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.
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.
jesusjnr2020: Atheist Artemis II commander Converts To Christianity After Trip To Moon
The Artemis II commander, Reid Wiseman, who was said to be a self-confessed atheist, said after returning from his trip to the moon, despite not being a religious person, he had no other avenue to express what they had seen and experienced in space, so he asked for the Navy chaplain to visit them, and despite never seeing the man before, when the man came and he saw the cross on his collar, he broke down and wept:
Dtruthspeaker: You are looking for fairness from reed? Atiku, might be fairer than Reed
Reed will always dodge the part that is against him and must hang to anything that he can spin around to make your point look bad.
LoLz. I literally asked him which portion he wanted me to focus on because I am ready to discuss reasonably. Unlike you who just makes assertions and can't be reasoned with.
DeepSight: Better for you my friend. But do you accept that the "cogitations of thinking beings" could arrive at morally wrong conclusions, principles and suppositions.
As a matter of value calls yes they can. Which is why moral positions should continually be scrutinised.
basilico: I mentioned that Obama sold guns to Mexican cartels. Specifically El Chapo Sinaloa's cartel.
Operation Fast and Furious was a controversial undercover investigation conducted between 2009 and 2011 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Targeting Cartels: The goal was to identify and dismantle high-level leaders of Mexican drug trafficking organizations, specifically the Sinaloa Cartel, rather than just arresting low-level "straw purchasers" (legal buyers who purchase guns for others).
"Gunwalking": Agents used a tactic called "gunwalking," where they monitored known straw purchasers but were ordered not to interdict the weapons. They hoped to track the firearms' serial numbers when they were eventually recovered at crime scenes in Mexico to build a larger conspiracy case. Lost Weapons: The ATF ultimately lost track of roughly 2,000 firearms, including AK-47 variants and .50 caliber sniper rifles. By 2012, less than 710 had been recovered. Violence and Deaths: Many of these weapons were linked to violent crimes on both sides of the border. Agent Brian Terry: In December 2010, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in a shootout in Arizona; two weapons found at the scene were traced back to the operation. Mexican Casualties: Former Mexican officials estimated that at least 150 Mexican civilians were killed or maimed by firearms related to the program.
Whoever came up with this operation is dumb as fuq or deliberately wanted Sinaloa to have access to high powered rifles. Attorney General Eric Holder refused to appear before congress was held in contempt, but democrats never get charged for ignoring Congressional subpoenas.
Lordreed, you think the families of that agent or the 150 Mexican deserve reparations. Or you think they would hi five Obama or kids his tanned suit if they met him in a dark alley? Change we can believe in my ass
If that is the standard then Trump literally has a bounty on his head so don't even go there.
BTW why haven't your conservative white masters not taken him to court since you think they have the goods on him. Are they chicken?
Kobojunkie: That is not necessarily true. You can argue that we each have opinions regarding morality, and those amount to nothing in the end. However, a moral opinion gains substance only when a meaningful group adopts it as a moral standard. Your private moral opinion is worthless if you don't have others who share and sign on to the same opinion that you have. This isn't about mythology or religion or any of those other things you are on there about. 🤔
Well this doesn't counter what I said, it is still all conscious thinking beings.
Kobojunkie: Strawman? Recall I told you to bury your ego somewhere before engaging. You know why? If you had, you would have realized, as the host of the shows did, that the guy was not strawmanning, but literally handing them back their own argument all throughout the discussion. 🤔
Anyways, I was more interested in what he had to say on the issue of morality. I am particularly interested in his insistence that a foundation has to exist to back whatever morality you claim. The "I am moral because I say or think so," argument, which is typically what you often came back with in your debates on morals. 🤔
Here's another video where the same guy stresses the need for a backing for any position one takes on issues regarding morality and rights.
All morality is based on the cogitations of conscious thinking beings. Even in your mythology based religion, your imaginary god, who you think gives you morality, is supposedly a conscious thinking being. It is inescapable.
Kobojunkie: Is that all you heard him say in that entire discussion? 🤔
Plus all his strawman nonsense is all I need to know I would not enjoying listening to such claptrap but if there is any particular portion you want me to listen to I would stomach it for long enough. The guy is full of BS and I doubt he has anything useful for me.
Kobojunkie: First, your assumptions are completely wrong! Second, you have to be willing to put aside your ego --- die to your ego-- before you can be able to hear and process the debate without bias. 🤔
Bro! LoLz! What yeye ego when someone says he wants women to loose the ability to vote!!!
Kobojunkie: Lordreed, I saw this the other day and thought about you would be the best person to have watch this. I have seen those of you who claim to be atheist argue about how your morality is just as valid as any other morality touted by the other religious folks. I think the guest on Triggernometry this past week, sort of argues well against that claim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfVy9hUKa6c?si=OLpd1gn6vKmYES44
5mins 35secs and I am not sure I can stand to watch the whole thing. The guy just strawmans everything and makes statements with nothing backing it. Is there any particular portion you want me to pay attention too because I cannot honestly stand listening to this guy for 1hr 30mins.
Kobojunkie: Lordreed, I saw this the other day and thought about you would be the best person to have watch this. I have seen those of you who claim to be atheist argue about how your morality is just as valid as any other morality touted by the other religious folks. I think the guest on Triggernometry this past week, sort of argues well against that claim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfVy9hUKa6c?si=OLpd1gn6vKmYES44
45 seconds in and I am already lauging out loud. He sees no reason why women should vote??!! This is the person you think has great points? Men, what are you believers turning into?? Are all of you thinking to become some version of the Taliban??!!
basilico: The events of Charlotte were on Aug 11/12 . On Aug 13 2017 ,your god released tweet below. The tweet opened the doors to massive donations to SPLC almost immediately George Clooney $1 million by 16th August, among many other donors helping it raise $133 million in 2017 up from $51 million in 2016.
Obama foundation also saw a huge spike netting $232 million in 2017 alone. Spreading a hoax pays well. Deepsight.
Obama's record will continue to pepper you and your golden calf till the grave. LoLz.
Your small god arrogantly provoked the man who would undo hos destroy America grand plans
LoLz. You people and stupid attempts to rewrite history. Was it Obama that provoked the racist to question his birth certificate? Was it Obama who said this:
kingjayzeelan07: Singer Burna Boy’s mother, Bose Ogulu, has defended him amid social media backlash.
DAILY POST reports that Burna Boy has been criticised online for being arrogant.
The development came following the singer’s recent attack on Wizkid’s DJ, DJ Tunez at a Lagos club. The incident further led to an online fight between Wizkid and Burna Boy.
Reacting to the controversy, many Nigerians criticised Burna for always getting physical with people, tagging him arrogant.
When asked about Burna Boy, she said If knowing his worth and carrying himself as such is arrogant, then it is a good thing. “And I can’t apologize for that.”
Ebuka asked: “do you mind that Burna Boy is seen as arrogant? Do you mind that you are seen as arrogant with the way you run Burna brand?
She responded: “I don’t mind honestly, I don’t mind at all. I mean any adjective they want to attach to you is ok. The thing is who are you? If knowing your worth and carrying yourself as such is arrogant, then it is a good thing. And I can’t apologize for that. Because I think we were born into a world where we were expected to put our heads down.
"First is the color of your skin, the color of your passport, for me, my gender. So, I don’t understand the concept of that life. I understand that if I know something, I know it and I expect you to realise that I know it. And if you don’t realize that I know it, then, put me to the test”, she said.
basilico: Cult hero worship. Trump will sort out the nuclear Iran mess . Obama JV team ISIS,Trump sorted it out within a few months. Everything wrong with Biden was Obama 3.0 include Ukraine.
Bwahahahahahaha! That's what your lord and saviour is chasing, Obama's shadow. He will never be half the success Obama was as president and it will pain both you and your golden calf till the grave. LoLz.
TheJayJay: Funny enough I use UBA and haven't come across any form of interest on my dollar account like it does for the naira. So, you're right. However, I made a video but specifically about "one bank'' in Nigeria. I would also inquire about their interest rate. By the way, what bank do you use?
[quote author=Breaker001 post=139206262]A viral social media video has sparked widespread reactions after a Nigerian couple publicly tore their marriage certificate during their wedding ceremony.
The unusual act, carried out shortly after the certificate was issued, has stirred debate across online platforms, with many questioning its meaning and implications.
Why the Couple Tore the Certificate The act reportedly took place at the wedding venue, moments after the official documentation was handed over to them.
According to the source of the video, the couple’s action was symbolic. It was said to represent their belief that divorce would never be an option in their union.
Guests at the ceremony were heard cheering loudly as both partners tore the documents, believed to be two copies of the certificate.
Despite the celebratory mood at the event, the gesture has continued to divide opinions online.
Mixed Public Reactions
Many social media users have criticised the act, describing it as unnecessary and lacking practical value.
One user, Iamnotarealman, wrote: “Women don’t let go of themselves like men. You can see she’s not in line with the decision, it shows on her face. Na men dey mumu for these love journey. Think like a woman.”
Another user, ManNelo, added: “Tearing your marriage certificate to ‘stop divorce’ is like tearing your light bill to stop NEPA from taking power. It’s a meaningless gesture that changes nothing about the reality.”
AfcxOfficial raised concerns about the importance of the document, stating: “But marriage certificate is more than keeping for divorced, what if they want to travel out of country as a couple or is needed to prove a point, anyways this don’t sound alright to me. Wish them best.”
FETWAB also criticised the move, saying: “People go just dey mumu up and down. Is the certificate only meant for divorce purposes. I’ll blame the mumu hubby the more, if the wife wants to act stupid it’s job to guide her.”
Watch the video here….
Nigerian couple sparks reactions after tearing up their marriage certificate at their wedding to signify divorce is not an option pic.twitter.com/DeR3SXtMdB
Christianity Etc › Re: Why Being Moral Is Good For Born Again Christians by LordReed(m): 3:39pm On Apr 26
