₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
Helep me ask am.

Maybe hebwants to regale us with some new history we've never heard before.

IjeBos:
This ballroom talk is bonkers.
The Republicans are bonkers.

The ballroom has a capacity of 1000, this private event seated 2500.
Would the President fly the ballroom around the country to host events in it?

Instead of calling for an investigation into the Security at that event, they are talking about a f'king ballroom.

I am even surprised he didn't say the assailant was an assassin sent by Obama. LoLz.

TV01:
You caught me at a good time - I simply cannot keep up with the pace here. Watched the clip 2ce.

Qureshi' argument was not actually responded too. He is correct in stating that atheistic morality cannot be absolute.
Dawkins proceeded to create a few strawmen, conflate religions and then assert secular thinking is what drives current day morality.

I have repeatedly stated the biblical writ giving love as the basis for all human interactions. Secular humanist morality gave us the slave trade and a brethren evil - abortion (amongst others). And humanist\secular\material morality will always prove inferior to the biblical basis of love for your fellow man as created in the image of God.

Most of what is claimed to be secular morality (Western style, as it is not universally accepted) has its basis in the bible.

And he couldn't help but liken it to "Intelligent Design" - God that is !

Any more for any more?


TV

Bro how did secular humanist morality give us slave trade when your Bible tells you to buy slaves? Is the Bible secularist morality?

joseph1832:
🥂

🥂

DeepSight:
TV01, basilico, ono a very short clip

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MYoqBRdH0S0

cc: LordReed

A very reasonable position but does it belong here?

monex:
indeed. The existence of objective morality is a philosophical question that has no answers till this day. Some schools of thought say there is and some even go further by using religion to define it. I respect that you say there isn't and i acknowledge that it is practical to assume there isn't and, rather than seek an objective morality, seek to define one (maybe by populist demands etc.)

I agree.

jaephoenix:
I had this debate with a reverend the other day. He started talking about this 'experience' and thus god exists. I told him those profound experiences can happen in mental diseases and psychedelic drugs. Mental diseases like schizophrenia etc can cause one to hallucinate. Also psychoactive drugs like LSD,molly etc has that effect. Also some people especially women have such,example i know u have seen girls jump up and down and some faint,while in concerts like Michael Jackson's. I asked him how he can distinguish 'heavenly experiences' from mental,physical and psychedelic experiences. He couldnt reply me

That's a good one.

jaephoenix:
He never even confessed to being a Christian. The lies are propagated by Christians, especially your friend Jesusjnr2020

They think that only their god can give profound experiences. I have tears listening or reading some times, I guess he'd say I have become a Christian too. LoLz.

Dtruthspeaker:
That is not true, else no one would discuss with me as i would be marked and avoided like those who are known to be unreasonable.

Your problem with me is that i catch all your invalid argument violations and your atheism cannot stand on grounds of fair and valid arguments, so when I block you on the ground that your argument is invalid, you complain.

LoLz. You catch nothing. You make assertions you cannot backup then start shouting you've won.

SIRTee15:
Genesis 16
3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.

Genesis 25
Abraham had taken another wife, whose name was Keturah.

The bible didn't tell us Abraham had sexual relationship with other women apart from the above women and Sarah.

The word concubines can be used in ancient culture to mean secondary wives with lesser legal status, social ranks and without equal inheritance rights.
Sarah actually have Hagar to Abraham as a wife but also treated her harshly when she challenged her authority in the marriage. This shows social hierarchy within wives.

its common practice those days as seen with Bilhah and Zilpah who became wives of Jacob but never as a valid union, even the kids they bore to Jaocb went to their mistresses- Leah and Rachel.

Genesis 30
4 So she gave him her servant Bilhah as a wife. Jacob slept with her, 5 and she became pregnant and bore him a son. 6 Then Rachel said, “God has vindicated me; he has listened to my plea and given me a son.” Because of this she named him Dan.

9 When Leah saw that she had stopped having children, she took her servant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife. 10 Leah’s servant Zilpah bore Jacob a son. 11 Then Leah said, “What good fortune!” So she named him Gad.

Ok so it is morally ok to take legal concubines and marry multiple wives?

And what of the verse that says masturbation or self pleasure is a sin, still waiting for that.

joseph1832:
I have to quote LL Cool J's famous diss and refer it to this guy: "Now you are famous overnight, famous for getting fvcked by a stick of dynamite".

Dude just got famous for the wrong reasons.

Been awhile, good to see you around.

SIRTee15:
Abraham didn't sleep with a woman who is not his wife. Both Hagar and Kenturah were called his wife in the bible.

Genesis 25
6 But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, while he was still living, and he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country.

cococandy:
But Institutional racism doesn’t exist right?

You want another Obama cos this is how you get Obamas winning elections till they become president. No way, no uppity black men needed here!

basilico:
Who would be paying me?

Your white conservative masters.

SIRTee15:
Ok I get u now. My response is regarding if masturbation is sexual immorality.
Any sexual behaviour outside of MARRIAGE is sexual immorality. Pleasing yourself is not within the confines of marriage, u are enjoying pleasure without your partner.

Now if your religion allows for more than one wife, sexual pleasure remain within them.

My argument is not even about God of the bible but what is the source of morality for atheist since they deny existence of all gods whether they allow for more than one wife or not.

I want to know the source of u guys morality. Masturbation is a sin in Christianity but do atheist consider it immoral. If the answer is yes, what is the source of that morality.

If masturbation is not wrong for u guys then no point debating it. I intentionally brought up complex cases that u guys will struggle with to determine your source of morality.

That's the point of this thread not whether God of bible is moral or not as some of u has turned it to as usual.
As if u people will stop becoming atheist if u live in India or Japan or Thailand.

Bro you didn't answer either question. Is Abraham a sinner for having multiple partners who weren't his wife and where is it written in the Bible that masturbation or self pleasuring is a sin.

Meanwhile I already answered your question on the source of morality. Look through your mentions.

SIRTee15:
Abraham is not morally perfect. He followed what was socially/culturally accepted norm by misleading his wife and putting her at risk 2ce. That was needless because God already assured him of his safety.

So yes he committed sin. But we don't judge prophets based on their moral flawless but their willingness to be used by God.

Abraham took a huge leap of faith by coming out of his already established home to journey into the unknown wilderness just because God told him to do so at a time YHWH was a relatively unknown deity.

It's like someone leaving his successful career in New York to go and live in a remote village in nasawara just because an unknown God told him to. Most of us will conclude he's crazy. That's exactly the case for Abraham and that's why he's called the Father of Faith.

Bro we are talking about sex. You said it is only your wife you are allowed to have sex with. Abraham had several concubines yet the god didn't say a pip to him, why is that?

DeepSight:
It can be argued for example that eugenics would be in the interest of the long term well being of humanity by eliminating genetic diseases.

There is a better way that doesn't require discrimination.

DeepSight:
It does seem so. Nonetheless the veil pulled across our reality is so thick that we just don't know our place in the universe. Perhaps the mystery is intended, perhaps we will grow and evolve to know, I have no clue. All options remain open including us and our universe being a cell in the body of a larger being.


What then would you say about certain ideas which are said will impact the wellbeing of humanity positively but are cruel. Eugenics for example. And other population reduction strategies of various kinds.

Those kinds of ideology seek to harm others to pave way for another group, that is not a path that fully embraces human wellbeing.

SIRTee15:
Lord Reed I'm interested in your answer. U are quite intelligent and I know u to be a seeker of truth. Don't let me down

If u find yourself in a remote island where cannibalism is perfectly legal. Will u join them to consume human flesh or u will say no.

If u object despite everyone around u finds it perfectly ok, what is the source of that morality.

If your 16 year old son wants to take puberty blockers so he can transition to female. Will u object?

If your 16 year old daughter starts taking contraceptive pills so she can have free sex with her boyfriend. What will be your stance.

If your answer is no to all the 3, then I need to know why u consider all 3 immoral. What is the source of that morality. Who indoctrinated u to think having sex at 16 is wrong or transgender is immoral.

If u answer my question, I will answer yours.

No bro it doesn't work that way. You answer mine then I answer yours. You told the person you were responding to that you answer without long talk so don't disappoint me now.

SIRTee15:
My bible tells me all forms of sexual behaviour outside of your WIFE is a sin.

So Abraham was a sinner?

Masturbation is a sin because it's self pleasure and we all know masturbation is fueled by lustful thoughts. And lust is a sin.

Where is it written in the Bible that masturbation is a sin?

DeepSight:
This is helpful; and provides clarity on where you stand.

I would have asked if then it is okay in your view for someone with say a sadistic mindset to attempt to persuade others into his moral views which involve sadism, but I sense that would be a stupid question in light of your obviously decent nature and standards for yourself. But the itch to ask this kind of question is from a wonder as to whether looking at everything coldly and dispassionately, we may say that the universe is unbothered what particular moral values anyone takes.

The universe is our cold hearted mother, birthed us and doesn't give a damn about what we do or if we survive.

I like to choose as a linchpin for morality the idea of human wellbeing. If that sadism is going to impact human wellbeing negatively then I consider it bad.

Dtruthspeaker:
Now you have started your usual lies. There is no time where i was ever unreasonable to discuss with. It is you who when you see that you have no reasonable argument to make again who starts resorting to lies and fallacies and change of posts.

Everytime anybody tries to have a discussion with you they come away with the impression of your unreasonableness. LoLz.

DeepSight:
But that's exactly what I am saying. And i am further saying that if morality is subjective by that definition, then there is nothing like morality beyond opinion. In short every take is as valid as another, Hitler's take on mass murder as valid as yours.

That is the unfortunate limitation of the nature of morality, it will always be by individuals attempting to persuade others of the validity of their position even when such positions are harmful to others.

DeepSight:
Relative to an individual. Not the way you are using it. You are using it as though one can be referring to mind in an abstract sense away from the individual. The word means mind dependent and that mind is the mind of an individual.

-------
Extracted:
--------
In logic and philosophy, the term subjective refers to any claim or perception whose truth-value depends on the internal state, perspective, or "subject" of the person making it.

​When you say your symptoms are "meaning subjective," you are highlighting that they exist within your own consciousness rather than as an external, verifiable object.

​1. Subjective vs. Objective in Logic

​Subjective: Dependent on the mind. (e.g., "The food tastes metallic." ) This is a statement about your internal experience.

​Objective: Independent of the mind. (e.g., "The pill is 20mg." ) This remains true regardless of who observes it. . .

Bro your extract makes it clear it is a matter that resides only in the mind of the individuals involved. There isn't an external source.

Kobojunkie:
And see you keep missing the point! This is nothing about believing. This is about realizing that morality is not established by mere brain farts; we all have 'em. It is established by way of consensus. If you lived in an Islamic country, for instance, and you found that the moral standard was on its head, it wouldn't matter what you personally thought should be the moral standard, would it? The standard is set by way of consensus. When you argue that you are a moral being when your morality does not follow a previously defined or recognized standard of morality, you argue for the sake of it. 🤔

I have always agreed that it is arrived at by consensus so I dunno what you are arguing against.

DeepSight:
Scrutinized with what standards? This betrays the idea that morality is subjective. It concedes that there are standards outside the subjective mind which morality should be scrutinized against.

Scrutinized to see if they still hold the same value given whatever change has occurred. Lemme use the killing of twins as an example. The people who did that practice thought they were doing something good but when the knowledge came they saw it wasn't good. It wasn't because there was some standard against which their actions were measured. I can bet that in the future certain things we are doing now will be looked upon as immoral.

DeepSight:
I get that. This is why I said "lean towards" being objective as opposed to saying such a thing is outrightly objective.

Nonetheless we have come across this with you before. Where you seem to resist the notion that what is subjective is what an individual mind believes. You cannot just say the mind in general, as a vague reference to any or all minds. Subjectivity is actually the personal individual mind. It's down to the individual.

This is at the root of my problem with the statement that morality is subjective. Because it would mean to each his own, and effectively mean that there is nothing like morality beyond what each person considers right or wrong.

Subjective doesn't mean individual that is the problem. Subjective means mind dependent, that is it.

DeepSight:
This understanding of what is subjective is faulty. What is subjective is entirely ruled by the opinion of each individual. A thing being agreed on by an aggregation of minds is not what makes anything subjective. That would actually lean towards such a thing being objectively true.

It doesn't make it less subjective because it is a plurality of minds because the subject can only exist in the mind.

I never said the agreement is what makes it subjective. It is subjective because it is a product of mind and can only exist in minds.

onehope:
From my observation and experience, I realized that many who claim to be atheist are actually working for Satan and have a very good relationship with Satan. Their job is to deceive the public and make them indifferent about the things of God to the advantage of Satan.

Which village headmaster told you that one? LoLz.

monex:
makes sense although this is still relativism. Nigeria saying gay is evil does not objectively make it evil. There is need for an objective definition of good and evil. Each religion tries to claim itself as the objective definition of morality unfortunately.

The problem is no such standard exists nor can it because all morality is by necessity subjective. Morality doesn't exist independent of minds.

Kobojunkie:
You aren't paying attention at all! I am not the least concerned about the source. As long as you are arguing against the consensus, your private delusions regarding morality do not matter or mean anything in the end. You cannot REASONABLY discuss moral issues if what you are bringing to the table are no better than brain farts..." I think it therefore it is right,"s.

Bro that's all we have. You might believe the brain farts of some Ancient Hebrews are superior to your own own but it is all we have.

SIRTee15:
Since atheists reject God and His divine guidance, as well as revelation, I would like them to tell us the source of their morality.

What guides your conscience when it comes to good and evil? Is your moral framework subjective or objective? What is the foundational basis of your morality? How do you determine what is right or wrong? Is your morality dynamic and relative to time, location, and circumstances?

As a believer in the scriptures, my morality comes from the bible. If the Bible says an act is wrong, then it is wrong irrespective of external opinion or societal validation of such an act.

To the atheist, if you think a behaviour is immoral but society considers it good, how do you justify your stance? What makes you think your judgment is better than that of the majority?

How do you even know what is good or bad as a principle? For example, do you think fornication or homosexuality is evil? Do you think transgender identity should be considered moral? Do you think pride and lying are things that should be frowned upon? What even makes suicide or euthanasia wrong?

Atheists, do you think it is okay to indoctrinate your children with your morality, or should they be left alone to discover their own?
If your 16-year-old daughter starts taking contraceptive pills so she can have sex with her boyfriend, would you frown at it? On what grounds would you consider her behaviour immoral?

If your 21-year-old son tells you he is gay and wants to marry his partner, will you wish them marital bliss or attend their wedding if invited? If you object to such a union, where is that morality coming from?

If your 18-year-old son tells you he is transitioning to become a woman and plans to undergo surgery, on what grounds would you tell him he is wrong?

Why would it be wrong if your 25-year-old daughter tells you she does not plan to get married but intends to have children with different men and raise them without a father figure?

I am certain many atheists would struggle with some of these situations. No atheist here on nairaland will attend the wedding of his gay son or celebrate extramarital pregnancy of his daughter.

The truth some atheists conveniently ignore is that all moral frameworks in society have historically been influenced by religious traditions. People draw from these values in how they live their lives, build families, and relate to their communities.

Yet, some reject the existence of God while still engaging with moral ideas that have been shaped by religious thought.

This is something I reflected on years ago, and it led me to question whether atheism provides a sufficiently grounded explanation for morality or its simply delusion in disguise.

I would appreciate if atheist can give a convincing rebuttal as to the source of their morality independent of an imaginary sky daddy as they say.

The same place you get yours, the cogitations of conscious minds.