₦airaland Forum

HCpaul:
Ok I will

Its been a while brother, where have you been?

Oksman:
He was never a christian in the first place, period!

I am betting if he converted from Islam to Christianity, we wont hear you say he was never a muslim, the tune would have been "Oh thank God for his life welcome to christ brother"

But because he converted from Christianity to Islam he automatically was never a christian in the first place.

One word: Hypocrisy

dalaman:
I may not know what 24361*5262262 is but I know for sure that it can never be 20. How do you that your own version of God created the earth? What irrefutable evidence do you have to provide?

I read the argument and i must say engaging one who spews ignorance with so much confidence and arrogance is utterly useless

-evolution is an atheistic theory
- other primates don't practise homosexuality.

You shouldn't have bothered cus it doesn't matter what you teach people, in the end it falls down if they really want to learn.

Richirich713:
On the contrary I think we both know it does exist, I just don't feel like going back and forth.

This is the juncture i leave it for people reading to decide the case based on the discussion above.

I don't consider it genocide, and I think when israel followed God commands it was the right thing to do since God is the standard of goodness.

A genocide has one definition, so if a God commands it, it doesn't make it any less genocide.

You see you are even the one championing subjective morality. To you genocide is wrong but when it is being carried out as an express command of God it somehow ceases to be a genocide and becomes right?

And this sounds right to you ?

How is a genocide wrong in one instance and then at the other instance it becomes right if there is an objective moral value?

this is the same question i asked you concerning torturing children: how is torturing children right for correction and wrong for fun? is both not still same disturbing act of torture?

If genocide is objectively wrong then in what ever instances or excuses it may come with - it remains wrong.

Coining out excuses to redefine what you would agree is wrong to make it right goes further not only to reveal moral subjectivity but also dishonesty in it's application for religious ideas.

If per say the Israeli's where not allegedly under a direct command of God [the one you believe in] their actions would be very wrong and disturbing to you but here since it is directly an action based on the charges of your own concept of God [who as you recognize the compass for your morality] there was need for you to justify the action and recognize it to be right - something you obviously wouldn't normally do.

But here you actually believe some genocides are right while some are wrong...

That goes a very good way to paint out Religious morality to the readers here... because you have just shown Genocide is not wrong to you, the only difference is you need God's approval to do it..

you are arguing for is not Objective morality but only a morality that excludes every other human idea but relies only on the subjctive idea of your own god concept whose moral ideas are still in fact that of humans.

Surely enough Islamic militants and Boko haram are very right since their actions are in direct submission to the supposed will of God.

Isn't the israeli tribal deity Yahweh till one of the thousands of God concepts on earth with varying subjective moral ideas?

here effects of an action on the society, human well being or others does not matter, what matters is just do what ever god wants.

This surely should make sense to you.

that is not morality that is just sheepish conformity, and blind conformity to an authority is the greatest enemy of truth.

You have totally shown subjectivity of morality by agreeing that a genocide championed by god ceases to be a genocide and therefore not wrong

this is one of the instances when i recognize religious ideas as detrimental to human well being and survival therefore a sinister idea that deserves to be abhorred.

you've totally justified an absurd act here with God and reveres a gross abhorrence cus of religious inclination and subjectivity

My work here is done, i rest my case... Have a good one

Richirich713:
I honesty don't believe u really think that, but since thats ur view I will move on.

You need not believe what i think for them to be what i think, it was a very good discussion and surely you couldn't really project an objective moral value because you and i know there is none.

You can only judge other moral values based on your own moral stand point which still is subjective.

Yes I'm a Christian, but I don't subscribe myself to any denomination.

Good, now do you by any means have a moral opinion on the genocidal spree of the Israeli tribe as portrayed in the bible?

Do you think it was right or wrong?

KingEbukaNaija:
Is this from you John ,

A portal can be anywhere and can connect to different locations , physical or spiritual . A portal is a doorway in fact .


Heiiiiii !!!!!!

we know what a portal is

Yeah surely it still doesn't wipe out the fact that you proposed a portal accessible by defiling gravity, ascension even by aeroplanes or towers.

that is your word not mine

surely you are referring a physical portal because aeroplanes and towers are in fact physical objects.

KingEbukasBlog:

Anyway , Christ ascending into heaven - he went into it through heaven's portal . That's the same portal or so the people of the Tower of Babel tried to access . Christ , a supernatural being , had the power to defy gravity and move into it - ascension - while man needed a tower to access it since there were no aircraft .

So sir please i beg you enlighten us where was this portal they tried to access with the tower of babel, or the one Jesus used?

we may yet discover heaven you know..

And I thought you were Mr science himself

Thank you for the compliment but i am here to learn from you based on your own words, if we are talking about scientific ideas of portals here i'd know.

i am hoping you can give us a direction to the heavenly portal accessible by aircrafts or towers.

So i am seating and waiting to be lectured now

Richirich713:
If what u say is true, then doesn't that mean u can't condemn racism, genocide, etc since no society is more right than another.

It falls back down to subjectivity, while people would see race i don't i only see: Humans.

Now as regards genocide i'd hewn a basis from my post i said Right and Wrong are human ideas in coincide with how things affect them,

So genocides are detrimental to human survival and as such since i recognize right and wrong simply a child of the mind, as a human i will recognize such actions as wrong because of the reasons above [how it affects humans, human judgment at play here]

Every society will forever believe it is more right than the other which reveals the vagueness of the human concept of right and wrong it is severely subjective that when a christian would celebrate death of every egyptian firs born son as a divine act of israeli redemption [in the bible] some other will find it totally disturbing and cruel.

Now let me pull out some few questions, i'm about to go to work so i'm in a hurry.

you are a christian right?

KingEbukaNaija:
Which part of the sky is Heaven located ? Please enlighten me

Actually brother you are the one to enlighten us cus you are the one who asserted there is a portal to heaven in the sky accessible by towers or aeroplanes.

KingEbukasBlog:
I should explain it to you because I was there as a witness or what ? Aint you embarrassed by the 'comical nature' of once being a fish ?


Anyway , Christ ascending into heaven - he went into it through heaven's portal . That's the same portal or so the people of the Tower of Babel tried to access . Christ , a supernatural being , had the power to defy gravity and move into it - ascension - while man needed a tower to access it since there were no aircraft .

The whole event involved the supernatural and is accepted as true by faith . The same way you accept that man evolved from fish by faith .

And to the OP yes there is morality without religion, the constitution also is one example of such values, politics is still another side of societal moral imposer like religion.

Religion is actually a politics with a supernatural authority...

But all in all human morality still precedes both politics and religions and humans are still moral outside political or religious coercions.

But there are humans who are unable to restrain their impulses on their own in these cases both political and religious means becomes necessary but when both political and religious ideas also becomes detrimental to societal well being - they should also be treated as a sinister idea

4evergod2:
You dont understand. Jungle days or today WHY DO WE EVEN CARE? WHY DO WE EVEN BOTHER?

Because there is a thin line between these societal orders, there are parallel so their differences are shouty.. difference is one of those things a human mind can't ignore..

Richirich713:
It's a definition not an assumption.

A definition that puts a lid or boundary therefore limits it's reach which can be variance with reality.

The definition here is being questioned because that definition is still based on the assumptions of such traits that constitutes it.

Torturing babies for fun is wrong, that's objectively wrong wouldn't u agree?

I noticed you say for fun and did not add for correction. . . Why then would you omit for corrections?

How does torturing a baby for correction make it any less wrong than torturing one for fun?

Think about this and it still falls back to subjectivity, the main subject is "Torturing babies" now you'd have to device a reason to do that and justify that action.

how would there be instances when such an action [torturing babies] is right if the action is objectively wrong?

So torturing a baby whether for fun or correction is wrong to me not only physical torture but also mental abuse and torture..

Doesn't that imply that nothing is truly wrong or right, since morality is subjective.

Right and Wrong are human ideas in coincide with how things affect them, we are caught in a natural cruel web of severe competition for survival.

Why do you think you don't find it wrong to murder a chicken? or a mosquito must host on you?

To us a mosquito is bad but to a mosquito it is only trying to survive, doesnt this make human existence a bad one for chickens?

why do you think now it's wrong to kill tigers punishable by jail term but it's ok to kill millions of chicken in one day?

Naturally we are caught in a competition, good and bad is a human idea moulded by a human society...

So when you say Right and wrong there isn't naturally any such thing, humans coined out these concepts in their political organisations of a society to derive order and continuity.

4evergod2:
So what made you feel todays life is better than the jungle ways? Why do we even Care? Why why why? Why not remain in our original state and see nothing wrong with it but are able to tell right from wrong and with what standard?

Distinct societal effects.. he thinks today's life better because he lives in today's world, bring someone from the jungle world such a person would still maintain the jungle ways are better.

Isn't it obvious that these are just societal effects on an individuals mind?

If you are left in your original state of stupendous simplicity and later put into a society like Nigeria, you'd end up in jail.

Cus you'd think apples on the streets are just meant to be picked and consumed.

Richirich713:
Not in the definition given, only this being can be the ultimate, their cannot be others. To be honest I don't think it's necessary to be even arguing about this, since we drifting into the onto... argument instead of the moral argument. And the first question is whether or not objective morality exists.
If yes then only then question of God comes in.

Here there have to be an assumption that all is subjected to human hierarchal order, how would one supreme entity make less of an assumption than a billion of like beings?

First there still isn't no iota of objective moral idea you can think of, your ideas of morality remains subjective since it will ultimately differ from others.

and if per say scientifically every human share common ancestry and neurological relationship, it's still won't come as a surprise to find a collective method of thought or ideas championed by a shared history and origin like every other human traits.

but yet it is still subjective.

4evergod2:
You just posted assumptions and speculations and you know.

Lol.. how so?

So a boy born in the bush would poop on himself continually and see nothing wrong with it? My question is a simple one.

Actually a boy from the kalahari has been molded by his society to see pooping as something to be done away from the house.

Leave a baby by itself to grow [assuming it will survive] it will live it's whole life living like a baby, pooping and urinating without restriction.

A society molds the mind.. "You should have asked why a child of the bush men find it okay to walk around naked while ones born here don't"

still falls back to societal moral effects.

Why are we even teachable? Be it by society or whatever?

Because the human brain is expandable, able to capture information... Let me give you one example: the only reason why you know of such a word or concept as "God" is because you are of a human society that has such ideas.

if there were no idea of God or God(s) in this human society there is no way for you to ever know of such concept.

Your thoughts are always a reflection of very many societal factors.

I can't just start replying the long reply brother.

Richirich713:
That's the definition I'm talking about, the one in the ontological argument.

It's basically a logical circle, like that of Anselm states "God is a concept of the mind, we imagine God as the greatest of all beings, since we cannot imagine something greater than God [since it contradicts the supposition of god being the greatest being possible] therefore God exists.

It is just a logical circle, more so even severe theism from such concepts and it takes an almost unknown impersonal tilt which then is variance with the ideas of theism.

4evergod2:
Wrong! Why do we even have the ability of choice in the first place? Who determines individual moral boundaries?

We have the ability of choice because there is no innate choice precoded for us to thread. a given society determines the moral boundaries aimed at the collective continuation.

There is something in us right from birth that gives us varied identities and mold us.

This is untrue. what molds and shapes a mind are usually societal factors. Religion, organisations, social circles, social ties.

A child born in the bush men society of the Kalahari differs in moral ideas from one born in the U.S.

Question: How is it that a new born baby laughs when tickled and cries when in discomfort? Why do they not laugh when in discomfort and cey when tickled? Who taught them about choices at 1 week old? Do they even know what choices are?

Laughing is not a moral choice just like blinking these are impulses and involuntary response to stimuli just like the knee jerk reaction.

Neurological impulses are different from moral or behavioural choices which is in direct coincide with societal interactions.

Like i said above; You do not choose to blink or sneeze these are innate human characteristic, involuntary and automatic. But you choose to kill a chicken.

If by some chance their reactions are emotionally triggered, where did these emotiona emanate from when they are not DNA encoded?

We are talking about human morality [actions based on choices towards others] not neurological impulses, emotions are neurological impulses.

You do not always control your neurological impulses but you can control how they affect you.

Our emotions are rather accumulated in the neurological evolution not necessarily DNA. . This is a brain thing not the Deoxyribonucleic, that more so determines physical traits not neurological.

Richirich713:
Cuz there can only be one maximally great being.

Nope, nothing stops them from being a collective billion, 1 doesn't make any less an assumption than many.

No that's why I'm using God as a definition.

which still doesn't take a conventional image here.

Richirich713:
@johnydon22

Check this video out about the ontological argument:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TXf-YyDFKXw90izlvLZ14ka&v=RQPRqHZRP68

Just a heads up, the argument is pretty complicated and at first glance doesn't seem to make sense at all. If fact I use to think it's the worst argument for God existence offered by theist's.

I am familiar with ontological argument, St Augustine posed one too and Anselm.

It is almost like a logical sphere, going around it's self...

Richirich713:
I'm not referring to any gods, I'm just using a definition, the definition given by Saint Anselm and the modern version of his ontological argument for God.

Yes and this is exactly the reason why there are many Gods, coining concept to encompass all the others.

Which then makes this God distinct from the other 1000 therefore again joins the lot of Gods

Richirich713:
1000s are gods doesn't fit the definition. It's has to be an maximally great being, like all-powerful, all - etc all that omni's.

Why do you think it should be only only 1 of such being, if there can be 1 then there can be up to a billion.

do you think 1makes any less of an assumption than a billion. ?

While it is generally said to be grounded in the eternal nature of this being.

So you think there is such a being [omni everything] directly responsible and in control of natural manifestation and causality?

4evergod2:
I beg to disagree. Morality is beyond right or wrong or the ability to teach or learn. Morality cannot be separated from your identity which is why one is born an introvert and another an extrovert.

Morality is like a spiritual DNA much like our physical DNA . It helps shape who we become at the end of the day yet its not found in our genetic code. Its why we all differ in opinion and yet have the ability to choose. Its why we even bother to care about ourselves.

So even we are alone in this world we would still care for ourselves and be able to make moral choices for our personal wellbeing.

You and i certainly have different ideas of Moral ideas cus morality to me are actions for both you, others and collective societal good in general, i like the bolded word choices which still shows it falls back down to subjective ideas based on such a person's need.

if there is an involuntary innate moral drive then they wouldn't be choices, if there is then there is no innate drive.. you do not choose to blink or sneeze.

Morality is a matter of actions towards others and our society: actions that directly affect individual or societal well being.

We each are the same in a manner of speaking, we each have potentials to great good or terrible evil.

Our choices in our actions determines our moral tilt.

Richirich713:
General sense as in "greatest possible being" not as "God the creator"

I am curious brother by these words above: Do you by any chance imply a possible greater deity than religious creator God or Gods like say Yahweh, Ra and others?

4evergod2:
If you really desire to learn the question you should be asking is;

Why does morality even exist in the first place be it right or wrong?

What triggers this indivual quest for morality and why does each agree that morality in itself isnt crazy even when that same morality varies from place to place.?

Because morality is based on individual choices and preferences, why is it we have a desire for these choices and preferences in the first place be it Sodomy, beastiality, e.t.c and how are we able to prefer one to another if we had evolutionary savage origins?

For societal continuity...

if you were the only person on this planet, there wont be such a thing as any moral codec or values because there is nobody to direct your actions towards.

When you are the only person in a room, you can do what ever you want only when there are two or more people in a room that you feel it becomes inappropriate to fart.

It is a societal foundation

Richirich713:
General sense as in "greatest possible being" not as "God the creator"

I still am not finding any of such objective rule by any greatest possible being.... besides they are thousands of claims of 'greatest possible beings' [supreme deity] yet all have subjective moral ideas.

So where exactly is the objective universal morality?

Funny some Christian atheists believe in a literal death of God, as God once existed but now dead... Christian atheism.

Richirich713:
The question isn't referring to a specific God, it's using God in the general sense. Evens if all religions are false the question still stands.

Nope since there isn't really any moral pointer by this 'General sense' God. all moral ideas of God concepts are very distinct and subjective still.

Splinz:
What a stunning admission! Here, Analice has confirmed and confidently stated that yes, "Mary is worshipped". This is even more interesting as it is against the common rendition of Mary's place in the Catholic church, subtly using the word "honored". Thank you for this true submission for once.

Yes, one more thing. I'd really appreciate if you could throw more light on Mary's queenship in heaven. Who authored her status and on which ground is this claimed based?

she's not catholic

honourhim:
Who gave u the standard of measurement that will determine whether God should be God or not? Where in the bible is it written that why God is God is because he does what pleases everybody?

Nope it's not about what pleases everybody, it's about contradiction of characteristics.

Just like telling this is "All white" and then go ahead and show me black patches all over and still maintain it's "all white"

that is a contradiction such a thing cannot exist, something all white cannot have black patches if it does it's no longer all white.

So too is the relationship of the characteristics of the biblical deity as laid out by you lot and the roles it is being showed to play.

it's characteristics as you guys peddle speak something while it's behaviours as seen everywhere in the bible or the christian doctrine speaks the complete opposite.

The whole idea of HELL is variance with notion of an all good and all loving deity

the whole notion of conformity to escape punishment is variance with the idea of unconditional love and goodness.

The whole notion of universality contradicts the idea of tribal inclination and favouritism towards one group of people.

the whole idea of a perfect God makes the enthusiastic piety and belief irrelavant.

I could go on forever to show you how the characteristic of God as laid out in the christian or biblical terminology contradicts and annihilates it's behaviours in the doctrines of christianity and also the bible..

such character contradictions is paradoxical therefore such a thing cannot be said to exist like the paradox of all white with black patches.

A God with hell cannot be all loving or all good, if you still maintain it is then it is a paradox and it cannot exist.

So goes for all other character variances..

There is no such a thing as science vs God, human belief was a direct effect of human ignorance in the face of a burdening question nature poses - So superstitions of God and spirits were used to fill this gap of ignorance.

Science on the other hand approaches the problem with better tools, open mind to what the universe teaches and empiricism therefore revealing the facts of nature, the things that were once attributed to the divine became sorely natural as the natural mechanisms [mysteries] behind them were uncovered.

What answers once bore God was replaced with a fine touch of empirical deductions watered down by consistent logic.

Gods may exist or not but if you only will place God(s) only at a place hidden by the curtain of scientific ignorance then more breakthroughs of science with leave the 'God of the gap' to become smaller and smaller. God will only become an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that gets smaller and more irrelevant with each discovery.

If you are filled with awe and astonishment of the natural world and do not understand them, simply agree to ignorance than assume of unsubstantiated God to fill the gap left by your ignorance - Cus you do nothing more than replace the ignorance of your mind with the word God.

there is no shame in not knowing only when irrational thoughts peddled by arrogance of ignorance is used to fill the gap left by ignorance.

Reminds me of the words of Paul Heinrich Dietrich, Baron von Holbach who once remarked:

" If a faithful account was rendered of Man’s ideas upon Divinity, he would be
obliged to acknowledge, that for the most part the word ‘gods’ has been used
to express the concealed, remote, unknown causes of the effects he witnessed;
that he applies this term when the spring of the natural, the source of known
causes, ceases to be visible: as soon as he loses the thread of these causes,
or
as soon as his mind can no longer follow the chain, he solves the difficulty,
terminates his research, by ascribing it to his gods . . . When, therefore, he
ascribes to his gods the production of some phenomenon . . . does he, in fact,
do any thing more than substitute for the darkness of his own mind, a sound
to which he has been accustomed to listen with reverential awe? "

Macelliot:
hmm! did you wrote this?.Nice one!

Thanks

Macelliot:
The slave labourers were the Israelites. the bolded baffled scientists? lol.

Probably though strong evidence leans toward the emergence of the israeli civilization from pre-existing older semitic (canaanite) civilizations

honourhim:
This thread is simply to caution fellow christians to focus on preaching the word more than arguing too much with atheists.
I'm not afraid of the influence of atheism because its not strange. Its in the bible and i ve given some deeper meditation to some parts of the scriptures and discovered that it's not by our too much talk or arguement.
If you will repent you will repent but if not, you die an atheist and end up in hell.

It is amazing that you don't find the whole idea of a God who says "believe i exist, i'll reward you, if you don't i will burn you forever" repulsive.

Isn't such show of chronic egoism and unparalleled childishness something you'd expect a supposedly all powerful creator of the cosmos to be way above?