This is a rebuttal to a post by Pastafarian and you can find the post on this thread
https://www.nairaland.com/3523542/atheism-make-world-better-place#52001526
Okayyyyy.. .. .. .. .. So let's go.

I may not be extremely sure of Atheism's ability to make the world a better place but I'm pretty sure HUMANISM would definitely make the world a better place

You have done my conclusion. Atheism doesn't make the world a better. So let's talk humanism which the Atheist have not yet adopted. So let's move on.

Contrary to what the fundamentalists would have us believe, then, what our society really needs is not more religion but a richer notion of the nature of morality. Humanism is compatible with atheism and agnosticism, but being atheist or agnostic does not, itself, make one a Humanist.

I'm bold to say it, that there's no movement like Christianity in the world who preached morality the way we do. Mark 12:31 gave us one of the 2 greatest commandments we must abide by while on earth..
And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.”
The above verse encapsulate morality, love, mercy, justice, fairness, truth. So I disagree with you that we don't need more of this.
Not to sound like a broken record, what has humanist contributed to morality? Let's find out..

Humanism": a philosophical viewpoint that proposes all humans have value, and that we can use objective methods to develop rights, morals, and ethics that maximize happiness and well-being. "Live comfortably": certainly has subjective elements, but objectively can be defined as having at least ample food, shelter, and social interaction.

My questions. What are the proposed objective method?
So how can food, shelter, sociality increase aid morality? So much questions. Let's go on.

What really removes meaning and value from humanity is theism. The belief that we were created for the purpose of something else. That we are not in control of our own destiny. If there's some god along the lines of the Abrahamic one, if we live forever... what's the point? That's a depressing universe

So it is depressing to serve a God who gave only these two greatest commandments Mark 12:30-31

30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’This is the first commandment. 31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’There is no other commandment greater than these.”
If you have issue with this beautiful, holy and loving God, then your issue is beyond help.

I hear this from theists especially Christians a lot but If kindness towards others and helping build a better world for those to come is inconsequential to you, in other words, if the only thing that gives your life meaning is the possibility of getting a never-ending cookie at the end of it, then buddy, it is you who is both irrational and senseless.

Stop your lies against christianity. Matthew 25:37-40
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
From the above verse, one of the qualification to make heaven is to be kind to your neighbors. I hope kindness is not inconsequential, it's mandatory.

Nothing that has been proffered thus far over thousands of years shows us that there's any reason to believe that there is an afterlife. The electrical impulses in our brains cease and with it so too do our very being. Every little spark of energy and chemical reaction that produces our personalities, our consciousness, and our sentience is a marvel of nature.

Ha! So it's little spark of energy and chemical reaction that produces our personalities and consciousness. I'm just reading this for the first time. My questions.. .. ..
What's the name of the energy? What's the name of the chemical? What causes the chemical to react? What makes the chemical impulses to stop? I'm sure I'll have a lot of follow up questions.

Something that we recognize in each other as incredible. That at this stage, we've "won" some sort of cosmic lottery to get to the point that we can share this wonderment with each other using technology that is vastly beyond our animal cousins. The same technologies many of which which were spearheaded by atheists programmers, inventors, mathematicians, engineers, tinkerers, and others who without them, you would not even be able to post to this forum. Alan Turing, Bill Gates, Steve Wozniak, Aaron Swartz, and so many others. They had no gods.

Ha! You won cosmic lottery to get to the point? Is this logical? Are you sure you're an Atheist?

We derive morality from another source of ethics. One that doesn't condone war, slavery, or rape. One that doesn't profess greater morality from a holy book in one hand while wielding a sword in the other. We aren't bound by chains of superstition, nor do we enslave ourselves to the supernatural in hopes of a better here-after.

I don't get your point. God never condones war, slavery or rape, so why the lies against him. I've earlier rebutted all these lies. So go through my threads. But wait ooo is it not science that created all this weapon of mass destruction. Is not because they want to sell their weapons of destruction that makes them to be sponsoring unrest in third world countries? Is it not because they want to sell their drugs that they're infecting people with uncurable diseases. Please stop lies against God.

For many of us, we use the term Humanism to describe our morality. That the power for good lies within us not because we seek just rewards after we're dead, but so that we can live comfortably in the here and now. And that in improving our lives and the lives of others, that legacy we leave behind will have made the world greater for those in the future. For others to build upon and continue our deeds for the benefit of all.
We don't need religion for that. That ability lies within us

I still didn't get answers to my questions? How's humanist making the world a better place? Has this be adopted by the Atheists? What are the proposed objective method to develop morality ? So how can food, shelter, socialite aid morality?

HopefulLandlord, Pastafarian.... .. . I don serve am as e deh hot.

luvmijeje:
HopefulLandlord, Pastafarian.... .. . I don serve am as e deh hot.

Nice one.
The 2 monikers u mentioned is actually the same person.

luvmijeje:
This is a rebuttal to a post by Pastafarian and you can find the post on this thread
https://www.nairaland.com/3523542/atheism-make-world-better-place#52001526
Okayyyyy.. .. .. .. .. So let's go.
You have done my conclusion. Atheism doesn't make the world a better. So let's talk humanism which the Atheist have not yet adopted. So let's move on.

I would try and answer some of the questions you asked with my limited knowledge.

My questions. What are the proposed objective method?
So how can food, shelter, sociality increase aid morality? So much questions. Let's go on.

How about we try this, "Do unto others what you would want others to do unto you". Is that objective enough for you?, and please dont tell me it can also be found in the bible, while i agree, it by no means originated with the bible, it can be traced by to conficious...

Ha! So it's little spark of energy and chemical reaction that produces our personalities and consciousness. I'm just reading this for the first time. My questions.. .. ..
What's the name of the energy? What's the name of the chemical? What causes the chemical to react? What makes the chemical impulses to stop? I'm sure I'll have a lot of follow up questions.

The problem alot of Nigerians have is that they know very little about science and when someone talks about it, the person is seen as a dullard, its really strange, thats why we dont innovate in this part of the world.

Yes, he was correct, chemicals control your emotions and feelings, and most likely are involved in the creation of consciousness. Have you ever heard of Neurotransmitters?, if you havent, please just do a quick google search, it would help you alot.

Ha! You won cosmic lottery to get to the point? Is this logical? Are you sure you're an Atheist?

Yes, we did win a cosmic lottery to get here, do you know the chances for your parents to meet given the number of other potential partners?, do you know the chances of your parents having sex the exact moment they did that you got conceived?, do you know the chances of the sperm cell that formed reaching its destination first?

Yes, we won an incredible lottery with overwhelming odds and yes it wasnt designed because if things had gone a little differently, someone else would be here and not you and the world would not have even noticed your absence.

OP is being dishonest with the title.

OP picked just one post in a whole thread, a post that only argues for humanism not atheism

luvmijeje:

I don't get your point. God never condones war, slavery or rape, so why the lies against him. I've earlier rebutted all these lies. So go through my threads. But wait ooo is it not science that created all this weapon of mass destruction. Is not because they want to sell their weapons of destruction that makes them to be sponsoring unrest in third world countries? Is it not because they want to sell their drugs that they're infecting people with uncurable diseases. Please stop lies against God.

you rebutted nothing even on that thread https://www.nairaland.com/3673254/rebuttal-christian-owned-slave/ you created the thread and abandoned it when people poked holes in them

felixomor:


Nice one.
The 2 monikers u mentioned is actually the same person.

Thanks very much, my Oga.

donnffd:

I would try and answer some of the questions you asked with my limited knowledge.



How about we try this, "Do unto others what you would want others to do unto you". Is that objective enough for you?, and please dont tell me it can also be found in the bible, while i agree, it by no means originated with the bible, it can be traced by to conficious...



The problem alot of Nigerians have is that they know very little about science and when someone talks about it, the person is seen as a dullard, its really strange, thats why we dont innovate in this part of the world.

Yes, he was correct, chemicals control your emotions and feelings, and most likely are involved in the creation of consciousness. Have you ever heard of Neurotransmitters?, if you havent, please just do a quick google search, it would help you alot.




Yes, we did win a cosmic lottery to get here, do you know the chances for your parents to meet given the number of other potential partners?, do you know the chances of your parents having sex the exact moment they did that you got conceived?, do you know the chances of the sperm cell that formed reaching its destination first?

Yes, we won an incredible lottery with overwhelming odds and yes it wasnt designed because if things had gone a little differently, someone else would be here and not you and the world would not have even noticed your absence.

Ha! I'm coming back to answer you properly.

Pastafarian:
OP is being dishonest with the title.

OP picked just one post in a whole thread, a post that only argues for humanism not atheism

Why are you like this? You should have open a thread and title it. I got your post from the thread with the above title. My thread wasn't the original thread.

Pastafarian:

you rebutted nothing even on that thread https://www.nairaland.com/3673254/rebuttal-christian-owned-slave/ you created the thread and abandoned it when people poked holes in them

Go and sit down, so after everything this will be your response .

Anyone who's picking holes and he or she is not quoting me is on his own or her own. How do they want me to know?

I'm trying to Roundup and go to Bible study, So I will respond when I'm back. cc donnffd

luvmijeje:

I still didn't get answers to my questions, How's humanist making the world a better place?

this is strawman
I said I'm sure humanism would make the world a better place, I never claimed it has made or its already making the world a better place, big difference

Has this be adopted by the Atheists?

another misguided question, atheism isn't adopting anything anytime soon ever!

its like asking you if Christianity has adopted pineapple as their fruit

like I said, you have several misconceptions about atheism

What are the proposed objective method to develop morality ?

My position on morality is that it is neither absolute nor subjective. It is a combination of both. It is objective in the sense that the data is not contingent upon anything but it is not absolute in the sense that we are thinking agents making choices. Many theists would ask, what is the standard or the foundation of your morality?; and I would declare that my morality is derived and founded on objective evidence but rationalized by individuals evaluating the objective evidence. Let us use an example to demonstrate this ....

1) Is murder wrong? Many theists would simply declare that murder is wrong in all situations since it is not in gods nature, or the bible says that it is wrong and there moral foundation is derived from the bible. There are many things wrong with this. Firstly, it would still mean that morality is subjective. Morality would be contingent upon a god making it arbitrary. Secondly, this only tells you what to do not why you ought to do it. It gives no reasons why murder is wrong, in other words, it has no back-bone. Thirdly, with an absolute morality it means you have to throw out your own moral compass and judgement. How did you they even come to the conclusion that there god is moral without using there own subjective morality to evaluate the stories in the bible? You would need to use your own morality to declare that the bible is moral. Also, they never provide evidence for an absolute morality, nor do they demonstrate that they have the correct one, Nor the mechanism they used to discover it. From my view, murder is not always wrong. There are many situations where I can think of that murder is justified. For instance, if an intruder breaks into your home and it about to decapitate your mothers head, I would declare that the murder of the intruder is justified in this scenario. So how did I formulate this? step 1) Appeal to objective evidence so morality isn't SIMPLY subjective--We know our body has brain receptors that cause a sensation of agony and pain. This is simply a fact that cannot be refuted. There is more evidence, but I will only list one. step

2) Rationalize the situation using the evidence to come to a conclusion --- We understand that the killings of innocent people would not be justified as it would cause unwarranted suffering and agony. The reason we should not do this is because the sensation of agony is not tolerable to most people and they do not wish to have such torment placed upon them. In conclusion, a morality that is debated, scrutinized, evaluated, discussed, rationalized, and well-thought out using objective evidence is a much better moral system that an absolute morality that is declared upon us. With an absolute morality you have barbaric evaluations of morality

I always hear theists, even liberal ones, claim that there can be no morality without god, but when I hear them explain right and wrong to their children it's always along with, "No, you can't hit your sister because you wouldn't like it if she did that to you"; Empathy is at the core of our morality just like Donnffd said up there

I don't see how "God" counts as an answer to the question of morality and its origins. If someone asks, "Why is murder wrong?" it seems to me that replying "Because God says it's wrong" does not really answer the question. Why does this hypothetical god call murder a sin? Because he said so? Or is there something about the nature of murder that makes it wrong? If morality is just a list rules we must follow, then the reasons for those rules don't matter. This god could change them at a whim and we'd be commanded to change as suited. But if our morals are based in reality and are invested in the consequences of our actions, then gods are irrelevant. We have the capacity to investigate and discover what is right or wrong.

God never solves the problem of objective morality, it's only an easy answer for the highly gullible; It's a way of moving the goalpost someplace we can't see it so they can claim the question is answered over there.

the notion that morality relies upon an external lawgiver is a benighted view that has run its course. We understand that humans (healthy ones) have ethical sensibilities. Those who rely on some external command theory are merely projecting their own moral sensibilities onto a deity.

Consider the fact that (fortunately) few actually follow the Bible or Koran as a moral code. They simply find verses that seem to affirm their commonly accessible moral understanding. Thus, the cognitive dissonance is strong for those who must confront the Bible's deep ethical shortcomings, while claiming it as their ethical compass. While some reject these less savory aspects of the scripture, Some Christians faithfully concludes that the Israelites must have been right in their genocidal actions, slavery, incest, and other acts of brutality, as they were led by God. They're the ones that compromise their own moral intelligence to accommodate a Bronze-Age text of no relevance to our modern ethical understanding. Civilizations across the world developed moral codes for very earthly, pragmatic reasons. No deity Is needed

The other issue is that in the real practical world, God is a greater version of the self. Everyone's personal God agrees with them on every aspect of morality. This means if they can find a reason sufficient to them, it is sufficient to God.

luvmijeje:


Go and sit down, so after everything this will be your response .

Anyone who's picking holes and he or she is not quoting me is on his own or her own. How do they want me to know?

if you create a thread, every post not directed at anyone is directed at you, that's how Nairaland works

now that you know there's been rebuttals, do go there and respond to them

Pastafarian:


if you create a thread, every post not directed at anyone is directed at you, that's how Nairaland works

now that you know there's been rebuttals, do go there and respond to them

Hehehe! Nairaland doesn't work that way. There's a reason a quote button is there. Tell them to put my name and I'll respond.

Hmmmmm.. .. . When I'm back from Bible study I'll respond
to you properly. Laterrrrr.

luvmijeje:


Hehehe! Nairaland doesn't work that way. There's a reason a quote button is there. Tell them to put my name and I'll respond.

Hmmmmm.. .. . When I'm back from Bible study I'll respond
to you properly. Laterrrrr.

that's how Nairaland works, the owner of the OP is still responsible for the thread

let me for the sake of argument accept the fact that they didn't quote you erhm, Randomperson actually quoted you on the thread about beating slaves to death here https://www.nairaland.com/3673254/rebuttal-christian-owned-slave#54468433 and you didn't reply so far

luvmijeje:

Why are you like this? You should have open a thread and title it. I got your post from the thread with the above title. My thread wasn't the original thread.

you are rebutting a "post" not a "thread"

anyways, let's not let schematics get in the way

as for the humanism, OP should visit this link and get a summary https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/12

Pastafarian:


that's how Nairaland works, the owner of the OP is still responsible for the thread

let me for the sake of argument accept the fact that they didn't quote you erhm, Randomperson actually quoted you on the thread about beating slaves to death here https://www.nairaland.com/3673254/rebuttal-christian-owned-slave#54468433 and you didn't reply so far

And I responded. I even gave an illustration. What else does he want?

I think I like this Luvmijeje girl...She's tenacious

donnffd

How about we try this, "Do unto others what you would want others to do unto you". Is that objective enough for you?, and please dont tell me it can also be found in the bible, while i agree, it by no means originated with the bible, it can be traced by to conficious...

Is not objective? Whether it originate from the Bible or not is a non-issue. But was it one of the commandments Jesus gave to his followers.. .. . A big Yes.
I'll also give you an live illustration. I detest lies,I hate it when people lie to me. Because I detest it, I definitely don't lie to people . What you can't accept don't do it to others. How's that not objective?

The problem alot of Nigerians have is that they know very little about science and when someone talks about it, the person is seen as a dullard, its really strange, thats why we dont innovate in this part of the world.

Yes, he was correct, chemicals control your emotions and feelings, and most likely are involved in the creation of consciousness. Have you ever heard of Neurotransmitters?, if you havent, please just do a quick google search, it would help you alot.

Oh No! Another scientific jargons. Don't give me that crap. You cram and downloaded a textbook and you can't can't explain it to the public who are majorly not scientists. My questions.... What's are the name of the chemicals? What's neurotransmitters and what's his relationship to this thread? I'm not doing any Google search, you said it and you should get ready to defend it. When you question the Bible, I didn't ask you to goggle it.

Yes, we did win a cosmic lottery to get here, do you know the chances for your parents to meet given the number of other potential partners?, do you know the chances of your parents having sex the exact moment they did that you got conceived?, do you know the chances of the sperm cell that formed reaching its destination first?

So man got to earth through cosmic lottery. prove it? Who was the first man to mistakenly wander himself into the planet earth? How did he get here? What mode did he use to get here?

Ranchhoddas:
I think I like this Luvmijeje girl...She's tenacious

Thank you, my Oga.

luvmijeje:
donnffd

Is not objective? Whether it originate from the Bible or not is a non-issue. But was it one of the commandments Jesus gave to his followers.. .. . A big Yes.
I'll also give you an live illustration. I detest lies,I hate it when people lie to me. Because I detest it, I definitely don't lie to people . What you can't accept don't do it to others. How's that not objective?

i sincerely dont understand your point here, are you saying the "golden rule" is not objective or what?, there wasnt a coherent message in this paragraph.

Oh No! Another scientific jargons. Don't give me that crap. You cram and downloaded a textbook and you can't can't explain it to the public who are majorly not scientists. My questions.... What's are the name of the chemicals? What's neurotransmitters and what's his relationship to this thread? I'm not doing any Google search, you said it and you should get ready to defend it. When you question the Bible, I didn't ask you to goggle it.

Well i have had my fair share of arguments on this forum and one thing i have noticed is that no matter the explanation you give to someone who has a different opinion, he or she would still counter it, so i decided that i would try and refer the person to do the research on his or her own so that they would come about the information by themselves and not be told about it which they seem to hate so much.

FYI, you know nothing about me for you to claim i crammed and downloaded a textbook.

So man got to earth through cosmic lottery. prove it? Who was the first man to mistakenly wander himself into the planet earth? How did he get here? What mode did he use to get here?

When pastafarian said we all won a cosmic lottery, he ddnt mean it literally, he meant it figuratively, i.e the odds of our existence is so slim it is comparable to a grand-size cosmic lottery, so cosmic lottery is just a figurative speech here, nevertheless, noone knows for sure how we came about but in the 400years of studing science, we have gotten real clues and evidence that we are almost certain how we came to be.

I am sure you have heard of a term called Evolution, that is another scientific term i most certainly wont explain to you because i know at the end, you would call it a lie, so all i would do is to advice you to google and get the information for yourself.

Pastafarian

this is strawman
I said I'm sure humanism would make the world a better place, I never claimed it has made or its already making the world a better place, big difference

Wahala wa! You should have stated this earlier before I opened a rebuttal thread. So you're not sure? And you are an Atheist? Is that logical?

another misguided question, atheism isn't adopting anything anytime soon ever!

its like asking you if Christianity has adopted pineapple as their fruit

like I said, you have several misconceptions about atheism

Go and sit down, it's because Atheism is unorganized and don't have any other thing working for them apart from criticizing and analyzing the Bible.

My position on morality is that it is neither absolute nor subjective. It is a combination of both. It is objective in the sense that the data is not contingent upon anything but it is not absolute in the sense that we are thinking agents making choices. Many theists would ask, what is the standard or the foundation of your morality?; and I would declare that my morality is derived and founded on objective evidence but rationalized by individuals evaluating the objective evidence. Let us use an example to demonstrate this ....

Hian! You still didn't answer my question. What are the proposed objective method to develop morality ? Shebi na you talk am.

1) Is murder wrong? Many theists would simply declare that murder is wrong in all situations since it is not in gods nature, or the bible says that it is wrong and there moral foundation is derived from the bible. There are many things wrong with this. Firstly, it would still mean that morality is subjective. Morality would be contingent upon a god making it arbitrary. Secondly, this only tells you what to do not why you ought to do it. It gives no reasons why murder is wrong, in other words, it has no back-bone. Thirdly, with an absolute morality it means you have to throw out your own moral compass and judgement. How did you they even come to the conclusion that there god is moral without using there own subjective morality to evaluate the stories in the bible? You would need to use your own morality to declare that the bible is moral. Also, they never provide evidence for an absolute morality, nor do they demonstrate that they have the correct one, Nor the mechanism they used to discover it. From my view, murder is not always wrong. There are many situations where I can think of that murder is justified. For instance, if an intruder breaks into your home and it about to decapitate your mothers head, I would declare that the murder of the intruder is justified in this scenario. So how did I formulate this? step 1) Appeal to objective evidence so morality isn't SIMPLY subjective--We know our body has brain receptors that cause a sensation of agony and pain. This is simply a fact that cannot be refuted. There is more evidence, but I will only list one. step

Okayyyyy.... Murder is a sin in christianity but do know what makes christianity a beautiful religion. Your sin is easily forgiven by God only if you ask forgiveness in his son's name. It won't stop you from entering only if you truly repented. So all what you wrote up there is a non-issue in Christianity.

By the way, we already have this in existence. That's why we have the justice system.

2) Rationalize the situation using the evidence to come to a conclusion --- We understand that the killings of innocent people would not be justified as it would cause unwarranted suffering and agony. The reason we should not do this is because the sensation of agony is not tolerable to most people and they do not wish to have such torment placed upon them. In conclusion, a morality that is debated, scrutinized, evaluated, discussed, rationalized, and well-thought out using objective evidence is a much better moral system that an absolute morality that is declared upon us. With an absolute morality you have barbaric evaluations of morality

Oga Ade, Christianity is not a force. We the followers of Christ willingly subject ourselves to the Biblical law.

I

don't see how "God" counts as an answer to the question of morality and its origins. If someone asks, "Why is murder wrong?" it seems to me that replying "Because God says it's wrong" does not really answer the question. Why does this hypothetical god call murder a sin? Because he said so? Or is there something about the nature of murder that makes it wrong? If morality is just a list rules we must follow, then the reasons for those rules don't matter. This god could change them at a whim and we'd be commanded to change as suited. But if our morals are based in reality and are invested in the consequences of our actions, then gods are irrelevant. We have the capacity to investigate and discover what is right or wrong.

To be honest I still don't understand your reason for your argument. Is Nigeria planning to adopt a theocracy form of government? Are we not practicing your form of morality in this country? Is Christianity a force?

Consider the fact that (fortunately) few actually follow the Bible or Koran as a moral code. They simply find verses that seem to affirm their commonly accessible moral understanding. Thus, the cognitive dissonance is strong for those who must confront the Bible's deep ethical shortcomings, while claiming it as their ethical compass. While some reject these less savory aspects of the scripture, Some Christians faithfully concludes that the Israelites must have been right in their genocidal actions, slavery, incest, and other acts of brutality, as they were led by God. They're the ones that compromise their own moral intelligence to accommodate a Bronze-Age text of no relevance to our modern ethical understanding. Civilizations across the world developed moral codes for very earthly, pragmatic reasons. No deity Is needed

Wailer! Even the so called law of the land, are you totally faithful to it? The Bible recognize it. The Bible recognize that some people are the hearers and not the doers of his words. Matt 13:19-23 says
19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside. 20 But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles. 22 Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful. 23 But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.”

donnffd, I'm not responding to your quote because you refused to answer my questions. I'm stating this for record purpose before someone claim you put holes in my argument.

luvmijeje:
Pastafarian

Wahala wa! You should have stated this earlier before I opened a rebuttal thread. So you're not sure? And you are an Atheist? Is that logical?

read the part you quoted again, who said I'm not sure? why do you twist words?

Go and sit down, it's because Atheism is unorganized and don't have any other thing working for them apart from criticizing and analyzing the Bible.

if you tell yourself this about 6000 more times, you could start believing it

Hian! You still didn't answer my question. What are the proposed objective method to develop morality ? Shebi na you talk am.

I have and the below are your response to them

Okayyyyy.... Murder is a sin in christianity but do know what makes christianity a beautiful religion. Your sin is easily forgiven by God only if you ask forgiveness in his son's name. It won't stop you from entering only if you truly repented. So all what you wrote up there is a non-issue in Christianity.

By the way, we already have this in existence. That's why we have the justice system.

what you just said makes Christianity a beautiful religion makes the world a worse place

so, Anne Frank (google her if you don't know her yet) is burning in hell for eternity right now while Jeffrey Dahmer was baptized in prison, repented, and accepted jeebus as his savior. If there really was a heaven, he'd be sitting right there on the right hand of gawd!

Jeffrey Dahmer: The notorious serial kidnapper/torturer/rapist/murderer/cannibal announced that he'd been "saved" and told reporters just how excited he was about the prospect of spending eternity in bliss. Just for thinking *special* thoughts, apparently, but isn't that supposedly the "Good News" of Christianity?? Shortly thereafter, he was murdered in prison, no doubt by True Christians™. There are proportionately way more Christians in our prisons than in our population, but that's a topic for a different time.

What was interesting to me was that every single Christian I spoke with about Jeffrey Dahmer, to a man insisted "He is NOT going to heaven! No way, no how!" When I pointed out that isn't this supposed to be the whole point of the "Good News" of the supposed sacrifice of the supposed jeez, they sniffed, "Well, he didn't TRULY repent." As if they knew. When they'd never even MET the man.

it appears that in Christianity, I can sin anyhow, commit the worst of crimes except "sin against holy spirit" and I haven't lost anything so long I come back to Jesus before dying; THIS loophole makes the world a worse place

Because here’s the deal — in your system, even if I was a serial killer, if I genuinely asked for forgiveness at any point, God would forgive me. We Humanists don’t have that. When we do something that hurts somebody else, we can’t go to a nonexistent God and ask for forgiveness and feel better about it. No. There’s no God; the primary offense wasn’t to God — it was to that person, and we have to make amends with that person, and there are absolutely no take-backsies granted by imaginary friends.

Oga Ade, Christianity is not a force. We the followers of Christ willingly subject ourselves to the Biblical law.

To be honest I still don't understand your reason for your argument. Is Nigeria planning to adopt a theocracy form of government? Are we not practicing your form of morality in this country? Is Christianity a force?

Wailer! Even the so called law of the land, are you totally faithful to it? The Bible recognize it. The Bible recognize that some people are the hearers and not the doers of his words.

where did Humanism claim to follow the laws if the land? Chai!!!

educate yourself on Humanism https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/12

I would like you to give your criticism of humanism so this discussion can go smoothly

Grab my 1.5 meter sugar cane...
watching in 2D

pastafarian you know little to nothing about Christianity, Christian faith or Doctrine.

Your last paragraph is nothing but a shameful flame. I will advice you to go and read about Restitution

GoodMuyis:
pastafarian you know little to nothing about Christianity, Christian faith or Doctrine.

Your last paragraph is nothing but a shameful flame. I will advice you to go and read about Restitution

most Christians don't believe in restitution

https://www.nairaland.com/3270439/should-christian-restitute

but that doesn't really matter much in this discussion because it appears you didn't see the example I used of Anne Frank and Dahmer

I was banned twice by anti-spam bot for responding to Pastafarian and I don't why.

OAM4J, Seun, your mail mod button is not working. Kindly release my post.

Pastafarian:


most Christians don't believe in restitution

https://www.nairaland.com/3270439/should-christian-restitute

but that doesn't really matter much in this discussion because it appears you didn't see the example I used of Anne Frank and Dahmer

Doesn't matter but discredit you whole post, being the subject of last paragraph, it sum up your whole idea. If we are on debate platform, I gain a point from that hole i punch

Christian disbelief in restitution, does not rendered is invalid. They disbelieve in it because of their selfish mindset

GoodMuyis:


Doesn't matter but discredit you whole post, being the subject of last paragraph, it sum up your whole idea. If we are on debate platform, I gain a point from that hole i punch

Christian disbelief in restitution, does not rendered is invalid. They disbelieve in it because of their selfish mindset

Don't mind him. He has not read the story of King David who slept with one of his men's wife. He should read persecution of Apostle Paul who spearheaded the Killing of Stephen. God's forgiveness doesn't mean you won't bear the consequences of your sin while on earth.

OAM4J, may una release my post.