NativeBoy:

Whether you or I adhere to morals does not negate what morality is or it's source. Can I acknowledge that morals come from God and still behave immorally, if course I can. Does that negate morality or its source? No.

Secondly, with regard to the bold. There is much more to all these things than what you state. For example, scholarly research has revealed that the practice of slavery in OT times is radically different from the middle passage, colonial America slavery that most of us associate with. It's almost insulting that you feel that Christians haven't looked into these topics.

You just lied for your religion. Yet, you still believe that your God is the source of morality. The hypocrisy

The bolded in your comment is a lie! A sad lie that a black man should never even say.


What scholarly research made such claims?
Were slaves in the bible not beaten? (the bible guides you on how to beat your slaves)
Was African slavery not justified with the same bible?
Were foriegn slaves not property for life?
Were slaveholders not advised to take slaves from other lands?

Logicboy03:



I dont know how to rid you of this ignorant and biased belief in bold. Let me try with an analogy


Let's say the government announces a budget of 100 million naira a year for pilgrimages to the North pole for pilgrimage to feel the wintery goodness of Santa Claus. Everyone, including you will complain that it is a waste of money as Santa doesnt exist and we can do better things with that money. Funny enough, one foolish person then comes along to say "oh, for someone that doesnt believe in Santa Claus, NativeBoy sure spends a lot of time talking about santa" when you are complaining.


You cant shove your p**** down someone's throat and expect the person not to gaggle

False analogy. It's one thing to complain about Santa not being real. It's another to build your own church, for which you will be paying monthly rent and utility bills, and take up offerings, etc., for the simple sake that Santa doesn't exist.

Logicboy03:

I accept evolution.

The big bang is an incomplete theory based on some facts about the universe. It cant be complete. It is impossible to know every detail of an event that happened millions or billions of years before one's existence. The reasoning is sound but then, there are assumptions made on it.....

You just told me what you don't believe. More accurately, you told me what you kind of believe, but aren't sure. So are you saying you don't know? You are unsure?

@ the bolded...hmmmm

NativeBoy:

False analogy. It's one thing to complain about Santa not being real. It's another to build your own church, for which you will be paying monthly rent and utility bills, and take up offerings, etc., for the simple sake that Santa doesn't exist.

The analogy is apt when it comes to the Nigerian govt sponsoring pilgrimage- a sign that christians and muslims generally do not know when to hold back their religion from someone's mouth
======================
It is not a church. You cant have a muslim church or a christian mosque or an atheist church.....contradiction.

These atheist gatherings are called "churches" because "church" is a more common and to the point term of describing the gathering in a country with lots of christian history. They are also called "churches" for sarcastic and satirical reasons. Afterall, comedians started it.

But no,

texanomaly:

You just told me what you don't believe. More accurately, you told me what you kind of believe, but aren't sure. So are you saying you don't know? You are unsure?

@ the bolded...hmmmm

I am sure of what I said. I didnt state any doubts, did I?

Logicboy03:


I am sure of what I said. I didnt state any doubts, did I?

smh...why do you avoid the creation like the plague? I wonder?

texanomaly:

smh...why do you avoid the creation like the plague? I wonder?

The creation story is false

Logicboy03:


You just lied for your religion. Yet, you still believe that your God is the source of morality. The hypocrisy

The bolded in your comment is a lie! A sad lie that a black man should never even say.


What scholarly research made such claims?
Were slaves in the bible not beaten? (the bible guides you on how to beat your slaves)
Was African slavery not justified with the same bible?
Were foriegn slaves not property for life?
Were slaveholders not advised to take slaves from other lands?

Please read:

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/StudiaAntiqua/article/viewFile/11759/11770

http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Logicboy03:

The creation story is false

Big Bang isn't? You said yourself, you had doubts about it. So what happened then? How did all this come to be?

Logicboy03:


Occam's razor doesnt work always.

You are asking me to blieve your easy answer- "God did it" since science and reason are too complex for you.

Try again

I think you will find that Occam's Razor works with respect to the truth of Christ. I mean you would have to show a huge conspiracy between people living in different times and places.

Logicboy03:

The analogy is apt when it comes to the Nigerian govt sponsoring pilgrimage- a sign that christians and muslims generally do not know when to hold back their religion from someone's mouth
======================
It is not a church. You cant have a muslim church or a christian mosque or an atheist church.....contradiction.

These atheist gatherings are called "churches" because "church" is a more common and to the point term of describing the gathering in a country with lots of christian history. They are also called "churches" for sarcastic and satirical reasons. Afterall, comedians started it.

But no,

I don't see your point. I didn't argue for fusion of church and state. Also these "churches" were first established in England and Australia. These aren't places where religion is shoved down your throat.

texanomaly:

Big Bang isn't? You said yourself, you had doubts about it. So what happened then? How did all this come to be?

The big bang isnt false. It is the besxt explanation scientists can come up with. It is just that any creation or universe origin theory will ever be complete....we just have the big bang as the most sensible one and the bible creationism as one of the most ridiculous ones

NativeBoy:

Please read:

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/StudiaAntiqua/article/viewFile/11759/11770

http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

A link from a christian think tank disguised as scholarly?

The other is a random journal from a non-peer reviewed source

=========================================



You couldnt find proper scholarly work from accredited historians or researchers? huh?

Abeg, just accept that slavery of the worst kind was in the bible. Slaves were properties....I not talking of bondservants.....talking about slaves

NativeBoy:

I don't see your point. I didn't argue for fusion of church and state. Also these "churches" were first established in England and Australia. These aren't places where religion is shoved down your throat.

Dubious again. Just dubious. My analogy was apt.


And also, you might want to look up the debate on faith schools in England and Gay marriage in Australia

Logicboy03:



The big bang isnt false. It is the besxt explanation scientists can come up with. It is just that any creation or universe origin theory will ever be complete....we just have the big bang as the most sensible one and the bible creationism as one of the most ridiculous ones

.

Gen 1:1 În the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth

How

Logicboy03:



Your comment is 1diotic.

Seriously, morals leads to God? Which God? Zeus, Baal, Pikiwokki

You christians cant even decide on the morals from your holy books eg whether or not women should be leaders in church.

In short, shut up

nonsense. I'm tired of making you try to think these days. Smh. Morality is innate in every human being, the "innateness" of moral laws don't imply a certainty of a moral law giver.

I laugh at you and your boys who jump up and down decieveing themselves.

Joshthefirst: Your number 1 is good. But it contradicts itself. The
question of morals always leads us to the
implication of God.
I hope some foolish elements will learn from your
number 1's first phrase:
"Morality is an innate part of every human being"

Joshthefirst: nonsense. I'm tired of making you try to think these days. Smh. Morality is innate in every human being, the "innateness" of moral laws don't imply a certainty of a moral law giver.

I laugh at you and your boys who jump up and down decieveing themselves.

On one hand, it implies God, on the other hand, it doesn't imply the certainty of God.

What a confused soul.

rationalmind:



On one hand, it implies God, on the other hand, it doesn't imply the certainty of God.

What a confused soul.

you misunderstood my comment. Go and strengthen your stand on english language nwokem.

NativeBoy:

"all morality is relative" - this is exactly the point. Under a certain set of circumstances, if you subscribe to an atheist mindset, you can justify anything.

Exactly. And that is what they in fact do, poker faced, and without blinking.

Whenever you have the time, read this thread.

https://www.nairaland.com/1520806/evolution-morality

Read ALL of it.

Joshthefirst: you misunderstood my comment. Go and strengthen your stand on english language nwokem.

Lol, I only helped you bring out your statement properly so you can see your foolishness.

Let me bring it out again.

It certainly implies God but it doesn't imply the certainty of God.

How confused can it get.

Deep Sight:

Exactly. And that is what they in fact do, poker faced, and without blinking.

Whenever you have the time, read this thread.

https://www.nairaland.com/1520806/evolution-morality

Read ALL of it.

As usual, you talk a lot of nonsense. First of all thanks for jumping on one atheist to label all atheist as poor on moral philosophy. Generalisation.....

I for one believe that many aspects of morality are universal due to them having logical grounding.....then there are some gray areas.....


So not all morality is relativem you and your pal shouldn't judge all atheists witht the comment of one

I tire o. Even sam harris (an atheist) believes in objective morality. He just doesn't accept it has anything to do with any moral giver

Logicboy03:


As usual, you talk a lot of nonsense. First of all thanks for jumping on one atheist to label all atheist as poor on moral philosophy. Generalisation.....

I for one believe that many aspects of morality are universal due to them having logical grounding.....then there are some gray areas.....


So not all morality is relativem you and your pal shouldn't judge all atheists witht the comment of one

rationalmind: I tire o. Even sam harris (an atheist) believes in objective morality. He just doesn't accept it has anything to do with any moral giver

Why are you fellas wetting your pants?

I merely referred him to what atheists argued on a thread. I did not even refer him to any particular post of mine or theirs - I rather asked him to read the whole thread. So why are you getting your knickers in a twist, why are you sh..tting yourselves?

Could it be because, as is obvious with your statements, you have yet to grasp the fatal implication of the existence of objective morality for the atheistic worldview. That fatality was very well grasped by the atheists arguing on that thread, and that was why they were ready to make the most staggering, bewildering and shocking declamations, desperate to avoid the existence of any objective morality. It appears you two miss that fatal implication, which your atheistic co-travelers on that thread grasped very well.

BTW, LB, its okay for you to refer to nonsensical statements made by religionists, and you find those references not to be unnecessary generalizations, right? Why then can others not refer to nonsensical statements made by atheists, without you proceeding into epileptic cardiac arrest?

Deep Sight:



Why are you fellas wetting your pants?

I merely referred him to what atheists argued on a thread. I did not even refer him to any particular post of mine or theirs - I rather asked him to read the whole thread. So why are you getting your knickers in a twist, why are you sh..tting yourselves?

Could it be because, as is obvious with your statements, you have yet to grasp the fatal implication of the existence of objective morality for the atheistic worldview. That fatality was very well grasped by the atheists arguing on that thread, and that was why they were ready to make the most staggering, bewildering and shocking declamations, desperate to avoid the existence of any objective morality. It appears you two miss that fatal implication, which your atheistic co-travelers on that thread grasped very well.

BTW, LB, its okay for you to refer to nonsensical statements made by religionists, and you find those references not to be unnecessary generalizations, right? Why then can others not refer to nonsensical statements made by atheists, without you proceeding into epileptic cardiac arrest?

Yawn

Deep Sight:



Why are you fellas wetting your pants?

I merely referred him to what atheists argued on a thread. I did not even refer him to any particular post of mine or theirs - I rather asked him to read the whole thread. So why are you getting your knickers in a twist, why are you sh..tting yourselves?

Could it be because, as is obvious with your statements, you have yet to grasp the fatal implication of the existence of objective morality for the atheistic worldview. That fatality was very well grasped by the atheists arguing on that thread, and that was why they were ready to make the most staggering, bewildering and shocking declamations, desperate to avoid the existence of any objective morality. It appears you two miss that fatal implication, which your atheistic co-travelers on that thread grasped very well.

BTW, LB, its okay for you to refer to nonsensical statements made by religionists, and you find those references not to be unnecessary generalizations, right? Why then can others not refer to nonsensical statements made by atheists, without you proceeding into epileptic cardiac arrest?

Only that I didn't tell you I subscribe to objective morality. I was only trying to call you out on your use of "they".

what happened to free speech

Rawdeal: what happened to free speech

How does that apply here?

When I saw dis tread I knew it would be logicboy @op are u nt tired self after all d shouting God does not exist Wat next *walks out in anger*

why

The believers of evolution always fretting but always coming up short..the book of job showed man actually lived what we now term dinosaurs(a word that came into existence in the middle of 19th century)..job chapter 40 verse 15 "behold now behemoth which I made with thee,he eateth grass an ox.16.Lo,now his strenght is in his loins,and his force is in the navel of his belly.17.he moveth his TAIL LIKE A CEDAR(note the cedar is a tree of great girth),the sinews of his stones are wrapped together....23.Behold he drinketh up a river and hasteth not,he trusteth that he can draw up jordan in his mouth....an animal that eats grass like an ox,with tails as big as a cedar and can confidently wade into a river gulping gallons of water without fear of prey can only be what we now termed dinosaurs...there have been detailed paintings and carvings of dinosaurs discovered and documented in ancient civilisations of peru,asia etc..

http://manwithdinosaurs..com/2011/09/did-man-walk-with-dinosaurs.html?m=1

sarutobie: The believers of evolution always fretting but always coming up short..the book of job showed man actually lived what we now term dinosaurs(a word that came into existence in the middle of 19th century)..job chapter 40 verse 15 "behold now behemoth which I made with thee,he eateth grass an ox.16.Lo,now his strenght is in his loins,and his force is in the navel of his belly.17.he moveth his TAIL LIKE A CEDAR(note the cedar is a tree of great girth),the sinews of his stones are wrapped together....23.Behold he drinketh up a river and hasteth not,he trusteth that he can draw up jordan in his mouth....an animal that eats grass like an ox,with tails as big as a cedar and can confidently wade into a river gulping gallons of water without fear of prey can only be what we now termed dinosaurs...there have been detailed paintings and carvings of dinosaurs discovered and documented in ancient civilisations of peru,asia etc.. manwithdinosaurs..com/2011/09/did-man-walk-with-dinosaurs.html?m=1

Nonsense......man never lived with dinosaurs. We would have been extinct if that ever happened. Furthermore, dinosaurs existed before men according to dating techniques.

BTW focus on the topic

Logicboy03:


Nonsense......man never lived with dinosaurs. We would have been extinct if that ever happened. Furthermore, dinosaurs existed before men according to dating techniques.

BTW focus on the topic

Self denial!..man is living with crocodiles,lions,rhinos,pythons,elephants,whales(which a blue whale is bigger than the biggest dinosaurs) and yet they are the ones in extinction..dinosaurs could never win against man in a fight for survival..disprove the link