₦airaland Forum

mumumugu:
Some people get confused between an 'atheist' and an 'anti-theist'.

To be an atheist, you simply need to lack a belief in a deity. To be an anti-theist, you need to deliberately oppose theism.


Many atheists are indifferent to God belief and some even support the belief in God or the institutions that uphold that belief because they think our society is based on religious morals, symbology etc. and may think that to get rid of religion would be dangerous, even if they don't actually believe in the truth of those religions or more specifically, their God claim.



For example, there is a line between being a moderate religious person, a fundamentalist and an extremist. There is also a difference between an anti-theist who opposes theism using words and arguments from those who would like to see state sanctioned atheism, where there is no such thing as freedom of religion.


In the extreme, both are equally dangerous and need to be guarded against - a state that seeks to enforce atheism on its citizens is as dangerous as a theocracy that tries to impose belief of a deity on its citizens.


There are a great many anti-theists who wouldn't want to force non-belief on anyone else but who also believe that society would be better off if people came to the conclusion that there were no God on their own.


Surprisingly enough, there are even theists who are anti-theists.

You could conceivably run across a theist who believes in a God or Gods but believes that a belief in God is harmful to society.

You can also find anti-theist atheists who attack other atheists when they defend religion or try to poke holes in their arguments. The anti-theist might argue that the atheist who somehow supports other theist is standing in the way of progress


A person who packs a live bomb into a church because they want to wipe all religion out is just as dangerous as someone who wishes to burn non-believers at the stake. People - whether religious or non-religious - need to work together to defend against the extremists of any ideology. .
Trying to impose your beliefs on others is the opposite of freedom and leads to tyranny.
Like I said at the beginning of this article, it's really a matter of degree.

I doubt anyone does anything dangerous in the name of "atheism"...
You can't see an atheist ISIS group because atheism vouches for no position on attitudes towards theists..
Only dictatorships where people have motives to eliminate religions do such e.g nazism or communism.. people then tag "atheism did it" as though atheism is a creed.

sinequanon:
Well I guess we have different ideas of what arrogance is, too.

not different ideas.....you are merely denying the fact of it.

Everybody who speaks has to justify themselves to you, otherwise they are arrogant. That's ironic! LOL!

Claiming you have knowledge and then refusing to give that knowledge because others do not think as you do is arrogance...no matter how you look at it

(You are right, in some respects, though. I am arrogant enough to say each to his own, and mean it. Bye!)

You've merely displayed your arrogance and bigotry towards others who don't think as you do.

yinkuscious:
a dead man can regret if he misses the road while alive, because only d flesh die, d spirit never die

what is a spirit? and how do you know it can't die?

yinkuscious:
this I know, one day everone will die, the atheist and those that have something to believe in will either regret their faith or lack of faith.

How can a dead man regret?

sinequanon:
There is no arrogance. Quite the opposite.

I accept that people are different and I can only discuss "consciousness" with people who share my characterization of it.

The bolded is your arrogance and bigotry..you can only share a conversation with people who also share your own "characterization".

Maybe there are people with whom you have a way of discussion "consciousness" (maybe through scientific "definition".)

You are right...honest people will give a clear definition of what they mean.
And I merely asked for your definition..doesn't have to be a scientific one.

What is arrogant about respecting differences. I am not forcing my opinion on you.

I know you aren't enforcing an opinion on me,but giving broad statements of knowledge you can't and will not justify because others don't share it is arrogance.

sinequanon:
You have already decided it is "false", so I ignored you because there is no point in pursuing it.

I explained why your notions were false several times...from you not discerning the difference between an ad hominem attack and an insult to your view that they've supported themselves a priori.

The people I viewed addressed your issues with a dash of funny
anecdotes and insults.

sinequanon....you claim you "know" you have "consciousness" yet you cannot give a definition of what you mean...nor explain how you "know" but claim since I do not "know" and not "in the same wavelength" therefore the argument is over?
What makes you different from an arrogant theist who'd claim knowledge that cannot be justified?

sinequanon:
You've lost track already.

You ask me what people are doing wrong.

Then you confuse the answer with what I think is valid.

I can't continue our discussion if you lose track.

I did not lose track....you claimed many false premises about the people you argued with....of which I asked you how you arrived at those false premises,you ignored the question and instead accused me of doing so myself(below)

sinequanon:
It is not a preconception (that was your preconception ). I got it
from the various behaviours on this forum,

Then you gave "examples" of the "various behaviours" you got from this forum.
Now after analyzing those "examples" you finally claimed I "lost track"?..

sinequanon:
I said," seemingly less complex." If your answer is that it is more complex, then say so, and don't beat about the bush.

Then we can discuss what is complex, and compare the complexity with the evolution of the eye.

Sorry about the lecture in the rest of your post. I couldn't tie it in with the thread. What is it for? I can ramble on about ToE as well.

My position is not based on eyes being derived by level of "complexity".
Evolution doesn't work by what you perceive as "complexity".

sinequanon:
It is not a preconception (that was your preconception ). I got it from the various behaviours on this forum, for example.

okay.

Examples:

You decide on the validity of an opinion based solely on which side you think the person is on, even if they are sprouting rubbish.

No,an arguments validity lies on its merits...

You regurgitate a line of reasoning that you don't even understand, for the purposes of supporting your "side".

Like?

You make posts that don't touch on the subject matter and try to hide your ignorance behind spin and ad hominem "attacks".

okay...you do know the difference between an ad hominem and an insult right?
The people I viewed addressed your issues with a dash of funny anecdotes and insults.

You are a cheerleader.

?

No, it is not a lack of a belief. (That is another glib phrase that people tend to parrot.)

Lack of a belief would be to say you DON'T KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

"god" has never been established to be in existence from the onset(otherwise I wouldn't be an atheist) and I have no knowledge of such,it is the claims that people attribute to and from "god/gods" that are rejected... thus I am an agnostic atheist.

To have an opinion on the matter is to have a belief.

True...although such opinions may not be justified with evidence..hence may not be constituted as knowledge but rather "make-believe"

sinequanon:
It is not about goals. It is about probability.

okay.

If the probability of the eye evolving is so high, that it evolved independently several times, then why hasn't something apparently less complex, like infrared vision, evolved.

Can you tell us how you determined infra-red vision to be less complex?
For a creature to develop infra-red vision it has to see below the visible red range of vision...creatures already see above this region...the structure of the eye is already specialized above the infra-red region.

It didn't take a pre-established goal for the eye to evolve independently many times, did it?

No it didn't,it took generations of successful variations of it to establish the norm each species now possess..

Did you not understand the OP?

Evolution works on existing structures...any structure that is already present but does not give a net negative mutation and is heritable would not be selected against.
Our vision is good enough not to be selected against.
This is why ostriches still have hollow bones and why we still eat and breathe through the same place..
Evolution doesn't need "perfection"...just viable structures that work,those then become the norm.
Because the eucharyotes were viable...anything derived from that lineage would be eucharyotic...because mammals are viable anything that is produced from that lineage would still be a mammal....because homonids are viable anything that is derived from it would still be a homonid.

sinequanon:
I don't define consciousness.

Then I cannot tell what you mean when you use the word,consciousness is a vague term....
A definition is needed so as to talk on the same plane field and not arbitrarily.

I know/experience consciousness.

Telling me you "know/experience" consciousness tells me nothing of what you mean.
For all I know what you call "consciousness" might be a fuzzy euphoric feeling you get from time to time.

Do you?

I can't say because you are yet to give me your definition.

An additional question: do you believe you have free will, or do you believe the materialist position that you are a machine with an illusion of free will?

What is "free-will"?

sinequanon:
Myself, I think that consciousness is fundamental and pervasive.

How do you define consciousness?

sinequanon:
Some of this may be true for atheism as a philosophical position.

But I don't think it is true for atheism as a political movement.

In either case it has to evolve beyond the Dawkins style which many scientists and atheists see as an embarrassment.

One major reason atheism is failing is the tendency to argue in political mode during philosophical debate. This involves a kind of foolish hypocrisy -- foolish because it is so evident and only serves to trash the atheist's credibility. It also highlights the philosophical weakness, in that they are forced into spin to make their argument.

But atheism will never succeed, anyway. It is too narrow an outlook, usually based on fear of what it erroneously believes to be the only alternative -- religion/worship etc.

Can you tell us where you got the bolded preconceptions from?
By all means....how does one "argue in political mode"?
And what do you mean "atheism" is "narrow minded" when it is merely the lack of a belief? And is the acceptance of a belief "open mindedness"?

sinequanon:
Another one who thinks it is about "who's side you are on".

Theists think I am an atheist.

Atheists think I am a theist.

It is neither.

It's called freedom of thought, and ability to think critically.

You missed the point of my THOUGHT experiment.

It is not about what has been discovered, but poses the question of how we would recognize lifeforms which take on a completely different form to the ones we are familiar with -- or even have no form in the conventional sense -- like a field.

I believe the criteria for anything to be said to be living should encompass all these:
If it is metabolic.
If it is composed of individual substituents(cells) or exist as such.
If it grows.
If it responds to stimuli.
If it reproduces.
If it changes over time(evolves).
And if it can maintain a stable internal environment(homeostasis)..

italo:
Show us evidence that Copernicus was burned alive.

What was Galileo threatened for?

Who was killed unjustly?

Catholic history is far more just than the rest of human history. The Catholic Church is the biggest charity organization the world has ever seen, giving life to billions since inception.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science
Historically, the Church has often been a patron of sciences. It has been prolific in the foundation of schools, universities and hospitals, and many clergy have been active in the sciences. Historians of science such as Pierre Duhem credit medieval Catholic mathematicians and philosophers such as John Buridan, Nicole Oresme and Roger Bacon as the founders of modern science.

Catholic scientists, both religious and lay, have led scientific discovery in many fields. From ancient times, Christian emphasis on practical charity gave rise to the development of systematic nursing and hospitals and the Church remains the single greatest private provider of medical care and research facilities in the world. Following the Fall of Rome, monasteries and convents remained bastions of scholarship in Western Europe and clergymen were the leading scholars of the age - studying nature, mathematics and the motion of the stars (largely for religious purposes). During the Middle Ages, the Church founded Europe's first universities, producing scholars like Robert Grosseteste, Albert the Great, Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas, who helped establish scientific method. During this period, the Church was also a great patron of engineering for the construction of elaborate cathedrals. Since the Renaissance, Catholic scientists have been credited as fathers of a diverse range of scientific fields: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) prefigured the theory of evolution with Lamarckism; Friar Gregor Mendel (1822–84) pioneered genetics and Fr Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) proposed the Big Bang cosmological model. The Jesuits have been particularly active, notably in astronomy. Church patronage of sciences continues through elite institutions like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Vatican Observatory.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Western_civilization
The role of the Catholic Church in Western civilization has been intricately intertwined with the history and formation of Western society. Through its long history, the church has been a major source of social services like schooling and medical care; inspiration for Western art, culture and philosophy; and influential player in politics and religion. In various ways it has sought to affect Western attitudes to vice and virtue in diverse fields. It has, over many centuries, promulgated the teachings of Jesus within the Western World and remains a source of continuity linking modern Western culture to classical Western culture.

While the West is no longer universally Catholic, the Catholic heritage remains strong in Western countries: festivals like Easter and Christmas are marked universally as public holidays; Pope Gregory XIII's Gregorian Calendar has been adopted internationally as the civil calendar; and time itself is measured by the West from the assumed date of the birth of the Church's founder, Jesus of Nazareth: the Year One AD (Anno Domini, and not year "0" which doesn't exist in this system).

The cultural influence of the Church has been vast. Church scholars preserved literacy in Western Europe following the Fall of Rome. During the Middle Ages, the Church rose to replace the Roman Empire as the unifying force in Europe. The cathedrals of that age remain among the most iconic feats of architecture produced by Western civilization. Many of Europe's universities were also founded by the church at that time. The Reformation brought an end to religious unity in the West, but the Renaissance masterpieces produced by Catholic artists like Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Raphael at that time remain among the most celebrated works of art ever produced. Similarly, Catholic sacred music by composers like Vivaldi, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Shubert and Verdi is among the most admired classical music in the Western canon.

The papacy has been intricately involved in European politics: Pope Leo the Great met Attila the Hun in 452, and persuaded him to turn back from his invasion of Italy; Pope Leo III proclaimed Charlemagne as King of the Romans at the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire; Pope Clement VII refused to annul the marriage of Henry VIII, thus prompting the English Reformation; and Pope John Paul II is widely credited as having hastened the Collapse of Communism in Europe. Rivalry between princes and popes and theological disputes contributed to several political conflicts in Western history, but the papacy also acted as peace broker and arbiter between rival rulers. Many have criticized actions of the church that had a profound effect on Western society; of particular note are the harsh practices of the Roman and Spanish Inquisitions, the suppression of the ideas of Galileo Galilei, and the church's historical treatment of women. Into the modern era, the church has remained prominent in topical debates: from the 1839 papal condemnation of slavery, to 1937's papal attack on Nazism, to Pope John Paul II's condemnations of the Iraq War of 2003, the church has tried to fulfill a compassionate role in the world.

The Bible and Catholic theology have also strongly influenced Western philosophers and political activists. The teachings of Jesus, such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan, are among the important sources for modern notions of Human Rights and the welfare measures commonly provided by governments in the West. Long held Catholic teachings on sexuality and marriage have also been both influential and (in recent times) controversial.

Catholicism played a role in ending practices such as human sacrifice, slavery,[1] infanticide and polygamy.[2] Christianity in general affected the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infants were more likely to be killed), divorce, incest, polygamy, birth control, abortion and marital infidelity.[3] While official Church teaching[4] considers women and men to be complementary (equal and different), some modern "advocates of ordination of women and other feminists" argue that teachings attributed to St. Paul and those of the Fathers of the Church and Scholastic theologians advanced the notion of a divinely ordained female inferiority.[5] Nevertheless, women have played prominent roles in Western history through the Catholic Church, particularly in education and healthcare, but also as influential theologians and mystics. The important status of the Virgin Mary gave notions of maternal virtue and compassion a place at the heart of Western civilization.

While the Church has clashed throughout history with rival Western forces such as paganism, Orthodox Christianity, Protestantism, and communism and its influence is much diminished from its zenith, the immensity of the Catholic contribution to the West's heritage is undeniable. Catholicism is still the majority religion of several major Western countries, including Brazil, Mexico, Italy, France, Spain, and Poland and it is the religious affiliation of a significant and growing minority in countries like the United States and Australia.

And these are coming from secular sources o.

Go on and deny what the whole world knows.
1. You are yet to provide evidence of rape

2. Even if a few soldiers did wrong during the crusades, it wouldn't mean the crusades was not a good thing meant to liberate people from the ISIS of that time. The Allied forces did a good thing by fightin Hitler but were all Allied troops well behaved? Think well, for once.

3. Is this the same "Raymond d'Agiles" that other historians see as a dubious historian? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_D%27Aguilers


The Soviet, Cambodian, Chinese, Albanian and N Korean govts were Atheist govts and they persecuted religion and killed tens of millions. There are many more examples.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
Throughout the history of the Soviet Union (1922-1991), Soviet authorities suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on the particular era. Soviet policy, based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs.[1]

The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept.[4][5] The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million.[6][7][8]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/anti.html
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

Vox Day notes concerning atheism and mass murder:
“ Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.
The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!"

The evidence is overwhelming! Only a lunatic will deny it!

All you did was quote mine the catholic church being charitable and all the likes....then quote mined a quote linking atheism/atheists to communism....and tag it off with "evidence is overwhelming" when the majority of your posts were cherry-picked.
I could also go and quote mine the various s3x scandals of the church...and link catholicism with nazi russia.
And it was giodarno bruno who was burnt at the state for advancing a copernican system(i left that out,thinking it was copernicus)

"Beginning in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges including denial of several core Catholic doctrines (including the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and Transubstantiation). Bruno's pantheism was also a matter of grave concern.[4] The Inquisition found him guilty, and in 1600 he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori. After his death he gained considerable fame, particularly among 19th- and early 20th-century commentators who regarded him as a martyr for science"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
Now,how many "donations" the church makes today....makes it right to burn someone alive....?
This was ofcourse the norm for heresy....
since you,re so good at referencing wiki pages why not wiki the salem witch trials and see the evils done in the name of christianity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

[b] "And now Nineteen persons having been hang'd, and one prest to death, and Eight more condemned, in all Twenty and Eight, of which above a third part were Members of some of the Churches of N. England, and more than half of them of a good Conversation in general, and not one clear'd; about Fifty having confest themselves to be Witches, of which not one Executed; above an Hundred and Fifty in Prison, and Two Hundred more accused; the Special Commision of Oyer and Terminer comes to a period."
— Robert Calef


"When I put an end to the Court there ware at least fifty persons in prision in great misery by reason of the extream cold and their poverty, most of them having only spectre evidence against them and their mittimusses being defective, I caused some of them to be lettout upon bayle and put the Judges upon consideration of a way to reliefe others and to prevent them from perishing in prision, upon which some of them were convinced and acknowledged that their former proceedings were too violent and not grounded upon a right foundation ... The stop put to the first method of proceedings hath dissipated the blak cloud that threatened this Province with destruccion."
— Governor William Phips, February 21st, 1693


I,m sure these are the "just" acts you were talking about earlier.

And your rebuttal of raymond agiles as dubious is not regarding the events of the killings but of his accounts of various hear-say to raise up certain people.
[b] "Like many of the Crusaders and the Crusade's themselves, Raymond of Aguilers motives during the Crusade have been questioned. This is particularly true in regards as to why he wrote the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem. Raymond of Aguilers claimed he wrote to inform the Bishop of Viviers and the general populace of the true actions in regards to crusade. This was in direct response to rumors spread by several deserters and traitors according to Aguilers. Other historians, however, contend that Raymond of Aguilers actually wrote the Historia Francorum qui Ceperunt Iherusalem to raise up his own liege Raymond IV of Toulouse. Aguilers, being the one responsible for his liege's spiritual being, could possible gain further prestige by portraying Raymond IV of Toulouse as a truly holy individual. This would further explain why during the capture of Antioch Aguilers focused heavily on the finding of the Holy Lance by Peter Bartholomew instead of focusing on the accounts of two saintly figures aiding in the battles as described in the Gesta Francorum." [/b]
So either choose to engage in an argument or we'd be going back and forth with all this.

briantext:
The book of Mormon is the sacred record of the people in the American continent just as the bible is a sacred record of the Jews.... They both testify of Jesus Christ

have any been justified by evidence?

Good insights..

Is anything different in the book of mormon?

who has ever courted(outside of arranged marriages) that never looked at a woman lustfully?
And why can a woman look at a man lustfully,but a woman can't?

Maamin:
And you know that the only planet known to harbour life is earth ..so how much of science break through was there to kick start the tiniest living organism on earth? Why is there no other intelligent life outside earth..why must earth orbital be soooo favourable? Which of you so called atheist scientists is responsible for it?

please structure your posts well.... to all your questions about "who created this and that"...
You have yet to prove them being "created"...hence your question does not follow..
And asking me why earths orbit is "so favourable" out of 100's of billions that aren't is like telling me I can't roll a die and get a 3 out of a trillion tries.
Asking why scientists haven't found life is irrelevant to claims of "magic"... Even if the solar system had an abundance of life...it wouldn't still mean a "magic fairy" did it.
Not being able to account for every single detail does not lead one to postulate "magic"

sinequanon:
You sound like the angry and hateful one.

I'm not the one personally attacking people...you are.

I challenge hypocrisy and stupidity. That is why you feel "attacked".

I personally do not feel attacked...I merely called you out on your hate speech.

Stupidity: reading this thread https://www.nairaland.com/2016501/evolution-seagull-dance and deciding that Evilbrain1's explanation was sensible.

Instead of trying to rationalize or ask what he meant....you attacked it for not confirming to your pre-conclusions..

Hypocrisy: reading the thread and pretending Evilbrain1's explanation was sensible.

Evilbrain gave a rudimentary evolutionary hypothesis based on the facts that the more viable features propagate in a population they become the norm and if they provide a selective advantage or neutral net change to survive being selected against by the environment..

Hypocrisy: pretending my explanation was the same as Evilbrain1's.

I fail to understand what you mean by this...what explanation exactly did you give....and was it based on factual information?

Stupidity: showcasing your hypocrisy.

My challenge of stupidity and hypocrisy is not personal.

Yet you created a thread to showcase people who you perceive fall under it.

If Evilbrain1 storms into a thread with "what the hell is wrong with you people?"

That is a general statement....he later explained what he perceived isyour misconception of evolution.

followed by the most deranged belief I have come across on Nairaland, and then tries to cover it up with "I was trying to use humour", then he is setting himself up. All he has to do is think next time, before posting.

I myself could tell he was using humour to portray evolution..

And when you come here defending him, you are setting yourself up to look stupid.

You gave a hate speech and I called you out on it... whether you feel I look stupid by doing so is really not a concern to me...your beliefs however are.

Don't blame me for challenging stupidity and hypocrisy.

why didn't you educate that "stupidity" on that thread...but created a new one to favour your view of who you'd call "fools".?

plaetton is not even worth bothering with, and you are starting to get that way, too.

Am I supposed to be offended by that?...because I really don't need to know who you'd bother talking to.

scosco1:
And yes , the 10 commndmnts is still the bedrock of our present civilisation and even the utopian era or ideal society or civilization humankind expects to achieve .
Is it value of life , world peace, justice and equity, education, family, social responsibility, human dignity, animal rights, childrens rights, environmentalism, fair taxation, womens rights, social freedom, aπϑ more please .

okay,what I am actually asking is that are there situations where one or more laws does not apply as moral..
Like would killing be justified if you did it in self defense.
Or would stealing be moral if done without the use of harm by a child to fend for himself/herself?

scosco1:
We don't chose and pick biblical laws ...environment, circumstances determine how these Laws can b applied . Israel is still in exile, no Temple , no sacrifices and a lot plseas.

so you are saying "god's law" is relative and not absolute?

sinequanon:
Which set?

You've attacked Evilbrain1,plaetton and others because they could not conform to your ludicrous assertions and fallacies..

sinequanon:
Hate of what?

For you,it would be that you have a hatred towards a select set of secular ideals and people...for no justified reason...

scosco1:
I can presume that most christians lack information of how the Mosaic Law is applied. Most I know get their understandin of the Law from NT/Church negative opinions and due to lack of the understanding of it and how its applied in practical living.
The Law was given to Israel long ago. It was given to an entire society as their penal code/ law of the land. It wasn't given to oe person. It was a national revelation. Each city had their holiest people as their judges/local magistrates. These judges were well educated in the Law of the Torah ....if you we're to take matters into ur hands you will be committing a capital offense.
If I do not have a fellow witness of what I accuse the girl of as either being a witch and really prove it ,then the girl will be considered innocent.

Anyway not to write too much ... ! This is what happens when you don't really understand the scriptures as christians hav always done over the centuries like the period of the spanish inquisitions .

Really?... but you hold the 10 commandments as universal when it was also applied to a select group....why do you pick and choose biblical laws?
You won't obey the law to kill a "witch",but you'd accuse people of violating the commandments?

sinequanon:
Most (not all) atheists base their judgement of facts on their opposition to religion, not on direct sense.

I think it is safe to now state the BASIC LAW OF ATHEISM...

[size=18pt]A THEORY IS TRUE IF IT AVOIDS INVOLVING GOD.[/size]

Therefore their outlook revolves around god.

Please refer to this thread for an example: https://www.nairaland.com/2016501/evolution-seagull-dance

....where one atheist after the next was lining up to accept the most ludicrous theory on the sole basis that it didn't involve a god.

If their whole outlook is based on similar stupidity, what then is atheism?

And, it they all succumb to hypocritical excuses afterwards, what then is atheism?

If there is such a thing as an intelligent atheist, can one please step forward and rescue his belief from the pounding it took on the other thread.

(I await more blundering fools to enter thread...)

This is merely hate speech.

italo:
Stop the revisionism of history.

How am I? You seem butturt...

Religion, at least Catholicism never stopped those men from pursuing truth. In fact, it helped them do so.

really...so galileo wasn't threatened by the church then? or Copernicus wasn't burnt alive then?...
You can put your fingers in your ears all day long...catholic history was filled with the blood of innocents killed unjustly.

Catholicism invented, sponsored and nourished science. ..and many other human disciplines. In short, Catholicism built the western civilization you now hold so dear and benefit from.

You are the one giving a revisionism of history here....
Science is the search of knowledge...so you mean greeks,jews,egyptians,muslims didn't search for knowledge before catholicism existed?
For your information...western civilization owes itself to greece and the western roman empire....before medieval christendom it was also nurtured by the Mediterranean.

The crusades were a good thing...to defend people being raped, plundered and killed by Muslims, just like ISIS is doing now.

You can give as many apologetics as you can...
This is the historian raymond of agiles describing the first crusade of 1099
" Some of our men cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them
with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them
longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet
were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick
one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small
matters compared to what happened at the temple of Solomon, a
place where religious services ware ordinarily chanted. What
happened there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief.
So let it suffice to say this much at least, that in the temple and
portico of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle
reins."
And they also raped women...the same way military men rapes women at times of invasion.

Atheists have held 'killing crusades' countless times in history. E.g Soviet Union Atheist govt killed millions in an attempt to stamp out religion. Albanian Atheist govt did same. China and North Korea continue to do same now.

You can call the Soviet union and others an "atheist movement" all day long..the fact remains that nobody kills for atheism because a disbelief in "god/gods" tells you nothing about how to to treat religious people.

Maamin:
And what are your evidence they were not magically spoken..for science to define a phenomena doesn't mean they created or found answers to it origin.

Lol.... what evidence do I have that anything wasn't magically poofed into existence?....well for one....magic has never been established to be in existence nor demonstrated to poof objects into reality.
And you are still running in circles with yourself here....no one stated he/she created any natural phenomena....we merely manipulate them to derive results that provide an understanding to them.
Take for example this analogy.... If matter can curve space to create a force of pull/push(gravity),then the light approaching objects with tremendous mass would appear curved.. do we observe lensing of light? Yes.

Initial velocity must have been induced by something or force capable of doing that and keeping it constant for thousands of years..

What happens to a spinning coke can if left spinning in a frictionless environment that has a lack of an atmosphere? ...does it conserve its momentum?
If you are indeed a "science student" you'd know the answer to that... so the primordial earth as it accreted kept to its rotation...

how many other billions of universe has life been discovered on?..not even Andromeda the closest to Milky Way has life on it.

I think you mean galaxy not universe...
And "life" as we know it has not been established to be lacking or in abundance in any galaxy.....
The only place known to harbour life is the earth...
Whether life is lacking or in abundance is a non sequitor.

And you are here talking about no magical spiritual force responsible for this precious tranquillity.

I wouldn't call the earth a precious tranquility when 2/3 of it is uninhabitable and its managed to kill 9/10 of all species... more like a plant that managed to grow within the cracks of a concrete pavement.
And at best if we are ignorant of "life"....anyone postulating "magic" would just be making an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Maamin:
Trash..gravity push or pull? ..did you create any force of gravity?..even the words you are typing here you didn't create.

And the point you are making is what?..

Why is the gravitational force of the earth pulling things to it centre why not away? Why is the universe so in other for thousands of years..with the planet revolving in a specific pattern in their orbit?

Actually the earth's gravity can push objects away....its rotation creates a fly-by anomaly that can give an additional velocity.

And the planets revolve the way they do because they keep to the law of conservation of momentum....they'll keep that initial velocity(u) they had at the time of their accretion.....including the heat(which is now situated at the core)..

The solar system is filled with rogue planets(planets without a sun) so counting 9 planets out of billions that keep a conservation of momentum in the solar system as a sort of aha "it's designed" is quite redundant.

Which one of ur scientist gimmick put this in place ?

No one claimed a scientist made anything natural....people do claim it being magically spoken into existence and that claim is what you've been avoiding ever since..

sinequanon are you a creationist?