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?

I've already addressed this, in English. Use Google translate, assuming it speaks , if you still don't get 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.

I think you fail to see that our ability to differ CONTRADICTS your absolutist/objectivist position and betters our case because it is YOUR point of view you consider. The problem with Reyginus and you is you assume this 'standard'. In any case, the standard in this case would clearly be Reyginus' opponent's.

Uyi Iredia:

I think you fail to see that our ability to differ CONTRADICTS your absolutist/objectivist position and betters our case because it is YOUR point of view you consider. The problem with Reyginus and you is you assume this 'standard'. In any case, the standard in this case would clearly be Reyginus' opponent's.

Good grief! What terribly garbled irrational contradictions! It suddenly dawns on me that you have had no idea at all what is being discussed! From the beginning you had no clue what the subject was and you still don't!

OMG!

david_hume:

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

Objective Morality against Murder

Objective Morality against R.ape

Two simple examples. You enforce them with the enactment of criminal laws and a criminal justice system based on that objective recognition.

If these were subjective, there would NEVER be any legitimate basis to enact such laws and enforce them: for that would amount to nothing more than the imposition of the subjective views of some over others.

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

CONSIDER THIS:

The position of ALL the subjectivists here means that something such as slavery was MORALLY RIGHT at the time that it was practiced - by subjective opinion of those practicing it.

This position renders that it (slavery) ONLY became morally wrong when abolished.

This is an incredibly irrational position or implication because - >

1. If slavery was morally right at the time when practiced, there would have not been a moral agitation against it, much less one that led to a universal recognition of its abhorrence.

2. If slavery was morally right at the time when practiced, there should be NO detestation of the historical acts of slavers whatsoever: based on the recognition that it was morally right at the time when practiced: but this is not so.

3. The very same people who here declaim that something such as slavery was NOT intrinsically wrong at the time when practiced, but subjective only, go about mocking and condemning the toleration of slavery by, for example, the biblical God, and others. On what basis do they do this? - - - > Notwithstanding that this is, in their opinion, NOT intrinsically wrong, and only entirely subjective. They should rather be silent and contend that whereas they may not like it, there is nothing to condemn because it is a subjective matter. Just as surely as, in the matter of ho.mose.xuality, for example, they similarly may not like it, but do not condemn it as they consider it subjective.

4. The deepest point in all of this, is that of the meaninglessness of the argument of strict subjective perception. Reygenius alluded to this, and I also posted a link of a response I made to another atheist elsewhere on same subject. In summary, and to be most concise, if the argument of the subjectivists holds true, nobody can ever know anything whatsoever to be objectively true, and no argument or statement whatsoever can ever be made: for all things remain strictly within the realm of our subjective perception: nothing can be known to be true. This key point is that which is missed here: and indeed is the reason why I say Uyi Iredia has no idea of the subject being discussed here at all. He is truly ignorant of that which he seeks to discuss.

wiegraf:

I've already addressed this, in English. Use Google translate, assuming it speaks , if you still don't get it

What a lamentably weak, cowardly, escapist, lying and disgraceful response to a very strong point.

Mr Troll: For Deepsight to assert that atheists should have no sense of morality is simply stupid.

The silliness is all yours, dear Mr. Troll, for Deep Sight never said any such thing.

Deep Sight argued that a person who says that all morality is strictly subjective only, has no basis for condemning the actions of any other person whatsoever: as they should recognize that that person is governed and should be governed only by his own subjective morality.[/quote]

Your answer? ? ?

Deep Sight:

What a lamentably weak, cowardly, escapist, lying and disgraceful response to a very strong point.

What point you clown? Do you require a diagram as well? I don't have any crayons here so that could take while

wiegraf:

What point you clown? Do you require a diagram as well? I don't have any crayons here so that could take while

This point - >

Reyginus:

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?

Which is the same point I made on the thread where Plaetton and I argued subjectivity, albeit arising from different facts.

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

The point that shows that with your subjectivist stance, nothing whatsoever can be known or said.

The same point I made here -

Deep Sight:

4. The deepest point in all of this, is that of the meaninglessness of the argument of strict subjective perception. Reygenius alluded to this, and I also posted a link of a response I made to another atheist elsewhere on same subject. In summary, and to be most concise, if the argument of the subjectivists holds true, nobody can ever know anything whatsoever to be objectively true, and no argument or statement whatsoever can ever be made: for all things remain strictly within the realm of our subjective perception: nothing can be known to be true. This key point is that which is missed here: and indeed is the reason why I say Uyi Iredia has no idea of the subject being discussed here at all. He is truly ignorant of that which he seeks to discuss.

Aaaaannnddd like I said, that's already been addressed.

You have a stronger will? Use it

I do NOT make the laws. No one does actually. Dreaming them off won't make them dissapear. You cannot wish away 1+1=2

I do not have crayons here

wiegraf: Aaaaannnddd like I said, that's already been addressed.

You have a stronger will? Use it

I do NOT make the laws. No one does actually. Dreaming them off won't make them dissapear. You cannot wish away 1+1=2

I do not have crayons here

Please show me where you addressed the point. Give me an Idi.ot's guide please.

Thank you.

wiegraf:

You have a stronger will? Use it

And how exactly does this have any bearing on morality or immorality please?

Is this not simply the law of the jungle - and has nothing whatsoever to do with morality?

Good grief?

@ All, witness profound reasoning. Have you ever seen this in your life?

It is said that this - >

wiegraf:

You have a stronger will? Use it

Addresses this - >

Reyginus:

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?

- - -> In a discussion about morality. . .

[size=30pt]WOW.[/size]

wiegraf:

I've already addressed this, in English. Use Google translate, assuming it speaks , if you still don't get it

Lolololol. If I don't know you as I do I would have concluded that you've been drinking.
Please where did you address it? Help me with the post number, please.

Uyi Iredia:

In any case, the standard in this case would clearly be Reyginus' opponent's.

What is the meaning of this?

Reyginus: What is the meaning of this?

Deep Sight:

Good grief! What terribly garbled irrational contradictions!

! ! !

Deep Sight: @ All, witness profound reasoning. Have you ever seen this in your life?

It is said that this - >



Addresses this - >



- - -> In a discussion about morality. . .

[size=30pt]WOW.[/size]

What ate you doing
Looking for support from Satan's little helpers?

I already told you I have no crayons. If you're too fo.olish to get it, that's not my fault.

Really, do you think anyone with half a brain doesn't get my point? You've even been asked to demonstrate this your objective code, you cite murder and rape... In case you missed the obvious, those are not objectively evil in any form. For one, you murder every time you eat meat.....

Reyginus: Lolololol. If I don't know you as I do I would have concluded that you've been drinking.
Please where did you address it? Help me with the post number, please.

As usual, astronomically confused yet confident..

Don't worry your pretty head about it. Just know it isn't the end of the world

Deep Sight:

Some unholy part of me almost wishes that you are beset with these atrocities at close quarters in order to have first hand experience that will enable you to assess better if they are intrinsically evil or not, and if they are "entirely subjective" or not, and if malum in se acts exist or not. . . . . . . . but heaven forbid. Rather one day you will learn in some gentle fashion the error of your contentions.

Murder and r.ape. . . two acts that I unfortunately witnessed first hand on that horrible night last year when I was abducted by armed robbers at Lekki. . . .

I will not wish any one such an experience, but maybe there are people whose worldviews would profit from seeing first hand what I saw. . .

It might add a dose of practical truth and reality to their arm chair contentions that nothing is intrinsically evil. . . .

O, well. . .

https://www.nairaland.com/1087891/armed-robbery-experience-thoughts-nigerian

You clown you can ignore my talk about wills as much as you, how the f.uck does that affect reality? Gravity is still there regardless of your opinion.

And you talk about murder being different to killing due to justification. Well, justification by who's standard??

Don't you dare think I'm ignoring rape. I'm on mobile atm and its a chore. Not to mention its already been dealt with....

I repeat, your faith in humanity is appalling, among other things.

Edit : Lol I wish I quoted your earlier post? Why did you change it?

You now replace it with another of your standard issue appeals to emotion

Really...

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.

I love to read your posts. Mostly because I often agree, but often because your way with words is pretty amazing, if not somewhat blowhardish. Made that one up just for you. Hehe. Uhem...sorry.

I have to say though, the bolded is the funniest thing I've ever seen you post. Coming from you that is hilarious. I live it.

wiegraf: You clown you can ignore my talk about wills as much as you, how the f.uck does that affect reality? Gravity is still there regardless of your opinion.

And you talk about murder being different to killing due to justification. Well, justification by who's standard??

Don't you dare think I'm ignoring rape. I'm on mobile atm and its a chore. Not to mention its already been dealt with....

I repeat, your faith in humanity is appalling, among other things.

Edit : Lol I wish I quoted your earlier post? Why did you change it?

You now replace it with another of your standard issue appeals to emotion

Really...

Changed which post? I did not change any post, there are some posts I have added to, for clarity, but did not change any post. . . . .

texanomaly:

I love to read your posts. Mostly because I often agree, but often because your way with words is pretty amazing, if not somewhat blowhardish. Made that one up just for you. Hehe. Uhem...sorry.

I have to say though, the bolded is the funniest thing I've ever seen you post. Coming from you that is hilarious. I live it.

Hahahahahaahahahahahaa, thanks ma'am. . . . .

wiegraf:

As usual, astronomically confused yet confident..

Don't worry your pretty head about it. Just know it isn't the end of the world

Lolololol. Interprete my statement as it suits you. I'm not sorry for your butthurt. My intentions were good.
All I demand is the post that dealt with my question. I'm serious.

Reyginus: Lolololol. Interprete my statement as it suits you. I'm not sorry for your butthurt. My intentions were good.
All I demand is the post that dealt with my question. I'm serious.

You will not get it from him, because he is yet to even understand your poser, much less claim to have responded to it!

Deep Sight:

You will not get it from him, because he is yet to even understand your poser, much less claim to have responded to it!

Lololol. Hope! Hope, my brother! I only hope I don't go blind.

wiegraf:

You now replace it with another of your standard issue appeals to emotion

Really...

Oh, the post about the armed robbery experience, I could have made that post much earlier, if truly I was looking to appeal to emotion.

Rather the post is directed at the fact that we can sit comfortably in an arm chair and detach ourselves from reality and make empty postulations.

Direct experience often enables more realistic assessment of reality.

Deep Sight:

Changed which post? I did not change any post, there are some posts I have added to, for clarity, but did not change any post. . . . .

You now resort to telling outright lies

You're a disgrace

Reyginus: Lolololol. Interprete my statement as it suits you. I'm not sorry for your butthurt. My intentions were good.
All I demand is the post that dealt with my question. I'm serious.

You seem even more confused than usual. A great achievement

wiegraf:

You now resort to telling outright lies

You're a disgrace

Seriously. Which post? And what did I change? Let me know, I am actually curious.

As I said, I did add to some posts to make them clearer, but cant recall changing the content of any post in a different direction. . . .

Deep Sight:

Oh, the post about the armed robbery experience, I could have made that post much earlier, if truly I was looking to appeal to emotion.

Rather the post is directed at the fact that we can sit comfortably in an arm chair and detach ourselves from reality and make empty postulations.

Direct experience often enables more realistic assessment of reality.

And how does this affect the fact that is an appeal to emotion?

Here's the truth, to many those involved in that episode, their actions are justified. There is no way their actions van be classified as intrinsically, or objectively evil

It might scare you or make you sad, but that's the fact.

If you want to hold onto this mythological good you're high on, again, the same high Messrs Hitler et all were on (see, it works both ways), if you want to even dream of holding on some semblance of a point, simply show how the right to live of a predator overrides that of its prey. Simple

wiegraf:

You seem even more confused than usual. A great achievement

Lol. Ad hominem.
Why is it so difficult to tackle the most important thing at this point?

deep Sight:

Seriously. Which post? And what did I change? Let me know, I am actually curious.

As I said, I did add to some posts to make them clearer, but cant recall changing the content of any post in a different direction. . . .

All the stuff i mention on my immediate reply, I didn't make it up. I notice the last paragraph of that post is what you now quote as the opener of the current version of the post.