₦airaland Forum

plaetton:
Josh and kingebukasblog, and perhaps yourself hold that Yahweh defines morality, as expressed vin the ten commandments and other parts of the Bible.

Please remove me from this list as I have NEVER held that morailty proceeds from Yahweh. If anything I have opened threads and made posts condemning the barbarous nature of Yahweh. Examples -

https://www.nairaland.com/438941/yahweh-again-deut-7
https://www.nairaland.com/330967/yahweh-pagan-name
https://www.nairaland.com/434436/yahweh-lying-angels

So, should we not hold Yahweh accountable to his own moral standards ?

I am not interested in Yahweh. It is a waste of time to limit the discussion to Yahweh. If I told you that I was say, a Yoruba traditionalist, would you limit the discussion to myths on Olodumare? If I was an Igbo traditionalist, would you limit the discussion to myths on Amadioha?

Please expand your view and stop picking low hanging fruits such as Yahweh just to make an argument.
The question of moral subjectivity or objectivity far transcends the barbarous Yahweh.

The very fact that Josh and kingebukasblog feel compelled to defend, justify and exonerate Yahweh is evidence that they themselves find the allegations against Yahweh morally reprehensible and embarrassing.

They will have to grow past that.

We can talk about moral relativism in another thread.

We already did, and I cannot bear to re hash it.
There is moral relativism - it does not detract from objective morals. For example, circumstantial issues. It's good to kill in self defense. That's a relative circumstance. And it's still objective and will be measured by objective parametres. I can't go on and on. . .

thehomer:
If that is assessed objectively, then what is your complaint again?

Oh no complaint, good Dr; save that it stands in contradiction to your previous arguments on moral subjectivity. And no, I do not have the energy to go seeking out the links and quotes. Do that yourself. You surely recall the thread of Mr. Troll on moral subjectivity and the ensuing thread where all of these issues were thrashed out.

KingEbukasBlog:
I dont know . Was Jesus death necessary ?

I really don't know why Dr. Homer inveigled that question into the question of necessary evils. Perhaps on account of his opposition of the propitiatory sacrificial death of the lamb which carries away the sins of men. If that is the case, I wholly support him on that score. The murder of Jesus of Nazareth by a jealous and sadistic mob and establishment could never form an atonement for the sins of men before God. If anything, it heaps on, and increases the sins of men. Be ye not deceived for God is not mocked: whatever a man sows, the same shall he reap. If Jesus' death was destined as a sacrifice for sins, his words on the cross (and also at Gethsemane) would be illogical. Father forgive them for they know not what they do. Eli Eli. . . why hast thou forsaken me? If it be possible, let this cross pass over my head.

Having said all that, yes, Jesus' death was necessary to the extent that he was always going to die anyhow. The manner and timing, and the import given to the event, is what is at issue.

I dont know . Is the execution of someone who is not guilty of a felony something evil?

It is very evil.
By the way, I hope you know that I verily agree with Messrs Homer & Co on the lamentable evil nature of Yahweh of the Old Testament. Do not subscribe to imported religion blindly my brother - to such an extent that you attempt to justify the patently barbaric.

It sounds to me as though you would have justified the atlantic slave trade as well, seeing as the white man came bearing a gun in one hand and the bible in the other.

KingEbukasBlog:
An example sir

Women!

thehomer:
How do you think it is assessed in law? You're a lawyer why don't you enlighten me?

Stop playing the fisherman where you have the fish already.
You know very well that the reasonable man principle is assessed objectively and never subjectively.

It's not bad to be a poor thinker such as you are, however its sad to be an incorrigible liar.

PastorAIO:
I can make comparison of hot and cold.

Hmm… should I use the fahrenheit scale as a benchmark?

Or perhaps I should use the celsius scale?

In fact, just another thought.
And this just shows how futilistic your thinking is, has been, and always remains.

When we speak about moral comparisons and you divert to the Celsius or Fahrenheit scale as per comparisons in temperature - this is only a figuristic measurement of temperature only and not a measurement of the state of the thing in question as felt or noted by the human being.

Because the same human being would feel the same thing at the same temperature if he touched it regardless the numeric scale used for scientific notation.

Because further, no human being would touch a thing that is - 10 Degrees Celsius and describe it in terms of how hot it is. No human being would touch a thing that is + 100 degrees celsius and describe it in terms of how cold it is.

Likewise, as humans have a sensing of hot and cold (parameters for numeric notation regardless), they have a sensing of good and evil.

This alone, shows how futulistic, wasteful and shallow your thinking is.
It was a long time ago that I advised you, and I still advise you - that whilst you are an intelligent and knowledgeable man, your approach to issues contributes nothing to any issue. I am yet to see a post of yours that actually contributes substance to a thread. You spend most f your posts chasing an invisible and meaningless tail. Futile.

PastorAIO:
I can make comparison of hot and cold.

Hmm… should I use the fahrenheit scale as a benchmark?

Or perhaps I should use the celsius scale?

You dis man how you dey? Long time. Trust well. I see you have not changed your ways. May the Holy Spirit descend on you
Anyhow, your statement indicates the possibility of diverse benchmarks, I dont have anything against this really, but it does stand in distinction against Plaetton's for which he is yet to account.

One day you will all come to understand me more properly on this morality issue.

KingEbukasBlog:
From someone who gives vague definitions . You lack proper understanding of what you mock or ridicule . There is no such thing as 'necessary evil'

There is.

plaetton:
Deepsight,
On the issue of self evident evil quoted above, I have clarified twice on the context in which I wrote that. I am surprised that you still refer to it.

I was merely reminding Josh of the self-evident evi of Yahweh, that is , the clearly evident evil acts of Yahweh as recorded in the Bible.

You can't remind anyone of self evident evil if you hold that morality is subjective.

Aside from this, you didn't say anything at all on your more damning statement that "there must always be a benchmark when making comparisons."

Again:

KingEbuka: Again , this guy . What is evil and what makes what you see as evil evil

Dr. Homer: The intentions and effects of actions.

Are the bold words in your revert above to be determined via objective or subjective standards?

When we say "a reasonable man" - you know very well that there is in criminal law something called the "reasonable man principle."

Is that principle assessed according to subjective or objective standards?

thehomer:
Please show me the contradictions. Provide links and quotes in context for my own statements.

My dear Irascible friend and brother, I do not have the time, energy or inclination to go "ascouting" links and providing comparisons. However I have extracted some of your comments (and Plaetton's) on this thread alone. I will leave it to you to see if there is anything to think on regarding these comments - viz-a-viz your mutual position on the matter of moral subjectivity. I will only highlight in red bold the words or phrases that you both made, and I only ask you to take a second look at those words or phrases and see what they are indicative of, or what they suggest, on the matter of moral subjectivity.

Here are a few of the quotes:

Plaetton:

Oh gosh,
It's just hard to believe sometimes that actually discuss and debate with moral schizophrenics who would twist anything to justify self evident evil.

So there is such a thing as "self evident evil?" Interesting. Wonders shall never cease.
This same idea you all clobbered and bashed but a few months ago.

Plaetton:
No sire,
There always needs to be a benchmark from which we make comparisons.

^^^ This above is particularly instructive and damning. He makes this argument for determining design but slips to say that that there must always be a benchmark when making comparisons. Strange he forgets this principle of his when making moral comparisons.

As for you, Dr. Homer - here are a few of yours you may like to chew on -

Thehomer:

I told you. Besides at the very least, I know that genocide is wrong. You don't. And that makes you morally bankrupt.

Thehomer:

Looks like you're still confused. If you're confused that reasonable people think rape and murder of 6 month old babies is ambiguous, then you have deeper problems.

Thehomer:

You don't think there's something wrong with thinking that the aftermath of rape should be marriage to the victim and money being paid to the father? Would this be your position if you had a daughter or sister who isn't engaged? What is wrong with you?

Now, I know very well that your hypocritical eminence may find it very difficult to see how these statements of yours stand in direct contradiction to your position on moral subjectivity, and this is why I have tried to help you by highlighting certain words and phrases in red bold. I would urge you to give greater and closer thought to them.

Many thanks.

thehomer:
I wasn't caught pants down, I wasn't wearing any pants.

Funny ha-ha: but yes you were caught out in a direct self contradiction of your previous arguments: lazy escapist jokes and ad hominems will not change the fact, regardless how you may wish so: both yourself and plaetton have here made very categorical statements in direct contradiction of that which you both vehemently previously argued on the matter of moral subjectivity.

It is sad that I already had the foreknowledge that you would both be so intrepid as to blatantly deny what you have penned yourselves in black and white. And that is a shame: a real shame.

thehomer:
Go home Deepsight, you're drunk.

Escapist ad hominem when caught pants down abi? Enjoy.

It is quite amusing to see Messrs Plaetton and Homer refer to self evident evil and the like, after such a long and tiresome insistence on moral subjectivity.

If morality is relative and subjective, I really don't know on what ground Yahweh can be condemned for even the most seemingly heinous acts. Nothing can be condemned, frankly, with such a worldview. In fact, words such as "evil", " bad" and "wrong" should not even exist.

However I expect these folk - Messrs Homer, AIO, Plaetton, Wiegraf and co - to continue chasing their tails in this matter ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Plaetton,
Your analogy of the suits misses the point as both are still designed.

To reiterate, it is impossible and unreasonable to request an "undesigned" thing to be produced for comparison, where a person asserts that all of reality as we know it is designed.

I understand what you, Kay17 and AIO are saying, however it appears to me that in many aspects of the discussion you all cling to straws or pretend not to understand what your fellow discussants are saying where perhaps they used a wrong or imprecise word or mode of description. I think if you understand what a person is trying to say, there is no point nit-picking on surface issues.

frank317:
Lol... U spoke with the creator without making a contact?

This is horrendously shallow. Please learn to read, learn to infer and understand, and have a blessed Sunday.

Weah96:
You argued that you've made contact with the infinity infinity boss of all knowledge

I did not make any such comment stating that I have "made contact" with anyone.
Also, its apparent that you are not taking the conversation seriously, thus my simple advise to you to just live.

Weah96:
OK, so let me get this right. You speak to god by simply being alive or through a voice in your head?

It doesn't matter how I speak to God or how God speaks to me.

You don't speak to everyone around you the same way do you? In the same way the dynamic between me and God will be different from the dynamic between you and God as I am not you and you are not me.

Just live your life well, try not to harm others and try to do as much good for the world as you can. Try to contribute something positive to the world before you die. Someday, the conversation you have been having with God will become apparent to you. If it hasn't, don't worry at all, be it true or false, just live.

Kay17:
It could go both ways. Either with simplicity or complexity, that's why it's necessary for the Intelligent Design crowd to produce a non design for comparism.

If we hold that all existence and reality (the universe) as we know it was caused by an Intelligent Designer, then it will surely be impossible to show anything that would not have hallmarks of design about it. Anything at all. It will therefore be a strange question to demand of an advocate of intelligent design, that he produces a thing that is not designed. This would be a contradiction similar to asking a person who believes that shapes are made by men, to produce a square circle. It's both an impossible and unreasonable request which Iredia should not have taken up at all, rather than begin to refer to water.

By the way, I no longer know whether its apt to refer to God as an "Intelligent Designer." Intelligence is something of the material sphere, and whatever attributes the Divine may have may probably not be described as intelligence in the way that we use the word.

Weah96:
You made a claim that the all powerful, infinity, infinity, boss of all knowledge frequently speaks to you in your head. You must defend your very specific claim.

I provided that link to show that normal human being have an innate inner voice. With that being said, you insist that the voice in your head is not your own. How can you be so sure? What did the infinity infinity boss of knowledge reveal that made you confident enough to repeat the claim outside of your home?

There is no confusion here. You asked if God speaks to me, and I said yes. If by speaking you only understand a physical mouth opening and speaking audibly, I would be surprised. I also further tried to help you by averting your mind to the what manner of speech a Divine being can be imagined to have? I also hinted you that your whole life is a conversation with God. These comments from my side should let you see what I mean by "speaking."

As to your inner voice issue, I doubt that Inner voices can be so exactly prescient as I know very well happens to me in intricate detail all the time. However that is not something I can prove to you and that is why I said I cannot share such details with you as it would be meaningless to you. Also it shows nothing whatsoever - it is personal knowledge I cannot transfer unless experienced by a person himself.

You specifically said that you could falsify something, and yet you are yet to do so. I await.

Weah96:
Like I said, you're a bit too late. I don't presume anything. I don't even rule out an intelligent designer.

In fact, you just told me that you've made contact with it and you two have conversations. I should be the one asking you. You claim that this exact same powerful creator speaks to you today. What kind of evidence do you think is required? I say some sort of magic, like answering by fire or resurrection. Not Nairaland posts.

I am not too sure I may be able to go the length with this line of reasoning save to advise you that your entire life is a conversation with God.
One day you might appreciate that fact.

Weah96:
Fine. An amorphous, nameless, deity unrelated to the Bible or Quran.

Humans possess an inner voice.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/media-spotlight/201508/listening-your-inner-voice

There is no doubt that we possess an inner voice. Man is not the flesh alone. The flesh is mere meat: it can be gobbled up by a dog or even a rat if they got the slightest chance to do so.

What particular information was revealed in your conversation with god which made you realize that you were speaking to the designer of Time, Space, and Matter and not yourself?

Information I could not possibly know myself. And no, I cannot share such with you - it would be meaningless to you.

What you need to do is to show, logically that it is impossible for a human to communicate with a deity.
To do this you will have to -

1. Show that the Deity does not exist
2. Show that you know what is contained in the inner mind of every human
3. Show that you know exactly what the inner mind of every human is capable of and not capable of
4. Show conclusively that all inner mind expression is only communication with self and never communication to anything external (in doing this, you thereby show that something like telepathy, for example, does not exist and is imaginary or coincidental only).

These are the first steps you have to take to begin to sort out your falsification.

Weah96:
If you say so buddy. I always felt that the Bible was pretty clear on what and how things were created. A non material being used his mouth to declare materials into existence.

I am sorry to say, but your reading of even the Bible or other spiritual material appears horrendously shallow. What do you mean by referring to a non material being using a mouth? Did you think whilst writing that? ? ?

Now, lets assume a Divine entity - God - does exist and did create by its word. Do you presume that at such a level of existence its words would be as our words? what do you imagine its words would be like?

Weah96:
Does the god identify itself to you as Allah, Jesus, Thor, or Osiris?

None of the above, indeed, I know of no name of it.

"God" is simply a word in a language used to represent an idea, entity or a concept, the same way words are used to refer to things - tangible or intangible. The fact that people give names to "God" in the languages is only normal and does not necessarily show that they are referring to a different entity or idea.

Is it affiliated with a book?

People have written hundreds of thousands of books about God throughout history. That does not necessarily mean God is affiliated with any particular book.

Next?

Your line of "falsifying" is not working so far. . . . .

Weah96:
..
Go through my threads. Or ask kingebukasblog. I cannot repeat myself every time an excited creationist shows up.
It's like the class is on chapter 11, and you're here asking about chapter 3. It's not my fault that you were absent.

Excited creationist? Lol. It appears we are quite strangers.

Weah96:
.

You will be exhibit A. Do you communicate with a god?

Yes I do. Next? Go on.

Weah96:
Creationism doesn't deserve a rebuttal.

This is lazy escapism. You do not have the head to deliver a well thought out line of reasoning and so you simply balk and run away with this excuse. I think this shows cowardice on your part. Man up.

There are thousands of creationist tales, BTW.

And so what? The common denominator is that the universe as we know it was caused or created by a supreme or other superior beings, however described by the different colorful folk tales from around the world.

I think maybe you should state what your own position is instead of hiding behind a generic creationism.

Unless you are new to this forum, I have explained my position ad infinitum ad nauseum. I cannot repeat myself for ever, its tiresome already. I have been on this forum for 7 years now.

TheProphetess:
Also mr DeepSight, is it not the same religious institutions that silenced scientific legends such as Galileo for questioning the flat nature of the earth and proposing that the earth is not the centre of the universe?

Yes of course, that is all too well documented and is a notorious fact of history - but as per this discussion - you should understand that that is not unexpected either. It is only very normal in the development of knowledge that persons come up with points of view on a subject matter which contradict the orthodox or mainstream point of view. These are seen as heresies until proven and then they become the mainstream point of view. This happens in the scientific world up till today and will never cease to happen as long as knowledge grows. It is unfortunate that the Roman Church had such a barbaric and iron fisted approach to handling what it perceived as heresies - nonetheless the scientific world up till today stigmatizes theories that it sees as fringe, psuedo, non-mainstream, unorthodox or "heretical".

None of this takes anything away from the point which was being made - which you seem to have missed - and that point is that it is presumptuous and even ignorant to suggest that religionists have not "studied and analyzed" the question of the existence of God - as Plaetton suggested or insinuated. The fact is they have - and very deeply and for very long.

Weah96:
The talking god who writes books, is a falsifiable claim.

How so? Please go ahead and falsify it. I'd like to see you do so.

everydayperson:
what if God was one of us... it would seem odd that this supreme omniscient phenomenon is ironically modeled after this Human Character . We are created in (not from) his image according to religion. (to walk rather than exist and to think rather than know)
Whenever we are in shock as a result of one of his petulant "human-like" traits.. we think it divine wisdom. The more I try to make sense of it, the farther "sense" flees away from me. after decades of chasing my tail.. I concluded.

1: The more knowledge we gain, the better our thought-sight gets. We are purposed for storing data and turning it into insight - Let us Function as designed
2: My ways are not your ways and neither my thoughts - But they are monsignor.. they are. it is inevitable.. man will express himself the only way GOD can... CREATE
3: This existence could all be a little quark swimming in a universe within a cell performing some nondescript function within ... OR
4: We are simply a petri-dish for some alien beings looking for answers just as we

make una no vex.. I was long insane before madness caged me

I totally feel you, and no you are not insane, anyone who does not have these thoughts is simply a thoughtless person.

plaetton:
Holding an absolute worldview on core existential issues, without first availing oneself of the benefit of study and analysis, is the definition of irrationality.

Who told you religionists have not availed themselves of study and analysis?

Do you have any idea the level of thought, study, meditation, inquiry, rebuttal, councils, and institutions of learning that have evolved religions over the centuries? The whole of Western Civilization today owes a great deal to Institutions of Religion and Institutions developed by religious bodies. This same is true for the middle east, India, and most of the far East.

Do you have any Idea how many ancient universities were commissioned by Christian and Islamic authorities? Do you have any idea the advancements in theology, astronomy, and the arts and sciences put forward by these institutions?

It is very easy for you to sit back in your arm chair with your less than a century old life and proclaim that these religions have not put "study and analysis" into the matter of the existence of God. Very easy indeed, i tell you, but most presumptuous, you will find.

There was a time I looked with awful scorn on the general teachings of the Catholic Church. I no longer do so - even though I still do not agree with their teachings. The truth is simply that if you delve deep into the Catechism of the Roman Church, you will find a deep, and even severe level of study and analysis which has taken centuries to build and reform and it is only an arrogant or presumptuous person who would think otherwise - namely - to think that there has not been study and analysis involved in their theist worldview.

Three other important thoughts.

1. Remember that the "study and analysis" here only, as per this discussion is for the purpose of the Theistic discussion only and not for the general body of religionist teachings on other matters.

2. Remember that although I used the Catholic Church as an example, the same applies to religions all over the world. As per the Theistic matter, who told you that there has not been "study and analysis" involved in the worldview of Muslims, Hindus, and all sorts of other traditional and ethnic theistic religions all over the world? What gives you the right to presume so? Something tells me its simply the fact that they have a different point of view from yours.

A person who thinks that someone such as Richard Dawkins has given more "study and analysis" to the matter of the existence of God than the Institution of the Catholic Church has, is, to the the least, and unschooled person.

3. MOST IMPORTANTLY - Remember that over and above "study and analysis" - as important as these may be - the truth is that the human being has an instinctive and intuitive recognition of the existence of its Creator and other invisible beings. This is why the Theistic point view has been the default view of humanity from time immemorial and till this day. In truth, you and your atheistic folk form only a a minuscule and even deviantly unreasonable sect in a world that overwhelmingly recognizes the obvious. This is not to say though, that the majority view is always right, however in the matter of the recognition of God, it is a basic and fundamental instinct built into the human being. This is why a great poster on this forum (Justcool) once described being atheist as being "unhuman" (not inhuman - there is a difference).

plaetton:
First of all, happy new year sire.
It's been a long long while.
How are you?

Riding the rough waves of life, my dear brother.

A happy New year to you sir.
It has indeed been a while.

It's a funny coincidence that I remembered you today, and was thinking that you might been caught up in one of those INFINITY loops in the other universe.

Oh I don't believe in coincidences, it was perhaps a strong thought wave, yes I was in an infinity loop in another universe.