|Join Nairaland / Login / Trending / Recent / New|
Stats: 1077122 members, 1265760 topics. Date: Thursday, 20 June 2013 at 08:14 AM
|Religion / Re: What Happened To Striktlymi? by Pastor AIO: 6:34pm On May 31|
|Religion / Re: Nigerian Pastor Beaten To Coma After Condoms Fell Out Of His Bible by Pastor AIO: 12:14pm On May 30|
Buhahahahah! What a story.
That would be Onanism.
|Religion / Re: Lightning Strikes: Science vs Religion! by Pastor AIO: 12:06pm On May 30|
ish. I say ish cos I do speculate about the gardener, though I bear in mind that my speculations and concepts can be confounded at anytime. However I am totally committed to having the best time possible in the garden.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 11:18am On May 30|
Sorry but I insist on this being the Last word.
|Religion / Re: Lightning Strikes: Science vs Religion! by Pastor AIO: 11:16am On May 30|
I feel that we can't help but have the wrong concept of God, All of the Time. If our fellow man can confound us in all our expectations and beliefs of him then how much more so with God.
|Religion / Re: Lightning Strikes: Science vs Religion! by Pastor AIO: 11:14am On May 30|
There is a dude there too that entered the garden and thought, 'wow, what a wonderful Garden!!! How best can I enjoy this garden?', and did not waste his time speculating fruitlessly on the existence of a gardener and what the tastes of the gardener may be for biscuits or foreign women.
Though he acknowledged the existence of a Gardener he also realised the pointlessness of creating ideas about the Gardener.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 10:22am On May 30|
I believe that this thread has been effectively ended with the above post by Wiegraf. Splendid!!! There are some other avenues that remain unexplored but I won't go into them cos I believe that how a thread ends is very important and a post like Wiegraf's above should be one of the last few on this thread. It would have been last, but alas I've just ruined that.
Anyhoo, RIP 'Basis of Morality' thread.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 8:16am On May 29|
What do you understand by 'physical' please?
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 8:29pm On May 28|
Okay, no wahala.
I thought you were establishing a morality for the entire human race and now have settled for just Group morality (ie one social group). But no! It's worse you want to reduce the issue to a one-man-matter.
Well if one humanbeing existed there would still be morals, but yeah, you're right there won't be any discussion on morals, unless the dude spoke to himself.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 8:24pm On May 28|
What difference does it make whether the Urges are nice or bad? The fact is that we find ourselves experiencing a world. We find ourselves experiencing all sorts of urges. We discover that there seems to be some rigor and connectedness between the various events in this world of experience, so we are aware that our acts have consequences.
All these things affect our behaviour and also our sense of morality.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 8:18pm On May 28|
1. I think Knowledge in this case if quite different from carnal knowledge (not sex).
2. It guides the individual. Yes, it can't really be used to provide a moral code book for society.
3. I don't understand number 3.
4. Yes, I know very well. That is why it is important to stay connected, but I know all to well how it is to slip and fall.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 8:11pm On May 28|
And the Spirit gets information from Where?
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 8:07pm On May 28|
I see you've gone from Human Morality to Group Morality.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 8:02pm On May 28|
Not true! Why? Because what do our experiences consist of. Apart from the obvious sense experiences we have first and foremost URGES. We learn that in the world of our experiences events are connected. If you put your finger in fire, you end up with a scalded finger. If you go to bed with an itchy bum, you'll most definitely wake up with a smelly finger. These two events, itchy bum and smelly finger, are connected in a causal link. This will temper your just doing anything you want to do because you'll be wary of the consequences.
Far from 'obviating' any notion of morality in fact we'll find that our Morals are very much based on our instinctual Urges. For instance we have an Urge to protect our loved ones. This is instinctive. You don't need any moral lawgiver to tell you that. We can empathise. We can feel the plight of others. These are just rudimental aspects of human experience.
If you have an Urge to shelter and nourish a weak foreigner then that is not because you are told to by some book, but rather because in doing so you will be satisfying a deep urge within you. The satiation of that urge is as satisfying as the satiation of any other urges whether it is to eat food, or to quench thirst.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 7:44pm On May 28|
I know I exist. I know I have experiences. I believe various things about my experiences with varying degrees of certainty. I realise that at the heart of all thought systems I've come across is paradox. Leading me to believe, with fairly high certainty, that all thought systems are bounded by paradox.
Let's move on, indeed. I'd rather talk about stuff that can be spoken about.
I hear what you said. And this is what I said earlier in this thread and elsewhere which I believe is not too far away from what you are saying.
I was referring to the abandoning of twins actually. Worldview has a great effect on what you think is morally right or wrong.
In other words the attitude to dead, whether it is murder, or suicide, or illness, of a person depends a great deal on his worldview. If for instance he believes in life after death, or reincarnation then death is a much more trifling affair. If he thinks that he will be going to a party in Valhalla if he dies in battle that is going to affect how he will fight.
If he thinks he is going to paradise to Be Intimate with 72 virgins if he blows himself up, then he is not going to consider that move such a waste of life.
It is actually the Atheist/materialist viewpoint that sees a life as a one off 'miraculous' event that considers it more preciously. You hear them say things like, 'you only have one life' 'live life to the max cos one day you'll just die'. The man who is hoping for an afterlife is going to live this life with an eye to 'making heaven' even to the extent of compromising the fullness with which he lives this life. It'll even be okay to burn a heretic at the stake so as to eventually 'save his eternal soul'.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 12:29pm On May 28|
Deep Sight: @ Pastor, here are your words -
How are you so certain of the part that I put in bold?
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 12:01pm On May 28|
You do me a grave injustice, Mr Deepsight. For a start I never said it was impossible for anyone to make a moral judgement. I said that the human faculties cannot do so, for the reasons that I set out above, however there are other faculties that we have access to that inform us to do THE RIGHT THING.
2)Neither I, nor Descartes, said it was impossible 'to know anything whatsoever'. Descartes said it was possible to know that 'I' exists.
3) It is not purposeless discussing anything with me. It is just purposeless discussing the wrong things with me, the pointless things, the things lacking pertinence.
Experience does not lack pertinence and can be discussed. I mean the whole extent of human Experience. Whether real or delusory there is no denying an experience and in life we all seek pleasant experiences and abhor bad ones. Even the delusions. Before going to sleep you might drink Camomile tea because it gives you pleasant dreams. Other food or drink, or drugs might give you horrid dreams.
We go to the movies in search of pleasant experiences even though we know that the story on the screen is not real. We still immerse ourselves in it and fully enjoy the experience.
So what is worth discussing with me is not 'objective reality' but rather experience.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 11:48am On May 28|
This part is quite important and I will come back to it.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 11:46am On May 28|
Mr anony: I've read the first 2 pages of that thread; it gave me a few chuckles. In a weird way, the thread actually made me like AIO a bit more.
Number of points. 1) I never said that 'we cannot know anything'. For instance I said that I can be sure that 'I' exist. How and where, I may not know, but I know that I exist.
2) No statement crumbles with your approach above. Rather you are caught in a paradox. It is Paradox that certain people find so unpalatable. Yet we find Paradox in every system of thought. If it makes you feel uncomfortable then don't think too deeply about life.
What you consider a crumbling argument is what I would term a mystery. I can't remember where exactly but I have defined my used of 'mystery' on nairaland before as 'Not a catch all term for the as yet unknown, but rather a term for the Unknowable'.
Many say something is a mystery but they hope that with time the mystery will clear up and they'll know.
I say there are somethings that are beyond the categories of knowledge. When we approach these things we are met with paradox. That shows that you are at the limits of knowledge/beliefs/epistemological claims.
3) I would not just say that Morality was subjective. I would say that I have a bias for my morality. This bias instinctively makes me fight to defend my biased morals. It's a common method when say a theist and an atheist from the same country are arguing over morality, that an example is advanced, say cannibalism. 'Is cannibalism moral'? Of course the other party would never say cannibalism was moral because he comes from the same cultural milieu as the person asking the question and so has the same bias to hate cannibalism.
No, such an approach is just plain dumb. The perfect response to that question would be, 'I, too, find cannibalism objectionable because I've been raised to do so and I will go to the end of the world to have it stamped out, however to demonstrate that it is an objective moral, my friend, you would have to travel to Papua New Guinea and convince some aborigines with logic and arguments that it is morally wrong. If you can do that then I'll start to concede that it might be universal.'
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 4:40pm On May 25|
No offence taken. However I believe this is just your own houdini manoeuver. It would have helped if you had defined what you meant by Morality at the start. All the way through I have spoken of the moral sense, or sense of morality. I never thought of a objective morality, and if I made any error it was not to realise that you were pushing an objective morality.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 4:28pm On May 25|
Please lay the contradicting position side by side for me to see.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 4:26pm On May 25|
Other acts of war are not necessarily a systematic destruction of a people in whole or in part. You can wage war against their army with the intention of subjugating them but not wiping them out. You can put people under siege, another act of war, with the intention of subjugating them but not wiping them out. The Israelite invasion of Canaan according to the bible was done with the intention of wiping them out.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 4:19pm On May 25|
What do you mean Suddenly adopt that stance? I'm terribly sorry if I said anything previously that contradicted that stance. Please show me where I did so so that I can make amends.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 4:17pm On May 25|
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 3:52pm On May 25|
I stop at morality, for now, cos to apply the same argument to the existence of mind would be retrogression. Why? Cos that is where the entire argument started in the first place. In fact that is where modern european philosophy started. I talking about one guy like that called Rene Descartes. The subject is called Epistemology which also overlaps with Ontology.
To put it short Descartes concluded that we cannot know anything for sure. All we can know is that there is someone who thinks he knows but is not sure he knows. So whatever is real or not, even if it is all a delusion at least we can be sure that there is someone who is experiencing the delusion. So to Conclude, Cogito Ergo Sum. Translation into original English: I think therefore I am. This is the beginning. Even if what you are thinking is rubbish, at least you can be sure that there is someone thinking the rubbish.
Again, I'm not vouching for everything in this video, It just looks good as an introduction to Descartes.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 1:19pm On May 25|
Pastor AIO: I think that Deepsight is being fundamentally misunderstood in this thread. Possibly because 'Morality' is such a murky idea here, and each of us actually has a different thing he is talking about when we mention morality. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, or being dismissed again with a disdainful 'I don't do definitionism', I think we need to set out a definition of Morality so we know what we are talking about here.
And it is obvious now why Deepsight is getting so hissy. He is arguing for a Morality that has an independent ontological existence (yeah tautology, whatever), while I'm arguing for a Sense of Morality, or rather the experience of Morality. I fear he will have a hard time proving this objective Morality.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 1:05pm On May 25|
Oh! Maybe you're making a distinction between our sense of Morality, Morality per se (in se, or even sen se millia).
Okay if we grant that there is a Morality which is objective, how can we be aware of it? is it not with our Sense of morality? How can we be sure that the sense of morality is accurate? We can't? It is the whole epistemology/ontology question. How can you Know that something exists? The Truth is that all that is available to us is not knowledge but beliefs, Beliefs with varying measures of certainty.
Bottom line is that Sense of morality is subject to change. We are limited to what we can sense and the only thing that we can meaningfully talk about its our sense of morality. I Sense morality therefore I am Moral. lol
So to answer the above I say that I am not equipped to make any pronouncement on Mala in Se but I can make pronouncements on my sense of Mala.
You can only discuss 'Mala in Se' with people from the same wider cultural milieu as yourself.
People say that genocide is wrong is wrong is wrong. Tell that to the Israelites that invaded Canaan. It wasn't just during the invasion. But for centuries afterwards is was an issue of pride. Reading the bible there is nowhere at any point that you get any sense of remorse and the bible spans centuries. So for centuries we have an act of genocide that not only were the perpetrators not ashamed of, but furthermore it was actually a matter of pride for them.
Go and tell them about Mala in Se.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 8:43pm On May 24|
I would say that what is deemed Mala in se is 'merely' deemed so. it is the deeming part . . .
The issue of euthanasia suffices to complicate the murder part.
The idea of theft suggests the violation of ownership, yet there are those who would say that ownership in itself is theft.
What it all boils down to is that it is wrong to make people do things against their will, or to violate the will of others. Of course having your will thwarted is not a nice experience, whether it is your will to live, your will to hold own to your possessions, or your will to be left alone.
I have my own subjective attitude to these things which I will defend with absolute vigour but I cannot get up to argue that these values are objective.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 7:40pm On May 24|
Okay, so can I take it that you think there is an objective morality beyond the human sense of morality? Even then I still think that is subject to change. But I won't go into that part. Rather I'll press you to demonstrate this objective morality.
ps. I get that you are making this thread over a somewhat different issue. That against the claims of materialists etc etc.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 5:48pm On May 24|
yeah, 'naughty lady' works too! lol!
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 5:28pm On May 24|
Stop whining. It doesn't befit you.
My last few post do not contradict anything that I've said before. I am of the opinion that the sense of Morality changes from time to time and culture to culture, you obviously aren't. I'm okay with that, you obviously aren't, but you don't have to Naughty Lady about it.
|Religion / Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Pastor AIO: 2:59pm On May 24|
I was referring to the abandoning of twins actually. Worldview has a great effect on what you think is morally right or wrong.
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health