Enigma:





You are being silly and you (should) know it. The inconsistency is with your atheism and holding cannibalism to be "universally immoral". The two are incompatible as I have shown you before; and as atheist "intellectuals" like Nietszche, Sartre etc acknowledged as I have also pointed out to you previously.

Enigma:

If you mean your own question, my answer is that "morality" is not possible without an objective reference point which may possibly be what you mean by an "authoritative source".

I have placed "morality" in quotes very deliberately because another issue would be whether you regard "morality", as you are using it, as universal or relative/local/individual etc.

For example, the logic that many atheists have presented here is that cannibalism is not immoral insofar as it is acceptable in a/the particular society where it is practised.

Can we say cannibalism is always and universally immoral?

mkmyers45:

Why don't you come out in planer ways and give your opinions as its hard to follow your exact meanings...

cyrexx: cyrexx:

you mean the cannibalism of when Jesus says his followers should eat his flesh and drink his blood

and genocide of when the bloodthirsty Yahweh orders his followers to murder everyone in the whole town including all children and women.

Oh, basis for moral indeed!


you mean the "genocide" of when the bloodthirsty Yahweh orders his followers to murder everyone in the whole town including all children and women.

It was right in those days but wrong in these days, abi?

basis for objective morality indeed!

Delafruita:
what you really want to hear is that everybosy needs god as an authoritative figure.sorry to burst your bubble bro,but thats just not the case

Kay 17: I didn't say cannibalism is universally immoral, but that its unpleasant to admit it.

mkmyers45:

Why don't you come out in planer ways and give your opinions as its hard to follow your exact meanings...

mkmyers45:

WRONG....An authoritative figure cannot be limited to a super-natural being as humans can serve as such figures...
1. The point was that the more authority and power an entity has, the more qualified it is to judge. Omnipotent would mean ultimate power and authority.
I had not yet gotten to supernatural vs natural, I was only laying criteria.

WRONG...Even human law-makers cannot fully understand all concept so how do we then get laws of right and wrong?
2. The point again here is that for an entity to qualify as the best judge in any case, it must fully understand everything about right and wrong. The more it knows, the better it's judgment. ultimate knowledge would be omniscience i.e. the most knowledgeable.
Unless you are saying that human law makers are omniscient, I fail to see your contention.


Ok, What about the biblical account of Uzzah? Was things seen from his own angle?
3.I won't answer this question yet because i have not yet laid out any entity I am only supplying criteria for judgment, and I don't know if you agree or disagree with the criteria laid out. But the point is that the more angles from which you can observe a case, the better you will be at making judgment. All-seeing simply means that one can see from every angle possible. So do you agree with this criteria?


Ok
I take it you agree with 4 and 5



NONSENSE...Please how do you relate permissiveness and change of standard?
6. This is simple, The ultimate judge must be firm. what is evil must always be evil and what is good must always be good i.e good is rewarded and evil is punished, but this doesn't mean that If the judge chooses to be merciful and not punish an evil, that it automatically makes that evil good because the judge allowed it for the time being.


I dont get this statement...mind re-phrasing?
7. The point here is that the entity must be singular and not comprised of different contradicting parts. That's quite clear.

Do you agree? = NO, I DONT

Mr_Anony: @mkmyers, It is clear that you purposely didn't understand me. You are letting your anti-God bias get in the way. Please read my words in red.



The bolded you didn't understand was simple if u didn't already have a bias. I was stating that the validity of any judge may be based on:-
1. How much power it has,
2. How much it knows about the case
3. If it can see the case from diverse veiwpoints,
4. If it has a good conscience and yet discernible
5. If it is impartial
6. If it is firm and unwavering
7. If it is singular in essense and purpose

Do you agree now with these criteria for a moral authority?

If you don't, please explain why. And then absent your anti-God bias, please provide separate criteria a moral authority must meet.

Enigma:

Oh sorry then; so you admit also that cannibalism can be moral? Then I have no problem with your atheism stance then and the issue of compatibility.




I think my opinion and meaning are clear enough. One thing that has become clear to me though is that you still ned to do a lot of careful thinking on the topic.

Wish you all the best.

Enigma:

^^^ If you are trying to get my attention, I ignored that previously because it is simply juvenile.

And I am not insulting you, just stating a fact. I think even honest and objective atheists will tell you the same.

mkmyers45:

Sir, can you kindly summarize everything you've been saying into two simple sentences...

Enigma:

If you mean your own question, my answer is that "morality" is not possible without an objective reference point which may possibly be what you mean by an "authoritative source".

I have placed "morality" in quotes very deliberately because another issue would be whether you regard "morality", as you are using it, as universal or relative/local/individual etc.

For example, the logic that many atheists have presented here is that cannibalism is not immoral insofar as it is acceptable in a/the particular society where it is practised.

Can we say cannibalism is always and universally immoral?

Enigma:

Therefore:

- cannibalism can be moral as it has been at some places and times.

- genocide can be moral as it has been at some places and times.

What then is your problem with "God" again?

frosbel: Atheism is by definition a no God existence, but there still resides within these ingrates that gift of conscience and awareness of right or wrong , therefore it is not unusual to see some of these creatures exhibit some flashes of goodness from time to time.

However , when a state is founded on atheist ideologies like Maoism and Stalinism, what we have is a pretty much 'lawless' society where human life is devalued and morality becomes a relative term.

Just look at Russia and the effect of decades of atheism, Vodka addiction, violence, the most horrendous kind of racism and gross intolerance for the ideas for a democratic society.


Atheists without Christ are a lost cause and of all men to be the most pitied.

Only Christ can deliver them from their almost seemingly impenetrable blindness.

This is harsh but true.

mkmyers45:
@Bolded...I am not anti-God

Ok, in some ways more than one it may be so...

Lets move forward with your points...

Reyginus: I dont believe that an authority is overlying morality,but spirituality.To say that morality is linked to the existence of a godhead is illogical and cannot be proven, and that which cannot be proven is a fallacy.morality can exist in the presence/abscence of a godhead.Though the presence of an authority may command morality,it ll be a fallacy to restrict it there.The presence of atheists proves it to be a fallacy (except you are telling me that atheists believe subconsciously in God).

Enigma:

First of all, I am not sure you are right as there are probably still cannibalistic societies out there.

More importantly in any event, you are saying cannibalism was moral yesterday but it is not today.

[b]Genocide was moral in Rwanda only a few years ago but maybe it is not moral there anymore.

[/b]So "morality" to you is basically dependent on place and time!

shymmex: Authoritative source has nothing to do with morality...

Morality is a culturally conditioned response, and an individual's level of consciousness.

The first morals a person learns is indoctrinated into them by their parents at an early age - that lays the foundation for everything.

Your level of consciousness and societal values (culture) take charge from there.

Reyginus: I dont believe that an authority is overlying morality,but spirituality.To say that morality is linked to the existence of a godhead is illogical and cannot be proven, and that which cannot be proven is a fallacy.morality can exist in the presence/abscence of a godhead.Though the presence of an authority may command morality,it ll be a fallacy to restrict it there.The presence of atheists proves it to be a fallacy (except you are telling me that atheists believe subconsciously in God).

Mr_Anony:
Ok, let me agree that you are not anti-God.

Now, I need you to make a firmer statement. ".....in some ways more than one it may be so....." is not firm enough for me. It is either you totally agree with the criteria or you don't and wish to make some amendments. If we cannot firmly agree on a basis for judgment, we cannot move forward with our discourse.

By the way, I noticed the thread has made frontpage so I think I'm going to stay off it for a while until the excitement has died down a bit and then we'll continue, plus I have to go to church soon.

Cheers

Reyginus: Show me where i went wrong then

I dont believe that an authority is overlying morality,but spirituality.To say that morality is linked to the existence of a godhead is illogical and cannot be proven, and that which cannot be proven is a fallacy.morality can exist in the presence/abscence of a godhead.Though the presence of an authority may command morality,it ll be a fallacy to restrict it there.The presence of atheists proves it to be a fallacy (except you are telling me that atheists believe subconsciously in God)

mkmyers45:

The authority talked about here is not restricted to a 'God-head'

Cheers

Reyginus: Show me where i went wrong then

mkmyers45:

Ok, for the purpose of enlightenment i agree with your points...

jackbauersballs: The problem with the 'Intellectual Atheists' on Nairaland is that they keep assuming that the Christian God is an all-benevolent deity.

Study every religion, every deity is a duality of benevolence and malevolence.

There is NO god elsewhere that does not reward his/her followers and punish the infidels.

So why do you expect the christian God to be some sort of father-christmas in the sky?
Even our bible in Deut 4:24 states that "The Lord your God is a consuming fire"

Yes we know religion may be an artificial construct designed by man to make sense of unfamiliar situations.
Yes we know religion has long been a tool to manipulate the masses in the name of God
Yes we know some pastors are getting rich of christianity

Yes we know at the end of the day, amadioha might have been the true god after all

BUT we choose to believe in our lord Jesus Christ as our saviour...
If you dont believe, its cool....

But stop the religion bashing on here for faacksake!

Fanatical Atheists are no different from Fanatical Theists...

mkmyers45:

is that not an authoritative source?