₦airaland Forum

thehomer: I didn't merely say it was wrong, I also pointed out to you why it was wrong. One doesn't need a worldview to know that things are actually getting better for example.

Lol, actually one does need a worldview in order to define what "better" means to him/her.

Take this for example.



If you had read it, you'll realize that it doesn't really apply to my own understanding of some these issues.

If you had understood it, you would have realized that what it was affirming that nothing ought to be held specially sacred. Which is what religion is really about i.e. that some things are sacred.

thehomer: No, it is that the idea of subjectivity being used matters in the discussion.

You lose me my friend, perhaps a little bit more clarity might help

Kay 17: Which I agree with you. consequently, since we experience Evil, and there can't be evil in good; therefore God who is good couldn't have created this Evil world!

Good we agree. But then we must also agree that God created a good world and evil could only have come into it by deviating from a good God in the same way darkness follows when one turns away from the light.

thehomer: It isn't to show that he was compelled, it is to show that he loves the world.

Then you haven't satisfied my request.

The attitude of love towards something else isn't by law, so I still don't think you understand the problem with what you're saying.

Then you agree that God is not under any compulsion to love His creation

And what I'm saying is that you're wrong. One can determine that someone is taller or shorter than another without the existence of a maximally long pole. But when it comes to existence, the being must either exist or it doesn't. Maximum strength plays no role in this determination.

I wonder how you can say that a person is taller than another and yet disagree that their must therefor exist a tallest person. Or talk about longer and shorter poles and yet reject the fact that a pole must exist which is the longest.

Well what is God's aim then? Is it merely toying with humans? Or perhaps torturing them?
I don't need to know the mind of God in order to tell that it would be better not to command a genocide than to command one whatever his aims may be. If you do not know his aims, then for all you know, he doesn't really love humans.

You sound like a child complaining that the parents don't love her because they force her to get an injection and she doesn't know why it is necessary she gets injected.

Really? Which ones were irrelevant?

Yawn here we go again.

Rubbish we're communicating using English language. If you're requesting that we suspend the language and its connotations so that you may be satisfied with yourself then sorry that won't happen. Please don't misconstrue my points. I've tried several times to help you along but you refuse to drink from the pool. We're now talking about what it means to act morally and what do you do? You jettison the entire language to fail at showing your point. That is a poor way to proceed.

Nonsense. I am not jettisoning the language I'm only amused at how you try to twist it.

I've shown you but for some reason you're unable to see it. I wonder why.

No you haven't

How do you know that there aren't many different beings? That is my question here. And what do you do? You try to sidestep it too. Shameful. I already showed you that attempting to do so without justification would just be special pleading on your part.

I'll ask you one question: How do you know that the username Anony is one person and not 500 people taking turns to press keys on a keyboard?

Mind you, all you have to go on are my posts and you would still be referring to the same person as Anony even if you chose to call me Rihanna and 500 people chose to call me 500 different names and gave me 500 different descriptions ranging from a black negro man to a blond haired caucasian female.

Logicboy03: There you have it folks. The delusional theist exposes his foolishness. Game, set, match

There you have it folks. The delusional atheist exposes his foolishness. Game, set, match

Logicboy03: Mostly, yes.


I agree with such in prinicple

Point out any exceptions and contentions please

@thehomer,

Can we agree that the following define your worldview?

[size=13pt]The Affirmations of Humanism:
A Statement of Principles [/size]

We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.
We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.
We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.
We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.
We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.
We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.
We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.
We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.
We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.
We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

thehomer: I already showed you what was wrong with it by directly criticizing it but you declared that it wasn't your purpose. A direct criticism is also a very good way of showing you what is wrong with the ideas you present.

The more reason why your criticism was discarded because you didn't provide me with the worldview upon which your criticism is based. You don't criticize a thing by merely saying it is wrong, you criticise it by providing the correct alternative.

Obviously, you didn't read it. If you did, you'd have noticed the references to religion.

Actually I did. It's references to religion are to only criticize it and present Humanism as an alternative. Religion plays no part in defining it as a worldview, You would have got that if you actually read it. My guess is that you saw "religious humanism" in the first article and immediately your anti-religion antenna lit up.

Kay 17: Anony2, there is no darkness in Light.

There is equally no evil in good

kmcutez: Are you Davidylan? Or have you been licking his buttocks? Your stench is like his. Overpowering.

You should also try logicboy's buttocks. Yummy. Far from the stench of Davidylan's buttocks you are licking.

Wow so you know the stench of Davidlyan's buttocks too? I didn't know that you sampled a few bottoms before settling for logicboy's.

Anyway thanks for your "generous offer" but I'm not interested. I am not kissing anyone's arse but I can understand how your cravings for butt-diet can give you that illusion.

You are obviously enjoying your meal so please don't let me interrupt you. Just keep doing what you are doing. I am sure you are making logicboy very happy.

Kay 17: @anony2

1. Do you accept there is Evil? If so, why is Evil necessary with a good God?

Do you accept there is darkness? If so why is darkness necessary with light?

SNCOQ3: @Anony, I think you should read the 'Amsterdam Declaration'. Its a confused document seeking to establish relativistic ideas in absolute terms. It also claims Humanism is an alternative to Religion by 'popular demand'. Atheism(a pointer to nihilism) as failed hence the the need to 'patch' it with 'godliness' without God. The rebellion of man.

Lol, I'll give it a read.

thehomer: The passage that talks about God loving the world so much that he gave his only son.

Doesn't show that God was compelled by any obligation to love the world

No, what makes it contingent is whether or not it has to exist.

?? Did you understand me at all? You do not realize that if it is contingent upon a certain law, it therefore means that such a law causes it's existence and therefore it can't be a necessary being?

Wrong again. Existence isn't a property like say strength is.

?? This response does not relate to anything I said. Basically what I've said is that there must exist a maximally strong being or else an attribute like strength i.e "stronger" and "weaker" will have no meaning.

What is this purpose that the only solution is to allow so much pain? If the parent felt that they wanted to protect the child from having a broken leg decided to amputate both legs, that won't be a satisfactory approach now would it?

true because you don't protect a child from death by killing it yourself but you could break a child's legs to save it's life because from the human point of view, physical death is ultimate. However from God's point of view physical death isn't the end so your analogy doesn't apply.
Secondly, the extent pain that can be deemed necessary can only be truly judged by one who knows God's mind and is of equal or higher intelligence and power. In the same way that a baby cannot truly judge necessity of the pain of vaccination as it lacks the intelligence of the adult that does the vaccinating.

They're irrelevant? Yet your answers to them now show the flaws in your thinking. Some of them that you thought were irrelevant were because you didn't seem to understand the logical structure of a syllogism.

Lol, and where I have been corrected, I have admitted it and replied appropriately. It still doesn't make your other questions justified just because I was mistaken in some of them. The bulk of your questions on this thread have been mostly irrelevant to the argument we are having.

Then we part ways. This of course means that you cannot say that someone is acting immorally since to you, acting morally and acting immorally are the same.

Lol, nonsense. If we define morality as the ability to distinguish between moral actions (good) and immoral actions (bad), then I think it is disingenuous to try to capitalize on the peculiarities of language in order to suggest that the ability to recognize moral actions imposes upon one the necessity to act in a particular moral manner. Which is really what we are arguing about. Your style of argument really does amuse me

The point is that they're proper examples that will enable us to actually examine if the relationship actually works.

The point is that you haven't shown exactly how such minor specifications help us understand the relationship better. As I said, they are irrelevant wastes of time and you haven't shown them to be otherwise.

How do you know it is singular? Why do you think that the multiple conceptions don't equate to multiple Gods? Did any of them tell you?

Another thing to notice is that if you're saying there's only one, then it won't be an apt example because one can name other musicians e.g Mozart and his works or Guido van Rossum and his works but if there's only one God, then you seem to be carrying out special pleading for us to accept him as the only thing that works as a type of creator in his class. You're excluding other Gods to force us to accept that it was your own God that did it. This one of the reasons why I asked for specific examples and as you can see, it is very relevant.

Well, we don't look at Fur Elise and ascribe it to Morzart, Bach, Beethoven, DBanj and Rihanna. Where we may call the composer Rihanna but we will really be referring to Beethoven. All these people are looking at the same creation and trying to describe it's composer. Calling him different names doesn't make Him many different beings.

following

thehomer: I just stated it.

Or do you want a list of statements like the Apostles' Creed? Sorry you won't get that the same way that you cannot merely state the Christian worldview so you would do well to just look it up.

Actually I'd like to see something detailed. If you are too lazy to type it, you can copy and paste it here.

thehomer: So you merely presented a straw-man, declared it to be what atheists believe then asked them to "define" their worldview if they didn't agree? I think the first thing you need to know is that a worldview cannot be defined because you'll most likely always find multiple exceptions.

Actually I don't think it is a strawman. I think it pretty much describes the worldview of atheists in a broad sense. Of course you can always prove me wrong by detailing what your worldview is.

It doesn't really encompass my worldview. I'm not religious and it isn't a definition.

Actually that post was not about religion. I would have preferred if you actually read it. I expect rash answers from logicboy and not from you.

thehomer: The type that pleasure is better than pain.

Is your argument therefore that actions that lead to pleasure are morally better than actions that lead to pain?

thehomer: That will depend on the concept of subjectivity and objectivity we're using.

e.g is morality objective in the same way 2 + 2 is objectively 4? Or is it objective in the same way that if you love someone, you'll care for them? Or is it objective in the same way that good health is better than poor health?

Is it subjective in the same way that chocolate is better than vanilla? Or that pleasure is better than pain? Or that the better way to treat someone who gives you a slap is to turn the other cheek?

I'll leave you to make the clarifications. So what sort of subjectivity do you apply to morality?

thehomer: Then either you're wrong or the Bible is wrong.

Lol, I and my bible are in full agreement. If you don't think so, then please show from the bible that God is compelled to be kind towards His creation.

No, a necessary being by definition is one that must exist not that it cannot be under any obligations.

And you don't think obligations placed upon such a being make Him contingent?

Wrong again. A God is a necessary being in the sense that it has to exist not that it is maximally great (whatever that means). Whether or not it is benevolent depends on its nature.

Lololol, A maximally great being must exist from which we draw reference for our attributes i.e. perfect must exist from which we draw reference for different levels of imperfection. A maximally great being defines the attribute and not the other way round

Being benevolent doesn't mean never allowing pain, it generally means acting in a kind manner e.g a benevolent parent would vaccinate their child despite the fact that such an act will be painful.

Good we have got that clear because now you must agree that if God is of the highest benevolence, then allowing pain to His creation does not negate His benevolence as long as He has a higher purpose like a parent has for the child. Even death does not negate His benevolence especially since there is life after death.

It's funny how the questions become irrelevant when answering them destroys your arguments and/or conception of God.

It is funny how you think that asking irrelevant questions score you points when they are rightfully discarded.

I think it is. What do you think?

Finally you answer. . . . .I don't think so. Acting morally in the context of our discussion means to act in such a way that shows one is conscious of the difference between good and evil. It doesn't necessarily mean good behavior.

A proper example here would be Beethoven and the 9th symphony not what you wrote.
A proper example here would be Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia.

And how do these petty specifications change the relationship they OUGHT to have with their creations? Do Beethoven, Bach and Mozart have different obligations imposed upon them towards their music because of their differing natures? You just love throwing irrelevant contentions in don't you?

thehomer: And here we have the reason for all the evasion. An example here would be Jehovah and man or Shiva and man or Brahma and man etc.

So please be specific in your answer and tell me the God you have in mind so we don't end up with logical fallacies.

But then God is singular. The multiple conceptions of God does not equate to multiple gods.

Logicboy03: Wow....you still repeat the strawman in st.upidity? That 1933 declaration was done by people who considered themselves religious humanists. Why not read the Amsterdam Declaration? Why do you love being ignorant about the things you claim to understand?

the more reason why you should clearly define your worldview.

Logicboy03: 1) You supported the view that all atheists are evil and little Stalinists.
2) Richard Dawkins is actually an ivy league atheist intellectual. How ignorant of you.
3) No comment. too foolish.
4) Yes, you criticize secular humanism by pointing to religious humanism. Fail.
5) Evolution, ode. Dawinism is an ambiguous term. Evolution doesnt fail. It works as a theory and in practice.

1) You supported the view that all theists are deluded and little psychopaths.
2) Sign Fireman is actually an ivy league theist intellectual. How ignorant of you. He read 40,000 books.
3) No comment. too foolish.
4) Yes, the American Humanist Association defends secular humanism by pointing to religious humanism. Fail.
5) ID, ode. Intelligent Design doesnt fail. It works as a theory and in practice.

Reyginus: Lol. This better the dude I know.

Lol...do you know me? Have you seen me, heard my voice, or given me a handshake? How can you say you know me? How do you know that I am the one who created the words you are reading? How do you know it is one person and not 5000 people taking turns to type one letter at a time? Can you show me proof that Anony exists? (and no don't use his words) Don't tell me that about your faith that you believe it is him. Show me proof.

Does the above sound familiar?

Logicboy03: I am not a religious humanist, now am I? You posted a religious humanist manifesto as a strawman to make atheists belong to a religion. You are dubious.

However, some points do make sense in the manifesto.


Humanism cuts across all religions and cultures because they all have some small respect for humanity embedded in them.


I am more of a secular humanist.

Lololol....here's the source of the "strawman" from the American Humanist Association.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I


Perhaps you should define for us the principles of your worldview in a detailed clear and specific manner since you equally disagree with the the ones I have suggested

Logicboy03: See the delusional troll? This is Anonyism 101; twist atheist arguments (in the failed philosophy that the opposite of atheist is christian)

1) Not all christians tithe. We atheist have fought alongside non-tithing christians/non-private jet christians against tithing.
2) Gaddem lie. Sign Fireman is not even in the ivy league of pastors
3) God is a delusion. That is why here is no evidence for him outside people's mind
4) We critcise christianity to criticize christianity. We criticize islam for islam and a belief in god for theism
5) Intelligent designed fails itself

Beautiful!


1) Not all atheists kill. We theist have fought alongside non-killing atheists against killing in all it's forms including abortion.
2) Gaddem lie. Richard Dawkins is not even in the ivy league of atheist intellectuals
3) Evangelistic/militant atheism is a religion. That is why it fights the church. It seeks to gain more followers
4) We critcise secular humanism to criticize secular humanism. We criticize scientism for scientism and a non-belief in god for atheism
5) Darwinism fails itself

kmcutez: Dude whatever rocks your world. You my friend bore me with your deceit.

At least it's better than being a deceitful charcoal. Happy now.

Lol, not only do you accept your place, you believe it to be elevated. Logicboy's buttocks must really taste great to your tongue.

Well, don't let me get in the way of your feast. Please enjoy yourself.

musKeeto: Bros, you need lessons in the art of editing and fixing comments. An elephant somewhere in Africa just facepalmed.

I also facepalmed before I edited it

Enigma: One more gem from that Ruse piece.

Beautiful

Logicboy03: I dont have a worldview as you put it.

I live my life by simple principles and logic/reasoning/evidence. Humanist principles- respect for human life and working towards human development.

Do you therefore agree with the humanist manifesto posted above?

Logicboy03: If you claim that all atheists are immoral and want to end religion, we would see it hard to believe that you dont consider all atheists to be the "evangelical atheists" you so despise.

The fact remains that an atheist can not be evangelical. This is what you theist trolls like to be ignorant about

lol of course that's why we laugh at your evangelism and proselytizing

mazaje: When it comes to religion that is my world view. . . .All gods and religions were created by men.

Do you understand the meaning of the word? I didn't ask for your view on religion, I asked for your worldview

Logicboy03: These guys are really desperate;
1) Use Stalin to represent all atheist. Failed
2) Claim Dawkins is the MOE* of all atheists and he is a philosophical dunce. Failed
3) Claim atheism is a belief/religion. Failed
4) Attack humanism with the belief that they are attacking atheism. Failed
5) Attack evolution with the belief that theu are attacking atheism. Failed.

These guys are really desperate;
1) Use Oyedepo to represent all theist. Failed
2) Claim Sign Fireman is the Man of God of all theists and he is a tithe-fraud. Failed
3) Claim theism is a delusion. Failed
4) Attack Christianity with the belief that they are attacking theism. Failed
5) Attack intelligent design with the belief that theu are attacking theism. Failed.

mazaje: That all god(s) and religions were created by men. . .Men created all the laws and moral codes of conduct they chose to abide by and those laws are always changing or evolving. . .

......and your personal worldview is?

cyrexx: You sabi the guy well.

He seems so compulsively obsessed his own imaginary evangelical atheists. I don't know what's wrong with the guy. He somehow fallaciously lumps all non-theists into his one single "evangelical atheist" cocoon and ascribes to them his own ideas of whatever the term "evangelical atheists" means.

I would have thought that the term "evangelical atheist" was enough to show that he is not lumping all atheists together but only focusing on the evangelical ones.
How do you think?