₦airaland Forum

Age of marriage in Nigeria is not 18. I think 10.

A God of such times will definitely promote morality of that time.

Morality changes, then it was acceptable to marry that young.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]No they have already been saved, it is at the moment of salvation that one becomes a Christian.

From the moment you make the decision to follow Jesus, you have already received eternal life. You now live a life of self-sacrifice.

Basically, you can say that the Christian life is one where you choose to lead an altruistic life because Christ loved you first.

It is like when you fall in love with someone because the person loved you first, then you do things to please her, not to earn her love (she already loves you) but because you love her. You put your individual needs in the background as you satisfy hers.

I dare say that altruism is the best expression of love.[/quote]doesn't the bolded come from a reciprocal obligation??

Is there a duty on a Christian to be altruistic SOLELY because he is a follower of Christ??

^^
And they consequently follow Jesus, to be saved?!

Isn't altruism an act of freedom/choice? If its obedience to a command it wouldn't be altruism in your view.

Mr Ola,

On what authority does the Bible rest on?

Why isn't Jesus lying.

@anony

Its clear, that as soon as the individual sees himself as part and parcel of the singularity of humanity, Love and altruism invariably results!.

Individual freedom is a mechanism to express the pecularity/uniqueness of every human and protect it.

I noticed you mentioned ONLY ppl who are saved can commit acts of altruism. Also, what role does altruism play in Christianity and why is it relevant and good.

Another example of where altruism and selfishness connect is Christianity, whereby a percieved good is rewarded greatly. So whenever a Christian does an altruistic act, feeding the poor and sick in return for no material reward, but God's reward or fear of punishment. An act of self preservation itself.

Humanism, involves the individual identifying himself as part of a greater body like nationalism and from whom he enjoys individual rights and protection.

It can be seen as indirect selfishness, but to humanity.
Have you seen Contagion the movie??

[quote author=Mr_Anony]You see individual interest and altruism are at opposite ends of the stick. When you give to one, you do so at the expense of the other. if the wishes of the collective is put first, then the wishes of the individual must suffer loss and vice versa. Besides, who gets to decide where exactly the boundaries are?

You cannot have it both ways[/quote]See an example where your point is flawed. A team, football or canoe paddlers where there is dependence on others to attain equal personal goals.

It is only where society's interest is being endangered not that its wishes are paramount.

^^

Ppl help others, express compassion because its a command??

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I see, humanism is not about the individual but humanity as a whole. If this is the case, then altruism sits perfectly in it. What doesn't fit in it now is self autonomy, because a time comes where a person will need to be sacrificed for the collective and it will not help if such an individual should choose not to be sacrificed. Such a person's decision must be overridden for the sake of the 'greater good'

You cannot have it both ways my friend.[/quote]A point where the individual's interest endangers the interest of society, is where self autonomy ends of course.

dattaswami: One religion says that the God is awareness. Another religion says that God is all pervading cosmic energy. Another religion says that God is light and another religion says that God is fire etc. Like this, different created items of this universe were taken as the basic real God. Hence quarrels started, which were intensified by debates. People sitting before a dining table are quarrelling with each other since one says that the vessel is gold, another says that the plate is gold, another says that the spoon is gold and another says that the tumbler is gold. This quarrel will never end because no item on the dining table is gold! Everyone is treating a particular item as gold. Treating an item as gold is totally different from the actual item to be gold.

Similarly, the reality is that God is unimaginable, who is beyond this imaginable universe. The simple reason for this is that the universe is fundamentally constituted of space or volume, which is the basic subtle energy and God is beyond the space since God has no dimensions. Now you can treat any meritorious item of the creation as God based on the merits liked by you neglecting the defects. The awareness is not God because it is not all pervading. The cosmic energy is not God because it is inert. The light and fire also cannot be God for the same reason that they are inert. But any of these items can be treated as God for the sake of meditation and worship.

Such worship is called as the worship of representative model (Pratika Upasana). The direct worship (Sakshat Upasana) is also possible when God enters a human being to give right direction through propagation of right spiritual knowledge. In such case also, every such human being is God and the unimaginable God exists in such every human being. The human being is only the medium of God, but such charged human being can be treated as real God like the electrified wire being treated as the electricity itself.

Hence Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad etc becomes God and there need not be any quarrel in this point also for the sake of world peace based on the harmony of religions. This fundamental concept is revealed since simultaneously it is fortunate that today there is confidence on the receiving power of the stable and steady scientific analysis of human beings.

If God is unimaginable, wouldn't you contradict yourself by conceiving him as a human??

@anony

Contrary to your biased beliefs, humanism is not centred on the survival of the individual, rather humanity as one unit. Given that it places humanity as the pinacle of reason, defiance to gods and Nature etc.

The ideals and morals of the humanist are very different from Ayn Rand's (which you presume all atheists must subscribe to). The selfishness of the individual is not the goal, despite the self autonomy (same with self definition) given to the individual, but rather acknowledging the uniqueness of the person.

However you can't contemplate humanism outside the society, progress is deemed taken by society, knowledge is deemed useful to society, it is humanity/society that must survive.

A humanist society draws out its ideals and then lays morality in accordance to these goals and that within its knowledge. Altruism is unsurprising one of its greatest virtues.

Enigma: One more Gray extract --- this time in relation to the hive colony etc thing that someone mentioned earlier on the thread and I guess also the 'hive psychology' thing that I saw on another thread some time ago.




** Cf

Jeremiah 17:9 (NLT)

Romans 8:6 (NLT)

I don't understand how John Gray's arguments are relevant here in respect to you.

Uyi Iredia: I totally agree. This is why I define myself as a Christian pantheist. I believe in the same God apprehended in various ways over the centuries.

Your religious beliefs is evolving. Its good.

It is superstitious and "spiritual" ppl that think dreams foretell the future. There is the assumption common to them all that God is communicating. So the dream predictions is unique to them.

For traumatic experiences, we kinda of rewind and try to live alternatives and explore escape routes, and "remembering" foretelling dreams which are too late.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]In this case, the individual draws his ideals from himself and then set's standards for himself based on his own judgment. I don't see how these standards will not be selfish. Also I see every selfless act he performs to be an act of irrationality as it cannot possibly follow from self-defined ideals. So for a person to be altruistic based on a secular worldview, he has to throw in some irrationality hence, the secular humanist can do good but cannot logically explain why he does good.

If the secular humanist loves, he does so in spite of his better judgment. These actions that form a worldview but are not guided by reason is what is called blind faith.
I believe that true love cannot exist in the absence of judgment.

Perhaps you are conversant with the works of Ayn Rand (mind you, I don't think she is a particularly smart lady) she holds that selfishness is a virtue and that it is immoral to be altruistic in any form as it is unfair to give anyone something he/she doesn't deserve.
This view is what should logically follow when an individual sets the standards for himself based on his ideals.....unless the individual's ideals are transcendent and are not subject to him[/quote]No it still doesn't follow. It only depends on the particulars of the person's ideals. Akso Ayn Rand is a frightening intelligent lady who believes in objective morality and isn't a humanist. Therefore not relevant here.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Such a man is being 'hypocritical' in a sense as it is contradictory to say that morality comes from the self but then your highest morality is outside the bounds of self.

It is like Nigeria making laws for it's citizens but then the highest Nigerian laws now favor Ghanians and Togolese over Nigerian citizens. This doesn't make sense.

If you choose what is good and evil for yourself and by yourself, it only follows logically that your highest moral laws must benefit you best i.e. self-preservation becomes the greatest good.
Based on this, whenever you risk your life for someone else, you will not be acting within reason i.e. you would be acting irrationally. Do you see the point I'm making?[/quote]Rather the individual's ideals set the standards and it doesn't follow necessarily that it must be selfish or especially rational.

^^^

Its assumed the individual is rational.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Using the word discretion makes it even worse for you because now I will have to ask you how sacrificing your life for someone else is not against your better judgment?[/quote]that is the person's choice. #simple

^^
To make things easier for you. Takje self to mean discretion.

davidylan: another dumb id[i]i[/i]ot. There is a difference between SCIENCE (as a whole body of knowledge)and SCIENTIFIC THEORY (used in the context of discussing evolutionary theory).

Try again

Ok, what's the difference?

mr anony: I also do not mean selfishness, that's an extreme. What I am saying is that if morality emanates from the individual, it then follows that self-preservation becomes the greatest good

I don't think it follows.

What if a man believes selfless is the best morality or all life is precious and his own life should be used to guard it, how self preservative is that?

davidylan: you're either very dumb or quite dishonest. I never said science wasnt empirical... that is too broad a brush. Evolution in particular has no empirical evidence... that is the issue. I get tired of this mental gymnastics these ignorant dolts constantly employ.

This is the most blatant LIE ever!

Kay 17: All scientific theories are empirical in nature in the first place, or else they wouldn't be regarded as scientific.

Davidlyan: Not true, read your own definition.

https://www.nairaland.com/986687/how-murdered-5-argument-killed/7

Davidlyan: and that was my point! The definition of the term "empirical" CLEARLY excludes scientific theory which was why it should have been the most relevant definition to this discussion (Kay17 omits this because it destroys his ignorant position).

Davidlyan: Look lets not pander to sentiment here. Stating that scientific theories are empirical in nature is just a dishonestly silly statement that makes no shred of sense

Davidlyan: That is just trying to skirt around the fact that you are clueless here. Theories are just theories BECAUSE we have no empirical evidence for it and that is FACT

https://www.nairaland.com/986687/how-murdered-5-argument-killed/8

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Are you reading my posts at all? I don't hold John Gray's position. I am just borrowing bits from his argument. The question I asked which you are yet to answer is:

How does altruism (a totally selfless quality) hold any value in a humanist worldview where all virtue emanates from self?[/quote]I clearly told you, a couple of posts ago that self definition is not selfishness and you apparently agreed, yet you r going back to your same error!!

And also what is your position? A nihilist one??

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I also do not mean selfishness, that's an extreme. What I am saying is that if morality emanates from the individual, it then follows that self-preservation becomes the greatest good.

This also would mean that one's good works are done only to the extent that they ultimately benefit him i.e. A humanist based on your explanation can be nice but he must expect niceness in return. Where this niceness is not returned, then he would be justified in using cruelty to achieve his purposes.

The point is that the self here is ultimate. It is all about making man's life better but when it comes to situations where one has to risk his life for another person, the humanist has no answer.
.....unless of course you want to give me a logical reason why the life of someone else is worth more than yours in a worldview where morality emanates from the self.

This is why John Gray says that morality is an illusion employed during times of peace but thrown away in times of war. Do you agree?[/quote]If you noticed in your video, that John Gray condemns humanism for being very much similar to Christianity, for envisaging a perfect future. His conclusion that morality is an illusion shows his position is very much in conflict with Himanism. Except you support John Gray's conclusions, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

As I said earlier altruism is a value to humanists.

By self definition, I didn't mean selfishness. Just saying purpose emanates from the individual.

davidylan: 1. Many organisms arent unicellular but the VAST bulk of biomass on earth is unicellular so what was your point? Infact we can conclude that the most adaptable and most successful species on earth are unicellular organisms.

2. To say we cannot tell that a single organism is evolving is just plain mad. The bulk of research showing how mutations markedly change phenotype has been done in single-celled organisms. For example, a lot of my mutation studies back in grad school was done in E. coli.

I thought you said Science wasn't empirical? If so, why bother confirming with observations??

[quote author=Mr_Anony]The question is what gives sentience value? That one is a conscious being doesn't automatically give him the right to be treated fairly. especially since the atheist rejects the existence of God.

The logical step that must follow from atheism is that morality ceases to be transcendent but becomes a tool to the benefit of man i.e. morality becomes something we use to get along in other words, "be nice as long as it works for you".
This kind of morality cannot explain selfless love and altruism..... so why then should love be valued in a secular humanist society?[/quote]The value for sentience rests on perception. Sentience exhibits certain unique attributes and identity we wish to protect.

I have addressed Morality so many times to you, that first of all, morality is basically rules and man being a rational being and by experience recognizes the necessity for foundational rules therefrom a community can exist. Altruism, bonds and Love keeps the Community and they are the most cherished values.

Even the humanist society needs them.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I am not making wild generalizations. Perhaps you heard the account in the video of the man in the concentration camp who stole another man's cap so that the other man ended up getting shot. . . . . .and from there the conclusion was drawn that morality is an illusion and only a tool that we employ in times of peace so that by relating with each other, we can profit.

The question is what gives sentience value? That one is a conscious being doesn't automatically give him the right to be treated fairly. especially since the atheist rejects the existence of God.

The logical step that must follow from atheism is that morality ceases to be transcendent but becomes a tool to the benefit of man i.e. morality becomes something we use to get along in other words, "be nice as long as it works for you".
This kind of morality cannot explain selfless love and altruism..... so why then should love be valued in a secular humanist society?[/quote]First of all, you packaged the views of a nihilist as THE atheistic worldview! Failing to have regard for numerous views associated with not having Gods. The so-called atheist worldview insufficiently describes the atheist, the only consensus among atheists is the absence of Gods!!

Enigma: Was it not your much vaunted "rationalism" that was first seen as nihilism?

And is the point not that if your position is that rationalism is all, and according to it there is no God, the logical end result is nihilism?

Is that not why even Dawkins is seen from that viewpoint as a soft atheist --- a description which I personally regard as charitable and polite. I would rather use a different term like 'intellectually unfaithful' or even intellectually dishonest. The same point is what is being said of so-called "humanism" and the injunction is to have the courage of your convictions ---- if atheism is right, there is no point to "humanism"; everything and anything goes --- murder, cannibalism , ra.pe, pa.edophilia etc etc

If people think life and existence is worthless and of no valid purpose, then the addition of one more character/person/God to it doesn't make it better. For example, God's laws will be seen by a nihilist only serve his interests and view. Nothing will change, God will be seen as just another dictorial authority.

Humanism on the other hand, already presumes a self defined purpose, self defined destiny and a societal value for morality regardless of how they see it. Whether there is God or not, doesn't change it.

Making wild generalizations will not help any discussion.