₦airaland Forum

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.

Are you kidding me? Surely you are not this ignorant of History? Surely you will not claim to be ignorant of the great contributions to the march of civilization that all these men are credited with? Surely you will not claim to be unaware of the many developments and openings that were forced by the actions of these men?

plaetton: @Deepsight and Pastor AIO:

For some reason , you guys are pretending no to understand what i am saying. Perhaps I am not saying clear enough?

I have never said or implied that UNDHR was the first recognition of human rights and dignity.
The struggle had started long ago.

I used the UNDHR as an example of the harmonisation and globalisation of morality. The enactment of an evolved universal moral ideals into universal law.
Surely, you both recognise that there had to be a reason, a necessity, for making such a global declaration.

Come on. When the British colonized Africa, they also brought their moral codes and imposed them on us. We accepted and adapted our lives to such. Many things that were seen as immoral in pre-colonial times are now accepted as ok. Likewise, many attitudes or acts that were deemed ok at that time are now seem as immoral or even illegal.

Polygamy is an example the fluidity of morality. In Africa as well as many parts of the world, polygamy is celebrated, whereas, in the west, it is seen as immoral and even illegal.
Where is the innate sense of morality?
Same can be said of many many traditions.

^^^ Do you think that -

1. Cavemen considered it wrong to steal, pillage, kill one another for resources.

2. Would YOU, looking at them, consider such wrong?

Now, your comments lead me to believe that you are quite confused on this matter, and you also do not watch Historical Drama and Series. If you did, you would recognize how perfectly natural scavenging and bullying are to humanity (which by the way, continue till this day).

Because, for confusion, you say that there was a necessity which led to such declarations as the Magna Carta, UDHR, etc. Now if you recognize that there was a necessity, then you MUST PER FORCE agree that the moral sense was ALREADY THERE: that it was INNATE: and that it did not evolve as you claimed through the ways that you claimed - and as such it already intrinsically wrong to, for example, do human sacrifice, already intrinsically wrong to kill twins and other multiple births for being such, already intrinsically wrong to ra.pe, kill and steal from one another ever before any cultural evolution identified such as wrong and articulated such as wrong.

However these are all things that animals do, and these things remain perfectly natural for animals. This is why I asked you if it is immoral when animals do these things. The strict materialist atheist says that man is an animal, only a more intelligent one. Such a person should have no problems with a more intelligent animal doing what animals do, in a more intelligent way. Period.

Mr anony: Lol, Julius and Alexander are too far. Try Hitler instead. He had already massacred 6 million Jews before it was declared that they had human rights.

Thank you o!

BUT my leaving Hitler out of it is VERY deliberate: and strangely enough Plaetton has already seized upon the reason: the proximity in time makes us all sensitive to his atrocities: and Plaetton himself confessed that some detached future generations may celebrate him as a brilliant conqueror. This proximity in time brings the horror into your face such that you recognize the despot for what a horrible creature he is. Now, I choose Alexander and Caesar and co because the detachment of time removes that emotional subjective horror and enables a dispassionate assessment of reality!

Pastor AIO: I think that the enactment of moral codes is nothing more than the articulation of a moral predisposition.

What you are saying is like, 'If I already love my wife then there is no need for to open my mouth to say that I love my wife'. As if one only starts to love commencing with the pronouncement of love.

[size=16pt]GBAM! GBA! ! GBOGA! ! ![/size]

plaetton: I do not think that you and Deepsight take time to read my post.
If an innate moral pre-existed before the enactment of moral codes, then the enactment of moral codes would be needless and redundant.
If we are born with a divine sense of right and wrong, why would human behaviour need any kind of regulation,?
Religion and religious codes would be redundant, since goodness would have been innate .

Magna carter would have been unnecessary.
The Universal declaration of human rights after 200,000 of human existence is ample proof that human morality has evolved over that period.

I think I need to shout:

[size=24pt]The point is whether or not such morality existed before the UDHR or if they only came to exist upon the proclamation of the UDHR.

IF, AS YOU SAY, MORALITY EVOLVES AND COMES TO EXIST AS MADE IN SUCH DECLARATIONS, THEN YOU CANNOT AT THE SAME TIME SAY THAT THE ACTIONS OF ALEXANDER OR JULIUS CAESAR WERE IMMORAL, AS NO SUCH CODES EXISTED AT THEIR TIME.

GET THE QUESTION NOW? GET THE ISSUE NOW? GET THE DISTINCTION NOW?[/size]

kwangi: Ghen ghen... Part two!
Wetin be spirit?
Who recognises the so-called spirit?

It is what you are. Mindless matter cannot form the living breathing thinking and feeling being that you are.

Your second name should be Jay Jay Okocha!

If you could not see me coming all the way from my opening post, the your second name should be Goal Keeper Agboni-basket.

plaetton: What exactly remains your point.

That human morality does not derive from evolution, animal instinct or survival, because all of these are completely amoral, ruthless and practical. It derives from the recognition of the spirit.

Pastor AIO: There is a chicken and egg ish here. Let us take Magna carta for example. Do you really think that someone just arbitrarily came up with Magna Carta and then that became the moral viewpoint of the english. OR is it not more likely that first came the moral sense that King's ought to be held accountable and this then after a lengthy struggle became enshrined in law.

If the Moral sense did not precede the Law making then why the struggle to have laws made, struggles that are often seen as fights for Justice.

If morality came from written laws then how comes we can feel a sense of injustice towards even the Law itself.

Can you really say that before the UN declaration of human rights that people did not feel that other humans had fundamental inalienable rights?

It seems to me that the examples you gave are not examples of contrived morality, far from it, they are Laws contrived specifically to attend to a pre-existing moral disposition.

[size=24pt]GBAM![/size]

@ Plaetton, if you examine your position carefully, you will find that it directly means that such things as slavery, apartheid and other forms of oppression, were right and good at the time that they were done since man had not yet developed or contrived better ways and instituted better moral codes. Your position would mean that these acts only became wrong when man developed further and therefore outlawed them.

Is it the Universal declaration of Human Rights that makes abuse of human rights inherently wrong? In other words, before such declarations came into place, were such abuses therefore right and good? Just as Pastor AIO has asked!

plaetton: I think you are changing the goal post to suit.
Man is an animal biologically, yes.
man is a smarter animal, yes.

Man can think, imagine, judge, love, regret.
Man, the smart animal, has used his brain to figure out that he can co-operate with his fellow humans for survival and mutual benefit.
But man, knows that individual need for survival and individual ambition can threaten the survival of the collective.
Man evolves moral codes to regulate and checkmate the excesses of individual ambition.
Once in a while renegades break from these moral codes to wreck havoc on humanity.
History takes notes of these renegades.
So what?
What exactly remains your point.

In that case these are not moral codes but simply selfish survival codes developed from fear and weakness which go against the laws of nature and natural instincts as shown in nature.

plaetton: Animals don't wake up in the morning with several options or choices for sustenance and survival.

Now its glaring that you are becoming sentimental in your reasoning: which is what you accuse the religious of. My intentions in opening this thread are thus gradually being acheived.

Man does.

This is a presumption. A great many men do NOT have choices. Millions live in stark starvation, even, as you must know, surely.

taking what belongs to others is choice

For many, it is a necessity.

Among several options that are always at our disposal.

Are you living in this world at all?

plaetton: Ofcourse ,they were immoral and evil.

They caused unspeakable horror, destruction, loss of human life, displacement, despair and grief to millions.
all the for the sake of individual or small group ambition to dominate the world.
How could you ask me such a question?

How so?

Animals do this everyday, within and without their species. I have even observed a baby eagle kill its sibling because it wanted and needed all the food that its mother was bringing to the nest. This is survival. If we are merely more intelligent animals, we will naturally develop better ways of doing same. More sophisticated warfare is one. When we get past that, apartheid is another.When we get past that, globalization and economic imperialism are yet others.

Remember that this thread is for the strict materialist who sees man as a higher animal only. Such people must not complain that a higher animal acts like animals but does it better.

[quote author=igbo_barbie]I really do not understand what is happening to me this year. Everything seems to be going wrong for me esp academic wise. I am currently doing my postgrad and this year i feel like i do not have the motivation or passion for my course. It really is a challenge for me to study and am constantly feeling drowsy or i get ill. Migraines,stomach aches,body pains and recently acid reflux or just always something. I also cannot seem to concentrate for long. This is not me because i have never been this way before so i really do not know what to do anymore. I"ve spoken to a pastor about this before and have prayed for me but things have not really improved. Over the past year and a half i have not really been that strong in my faith such as praying regulary and going to church. I dunno what to do and where to start but i want to get closer to God, i want to have that fulfillin relationship with God because i know that i cannot go on like this anymore. All advice and prayers are welcome. Thanks[/quote]1. Calm down.

2. Recognize WHO and WHAT you are. A Spirit being created by God, living in a finite life and realm.

3. Ask yourself what you want out of this life donated to you by God.

4. Ask yourself how you will achieve those objectives.

5. Collect yourself, and calmly create schedules and goals. Calmly, one step at a time go about these without panic or hurry.

6. See a Medical doctor about your aches and pains and tiredness. You may need some medical attention.

7. KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON.

^^^ Ol boy, you have not said anything. i cannot glean anything from your posts. In case you didn't know, the whole point of the thread is to contest the idea that man is an animal. If man was indeed an animal, his animal instincts would govern his moral choices. However there is clearly that part of man that is above animal instinct. That is the part that renders him man. This thread, as I said earlier, is rendered for the sake of contesting the strict materialist view of the nature of man as an animal, a product of the mindless interaction of matter only.

kwangi: ^^YES!
They were immoral.
Dis topic suppose don dead by now!

WHY? IF MAN BE NOTHING BUT A SMARTER APE, WHAT MAKES TERRITORY GRABBING AMONG SMART APES IMMORAL? THE LOWER APES DO SO BY PRIMITIVE FIGHTING: SINCE WE ARE SMARTER, WE DO SO BY SOPHISTICATED FIGHTING: WEAPONS, GUNS, BOMBS, JETS, ARMIES. HOW IS THIS IMMORAL FOR HEAVENS SAKE?

plaetton: We study their acts to teach the folly and consequences of unchecked individual ambition.

Can you in all good conscience claim that this is why we study the conquests of Alexander, Caesar, Bonarparte, Genghis Khan, and co? Can you point to one single History book that paints any of these men in a negative light or suggests that they ought not to have conquered as they did? Is it not rather the case that they are storied in History with celebration of their conquests, great monuments and statues and the like? Can you genuinely claim that they are "sore thumbs" and are reviled and only taught about as bad lessons? Can you really claim this? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

^^^ Please, please, please AND please: for heavens sake can you just give me a specific, direct answer on my question:

Were those acts of warfare IMMORAL? ? ? ? ? ?

Yes or no will suffice, please!

mazaje: The topic is about satan not sound, if you want to discuss sound open a topic and discuss it there, what is the form or image of satan?. . .Don't dodge, answer the question. . .

You really disappointed me on my question on seeing yourself. Can you try again please?

plaetton: @Deepsight:
Most are confused about what it is you are actually trying to say< or maybe you are confused about what we are trying to point out.

Morality, I repeat, does not stand on its own. Morality is not some kind of infinite and immutable set of codes that are created and are therefore independent and self-sustaining.
No.
It is always tethered to a human culture. As cultures evolve , so does their collective morality.
Morality is an expression of the collective will of the collective.
Individual needs, I repeat, do not define morality. Infact, moral codes are set up for the specific purposes of checkmating the excesses of individual ambition.
Again, as others have made it clear, morality is not and does not have to follow any logic, and vise versa.

No one disagrees with you that human history is replete with instances where individual ambition had usurped and dominated the will and resources of a wider collective.
That is why we teach history, so that we may not repeat their errors.
So, what are the verdicts of history on those conquerers and meglomaniacs? Awe and great disgust.

As members of diverse communities and nations interact, there tends to be a gradual harmonization of culture and morality. With globalisation, humans have come to see themselves as one big global family. as a global family we have harmonized a great deal of important moral issues to the point where they have become law as the universal declaration of human rights.

So our status as advanced animals, rather than place a premium on individual need to conquer and survive, places more emphasis on protection, equality and preservation of personnel and resources for all.

Bottom line:
Morality is a contrived set of rules by groups for mutual benefit. Is has supremacy over the instinctive individual drive for survival by means of domination and self aggrandisement.

Can you please address the question I asked:

Deep Sight: The question therefore, would be if these acts of war targeted at achieving resources, are immoral or evil?

Was colonization evil? Was the expansion into the new world with its attendant acts of war on the native populations evil? Were the expansionist wars of the great generals, Alexander the Great, Darius, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, evil or immoral acts?

Additionally, can you tell me if there are any History Books which teach that the acts of Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great or Ghengis Khan, were evil and wrong acts not to be emulated. Is it not rather the case, that History reveres and celebrates these men as great men?

Please be very specific in your answer to the question in red in my quote above.

@ thehomer: your responses in this thread sir, with respect, are utterly cowardly and disgraceful.

doubleDx: @OP Sir,

The girl in question has the knowledge that a kid is supposed to have a Mother. She might have seen other kids with their Mothers/Parents, no? This is certainly not the same as creating an imaginary god in our minds just because we do not have and feel there is need for one.

The girl's case is different, she doesn't have a Mother and felt there is need for one because she knew kids are supposed to have Mothers. Just my opinion!

Nice picture, BTW! This thread is a the front page material...

That's the same way Humans have a conscious experience that everything finite has a cause and origin. This is exactly why the generality of Humans per force believe that they have a cause and origin, in spirit, mind, and thought, no?

plaetton: By the same token we can assert that humans get easily addicted to opioids and other narcotics and hallucinagens because humans have an innate need for.........?
Illusions of wellbeing , grandeur, mental clarity and control?
Do you agree?
What is the difference between the cravings for narcotics? and the cravings for god?

O yes, correct, there is no problem with that. The logic still stands.

Pastor Kun: @Deepsight

I guess you are trying to say humans create their image of God based on an innate need for a god.

[size=24pt]Score: 100 % ! ! ! ! ! ![/size]

kwangi: By what measures did you arrive at the conclusion that acts of war, robbery... are inspired by the need for survival?
Was colonisation inspired by greed, vain glory or need for survival?
Morality is what keeps man's base instincts/urges in check.

Well if animals do this, and humans are higher animals, why is it wrong for humans to develop higher methods of doing same?

wiegraf: I was going to highlight that, but it occurred to me that they were indeed logical, unless you can show otherwise.




Logic to attain what purpose?

If your point is that being logical will lead to situations we generally consider morally wrong by today's standards, mine is that this is probably a false dilemma. The premises do not inevitably lead to where you're heading. Despite how counter-intuitive it may seem, violence, necessary evils are not necessarily the most logical course. Strife leads to less stability, less productivity, etc. These objectives are usually not desirable, therefore it would be illogical to pursue them.

It remains to be seen if materialists disagree with this logic.



Like I indicated, that was addressing your other post, and all the bolded are related to morality.

Nope. Not talking logicality as per those actions. Asking about Morality. End of.

If its an animal, why cant it do what animals do, and do it better?

ooman: in the language of Striky : Olodo

because animals do this, does that mean its right?

animals also kill humans, is that therefore right simply because they are animals and we are animals.

why you dey fall my hand na?

Don't be daf.t. YOU stated clearly that HUMANS ARE ANIMALS.

HOW AND WHY THEN do you proceed to contradict yourself by saying that whats right for one animal is wrong for another? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

ooman: and Deepsight, how many times will I tell you that survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean kill? survival of the fittest is always at work in the human community, only the well read pass, at times only those who have godfathers get a job, only the fittest survive does not mean only the assassins survival. you and your kind have an incomplete knowledge of evolution, I couldn't be moved by your fallacies.

if you want to be a thief, just say it, rob a bank and see if material atheists wont lock you up when caught.

Dont be silly. Of course the strong trump the weak in nature, and this is certainly a part of the concept. Only the strongest and best genes get to perpetuate. How is that not survival of the fittest. Please, its obvious the questions have you in a corner and you have nothing of moment or consequence to say. If you cannot deconstruct the VERY SIMPLE premises and conclusion set forth, please go siddon.

ooman: humans are animals, some are dumber than some animals, some are dumber than slot for eg

it depends on your definition of immorality.

you are immoral only when you harm a member of your species.

to live is to kill

This is contradictory. If humans are animals, why is it wrong for them to kill amongst themselves, for territory, and scavenge. Animals do this.

ooman: ^^^ iranu meaning nonsense, none sense

Please answer these questions with simple and direct sincerity -

1. Are humans animals?

2. Is it immoral or evil for animals to kill or scavenge?

Thanks.

ooman: iranu

WTF? ? ? ?

striktlymi: I know and that is why I did not stop at just 'killing'...I believe I said 'killing for food'...do these lions go ahead to have a feast on 'lion stew' after the kill?

O, then you will agree then, that for the strict materialist atheist, it should not be wrong or immoral to kill other humans so long as this is not for food. For example, kill them to take their land, houses and resources. This is what happens in war anyway. So that should not be considered evil or immoral.

...and human instincts guide them in the same way as the instincts of other animals? If humans are guided basically by instincts then why complain when someone gets raped? C'mon man, this is obvious!

The strict materialist atheist should NOT complain when people are ra.ped or molested.

Here too you twist what I said...I believe my exact words were: "cannot control it's instincts relatively"...you threw out the 'relatively' thingy and harped on the rest....hence you did not address my comment but what you twisted.

Good, and therefore, since we too as humans do not have absolute control over our instincts, then it is proper for such instincts to manifest in the world to the degree that we are not able to control them as well!

The conclusion still does not follow because you failed to address my concerns...all you did was formulate what looks like my concerns and addressed same.

For the strict materialist atheist, the conclusion DOES AND MUST follow: it is cast adamantly in stone and completely IRON CLAD.

No P man...I was just attracted by your challenge.


#Maybe now I allow you continue your dance.

Dancing!

^ Why una dey fall my hand na?

striktlymi: You fail to tell us what determines right and wrong for animals...

If you want to go by the laws of nature, then do we say that it is in line with the laws of nature for a lion (just saying) to kill another lion for food?

If this is not right by nature then your first premise falls apart because then there will be some cases where some killings would be wrong, even for animals.

Secondly, when you say other animals, do you mean something like a lion killing an antelope? If this is the case then it would be inappropriate for a man to kill a fellow man...the rule then would be kill others but not your own specie...

It is standard Lion culture to take over prides by killing the Dominant Male and all his cubs as well.

What kind of animals are humans? Are humans guided by their natural instincts or do they have a well defined thought process?

If a lower animal is guided by instinct (considering that it can't control it's instincts relatively) and it kills based on that, what then do we base the killing of man?

The second premise does not flow from the first cause you do not compare like with like...

Of course, humans, like animals, have very strong instincts that they are also guided by.

Secondly, it is false to say that "lower animals" cannot control their instincts. They do so every day. Even my dog does so in many ways.

The conclusion really does not follow...

The conclusion ineluctably and inescapably follows.

Mind that this is not my worldview: I say to the strict materialist atheist that this is the implication of his strict materialist views on moral notions.