@ mr Anony
read my post very well again pls.
Almost everything you are saying now has been effectively negated by several of my earlier posts, especially the blue lettered words in my last post.

I know this argument is not about god's existence, but your presupposition that he exists has clouded a lot of your arguments about morality and you cannot see some glaring issues with true objectivity. Yahweh may or may not exist in reality, just like any other religion's gods. But you should understand that your chosen worldview does not make anything right or wrong without a solid proof of evidence, any more than a muslim or a indigenous african or a hindu man's chosen worldview.

I have explained this a zillion times already. I wish we can have a neutral moderator who is neither an atheist or a christian. Then this cloud may be cleared a little bit.

cyrexx: @ mr Anony
read my post very well again pls.
Almost everything you are saying now has been effectively negated by my several of my earlier posts, especially the blue lettered words in my last post.
I know this argument is not about god's existence, but your presupposition that he exists has clouded a lot of your arguments about morality. Yahweh may or may not exist in reality, just like any other religion's gods. But you should understand that your chosen worldview does not make anything right or wrong without a solid proof of evidence, any more than a muslim or a indigenous african or a hindu man's chosen worldview.
I have explained this a zillion times already. I wish we can have a neural moderator who is neither an atheist or a christian. Then this cloud may be cleared a little bit.

My friend, my presupposition of God as a perfect being is very appropriate in this situation.

I'll quote my reply from a similar thread:https://www.nairaland.com/978493/does-loyalty-precede-morality

To say that something is imperfect means that there must be a perfection from which it deviates.
To turn around and say that this perfection does not exist is to render imperfection meaningless hence imperfection cannot exist and as a result there is no such thing as quality or value i.e. nothing can be better or worse than anything else neither can they be equal. This also is meaningless.

Without a perfect God, there is no morality whatsoever. If morality must exist at all, then God must necessarily exist and God must be supreme and universal irrespective of people's individual perceptions.

It doesn't really matter what any religion or worldview claims, a perfect being must necessarily exist from which we can identify good and evil. I gave you earlier 7 characteristics such a perfect being must have for it to qualify as moral giver. My God has all of them so he qualifies as moral giver.
If you reject God, then you must provide something else in your worldview that must be perfect but different from God. Simply saying good for goodness sake doesn't cut it.

If we were trying to define hot and cold, you would be wrong to present "hotness" as an objective measure for hot and cold, also to reach a consensus of hot and cold using peoples perceptions would be inaccurate.
My argument would be thus, the nature of fire is hot therefore the more like fire a thing is, the hotter it is. It wouldn't matter if there were 1000 different perceptions of fire, all that would matter is that fire is hot by nature.

If you still don't get it at this point, then I'm sorry I really can't help you.

@ Mr Anony


LOL
you are always fun to have conversation with

u are talking to me as if i'm definitely the one who need help and probably not you, have u ever thought for one second that you might be wrong (thats true objectivity, by the way). you just assume that christians are right and everybody one else is wrong when it comes to issues of truth. hhmmmmm

now you say perfect God Yahweh and you just assume he is perfect because your religion and holy book say say so, but when i point out his imperfections and inconsistencies, you quickly defend him by "this is not a god existence debate" or "he can do whatever he likes" defense which is not a reasonable logic by any definition

my dear friend, that concept of god conceived by ancient Jews is clearly imperfect (i will gladly show you all the proofs again) and thus he is no better a standard for morality that modern rational self-governing human beings who follow the rule of law that are more relevant to this age than iron age barbarism of those ancient Jews.

Mr_Anony:
I gave you earlier 7 characteristics such a perfect being must have for it to qualify as moral giver. My God has all of them so he qualifies as moral giver.

and i also gave you 8 characteristics a truly perfect being must have for it to qualify as moral giver and your God failed on all those counts. but your religious mind would rather close his eyes to those points and rather call me names than challenge those characteristics.

Mr_Anony:
If you reject God, then you must provide something else in your worldview that must be perfect but different from God. Simply saying good for goodness sake doesn't cut it.

again you presuppose that god exists and i reject him.

let me say point blank that if there is a a valid evidence of Yahweh as the only true creator god, i will accept him.
but there is none.

so i do not reject god, but i reject the the Jewish religion's god concept and since most cultures in the world have their own equally "authentic" god concepts, i am not bound to accept any one and leave out the rest.

besides if there is god who probably want me to believe him,he can easily do so by himself and he wont need ancient religions and humans to tell me about him based on bad evidence.

Mr_Anony:
Let me clarify some definitions for you, so we are on the same page:
Morality: A system for distinguishing between what is good and what is evil.
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour (oxford dictionary)
Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). (wikipedia)

Legality is a part of morality because laws also determine what is right and what is wrong. You can NOT seperate the two. . .

Objectivity: The quality of impartiality and neutrality whereby facts are clearly defined irrespective of personal perceptions or bias. The opposite of subjectivity.
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing fact e.g. historians try to be objective and impartial (oxford dictionary)

OK. . . .

Objective Morality: This says that there is a set standard for what is good and what is evil i.e. morality is set e.g. and evil behavior will be evil in itself irrespective of how it is perceived by individuals also a good behavior will be good in itself irrespective of how it is perceived by the individuals.

Such morality does NOT exist in reality. What ever the society and the law makers chose to label as moral to them based on reasons best known to them. I have given you an example with slavery in the bible, it was so right according to that time and people that their god was even giving them injunctions on how to sell their daugters into slavery and enslave others around them. As long as the society feels an act is right then it is right, when the society feels an act is wrong then it becomes wrong. Objective morality does NOT exist in reality, morality varies from society to society is it is NOT objective, take the endearment of sharia law by the muslims for example, to the muslims that is the greatest moral code every society should abide by, but to the west those moral codes are babaric. . .

Now i will go on to say that objectivity is the only way we can know anything for sure. To claim that morality is not objective is to claim that we cannot know for sure that something is good or that something is evil. If this is true, then what we are left with is chaos since good and evil become meaningless.

Good and evil are not meaningless as long as the society defines what is good and what is evil.

Just to note a quick point; the definitions you used were inadequate.
conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. dictionary.com (this alludes to an existing right i.e the quality of being moral. But remember our problem is differentiating between right and wrong) Next you skipped wikipedia's definition of morality itself and defined moral code instead (they are not the exact same thing).
Legality comes from morality but this does not automatically imply that all laws are moral. for instance if I say the dress code for my party is red jackets, it is a law as far as my party is concerned. if you turn up with a blue jacket, you have broken a ceremonial law and not a moral law. wearing a blue jacket is neither good nor evil in itself. It doesn't matter if the penalty for wearing a blue jacket to my party is death.
On the other hand if you came to my party and stabbed the DJ to death for no apparent reason, you have broken a moral law. It doesn't matter whether or not I clearly stated as one of the rules of the party "don't stab the DJ". It doesn't matter if I cheer wildly and give you a crown of gold or murdering the DJ.

What exactly are you saying?. . .What is ceremonail and what is moral law?. . .I disagree with what you have written, voilating a law is voilating a law, laws are laws. . .Good is good as determined by the society and bad is bad as determined by the society. . .

In a christian worldview, homosexuality is wrong because lustfulness and any sex outside marriage is morally wrong

Nice, but even christians now accept g[i]a[/i]ys, morality has evolved so much that christians now accept g[i]a[/i]ys, they don't believe that they should be stoned to death. . .As for sex outside of marriage it might be wrong to you but to many other it isn't and as such it is not bad. Some societies even encourage it for various reasons. This is an example that shows you that morality is not objective but varies from society to society, some societies see nothing wrong in sex before marriage or sex with another partner during marriage, some societies believe that polygamy is a good thing, others believe that an august visitor can sleep with one of the wives of his host when he comes to visit. Nothing is actually wrong or right until when society(religious, social or political) says it is. If there is objective morality then sex before marriage will be considered as an evil across the borad but it isn't. . .There are so many good reasons for sex before marriage. . .Sexual compatibility is one of them for example. . .So saying that sex before marriage is wrong doesn't make sense to a lot of people there by making it subjective. . .

So in other words, whatever speed the law of the land chooses, the law of the land is always right? (this is contradicting your argument because according to you morality is not objective and it changes. How then can any law always be right? How can we be sure that the moral code of the land is right in the first place? How can we be sure that breaking such a law is definitely morally wrong?)

Nope, the law of the land determines what is right and what is wrong, and it is constantly changing, slavery used to be right in some parts of the USA about 300 years ago, now it is a very big crime in the same country. . . .They are now trying to make laws to legalize pot in the same country that use to crminalize it and send people to jail for smoking pot. . .What ever the law says is good becomes good, what ever the law of the land says is bad becomes bad. . That is the reality of human and societal morality and code of conduct.

You are judging my worldview based on yours. I have told you that there is a difference between a moral law and a ceremonial/circumstantial law. You claim morality is subjective and ever evolving but when pressed to define exactly what is morally wrong or right, you are finding it difficult and resorting to telling me that laws which I have not defined as moral are moral laws. What I have provided for you is a standard by which you can define morals.
You obviously consider some things right and others wrong however you have not provided a basis by which your considerations may be validated.

Your differantiontion of the two is inadequate and I disagree with it. . .According to the bible it is bad for women to teach in the church weather it is ceremonial or moral law as you will like to have us believe is immaterial because it is a law, any woman that speaks in church is violating that biblical injunction and has done a bad thing. . .

I don't agree with you. I do not agree that any moral principles are created by man. I believe we are born with our morality or conscience. Studies have shown that babies as young as six months exhibit signs of having a moral compass. Check the links below;
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275892/Were-born-moral-Babies-tell-good-evil-months.html

ALL moral principle are created by men. . .Remember that back in the days people very happily sacrifice their twins to the gods believing they were doing a good thing. . .People happily circumcise their female children in some socisties believing they are doing a good thing. . .I read about a primitive society that used to eat the flesh of their enemies in australia long ago believeing that it will make them better hunters, the whole society engages in it and believes it was a good thing. . .You grow up accepting the moral values of your society, if you are born a muslims you will consider eating port one of the greatest wrong a person can do, if you are born in Denmark that eating pork will not be seen as a bad thing. . .I consider the studies to be wrong because they kids were judging what was right or wrong based on their own subjective thinking and reasoning. . .

By saying that you base your morality on society, you are in other words saying that you cannot as result judge if any society is good or bad irrespective of what they do. For instance for an Nazi living in Germany of 1939, killing Jews is morally right and you don't have the right to condemn it as evil because he too gets his morals from his society as you do yours. Besides how can your society be right or wrong if morality is truly subjective? i.e. if you decide to break societal laws you are right in your own eyes and your society is also right in it's eyes therefore your societal laws can never be fair but can only always be oppressive. this is also right (or wrong depending on who is observing).
Nothing can be both morally wrong and right at the same time else the concept of morality becomes meaningless.

What I am saying is that society determine what is right and what is wrong based on many reasons and factors but ultimately it is the society that ALWAYS determines what is right and what is wrong and as such we have various laws and moral codes of conduct in different societies. . . .Right or wrong is determines by society and period in time, even in your bible when genocide was accpetable your god was its champion along with his alleged prohets. . .When slavery was accpetable your god was its champion, telling people how to enslave their own daughters and brand their slaves. . .When stealing the lands of others was the norm back then your god was telling his people to go and take the lands of other flowing with milk and honey, when people felt that stonning to death their disobedient children was the right thing your god was telling them to do it. . .My point is morality is NOT objective, all moral laws are determined by the soceity(Religious, social and political).

Men create all the moral laws they chose to abide by and men change it when ever they feel it is necessary. . .

cyrexx: @ Mr Anony


LOL
you are always fun to have conversation with

u are talking to me as if i'm definitely the one who need help and probably not you, have u ever thought for one second that you might be wrong (thats true objectivity, by the way). you just assume that christians are right and everybody one else is wrong when it comes to issues of truth. hhmmmmm

now you say perfect God Yahweh and you just assume he is perfect because your religion and holy book say say so, but when i point out his imperfections and inconsistencies, you quickly defend him by "this is not a god existence debate" or "he can do whatever he likes" defense which is not a reasonable logic by any definition

my dear friend, that concept of god conceived by ancient Jews is clearly imperfect (i will gladly show you all the proofs again) and thus he is no better a standard for morality that modern rational self-governing human beings who follow the rule of law that are more relevant to this age than iron age barbarism of those ancient Jews.

Until you can specifically define for me exactly what your perfect standard for morality is without using ambiguous and vague phrases like "good for goodness sake" and "general well-being" I will take it that you don't know what objective morality is. I have provided for you a specific criteria which is the nature of God as defined by the bible.
To properly judge God, you must first provide a clear and objective standard for judgment by which we may now proceed to judge God's nature. If it bothers you that God is too abstract then I present to you the most Godly man Jesus Christ (if God was a man, the man Jesus Christ is exactly who God would be. Jesus is in fact God as a human being).

Let me make it easier for you, since you refuse to accept the supernatural. First come up with a clear and objective standard for judging man's morality, then judge Christ by it. Jesus Christ is the same as God to me and He is my yardstick for morality.

What exactly is your yardstick for morality? please use specifics and not variables.

@Mr Anon I'll give you an analogy:
Assuming we were arguing over the length of two lines. "Which is longer between line A and line B?"
I pull out my ruler and measure the two lines and then come to the conclusion that line A is longer than line B.
You on the other hand refuses to usea ruler but you take a poll of 100 people before coming to your conclusion.
I contest that your method is not objective and hence cannot possibly give you an accurate answer. after reading through that post, coming to the bolded, i lifted my hands in praise to God for that statement. It makes a world of difference. May God continually show you more grace to manifest such great wisdom.

.

Another Nice discourse.

hisblud: @Mr Anon I'll give you an analogy:
Assuming we were arguing over the length of two lines. "Which is longer between line A and line B?"
I pull out my ruler and measure the two lines and then come to the conclusion that line A is longer than line B.
You on the other hand refuses to usea ruler but you take a poll of 100 people before coming to your conclusion.
I contest that your method is not objective and hence cannot possibly give you an accurate answer. after reading through that post, coming to the bolded, i lifted my hands in praise to God for that statement. It makes a world of difference. May God continually show you more grace to manifest such great wisdom.

Amen Oh! My brother na by the grace of God oh! Wetin man fit do without God? Thanks bro.

@ Anony,
are u still there,
i have one little teaser for you.
let me know if and when you're ready
cheers

cyrexx: @ Anony,
are u still there,
i have one little teaser for you.
let me know if and when you're ready
cheers

hit me with it

number one,
this is not directly related to this thread,
its on a lighter frivolous mode, just for fun and maybe some enlightenment.
i wanted to create a new thread for it but i find it unncessary


here we go:
what evidence are you willing to accept that will convince you that the biblical god is imaginary

let me answer my own first: the evidence that will convince that the biblical god is NOT imaginary is if he appeared to me like they say he appeared to men in the bible and somehow i can show everybody what he is like, maybe a camera footage or any other thing that is easily demonstrable without any iota of doubt.
you get it.

pls make a clear argument, without quoting bible if possible, just logic and reasoning,

cyrexx:
here we go:
what evidence are you willing to accept that will convince you that the biblical god is imaginary

Lol, It is almost like asking me what kind of evidence am I willing to accept to convince me that my mind doesn't really exist.

To both I'll answer that you'll have to come up with a perfect explanation of their effects. i.e. I don't necessarily need physical evidence as such but a perfect theory of everything.

if i get you, you mean that there is nothing at all that convince you otherwise of the reality of biblical God. he is very real to you as your mind is to you. am i right?


does that mean that you adopt a position that you are innerant i.e. your belief is void of error and totally right without any possibility at all of being wrong in any way.
is that right?

cyrexx: if i get you, you mean that there is nothing at all that convince you otherwise of the reality of biblical God. he is very real to you as your mind is to you. am i right?

Yes

cyrexx: does that mean that you adopt a position that you are innerant i.e. your belief is void of error and totally right without any possibility at all of being wrong in any way.
is that right?

I am not inerrant but you see, God is much more than a mere belief to me. I live my life and I explain my existence and meaning as well as that of everything else via God, so to really disprove God to me, you have to come up with an infallible theory of everything

Relax, im not trying to disprove God to you.
infact, i dont need to, you'll see shortly
but that aside

1. infallible theory of everything
what does that mean (in a clear unambigous language pls)?
and what would qualify as infallible theory of everything?

2. so you agree that your belief in NOT innerant.
pls note: innerant means perfectly right without a possibilty of any error at all.
is that your position?

cyrexx: 1. infallible theory of everything
what does that mean (in a clear unambigous language pls)?
and what would qualify as infallible theory of everything?

A theory that explains all existence, and it must be a perfect theory that must never fail no matter what test is thrown at it.

cyrexx: 2. so you agree that your belief in NOT innerant.
pls note: innerant means perfectly right without a possibilty of any error at all.
is that your position?

You conveniently decided to overlook the part where I said that God is not a mere belief to me.

Mr_Anony: ^^^^I will go on to say that for anything to be a true standard for morality
1. It must be all-powerful or at least more powerful than man i.e. must be powerful enough to punish evil and reward good.
2. It must be omniscient i.e. must be able to properly know and understand everything and every motive
3. It must be all-seeing i.e. must be able to see a case from every possible angle. No evidence should escape it.
4. It's laws must agree with man's conscience but must be able to determine when man deviates from the dictates of his conscience.
5. It must be impartial and must deliver justice irrespective of persons.
6. It must not waver and must not change with the wind i.e. what was once evil will not suddenly become good and vice versa(note this is different from it's permissiveness)
7. It must essentially be singular i.e. it must be of one mind and purpose and must not be self-contradicting.

It is to the extent that our legal systems meet these criteria that we justify them. Do you agree?

No, it need not be a command, rather every act will have an inherent moral value. Just the same way you identify colours, one could identify a good.

Kay 17:

No, it need not be a command, rather every act will have an inherent moral value. Just the same way you identify colours, one could identify a good.

I don't quite understand your reference to a command as per my statement. however as per your reference to morality similar to colors having inherent value. Would you say that colors are truly subjective? i.e. red is not really distinct from blue?

Wouldn't your statement suggest that colors are objective and that the fault is never in the color but in the observer?
Wouldn't the perfect standard for color be light which is no respecter of perceptions and gives color it's meaning?
Wouldn't color then be subject to light and lights "commands"?
If you had to judge light's definition of color, wouldn't you have to first provide another standard that creates color other than light and then judge light against it?

^^^
SMH.

Kay 17: ^^^
SMH.

SMH too

Mr_Anony:
A theory that explains all existence, and it must be a perfect theory that must never fail no matter what test is thrown at it.

i understand what you mean now. we will get back it later. thanks for clarification.

Mr_Anony:

You conveniently decided to overlook the part where I said that God is not a mere belief to me.

you said and i quote "I live my life and I explain my existence and meaning as well as that of everything else via God"
so i am correct if i say that your belief about God relationship with God means that what you believe or know as revealed by Him is free from error in any form (since, i assume, you believe that God is perfect and innerant).

If i ignore anything you meant, pls note that its not intentinal and you can kindly re-state what you felt i ignored.




by the way, how was the service today in your church, hope you had a nice time

cyrexx:

i understand what you mean now. we will get back it later. thanks for clarification.




you said and i quote "I live my life and I explain my existence and meaning as well as that of everything else via God"
so i am correct if i say that your belief about God relationship with God means that what you believe or know as revealed by Him is free from error in any form (since, i assume, you believe that God is perfect and innerant).

If i ignore anything you meant, pls note that its not intentinal and you can kindly re-state what you felt i ignored.




by the way, how was the service today in your church, hope you had a nice time

Ok noted, By the way I didn't go to church today. I overslept lol.

@ mr anony,
i noticed that you are probably avoiding me on other threads for reasons i dont fully understand. I personally would want the communication line between us to remain as they were.
If there is anything wrong you think i should rectify, kindly let me know and i promise sincerely that i will rectify it.
I really want to keep the communication line open between us.
Thanks.

cyrexx: @ mr anony,
i noticed that you ignored me on other threads for reasons i dont fully understand.
If there is anything wrong you think i should rectify, kindly let me know and i promise sincerely that i will rectify it.
I really want to keep the communication line open between us.
Thanks.

What?? When??
I'm sorry if I did, it wasn't on purpose. Link me to the thread