₦airaland Forum

LOL at this thread. . . . .

^^
My personal take on the gospels not just the book of John is that there were written by unknown men(very educated greek writers) not the alleged disciples of Jesus, They wrote mainly to give credence to the new religion they started. The gospels as we know them were fully develped much into the 2nd and 3rd centuary. The tradition that the gospels are eye witness accounts is false. It is unlikely in the extreme that any of the four canonical gospels were written by the people tradition claims they were written by. Was "Matthew" present at the manger when Jesus was supposedly born? Did he witness the 14 generations between Abraham and David, the 14 between David and the Babylonian Captivity, and the 14 between the Babylonian captivity and baby Jesus? Did he sleep between Joseph and Mary so he'd be sure that Joseph never actually had sex with Mary until after Jesus was born?

Was he privy to the conversation between Herod and the wise men? Did he, too, get to watch the dream Joseph had that he should flee to Egypt? . . . .Did Matthew watch "the Transfiguration" he records in Matthew 17? Perhaps he forgot to include himself in the list of disciples Jesus took to that mountain. . . . .It is not just disingenuous, but downright deceitful to claim that the writers of the four canonical gospels were eyewitnesses of what they wrote as so many christian are doing. . . . . . There's no freaking way they could have witnessed much of what they wrote, assuming any of it actually happened. . . . . It's absolute rubbish when people claim that these "eyewitness testimonies" would be sufficient testimony in a court system. Most of what is written at best could only be hearsay. . . . .But the most damning fact of all with regard to claims of "eyewitness testimony" is that all of the documents are anonymous. They do not reveal who claims to have written them. They are not signed, and they do not bear any chain of custody. They just appeared anonymously and began circulating some forty (being generous) to ninety or more years after the dates of the events they allegedly cover. . . . . .

If a lawyer was to introduce an unsigned document with no chain of custody into a court trial as evidence that the person in question floated off into the sky and that's why nobody can find his dead body, what do you think the judge would do? The gospels were just made up stories whose purpose were only to serve for the spreading of the new religion and the personality behind the star of new religion.

noetic16:
what has islam turned to?

And who told you that she is a muslim?

davidylan:
Baseless. This will only happen if everyone has EXACTLY the same divine source. You acknowledged that was not so in an earlier post. Revisit it.

The problem is that there is no "divine" source for morality, Humans create or make moral systems. . . . .

you're confusing "moral code" with secular laws of the country. For instance the hausa man in Kano wont be ruled by the same laws that apply to an arab in Saudi Arabia. while Saudi is a muslim country, Nigeria regards itself as a multi-religious society. Honor killings is against the law here.

Moral code of conduct is simply whatever your society accepts as proper or not proper . . . . . . There is no objective morality. I can imagine a society where people have become accustomed to the idea of having sacrificial ceremonies for the elderly or incapacitated. I can even see it getting to the point that the elderly or incapacitated believe wholeheartedly that it is the "Good" thing to do for the health of the economy and society in general. That doesn't seem good to me, but there have been many beliefs about good which have caused horrific things to be accepted as necessary and "good". Do you think that the majority of Germans who escorted Jews to the gas chamber only did so because they were ordered too? Many of them actually believed wholeheartedly that it was the "good" thing to do for their nation. "Good" can be anything as long as it is perceived and accepted as proper.

There is no christian moral code that outlaws "child labour".

It doesn't have to be christian. . . .societal moral code of conducts supercedes religions moral code of conducts sometimes. . . . .

show? really? quite funny.

Humans choose to accept what is good or bad to them based on their reasoning abilities and ability to convince themselves and others. . . . . .All moral code of conducts were created by humans. . . . .

Nice to have you back noetic, You were truly missed. . . . . . .

oyb:
in the same naija where governors sanction people for not attending office prayers

in the same naija where a lot of orgs - oceanic included if i remember correctly , engage in daily fellowship?

i remember a situation a colleague faced at work - there is a weekly safety meeting where he works. someone in typical naija fashion the people running the meeting started introducing lenghty and eloquent prayers into it. my friend is a muslim, and he simply stopped attending the meetings. the next thing you know, the meeting organisers started compaining the guy is not a team player, that sort of thing -

religion features extensively in the nigerian workplace

even on nairaland - people shove religion into the most mundane topics - u think the workplace is any different?

WORD!!!

What exactly is this man saying?. . . . . .

davidylan:
You seem to be confused . . .

if moral codes originate from humans = you will get different moral codes for different human societies.

YES. . . . . . .

HOWEVER if moral codes originate from a divine source = you will get different moral codes for different human societies because (as you acknowledged) everyone else believes in a separate disimilar divine source.

If moral codes originate from a divine source you will get the same moral codes of conducts everywhere. . . . .

For instance, the moral codes for arabs in Africa, middle east and asia are virtually the same . . . where they all a homogenous people from whom their moral codes originated or is this a direct result of having a common religion?

The moral codes for the muslims amongst the arabs will be the same because they share the same religion but that it self might vary from place to place. . . . . Arab moslems who were raised and are living in a secular african country will not have the same moral codes like say an arab moslem who was raised and is living in saudi arabia. . . . .

Moral codes for christians in Niger, Congo, Sweden and China are very similar . . . are we all the same people too?

They moral codes might be similar but they are not the same amongst the christians living in those countries. . . .Due to the economic hardship that is obtainable in african countries like nigeria child labour might not be considered an immoral thing to the christians living there, because some send their little children as young as 7 to hawk goods on the streets to make ends meet and they do not consider than an immoral act, but a christian living in sweden will consider that action to be highly immoral. . . . . .

you havent proven that point. All you've done is restate it like a broken record.

I have and went on to show that is the reason why morality is not objective and varies from place to place. . . .

What has war crimes to do with this by the way? Is that also a "moral" code or a secular convention based on shared principles?

Everything, I was just illustrating how human moral code of conduct are evolving. . . .

davidylan:
Your opinion.

Its not just my opinion, It is a FACT, humans wrote the koran, hadith and all that is in it. . . . . . .There is MORE than enough evidence that points to that FACT. . . . .

Murder is against the law in western societies . . . that cannot be considered "moral" law. Murder is ALSO considered a crime in middle eastern countries . . . you cant wake up, kill your neighbour and hide under "honor killing".

Murder false under morality. Honor killing is NOT immoral to those that accept and believe in it. . . . .That it is wrong to you does NOT mean it is wrong to them and those that have convinced themselves and others that it is right. . . . .

This is basically bogus. Its your opinion not backed up by any facts.

OK, What ever. . . . .

Absolutely absurd. When you referenced spoils of war as stealing you used the biblical accounts of Jewish wars as reference . . . that took place over 3000 yrs ago . . .

1. Its silly to compare what happened 3000 yrs ago to what obtains today.

Human morality on how they engage in wars have evolved since then . . . . .

2. The USA and its allies basically looted Germany's nuclear program after WWII and it was ok considering Germany had just surrendered in battle. It was NOT and has NEVER been considered stealing.

Nuclear program is different from people means of lively hood. . . . .

davidylan:
this "question" does not make sense . . . because in the very next sentence you say - claim that those codes came from their various gods

Since you already admit that different groups believe in various (disimilar) gods then why are you surprised that the moral codes will be different?

This is my point exactly, since moral codes originates from humans and what they choose to accept or convince themselves to be moral or immoral, it is only normal that you you have different moral codes in different human societies. . . . . .

That is no concrete proof that my father paid my school fees, you could argue that someone else forged his signature.

No one is providing any evidence to you . . . you have your own set of moral codes, you're not forced to live by those of others. Last i checked you're the one who started the thread . . . no one was particularly bothered with whether you live by moral codes or not.

All these flawed reasoning is tiring. . . . .My point is, Morality is originates from humans, It is NOT objective and varies from places to place. . . . .All moral code of conducts evolved and are still evolving. . . . .Example, I doubt if there is anything like war crime 100 years ago, But now there is such a thing as war crime geneva convention and what not. . . . .There is now a thing called conventional ways of engagement even when wars are fought, 100 years ago no such thing existed, people kill and keep killing in wars, They take spoils of war and live comfortably with their actions. . . . .

davidylan:
That i copy a book does not mean i am the original author.

Lets cut the chase, humans wrote the koran, hadith and all that is in it. . . . . .

makes no sense. No matter how much you "convince" your family, the police will still put you behind bars.

That is why morality is not objective. . . .There are people of middle eastern origins living in the west that still believe in honour killing despite the fact that it is unacceptable in such societies. To those living in the west such acts will be considered immoral but does that make it immoral to those that have been convinced its right?. . . . .

Again false . . . wonder why the Chilean police was busy arresting looters last week. They had the largest earthquake ever recorded.

The Chilean police went at the looters because they govenment must have provided relief material and other means of help to the victims else, it will not be considred an immoral act if the people were left without any kind of help at all. . . .

This is not a case of "sugar-coating", it is simply common sense. If you vanquish your enemy . . . you cant be "stealing" from him since he's not even alive anymore or is probably now your prisoner.

And why is the USA NOT taking spoils of war in afganistan? Why are the present day IDF not taking spoils of war in palestine and lebanon?. . . . .

looters are arrested everywhere. Katrina and the last tsunami of 2005 was a good example. Continue digging . . .

Looters are arrested ONLY when the govenment makes arrangement for people, if the people were left on their own with no support from the government it will not be considered as looting, it will be considered as trying to survive in harsh condtions. . . . .

davidylan:
that's absurd. Hypothetical example - if God were to bring down a moral code . . . would he not give it to humans? wouldnt that then count as morality originating from humans?

If there is a god that gives moral codes then why do we have different moral codes?. . . .Different religions have different moral codes and they all claim that those codes came from their various gods. . . . .If moral codes come from god then why are moral code of conduct always evolving?. . . . .Why are some of the moral codes in the bible considered to be unacceptable or immoral today?. . . . .

When you foolishly ask for "evidence" that a supreme deity hands down a moral code to humans you forget that you dont even believe that a supreme being exists in the first place . . . it is impossible for me to provide evidence that my father paid my school fees when you dont even believe i have a father in the first place.

Lets assume that I do not accept that you have a father, but insist that he paid your school fees, All that will be required of you is to show me some evidence like the telex copy from the bank he used to remit the funds to your school account and his description. If I really feel like checking I could call the bank and ask them if the sender matches your description, If the ban corrobrates your story then I will just have to accept your evidence.

When all you have as evidence for god sending down moral code of conduct is nothing other than what a particular group humans choose to write down and accept within their culture then you have NOT provided any evidence to show that that code of conduct came from any where other than that particular group of people. . . . . .All human code of conduct originated from humans. . . . .

davidylan:
the sharia law comes from the quran and the hadiths. Its simple history.

And who wrote the koran and the hadith?. . . . .

Makes no sense which is why i asked jagunlabi the earlier question.

Does convincing my family + plus using my extreme poverty as justification prove that robbing your family at gunpoint is morally right?

Sure, If you could convince your family that stealing is morally right then YES to you and your family it will be morally right, Just like those cannibals or those that used to kill their twin babies were able to convince themselves and others around them that those actions were morally right. . People have convinced themselves and others that stoning to death people that commit adultery is right but does that make it right in the eyes of those that do not see things that way?. . . The ability to justify or convice people is what makes actions morally acceptable or unacceptable. A simple case is that of pork.

Pls show us examples of where stealing is ok.

In times of natural disasters.

That isnt stealing, that is taking the spoils of war. Two different issues you cant just conflate to support a non-argument.

You don't even know what you are talking about. That action is nothing but STEALING no matter how you try to sugar coat it. Why don't we see the present IDF taking the spoils of war when engaging with the palestinians or the hamas militants?. . . .Why is the USA not taking spoils of war in afganistan or iraq?. . . .You see, you have just supported my argument. Here you are justfying a clear act of theft by saying that it is not theft but taking the spoils of war. . . .The only thing you have done here is convince yourself that their action it is not theft, but in reality IT IS. . . . .

I think you need to go look up the dictionary meaning of "stealing".

Chile troops, police attack post-quake looting

and here i thot we could just "convince" the police . . . afterall isnt an 8.8 magnitude earthquake a good "justification" for looting?

I think you and jagunlabi are basically confused.

What applies to Chile might not apply to all societies, If the govenrment of Chile fails to provide relief materials for the people and leaves them off to die of hunger or diseases, then it has no right to prescute them for looting. The govenment will only have such a right after it must have made arrangements of provided adequte measures to take care of those affected. If the government leaves its people without helping them, then looting to survice will be justified and will not be considered immoral.

[quote author=tpia. link=topic=406967.msg5622306#msg5622306 date=1267643256]you people must be living in Nigeria because in most western countries, your religion is not considered for employment. Like race, the information is optional.

so i dont see what the big deal is here.[/quote]Religion is a VERY big issue in nigeria, but here it isn't, because most of the people here have no religion. . . . . .

toba:
I dnt think there could be such a thing as morality without it originating from a higher authority,powers,laws or higher being.

The constantly evolving moral codes of conducts shows that your assumption is FALSE.

If theres non of d above listed to place a form of restriction directly/indirectly to pples conscience,then everything would be permissible including a man marrying his grandmother/mother.That morality originates from supreme authority/power,then everythng is not permissible

Like a man marrying his half sister? Abraham did it in the bible. Your evidence to show that morality originates from any where other than humans is what?. . . .You have NO evidence of any supreme authority giving humans any moral code do you? All the evidence points to humans writing down their moral codes and ascribing them to their various deities.

davidylan:
Your sharia law argument is invalid. It wasnt created by a group of folks, it is alleged to have been handed down by allah himself. No justification is needed.

My sharia law argument is valid. Sharia law WAS created by a group of folks like EVERY OTHER moral code of conduct. Allah DID NOT hand down any law himself to anybody. People sat down and wrote all the laws themselves. The point I was trying to make was that convincing people and providing justification for moral codes of conduct is what is necessary for its acceptance.

You claim that stealing being wrong is not an absolute . . . well that is WRONG. Stealing is considered "immoral" in virtually all cultures . . . is this simply down to "integration"? NO!

Stealing being wrong is NOT an absolute because it varies from place to place. Even in the bible the Jews were allowed to steal the belonging of those that worship other gods when they wage war against them. I know moslems who believe it is right to steal from unbelievers when waging jihad against them. Stealing is considered to be wrong because people realized that its not for the common good of all and decided to criminalize it.

there is no justification for stealing, it is considered a punishable crime.

There is justification for stealing in some cases just like there is justification for homicide in some cases. In times of natural disasters like earth quakes, floods, diseases or war stealing could be justified as long as it is done purely for survival.

davidylan:
Excellent. But it underscores the fact that you have a very wishy-washy argument going here. You claim that morality is simply about "providing justifications for why its right" . . . actually that doesnt wash. I could equally provide you 10 examples why the poor have every right to steal . . . does that make stealing "moral"?

Justification from the people that set out the moral codes of conduct is what matters. Lets take the endearment towards sharia law for example. All what is needed is for the people that created that moral code of conduct to convince others and make them accept it. It doesn't have to be justifiable to everybody. Stealing is wrong, Yes, but that it self is not an absoulte, there are cases where people convice themselves and try justify their acts of theft, like during wars or natural disasters etc.

davidylan:
1. What "justifications" did cannibals provide for eating flesh?

There is this group of cannibals in a part of Australia long ago (which I watched on a documentary on the national Geographic channel) who ate the flesh of their enemeis because they have this deeply held belief that doing so made them better hunters. That might not be an acceptable justification to you but to them it is. There are so many other reasons why cannibals eat the flesh of other humans.

2. What accounts for the striking similarity in morality among so many different cultures on earth?

Integration, Once people started integrating morality had to evolve, either willingly or unwillingly. For example those that were conqured had to forcefully accept the moral code of conduct of those that conquered them. Hundreds of years ago some tribe in Nigeria used to kill their twins because they thought they were an evil omen. They were thought to stop that practice by other people. Morality is NOT objective and MUST be learened, people just have to find a common ground when dealing with each other.

davidylan:
Dont you think that's being evasive? Would it be "moral" for cannibals who considered eating their enemies a good thing?

It would be "moral" for them if they convinced themselves and provided justifications to show that their actions were right. That is why I said morality is NOT objective and varies from society to society.

davidylan:
i thot you could provide an answer.

Humans are the creators of human morality, Humans choose to accept or create what they consider to be acceptable or unacceptable moral codes of conduct.

Krayola:
That is Krayola, God of morals.

Go drink beer jorh, You rapist.

viaro:
Everyone has his or her subjective inference to that question - the theist as well the atheist. I believe morality did not originate entirely from matter on its own; and only intelligence in living beings could be responsible for the trace back to origins of any morality. Again, that is just my subjective view - it does not mean it answers the question in its entirety satisfactorily.

Fair enough. This explanation is very very OK IMO.

^^

Is that Zeus or Yahweh?

viaro:
The point is that morality didn't come from thin air. The question of morality evolving is a moot point - we all know that no moral ethic remains rigid through history. The basic questions are not the evolving ethics, but their origin.

And what is the origin of morality?

davidylan:
What do you understand by morality? Where does it come from? Thin air?

I will refer to morality as codes of conduct or social and cultural mores that differentiates between right and wrong in every human society. Morality MUST be learnt, it evolved and is still evolving.

Krayola:
An atheists claims "there is no God" because theists can't prove there is one. A more honest and accurate claim, IMO, would be "I don't believe a God exists". For you to go on and make conclusions that you can not show to be correct, IMO, certifies u as DELUDED!! How do you plead?

If you make a claim that you can't prove how then do you expect any body to take you seriously? A theist claims that there is a god and cannot/ refuses to provide any evidence for such a god. Lack of evidence is evidence of absence.

Some theist have the notion that atheist are more immoral than theist. There is no evidence to show for this, yet they keep believing this? What do you call that?

JeSoul:
Hey Maz. There. I've fixed your post for you. Now you're 100% right. You'll be receiving a bill in the mail.

Thanks for the fix, Well appreciated. . . . .

MyJoe:
Hello mazaje. Trust you are doing great.

Am good, and I hope you are good too.

It can be argued that the fact that religious people are not necessarily more moral than the non-religious, including atheists, is paradoxical. Religions are supposed to be fountains from which spring moral instructions, hence the plainly misguided view that atheists who are perceived to be groping in the dark, as they lack this source of moral instruction, are necessarily immoral. The present situation in the word can be seen as an indictment, either of religious people or the religions of themselves.

Religious people keep jumping to their conclusions because they believe that their diety is responsible for morality. Nobody has ever made a significant argument that god has something to do with morality. All attempts to insinuate god into morality involve obvious falsehoods. They'll say that you should obey god or he'll hurt you. But when you ask whether morality consists of obeying orders so as to avoid getting hurt by powerful authority figures, they change the subject. Morality is not objective and is always evolving. Deities do NOT make moral codes, humans do.

viaro:
Hello mazaje, . . how's life treating you?

Life is treating me good. Thanks

Don't you think that the atheist who thinks others are deluding themselves is himself actually showing his morality? What is morality anyway? How does your morality spring from anything other than atheism?

What do you call some one who believes in things that are not true but keeps saying that they are true? I KNOW so many theist that really really believe that atheist are immoral and evil(I have argued with them a couple of time before). I was once a theist before and I have attended religious programs where clerics openly gloat and encourage people to believe in god because that belief will help them lead moral lives and castigate unbelievers for their unbelief which leads to immoral lifestyle, in fact believers are often advised to stay away from unbelievers because they are walking embodiment of lust, crime and all kinds of wrong doing. There are so many theist who believe that atheist are immoral. That is a FACT and since their beliefs can NOT be supported at all with any evidence, I will not be wrong if I call them deluded, because they really are.

The way I see it, it does not take a particular worldview to say that others are deluded. Both theists and atheists continue to trade this kind of comments against one another - and at the end of the day, the real issues are not actually looked at. I think everyone is just trying to give his or her position a soothing balm when they slag off others as deluded or ridiculous (and yes, I have seen quite a lot of atheists congratulating themselves on the notion that they are smarter, brighter, better, etc., while theists in their view are all deluded and ridiculous - or even worse). The party never ends.

What else will you call people that keep making conclusions that are wrong and still feel they are right? I call them deluded. And its TRUE. . . . . .

Why do theist believe that they are more moral than non theist? Is there ANY evidence to show that human's get their morals from any deity?. . . .I say this because theist keep deluding themselves into thinking that they have some moral superiority above non theist. They have this deluded and ridiculous belief that atheism = evil and that being religious= being a good person. I have my reasons for their behaviour but I just want to listen to the opinions of others. . . . . . .

This topic has inspired me to make another topic. In Nigeria Atheist have to tell lies almost all the time about who they are so that people will accept them. . . .Nigerians on the average because of ignorance, strongly and very stupidly believe that atheism = evil. In places like Nigeria where a lot of people pray in their offices or places of work before the days proceedings begin, an atheist will most definately feel left out or out of place if he tells people that he does not share their beliefs. So yes, I play along most of the time only because of the stupid and ridiculous believe that Nigerians have that atheism= evil. I don't want people loooking at me as an evil person all the time.

^^

I don't have time for all this flawed reasoning. . . .How are you doing out there? Best wishes my guy. . . . .

Seven pages and nobody is yet to provide just one significant evidence to show that his or her imaginary god exists.

We have tangible EVIDENCE that Mount Everest exists:

https://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/39/mount-everest.jpg

This evidence can be tested, hell you can travel there and attempt to climb it if you are so inclined.

Lets look at the "evidence" of gods existence

•Poorly written books which various humans wrote about the various gods they want to sell to others and make them believe in, which are mostly unsupported by any evidence.
•Failed logical arguments for the existence of a theistic god which are full of holes and often self contradictory.
•Hundreds of different religions or denominations of the same religion which agree on very little.