₦airaland Forum

asalimpo:
it was debunked because people,atheists,sceptics, wanted it to be so.
Is there any story/case threateng the justifcation of atheism that hasnt been debunked ?.
At the end of d day, it's no more
about logic or objectivity but inclination.
In other words, atheism is a wish that there's no God, masked as a belief tht there's none. While asking for incontravertible proof. Theyre are enuff clues already for any honest person to deduce a conclusion.

asalimpo:
@plantteon
atheism is a heart thing.
The narrator of the story, proves tht another reality outside the realm of d physcal senses,the spirit world exists.
How cud He be hallucinating wen His brain was physcally "dead"-inactive!
He experienced, the only element , tht renders logcal justifcation of atheism invalid - the spirit realm.
Ancient shamans as you say, did experience the spirit realm.
Drug addicts do too. Not all is hacculinations.

BraveGuy:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2799385/glimpses-life-brain-surgeon-told-saw-heaven-coma-today-reveals-stories-say-ve-similar-life-changing-experiences.html

Neurosurgeon Dr Eben Alexander was convinced out-of-body experiences were hallucinations — until he went into a coma himself and had what he now believes was a glimpse of heaven.

Do you have to get into a coma before you believe?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2799385/glimpses-life-brain-surgeon-told-saw-heaven-coma-today-reveals-stories-say-ve-similar-life-changing-experiences.html

Bobbysworld28:
Gravity is not mindless, sorry! There are rules.

My questions have always been this: if atheism is a lack of belief in God/god/gods, what does atheism believe in?

Since, atheists claim we came from nothing and end is the end of everything, how do u derive purpose in life?

What are the atheistic code of conduct in life?

If u believe in rational thought, how do u account for difference in views regarding what is rational? For instance, when we have differences in what we view as rational, how do we know the most appropriate?

My view is this: to make a sense of morality and rationality we must have a single entity which is transcendent and from which we derive meaning. In philosophy that fixed entity is regarded as an absolute!

If God is the absolute good and I derive morality from him, knowing that I am accountable to him, my actions are modified on a regular basis to conform with his personality expressed in and thru me. Even if I veer off and pursue selfish gains to the detriment of my fellows, it is good that we have a moral compass so that I can re-align.

Bobbysworld28:
Gravity was coined by humans? No humans are only trying to understand and manipulate it. Numerous other laws abound in nature that humans are trying to understand and use to their benefit. I used gravity to buttress the fact that there are other laws apart from govt ones when some ppl were trying to define their rationality based in govt laws.
In the scope of this banter I have tried to understand the concept of rationality as prosposed by atheists. I am still unable to see any useful post alluding to that. Maybe u can help.

Bobbysworld28:
Morality and laws are man-made and anchored on the acknowledgement of a higher power for enforcement. U acknowledge government of the physical laws but ascribe ur consciousness to 'nothing'. Quite remarkable! The law of gravity then was propounded by ur forefathers, I guess.

Bobbysworld28:
We believe in ancient stories no more than you do when u quote greek philosophers.

We believe first (in order to enact morality) but don't u? These are points of convergence and not divergence as u want us to believe. In the atheist worldview, u believe in rationality as plaetton said but my question is: what defines YOUR rationality? If nothing, is dt not irrational? On what anchor is ur worldview based, and what are the standards of measurement?
You have been able to generally define two worldview systems that draw rationality from an omnipotent. Granted that there is a lot of divergence therein, so wht defines urs?
The fact that there have been atrocities committed on several fronts using religion as a shroud doesnt mean the solution is a recipe for chaos, does it. If there is a breakdown of law and order, do u advocate for govt to be vacated and 'nothing' fills it? Wouldnt u rather call for a more responsive and proactive govt?

Bobbysworld28:
If death is d end of existence, then what is the use of life? Merely an accident between two nothingness. Morality, then will be useless because there is nothing after this accident called life.
If however there is an afterlife or a deity who either rewards or punishes in d afterlife, the outlook is indeed not as gloomy and we can use him as a standard of measurement in morality

MacCantStopMe:
1) Such christians/muslims do not use logic but rather, they use emotions to support their beliefs


Many atheists do not understand this point and so they keep throwing logic at these hardcore religious people thinking that they would listen the logic. The truth is that one must use both emotions and logic to convince hardcore theists. There is a reason why Hitchens had more fans than Dawkins or Sam Harris. Hitchens put both emotions and painful arguments towards religious people. Hitchens made arguments that would make a christian/muslim cry and think about his/her life for a whole year. If you tell someone that "God doesnt exist" the person can brush it off.....but tell the person that "your God is useless because he watches young children starve and women get raped while doing nothing", the person will feel painfully touched deep down the soul.


Example; an argument about the failure of hell

1) Pure logical argument from the atheist
Christian/Muslim: If you reject God, you will go to hell

Atheist; Hell does not exist or even make sense because you cant prove it

Christian; Hell is not real? I cant prove it? My guy, sharrap....you will know when you die!


2) Logic plus emotional blackmail/butthurt from the atheist
Christian/muslim; If you reject God, you will go to hell

Atheist; Your grandma (or great grandma) in the village is a pagan. She rejects YOUR God and so, she will burn in hell!

Christian/muslim; *butthurt face*. My grandma? thunder fire you




The second argument will make the christian or muslim think deeply about his/her family and religion. It will burn the christian/muslim deep into his/her soul. Painful. Such an argument has two offensive modes;
a) The logic hammers the ridiculousness of hell (how can good people of other religion go to hell?)
b) The emotional butthurt overrides the religious brainwashing (how can my sweet mama go to hell?)


tags; mazaje, plaetton, mymizcoli, weigraff, ihedinobi2, mranony1, rilwayne01

MrAnony1:
I think we are done now. Thanks for your time.

KingEbukasBlog:
God bless America ... uv never had the president say that before ?

MrAnony1:
So you say.

You are absolutely wrong on that. Multiplication equations like 5x8=40 and 6x6=36 e.t.c. were true long before any human being existed and will still be true long after all humans are gone. It is logically incoherent to say that something is both a human construct an objective.

Do atheists and buddhists believe in the existence of objective moral values and if so what are these values based upon?

I see. Now I get your question. You are asking that if morality is based on one God, why do we have different moral systems such as are Sharia and Buddhist systems? Before I answer this question, I must ask whether you are willing to grant that it is possible for some moral systems to be wrong?

Morality depends on God's nature. (Please note that I didn't say God's opinion)

mecussey: Inspirition...the truth is, what men know, they destroy, what we don't know, we call names or criticise

Rilwayne001: History of the universe is divided into three distinct phases: the start, the expansion, and the end. The Quran deals with these phases in astounding descriptions. The Quran refers to the start of the Big Bang in two short Ayat, presenting an accurate summary to the conditions that led to creating the universe:

Surah 21, Ayah 30 "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation) before We clove them asunder?"

Surah 41, Ayah 11 "Then He turned to the sky and it had been (as) smoke."

In the first Ayah, Allah declares clearly that the universe (the skies and the earth) was joined together, and then Allah caused it to explode. There is a very important choice of words in the original Arabic text whose translation is given above. The Arabic word ratq translated as "joined together" means "mixed in each, blended" in Arabic dictionaries. It is used to refer to two different substances that make up a whole. The
phrase "We clove them asunder " is the verb fataqa in Arabic and implies that something comes into being by tearing apart or destroying the structure of ratq. In this Ayah, skies and earth are at first subject to the status of ratq and then they exploded. Intriguingly, cosmologists speak of a "cosmic egg" that consisted of all the matter in the universe prior to the Big Bang. In other words, all the heavens and earth were included in this egg in a condition of ratq. This cosmic egg exploded violently causing its matter to fataqa and in the process created the structure of the whole universe.

The accuracy of the Arabic words of such divine description of starting the universe is well beyond comprehension. A cosmic fact was revealed to an unlettered Arab that took humanity one thousand and four hundred years to discover. This Ayah addresses the unbelievers with an overwhelming challenge. No one can claim that Muhammad had knowledge of spectroscopic observations or he had instruments to measure cosmic background radiation. Also, he was not a genius mathematician. This Ayah, as with many of the scientific miracles in the Quran, addresses the unbelievers in a strong challenge. If they could not use their inherent intuition to figure out the existence and the uniqueness of One Creator,then they can listen to an unlettered Arab explaining the creation of the universe.

In the second Ayah, Allah describes the sky, after the explosion, as a smoke, not a cloud or fog, but smoke. To emphasize the importance of the smoke, the title of this Surah is "The Smoke." In the past, cosmologists used to describe the gaseous state of the young universe as a cloud or fog. Only recently, has the word "smoke" been coined, because it is closely descriptive of the initial gaseous state. The definition of smoke is a suspension of particles in a hot gaseous medium. This is truly the perfection of the Quran in choosing the closest words to describe an event. The word smoke could indicate that just after the Big Bang, the formation of planets and stars took different directions from the start. Planets were formed from the suspended particles of the smoke, while the stars were formed from the hot gases. This is quite possible since the structure of stars is different from that of the planets. The sun for example consists of 73.5 percent hydrogen and 25 percent helium. These gases were formed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang, and the rest of which is the product of the nuclear reactions in the sun. There are also traces of heavier atoms such as oxygen, carbon, iron, magnesium and so on. None of these traces of elements account for even 1 percent of the weight of the sun. On the other hand, the earth is made up of over a hundred elements with a nickel-iron core. Oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon and other elements that exist in earth and its atmosphere were all united as compound particles that existed in the original phase of the smoke. When the earth changed from the smoke phase to liquid phase during the cooling process of the universe, the compound particles reserved their composition in a melted state, and inert gases escaped from the earth. The atmosphere with its water vapor was formed from the gases produced during the cooling process of the Earth’s crust. The earlier assumption that the Earth evolved from the sun is no longer accepted.

[/quote]Allah again challenges the unbelievers by adding some details to the creation sequence as follows:

Surah 41, Ayah 9-12 "Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds. He set on the (earth) mountains standing firm, high above it and bestowed blessings on the earth and measured therein its sustenance in four days, alike for (all) who ask. Then He turned to the sky and it had been (as) smoke. He said to it and to the earth: come ye together,willingly or unwillingly. They said: we do come together in willing obedience. So He completed them as seven firmaments in two days and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command."

engrtee: i am here


you get ebola?

NativeBoy: You and I both know that I no matter what arguments I offered, we would simply keep going back and forth. If you want to, you can read Mr. Habermas' paper. At the very least, it should make you realize that it's not as black and white as you think.

It's interesting that the rise of abstract science in the western world is also attributed to monotheism in Judeo-Christianity. Alfred North Whitehead wrote a paper on it. You can read that as well.

ooman: People mistake their belief or lack of it for who they really are... religion does not determine the success of a relationship. America has about 95% religious population (only about 5% are atheist/irreligious/agnostic) and still, 50% of marriages end in divorce. That's greater than the total number of all nonbelievers in the country.

What determines success of a relationship is the people involved. So in the end, it doesn't matter if one is an atheist and the other is a believer in some sort of god when it comes to marriages.

Some religious ladies are just good in all aspects (including in bed), some around me knows about my atheism and they don't care. I can definitely pick anyone of those.......

plaetton: Lol!
It actually bestairs the mind, if I may borrow this big word from you, that you blindly, sheepishly and slavishly think that not believing in invisible sky-fairies is some kind of deficit.

The issue here is about the slavery of religion, the most pernicious type there is , and the clearly devastation is having on the African mind.

What reality are you living in?
Do you not see the mental and now real physical devastations that T.B clown Joshua and others like him are wrecking on my nation?

UyiIredia: The worse slavery is in misunderstanding what the mind actually is.

MrAnony1: Whatever helps you sleep well at night mate.

I see, so morality is a human construct and therefore right and wrong depend on the personal opinions of men. Ok

Good so you have changed your stance....but the statement above still contradicts you. Morality cannot be objective and at the same time not be independent of personal opinion i.e. if Morality is objective, then it cannot be a human construct.

Sorry, I still don't get it. Perhaps you could help me understand by naming any two moral values and the different ways that they come about.

I'm afraid I really can't meaningfully respond to you if you can't make up you mind whether morality is independent of man's opinions (objective) or dependent on man's opinions (subjective).

So please which is it? Is morality a human construct or is it objective? (i.e independent of human opinions)

NativeBoy: It's not his opinion. It's based on his years of studying the facts. He's an atheist. If it was his opinion, you wouldn't expect him to come to the conclusions he did.

Second, the comparison to Dr. Miller is inaccurate. Dr. Miller's arguments for evolution reinforces his beliefs, Mr. Habermas' are contrary to his belief.

NativeBoy: This is revisionism. I've submitted this to you before. Again, these are the words of a methodological atheist (Jurgen Habermas) who is considered probably the best in his field and who has studied the facts. I think he might know what he's talking about.

Christianity has functioned for the normative self-understanding of modernity as more than a mere precursor or a catalyst. Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and social solidarity, of an antonomous conduct of life and emancipation, of the individual morality of conscience, human rights, and democracy, is the direct heir to the judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in the light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk.

MrAnony1: Before I proceed to respond, I must say that this was quite interesting to read. That said....


Lol...it is funny that you should think I am playing some game because I don't believe I am.

I could take you up on these claims but so that we stay on track and not go on a tangent, Let us assume for the sake of argument that they did as you say, are you now saying that Moses and co. are not morally upright even if they think that they are doing the right thing? In other words, are you saying that moral right and wrong are independent of the personal opinions of man?

I see, so you think morality is not objective (i.e. it is not independent of the personal opinions of persons involved)

I thought you just said that there is no objective morality. How can one fail at something for which there is no objective standard?

I don't understand this question. Perhaps you can rephrase?

Are you suggesting that your revulsion is the standard of morality? Remember that what is repulsive to you may be tasteful to another and since you say that there is no objective morality, I can't see why we must tailor morality according to your particular tastes.

You haven't made a good enough argument to justify this claim.

Stop contradicting yourself. You just said that there are no objective moral values earlier.

Why are they objectively wrong since according to you there are no objective moral values?


You really need to make up your mind. Do objective moral values exist or not?

How can someone violate something that doesn't exist? When you find a way to stop contradicting yourself, let me know.

Again, how are those injunctions wrong if there is no objective standard by which to judge them?

But this analogy is unlike your position. Using the analogy, your position is that maths is not objective and hence you have no way of saying that "2+2=5" is wrong or right since according to you, everyone has their own maths and one person's wrong maths is another person's right maths. Therefore "2+2=5" might be right for you and wrong for me.


Nope you are the one claiming that

Remember that I warned you to first grasp the basics of what you are trying to talk about before trying to attack particular concepts but you wouldn't listen.
Your worldview is flawed at it's core therefore it is driving you into all sorts of self-contradiction. That should be your first clue that your position is false. . . .I hope you will heed my warning now but I doubt your stubbornness will let you.

LOL....of course you have. By contradicting yourself left, right and center.


Good, so you believe that morality is based on consensus now and how people feel. I see. Let us now re-examine your "3 objective moral values". Shall we?


....but you believe if we all reach a consensus in our society to kill innocent children, it won't be wrong. In other words, the killing of twins in Calabar was right and it was wrong to abolish it because abolition went against the consensus.

.......but you believe if we all reach a consensus in our society to enslave other people, it will be right. therefore the slavetrade of your forefathers was right because it was the consensus opinion of the society at the time and hence abolition was wrong because it went against the consensus of the society and how people felt.

....but you believe that if we as a society reach a consensus to kill other people for having another religion, it will be right. Therefore the Boko Haram and the Islamic State and the Communist/Atheist states where religion was systematically oppressed were all doing the right thing because it is the consensus for their societies.

I see, so you are saying that it was good. Ok

Great. So seeking peace instead of war can equally be immoral tomorrow. I wonder why then you spent all that time arguing for something that might change by the time you wake up tomorrow morning.

Lol, so not only does morality change from time to time, we must regularly update ourselves about these changes. I see

But surely, you don't have a problem with any of the things you listed above because according to you: What they did was good because it was the consensus of their societies

My dear friend, You have succeeded in utterly confusing yourself.

Please heed my advice: first go and do your homework, FIRST TRY TO GRASP THE BASICS of what morality entails and how it might relate to the afterlife before trying to argue through particular instances tangential to the issue in the hope of "destroying Anony".

The aim ought to be for us to get closer to the truth and not to play games of who can out-argue the other. The fact that your position is riddled with contradictions at almost every turn should be enough to tell you that your position is very far from the truth.

....He that hath ears, let him hear.