MacDaddy01:

@ bolded
Epic Fail. Why couldnt you say that it ends as opinions and give one example

lol this guy should change his ID to "epic fail". Suits you better than the nonsensical "logicboy".

I gave you the example of vestigial organs... of course that was too close to the truth so you pulled the "oh that was eons ago" card no? Talking to blocks heads like you is frankly a wasted exercise.

I cant wait for you to say "epic fail" again dumbo.

okeyxyz:

@Bolded, True, christ is the only way to the true god and nothing else. Christ is not the only way to morality, thus prof Gray has completely missed it. people of other beliefs can have morality too.

The point John Gray was trying to make was not that people cannot have a sense of right and wrong or that Christ is the only way for knowing right and wrong, what he was saying is that it doesn't logically follow to condemn religion yet hold onto all its values minus God. You may as well promote the religion since you support it's values anyway.

As for the highlighted,
If Christ is the only way to the true God, it follows that all other gods are false and only one exists.
If he nature of this true God is the basis for morality, then it follows that one cannot not be good without God.
If one cannot be good without God and Christ is the only way to Him, then it follows that Christ is the only way to morality.

unless, you say that the basis for morality is found outside the true God then you now have to tell us on what morality is based other than a perfect God.

John Gray recognizes this and that's and that's why he holds that morality is an illusion and he suggests that if secular humanism denies God, then it must not go on to talk about morality. In fact he calls Dawkins et al soft atheists. I find John Gray to be quite brutally honest.

What Michael Ramsden does is to show how morality is not an merely illusion but refers to something beyond us.

davidylan:

1. I was talking about Darwin in my last response to you before that, which is why i said English.

Narrow escape

davidylan:
2. There is now no need to define morality? then you go right ahead to provide a "definition"? Seriously are you ok? It is alright to say your position is completely indefensible. You bleat loudly about how you think our ancestors must have had a form of morality that is similar to what we have today WITHOUT PROOF and you want us to take you seriously?

We both know what we mean by "morality" in the common sense. But for argument sake, I defined it.


Your straw man ways do not surprise me. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. All I said was that our ancestors had a sense of morality.

Yes, they did. For instance, there is no word for "slave" in my Nigerian language and neither do we have history of selling people as slaves until the Portuguese and British came to Nigeria. Beheading of suspected witches and POWs was the norm. Furthermore, our tribe, just like any other African tribe encourage deep respect for elders and parents.

musKeeto: waiting for Mr. Anony to admit he was wrong..
Were there no moral people before Christ?

yes there were moral people before Jesus Christ in the sense that people knew to choose between right and wrong. The point however is what was their morality based on? It must be something higher than the human self.

Morality based on self is empty.....and that's the point John Gray is trying to make. When you base morality on man as the humanists do, then it simply becomes something employed for convenience without any real substance.

In fact to me secular humanism is strikingly similar in practice to satanism if the premises are to be followed logically.

davidylan:

lol this guy should change his ID to "epic fail". Suits you better than the nonsensical "logicboy".

I gave you the example of vestigial organs... of course that was too close to the truth so you pulled the "oh that was eons ago" card no? Talking to blocks heads like you is frankly a wasted exercise.

I cant wait for you to say "epic fail" again dumbo.

lol....you had to go to a time where there was no modern science to prove that much of science is opinions! Epic fail.

MacDaddy01:
We both know what we mean by "morality" in the common sense. But for argument sake, I defined it.

no we dont. i have no idea what you personally define by morality. Some thing homosexuality is moral and i think it isnt.

MacDaddy01:
Your straw man ways do not surprise me. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. All I said was that our ancestors had a sense of morality.

Yes, they did. For instance, there is no word for "slave" in my Nigerian language and neither do we have history of selling people as slaves until the Portuguese and British came to Nigeria. Beheading of suspected witches and POWs was the norm. Furthermore, our tribe, just like any other African tribe encourage deep respect for elders and parents.

That the word "slave" doesnt appear in your language does not mean your people didnt have slaves dude. Thats just silly. to say you dont have a history of selling people makes very little sense either. There are tons of ancient peoples who dont have the word "cannibal" in their language... does it mean they never ate people?

MacDaddy01:


lol....you had to go to a time where there was no modern science to prove that much of science is opinions! Epic fail.

you mean the same period where the laws of evolution that you all hug tightly today was developed? the same period where much of the significant breakthroughs in medicine where made? You are most confused.

Mr_Anony:


In fact to me secular humanism is strikingly similar in practice to satanism if the premises are to be followed logically.

This is why Anony should never be seen as a person with enough knowledge to handle a debate.


Satanism- religion. Satan is seen as a God or deity or venerated. Rituals. Ethical egosim

Secular humanism- Without God, looking ethics that benefit mankind. Focus on humans


Even Jesus is not feeling you!

davidylan:

you mean the same period where the laws of evolution that you all hug tightly today was developed? the same period where much of the significant breakthroughs in medicine where made? You are most confused.

Lollololol.


Is there a difference between the scientifc theory of evolution and evolution as at Darwin's time? If the answer is yes then please;

Mr_Anony:

yes there were moral people before Jesus Christ in the sense that people knew to choose between right and wrong. The point however is what was their morality based on? It must be something higher than the human self.

Morality based on self is empty.....and that's the point John Gray is trying to make. When you base morality on man as the humanists do, then it simply becomes something employed for convenience without any real substance.

In fact to me secular humanism is strikingly similar in practice to satanism if the premises are to be followed logically.

if i may come in here,

are there no moral people before Christ?

our pre-christianity ancestors who loved and cared for each other, can we call them morally good or not?

i believe they are, what say you?

trying to justify the basis of morality is not the issue here

the issue is if morality can exist outside the premise of christianity or not

the question is simple and the answer should be simple.

equating humanism to satanism is another demonization attempt of christianity on anything that runs contrary to its belief system.

this video explains why morality can be based on humanism and why biblical morality is not what christians believe it is.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSS-88ShJfo&list=PL0EFCB22DFCD4F2E7&index=2&feature=plpp_video

MacDaddy01:


Lollololol.


Is there a difference between the scientifc theory of evolution and evolution as at Darwin's time? If the answer is yes then please;

Essentially evolution as a theory has not changed from Darwin's time. All we have today are a bunch of desperate atheists seeking "missing links" in search of questions that dont exist.

cyrexx: this video explains why morality can be based on humanism and why biblical morality is not what christians believe it is.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSS-88ShJfo&list=PL0EFCB22DFCD4F2E7&index=2&feature=plpp_video

Even without watching the video i knew it would be another judgemental rant against the bible.

1000 yrs ago it was moral for a lot of cultures to eat strangers, 500 yrs ago it was moral for calabar people to bury twins, 500 yrs ago slavery was moral... all these were ended by religious white people. so much for "morality based on humanism".

davidylan:

Essentially evolution as a theory has not changed from Darwin's time. All we have today are a bunch of desperate atheists seeking "missing links" in search of questions that dont exist.

Even more epic fails!

Even a basic search on Wikipedia will tell you the difference
In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" became obsolete.[6]



Another Epic fail;

What kind of biologist uses the term "missing link"?

davidylan:

Even without watching the video i knew it would be another judgemental rant against the bible.

1000 yrs ago it was moral for a lot of cultures to eat strangers, 500 yrs ago it was moral for calabar people to bury twins, 500 yrs ago slavery was moral... all these were ended by religious white people. so much for "morality based on humanism".

The religious-christian white people engaged in incest, slavery and genocide.


But no, christainity is perfect in your brainwashed mind.

MacDaddy01:



The religious-christian white people engaged in incest, slavery and genocide.


But no, christainity is perfect in your brainwashed mind.

you mean the same religious whites who ended the practice of slavery, stopped you savages from eating each other, burying yourselves alives in sacrifice to your gods, stopped you from burying your twins as bad omens? You mean the religious people who essentially ended 90% of your "moral" codes of conduct? Yeah... i would hate them too...

davidylan:

Even without watching the video i knew it would be another judgemental rant against the bible.

1000 yrs ago it was moral for a lot of cultures to eat strangers, 500 yrs ago it was moral for calabar people to bury twins, 500 yrs ago slavery was moral... all these were ended by religious white people. so much for "morality based on humanism".

No, on the contrary, the video is not what you think it is.

humanism is not iron-age barbarism like what obtains 500 years ago or in the old testament era.

you dont need to be overly defensive of the bible.

let the "truth" defend itself and stand on its own merit.

davidylan:

you mean the same religious whites who ended the practice of slavery, stopped you savages from eating each other, burying yourselves alives in sacrifice to your gods, stopped you from burying your twins as bad omens? You mean the religious people who essentially ended 90% of your "moral" codes of conduct? Yeah... i would hate them too...

My ancestors did not eat each other. Majority of Nigerian tribes did not bury twins, especially mine.

My ancestors did not engage in incest. Your white christians did. My black Nigerian ancestors did not need whites to end it

My ancestors did not engage in slavery. They did not need to stop something that they did not start. Your christian religious whites engaged in it and are now claiming moral high ground when they sopped it.




Epic fail from Davidylan as usual

cyrexx:


No, on the contrary, the video is not what you think it is.

humanism is not iron-age barbarism like what obtains 500 years ago or in the old testament era.

you dont need to be overly defensive of the bible.

let the "truth" defend itself and stand on its own merit.

So what exactly is humanism? the sanitized version that is essentially a product of western societies pushing religion to the backseat after using its principles to define their own culture for centuries?

Lets be honest here... sans religion, humanism in nigeria = slavery, underage forced marriages, superstitious burying alive of children, cannibalism e.t.c.

MacDaddy01:

My ancestors did not eat each other. Majority of Nigerian tribes did not bury twins, especially mine.

My ancestors did not engage in incest. Your white christians did. My black Nigerian ancestors did not need whites to end it

My ancestors did not engage in slavery. They did not need to stop something that they did not start. Your christian religious whites engaged in it and are now claiming moral high ground when they sopped it.

Epic fail from Davidylan as usual

So somehow you know what you ancestors were doing in 1245? Epic fail.

I would rather incest than burying people alive in sacrifice to forest gods.

davidylan:

So somehow you know what you ancestors were doing in 1245? Epic fail.

I would rather incest than burying people alive in sacrifice to forest gods.

lol.....and why would i need to go as far back as then? is 15th century not good enough?

MacDaddy01:



lol.....and why would i need to go as far back as then? is 15th century not good enough?

err perhaps because those people were just as much your ancestors as well right? I mean you use ancient jewish rites from 3000 yrs ago to bash christians then say we should only look at your people starting from the 15th century? Are you ok at all?

davidylan:

err perhaps because those people were just as much your ancestors as well right? I mean you use ancient jewish rites from 3000 yrs ago to bash christians then say we should only look at your people starting from the 15th century? Are you ok at all?

I could go as far back to the beginning of the 8th century- the point is that it is not necessary!


You are now seeing the problem- christians do not want to stop some archaic Jewish rites. It is the christians that go back to a book written over 2000 years ago.


As usual, you fail.

MacDaddy01:


I could go as far back to the beginning of the 8th century- the point is that it is not necessary!


You are now seeing the problem- christians do not want to stop some archaic Jewish rites. It is the christians that go back to a book written over 2000 years ago.


As usual, you fail.

confused. what was your point? You just seem to post so as not to lose an internet argument.

davidylan:

confused. what was your point? You just seem to post so as not to lose an internet argument.

lol.....I will rest my case here for people to see who has been lying and talking nonsense

rhymz: You are sure of what you think or know to be the truth and you argue that truth is not relative, huh? So tell us what is the truth?

The Word of God is Truth.

By the way, I did not run away from my own thread, I was tired of going round and round with you in circles especially when you started sounding angry and condescending. Anyway, don't derail your own thread by trying to instigate me on issues from another thread cos I could take you on anytime

You are a funny chap, you were the one accusing Paul of being a homosexual when you didn't have one single shred of evidence and you expected me to just seat back and agree with you. Perhaps you should go back and read that thread properly and correct yourself on it. Let's allow this one to flow for now.

I have no idea what the argument is about at the moment.

Do you guys actually know?

MacDaddy01:


This is why Anony should never be seen as a person with enough knowledge to handle a debate.


Satanism- religion. Satan is seen as a God or deity or venerated. Rituals. Ethical egosim

Secular humanism- Without God, looking ethics that benefit mankind. Focus on humans


Even Jesus is not feeling you!

You miss the point, At the core of satanism is that they despise God hence they say that self is the ultimate authority.
Though they elevate the devil, the main point of satanism is the worship of self.

This view that self preservation is the highest law is what should logically follow in an atheistic humanist worldview and not selfless christian practices.

wiegraf: I have no idea what the argument is about at the moment.

Do you guys actually know?

take a look at the video in the OP and tell us what you think

wiegraf: I have no idea what the argument is about at the moment.

Do you guys actually know?

that's typical for threads where macdaddy01 shows up. It just devolves into meaningless chatter.

As i understand it, the question is whether present day moral codes of conduct are a product of christianity/religion so to speak or a basic human trait.

Mr_Anony:
You miss the point, At the core of satanism is that they despise God hence they say that self is the ultimate authority.
Though they elevate the devil, the main point of satanism is the worship of self.

This view that self preservation is the highest law is what should logically follow in an atheistic humanist worldview and not selfless christian practices.

Sometimes you just have to shake your head at macdaddy's level of understanding. I'm not sure he will understand your simple breakdown either.

cyrexx:


if i may come in here,

are there no moral people before Christ?

our pre-christianity ancestors who loved and cared for each other, can we call them morally good or not?

i believe they are, what say you?

trying to justify the basis of morality is not the issue here

the issue is if morality can exist outside the premise of christianity or not

the question is simple and the answer should be simple.

equating humanism to satanism is another demonization attempt of christianity on anything that runs contrary to its belief system.

I promised not to argue with you on this thread, so I'll answer you only this once:
Were our ancestors good? yes some of them were.
Were they good without God? No they were not (even if they recognized God by many different names)
Can morality exist outside Christianity? No it cannot (since Christ is the perfect manifestation of God)
refer to my response to okeyxyz in post 65

satanism/humanism: not demonization, just an observation of how their worldviews should be similar if humanism follows it's logic properly.
refer to my response to macdaddy in post 91


As for your video, I actually enjoyed it, I even went on to see the next video on the morality series. Qualiasoup's arguments are pretty sound unfortunately hoewever, he starts with a few presuppositions which are not established such as he assumes macro-evolution to be true and bases morality on it as an evolved trait. The problem is that based on evolution, morality loses it's meaning as we don't know how well we have evolved or what direction our evolution will go next. I have to give him credit though that his arguments logically follow each other (.....well apart from some parts where he deliberately misinterpretes the bible such as where he is making moral judgments based on how Jesus treated a plant amongst others)