₦airaland Forum

wiegraf: You clown you can ignore my talk about wills as much as you, how the f.uck does that affect reality? Gravity is still there regardless of your opinion.

And you talk about murder being different to killing due to justification. Well, justification by who's standard??

Don't you dare think I'm ignoring rape. I'm on mobile atm and its a chore. Not to mention its already been dealt with....

I repeat, your faith in humanity is appalling, among other things.

Edit : Lol I wish I quoted your earlier post? Why did you change it?

You now replace it with another of your standard issue appeals to emotion

Really...

Changed which post? I did not change any post, there are some posts I have added to, for clarity, but did not change any post. . . . .

Deep Sight: Some unholy part of me almost wishes that you are beset with these atrocities at close quarters in order to have first hand experience that will enable you to assess better if they are intrinsically evil or not, and if they are "entirely subjective" or not, and if malum in se acts exist or not. . . . . . . . but heaven forbid. Rather one day you will learn in some gentle fashion the error of your contentions.

Murder and r.ape. . . two acts that I unfortunately witnessed first hand on that horrible night last year when I was abducted by armed robbers at Lekki. . . .

I will not wish any one such an experience, but maybe there are people whose worldviews would profit from seeing first hand what I saw. . .

It might add a dose of practical truth and reality to their arm chair contentions that nothing is intrinsically evil. . . .

O, well. . .

https://www.nairaland.com/1087891/armed-robbery-experience-thoughts-nigerian

Reyginus: What is the meaning of this?

Deep Sight: Good grief! What terribly garbled irrational contradictions!

! ! !

bigfrancis21: There are no ethnic tribes/groups in heaven. Ethnic tribes and groups are things of the earth. Instead there are soul groups of about 10 souls on average which contain souls of similar characters/affinity who are on the same level of spiritual evolution. Soul groups are enormous.

As a soul evolves, it changes soul groups. It leaves behind its former soul group and enters a new one of higher evolution. At times, souls from the same soul group can decide to incarnate together on earth, with each souls taking on different circumstances and helping each other out. Our best friends in life are usually members of our soul group, here to help ourselves out during those hard and trying times we're in need.

When souls from a soul group are leaving together at the same time for earth, they try hard to imprint in their memories the physical face of the earth bodies of one another, so as to be able to recognize them quickly when they meet in life. They say their last goodbyes, and leave hoping that life goes well as planned.

There are no larger "streams" or "groupings" or "tendencies" made distinct in any imaginable way(s)?

Governments?

DrummaBoy: @ Enigma, I notice how these 'papist' have avoided your posts like a plague! Lol. .

They have said unto themselves - "Let him be anathema!"

@ All, witness profound reasoning. Have you ever seen this in your life?

It is said that this - >

wiegraf: You have a stronger will? Use it

Addresses this - >

Reyginus: If you conscribe morality to such a relative and amoral position, with what standard do you think you can trust your words over mine if in my subjectivism, which you alluded to, I view it as objective?

- - -> In a discussion about morality. . .

[size=30pt]WOW.[/size]

wiegraf: You have a stronger will? Use it

And how exactly does this have any bearing on morality or immorality please?

Is this not simply the law of the jungle - and has nothing whatsoever to do with morality?

Good grief?

wiegraf: Aaaaannnddd like I said, that's already been addressed.

You have a stronger will? Use it

I do NOT make the laws. No one does actually. Dreaming them off won't make them dissapear. You cannot wish away 1+1=2

I do not have crayons here

Please show me where you addressed the point. Give me an Idi.ot's guide please.

Thank you.

wiegraf: What point you clown? Do you require a diagram as well? I don't have any crayons here so that could take while

This point - >

Reyginus: If you conscribe morality to such a relative and amoral position, with what standard do you think you can trust your words over mine if in my subjectivism, which you alluded to, I view it as objective?

Which is the same point I made on the thread where Plaetton and I argued subjectivity, albeit arising from different facts.

https://www.nairaland.com/1255695/evil-confirms-absence-god/4#19613758

The point that shows that with your subjectivist stance, nothing whatsoever can be known or said.

The same point I made here -

Deep Sight: 4. The deepest point in all of this, is that of the meaninglessness of the argument of strict subjective perception. Reygenius alluded to this, and I also posted a link of a response I made to another atheist elsewhere on same subject. In summary, and to be most concise, if the argument of the subjectivists holds true, nobody can ever know anything whatsoever to be objectively true, and no argument or statement whatsoever can ever be made: for all things remain strictly within the realm of our subjective perception: nothing can be known to be true. This key point is that which is missed here: and indeed is the reason why I say Uyi Iredia has no idea of the subject being discussed here at all. He is truly ignorant of that which he seeks to discuss.

Big Francis/ Rossike,

Can you comment on the existence of spiritual nations/ ethnic groups/ tribes - - - > akin to earthly ones - - - > if such exist or not - - - > and if they exist, in what sense do they exist - - - > re: afterlife/ heaven?

Mr Troll: For Deepsight to assert that atheists should have no sense of morality is simply stupid.

The silliness is all yours, dear Mr. Troll, for Deep Sight never said any such thing.

Deep Sight argued that a person who says that all morality is strictly subjective only, has no basis for condemning the actions of any other person whatsoever: as they should recognize that that person is governed and should be governed only by his own subjective morality.[/quote]Your answer? ? ?

wiegraf: I've already addressed this, in English. Use Google translate, assuming it speaks , if you still don't get it

What a lamentably weak, cowardly, escapist, lying and disgraceful response to a very strong point.

[quote author=david_hume]Can you give me some examples of this objective morality and show how society can enforce it without the slightest hint of hypocrisy?
Thanks![/quote]Objective Morality against Murder

Objective Morality against R.ape

Two simple examples. You enforce them with the enactment of criminal laws and a criminal justice system based on that objective recognition.

If these were subjective, there would NEVER be any legitimate basis to enact such laws and enforce them: for that would amount to nothing more than the imposition of the subjective views of some over others.

- - - - -- - - - - - - - -

CONSIDER THIS:

The position of ALL the subjectivists here means that something such as slavery was MORALLY RIGHT at the time that it was practiced - by subjective opinion of those practicing it.

This position renders that it (slavery) ONLY became morally wrong when abolished.

This is an incredibly irrational position or implication because - >

1. If slavery was morally right at the time when practiced, there would have not been a moral agitation against it, much less one that led to a universal recognition of its abhorrence.

2. If slavery was morally right at the time when practiced, there should be NO detestation of the historical acts of slavers whatsoever: based on the recognition that it was morally right at the time when practiced: but this is not so.

3. The very same people who here declaim that something such as slavery was NOT intrinsically wrong at the time when practiced, but subjective only, go about mocking and condemning the toleration of slavery by, for example, the biblical God, and others. On what basis do they do this? - - - > Notwithstanding that this is, in their opinion, NOT intrinsically wrong, and only entirely subjective. They should rather be silent and contend that whereas they may not like it, there is nothing to condemn because it is a subjective matter. Just as surely as, in the matter of ho.mose.xuality, for example, they similarly may not like it, but do not condemn it as they consider it subjective.

4. The deepest point in all of this, is that of the meaninglessness of the argument of strict subjective perception. Reygenius alluded to this, and I also posted a link of a response I made to another atheist elsewhere on same subject. In summary, and to be most concise, if the argument of the subjectivists holds true, nobody can ever know anything whatsoever to be objectively true, and no argument or statement whatsoever can ever be made: for all things remain strictly within the realm of our subjective perception: nothing can be known to be true. This key point is that which is missed here: and indeed is the reason why I say Uyi Iredia has no idea of the subject being discussed here at all. He is truly ignorant of that which he seeks to discuss.

Uyi Iredia: I think you fail to see that our ability to differ CONTRADICTS your absolutist/objectivist position and betters our case because it is YOUR point of view you consider. The problem with Reyginus and you is you assume this 'standard'. In any case, the standard in this case would clearly be Reyginus' opponent's.

Good grief! What terribly garbled irrational contradictions! It suddenly dawns on me that you have had no idea at all what is being discussed! From the beginning you had no clue what the subject was and you still don't!

OMG!

[quote author=The Harbinger ~]lol. After seeing the futile foolishness of saying God does not have freewill you resort to this again?

Sorry, but I've explained why saying God should create "sinless freewill" is foolish and self destructive in itself. That God is above reason does not mean he will subscribe to foolishness.[/quote]Good work. . . . but you are wasting your time with this man.

wiegraf: While I make the (mostly brainless) cowards that chose the right religion, sing

Yes, they'd be singing while they watch me put some hot irons on babies, among other things.....

Why mock such actions. . . . have you forgotten such is not intrinsically wrong, and is only subjective . . . ?

Reyginus: Lol. I am still not convinced that you have sufficient information on the implication of your previous post.

Your first sentence betrays the point you were making. To suggest that morality can be rightly pronounced relative, and also infringes on the values of fellow man, is suggestive of the absence of a moral law.

If you conscribe morality to such a relative and amoral position, with what standard do you think you can trust your words over mine if in my subjectivism, which you alluded to, I view it as objective?

Gbam! Gbammer ! ! Gbammest ! ! !

Honestly, the very self-defeating nature of these arguments being made here by these atheists, is surprising: even though what is more surprising is that they fail to see it.

Mr Troll: @deepsight, there's this thing you like doing and i'm afraid i'm gonna have to address it this time. This thread was over for you from the very 1st page but somehow when the christians started replying you suddenly found your voice and started building silly strawman arguments in order to push your quite simply, dishonest agenda. I believe you read my OP where all this your needless whinings where addressed. Maybe i'll start mocking you the way i mock some christians here. My replies coming up. . .

What childish prattle, do you think I am some high school teen who gives a hoot about being mocked? ? ?

Mock away, it certainly has no bearing on my earning my livelihood. While you mock, be sure to make some sense by addressing the questions raised on mala in se, mala prohibita, natural law and positive law, as well as the basis for the existence of criminal law, if all morality is strictly subjective.

^^^ I suspected you would not discern the relevance of that post to yours. I can't help you then.

Uyi Iredia: Typical Deep Sight when boxed into a corner. Goes for stout or goes to sleep. Good night sir.

Lol. Stout is good. Sleep is also good.

You have not boxed anybody into a corner here.

The sort of argument you are making borders on subjective perspecitive and it nullifies every conceivable discussion. It is the same argument, in effect, that Plaetton made in a different thread, albeit springing from different issues.

I did an exhaustive explanation of why it is a useless argument here -

https://www.nairaland.com/1255695/evil-confirms-absence-god/4#19613758

If you read it and cannot see the direct relevance to your argument here, and how it nullifies your argument, then I cannot help you.

Good nightie!

Uyi Iredia: This is just poor on your part. Very unlike you to do this_oh ! I almost forgot, you did it in my 'Atheism Is A Religion' thread. In any case as to this contradiction. It isn't. You seeing it as a contradiction proves my moral subjectivity. You see it as a contradiction, I don't. Also, moral subjectivity allows for it. You are insinuating because everyone has a moral view, it follows that all must be allowed, specifically, the minority viewpoint shouldn't give way to the majority. Not so. Believe it or not morality works by convention or force, or better yet and interplay between. You even fail to see that a minority's viewpoint can be persuade to or be imposed on a majority, especially if, say, the minority wins a war. That's what Nazi's did and that's what the British did to Nigerians. There should and are criminal laws because subjective views are averaged out by agreement (or force) and are enforced. Everyone as a function of moral subjectivity may or may not adhere to such laws eg Boko Haram but for the most part the laws work.

I have not and will not read this.

Your dilemmas are incurable.

I have laid them out above (not for you) but for any poor future readers who may happen on this sad thread, where the very lowest of humanity and intellect, not to speak of morality, has been advertised.

Good night.

^^^ Lol, just saw that you want to guard your kids from the hypocrisy you say you and everyone else has and is unavoidable. . . . you try.

The hypocrisy which is your expressly stated defense for saying that Hitler has done nothing wrong but bit.ching about the wrongs of Yahweh. And your defense to that was to admit you are a hypocrite. Now you wish to tell your kids something else - to limit their hypocrisy.

Bruv, you need a mental hospital.

Night!

wiegraf: It is exactly what I'll teach them. To learn to negotiate and recognize it's never black and white, else they get engrossed in their self righteousness and leave their hypocrisy unchecked. To follow their own conscience as it's likely better than following a head sheeple ordained by 'god' or similar. To recognize the universe wasn't built just for them, or even us humans as a species. Also, to appreciate that man is capable of great feats, no gods necessary, and our destiny is in our hands. Not of some god telling us how many times a day we can piss.

Have to go now. Kudos.

And you speak of disgusting??

Enjoy.

wiegraf: Yes, I have, of doing anything intrinsically wrong.

Oh, and finally - let this also be enough for you to shat ya yap once and for all over Yahweh and his supposed atrocities - its all subjective, and none of those atrocities was intrinsically wrong. So case against Yahweh closed.

Good night.

wiegraf: No, you stop wasting our time your unadulterated nonsense. Htf does having a conscience = objective moral code. Really, what is wrong with you?

I repeat;

Spaghetti exists, therefore FSM

You must be drunk.

Stout also exists, therefore Flying Stout Monster.

At what point will you become rightly ashamed of the brevity of your intellect, spirituality and morality?

wiegraf: Yes, I have, of doing anything intrinsically wrong. Just as I absolve you of doing any intrinsic wrong when you butcher other animals for meat.

I think I've made it pretty clear now, no? I do NOT deny this.

I do not absolve him of violating my own personal code, though. Not at all.

And given that your own personal code is just yours, then Hitler has no issues to worry about. He acted just fine in his own subjective moral code. This is your position, since you subscribe to strict subjectivity.

This, you should ensure that you teach your children, okay?

I am sure it would be a great teaching for them.

Oh, and post script: that in bold up there, is just disgusting and frankly low.

wiegraf: Incredible, conscience exists, therefore objective morality....

Spaghetti exists, therefore FSM..

And again, oh again, conscience is an objective experience?? And exactly what sort of creatures conscience do you speak of? How do you decide which conscience is the objective one, that of the majority?

From conscience to FSM is just the most pathetic and even egregiously drunken leap I have ever seen.

Stop wasting our time with this nonsense.

wiegraf: What's truly sad is this pathetic appeal to emotions.

Hitler appealed to those as well, when he was justifying genocide. Appealed to his objective good as well.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]And what's that law which states once you senselessly bring up hitler in a debate, you've lost it?[/url]

The simple fact of the matter is that you have absolved him of any wrong.

End of.

Uyi Iredia: Before I continue I'll note that we have agreed that consciousness is fundamental to morality. That is a common ground we, and I say, both the moral relativist and objectivist share. Now to your argument.



All you did was label them and hold they are a binding force on everyone. In fact, they aren't really a binding force, for if they were, there would be no argument, we would be bound to them.



Okay.




Agreed, but and it could be similar too.

, but what was "by nature" should be the same everywhere

Depends on how one looks at it. Gravity is a natural force and it differs from place to place eg Earth and moon. But then, natural laws eg those of thermodynamics hold virtually everywhere.

A "law of nature" would therefore have had the flavor more of a paradox than something that obviously existed.[1] Against the conventionalism that the distinction between nature and custom could engender, Socrates and his philosophic heirs, Plato and Aristotle, posited the existence of natural justice or natural right (dikaion physikon, δικαιον φυσικον, Latin ius naturale). Of these, Aristotle is often said to be the father of natural law.[3]

This is simply a morality they argue for and label it natural as an ad hoc authority people would respect. No different from how Christians use the term 'God told me' to rubber-stamp actions.

The best evidence of Aristotle's having thought there was a natural law comes from the Rhetoric,

That was the worst place to come up with. Can't believe logicboy is smarter on this ? Rhetoric was all about supporting one's arguments. BTW, natural justice should
be tied down to physicochemical laws and their relation to human acts, in particular. Say, fruits are better for humans than grass which we can't digest.

where Aristotle notes that, aside from the "particular" laws that each people has set up for itself,

Moral subjectivity is thus allowed for, even in their conception of 'natural law'.

there is a "common" law that is according to nature.[16] Specifically, he quotes Sophocles and Empedocles:
Universal law is the law of Nature.

I think he is trying to appeal for morality in a way it doesn't operate. Without respect to anyone like actual natural laws, like gravity.


For there really is, as every one to some extent divines, a natural justice and injustice that is binding on all men, even on those who have no association or covenant with each other.

The underlined phrase does Aristotle no justice and further my case. What if I said to no extent does 'natural justice' bind on men. Even Aristotle brings in subjectivity by the underlined phrase in this concept you appeal to. And you want me to accept it ? You think it solves the problem ?

I cannot make sense of anything you wrote. You asked me for my position and I said natural law. Simple.

That does not answer your dilemma of having to show why there should be criminal laws if "its all subjective" - - -> Because, as I showed, you, your position is lamentably contradictory.

wiegraf: [size=15pt]WHY DIDN'T GOD CREATE SINLESS FREEWILL??[/size]

How anyone can ask such a question as this, and still remain deluded that he is a rational being, is beyond me.

Does the above look like freewill to you? You are asking God to create a square circle, and you are the same person who shouts that square circles are a logical impossibility.

You need help. Your case is becoming critical.

A thread that can lead atheists to declare that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the genocidal actions of Adolf-Hitler is truly cry-worthy.

We can now see that the religionists do have a point when they speak to the dangers of the extremism that some atheists push themselves to in a bid to run away from the existence of God. . . . .

Sad. . . .

Joshthefirst: you might add the laws set in germany that legally allowed them to kill 11 million people uinder hitler. legally.

To legally rule that other humans were less than human and worthy of elimination was accepted by the majority.

That is the very sad conclusion of the position of wiegraf, Mr. Troll, and Uyi Iredia here.

The blatant truth is that these guys cannot believe this horrific nonsense. The truth is that they are desperately telling themselves these horrifying, reprobate, perverted lies because they cannot stand the spectre of the truth: namely the existence of a morality derived from on-high.