victor-NR-ceo:
@logical,ihedinobi can't make a preference because he bilivs pedophilia is a part of the whole lawless atheism. It's like asking a person who bilivs gaming is evil to pick btwin playin' ps3 & playin' live football.
@Ihedinobi,I think logicboy meant the character cases of most atheist(which they are rare immoral cases attributed to the affiliates(atheist)). Though pedophilia could be no sin with an atheist,only because atheism isn't yet a religion with a specific book of rules,notwithstanding this freedom of deeds atheists are rare affiliated to pedophilia reports. Any wayz,let's argue on the actual topic.

Ihedinobi has nothing to offer.

Logicboy03:

I prefer an Iphone to a blackberry but I have both because I like both and have enough resources to buy both. Preference does not mean elimination.


You are foolish. Stop using big words you dont understand.


Atheism allows pedophilia? Have you looked at the cases of pedophilia in christianity before you made that statement? Are you trolling?

You just got further demoted promoted to Manager of Dundee United. Your dumbness is closer to hopeleas than ever.

Ihedinobi:

You just got further demoted promoted to Manager of Dundee United. Your dumbness is closer to hopeleas than ever.

Wow...I have turned the once calm Ihedinobi into an empty thrash talker.


You were proven wrong and now, all you can do is abuse.

Enigma: By the way, I can't believe this!!!!

I got the spelling of 'corollary' wrong in that old post!

Cant believe it either, and I quoted you, gbagaun and all.

You take yourself too seriously.

Ihedinobi:

You just got further demoted promoted to Manager of Dundee United. Your dumbness is closer to hopeleas than ever.

Scottish football club names have always provided a good source of amusement.

For Yoruba speakers, Ayr United, if you pronounce it 'our' way can be extremely funny. Try Ayiri United aka Lunatics United.

Oh there is the unforgettable Forfar 5 Fife 4.

Logicboy03:


Wow...I have turned the once calm Ihedinobi into an empty thrash talker.


You were proven wrong and now, all you can do is abuse.

See what I said? You've proven me wrong? I'm abusing you? Where was I proven wrong? Where did I abuse you?

What kind of dumbo types that statement that I bolded in your last post and has the gumption to say they proved somebody wrong? Your stupiddity is quite bad, my friend. And that isn't abuse. It's friendly advice.

^^ No too stress yourself or waste your time.

Enigma:

Scottish football club names have always provided a good source of amusement.

For Yoruba speakers, Ayr United, if you pronounce it 'our' way can be extremely funny. Try Ayiri United aka Lunatics United.

Oh there is the unforgettable Forfar 5 Fife 4.

Hehehehe.... At one time I had no idea there was actually a Dundee United.

Ihedinobi:

See what I said? You've proven me wrong? I'm abusing you? Where was I proven wrong? Where did I abuse you?

What kind of dumbo types that statement that I bolded in your last post and has the gumption to say they proved somebody wrong? Your stupiddity is quite bad, my friend. And that isn't abuse. It's friendly advice.

3 comments past and yet, no reason given by Ihedinobi why my comment he bolded was wrong.


Furthermore, here are a list of foolish claims by my man, Ihedinobi

-

Ihedinobi:

[size=18pt]Well, the word (preference) implies elimination[/size].

I can't prefer atheism to paedophilia if atheism still allows me to have paedophilia nor can I prefer paedophilia if it does not cost me atheism. That is, in that sham of a poll you're trying to scam us with.

Captain Dundee.

Ihedinobi:

I did say you're dumb. Even if I spelt it out again letter by alphabetic letter you would still not comprehend.

I asked you to show that choosing atheism preventa someone from choosing paedophilia as well, or thay choosing paedophilia prevents the chooser from also choosing atheism. [size=18pt]A poll is meaningless if the choices are not mutually exclusive.[/size] How dumb can you be!

Lmao. How useless does someone have to be?

Enigma: ^^ No too stress yourself or waste your time.

Right. Sometimes, it's difficult to believe that he really is as dumb as this. I have this mentality that he's just messing around. I really hope that's the case, but I'm letting out my breath.

Most times it is just so painfully difficult to accord the Respect and Authority Religion lays claim to so vigorously. the sheer daft talk deemed as wisdom is quite frankly un-Christ-like. it reeks of internalized hatred and intolerant thinking. to say being an Atheist carries the tar of immorality like a dog carries fleas is very low reasoning even as a rude joke.

^^^ That is not the argument on this board/thread. Maybe you should try to understand the argument first.

Enigma: ^^^ That is not the argument on this board/thread. Maybe you should try to understand the argument first.

Enigma didnt read the op or his own comment in the op.


Fail.

Logicboy03: Do you agree with this analysis of atheism?
https://www.nairaland.com/1198534/cowardice-atheism/10#14364222

In four words:

All Atheists Are Evil

Logicboy03:
...Or are you saying that there is no difference between a pedophile and an atheist?

There is no difference between evil atheists and evil paedophiles. The sham poll is an example of a double bind.

Logicboy03:
Enigma didnt read the op or his own comment in the op. Fail.

I just advised Ihedinobi not to stress himself or waste his time addressing your ignorance and very very poor "logic".

I'm not about to waste my time either. Maybe some day, you and your supporters will bring something worthwhile to the table.

aletheia:
In four words:

All Atheists Are Evil


There is no difference between evil atheists and evil paedophiles. The sham poll is an example of a double bind.

Thank you

Logicboy03: Do you agree with this analysis of atheism?

Enigma:


1. If you read proper philosophers, including atheist philosophers that are honest to some extent, you will know that immorality is a natural and logical corrolary of atheism.

2. The example of the atheists on this forum tells us that immorality and lack of morals go together with atheism.

https://www.nairaland.com/1198534/cowardice-atheism/10#14364222

Any Christian who agrees with that simply reasons poorly. If they disagree, then they should be able to actually show that immorality necessarily follows from atheism.

thehomer:

Any Christian who agrees with that simply reasons poorly. If they disagree, then they should be able to actually show that immorality necessarily follows from atheism.

Lol....I just want them to expose themselves. So far so good. This thread will serves as evidence whenever these same christians (that agreed with Enigma in the OP) either want to claim that they are not bigots or that they are righteous or they understand moral philosophy

thehomer:

Any Christian who agrees with that simply reasons poorly. If they disagree, then they should be able to actually show that immorality necessarily follows from atheism.

And any atheist who disagrees with that simply reasons poorly. If they disagree, then they should be able to actually show that immorality does not necessarily follow from atheism.

Logicboy03:


Lol....I just want them to expose themselves. So far so good. This thread will serves as evidence whenever these same christians (that agreed with Enigma in the OP) either want to claim that they are not bigots or that they are righteous or they understand moral philosophy

And you, the number one Nairaland advocate for the abolition of religion, are not a bigot?

Ihedinobi:

And any atheist who disagrees with that simply reasons poorly. If they disagree, then they should be able to actually show that immorality does not necessarily follow from atheism.

Anonyism 101.

Ihedinobi:

And you, the number one Nairaland advocate for the abolition of religion, are not a bigot?

Who wants to abolish religion? Fail.

I disagree - what is termed 'immorality' only exists because of 'morality' in the first place - as the bible says, where there is no law there is no sin.

From Enigma's post, I infer that he considers morality to be a product of theism.

If morality didn't exist in the first place, then you would not have the concept of immorality as its polar opposite.

Therefore in an atheistic philosophy, if there was no morality in the first place, then there would be no immorality either.

debosky: I disagree - what is termed 'immorality' only exists because of 'morality' in the first place - as the bible says, where there is no law there is no sin.

From Enigma's post, I infer that he considers morality to be a product of theism.

If morality didn't exist in the first place, then you would not have the concept of immorality as its polar opposite.

Therefore in an atheistic philosophy, if there was no morality in the first place, then there would be no immorality either.

There is an unspoken prayer in my heart all the time rising up to God, it is that I never for any reason raid the cities of the Lord and harm my own brothers and sisters even if only out of the need to be fair to unbelievers. Debosky, my brother, never let your David be found in the battle on the side of the Philistines striking down the perhaps erring armies of the Lord.

Now, Enigma was saying that atheism is amoral. That is the conclusion. If atheism is followed to its logical end, it will be terribly immoral, not on its own standards, but on ours, because it recognizes no standards. Do you understand that?

Ihedinobi:

There is an unspoken prayer in my heart all the time rising up to God, it is that I never for any reason raid the cities of the Lord and harm my own brothers and sisters even if only out of the need to be fair to unbelievers. Debosky, my brother, never let your David be found in the battle on the side of the Philistines striking down the perhaps erring armies of the Lord.

Now, Enigma was saying that atheism is amoral. That is the conclusion. If atheism is followed to its logical end, it will be terribly immoral, not on its own standards, but on ours, because it recognizes no standards. Do you understand that?

The problem with what you have said is that your standards are flawed.

A whole old testament supporting slavery, rape, racism, genocide, murder and sexism- which you all excuse

A New Testament dedicated to suicide/human sacrifice of Jesus, the glorifying of lack of skepticism a la doubting thomas, slavery etc

Ihedinobi:

And any atheist who disagrees with that simply reasons poorly. If they disagree, then they should be able to actually show that immorality does not necessarily follow from atheism.

The very fact that an atheist can act morally shows that immorality doesn't necessarily follow from atheism.

Now can you demonstrate that immorality necessarily follows from atheism?

thehomer:

The very fact that an atheist can act morally shows that immorality doesn't necessarily follow from atheism.

Now can you demonstrate that immorality necessarily follows from atheism?

The very fact that atheism recognizes no moral absolutes shows that immorality necessarily follows from atheism.

Now can you demonstrate that immorality does not necessarily follow from atheism?

Ihedinobi:

There is an unspoken prayer in my heart all the time rising up to God, it is that I never for any reason raid the cities of the Lord and harm my own brothers and sisters even if only out of the need to be fair to unbelievers. Debosky, my brother, never let your David be found in the battle on the side of the Philistines striking down the perhaps erring armies of the Lord.

You seem to be hinting that debosky shouldn't present his view even if it seems to make a point against a Christian's view in order for you not to criticize his point.

Ihedinobi:
Now, Enigma was saying that atheism is amoral. That is the conclusion. If atheism is followed to its logical end, it will be terribly immoral, not on its own standards, but on ours, because it recognizes no standards. Do you understand that?

No, Enigma explicitly said atheism was immoral. The basic error you're making is in assuming that we derive morality from theism. Atheists disagree with that assumption.
e.g to many atheists, commanding a genocide is immoral not amoral but to Christians, it is sometimes moral.

Ihedinobi:
There is an unspoken prayer in my heart all the time rising up to God, it is that I never for any reason raid the cities of the Lord and harm my own brothers and sisters even if only out of the need to be fair to unbelievers. Debosky, my brother, never let your David be found in the battle on the side of the Philistines striking down the perhaps erring armies of the Lord.

Thanks for the prayer brother - I pray the same for you.

Now, Enigma was saying that atheism is amoral. That is the conclusion. If atheism is followed to its logical end, it will be terribly immoral, not on its own standards, but on ours, because it recognizes no standards. Do you understand that?

I still disagree, possibly on your reading of what Enigma has said. He is talking of the 'natural logical corollary of atheism' not how it is perceived by us.

That means (to me at least) that when examined on its own philosophical basis, you cannot but arrive at immorality, and I disagree with that.

Furthermore, I disagree with the superficial assertion that atheism recognizes 'no standards' - that isn't the case, it simply doesn't recognise any standards as 'absolute' or 'divine' - that doesn't stop individuals or groups of individuals from setting their own standards as they deem fit - it may not be homogeneous among all atheists, but that isn't a requirement either.

Ihedinobi:

The very fact that atheism recognizes no moral absolutes shows that immorality necessarily follows from atheism.

I hope you're aware that Christianity doesn't recognize any moral absolutes. Does this then show that immorality necessarily follows from Christianity?

Ihedinobi:
Now can you demonstrate that immorality does not necessarily follow from atheism?

Err. You're the one to demonstrate that it actually does follow since like I've said before, not all atheists act immorally. If they don't all act immorally, then immorality doesn't necessarily follow from atheism.

debosky:

Thanks for the prayer brother - I pray the same for you.



I still disagree, possibly on your reading of what Enigma has said. He is talking of the 'natural logical corollary of atheism' not how it is perceived by us.

That means (to me at least) that when examined on its own philosophical basis, you cannot but arrive at immorality, and I disagree with that.

Furthermore, I disagree with the superficial assertion that atheism recognizes 'no standards' - that isn't the case, it simply doesn't recognise any standards as 'absolute' or 'divine' - that doesn't stop individuals or groups of individuals from setting their own standards as they deem fit - it may not be homogeneous among all atheists, but that isn't a requirement either.

Then the key issue here is whether or not when followed logically to its terminus atheism will prove completely immoral.

Let me start it like this. Logic is a tool we use to consistency of an idea with truth. If we apply this tool to atheism, will it prove consistent? Atheism as a philosophy rejects the existence of moral absolutes. It makes the individual human the moral authority. Is this true? Is the nature of the human being consistent with what would be expected of a moral authority? Furthermore, if atheism results in a population with clashing moral codes, are these codes going to annihilate or strengthen each other?

If, say, each of seven billion people decide what they call right and wrong, on what basis will one moral code submit to another? If they cannot coalesce to form one uniform code, what does atheism result in? I think you'll agree that it'll result in the total absence of morality. If they do, coalesce, then atheism will have to give up its character to accommodate a God, even if an elected one.

However you look at it, a true atheist is a wild dog and will never care for a leash.

Ihedinobi:
If, say, each of seven billion people decide what they call right and wrong, on what basis will one moral code submit to another? If they cannot coalesce to form one uniform code, what does atheism result in?

To a large extent, that is what we have already - the only restraint there is are the existence of laws, not exercised by 'divinity' but by human governments - many of them atheist in outlook. There is no 'uniform code' of what morality stands for today, even with theistic beliefs in existence.

I think you'll agree that it'll result in the total absence of morality.

It will not - the absence of an 'absolute' morality sure, but there will be different codes of behaviour between different groups, because people who think in the same/similar manner will naturally aggregate together. Whether they coalesce or not is immaterial.

If they do, coalesce, then atheism will have to give up its character to accommodate a God, even if an elected one.

I disagree with this - people may simply decide on a 'fundamental' set of morals that everyone can agree on simply for the sake of expediency (e.g. for trade), and not for accommodating 'God'.

In actual fact, that is what we have with the World Trade Organisation and the likes - once there is mutual interest, agreements can be reached through compromise.

However you look at it, a true atheist is a wild dog and will never care for a leash.

You see, this is my main disagreement with you - you attempt to enforce your own blanket definition on all atheists.

There is no such thing as a 'true atheist' as you try to define it. There are many branches of atheism with varying opinions. Some are 'evangelical' like Logicboy, others are 'humanistic', while yet others are 'anarchists'. The anarchist may truly be a wild dog, but not atheists fall into this category.