excanny:
Old woman, I don't have a religion.

New woman, it didn't occur to you even until now that what you had planned to force on your kids is in fact your own religion?

Kobojunkie:
I am not gay though. Anyways, Goodluck! .

I actually thought you were a lady. No offense

VOsimhen144:
I actually thought you were a lady. No offense

She is, a bitter one though.

KnownUnknown:


The cup simply isn’t there. The lifetime of brainwashing is why I think [b]atheists, agnostics, and whatever [/b]else are just incapable of stating the obvious. It’s not I have belief that the cup is there or I don’t have belief that the cup is there. The cup simply isn’t there.

You mean theist?

Kobojunkie:
New woman, it didn't occur to you even until now that what you had planned to force on your kids is in fact your own religion?

The lack of belief isn't a religion. You don't need belief to show that 1+1=2, because, whether you believe or not 2 is the answer. So, If I teach kids that 2 can be gotten by adding two 1s, then I'm simply teaching them an objective reality. Your reality is man-made and dies with the brain.

kkins25:
■ The lack of belief isn't a religion. You don't need belief to show that 1+1=2, because, whether you believe or not 2 is the answer. So, If I teach kids that 2 can be gotten by adding two 1s, then I'm simply teaching them an objective reality. Your reality is man-made and dies with the brain.

Many words, including Religion tend to have multiple meanings to them. You being stuck on one, does not negate the others.

Also there is a clear enough difference between educating a child and indoctrinating said child, that you should know for yourself that that analogy of yours does not even begin to cut mustard as far as this here discussion.

Kobojunkie:
Many words, including Religion tend to have multiple meanings to them. You being stuck on one, does not negate the others.

Also there is a clear enough difference between educating a child and indoctrinating said child, that you should know for yourself that that analogy of yours does not even begin to cut mustard as far as this here discussion.

So, pray tell, if my child ask me why he can't see God, what do i tell him?

Kobojunkie:
Many words, including Religion tend to have multiple meanings to them. You being stuck on one, does not negate the others.

Also there is a clear enough difference between educating a child and indoctrinating said child, that you should know for yourself that that analogy of yours does not even begin to cut mustard as far as this here discussion.

Then maybe you define your religion. Since the one i know is what is practised broadly

kkins25:

Then maybe you define your religion. Since the one i know is what is practised broadly

Look in a dictionary for the definitions.

kkins25:
■ So, pray tell, if my child ask me why he can't see God, what do i tell him?

Here's a simple question for you. Are eyes naturally capable of such feat or something? Can your eyes see, for instance, an atom, without aid? If you answer truthfully, then surely you ought to know how to answer that question.

Kobojunkie:
Here's a simple question for you. Are eyes naturally capable of such feat or something? Can your eyes see, for instance, an atom, without aid? If you answer truthfully, then surely you ought to know how to answer that question.

An atom is incapable of creating the physical universe. An atom cannot love, an atom isn't all powerful.
Unless u want us to go down the road of listing out the limitations of God. and why the "God is spirit" argument is as flawed as 2+1= 4.. i have not defined God. YOU DID. Y
ou say he created
You say he is all powerful
You say he is merciful
You say the heavens are his abode and the earth his footstool.
You say he is present everywhere
You claim his son came down as himself
If you claim this same God could appear as a burning bush, then surely, you must know more than me about said God. If you cannit prove that siad God, without brainwashing me to think he is a spirit who works in mysterious way, then i see no reason to even entertain such ridiculous ideas.
Afterall, if you had been born in some remote islands in the pacific, you wouldn't know this particular God. would you?

Kobojunkie:
Look in a dictionary for the definitions.

You're a comedian.

kkins25:
You're a comedian.

That would be you.

kkins25:
■ An atom is incapable of creating the physical universe. An atom cannot love, an atom isn't all powerful.
Unless u want us to go down the road of listing out the limitations of God. and why the "God is spirit" argument is as flawed as 2+1= 4.. i have not defined God. YOU DID. Y
ou say he created
You say he is all powerful
You say he is merciful
You say the heavens are his abode and the earth his footstool.
You say he is present everywhere
You claim his son came down as himself
If you claim this same God could appear as a burning bush, then surely, you must know more than me about said God. If you cannit prove that siad God, without brainwashing me to think he is a spirit who works in mysterious way, then i see no reason to even entertain such ridiculous ideas.
Afterall, if you had been born in some remote islands in the pacific, you wouldn't know this particular God. would you?

This epistle of yours is unneeded. The question I asked is simple. Are eyes naturally capable of such feat or something? Can your eyes see, for instance, an atom, without aid? If you answer truthfully, then surely you ought to know how to answer that question.

Kobojunkie:
This epistle of yours is unneeded. The question I asked is simple. Are eyes naturally capable of such feat or something? Can your eyes see, for instance, an atom, without aid? If you answer truthfully, then surely you ought to know how to answer that question.

Even though i cannot see an atom, I interact with it every day. So, do you, so does everyone else. Even if we don't know what an atom is, we objectively interact with it.

Atom or not, the thing, the atom exist. We can define it, we can manupulate it even without knowing what it is..

what next? God is there just like air, but, i cant see air so that means God exist..oh common!

anyway, are u saying we lack the apparatus to see God? Can God in his infinite power and wisdom not make himself visible? How about making all of us unanimously hear his voice?Is that to much to ask?

A donkey isn't capable of speach but, behold, a donkey spoke.
Man can't rise from the dead, behold, Jesus did.

so tell me? whats stopping God from affecting our material world to show us that he exit.

kkins25:
■ Even though i cannot see an atom, I interact with it every day. So, do you, so does everyone else. Even if we don't know what an atom is, we objectively interact with it. Atom or not, the thing, the atom exist. We can define it, we can manupulate it even without knowing what it is.. what next? God is there just like air, but, i cant see air so that means God exist..oh common! anyway, are u saying we lack the apparatus to see God? Can God in his infinite power and wisdom not make himself visible? How about making all of us unanimously hear his voice?Is that to much to ask? A donkey isn't capable of speach but, behold, a donkey spoke. Man can't rise from the dead, behold, Jesus did. so tell me? whats stopping God from affecting our material world to show us that he exit.

Are you trying to suggest that you interact daily with everything that you see or what?

Again, this epistle of yours is unneeded. The question I asked is simple. Are eyes naturally capable of such feat or something? Can your eyes see, for instance, an atom, without aid? If you answer truthfully, then surely you ought to know how to answer that question.

excanny:
A little about my background. I was raised as a religious Christian and made to read the Bible from start to end continuously on a yearly basis. This deep studying exposed me to seeing the many inconsistencies in the Bible and question my beliefs.

I also spent some time studying some other religious texts from Islam(English versions of Quran and haddiths), Buddhism and some Hinduism, before accepting Atheism as what works for me.

My utmost desire is to raise my children as straight up Atheists, no need wasting thing on fake concepts like religions, but at same time with good morals(logical, truthful, kind, trustworthy, and a couple of good societal values).

But I've been wondering whether it's ideal to expose them to religious texts, so they can easily see the fallacies of religions or to completely ignore religious texts and focus on scientific reasoning and logic?

Anyone in same boat?

What is your source of morality?
Why should your children trust your judgment on morality?

Kobojunkie:


Are eyes naturally capable of such feat or something? Can your eyes see, for instance, an atom, without aid?

Can a eye see itself?

TenQ:

What is your source of morality?
Why should your children trust your judgment on morality?

We should start from the origin of the word “morality”.
And nothing is either good or bad, our thinking makes it so, morals are always changing.
Good and bad exist for each other.

TenQ:

What is your source of morality?
Why should your children trust your judgment on morality?

I never mentioned anything about my morality neither did i give any personal judgment on morality. Please read well.

Maynman:

We should start from the origin of the word “morality”.
And nothing is either good or bad, our thinking makes it so, morals are always changing.
Good and bad exist for each other.

I was simply asking the OP questions about his source of morality

excanny:
A
..
My utmost desire is to raise my children as straight up Atheists, no need wasting thing on fake concepts like religions, but at same time with good morals (logical, truthful, kind, trustworthy, and a couple of good societal values).
..

Morality means NOTHING if it is subjective!

excanny:


I never mentioned anything about my morality neither did i give any personal judgment on morality. Please read well.

You did sir!

excanny:
A
..
My utmost desire is to raise my children as straight up Atheists, no need wasting thing on fake concepts like religions, but at same time with good morals (logical, truthful, kind, trustworthy, and a couple of good societal values).
..

TenQ:

Morality means NOTHING if it is subjective!

It means EVERYTHING, and it keeps changing through Subjective discussions, we have lawmakers making laws everyday In nigeria.
How were the israelites able to gather in harmony before the 10 commandments if they didn’t have mutual agreement?

The greatest law is the golden law, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

The inside and the outside, the subjective and the objective, the self and other go together.
There is an harmony and unbreakable harmony, concordant relationship,
The 2 processes, the 2 behaviors are one.
You can’t have objective without subjective.

Maynman:

It means EVERYTHING, and it keeps changing through Subjective discussions, we have lawmakers making laws everyday In nigeria.
How were the israelites able to gather in harmony before the 10 commandments if they didn’t have mutual agreement?

The greatest law is the golden law, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

The inside and the outside, the subjective and the objective, the self and other go together.
There is an harmony and unbreakable harmony, concordant relationship,
The 2 processes, the 2 behaviors are one.
You can’t have objective without subjective.

I said:
Morality means NOTHING if it is subjective!


Is it moral to do gender assignment for your children?

Is it moral to have an open marriage?

Is it moral to invade another country that you believe may be friendly towards your enemies?

Is it moral to have sex with animals?

Is it moral to dress sparingly?

If morality can change according to how we feel and our individual disposition, then it becomes meaningless.

Is it moral to have abortions?


Even the government for the sake of sanity make the law objective and not subjective.
Eg. We drive on the right side of the road even if you are a professor of Traffic Engineering who discovered that driving on the left is actually better.





Even the so-called golden rule:
Why should we obey it?
Does this law always favour me!?

TenQ:


I said:
Morality means NOTHING if it is subjective!

“I said” is that not subjective?

You are already proving the point.

TenQ:


I said:
Even the so-called golden rule:
Why should we obey it?
Does this law always favour me!?

Who is the “me” that it is favoring?
Your ego?

One of the greatest laws in your New Testament is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
That’s the basis of morality.

TenQ:

You did sir!

When did honesty, trustworthiness become my personal morality?

TenQ:


I said:

Is it moral to do gender assignment for your children?

Is it moral to have an open marriage?

Is it moral to invade another country that you believe may be friendly towards your enemies?

Is it moral to have sex with animals?

Is it moral to dress sparingly?

If morality can change according to how we feel and our individual disposition, then it becomes meaningless.

Is it moral to have abortions?

If you think one is right or wrong, it depends on the custom of where you are and what they do.

That’s exactly the origin of the word “moral”.

TenQ:

Even the government for the sake of sanity make the law objective and not subjective.
Eg. We drive on the right side of the road even if you are a professor of Traffic Engineering who discovered that driving on the left is actually better.

It’s from subjective discussions of lawmakers that they agreed on a objective position, and through another subjective discussions by lawmakers in the future they might agree on another objective position.

We run a democracy in Nigeria not Aristocracy.
In democracy, even a professor in traffic engineering will have to convince the lawmakers before they can accept his stand and even at that some people won’t still agree, that’s why they vote subjectively, and the highest votes comes out as objective law.

Maynman:

“I said” is that not subjective?

You are already proving the point.

No, I am not proving your point.

I am actually asserting that:
Morality means NOTHING if it is subjective!

Note:
Any law of morality that is subject to personal definition is SUBJECTIVE!

Any law of morality that is NOT subject to personal definition is OBJECTIVE!

Examples:
1. Having the required VISA to travel to another country is an objective Law
2. Driving on the right side of the road in NIGERIA is an objective Law.
3. Dressing g to work in Suit is a SUBJECTIVE Law

TenQ:

No, I am not proving your point.

I am actually asserting that:
Morality means NOTHING if it is subjective!

Note:
Any law of morality that is subject to personal definition is SUBJECTIVE!

You asserting your opinion is SUBJECTIVE.
Who is “I”?

Which objective law says I should take your “assertions” serious?

Kobojunkie:
Many words, including Religion tend to have multiple meanings to them. You being stuck on one, does not negate the others.

Also there is a clear enough difference between educating a child and indoctrinating said child, that you should know for yourself that that analogy of yours does not even begin to cut mustard as far as this here discussion.

Which dictionary meaning of religion classes atheism as a religion?