budaatum:

I think you mix biblical sin with morality.

Fornication means the act of sex between two unmarried people. These days, most people, regardless of religion or none, have sex with one another without being married, and none of them consider themselves condemned, nor do most people condemn others for so doing. I would go as far as even claiming that you, a Christian, do not condemn other people for having sex outside marriage nor do you consider them immoral. Or do you? Some would even go as far as asking God to bless their fornicating, like the thief who prays to God to not get caught!

God, it would seem says a lot of stuff about a lot of things, but does it not appear to you that no one seems to give much of a damn what God says? Just ask yourself how many things you've done today that God has something to say about but you didn't even think of God, nor do you consider yourself damned because of it.

I repeat, people chose how moral or immoral they want to be regardless of their religion or not, it seems.

that theists fornicate and consider it moral does not make it moral. the only thing that makes an action moral is if god decides it is moral. god has said fornication is bad and that's final. those who say it is good are lying and they stand condemned before god. their personal opinion does not change anything.
for Christians, fornication is immoral. if Christians fornicate they are immoral.

the fact that the theists don't give a damn what god says does not change what god says. if I don't consider myself damned, it does not mean I am not damned. my damnation isn't up to me but is up to god, just as morality is up to god. what I do changes nothing.

this is my point exactly. for the theist, the fact that they do some things and feel it is good does not make such thing good. the only thing that makes a thing good is if god decides it is good.
for the atheist, anything he does and feels it is good is good.

if a Christian does not fornicates, fornication is bad, if another Christian fornicates, fornication remains bad. good and bad is consistent because they have an objective source of morality, which is god.

if an atheist does not fornicate, fornication is bad to that atheist, if another atheist fornicates, fornication is good to that atheist. good and bad is inconsistent because morality for them is subjective.

so what makes something moral and another thing immoral for atheists. whatever it is, it isn't universal. it is subjective for all individuals. one's truth can not be superior to the other's.

if person A says X is good, and person B says X is bad. who would you say is right as a subscriber to subjective morality?

TOSIN116:

If you don't believe in God why talk about his son.

And i told you to read about the purpose of him sending his son and not about the Andrew you called buda.

Why? You got a monopoly on it or something?

Your comment would show whether you understand or not and the one above is a 'not'! When you have put in the work to understand what I've written, come back and ask me relevant questions. buda's Almighty Lord God said to buda today, "buda, don't do argue with those who refuse to do the work to comprehend".

TOSIN116:

Don't quote me wrong
What i said is your opinion doesnt define reality.
Example if you don't believe the earth is round that doesnt make it flat.

So what's your point?

For those on morality
Most of todays world morality seems to have their roots on religion.

Gggg102:

that theists fornicate and consider it moral does not make it moral. the only thing that makes an action moral is if god decides it is moral. god has said fornication is bad and that's final. those who say it is good are lying and they stand condemned before god. their personal opinion does not change anything.
for Christians, fornication is immoral. if Christians fornicate they are immoral.

the fact that the theists don't give a damn what god says does not change what god says. if I don't consider myself damned, it does not mean I am not damned. my damnation isn't up to me but is up to god, just as morality is up to god. what I do changes nothing.

this is my point exactly. for the theist, the fact that they do some things and feel it is good does not make such thing good. the only thing that makes a thing good is if god decides it is good.
for the atheist, anything he does and feels it is good is good.

if a Christian does not fornicates, fornication is bad, if another Christian fornicates, fornication remains bad. good and bad is consistent because they have an objective source of morality, which is god.

if an atheist does not fornicate, fornication is bad to that atheist, if another atheist fornicates, fornication is good to that atheist. good and bad is inconsistent because morality for them is subjective.

But we are not talking about God's laws! We are talking about human's morality, as in what we, as individuals, do!

For instance, an atheist might think it okay to murder you, but the law of the land would not agree, would it? Does that change the moral position of the law, or make the atheist any more immoral. What if a Christian does the murdering, is there any difference? Or do Christians not commit the immoral act of murder because God saying, "don't" ?

budaatum:

Why? You got a monopoly on it or something?

Andrew matter is an entire new discussion

Your comment would show whether you understand or not and the one above is a 'not'! When you have put in the work to understand what I've written, come back and ask me relevant questions.

what do you mean?

buda's Almighty Lord God said to buda today, "buda, don't do argue with those who refuse to do the work to comprehend".

Ayam not understanding
why are you deriving you conclusion from?

tintingz:
The Simpsons cartoon predicted Donald Trump's presidency and many more.

The link below is also an example,



Now the question is, do you accept there are failed prophecies in the Bible?

Now the let me explain what i mean by coincidences. Assuming i meet a stranger on my way to work and in the next hour meet the same stranger in my office and then in the next 2 hrs meet the stranger in a restaurant. You can see that our meeting is coincidental which means that the chance i met him the second time is 50% while the chance of not meeting him at all is 50%. Which means coincidence involves a probability function and in this case coincidence is prediction. I will replace coincidence with prediction from now on. Now a prophecy has a probability function that is negligible meaning a prophecy is certain that it would happen no matter the situation. In the bible prophecies are subjective rather than explicit, the only thing that is explicit in the bible is commands and laws of God. Atleast a 5 year old child knows the 10 commandments, also knows about the commands of Jesus but a 5 year old child doesnt know the prophecies in Daniel or the prophecies in Isiaiah. The reason why prophecies are not implicit I would say in my next reply. Now coming to the cartoons and story books, they all predict based on the primordial circumstances prevalent at that time. Take for example I can write a book that Rochas Okorocha who is my governor will become the president of Nigeria. I might have written the book probably in 2001 when he was contesting for president but the probability he will be the president now has probably increased from when 2001 to 2018. That means if he becomes the president somebody might dig out my book and say i made a prophecy that came to pass but it was not a prophecy it was an actual prediction. Most pastors in Nigeria do prediction and not prophecies because prophecy is not for everybody infact it is 1 in 10 people that prophecy. Prophecy is a gift from God. So I would be expecting you to feed with me the prophecies in the bible that didnt come to pass. From my previous comment the issue of masturbation is a command while the issue of ISIS is an actual prophecy. Like I said prophecies are not everyone thats why they are not explicit and clear in the bible only those who have the gift can decode them. So let nobody deceive you that they are doing prophecy using the bible because it is hard to see a prophet in out time. But they exist. Then finally the bible said whoever comes to God must believe he exists, that means you cannot read the bible if you dont believe in it. Your heart is already prejudiced so no matter how lovely it is you will always find loopholes. Thats why I said believe first then read later. When I read the bible, actually God is speaking what I mean the only thing you are seeing is a book you are holding but the only thing you are hearing is someone speaking not those letters but someone actually having a conversation with you. You would not understand this but frist believe. Thank you. I would expect the failed promises of the bible as you promised.

TOSIN116:

Andrew matter is an entire newdont discussion
what do you mean?
Ayam not understanding
why are you deriving you conclusion from?

First, I don't know who Andrew is! Where did you get that from?

Second, I don't feel you read or understood what I referred you to and I don't have much regard today for those who forget about the importance of one's word. I clearly explained myself in the thread I sent you to, but if you can't bother, I am paying back in the same coin today. My Lord God Almighty told me to.

tintingz:
Because we're more enlighten and evolve in our intellects, your question is like asking what makes morality of today better than stone age?

Today slavery is abolished in every country, the law will be against you, civilization will be against you, if you exist during the old testament era slavery is morally accepted.

There are more babaric practice in ancient morality than today because of human periodic intellects, how humans understand themselves in the past is different today, we're empathetically, intellectually evolving.

In this era, rape, terrorism, murder is immoral, there's a consensus or objective moral in this.

you can answer the question too.

what makes today morality better than that of the stone age?
that you are more enlightened does not make your morality better. afterall, morality is subjective. what is good is whatever that person accepts to be good. you can not, with your enlightenment, judge me. if I see slavery as good, then it is my own subjective truth. your enlightenment has no effect.

people still practice slavery in Libya. in their eyes they are right and the law is wrong. your morality and the law is immoral to them.

does something being lawful make it right?


who made you judge over what is barbaric and what isn't? why should your opinion of what is barbaric matter to anyone but yourself? intellect has no place in subjective morality.

that consensus is just the subjective opinion of the majority. it has no effect on the subjective truth of those who feel rape, slavery... is good. the fact that majority agree does not make it right especially for subjective morality.


for you to say something is moral or something is immoral, you have to first define what morality is and what makes something right or wrong.
that is impossible if morality is subjective because what is true to you may be false to me and there is no actual truth.

as long as morality is subjective, there can be no better morality or worse morality.

One more thing I have friends who are atheists. I live in europe and the reason is because of science, technology and philosophy. These 3 areas of human endeavour are anti-religion. When you come in contact with either of the three the chances of you believing in what you cannot see dims. Now these 3 area have virtually solved all of human issues so why would I believe in GOD but there is one thing they have not solved which is death. How can science, technology and philosophy make someone who is dead to rise to life? if any atheist in this thread can answer this question and prove it to me that it happened then I would stop believing in God. Now if you ask me whether I have seen somebody rise to life then Dr Ngozi Durueke and he didnt rise to life because of this 3 areas I mentioned but because of Jesus because the man was stone dead and his body was decaying. So there you have it, answer my question and I would join your group.

budaatum:

But we are not talking about God's laws! We are talking about human's morality, as in what we, as individuals, do!

For instance, an atheist might think it okay to murder you, but the law of the land would not agree, would it? Does that change the moral position of the law, or make the atheist any more immoral. What if a Christian does the murdering, is there any difference? Or do Christians not commit the immoral act of murder because God saying, "don't" ?

that's the thing. Christians and theists subscribe to god's law. their human morality is gotten from god, who is a universal objective source of morality.

I'm not talking about morality as in the person performing the act, I'm talking about morality as in the act itself.

if an atheist thinks it is okay to murder me and he does it, the atheist is completely moral according to his morality. but if a theist murders me because he thinks murder is okay, the theist is immoral. the theist opinion does not affect the morality of an action whereas the atheist opinion does.

the moral position of the law is just enforced subjective opinion. it does not make it the truth. human law is a human construct.

Gggg102:

if person A says X is good, and person B says X is bad. who would you say is right as a subscriber to subjective morality?

I would consider both sides with my ability to reason and decide. Asking questions like "How would I feel if X is done to me?" "How would I feel if I did X to someone else?" "How would anyone feel if X is done to them?" Answers to those question would be a helpful place to start. I could also ask "what sort of world would I be living in if X were done by anyone who wished to do X?"

We, by the way, spoke about assuming when we first engaged. Please tell, where did I ever tell you that I subscribed to what you call "subjective morality"? What does that mean please?

tintingz:
So what's your point?

Are you not the one asking me to prove Moses existence. if you know Jesus exists then there's is really no need to prove Moses's If Jesus who can't lie talks about Moses i think that evidence enough!

budaatum:

First, I don't know who Andrew is! Where did you get that from?

i think Andrew is the buda you were saying

Second, I don't feel you read or understood what I referred you to and I don't have much regard today for those who forget about the importance of one's word. I clearly explained myself in the thread I sent you to, but if you can't bother, I am paying back in the same coin today. My Lord God Almighty told me to.

you mean the link you sent to me dont you?

Gggg102:

if an atheist thinks it is okay to murder me and he does it, the atheist is completely moral according to his morality.

You are wrong! And when the stupid ignorant atheist (for that's the most appropriate description of the atheist you describe here), finds his ass in jail, he would quickly understand that morality, in this example, is not determined by him, wouldn't he?

Or do you assume an atheist judge would agree with him too?

TOSIN116:
i think Andrew is the buda you were saying

buda is short for budaatum

TOSIN116:
you mean the link you sent to me dont you?

budaatum:

I would consider both sides with my ability to reason and decide. Asking questions like "How would I feel if X is done to me?" "How would I feel if I did X to someone else?" "How would anyone feel if X is done to them?" Answers to those question would be a helpful place to start. I could also ask "what sort of world would I be living in if X were done by anyone who wished to do X?"

We, by the way, spoke about assuming when we first engaged. Please tell, where did I ever tell you that I subscribed to what you call "subjective morality"? What does that mean please?

the questions you are asking is how would YOU FEEL? I.e your subjective opinion about the experience. your conclusion is applicable to you and those who would share in your opinion. another person would feel different and come to a different conclusion based on his own experience.

I thought you believed morality is subjective?
I. e whatever you consider good/evil is based on your opinion of it.
e. g some would consider slavery good others would consider it evil. i

jesmond3945:
One more thing I have friends who are atheists. I live in europe and the reason is because of science, technology and philosophy. These 3 areas of human endeavour are anti-religion. When you come in contact with either of the three the chances of you believing in what you cannot see dims. Now these 3 area have virtually solved all of human issues so why would I believe in GOD but there is one thing they have not solved which is death. How can science, technology and philosophy make someone who is dead to rise to life? if any atheist in this thread can answer this question and prove it to me that it happened then I would stop believing in God.

You, yourself said. "When you come in contact with either of the three (science, technology and philosophy) the chances of you believing in what you cannot see dims."

If you want to become an atheist, as Jesus once said to someone, "go and do likewise"! No one is going to convince you of anything.

Gggg102:



the questions you are asking is how would YOU FEEL? I.e your subjective opinion about the experience. your conclusion is applicable to you and those who would share in your opinion. another person would feel different and come to a different conclusion based on his own experience.

I thought you believed morality is subjective?
I. e whatever you consider good/evil is based on your opinion of it.
e. g some would consider slavery good others would consider it evil. i

Is that your explanation of "subjective morality" . Hmm.

I may murder you, I may be stupid enough to believe my murdering you is moral. But as stated, the law of the land wouldn't agree, and even an atheist judge would not agree with me.

Now consider slavery. I may think it's okay, "in my opinion" to put a chain around your neck and make you my slave. But imagine how much I would like it if one day for some reason, you took the chain off, put it round my neck and I become your slave. Do you think what you call my "subjective morality" would be okay with that sudden change of circumstances, in "my opinion" ?

Gggg102:


your first two paragraphs are subjects for another discussion.

Lol, ok

atheists are not bound to anything. or should I say atheists are not bound to anything they choose not to be bound to.

Atheists are bound to the laws of the land.

Christians, Muslims also have problems with some laws of the land same as atheists, this is why we have activists.

the laws of the land are subject to continuous changes and reflect human opinion. they are human constructs.

Yes, this here agrees with my premise that ancient morality is irrelevant today.

if the law states that slavery is legal, would you be bound to the law?
if the law states rape is legal, would you follow it?
if the law approved killing people of different mindsets, would you be okay with it?

Muslims, Christians, atheists and some other groups may have problems with some laws of the land, this is why we have activists.

Infact activists, protesters (the people) play important role in amending laws.

atheists have a sense of morality but their sense of morality is not gotten from their atheism. atheism does not provide any moral compass. atheists are not compelled to be empathetic or humanists by their atheism. there is no instruction that atheists have to follow a certain moral code as a result of their atheism.
atheists become humanists not because of their atheism.

We all have empathy, it's innate, most atheists are empathetic when it comes to morality.

Because I'm an atheist does not mean I shouldn't adopt other things, the position of atheism is another thing.

does atheism instruct you to be good? or does it instruct you to be evil? it does neither. whether you are good or evil is up to you independent of your belief.

Athiesm is not an association or Religion that dictate to people how to live, once you're empathetic you know what's good and what's bad, when the law says don't do drugs then don't do drugs.

I don't speak for all atheists.

atheism also does not provide a definition of what is good and what is evil. what an atheist consider good is up to his subjective experience.

Does theists also have definition of what's good and what's evil?

what defines good for you as an atheist? is it binding on all humans? it isn't. as an atheist, what is good for you may be evil for another. your morality is subjective.

This also apply to everyone not only atheist.

This thread is the most hilarious thing I've read all week.

jesmond3945:
this is just like the man I saw on youtube that predicted the sinking of the titanic and some other bullocks that I saw. My brother there is a difference between coincidences and prophecies. Meanwhile I would reply you more, I need you to give me the bible verses that failed and an exhaustive list of all predictions from the Internet.

So what makes you think the prophecies in the Bible are not coincidence?

One of the failed prophecy in the Bible is Jesus will come back in his generation.

budaatum:

You are wrong! And when the stupid ignorant atheist (for that's the most appropriate description of the atheist you describe here), finds his or ass in jail, he would quickly understand that morality, in this example, is not determined by him, wouldn't he?

Or do you assume an atheist judge would agree with him too?

on what standpoint do you assert that I'm wrong?
what makes that atheist stupid or ignorant?

his' was determined by him. the only reason he finds himself in jail is that the subjective morality of the majority disagrees with his morality.
something simple like slavery for example; in biblical times, you can't go to jail for owning a slave but now you will.

depends on the atheist judge morality and more importantly, the enforced morality of the majority called the law with which the judge presides.

Gggg102:


lemme ask you. as an atheist what makes an action immoral and what makes another moral?
what makes the person who thinks it is moral wrong and you who think it is immoral right?


with moral code set with authority from god, nobody was free to decide what is right and wrong. whatever god said is final. if someone acted immoral, he can't say he acted moral. what he did was immoral and that's final. him saying it's moral is another crime. god had already set morality in stone and anyone who acted against the set rules is immoral.
a theist can not behave immoral and 'think' it is moral because the theist believes only god sets the moral code. when a theist behaves immoral, he is immoral.

for atheists, there is no set in stone code of what is right and what is evil. you can decide fornication is good and another can decide it is evil. there is no fixed definition of good and evil.
you can't say a person acted immorally because your definition of morality is subjective and applies to you alone and also to those who share your subjective view.

if you think fornication is immoral and another person thinks fornication is good. can you say the other person is immoral?
does your subjective opinion overrule his subjective opinion?

There are many Gods in every Religion and cultures with thier moralities, I don't still get your point?

budaatum:

You, yourself said. "When you come in contact with either of the three (science, technology and philosophy) the chances of you believing in what you cannot see dims."

If you want to become an atheist, as Jesus once said to someone, "go and do likewise"! No one is going to convince you of anything.

NO NO you have to convince me now. I want to join you. Please thats the only question how can somebody rise to life and what is the proof?

jesmond3945:
Now the let me explain what i mean by coincidences. Assuming i meet a stranger on my way to work and in the next hour meet the same stranger in my office and then in the next 2 hrs meet the stranger in a restaurant. You can see that our meeting is coincidental which means that the chance i met him the second time is 50% while the chance of not meeting him at all is 50%. Which means coincidence involves a probability function and in this case coincidence is prediction. I will replace coincidence with prediction from now on. Now a prophecy has a probability function that is negligible meaning a prophecy is certain that it would happen no matter the situation. In the bible prophecies are subjective rather than explicit, the only thing that is explicit in the bible is commands and laws of God. Atleast a 5 year old child knows the 10 commandments, also knows about the commands of Jesus but a 5 year old child doesnt know the prophecies in Daniel or the prophecies in Isiaiah. The reason why prophecies are not implicit I would say in my next reply. Now coming to the cartoons and story books, they all predict based on the primordial circumstances prevalent at that time. Take for example I can write a book that Rochas Okorocha who is my governor will become the president of Nigeria. I might have written the book probably in 2001 when he was contesting for president but the probability he will be the president now has probably increased from when 2001 to 2018. That means if he becomes the president somebody might dig out my book and say i made a prophecy that came to pass but it was not a prophecy it was an actual prediction. Most pastors in Nigeria do prediction and not prophecies because prophecy is not for everybody infact it is 1 in 10 people that prophecy. Prophecy is a gift from God. So I would be expecting you to feed with me the prophecies in the bible that didnt come to pass. From my previous comment the issue of masturbation is a command while the issue of ISIS is an actual prophecy. Like I said prophecies are not everyone thats why they are not explicit and clear in the bible only those who have the gift can decode them. So let nobody deceive you that they are doing prophecy using the bible because it is hard to see a prophet in out time. But they exist. Then finally the bible said whoever comes to God must believe he exists, that means you cannot read the bible if you dont believe in it. Your heart is already prejudiced so no matter how lovely it is you will always find loopholes. Thats why I said believe first then read later. When I read the bible, actually God is speaking what I mean the only thing you are seeing is a book you are holding but the only thing you are hearing is someone speaking not those letters but someone actually having a conversation with you. You would not understand this but frist believe. Thank you. I would expect the failed promises of the bible as you promised.

Lmao, Your epistle here is just full of sentiments.

tintingz:
So what makes you think the prophecies in the Bible are not coincidence?

One of the failed prophecy in the Bible is Jesus will come back in his generation.

Read my reply after this where I explained everything. Thank you.

tintingz:
Lmao, Your epistle here is just full of sentiments.

IF thats all you can say then I win the argument. Have fun.

tintingz:
So what makes you think the prophecies in the Bible are not coincidence?

One of the failed prophecy in the Bible is Jesus will come back in his generation.

Proof to me that the generation he meant is this one and not the next. You cant just make a scanty statement without proof.

Gggg102:


you can answer the question too.

what makes today morality better than that of the stone age?
that you are more enlightened does not make your morality better. afterall, morality is subjective. what is good is whatever that person accepts to be good. you can not, with your enlightenment, judge me. if I see slavery as good, then it is my own subjective truth. your enlightenment has no effect.

people still practice slavery in Libya. in their eyes they are right and the law is wrong. your morality and the law is immoral to them.

does something being lawful make it right?


who made you judge over what is barbaric and what isn't? why should your opinion of what is barbaric matter to anyone but yourself? intellect has no place in subjective morality.

that consensus is just the subjective opinion of the majority. it has no effect on the subjective truth of those who feel rape, slavery... is good. the fact that majority agree does not make it right especially for subjective morality.


for you to say something is moral or something is immoral, you have to first define what morality is and what makes something right or wrong.
that is impossible if morality is subjective because what is true to you may be false to me and there is no actual truth.

as long as morality is subjective, there can be no better morality or worse morality.

Do me a favor, imagine you time travel back to old testament era and you see how Yahweh children are slaughtering men, women, children and taking over thier lands, you see how non-virgins are killed as commanded by Yahweh, how slavery is accepted, how will you judge thier morality?

budaatum:

Is that your explanation of "subjective morality" . Hmm.

I may murder you, I may be stupid enough to believe my murdering you is moral. But as stated, the law of the land wouldn't agree, and even an atheist judge would not agree with me.

Now consider slavery. I may think it's okay, "in my opinion" to put a chain around your neck and make you my slave. But imagine how much I would like it if one day for some reason, you took the chain off, put it round my neck and I become your slave. Do you think what you call my "subjective morality" would be okay with that sudden change of circumstances, in "my opinion" ?

the law of the land remains a human construct. the law of the land does not determine what is good and what is evil. anything can be legal and anything can be illegal. that the law of the land disagree isn't proof that X is bad.

probably. your subjective opinion might care. you morality may be based on survival of the fittest. you could subscribe to 'do me I do you, man no go vex'.
egoism follows this school of thought. something is good just because I feel good doing it. I don't care how it affects others.

tintingz:
Do me a favor, imagine you time travel back to old testament era and you see how Yahweh children are slaughtering men, women, children and taking over thier lands, you see how non-virgins are killed as commanded by Yahweh, how slavery is accepted, how will you judge thier morality?

first tell me with what authority am I to judge.

some fixed standpoint, or my personal opinion.