₦airaland Forum

paxonel:
and i never disputed that soccery does not exist in the bible, i only proved to him that it was never part of christianity and will never possibly exist in christianity.
And since christianity has taken over the world today therefore soccery do not exist today.
No,
He says soccery was practiced in the bible and i let him know the bible he thought it was, is not bible that he should not be confused.
Soccery was practiced in the old testament and not the bible ,old testament is Torah.
that was ignorance practiced by my fellow christians we all know that

paxonel:
Singer Lil Kesh has reacted after Nigerians accused him and Olamide of promoting “Yahoo yahoo” and “blood money” in their collaborative new song, titled, “Logo benz”.

Lil Kesh has defended his song via a comment on Instagram. Kesh stated that they are not promoting what is not existence. Writing on a page, he wrote;

If money no enter I go do blood money o, talk your own. WE NOR DEY PROMOTE WETIN NOR DEY EXIST na awareness we dey do so spread your pata at owner’s risk because won ka pata o.

This is confirmation that
1.Blood money do not exist
2. Witchcraft do not exist
3. Juju do not exist
4. Die by fire prayer in churches do not exist

Please God and work for your money no mama or witchcraft in your village is blocking your success pastors are deceiving us for so long.

This nigeria we are living in, we caused problems to ourselves by believing in non sense

Judge yourself .

I am not sure you remotely understand the premise of this argument

So, there is a growing trend today in the world which is an implication of the gender equality argument.

There is an increment on men and women who think that it is ok for a man to hit back a woman who hits him first.

I personally tend to disagree with this "Men shouldn't except on extreme cases that may be regarded as self defence" on my own reasons I will also reveal.

There are also other implications like more men now expect equal contribution from women, equal responsibility, less men still open doors, less still takes on the bill 100%. These to me are rather lighter issues that don't really matter.

But the idea of men retaliating when hit doesn't sit well with me.

What do you think? Do you think it is consistent with the idea of equality for men to hit back when hit by a woman?

LordReed:
I can also dance the law dance and show you where the fetus is not legally recognized as person.

Hahaha I knew you didn't see that one coming.

Let me make my argument abundantly clear in simple steps.

1. Personhood is a legal definition (at least as defined today)

2. Legality is arbitrary contingent on human belief on imagined order.

3. Human on the other is biological.

4. Therefore is a description of an objective biological reality.

5. Murder is percieved as morally wrong on the premise or belief on the sacredness of human life.

6. Therefore, human life on any stage it occurs is just as sacred by definition and therefore premediatated termination of this human life is morally wrong.

I am not dragging personhood with you. My argument is purely moral not legality.

I only played the legality game a little with you to show you it is ironic and funny and in fact somewhat contradictory.

And I also question legalities that deviate from the fundamental principles on which they are formed.

paxonel:
there is no point mobilising your fellow athiests they cannot help you escape this one.
Just accept the truth,
1. Soccery or witchcraft may be practiced in the old testament but that wasnt christianity

His premise was not whether sorcery was practised in Christianity or old testament. His argument rather refutes your claim that sorcery doesn't exist which he proved is inconsistent with the biblical faith by showing proof that sorcery does in fact exist in the bible.

By accepting sorcery was practised in the old testament, you have already conceded to his point thus lost this argument.

And for the Christianity part, no other religion burned or killed witches or perceived witches any more than the Christian religion in medieval Europe.

ralphyoung123:
Making suicide legal would be devaluing life, so don't expect any government to make suicide legal, but that doesn't stop anyone from taking his life, punishing a suicidal person will fuel his suicidal desires more, so the government hardly punishes them. Committing suicide is easy if we really want to, it won't be made legal and we don't need it to be made legal. We already have the right to if we want to

But if you try and fail you will in fact be prosecuted. That is where the legality comes in.

It is not exactly that easy to commit suicide.

You may misjudge the thrust of the knife, get caught while still suffocating from hanging etc.

LordReed:
Its my argument, they are not considered persons yet. A fetus is a potential individual, its not yet one. So when you say kill someone, a fetus is not a someone yet.

A fetus is a human. When I say someone, I am referring to a human. Not regarding a human as a human doesn't make such human any less human because "human" is not an arbitrary tag hinged on an subjective or intersubjective human belief. No. The term human defines an objective reality, a group of homo species.


And even to dance to this music of legal acceptance with you, do you realise that if you kill a pregnant woman, you are not charge with 1 murder but murder of 2 persons and this is specifically under law? So, you see the laws if I am dancing by your argument still recognizes a fetus as a person therefore somebody. Lol. I bet you didn't see that one coming.

LordReed:
First answer why census takers do not count fetus.

Oh I do not know. Not my problem or my argument.

If I am asked to guess then I'd say probably because they are at a natal stage.

I can also show you instances fetuses are legally recognized as humans (even though human is not a legal label but a biological one)

Would you like to know of such instance?

And what is the point of the census question though?

LordReed:
Very good. So you define a fetus as someone, on what basis? Answer this as well when census takers encounter pregnant women do they count the fetus in the womb?

On the basis that it is a homo sapien therefore by definition human.

And the very reason humans define killing another as morally wrong is based on the imagined belief of the sacredness of human life.

LordReed:
Is this not using the very objective principles you seem to object too? How is abortion morally reprehensible when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus have debilitating developmental defects that will ensure that the ensuing child is not more than a vegetable? Is it also morally abhorrent under such circumstances?

When the mother's life is in danger, it is then an act of self defence on the mother's part to terminate the pregnancy which then is excusable under moral permissibility.

But the idea of killing due to inconvenience is not and they are hardly the same thing.

I have addressed the mother in danger part over and over again in previous threads.

Would you like me to show you where?

Humans are morally excused to kill another on the occasion of said person being a mortal threat to their life directly.

You can't say something is universally wrong without considering the circumstances and then tell me you think morality is intersubjective. Where is your intersubjectivity?

Lol. The circumstances of abortion are just as similar as the circumstances surrounding post natal murder.

So, it is quite easy to figure out.

If you kill someone because they inconvenience you, every one should agree that that is the height of moral abhorrence.

If you kill someone because they are a mortal threat to your life directly about to kill you, that is self defence and is morally permissible, in fact morally expected.

These two occassions are easily identifiable in abortion cases.

I think on this very matter by basing your argument from biblical premise, you made a very valid and strong argument which is almost very unlikely that he can refute directly based on the said premise no matter how much he tried.

LordReed:
If we are going by definitions then you are subtly wrong:

Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Meaning there are situations where it is lawful to kill. Those situations will be sanctioned by law. Self defense for example, there is no way the right to kill will be exclusively denied because we have learnt that extreme situations will occur that will require it. Abortion if established as lawful is not murder.

I am much much aware of such definitions but if you have not noticed, I am making a moral permissibility argument not a legal one. In fact, I question the deviation from the fundamental basis of which murder is condemned on the very exemption of abortion as a crime.

From my post you quoted

I am arguing more of a moral permissibility than political and i believe this OP and your first comment which i quoted was based on a premise which is more morally based than political and i'd like to maintain that original premise.

On a political note - I'd still argue that ignoring the weak fails the fundamental principle upon which human law was built.

So abortion is just morally adorable as any premediatated murder.

See?

So, I still identify the irony of our legal juggle on the deviation from the fundamental basis it is originally based on.

HardMirror:
john i dont agree with this. You cannot. See, the concept of right or wrong is an illusion we create for ourselves.

Oh, it is something we create for ourselves alright, but in an intersubjective manner not in a subjective manner as you wrongly think and would have us believe.

Abortion is as good as killing a chicken too.

Wrong again. It is as good as killing another human.

Humans are hypocrites we think we are intelligent,

We do not think we are intelligent for the fun of it, we are in fact not just intelligent but very very very intelligent.

we create laws we believe favours us the most.

Because every animal society primarily focuses on the said animal.

The illusion that all humans are equal,

Oh i agree, equality is a social myth, an imagined order, doesn't make it less effective though, does it?

the illusion that we fight wars for peace.... it is not so.

Conflict is one of the most primitive aspect of existence and is inherently inevitable.

Abortion can be debated ONLY because the babies CANNOT fight!

Which makes them needing of every protection they can get by law. In principle, human law is for the weak. Without the law, we would operate based on the primary natural order of operation, the strong prey on the weak, kill whoever you can, take whatever you want from whomever you want, but we don't, the law as humans have conceived abhors these.
Bills on domestic violence predominantly favors women more than men because women are inherently more vulnerable than men then needs more protection -Babies presents the most vulnerable stage a human can be and for the fact that this does not call for more protection for them is ironic and defeats the very principle of the law protecting the weak.

It can be LEGALISED only because the babies have no political influence.

I am arguing more of a moral permissibility than political and i believe this OP and your first comment which i quoted was based on a premise which is more morally based than political and i'd like to maintain that original premise.

On a political note - I'd still argue that ignoring the weak fails the fundamental principle upon which human law was built.

Take a look at the big picture. The world will fvck you real good when you have no power. There are no right or wrongs society lives by an unspoken contract of the gains of laws. All what we live by are results of the human societal evolution. Learning over time to live together in ways we believe profits us the most. The law that i should not steal is because it makes me spend less effort protecting resources i gather. We live be this mutual contract, dont steal from me so i wont steal from you.

Actually i am looking at the big picture, i have considered the historical and even biological evolutionary variables. Human laws, human morality exist on the same fundamental state, which is -Imagined order and this has helped us live and become the most dominant specie in this planet, in fact due to our capability to apply imagined order, we can decide the fate of this planet and the fate of every thing in it however we choose.

Human laws as you pointed out have gone through social evolutions, our laws are no more objective than our moral beliefs, both are imagined orders. Human cooperation may have elements of "do on to me as i do on to you" but to assert this is the guiding principle of our application of law as it stands today is largely untrue.

The law is not a choice at our discretion, it is in fact an applied obligation.

See for get about a chimp not killing a chimp.

Why?

Do you think humans are exclusively intelligent?

Evidently so, at least, more so than any other being in this planet or any other being ever to exist as far as we know.

The chimp needs to propagate the population of it's own species as much as the resources permit. It is an advantage.

Exactly, it is an evolutionary tool. Species who kill each other are in fact at a disadvantage evolutionarily. Humans in the evolutionary sense can be classified as largely one of the most successful species ever to walk this earth and can be easily classified as the most dominant, we achieved this even though we lack large muscles and lethal physiological aggressiveness like per say lions or elephants.

We achieved this due to imagined orders such as morality and laws.

So dont make it look like humans have a right to kill other species.

The concept of right is also a human idea, you seem to not be understanding this enough.

If you are invoking cosmological inherency, we have no right to kill animals neither do we have any rights or obligations not to kill them. See? So, we can and we do.

It was never about rights, it is always about POWER and advantage. The powerful will stoop for the weak if there is a symbiotic advantage to be gained.

Let us get something abundantly clear: concepts such as Power, morality and laws are not the same and conflating them leads to a meshed up premise that is inherently flawed.

Human morality dilutes imbalances in the intricacies of human social interactions
human laws fundamentally protects the weak
Power is an inevitable consequence of human hierarchical capability which is arguably an evolutionary trait.

Abortions would go on as long as people can get away with it.

That is exactly how social myths work, it thrives on belief, that isn't my argument. My argument is based on the irony in the application of the definition of defining concepts that constitute our moral outcomes.

Based on this abortion premise - Murder as defined in human morality and largely by law is wrong.

Murder in definition simply means willful termination of a human life.

Therefore, fundamentally, human morality do not permit murder. Specifically, abortions are willful termination of human life and therefore meet the definition of murder as described but somehow is morally excusable?

That is a funny irony.

No one would go to the police station to report a missing unborn baby.

Again, consequences are not determinants of moral permissibility.

The mother wont feel the same guilt as killing a born child, because the level of relationship is different, because it is a murder she can get away with. Just the way it is. No need for us pretending about it.

What if a serial killer doesn't really feel any form of guilt whatsoever about all his victims, and all his crimes go undetected, does this make his actions morally neutral? Should this your argument extend to that?

LordReed:
The question now becomes did I ever state that the need for survival was other than individual? That's why your "individual not global" was confusing to me, I didn't understand what you were objecting to.

I can concede to this point. It wasn't much of an objection but more of a injection of clarity but going over it now i think it was rather unnecessary.

So, i agree with you.

LordReed:
The link I posted is to your comment.

You clarified by saying individual not global. Meaning what exactly?

lol. So, in otherwords, you can't show exactly where and how i disagreed?

As i said when you brought this up "it's most likely that you didn't understand my argument" and it turns out to be so. I am mostly extremely careful when making an argument, anyone who misrepresents my argument either didn't understand it or didn't really follow the context of an isolated statement.

Individual not global means that every organisms need to survive is an individual drive that doesn't necessary extend to them needing for others to survive too.
A man drowning would use other people as raft just to survive even though it means they would drown and die.

the very elementary natural principle connotes this, survival of the fittest, kill anything you can to survive, do what you must.

So, survival is an individual struggle.

savvy?

LordReed:
https://www.nairaland.com/4903801/what-termed-moral#73871536

Show me exactly where i disagreed.

LordReed:
Interesting. In a different thread when I brought this up you objected to it.

show me it could most likely you didn't understand my argument.

HardMirror:
you made a lot of good points. But in the end it is a tussle btwn the powerful and powerless. Chickens have rights to life as much as humans do. But we take their lives at will.

Because the concept of human morality is primarily based on human as the center point.

A pack of chimpanzee wouldn't have as much problem killing you as they would killing another member of their pack.

Same applies with abortion. The child is at the mercy of the mother.

This can be applied to virtually everything. A girl i invite over to my house is at my mercy.

We really cant tell her what is right or wrong.

Actually we can, human morality is not up for individual definitions.

She would use her power and there would be no consequence from the child fighting back.

This doesn't really imply moral permissibility of an action. It would then be consistent to argue that getting away with a crime (lack of consequence) dilutes the moral weight of an action which isn't in fact so.

Only consequence would come from the action of equally or more powerful beings such as the mother herslf

Moral permissibility doesn't really require consequences.

Kholiwe:
Would you say it is illogical for God to punish people in eternal fire? If so, are the Jehovah's Witnesses right in their teachings?

Eternal punishment is inconsistent with the concept of an all loving omnibenevolent being.

janettee:
Personally I'm an atheist and really pro choice ..No need bringing a child to this world if you know deep down you won't take care of them well. Look at Nigeria's population. Parents breeding like rabbits and giving birth to children they can't take care of...

And there is a way you can do this without killing them; abstain from sexual contacts, contraceptive methods and what not.

Even the religious who preach pro life never take time to visit motherless babies home or orphanage.

Actually, most orphanages and motherless baby's homes are run by religious institutions.

They are only pro life till the child is born. Let me not even get into the fact that they have abortions too and still preach pro life.

demonstrably untrue.

I don't know why this question is directed to atheists specifically though. I know Christains who are equally pro choice. It has nothing to do with religion..

Actually, a Christian who is pro-abortion does this with defined knowledge that it is in direct consonance with her/his spiritual beliefs.

P.s: Before it devolves into "you religotards" i am actually an atheist.

HardMirror:
you are very right. Principles we live by are shaped by different factors. For some it is religion, for others it is from their culture, for some others it is self developed maybe through experiences or just because of our personality. It could also be a combination of several factors.

I grew particularly interested in your comment mostly due to the use of morality and the insertion of subjectivity in a quite ambiguous context. I hope we can discuss this.

I would find it difficult if not impossible to about a child that is mine. Not because it is morally wrong for me but because it is subjectively wrong for me. In this case it is subjective because this choice is hinged on my perception that the child is mine and that it is human as much as i am.

But, apart from this your subjective bias towards your own child, you do not think that abortion generally is in fact morally wrong?

On second thoughts, when does life really start?

Uuuuhm, when a sperm cell meets an ovum cell and they fuss to form a zygote, when else do you think?

Can i also say my sperms are babies and when i ejacullate i am wasting lives?

You are made of atoms but you are not an atom. You are made of cells but you are not a cell. A fetus is made of cells but is not a cell.

A sperm is a distinct cell. So, this is grossly a false equivalence.

Does the baby have consciousness or is it self aware? At what point does the baby become self aware and i can be said to be denying it a chance at life.

But consciousness or self awareness isn't really the definition of life.

If the baby is not self aware, it cannot have a desire to live and if killed i had taken nothing away from the child.

You probably have seen on many occasions when you try to kill an ant or anything out there, it recoils and tries to escape from such imminent danger.

In fact even an amoeba does same.

A fetus actually also follows similar patterns.

An observable objective goal of life is to not die. This does not come necessarily due to consciousness or intelligence, it is rather more automated.

Now i am just complicating things...

No. You are not.

In the end, do what is right based on your best judgement.

That is not really how moral problems work. Morality is not based on individual judgement.

Sometimes it is better to just abort the child and save it the unfortunate realities of life

This is actually absurd. You can further extend this past the fetal stage and go on to say, sometimes it is better to just kill that human and save it the unfortunate realities of life. I do not know why we think murder is wrong then.

bloodofthelamb:
I do not believe evil ones will burn forever without end. But I do believe in complete destruction of the wicked, that is they will cease to exist spiritually and physically.

Isn't that arguably better than heaven?

ColdPizzas:
If there is no allowance of the existence for evil how then can good exist? If the beings created by God aren't created with the propensity to commit evil how then can they commit good since good is the antithesis of evil. For good to have value, then evil most be an alternative.

If God destroys evil once and for all, what makes you think that a life devoid of the possibility for evil is one that you'd want to live? If evil doesn't exist and that includes, pain, suffering death, ugliness, wars etc, then how can you appreciate life, happiness, pleasure, beauty and peace?

What is evil?

DoctorAlien:
I hold my belief even with the knowledge of these verses. And I believe that my belief about the judgment of the wicked occupies a position of harmony between these verses you quoted and the other verses talking about the matter in the Bible. Jude v.7 is an example of such other verse.

If you believe some part of the scriptures and not the others, it is not the scripture you believe but yourself.

~Saint Augustine

Malocity:
I have read much about the operations of hell and heaven. So I know when one is saying the truth or not.

God has been faithful.

And so far, none has been saying the truth. Innit?

Malocity:
I have not heard about much of them, just few like two, and they tell lies. We have very few cases where people go to hell and are saved by Jesus so as to return back vis versa.

Let's gist a bit privately. 08035694634...

Why do you think you won't still regard mine as a lie if I happen to do it?

mujahid777:
Sometimes atheists fall guilty to what they accuse theists of...of man creating God in mans image.

In what way? Tell us.

Dami12345:
Try reading the posts on the religion threads, they will help.

Have you finished reading your bible. You should, both the old and new testament.

Are there things about God that feel weird?

On the hell fire thing,
It seems a God who can do anything, wouldn't bother to create an hell fire, he could just unmake the bad souls right.

Why stop there, why not destroy the source of all evil once and for all.
But that brings another question, if God created the devil and the devil became bad, how is it possible for God who is everything and can do anything , to make something and it becomes evil .

Does this mean there is another entity out there that has power on par with God and can corrupt his works?

Or is God the embodiment of good and evil?

This a few to think on.

I have done these things, I have some doubts but how do I conclude?

You can't just say there is no God.

MrPresident1:
In your own personal belief system, how are cosmic transgressors rewarded?

There are no such thing as cosmic transgressors in my own personal belief.

Dami12345:
Haaa, I am no master still on my way. Same as you.
I think the journey is more important than that answer, I would prefer not to deny you the pleasure of figuring out the lies.

Keep asking questions you will see the light and truth.
Have fun bro. You just started your journey leaving behind the 99% of mindless humans in the world.

I do not know what lies I have started my journey of leaving in mind.

Can you explicitly tell me what you are talking about?

Malocity:
The Best thing to happen here is let the person in doubt of the reality of hell just die and pls tell God you only left to confirm Hell.

After then, when you wake just tell us on this tread what you saw and we shall believe you.

Kpakam!

I do not think this is as effective as you make it appear. They are literally hundreds of people who claimed to have died and gone to either heaven or hell.

How many of them do you believe?

DoctorAlien:
I believe that sinners will be annihilated by the fire of hell. That means that I don't believe that there is a place burning right now where the evil dead go. All the evil dead lie in their grave now and await the judgment of God which will put them out of existence. They will not be alive forever burning. That would mean that they have everlasting life too, just in another location different from Heaven. But everlasting life is something reserved for only the righteous. Instead the fire of hell will destroy sinners, and they will stop existing. I believe too that the scene of that great conflagration will be this Earth.

Thread directly questions the type of Christians that subscribe to a literal idea of hell.

frosbel2:
Truth is relative indeed - think about it

Oh I have.

A relative truth is meaningless.

Because for this statement "truth is relative" to be objectively true, it must be absolute.

If it is not absolute then it is not binding to the subject it address therefore false.

It is a self looped idea that eats itself up.

I suggest you think about it too