₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Ah! But there is a problem here. You will find that what I assert is 'what is' according to me, unless I were lying by asserting that which I know to be false.

And I could be claiming a truth from my ignorant position is objective truth (as is most often done).

Naivety doesn't make something false to be true.

You could think from your ignorant position that your assertion is true, doesn't make it so.

UyiIredia:
It does at a point. When the designer creates life instead of creating the conditions that create life.

A designer can still modify this created forms of life or give them the ability to self modify, adapt and improve - hence evolve.

shadeyinka:
It's a prove of design

In design we Reuse, adapt and modify existing templates to form new ones. In creative activities we don't reinvent every time do we?

Evolution doesn't preclude deisgn dude neither does design preclude evolution!!

budaatum:
So, an idea, or concept (the earth is not flat) can be an absolute truth even though humans think it's flat.

Absolute truth is therefore not subject to opinions?

That is exactly the whole meaning of truth.

In Aristotle's words "To assert that that which is is, is truth. To assert that that which is not, is, false"

Or "to assert that that which is not, is not, is truth. To assert that that which is, is not, is false"

shadeyinka:
But isn't time a description of the interval between two physical events?

No more physically qualitative than chance.

budaatum:
Neither had I until this!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uMjLKNf4ic

What you make of the concept of "absolute truth"?

It is surprising that his argument stopped at only chance being nothing due to lack of physical qualities.

Time can also on that note be nothing.

Dhumancanvas:
I don't like the concept. I can't argue against it cuz it just seems like a trap and im not going to attempt to. However I feel its way too rigid, once one regards a concept to be an absolute truth theres no room for flexibility. If there is one thing history has taught us it is that we usually don't know absolutely what is true and what is absolutely moral. Not too long ago people were sure the earth was flat and nothing was morally wrong with owning people as slaves, now that's all changed.

I'm more orientated towards relativism but not to the extent that absolutely everything is relative. When it comes to morality for example, homosexuality is a crime here in Nigeria but perfectly fine in some other parts of the world.

Ultimately I'm against rigidity and I feel thats what the concept of absolutes promotes.

On a final note. There is no such thing as athiestic evolution. There is simply evolution. A widely accepted theory which is by far the best explanation we have for life as it exists in all its variety.

I think for truth to make sense it has to be absolute.

A non-absolute truth by definition cannot be true.

Some years back most people believed the earth was flat - this doesn't mean it is true that the earth is flat.

I also do not like absolutes but truth as a concept must be absolute or it is not truth.

LordReed:
But a god who commands then gives you the freedom to do the exact opposite is logical to you. Like you know of any system that works that way aside from this god business? The army? Any Fortune 500 corporation/company perhaps? A nation?

Johnydon22 please come and help me evaluate this logic.

It's a typical eating your cake and having it.

Like; Buy this shoe, it's free but you have to pay $200 for the shoe lace but the shoe is free.

God's love is unconditional but he hates a sinner

Salvation is free but you must believe in God and do some other stuffs while at it.

The logic train is contradictory.

If everything we do is predetermined by God, then we cannot possible have free will since we can't choose otherwise.

It's either God determines or he doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

Apparently he thinks he can.

OpenYourEyes1:
Not possible. I have you produced order from randomness or you just read this things and believe?

You want an example?

OpenYourEyes1:
Evolution is all about randomness. Randomness cannot produce order.

Lol. As far as we know randomness and even chaos can give rise to a pattern - order.

And again, this is not the premise of this thread

hahn:
I have never met such people. There are more Christians and Muslims around where I live.



Isn't the whole concept of a designer a mere assumption? Aren't there thousands of descriptions of this designer based on thousands of assumptions? Is there a right way to assume what god is?



Not if the said designer describes itself through it's holy books in ways that contradict with it's actions.




Well obviously the assumed creator is a product of assumption




I live in a country where majority of people worship these gods are ready to humiliate and even kill people who don't believe in them too.

It would be stupid not to expect me not to take it serious

Uuuhm ok

hahn:
Well in the country where I live, Nigeria, those are the two gods people refer to mostly.

Wait till you discuss with people who make it expressly clear they are talking about any particular God.

Or it is a strawman fallacy to bring that up in an argument that doesn't mention or imply either.

But tragedies negate intelligent design. The mere fact that a designer can create suffering shows it is not intelligent

No, it doesn't.

You are assuming

1. Suffering is objectively bad
2. Natural tragedies are flaws
3. Intellect means you must be a certain way

Thats is just laughable.

Intelligent design means things are meant to be the way the designer wants it, you are also assuming

1. The designer mustn't want this to be this way
2. The designer operates on a similar moral constraints as it's creations.

Another laughable assumption

We are talking about intelligent design.

The premise of this thresd is If the assumed creator is designed or a product of chance.

This is not about the universe being designed or not.

Seriously?

Cool. I'd like to see what those people who don't subscribe to Allah or Jehovah have to say about it then

Don't be obsessed with Allah and Jehovah.

hahn:
How so?

You comparing man made devices or actions by men to a supreme being that is supposed to be omni-everything is the actual flaw.

A plane manufacturer does not claim to know everything about the plane before he has even created it whereas an omniscient god does.

When the plane takes off the manufacturer does not know if it will crash. When planes crashes usually it comes as a surprise. No one in their right minds will let a plane they know perfectly well will crash take off filled with passengers in the first place.

After the plane crash the plane manufacturer studies the mishap with the hope of building future planes that won't crash.

God claims to know everything. It claims it is all loving. All powerful etc. It knows when a baby is born and it knows if the baby will die of disease or poverty but DOES NOTHING to stop or prevent it. Women get raped and this god that claims to be everywhere at everytime sits back and watches and does nothing. Even after the repetition over centuries of disasters and choas this god has done nothing to improve on it's creation.

It still creates people who are prone to hate, a world prone to disaster and suffering.

How is this intelligent?

PS: I am referring to characteristics of the Islamic and christian gods here as claimed by their followers.

When people say God they don't necessarily mean the Christian or Muslim God. Again, tragedies do not negate design, in fact one can even argue that natural evils are necessary, i hold this very position.

And then again your argument is assuming that these things you mentioned are wrong objectively.

How exactly?

But there is absolutely nothing that suggests tragedies as a negation for design.

And how isn't this the premise of the thread?

Am I missing something?

The premise of the thread isn't addressing whether this universe was designed or not - but your argument seems to be addressing this rather than the question.

The premise of this thread is probing the proposed designer by the second branch of the universal causality school of thought.

The premise operates under the assumption that there is a designer then asks people who subscribe to this idea if this designer came by chance or is a product of design since it meet certain precise criterias.

So, this is not about whether the universe was designed or not. You are in fact missing something.

hahn:
Let me try and make small sense.

Johnny my guy don't see this as trolling

The way I see it humans have always leaned to the narrative that "someone" must have created the earth simply because as a species we like to consider ourselves special than other creatures.

I have always wondered why since there have been lots of species before us and there are other animals who possess physical attributes we can only dream of like flight, speed, cellular regeneration etc we still see ourselves as "special" especially when you consider how vulnerable we are to nature, the fact that we are prone to die from the smallest of diseases.

Instead of saying "someone" did it we can all consider the possibility instead of "something" like events as the creator of the universe?

My argument is there can't be an "intelligent" designer because by considering death, diseases, suffering, loss, struggle, sickness, rape etc it is safer to say that if there is a designer it is far from being intelligent but closer to psychopathic and very much less concerned about it's creation.

However if we say that events, like evolution suggests, is responsible for existence then it is more plausible because the we don't have to attribute intelligence to it which will explain why the world is the way it is.

If there is an intelligent being capable of creating the universe this universe, especially earth, would not be this fvcked up. Pardon my French

Uuuhm seriously hahn you got to know that this isn't really the premise of the thread.

But on a curious note: do you think plane crash is evidence that the plane wasn't intelligently designed? Cus you seem to be making an argument that tragedy refutes the design argument which sadly is a very flawed argument.

Johannes Kepler one day eating the plate of salad his wife served, asked a question.

If these peas, lettuce, cabbage, milk, corn are all floating forever in eternity, is there a chance that they would at a point meet and this salad is made by sheer chance?

"Yes" replied his wife "But not one as delicious as mine"

And in fact the answer is Yes, there is a chance there would meet, must be a very rare chance but there is one and considering the scale of eternity, there is chance of it happening over and over.

There are values in the universe that one could regard as precise.

Like the gravitation in the universe, too strong or too weak, the universe as we know it won't exist.

The ratio of the electromagnetic force to the strong nuclear force if it wasn't 1%, life wouldn't exist exist since even atoms won't exist.

These had led to branches on our cosmological models.

The odds of this precision though not impossible is incredibly unlikely for 1 universe.

To some; This implies that we live in a multiverse, our universe is one out of an infinite number of universes and this means that not only is it possible, its odds are greatly present and there should be others just as precise in this infinite pool of universes.

The other branche is the proposal of intelligence, Physcisists like Michio Kaku thinks that the universe in a great degree operates like a system that require intelligence to work.

But scratch that, i want to address the later part of this two branches.

The question on my topic isn't referring to the universe itself but to the intelligent designer proposed by the second branch.

There are also degrees of precision such a force or being must reach for this to be possible.

1. Precisely intelligent enough
2. Precisely powerful enough
3. Precisely exist in a form that can influence matter
4. Precisely have a will to design a universe

See? There are also some precise values this creator supposedly should reach as an entity.

Hence the question, is the precision of the creator (designer) the work of an intelligence external to it or is it by sheer chance?

Is this creator 1 out of an infinite number of like beings each different (like a multiverse) or just a remarkably one entity whose existence is an awful chance to consider?

advocate666:
All I am saying is that morality is to God as thunder is to Thor.

If you can discard thunder is due to Thor, I can discard morality is due to God.

Lol. Now let's see if it is not a false equivalence.

Pray tell my good man, discribe to me the existential quality of thunder and morality

I will wait.

And again, confirming my initial accusation you don't even understand what we are discussing here, in fact most of you here don't.

Johnydon have not made any claim regarding morality as something that comes from God (I myself is an atheist) in fact this is demonstrated in the very comment you asked me a question regarding the moral nature of suicide, there was no God in my answer.

My argument simply is, that morality for a theist (theologically) is a deductive exercise with God as it's utmost assumption.

Duductive arguments simply goes like this: If A is like this then B is a logical conclusion.

Interpreted thus: On the assumption that God (A universal authority) exists then morality must be inherent to the universe therefore is an objective quality.

You can however only argue that God doesn't exist which by the way remains to be seen, but you cannot deny the logically sound deductive approach of this argument which on the other hand secular morality doesn't follow or borrows basis from.

I sincerely hope i do not need to address your inability to understand this argument again

wirinet:
Although I have not had enough time to go through all your posts and the thread in general, from what I can gleam, you seem to suggest that theists have an objective basis for morality, which is their God. As a result all morality emanates from the wishes, instructions, commands of their God.
The problem with this argument is that the wishes and commands of these God's are most times discriminatory, contradictory vague and inconsistent in nature.
Take the rape example, according to all religions (including Judaism ), raping an adherent is morally wrong, but raping non believers is not even considered immoral. There are examples in the bible where Jews were instructed to rape virgins in conquered territories.

Same with with killing. Killing members of the same religion or sect is amoral, but killing apostates or unbelievers is even viewed as a moral duty.
This was the attitude the Christians took to the Americas to murder most unbelievers and is the same attitude Muslims have today in Northern Nigeria, Syria, Afghanistan.

Uuuhm ok

frank317:
I will like to know the implications of this basis. Saying God is the basis of morality means nothing to me, because, no God seem to be basis for morality from what i see, humans are.



I am looking at this from what is actually obtainable in the world we live in and not just saying God is the basis yet what's happening is happening.

Yes in saying morality is subjective one cannot say rape it wrong or right but u fail to realize other conditions also apply. Its not just saying rape is wrong.... There is empathy, there is pain, there is regret, there is how the rapist will react when he himself is being raped.. A whole lot of things comes together to determine that rape is wrong not just the feeling... In all these I fail to see how God being the basis determines that rape is wrong if not just repeating words without making real meaning out of it.


Our current criminalization of rape is not based on ancient assumptions, it is based on our feelings, empathy and learning. U can repeat that sex is sacred, but I am saying it makes no meaning it being sacred since even those who don't think its scared will react the same way to it as those who think its sacred. Its about what what always thought about sex not because sex is sacred.
And I don't think sex is sacred. That does not mean my private part is not private. My private part is not sacred.


Because if the emotional attachment we have towards sex. Its not because sex is sacred.
There is a reason why we don't feel sex towards our mother but will have that feeling towards a girl o the next street. There is an emotional feeling involve and it makes our penis stand when we see the person. That feeling has something to do with our sexual organa hence we consider them special in a different way. Besides both have extremely different functions. Their function determines how I will react when u touch then.


And I am saying this basis is not a superior argument because it cannot be demonstrated.


Sir please what's the basis of ur conclusion that morality was derived from ancient assumptions. Is the acceptance of gays based on ancient assumptions? Why have we done away with some ancient moral assumptions?


False, its not based in any theological assumption, except if u, Mr.Johnny needs theological assumption to feel sad or cry when ur loved one dies.u tend to assume that we humans are not capable of feelings. These feelings(among other things) also helps in determining what is morally wrong or right and not theological assumption.


The weight is not based on our fundamental belief but our feeling towards the subject.


We ascribe different feeling towards the body parts as humans.
How can u neglect feelings and emotions in all u are saying.

Why will someone slap my wife and I react differently when someone slaps a lady stranger? FEELING.


Like I said its not just about saying Hitler was wrong, but its about explaining why I think he was wrong.

And I am telling u that a non arbitrary moral value makes not sense because it just a mere wish which cannot be demonstrated. It comes with its own problem which u seems to over look. Do u realize that theists think God asking Abraham to kill his son was moral? This is one of the problem of God basis.


Saying killing is wrong depends on a lot of things... We are humans who have brain to think and make decisions. Its not just about saying killing is wrong, why do we say killing is wrong? A lot of things are considered before we say killing is wrong... How was he person killed? Why was he killed? Who killed him? Who was affected? Will the killer love to be killed? What of the loved ones of the killed?
Oga there is a reason we have brain.

How exactly does saying God says killing is wrong changes anything?



Falae, the idea that murder is wrong is because of how we feel when someone dies, who gets affected and all that. Its not because any human life is sacred.


I don't feel for rats the way I feel for my loved ones... I can't believe this is coming from u.


I really don't accept this and I think enough has been said already.


Why did u just use wrong... Complete the statement na. U stop at wrong because u know concluding the statement will leave ur argument hanging.

And yes, nothing is right or wrong... We only look for a balance as humans. That's why what is moral changes over time.



How did we come to accept this?
Leaning, experience, empathy, feelings... Etc.

Annnnnnnnd, we are back again, i need to explain it all again.

I even wonder if some of these replies are addressing my post or some other post.

Christ - let me simply address the last sentence. You accept morality by;

Learning - Learning implies that it is an already established value that you discover, isn't that bordering towardd objectivity? Lol

Experience - Experience do not distinguish between subjects, whatever conclusions you make simply is a logical jump.

Empathy - You are first assuming empathy is good, why?

Feelings - I have already dismified the ascription of moral weight on feelings, you first assume feelings are either right or wrong and if you don't show why each feeling has a moral weight, any moral conclusion based on feelings is as baseless as it gets which entirely is my argument here.

Secular morality makes moral conclusions without basis.

advocate666:
Says one who spends his time here explaining things to others.

Suddenly you are out of your depth and resorting to the ad hominem fallacy of refutation by caricature.

Yes, because it is a job for me to handhold everyone and explain every minute detail that i have gone over several times, i should re-explain it because they don't understand it.

Thank you my good man, that's a good employment

advocate666:
why?

Based on the belief that distinguishes the subject from others, the subject being "Human life"


1. Human life is special
2. Killing human life means violation of this sacredness

advocate666:
Here my people is "intellectual honesty"

pray tell, what is the difference between the two arguments?

Dude, i am not going to continue explaining things that are simply out of your own inability to grasp intricate philosophical or even logical matters.

This is not an elementary school.

Jesus Effing Christ!

MuttleyLaff:
The issue of morality, as you've succintly put it it to be principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour, wouldnt have been a subject of discourse if not because the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil was eaten off. The serpent was quarter right when it said that eating of the tree will open the eyes of the eater, make the eater become god and knowing good and evil.

Uuuuuuuuuuh, okeeeeeeeey i guess

advocate666:
Let me deal with this one first.

Ok, here is a superior and good philosophical argument. I hope you are intellectually honest to understand it.

Here goes: If Thor does not exist, thunder will not exist. Thunder exists, therefore Thor exists.

Hahahahaha that you believe this in anyway an equivalence of the argument here means you don't even know what we have been talking about here.

Blood of Zachariah

advocate666:
Now, to the second part. I won't insult your intelligence by asking the obvious question which is "right or wrong for whom?"

What I will ask instead is this: Based on your definition, is suicide an immoral act?

Yes.

advocate666:
Not if it makes my point.

There is never a time when logical fallacies makes a point in contrast to the other person's argument.

frank317:
Determining if something is wrong or right depends on a lot of things. But in the case of rape, the fact that the effect makes many people unhappy is one of the determinants that its wrong.

Actually, determining right or wrong involves establishing distinctions on the subject which involves a primary belief regarding the subject.

That anybody is unhappy about anything does not in any way add a moral weight to that action.

No that's not my position.

Actually, it is an implication of your argument. You are leaning towards how people feel about something determines their moral weight, in fact you implied that on your sentence right above this one on the moral weight of rape.

I quote: "But in the case of rape, the fact that the effect makes many people unhappy is one of the determinants that its wrong."

Is this Johnny talking or someone else. Pls check if ur account has been hacked.

LOL

Not rejoicing over and action? U mean u think what i am saying is that not rejoicing over rape is the same as not rejoicing over a man eating chicken? I think u are too smart for this kind of conclusion.

No, what i think you mean is that feelings are determining factors on the moral position of an action.

Which is a logical leap because one must first establish "how" a particular feeling has any moral weight first.

Pls come back home... Don't quote me out of context... We are talking about rape (which he puts forth an argument that it's good) and I asked him a simple question to allow him think of how he would feel if his child is raped. I want to know if his empathic self is still in check. He should have answered the question directly na

I don't know about his answers; the point is; feelings don't determine the moral weight of an action.

if you feeling bad that your child was raped makes it wrong.

what-if the person who perpetuated this rape feels good about it, does it make it right?

See? how you feel about an action doesn't make such action either good or bad.

Moral basis must first establish a distinction between subjects of actions. In the case of rape, the subjects are 1. human 2. Sex.

But let me ask u do u think it makes sense for theists to see rape as wrong because sex is sacred?

That is actually the most reasonable basis.

1. Human life is sacred
2. Sex is sacred.

The action works in violation of these sacred values hence the moral weight.

I think rape is wrong because of how it affects the people involved (the victim and his loved ones, even the who carried out the act

You are failing to see how this position actually takes you back to believing in the sacredness of the subject.

The only reason how it affects these subjects matter is that there is something fundamentally special about them, this is an implicit belief in this case.

This is the problem; theological basis first starts with ascription of value system which leads to a conclusion on moral weight.

Secular morality first makes a conclusion which falls back down to an ascription of an implicit value system.

LOL

I didn't get into any conclusion, how did u see that as conclusion?

That question directly refers to your implied definition of moral weight based on how an action affects the people involved.

Like I said, I will not deny that the fundamental basis for moral conclusion has many implications

Ok

advocate666:
FINALLY!!!

Quoting a single sentence out of context is a poor straw-man.

advocate666:
No problem, I get where you are coming from just as johnydon22. It is a convincing argument that theists made on morality and it has conviced a lot of people including you two.

LOL anyone intellectually honest or with a good grasp of philosophy would understand the theological argument of morality and why it is quite superior.

You don't need to be a theist to realise a good argument when you see one.

Until you ask people to actually define this "morality".

Then you get gymnastics.

LOL. You play too much.

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Anything else? The definition of morality furthers our argument even more.

frank317:
U and I know this makes no sense. We have seen same theists use the word God (as their basis for moral action) to do evil thing that even those who do not believe in God see as immoral. In that situation how has God being the basis for morality helped?

Again, i am not talking about the actions but the basis.

I know this premise is new to this board that is why most people are unable to grasp it.

Ok
Even if God exists, he has not been shown to be basis for morality. Theists say it just like they are used to saying a lot of meaningless things. They use God to fill in the Gaps when they don't want to think deep. Like if God exists and is the basis for morality, why is it dynamic? Why is it still determined by the society and why does it change over time. Dies this not mean that God is actually not the basis for morality but humans with empathy?

I wish arguments such as this were live arguments because it is incredibly difficult to break it down to the basics for people who are entirely new to such philosophical depth.

You are not getting the argument; A morality based on the assumption of an ultimate authority who by definition owns the system is by implication non-arbitrary because such moral laws would be as inherent to the universe as the laws of physics.

And this means that it doesn't matter what you feel about such action as long as the ultimate authority rules it wrong then it is wrong, if it rules it right then it is.

Therefore a theological standpoint on morality using God as basis argues for an objective nature of morality.

A secular basis for morality is arbitrary, it means anyone can decide for themselves what is right or wrong which by implication means nothing really is right or wrong.

On such subjective moral ground; You can't really say rape is wrong or Hitler was wrong for killing jews.

Because that is just your opinion.

If you are asked why such thing as rape or murder is wrong and you say "it hurts people"

You are simply doing nothing but also giving an opinion that hurting people is wrong.

To the next person it may not be, therefore in the real sense there is no morality.

Have u ever even dug into the history of how some theists came about to think sex is sacred?
All these where laws that came from the natural way humans feel about these things.

There were valid assumptions or belief for moral basis to be successfully established.

Even our current criminalization of rape is based on this ancient assumption; Sex is something sacred, people's property are sacred to them - therefore stealing any of this is a violation of its sacred values.

if we do not think sex is sacred, then sex organs aren't sacred, therefore aren't any different from our hands or legs - then on what basis do we criminalize grabbing someone's sex organs but not that person's hands?

Theists saying sex or human is sacred does not stop the secular human from attributing same feeling towards sex and human life.

Exactly. demonstrating that even modern moral derivations have basic roots in the fundamental beliefs of ancient theological basis. Savvy?

These are just labels, but the human feelings towards these things is what matters and u can easily see that both the theists who sees sex as sacred and the secular guy who does not see it as sacred will react the same way if someone (for instance) touches their private part.

Give me one reason a secular guy who doesn't believe sex organs as sacred would react different when touched in the sex organ than he would when touched on his hand or head? Why would he regard the former as sexual assault and the other as not?

This on its on destroys the assumption that God is the basis for morality. This means the basis for morality is human empathy not God.

You people are not even getting my arguments at all, i fully understand this dilemma. I have not argued that God is the basis for morality, my argument is; that for the theist (theologically) God is the basis therefore an argument on objectivity which derives a superior methodological basis than secular morality that either jumps into a moral conclusion or borrows the necessary theological assumptions.

No, they didnt borrow anything from any theological basis. They learned it and use empathy which they are born with.

As i said - classical moral conclusions without basis.

let me demonstrate; Killing is wrong?

This is a statement. now here are examples;

Mr A killed a rat
Mr B Killed a woman

Who do we chastise and abhor his action as morally repulsive.

mr B of course.

Why? Aren't both A and B guilty of killing?

Yes. they both are but there is a difference.

There is a fundamental belief in a value system that sets out human life from other life, this is a theological assumption, in theology based on this assumption, it is even wrong to commit suicide.

Mr A and B both killed but this action has no moral weight, the moral weight comes with subject which is an implication of the fundamental belief ascribed to this subject.

This is exactly the same way rape is wrong. Mr A grabbed a hand Mr B grabbed a dick. Mr B is marked out as an offender.

they are both guilty of grabbing a body part but mr B grabbed a body part with ascribed belief of specialty

See?

Judging morality on what we think is OK is the same thing that has led humans, both theists and atheists, this far. Theists just deny this truth because of the need to believe in a higher cause, but everything is staring at us right their in our faces.

Again, this makes morality arbitrary, you on this note therefore cannot conclusively say hitler is wrong or a rapist is wrong because it is simply what you think.

let me categorically make this clear; I am not arguing that morality is objective, this is not my position.

My position simply is that a non-arbitrary moral value makes far more sense because an arbitrary morality is in essence meaningless.

How so?
If an atheists says killing is wrong based on his subjective feeling, how then does this show that not killing is not moral?

1. says killing is wrong based on his subjective feeling
2. says killing is right and not killing is wrong based on his subjective feelings.

Which one is correct? neither, both are based on feelings which one must first show to logically establish a moral distinction.

You are not getting it frank, because you feel this way doesn't make your feelings more correct than the other guy's feelings.

You feel rape is wrong
the other guy doesn't feel the same way.

So, who can say that rape is really wrong or right since it is simply down to what individuals feel?

It simply implies that there is no such thing as wrong or right.

Whatever you think is what is.

Moral dilemma is real and not just an idea. Isn't this why what is good or bad changes over time and is even different in different location?
Saying God is the basis for Morality hand not eliminated this dilemma.

This is why something is a dilemma; changing the fundamental belief but not the conclusion.

Example; The idea that murder is wrong is from the fundamental belief that human life is sacred.

When we change this belief on the sacredness of human life, there is entirely no basis whatsoever for we to think that killing a human is anymore wrong than killing a rat.

For you to think this is to implicitly ascribe a form of value to human life - hence; sacredness.

So, the moral dilemma of secularity is making logical conclusions without basis without knowing that these conclusions implicitly leads back to the fundamental basis that are by definition theological.

The fact is the, nothing truely can be wrong or right. It is determined by environment, situation, and time.

Therefore, nothing is wrong.

Yes, to an extent, humans have come to accept some things to be right and wrong, its all about us and not God.

the question is; How did we come to accept this?

How = basis.

See?

mhd5757:
Do you believe in reincarnation? I think it kind of makes sense, what do you guys think?

I do not think it is impossible

Weird flex but ok

dingbang:
Why people just dey ask wetin big pass them

Why shouldn't they?