₦airaland Forum

Earthkumy:
Some people jump on a post to make unnecessary arguments

You created the post.

Even when their hearts are telling them God is real

Why do you assume what their heart is telling them?

Are you their hearts?

Religion is not the problem
Men who use religion for the wrong reasons are the problem

Man can be influenced by many things religion inclusive. So when an action is inspired by a factor, that factor is just as culpable as the perpetrator of this action

In this regard, Religion can be both a force to inspire great good or great evil

JackBizzle:
From what I have been reading, butterfly-lying has run mad. He doesnt want to talk to atheists.


I blame Dalaman, hahn, capslocked and hopefullandlord

They yaff finally cracked the guy like a nut.

hahn:
I have had my fair share of ridiculous arguments with winner01(the meaningless meme lord), kingebukasblog(with his unnecessary use of big words and eventual confusion between deism and christianity) to 4evergod(the serial scammer as it turned out) but I have always avoided that butterflylion for his open display of stupidity.

I'd rather concentrate on my business and family.

No matter how you try you cannot convince an adult that his imaginary friend is not real. Something he/she should have figured out when he became a teenager. At least

Lmao Open display of stupidity killed me.

He always sounds good to himself though even though he is mostly far from point

JackBizzle:
Religion is one problem amongst many.

Christianity and Islam give rise to

I believe objectivity is needed here.

-homophobia

Almost every culture on earth abhors homosexuality, i don't see how this is an exclusive fault of Christianity or Islam.

And i don't also see how it is objectively wrong

-anti-reproductive rights

How so?

-scientific ignorance

They both contributed immensely too to the discipline of science.

-religious terrorism and wars
Etc

Cool

purem:
"MORAL INSTINCT" Don't know what that means but I do know it's best describe what you asking

What do you think is caused of this moral instinct. Are there factors that affect the moral spectrum of our moral instinct or is it same for everyone in the world?

purem:
It's so absurd to subject God in defining what is good, as a matter of fact he sshould be put's aside when you talking about doing good. He makes a man to be dumb for doubting him


Luke 1:13, 18, 20 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.
And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.




When you've done what is good then you kn in your heart that you've done good

Saving someone life is good
Killing someone is bad
Stealing is bad
Returning what doesn't belong to you is good

Defining what is "good" is a simple logic, it's doesn't require subjecting God to it.

Alright, so we know good and bad in our heart?

What do you think is the cause of this?

Is this innate sense of good and bad same in everyone?

[size=8pt][/size]

awesomeJ:
Actually what utterly lacks sense are these rantings you put up.

You know what? you're right, god doesn't exist. That's the god you have as an idea though.

However, the God that I serve exists. I converse with Him daily, I enjoy His influence, in Him, I have experience supernatural, so IT CAN ONLY BE FOOLISH OF YOU, THAT YOU'LL EXPECT ME TO AGREE TO YOUR BLIND ARGUMENT ABOUT HIS EXISTENCE.

let any fool argue all his life about the existence of your biological father, perhaps you'd be convinced against his existence.

You know what else, I'll yet send you a proof that'll be glaring to all. it just may not be the most palatable thing to you. Wait on it though.

You be talking as if your opinion counts for anything. Prideful ignorance!

Was this suppose to be a rebuttal?

Mujtahida:
It is false because it is based on 'God said' as written in a book or through ecclesiastical proxies. God cannot make me to draw air myself in order to leave and when it comes to what religious people say is important to him as in obedience to his commands - upon which morality is built - I get to take it from a book or from the priest craft. It's all a fraud

The basis of your argument is that God didn't say anything in the first place or don't exist?

Dantedasz:
In my opinion,it is the only thing that makes sense and explains how we got here.

Do you think a Spinoza God is sentient?

edicied:
Simple there is no freewill in Heaven!

So typically, humans in even are drones controlled by a predetermined program?

Mujtahida:
Any morality based on God is false.

elucidate?

orisa37:
.


No. Atheists are not invited to complicate this.

Lol. Ok. I wouldnt want to do that

Seun:
To me objectivity and morality are not compatible. Every moral actor or group of moral actors has its own morality. If a sentient creator exists, his morality is just one of many. He judges right and wrong from his point of view, just like all other moral actors e.g. elephants, lions and human beings.

For example, From a lion’s point of view, killing a baby elephant is morally acceptable because they have to kill to eat, but from an elephant’s point of view, lions that kill elephant babies are evil animals that ought to be exterminated.

From the hypothetical creator’s perspective, allowing little children to have cancer or be raped may be right, since he allows these things to happen; because he sees them as his playthings (he is the potter and we are the clay, right?). That doesn’t make those things right from our point of view as decent people. Any human who allows kids to be raped even though he could prevent it, would be condemned as evil by all human beings.

If a creator exists, his morality is just his subjective morality. I do not believe that picking one moral actor’s subjective morality and labeling it as “objective” makes sense.

I agree with you

Let's look at it this way.

Take Nigeria as an example, constitutionally gay marriage is illegal.

But there are individuals within the country that do not find any negative moral weight on gay marriage.

But the constitutional moral dictate is binding to every individual within Nigeria.

Could objectivity in this sense be referred to the binding nature of a moral codec from a creator as the ultimate authority?

Qpetz:
I rest my case.

LOL

Seun can you take us to frontpage? Let us get more opinions and audiences?

Qpetz:
Is that a yes or no?

Yes or No is an oversimplification. Either of the two is subject to logical contingency.

So keep the answer within the compass of logical feasibility.

dalaman:
You are just stating it based on what God said or saw was good from his own perspective. How do you independently know that it's good or bad?

That's the purpose of this thread.

If it is good because God said it is then we know that to the theist, goodness is independent of man's judgement.

But if goodness is independent of God's determination then even God himself is subject to moral judgements.

And this begs the question, how did this moral confinement get in place?

I think these questions are more suitable for a theist.

Qpetz:
And you think such a being will be concerned with morality?

It won't be logically improbably if it was.

festwiz:
Johnydon22,

It is impressive that you'd open this thread. Unfortunately, a good percentage of theists run away from anything that has to do with thought of any kind.

even atheists on this board stay clear of such profound questions. Majority of folks on this board on either side of the spectrum of belief index prefer the name calling aggressive squabbles that are not addressing anything in particular to arguments or questions that'd make them think deeper than they are comfortable with.

They are good, obedient sheeps though. That's why they will follow their herder/sherperd/lord/saviour butterflyleo (A.K.A butterflyinglion) and not use their brains for anything proactive or productive.

#peace

Lol

Qpetz:
Who is God?

A supreme being that shaped the cosmos

Seun:
Then that is God’s subjective opinion of morality, I guess. Being the creator doesn’t make his positions objectively right.

Morality requires a mind. It is determined by a conscious mind, it is not an inherent part of the cosmos like something you find under a rock or below a river.

But if objectivity in morality is to make sense (that is a moral value that is innate to the cosmos) then I think this has everything to do with the creator of such system setting it in place.

So when you say objectivily right, what are you implying?

orisa37:
C O N S C I E N C E in us is Foresight of G O O D & B A D.
Consult your Belief and Training to know how you got Conscience. In Christianity, It's The Breath of our Maker, God in us.

Meaning good is whatever our conscience decides it is?

Are you sure this simplification is something you'd like to pursue?

dalaman:
Remember, he created them according to the story. He saw that what he created was good.

Yes it doesn't really matter. You can. Create something and figure out that it is good.

I made a good food. I made a terrible meal.

I made both and got to figure out they are good or not

Qpetz:
Something is good, if it benefits you and humanity.
Something is good if done with a clear conscience; without guilt.

What if God says the contrary?

dalaman:
Saw or said doesn't matter. Good called them good according to the story.

It matters because the implication of that language use suggests the position of that chapter on the premise of the OP.

If it is "saw" then things are already good God just recognized this goodness meaning he doesn't determine what is good, but can recognize it.

If it is "said" it means God determined what good is.

dalaman:
He looked at the things he made and said they were GOOD. If he had said they were bad they would have been bad. Remember this was according to the alleged fall of man that ruined everything according to Christians.

He saw or said

I think it's saw

Dantedasz:
Maybe God is Nature?

Spinoza God? I think that makes more sense

Owu don finish this one

dalaman:
According to the theist things are God because their God says they are.

Genesis 1:31.
And God looked at the things he made and saw that they are good.

This passage from the bible seem to suggest the contrary

dalaman:
He has realized that arguing with atheist will turn him into one at the end of the day so he has decided to run for his dear life.

The type of energy he put into this made him burn out easily.

Anyway back to the topic. What do you think the truer model should be?

Let me seek a Muslim perspective ..

Tartar9 what is your answer to this?

Martinez19:
JOHNYDON22 : is something good because god said it's good or does god command something because it's good?
BUTTERFLYLEO : *shys away from the question and plays great mental gymnastics* blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
JOHNYDON22 :

What about you?

What do you think makes something good?

vaxx:
it simply means goodness and bad is anthropocentric.

Doesn't that make 'goodness' subjective and arbitrary in essence?