₦airaland Forum

DoctorAlien:
Don't you think it's because GOD is omniscient that He had Satan all figured out, even expecting all of his moves?

Well, he created satan, are you surprised?

As for me, the grand finale of this great drama is more than convenient. It is truly comforting to know that evil and injustice will one day come to and end.

Avengers 4 comes to mind. May 19 2019. You watched infinity war right?

bloodofthelamb:
The imagination of a finite mind.

Exactly

hahn:
Any bible verse to support this?



Your quotes are getting more and more off point. Try talking to a lady and tell her "love me or I'll burn you" and see if she will see it your way

Really dude? You get energy like so?

DoctorAlien:
More like to remove whatever point Satan could have raised.

God is supposes to, by definition, be omniscient

They were still willfully obeying GOD until Satan "deceived" Eve. You see, the whole thing since Satan's rebellion has been to prove to the whole of creation why rebellion should not exist, and why it is just for GOD to annihilate rebellion and those who practise it, which is what GOD will do in the end.

At the end. Has a striking resemblance to our story telling method, there is always a grand finale awfully convenient. Don't you think?

DoctorAlien:
More like to remove whatever point Satan could have raised. They were still willfully obeying GOD until Satan "deceived" Eve. You see, the whole thing since Satan's rebellion has been to prove to the whole of creation why rebellion should not exist, and why it is just for GOD to annihilate rebellion and those who practise it, which is what GOD will do in the end.

Was it the satan or the snake?

Babacele:
The story of creation is an allegory to teach us certain basic lessons about life ,and that in Genesis or similar account is found in most religions. Moses brought the one we have in the bible from Egypt.

In order words, Jesus died for an allegory?

And God created Adam and Eve and put them in a perfect garden. The tree of life and death was with God and then God thought to himself;

"I should put that tree right into the garden"

"Jesus! What do you think? I am gonna put that tree into the garden"

"What?" Jesus yelled "Are you kidding me right now? That's a horrible idea"

"Ooooh i am going to put it" God smirked

"Common!!!" Jesus yelled and other inhabitants of heaven just looked on.

And so it happened, that God put the tree he didn't want anybody to eat from right into the middle of the garden where the only 2 people who possibly could eat it lived.

And then, he called Adam and Eve and said "See, you guys can eat from every tree in this garden but not that one"

"What?" Eve yelled

"Why did you put it here then?" Adam queried

God rolled his eyes "Hey, Hey, common guys, see, i am serious. Nobody should eat from that tree"

Do you know the first thing the b-itch did? Totally eat the fruit and gave it to Adam.

Back in heaven, Jesus and God watched with open mouth as Adam and Eve munched the juicy fruit like their lives depended on it.

And God slowly turned to Jesus and said "You do know i'm gonna have to have you killed for this right?"

Jesus chuckled at the perceived subtle joke then it dawned on him, God never jokes.

"WTF!!!"

darol4real:
Is assignment for you. If you study it very well, when they disobeyed him he still went ahead and did something great for them. If you are the one and you gave your children instruction and they disobey you, you discipline them very well.

If i have a cup of poison, and i don't want my children to drink it, i'd either not bring it home at all, throw it away or keep it on a shelf where it is impossible for them to reach.

Only a terrible father keeps what he doesn't want his children to eat it right in front of them..

bennyann:
Let me use this opportunity to say hi to the one I admire secretly aside johnydon22. To me, this guy is so intelligent. I only get confused about his wisdom when he tries defending APC. I'm referring to the moniker of the below quotes and those quotes got me.

And for Buterflyle0 (A major captain from the religion section) , no matter your political stand, I love you still.

Lol.

Politics can be tiring

Good take. I'll write my reply later

Hier:
Our ability to relate with the environment using the 5 senses

How is this perfection?

Hier:
Just for fun

I mean, is the path taken by evolution a predetermined one or all happened by accident, and if all happened by accident, can an accidental event bring about perfection? If it was predestinated, does evolution have a mind? let the brain war begin.

Define perfection?

What is perfect in this context?

vaxx:
things in this case can be knowledge, belief and faith. And if the branch of philosophy you subscribe to is lacking all these. Will it not make sense to call it ignorance or irrational?

Interesting.

So far, this reply doesn't help anymore than the previous. It asserts a claim that lack of faith is irrational or ignorance but doesn't really show how lack of faith can be driven to connote that assumed conclusion.

So, the question still stands; On what ground is lack of faith ignorance?

So far, it seems it is only a comment based on a preconceived belief.

2nd: Assuming i want to dance with you a bit and say lack of faith equals ignorance or irrationality. The question it begs are:

Does this lack of faith only apply to lack of faith in God or does it apply lack of faith in something else or is it simply, lack of faith?

If someone lacks faith in God but has some form of faith for some other thing, is this person irrational?

If someone has faith in God but lacks faith for some other thing (no matter what that thing is) is this also irrational?

psychologist:
My dear atheist's and free thinkers, why don't y'all attack satanist's and tell them their devil is not real!

How many do you see around?

vaxx:
You are now denying that Buddhism can't go along with atheism. Of course I am expecting this, even when the philosophy and thought of Buddhism is synonymous to atheism, more resources out there are pointing that buddism is an atheistic concept, you denying it does not invalidate that decision.


My point is, the philosophy that hold atheism is irrational in all standard and I have gave reasons as regards to that. There's nothing to make sense of. Atheism . It is not a "thing nor believe as some claim . Atheism is a lack of faith in any gods, so if it is anything, it's a lack of a "thing".so how does that sound rational?

Lack of something is not rational?

On what ground is rationalism based as regards lack or possession of something?

Seun:
But how do we apply it to morality because it seems quite apparent that human beings don't have the same opinions about what is moral or not. This is something that is not debatable at all; it's an obvious fact. This makes me feel that I do not understand the topic at all.

Humans have different opinions but morality is not individual.

One person is not moral to himself. Imagine if only you is on earth, what is the point of "Don't kill another?"

So, individual opinions do not matter in morality, as a social myth it takes a collection of opinions.

What is good (societal good) or in plain term Morality is an agreement(belief) between a collection of people.

Some people today are of the opinion that pedophilia is ok, they are called MAPs (Google it)

Does it change that societally we still consider pedophilia wrong?

Imagine if they convince everybody in the country, what happens?

So, individual opinions do not matter in morality. It must be intersubjective.

tintingz:
Because you can't take the pain when someone hurt you, so why do that to your fellow human.

why is bad that i do something i can't take the pain to another person?

You have said what makes it bad.

Yes. You said hurting people is bad. but why? What is the objective pointer to this?

tintingz:
When people started interacting, engaging in logical argument.

I think we're kinda saying same thing.

I didn't talk about slavery being bad, my premise was what influenced Slavery from being moral to Immoral.

consensus

To answer your question, slavery is bad because it deprive people from freedom. If a large group can be empathetic towards slavery it will be abolished which actually happened.

Why is depriving people freedom bad?

People are the UN, it's a consensus body.

Actually, nobody is UN. Point out one UN you know. UN only exist because we believe it does, that is how social myths work, Nigeria exist because we believe it does, toyota (company) exist because we believe it does. A car is not toyota, the ceo is not toyota (they are two different entities) there is nothing you can point out to now to be toyota because cooperations are social myths.

In the past almost every leaders are tyrant.

Politics is a social myth, its not objective reality. You need to understand that. it only exist in the human mind.

tintingz:
Because you won't want to hurt your fellow human.

So, why is not hurting other humans good?

Martinez19:
lol. You haven't contradicted me and tintingz point. It doesn't matter how something that influences reasoning spreads, once it has convinced the mind, it will influence it's reasoning and judgement as hence morality. I might be a christian now but if Islam convinces me, I will start thinking that women should start wearing the hijab, sharia law is okay and that it's okay to cut off a boy's hand for stealing.
Since reasoning(alongside empathy/compassion) govern morality, anything that influences reasoning will influence morality regardless of how it is spread. Mind you it is one thing to know what's right and it is another thing to choose to do what's right. The tobacco company in the past knew that tobacco was harmful but they kept on lying and selling to people because they wanted money. Pastorpreneurs know that it is bad to do what they do but they decide to go ahead.

I contradict your point in every way maybe you don't realize it.

Your argument is based on the assumption that "good" is an objective quality without understanding that as an abstract concept "good" is a matter of belief (intersubjective).

Why is something good?
What makes it good?
And what makes this quality that makes it good to be good?


Example: the company Toyota, does it exist?
why is slavery wrong?
On what grounds are humans equal? (remember that social structures like government and nations are social myths)
On what grounds are they unequal?

Martinez19:
Wait o. I hope you understood my point. If it's subjective FOR HUMANS then different people will disagree on what's moral and their opinions are valid for each of them but if it's objective FOR HUMANS, then only a particular standard can be shown be actually moral using reasoning and empathy/compassion.

I never said it is subjective, intersubjectivity is different from subjectivity.

Let me play with you here to show you that objectivity and morality argument is a slippery slope: What makes this particular standard moral?

Is that these standards are universally discovered to be inherently moral or that there is a consensus in belief that they are?

Permit me to use certain unofficial words here
Humanocentric morality(moral codes for humans) is objective despite what humans what to believe. Felinocentric (moral codes for cats) is objective despite what any cat might want to think. The same for all specie-centered morality.
However, when you combine all species together and try to look for a universal all encompassing objective moral code, you would be disappointed as such can not exist. For every new organism, there is a specie-central objective moral code for that new organism. Is my point clear before I move on?

You have said human morality is objective many times but many times have not demonstrably proved this.

These are the pertinent questions.

What makes something moral?

Is morality an objective state?

tintingz:
Good.

Why is it good?

tintingz:
The rise of Athiesm started as skepticism which is questioning and reasoning.

There is a difference between start and rise. I'm talking about the propagation of atheism, why people are becoming more and more atheistic.

Social interaction play a role, that was the reason I said Slavery is kinda moral in the past because of lack of proper interaction with other race, tribes.

You are first basing this under the belief that slavery is bad which begs the question "why is slavery bad?' Is there any objective basis?

Now we have UN, world summit where world leaders sit and discuss.

Organizations which are also a form of social myth, the UN only has power because you believe it does. Buildings is not UN, persons are not UN, so what is UN? it is an idea? a myth that your belief in makes effective.

I used "majority Americans" because I know some Americans apart from Lincoln believe slavery is bad.

ok

They where raised to believe slavery is good but due to some influence they started changing in reasoning and ideology.

Agreed.

ok

Martinez19:
For humans, yes. For all organisms, it's different.

Meaning it is not objective then. Objectivity do not vary. Anyway forget that, lets proceed.

Why is morality objective?

Martinez19:
The objective moral compass varies from organism to organism and centres around that organism except by the virtue of reasoning. All things being equal, It is expected that a human will save a drowning human rather than a drowning dog except if the human happened to be a serial killer and rapist and the dog is his loyal pet dog. There is no universal moral compass that all organism must be subjected to. It's understandable that a cow would want to kill a human being for eating suya where as it's outrageous for a human being to want another human dead for eating suya despite the fact that suffering was dealt on the cow.

What's good is for the most part intuitive. However what is to be regarded as good or bad depends on and is a combination of two factors:
1) the degree of torturous or pleasurable impact on the human psychology, emotion and body.
2) the degree of it's lasting consequences in the event of things.

Cocaine is pleasurable but is the pleasure worth the lasting consequences on the brain and body?
Child birth is pain but is the pain worth the survival of our specie?

Ok. wait. you think morality is objective?

tintingz:
I believe empathy is innate, people just use it differently.

Is empathy good or bad?

Martinez19:
Abraham Lincoln simply upgraded his reasoning unlike the Americans who were stuck in their religious and cultural upbringing that slavery is good.

Upgraded? again?

tintingz:
The question is, what influence the change from what was believed to be good and later became bad?.

There must be a collective knowledge, experience, feelings that prompt the changes.

It is like a ripple, it starts at a point and spreads to every other part.

Christianity started with few people, so did Islam but through ripple-effect social interactions, more people are convinced.
For Instance, the rise in Atheism is consistent with the development of the internet, information could go far distances unhinged. That is how opinions propagate to the point of collective social acceptance.

Abraham Lincoln as a case study, he believed slavery is bad while the majority Americans believed it's good, why is his morality different from the rest of his people?

There is always a second option, many people through history has always contradicted the prevailing belief of their time. Lincoln wasn't the only person that believed that slavery was wrong, it was not as simplistic as that. Slaves were beginning to revolt, there was a cascade of ideological conflicts and the Northern part of America fought to abolish slavery.

But unlike Copernican realization, there is no objective basis for slavery either way it goes, so it falls into a matter of what we believe.

The idea of Biafra began with Ojukwu, how many people believe it today? Millions.

So, its about ideological propagation and acceptance.

The formation of this ideas can be influenced by many things, pity, sympathy, ego, pride, greed, empathy, bias or even love.

budaatum:
There has been a significant upgrade in human thought however.


I share your view. Even empathy and compassion is not innate as Martinez19 says it is, and has evolved over time from having it for ones family or tribe, to now having empathy and compassion for animals, the ocean and the planet, all which we had no compassion for heretofore.

What if compassion or empathy is innate, what makes it good? why is it good? This is the question Martinez is not asking. Why is something good?

His ideas implies "good" as something we discover and not simply a fabrication of ours given effect because we believe it.

It's an emotional idea, nice but quite naive.

Martinez19 oya come here and defend ya seff

Martinez19:
When your thinking is well upgraded, religious garbages no longer influences your reasoning and one now sees that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and homosexual sex as long as it happens between two consenting adults. As I have said, reasoning and empathy/compassion govern morality. Empathy/compassion is innate and can't be taught while critical reasoning can be taught and influenced. Religious and cultural norms are not innate and have to be taught and since they influence reasoning, they influence an individual's moral compass.

Apt reasoning shows that religion is not a worthy moral guide.

@bold
No. Upgrading reasoning inevitably leads to an upgrade in morality but upgrading morality doesn't necessarily lead to an upgrade in reasoning because while reasoning (alongside empathy/compassion) governs morality, morality does not govern reasoning.

There has been no upgrade in the human brain for the last 200,000 years.

When you make remarks as the above, you imply morality as an innate universal objective quality we discover rather than fabricate.

tintingz:
I'm not disputing the role of social myth beliefs.

By evolution you mean something innate?

Nope. ideological shift.

I believe slavery was legal and moral in the past due to ignorance and lack of interaction with other race, tribe, the more slaves stay long with thier masters the more they started developing empathy, the more experience and knowledge they get the more morality changes, but that doesn't stop some group from sticking to ancient practice which is the social myth beliefs.

No. it is not ignorance. The Hammurabi code, probably the oldest moral codec written begins with a declaration of divine right to the King to lead the people fairly and justly.

He spelled out the classes of people; Elites, common people and slaves. This hierarchy comes with its weight on the civil treatment of individuals and the limits of their rights or the weight of their worth.

Slavery was legal and moral in the past because everyone believed in that myth. it is illegal and immoral now because everyone believes it is now.

The morality of the past is no less superior to the morality of today because if you argue that slavery in the past is wrong you are only using a benchmark of the present and if you argue that slavery intoto is wrong you are making an objective argument, i am sorry but there is no universal or natural inclination that supports your argument. Nature doesn't come with a prescription of good or bad.

Human rights is a modern social myth influenced by Christian philosophy (by proxy)

When we say "equality" what exactly do we mean? Naturally, there is no such thing.

These are concepts we derived to apply a form of brake to our social interactions and the belief in these similar myths holds the fabrics of human society together.

You could start by asking What makes owning another human wrong?

At the end you will realize that right or wrong is just a matter of collective belief (intersubjective)

Originakalokalo:
When you dissociate yourself from the power that holds the universe in place and sets the physical laws

and due to feigned ignorance, you shut the door to your conscience even though you benefit from the air unseen, and eat from the endless supply of food from the ground,

You have pulled yourself apart. molecule by molecule until your existence becomes a mirage.

You are just a shadow. You have limited your existence only to what you feel, see and touch.

Yet the air, unseen, is so important to you that you can't survive without it in 3 minutes.

Just as the air is not seen and yet essential for your existence..
so is he essential in your wholeness.

Your soul, therefore becomes empty...because you have denied the source of your existence; The God Almighty.

No wonder you feel empty and confused.

A denial of him is a denial of the spiritual realm since He is the father and God of all spirits...

If there is a spiritual realm, someone governs it and holds it together...

Just as he holds the universe together with the laws he puts in place
.


What have you done to yourself?

You have put yourself in danger.. You contend with the source of your existence...

When you close your eyes in death. You will be transformed by his law into the spiritual.

As spirit, your understanding of things shall be full, complete and impartial.

..and then you will be banished from his presence forever...This in itself is worst than the punishment of hell..

..A complete separation from such a wonderful glory of the Ancient of days. Who lives in Majesty.

THEN YOU WILL WISH YOU NEVER EXISTED FOR SUCH AN ERROR.


The fact that you don't believe something does not make it false.

What if you are wrong as an atheist ?

What happens ?

This is not the premise of this thread, so i'd rather not address it. Go open your own thread on this premise and it may be considered.