Brimmie:

Lol.. You dey mind am!



Lmao! Dat sounds like Hindu!


Nice Post Tho.. Am a Ghost Follower Of Ur Posts!

Thanks

Logicboy03:

Am a vodka man

Nice.

Well LB, you definitely know how to flap your mouth. I'll give you that much. Your evangelical skills are unequaled. I must say.


Now if you could just use your powers for good.

Uyi Iredia:

See them. Dem wanna put me in their box. I went because I wanted to. Nothing about deism precludes me from going to church. Even some atheists go to church without being forced.

@ Ray: Deist. Complex ? Well, to some extent.

Wetin dis one dey feel like.

texanomaly: Well LB, you definitely know how to flap your mouth. I'll give you that much. Your evangelical skills are unequaled. I must say.


Now if you could just use your powers for good.

I am not some evil genius.......I use my powers for good

aManFromMars:
Nice.

Na Rosee champagne for u

Logicboy03:

Na Rosee champagne for u

Is HE that GIRLISH ?

BedLam: Is HE that GIRLISH ?

E be like say u no sabi champagne

Stick to ogogoro

Gradually, atheism turns into a church
bishop logicboy

tobechi20: Gradually, atheism turns into a church
bishop logicboy

Daft

So you think church should only mean place of worshipping sky daddy huh?

Lets meet at the church of boston.... Check out their site www.churchofboston.com/

Logicboy03:



E be like say u no sabi champagne

Stick to ogogoro

lol, how did you know? I'm a Niger deltan

,

tobechi20: Gradually, atheism turns into a church
bishop logicboy

He was atheist, now he is a bishop....


SOMEBODY SHOUT HALLELUYAH!!!

BedLam: lol, how did you know? I'm a Niger deltan

Wadooo

Logicboy03:



Wetin dis one dey feel like.

Why u dey beef ? I go church. Finish. You come dey para. I dey laff !

@logicboy's OP.

I have serious objections with your write-up, it is a bit careless. Your definition of good (which is of universal appplication) is more or less utilitarianism. Which means whatever is considered by the most to be beneficial to the most is good, and whatever is harmful to the most is bad. Also that utilitarianism is self evident.

I believe that's a lie. First of all, utilitarianism is built on its own assumptions ( that what's beneficial to the majority is good) without which it is far from self evident. No pattern of reasoning without preconceived bias can lead to utilitarianism.

2. What's good for sheep is not the same to wolves. Both have different constitutions, in that condemning wolves with the standard of sheep is to create a standard of hypocrisy! There is no basis to believe predators be ruled under prey morality. People are unique and need different standards to develop themselves.

3. What does being "good for the sake of being good"?! Why not the other way?! Being "bad for the sake of being bad". So far they have the same VALUE.

Oooooooo!!!!

Somebody lets speak in tongues. You can do it. You can speak in tongues.

*Satatatatattatatarabababab sokoribimu nashiishishsishi *

*santararara sontororo iyakarara sontororo*

*caricaca papaya, indiego magnirica*

--------------

oooo hmmmmm. D lord is speaking to me that their is someone here hu has been offered a Job by The PRESIDENCY. Brothers and sisters if u know u are the one come out and drop a seed of faith (members dropping their tithes.........

Even the illiterates arecoming out.)

lol!

Kay 17: @logicboy's OP.

I have serious objections with your write-up, it is a bit careless. Your definition of good (which is of universal appplication) is more or less utilitarianism. Which means whatever is considered by the most to be beneficial to the most is good, and whatever is harmful to the most is bad. Also that utilitarianism is self evident.

I believe that's a lie. First of all, utilitarianism is built on its own assumptions ( that what's beneficial to the majority is good) without which it is far from self evident. No pattern of reasoning without preconceived bias can lead to utilitarianism.

2. What's good for sheep is not the same to wolves. Both have different constitutions, in that condemning wolves with the standard of sheep is to create a standard of hypocrisy! There is no basis to believe predators be ruled under prey morality. People are unique and need different standards to develop themselves.

3. What does being "good for the sake of being good"?! Why not the other way?! Being "bad for the sake of being bad". So far they have the same VALUE.

Mr.

Logicboy writeUp does not in anyway conform to d utilitarianism principle.
-And to your 3rd question.

Do u mean u are been good or showing good cause u are scared of the imaginary hell fire? Or bcuz ur god ask u to b good?

So u need religion or god to tell u to show goodness b4 u do?

Hmmmmm now i see why pple like u will condone the several genocide commited by ur god in the old testament.
Count urself lucky if ur god had killed those thousands pple in the old testatment in this 21st century.
He wud ave been sued for crimes against humanity and hanged like saddam hussein.

ONUTOPSY: FOR GOD SO LOVE THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE US HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVE IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH BUT HAVE AN EVERLASTING LIFE. GIVE YOUR LIFE TO JESUS AND BE SAVED.[color=#990000][/color]

for god so love the world that he had to kill his only begotten son to save the world from being destroyed by himself.
what a wonderful gilbreish

Ymodulus:

Mr.

Logicboy writeUp does not in anyway conform to d utilitarianism principle.
-And to your 3rd question.

Do u mean u are been good or showing good cause u are scared of the imaginary hell fire? Or bcuz ur god ask u to b good?

So u need religion or god to tell u to show goodness b4 u do?

Hmmmmm now i see why pple like u will condone the several genocide commited by ur god in the old testament.
Count urself lucky if ur god had killed those thousands pple in the old testatment in this 21st century.
He wud ave been sued for crimes against humanity and hanged like saddam hussein.

lwkm

Kay 17: @logicboy's OP.

I have serious objections with your write-up, it is a bit careless. Your definition of good (which is of universal appplication) is more or less utilitarianism. Which means whatever is considered by the most to be beneficial to the most is good, and whatever is harmful to the most is bad. Also that utilitarianism is self evident.

I believe that's a lie. First of all, utilitarianism is built on its own assumptions ( that what's beneficial to the majority is good) without which it is far from self evident. No pattern of reasoning without preconceived bias can lead to utilitarianism.

2. What's good for sheep is not the same to wolves. Both have different constitutions, in that condemning wolves with the standard of sheep is to create a standard of hypocrisy! There is no basis to believe predators be ruled under prey morality. People are unique and need different standards to develop themselves.

3. What does being "good for the sake of being good"?! Why not the other way?! Being "bad for the sake of being bad". So far they have the same VALUE.

Guy, did Uyi Iredia possess you? You are just criticising for the sake of criticism!!!


First of all, my write up is far beyond utilitarianism

-I advocate that we ground our morality using logic and reason
-I advocate that we make rules that consider all people
-I advocate that we make choices that cause the least harm


My write up goes beyond utilitarianism in the sense that it doesnt only look at the consequence but the whole reasoning surrounding morality.

Also understand that utilitarianism is a broad concept with different types. Sure, you can relate it to a contemporary form of utilitarianism with some added benefits.

Utilitarianism is one of the best ethical pilosophies we have as humans.

Too bad that christians and muslims can not appreciate it fully

you guys got a "church";there's talk of a "bible"; now you're giving "sermons"?!
is it just me or is the deja vu real thick here?

F00028: you guys got a "church";there's talk of a "bible"; now you're giving "sermons"?!
is it just me or is the deja vu real thick here?

Yep, most definitely JUST you.

Kay 17: @logicboy's OP.

I have serious objections with your write-up, it is a bit careless. Your definition of good (which is of universal appplication) is more or less utilitarianism. Which means whatever is considered by the most to be beneficial to the most is good, and whatever is harmful to the most is bad. Also that utilitarianism is self evident.

I believe that's a lie. First of all, utilitarianism is built on its own assumptions ( that what's beneficial to the majority is good) without which it is far from self evident. No pattern of reasoning without preconceived bias can lead to utilitarianism.

2. What's good for sheep is not the same to wolves. Both have different constitutions, in that condemning wolves with the standard of sheep is to create a standard of hypocrisy! There is no basis to believe predators be ruled under prey morality. People are unique and need different standards to develop themselves.

3. What does being "good for the sake of being good"?! Why not the other way?! Being "bad for the sake of being bad". So far they have the same VALUE.

Though we often don't agree and I think this thread is dumb, I must say I respect how you think. Your post is the only one I've seen so far on this thread that has any quality.

Mr anony:
Though we often don't agree and I think this thread is dumb, I must say I respect how you think. Your post is the only one I've seen so far on this thread that has any quality.

Wow.....christian dishonesty and politics.

Divide n conquer€


Thanks for praising the only wrong atheist comment criticising the op

ONUTOPSY: FOR GOD SO LOVE THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE US HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVE IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH BUT HAVE AN EVERLASTING LIFE. GIVE YOUR LIFE TO JESUS AND BE SAVED.[color=#990000][/color]

which "spirit" inspired this. holy or beverage?

@logicboy

You are exactly guilty of what I accused you of.

First of all you defined morality as (in your own words)

But how do we know what is good? How do we know how to ground our morality in reason? The simple answer is using logic to weigh our actions and deeds with respect to harm and survival of our fellow humans

Which is what utilitarianism is summarily about! And that was an unjustified assumption you made: that the survival and harm to our fellow humans is greeted with good and bad. Obviously the individualist is an evil in this dispensation!

Reason and logic are rubberstamps to dress up your prejudices against the individual.

To further prove the inconsistencies in your utilitarian morality, human sacrifice for the good of all is approveable (you even dine with Christians), justice for the minority wldnt exist.

Morality is entirely subjective, with a little bit of common sense, sentiment, bias and abstract. There is no such thing as universal morals!

Mr anony:
Though we often don't agree and I think this thread is dumb, I must say I respect how you think. Your post is the only one I've seen so far on this thread that has any quality.

Btw...Kay was not saying that the thread is dumb. Utilitarianism is just a system of ethics. Ode

Kay 17: @logicboy

You are exactly guilty of what I accused you of.

First of all you defined morality as (in your own words)



[size=18pt]Which is what utilitarianism is summarily about! And that was an unjustified assumption you made: that the survival and harm to our fellow humans is greeted with good and bad. Obviously the individualist is an evil in this dispensation!
[/size]
Reason and logic are rubberstamps to dress up your prejudices against the individual.

To further prove the inconsistencies in your utilitarian morality, human sacrifice for the good of all is approveable (you even dine with Christians), justice for the minority wldnt exist.

Morality is entirely subjective, with a little bit of common sense, sentiment, bias and abstract. There is no such thing as universal morals!

Utilitarianism is a general term. It could be stretched over many explanations of moral. This is why I said that my op touches on utilitarianism but goes beyond it.


Even then, you clearly have no idea about what you are talking about;
1) You seem to misunderstand what utilitarianism is
2) You take universalism to mean "absolute morals universally"

1) Definition of utilitarianism

---------
-the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the[b] benefit of a majority.[/b]
the doctrine that an action is right in so far as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/utilitarianism (Oxford dictionary)

-1. The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility.
2. The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the[b] greatest number of people.[/b]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/utilitarianism (Free Dictionary online)
-------

From the 3 definitions, two are about a majority. Now, didnt my post talk about making rules for all instead of a majority?

My op takes definition 1 from the Free Dictionary and goes beyond that. Utility implies the after consequence but my op is also about the logic it entails before the action.



2) Understanding moral universalism.
Moral universalism is not about having absolute morals that are the same for everyone in the world. No. It is just that there are certain issues in ethics that are universal. For instance, no country accepts suicide bombing or rather, should accept it.
If logic is universal and morality should be based on logic, there should be some universality to morality. Now, you cant apply logic to emotions or intentions at times. This is why morality is not just always straightforward. There are also environmental factors that limit universality. For instance some countries limit the amount of oil drilling because of the little resources they have. Some would say it is greedy but then, they can not be expected to drill at the same rate of countries who have a lot of oil reserves



Thanks for taking logicboy's logic 101 class.

You've been served

^^utilitarianism is altruistic in nature and ethical values are placed on the welfare of others/majority.

However even though you claim your moral values are not qualified by virtue of their consequences, rather they are. The consequence of all moral actions to you are tied to the benefits it lends to "people".

Try to let your moral values stand alone without dependence on ppl's benefits or harms and see if you can make value judgements.

Moral universalism is not about having absolute morals that are the same for everyone in the world. No. It is just that there are certain issues in ethics that are universal.

Logicboy what doesn't the above really mean?? Moral issues are universal?! What makes them moral in the first place?! If morality isn't universal, definitely there is different/subjective moral outlook and judgment, issues wouldn't be the same!

For example, societies which don't recognise property, wouldn't have issues with theft or larceny!

[size=18pt]Is it really wrong to preach atheism?[/size]

Some christian and muslim apologists use a particular annoying tactic in criticizing atheism. They claim it is a religion, so that they can project some of the failures of religion on atheism. The best example of this is where they claim that atheists "evangelize" and are no different from the annoying preachers at bus stops. Such apologists claim that atheists like Richard Dawkins go around "preaching" atheism.

The clear problem with such an argument is that atheism is not a belief but a disbelief. It is not something you can preach. Atheism is just an empty disbelief in the existence of God. The word "atheist" should not really even be in existence. There is no term for someone who doesnt believe in the toothfairy. A person that doesnt believe in the toothfairy is just a person- why not the same for God? I would love to see someone preaching disbelief in the toothfairy.

The second problem with saying that atheists preach atheism or evangelize is that the word "evangelism" is has been stretched by dubious religious apologist to make such an argument. When you see CocaCola employee at the bus stop wearing the company logo while calling people to sample the "joyful taste of coke", is he or she preaching the good news of cola? While it is something of a miracle that CocaCola can turn water into the sweetest beverage known to man (even at weddings), one can not say that they are preaching coke. The point here is that atheists can talk in public about atheism but that is not tantamount to preaching just as a Vacuum cleaner sales representative giving you a pamphlet at your front door is not spreading the good news of Hooverism.

Going back to the title, the question to answer here is- is it wrong for atheists to go around in public, pushing information about atheism from signboards to door to door visits? Is it wrong to have signboards saying "there is no God"? Is it wrong to have atheist debates in speakers' corners in public parks? Is it wrong to have atheist television shows weekly? Is it wrong to promote atheism on religion forums on the internet?



Many atheists have backpedaled away from promoting atheism due to the criticism of "atheist evangelism" from religious apologists. Some atheists raise their hands up in defence and claim "I am not preaching, atheism....I am promoting science/humanism/skepticism"! What is wrong with promoting atheism, I ask?

I can understand the fear of talking about atheism in some instances, due to the possible backlash from religious bigots. I can understand that not everyone likes to talk about their disbelief or beliefs. However, I dont see why some atheists would claim that promoting atheism is almost as silly as evangelizing in the name of religion. Some people just want to let the world know that it is alright and rational to disbelief in the existence of a spiritual entity that you cant prove..........