davidylan:

why? Does it bother you?

yes and no. . . .

yes because with this believe you hold of being saved while others are not, you guys go around looking down on people, writing them off, disparaging them and disregarding their opinions because you believe that you are saved and they are condemned.

no because i know it is a bubble of delusion like every other belief example islam. . . . . .

mazaje:

yes and no. . . .

yes because with this believe you hold of being saved while others are not, you guys go around looking down on people, writing them off, disparaging them and disregarding their opinions because you believe that you are saved and they are condemned.

no because i know it is a bubble of delusion like every other belief example islam. . . . . .

That exists only in your own warped world.

davidylan:

That exists only in your own warped world.

your many post on nairaland only confirms this. . . . what do you mean when you say things like

you spawns of satan

you worshipers of the devil

you condemned worshipers of satan etc. . . . . .keep deluding yourself. . . . . . .

If you think the devil doesnt exist surely that shldnt bother you eh?

davidylan:

If you think the devil doesnt exist surely that shldnt bother you eh?

of course, but its the arrogance that bothers me, who the Bleep is the devil? he only exist in your imaginations not mine.

noetic:

ur argument is way out of line. Has God`s commandments to man (moses) classifying good and evil, still not relevant in all societies today? yes or no.

Quote
Is God`s 10 commandments given to moses, before this modern civilisation, still relevant in law making for all societies existing today?

see,  . .  this is the evidence of ur lack of objectivity. So man made laws now regard murder, lies, adultery, stealing as good deeds, right?

For the first, you asked: "Has God`s commandments to man (moses) classifying good and evil, still not relevant in all societies today? yes or no." The answer is clearly no. With all due respect, it's an obviously nonsensical question, as many modern societies are implicitly and explicitly secular, and many more have little to no relation with ancient Jewish edicts. The same applies for the second.

To respond specifically to the post I've quoted, many laws in countries are generally  indifferent to lying and adultery (with lying only notable when it's a question of perjury or similar). When it comes to murder and stealing, the laws can be flexible in determining the act in question is "good" or "evil". That is, in most Western societies, there are degrees of murder and some times the act may not be seen as evil depending on the circumstances. An example that comes to mind was the case of the battered spouse that killed her abusive husband. Her act wasn't in self-defence, but she wasn't found guilty and many hailed her as a hero. Many (most?) and the law of the land were content to deem her action "good".

An example of when stealing is seen as good by members of a community? During the Katrina Hurricane, a kid stole a school bus so he could ferry people out of the flood zones. No one doubted that he stole the bus, but his act was deemed good never the less.

To sum up: Human made laws - which is what every laws humans have are - are generally flexible.

what is the content of the 10 commandments?

You realise that the Tanakh has Moses codifying more laws than those ten, right?  Pro tip: if you mention Moses getting laws from God, be aware that there were many laws, and the decalogue was just a small part of them.

Anyway, rather than list all ten, how about we stick to the first four which almost nobody, particularly atheists (who you included as partakers of the laws of Moses) give a damn about:

# You shall have no other Gods but me.
# You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
# You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
# You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.

Um, no, it isn't false. It isn't baseless either. First, I didn't mean to say societal norms, but I'm glad you brought that up. Why? Well, because societal norms - custom - shapes the thinking of individuals within a community thereby inclining them towards particular moral stances. To quote Pascal, "Custom is our nature. What are our natural principles but principles of custom?"

Second, to stress the point, different communities have different understandings, moral stances, on what it means to be a killer. It's easy enough to spout off ideals like "thou shalt not kill", but even within the Bible, we see different moral inclinations in regard to that edict, based on how the community in question is fashioned

uhmn. . . .while u demonstrated an understanding of what customs and norms mean by attempting to explain it, u refused to explain what morals mean.

do they mean the same thing? NO.

customs and norms are limited to race, countries, cultures, places, time/season or generations. But morality is a universal doctrine . Its level of acceptability or repercussions is what differ. Norms are not Morals and vice versa.

You ask a good question - what does the word moral mean anyway? I see you gave a definition of what you mean by morals. I'll go with that definition. It will help to demonstrate things. Before I go into it, just a few points:

- I know norms are not morals. I didn't say they were. My point was slightly subler than that: custom helps to shape\fashion morality.

- the particular practices of a given community will shape their definitions of morals.

Now, to get to the point. You say morality is universal. Well, let's make that Morality (with a big "M". With that definition, though, we enter a contentious position because for Morality to be universal, where universal includes - let's restrict he scope for now- every human being and community, everyone must agree to the same code or definition of good and bad behaviour. That, to my knowledge isn't the case. the result is often the case that where one community preaches "thou shalt not kill", the other interprets it as "thou shalt not kill the people in my community", and yet another as "thou shalt not kill the people in my community that I like".

The point being that, even what one can possibly consider the most fundamental of insticts that should be fashioned into ethics - don't kill other human beings and you have the possibility of a better community - is not universal in itself.

I'll end this long part of my post by saying, that for me, morals are an individual's conceptions and perceptions of good and bad deeds. While ethics, on the other hand, are an attempt at universalising morals.

Human communities fashion morals.

How? please give an illustration or example to buttress ur point.

Not a problem. Have you ever heard of the Dissoi Logoi. You should look into it. Anyway, yes. One example is, in many societies, Papua New Guinea, for instance, many, because of their way of life, had no problem with thinking cannibalism was, if not a good practice, then at least not a bad or evil one. They were convinced it wasn't a terrible practice particularly if only foreigners were cannibalised. Another example - one with which you're probably aware: during the high point of the transantlatic human slavery, many people in the West, especially in, as the stereotype goes, Southern US, were convinced they were doing the right thing. Heck, many were able to using the Bible to back up their moral uprightness in regards to their view on slavery.

A final example. In some Middle Eastern communities; raised to see the West as devils or whatever, many were\are certain that the terrorists that have attacked Western countries acted moraly right. Most in the West think the opposite. Fashioned by our spheres of interactions - communities, et al.

Murder & stealing : Those happen very frequently. Hell, they happened in Bible, with murder being so frequently practiced by "God's chosens" that the "law" became moot. Moreover, many tend not to realise it, but we - most people - have a tendency to evaluate acts that fall under those terms (murder and stealing) individually. Individual, subjective morality at work. Definitely not the dogmatically followed moral standard for all communities.

I hardly understand the point u are making here, so I ask:
is it morally right, from atheistic point of view to commit murder? yes or no.

What's that, have I stopped beating my wife? Some questions are not able to be answered by a simple "yes or no" response. Although I thought it was easily understandable, the point I was making was that ethics are flexible, not dogmatic. They are built on expanding rungs of individuals.

To answer your question, it's neither right nor wrong abstractly, it is always dependent on who's doing the evaluation and what is being evaluated. In that way, I am inclined to think of the actions of Joshua in Jericho as terrible and morally bankrupt, while many of the Abrahamic faith tend to see it as morally right. By the same token, I am able to see the Muslim prophet's actions as morally bankrupt while those Muslim faith don't.

u have a porous knowledge of the bible. when or where did David disobey his father?

It was a strict - far too strict now that I look at it again - reading of David's story from here:

1 Samuel 17:

17And Jesse said unto David his son, Take now for thy brethren an ephah of this parched corn, and these ten loaves, and run to the camp of thy brethren;

18 And carry these ten cheeses unto the captain of their thousand, and look how thy brethren fare, and take their pledge.

Again I ask, is it morally right, from an atheist point of view to dishonour ones parent?

Again, it depends. I wouldn't consider it wrong if a person refused to honour an unrepentant serial-rapist father.

By the way, I hope you realise that other atheists might hold views that differ from mine.

Incidentally, we don't stone kids anymore. So much for your moral standards. So much for ours.

honesty is ideal in a debate. what book of the bible, chapter and verse asked u to stone ur kids?

Deuteronomy 21

18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

In other words u consider it okay to fornicate. Do u know that in your very same community(where u KAG live), some others consider it a norm to get married as a virgin?.
Dont u think that this contradicts ur initial statement that "human communities fashion morals" considering that ur own community now supports two contradicting moral doctrines. to fornicate and not to fornicate.

While I've never fornicated (what an interesting word), you're right I don't think it's morally wrong to fornicate. Yes, I'm sure some in my community consider it a norm to get married as a virgin - my sister is one, and I'm inclined that way myself - but I think you've misunderstood the point I made of communities fashioning morals. First, a community isn't a stable all-encompassing thing. It's shiftable and can be small or large, and contained within a larger society. So, depending on one's interactions, views can take different flights. However, the major point you're missing is that communities can have individuals with differing views based on experiences, and those may help to fashion future morals and stances.

[quoteHomosexuality: Not amongst ethical people, no. Put it this way, in most Western communities, homosexuality is accepted, even embraced. Their unions are even celebrated.

]considering that ur opinion is not from a religious but atheistic point of view, I must say that this is very biased.

[/quote]

No shit. Incidentally, you should know that many religious people are okay with homosexuality. Interesting that as you go along you see that the Judeo-Christian traditions aren't the "moral standards" for most people.


[quote]Adultery depends on what? While it is a norm in yorubaland for a married man to have concubines but forbidden for a married woman, it is also acceptable in india for a woman to practice polyandry. These are norms of two different places.

Exactly. With that you threw "thou shalt not commit adultery" as a universal "moral standard" out the window.

Morality is ordained by the all Righteous and Holy one, Jehovah God.

Except it isn't.

And he rewards those who abide. This buttresses my opening statement that morality without Christianity is a wasted effort.

And this thread has helped to rebutt that claim.

mazaje:

of course, but its the arrogance that bothers me, who the Bleep is the devil? he only exist in your imaginations not mine.

i dont think your problem is the "arrogance" because you are equally if not more arrogant about your "belief" that those of us who KNOW God exists must be delusional intellectual midgets.

The problem is your conscience to be honest.

davidylan:

I couldnt understand what he/she was saying either. Perhaps she has another bible . . .

I was also confused by this - Homosexuality: Not amongst ethical people, no. Put it this way, in most Western communities, homosexuality is accepted, even embraced. Their unions are even celebrated.

Apart from the fact that a lot of people mistakenly assume that "western communities" = civilization, what of other communities especially in Africa where homosexuality is a taboo? In those so-called western communities, homosexuality was not "embraced" until recently and this had little to do with the bible.

But I was made to understand that in several African societies, homosexuality was embraced, particularly in traditional religious practices. But yeah, I consider acceptance of homosexuals as ethical because I'm inclined to think that it's a natural sexual inclination. As long as the sexual act is between two consenting adults, then no one need object. That's my view.

KAG:

But I was made to understand that in several African societies, homosexuality was embraced, particularly in traditional religious practices. But yeah, I consider acceptance of homosexuals as ethical because I'm inclined to think that it's a natural sexual inclination. As long as the sexual act is between two consenting adults, then no one need object. That's my view.

1. What then happened to homosexuality within African societies? Did it suddenly disappear if it had once been embraced before?

2. would you also agree that pedofilia is a natural sexual inclination?

3. I dont get your point about homosexuality being ethical . . . what is that based on?

davidylan:

i dont think your problem is the "arrogance" because you are equally if not more arrogant about your "belief" that those of us who KNOW God exists must be delusional intellectual midgets.

The problem is your conscience to be honest.

nothing is wrong with my conscience i must tell you i KNOW that the biblegod does not exist and is a only a human creation like all the other gods out there. i am 110% sure of that. . . . . .i don't believe that i am intellectually better than those that believe in a god, but I KNOW for sure that you all are living in a bubble of delusion. . . .

to answer the question of whether religion is necessary for morality, i want people to answer the following questions;

1. Which societies or countries are most stable and peaceful today?
2. Which countries fight the least wars?
3. Which countries have the highest vices, like abortions, teenage pregnacies, corruption, discrimination (both racial and women), drug addiction, etc
4. which countries have the largest population of poor people?
5. Which countries have the greatest disparity between the rich and poor?
To these questions you can answer religious or non religious countries (countries where religion is not a state policy)

davidylan:

1. What then happened to homosexuality within African societies? Did it suddenly disappear if it had once been embraced before?

The profileration of Christianity and Islam.

2. would you also agree that pedofilia is a natural sexual inclination?

Nope. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a basal sexual inclination. Even a pedophile is inclined in either or both of those directions.

3. I dont get your point about homosexuality being ethical . . . what is that based on?

Aceeptance of homosexuals is ethical. Homosexuality itself isn't. It's neither right nor wrong, anymore than heterosexuality.

davidylan:

1. What then happened to homosexuality within African societies? Did it suddenly disappear if it had once been embraced before?

2. would you also agree that pedofilia is a natural sexual inclination?

3. I dont get your point about homosexuality being ethical . . . what is that based on?

Natural means constituting part of reality.  on this definition, anything that is part of reality is natural, from eating yughort, human flesh, having sex with an elephant, or goat, etc, etc are all natural acts.  Just as a star exploding, or an electron spinning around the nucleus are natural event.

The question, as far as humans are concerned, is whether certain acts are desirable or consentual. Sex between a human and an animal is underisable because human society defines the sexual acts as consisting of activity between consenting adults under conditions of no duress.

davidylan:

i dont think your problem is the "arrogance" because you are equally if not more arrogant about your "belief" that those of us who KNOW God exists must be delusional intellectual midgets.

The problem is your conscience to be honest.

welldone davidylan, You just hit the nail on the head,


1. Atheists can choose to ignore Biblie believers, since they claim to be completely sure that there is no creator.

2. Yet for some unknown reason, atheists do not ignore bible believers. Instead, atheists get confrontational and try to either prove to Bible believers the non-existence of a Creator or make Bible believers prove the existence of a Creator, despite that they still can't answer the simple question of the "origin of everything" i.e how everything (life and non-life) came into existence.

3. Yet logic tells us that Atheists should not be bothered about Bible believers, since they already claim to know the answer, yet they still give evidence of being bothered.

I think the simple explanation is that:

Secretly, Atheists need to prove [/b]to themselves the [b]existence or non-existence of a creator, however since its basically impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of a creator with 100% certainty, then it becomes simple to understand why the conscience of Atheists might be a big problem for them.

No2Atheism:

welldone davidylan, You just hit the nail on the head,


1. Atheists can choose to ignore Biblie believers, since they claim to be completely sure that there is no creator.

2. Yet for some unknown reason, Atheists get confrontational and try to either prove to Bible believers the non-existence of a Creator or make Bible believers prove the existence of a Creator, despite that they still can't answer the simple question of the "origin of everything" i.e how everything (life and non-life) came into existence.

3. Yet logic tells us that Atheists should not be bothered about Bible believers, since they already claim to know the answer, yet they still give evidence of being bothered.

I think the simple explanation is that:

Secretly, Atheists need to prove [/b]to themselves the [b]existence or non-existence of a creator, however since its basically impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of a creator with 100% certainty, then it becomes simple to understand why the conscience of Atheists might be a big problem for them.

The atheist is interested in religion in the same way that a surgeon is interested in a tumour or a teacher interested in ignorance. Tumours and ignorance are the bane of human existence, so to eliminate them, which is the concern of the surgeon and the teacher respectively, is to advance human condition. In the same way, to eliminate irrationalism, which is the concerned of the atheist, is to advance the human condition.

LOL@ Davidylan.

''Set us free'' FROM WHAT I never got that from the beginning. Accept imaginary beings set you free from what? If anything it traps you in a bubble of delusion and arrogance.

So back to the question of this thread,


1. Is religion necessary for morality.

2. Why is an atheist bothered about making religious people do the right thing.

3. What is the right thing from an atheistic perspective.

4. How does an atheist know the difference between right thing and wrong thing.

5. When does an atheist develop the sense of right thing and wrong thing, assuming evolution is true and evolution is the only thing known to man.

6. Where and how did a new born baby/very young child born to an Atheist Mother and Atheist Father, learn how to do the right thing and/or wrong thing, considering that they are technically supposed to be too young to read or study or learn in the same way adults get to learn new things.


I have asked straight forward questions above and thus would be grateful to get straight forward answers instead of name calling or useless rhetoric.

KAG:


For the first, you asked: "Has God`s commandments to man (moses) classifying good and evil, still not relevant in all societies today? yes or no." The answer is clearly no. With all due respect, it's an obviously nonsensical question, as many modern societies are implicitly and explicitly secular, and many more have little to no relation with ancient Jewish edicts. The same applies for the second.

To respond specifically to the post I've quoted, many laws in countries are generally  indifferent to lying and adultery (with lying only notable when it's a question of perjury or similar). When it comes to murder and stealing, the laws can be flexible in determining the act in question is "good" or "evil". That is, in most Western societies, there are degrees of murder and some times the act may not be seen as evil depending on the circumstances. An example that comes to mind was the case of the battered spouse that killed her abusive husband. Her act wasn't in self-defence, but she wasn't found guilty and many hailed her as a hero. Many (most?) and the law of the land were content to deem her action "good".

An example of when stealing is seen as good by members of a community? During the Katrina Hurricane, a kid stole a school bus so he could ferry people out of the flood zones. No one doubted that he stole the bus, but his act was deemed good never the less.

KAG, no insults intended, but i would appreciate it if u are objective and very rational to avoid repetition.

u agreed with my implicit definition of moral universal concept. I ended that saying that what differs is the level or degree of repercussions.
This is further illustrated by your acknowledgements above.  From which I can deduce the following:
1.   Lying in court, is punishable by law, anywhere in the world. Lying informally between two individuals brings about distrust.
God said " Thou shall not lie"

2. Adultery is an acceptable and reasonable ground for divorce. This is acknowledged by several laws, norms and cultures all over the world.
God said " Thou shall not fornicate or commit adultery"

3.   The case of stealing u mentioned, the boy stole, which the laws of man also frowns against. His not being persecuted was at the discretion of the law officers. No doubt he stole, which is a crime.
God says "Thou shall not steal"

And please notice the last part of my analysis of the moral concept, the repercussion or punishment is what differs from society to society.
Every society decides what amount of punishment to award for these crimes, but in all, they frown on it.

To sum up: Human made laws - which is what every laws humans have are - are generally flexible.

Thats only explainable by the infinite wisdom of God. How come no atheist can question the morality of any of his laws, thousands of years after he made them?  How come what HE classified as evil remains so till this day? yet every time a man makes a law, another man comes and says that the law is imperfect and subsequently amends or abolish it.

God`s laws have passed the test of time and civilisation. Man`s law hasnt, but continues to evolve around God`s law.

You realise that the Tanakh has Moses codifying more laws than those ten, right?  Pro tip: if you mention Moses getting laws from God, be aware that there were many laws, and the decalogue was just a small part of them.

lets stick to relevant points here. for the sake of objectivity.

Anyway, rather than list all ten, how about we stick to the first four which almost nobody, particularly atheists (who you included as partakers of the laws of Moses) give a damn about:

# You shall have no other Gods but me.
# You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
# You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
# You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.

I started this debate by telling u that: "Morality or moral attempts undefined by Christianity is a wasted effort. It leads no where."
If u cannot within intellectual limits declassify the good and evil (moral classification) of God`s law, thousands of years after He gave them, then u  are better off abiding by the four u mentioned above too, cos He also gave them.

On a lighter note, Jesus replaced all these commandments with Love. By loving u fulfil all the commandments.
Isnt it ironic that love is all the world needs today?
In other words ur "moral" values that are not grounded in God`s law (His concept for righteousness) are wasted.

customs and norms are limited to race, countries, cultures, places, time/season or generations. But morality is a universal doctrine . Its level of acceptability or repercussions is what differ. Norms are not Morals and vice versa.

You ask a good question - what does the word moral mean anyway? I see you gave a definition of what you mean by morals. I'll go with that definition. It will help to demonstrate things. Before I go into it, just a few points:

- I know norms are not morals. I didn't say they were. My point was slightly subler than that: custom helps to shape\fashion morality.

what exactly is the difference between them?

- the particular practices of a given community will shape their definitions of morals.

if u cannot distinguish between norms and morals, how then do u intend to prove this statement?
This assertion of urs is false.

Now, to get to the point. You say morality is universal. Well, let's make that Morality (with a big "M". With that definition, though, we enter a contentious position because for Morality to be universal, where universal includes - let's restrict he scope for now- every human being and community, everyone must agree to the same code or definition of good and bad behaviour. That, to my knowledge isn't the case. the result is often the case that where one community preaches "thou shalt not kill", the other interprets it as "thou shalt not kill the people in my community", and yet another as "thou shalt not kill the people in my community that I like".

The law says "thou shall not kill" but also empowers the president to declare war on Cameroon or any other nation, if at any time there is a provocation to do so. How does the "events" or casualties of this war on both sides amount to killing? in other words how does this casualties contradict another law that say  "thou shall not kill"?

The point being that, even what one can possibly consider the most fundamental of insticts that should be fashioned into ethics - don't kill other human beings and you have the possibility of a better community - is not universal in itself.

I'll end this long part of my post by saying, that for me, morals are an individual's [/b]conceptions and perceptions of good and bad deeds. While ethics, on the other hand, are an attempt at universalising morals.

This is a contradiction. u initially implied that [b]communities fashion morals, so how did morality become an individual concept again?

Not a problem. Have you ever heard of the Dissoi Logoi. You should look into it. Anyway, yes. One example is, in many societies, Papua New Guinea, for instance, many, because of their way of life, had no problem with thinking cannibalism was, if not a good practice, then at least not a bad or evil one. They were convinced it wasn't a terrible practice particularly if only foreigners were cannibalised. Another example - one with which you're probably aware: during the high point of the transantlatic human slavery, many people in the West, especially in, as the stereotype goes, Southern US, were convinced they were doing the right thing. Heck, many were able to using the Bible to back up their moral uprightness in regards to their view on slavery.

Have u ever read up the definition of norms?
How come all other parts of the world condemned this act of cannibalism? All places and people of the world cannot have the same norms, but they all condemned this barbaric act of cannibalism. That is the product of the universality of morality.

What's that, have I stopped beating my wife? Some questions are not able to be answered by a simple "yes or no" response. Although I thought it was easily understandable, the point I was making was that ethics are flexible, not dogmatic. They are built on expanding rungs of individuals.
So in other words it is very rational to kill, if the scenario permits, right?
To answer your question, it's neither right nor wrong abstractly, it is always dependent on who's doing the evaluation and what is being evaluated. In that way, I am inclined to think of the actions of Joshua in Jericho as terrible and morally bankrupt, while many of the Abrahamic faith tend to see it as morally right. By the same token, I am able to see the Muslim prophet's actions as morally bankrupt while those Muslim faith don't.

Please be objective. Joshua was on a war front. What were the events that led to the war? did he (Joshua) not request a peaceful passage, whereby nothing of theirs (people of Jericho) will be taken? did the residents of jericho not opt for war by refusing his peaceful appeal?
read up the bible, intelligently before making ur assertions. They are false and untenable.

It was a strict - far too strict now that I look at it again - reading of David's story from here:

1 Samuel 17:

17And Jesse said unto David his son, Take now for thy brethren an ephah of this parched corn, and these ten loaves, and run to the camp of thy brethren;

18 And carry these ten cheeses unto the captain of their thousand, and look how thy brethren fare, and take their pledge.

Did he not deliver the food to the captain and his siblings?
how exactly did he dishonour his father?

While ur example is shrouded by ur bias against the law. I will state here that obeying or disobeying the law has nothing to do with the law. Thats up to each individual, the law is only intended to be a guide.

Again, it depends. I wouldn't consider it wrong if a person refused to honour an unrepentant serial-rapist father.

By the way, I hope you realise that other atheists might hold views that differ from mine.
honesty is ideal in a debate. what book of the bible, chapter and verse asked u to stone ur kids?

Deuteronomy 21

18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

what does it mean to be rebellious? juxtapose ur definition to the moral concept we both agreed to.

Hint: Rebellion in this concept can be likened to treason.

noetic:

KAG, no insults intended, but i would appreciate it if u are objective and very rational to avoid repetition.

And I would appreciate the same of you.

Now, to get to the point. You say morality is universal. Well, let's make that Morality (with a big "M". With that definition, though, we enter a contentious position because for Morality to be universal, where universal includes - let's restrict he scope for now- every human being and community, everyone must agree to the same code or definition of good and bad behaviour. That, to my knowledge isn't the case. the result is often the case that where one community preaches "thou shalt not kill", the other interprets it as "thou shalt not kill the people in my community", and yet another as "thou shalt not kill the people in my community that I like".

The point being that, even what one can possibly consider the most fundamental of insticts that should be fashioned into ethics - don't kill other human beings and you have the possibility of a better community - is not universal in itself.

I'll end this long part of my post by saying, that for me, morals are an individual's conceptions and perceptions of good and bad deeds. While ethics, on the other hand, are an attempt at universalising morals.

u agreed with my implicit definition of moral universal concept. I ended that saying that what differs is the level or degree of repercussions.

No, I didn't. I've quoted the relevant part of my response for you to read again. But what do you mean by level of reprecussions? You mean reactions to acts?

To respond specifically to the post I've quoted, many laws in countries are generally  indifferent to lying and adultery (with lying only notable when it's a question of perjury or similar). When it comes to murder and stealing, the laws can be flexible in determining the act in question is "good" or "evil". That is, in most Western societies, there are degrees of murder and some times the act may not be seen as evil depending on the circumstances. An example that comes to mind was the case of the battered spouse that killed her abusive husband. Her act wasn't in self-defence, but she wasn't found guilty and many hailed her as a hero. Many (most?) and the law of the land were content to deem her action "good".

An example of when stealing is seen as good by members of a community? During the Katrina Hurricane, a kid stole a school bus so he could ferry people out of the flood zones. No one doubted that he stole the bus, but his act was deemed good never the less.

This is further illustrated by your acknowledgements above.  From which I can deduce the following:
1.   Lying in court, is punishable by law, anywhere in the world. Lying informally between two individuals brings about distrust.
God said " Thou shall not lie"

2. Adultery is an acceptable and reasonable ground for divorce. This is acknowledged by several laws, norms and cultures all over the world.
God said " Thou shall not fornicate or commit adultery"

3.   The case of stealing u mentioned, the boy stole, which the laws of man also frowns against. His not being persecuted was at the discretion of the law officers. No doubt he stole, which is a crime.
God says "Thou shall not steal"

And please notice the last part of my analysis of the moral concept, the repercussion or punishment is what differs from society to society.

I'm sensing a fundamental error on your part in regards to what the examples I gave delineate. Okay, let's start from the top. No, it's not in every court that lying is a punishable offence or immoral. The same applies between individuals too. It is mostly in some modern countries that lying in a court of law is punishable by the law. And even several of those countries, lying isn't as clear-cut. The point being that while several courts have a law against lying, it's for one thing not a moral edict, and for another not a cultural determinant.

For the second, adultery is also not frowned upon by many cultures. Heck, you even gave some examples. That alone, if nothing else, should make you realise it isn't an ubiquitous Moral (with a big "M". For the thrid, it isn't just that he wasn't prosecuted, it's more so that his actions were considered morally right by many. Many individuals, contrary to your view on morality, disregarded any dogmatic clinging to an age old Jewish law, and were able to decide that the boy's actions were in fact good. That's the point.

Finally, no it isn't just repercussions that differ between communities and societies: it is outlooks that differ. Remember the example of cannibalism I gave? That outlook on what is moral is completely different from that of many other societies.

Every society decides what amount of punishment to award for these crimes, but in all, they frown on it.

Clearly not.

To sum up: Human made laws - which is what every laws humans have are - are generally flexible.

Thats only explainable by the infinite wisdom of God. How come no atheist can question the morality of any of his laws, thousands of years after he made them?  How come what HE classified as evil remains so till this day? yet every time a man makes a law, another man comes and says that the law is imperfect and subsequently amends or abolish it.

Um, no, it's explainable by the finite wisdom of humans. No need to draft any gods in here. And what do you mean by "no atheist can question the morality of his [God? Moses? The levites?] laws"? I already did that. Even Christians have been known to do that. Also, many of "god's" laws have also been amended or abolished. In that regard, "thou shalt not steal" became amended for the Israelites ". . . except if it's the property of other cultures you've maimed and killed". "Thou shalt not kill" was collared by "unless you believe your God is telling you otherwise". All through out the Bible we see "God's unchanging laws" become amended and supplanted, resulting eventually in Jesus' summation of what the decalogue should be.

God`s laws have passed the test of time and civilisation. Man`s law hasnt, but continues to evolve around God`s law.

Which is exactly why every culture and society has a law that says thou shalt have no other god but the God of the Judeo-Christians . . . Oh, wait.

You realise that the Tanakh has Moses codifying more laws than those ten, right?  Pro tip: if you mention Moses getting laws from God, be aware that there were many laws, and the decalogue was just a small part of them.

lets stick to relevant points here. for the sake of objectivity.

I am and I was. You mentioned the laws of God to Moses, I'm letting you realise that those number more than ten.

Anyway, rather than list all ten, how about we stick to the first four which almost nobody, particularly atheists (who you included as partakers of the laws of Moses) give a damn about:

# You shall have no other Gods but me.
# You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
# You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
# You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.

I started this debate by telling u that: "Morality or moral attempts undefined by Christianity is a wasted effort. It leads no where."
If u cannot within intellectual limits declassify the good and evil (moral classification) of God`s law, thousands of years after He gave them, then u  are better off abiding by the four u mentioned above too, cos He also gave them.

You're not making any sense. Why would I want to declassify the good and evil of God's law? I'm sure you don't mean declassify, but I can't for the life of me figure out which word you mean instead.

In any case, your response doesn't the address the point I made. Contrary to what you stated, even if restrict our focus to just the decalogue, already we see that most cultures don't relate their larger sense of morality or laws to the first four of the ten commandments. That much is clear. There are other points implicitly in that part of my post, but that's the most pertinent one.

On a lighter note, Jesus replaced all these commandments with Love. By loving u fulfil all the commandments.
Isnt it ironic that love is all the world needs today?
In other words ur "moral" values that are not grounded in God`s law (His concept for righteousness) are wasted.

That's nice. So much for non-amendment, eh? You know, actually, it's more than just love. Love is the main word in the two commandments, but they are far more reaching thanjust the word. This is just a digression, though.

customs and norms are limited to race, countries, cultures, places, time/season or generations. But morality is a universal doctrine . Its level of acceptability or repercussions is what differ. Norms are not Morals and vice versa.

You ask a good question - what does the word moral mean anyway? I see you gave a definition of what you mean by morals. I'll go with that definition. It will help to demonstrate things. Before I go into it, just a few points:

- I know norms are not morals. I didn't say they were. My point was slightly subler than that: custom helps to shape\fashion morality.

what exactly is the difference between them?

For me, norms are lot closer to ethics and culturally ingrained or influenced habits. So, in that vein, norms are beliefs and values of the whole (whole meaning the community, society, basically the larger structure to which the individual is identified). For instance, in countries in the Middle East, it is normatively right to be a Muslim. Now, like I stated previously, morality, for me, is a system of thought of the individual. That system of evaluating good and bad/evil on an individual level, is distinguishable, though influenced, by the right and wrong of the norms of the whole. I hope that makes sense.

- the particular practices of a given community will shape their definitions of morals.

if u cannot distinguish between norms and morals, how then do u intend to prove this statement?
This assertion of urs is false.

You know, it's really bad form to ask me a question, then in the next breath or line, conclude that I don't know the answer to the question - before I even get the chance to read the question, no less. In any case, no my assertion isn't false. Refer back to the examples I gave of how different communities perceive several actions. I started that line of argument by recommending the dissoi logoi.

Now, to get to the point. You say morality is universal. Well, let's make that Morality (with a big "M". With that definition, though, we enter a contentious position because for Morality to be universal, where universal includes - let's restrict he scope for now- every human being and community, everyone must agree to the same code or definition of good and bad behaviour. That, to my knowledge isn't the case. the result is often the case that where one community preaches "thou shalt not kill", the other interprets it as "thou shalt not kill the people in my community", and yet another as "thou shalt not kill the people in my community that I like".

The law says "thou shall not kill" but also empowers the president to declare war on Cameroon or any other nation, if at any time there is a provocation to do so. How does the "events" or casualties of this war on both sides amount to killing? in other words how does this casualties contradict another law that say  "thou shall not kill"?

Really it does that? Show me where it does that within the daclogue. No, seriously. All I see everytime I read it is "Thou shalt not kill". No where do I see "unless you're a head of state declaring war on another group of people". Now, it isn't so much the casualties that show the inherent contradiction (although the dead do tell a tale), it's the people committing the acts that lead to death. You know, the people doing all the killing? Yes, them. To bring this back to what I said, many communities and individuals have understood that edict in reference to their selves and communities. Morality (big "M" is thereby not universal even for people that shared the same the same Bible.

The point being that, even what one can possibly consider the most fundamental of insticts that should be fashioned into ethics - don't kill other human beings and you have the possibility of a better community - is not universal in itself.

I'll end this long part of my post by saying, that for me, morals are an individual's conceptions and perceptions of good and bad deeds. While ethics, on the other hand, are an attempt at universalising morals.

This is a contradiction. u initially implied that communities fashion morals, so how did morality become an individual concept again?

I don't see the contradiction. Think of it in this way: A community may help to shape language, but speech may still be individual. THe individual, shaped by many things including the community that may have helped to fashion her language, can give speeches individually.

Not a problem. Have you ever heard of the Dissoi Logoi. You should look into it. Anyway, yes. One example is, in many societies, Papua New Guinea, for instance, many, because of their way of life, had no problem with thinking cannibalism was, if not a good practice, then at least not a bad or evil one. They were convinced it wasn't a terrible practice particularly if only foreigners were cannibalised. Another example - one with which you're probably aware: during the high point of the transantlatic human slavery, many people in the West, especially in, as the stereotype goes, Southern US, were convinced they were doing the right thing. Heck, many were able to using the Bible to back up their moral uprightness in regards to their view on slavery.

Have u ever read up the definition of norms?
How come all other parts of the world condemned this act of cannibalism? All places and people of the world cannot have the same norms, but they all condemned this barbaric act of cannibalism. That is the product of the universality of morality.

Is there any particular definition of norms you'd like me to read? Anyway, no, not all other parts of the world joined in condemning the act, just several Western countries - linked, you'll notice, by the same or interlinking cultural traditions. More importantly, though, is the fact that cannibalism was morally right in those communities that practiced the act. Morality (big "M" cannot be universal if even one community of humans - and I'm still limiting it to humans - have a different, contrary set of moral stances.

What's that, have I stopped beating my wife? Some questions are not able to be answered by a simple "yes or no" response. Although I thought it was easily understandable, the point I was making was that ethics are flexible, not dogmatic. They are built on expanding rungs of individuals.
So in other words it is very rational to kill, if the scenario permits, right?
To answer your question, it's neither right nor wrong abstractly, it is always dependent on who's doing the evaluation and what is being evaluated. In that way, I am inclined to think of the actions of Joshua in Jericho as terrible and morally bankrupt, while many of the Abrahamic faith tend to see it as morally right. By the same token, I am able to see the Muslim prophet's actions as morally bankrupt while those Muslim faith don't.

Please be objective. Joshua was on a war front. What were the events that led to the war? did he (Joshua) not request a peaceful passage, whereby nothing of theirs (people of Jericho) will be taken? did the residents of jericho not opt for war by refusing his peaceful appeal?

You missed the point. However, I am curious about claim about Joshua and Jericho. Since I don't remember Joshua doing all that requesting, and the people of Jericho doing what you said, I ask that you show me. In any case, my point stands. I see his actions as immoral. You don't. Which leads back situational ethics and individulaism in morality.

read up the bible, intelligently before making ur assertions. They are false and untenable.

You're right, I should. Will you please show me the part in the Bible where " (Joshua) . . . request[ed] a peaceful passage, whereby nothing of theirs (people of Jericho) will be taken . . . [and] the residents of jericho . . . opt[ed] for war by refusing his peaceful appeal

It was a strict - far too strict now that I look at it again - reading of David's story from here:

1 Samuel 17:

17And Jesse said unto David his son, Take now for thy brethren an ephah of this parched corn, and these ten loaves, and run to the camp of thy brethren;

18 And carry these ten cheeses unto the captain of their thousand, and look how thy brethren fare, and take their pledge.

Did he not deliver the food to the captain and his siblings?
how exactly did he dishonour his father?

Like I said, it was too strict a reading on my part.

While ur example is shrouded by ur bias against the law. I will state here that obeying or disobeying the law has nothing to do with the law. Thats up to each individual, the law is only intended to be a guide.

My example of what? Actually, sometimes, obeying or disobeying the (a?) law can be dependent on what the law is. Having everything, then, to do with said law.

[quote]honesty is ideal in a debate. what book of the bible, chapter and verse asked u to stone ur kids?

Again, it depends. I wouldn't consider it wrong if a person refused to honour an unrepentant serial-rapist father.

By the way, I hope you realise that other atheists might hold views that differ from mine.
honesty is ideal in a debate. what book of the bible, chapter and verse asked u to stone ur kids?

Deuteronomy 21

18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

what does it mean to be rebellious? juxtapose ur definition to the moral concept we both agreed to.

Hint: Rebellion in this concept can be likened to treason.
[/quote]

I'll take that as a "you right, KAG, we don't stone kids anymore"

[/quote][quote]

noetic:


Hint: Rebellion in this concept can be likened to treason.

your meaningless apologetics makes me want to vomit. . . .a son rebelling against his parents can be likened to treason eh?

mazaje:

your meaningless apologetics makes me want to vomit. . . .a son rebelling against his parents can be likened to treason eh?

Lol. that's a good point. My first reaction was Wtf? I sort of sense why he would equate the two, though.

KAG:

Lol. that's a good point. My first reaction was Wtf? I sort of sense why he would equate the two, though.

KAG did you undergo a sex operation? i can see that you are now a male. . . . .

before KAG and mazaje continue their tag teaming on neotic, can we please get back to the topic of the thread and stop all intended and unintended derailment.

So back to the question of this thread,


1. Is religion necessary for morality.

2. Why is an atheist bothered about making religious people do the right thing.

3. What is the right thing from an atheistic perspective.

4. How does an atheist know the difference between right thing and wrong thing.

5. When does an atheist develop the sense of right thing and wrong thing, assuming evolution is true and evolution is the only thing known to man.

6. Where and how did a new born baby/very young child born to an Atheist Mother and Atheist Father, learn how to do the right thing and/or wrong thing, considering that they are technically supposed to be too young to read or study or learn in the same way adults get to learn new things.

7. Was morality a product of evolution.



I have asked straight forward questions above and thus would be grateful to get straight forward answers instead of name calling or useless rhetoric.

mazaje:

KAG did you undergo a sex operation? i can see that you are now a male. . . . .

Hey, it's the internet. If you can't be any sex you want on the interwebs then you probably aren't doing it right.

No2Atheism:

before KAG and mazaje continue their tag teaming on neotic, can we please get back to the topic of the thread and stop all intended and unintended derailment.

So back to the question of this thread,


1. Is religion necessary for morality.

You know, if you bothered to read the thread rather than assume others are trying to "tag team" and derail, you'd have noticed that this question has been answered in several different ways by a myriad of posters. No, seriously.

2. Why is an atheist bothered about making religious people do the right thing.

3. What is the right thing from an atheistic perspective.

This two go together. My initial reaction to the question in [2] (I presume it's a question) is what do you mean by the right thing? In any case, shades of biopower, perhaps?

For the third question, the "right thing" might be dependent on the atheist in question. for me, from my perspective, the right thing is often to be evaluated based on the situation and the actions committed (if any).

4. How does an atheist know the difference between right thing and wrong thing.

Like the previous, there is no universal determinant. The right thing, for me, ofetn involve acts of selflessness that don't maim or destroy other humans.

5. When does an atheist develop the sense of right thing and wrong thing, assuming evolution is true and evolution is the only thing known to man.

Evolution is not the only thing known to humans. It did and does occur, though. I've covered much of this question in my previous posts so I won't go into it again.

6. Where and how did a new born baby/very young child born to an Atheist Mother and Atheist Father, learn how to do the right thing and/or wrong thing, considering that they are technically supposed to be too young to read or study or learn in the same way adults get to learn new things.

Same way the child picks up the language(s) of its atheist parents.

7. Was morality a product of evolution.

In its concrete sense, yes.

I have asked straight forward questions above and thus would be grateful to get straight forward answers instead of name calling or useless rhetoric.

I, for one, appreciate that.

lol rebelling against a parent can be treason.

noetic - you sure say you no be christian talibani

KAG:

Hey, it's the internet. If you can't be any sex you want on the interwebs then you probably  aren't doing it right.

You know, if you bothered to read the thread rather than assume others are trying to "tag team" and derail, you'd have noticed that this question has been answered in several different ways by a myriad of posters. No, seriously.

Okay point taken,

This two go together. My initial reaction to the question in [2] (I presume it's a question) is what do you mean by the right thing? In any case, shades of biopower, perhaps?


For the third question, the "right thing" might be dependent on the atheist in question. for me, from my perspective, the right thing is often to be evaluated based on the situation and the actions committed (if any).

Like the previous, there is no universal determinant. The right thing, for me, ofetn involve acts of selflessness that don't maim or destroy other humans.


Evolution is not the only thing known to humans. It did and does occur, though. I've covered much of this question in my previous posts so I won't go into it again.

By which i presume you mean morality is relative and personal, (hence you ought not to blame islamic terrorist since by your own statement, doing the right thing as far as they are concerned is likewise relative), as such islamist are justified in killing non-muslims because morality is likewise relative to them.

LOL, what a load of bollocks, LOL

Listen and listen good, morality is not a relative thing, morality cannot be developed from some form of biological process, hence your assertion that morality came via evolution really sounds very ridiculous even for you KAG (i had high respect for you compared to other atheists) , Please i advise you never to mention in public that morality came via evolution (it would cause you to be laughed to scorn).

By the way in case you don't know, morality is not personal, morality is not relative, instead morality is based on a set of unchanging absolutes such as:

1. Do not lies (this not possible via evolution because evolution requires preservation of the species via every means possible, hence lying itself would be a tool for evolution).

2. Do not kill (this not possible to have come via evolution because survival of the fittest requires kill of the so called unfit, hence killing itself would be a tool for evolution).

These absolutes and more have not change for thousands of years of human history since records began,


If you go anywhere in the world now or in the past.

An atheist inherently knows that killing is wrong, A bible believer inherently knows that killing is wrong,

An atheist inherently knows that lying is wrong, A bible believer inherently knows that lying is wrong,

Even atheism based communism societies recognise (to their embarrasment) that lying and killing are wrong, despite that there is no rational nor scientific reason as to the reason why such inherent understanding about killing and lying should be so,

KAG KAG, i am really disappointed by your response, i expected something like that from others but not from you, you are better than such kinds of outrageous responses.

Same way the child picks up the language(s) of its atheist parents.

In its concrete sense, yes.

I, for one, appreciate that.

, lol, lol, u are joking right, LMAO

What frame of reference exactly did the atheist parents have by which they determined what was right and what was wrong.

lol, lol, For example going by your previous statement does it mean right and wrong is relative and personal to the father and also relative and personal to the mother.
, yet by an unexplained process, the child still has an inherent understanding of what it means to lie and why lying is wrong, despite all the so called relativeness,

bawomolo:

lol rebelling against a parent can be treason.

noetic - you sure say you no be christian talibani

which one is christian talibani again, osama not bin laden, or what.

mazaje:

your meaningless apologetics makes me want to vomit. . . .a son rebelling against his parents can be likened to treason eh?

bawomolo:

lol rebelling against a parent can be treason.

noetic - you sure say you no be christian talibani

Well considering the context in which that verse was taken, I stand by my definition.

What is rebellion? When defining rebellion have it mind that the children of isreal were in the wilderness living amongst several enemies.
of course it would be too much of me expecting atheists with a biased mindset towards the bible to be objective

noetic:

Well considering the context in which that verse was taken, I stand by my definition.

What is rebellion? When defining rebellion have it mind that the children of isreal were in the wilderness living amongst several enemies.
of course it would be too much of me expecting atheists with a biased mindset towards the bible to be objective

you seem more confused than i thought, what has a child's rebellion against his parents got to do with treason? . rebellion means amongst other things resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition, so what the heck are you saying? what has yahweh's chosen people merry go round in the wilderness according to the bible got to do with what you are saying?

@ KAG

I honestly cant figure out the basis and destination of this debate any more. Cos u have turned it head on with ur contradicting postulations and definitions. I will try to be as objective as I can.
The bone of contention still remains my position about the continuous relevance of God`s laws in this age, in form of morality or righteousness.

KAG:


No, I didn't. I've quoted the relevant part of my response for you to read again. But what do you mean by level of reprecussions? You mean reactions to acts?

By repercussions here, I meant the punishment attached to each crime. I dont suppose u have a problem with that. do u?

I'm sensing a fundamental error on your part in regards to what the examples I gave delineate. Okay, let's start from the top. No, it's not in every court that lying is a punishable offence or immoral. The same applies between individuals too. It is mostly in some modern countries that lying in a court of law is punishable by the law. And even several of those countries, lying isn't as clear-cut. The point being that while several courts have a law against lying, it's for one thing not a moral edict, and for another not a cultural determinant.
For the second, adultery is also not frowned upon by many cultures. Heck, you even gave some examples. That alone, if nothing else, should make you realise it isn't an ubiquitous Moral (with a big "M". For the thrid, it isn't just that he wasn't prosecuted, it's more so that his actions were considered morally right by many. Many individuals, contrary to your view on morality, disregarded any dogmatic clinging to an age old Jewish law, and were able to decide that the boy's actions were in fact good. That's the point.

Finally, no it isn't just repercussions that differ between communities and societies: it is outlooks that differ. Remember the example of cannibalism I gave? That outlook on what is moral is completely different from that of many other societies.

Clearly not.

Um, no, it's explainable by the finite wisdom of humans. No need to draft any gods in here. And what do you mean by "no atheist can question the morality of his [God? Moses? The levites?] laws"? I already did that. Even Christians have been known to do that. Also, many of "god's" laws have also been amended or abolished. In that regard, "thou shalt not steal" became amended for the Israelites ". . . except if it's the property of other cultures you've maimed and killed". "Thou shalt not kill" was collared by "unless you believe your God is telling you otherwise". All through out the Bible we see "God's unchanging laws" become amended and supplanted, resulting eventually in Jesus' summation of what the decalogue should be.

I am and I was. You mentioned the laws of God to Moses, I'm letting you realise that those number more than ten.

You're not making any sense. Why would I want to declassify the good and evil of God's law? I'm sure you don't mean declassify, but I can't for the life of me figure out which word you mean instead.

In any case, your response doesn't the address the point I made. Contrary to what you stated, even if restrict our focus to just the decalogue, already we see that most cultures don't relate their larger sense of morality or laws to the first four of the ten commandments. That much is clear. There are other points implicitly in that part of my post, but that's the most pertinent one.

For me, norms are lot closer to ethics and culturally ingrained or influenced habits. So, in that vein, norms are beliefs and values of the whole (whole meaning the community, society, basically the larger structure to which the individual is identified). For instance, in countries in the Middle East, it is normatively right to be a Muslim. Now, like I stated previously, morality, for me, is a system of thought of the individual. That system of evaluating good and bad/evil on an individual level, is distinguishable, though influenced, by the right and wrong of the norms of the whole. I hope that makes sense.

I honestly cant figure out ur points cos I believe ur definition of the concepts in contention here are contradicting (at least to me), and as such I cannot figure out how exactly to reply some of ur points.

Let me set the ball rolling by defining the major concepts at stake here. They are norms and morality.
I define norms as a typical practice of a place or group of people.
I also define morality as the distinction between good and evil.
I further state that morality and moral concepts is universal, based on the immortal laws of God given to man, that has not been amended, substituted or repudiated by man, thousands of years after it has been given.

Now to elucidate on their differences I will state that while polyandry is a norm in India, adultery remains immoral.  

That's nice. [b]So much for non-amendment, [/b]eh? You know, actually, it's more than just love. Love is the main word in the two commandments, but they are far more reaching thanjust the word. This is just a digression, though.

please be objective. The love commandment was a succint summary of the other 10 commandments.
If u love ur neighbour would u kill? steal from? lie against? him/her.

If u love JEHOVAH would u bow to baal? When Jesus said Love, he meant that by that u are not condemned unto judgement, cos u easily overcome sin.
I said this cos i didnt expect an atheist to deduce this from the bible.

You know, it's really bad form to ask me a question, then in the next breath or line, conclude that I don't know the answer to the question - before I even get the chance to read the question, no less. In any case, no my assertion isn't false. Refer back to the examples I gave of how different communities perceive several actions. I started that line of argument by recommending the dissoi logoi.

The law says "thou shall not kill" but also empowers the president to declare war on Cameroon or any other nation, if at any time there is a provocation to do so. How does the "events" or casualties of this war on both sides amount to killing? in other words how does this casualties contradict another law that say  "thou shall not kill"?

Really it does that? Show me where it does that within the daclogue. No, seriously. All I see everytime I read it is "Thou shalt not kill". No where do I see "unless you're a head of state declaring war on another group of people". Now, it isn't so much the casualties that show the inherent contradiction (although the dead do tell a tale), it's the people committing the acts that lead to death. You know, the people doing all the killing? Yes, them. To bring this back to what I said, many communities and individuals have understood that edict in reference to their selves and communities. Morality (big "M" is thereby not universal even for people that shared the same the same Bible.

In a war, do u consider military casualties as killing or murder? definitely not. so why is Joshua`s case different?

I don't see the contradiction. Think of it in this way: A community may help to shape language, but speech may still be individual. THe individual, shaped by many things including the community that may have helped to fashion her language, can give speeches individually.

This argument is only valid for individual decision to obey a law or choose what to or what not to believe.
a norm is typically cultural. a moral is universal in interpretation. Individuals retain the liberty to either continue or discontinue the norms they are used to (can be due to literacy), be moral or immoral. Individuals dont fashion morals, God already did.

You missed the point. However, I am curious about claim about Joshua and Jericho. Since I don't remember Joshua doing all that requesting, and the people of Jericho doing what you said, I ask that you show me. In any case, my point stands. I see his actions as immoral. You don't. Which leads back situational ethics and individulaism in morality.

You're right, I should. Will you please show me the part in the Bible where " (Joshua) . . . request[ed] a peaceful passage, whereby nothing of theirs (people of Jericho) will be taken . . . [and] the residents of jericho . . . opt[ed] for war by refusing his peaceful appeal

just google Joshua Jericho or the walls of Jericho.

Like I said, it was too strict a reading on my part.

does this mean, "sorry for the uninformed assertions I (KAG) made about the David story"?



FYI: Israel were in a war time, living in the wilderness surrounded by enemies all over. Rebellion I insist is equatable to treason.
unless u have a better analysis.

mazaje:

you seem more confused than i thought, what has a child's rebellion against his parents got to do with treason? . rebellion means amongst other things resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition, so what the heck are you saying? what has yahweh's chosen people merry go round in the wilderness according to the bible got to do with what you are saying?

considering that intelligence counts for nothing in nairaland, I am not surprised at your continuous circle of ignorance, biblical bias and meaningless assertions.

since u have successfully defined rebellion, now put that in the context of a war torn nation. . . . . , what do u get?

No2Atheism:

This two go together. My initial reaction to the question in [2] (I presume it's a question) is what do you mean by the right thing? In any case, shades of biopower, perhaps?


For the third question, the "right thing" might be dependent on the atheist in question. for me, from my perspective, the right thing is often to be evaluated based on the situation and the actions committed (if any).

Like the previous, there is no universal determinant. The right thing, for me, ofetn involve acts of selflessness that don't maim or destroy other humans.


Evolution is not the only thing known to humans. It did and does occur, though. I've covered much of this question in my previous posts so I won't go into it again.

Okay point taken,

By which i presume you mean morality is relative and personal, (hence you ought not to blame islamic terrorist since by your own statement, doing the right thing as far as they are concerned is likewise relative), as such islamist are justified in killing non-muslims because morality is likewise relative to them.

LOL, what a load of bollocks, LOL

Well, your strawman is bollocks, yes. What I wrote, however, makes sense. Let's review, using your example. I blame the Islamic terrorists for their actions and I think their actions were morally reprehensible. Therefore, from my moral view, their actions were wrong. On the other hand though, the Islamic terrorists adn their supporters were\are certain that the actions of the terrorists are morally acceptable or right. Their moral view inclines them to viewing the actions as right. Whether you or I like it or not, they feel morally righteous in regards to acts of terrorism. All of those are clear.

Now, the important thing is to note that in all this I still don't think their actions are justified, because it contravenes my moral stance, which is heavily built on avoidance of maiming and killing. Further, I blame them for their actions even if they believe it is right because I'm inclined towards an existentialist view of human culpability.

Listen and listen good, morality is not a relative thing, morality cannot be developed from some form of biological process, hence your assertion that morality came via evolution really sounds very ridiculous even for you KAG (i had high respect for you compared to other atheists) ,  Please i advise you never to mention in public that morality came via evolution (it would cause you to be laughed to scorn).

First, you morality isn't relative, yet you haven't made any strides towards showing that assertion is true. I you read through the thread, it quickly becomes clear that morals and morality are indeed relative. I think what you mean instead is that ethics tries not to be relative or personal. And no, it doesn't sound ridiculous as many biologist have been able to show ways altruism and cooperation may function in the building of human societies and morals.

By the way in case you don't know, morality is not personal, morality is not relative,

Again, show your work. I have given my arguments. I've shown societies that are and were convinced their actions were good and right, even though other societies thought or think they are or were evil and bad.

instead morality is based on a set of unchanging absolutes such as:

1. Do not lies (this not possible via evolution because evolution requires preservation of the species via every means possible, hence lying itself would be a tool for evolution).

You forgot the many corollaries that belie your claim for absolutism. Many people don't think lying is morally wrong if it's done to help someone. Others are certain that lying for God is morally right. Many, yet still, of a certain religion are okay with lying in certain situations and to certain "infidels". It cannot be absolute if several times most people find  situations in which it is morally right to do the act.

Further, you have a dim view of evolution. While in some situations lying may help the preservation or propagation of the species (and we see or hear of that happening constantly - for instance, guys that lie so they can bed a girl, etc), in other situations telling the truth can also aid species survival.

2. Do not kill (this not possible to have come via evolution because survival of the fittest requires kill of the so called unfit, hence killing itself would be a tool for evolution).

Again this is not an absolute moral. I've written at length on the issue of "thou shalt not kill" so I won't repeat myself here. In regards to evolution, no, survival of the fittest doesn't require killing the "so called unfit" (whatever that means). Survival of the fittest requires a species to live as best in an environmental niche. Not killing a member of your tribe tends to actaully aid survival.

These absolutes and more have not change for thousands of years of human history since records began,

Well, except they have changed and they are not absolute; but who needs facts anyway.

If you go anywhere in the world now or in the past.

An atheist inherently knows that killing is wrong, A bible believer inherently knows that killing is wrong,

An atheist inherently knows that lying is wrong, A bible believer inherently knows that lying is wrong,

Even atheism based communism societies recognise (to their embarrasment) that lying and killing are wrong, despite that there is no rational nor scientific reason as to the reason why such inherent understanding about killing and lying should be so,

It's not so quite clearcut as all that. Looking at the world today with wars, etc, you'd be surprised at the number of people that are capable of justifying killing. For them killing those considered enemies isn't wrong. Inherently or otherwise. I've also given you the examples of cannibals. For them killing and eating humans wasn't wrong. The same applies for those communities that practiced human sacrifices.

Would I be Godwinning myself if I introduced the Nazis now?

KAG KAG, i am really disappointed by your response, i expected something like that from others but not from you, you are better than such kinds of outrageous responses.

That's nice. Maybe you can take the time to point which part of my posts are outrageous. That would narrow things down considerably.

[quote]Where and how did a new born baby/very young child born to an Atheist Mother and Atheist Father, learn how to do the right thing and/or wrong thing, considering that they are technically supposed to be too young to read or study or learn in the same way adults get to learn new things.

Same way the child picks up the language(s) of its atheist parents.

, lol, lol, u are joking right, LMAO

What frame of reference exactly did the atheist parents have by which they determined what was right and what was wrong.[/quote]


No, not joking. Their moral stances and to some extent the ethics of their sphere of interaction to which they may subscribe.

lol,  lol, For example going by your previous statement does it mean right and wrong is relative and personal to the father and also relative and personal to the mother.
, yet by an unexplained process, the child still has an inherent understanding of what it means to lie and why lying is wrong, despite all the so called relativeness,

Not quite. The language analogy is a good one. If the father speaks French and the mother Italian, but both speak Latin, the child is likely to be instructed in some way in Romance language, if not Latin itself. I chose those languages because using them helps to illustrate a point. Moral views intersect and kind be almost identical in various humans because of shared traditions, history, modes of thought, and many other nuanced factors.

By the way, I don't know if you've ever had a child or the opportunity to observe them, but they don't know lying is wrong until they are informed it is, either explicitly or implicitly. There is no inherent understanding there.