₦airaland Forum

tintingz:
So what about a Muslim man from Saudi Arabia supporting gay right?

Is his morality influenced by social myth or his empathy?

And secondly, India just legalized homosexuals relationship, is it that the previous social myth(criminalizing gays) was good and suddenly it became bad, what could influence this changes/adjustment?

Social myths work as a belief, a muslim man immediately converting to Christianity does not undermine the influence of Islam.

The new shift in social narrative of accepted behaviors around the world is a pointer the evolution of social myths.

1000 years back it was perfectly legal and moral to own a slave, today, that social myth has changed, most people now believe it is neither legal nor moral. See?

the more and more people that believe a social myth, the more effective it becomes because morality as well as every other social myth works as an intersubjective variable.

1000 thousand years back, would it be moral to suggest in India that a man should marry another?

these things are only possible now due to an apparent evolution in our social myth beliefs.

Martinez19:
Nice write up. But what about empathy? Doesn't empathy play a role in how we choose to treat others?

Empathy is the act of putting yourself in the shoes of others.

Empathy may influence your actions like other factors do but to whether this action (empathic or not) is bad or good is dependent on the social myth in effect.

BurningBlade:
it's subjective. Pure and simple. No two ways about it.

It really is not that simplistic. It's neither purely subjective nor objective

I'm not done yet.

The essence of social myths is not just in the belief but in the sense that it has an apparent direct effect on our lives. You are Nigerian. Nigeria is not entirely an idea that came by default to the universe but this same myth of Nigeria affects you in every way, it affects your travels, your education and every other aspect of your social life, practically who you are is dependent on this myth Nigeria. But realistically, Nigeria does not really exist, it is an idea that exists only in the collective minds of everyone.

Today, some people in Eastern part of Nigeria wants Biafra, imagine if Nigeria is divided today and East becomes Biafra. What exactly changed that made east not to be Nigeria and become Biafra?

it is not like the topography suddenly changes, it is not like a physical or even social difference is observed, nothing really changes, the only thing that changes is that everyone stops believing that part is Nigeria but Biafra.

See the power of social myth?

Again using Nigeria as a case study, So many people from the East today no longer believe in Nigeria, they'd rather believe in Biafra but does this change anything? Does this imply they are no longer treated just like Nigerians? does this mean their identity is still not sorely dependent on Nigeria?

Why?

Because, intersubjectively, Nigeria is still there.

Few people not believing in Nigeria (subjectivity) does not really mean anything, it takes the collective belief of most to effect such change.

That you as an individual does not believe in good or bad doesn't really matter, most others do therefore the myth is still alive and your life is quantified and effected in every way as a consequence of this belief.

I may subjectively believe that killing isn't bad but once i kill, i will be arrested and condemned because the society believes otherwise and my subjective belief do not trump the intersubjective belief of everyone else.

If everyone on this earth stops believing in one thing, it goes away. Where is the Persian Empire, where is the roman empire, Akkad? There no longer exist even though the lands that once bore these names are still there.

so, human morality as a social tool is not dependent on what i think or what you think or what Seun thinks, it is dependent on what everyone within that locality think and this intersubjective belief is consequential to the lives of everyone whether you subjectively believe it or not.

Martinez19:
They are equivalent in the aspect that they don't change regardless of what people think. Morality is not just a belief or idea, I believe that it's something we are born with and it's governed by reasoning and empathy. The difference in moral norms across all places and history is due to influence of religious and cultural upbringings (both of which are usually merged together and influence reasoning).

Go and look at my reply to your post, i promised an expatiation, just did.

Martinez19:
I discovered that atheists are divided on whether morality is objective or subjective. I would like we atheists to discuss this. Is morality objective or subjective? Why?

NB: Christians are not allowed to participate in this discussion. It is meant for only atheists.

As promised, let me try and summarize human morality and its nature.

Your classification highlights, subjective and objective nature of things or ideas and while this is correct, there is a third option and this is intersubjectivity.

Subjectivity means something is a matter of individual belief

Objective means something is independent of belief

but Intersubjectivity means something is a matter of a large collection of individual beliefs.


Human morality as a concept is a social tool just like many other human ideas out there.
Humans are the only species on this planet that can effectively hold a large society and manage them.

I know you may bring up animals such as Ants, or bees, termites and some others; that will be a very valid question so i will address that. An ant, bee or termite is part of a social structure that is an inherent genetical implication, the social behaviors of these animals is a result of genetic codes in their gene, they simply have no choice, they are genetically wired (as an evolutionary mechanism) to be like this, the actions of these animals are rather intuitive reactions to impulses. Queens, soldiers, workers all carry out an inherent role or action as dictated by their genetical protocol, so their societies are not entirely societies in the sense of the human society.

A small puppy in America understands the rules of fall, chase, bite, fall and chase in dog plays simply because these are genetic, wolves mapping out territories or the scavenger nature of Hyenas.

Humans on the other hands are the dominant species in this planet, they straight out own the planet and almost certainly every other animal continues to exist out of the benevolence of humans (Don't argue, humans have the capacity of wiping out any specie they want, so many species has already fallen to this)

Most dominating species that once walked this planet like mammoths, sabertooth lions and other large animals or vegetation seems to have been thrown into extinction once humans are introduced into that given locality, even other human species like the Neanderthals also fell for this extinction basket.

Biologically neaderthals are stronger, bulkier and even more resistant to harsh weather than homo sapiens (us). Humans also lack the brute strength of elephants or lions or tigers, the thick furs or the large dentition or claws, so how so did humans become the most dominant species in this world.

simple; they were capable of controlling large amount individuals in a given society. Naturally, humans are not programmed like ants with an inherent societal dependency, we constructed the fabrics that held our social structure ourselves and this structure is called Social mythology.

Social mythologies include: Religious beliefs, nations, associations, laws, government, organizations, money, value, cooperations and, you guessed right Morality

Two humans who never met each other can automatically become friendly with each other when they share something in common. A christian can easily work with other christians he never knew, a man from Nigeria in a foreign country will easily become friendly with another man from Nigeria he never knew before, this is because they share similar myths.

Social myths are not subjective, it doesn't take the belief of one person to validate, it takes the belief of many people to be effective. If you stopped believing in money today, it doesn't change the value of money or affect the society in any way but if 99% of the people in the world stops believing in money or its value, money automatically becomes useless.

We obey laws because its a myth most of us agree with.
We call ourselves Nigerians because we believe in the myth of Nigeria or nations.
If the whole world stops believing in nations, automatically it disappears, social structures are social myths are thrive on the back of intersubjective beliefs.

Human morality like every other concept above is an intersubjective belief, a social myth that is only relevant because we believe in it. There is no inherent moral codec that comes prescribed with the universe, we created this myths and our belief in them keeps them active.

So, for the human society to work, there is need for shared belief, morality is one of these myths that holds the fabrics of the intricacies of human social interactions together.

it is not objective because that would imply that it is independent of belief neither is it subjective, one person out of 100million not believing in the constitution doesn't really matter.

it is rather intersubjective.

Martinez19:
Saying morality is subjective because moral norms have changed from time to time is like saying that truth is subjective because popular beliefs haved changed from time to time.

Morality and truth are not the same and this equivalence is false.

Popular belief does not mean truth because truth is not a belief that is why it is objective. while popular belief may change, the truth doesn't. The earth orbits the sun is a truth. Popular belief once held the opposite, this doesn't change the truth.

Morality on the other is a belief, a human idea and therefore is prone to human modification as it is not an objective inherent universal variable.

Martinez19:
I discovered that atheists are divided on whether morality is objective or subjective. I would like we atheists to discuss this. Is morality objective or subjective? Why?

NB: Christians are not allowed to participate in this discussion. It is meant for only atheists.

I could make a very basic breakdown on the nature of human morality for everyone

I think you are quite attached to the thought of your dad. It is not entirely a bad thing

ivysunday:
I am not the one who wrote these articles. Our spiritual guide Xuefeng did. He told what he knew. It is all in his books Lifechaunyuan Corps and Xuefeng Corpus.
And today, he also taught us below:
If anyone can know everything of the Greatest Creator, then this person must be wiser than the Greatest Creator. Fortunately, such person does not exist in the universe. There are but many people who cannot figure out who themselves are.

Is it possible for an ant to figure out a person's thoughts and behaviors?

This is totally non sequitur to the premise. Try again

K9blunt:
Honestly why did they do that

Financial problems back then

K9blunt:
I don't get this marvel world at all.....

Thanos came to cause chaos on earth, only the avengers, galaxy guardians and panther & Co were the only people fighting him, being the greatest threat yet...
. Where were the x-men, or are they In another world or something?

Marvel sold the right to X-men to 20th century fox. Sony owns the right to Venom, spider man (though spiderman was brought back through some deals) i have no doubt now that Disney owns marvel, they will find a way to bring back the X-men, deadpool just like spiderman.

ivysunday:
Yes, the creator also has a cause. You can see from the "Origin of the Universe", I will post it now. But if you ask before the creator, no one knows.

Does the cause of the creator also have a cause?

You don't exactly know before the universe but you try to assume that you do.

Replace the word creator with universe and you will see there isn't still any difference in the argument.

No.

ivysunday:
4. Cause and effect are interconnected, every effect has its cause, and the Greatest Creator is the primordial cause of all causes

Almost all your arguments a fundamentally the same. Argument of first cause.

You forget the problem of infinite regression, forget the problem of implicit self defeating.

If every effect have a cause, it follows that even the causes themselves are an effect to something else or how else could they be?

So what is the cause of the cause?

if the cause can be without being caused doesn't this refute the whole notion of rigid cause and effect?

or do we go into another session of infinite regression?

ivysunday:
1.Everything has a source—and the source is the Greatest Creator




The Amazon that runs across South America, the bold and flowing Nile, the surging Yangtze, and the roaring Mississippi—all have their headstreams. Benguela Cold Current, Peru Cold Current, Mozambique Warm Current, and Guyana Warm Current all have their sources. Rio de Janeiro-London airline, Los Angeles-Paris airline, Honolulu-Manila airline, and Paris-Colombo airline all have their starting points.

All things created by man have come into being from a certain source;all tools that we use, including pencils, needles, spades, spoons, pliers, automobiles, computers, printers, cameras, and machine tools; and all daily articles, including musical instruments, chess, painting and calligraphy, watches, alarm clocks, desks, chairs, and wooden stool, shoes, stockings, clothes, caps, cups, thermoses, reading lamps, telephones, and refrigerators and TV sets have an origin, and obviously they don’t come from none.

The cats, dogs, goats, and pigs we raise at home all have an origin. Even peony, peaches, pears, and almonds can be traced back to their origins.

Music, characters, arts, medicines, theories, methods, magic arts and alchemy, axioms and theorems all have a source.

White Europeans, black African, yellow Asian, Arabians, and Brazilians are all descendents of their ancestors.

The towering Himalayas, the fertile and vast Nile delta, the extensive Amazon alluvial plain, the silver and white wrapped Antarctica—all have formed from earth transition.

Everything has its origin. What about the earth, the solar system, and the universe? They all have their origins.

Since everything has an origin, there must be a primordial origin. And this primordial origin is the Greatest Creator.

This argument is self refuting.

If everything has a cause then the creator must also have a cause who also must have a cause and we go into an infinite regression of causes because every cause will need another cause since that is the implication of your premise 'everything must have a cause'

if the creator doesn't have a cause then that defeats your argument because it means not everything has a cause, somethings can exist without a cause therefore your premise invalidates itself.

owoshuyi:
It's not a story or tale. It's the truth. Maybe seeing a snake talk amazed Eve and that's one of the reasons y she easily fell for Satan's deceit.

Or maybe in a realistic setting, Eve would be running away from a talking snake.

Stories with elements of anthropomorphized animals are common in almost every culture. It's simply folklore but somehow you take Jewish folklore more serious than others.

The ridiculousness of the Christian belief at its finest

Gggg102:
I know. I'm following his logic, in attempt to show him his fallacy.

Oh ok

Shelumiel:
We breathe oxygen , right ? Why don't we breathe carbon (iv)oxide or nitrogen which have the highest compositions in air, why ? Is it still chance ? I seriously doubt

I have a feeling that you'd ask the same question if we breathed something else other than oxygen. Lol. But anyway, I'd still school you a bit.

1. The gases you mentioned are much higher in the atmosphere. Species do not adapt to conditions beyond their reach.

2. Actually breathing oxygen isn't a default feature of life on earth. Oxygen was once hostile to early life forms and the more it became increasingly abundant in the atmosphere the more life forms where threatened. Following the principle of natural selection, the life forms who were able to thrive in an oxygen rich environment continued while the ones that couldn't died off.

3. I still don't even understand the importance of this to the problem of "chance"

sonmvayina:
Sorry to say, but you are the dumbest guy on the block

Ad hominem

Shelumiel:
Nothing in life happens by chance. It defies logic . I am a man of logic .So now prove to me that all this is just by chance.

Actually many things in life happen by chance

It doesn't defile logic

Whether you are a man of logic remains to be seen.

Gggg102:
yes, it came by chance. now disprove this.

burden of proof reversal. Thats a logical fallacy boss

FBIL:
You come here to complain but if somebody from a tribe other than yours rises to mobilize youths and challenge the bad leadership, you'll call him IPOB YOOTS. Enjoy whatever you get from PDP and APC backwardness.

Oga i am Igbo. I am one of those they call IPOB YOOTS. how in the hell did you assume my stance and tribe from that comment?

Jesus Christ. we have to protest for our government to rescue victims of disaster? Just few hours after it happened, we have to protest and fight for rescue operation to take place?

Thai boys were lost for weeks, their government never gave up on them.

Even if there is no one remaining under the rubble, a government or system that cares will still make 100% sure that there isn't. even the smallest rubble would be turned upside town to confirm.

To be honest; i am not proud to be Nigerian and there is nothing in this country that is worth being patriotic about.

A system of indifferent leaders.

Isinweke:
.

You cancelled out his arguments without making yours. That's lame

Anybody know a site i can stream this?

nwabekeyi:
yes, if you look at it from the "earthling" point of view, earth is important, you realize that earth is not really consequential when you think bigger.

Well we are tiny, there is nothing really more consequential to us than the earth. Value" is a ripple that starts at the closest point and expands outward.

And yes, it's nearly impossible for humans to exist on other planet (though you cannot totally rule this out as we are still exploring and there have been proof that terrestrial bodies also greatly contributed to the evolution of earth as a planet).

That's why i said.

1. Either humans migrated to earth from elsewhere or

2. Migrated elsewhere from earth.

The point of this post, is for someone to please shed light on whether God is also worshipped in other part of the universe or just on earth or probably if the earth passes away like the stories in the Bible, what difference will it make to the totality of the universe?

If i am religious and want to answer this question. Then I'd say that God's relationship with different races of this universe is localized.

Therefore activities on earth is of no consequences to others.

N/B: I'm not seeing the topic as a human who lives on earth, I'm seeing it a neutral being who acknowledges the fact that the earth is very minute to be consequential to the demise of the universe.

Or maybe only the earth ends.

felixomor:
What is the size of the universe?

The observable universe is estimated at 92billion light years in size. Observable universe

nwabekeyi:
the earth seem important? No, as a matter of fact, the earth is not important, you need to see the bigger picture.

If God created everything, did jesus died for the earth or the universe? If yes, show us from the scriptures

Importance is subjective and localized. To an earthling, nothing can be more important than the earth.

The totality of everything in the universe in our subjective mind can never be as important as the earth since the earth is the primary source of our being.

nwabekeyi:
nobody knows tbat for sure because we have not been there, not even the bible didn't documented that, so you cannot say living creatures are not there..

It is evolutionarily impossible for homo sapiens to be in other planets unless of course they migrated from or to other planets. But they can't evolve in another planet.

others beings - yes. Humans - most unlikely.

He asked for humans in his question to you though

ClassRep001:
Which shit are you talking about?

The novel written by scammers to physiologically cheat the gullible like you or what are you saying?

Trash!

This reply is nonsensical