₦airaland Forum

advocate666:
You confuse things. Is that deliberate?

The theist position is that nothing is wrong as long as their god sanctions it.

Isn't that essentially the secular position? Nothing is wrong as long as we say it is not?

Basically subtituting God with human.

Except that in the literal sense of word, God is assumed by the theist as the creator of everything hence laws given by God is as intrinsic to the universe as the laws of physics.

Hence an argument on non-arbitration

advocate666:
You tell me!

Answering a question with a question, classic. Lol.

And again, i am the one trying to demonstrate to you how secular morality (Your morality in this case) is derived without any moral basis but simply a leap into conclusion.

Answer freely, I'm as much atheistic as you

vaxx:
You forget emphaty is what devilish individual lack. As long as you are evil, everything wicked or satanic become a thing of joy. what if i derive joy in it.

The question is; why is it even evil in the first place?

IAmSabrina:
I'm of the mind that this subject is largely independent of whether or not God exists.

Actually it isn't. You cannot divorce a theists moral basis from God so God is largely a part of that argument for a theist. How is that independent of God?

frank317:
How many rape victims have u seen rejoicing after being raped?

Or will u throw a party if anyone rapes ur daugther?

Is this a basis that something wrong?

You are just making a moral conclusion that 'not rejoicings over an action' makes it wrong.

How did you get to this conclusion?

See? Example 1 of the implications of fundamental basis for moral conclusions.

frank317:
Pls what is the basis of morality for theists, how does this basis makes it better that what the atheists are proposing?

God.

Let's put it this way; The fundamental assumption fot theological basis for morality is - God exists.

Therefore here are the logical steps.

The owner of any system determines what governs such systems.

Based on the assumption of God existing which is fundamental to theology.

1. God exists
2. God is the creator of the universe
3. Therefore God owns the system
4. Any thing God considers sacred is fundamental to the universe like the laws of physics.
5. Therefore any moral basis on this principle is objective.

So, the only way to attack this argument is to argue that God doesn't exist, but one cannot deny in any way the sound logical link in that argument based on the fundamental assumption of no.1.

Second basis: Fundametal belief in a non-arbitrary value system.
Belief such as; Sex is sacred, Human life is sacred etc.

Secular morality on the hand operates on two principles.

1. Borrow a primary foundation from a theological basis (which most human law practise)

2. Or simply make a moral conclusion based on what you feel is ok without deriving a fundamental assumption that injects distinction between subjects. (Most atheistic arguments on morality operates on this one even though one can still ultimately link this to 1)

The idea that morality is individually subjective is a secular idea which ultimately means morality doesn't really exist

Which then puts us in a moral dilemma cus on that note, nothing truly can be wrong.

vaxx:
That is why johndon says morality basis has a quality theological explanation. Theist offer a plausible explanation as to why it is wrong to hurt others in order to gratify yourself. it will always be wrong even without putting God to it base on human veiw

The most fundamental point of theists is about interacting with other people. ... for example ""My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." Since neither of us has a privileged position, ACCORDING TO THEISTIC explanation neither of us is entitled to impinge on the other against the other's will.

People do not understand, being an atheist doesn't mean you become illogical and dogmatic, arguments require an open mind to understand the idea of it all and even an opposing idea can be very logical.

Take that guy for example; He replied that rape is wrong to me and replied of course it is not to you.

Why?

Because he doesn't see morality as something with basis but simply as a surface value judgement down to individual interpretation - which literally proves my point that secular morality (at least how secular people see it) lacks basis therefore literally meaningless.

Let's probe him further; he said, species propagte through rape therefore it is fine to rape - This is him making a logical leap first that 'species propagation' is good.

He is trying to show something is good using a benchmark he hasn't shown is also good.

Or he argues it hurts people thereforr wrong - again, he is making a logical leap of concluding 'hurting people' is wrong without showing how and why.

Trying to prove something is bad using something you haven't shown to be bad.

That is the dilema of secular moral basis.

Morality require a fundamental assumption about the subject that distinguishes it from others, moral weight is not in the action but the subjection of the action.

Example; If you touch someone on their hand, it is ok

Touch their vagin_a or peni_s, it is sexual assault.

See, the problem is not touching someone's body part but which particular body part you touch.

(That is the mistake they make when you talk to them about basis, moral basis is the assumption about the subject not the action)

One can ask why is touching a vagin_a without consent wrong but touching a hand isn't, after all, both are just human body parts which by secular definitions none is any more sacred than the other, there is nothing sacred about sexual intercourse.

But to a theist, sex is a sacred action and this implicitly means that any organ involved in sex must be equally sacred hence the distinction with other parts of the body.

Therefore, touching a body part is morally neutral.

But touching a body part with a fundamental assumption detailing it's intrinsic value gives it a moral weight either positively or negatively - And this scaredness is ultimately connected to God.

That is moral basis.

But to a secular mind, something is wrong simply because i feel and say it is, there is no reason why it is.

I feel like most atheist here do not understand this basis argument.

You may argue morality is subjective and not objective but you cannot argue that the moral derivations and basis in theism isn't logically sound and their non-arbitrary value system a very solid argument you can't win against.

You can only scream: God doesn't exist as a counter which is basically shifting the goal post

OpenYourEyes1:
This contradicts darwin's "Natural Selection"

No, it doesn't

advocate666:
This is where you argument is defeated before you even started.

Lol. Abi?

Any human would agree that rape is wrong. It is human nature. It has nothing to do with god.

Lmao.

Why is rape wrong?

Infact the opposite is the case. Only godly people can justify rape and say it is sanctioned by their god. There are numerous examples of this in their holy books.

Again, basis is the argument, whichever way it goes.

So, humanity is the "moral basis". Not god.

Lol what does this even mean?

OpenYourEyes1:
Evolution is senseless. Its survival of the fittest is an extremely immoral and senseless belief.

On the contrary, there is another way to look at it, morality in fact a very necessary evolutionary tool.

Have you not seen parents sacrificing their lives in a disaster for the sake of their family? The parents are the fittest in the family but choose that path to save the weakest members.

Lol. Evolution deals with survival of species not isolated pockets.

An evolutionary successful organism is one that has numbers on its side - humans are evolutionary successful.

This kind of parents are most likely religious. Atheist parents would likely loot, kill and destroy to save their children. It is such a self centered belief.

Lmao. Ok

advocate666:
Like I said, you first need to define morality so there is no goal post shifting. To make it simple, give me an example of a moral act that is solely attributed to a god and no atheist can perform.

I am not sure you people know the arguments you engage in. Nobody said anything about any actions being attributed to God that an atheist cannot perform.

The argument is on moral basis not moral action.

Religious moral basis are less arbitrary and logically sound than secular morality.

My definition of morality is that it is fluid. That which is considered moral today, may become amoral tomorrow and vice versa. As such it has no rigid measurement.

That which is "eternally moral" is human attribute and cannot be measured. Theist claim it belongs to them but that just shows their nature. They are liars and usurpers.

Again Moral basis is the argument.

I have no idea what the hell you are on about.

Let me demonstrate: Is rape wrong?

Why?

advocate666:
No, theists don't have it on morality.

Actually they do.

Atheists don't need any god to be moral. Unless you have a different definition of morality.

And that is not the point, on what basis do you measure morality?

it is one thing to say "I'm moral" it is another to show on what basis such actions are assumed moral and why it is binding. If not, it is simply meaningless.

Vic2Ree:
So, by my estimation, it appears that theists have won, for all intents and purposes:
1. The logical problem of evil
2. Morality (objective moral standards and non-arbitrary value systems)
3. The limits of science, the axioms of the scientific method, the end of materialism/naturalism, etc.

It is mostly difficult to argue with the non-arbitrary basis for value system in the theistic argument. The only argument that can be made against that is that "God do not exist" which moves the goal post rather than address the argument.

I agree the theists have it on morality.

Atheists, by contrast, have won:
1. Determinism (no free will)
2. Evolution
3. The emotional problem of evil
4. Scientific inerrancy of religious texts

And it appears they can all agree, for the most part, upon:
1. Evolution
2. The psychological significance of religion (though they often disagree on the impact being positive or negative)
3. Infinite reality (theists believing in an infinite being, atheists believing in an infinite material universe).

These debates are by no means settled, of course.

What overarching arguments/debates do you, honestly, think either camp has "won"? What conversations do you think both sides are having on common ground?

Let's wait for other people and probably go over the arguments again

OLAADEGBU:
If Mary was sinless, why was she unclean and had to offer a sacrifice for sin?
by Matt Slick

Roman Catholics teach that Mary never sinned. But, if that is the case, why did she need to offer an atonement according to Old Testament Law (Lev. 12:1-8) after giving birth to Jesus? According to the Old Testament, it was only the mother who needed purifying after a birth because of the issue of blood. She was ritually unclean. If she had a male child, the days of her period of uncleanness was seven days, then the child was circumcised, then she remained unclean for 33 days (v. 4)--for a total of 40 days. If she bore a female child, her period of uncleanness would be 14 days plus 66 days for a total of 80 days. Notice in Leviticus 12:2 it says if she bears a male child, she shall be unclean for seven days. If Mary was sinless, how could she also be unclean?

Below is a chart that has Leviticus 12 and Luke 2 side by side. You can see from the text that Mary had to offer a sacrifice for uncleanness and as it says in Leviticus 12:8, a sacrifice for sin offering that is an atonement. Why would Mary, if she is sinless as the Roman Catholics assert, be unclean and also need a sacrifice?

https://carm.org/catholic/mary-unclean-offered-sacrifice-for-sin

Mary sinned by giving birth to Jesus?

So Jesus was a sin?

Also, a woman menstruating is sinning.

Really?

Your theological grasp is like that of a kid.

And even by the old testament laws you posted, uncleanliness doesn't necessary refer to sin.

Ihedinobi3:
From what perspective could it be more logical?

Why do you say I couldn't possibly know?

Logic is basically a human concept. The universe doesn't work to make sense to us.

So, there is no such thing as infinite regression is impossible, on what ground do you make such absolute statement?

Do you determine how things work?

Or do things need to make sense to you to be true?

I truly detest making absolute statements on subject you can't possibly be certain of.

It's a misplaced arrogance

Ihedinobi3:
That was not a flaw at all because a final uncaused cause is a logical necessity for existence to make sense. Infinite regress is an impossibility.

Not impossible, just less logical from the human perspective.

I do not know how you absolutely conclude to know what is impossible or not in a vast array of existence that probably goes beyond our universe or even physical dimension

Stop making absolute statements on things you possibly couldn't know

hopefulLandlord:
No!

Ok. Why?

hahn:
So person cannot play with him padi again abi?

Hahaha i give up on you Hahn

UyiIredia:
I disagree with your premise that energy won't be lost.

How is energy lost in a closed system?

But in any case consider my opening post here.

I'll read

Ihedinobi3:
It is neither inexistent nor "part of existence". It is ultimate reality, that is, all existence depends upon it.

This is the type of assertions i find mostly ridiculous, just a meaningless word play.

Anything that is not inexistent obviously exists.

Ultimate reality, for existence to depend on it, it must also exist itself.

Make up your mind, is it inexistent or does it exist?

Ihedinobi3:
In a system where there is no decline there are no dead animals that revert into nutrients in the soil.

Actually this is not a decline, things change from one state to another, animals are also being born, so if dead animals means a declining universe, animals being born means?

This is what you get when someone takes an isolated bit to represent a universal benchmark and even at that fails to establish a connection.

That is the benchmark. Things in a stable Universe do not die.

LMAO, do they live?

As for isolated bits, I think you know that they aren't. There is nothing in the Universe untouched by Death. Even stars give out and planetary systems collapse. Everything in our cosmos dies, especially here on Earth.

So, do they phase out of existence or turn from form to another?

hahn:
Including the fools that wrote the bible and the fools that quote the bible and believe in it

This is the type of thing you like. To be regurgitating plain rubbish with MrPresident1

hahn:
You are expecting atheists to contribute logical arguments to a topic that has it's foundation in ignorance and emotion?

The question was simple; is belief in a creator logical?

Yes?
No?

Why?

Where is the emotions?
Ignorance? Of what?

So far, your outburst here has been the only emotional one, no agency for logical discussion but yet, ignorance and emotion.

Lmao

Your constant need to make sense of absolute nonsense is a route you have to take yourself

It is one thing to say something is nonsense, it is another to say "why' it is.

You have not shown 'why' therefore your claim is unfounded at best.

Emotions? Savvy?

Anyway, calm down, breathe, now take the question from the top.

Is belief in a creator a logical conclusion?

(N.B; this doesn't mean God exists or not) for an individual that should reach conclusions through logic, you seem to be lacking a lot in that part lately especially when the discussion is tilted against your position.

I'm an atheist, but for one to be truly willing to learn you must do away with unnecessary bias towards opposing ideas.

You seem incredibly uncomfortable discussing topics that places your position in an uncomfortable state of scrutiny, i honestly expected better.

JeromeBlack:


This is what happens when you associate with funny people. You start to unconsciously copy their behaviour.

Your op is quite open to argument from many angles. People have many reasons for not accepting that God is not a reasonable conclusion. The atheists here have given different robust arguments why a creator/god is illogical.

You cannot expect people to answer things the way you want

Actually No. Only you and LordReed so far has been the atheists on this board.

1. I have not implied any way i expect an answer to go.

2. I have engaged both the theist and the atheists on their answers.

As far as the primary target for the question goes, there is an ironic deficiency of normal atheist representation here.

On an average thread, you could have 10 -15 but here, nope

LordReed:
Because he is not following where the evidence leads, he is making a leap.

Pray tell, how? because as far as seen here, exact same method of deriving conclusions are applied to both instances. Tell us how one is a logical leap and the other isn't?

He also fails to take into account all of the facts. Consider that so far life is in a very low minority in this universe and considering that there are probably uncountable planets with the conditions earth finds itself, how does he arrive at design? Unless of course he is willing to concede that the designer is rather wasteful, inefficient and not very good at design.

Wasteful, inefficient doesn't negate design. So, making this argument doesn't negate the fundamental premise of his argument which is design.

LordReed:
Really? So I am wasting my time engaging you?

Nope. It's a general statement, considering the question is primarily directed to atheists, only jerome and you are actually disussing anything about it.

Ihedinobi3:
Death is an obvious phenomenon in the universe. All things die. All things perish. Some expire. Some rust. Some fall to dust. In the end, all things die.

Uuuhm, these are isolated bits and as far as we know on these isolated cases, they simply change from state to another. A dead animal decomposes and becomes additional nutrient in the soil, by the way, this is inconsequential to the question.

again, tell me what you mean by universal quality. What is your benchmark for universal quality?

Ihedinobi3:
Not quite. As I told you in response to your first objection, sentience is not a necessary assumption to make for there to be a self-existing Cause of the Universe. But the combination of the existence of the Universe and the necessity of a self-existing Cause for it leads to a necessary assumption of sentience among other things for that Cause.

We are good here then.

Ihedinobi3:
It declines in quality.

What do you mean quality? What benchmark measures universal quality?

Ihedinobi3:
That definition is original to me although you will find others who have used it. You could examine the links https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-religion and https://www.britannica.com/topic/prime-mover-philosophy. The second link will give you other links to examine.

Wait. The definition that God is a self-existent, creator of the universe is original to you? I need to be sure of what you mean here

I'm ironically lacking atheists with meaningful contributions to this thread.

One would expect atheists to be logical and what not as we have always posited on this board.

Seems the atheists on this board shy away from discussions that puts them in an uncomfortable position.

Who knows which atheist is which to tag to this thread?

DoctorAlien do you?

Ihedinobi3:
Stability is fundamental to eternity. If something goes through a cycle of degradation and renewal, the question does arise: "how is that possible?"

Another word play; what do you mean stability?

Unchangeability?
Order?

Degradation results from failure due to the pressure of external forces. Renewal results from the same. That a thing degrades its own self makes no sense. That it renews itself after degradation makes even less sense.

Let me introduce you to the cosmological oscillation model.

A contained system can be go through a cycle, in fact this is one of the possible end results of the present cosmological model.

If our universe is self- contained, with sufficient amount of gravitational force present, then a collapse of the system is inevitable and such collapse forms a singularity which as a raw form of energy will inevitably give rise to another inflation.

This is not me saying this is the case, this is show how a contained system can theoretically go through cycles without external influence

You seem to make bold assumptions as absolutes and base your argument on this.

On the other hand, that a thing is in a constant state of perfection makes sense if that thing is not of this Universe at all and transcends everything in existence.

Is this thing inexistent? Or is it still part of existence?