rekinomtla:


Then you should understand why I find it ironic when atheists criticize anyone or anything on moral grounds.

Still doesn't stop morality from being a human invention.

They as a society developed parts of that system, the parts exclusive to their culture. The moral rules common among mankind is known by intuition.

Good, you just admitted that they developed part of the system. What are the moral rules that are common among mankind that are known by intuition 2000 years ago.

dalaman:


Still doesn't stop morality from being a human invention.

While that's the point, if atheists truly believe that, they sure don't act like like it when they strongly criticize people on moral grounds.

Good, you just admitted that they developed part of the system. What are the moral rules that are common among mankind that are known by intuition 2000 years ago.

That it's immoral to kill or torture someone for fun.

hopefulLandlord:


that's what I tell Christians when they threaten me with their imaginary hellfire

The thought of spending eternity with the believers who don't make hell scares me more than the fire itself. One would have to listen to them constantly wailing "God please forgive me, I did not sin on purpose"! E
That's enough to drive one mad!

More imaginary heat please, in the imaginary hell!

bingbagbo:
Who is man to question the Ancient of Days

Know ye not that they are gods?

rekinomtla:


While that's the point, if atheists truly believe that, they sure don't act like like it when they strongly criticize people on moral grounds.

How don't they act like it. I can criticize your moral principles so long as I feel it doesn't agree with what I feel is right or wrong. Isn't that what we all do? Christians for example criticize the sharia moral system, a system of morality muslims believe was given to the world by God himself. But many christians criticize it because it doesn't agree with the system of morality they subcribe to. Who created the sharia system of morality? Pls answer the question and don't run away from it.

That it's immoral to kill or torture someone for fun.

It wasn't immoral to torture people for fun 2000 years ago in ancient Rome. Gladiators(who were mostly slaves) fight to the death for the amusement and entertainment of the people. They hacked and tortured each other to death for the amusement of the people and it wasn't considered as a wrong thing then. The slaves owners that owned the gladiators used it as a business ventures.

We don't have to go to far. The images below are pictures of your average Americans when slavery was permitted and allowed some hundred of years ago. They saw nothing in torturing and lynching blacks. At that time slavery was allowed and so was the torture and killing of blacks for amusement.

They were happy to take pictures around the dead bodies of tortured slaves. NOBODY living in America today will try this madness.

hopefulLandlord:


I would be disappointed if I'm not thrown in the hottest part of hell cuz I've worked for it and I deserve it

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

It doesn't have to end up this way, there is hope

dalaman:


How don't they act like it. I can criticize your moral principles so long as I feel it doesn't agree with what I feel is right or wrong. Isn't that what we all do? Christians for example criticize the sharia moral system, a system of morality muslims believe was given to the world by God himself. But many christians criticize it because it doesn't agree with the system of morality they subcribe to. Who created the sharia system of morality? Pls answer the question and don't run away from it.

There's a difference, when christians criticize the sharia system of morality they do it believing it is inferior to their own, they believe it's in error, incorrect.

Atheists believe morality was invented, no ones morality is inferior to anyone. Nothing objectively wrong in atheism. An atheist can look at those pics you posted and seriously claim there's nothing objectively wrong about racism.

It wasn't immoral to torture people for fun 2000 years ago in ancient Rome. Gladiators(who were mostly slaves) fight to the death for the amusement and entertainment of the people. They hacked and tortured each other to death for the amusement of the people and it wasn't considered as a wrong thing then. The slaves owners that owned the gladiators used it as a business ventures.

That's because they were seen as less than human. That's a mistaken belief on their part. And just because it was popular doesn't mean it wasn't considered immoral, evil people commits evil acts even though they know it's immoral.

We don't have to go to far. The images below are pictures of your average Americans when slavery was permitted and allowed some hundred of years ago. They saw nothing in torturing and lynching blacks. At that time slavery was allowed and so was the torture and killing of blacks for amusement.

They were happy to take pictures around the dead bodies of tortured slaves. NOBODY living in America today will try this madness.

They were also seen as less than human. How do you know these people wer killed for amussment?

Ps could you please remove those attachments.

rekinomtla:


There's a difference, when christians criticize the sharia system of morality they do it believing it is inferior to their own, they believe it's in error, incorrect.

Atheists believe morality was invented, no ones morality is inferior to anyone. Nothing objectively wrong in atheism. An atheist can look at those pics you posted and seriously claim there's nothing objectively wrong about racism.

You've just made my point we all criticize people's moral codes if it disagrees with the one we subscribe to. I asked you who created the sharia system of morality and you refused to answer. I'll ask again, who do you think created the sharia system of morality?

Morality is a human invention, it doesn't matter if that is what atheist think, that is the fact of the matter. Morality is a human invention that is why it varies from society to society and period in history and is always evolving.

Why would an atheist claim there is nothing objectively wrong with racism? Give me 3 good reasons why any atheist will claim that there is nothing objectively wrong with atheism.

That's because they were seen as less than human. That's a mistaken belief on their part. And just because it was popular doesn't mean it wasn't considered immoral, evil people commits evil acts even though they know it's immoral.

The society is what determines what is right and wrong. When Slavery was said to be right, almost everybody had slaves. The founding fathers of the USA and early presidents were all slave owners because slavery was allowed and legal. Now you can't even profile a black man in the US because it is considered to be a crime. Their morality has evolved.

They were also seen as less than human. How do you know these people wer killed for amussment?

Ps could you please remove those attachments.

Even if they weren't killed for amusement, the people at that time saw NOTHING wrong in smiling and posing close to their lynched bodies. It was a thing of pride to them because it wasn't a wrong thing to do then. Now it is a wrong thing to do and nobody living in the US today can try it.

Ok, I'll take the images down.

dalaman:


Still doesn't stop morality from being a human invention.

Who invented the system of morality our ancestors in Nigeria were abiding by 2000 years ago before the coming of the Europeans and the Arabs?

Trust nairaland atheist first you were arguing with me that evil is not a human invention now you've swapped here

danvon:
Trust nairaland atheist first you were arguing with me that evil is not a human invention now you've swapped here

When did I argue with you that evil is not a human invention?

dalaman:


You've just made my point we all criticize people's moral codes of it disagrees witg the one we subscribe to. I asked you who created the sharia system of morality and you refused to answer. I'll ask again, who do you think created the sharia system of morality?

Muhammad.

Moralityis a human invention, it doesn't matter if that is what atheist think, that is the fact of the matter. Morality is a human invention that is why it varies from society to society and period in history and is always evolving.

Objective truths doesn't depend on people's opinions. Hence, if morality is objective then it doesn't require everyone to agree with it truths. People might disagree on moral issues from society to society, but that doesn't show that morality is an invention of humans.

Why would an atheist claim there is nothing objectively wrong with racism? Give me 3 good reasons why any atheist will claim that there is nothing objectively wrong with atheism.

While for starters, atheist's claim morality is an invention of humans. So depending on who you are and where you from, if racism is accepted, it's morally fine to be a racist in that society.

But if your from a society that condemns it, it's morally wrong there. Hence being a racist is neither objectively immoral or moral. It just depends on which moral system you were born in. With each society inventing its moral codes.

The society is what determines what is right and wrong. When Slavery was said to be right, almost everybody had slaves. The founding fathers of the USA and early presidents were all slave owners because slavery was allowed and legal. Now you can't even profile a black man in the US because it is considered to be a crime. Their morality has evolved.

Which is why I'm saying atheists don't believe racism is objectively immoral. In the distance future racism could be widely accepted and it would no longer be wrong.

Even if they weren't killed for amusement, the people at that time saw NOTHING wrong in smiling and posing close to their lynched bodies. It was a thing of pride to them because it wasn't a wrong thing to do then. Now it is a wrong thing to do and nobody living in the US today can try it.

Well, do you agree with them? Do you think they did nothing wrong given the society they lived in?

.

dalaman:


According to YOU and YOUR stupidity atheist believe there is no such thing as evil.

Here

dalaman:


When did I argue with you that evil is not a human invention?

hope uve seen it

.

Emmytes:
Take a minute and read what you just typed then ask yourself if you are not mad.

1 Samuel 2:6 The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.

dalaman:


When did I argue with you that evil is not a human invention?

But don't worry I understand obviously you don't believe in morality so there's nothing wrong with lying in one post and saying something else in another.

Tozara:
If morality is set in stone, why do you 'tards not follow the barbaric rules in the Old Testament?

Morality is supposed to be absolute, eternal and never-changing, you know.

You're a joke. You need proper education, and I think you need to go back to school. Morality is a human invention

Spot on!

danvon:
Here

You can't read? I said according to you are your stupidity atheist believe there is no morality. How does that equate to me saying that evil is not a creation of men?

danvon:
But don't worry I understand obviously you don't believe in morality so there's nothing wrong with lying in one post and saying something else in another.

You've not shown the lie. What exactly are you on about? Seems you have comprehension problems.

I'll start taking theists moral argument seriously when they can tell me the objective eye colour, skin colour, hair color, hair length, flavour of ice cream, soda drink etc

I always notice their "objective morality" arguments tend to weaken and weaken with each questioning

That reminds me of Lawrence Krauss and Bill Craig debate which happened in Australia, there was a point Craig was forced to defend the Genocide of the Canaanite infants while championing "objective morality"; Bill said "God ordered the killings cuz the Canaanites were Morally Reprobate that he can't stand them"

Krauss retorted that "What of the Islamic genocides and terrorist attacks? they could come to Australia and say Australians are morally reprobate and start killing too"

The discussion went on for a while longer and something interesting happened that shows how senseless objective morality is, Bill gave himself away big time and the host perhaps unintentionally let him off the hook by changing to the next discussion

Bill said "Objective morality is grounded in god, whatever god commands is objective and becomes good/right even if it looks to humans as bad/wrong"

Krauss cut in by asking "Who gives these Commands? Allah? Vishnu? Odin? who exactly?" Krauss intentionally didn't make mention of Bill's god to drive a point home

Bill then replied that "The moral argument is just an argument for a monotheistic faith" in between the host changing to the next discussion




What I'm trying to point out here is that when Bill's argument was pushed far enough with no space to use his bait and switch (watch his debate with Sam Harris to see how he baited the discussion with "Theism" and switched to the "Christian god" in the middle of the debate) he's left to admit that his argument is just as valid for him as its valid for the next Islamic suicide bomber aka "Euthyphro Dilemma"


Moral argument has always been weak and I even pity people that cite it as proof of god hahaha

dalaman:


According to YOU and YOUR stupidity evil was created by conmen to make people behave.

okay how about this

rekinomtla:


"Morality is an human invention"

So a soceity that accepts pedophilia, cannibalism and human sacrifice is not morally inferior to one that doesn't?

A society that accepts all of that doesn't give a fück about the artificial system we've designed out of the blue, to ensure peaceful coexistence and have the peace of mind of pursuing our goals without being hunted in a jungle. It's called civilization, and we invented it. And, of course, we believe ourselves to be superior to such a society, the same way we believe ourselves to be superior to animals.

That's why the morality of 300 years ago is different from that of today.

The society described in the Old Testament is INFINITELY inferior to our present world, in terms of morality.

Nothing in nature forbids human sacrifice, cannibalism, and paedophilia. WE DID. There was no morality on earth before humanity came unto the scene. And our idea of morality has always differed across time and cultures.

That should tell you how SUBJECTIVE it is.

dalaman:


You can't read? I said according to you are your stupidity atheist believe there is no morality. How does that equate to me saying that evil is not a creation of men?


You've not shown the lie. What exactly are you on about? Seems you have comprehension problems.

that guy is a fool. believe me

rekinomtla:


Muhammad.

Good, if Muhammad and his cronies can invent the Sharia moral system that is accepted by close to 2 billion human beings as the best form of morality, then what makes you feel that of your religion isn't also man made? There are over a billion Hindus that subscribe to their own moral system that includes the caste system of living. If humans are the creators of such moral system then what makes you think yours is not a system that was created by humans? How did you know that the moral systems espoused by your religion is divine? Is it because other humans told you?

Objective truths doesn't depend on people's opinions. Hence, if morality is objective then it doesn't require everyone to agree with it truths. People might disagree on moral issues from society to society, but that doesn't show that morality is an invention of humans.

Morality is NOT objective. It varies from society to society and period in history. The fact that every society forms it's system of morality is enough evidence to show that it is man made. If morality is objective then everybody will agree to it, but it is not. Even your bible has many moral codes that are distasteful to both believers and unbelievers alike. When Slavery was the order of the day yiur God was issuing laws in support of slavery. He was even telling the people how to sell their daughters into slavery. When people didn't know what genocide was your God was telling his chosen men to invade other cites and kill everybody including infants and animals. When incest was allowed Abraham the founder of your religion married his sister because at a time in human history invest was prevalentin many societies.
You can not practice half of the OT morality and not be arrested in the mordern world today. Even inside the bible you'll see how morality evolved from the OT to the NT.

Morality is not objective. Is homosexuality objectively wrong? What about polygamy?

While for starters, atheist's claim morality is an invention of humans. So depending on who you are and where you from, if racism is accepted, it's morally fine to be a racist in that society.

But if your from a society that condemns it, it's morally wrong there. Hence being a racist is neither objectively immoral or moral. It just depends on which moral system you were born in. With each society inventing its moral codes.

Racism is wrong only because our morality has evolved so much to the extent that we see it as wrong today. 300 years ago in America and Europe no body thought it was wrong. The people actually thought it was wrong to equate blacks to whites. I repeat society is what determines morality. Even today I can bear arms as a citizen of the USA if I come of age but I can never do that as a citizen of Nigeria. Uptil now women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia till sometime around July this year that they will be allowed to drive. Every society invents it's Moral codes. I was in China for the first time in November last year and I saw laws and a moral system that is very different from ours.

Which is why I'm saying atheists don't believe racism is objectively immoral. In the distance future racism could be widely accepted and it would no longer be wrong.

Racism is objectively wrong because HUMANS have rallied and refined their morality to the point where they see it as such. Read the bible and see where Yahweh was advocating for Racism. He warned his chosen people NOT to marry from other tribes and races, told his chosen men that they can enslave others in certain ways but they could not enslave their fellow Hebrews in such ways. Morality is a human creation, back in the days the people used God and religion as an enforcing mechanism. People invent the moral codes and use God and religion to enforce them. That's all there is to it.

Well, do you agree with them? Do you think they did nothing wrong given the society they lived in?

Society determines everything. Were the ancient Jews right to sell their daughters into slavery as part of the injunctions given to them by Yahweh? What about stoning their disobedient children to death as commanded by Yahweh?

danvon:
okay how about this

Can't you read? Na wah oo.

dalaman:


Can't you read? Na wah oo.

I'll just smile at this , typical atheist not surprised sha

danvon:
I'll just smile at this , typical atheist not surprised sha

You have comprehension problems.

pls I need Christian books (PDF) for my spiritual growth. If you have any, you can send through this email: saawuandavid@gmail.com. thanks for your concern in advance.

davesd:
pls I need Christian books (PDF) for my spiritual growth. If you have any, you can send through this email: saawuandavid@gmail.com. thanks for your concern in advance.

Well noted