mazaje:

You are the one creating your own conspiracies from silence, firstly, you tried to brush it off as some jewish sect not believing that she was sacrificed, when you saw that that claim holds no water, now its yahweh did not accept because the bible did not say so, if that is the case then, everything about christianity is arguing from silence. . .Since everything about the religion begins and ends with men and what they chose to say or write about their god. . .

welcome to the club, you are beginning to understand unique styles of the master of artful dodging. he will twist issues like a lawyer who is desperate to win a losing case by all means as if his whole life depends on it.

i guess he is a lawyer in real life.

MacDaddy01:

1) Are we talking about altruism or self-sacrifice? You need to stop this bait and switch! pick one
The soldier and policemen were for self-sacrifice not altruism.

Self-sacrifice/selflessness/altruism are all the same thing. I am talking in the context of morality, you should have guessed as much by now

2) A B and C are all rational but with different risks and rewards.

A= Heroic reward but high risk of injury
B= Less Heroic reward but very little risk of injury to yourself
C= Cowardly reward but no risk of injury to yourself.

A simple solution to bypass this problem is to make a lot of noise rom a distance to scare the rapist away then run or throw stuff at them while running away and shouting for help

You seem to be choosing a mixture of the 3 namely: heroically confront them then runaway like a coward while calling for help.
I didn't ask you to give an analysis, I asked which is the most moral and which is the most rational.
Please answer thus: The most moral =...... The most rational = ........
(note: the most moral and the most rational can be the same answer)

cyrexx:

welcome to the club, you are beginning to understand unique styles of the master of artful dodging. he will twist issues like a lawyer who is desperate to win a losing case by all means as if his whole life depends on it.

i guess he is a lawyer in real life.

The very existence of yahweh is arguing from Silence since yahweh did not tell him personally that he told any body to write any book on his behalf. . .If we are to play his games his entire belief is argument from silence, since he has never heard yahweh tell him anything personally about the bible. . .

Mr_Anony: ..........all this because the bible isn't saying what you want it to say.

The bible has already said what it says. . .Yahweh accepts humans sacrifice. . .After all he even told Abraham to sacrifice his son unto him. . .

mazaje:

The bible has already said what it says. . .Yahweh accepts humans sacrifice. . .After all he even told Abraham to sacrifice his son unto him. . .

You believe what you wanted to believe. . . . . . because even with Abraham, you cannot show God accepting human sacrifice

mazaje:

The very existence of yahweh is arguing from Silence since yahweh did not tell him personally that he told any body to write any book of his behalf. . .If we are to play his games his entire belief is argument from silence, since he has never heard yahweh tell him anything personally about the bible. . .

wow. i never saw it from that light. thanks for the insight.

if, like other christians, he had said that his beliefs is based on faith, i wont have problem with him. but trying to use logic to prove his faith is a blunder of all blunders.

the bad thing is that he will never see when his logic fails but he will keep twisting and twisting things and close his eyes to the fact that you cant prove any religious faith with logical reasoning.

Mr_Anony:

You believe what you wanted to believe. . . . . . because even with Abraham, you cannot show God accepting human sacrifice

The inhabitants of a whole town were to be killed and sacrificed as a burnt offering unto yahweh. . .

cyrexx:

wow. i never saw it from that light. thanks for the insight.

if, like other christians, he had said that his beliefs is based on faith, i wont have problem with him. but trying to use logic to prove his faith is a blunder of all blunders.

the bad thing is that he will never see when his logic fails but he will keep twisting and twisting things and close his eyes to the fact that you cant prove any religious faith with logical reasoning.

Thats why i like davidlylan, he remains the most honest christian here, the others are mostly liars that don't even know what they are talking about. . .I just read the nonsense they type and laugh all the time. . .example logicboy says the bible supports slavery, and Mr_anony comes up with some convoluted excuses like if logic boy has ever lied that means he is a liar. . . . . .Forgetting that yahweh himself was the one giving laws and telling people how to sell their own daugters into slavery. . .Sometimes you just read these people and laugh all day in the office. . .


Argument from silence, indeed, he should tell us when yahweh personally told him he told any body to write any book on his behalf. . .

Mr Anony, may I request you look at my opening comments in this thread:

www.nairaland.com/1020393/continued-wrangling-unbelievers-trumpet-call#1020393.2

Ihedinobi: Mr Anony, may I request you look at my opening comments in this thread:

www.nairaland.com/1020393/continued-wrangling-unbelievers-trumpet-call#1020393.2

hahah crybaby!

mazaje:

The inhabitants of a whole town were to be killed and sacrificed as a burnt offering unto yahweh. . .

The verse implied the plunder, but i can see how your fault-finding bias would paint the wrong way.

Mr_Anony:
The verse implied the plunder, but i can see how your fault-finding bias would paint the wrong way.

Kill every body, after killing, pile up the plunder and burn everything, the whole town with everything in it as an offering to yahweh is what was written. . .Your selective reading will also paint it the wrong way. . .

Ihedinobi: Mr Anony, may I request you look at my opening comments in this thread:

www.nairaland.com/1020393/continued-wrangling-unbelievers-trumpet-call#1020393.2

Seen it, thanks for calling me back into perspective.

Mr_Anony: Such a man is being 'hypocritical' in a sense as it is contradictory to say that morality comes from the self but then your highest morality is outside the bounds of self.

It is like Nigeria making laws for it's citizens but then the highest Nigerian laws now favor Ghanians and Togolese over Nigerian citizens. This doesn't make sense.

If you choose what is good and evil for yourself and by yourself, it only follows logically that your highest moral laws must benefit you best i.e. self-preservation becomes the greatest good.
Based on this, whenever you risk your life for someone else, you will not be acting within reason i.e. you would be acting irrationally. Do you see the point I'm making?

Rather the individual's ideals set the standards and it doesn't follow necessarily that it must be selfish or especially rational.

Kay 17:

Rather the individual's ideals set the standards and it doesn't follow necessarily that it must be selfish or especially rational.

In this case, the individual draws his ideals from himself and then set's standards for himself based on his own judgment. I don't see how these standards will not be selfish. Also I see every selfless act he performs to be an act of irrationality as it cannot possibly follow from self-defined ideals. So for a person to be altruistic based on a secular worldview, he has to throw in some irrationality hence, the secular humanist can do good but cannot logically explain why he does good.

If the secular humanist loves, he does so in spite of his better judgment. These actions that form a worldview but are not guided by reason is what is called blind faith.
I believe that true love cannot exist in the absence of judgment.

Perhaps you are conversant with the works of Ayn Rand (mind you, I don't think she is a particularly smart lady) she holds that selfishness is a virtue and that it is immoral to be altruistic in any form as it is unfair to give anyone something he/she doesn't deserve.
This view is what should logically follow when an individual sets the standards for himself based on his ideals.....unless the individual's ideals are transcendent and are not subject to him

Mr_Anony:
In this case, the individual draws his ideals from himself and then set's standards for himself based on his own judgment. I don't see how these standards will not be selfish. Also I see every selfless act he performs to be an act of irrationality as it cannot possibly follow from self-defined ideals. So for a person to be altruistic based on a secular worldview, he has to throw in some irrationality hence, the secular humanist can do good but cannot logically explain why he does good.

If the secular humanist loves, he does so in spite of his better judgment. These actions that form a worldview but are not guided by reason is what is called blind faith.
I believe that true love cannot exist in the absence of judgment.

Objection, my lord.

how about if a humanist do good because he experienced evil and will not wish that evil on another human being. religion is not required for that.

the principle of doing unto others as you want for yourself is not necessarily religious but humanist philosophy, which existed many years before Christ.

i personally hate when people suffer, not because of religious belief but because suffering is a universal evil that humanity must challenge and overcome.

how about that.

Mr_Anony:
Perhaps you are conversant with the works of Ayn Rand (mind you, I don't think she is a particularly smart lady) she holds that selfishness is a virtue and that it is immoral to be altruistic in any form as it is unfair to give anyone something he/she doesn't deserve.
This view is what should logically follow when an individual sets the standards for himself based on his ideals.....unless the individual's ideals are transcendent and are not subject to him

You're trying way too hard to paint secular humanism in a bad light while also claiming it's moral because it shares some morality with christianity and other religions.
Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy can't be said to resemble secular humanism in any way except for the atheistic essence of both philosophies. Ayn Rand was more about individualism and was staunchly against all forms of collectivism.

Guyz you are needed on this thread
www.nairaland.com/1020513/exposed-jesus-christ-greatest-lie
Mr Anony, I have created the thread about Jesus Christ's non-existence like I said.
Most of what I have on that thread are well researched masterpieces from very well respected historians, egyptologists, astrotheologists, Roman and Greek mythology. The writer herself, DM Murdeck is the author of over 4 books on differing aspects of this subject.
In her book Christ conspiracy she demonstrated with well documented historical facts and authorities that Jesus christ like the other older myth and godmen like Horus, Krishna, Mithra and so on was a mythologically created god by Early church men.
She showed how most of claims of the NT bibles were spurious and forged work of copy cats from pure pagan religion.
She demonstrated the very striking similarities between the Divinity attributed to Jesus by ealy Church men and the attributes of earlier godman that had existed before him.
For instance, she demonstrated in the book that most of the events claimed by the canonical writings of John, mathew, mark luke and John were all forged tales that never happened same as these apostles never existed. For an event as remarkable as the crucifixion of Jesus there is curiously no record of his death on the cross by Pontius pilate.
Most of the very notable writers that existed at thesame time Jesus was alleged to have worked the earth made no mention of him in their very large historical documents and records.
This woman went on to demystify all the copy cat divine attributes of Jesus and showed the places where they were copied from.
The book is an eye opener for anyone that is interested in knowing the truth. You will be high on some Jesus Kool aid not to give her very elucidly well research work a thought and ask questions.
I look forward to meeting you all there on that thread.
To read the full book; here is a downloadlink to the Pdf document, you will be gald you read this book, honestly.
Thank me Later:
http://ebookbrowse.com/acharya-the-christ-conspiracy-the-greatest-story-ever-sold-pdf-d180172742

Mr_Anony:
In this case, the individual draws his ideals from himself and then set's standards for himself based on his own judgment. I don't see how these standards will not be selfish. Also I see every selfless act he performs to be an act of irrationality as it cannot possibly follow from self-defined ideals. So for a person to be altruistic based on a secular worldview, he has to throw in some irrationality hence, the secular humanist can do good but cannot logically explain why he does good.

If the secular humanist loves, he does so in spite of his better judgment. These actions that form a worldview but are not guided by reason is what is called blind faith.
I believe that true love cannot exist in the absence of judgment.

Perhaps you are conversant with the works of Ayn Rand (mind you, I don't think she is a particularly smart lady) she holds that selfishness is a virtue and that it is immoral to be altruistic in any form as it is unfair to give anyone something he/she doesn't deserve.
This view is what should logically follow when an individual sets the standards for himself based on his ideals.....unless the individual's ideals are transcendent and are not subject to him

No it still doesn't follow. It only depends on the particulars of the person's ideals. Akso Ayn Rand is a frightening intelligent lady who believes in objective morality and isn't a humanist. Therefore not relevant here.

Martian:

You're trying way too hard to paint secular humanism in a bad light while also claiming it's moral because it shares some morality with christianity and other religions.
Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy can't be said to resemble secular humanism in any way except for the atheistic essence of both philosophies. Ayn Rand was more about individualism and was staunchly against all forms of collectivism.

Kay 17:
No it still doesn't follow. It only depends on the particulars of the person's ideals. Akso Ayn Rand is a frightening intelligent lady who believes in objective morality and isn't a humanist. Therefore not relevant here.

I never implied that Ayn Rand was a humanist, my point was that Ayn Rand's position is the kind of stance that should logically follow from an atheist worldview. All I am saying is that humanism does not logically follow from an atheist standpoint. So far, none of you has shown me a logical link.

@Martian, I am not trying to paint secular humanism in a bad light. I am just saying that it doesn't follow from an atheistic premise so I call it blind faith.
Perhaps you can solve this puzzle for us by showing us this logical link. Once you can do that, there'll be no need to argue further

Mr_Anony:


I never implied that Ayn Rand was a humanist, my point was that Ayn Rand's position is the kind of stance that should logically follow from an atheist worldview. All I am saying is that humanism does not logically follow from an atheist standpoint. So far, none of you has shown me a logical link.

@Martian, I am not trying to paint secular humanism in a bad light. I am just saying that it doesn't follow from an atheistic premise so I call it blind faith.
Perhaps you can solve this puzzle for us by showing us this logical link. Once you can do that, there'll be no need to argue further

You are a bigot. You hold bigoted views towards atheism. You are sick. Ayn Rand? You realise that as smart as Ayn Rand was, she was also a bit crazy.

If you watch American politics, you would realise that it is ironically Capitalist, God-fearing conservatives that like Ayn Rand not atheists.

I'd like to chip in here.
I think it is in the self interest of a individual to have a working and progressive society.
Compared to living alone chasing animals, I think living in society gives a better chance of individual survival. It is in the interest of the individual to protect the society.
Passing on the gene is a cornerstone of evolution. This makes it especially necessary to be selfless/altruistic to ones children.
The poor people in a society are a threat to the society. Because hunger makes you do all kinds of things. Being altruistic to them is another way of preventing their falling into crime.
Finally, being good for goodness sake actually makes me feel good. I can't describe the feeling I get knowing fully well I just lifted up another human to the best of my ability.

Mr_Anony:


I never implied that Ayn Rand was a humanist, my point was that Ayn Rand's position is the kind of stance that should logically follow from an atheist worldview. All I am saying is that humanism does not logically follow from an atheist standpoint. So far, none of you has shown me a logical link.

@Martian, I am not trying to paint secular humanism in a bad light. I am just saying that it doesn't follow from an atheistic premise so I call it blind faith.
Perhaps you can solve this puzzle for us by showing us this logical link. Once you can do that, there'll be no need to argue further

Mr Anony,
I have noticed your deliberate silence and artful deflection from the challange I threw at you to disprove the facts that Jesus was a fictional mental creation. He never was a real human being at no time, in fact, there are a million historical facts to prove so than you can imagine.
For one, in the century he was alleged to have existed, nobody, historians, or writers of that time made any mention of his name or any of the very obvious "miracles and works" your bible claims he did. Curiously too, is the fact that most of Jesus miracle stories have been proven to be copycat events from older mythological characters like krishna and co.
Why have become reticent all of a sudden in defending your "darling Jesus", I thought you have all the answers? Remember you dared me to open up a thread to challenge you on that; I did and have been waiting for you to disprove any of the very detailed well researched facts of the excerpts from the book Christ Conspiracy. Again, here is the link:

www.nairaland.com/1020513/exposed- jesus-christ-greatest-lie

MacDaddy01:


You are a bigot. You hold bigoted views towards atheism. You are sick. Ayn Rand? You realise that as smart as Ayn Rand was, she was also a bit crazy.

If you watch American politics, you would realise that it is ironically Capitalist, God-fearing conservatives that like Ayn Rand not atheists.

.....bla bla bla says the other bigot in the room

Avicenna: I'd like to chip in here.
I think it is in the self interest of a individual to have a working and progressive society.
Compared to living alone chasing animals, I think living in society gives a better chance of individual survival. It is in the interest of the individual to protect the society.
Passing on the gene is a cornerstone of evolution. This makes it especially necessary to be selfless/altruistic to ones children.
The poor people in a society are a threat to the society. Because hunger makes you do all kinds of things. Being altruistic to them is another way of preventing their falling into crime.
Finally, being good for goodness sake actually makes me feel good. I can't describe the feeling I get knowing fully well I just lifted up another human to the best of my ability.

All well and good.
I agree it is in the self interest of an individual to work towards a progressive society by being benevolent.

I agree that being kind to our children is important to our evolution (I won't define it as 'altruistic' though because they are our children so it is more like a 'selfish' duty to our offspring and doesn't really qualify as selfless love)

I do not agree that based on an atheistic premise, that altruism is a rational response. Being "good for goodness sake" is a meaningless statement and just a fancy way of saying being "good for no reason". Just like saying "talking just for the sake of talking" or "laughing for laughing sake" or "being mad for madness sake" it means nothing.

Now if poor people are a threat to society, the most logical solution would be to kill them off so that they are not a burden on the rest of the society. That should serve your self-interest much better than being benevolent towards them and having to drag them along.

Another problem for the humanist is how does he rationally justify dying for someone else since it is not in his self interest to do so?

My friend Avicenna, I do not hold that a secular humanist does not do good, what I am saying is that based on a secular worldview you do not do good within reason. You do good in spite of your 'better' judgment.

That is what I call "blind faith" because your actions - noble as they may be - are devoid of reason.

rhymz: Mr Anony,
I have noticed your deliberate silence and artful deflection from the challange I threw at you to disprove the facts that Jesus was a fictional mental creation. He never was a real human being at no time, in fact, there are a million historical facts to prove so than you can imagine.
For one, in the century he was alleged to have existed, nobody, historians, or writers of that time made any mention of his name or any of the very obvious "miracles and works" your bible claims he did. Curiously too, is the fact that most of Jesus miracle stories have been proven to be copycat events from older mythological characters like krishna and co.
Why have become reticent all of a sudden in defending your "darling Jesus", I thought you have all the answers? Remember you dared me to open up a thread to challenge you on that; I did and have been waiting for you to disprove any of the very detailed well researched facts of the excerpts from the book Christ Conspiracy. Again, here is the link:

www.nairaland.com/1020513/exposed- jesus-christ-greatest-lie

rhymz, you are funny. I laugh at what you call "very detailed and researched facts" I can engage you on them but you'll immediately run away again when your stuff fails to stick. You see the thing with you is that you thrive on copy-and-paste and once I begin to challenge your copypasted items, it will become clear again that you really have no foundation. Nonetheless, by God's grace I'll give you a response in due time, rushing me just won't do.

Mr_Anony: .....bla bla bla says the other bigot in the room

You accept that you are a bigot?
I'm not even sure what the wahala is about, so I'll be on my way...

@avicenna , I had to read up a synopsis of dawkins' the selfish gene, if I understand correctly he posits that it is not the individual that is programmed for self-preservation, rather it's the genes themselves. They are something like an ant-colony, ie like a hive, so the genes inside you might be willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, which in this case would be ensuring the ant colony (the same gene in other people) survives. It's a little more sophisticated than that of course, but that's the general gist I think. I'm not sure what to think about his arguments yet though.

Mr_Anony: .....bla bla bla says the other bigot in the room

lol and how am I a bigot?


Stop projecting your hate. You have done nothing but lie and spread nonsense on this thread about atheism and humanism. Two things you know nothing about.

wiegraf:

You accept that you are a bigot?
I'm not even sure what the wahala is about, so I'll be on my way...

Lol, I don't even know how to come back from that. My own words condemn me

@avicenna , I had to read up a synopsis of dawkins' the selfish gene, if I understand correctly he posits that it is not the individual that is programmed for self-preservation, rather it's the genes themselves. They are something like an ant-colony, ie like a hive, so the genes inside you might be willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, which in this case would be ensuring the ant colony (the same gene in other people) survives. It's a little more sophisticated than that of course, but that's the general gist I think. I'm not sure what to think about his arguments yet though.

Dawkin's selfish gene argument is really interesting because he has been called to task on it a few times. Personally, I haven't read the work in detail but his arguments have some flaws
1. When an ant dies for the colony, it does not consciously die i.e. it is not a sacrifice for the ant because the ant does not reason.

2. Dawkins holds that our genes dictate our actions....when asked in a debate against professor John Lennox how we can be held morally responsible for anything since we are under the control of our genes, Dawkins' response is that "we have to rebel against our genes" It is further pointed out to him that this is self contradictory as it will mean our genes rebelling against themselves. To this Dawkins' gives the example of how we use condoms and pills so as to control our genetic urges towards reproduction. He calls this an instance of us rebelling against our genes.

Now what Dawkins unknowingly implies here is that our reasoning minds are not a product of genetic evolution since we can use our rational minds to go against what we are genetically predisposed to do.
To be fair, Dawkins introduces memes which are units of ideas and culture that are transmitted much like genes i.e. behaviours we have but we don't know why we have them. Basically, Dawkins contradicts himself as he seems to be saying on the one hand that we are powerless against our genes/memes and then on the other hand that we can fight against our genes/memes.

Anyway, long story short; For something like self-sacrifice, Dawkins says it is the product of our selfish genes i.e. the human gene would want to propagate it's species. This is all well and good but it fails in instances where a man risks his life for his pet animals or pets animals risking their lives for their human owners (or maybe that's an instance of anti-gene rebellion....you never know with Dawkins these days lol)

Whichever the case, point is that Dawkins fails to point out a rationale for altruism/self-sacrifice. According to him "it is those genes at work again" or maybe "it is those gods at work again"

MacDaddy01:
lol and how am I a bigot?
Stop projecting your hate. You have done nothing but lie and spread nonsense on this thread about atheism and humanism. Two things you know nothing about.

lol....You have done nothing but lie and spread nonsense on this forum about christianity and islam. Two things you know nothing about.

My friend, accusations can go both ways. We can either argue logically or resort to ad hominem. I see you prefer the latter to the former.

Mr_Anony: . . . Now what Dawkins unknowingly implies here is that our reasoning minds are not a product of genetic evolution since we can use our rational minds to go against what we are genetically predisposed to do.
To be fair, Dawkins introduces memes which are units of ideas and culture that are transmitted much like genes i.e. behaviours we have but we don't know why we have them. Basically, Dawkins contradicts himself as he seems to be saying on the one hand that we are powerless against our genes/memes and then on the other hand that we can fight against our genes/memes. . . .

@ Mr Anony

Per John Gray on "memes":

In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to explain the appeal of religion in terms of the theory of memes, vaguely defined conceptual units that compete with one another in a parody of natural selection.

Unfortunately, the theory of memes is science only in the sense that Intelligent Design is science. Strictly speaking, it is not even a theory. Talk of memes is just the latest in a succession of ill-judged Darwinian metaphors.

Dawkins compares religion to a virus: religious ideas are memes that infect vulnerable minds, especially those of children. Biological metaphors may have their uses - the minds of evangelical atheists seem particularly prone to infection by religious memes, for example. At the same time, analogies of this kind are fraught with peril.

Mr_Anony:
lol....You have done nothing but lie and spread nonsense on this forum about christianity and islam. Two things you know nothing about.

My friend, accusations can go both ways. We can either argue logically or resort to ad hominem. I see you prefer the latter to the former.

Epic fail. Christian (catholic) for 22 years. 2 years anglican. 3 years in a baptist school. 1 year working with an islamic leader


I know a lot about islam and christianity.



Unlike you, who knows nothing of humanity and atheism. Tell me how humanism is closely related to satanism? Liar