₦airaland Forum

Michellekabod2:
Good evening Nairalanders, am sure you are familiar with the account michellekabod1. It has been a while since I last posted.

All these while, I have been a bit lethargic on this forum due to the fact that I have indulged in sober reflection, and learning, and most of all trying to make it up with my Creator, God almighty, the author and finisher of our faith, the great "I AM".

It obviously would shock many to the bone marrow that I, a former atheist, out of the blue decided to denounce atheism for Christianity.

Not here to coarse or coax anybody, am not an apologist. Just wanna give my testimony.

Michellekabod2 loading......

Cc: Lordreed, bobowaja, jesusjnr, capslocked, Dantedasz, brodalokie, IAmSabrina, Atewo400, alfaman3, sukerefakere, hahn, frosbel2, Joseph1013, jujusugar, hopefullandlord, HappyPagan, Hardmirror, seun, fleximor, budaatum, et al.

jesusjnr:
Seriously!

When did yours happen?

Hope it's not the jesusjnr effect again oh!

Maybe it because you've not yet testified that made me not to know about it, because you can remember it's only quite recently that I told you, you were the first atheist to discover me on this platform, but that you yet refused to let go of atheism.

If so I think you need to create a special thread on it as this one, and If you need my help on that you can let me know, because this.....

#welcomebackhome

JujuSugar:
Flying Spaghetti Monster

1Sharon:
Nope. As I said before, a real atheist will never abandon atheism. OP was a baby atheist easily lobbied by the unbelieving Christians.

I pray his noodly appendage touches her soon.

budaatum:
Hmm. That's an odd question!
Is it not the spirit that animates?

You upskirting me, johnydon22!

buda is a sexless sexless.
Only those of eye can tell.
He was created male and female.

And yes, its all spirit. Even up my skirt!

budaatum:
It's not me, but the Spirit in me.

I'm going to miss atheist buda.
She was cool!
Pity she evolved.

Ah well, onward and upward.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63yBpl6Oixo

Nairaland converted an atheist!

budaatum:
Tell me about it! All of a sudden, they all run away.

Johny, I got this crisis, now they all gone.

Lately, all my words have been the Word.
When I write my own they are not my own
I'm losing control. It's burning my soul.
Cause spirits take over and writes it's!

I think buda may become a Christian!

I wonder if you would help me?

Please.

SarcasticMe:
I obviously can't satisfy your malicious and shady probing... My answers to you are indirectly directed at those Christians you're aiming to lure away from the light.
If your mind can't conceive a perfect world, how would I convince you of its meaning? Work on your mind, and stop spiting what you don't understand.

SarcasticMe:
Life does have it's purpose. We Christians are just apprehensive of the fact that this life is just a journey unto an eternal one. And on this journey, we're expected to do as much good as we can - live with the fear of God and help others.

When we leave this world, we're promised an everlasting life of fulfilment - such that is beyond the confines of our human understanding, because we obviously won't be wearing this body anymore.

The closest human feeling I can compare it to is "perfect peace."

Now, the chaos and sin of this world may make the notion foreign to you. And the fact that you keep denying such place of perfect peace exists, shows how immersed you are into all the chaos in this world - the love of the world.

PS: next time you want to base your thread on an unassuming assumption, you must be careful not to cross the boundary of the said assumption. Your discourse contains ostentatious statements, which would normally drive people off the question. The assumptions within your question is definitely not based on curiosity, but, rather on the need for you to see where the 'shallowness' (in context of your words) leads - so you can make more ostentatious statements.

MuttleyLaff:
I have to concur without demur with SarcasticMe that you had your butt whooped by candidseeker, that you then had to accuse him veering of the point

The futility of your "if our God was powerful, why didn't he stop the church from getting blown up" remark. Do you at all know what in 70 AD, happened to Jerusalem and the temple?

SarcasticMe:
The guy schooled you and you accuse him of veering off point.
He points out your lack of understanding of the Christian faith, but you remain headstrong on using your biased analogy to represent a belief you don't understand.

hahn:
Lol

You asked someone else the question not me

I am only curious about your own stance

Why so emotional?

hahn:
On what ground is yours based?

TrajansKong:
I like feeling good. I don't like feeling bad. I don't want to harm others because I don't want others to harm me. I like peace so I like seeing people at peace. I enjoy freedom, so I enjoy helping others to be free.

I'm a social being. I have family and friends. I'm a mammal. None of this is hard. There's no philosophy involved. Wolves and monkeys know these things and yet, somehow, many of our religious brothers and sisters need books and unceasing prayer to stop them from murdering and raping or 'turning gay'

This is strange and sad.

TrajansKong:
This is very serious and important.

We have been offered an insight into the inner world of many (especially African) Christians. They genuinely experience themselves as corrupt, wicked and at the mercy of every evil thought and whim. Only cosmic threats and ultimatums prevent them from acting out their most sinister fantasies on a daily basis. Constant prayer and hope of making heaven offer the only protection from their own twisted instincts.

Welcome to the soul of a sociopath. I often wonder what has made such people so joyless, desperately unloved and dangerously unhappy...

May whatever idea of God you believe in keep you, guard you and guide you because y'all left 'Team Human' a looong, looong time ago...

TheArranger:
The problem is, changing your opponent's mind when it comes to religion is nigh impossible because of the foundation.

bedspread:
[s][/s]
Still THe same trash! There is no other God anywhere or in any form... GOD ALMIGHTY IS the one and Only..
You as a living being is greater than those toys u call god whether in the name of culture or whatever

Anas09:
I do not assume that there's God. I know for a fact that there's God, and until you and i stand on that premise, we can't have this conversation.

It's either there's God who did what you are implying or there's no God.

Remember, i no dey beg you to believe say God dey.

Anas09:
Your question is stupid. As far as you are concern, there's no God. Case closed. Move on with your life.

Anas09:
Hmmmm. Jon, Jon, Jon. how many times did i call you?

hahn:
Na their way. Makes me remember my thread where I gave them a chance to prove their god is real and they all ran away.

Religion is really about convenience

Hermes019:
The point I'm trying to make is that,the term "morality" as is been used represents peoples views and of course in certain cases they can be wrong,yes I'm aware that morality is inter subjective and all that,but that position has its own flaws,in certain countries homosexuality is criminalised,and yes as far as such countries are concerned it is "wrong", for people to be involved in homosexual relationships,do u conform to this simply because it is a " fundamental belief" they agree on,I bet ur answer is no.
There is no moral codes written anywhere in the universe,we decide what is right and what is wrong,and I agree that this is the best way to keep an organised and peaceful society but we mustn't approach morality with the mentality that an act is always good or always wrong,human life may be considered sacred as you say,but taking of human life is not wrong on its own,it is the conditions that the act takes place that decides if it is right or wrong,apparently in this case I do not agree with u that at any point human life is taken,it is wrong

U are being a bit cocky and dishonest here
You asked me a question,I gave u my answer, u responded to it but this time ur response was only based on half of what I said,and now u dismiss the rest as "meaningless",did u ask for the explanations ?

I would repeat what I said

I consider those acts to be wrong because they cause harm and the purpose for the act is unjustifiable

If a person kills another he has done harm to the person

and if the purpose of the killing can not be justified before the law,or anyone concerned the person is wrong

Same with rape,the person does harm to the victim

and if the purpose of the act is not justifiable before the law or anyone concerned, then the act is wrong

The second part of my response
.......and the purpose of the act is unjustifiable
Is what gives meaning to what I said,because like I previously mentioned, taking a human being's life is not wrong,what is wrong is the purpose behind the act,bow of course this is are the differences lie,I might see the reason behind the act to be perfectly fine while you disagree,that us why people have different views on what is right or wrong

To your question," how is justifiability derived",well let's take the case of homosexuality for instance
Two men engage in sexual intercouse,I of course feel that they what they do is justifiable,because they are not hurting themselves in any way,a christian says that they are not justified because his/her bible condemns homosexual sex,the government abiding by the views of the general public also take the position that they are not justified.

"Justifiability" is subjective and differs among different persons but the law presides over all

Everything I just said is still meaningless right ?

Do you think euthanasia is right or wrong ?

I found your argument interesting,but why should the baby die at the expense of the mother,could it be that you are saying that "all human lives are sacred but some human lives are more sacred than others "
Why should the baby die and not the mother ?

and in that instance what is the moral implication of a woman having an unwanted foetus removed instead of killed,right I guess(judging from ur previous response) ?

NnennaG6:
Well, if you're going to address Christianity, then you'd have to address the fact that Christians believe that genuine faith alone in Jesus makes a person righteous

Hermes019:
So in essence,human beings made human life "Sacred", if we choose to consider the life of a chicken as sacred it becomes sacred, in fact we have such instances,in India,Hindus don't kill cows therefore the life of a cow is just as sacred as human life.
So what makes a life sacred or not is "the fundamental belief" attached to it

What makes this fundamental belief true,why should I agree with it ?

U did not read my statement,this is what I said
They cause harm and the purpose behind the act is UNJUSTIFIABLE
Why did u take only the part u wanted

I never said the child should bear the punishment of the rapist father,I only drew ur attention to the woman who would be subjected to more suffering if she is mandated to carry the pregnancy

Now this is an assumption,your wife and ur 1 month old baby are sick and about to die,u have the cure to their ailment but the drug can only save one of them,who would you give it to,the child or the woman ?

what is so great about the moral implication of the action ?

Myth121:
Do you disagree with my assertion that there is no purpose to anything we do?

If so, can you justify that? My reasoning is this. The universe is so incomprehensibly large and old that no action no matter how momentous would matter.

The entire history of humanity wouldn't be a footnotes footnote in the history of the universe.

And that's before we talk about multiverse theory or consider that the big bang has happened billions of times before and will happen billions of times after.

XxSabrinaxX:
OP, feel free to present your beliefs/positions. Don't just spew out pejorative vomit whilst JAQ'ing Off.
First, lets look at these questions....
a) OP, how do you justify your morality (what moral framework do you use to make your moral decisions)?
b) What establishes the level of meaning in your life (the level of nihilism)?
c) How do you justify your personal existence? How do you justify the existence of life, in general?

If stated as a fact/claim and not as a metaphor, fallacy of presuppositionaism in that there was an actual God (a coherent definition/description/identity required) to have died.

In metaphorical language, the position and belief of atheism does not say that God died, only that for some atheists, the belief in specific God(s) has "died" (or been reassessed to be an unsupportable claim). And for those ex-theist atheists, the majority of Gods never existent (in belief) and these Gods cannot be said to have "died" as these Gods were never "alive."

Not a very strong way to start your argument OP.


Life does not have inherent universal or objective meaning; to say that our lives are objectively pointless and our achievements meaningless is to state the obvious. No matter how grand our achievements or how broad their scope, time turns all to dust and death destroys all memory. But that does not mean we cannot ascribe our own local meaning to what we do. It is because nothing has meaning unto itself that we are free to create our own meaning, and in doing so reflect meaning upon ourselves and our world.

But your statement does raise a question regarding your personality OP. What level of narcissism must you have in order to support that your life has actual consequential meaning beyond the local environment? What level of inferiority complex drives this narcissism for some sort of objective/existential/universal purpose to your existence?



"your existence" is taken to mean 'life' in general.

The term "justification" implies that there was some sort of ante-hoc purpose to life, to cognitive existence.

And until you, or someone else, can make an actual presentation of argument/evidence/knowledge to support an ante-hoc purpose to life, without invoking any of the following fallacies....
* Appeal to emotion (any highly-subjective mind-dependent qualia-experience)
* Argument from ignorance ("We don't know to a high level of confidence and reliability, therefore my imagination stands).
* Argument from incredulity (this thing is so incredible/amazing/ununderstandable/unimaginable, therefore my imagination stands)
* Presuppositionalism
* A claimed irrefutable or coherent logically argument that has not yet been shown to be factually true (to a high level of reliability and confidence) (look up Carl Popper).
* "Existence" is claimed as a property or predicate
... then the requirement of "justification" for life (and for me as a human) is a non-coherent strawman; and one that demonstrated your personal confirmation/cognitive bias.

Now specific to me, the justification for me to exist is that my parents decided to Bleep (and were likely aware of the potential, on an ante-hoc basis, of a child resulting from this activity).





Background:

Evil, good, and neutral, are labels that result from the qualitative assessment of a given action or circumstance (action-circumstance) against
(1) an explicit morality/ethics baseline,
(2) an implicit baseline,
(3) a combination explicit/implicit baseline, or
(4) another action-circumstance.
The assignment of a label of neutral morality resulting from a moral assessment is oft mistakenly designated as "good," as "good" refers to a qualitative assessment higher/better than the baseline, rather than just meeting the baseline requirement ("neutral".

Evil, good, and neutral morality can also be split into two catch-all categories of natural evil/good and cognitive/moral evil/good. Without a cognitive force/basis, especially a cognitive supernatural Deity/God basis, a moral assessment of a natural action-circumstance (e.x., asteroid impact and resultant tsunami) is non-coherent. Somewhere in the causality chain of a given action-circumstance a cognitive basis/framework must be present else the assessment of morality is non-coherent for that action-circumstance. Thus the Problem of Evil/Good for natural action-circumstances not directly influence-able by humans only applies to theistic beliefs/claims where "God" created or has the ability to control natural events.

An explicit moral baseline would be one that is codified and directly available for review. Examples include a claimed Divinely sourced objective morality that is presented in some claimed revealed narratives/revelations, a societal/government authority based objective morality involving codified laws (which typically has a mechanism for authority based change - so a semi-objective morality?), or a set of codified ethics relating to a specific subsection of society (ex., a Doctor's code of conduct).

An implicit moral baseline is one that is (often) more subjective and less codified. For example:

* Cognition of empathy against emotions/feelings/desires with influence from the biological imperative that has resulted from millions of successful generations spread out over a billion'ish number of years

* Local and extended tribalism (proximal tribalism and qualia-experience based tribalism)

* The critical reasoning fuzzy logic precept of 'minimize both actual and potential suffering; maximize both actual and potential happiness'

* An implicit/explicit moral baseline that is mostly extrapolated from a threshold of perceived human suffering

represents the implicit moral baseline that I attempt to follow (with the added provision of: "With the above modified (to some degree) by the codified morals and ethics of the jurisprudence system of the region in which I live" as I am also somewhat a consequentialist).

Discussion:

Evil is a label arrived at via the assessment of a given action-circumstance against some moral baseline or against another action-circumstance (the same applies to the label "good" and "neutral". Evil is not "a lack" of good, rather it is the result of a qualitative assessment between a given action-circumstance and a moral baseline; the same applies to good. Evil is not a deficiency of good.

For "evil" to exist, a given action-circumstance must be evaluated as worse or lower or more negative than another action-circumstance or baseline. If you claim that "evil" can exist independently, then "evil" would be assessed against itself and would result in a neutral label (i.e., the baseline shifts rendering what was labeled "evil," without good, as the new baseline with no positive or negative qualitative validation). The same applies to "good."

The difficulty with designating a moral standard that is a wholly "objective morality" (e.g., a revealed morality as presented in the Torah/Bible/Quran, or another authority source, for an objective morality) is that it is unmovable/unchangeable (else it would not, arguably, meet the condition of "objective" and holds one fast to that specific set of morality, regardless of the source of the morality. The result is a system that does not account for changes by humans for humans in lessening pain and suffering and making the human condition better (through the accumulation and usage of knowledge). The baseline for morality should improve as the human condition improves. Since a claimed objective morality, or an anchored mortality, cannot be challenged/reevaluated as new knowledge becomes available, old harmful standards remain in place. If an objective morality is claimed, for example, from a theistic revelation or decree, depending upon which "God" is being referenced, it is highly likely that the morality decreed by this intervening Deity favors a small select population of peoples from thousands of years ago - a society that faced starvation, disease, high infant mortality, women as property, etc. - and the morals which made sense under these conditions are not applicable where humans have improved the human condition. This is the failure of an objective morality, the inability to improve or shift the baseline morality to the better as conditions improve - to follow such an "objective" morality is, paradoxically, morally reprehensible.

Evangkatsoulis:
Great physicist? Wtf!

Mille:
You can be well assured our framework for morality is not based on a fictitious book which encourages slavery and commands the murder of innocent men, women and children.

Myth121:
None of you grapple with the death of God. Not Richard Dawkins, not Sam Harris. As far as I know, no popular atheist has. It's all well and good to say that God doesn't exist. Fine. Now we live in a nihilist and meaningless world.

How do you justify your existence?

As a follow up, how do you justify your morality (what moral framework do you use to make your moral decisions).