₦airaland Forum

Gggg102:
I could be indifferent to you doing it to me so I wouldn't care. after all, do me I do you, man no go vex.
even if I feel bad if it is done to me, I might not consider it as immoral if I feel good doing it to others.

Those others not being I, who kicked your ass, right, who knows full well what I did and the motive and intention behind it - the sense I intended to have kicked into you when I kicked you ass?

Yep, it's okay that you are indifferent to me kicking your ass. In fact, since my kicking your ass had no effect in making you any more sensible, it is in fact best that I let you wonder off to inflict yourself on someone else. I'd pray that you meet a person with a bigger boot than I have. Hopefully, they might kick the sense I failed to kick into your ass, into you.

Gggg102:
in Nigeria for instance homosexuality is considered immoral legally while it is considered moral in USA.

you in Nigeria, does the law prove homosexuality is immoral?
does the American law prove homosexuality is moral?

why should one leave his own bias to follow another person's bias?

You are amusingly persistent, I give you that.

The above is a clear example of different countries making laws for themselves. America says "homosexuality is not immoral" (note my careful choice of words here, they are not saying ("homosexuality is moral" ), while Nigeria says "homosexuality is immoral". America decides they shall not persecute people for being homosexuals, while Nigeria says they shall throw homosexuals in jail. You then ask if either country has proven that homosexuality is immoral or moral? And I ask, 'to whom?'

Imagine buda is a homosexual. While she might rather live in America where she is not illegal, she lives in Nigeria. Do tell, does buda homosexual become immoral in buda's eyes just because a law was past against homosexuality? Does buda change her ways because of the law, or does buda not just say "they should come put policeman in my bedroom and arrest me when I homo the stupid idiots, who leave more serious crime unsolved but concern themselves with what I do in the privacy of my bedroom!"

So, I ask again. To whom does the morality or immorality of homosexuality have to be proven?

Gggg102:
what if I don't consider kicking your ass as prickish?

You don't have to consider kicking my ass as prickish since I'd be the one kicking your ass!

Your consideration should be whether I kick your ass hard enough for you to subjectively notice.

Gggg102:
your subjective view is also irrelevant.

in your subjective view, you've been a prick. in my subjective view, your action is fine.
neither view is a real truth.

and that's why I asked for the objectivity of what you consider prickish behaviour. truth is morality is subjective and as such, what you consider prickish might not be considered prickish by me.

subjective morality means there is no clear cut definition of what being a prick is.
everyone defines prickishness according to his bias.
no one's definition is truth as it is subject to bias.

Have you not noticed how I'm not delving into what you call objective and subjective? Those words mean quite a lot more than what you seem to be implying they mean. But if you wish to define how you use them, or see mine, kindly post here. We have rather immorally derailed this thread.

Gggg102:
what if I don't consider poking you in the eye as being prickish?

When I kick your ass, you'd reconsider.

Gggg102:
your subjective view is also irrelevant.

in your subjective view, you've been a prick. in my subjective view, your action is fine.
neither view is a real truth.

and that's why I asked for the objectivity of what you consider prickish behaviour. truth is morality is subjective and as such, what you consider prickish might not be considered prickish by me.

subjective morality means there is no clear cut definition of what being a prick is.
everyone defines prickishness according to his bias.
no one's definition is truth as it is subject to bias.

When I poke my finger in your eye, you'd know what 'being a prick' is!

true2god:
Typical Islamic wrapped thinking without commonsense! So German partial ban of burka has suddenly made me a liar and all other rational argument null and void. Can you 'see' that your IQ level is very low? So Germany is no longer a fascist state (because they partially banned burka) but all the countries that had a full ban in place are fascist?

Maybe you choose to use the word 'fascist' (just like racist) because you are very very familiar with it on the news without even trying to understand the meaning of the word 'fascism' and how the movement started. Opposing an evil ideology (Islam) and its subsidiary lifestyle (its fashions or laws) is not fascism but commonsense.

In the Arab/Muslim world (where fascism and oppression is 100% in practise), issues are not even debated. Laws will be made and if you don't like the law you migrate (hijra) but if you choose to stay and fight against the law you will be killed. This is how Muslim societies operate and this is why Muslims are running away from their own countries out of fear.

Germany is actually not as fascist as Austria, as you'd know if you read the news. Germany has a very embarrassing history that makes them ensure they are not so fascist anymore. It's why they have allowed so many Muslims in, to help wipe out their fascist historical past.

UK has in modern time been liberal. UK in the past, persecuted Protestants, locking them up and all, and at other times, did the same to Catholics, so they learnt their lesson and would not go persecuting others just because of their religions these days. UK even has laws, the Equality Act 2010, to be specific, which makes it illegal to discriminate against anyone because of their age, being or becoming a transsexual person, being married or in a civil partnership, being pregnant or on maternity leave disability, race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion, belief or lack of religion/belief, sex, sexual orientation.

Go read British news today. Two huge items relating to religion gave been trending for weeks. One is the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, being hounded for being anti-semitic. The other is former Foreign Secretary, Conservative Party's Boris Johnson, being hounded for being against Islam.

You go on with your hatred and anti-religious rhetorical lies, and the favouring of one over the other. I get to live in harmony with you all since you aren't exactly as evil as you are making out or shoving it down my throat!

Rest in peace Kofi.

Gggg102:
what if my subjective self is completely okay or indifferent with you being a 'prick' towards me?

what if my subjective self feels it is perfectly fine for you to be a 'prick?' towards me because being a 'prick' would make you feel good and I would have been a 'prick' towards you if I had the chance and I would consider it good?

what if what you consider prickish is what I consider as perfectly fine?

'do me I do you.'

Your subjective view is irrelevant, and your being perfectly fine with me being a prick to you doesn't mean I haven't been a prick to you.

But you know this, or you would not be suggesting to "do me as I do you", which is an admission of my being a prick to you not being "perfectly fine" to you!

Besides, to "prick me as I prick you", you got to know what a prick is!

Gggg102:
what if my subjective self is completely okay or indifferent with you being a 'prick' towards me?

what if my subjective self feels it is perfectly fine for you to be a 'prick?' towards me because being a 'prick' would make you feel good and I would have been a 'prick' towards you if I had the chance and I would consider it good?

what if what you consider prickish is what I consider as perfectly fine?

'do me I do you.'

Your subjective view is irrelevant, and your being perfectly fine with me being a prick to you doesn't mean I haven't been a prick to you.

But you know this, or you would not be suggesting to "do me as I do you", which is an admission of my being a prick to you not being "perfectly fine" to you!

Besides, to "prick me as I prick you", you got to know what a prick is!

Gggg102:
A thinks his morality is better than B and B thinks his morality is better than A. there is no way one can be objectively better than the other since everyone is entitled to their own opinion on what is good.

You are the one claiming C's morality is better than A's morality. You even said As can't have morality, at one time; that A's morality is not underpinned by anything, that A's morality is subjective and can be changed at A's will and so on! So stop being immoral about it now. And everyone is not in anyway entitled to their opinion on what is good, in some particular circumstances!

If you steal from me, murder me or insult me, I'd very much have something to say about your immorality, and the law would if I'm dead! If you however decide to fornicate, abort or be gay (provided you are not in Nigeria), no one would give a damn here on earth except those who think those acts are immoral, but to be honest, not a lot of us care what 'unable to mind their own business people' like that think. They are not some god. And if gods don't like you doing those things, those people should mind their own business anyway since they won't be there when you are being judged by the gods!

Gggg102:
is your definition of a what constitutes a prick objective?

I don't give a damn whether it's objective or not, and I've hardly defined it!

You just trust that if I start being a prick towards you, there is absolutely no way your subjective self would be unaware of it and mistake it for me being nice to you!

true2god:
Britain has suddenly become a rational-minded, reason-reliant nation because the have not also banned the burka. Wow, that's great!

If I get you right, Germany, Denmark and the rest are not 'rational-minded' people because they love their people more that they love pandering to Muslims' weak sensibility. Yes, the Germans are not rationally minded for allowing over 1million Muslim migrants into their country, provided them houses, food and money (which Saudi Arabia will never do even for their fellow Muslim). If the Germans are rational, they will never allow a hostile religion like Islam to invade their country with millions of Muslim migrants.

The same British people you are praising for being tolerant today will dump you as soon as their oil interest in the Arabian world ends.

You are the one who is not rationally minded actually. Where did you get Germany banned the burqa from?

The German parliament has supported a draft law banning women working in the civil service, judiciary and military from wearing full-face Islamic veils.
Burqas and niqabs will be prohibited in selected professions as part of the legislation

I do wonder why you have to lie to promote your ideology. Germany has history and can't possibly pass such a stupid law since it would resemble how they began the extermination of the Jews!

Go learn about the European countries (Austria, France, Denmark) that do have such bans and learn too about fascism, and then you might just understand why some are against it.

Gggg102:
I am not saying atheists can't be moral or they can't have any sense of morality. I am saying that their sense of morality is not gotten from their atheism.

So, an atheist can have morals just like any other human being, right? Thanks. Can I have a compass too? Something that determines my morality is pointing North so that I don't just wake up in the morning and find it pointing in whatever direction it might feel like, please?

No atheist ever told you they got their morals from atheism! Every one of us is taught it by our parents, surroundings, environment and from thinking rationally, and just about anyone can reason rationally and learn from their surroundings, environment and parents. They are not the exclusive property of atheists, and neither are morals the exclusive property of the religious or their gods!

A prick is a prick, period, gods or no gods.

Gggg102:
atheist you does not have to be good or evil as your goodness or evilness does not affect your atheism.

Stop seeing "atheist" as some sort of mindless animal species perhaps. Maybe if you consider that before I am anything, I am a human being first. Then you just might get your head around the muddle you twist yourself into!

Or would you now claim my atheism trumps the fact that I am a human being with feelings, and that my feelings are not affected by "goodness or evilness" done to me because I'm an atheist, and that as an atheist, I can't possibly understand how other human beings may have feelings too that may be affected by my "goodness or evilness" towards them? Or perhaps atheists don't have feelings according to you?

Can I just be a prick, Gggg102, because I am an atheist, and "goodness or evilness" done to me or that which I do to others does not matter?

Where you been?

Anas09:
YES, The Master is LOVE, but not the kind of love talked about by people outside of Christ. You can't know it outside of Christ

Anas09:
For your info, you have no idea what Love Jesus preached. What you people preach is self love only for the brotherhood, that is not the Love the Lord Preached. Jesus' Love is completely selfless and it can not be divulged from Faith in the true God. Satan Loves his own so if you preach love for love sake, you'd get thrown out.

Anas09:
It's very interesting to hear a Camel Urine drinker instruct a Christian on the matters of the Divine. hahahahaha.

Is that the kind of love you talking about perhaps?

Common stones will rise up and preach it to you someday. Then might you get it. In Jesus name, Amen.

Omooba224:
I tell you bro. Religions are good at that so as to keep their adherents in mental slavery. They can never read open-mindedly. The fear of "thou shalt not ask too much questions" is affecting their brains.

It makes me weep tears, I tell you. The book itself is fantastic, and then they wrap it up in religious stupidity and literally crucify the same Christ they claim is saving them. And they have the audacity to claim it is the atheist who is damned! Can they not see that their Lord Jesus the Christ himself was an atheist as far as the Jews of his time were concerned?

I weep serious tears for them! It's a pity there's no afterlife, at least then they would eventually know how silly they have been.

Since atheism does not care what the atheist does, does that mean nothing else could morally ground the atheist so the atheists can go and do whatever they like, because the atheism that has 'no hold on them' has 'unleashed them'?

I perhaps should introduce you to ma and her koboko. I sure would have loved to have you convince her of your view of atheist me that you hold on to here, except I'd have to deal with her eventual stupidity if she were to accept it and I'd rather not have to, thank you very much.

In your mind, somehow, you seem to be equating atheism to some sort of divine thing, like it's a god or some sort of religion, albeit a bad one, which any atheist would tell you is not the case, but which you just refuse to accept. You've done this from the very first post of yours I've seen, but you just can't seem to stop assuming. Goes to show how open you mind isn't I suppose, contrary to whatever you seem to think.

Reality does not support you on this view of yours and you have not provided anything to convince anyone that there's any sense in your opinion. I know someone who would, but you'd have go find that supporting person. Hopefully, before then though, I'd be done here; you know how the ape and I just can't get on.

I just wish evidence would play a part in your opinion, but, well, I don't always get what I wish for I guess, so you go ahead making atheist me up in your head, why don't you, while claiming it is I, buda, who is confused.

Gggg102:
you must be confusing my statement atheists doing whatever they like to mean atheists have no hold on themselves. they are unleashed.
what I mean is that atheism does not care how you live your life. you could become a saint, or you could become the devil. atheism does not care at all.
atheism offers no moral position.

that atheism doesn't care what you do gives you freedom to live your life(good or evil or anything else) without jeopardizing yourself with respect to your atheism. your being saintly/devilish does not affect your atheism, so you are free(not bound by atheism) in this regard.

Gggg102:
I don't think Jesus meant god's law can be changed by man when he said that. I think he meant they could be suspended if doing so would lead to greater good.

So, even God's law is subjective after all? To be changed by subjective human beings, by their subjective opinion of the subjective "greater good" ?

You should take up comedy. You sure do make me laugh, subjectively!

MuttleyLaff:
The first murder occurred before the advent of the atheist.
The first murder occurred before the law of the land had statutes that would or would not agree with it
The same first murder occurred, before the advent of the christian

The first murder occurred, without God saying a, "dont" or without God saying any "Thou shall not..."
The cry for justice, the complaint, is the reason why it isnt OK to murder another person

When did the first murder occur, muttley?

Gggg102:
if you are moral, it is not because you are atheist. atheism has no position on morality. atheism does not tell you how to live.

Correct.

Gggg102:
an atheist is free to live however he likes. my original position.

Wrong! And a Scotsman fallacy indeed! That second statement does not automatically follow from the premise in the first, and is the error you keep making.

Just read what you yourself wrote, and perhaps you'd see the muddle you are creating for yourself.

If "atheism has no position on morality", how then does it follow that the very same atheism, that has "no position on morality", now gives one the "position to freely do as one morally wishes"?

Is "choosing to do as one morally wishes" not a "position", which you, in your second statement, is claiming "atheism gives one", despite claiming "atheism has no position on morality" in the first statement?

Go rest. You must be exhausted by now!

Gggg102:
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.

You are wrong in thinking the morals of the atheist you described is determined by the atheist. Somewhere in that atheist's lifetime, someone would have informed him that killing was unacceptable. If they hadn't he should have been killing people from when he was young, but when he got caught, he would have been told again.

Your slavery in the Bible is a clear example of humans determining the law, and then claiming they dropped down from God in heaven. Unless you want to claim God made a mistake initially, and subsequently changed it's mind.

The fact is that we humans determine morality. Some, like don't murder, don't steal, are almost so universally accepted and ancient that they seem to have dropped down from God. But even in the Bible, murder was abhorred by those non-Yahweh worshipping Egyptians whom God never gave the law to or Moses would have had no need to flee. And if theft wasn't on the list, do you think any society could survive if it were okay for someone to go harvest my crops in my farm without some law to protect me? Do you think anyone would farm under such circumstances? And wouldn't we all starve to death?

Societies pass laws because they come to the realisation for the need for them. Slavery, as you pointed out, is a clear example. The abolition of discriminatory homosexual laws and anti abortion laws in some countries are clear examples.

You accused me once of arguing unnecessarily. I shouldn't be thinking you were complaining about the speck in my eye now, or should I?

Gggg102:
yes.

that's why I said in a realistic view it is subjective.
I think morality would/should be objective in an ideal world.

I see you've been struggling with this topic a while! You got somewhere here, but now I think you have backslided. God presents the "ideal", according to some. However, when Jesus came along and disobeyed God's own given Sabbath law by asking the Pharisees if they would not jump in the well to save their sheep on the Sabbath, can you see how he is claiming that even God's laws are circumstantial, and not as rigid as some think? “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” he said. Don't you think he is saying humans make the laws they live by, at the least?

I wonder if you have heard of the "stand your ground laws" introduced in America? Basically, under certain circumstances, I could murder you and still not have committed a crime. Wouldn't you say that as far as humans are concerned, the law is what we make it?

Now, listen to Paul. Man is not made for the law

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" ?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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" ?

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".