Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,195,298 members, 7,957,755 topics. Date: Tuesday, 24 September 2024 at 07:18 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists (10722 Views)
Atheists Make More 'spiritual', 'emotional' Irrational Decisions Than They Admit / Dawkins Tells Atheists To "Mock Religion With Contempt," And Ravi's Response / Stop Arguing With Atheists (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (10) (11) (12) (13) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by wiegraf: 2:59pm On Nov 24, 2012 |
YIELD ANONY YIELD Things need not get any bloodier now.... |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by vedaxcool(m): 3:05pm On Nov 24, 2012 |
Atheists call for air support, swat and some tactical support, someone take out mr. Anony before he detonates the nuke! |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by Nobody: 3:11pm On Nov 24, 2012 |
vedaxcool: Atheists call for air support, swat and some tactical support, someone take out mr. Anony before he detonates the nuke! Trolololo |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by MrAnony1(m): 3:41pm On Nov 24, 2012 |
Logicboy03:You still have not satisfied the work cut out for you. You are equating "origin" to "basis" those two do not even come near meaning the same thing. I also read your link in the new scientist magazine and that one talks about something else entirely. It argues that accepting the theory of evolution does not undermine morals. It does not even come near proposing your so-called "evolutionary basis for morality". So please logicboy, stop wasting our time and provide us with your "evolutionary basis for morality" Let me make it simple for you here. Classify the following into good and evil based on evolution and explain why: 1 Adultery 2 Honesty 3 Rape 4 Gratitude 5 Murder 6 Greed 7 Selfishness 8 Generousity 9 Pedophilia 10 Cocaine abuse I am not interested in "how" but "why". For instance, telling me the origin of how we came to detest rape will get you nowhere. What you have to do is tell me, "Evolution has x characteristics and based on that, rape is either good or evil depending on how it relates to x. That is what it means to provide a basis for morality. Where you fail to do this, please feel free to shout debunked some more |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by MrAnony1(m): 3:56pm On Nov 24, 2012 |
musKeeto:You didn't quite get me right. I don't quite know how you think. How did you arrive at "God is morality" from "God is the standard for morality"? That's like saying "the clock is time" and "the ruler is length". Now let's move on to the main part of your question which is that Christians today interpret God's word in many different ways. I would have you note that multiple interpretations of a text doesn't void it in any way. If you recall earlier in the thread, I put before you guys the life and character of Christ as the standard for morality. If God was ever abstract, Christ has made Him manifest. No one has any excuse. |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by MrAnony1(m): 3:58pm On Nov 24, 2012 |
thehomer:It is a foundational premise. |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by Nobody: 4:03pm On Nov 24, 2012 |
Anony, you don finish today! |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by Nobody: 4:19pm On Nov 24, 2012 |
Mr_Anony:In your own words... Mr_Anony:How can there be a deviation if there's no standard by which to compare it? In your case, you say God is good that good's his nature. Mr_Anony:Effectively, you're the one saying THE CLOCK'S TIME, and the TIME'S CLOCK. There's no separation. Simple. Mr_Anony: Text in red: Wouldn't that apply to a text that's written and authored by humans? Should these subjective interpretations also be manifest where the text's supposedly written by a divine creator, one who seeks good, one who wishes to have a personal relationship with each individual? 1 Like |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by vedaxcool(m): 4:39pm On Nov 24, 2012 |
Logicboy03: I don't want to do this Logo-church Logic boy high priest of troll All hail troll Congregation shouts Troll troll! troll troll Logic High priest of troll Trolling for atheism Trolling for christianity Trolling for Islam trolololololololo Congregation Trolololololololo Priest of troll Hey men Hey men |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by thehomer: 4:55pm On Nov 24, 2012 |
Mr_Anony: Okay. Now why should it be accepted as true? I'm assuming that we're talking about the Christian God of the Bible here. I ask because if as you say morality is the ability to discriminate between good and evil (and perform the good acts), then based on what is in the Bible about that God's actions, I don't see how his nature can be said to be good. |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by Nobody: 5:05pm On Nov 24, 2012 |
Mr_Anony: Epic fail in semantics! You want to play a fast game here with semantics but you fail!! The origin of something can also the basis of that thing. This is explained below. I use "origin" and "basis" interchangeably because evolution is both the origin and the fundamental basis of our morality. (ehem, so you have agreed with science that the origin of our morality is from an evolutionary basis- your box is getting smaller) But let us focus on "basis" so that you will not have any chance to escape or twist; Definition; ba·sis/ˈbāsis/ Noun: The underlying support or foundation for an idea, argument, or process. Note- foundation Many of our instincts are based on our survival. We make decisions and take many actions based on our primal or evolutionary instincts to survive. Morality based on survival. Simple and clear. Mr_Anony: See this guy? You are now lying and ignoring that the article clearly mentions the origin and gives an evolutionary basis for morality (natural selection favouring altruism and the less selfish). Here is the quote again from the sceince magaine;
Mr_Anony: Shut up. I have dne that a million times but you reject it Mr_Anony: I am not going to waste my time with your foolish question because if I asked you this same question to give me answers from the bible, you would start asking me to give a concise definition of each of the terms. Example- what is murder? Is the isrealites killing the amakelites murder? I have already explained how evolution works in terms of morality and how we use reasoning to hone our primal instincts. I used examples of murder and drug abuse etc For you to ask the above question highlights your willful ignorance to accept facts Mr_Anony: When one has a hammer every object resembles a nail. Anony can only see morality through the prism of religion but morality existed before religion. Just because you use a crazy system of God xteristics are X therefore rape is bad because it is against X, doesnt mean that evolution works that way. Why is rape bad? -Infection/bruises to the victim (survival) (logical deduction) -Depression of the victim (survival) (logical deducction) -No reciprocal value (would the rapist love to be molested) (social evolutionary reason + logical deduction) -Anger to the kin of the victim (logical deduction) Wouldnt this be a better reason combining evolution and reasoning rather than saying "rape is bad because it is against god"? The "how" answer above seerves as a foundation for the "why" answer |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by MrAnony1(m): 7:11pm On Nov 25, 2012 |
mazaje:Good, but then what you are not paying attention to a lot of contextual issues here. We could delve into that and explain old testament law in depth but then we'll be moving on a far tangent (we can tackle that another day if you like). For example, in the old testament, God allows divorce but divorce is evil as far as God is concerned. When Jesus is asked about this, He says; "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by MrAnony1(m): 7:17pm On Nov 25, 2012 |
musKeeto:A ruler measures length and it is long by nature but that does not translate into a "length is a ruler" Would you rather that God took away your free choice and forced you to interpret his word in one particular way and one particular way only? |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by MrAnony1(m): 7:27pm On Nov 25, 2012 |
thehomer:Why should it be accepted as true? The same way you think it is true that you exist. How do you know for sure that your senses are not deceiving you and your whole world is not one big illusion? You just accept it as a given foundational premise that your senses are working fine and then build your argument from there. As for the second part of your argument, all you have done basically is say: "I don't think x is good, therefore it is not good". That my friend is a non-argument. |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by MrAnony1(m): 8:29pm On Nov 25, 2012 |
Logicboy03:Lol, so 'origin' and 'basis' have now become the same thing? Wow, this must be logicboy's new invention Also, stop putting words in my mouth and into the mouth of 'science', reminding you that there is a difference between "origin" and "basis" does not suddenly translate into that I agree with your "origin" I have clearly maintained that evolution is not the origin of anything. All evolution explains is changes over time. Equivocation fallacy. There is a difference between a historical foundation (i.e. how something started) and a conceptual foundation (i.e. the deciding factor of a phenomenon) See this guy? You are now lying and ignoring that the article clearly mentions the origin and gives an evolutionary basis for morality (natural selection favouring altruism and the less selfish).Again another equivocation fallacy, "roots" does not equal "basis" Let me give you a little analogy: Assuming we were arguing about how to decide length and I told you that the metric scale is the objective basis by which we can discriminate between lengths, you say you don't believe in the metric scale so I ask you to provide your basis for length. Telling me your version of A Brief History of Length and a theory of how we came to have the concept of length counts for nothing when it comes to being an objective standard for discriminating lengths. To now turnaround and say that this historical changes in how people view length is the basis for length is absolutely ludicrous. You are yet to provide this "evolutionary basis for morality" of yours. No you haven't I am not going to waste my time with your foolish question because if I asked you this same question to give me answers from the bible, you would start asking me to give a concise definition of each of the terms. Example- what is murder? Is the isrealites killing the amakelites murder?Lol, the reason you don't want to is because evolution is not the basis for anything. Evolution can not tell anyone what they ought or ought not to do. Evolution is merely change. I have already explained how evolution works in terms of morality and how we use reasoning to hone our primal instincts. I used examples of murder and drug abuse etcAs I have said earlier, Your 'explanation does not even come anywhere close to explaining a basis for morality. ad hominen Just because you use a crazy system of God xteristics are X therefore rape is bad because it is against X, doesnt mean that evolution works that way.If it it doesn't work that way, then it is not in any way an objective basis for morality. If it was, It will be able to consistently say if X is good or bad based on a certain standard parameter. Why is rape bad?So you argue here that rape is objectively evil and the reasons you give are survival (note that you have now given evolution a will in the sense that you are insinuating that it wants organisms to survive). You see, based on survival, your argument isn't really sound because, nearly every other animal has 'evolved' in a way that the males mount the females by force and without consent. Did they evolve wrong? For if survival is the watchword, then sex in whatever form it appears and as many times as possible with as many partners as possible should be the greatest good because more sex = more members of the species. Wouldnt this be a better reason combining evolution and reasoning rather than saying "rape is bad because it is against god"?Here you separate between evolution and reason, Did reasoning not evolve? No it doesn't even come close. |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by MrAnony1(m): 8:32pm On Nov 25, 2012 |
I'll be off for sometime (about a couple of weeks, I've got a presentation coming up) please feel free to give your replies and I'll give them a look see. |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by mazaje(m): 8:42pm On Nov 25, 2012 |
Mr_Anony: And slavery was good because?. . . .By the way divorce is NOT a bad thing in many parts of the world today(this goes back to my definition of morality as having everything to do with point in history). . .It is actually healthy and a good thing in marriages that are life threatning. . .Why was your good good champoining slavery which christians today consider to be a bad thing since his nature is all good as you claim?. . . |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by Nobody: 8:58pm On Nov 25, 2012 |
^^^^ Ah, Anony! This is why you will alway be my favourite christian, here. You never give up even though, you have no chance and have lost. Even Jesus gave up on the cross. Allow me to rebutt your argument in my next comment |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by Nobody: 10:05pm On Nov 25, 2012 |
Mr_Anony: Who said that they mean the same thing? See how you lie to cover up your inefficiencies? My exact statement was "The origin of something can also the basis of that thing. This is explained below. I use "origin" and "basis" interchangeably because evolution is both the origin and the fundamental basis of our morality" Does that mean that I said that they mean the same thing or that the origin could also be the basis? It would be like saying a nike sneakers could be a jogging footwear and a causual footwear. Does that mean that I said that jogging footwear and casual sneakers are the same? Now evolution is both the basis and origin of our morality. You have tried to use semantics to escape. Our morality starts with evolution and morality works with our evolution. You were shown a scientific article that talks about evolution being the roots of our fairness. You couldnt argue against it and now you are trying to use sematics to fight against the word "basis" Here is a scientific journal using the word "basis"- Morality having a biological basis http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/1517/819.short Here is a science article talking about the evolutionary basis of morality (yes it uses the word "basis" http://io9.com/5723024/the-evolutionary-basis-for-morality-might-be-completely-disgusting Are you now arguing against science? Is there an evolutionary basis for morality? Are the origins of our morality from evolution? What is now your argument? Mr_Anony: Lol....unfortunately for you, I am also talking about a conceptual foundation for morality- soemthing beneficial to the survival of an oragnism. Wow, your fails are becoming epic. Mr_Anony: Yawn. Who said "roots" equal "basis"? Try harder. You cant shift this argument with semantics and straw men. Your analogy fails because, 1) I gave a solid and factual basis for morality (from survival). You didnt. You claimed "god" but god is subjective. Bring any 2 christians, even twins to describe god or the bible and you will get two versions. 2) I didnt give you a history of evolution. I explained how our morality works with evolution- how we base many decisions on our survival. Furthermore, on the subjectivity of god, can you explain how god can be an objective standard when the interpretation of the bible is open to many versions and God himself is unknowable? Mr_Anony: Evolution is merely change? Wow. This is the problem right here. You dont undertand evolution and you dont want to accept it. How are you going to understand the evolutionary basis of morality? Evolution is a theory. Evolution is much more than change. The theory of evolution contains many concepts like adaptation, natural selection, mutataions, variations etc. Loling at your ignorance. Mr_Anony: I make explanations and you just shoud that it doesnt explain what it explains. Cool. Mr_Anony: Nothing in this world works like that. "God is X and so anything that goes against X is immoral" Your god has no definition. Yaweh has no objective definition in christianity. Christianity has no objective definition itself. You are just putting up imaginary rules to claim victory. Mr_Anony: 1) Evolution doesnt have a will 2) I never insinuated that evolution wants organisms to survive. You are talking nonsense. Natural selection- only the fittest survive 3) Consent doesnt apply to animals. Animals cant give consent. Consent is a human idea resulting from human reasoning that is only applicaple to humans. 4) Creating offsprings is good but there are natural limits. A mother can only raise a certain amount of offsprings. The greatest good can not be having overpopulation. Furthermore, we have reasoning. Mr_Anony: Wrong I only separate our basic evolutionary instincts/morality from reasoning with our evolved brain. We are different from animals in the sense that we have the ability to bypass our evolutionary instincts with the help of a brain capable of logic and reasoning. |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by wiegraf: 12:15am On Nov 26, 2012 |
^^^ You've told him all this several times already, yet you're still patient? I envy you... It's now looking like trolling but it's probably not. He's programmed to blindly follow imaginary sky tyrant while thinking that somehow makes it objective to boot. @anony, good lucking with your project |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by Nobody: 12:21am On Nov 26, 2012 |
wiegraf: ^^^ Lol...I know....the longer this goes on, the more his credibility sinks lower. I have bookmarked this thread for evidence of Anonyism |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by thehomer: 12:24am On Nov 26, 2012 |
Mr_Anony: In other words, you're saying it is axiomatic by comparing it to my consciousness. The problem of course is that for me to think that I exist, I have to exist but for me to think that some other entity has a certain attribute rather than another possible attribute, I'll need some external input to carry out that assessment. Thus, your analogy fails. Mr_Anony: No, what I've done is to say that I don't think God is good because of what he is said to have done therefore God is not good. If you would like me to show you what he is said to have done for you to decide on whether or not they're good, you only need to ask. |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by Nobody: 6:46am On Nov 26, 2012 |
Now I have cause to wonder how you think Mr_Anony: How does this answer my question? Indeed, length is not a ruler. Allow me to re-quote your earlier post. Mr_Anony:If there's no good separate from GOD AND anything which deviates from GOD's evil.... then it'll be right to say that what's being MEASURED has become the measurement. If this sounds crazy to you, then you need to check yourself. Again, Weigraf was right. You believe that things are good, because GOD says they are( in other words, because they do not deviate from GOD). It's like giving 'length' a voice and person, and hearing it say 5cm is 2km. NOW it won't matter what mode of measurement any human on the surface of the planet decides to use, what would matter is that 'length' has said it's 2km. Mr_Anony:We've been down this road before and I remember the Fashola's Lagos traffic law example I gave you. I'd give another one. You walk into a factory compound and see a sign 'Do not turn on the taps'. This statement is as clear as light. In a normal scenario, no taps 'should' be turned on. It doesn't take away 'free choice' for anyone could still turn on a tap if they choose to. Let's take for example, 'THOU SHALT NOT KILL', one of the ten commandments in the Bible.The same God who commands this also sanctions the genocidal killing of enemy tribes in the Old Testament. 'THOU shalt not kill' probably meant 'THOU SHALT not kill your fellow Isrealites'... But it's all good, cos GOD is GOOD. |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by MrAnony1(m): 3:54pm On Dec 19, 2012 |
Logicboy03:In fulfilment of my promise, i have come back to this thread. However, I don't see a reason to continue the argument here because it has lost it's appeal to me plus it will only result in a headless back and forth. So what I'll offer instead is that we make "your evolutionary basis for morality" the topic for our next discourse. I'd like to see you articulate it and defend it properly. |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by Nobody: 3:59pm On Dec 19, 2012 |
Mr_Anony: You know, this is my favourite topic. I am salivating. Open a thread and state the problems with my evolutionary basis for morality argument, please. I will gladly rebut. I have opened a thread before, so its ur turn now |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by MrAnony1(m): 4:18pm On Dec 19, 2012 |
Logicboy03:Any problems I would list in such a thread, I have already pointed out here. I would prefer a person to person debate because then it is easier to show you the flaws in your logic. I am not interested in continuing an aimless run of back and forths. |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by Nobody: 4:47pm On Dec 19, 2012 |
Mr_Anony: What do you mean person to person debate? Do you mean in person? |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by MrAnony1(m): 4:53pm On Dec 19, 2012 |
Logicboy03:yeah when we meet again |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by Nobody: 4:55pm On Dec 19, 2012 |
Mr_Anony: What If I came to oxford? You need to be debunked and I need to see Oxford. Been to many places but not there |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by MrAnony1(m): 4:59pm On Dec 19, 2012 |
Logicboy03:Lol, That will be interesting. When do you wanna come to oxford? |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by Nobody: 5:07pm On Dec 19, 2012 |
Mr_Anony: Will email/call you tonite. Some hater might intercept me, if I say here |
Re: Strategies For Dialoguing With Atheists by MrAnony1(m): 5:30pm On Dec 19, 2012 |
Logicboy03:paranoia |
(1) (2) (3) ... (10) (11) (12) (13) (Reply)
How Do 8 People Repopulate 7 Billion People In 6000 Years ? / Help! I Need A Genuine Prophet's Contact / How I Murdered The 5 Argument That Killed Atheism
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 139 |