₦airaland Forum

Gggg102:
the general truth. not my subjective truth or your subjective truth. the real truth irrespective of our subjective views.

the part of my post you struck out is where my argument lies.

Note how I struck it out instead of deleting it. In morality, and laws, to a certain extent, truth is irrelevant. They are subjective positions held at subjective points in time.

If I hold your head under water for five minutes, without you using underwater breathing apparatus, it is indisputably true that you will pass out and die, and no one's opinion or beliefs can change this fact.

The law can be said to be as true as this (with some qualifications, however) in the sense of "if you commit a crime, you will be caught and punished". But whether the law you are caught for is true or not is an oxymoronic idea any further than the truth that such a law exists.

You see, when discussing objectivity and subjectivity, one has to be mindful of the error or speaking from one's very own subjective position. It's a common mistake that you share with many who think they are being objective!

If 1 really equalled 937, and 2 = ⅛ and + really meant multiply and = meant -, then 1+1≠2 is, in case you are not aware, what you are claiming here!

Gggg102:
the harm done by the terrorist could be considered good by the terrorist.
if majority of the people are like the terrorist, he won't be condemned. the society would view it as normal.

the only reason the society condemns the terrorist is that the subjective opinion of the majority is that terrorism is evil.
if the subjective opinion of the majority is that terrorism is good, the terrorist won't be condemned.

I just happen to live in this objective real world and not the imaginary subjective alternative one you keep harping on about, so sorry I'm not entertaining you, or it.

Gggg102:
Christians and most theists believe god fixed it.

Good afternoon. This is the point where I ask you to go back and read what we've been discussing. All along, the underlying assumption of your entire position is that the existence of gods is an objective reality. You've skirted around it plenty, but it's always been there, and we see it despite you not coming out and saying it. But, now you have, so here we go.

You see, "Christians and most theists believe", is just another subjective position held by subjective people, and anything said by them relating to god is subjective. Certain words give you away, you see.

The subjective position, "Christian and theist", subjectively "believes", that "gods" (an ideas based on a subjective position) "fixed" it.

But note how the one single response of mine that you subjectively chose to ignore is how did god fix it's very first 1+1?!

You can subjectively believe whatever you wish to believe, but much more than "believing" is required to make things objectively real! As you've rightly stated here:

Gggg102:
shouting banana banana doesn't make an apple a banana.

true2god:
Have you read the history of Islam? Do you know how non-Muslims are being treated in Saudi Arabia and Iran (the leaders of the Sunnis and Shi'a Muslims)? Stop putting your head in the sand, like an ostrich. Straighten your head and tell the truth without employing any form of political correctness, which your write-up is basically promoting. Say the facts bro!

Have you read the history of Christianity, or that of Judaism? Was it not Christian Britain you yourself claimed did all those nasty things you claimed they did in Africa and the Arab world, and are still doing? How about Judaism? God supposedly telling them to go steal land off it's rightful owners because "they are the chosen few"! Are they not still stealing from the Palestinians today? Should I now judge all the adherents of these religions by their historical past, or what some currently are doing today? If not, why ask me to do that where the religion you dislike is concerned?

You religious people all have one thing in common. You want to hide behind your gods when you commit your atrocities! That's the same thing you are doing here. You want to hide your own dislike of Islam behind your god. Instead of accepting your own bigotry, you want to make it your god's bigotry. It's like you see yourselves as soldiers for your gods as if your gods themselves are so powerless they can't fight for themselves. Is that not also what you accuse Muslims of doing? Do tell, how do you differ from one another? You're beginning to make me consider that perhaps I'm on the wrong end here, and should be advocating not only for a burqa ban but a complete god ban instead! There you go! buda bans the gods, or anyone even thinking about gods! Except I'm aware that that just makes me a greater bigot myself!

I am from the Orolu Kingdom of Ifon Osun in Osun State. We have a majority Muslim community, having been idol worshippers in the past and Christians too. Our current Oba is a Muslim. Many burqa wearing people live in the kingdom. But how many bombs have gone off in the Kingdom? Zero! But I should ban the burqa, right? Because a bomb went off in Borno and Yemen or Saudi Arabia? And can they make us all Muslims? What a silly thought! Ordinary Ogun worshippers would chase anyone who even thinks it out of town, not to talk of the more powerful Sango people, and I am certain the Christians would have none with their trust in God and not being weak like you are appearing to be. But here you are, a Christian, cowering in fear as if the God you worship is asleep in heaven instead of being your shepherd and watching over your useless ass!

I am not advocating political correctness, another phrase for turning the other cheek, mind. I just refuse to join gutter dwellers in gutter living, is all. Take Saudi Arabia. I detest what they are doing in Yemen. They even have the support of America and Britain, and some of us are strongly lobbying against British support for Saudi Arabia against Yemen. See here and here and here.

If I were from Yemen, I don't think I would have to be a Muslim, or a woman before putting on a burqa and blowing up your hypocrite ass, UK! But an intelligent person would understand that even the UK public don't support the government on this. So why blow up we the people? And they don't.

Those who know UK history would know that we've been here before. In the 70s and 80s, when Irish terrorism was at its peak with bombs going off just about every week, the Irish accent was the burqa of the day, and signs claiming "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish" was not uncommon outside establishments. But it did not solve the problem. A lot of reconciliation had to happen, a turning of the other cheek (except, UK turned cheeks after being the slapper over and over again!).

Facts, my dear, are just that, facts. Anyone can pull out one's that support their position so smart people dig deeper so as to get an understanding behind the facts. If there is evidence available to support burqa banning in UK, provide it. Or go ban burqas in Borno if the evidence supports a ban there!

But you are a bigot. The cap fits! That's why you expect it, but now want to claim it's immoral leftist! Bigotry is the result of selecting evidence or twisting available evidence to support your position. We get that from UKIP. They too say ban the burqa. Remember how many seats they won in the last elections? They lost 123 previously held councillor seats and ended up with only 3! And that's out of about 5000 seats contested!

UK is not Borno State! There is no evidence to suggest burqas are complicit in any crime in UK! And Brits are not stupid enough to be scared for no reason.

Perhaps you're the one who should be mindful of irrelevant equivalences!

true2god:
For your 'bolded', the evidence is easy to get if you choose not t be lazy; you can get any news/info with a simple google search. At a time, the Nigerian military banned burka in borno state as a result of suicide bombers using it as a cover.

I laughed when you assumed that the British people are atoning their past 'mistakes' and would no longer commit genocide against the weak and defenseless people. You are 100% wrong bro! The British people are merely trying to adapt to present global reality and are aligning their decisions and policies to match current international demands, they haven't changed a bit. Go and watch the discussion between Prez F.D. Roosevelt (the former US President) and Winston Churchill (the former British PM) and you will understand, in full, the British post-WW2 and post-colonial policies in African and the middle East. You understand how ignorant you are in international politics. I don't know the part of Africa you are from, my brother you are still being colonized but your educational curriculum has been designed to tell you that colonialism is a thing of the past. Don't be deceived bro! All your francophone leaders still send their score cards to Paris while the anglophone leaders still report to their at Masters in 10 Downing street London. I won't teach you more than this, especially for someone who will never appreciate.

Your attempt to make a moral equivalence of all religion is stupid. The creed of a religion defines a religion and how its followers will relate to other people. Any religion that its leader made terror, war and genocide the foundation of this its tenet should not be granted a religious status. Have you read the history of Islam? Do you know how non-Muslims are being treated in Saudi Arabia and Iran (the leaders of the Sunnis and Shi'a Muslims)? Stop putting your head in the sand, like an ostrich. Straighten your head and tell the truth without employing any form of political correctness, which your write-up is basically promoting. Say the facts bro!

I have been expecting you to call me a 'bigot', since that's the keyword for people of dissenting views who don't follow the narrative of the immoral leftists.

JeromeBlack:
Guys, i think that i should update this thread as I have confronted the atheist in question.

Go on, update. I'm dying to know how you went about it!

true2god:
Islam is not asking everyone to wear the burka in the UK (because they are still in the minority) but asked every women to wear it in Saudi Arabia (because they are the majority). The asked every woman to wear Islamically sanctioned headscarf in Iran because they are they majority, can you see the pattern? Is there fashion choice, for women, in Islamic countries? No. Are women expected to dress according to state sanctioned dress codes? Yes. Where is the element of free choice in Islam?

Its very unfortunate that you have to disrespect women, on this forum, by uploading a picture of a half-naked woman to drive your point. That's silly bro!

Listen to yourself, assuming to be spokesperson for everyone else!

That picture I posted is of Serena Williams, a woman most women, and men, admire for her balls, so figure!

I am not here discussing what happens in Iran or Saudi Arabia. No one can come to UK and impose on us what we shall do. You can't impose on us with religion, and you can't impose on us with the fear of religion as you think some could! It's for the same reason the majority who are non-burqa wearing people in UK today cannot impose a ban on the minority burqa wearers, and thankfully, the majority of us don't even want to.

We take special care in protecting the minority because history has shown us that while we might be the majority today there's nothing to stop us being the minority in the future, and the exact same laws that we may have used to oppress the minority would still exist to be used against us when the table turns. So we put good laws on the table instead of bad ones! That's our pattern. Not some silly one practised in Iran or Saudi Arabia. And when you come here, you must obey our laws, or we will arrest you!

Isn't wisdom and intelligence just amazingly wonderful!

true2god:
If Muslims admire Britain, they must be thankful to the locals who provided them comfort and safety and obey the law. Have you watched Muslim problems in Birmingham and Luton? Go watch the videos, open your mind and make a sound judgement.

They are thankful! And they must obey the law. UK has no law banning burqas!

And watching videos of Luton and Birmingham just goes to show how little you actually know about what happened there! But now I understand how you get to be how you are. Not everyone looks only at the surface and runs with it believing what has been shown to them. Go dig deeper and you'd know, instead of lazily believing as you seem to currently do!

true2god:
Bros, I dnt know the basis of your lecture; the debate is about Islamic veil and the danger it posed to the larger society which you blindly refused to see. The UK is never a standard to judge morality. The most vicious and bloodletting empire the world ever had is the British empire. The empire that committed the most genocide known to man is the British empire. You might need to learn about this fact since you willfully choose to be a ignorant of this fact. If the British people could turn back the hands of time, they will repeat what they did in the past, and are still doing presently (especially in Africa and the Arab world).

(You might want to provide evidence for that bonded above please.)

You're getting much closer. A nation with a history as you've described above should not go behaving as you advocate they now should. They should learn from their past and amend their behaviour, and UK has done so.

I disagree that they are still doing it in Africa and the Arab world! They may be trying to, but we Africans are way more intelligent today than to allow anyone to get away with what the British got away with in the past. And if they still are with the Arabs, then I can see why the Arabs might want to terrorise Britain. If they still did what they used to do in Africa, wouldn't you too?

However, the facts are that the burqa and Islamic veil pose no danger to the larger society and it has not been complicit in a terrorist act in UK so banning it is rather silly. To begin with, a very tiny number of people wear it here. They know where it's not to be worn. They do no harm to anyone by wearing it. And if they do wear it and are terrorists, in UK it's the same as wearing a sign saying "I am a terrorist" on your back, So why ban it? When it even serves as a form of identification?

But more importantly, when we go for the burqa and people like me cheer them on, they would go for the mosque, then go for the Muslim, and go for the Asians, then when they come for me, the black person, is that the time that I begin to oppose them?

Islam and Christianity do me no ill. I dislike the hatred some proclaim in the name of their loving gods, but that's not the case with the majority of the adherents. They both have stupid people amongst them, but I'm not stupid enough as to claim some bad people of either religion is a reason for eradicating everyone of those religions. I have Muslims in my family, I have Muslim friends, I work with them and buy meat from them in the market and none of them are like you seem to believe they are and barring evidence to support you, you are just going to have to continue believing that I blindly refuse to see what is not there and I'm ignorant and incapable of becoming a bigot like you.

vaxx:
false ....in binary, 1+1=10.

In philosophy, you will have to go a long way ,like What is "1"? What is "+"? What is "2"?… if “1” is stands for a single object and "+” action is takes both sides, add them and dived by 2 (for normalization) and we will keep the original mining of “=” and “2” will be 2 objects.
Then, 1+1=2 is a false statement. Therefore logically we can arrive that 1+1 is not 2 unless in a conventional settings where will want to work with agree axioms( you call it opinion in your earlier definition ) I assume.

Trust you to get him in a muddle.

LordReed:
Does it not reinforce that belief?

Because God told me not to, though he is said to have written it rather unclearly in the Holy Bible which came to me through various edits and translations from an unclear archaic language no one speaks or writes anymore and which someone has preached to me and which I believe!

What the heck! Did you just ask me to use my brain and think for myself perhaps? May God forbid bad thing!

Lirqur:
Well on this, freeze is very right, we Muslims carryout the instructions of Jesus(pbuh) better than most Christians.

Salaam.

And even if you are not, Adeleke should not be fostering such hatred amongst the flock!

Gggg102:
if a terrorist is harmful objectively, then it is a fact that he is harmful.

if a terrorist is harmful subjectively, then it is just opinion. the terrorist could feel he is good subjectively.

You must be a very stubborn individual who feels taking correction is a sign of weakness!

How the heck is the harm done by a terrorist objective or subjective please? Do you mean objective or subjective to the terrorist, or objective or subjective to the people harmed? Does either mean the infliction of a different sort of harm? If people died in the act, are they objectively dead or subjectively dead? Do we really care what the terrorist's opinion is? Do we not condemn the bastard anyway and string him up regardless of what he thinks and or his opinion? Or does the terrorist's act of terrorism diminish because his mind is warped?

Gggg102, I do admire your tenacity. I play chess and this conversation with you is no different to a 99 move game, and I've enjoyed it. But there comes a time when the defeated has to concede, though I'm aware this is no game with perfectly defined rules and an endgame like chess. But now you've descended to just making it up as you go along. And that, if nothing else, is immoral in my opinion, not that you need consider my opinion, I know, after all, it's just my subjective opinion. But imagine if people were to accept what you're saying here. Would you be pleased?

I would advise you learn more about the phrases and words you use. Objectivity and subjectivity is a very good one, because any one who even tries to understand what they mean ends up being better off for it. And there is a clear difference between morality and the law. It's easy to think one is being objective while their subjectivity gets in the way. But at least be honest to yourself so you don't end up leading yourself astray.

Enjoy Sunday.

Gggg102:
no-one has to swerve to the law. if you had to swerve to the law, the law would be constant. you won't be able to change the law.

So you go to court and present your independently subjectively chosen 'law' and the court swerves, right? I wonder!

What you're saying is if in Nigeria, I am arrested for being homosexual, say, caught in the act too, I just tell the judge that I passed a law yesterday making homosexuality legal, and the judge would say "buda, you not guilty, you may go now". I wonder why I'm giving my self a headache over that law then!

Please forgive me for not taking your word on this. I want a second opinion! You know I like my evidence. And if you just happen to be evily misleading me here, the prize to pay is not exactly small!

Gggg102:
the law can be moral to one and immoral to the other. in a subjective world, which of the two opinion is the truth?

Yes, the law can be perceived (denoting subjectivity) to be morally right or wrong. I, for instance, consider Nigerians anti-gay laws immoral and also abhorrent, and I'm certain you consider UK's pro-gay laws the same way.

Truth according to what or whom however?

Gggg102:
god could have fixed it and allowed us the freedom to delude ourselves, storing up the consequences of disobeying his fixed law.

God could have, but God didn't! And by God not so doing, my free will prevails to change it as I see fit!

Gggg102:
if you become the majority, you make your own law.

And when I do become the majority, I most surely do, and it's what I've done already, which is why here in UK anyone can be a homosexual if that is what they want to be. No one will arrest them for being homosexuals. I even went as far as making it illegal for you to abuse them for being homosexual, not employ them for being homosexual or for you to treat a homosexual any different to how you would treat a heterosexual person. And if you break my laws, I most definitely throw you in jail, or at least impose a fine on you for it, and get you to pay compensation to the homosexual that you offended as well!

It's about time society was disabused of the idea that there's some God in heaven condemning people don't you think? God can wait till they arrive in heaven or hell and impose God law there. Down here on earth, at least in the UK part of it and other more enlightened nations, it's power to buda and her majority, and not some God no one has seen who art in some heaven no one has been to!

Gggg102:
it has been fixed by god that homosexuality is immoral.

If only "god" had used the same type of glue that fixes 1+1=2. I'm very certain we wouldn't have had to argue it as much as we have done now would we!

Gggg102:
you pass the law you WISH to live by.
if I wish to live by theft, I can create a personal moral compass that makes theft moral.

The "law" and "morality" are not the same thing.

Did you yourself not say this somewhere? Why you now mixing up the two?!

No one can arbitrary pass laws they wish to live by.
Anyone can determine how moral or immoral they wish to be!
But when your morals or immorality hits the lighthouse of the law that opposes it, we both know which would have to swerve!

Gggg102:
one is free to determine his own laws.

Nobody, I repeat, nobody at all is free to determine their own law! I cannot go to Nigeria and say "homosexuality is now legal"! And the reason why I can't is that "bias of the majority" that you mention.

We hope that that bias will over time become less bias. We hope more objectivity will replace it. We educate people to this end since we now know that less educated people allow bias to determine their laws and more educated people are more objective.

Again, regardless, laws are not individually determined by any single person, for themselves, or for society as a whole, least not since Moses went up a mountain, and definitely not after we kicked out dictators!

Gggg102:
let me use an example.

1+1=2

no amount of opinion or feeling can make 1+1=anything but 2.

Good example. 1+1=2 wherever one goes provided all the symbols therein mean what they generally mean. No one can independently change it without changing the underlying meaning of the symbols in the statement. Not even God. It does not depend on opinions or feelings. Whatever anyone thinks or does or wherever it is done, 1+1=2. And objectively verifiable tests can be done to verify it. It can therefore be said to be an objectively verifiable truth that 1+1=2.

The law, however, and moreso morality is not of this same type of statement! The law is subjective. It's subjectivity is what makes homosexuality illegal in some places and legal in some places, and why people can make up their morality in their head, or according to their "feelings and opinion" or God's and beliefs (though less so the law, mind, since you can't pass laws by yourself for everyone else). The only way objectivity applies to the law is in its derivation. And by that I mean it was not made on a whim! But it is still subjectively determined, by we subjective human beings, unlike the objective 1+1=2 that one can not change however much one tries.

I feel you might want to, at this point, claim God's law is like 1+1, so let's look at God's very first 1+1:

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Now, if you may, please let me know if the above 1+1, eventually equalled the alleged 2!

Gggg102:
you pass the law you WISH to live by.
if I wish to live by theft, I can create a personal moral compass that makes theft moral. since I create may own moral compass, I can do anything and still consider myself moral. I can always twist the code to make whatever I do moral.

objectivity does not care about wishes.
you are free to do whatever you want, but if you go against the code, you are immoral. you cannot twist the code to make you moral.

You don't "pass the law you WISH to live by". Not if you live in a society amongst other human beings! You can't individually change the law to "theft is good" and use your 'law' to justify stealing from me. When I call police on your ass, they will not tell me they cannot arrest you because you unilaterally changed the law to decriminalise theft! You are mixing up individually determined morals with the law here!

The law is not subject to you changing it as you like. But you can individually decide how moral or immoral you wish to be!

Please note the difference!

Gggg102:
humans determined slavery is immoral, humans can also conclude that slavery is moral. whatever humans conclude is subjective, it is not universal. I don't have to subscribe to your version of morality. I can create my truth.

if god is real, and he decides slavery is moral, no amount of human defiance of god would change that position.
we would just be living in deceit till the time of judgement. no amount of subjective opinion would change an objective truth.

God, supposedly said homosexuality was immoral. But some countries have gone ahead and decriminalised homosexuality, effectively telling God where to go. It's what we do, as human beings.

Humans did at one time, claim slavery was moral, and then claimed their Gods approved! But humans eventually decided it is immoral. God can bloody well do whatever God likes. We humans wouldn't care. And that is exactly what we do.

Humans are way more enlightened these days and know that we are not made for the law, but make laws for ourselves to live by. And rightly so.

The phrase "objective truth" does not apply except n religious rhetoric, and not many buy that stuff anymore. The beginning of wisdom may be the fear of God, but now we got wisdom, God is dead, as far as some are concerned.

Gggg102:
buda does not consider is homosexual self immoral when in Nigeria. buda own personal bias and opinion makes him conclude that homosexuality is perfectly fine.
buda is right in buda's eyes and the law is wrong. that is buda's subjective opinion.

now antibuda might come along and say the law is right, homosexuality is immoral. antibuda's opinion is also shaped by his personal bias. to antibuda, homosexuality is immoral. that is antibuda's subjective opinion.

now whose opinion is the real truth?

Humans have come up with a wonderful way to ensure buda and antibudas don't go passing arbitrary laws.

There was a time when mere claiming some God said, was enough to impose the desired moral behaviour on people. Communal approbation and fear of Gods judgement in the afterlife worked wonders until some people said to hell with the Gods. So God told Samuel to go get Saul, make him a King so he can enforce the law. And that worked for a while until people who didn't worship the same Gods came and lived amongst them. But the emperor's from far away imposed their delegated person to enforce the laws. But the laws were as you described above, buda's law when emperor buda was in power, and antibuda laws when emperor buda wasn't in power with no concern for the people the law applied to. For trust me, while buda and the antibudas were passing laws for the populace, those laws did not quite apply to us!

So, enlightened people came along. Convinced everyone of how hypocritical we were as far as the law was concerned with our imposition of arbitrary non-objective and completely subjective laws on people that we had no intention of obeying ourselves. And convinced the people themselves that they should decide who amongst us get to make the laws, and decide the laws that are made. And it is thence that we have democracy. The election of those who represent our views and who would pass the laws we the people wish to live by, and not some decree from heaven or those buda and antibudas with their arbitrary non-reasoned nor objectively derived laws.

I've shown an example of this process here.

What amazing beings the human race seems to be at solving the problems of their societies.

MuttleyLaff:
Bud is even trying to rope vaxx in too

We have history with this very complex subject. And he has the mind to deal with it!

Gggg102:
if some actions are bad irregardless of anyone's opinion, those actions are objectively immoral.

if morality is subjective, people will steal fornicate or be gay without being actually right or wrong.

No. It does not work that way. We do not speak in vacuums. There has been quite a lot of debate on the phrase "objective morality" and "objective immorality". And trying to make out that God's law is morality that is objective the way you are here is not flying. It is like trying to "bully the other out of the way".

Please read this on the topic to comprehend the complexity involved.

It is subjective individuals that determine a thing to be good or bad. Their opinions matter. Slavery in the Bible is a clear case in point. If we had not defied God, we would still openly be entitled to enslave one another. Homosexuality is another. Nations that deemed it illegal in the past would continue to deem it illegal forever after. But that is not the case anymore.

Gggg102:
when a statement is consistent, unmovable by human opinion, it is objective.

No! It does need some adjustment, as vaxx too pointed out. But I think we are struggling to adjust it, aren't we, vaxx! But let me for now poke out the subjective errors in the above subjective statement.

A statement may be consistent. But a statement is already subjective by the mere fact that it must be made by a subjective individual.

Now, that statement, made by a subjective individual, may itself be immovable, but it is subjects who are failing to move it. And that in itself could be simply because they are being subjective as opposed to objective.

So to claim a subjective statement is immovable by subjective individuals with subjective opinions is incorrect.

Gggg102:
I'm on the verge of banging my head on the floor right now. I just repeatedly banged it on the mattress but that did not kill me.

if you read that post, you would realise I said that the law does not prove morality.
the law is subjective and subjectivity cannot prove morality.

I was replying tintingz who was infering that the law was a guide/proof to morality.

I know I stated somewhere than man is not bound to man's law because it is made by man.

buda does not consider is homosexual self immoral when in Nigeria. buda own personal bias and opinion makes him conclude that homosexuality is perfectly fine.
buda is right in buda's eyes and the law is wrong. that is buda's subjective opinion.

now antibuda might come along and say the law is right, homosexuality is immoral. antibuda's opinion is also shaped by his personal bias. to antibuda, homosexuality is immoral. that is antibuda's subjective opinion.

now whose opinion is the real truth?

the answer is neither. both are subjective opinions. both are biased.

if buda becomes the law, he would probably make homosexuality legal. if antibuda becomes the law, homosexuality remains illegal.

the law cannot be a true source of morality. the law is just a reflection of man's subjective view. the law cannot show true morality and immorality. anyone using the law as his basis of morality blows with the wind. he subjects himself to something that is subject to him. he created the law, he could change it without consequence. man decided homosexuality is immoral , man can also decide it is moral.

man makes the law what he pleases. man shapes the law according to his bias. man's bias in the law makes the law subjective and hence not a real truth. anyone can follow his personal truth and there is no reason why one should give up his truth to follow another person's truth when neither of their truths are real truths.

morality or immorality of homosexuality has to be proven to all men, or all are free to follow their own subjective opinion. homosexuality would neither be moral or immoral. it would be up to individuals to decide based on their bias.

when morality is subjective, nothing is truly moral and nothing is truly immoral.

Bravo, in parts.

You said, "law does not prove morality", and I agree, but when you ask "whose opinion is the real truth?" You are bringing in a different concept, "truth" , which has a completely separate meaning, and to claim "neither" as you did, is wrong!

Take theft, for instance. I might hold it in some stupid head of mine that it's okay for me to rob you. But you would certainly hear me also claim that it is not okay for you to rob me. So even if I were to, erroneously claim (for that is the only sense by which such a claim can be made), that my robbing you is a moral act of mine, I would have some difficulty including the word "truth" in that sentence, wouldn't I? And if I managed to include it in the presence of sensible beings, they are bound to look at me funny.

Now, consider the law that says "theft is wrong and shall be punished". It might be made by subjective individuals, but it is an objective law. Objective in as much as it applies equally to everyone subject to that law. The same applies to homosexuality. The country that passes a law claiming it is illegal has passed an objective law in as much as it has been passed legally and applies to all. And equally so too has a nation that has passed a law saying it is not illegal. Both are saying that their laws apply in their jurisdiction alone, which is why I cannot use the law in America or UK regarding homosexuality as defense in a Nigerian court.

And regarding which is true, both are 'true' under the jurisdiction in which they prevail, in as much as the laws are as stated.

And as to which is morally correct, both are, in their own jurisdictions. I may however live in America and as an individual claim homosexuality is immoral. But that is indeed my subjective opinion, and I would be unable to force my morality on anyone in America but would be able to in Nigeria by simply reporting the homosexual to the police.

Morality, is subjective. It is subjective by virtue of the fact that morality is determined by the subjective individual. The law, which is objectively derived, as you rightly said (albeit subjectively by the mere fact that subjective individuals determine it) does not determine my morality. The law may say one must not steal, but that does not stop me being a thief, nor does it mean theft is morally right, or that "nothing is truly moral and nothing is truly immoral". However I determine to cook it, theft is not morally accepted in the society I live in. And to freely and openly be a thief, I would have to move to a country that has no laws against theft.

The law is some objectively derived mandate procscribing certain actions, while individual morality is subjectively determined by each individual. The law gives moral guidance, but the individual determines their own individual moral stance towards it.

Gggg102:
when I say subjective, I imply that the truth is based on individual opinion and bias. when truth is based on what one considers as truth, it is subjective.

objectivity however is independent of individual opinion and bias. an objective truth is truth whether you like it or not. the whole world might say the opposite, but the truth remains the same.

Well done. Now, tell, how is "objective truth" determined"

Gggg102:
what you are doing here is to try to make me conform to your truth. your truth is no truer than my truth so there is no reason for me to be conformed. afterall our truths are subjective. there is no universal truth. everyone shapes his truth according to his bias.

No! I am not trying to have you "conform to my truth" at all. Do you not remember my advise about you never changing to my atheist view? I do not utter my words lightly or without thought, and neither do I forget what I have said in the past. So please!
It is you who swings both sides confusing yourself! It's why I'm being so patient too. Sometime in the future, you'd read what you have written and your own eyes shall open.

I have consistently said that regardless of what I may cook up in my head, some laws are accepted - murder, theft, and the likes, and whatever I think in my head regarding them is irrelevant. No one would agree that killing people is morally acceptable, baring a few circumstances i.e. war, "America's stand your ground", and such like, and if those things were done to me I'd hardly be pleased.

And I have said that morality of the individual is subjective to the individual. That is the reason that despite objectively or subjectively made laws, subjective humans, god or not, would murder, fornicate, be gay, steal, etc. It's a distinction you continously fail to understand. The word 'individual' gives their morality subjectivity.

Laws (gods' or humans) are assumed to be, or should be, objectively derived. By that, it is meant that actual rationally justifiable reasons are considered before those laws are put in place or changed if necessary.

While the morality of the individual is subjective to the individual, regardless of the objectivity of the law. But when the two collide, the individual is like the American destroyer telling the Canadian lighthouse to get out the way, it wants to go past! The law though, does not bend to individual morality. We both know which must bend.

I'm not asking you to conform to my truth Gggg102. In this same thread you saw someone ask me to convince him of atheism, and you saw me ask him to do what he himself said needs to be done. I am asking you to understand. But if you think the two are the same as you have continously done, then, well. I don't know what to say really. Do know though that despite my responses being to you, there are tons of others who read and learn from this conversation we've been having. So help them God, lol.


This is the transcript of a radio conversation of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. Radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations 10-10-95.

Americans: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision.

Canadians: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.

Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course.

Americans: This is the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, the second largest ship in the United States' Atlantic fleet. We are accompanied by three destroyers, three cruisers and numerous support vessels. I demand that YOU change your course 15 degrees north, that's one five degrees north, or countermeasures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship.

Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

true2god:
The state has the right to take any action to protect the lives and properties of her citizens, including banning the burka, if there are potential security risk identified. This is called commonsense.

P.s. in UK there is nothing like a "State". There are the people though, who elect representatives to Parliament who rule on the people's behalf.

It would be very interesting if UK get to debate a burqa ban in Parliament to be honest. But to, initially propose a burqa ban in UK, a party would have to state it in their manifesto at elections, and win that election.

We had a party who did by the way, and in the last councillor elections, they lost 123 seats, and retained a paltry 3. And at the last parliamentary elections, UKIP lost the single seat they held out of the available 650.

And a ruling party needs 'half of the 650 available seats plus one" to form a government. And without it, can't propose a single bill in parliament!

Hope that indicates how little appetite UK has for such nonsense as a burqa ban!

True2god, you know nothing about buda, and your assumptions about buda make you argue against some imaginary buda you've made up in your head! It kind of makes what you say about buda meaningless to buda in particular, despite buda's understanding of your hatred for Islam.

So, let me inform you a little bit. First, buda would inform you that gods, all of them, are figments of your imagination, things you cook up in your heads and claim exist with absolutely no regard to the evidence. buda does not mind this imaginary creation of gods in people's heads, except that the imaginary cooking up of things in your heads transfers from gods to the entire universe at times as you yourself show by cooking up imaginary atrocities that Muslims have done to you and in UK, and the Muslim hypocrite buda you seem to see before you.

The fact that some countries behave badly does not mean UK, a nation that sees itself as far above the rest, should stoop so low to ignorant nation's levels. UK is a country with Christian values in it's dna. It is not a nation quick to anger, does not disregard evidence and make up silly rhetoric and call it true, remembers history - including what it as a nation has done to others, though quick to forget bad done to it; and UK is most mindful and vigilant of repeating the mistakes of the past, and God, saves the Queen and our most illustrious nation because of all that!

I am not joining you in some argument about who has the biggest god as it would be rather silly arguing which is the biggest amongst two imaginary entities. But one thing I know is that Christianity, which I assume to be your preferred sort of god, does not exactly advocate an eye for an eye as you claim. And the fact that Muslims admire your countries should be a reason to rejoice, since they have seen the good you seem to offer and want some of it. In no time now, they might take it back to their countries and eventually join you in singing Jesus is Lord, so long as you continue to ensure your behaviour is better than their's and don't get frustrated and become like them instead!

true2god:
You are a Muslim hypocrite. Is there equality between the ummah and the 'kafir' in Islamic countries? Mention a single Arab-muslim nation where a kafir is equal to Muslim, both in human and religious right. It is ok for Muslims to praise non-muslim countries for protecting Muslims and Islam but will keep quiet while all Muslim countries oppress religious minorities.

You are not well informed about the old relationship between Austria and Germany. Both countries are one before being balkanized after the WW2 defeat. Both countries are culturally and ethnically homogenous. So be informed.

If you call my writings 'antireligious' rhetorics then you have to condemn your Quran and your hadith that promote the eternal hatred for the Jews and the Christians (Qur'an 5:51, 9:28-30, 98:6. sahih Bukhari 4:52:196).