₦airaland Forum

thehomer:
Wow. Just wow. Take a look at the statement you made in bold and read what you thought was me shifting the goal posts.
You're questioning the atheist's basis of morality. When I question the idea of a God based morality based on his commands, you claim the goal posts are shifting.
Things like this just make me laugh.

Maybe you don't understand the topic or maybe you are just too inured to your un-objective way of thinking.

The OP says the idea of "evil" means there is no God. Well, the question to him (and to you if you are capable) is: what is the basis for regarding something as "evil" or "good" in the first place and he/you must define the "God" that is disproved by the existence of evil. We simply put the theistic point to him, that you cannot establish "good" or "evil" objectively unless you start with a premise that recognises God, Simples.

Where in that is any claim of a God-dictated morality?

If you don't understand the point simply say so and mybe some kind hearted person will explain further. You will not get away with the sleight of hand and shift the goal posts technique.

@Plaetton

As Thelstan has already shown, it seems you do not understand what is meant by objective morality.

Let us take another example: some societies still believe in female circumcision and happily do it --- even the persons to be circumcised happily do it. Yet westerners (and people seeking their money) keep shouting about the "evils" of what they call 'female Core gen.ital mutilation'. So which is it? Is the act "evil" or not and on what basis do we determine whether it is indeed "evil" or not?

You're welcome Thelstan.

Actually, I want to follow up an interesting point you made with this: the militant/aggressive/evangelical/etc atheists like to quote that famous phrase of Epicurus, meanwhile they overlook the fact that Epicurus was not arguing a caae for atheism with that quote at all; similarly they like to refer to the 'Euthypro dilemma' (or a modified modern version) but they overlook that Plato assumed the existence of a god or gods with the so-called dilemma.

Thelstan:
. . .Thehomer,

I am tired of this unfruitful back and forth. I have the RIGHT to state that I am a theist and leave it at that without you attempting to box me into a corner with definitions of a God, which is [i]my [/i]personal God and you have no business about. I, for example, am content knowing that you are an atheist and I leave it at that. There are too many brands of atheism and I don't actually care which one of them you subscribe to, knowing you are an atheist is sufficient for our discussion. And yes, I can discuss the problem here without recourse to any particular strawman representation of God e.g. a white bearded guy in the sky, for you to attack. . . .

He is trying his usual sleight of hand and shift the goalpost tactics. Reading his post just makes one shake head at the dishonesty. Take just one example: he speaks of some God-dictated morality when so far that has not been the issue of discussion.

The outstanding question that the militant/aggressive/evangelical/etc atheists are avoiding: what is the basis of your morality and on what basis do you classify ANYTHING as "good" or "evil"?

In fairness, one of them says there is no objective morality; only he does not realise the ramifications of such a statement. What's new?

Keys nos 1 & 2 from here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-298119.0.html   

1. Make sure your main focus is on Christians. You can 'touch' on other groups to appear even-handed, but ensure you are careful to make Christians your constant target; you don't want to get killed in a Jihad, do you? So only 'mention' the others such as Islam but then say that there is no difference between radical Muslims and 'fundamentalist' Christians.

2. Remember that you are looking for faults in other religions (Christians) not trying to defend yours so do not try to prove atheism! Remember, it's much easier to destroy than build up.

The OP did not mention the Christian God; I have not focused on the Christian God. Above all we have asked the OP to define what he means by "God"; we have also asked the OP to define what he means by "good". He has done neither! Also, his definition of "evil" is evidently inadequate.


Thus the so-called atheists* are so far only wasting everyone's time.



* More properly: evangelical atheists, militant atheists, aggressive atheists, fanatical atheists etc etc etc.

Chop knuckle, then (and very nice to 'see' you especially if you are who I think).

Hi Thelstan

Welcome to Nairaland. You 'sound' vaguely familiar though.

Cheers.

@Olaadegbu

That 'J John crack' is a variation on one I first heard John Stott tell several years ago: only this time it involved a venerated evangelical preacher preaching at a convention where his glass of milk had been 'enhanced' and the refrain was: "what a cow"!

Meanwhile talking about kain kain at "Holy Communion". have you considered 1 Corinthians 11:17-22? (Though I remember my bro Image123 giving a rather tortuous interpretation to the passage)

Kay 17:
. . .
@enigma, i ve never said on this forum that natural selection or survival was good. My definition was simple enough to make simple deductions; since in self-defence one takes another life its evil, but necessary not good.

Evil is a fundamental flaw in the system, its a corruption. Man strives as a dominant creature, with immense intellectual ability and inherently aims towards perfection. However he is forced into a contradiction, he armed for perfection but the world is against it.

You are basically saying that (at least sometimes) "evil" is expedient because it is necessary. Otherwise, if your "self-defence" person wants simply to do "good" and not "evil" he should allow himself to be killed rather than kill another even in "self-defence"! 

Similarly, the Speluncean explorers should all have simply accepted death if they wanted to do "good" and not "evil" rather than resorting to the "evil" of cannibalism.

Ultimately, if you say "evil" is sometimes necessary and that such necessary "evil" is justifiable, then logically (note the bold) what you are saying is that necessary "evil" is "good" --- and that "evil" can sometimes be "good". 

^^^ Do you accept that there is objective morality? Otherwise what is the basis for classifying anything as "evil" or "good"?

You really still have to come back to my very first question: Is x "evil" or "good" and WHY!

If you go with the view that there is no objective morality, then there really is nothing that makes r.ape, murder, adultery, lying, stealing, covetousness etc "evil"? Is female circumcision (so called FGM) evil? If you go with the view that something is "evil" because a particular society says so, then why attribute "evil" to God in the first place?

Even if we confine it to "natural" evil, what makes an earthquake, a tsunami, even a birth defect "evil"?

Kay 17:
@enigma by necessary evil in the Speluncean case, i meant it was the only option they had if they wanted to survive. The lion case would appear to a human as evil.

First, I'll remind you that my original question was (a) what was "good", (b) what was "evil" and (c) WHY?

Second I'll show you the logical consequences of this answer: survival is "good"; doing what it takes to survive is "good"; cannibalism when necessary for survival is "good"; thus, necessary "evil" is "good"!

Kay 17:
Also, if a higher being selects a lesser evil, he is still evil.

This means that you accept that there is a God; your only problem is that he is "evil"; if so, fine. Otherwise, this is a useless argument which you will have to withdraw!

The same thing with the use by you and your friend of Isaiah 45: it means you both accept that there is a God; your problem is that he created "evil"; if so, fine. Otherwise, again this is a useless argument which you will have to withdraw!

^^ As I said,you really haven't answered the question(s); I could be kind and say your "answer" begs even more questions.

Take just one: by referring to "necessary" evil  that means you accept that some "evil" is necessary even within your own understanding; is it conceivable that someone with better knowledge and understanding than you see other things you consider out and out "evil" as necessary?

Meanwhile, you never did propose any basis for saying that something is "evil" other than saying it 'stifles human development'. How does e.g. a lion eating a goat "stifle human development". And how does "natural selection" fit in? If we subscribe to "natural selection" - including the so-called "social Darwinism" - how can anything (especially in terms of human action) be evil?

^I'm afraid that is no answer; take time to look at the question(s) again.

Do you begin to get the idea (only just the idea) of how much work you will need to do (a) before you lay the issue of "evil" at the feet of "God" or, for that matter, (b) before you can conclude that there is no "God" because of the problem of "evil"?

^^ I've seen your definition of 'evil'; I will look out for the one for 'good'.  However, you still have to define what you mean by "God".

Even then here:

1. A tsunami occurs and 10,000 people die as a result. What is good or evil about this and WHY?

2. An aeroplane crashes with 500 people dead. What is good or evil about this and WHY?

3. A lion kills and eats a young kid goat. What is good or evil about this and WHY?

4.

. . . a trapped team of five spelunkers determine via radio contact with physicians that they will have starved to death by the time they are rescued, and thus elect to eat one of their party. Once the remaining four spelunkers are rescued, they are all indicted for the murder of their fifth member.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_of_the_Speluncean_Explorers

Full monty http://www.nullapoena.de/stud/explorers.html

What is good or evil about this and WHY?

In the days when John the baptist was going about baptising people, would he have turned away a child if a child was brought to him to be baptised?

Also, bear in mind that Jesus said "allow the little children to come to me".

@kay17

First of all, I do not think you really understand my post.

Moving on however: you people are always going on about the importance of "defining terms" (e.g the tiresome perpetual "define god". Accordingly, to really advance your position and argument, you really need to define at the least:

1. "Good"
2. "Evil"
3. "God"

Otherwise, your argument/case is really a non-starter.

davidylan:
if that was your "question" then it shows you never read genesis either. God clearly showed Adam both the tree of life and the tree of good and evil . . . it was Adam's choice to taste whichever knowing the consequences. Getting tougher having to spend time educating these morons.

Really, they show themselves to be either unread, poorly read or mere beginners. The issue they are raising, though always a legitimate point of discussion, is age-old and well known even in philosophy; simply google "the problem of evil".

Unless this place is treated as a place for endless back and forth discussion (often of beer parlour level), engaging in these kinds of discussion in this forum is, in my opinion, often only useful for educating beginners and countering/exposing the sciolists from whom you hardly ever learn/read anything new.


PS Oh and another thing: ask the so-called atheists* to explain the source and basis of their morality! How can there be objective morality if there is no God? How also can there be good and/or evil? If there is no God, how can anything (r.ape, earthquakes, poverty, etc) be evil in the first place? Afterall, their so-called "evolution" teaches "natural selection".



* More properly: evangelical atheists or militant atheists or fanatical atheists etc etc

2 Peter 3

14So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Atheists tear up the Bible: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/calif-atheists-rip-up-bible-verses-during-anti-christian-beach-protest/

http://athens.patch.com/articles/tearing-up-the-bible-in-california-9618ad66

Notes:

- Of course evangelical* atheists are fundamentalist even as some of them hypocritically condemn the American "pastor" burning the Koran for -- fundamentalism!
- Let's see if some evangelical atheists would now raise one of their own mantras in defence i.e. the "No true Scotsman fallacy" 
- So much for Christians and Christianity being "intolerant" when such idiotic things as tearing up a Bible are simply taken in stride 

Extract

The demonstration was led by more than a dozen members of a humanist group called Backyard Skeptics at the base of the Huntington Beach pier in Southern California.

Some of the passages the group opposed included Matthew 5:29 and James 5:14-15, which states:

"Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will [c]restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up , " (NASB)

Bruce Gleason, who heads the group, told The Christian Post earlier that he was "doing this to make this a better world" because he felt that "reason, science, and critical thinking will do much more than prayer and belief."

He insisted that they weren't trying to offend people. Only printed sheets of paper of the Bible passages were expected to be torn. But near the end of Saturday's event, the outspoken atheist ripped out a few pages from the Bible.

"I just want to tear out pages of the Bible that are illegal," Gleason said, according to The Orange County Register.

Backyard Skeptics has become increasingly visible and vocal in Orange County with the launch of several billboard ad campaigns and regular "outreaches" on the pier throughout the year.

At its peak, the latest atheist outreach event on Saturday drew about 100 people, with some Christians choosing to engage the group in a debate.

Greg Allen was among the Christians vocalizing his disagreement.

"They misrepresent the Christian view and what the Bible is actually presenting," he said, as reported by the local Register.

* Meanwhile the alternative titles for evangelical atheists are growing by the day!

- Fanatical Atheists
- Aggressive Atheists
- Hysterical Atheists
- Militant Atheists
- Fundamental Atheists
- Atheist Fundamentalists

Interesting piece on "Psychology of Atheism" (perhaps a bit iffy in parts but useful overall):
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/psychology-of-atheism/

Extract

Many people have psychological reasons for atheism. Factors of upbringing, sins of believers, etc., may be barriers to belief.

Nevertheless, we have freedom of choice. People can choose to move toward God or away from Him. A person with many impediments to faith may move in the direction of God, perhaps over a period of many years, without ever actually arriving at the point of belief. On the other hand, a person with no impediments may nevertheless choose to reject God.

Here are some of the common, superficial reasons for atheism:

1. The belief that atheism is realistic, whereas faith is wishful thinking.

2. Personal motives (I myself was an atheist from age 18 to 38, for personal reasons that had little intellectual or moral justification):

a. The desire for the sophistication of the secular urbanite; embarrassment over one’s provincial background.

b. The desire for acceptance. In my case, it was for acceptance by my psychology professors who seemed to have only two things in common: they were personally ambitious, and they had renounced religion.

c. Personal convenience. It is inconvenient to be a believer in a modern secular society. It involves the renunciation of sexual pleasures and the necessity of committing time and money. We are reluctant to make radical changes in our lifestyle.

Perhaps the above reasons account for the motives of most atheists. Now let us examine some of the deeper reasons for the atheism of some:

According to Freud’s “projection theory”, we developed religion out of a need to defend ourselves against the crushing superior forces of nature. As a child needs a father for protection, so we feel the need to create a protector God.

This, however, is an ad hominem attack, and is applicable to almost anything. It can be used, in fact, to negate psychoanalysis.

Another weakness of this argument is that, if it were true, one would expect all gods to be benevolent father-figures. However, this is not the case with pre-Christian and non-Christian religions.

It is worth noting that there is no support for Freud’s theory within psychoanalysis itself. Psychoanalysis is neutral with respect to the question of God’s existence. The projection theory is an autonomous argument and was first developed not by Freud, but by Ludwig von Feuerbach, a philosopher who was avidly read by the young Freud.

and

The point of the profiling of atheists is to remove psychological motives from explaining religious belief. The ad hominem attack on theism posits an immature need for support, but there are psychological causes for atheism as well as theism. So when the atheist attacks a theists beliefs for being childish, the theist can counter, ``and so’s your old man!” So, this argument more or less levels the playing field as far as psychological explanations of belief/disbelief are concerned.

Cool! Once upon a time a loooong time ago, I used to play tennis at those courts near you. Are they still there?

@ manmustwac

You asked me a question on another thread; I answered; and you kept schtum?

What's up with that?

Ah, now time for another interjecting observation. 

This observation has already been reflected in other material on the thread but it is important to highlight it once again.

The evangelical atheists* want to abolish or eradicate all other religions so that in the end there will be only one religion ---- the (evangelical) atheism religion.

This is why the duplicitous fool atheists use the fraudulent two pronged approach: (a) seek to eradicate other religions from "public" arenas; and (b) first establish within the law that atheism is a religion, then pretend it is only a religion in limited "contexts" and for "limited purposes" -- and therefore it can be promoted and advocated in public arenas --- unlike other religions.

They are basically diabolical fraudsters!


* aka militant atheists or fundamentalist atheists or atheist fundamentalists.

Every body knows the horrors of the slave trade and all that --- just like everybody knows the insanity and consequences of corruption in Nigeria.

As for the Willie Lynch letter, now that questions have been raised as to its authenticity, it is now up to you to do the necessary legwork on that matter.

Finally: it is the same thing with a lot of things I have seen you say about Christianity and even its history and biblical history; you are simply wrong and misinformed! When questions are thus raised about your understanding, then it behoves you to go back and check if you have your facts right ---- that is one of the ways we know if you are genuinely interested in discussion. Not when you are stating things wrong dogmatically while at the same time wrongly throwing accusations of dogmatism and all sorts at others.

All the best.



EDIT Addendum: if you take the attitude that you have a right to be using a fake document and to embellish things ------ well, that amounts to intellectual dishonesty ----- and this is what I've been pointing out for a long time and now with this thread --- that is what evangelical atheists do! It is basically relying on LIES along with caricatures etc to try to discredit Christianity! And that my friend is the very reason why I have no time for evangelical atheists, militant atheists, fundamental atheists, atheist fundamentalists and whatever else they are called.

^^ What would you like to discuss about it?

Edit: Now I've read a post of yours like this https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-804350.32.html#msg9586805

I'm not sure I want to bother anymore. I really don't see the point.

This one is another 'cheat' but I like the line too much than to just let it slide. At least it appeared elsewhere on nairaland first.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-298119.128.html#msg9584483

Terry Eagleton

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.

^^^ As some people say over here, "luvly-jubbly" (please please don't copy or use it too much --- a bit razz, to be honest).

Come to think of it, I'm racking my brain now to recall if we saw any black people: I can't immediately recall any as tourists/visitors; I am trying to remember if we saw some at the market by Rialto!

Still . . . . luvly

^ I have liked the quote below from the minute I first saw it.

violent:
I have always maintained that if you give 10 percent of your money to a church/pastor who owns a Jet, while millions of people die of starvation in east africa, what you are practising is NOT Christianity, it's called idiocy!

JeSoul:
well, lets just say there's nothing like eating pizza in Piazza San Marco in Venice, by the river, watching the gondolas drift by . . .

My inlaw, forgive my boastfulness but: "Ben there, Dunne that, bought the Taioseach!"  Nice



(Edit and reedit; can't make up my mind, lol)

^^^ You already have free excellent advice (as usual) from me.

If my views and my posts enrage you, then disengage yourself from them! E pass?

^^^ Who has asked you or who is asking you to justify your non-belief?

I personally do not care in the least about what you believe or do not believe. In fact, I didn't used to bother to get into any discussions with atheists (and even other anti-Christians) here; that is not my interest on this forum at all. However the evangelical atheists and some of the anti-Christians chose to constitute themselves into a nuisance; even then I still used to ignore them by and large ---- until they started making the mistake of coming at me directly.

Yep I am a Christian meek and mild and all that --- but I am also very capable of thugging it out when necessary.

@ plaetton

Ley me humour you just for a moment.

plaetton:
You are beginning to sound like frosbel. Everone knows her antics so we are all used her.[/]

Whatever issue you have with Frosbel, take up with him. 

plaetton:
But you Enigma, You are becoming an Enigma.

I have always been an enigma, mate.

plaetton:
It seems that you see this forum as a theatre of war rather than a place to share opinions.

And you see this as a place to behave like a jerk, throwing insults at people and things/persons they venerate. If that is your idea of "sharing opinions", it is not mine.

plaetton:
You just cant refrain from getting personal and calling people names.

A person who doesn't want to be called a fool should not act the fool; a person who doesn't want to be called a liar should not tell lies; a person who doesn't want to be called a jerk should not act like a jerk.

plaetton:
What would your world be like if everyone agreed with your points of view?

Says the person who comes here insulting other people for having a different point of view ---- and using discredited and even out and out false information to do so!

plaetton:
If things you read in this forum angers and enrages you, then disengage yourself from it.

If my views and my posts enrage you, then disengage yourself from them! E pass?

plaetton:
You do not know anyone well enough to call them fools, idiotic, dishonest etc.

You don't get it! People post foolish, idiotic and dishonest things --- so they get called for it. Simples. You don't want your posts to be called any of that, then be circumspect with what you post.

plaetton:
I  would rather enjoy reading your points of view rather than the sniper attacks on individuals and  imaginary foes.

Read my posts when I am discussing with reasonable and honest people ---- you will find plenty to enjoy ---- as with your colleague who has been going through my posting history.

plaetton:
Also, your points of view are more important to us than posting remarks or statements from sources we dont know and dont care about.

Your problem, mate. I will post whatever I choose to post. Deal with it.* (EDITED)

plaetton:
Just out of curiousity(no ridicule intended), are you a pastor or one those that earn a living from religion?.

I am what I am.



* Actually this is a sample of your HYPOCRISY! When the other mumu fellow was copying and pasting Dawkins, Harris, Huber etc voluminously sometime back before the thicko realised he was making a fool of himself, you were singing his praises, saying he was giving you education!