₦airaland Forum

^^^ Confused garbled nonsense, not that I could ever expect anything else from you after your demystification of your self with your very low minded posts on this thread.

Logicboy03: Lol....cramming big words from the dictionary and then using it on nairaland to impress gullible sheep is not EDUCATION

If you think that those were big words, shame. Worse, if you think any words there require cramming, shocking shame.

I shouldn't be shocked sha. After all, na you.

Logicboy03: Stop using big words to say nothing......

Stop seeing big words where there are none. It tells badly on your education.

plaetton: I know that you reside in La la land where you are out of touch and impervious to the corrosive influences of religious bullshyt.
Most of are not that lucky , nor are we as apathetic while our future generation of citizens are bein systematically lobotomized by stench from bullshyt mountain.

Save for the extremist strains, there are not many significant corrosive influences of religion by itself, and within the generality of moderate religionism, there is to be found a wealth of virtue far more enriching and protective of human existence than the meaninglessness and purposelessness of atheism. Indeed, regardless of the strenuous attempts of materialists to attribute societal morality to compromise only, the truth remains that the fundamental precepts of most universally accepted societal morality have their roots in very ancient deeply rooted religions and religious standards.

I should add that on the other hand, I have seen severe corrosive effects of extreme atheism, which has, for example, led some atheists to declare on this very board that nothing is intrinsically wrong or evil, not even the greatest atrocities of all time. I would prefer the religionist to such a man.

If the notion that god exists has a tendency to render people and entire populations silly beyond measure, then something must be wrong with that notion, that proposition.

The notion that God exists has never had any such effect.

Convoluted religion, and particularly corrupted religion, and most especially politically and commercially hijacked religion, is what does this, and none of these spring fron the notion that God exists. They are even directly antithetical to the notion that God exists.

There continued vigilance, and of course, mockery, is imperative for all lovers of our beloved country to ensure.

I really think you need to do some deep thinking, perhaps some statistical research, even, if possible, on the effect of mockery on the religious mind. I am sure you will find that it is a blunt sword, and in most cases only serves to provide the needed persecution which makes the religious mind believe in its cause, its special nature, its battle against 'enemies' of its faith, and indeed it waxes ever stronger from such.

I just looked at your link, and it is obvious you are not ready to discuss anything. There is nothing there that discloses anything meaningful in terms of this discussion.

birdman: You forgot one tenet - compromise. Im joking o.....

That is not a joke. It is actually true. Compromise is a huge part of Madiba's legacy. I just stepped out of a cab in Johannesburg this morning and the cabbie, while eulogizing Madiba, spoke at length about how many black people in SA feel that his Compromise was more advantageous and favorable to the white minority; and that for this reason, many white people are even more grateful to the Madiba. I did not say much, I just asked him if he would have preferred a Robert-Mugabe treatment for the whites, post-apartheid. He said yes: but was gracious enough to admit that that would have destroyed South Africa.

Madiba's legend grew truly into the stars with his approach to post-apartheid forgiveness, and integration, and this started with Compromise.

I have always said that anti religious atheism is not pure atheism. Mere disgust at religion is by no means a ground for atheism, and does not in any way advance the validity of the notion that God does not exist.

For this reason it is puzzling how anyone could view the puerile and inane vituperations of any religion as a 'Christmas present for atheists'.

Unless of course, such an atheist always saw himself as being involved in some war of superior stance against all religionists. Which would be just. . . . Sad.

^^^ If you want a serious discussion, then please be serious. I don't have the energy for pages of meaningless back and forth where discussants deliberately strive to misunderstand simple issues.

This here - - ->

thehomer: then I'll answer your new set of questions.

- Is most annoying. Those are not a "new set of questions." You never answered the first question at all - and that up there was only a clarification that you never answered those questions at all. I made that clear by saying. You are asked what morals are based on and you say values. That says nothing. If someone else was asked what values are based on, he could equally flip it around, and say they are based on morals. You have answered nothing at all. You just introduced a replacement word for your morals.

If you cannot go back and answer the question, then just forget it, its not worth the bother.

As to my questions, I have addressed them over and over within the thread (and you claim to have read the thread). I said that such (judging x or y as wrong/ the existence of criminal laws) is only tenable because of the existence of objective morality based on the existence of such things as mala in se. The discussants on the opposite side of the table say that there is not, and that all morality is subjective. If that is true, then the basis for criminal laws still begs for an answer.

thehomer: How is it circular reasoning?



My moral reasoning is based on my values.

I see that you're once again making a lot of noise. For some reason, you didn't answer your own questions. Why don't you do that in your next response? To jog your memory, here they are again.



Please don't forget to answer them again.

Please speak straight to the question. You are merely pushing the goal post further away.

What are your values based on and are they objective or subjective. This question will go to the root of what is being debated on this thread and show you the real issue, and also show you why your posts are off point non starters.

You see?

That up there is wrong circular reasoning.

When you are asked these questions -

- - - > If ALL morality is subjective, then - - - >

1. On what basis can anyone condemn the actions or moral choices of any one else?

2. On what basis should any criminal laws exist or be made

You cannot answer: saying - "on the basis of moral reasoning" - - - ! ! !

That is the most horridly circular answer I have ever seen in my life.

Of course the question is WHAT your moral reasoning is based on.

So please get serious and answer properly.

For the question said - "If all morality is subjective, then on what basis. . . "

And you revert saying - "On the basis of moral reasoning" . . . ! ! !

Reboot.

Maybe, in addition to the above, before anything else, you should also answer the question as to whether such things as Mala in se exist or not.

Be mindful of the implications of your answer, and also address these questions ->

- - - > If ALL morality is subjective, then - - - >

1. On what basis can anyone condemn the actions or moral choices of any one else?

2. On what basis should any criminal laws exist or be made?

Thank you.

^^^ Please don't get confused so early in your involvement. We understand the OP when he talks about morality evolving and we know very well that that is not a Theory of Evolution issue.

When I speak of the implications of the theory of evolution vis-a-viz morality, I do so to show those who think that all that we are is derived from evolution, that they are wrong. If that were the case, and if that were to hold true and consistent, they should subscribe to significantly different moral paradigms, and be willing to do humanity great genetic and evolutionary favours by exterminating weak genes. That is a point wholly different from the argument on moral subjectivity which has been the main issue on this thread. It is a point I simply thought to draw the attention of our evolutionists to, for their consideration - on the matter of subjectivity! They need to wonder why it should be wrong for a Hitler to think that way, for example.

If indeed we are a product only of evolution, please can you tell me if there was anything wrong with the viewpoint of those who sought superior genetic progression by eliminating the weak and inferior?

And if you say there was something morally wrong with such: then please tell on what basis you say so - remembering of course, that the OP and his cohorts declare all morality to be subjective.

Thank you.

thehomer: Which of my statements were unfounded?

All of them.

See how easy it is to just declare?

You're welcome to begin your clarification by telling me who you think would qualify as a "strict moral evolutionist".

Mr. Troll and wiegraf have expressed positions here on this thread that disclose them to be such.

I have coined that term with reference to them; people who deny the existence of an objective morality and believe morality to be wholly subjective having evolved STRICTLY AND ONLY as described in the OP, and having no objective source or inherent nature.

thehomer: Are you so stupid that you don't recognize your own strawman? Sorry if you had, you won't be making such a fallacious line of argument. You're welcome to show me who you think is a "strict moral evolutionist".



Then you're expressing an ignorance of both morality and the theory of evolution.



Are you arguing against people like Hitler or extremist Nazis?



I've read enough to see that you're deeply confused about morality and the theory of evolution. So confused that you present fallacious arguments.



I'm well enough.

I see you are only ready to make unfounded statements and not ready to actually reason through anything or proffer an actual argument.

That is only to be expected, of course.

thehomer: As usual, you rapidly commit the naturalistic fallacy. The fact that a certain process is natural doesn't make it moral. e.g the fact that peanuts are natural and eaten by people doesn't mean it is moral to feed it to people who are allergic to it. Shouting and throwing about mere assertions won't make you correct.

Are you so dim witted that it escapes you that that shout up there is not my position, but the implication of the position of strict moral evolutionists: those who contend that morality is the result of evolution only.

If morality is the result of evolution only, no one can EVER contend that it is wrong to exploit, enslave and exterminate the weak among us.

If anything, one would thereby be doing a great genetic and evolutionary service to mankind.

This is no joke: this was the point of view of people like Hitler and other extremist Nazis who were bent on creating a super-race. Eliminate the weak, the inferior, the less intelligent.

Besides i would adjure you to please read through a thread fully before commenting.

Been a while. I hope your robotic a.rse is doing fine.

[size=20pt]AND I CANNOT SHOUT IT ENOUGH: IF EVOLUTION AND SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST HOLDS TRUE, THEN IT WILL ALWAYS BE RIGHT TO EXTERMINATE, EXPLOIT AND ENSLAVE THE WEAKER AND INFERIOR ONES AMONG US FOR THE GENERAL GOOD OF MANKIND, SO ONLY STRONGER AND SUPERIOR GENES WILL SURVIVE AND THEREBY MAKE HUMANITY STRONGER AND BETTER CONTINUOUSLY.

FACT: CAST IN IRON.

CIAO.[/size]

voltron: You mean to say morality is absolute?

I mean to say it is not determined merely by reference to one's whims and caprices, which is what the atheists here declare.

It does not evolve? Thinking is as it always has been?

Now this is a very cardinal point: and I think once of the most critical clarifications that needs to be made on this thread: - - ->

Morality does not evolve: our attunement to what is moral is what evolves. In other words, we refine ourselves towards that which is moral: but that which is moral has always been there anyways.

In other words, to give an example: slavery is wrong.

It has always been wrong.

What has changed is that we have become gradually more refined to realize that it is wrong and has always been wrong.

To argue that morality itself evolves, would be to say that slavery was right at the time when practiced, but has become wrong nowadays. That is a wrong and ridiculous position.

I explained that here - - - >

Deep Sight: That is not true: that something is widely practiced does not make it iherently right or good: as is the case with the killing of twins and Aztec human sacrifice. The truth is that in every age people of goodwill through the pin prick of conscience have spoken against common barbarities, as was the case with people like William Wilberforce in the campaign against slavery.

You actually fail to see the contradiction when you say that at some point slavery was inherently good, because if it was, then there would be no conscientuous campaign against it at all, which led to its abolition.

Slavery did not become inherently bad on account of its abolition, which is actually what your statement implies! The truth is rather that it was always inherently bad or wrong, and over time, societies attuned themselves to that truth which had always been there.

Anything else will be to say that something like slavery, or the torture of children, skips merrily from being inherently good to being inherently bad from time to time.

That, sir, is an inherently bad argument.

I hope the point is clear.

^^^Garbled nonsense, which you should be ashamed of.

And that last line (cancelled out) just shows terrible confusion and hypocrisy.

texanomaly: I still say you all need some sense knocked into you. Y'all just love argue

I do enjoy debate: but this is one discussion that does not derive from love of the play of the garb.

Here is a discussion in which a person declares that there is no evil in any atrocity in history: even that there is no such thing as atrocity: and goes so far as to insist that he will not punish or discipline his son for stealing: because morality is subjective.

I do not paraphrase him in the bold above: the gentleman said exactly so here on this thread - with all gravity, seriousness and sobriety.

All right thinking people should be deeply concerned at such declarations - these are the seeds that breed deeply misguided perverts into our collective future: at which time we will stand aghast, as with the case of a Muttallab, for example, and wonder - whence this madness?

You ought to be concerned. Very concerned. Every responsible adult should be concerned at such perversity.

voltron: Hilter was worshiped, so was Pol pot and many other morally bankrupt icons

The bold rips your surmise to shreds, and renders your posts contradictory and even irrational.

On what basis can you state the bold? When you reflect on what grounds on which you could state the bold, you will find that you have disclosed the very opposite of that which you seek to advance here. That answers your posers and shows you to have failed to stop to think before posting.

texanomaly: They didn't actually. Are they the powers to be reckoned with that they once were? Are they even a society today? No.


Thracians:
The ancient languages of these people had already become extinct and their cultural influence was highly reduced due to the repeated barbaric invasions of the Balkans by Celts, Huns, Goths, and Sarmatians, accompanied by hellenization, romanization and later slavicization. After they were subjugated by Alexander the Great and consecutively by the Roman Empire, most of the Thracians eventually became hellenized (in the provinces of Thrace) or romanised (in Moesia and Dacia). In the 6th century, some Thraco-Romans and hellenized Thracians (i.e. Byzantines) south of the Danube River made contacts with the invading Slavs and were later eventually slavicised.[49][50] One of the three primary ancestral groups of modern Bulgarians are the Thracians.

Celts:
Under Caesar the Romans conquered Celtic Gaul, and from Claudius onward the Roman empire absorbed parts of Britain. Roman local government of these regions closely mirrored pre-Roman tribal boundaries, and archaeological finds suggest native involvement in local government.

The native peoples under Roman rule became Romanised and keen to adopt Roman ways. Celtic art had already incorporated classical influences, and surviving Gallo-Roman pieces interpret classical subjects or keep faith with old traditions despite a Roman overlay.

Huns:
After the breakdown of the Hun Empire, they never regained their lost glory. One reason was that the Huns never fully established the mechanisms of a state, such as bureaucracy and taxes, unlike Bulgars, Magyars or the Golden Horde. Once disorganized, the Huns were absorbed by more organized polities. Like the Avars after them, once the Hun political unity failed there was no way to re-create it, especially because the Huns had become a multiethnic empire even before Attila. The Hun Empire included, at least nominally, a great host of diverse peoples, each of whom may be considered 'successors' of the Huns. However, given that the Huns were a political creation, and not a consolidated people, or nation, their defeat in 454 marked the end of that political creation. Newer polities which later arose might have consisted of people formerly in the Hun confederacy, and carrying closely related steppe cultures, but they were new political creations. Later historians provide brief hints of the dispersal and renaming of Attila's people. According to tradition, after Ellac's defeat and death, his brothers ruled over two separate, but closely related hordes on the steppes north of the Black Sea. Dengizich is believed to have been king (khan) of the Kutrigur Bulgars, and Ernakh king (khan) of the Utigur Bulgars, whilst Procopius claimed that Kutrigurs and Utigurs were named after, and led by two of the sons of Ernakh. Such distinctions are uncertain and the situation is not likely to have been so clear cut. Some Huns remained in Pannonia for some time before they were slaughtered by Goths. Others took refuge within the East Roman Empire, namely in Dacia Ripensis and Scythia Minor. Possibly, other Huns and nomadic groups retreated to the steppe. Indeed, subsequently, new confederations appear such as Kutrigur, Utigur, Onogur / (Onoghur), Sarigur, etc., which were collectively called "Huns","Bulgarian Huns", or "Bulgars". Similarly, the 6th century Slavs were presented as Hun groups by Procopius.


@ topic




The early Indian people had a creator god named Brahma.

The Chinese had Nü Kua, and some believed in Pangu.

The Aztecs also believed in a supreme creator of all: Ometeuctli

His failure to comprehend the connotation and usage of the word "society" in mine, and the implication thereof: is simply symptomatic of the glaring fact that the poor lil chap has no idea whatsoever what is being discussed.

Mr Troll: You do realise i was refering to a christian?

or are you suggesting that all generic gods qualify as true in your book?

Virtually all religions and cultures have a concept of a creator, an eternal source of all things. That they call and name it differently, should only be as surprising as the fact that they call and name dogs differently.

Dogs still remain dogs though.

voltron: The Minute you bring in a deity into the theme of morality, you will always be on the move trying to hit a moving target. if you consider the nature of man, his behavior to his fellow man across the spectrum of societies, you will realize that morality is a learning that evolves and matures with time and reasoning, it has absolutely nothing to do with some supreme architect or some god(s).. it simply has to do with the expansion of knowledge and intelligence; the more society advances and understand several socio-economic themes which had previously been under the tutelage of religion, it becomes more humane, less barbaric and definitely more reasonable. that is not to say it is perfect (only religious morality makes that claim) it is evolving, thus working out the kinks

There was, therefore, nothing wrong with every ethnic genocide in history, given that that was the stage of moral evolution gasping for existence at the time that each such genocide occurred.

That is your position.

By the way, you will note that my arguments on this thread have largely avoided Deity as origin of morality: not to say that it is not.

^^^ How is this discussion about Yahweh? You are lost.

Simple!

plaetton: ^^^
I mostly agree on most of what you have written.
I just wish to remind you that when we talk about morality, we are mostly talking about aggregate morality:- An agreed-upon set of norms or rules.

Individual morality is an antithesis to what constitutes a society. Individuals within a locality must aggregate their values into one cohesive whole to be called a society.
A locality where everyone walks around with his or her own set of moral values cannot be called a society.
This aggregation of moral values is the sacrifice an individual makes to be part of the society. Society in turn, reciprocates by providing the individual with protection from whims of other members of the society.

There is no moral dilemma because the individual surrenders some rights and the society reciprocates by giving him other rights.

Deep Sight: .... Except that in this instance which we speak of, the rights are not voluntarily surrendered by the minority who disagree, the rights are forcefully seized by the (as you claim) subjective moral paradigm of other people - by reason only of their superior numbers.

Point.

Simple!

Uyi Iredia: . . . contradictory. Please add that ! Again running off from cogent points. It so happens you may continue your discuss with others.

Run away? I have made my points very very lucid and clear. Your opinion that your points are "cogent" is of course your subjective perspective only; no? Everything I have written has exhaustively dealt with your issues - and as far as I am concerned you are still yet to understand the points I made - much less address them. And this is a fact cast in iron.

I cannot waste my time arguing forever when it is obvious that you do not even understand the basic precepts at play.

^^^ Everything I need to say, I have already said. Your position is contradictory. If you cannot see that, then too bad, I can't huff and puff forever on the same points, which are lucid and clear already.

- - - >

Deep Sight: You should even ask yourself about the question - whose subjectivity within the society?

In Saudi Arabia, whose subjectivity imposes effective gender apartheid on women.

wiegraf: erm, this has already been addressed. Again, the stronger will(s). Simple.

Anyone who can look at the above endorsement of gender apartheid and not immediately throw up ( I have already) is not worthy to be called a human being.

[Edit: Not just an endorsement of gender apartheid, but a wholesale endorsement of all Might-is-Right situations, as morally apt.

Coolio. ]

Joshthefirst:

Even einstein foresaw this fanaticism.

I tire o.

The points are all now distinct for posterity.

Joshthefirst: could you answer my question please?

I hope you see that he says above that he will not punish or discipline his child for stealing.

What more needs to be said?

Even if I was an atheist, I would certainly not be this kind of reprobate atheist.

Oh lord.. I have editted a post above again instead of doing a new post. This always happens when using the damn phone. Will correct 2mmoro. Later folks. Be good.

wiegraf: Glad to see you all talking about opinions

Well done, you're beginning to get it

You really are not embarrassed to so blatantly and cowardly skip the question on punishment and discipline are you?

What a skank.