₦airaland Forum

Mr anony: @DeepSight. . . .and here is what I think a good description of Pastor AIO

"We know that we know nothing," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge --
"There are no absolutes," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute --
"You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious," they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, or a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

thehomer: All you're doing is just committing the naturalistic fallacy. The fact [size=16pt]that animals do it doesn't make it appropriate for humans to.[/size]

Humans commit these actions everyday? Everyday do you have humans eating their partners after copulation?

Mr anony: Torturing babies for fun is immoral j

thehomer: Asked and answered.

thehomer:

Humans don't derive their moral precepts from other animals so comparing what animals do with respect to trying to discover moral ideas is a waste of time.

That's the thing. Without knowledge of all the factors that will play upon a situation it is impossible to make a moral judgement on anything.

https://www.nairaland.com/335826/pastor-aio-come-teach-us#4723301

homosapiens: Deepsight is disappointing by his position on this thread.

Mr anony: Lol, why my you dey shout? What have you found?

Mr anony: I have not said that you contradicted yourself at all. I am only wondering why you would bother going through a long argument on morality if in the end you'll say that we don't and cannot know anything.

If we don't and cannot know anything, how do you know that it is true that we don't and cannot know anything? Shouldn't you rather be saying that you believe strongly that we cannot know anything? To which anyone can simply reply with "I know that you do in fact know some things" . . .and you can't really respond because you cannot know that he knows that you some things. You can only believe strongly that he doesn't.

You see the problem is that [size=16pt]you have led yourself into an absurd position just so that you can escape bearing the burden of the question of whether objective morality really exists or not[/size]

Pastor AIO: Please lay the contradicting position side by side for me to see.

Mr anony: I know about Descartes, but that's not what I am arguing about. What I have a problem with is why you would suddenly adopt that stance. It appears to me as an attempt to escape the topic rather than confront it.

Mr anony: Is the act immoral because it is murder or because it is in broad daylight?

Logicboy03: Deepsight loves to ignore arguments that destroy his premises and conclusions..............

Pastor AIO: I would say that what is deemed Mala in se is 'merely' deemed so. it is the deeming part . . .

The issue of euthanasia suffices to complicate the murder part.

Pastor AIO: Okay, so can I take it that you think there is an objective morality beyond the human sense of morality? Even then I still think that is subject to change. But I won't go into that part. Rather I'll press you to demonstrate this objective morality.


ps. I get that you are making this thread over a somewhat different issue. That against the claims of materialists etc etc.

wiegraf: And do tell how exactly was I dancing around?

You make a claim, that they are wrong/evil because their value system is flawed. I am asking you, again, what exactly is this value system? What is their objective.

Please don't play musical chairs

Pastor AIO: Stop whining. It doesn't befit you.

My last few post do not contradict anything that I've said before. I am of the opinion that the [size=20pt]sense of[/size] Morality changes from time to time and culture to culture, you obviously aren't. I'm okay with that, you obviously aren't, but you don't have to bitch about it.

wiegraf: And exactly what are the objectives of these strict materialists? Or they have non? What do they value?

plaetton: Good question Anony.
You are I on the same team, even if for a fraction of a second.
lol.

plaetton: I see a contradiction here.
If they were evil, then Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, etc were aslo very very evil, for their reckless ambitions led to the loss of millions of lives. These men cut swaths of blood throughout their paths.

Pastor AIO: I was referring to the abandoning of twins actually. Worldview has a great effect on what you think is morally right or wrong.

Mr anony: You answered too hastily. There is something I wanted you to notice which you missed.

If these people are as convinced of their goodness in the same way you are convinced of their evil then surely there cannot really be objective moral principles if both of you are subject to very different moral principles. Or don't you think so?

Pastor AIO: LOL! I wouldn't agree. I'd say because that was right in their moral opinion, but that Morality has evolved. By Morality I now mean the plurality of all moral codes. In other words you could say that One set of prevailing moral codes have been replaced by another set that come into prevalence.

Pastor AIO: There is another reason that all of the above except for Hitler are celebrated. None, apart from Hitler, executed a program of mass systematic genocide against a racial group. This is Hitler's great ill.

Alexander, apart from being a conqueror, set about spreading Greek philosophy and technology around the world. He was worshipped as a God in many of the nations he conquered. He actually took philosophers on his campaigns with him and introduced them to the thinkers and intellectuals of the nations he conquered.

Ghengis Khan . . . Okay, that one too was just a maniac . . . but he is not celebrated in history books except as a war leader.

Napoleon too, went around spreading the Napoleonic code which is imho is one of the greatest things that europe experienced at that time which helped to free them from feudalism. He too took scientists on his campaign. When he conquered Egypt he spent the occupation studying the ancient ruins. That was when the rosetta stone was decoded (I think). Personally I'm a napoleon fan (apart from his ego), I feel that the british just had Bad belle for him.

Mr anony: @Deepsight let me butt in here to ask you a question.

If it was already morally wrong from the onset to kill twins, why did people feel it was morally right to do so?
Surely you know that the person who killed her own twin children did it because she was convinced that it was the right thing to do. Same applies to those Nigerians of not so long ago who hammered nails into the heads of their children in the name of "killing witches".

What do you have to say about these people? They were as convinced of their righteousness as you are convinced of their guilt.

plaetton: Alexander the Great, Ghengis khan, Napoleon, Hitler, etc., are celebrated for their Notoriety, not for any positive contributions to human progress.
Humans are fascinated by Notoriety. That is common knowledge.

If these men were celebrated for their any positive contributions to humanity, then many many would be trying everyday to emulate their deeds.