Kay17:


He has already conceded to the existence of necessary evils.

He is a poor thinker.

Joshthefirst:


So any act that is harmful to others is unreasonable?

What about troops fighting terrorists? Isn't this harmful to the terrorist? Or is such an action unreasonable and evil too?

Answer my own question in that post and I will answer your follow up question. Here's my question that for some reason you either didn't see or you avoided.

[size=16pt]How do you know rape and genocide are good ideas? Is it because your God commanded them?[/size]

DeepSight:


Escapist ad hominem when caught pants down abi? Enjoy.

I wasn't caught pants down, I wasn't wearing any pants.

UyiIredia:


I thought you were something of a deist as per that thread. For you not to believe any concept of a God would make you an atheist. Why the change of heart ?

I can't find the threads or the posts in which I used to repeatedly say it but I'll say it again here…

While I do not think that I can ever conceive of a concept to encapsulate God, I realise that I can't help forming all sorts of concepts anyway. It's like an instinct of my intellect to try to conceptualise and fit everything that I experience into a conceptual framework. However my experience has shown that time after time after time reality always confounds whatever concepts I once entertained.

So every time I come up with a concept of God (or even of cosmic reality) I treat it with a pinch of salt.

oh and I also love to rip holes into other people's concepts of God. But trust me, I do the same to myself in private.

KingEbukasBlog:


And an all knowing powerful God wouldn't cure him

And that makes prostitution okay in your opinion.

thehomer:


I wasn't caught pants down, I wasn't wearing any pants.

Funny ha-ha: but yes you were caught out in a direct self contradiction of your previous arguments: lazy escapist jokes and ad hominems will not change the fact, regardless how you may wish so: both yourself and plaetton have here made very categorical statements in direct contradiction of that which you both vehemently previously argued on the matter of moral subjectivity.

It is sad that I already had the foreknowledge that you would both be so intrepid as to blatantly deny what you have penned yourselves in black and white. And that is a shame: a real shame.

thehomer:


I wasn't caught pants down, I wasn't wearing any pants.

Fasten your seat belts.

DeepSight:


Funny ha-ha: but yes you were caught out in a direct self contradiction of your previous arguments: lazy escapist jokes and ad hominems will not change the fact, regardless how you may wish so: both yourself and plaetton have here made very categorical statements in direct contradiction of that which you both vehemently previously argued on the matter of moral subjectivity.

It is sad that I already had the foreknowledge that you would both be so intrepid as to blatantly deny what you have penned yourselves in black and white. And that is a shame: a real shame.

Please show me the contradictions. Provide links and quotes in context for my own statements.

thehomer:


Please show me the contradictions. Provide links and quotes in context for my own statements.

My dear Irascible friend and brother, I do not have the time, energy or inclination to go "ascouting" links and providing comparisons. However I have extracted some of your comments (and Plaetton's) on this thread alone. I will leave it to you to see if there is anything to think on regarding these comments - viz-a-viz your mutual position on the matter of moral subjectivity. I will only highlight in red bold the words or phrases that you both made, and I only ask you to take a second look at those words or phrases and see what they are indicative of, or what they suggest, on the matter of moral subjectivity.

Here are a few of the quotes:

Plaetton:

Oh gosh,
It's just hard to believe sometimes that actually discuss and debate with moral schizophrenics who would twist anything to justify self evident evil.

So there is such a thing as "self evident evil?" Interesting. Wonders shall never cease.
This same idea you all clobbered and bashed but a few months ago.

Plaetton:
No sire,
There always needs to be a benchmark from which we make comparisons.

^^^ This above is particularly instructive and damning. He makes this argument for determining design but slips to say that that there must always be a benchmark when making comparisons. Strange he forgets this principle of his when making moral comparisons.

As for you, Dr. Homer - here are a few of yours you may like to chew on -

Thehomer:

I told you. Besides at the very least, I know that genocide is wrong. You don't. And that makes you morally bankrupt.

Thehomer:

Looks like you're still confused. If you're confused that reasonable people think rape and murder of 6 month old babies is ambiguous, then you have deeper problems.

Thehomer:

You don't think there's something wrong with thinking that the aftermath of rape should be marriage to the victim and money being paid to the father? Would this be your position if you had a daughter or sister who isn't engaged? What is wrong with you?

Now, I know very well that your hypocritical eminence may find it very difficult to see how these statements of yours stand in direct contradiction to your position on moral subjectivity, and this is why I have tried to help you by highlighting certain words and phrases in red bold. I would urge you to give greater and closer thought to them.

Many thanks.

Again:

KingEbuka: Again , this guy . What is evil and what makes what you see as evil evil

Dr. Homer: The intentions and effects of actions.

Are the bold words in your revert above to be determined via objective or subjective standards?

When we say "a reasonable man" - you know very well that there is in criminal law something called the "reasonable man principle."

Is that principle assessed according to subjective or objective standards?

DeepSight:


My dear Irascible friend and brother, I do not have the time, energy or inclination to go "ascouting" links and providing comparisons. However I have extracted some of your comments (and Plaetton's) on this thread alone. I will leave it to you to see if there is anything to think on regarding these comments - viz-a-viz your mutual position on the matter of moral subjectivity. I will only highlight in red bold the words or phrases that you both made, and I only ask you to take a second look at those words or phrases and see what they are indicative of, or what they suggest, on the matter of moral subjectivity.

Here are a few of the quotes:



So there is such a thing as "self evident evil?" Interesting. Wonders shall never cease.
This same idea you all clobbered and bashed but a few months ago.



^^^ This above is particularly instructive and damning. He makes this argument for determining design but slips to say that that there must always be a benchmark when making comparisons. Strange he forgets this principle of his when making moral comparisons.

As for you, Dr. Homer - here are a few of yours you may like to chew on -







Now, I know very well that your hypocritical eminence may find it very difficult to see how these statements of yours stand in direct contradiction to your position on moral subjectivity, and this is why I have tried to help you by highlighting certain words and phrases in red bold. I would urge you to give greater and closer thought to them.

Many thanks.

Deepsight,
On the issue of self evident evil quoted above, I have clarified twice on the context in which I wrote that. I am surprised that you still refer to it.

I was merely reminding Josh of the self-evident evi of Yahweh, that is , the clearly evident evil acts of Yahweh as recorded in the Bible.

thehomer:


He is a poor thinker.

From someone who gives vague definitions . You lack proper understanding of what you mock or ridicule . There is no such thing as 'necessary evil'

DeepSight:


My dear Irascible friend and brother, I do not have the time, energy or inclination to go "ascouting" links and providing comparisons. However I have extracted some of your comments (and Plaetton's) on this thread alone. I will leave it to you to see if there is anything to think on regarding these comments - viz-a-viz your mutual position on the matter of moral subjectivity. I will only highlight in red bold the words or phrases that you both made, and I only ask you to take a second look at those words or phrases and see what they are indicative of, or what they suggest, on the matter of moral subjectivity.

Here are a few of the quotes:



So there is such a thing as "self evident evil?" Interesting. Wonders shall never cease.
This same idea you all clobbered and bashed but a few months ago.



^^^ This above is particularly instructive and damning. He makes this argument for determining design but slips to say that that there must always be a benchmark when making comparisons. Strange he forgets this principle of his when making moral comparisons.

As for you, Dr. Homer - here are a few of yours you may like to chew on -







Now, I know very well that your hypocritical eminence may find it very difficult to see how these statements of yours stand in direct contradiction to your position on moral subjectivity, and this is why I have tried to help you by highlighting certain words and phrases in red bold. I would urge you to give greater and closer thought to them.

Many thanks.

I really don't see how they stand in contradiction to my position on morality. You claim I have a position of moral subjectivity. Please can you post some links in context showing my moral subjectivity?

DeepSight:
Again:





Are the bold words in your revert above to be determined via objective or subjective standards?

When we say "a reasonable man" - you know very well that there is in criminal law something called the "reasonable man principle."

Is that principle assessed according to subjective or objective standards?

How do you think it is assessed in law? You're a lawyer why don't you enlighten me?

KingEbukasBlog:


From someone who gives vague definitions . You lack proper understanding of what you mock or ridicule . There is no such thing as 'necessary evil'

Was Jesus' death a necessary evil in your view? How about Noah's flood? I understand your views well enough you see and that helps me see all the problems with it.

thehomer:


Answer my own question in that post and I will answer your follow up question. Here's my question that for some reason you either didn't see or you avoided.

[size=16pt]How do you know rape and genocide are good ideas? Is it because your God commanded them?[/size]

Your question still remains invalid, both from your context of moral relativity, and from the fact that I have never supported rape and genocide, and neither has my God commanded them.

And it doesn't matter, your constant contradiction of your moral position and plaetton's confession of the self-evident nature of evil has pacified my argument.

plaetton:



I was merely reminding Josh of the self-evident evi of Yahweh, that is , the clearly evident evil acts of Yahweh as recorded in the Bible.

lol. You're still doing an unfortunate work of trying to retract your mistaken confession of truth.

"Self-evident evil, clearly evident evil acts."

Smh. Do I need to define self-evidence to you.

It is quite amusing that in the end you were the one who made quick work of your own illogical relativist position. You and your folks are the strongest warriors against moral subjectivity. I couldn't have done a better work myself.

Cheerio.

Joshthefirst:
Your question still remains invalid, both from your context of moral relativity, and from the fact that I have never supported rape and genocide, and neither has my God commanded them.

And it doesn't matter, your constant contradiction of your moral position and plaetton's confession of the self-evident nature of evil has pacified my argument.

Stuuuupidity and idiocy.

How many many many times does a person have to correct you before you take notice ?

What is this confession of self evident evil that you keep repeating like a zombie ?

Is this deliberate dishonesty or are you truly that daft.

I simply reminded you of the self-evident( meaning that it is unambiguously written in your scriptures) evils acts of Yahweh, your supposed moral giver.

What exactly would it take for you to understand this simple statement ?

plaetton:


Stuuuupidity and idiocy.

How many many many times does a person have to correct you before you take notice ?

What is this confession of self evident evil that you keep repeating like a zombie ?

Is this deliberate dishonesty or are you truly that daft.

I simply reminded you of the self-evident( meaning that it is unambiguously written in your scriptures) evils acts of Yahweh, your supposed moral giver.

What exactly would it take for you to understand this simple statement ?

Nonsense oga.

The bolded is a pathetic excuse and explanation of your self-destructive statement.

Evil according to you, is evident without proof or explanation. Simple. All your weak rigmarole only makes you look dishonest.

Why does it annoy you so much that you have failed? I suggest you accept the truth of what your very own statement implies and weep over a cold drink at how you single-handedly betrayed yourself

Joshthefirst:
Nonsense oga.

The bolded is a pathetic excuse and explanation of your self-destructive statement.

Evil according to you, is evident without proof or explanation. Simple. All your weak rigmarole only makes you look dishonest.

Why does it annoy you so much that you have failed? I suggest you accept the truth of what your very own statement implies and weep over a cold drink at how you single-handedly betrayed yourself

I can't imagine the type of stupidity that allows YOU to tell me what I MEANT in MY OWN statement.

Joshthefirst:


"Self-evident evil, clearly evident evil acts."

Smh. Do I need to define self-evidence to you.

Commanding the murder of non- combative women, children, infants, and the sex slavery of female children is clearly evil, then and now.

Even if make excuses for the depraved tendencies of human nature, what of a supposed all knowing, all wise God, who supposedly created the very humans, including the innocent victims of such depravities ?

If your God cannot define what is good and evil to himself, then upon what moral template does he transmit such to YOU ?

plaetton:


I can't imagine the type of stupidity that allows YOU to tell me what I MEANT in MY OWN statement.

And I can't imagine the form of idiocy that moves you to type words that mean something in English language but mean another thing altogether in your head.

Its either you need to upgrade your language and communication skills or you're only trying to twist the statement to mean something else and exonerate yourself from your crucifixion.

plaetton:


Commanding the murder of non- combative women, children, infants, and the sex slavery of female children is clearly evil, then and now

Good man.

Evil is always clear, irrespective of past or present human culture and collective depravity.


You're doing a very good preaching work for me on this thread. Whether you misrepresent or falsely accuse my God is a secondary matter to the serious truths against yourself you've been spewing for sometime now. I have hope that you will eventually come to knowledge of the truth.

Moral choices are always clear to us, and they have always been clear to our fore-fathers and ancestors.

This innate moral compass only points to a time transcendent moral lawgiver: Defined by the term God.

Your indirect acknowledgement of the existence and moral supremacy of God renders you a theist

Joshthefirst:
Good man.

Evil is always clear, irrespective of past or present human culture and collective depravity.


You're doing a very good preaching work for me on this thread. Whether you misrepresent or falsely accuse my God is a secondary matter to the serious truths against yourself you've been spewing for sometime now. I have hope that you will eventually come to knowledge of the truth.

Moral choices are always clear to us, and they have always been clear to our fore-fathers and ancestors.

This innate moral compass only points to a time transcendent moral lawgiver: Defined by the term God.

Your indirect acknowledgement of the existence and moral supremacy of God renders you a theist

Humans are cognitive beings. Our cognitive abilities allows us controlled emotiond and empathy. If animals like elephants and monkeys can express sadness in the loss of their offsprings, then humans can also express same, but with the added attitude of hating and avoiding pain.

If we feel pain, we can also feel the pain of others.
We don't need any fxxing god to show us the meaning of pain and empathy.
It is from pain and empathy that humans, universally, evolve moral taboos.

When someone murders your child, you feel pain, and others close to you share that pain through empathy.
We actually have empathy neurons in brain cells.
Likewise, we also know that we cause pain to others when we murder their children.

Therefore, through empathy, humans of all eras, know that killing children causes pain, and therefore evil.

I know your are simply too daft to understand that I am simply trying to illustrate the evolution, both biological and social, of human morality.

plaetton:


Humans are cognitive beings. Our cognitive abilities allows us controlled emotiond and empathy. If animals like elephants and monkeys can express sadness in the loss of their offsprings, then humans can also express same, but with the added attitude of hating and avoiding pain.

If we feel pain, we can also feel the pain of others.
We don't need any fxxing god to show us the meaning of pain and empathy.
It is from pain and empathy that humans, universally, evolve moral taboos.

When someone murders your child, you feel pain, and others close to you share that pain through empathy.
We actually have empathy neurons in brain cells.
Likewise, we also know that we cause pain to others when we murder their children.

Therefore, through empathy, humans of all eras, know that killing children causes pain, and therefore evil.

I know your are simply too daft to understand that I am simply trying to illustrate the evolution, both biological and social, of human morality.

lol. And you call me daft. Look at the daft nonsense you typed in your hatred of one you call imaginary. Very funny. I wonder how many millions of years of us killing each others offspring it took for us to evolve the pain and empathy associated with such.


And I wonder how many millions of years of social evolution it will take for evolution to finally weed out the selfishness that causes stealing and killing.

Maybe evolution will have to raise up another genocidal hitler to teach the selfish ones among us a lesson.

I believe you should learn what evolution and survival of the fittest entails so that you would realize in evolution there is only selfishness and no equality. only the strongest and most diabolical prevail in passing on the traits of supremacy from generation to generation.

Lol. Smh for these guys. Its only when it comes to human beings that evolution makes an exception for making good morals and fostering equality and selflessness. Daft.

Joshthefirst:
lol. And you call me daft. Look at the daft nonsense you typed in your hatred of one you call imaginary. Very funny. I wonder how many millions of years of us killing each others offspring it took for us to evolve the pain and empathy associated with such.


And I wonder how many millions of years of social evolution it will take for evolution to finally weed out the selfishness that causes stealing and killing.

Maybe evolution will have to raise up another genocidal hitler to teach the selfish ones among us a lesson.

I believe you should learn what evolution and survival of the fittest entails so that you would realize in evolution there is only selfishness and no equality. only the strongest and most diabolical prevail in passing on the traits of supremacy from generation to generation.

Lol. Smh for these guys. Its only when it comes to human beings that evolution makes an exception for making good morals and fostering equality and selflessness. Daft.

I give you an E for effort in this post.

This is the a post that suggests you had some post- Sunday school schooling.
Study more. You may actually learn more.

Apparently, you are ignorant of the linkages and synchronicity between biological evolution and the social evolution of highly cognitive species such as humans.

At certain critical evolutionary thresholds, social evolution becomes the driving force for the survival of the species.

You can thank me later for the education.

thehomer:


Was Jesus' death a necessary evil in your view? How about Noah's flood? I understand your views well enough you see and that helps me see all the problems with it.

God is an embodiment of moral good and is not subject to his law . His acts are justified .

Joshthefirst:
lol. And you call me daft. Look at the daft nonsense you typed in your hatred of one you call imaginary. Very funny. I wonder how many millions of years of us killing each others offspring it took for us to evolve the pain and empathy associated with such.


And I wonder how many millions of years of social evolution it will take for evolution to finally weed out the selfishness that causes stealing and killing.

Maybe evolution will have to raise up another genocidal hitler to teach the selfish ones among us a lesson.

I believe you should learn what evolution and survival of the fittest entails so that you would realize in evolution there is only selfishness and no equality. only the strongest and most diabolical prevail in passing on the traits of supremacy from generation to generation.

Lol. Smh for these guys. Its only when it comes to human beings that evolution makes an exception for making good morals and fostering equality and selflessness. Daft.

I have read worse excuses for exceptions in human evolution . Evolution has no goal or direction , they said . But they are already predicting outcomes of a process that has no goals or direction . When too much lies are told , its natural to fail to keep up .

plaetton:


I give you an E for effort in this post.

This is the a post that suggests you had some post- Sunday school schooling.
Study more. You may actually learn more.

Apparently, you are ignorant of the linkages and synchronicity between biological evolution and the social evolution of highly cognitive species such as humans.

At certain critical evolutionary thresholds, social evolution becomes the driving force for the survival of the species.

You can thank me later for the education.

Proof of this is humans of course, we are the only species that have this psyco-social selfless evolution working, and we are the only proof that psyco-social selfless evolution exists.

We obviously observed this evolution throughout the ages abi?

I thank you for your genius circular reasoning.

KingEbukasBlog:


I have read worse excuses for exceptions in human evolution . Evolution has no goal or direction , they said . But they are already predicting outcomes of a process that has no goals or direction . When too much lies are told , its natural to fail to keep up .

My bloda wahala dey for plaettons head o.

thehomer:


The intentions and effects of actions.

Interesting .

Mao Zedong is a Chinese communist and founding father of the People's Republic of China . As we all know he led and saw through the Great Leap Forward - a social and economic campaign whose goal was to transform the country from an agrarian economy into a socialist society through rapid industrialization and collectivization. An Agrarian economy is based on the country's agricultural system - producing and maintaining crops. Funny enough Ethiopia is already adopting this system as they plan to stay ahead as Africa's fastest growing economy . This campaign lasted for three years 1958-1961 .

Mao's intentions translate to the benefits of socialism .

1. The system eliminates greed

2. The Needs of Everyone are met

3. Goods are easily mobilized especially in times of disasters in order to ensure the safety and well being of every citizen affected .

4. There are no monopolistic practices . We all know how disadvantageous such practice is .

5. There are no business fluctuations . No discrimination between investment and savings and resources are readily available

So the above or more were Mao's intentions and it would put Mao's China in the forefront of civilization and development . Notably , Albeit Einstein - one of the world's greatest minds - was a supporter of socialism .

Effects of His Intentions

1. Great Chinese Famine which ended the lives of millions of people plus the torture given to millions who were not complying to Mao's vision .

2. It was estimated that 1 to 3 million people committed suicide

3. China actually did experience economic growth at some point

4. The Chinese praise Mao for the efforts he made . Without His efforts , there wouldn't have been a new China

So I ask ... Is Mao Zendong a good or evil man ?

There's a difference between the mere mention of sheol and the eternal torture recommended by your other God.

Which other God And you boldly claim you understand Christianity . That's how you were asking me to make all sorts of proofs in UyiIredia 's Three Arguments for God's existence thread and later ran away when you couldn't answer my question . You and uncle plaetton are the same .

KingEbukasBlog:


Which other God And you boldly claim you understand Christianity . That's how you were asking me to make all sorts of proofs in UyiIredia 's Three Arguments for God's existence thread and later ran away when you couldn't answer my question . You and uncle plaetton are the same .

Lolol