Deep Sight:

The simple fact of the matter is that you have absolved him of any wrong.

End of.

Yes, I have, of doing anything intrinsically wrong. Just as I absolve you of doing any intrinsic wrong when you butcher other animals for meat.

I think I've made it pretty clear now, no? I do NOT deny this.

I do not absolve him of violating my own personal code, though. Not at all.

wiegraf:

Yes, I have, of doing anything intrinsically wrong. Just as I absolve you of doing any intrinsic wrong when you butcher other animals for meat.

I think I've made it pretty clear now, no? I do NOT deny this.

I do not absolve him of violating my own personal code, though. Not at all.

And given that your own personal code is just yours, then Hitler has no issues to worry about. He acted just fine in his own subjective moral code. This is your position, since you subscribe to strict subjectivity.

This, you should ensure that you teach your children, okay?

I am sure it would be a great teaching for them.

Oh, and post script: that in bold up there, is just disgusting and frankly low.

wiegraf:

No, you stop wasting our time your unadulterated nonsense. Htf does having a conscience = objective moral code. Really, what is wrong with you?

I repeat;

Spaghetti exists, therefore FSM

You must be drunk.

Stout also exists, therefore Flying Stout Monster.

At what point will you become rightly ashamed of the brevity of your intellect, spirituality and morality?

wiegraf:

Yes, I have, of doing anything intrinsically wrong.

Oh, and finally - let this also be enough for you to shat ya yap once and for all over Yahweh and his supposed atrocities - its all subjective, and none of those atrocities was intrinsically wrong. So case against Yahweh closed.

Good night.

Deep Sight:

And given that your own personal code is just yours, then Hitler has no issues to worry about. He acted just fine in his own subjective moral code. This is your position, since you subscribe to strict subjectivity.

This, you should ensure that you teach your children, okay?

I am sure it would be a great teaching for them.

Oh, and post script: that in bold up there, is just disgusting and frankly low.

It is exactly what I'll teach them. To learn to negotiate and recognize it's never black and white, else they get engrossed in their self righteousness and leave their hypocrisy unchecked. To follow their own conscience as it's likely better than following a head sheeple ordained by 'god' or similar. To recognize the universe wasn't built just for them, or even us humans as a species. Also, to appreciate that man is capable of great feats, no gods necessary, and our destiny is in our hands. Not of some god telling us how many times a day we can piss.

Have to go now. Kudos.

And you speak of disgusting??

wiegraf:

It is exactly what I'll teach them. To learn to negotiate and recognize it's never black and white, else they get engrossed in their self righteousness and leave their hypocrisy unchecked. To follow their own conscience as it's likely better than following a head sheeple ordained by 'god' or similar. To recognize the universe wasn't built just for them, or even us humans as a species. Also, to appreciate that man is capable of great feats, no gods necessary, and our destiny is in our hands. Not of some god telling us how many times a day we can piss.

Have to go now. Kudos.

And you speak of disgusting??

Enjoy.

Deep Sight:

Stout also exists, therefore Flying Stout Monster.

Exactly

Deep Sight:
At what point will you become rightly ashamed of the brevity of your intellect, spirituality and morality?

This is one of those moments where you should get a mirror

^^^ Lol, just saw that you want to guard your kids from the hypocrisy you say you and everyone else has and is unavoidable. . . . you try.

The hypocrisy which is your expressly stated defense for saying that Hitler has done nothing wrong but bit.ching about the wrongs of Yahweh. And your defense to that was to admit you are a hypocrite. Now you wish to tell your kids something else - to limit their hypocrisy.

Bruv, you need a mental hospital.

Night!

Deep Sight:

I cannot make sense of anything you wrote. You asked me for my position and I said natural law. Simple.

That does not answer your dilemma of having to show why there should be criminal laws if "its all subjective" - - -> Because, as I showed, you, your position is lamentably contradictory.

This is just poor on your part. Very unlike you to do this_oh ! I almost forgot, you did it in my 'Atheism Is A Religion' thread. In any case as to this contradiction. It isn't. You seeing it as a contradiction proves my moral subjectivity. You see it as a contradiction, I don't. Also, moral subjectivity allows for it. You are insinuating because everyone has a moral view, it follows that all must be allowed, specifically, the minority viewpoint shouldn't give way to the majority. Not so. Believe it or not morality works by convention or force, or better yet and interplay between. You even fail to see that a minority's viewpoint can be persuade to or be imposed on a majority, especially if, say, the minority wins a war. That's what Nazi's did and that's what the British did to Nigerians. There should and are criminal laws because subjective views are averaged out by agreement (or force) and are enforced. Everyone as a function of moral subjectivity may or may not adhere to such laws eg Boko Haram but for the most part the laws work.

Uyi Iredia:

This is just poor on your part. Very unlike you to do this_oh ! I almost forgot, you did it in my 'Atheism Is A Religion' thread. In any case as to this contradiction. It isn't. You seeing it as a contradiction proves my moral subjectivity. You see it as a contradiction, I don't. Also, moral subjectivity allows for it. You are insinuating because everyone has a moral view, it follows that all must be allowed, specifically, the minority viewpoint shouldn't give way to the majority. Not so. Believe it or not morality works by convention or force, or better yet and interplay between. You even fail to see that a minority's viewpoint can be persuade to or be imposed on a majority, especially if, say, the minority wins a war. That's what Nazi's did and that's what the British did to Nigerians. There should and are criminal laws because subjective views are averaged out by agreement (or force) and are enforced. Everyone as a function of moral subjectivity may or may not adhere to such laws eg Boko Haram but for the most part the laws work.

I have not and will not read this.

Your dilemmas are incurable.

I have laid them out above (not for you) but for any poor future readers who may happen on this sad thread, where the very lowest of humanity and intellect, not to speak of morality, has been advertised.

Good night.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Lol, just saw that you want to guard your kids from the hypocrisy you say you and everyone else has and is unavoidable. . . . you try.

The hypocrisy which is your expressly stated defense for saying that Hitler has done nothing wrong but bit.ching about the wrongs of Yahweh. And your defense to that was to admit you are a hypocrite. Now you wish to tell your kids something else - to limit their hypocrisy.

Bruv, you need a mental hospital.

Night!

Oh boy na wa. Yahweh obviously didn't do anything intrinsically wrong as well.

Doesn't in any way mean I support them, whatsoever.

Kudos again

Deep Sight:

Your position is contradictory.

You cannot at once say all morality is subjective and then also say that it is right for for some to impose their subjective morals on others.

You are waffling this way and that, with no conclusion in sight, kind sir.

I can because that is a subjective view. Even if I said morality is subjective and there should be no imposition, you have another cop-out, anarchy, as if there must be. BTW how do you reconcile the fact that people differ in viewpoints with your natural law ?

Deep Sight:

I have not and will not read this.

Your dilemmas are incurable.

I have laid them out above (not for you) but for any poor future readers who may happen on this sad thread, where the very lowest of humanity and intellect, not to speak of morality, has been advertised.

Good night.

Typical Deep Sight when boxed into a corner. Goes for stout or goes to sleep. Good night sir.

Uyi Iredia:

Typical Deep Sight when boxed into a corner. Goes for stout or goes to sleep. Good night sir.

Lol. Stout is good. Sleep is also good.

You have not boxed anybody into a corner here.

The sort of argument you are making borders on subjective perspecitive and it nullifies every conceivable discussion. It is the same argument, in effect, that Plaetton made in a different thread, albeit springing from different issues.

I did an exhaustive explanation of why it is a useless argument here -

https://www.nairaland.com/1255695/evil-confirms-absence-god/4#19613758

If you read it and cannot see the direct relevance to your argument here, and how it nullifies your argument, then I cannot help you.

Good nightie!

Good analysis from both ends. But i guess human morality can best be seen and understood when the prism of religion or its concept is not in the view. I believe in Religion am just alarmed by the way we are always shifting the poles when it comes morality. Except for some religion which promotes rigidity and firm beliefs others have been messed up by the concept of individuality.

Uyi Iredia:

I can because that is a subjective view. Even if I said morality is subjective and there should be no imposition, you have another cop-out, anarchy, as if there must be. BTW how do you reconcile the fact that people differ in viewpoints with your natural law ?

when you wake up, you'll show me examples of where people differ in viewpoints with the natural law without being horrified and embarrased by the outcomes please. Thank you.

rationalmind:

Must I say something on every thread? Do you think uve said anything worth my response? Even if I agree with you there is objective morality, you still have to prove to me yahweh is the source of objective morality and not allah or some other Gods.

I just asked for your opinion on these matters and you're already in the defense. Smh.

Deep Sight:

You do not have a coherent worldview, you are completely amoral, and you have no right whatsoever to ever speak against anything whatsoever that goes on or happens in the world, for that will render you a double speaking hypocrite.

I hope you therefore stay consistent with your chosen path.

Aptly said.

Deep Sight:

Lol. Stout is good. Sleep is also good.

You have not boxed anybody into a corner here.

The sort of argument you are making borders on subjective perspecitive and it nullifies every conceivable discussion. It is the same argument, in effect, that Plaetton made in a different thread, albeit springing from different issues.

I did an exhaustive explanation of why it is a useless argument here -

https://www.nairaland.com/1255695/evil-confirms-absence-god/4#19613758

If you read it and cannot see the direct relevance to your argument here, and how it nullifies your argument, then I cannot help you.

Good nightie!

To be candid I wonder if making counter-arguments to your points there will help. Going by your actions here I think it futile. And you have actually failed to rebut my counter points to your assertion of 'natural law' and the supporting article you posted. That's the box wherein you still are and failed to get out of. If your case must be made, make it here. The one you have made I have sufficient responded to and you have failed to respond apropos.

^^^ I suspected you would not discern the relevance of that post to yours. I can't help you then.

Joshthefirst: I just asked for your opinion on these matters and you're already in the defense. Smh.

Lol, I knew where u were going. Its best to meet you there before you land

Against my better judgement i will answer you sensibly. I assume you have read and understood the OP?

Joshthefirst: Now Mr Troll, when you get back, please answer these question:

Do you believe Hitler was wrong, as in morally depraved and evil ?

In the sense of a civilized community, Yes. Even then, apart from his followers many other people thought he was wrong and evil. We humans have outgrown our barbaric tendencies and we tend to view, even in retrospect, people who did such as evil. That is why we argue against Yahweh and his followers.

In the spirit of comradeship, can you point out faults in my OP? No special pleading pls. . .

@deepsight, there's this thing you like doing and i'm afraid i'm gonna have to address it this time. This thread was over for you from the very 1st page but somehow when the christians started replying you suddenly found your voice and started building silly strawman arguments in order to push your quite simply, dishonest agenda. I believe you read my OP where all this your needless whinings where addressed. Maybe i'll start mocking you the way i mock some christians here. My replies coming up. . .

Mr Troll: @deepsight, there's this thing you like doing and i'm afraid i'm gonna have to address it this time. This thread was over for you from the very 1st page but somehow when the christians started replying you suddenly found your voice and started building silly strawman arguments in order to push your quite simply, dishonest agenda. I believe you read my OP where all this your needless whinings where addressed. Maybe i'll start mocking you the way i mock some christians here. My replies coming up. . .

What childish prattle, do you think I am some high school teen who gives a hoot about being mocked? ? ?

Mock away, it certainly has no bearing on my earning my livelihood. While you mock, be sure to make some sense by addressing the questions raised on mala in se, mala prohibita, natural law and positive law, as well as the basis for the existence of criminal law, if all morality is strictly subjective.

@Deepsight, i believe i have addressed the question of mala in se and mala prohibita in the very first page. On the issue of Natural Law, i believe what i was aiming to acheive in my OP was to state how in fact the natural laws evolved over time.

This thread is actually about natural law. I'm surprised that you, instead of at least finding holes in the write up, you have simply gone on a tangent and started building big fat strawmen to attack. I showed exactly how the natural law evolved as human civilization progressed. I ask you, does this natural law apply to other animals as well, or does it only apply to us, the oh so special special Homo Sapien?

When exactly did God! Institute this natural law? What and what constitutes it? Do you realise that slavery was considered normal for many thousand years? What was the natural, God given law on slavery then? What exactly are you on about?
On the issue of criminal law, my OP also addressed it. Didn't you see where i stated that as human thinking and civilization progressed, he had to develop complex laws in order to preserve the order of the society to prevent total chaos? Yes, we have evolved over and above simply Survival of the Fittest. It has become, Survival of the Specie.

I, a member of the civilized community will be outraged by senseless killings, r.ape etc because my reason is now better than that of my barbaric ancestors.what has this got to do with a belief in god?

Reason, DS, its all about reason. Feel free to show God! and how, where, and when exactly he put this universal moral code in our consciousness. Like i said before, generations from now our Children will look upon polygamy with repulsion and wonder at our morality now. What will be your response then? Despite the outrageous cries of conservative religious people all over the world, homosexuality has come to stay. Reason and common sense is slowly but surely prevailing over silly religious indignation. What do you say about the morality of same sex marriage now?

It is not enough to shout God! every time we see a gap. Grow up deepsight.

Deep Sight:
^^^ I suspected you would not discern the relevance of that post to yours. I can't help you then.

I have not even read it. You haven't tackled the points I made against your appeal to natural justice. The core of which is that is simply made the appeal, where in fact, it was a man-made morality. I then further suggested what lines natural law sjould run along.

A short summary of my discuss with DS here.

I first write by lengthily addressing 'malum in se'. I recall stating it should be 'malum apparuit in materia'.

DS ignores important supplementary points in my write-up. I state for example why things in themselves aren't evil and precomditions for evil (person and physical things or events being judged). He does assert, and I agree, that consciousness is vital to the matter of morality. He goes further to state that given OUR nature certain things are intrinsically evil.

I respond in the spirit of drawing him to the fact that it is OUR nature adjudging evil not the things themselves. I then assert nature (ie moral nature) varies with the person and so evil morality (what is good or evil) is subjective.


He jumps over all points stating clearly he doesn't want to expend energy and asks for the basis of jurisprudence. Ofcourse,nif it's all subjective. Which it is, actually.

I state people agree.

He then asks what if people disagree, should their subjective paradigm be jackbooted by the majority and why. Before that, he asked whether there should be criminal laws.

I respond they can do what they like. But I must note this is where DS errs woefully. Apparently he is holding it as an onus on subjectivists that the majority has no right to tramp a minority if they truly believe in subjectivity. And I say otherwise precisely because I think so. I even note later on that the minority may even win the majority. BTW if his moral absolutism was accurate, we wouldn't even be arguing, because EVERYONE would be BOUND BY NATURE to think the same way on moral absolutes. I can imagine him ignoring this by saying I misunderstand natural law, or asking questions on things widely held wrong and say therefore moral absolutes.
As for his talk on majority rule, I respond the majority can respond as they deem fit and I say the reason is because their consciousness grants them this capacity. Which is not some VAGUE answer but a true one because as DS earlier agreed morality is based on a developed consciousness.

It goes downhill from there really but this is not apparent until after he starts challenging my answer that a majority moral paradigm 'should' (Note: I had told him I prefer could) rule the minority. He alleges a contradiction in enforcing a majority moral rule where morality should be subjective. That this is HIS own subjectivity speaking hardly comes to mind. I hold myslef and ask him what's the solution. And, there you have it, DS's natural law does it ! SMH.

Deep Sight:

Of course not! It's ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE! ! ! ! !

It is because it is subjcetive many folks will agree it is evil. It is because it is subjective various people respond to his actions in different ways. Some people for instance thought it wrong but felt no moral suasion to risk their lives to stop his actions, others thought otherwise.

The silly annoying part is that they claim objective morality meanwhile it is quite evident from antiquity that our idea of morality has been changing and not everybody has the exact same idea of everything that should be considered good or evil. For Deepsight to assert that atheists should have no sense of morality is simply stupid. We have brains, highly evolved brains that can determine what will increase the happiness of the specie or reduce the suffering of the specie. Even the wiki definition of natural law appeals to reason. . .Has absolutely nothing to do with God!!! All we know now has come about by human knowledge. All our progress and civilizations. . . Human intellect. Exactly where does God!!! come in? Gaps?

I ask, is a tornado or an earthquake inherently evil?

wiegraf:

I've already addressed this. Because they trample on my values, simple.

This is what everyone does, some simply label it "god" or objective. Muslims are ordained by allah, have you met allah before?

There's no difference between this 'objective' and the subjective. Well, yes there's a difference in practice. In my case, you're free to come and debate me, put your case forward and the rest can see if they are happy with it. In other words, we can always negotiate. In the case of those that claim objective morals though, even when they are about to commit their genocide, they of course leave NO room for debate. After all, they are objectively correct. See?

Lol. I am still not convinced that you have sufficient information on the implication of your previous post.

Your first sentence betrays the point you were making. To suggest that morality can be rightly pronounced relative, and also infringes on the values of fellow man, is suggestive of the absence of a moral law.

If you conscribe morality to such a relative and amoral position, with what standard do you think you can trust your words over mine if in my subjectivism, which you alluded to, I view it as objective?

Reyginus: Lol. I am still not convinced that you have sufficient information on the implication of your previous post.

Your first sentence betrays the point you were making. To suggest that morality can be rightly pronounced relative, and also infringes on the values of fellow man, is suggestive of the absence of a moral law.

If you conscribe morality to such a relative and amoral position, with what standard do you think you can trust your words over mine if in my subjectivism, which you alluded to, I view it as objective?

Gbam! Gbammer ! ! Gbammest ! ! !

Honestly, the very self-defeating nature of these arguments being made here by these atheists, is surprising: even though what is more surprising is that they fail to see it.

Deep Sight:

Gbam! Gbammer ! ! Gbammest ! ! !

Honestly, the very self-defeating nature of these arguments being made here by these atheists, is surprising: even though what is more surprising is that they fail to see it.

Can you give me some examples of this objective morality and show how society can enforce it without the slightest hint of hypocrisy?
Thanks!