions such as anger, hatred, fear, suspicion and greed. On the other hand if we cultivate loving kindness, compassion and concern for others (empathy). Their will be no room for anger, jealousy or hatred.

tartar9:
that's the problem,atheist morality is based on some "sad feeling",which is extremely dangerous.

I think maybe to you it should be based on somethings muhammed said; we all know the result we are getting from that..

Oh no my good sir, Atheist know morality is a human concept. .
We know; Morality is not distinctively muslim, christian or hindu, morality is human, it belongs to no ism. And it does not depend upon any book, creed or supernatural for foundation. Because morality itself is a foundation.

johnydon22:


I wonder how you basically don't know what Empathy means. . .i would have had it you read through posts with the help of a dictionary seeing you can't even comprehend a simple assertion represented in simple English... I wonder how what you could deduce from the post was some randy "sad feelings". . . Am sure my post meant "Do not do to others what you wouldn't like them to do to you"

Emotionally, mentally and physically we are the same, we each have potentials to great good or great evils or to be overcome by disturbing emotions such as anger, hatred, fear, suspicion and greed. On the other hand if we cultivate loving kindness, compassion and concern for others (empathy). Their will be no room for anger, jealousy or hatred.

that ability to be empathic is made possible by Allah(SWT) himself.but with the billions of people on earth,that's still very risky it needs more than just cultivation of empathy to be in full control.

tartar9:
that ability to be empathic is made possible by Allah(SWT) himself.but with the billions of people on earth,that's still very risky it needs more than just cultivation of empathy to be in full control.

Is it not quite ironic how you first termed that atheists suggest human morality as a result of empathy, you termed it "based on sad feelings" and now you are trying to assert allah gave this morality based on sad feeling which u quite didn't agree with in the first place.

Allah himself certainly lacks this empathy in particular, if he did he wouldn't have given those shabby barbaric laws in the quran. . . If the laws in the quran is allah's show of empathic consideration, then it is clear allah has nothing near empathy and certainly cannot give that which it doesn't possess.

www.nairaland.com/2154501/what-anxiety-drugs-get-pharmacy

Dis is ma own contribution

SHARIAREPORTERS:
www.nairaland.com/2154501/what-anxiety-drugs-get-pharmacy


Dis is ma own contribution

Hahahahahahaha OREMUSANCTUS madman, leave tartar9 alone naaa

johnydon22:


Is it not quite ironic how you first termed that atheists suggest human morality as a result of empathy, you termed it "based on sad feelings" and now you are trying to assert Allah gave this morality based on sad feeling which u quite didn't agree with in the first place.

Allah himself certainly lacks this empathy in particular, if he did he wouldn't have given those shabby barbaric laws in the Quran. . . If the laws in the Qur'an is Allah's show of empathic consideration, then it is clear Allah has nothing near empathy and certainly cannot give that which it doesn't possess.

"What can God gain by your punishment"(Qur'an 4:147)
"WHOEVER does what is just and right,
does so for his own good; and whoever does
evil, does so to his own hurt: and never does
God do the least injustice to His creatures"(Quran 41:46)
rather it is the opposite,those laws stem from His own mercy and justice to us humans,they are for the wellbeing of the society.

johnydon22:

Hahahahahahaha OREMUSANCTUS madman, leave tartar9 alone naaa

Tartar9 is and will always remain ma boi

tartar9:
"What can God gain by your punishment"(Qur'an 4:147)
[b]"WHOEVER does what is just and right,
does so for his own good; and whoever does
evil, does so to his own hurt: and never does
God do the least injustice to His creatures"(Quran 41:46)

And somehow you just showed even the quran agrees with empathy as a guide to morality just as the bolded shows. . . Now exactly what is this morality the morality stipulates is where the question lies; Cus first I am sure beheading people of different religions is nothing near empathy.

tartar9:

rather it is the opposite,those laws stem from His own mercy and justice to us humans,they are for the wellbeing of the society.

Ooh really?

Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence
they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns
supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and
the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to
you.

The bolded above certainly shows what you think is for the societal well being, i certainly can rightly say that if you think these laws above are for the well being of mankind then you my friend have a very epileptic sick and idiotic moral basis just like allah who introduced these laws.

Anas09:
1). Is Morality an abstraction?
2). How do you define good and evil?

Good is acting right according to our consciences towards God and man. And evil is simply the lack or privation of good. Good can exist on its own without evil, but evil cannot.

We are all born with an inbuilt morality system aka conscience. It is not a subjective system where everyone chooses to do what he/she thinks is right. This is a consensual fact observed and agreed by all.(modified ) Why do we all think killing someone is wrong? why do some not see it as right?

Anas09:

3). What are their purposes?

Good and evil are realities but do not have purposes of their own. The Creator's purpose for creating all things is first of all for His glory. He made for Himself... Good and evil serve this...His course.

God could have easily allowed only good to be, but He purposed evil too and is not ashamed to say it.. For the same one who created the healthy made they sick/deformed, He made light and darkness too, He made beautiful and ugly too, He made the rich and the poor also. All these are His handiworks and they all point back to Him.

Atheists say there is evil hence there is no God. A higher intelligence says, because there is evil there must be good...there must be a good one up there! If i have a sore on my leg. The sore does not cancel the fact that i have a leg... not just a leg but my leg can be good(again)...free of sore.

Anas09:

4). We different colours by seeing them, how do we defferentiate good and evil?

Our conscience. They have already been made distinct in our consciences. Kind of a program. We just know... it may not be at the same degree..but it is there.

Anas09:

6). If we say there's such thing as good and evil, there must need be that there are moral laws. And if there are moral laws, then there must be a moral law GIVER, because without a moral law GIVER, we cannot differentiate between good and evil.
NOW, do we need moral laws?
What is the value of these moral laws without a moral law giver to set standards and bring us to accountability?

There is a MORAL GIVER. That is the answer. And He defined what moral laws are and has put them in every man. This is evidenced by our everyday life experiences. Man is not the originator or determiner of morality. It is not a human concept but a God concept. Man is bound to these laws.

An2elect2:


Good is acting right according to our conscience towards God and man. And evil is simply the absence of good. Good can exist on its own without evil, but evil cannot.

We are all born with an inbuilt morality system aka conscience. This is not a subjective system where everyone chooses to do what he/she thinks is right but a consensual fact observed and agreed by all. Why do we all think killing someone is wrong? why do some not see it as right?


Good and evil are realities but do not have purposes of their own. The Creator's purpose for creating all things is first of all for His glory. He made for Himself... Good and evil serve this...His course.

God could have easily allowed only good to be, but He purposed evil too and is not ashamed to say it.. For the same one who created the healthy made they sick/deformed, He made light and darkness too, He made beautiful and ugly too, He made the rich and the poor also. All these are His handiworks and they all point back to Him.

Atheists say there is evil hence there is no God. A higher intelligence says, because there is evil there must be good...there must be a good one up there! If i have a sore on my leg. The sore does not cancel the fact that i have a leg... not just a leg but my leg can be good(again)...free of sore.


Our conscience. They have already been made distinct in our consciences. Kind of a program. We just know... it may not be at the same degree..but it is there. There is a MORAL GIVER. That is the answer. And He defined what moral laws are and has put them in every man. This is evidenced by our everyday life experiences. Man is not the originator or determiner of morality. It is not a human concept but a God concept. Man is bound to these laws.

Pure and unlemished Bullshyte.
I see no sensible argument here.

plaetton:

Pure and unlemished Bullshyte.
I see no sensible argument here.

You see no sensible argument, not because it is not there but because you are blind, ignorant and bitter. Seeing nothing sensible in truth is the only way you can breathe.

[quote author=An2elect2 post=34190923]



God could have easily allowed only good to be, but He purposed evil too and is not ashamed to say it.. For the same one who created the healthy made they sick/deformed, He made light and darkness too, He made beautiful and ugly too, He made the rich and the poor also. All these are His handiworks and they all point back to Him.

'...he made the sick/deformed, light and darkness, rich and the poor...'.
Of all things to attribute to a God, these should not be listed...that God is not worthy of worship. I have been opportuned to see people in great distress/pain/agony and like wise have I been opportuned to see what the medics would call tetratological presentations (baby monsters), my brother, u will not want to attribute these events to a God. Please!

An2elect2:


You see no sensible argument, not because it is not there but because you are blind, ignorant and bitter. Seeing nothing sensible in truth is the only way you can breathe.

Point out one truth or fact presented in your post. Throwing words about, making incoherent patch patch sentences does not a sensible argument make.

And why shouldn't I be bitter when people like make two senseless and contradictory statements in one post
First you Say we are born with inbuilt conscience that tells us right and wrong, then in the same breath, you say that same conscience is a consentual agreed upon thing.
Wtf?
How can conscience be based on consentual issues, and then be inbuilt into each individual as well?
If conscience is inbuilt, then it need not be consentual. It would be same and automatic with every individual, in every culture, and in every era.

Do you see how you confuse yourself with meaningless crap?

[quote author=keenn post=34191807][/quote]

Lol, you dont know God then. You must be one of those jolly jolly Christians. You need to know the God that you are serving o!

Take this,

Isaiah 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make
peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these
things.

Look at the f close to my monicker

An2elect2:


Lol, you dont know God then. You must be one of those jolly jolly Christians. You need to know the God that you are serving o!

Take this,

Isaiah 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make
peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these
things.

Look at the f close to my monicker

Lol.
Nice of you to admit that your imaginary moral law giver is schizophrenic.
Now, what kind of MORAL laws should Anyone expect from a bible-certified schizophrenic.?
Seriously.

plaetton:

Point out one truth or fact presented in your post. Throwing words about, making incoherent patch patch sentences does not a sensible argument make.

And why shouldn't I be bitter when people like make two senseless and contradictory statements in one post
First you Say we are born with inbuilt conscience that tells us right and wrong, then in the same breath, you say that same conscience is a consentual agreed upon thing.
Wtf?
How can conscience be based on consentual issues, and then be inbuilt into each individual as well?
If conscience is inbuilt, then it not be consentual. It would same and automatic with every individual, in every culture, and in every era.

Do you see how you confuse yourself with meaningless crap?

What makes a sensible argument? copying and pasting your slave masters' works? or regurgitating what they have said? What you saw in my post is the fact, how else do you want it?

My choice of words may be wrong... but my points are clear enough. We all agree to the glaring fact that good or evil are not for a man to determine but to observe cos they are inherent in us.

Simple!

plaetton:

Lol.
Nice of you to admit that your imaginary moral law giver is schizophrenic.
Now, what kind of MORAL laws should Anyone expect from a bible-certified schizophrenic.?
Seriously.

There is a MORAL LAW. If you cannot tell us how it came out about, then shut it! You have no point!

You see Him as a psycho, we see Him as the All MIGTHY GOD. I wouldn't worship HIM if He fell short of these! Is there something wrong with the way i see things? why should it be wrong and yours be right? SMH

An2elect2:



What makes a sensible argument? copying and pasting your slave masters' works? or regurgitating what they have said? What you saw in my post is the fact, how else do you want it?

My choice of words may be wrong... but my points are clear enough. We all agree to the glaring fact that good or evil are not for a man to determine but to observe cos they are inherent in us.

Simple!

How can disjointed and contradictory statements express any true facts?
Lol @
" my choice of words may be wrong, but my argument is true ".
In what alternate universe?

An2elect2:


There is a MORAL LAW. If you cannot tell us how it came out about, then shut it! You have no point!

You see Him as a psycho, we see Him as the All MIGTHY GOD. I wouldn't worship HIM if He fell short of these! Is there something wrong with the way i see things? why should it be wrong and yours be right? SMH

Wow!
I am speechless.

Lol is the word.

An2elect2:


There is a MORAL LAW. If you cannot tell us how it came out about, then shut it! You have no point!

You see Him as a psycho, we see Him as the All MIGTHY GOD. I wouldn't worship HIM if He fell short of these! Is there something wrong with the way i see things? why should it be wrong and yours be right? SMH

Uuuuuhm have actually being reading the funny arguments, emotionally ladened and funny analogies tho but... Please i have only one question and i will go to bed.. feeling sleepy already

[size=20] Is it morally right to kill a bride found not to be a virgin? [/size]

plaetton:

Wow! I am speechless.
Lol is the word.

Lol is the word to dodge questions they can't handle. LMAO!

An2elect2:


There is a MORAL LAW. If you cannot tell us how it came out about, then shut it! You have no point!

You see Him as a psycho, we see Him as the All MIGTHY GOD. I wouldn't worship HIM if He fell short of these! Is there something wrong with the way i see things? why should it be wrong and yours be right? SMH

Uuuhm i think i have a second question too... Which moral law are you talking about exactly?