₦airaland Forum

FxMasterz:
I've forgotten the author's name. He's an unpopular author but that single volume was a hit, and I thought it should be discovered online by just referencing the book's title.

You obviously don't know how to seek until you find, which is no surprise since you forgot the title and authors name.

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/a/borden-deal-7/the-tobacco-men/

FxMasterz:
Don't let us deceive ourselves just because we want to hold on to some ideologies.

You yourself know some things you'll do without knowing any government law, but after doing such, you'll immediately run away or seek to cover up your tracks even in places where there are no Governments.

See the images below:

Go back to the beginning of the thread and you might see my point.

budaatum:
It is very objectively wrong for you to murder me or lie to me or commit fraud on me or cheat me or for me to do any of those things to others based on their religion, region, tribe, race or gender. And it is definitely not right for me to murder you or lie to you or commit fraud on you or cheat you regardless of your religion.

If you studied the history of the evolution of humans you'd know better. We not only stole with impunity, we murdered and cheated and lied and raped too, until we evolved to understand how detrimental it was to us and society. It is universally accepted that stealing is morally wrong, but that does not mean some do not steal. But why is it wrong, you should ask.

Well, if I steal (your farm produce, or wife or children), from you, I'd need to stand watch over what I stole so you can't steal it back, which means I would not be able to go do anything productive. And if you do manage to steal it back, I might have to hire some people to help me steal it back from you. The to and fro of our stealing from each other would eventually end up with one of us killing the other so no more stealing occurs between us, but there's others who might steal from me after you are dead which is detrimental to all since it would result in complete eradication of that society.

Humans, being the thinking beings that we are, would eventually pass laws against stealing therefore, so they can keep what they have instead of having it stolen without recourse, hence laws you now claim came from gods, when in fact we created gods to make the laws more effective. It's after all more effective you being convinced that some god said "thou shalt not steal" from me, as opposed to me saying it, especially if you are convinced gods will punish you if you steal. Or perhaps you don't think I could be wise and smart enough to say "God said" what buda is saying. Do note that I do not leave it to gods to punish you for stealing from me, but would also pass sentence on you for stealing from me, which would not be the case if it were laws of the gods.

As an aside, Nigeria, as a society, has not evolved that far as to pass and enforce laws against stealing yet. If we had, our political leaders would universally accept that stealing public funds is immoral and detrimental to the society, and we the electorate would not elect thieves. But for now, ọmọ wa ni, so let them steal, unfortunately, which would not be the case if we adopted the moral laws of say China which dictates the chopping off of the head of political thieves, which shows how simple "thou shalt not steal" is not universal nor objective but very subjective indeed.

Seems you are quoting from the Book of Sirach, which is otherwise known as Ecclesiasticus. No, it is not in the Bible read by Protestants, but you'd find it in any Catholic Bible though they'd tell you it is not doctrine for today.

Only brain-dead irresponsible immature uneducated people would believe that "Sin began with a woman, and we must all die because of her".

Glad you found it though. It is the beginning of you acquiring knowledge, which would undoubtedly evolve to you gaining wisdom.

FxMasterz:
There are generally and universally accepted moral laws.

State those "generally and universally accepted moral laws", and let's see how general and universally accepted they are.

Steep:
My world view is not subjective, I believe what is wrong is wrong universally because there is a universal creator. Atheism cannot allow for objective morality.

What is wrong is not universally wrong. Some countries kill criminals while some don't. Homosexuality is wrong is some countries and not wrong in some. Some religions condone lying and deceit under certain circumstances while some don't under any circumstance. Some regard women as equal to men while some think women are men's ribs. Some don't think it wrong to say fuq god while some say fuq god whenever they feel.

Morality is subjective. What is moral for you might not be moral for me, as you yourself are showing by claiming atheists have a different morality because they have no gods.

Obrigardo:
Please, that's the job of the twitter trolls, the confused and criminally aligned GOP in the house and uninformed angry malignant trolls like basilico loco

Can't wait for primaries when gops will roast dump so Dems don't need to.

Obrigardo:
Hmmm I don't know how that will change the politics in Washington if that were to happen. But President Biden would be so saintly, more than the pope to pardon a perennial unrepentant criminal trump.

I bet the day will come when faux news will start debating on why President Biden should pardon criminal trump. Thinking about it is just funny lol

It would be good for Biden and humiliate dump, though I'm certain dump would brush it off as some conspiracy or something. I'd at least feel the pleasure of rubbing the pardon in that basilicoloco's face.

FxMasterz:
Please and thank you are not the moral laws where discussing here.

You and I know that universally accepted moral laws exist. The universe itself operates on some scientific laws which were not set by man. Someone higher than man set them.

Those universally accepted moral laws and the scientific laws that govern our universe are pointers to the existent of a God.

What is moral is not universal, and morality has nothing to do with scientific laws. If you throw an apple in the air it will universally, on earth at least, fall to the ground, but there's no universal accepted law to dictate what would happen to you if you kill someone. The law might consider you committed manslaughter or even acted in self defence. The clue is in accepted. Some countries accept homosexuality as moral while some wouldn't mind stoning homosexuals.

As for the existence of your God, sorry but that's irrelevant to me. It's not as if God would do anything to you if you killed anyone or were homosexual.

Obrigardo:
I don't think magadonian cultists like basilico loco and co are ready for what's coming. Criminal trump will die in jail. I predicted he will lose the republiqan primary and Deathsantis will win it and I stand by that.

This is still June!

If he is jailed, Biden will humiliate him by pardoning him. I hope.

Steep:
My world view is not subjective, I believe what is wrong is wrong universally because there is a universal creator. Atheism cannot allow for objective morality.

Sorry, but I do not think you have sufficient intellectual capacity for this conversation so I'm going to let you be.

FxMasterz:
Moral laws are unwritten universal laws. Everyone automatically knows what's morally wrong or right.

This is so not true. Just as you would not say please and thank you if your parents never taught you to, so too would you not learn not to lie and cheat and steal if no one taught you not to.

HacheNoire:
The morafvcker about to be roasted!

The morbidly obese orange turd will finally be humbled!

The first illiterate to govern a nation!

This needed an image, so.....

Steep:
My world view is that God created everybody so doing harm to anybody is wrong universally, atheism has no room for this.

Your subjective worldview no doubt, which is why you claim rape is not wrong if your God says rape is right. I can just about hear you claim your God told you to rape and cheat and murder and lie.

Not only are you subjective, but your God sounds subjective too, which is why most societies do not leave right or wrong to gods.

Steep:
We all agree it is wrong but we all cannot explain why it is wrong, and atheist cannot explain why something is wrong objectively, that is the case.

I have explained why it is wrong for you to "murder, lying, fraud, cheating" me, and why it is wrong for me to "murder, lying, fraud, cheating" you. Kindly read it below for understanding.

There is the objective law of any land that will charge you for those crimes, and the prison you'd end up in is very objective indeed.

budaatum:
It is very objectively wrong for you to murder me or lie to me or commit fraud on me or cheat me or for me to do any of those things to others based on their religion, region, tribe, race or gender. And it is definitely not right for me to murder you or lie to you or commit fraud on you or cheat you regardless of your religion. Besides, if I do any of those things to you, I lack the privilege of excusing myself by asking some God to forgive me so I can go sin again.

basilico:
I always paste any link I find interesting here for future purposes Sometimes I dignify you with a response.
Whatever I post here is for my references and in some cases to educate you sorry arse.

Educate yourself first before trying to educate others.

Steep:
objective morality means what is wrong or right is not dependent on individual choice

The wrongness of murder, lying, fraud, cheating does not depend on individual choice. Before your Yahweh was created, Egypt, Rome, Greece, China and Yorubas along with most societies, all had laws against those wrongs. Most societies figured out for themselves that those things are detrimental to society and are therefore wrong and did not need any gods to tell them that.

Steep:
But Nigeria and Islamic countries are theistic apart from that the argument is simple,
Atheism has no basis for objective morality.

What is objective morality?

Steep:
No Not just because yaweh decreed it but morality exist because we are all created by God and therefore has innate value, the atheistic world view does not allow for such.

So, becoming an atheist removes what you claim is innate? Did your God not create the atheist?

Steep:
that is because those countries are borrowed from Judeo-Christian world view.
The argument is that atheism has no basis for morality and so far no reasonable reply.

Nigeria did not borrow from Judeo-Christian world view before the so called Judeo-Christian world view was sold to you. In fact, the Islamic world view arrived in Nigeria before Christianity did, and we had laws against murder, lying, fraud, cheating before it arrived, which at this point makes me wonder what you know about this topic.

Obrigardo:
Oh I want to wipe him with the floor. He is so irrelevant now but I love beating a dead horse, the last maga cultist stronghold.

Well, my view is below, though I do love beating dead basilico too.

LordReed:
Actually what is happening to you is the opposite of being enlightened.

He is being endarkened.

Steep:
without the concept of God there is no absolutely right and wrong.

Rubbish! Countries that don't do your God still have the absolute wrongs of murder, lying, fraud, cheating. We Nigerians had laws against those wrongs before your God arrived there.

Steep:
Why is it objectively wrong?

Objectivity is not wrong. Subjective humans should however not claim objectivity when they are obviously subjective.

Obrigardo:
Budaatum just see the immediate effect of this ruling. Now the Dems have a great chance of adding 2 seats from AL alone! Rethugs also got smacked down in Pennsylvania hours ago. These crooks have been violating the Voting Rights Acts for years to maintain their dwindling stronghold - it's quite clear they are the true minority.

But this deadbeat basilico will always find a way to misconstrue facts to fit his hatefilled heart.

You spend far too much time on this hate filled basilico. By now his opinion should have been relegated to the irrelevance it deserves

We did at the time say their gerrymandering was illegal.

https://wapo.st/3NlBSaa

Steep:
You cannot be an atheist and have an objective morality meaning morality values that is true to everyone regardless of region, tribe, race or gender?

Meaning you cannot say murder, lying, fraud, cheating, or any vice is objectively wrong but that does not mean that atheists are not moral only that they have no basis to say this or that is absolutely wrong.

Nonsense! It is very objectively wrong for you to murder me or lie to me or commit fraud on me or cheat me or for me to do any of those things to others based on their religion, region, tribe, race or gender. And it is definitely not right for me to murder you or lie to you or commit fraud on you or cheat you regardless of your religion. Besides, if I do any of those things to you, I lack the privilege of excusing myself by asking some God to forgive me so I can go sin again.

Atheists, I'd say, would in fact mostly have an objective morality as opposed to the subjective morality that a religious person might have, especially since some religions approve of murder, lying, fraud, cheating where other religions, region tribe, race or gender are concerned. It is after all not atheists who pour petrol on thieves and set them alight on Nigerian streets, and being a pastor does not mean one may not lie or cheat others.

That said, a person's morality is always mostly subjective to the person regardless, though we can all accept that some things like murder, lying, fraud and cheating are objectively, and should be subjectively wrong too.

A40:
I didn't say it's a problem. I'm just being honest. Stroll in any other circumstances based on performances will not be on a roster if his dad didn't own a team

Mind you I have nothing against a nepotism baby. The goal is to have enough so I can also practice nepotism for my seed.

He's an ok driver but on merit no chance he's on a roster if his dad didn't own Aston Martin team.

I think on merit you might have to eliminate a few other drivers before you get to eliminate Lance. He is 8th in the championship, so about 12 with lesser performance would be eliminated from F1 before him. His father is not the one driving his son's Aston Martin afterall, and before his father owned a team, Lance was in F1, albeit as a pay driver.

Lance Stroll's prior Championship wins are listed below, and by all accounts show he is a reasonably competent driver worthy of being in F1 as many with less achievements are on the grid.

MrBrownJay1:
every so often, someone makes a great car and have the perfect driver to take it to "rocketship status", ....RBR with Vettel was such time, Mercs with Hamilton was such time, and now RBR with Max is such time again.

BTW Monaco is a street circuit and Perez was nowhere to be seen (thanks to his falling under pressure antics).

And Schumacher at Benetton and later at Ferrari was such "great car..... perfect driver", as was Alonso at Benetton, and Hakkinen and Prost and Senna at McLaren. It's not alway great car though, as the likes of Piquet and Schumacher winning in multiple cars might suggest,

A40:
Well this one hits different when your dad owns the team. Job security is 1000%

If Lance was not reasonably competent I doubt his father would waste his money, and if Lance was no good, no amount of father's money would keep him in F1 for long as good engineers et al would refuse to work for the joke the team would become and his father's money and patience would likely soon run out unless he too is incompetent at counting his own money, though he'd still have accountants and advisers.

I don't quite see a problem here. Most of us would love our parents to be like Lance's parent, trusting us and investing in us as his does, and if the team were not making his father money (or other forms of satisfaction) I'm certain he'd spend his money elsewhere.

Read about Lawrence Stroll. You'd find he has a brain that works well.