₦airaland Forum

wiegraf: Remember what it was like before you were born? Or when you sleep, sleep without dreaming ie.

You won't be able to worry about it, so don't worry about it. Just try to make sure you left the living a better world (imo)

Why should I try to make the world a better place? Why not squeeze out every bit of sensual enjoyment I can before I go back to sleep?

FOLYKAZE: Sharaap!!! The bible speaks for himself, Jesus is not coming again. He is dead and eaten up by maggots

....and where exactly did the bible say this?

striktlymi: Yeepeee!!!



No P!



Hmmm...I hope muskeeto is a strict materialist Atheist...***scheming on how to convince him that having one eye and making himself part of the dowry is good morals***



Thanks man!

Lololol. You are welcome.

LightningLord: Please, do try to murder someone in broad daylight, and we'll see if no one can label the act immoral

Is the act immoral because it is murder or because it is in broad daylight?

striktlymi: Am I permitted to marry this post?

Lol, she is yours to have and to hold in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer until death do you part.....

......as long as you can pay her bride price of 7 kegs of palm wine, 3 baskets of tomatoes, two cows and most important; a one-eyed mosquito.

Congratulations on your wedding.

Your affectionate in-law,
Anony

Uyi Iredia: That's contradictory. You can say they're separate persons that are united. Saying they are 'separate but one being' implies there are separate persons but one person - obviously contradictory.

Lol no it isn't contradictory. Here's a video to get you started.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUy-H5MmeGU&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TWpnOJV09MuEAwbbQNCS6Qf&index=1

cyrexx: I said God, according to the imaginations of the religious, did nothing to reveal himself to humans until 6,000 years ago. if you have any reference to earlier historical records of the Jews and their imaginary Yahweh before this time, pls let me know.

By showing you that bible verse, I believe I have showed you "according to the imaginations of the religious". The burden is now upon you to prove that He did not

Seriously, you expect non-christians to take that book seriously? the book that says to murder your your daughter if she's not a virgin on her wedding night? the book that says all manknd are a result of incestuous products of children of Adam and Eve? The book that says the world will end in the lifetime of audiences of Jesus in the first century? Pls, dont get me started on how unreliable and irrelevant that book is when making rational discussions.

Quoting those verses as evidence of God revealing himself to mankind is as good as quoting Harry Potter as evidence of the fact that Lord Voldemort reveals himself to mankind.

Besides, the world has been existing billions of years before religions and their imaginary Gods came on the scene. So telling me that the world is an evidence of the religious Gods is completely out of whack.

Interesting. So on the one hand you want to argue that according to what Christians believe only to turn around and reject what Christians believe when it is presented to you. It doesn't work that way my dear. It is either God created the world or He didn't.
If God created the world, then according to Christians, He has revealed Himself from creation. If He didn't create the world, then your whole argument is moot because your argument hangs on the premise that God created the world your contention is whether He revealed Himself or not.

I am getting confused here:
Christianity's worldview is: Repent, the kingdom of God is at hand. Jesus is coming soon.
Anony is saying here that: Repent, the kingdom of God may not be at hand, Jesus may come soon or not.

Lol, you are deliberately confusing yourself
Christianity's worldview is: Repent, the kingdom of God is at hand. Jesus is coming soon however, the exact hour has not been revealed to us.
Anony is saying here that: Repent, the kingdom of God is at hand. Jesus is coming soon however, the exact hour has not been revealed to us.

striktlymi: Hmmmm...thought provoking....

But was the killing done just for the fun of it? Or do these people believe that by so doing they choose the lesser of two evils?

The question here is: what do these people believe would be the penalty for not killing the twins? If the penalty is believed to be a total annihilation of their race then it would be that they choose the lesser evil...

Let's bring this closer home...if there is an outbreak of a deadly airborne disease, that is capable of killing people within the hour, in Lagos...would it then be right to allow those in Lagos the freedom to move to other parts of the country?...I am very sure that deadly force will be used to prevent this movement if necessary...

Depriving these twins their right to life is wrong and I believe the parents (or at least the mother) would feel very bitter about it but when compared to what they face as a community, they would be left with no choice but to carry out the act.

I believe they know the act of killing these twins is evil but killing them comes with its merits: the multitude is saved....anyways, their ability to feel the sense of wrong when the twins are killed only give credence to the position of Deepsight and the 'good' Pastor.

You understood me very well

@DeepSight, Pastor AIO and Plaetton,I think my questions are heading nowhere, let me just come out clean and say what I think we are missing.

Let us use the example of the witch killer woman who hammers a nail into the head of her own child.

We can react to this case in the following ways:

1. She is evil because it is evil to hammer a nail into the head of a child.

2. She is not evil because different people have different moral codes

3. She is evil because what she did used to be good in the past but is no longer good today

4. She is good because that child is a witch and deserves to be killed.

The above are not exactly correct but the more important question is: What have we missed here?

Let me suggest to you that the problem is that we haven't really tested the case by any real moral principles.
========================================================================================================================

I'll lay before us the moral principle of justice/fairness - that a person ought to pay the price for his or her actions i.e. if someone hurts another person, equal hurt ought to be meted out to him likewise if a person is kind to another, equal kindness ought to be meted out to him not more and not less. An eye for an eye.

According to this principle, a murderer would rightfully deserve death.

Let now bring it back to the witch-killer mom. I'll call this:
=========================================================================================================================

The Case of Madam WitchKiller VS Mr DeepSight.

When she accuses her victim of being a witch, what does she mean? She means that the child is a murderer who uses his/her magical powers to kill people. In fact the child is responsible for the deaths of her husband and her other five children. She has also seen the child in a dream chasing her with a cutlass.

From her point of view this child is a murderer and deserves to die.

But what does DeepSight see?
DeepSight for starters does not believe that the child has such magical powers, he thinks the death of the woman's husband and her 5 children are a coincidence. The child is not responsible for murder and therefore doesn't deserve to die.

Notice that both of them agree to the moral principle of fairness, they both agree that a murderer deserves to die. What they are really arguing over is whether or not the child is actually a witch and knows what he is doing.

If during their discussion the child proceeds to point 4 people who immediately die on the spot. What if he points 4 more people and those die as well, I can almost bet that as more and more people drop dead as the child points at them, DeepSight will become more and more convinced that the child deserves death.
=========================================================================================================================

The same moral principle of "murderers deserve to die" only that the information available to DeepSight and Madam Witchkiller is different.



Ever notice how when you accuse someone of being evil, he usually replies by saying something like "you don't understand, you didn't see what I saw, if you were in my shoes you would not have acted differently"

No one ever says. "What do you mean that murder is wrong?" or "what do you mean by fairness?" or "what do you mean that I ought not to rob?" rather they try to justify what they did by providing reason's why their deed is not evil . They try to explain how "it isn't really murder" or "it isn't really robbery" e.t.c.

Deep Sight: Your confusion is only on the rise. You do not see where Anony is going. He is heading towards a higher source of morality: God. As for you, if that question of his holds any meaning, the meaning it holds squarely shows that everything you have said is self contradictory: because if witch burners, child killers and conquistadors believed their actions to be right, then, under your theories so far, their belief alone renders such acts right, as that was the level of the cultural evolution at the time. Ol boy, you never think this matter well at all. At all at all!

Lol, I wasn't even heading towards God per se. I just wanted to show that Moral principles are truly objective much like logical and mathematical principles.

plaetton: Good question Anony.
You are I on the same team, even if for a fraction of a second.
lol.

Lol, don't count you chickens yet o. We are not on the same team exactly. I'm just trying to bring out something I think we have all been overlooking.

Deep Sight: No thanks.

Evil people will believe and be convinced of evil things. Good people will believe and be convinced of good things. Secondly, many eveil people actually know of and believe that which is right and good but are overwhelmed by their stronger desires towards greed, ambition, power, domination, etc.

Henry, that vile King of England who created the Anglican Church from a cesspit of adultery and serial murder of his wives, was actually a great intellectual who associated with great intellectuals of his time and he wrote alot on humanism and morality. So some of these people actually know right from wrong. Their stronger desire however, they find irresistible.

C'mon DeepSight surely you know that I do not believe morality is subjective but then by saying that we have inherited the burden of showing that our witch killers are objectively evil even when they sincerely believe that their deeds are good.
You can't simply write it off as "they are evil and that's final".

Pastor AIO: LOL! I wouldn't agree. I'd say because that was right in their moral opinion, but that Morality has evolved. By Morality I now mean the plurality of all moral codes. In other words you could say that One set of prevailing moral codes have been replaced by another set that come into prevalence.

While you hit closer than DeepSight, I won't say I agree with you. I hold firmly that Moral principles do not evolve. I also don't think that there is a plurality of moral codes in the true sense of that word. I think the problem is that we are not looking at morality closely enough.

Deep Sight: Because they were evil people. Same as those who burnt "witches" and "heretics" at the stake in the Medieval Western world.

Evil, evil people.

You answered too hastily. There is something I wanted you to notice which you missed.

If these people are as convinced of their goodness in the same way you are convinced of their evil then surely there cannot really be objective moral principles if both of you are subject to very different moral principles. Or don't you think so?

@Deepsight let me butt in here to ask you a question.

If it was already morally wrong from the onset to kill twins, why did people feel it was morally right to do so?
Surely you know that the person who killed her own twin children did it because she was convinced that it was the right thing to do. Same applies to those Nigerians of not so long ago who hammered nails into the heads of their children in the name of "killing witches".

What do you have to say about these people? Were their acts objectively evil? Mind you, they were as convinced of their righteousness as you are convinced of their guilt.

Uyi Iredia: Okay but I have issue with lovingly taking a punishment especially the punisher is God.

What issues precisely if I may ask?

Critical question: Is Jesus a separate person from God (the Father)

Yes they are separate persons but one being

Deep Sight: I think I need to shout:

[size=24pt]The point is whether or not such morality existed before the UDHR or if they only came to exist upon the proclamation of the UDHR.

IF, AS YOU SAY, MORALITY EVOLVES AND COMES TO EXIST AS MADE IN SUCH DECLARATIONS, THEN YOU CANNOT AT THE SAME TIME SAY THAT THE ACTIONS OF ALEXANDER OR JULIUS CAESAR WERE IMMORAL, AS NO SUCH CODES EXISTED AT THEIR TIME.

GET THE QUESTION NOW? GET THE ISSUE NOW? GET THE DISTINCTION NOW?[/size]

Lol, Julius and Alexander are too far. Try Hitler instead. He had already massacred 6 million Jews before it was declared that they had human rights.

Uyi Iredia: State the misunderstanding. I suspect it's more likely a case of acceptance.

There is a huge difference between a person being punished for a crime he/she didn't commit and God lovingly taking the punishment of sin upon Himself in order to atone for it.

Ubenedictus: hey careful here those francis is speaking in a private mass to a particular set of people, those comment are not meant to challenge salvation by grace but to highlight that goodness is part of humanity

Lol, seriously? Remind me again; is eternal life based on good works or salvation through Christ?

Uyi Iredia: That is not love. That is wickedness. Killing an innocent person as a requirement to forgiving an offence is clearly revenge-based since someone had to pay the price of death. Selfless love would entail forgiveness with no (unreasonable) conditions attached.

This comment shows a gross misunderstanding of Christian theology. I'm surprised that you of all people would make it.

cyrexx: Actually my post is not about end of the universe as religionists firmly believe, it's about questioning the rationality of belief in a supposed omnipotent creator waiting for like 200,000 years doing "nothing" before waking up 6,000 years ago (about 600 years ago in the case of Africans) to realise that "O, I need to reveal myself to these humans before they lose their souls in hell" What rational being (of course, you know I am merely assuming here that humans were created by a god) will create hominids 2.5 million years ago and made them fully evolved intelligent beings 200,000 years ago and do nothing till about 6,000 years ago (or otherwise about 600 years ago for Africans) to reveal himself to them?

Are you getting my point?

Oh I see, well on looking at your claim again, I would question the argument that "God did nothing to reveal Himself" until 200,000 years ago. How do you know this to be true?

Let's hear what the bible says about that.

....For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened.
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.....

Romans 1:18-23

Secondly, looking at this in another light, considering all the apocalyptic and "end of days" emphasis of your christianity worldview, tell me, Mr Anony, do you think it's reasonable for you christians to assume our universe will last that long?

I have not assumed that the universe will last that long but then as a Christian, nothing stops that from being a possibility. We are not told the time when Christ will return so no it is not an unreasonable position for a christian to hold.

wiegraf: Errm, yes. How does this apply to thehomer?

K'll be back

Read our exchange on this thread.

Deep Sight: How so?

Animals do this everyday, within and without their species. I have even observed a baby eagle kill its sibling because it wanted and needed all the food that its mother was bringing to the nest. This is survival. If we are merely more intelligent animals, we will naturally develop better ways of doing same. More sophisticated warfare is one. When we get past that, apartheid is another.When we get past that, globalization and economic imperialism are yet others.

Remember that this thread is for the strict materialist who sees man as a higher animal only. Such people must not complain that a higher animal acts like animal but does it better.

Beautifully put

I'll go a step further for those who believe human morals are a result of evolution.

If we only think that some things are good and others evil because we evolved a mind capable of telling good from evil how do we know that such things are truly good or truly evil since evolution is not concerned with truth but with survival? How do we know for sure that they are truly good and evil and not just merely how we happened to survive?

Edit: I'll go even further from morality to the question of rationality. How do we know that our basic rational intuitions are true and not just merely how we happened to evolve. For instance how do we know that we ought to test truth claims with logic? How do we know that it isn't merely how we happened to evolve?

thehomer: You never showed that it wasn't a fallacy and as I demonstrated previously with the help of that reference link, I didn't simply shout "fallacy" I showed you why it was a fallacy. Those posts of mine are still up if you would like to review them. In fact, you've claimed before that I merely said it was a fallacy when I in fact showed you why it was a fallacy.

I didn't avoid your question, I simply pointed out to you once again that you were the one making the argument that hinged on the foetus being human not me. And you made that argument based on a logical fallacy you're yet to rectify.

Lol, I explained to you exactly why it isn't a fallacy. I'll do it again for the last time:

A human being is an "either or" kind of entity. i.e. It is either a human being or it is not. There is no such thing as "becoming a human being" or "half a human being". If you were to saw a human being in half, he/she wouldn't become half a human being or two people, it will still be one human being. Even if you were to change every single cell in a human being's body (as we see when babies grow into adults) it does not become a different human being.
So my friend, contrary to your baldness example where there is actually a slope of hairiness ranging from less to more hair, there is no slope of humanness ranging from "less to more human" therefore your slippery slope accusation simply doesn't apply here.

I would have been interested in what you would render as the correct definition of a human being since you keep harping on about this "fallacious definitions" but I notice that as usual, you're unable to actually present your own view and defend it. You just prefer to chuck out pointless diversion. A tactic that you and others in your shoes have accused me of without showing evidence for your accusations. Your attempts are just so obvious its embarrassing.


your own words describe you to the T

wiegraf: Oh, yeah. My bad, should pay more attention. Imagine the above was posted in the 'is god good thread'.

Will copypasta once I'm behind a proper PC

IT ALL STILL STANDS

Lol, no it doesn't.

Let's test it by applying your comment to thehomer on this thread shall we?

Thehomer, How many of pages of chicanery? Simple, explain what you mean by the word "natural"

IF U HAVE NO INTENTION OF ANSWERING, YOU SHOULD SHARRAP. THIS NONSENSE YOU'RE PULLING IS THE HEIGHT OF FOLLY, IT MASKS NOTHING. SIMPLY MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE AN IRRATIONAL DISINGENEOUS SLAVE

Would that be a fair comment to thehomer here or are you only spurred on by an anti-anony bias?

wiegraf: How many of pages of chicanery? Simple, explain why in your opinion the acts in the op qualify as good to you.

IF U HAVE NO INTENTION OF ANSWERING, YOU SHOULD SHARRAP. THIS NONSENSE YOU'RE PULLING IS THE HEIGHT OF FOLLY, IT MASKS NOTHING. SIMPLY MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE AN IRRATIONAL DISINGENEOUS SLAVE

Then again, it isn't my thread.

Are you sure you are on the right thread?

thehomer: I'm sure you're tired.

Since you've answered it, can you remind me of whether or not it was a yes or no? Or can you direct me to where you answered with a yes or no?

What! you can't read anymore?

And here you once again show that you have no idea of what you're doing. Recall that you were the one claiming that a designer had told you of what its purpose was.

Where did I claim that? or are you lying again?

No, you're the one talking about a purpose not me. Or can you show me where I was talking about some hidden purpose?

Then you don't know what you are talking about. You cannot derive an ought without assuming a purpose

What is the purpose of this designer? Is it to be irrational and arbitrary?

Irrational and arbitrary in what sense?

By what standard do you judge the purpose of your designer?

The exact question I've been asking you all week.

Then tell me what you think constitutes an objective standard for morality and I'll tell you whether or not I agree.

Objective morality is morality that does not depend on individual subjective bias. For instance, the moral principle that states that a man ought to keep his word would be one of such objective moral principles.

They were irrelevant since what that example demonstrated was clear. You just tried once again to obfuscate. If you can tell me the relevance of those questions to determining whether or not you're supposed to reveal what the purpose of this hidden designer of yours is, then I'll consider responding but you have to say what the purpose is.

Interesting.
You tell a story I don't understand,
I tell you I don't understand,
you ask me to tell you what I don't understand,
I take my time to ask you pointed questions that will help me better understand you.
You declare my questions irrelevant.
Do you have any intention of being understood at all?

Do you know what is good regardless of your opinion? Please answer with a yes or no and tell me why.

I know that it is objectively good to be true to one's word. Would you accept this as an example of an objective moral truth?

wiegraf: Anony... I mean wtf

I'm not even reading, just skimming, but wtf

I mean... Wtf

Wtf wtf wtf

Just ansah d furhgsdkfbd question... U set d furrhbgfjf standards


Wttf wtf

If I were muslim I'd have put a jihad on you by now

Wtf wtff

Jfffekf really? I mean what do you achieve with this nonsense? What??!!!

meh

thehomer: You should have read what you quoted from Wikipedia. Or checked out a dictionary.



It looks like you don't know what quote-mining is either. Neither the first nor the second part are adjectival forms of the word christian. The third part clearly tells you this. Christian can be a noun or an adjective so, you compare adjectives to adjectives, nouns to nouns. I simply presented you with the relevant parts in order to show you that we compare within similar categories. Another error you're fond of making.

Once again, this is what we see from Wikipedia.

You still haven't provided me with what you mean by natural neither has wikipedia.

You're seriously saying that from this you do not know what naturalism is? Then you're welcome to go through this article and understand what is meant by naturalism.

This is another one of the reasons I point out that you're just bad at apologetics. Even with an encyclopedia entry, you're confused about what naturalism is.

Yawn.

As I said earlier, I did not ask you what naturalism is, I asked you what you mean by "natural" because according to you:

thehomer: That's just it. If nothing cannot exist, then there must always have been something natural not necessarily the universe.......

.......We see matter coming into existence from natural occurrences. Have you seen matter coming into existence from non-natural incidents?

You believe that "natural" can exist beyond space and time (the universe). In fact it is "a natural occurrence" to you that matter can appear out of non-matter.
Your idea of what is natural seems to include spaceless timeless and immaterial entities. It is only fair to ask you to explain exactly what you mean by "natural".

[size=16pt]For the last time: What exactly do you mean by "natural"?[/size]

You can either answer my question directly or feel free to continue your dance.

thehomer: As I pointed out to you, natural is the adjectival form of naturalism. If you know what naturalism is, then you should know what natural is.

lol, and what is naturalism? please try to answer without using the word "natural".

This is why I keep saying you don't understand what you're doing or what you're supposed to do.

Naturalism is to Christianity as natural here is to christian. So, the question I would ask for is what christian is. And happily, Wikipedia delivers.



I'm sure you find this ridiculous too.

Quote mininig wikipedia now are we? Let's read that statement in it's full context:

A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christ, a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term Messiah.

Central to the Christian faith is the gospel, the teaching that humans have hope for salvation through the message and work of Jesus, and particularly, his atoning death on the cross 1Co 15:3 and resurrection 1Co 15:4. Christians also believe Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible. Most Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, a description of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This includes the vast majority of churches in Christianity, although a minority are Non-trinitarians.

The term "Christian" is also used adjectivally to describe anything associated with Christianity, or in a proverbial sense "all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like." It is also used as a label to identify people who associate with the cultural aspects of Christianity, irrespective of personal religious beliefs or practices

Notice that by the time we come to the third paragraph (your quote-mined bit) The reader already has a working understanding of what Christianity is.

Your "Naturalism is about the natural" is about as helpful as "democracy is about the democratic". If you don't know what you mean by natural, all you've been doing is making empty noise. Is it really so hard to explain what you mean by the word natural?

thehomer: You're so desperate to avoid your own argument that you're trying to shift it to me. I'll just repeat myself by telling you again that you were the one whose entire argument hinged on a fallacious line of reasoning about the foetus being human.


You can try to resolve that fallacy or pick another line of argument. The choice remains yours.

I have shown you that it is not a fallacy. Shouting "fallacy" until you are blue in the face won't make it fallacious. Keep dancing. I didn't fail to notice that you avoided my question.

thehomer: And here, you've managed to quote-mine Wikipedia to make me appear ridiculous. You're one amazing fellow. In fact, this is what you posted about the link from Wikipedia.



As you can surely see, it isn't as ridiculous as you tried to make it seem. You'll notice that since natural is an adjective, you'll see that it was used to qualify universe and laws. You should have read through your post.

This introduction is pretty clear. If you still don't understand what is meant here, then the problems you're having run much deeper than I can help you with.

Lol, perhaps you are blind I can't believe how you failed to notice that wikipedia didn't give us any idea what the "natural" is at all, it just assumed that that the reader knew what "natural" meant.

Or perhaps next time you ask me what christianity is, remind me to define it as:

"That thing christians do as opposed to non-christians, it includes all aspects of the christian life, studying christian boooks and listening to christian music e.t.c. christians believe that being a christian is better than not being a christian."

Now my dear genius, how's the above for a definition?

You know, honestly there is no need for all this dancing. Apparently, I didn't understand wikipedia's definition of natural. Since you obviously did, could you please explain it to me?