₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight: ^^^ How is this discussion about Yahweh? You are lost.

You do realise i was refering to a christian?

or are you suggesting that all generic gods qualify as true in your book?

@LB, lemme say something serious to you. . .

I was never in support of Tex insulting you. When i got pissed was where after her apology you still went ahead to declare it fake and still called her an azz. I don't know how you managed to know that the apology was fake but then. . .

Apart from that, you know your mission here on NL. Don't let silly and petty insults distract you. It took me far longer than it took you to realise the rationale behind the appointment of 3 christian MODs here so now i pick my fights. Do same. Pick fights that you can win and avoid unnecessary bickerings. Let go of some things.
At the end of the day, the insults should just wash over you like water over cocoyam leaf. . .

Sorry for any misunderstanding. . .

"I know what i'm doing". . .hehehehehehehe.

Sorry Tex

^^^
Exactly! So is it safe then to conclude that Yahweh alone did not have the monopoly on morality? And if, as it is now shown that many ancient gods from which people of old purportedly derived their morality from actually do not exist, what does it now say about Yahweh, the reigning champ now?

Wiegraf de craze. I swear!

Logicboy03: Typical. I am the one wrong here.

Someone misunderstood a joke I made then claimed that I have a bitter view towards women and marriage. Not only that, she goes on to state that I have had bad experiences with those issues......indirectly meaning that I come from a broken home.

Yet, I am the one pathetic and childish.

Thank you, mr troll. Note that she truly believs her statement despite her apology

Yo! Its not always about whether you are right or wrong, or whether an apology was sincere or not. You seem to have this entitlement mentality that every perceived wrong done to you must be apologised sincerely before you let it go. wtf? Sometimes i blame Tex for being too nice and trying to avoid trouble. Left to me, i'll say fuq you! You insult people here left, right and center and you hardly apologise to anybody, even for peace sake yet you go to great lenghts to shout how people are insulting and lying against you. Sheesh man, this is an anonymous forum, Its not everything you bit.ch about. Sometimes just let some things go. . .

texanomaly: This is why I like you...you make me laugh.

Do I?

Logicboy03: Take your fake apology with you. It is no apology if you sincerely believe the offensive comment you wrote about me.


I didn't know that you were such an azz. Goodbye

Yo man, you need to grow up. Seriously. This is pathetic.

Ukuts gp: why are u people lying that the bible is more than 66 books. Where do they brought it from? Who are the people that wrote it? Why did it prescribed that a smoke from the heart, liver and gall of a fish in a fire can chase away demons in the book of Tobit? Why did it say that GOD assisted judith to lie?
Why did it say that giving of alms can purge all sins and save one from death and make the person to earn everlasting life. Isn't it funny that u said d book was inspired of God?

lol. I swear christians are hilarious. The irony of it all

Logicboy03: Would you tell a suicide bomber with a bomb that he is a terrorist?


Would you tell the truth to a nazi that jews are living in your basement?

good one hombrè, good one.

texanomaly: How did I miss this?

Yes I am calling truth rudeness. You know, this is something you, and many of my atheist friends have in common. There are times when truth IS rudeness. Just because something is true, does not mean it needs to be said. It is not a lie. It is just not necessary.

lol. This is exactly why i like you. You are honest enough to admit why you are a christian. . . .

I see that i've been ably represented. My ministry is moving. . .

Logicboy03: What do you mean by you actually know him?

The guy in the picture. I know him, and i'm almost certain its Josh.

Uyi Iredia: I will advise you to download pdf like Brain Facts on Google and go to TED and see how different brain patterns and feautures affect different people and result in different moral choices. Since brains evolved differently in different species and in humans there are different moral choices.

Simply put, while we may be made of the same substances they are arranged differently (eg same mud different huts, same bricks different houses) hence different morals by the person.

This is good. Also, if i may add, we are all made of the same stuff. Yes, humans and other animals, plants too, even inanimate rocks.

I will paraphrase Carl Sagan here. . ."at the end of the day, we are all made of star dust. . . ."

Its Joshthefirst. It turns out that i actually know him. Funny world

deleuche: So far, I have made certain opinions from the different views I have read on the topic on this thread.

I will however be happy if anyone can throw more light on why we have subjective morality, since I believe we are all made from the same substances and..... from one source?

Evolution.

Oduduwaboy: God should have made us robots from the very beginning...

He did! . . . Until Adam ate the fruit

@DS, it so happens that you are agreeing with us unwittingly. . .

How does a democracy work? Force of numbers.

How does a monarchy or dictatorship works? Might is right.

How does a society function? Simple, collective agreement of right thinking individuals. Right thinking of course entirely subjective, see? We're all hypocrites. Deal with it.

For example, i abhor polygamy. I think its immoral but i'm in Nigeria so what do i do. . . I shut up until i either have the numbers or power on my side to declare it immoral and arrest every Alhaji

On r.ape, do you see muslims screaming blue murder when a 40yr old man pokes a 13yr old girl? Of course Allah thinks it perfectly fine so who are you to declare it immoral? Subjective. . . See?

What does Yahweh say about Slavery. . . Perfectly ok with it. Pray tell DS, where's this your elusive objective morality?

What does it say to muslims about pedo? Polygamy?
What does it say to us about homo? Why are we all arguing about it?
Grow up man and stop the silly appeal to emotions. There's no objective morality anywhere else we won't have a democracy or society. . .everybody will have exactly the same opinion about EVERY issue and we won't need laws to rein in dissenters.

Dissenters. . . Who decides they are that? See?

I would create a thousand thousand galaxies and star systems and put my special special top of the list creation in one tiny planet somewhere in an obscure part of the universe.

Logicboy03: texanomaly

i know you did

Hello everyone. Who missed me?

Joshthefirst: toh.

Your op was so faulted I let it go. I didn't even know where to start.

lol. Says Joshthefirst. I hear you. Oya bye!

Mehn, Josh its ok. You are too insignificant to bother about science with. Serious minded christians and christian organizations already accept the theory. Your foolish comments here change nothing. Thats the beauty of science. . .the facts remain, despite the whinings of foolish religitards like you.

Joshthefirst: yhwh displays eternal and unchanging morality.

smhsmh.

Chei.

Ask yourself what "your basis of the fact that there's no objective morality" is and repeat the bolded question to yourself.



And you keep arrogantly thinking everyone who does not believe this foolishness is stupid.

bros, to the left. I do not ask anybody to believe anything. That is meant for sheeple like you. If you can't reason outside your religious bubble, stay away.

Btw, You never addressed my answer to your question so i don't see why you are bringing up your nonsense here again.

aManFromMars: That's the shocking part. They make fun of onyfrank and yet deceive themselves on the other hand. This is someone that believes that humans ate a fruit, that's why we have headaches and floods today. Lol. Ignorance is bliss, even Adam wasn't this dumb.

When you ask him proof of Yahweh now, he'll say "our lives bear witness." smh

There are actual scientific sites to get informed but no, answersingenesis has said it all. I think he's just afraid. If the evidence doesn't agree with the bible, throw it away. . .

Joshthefirst: its okay if you feel butthurt because of the truth. Its okay. You can cry and feel regret for believing speculation and unscientific nonsense.

Its okay.

I truly pity you man. So confident in ignorance. Kai! And you dare laugh at Onyfrank?

Reyginus: Ol' boy! Here we go again. Na wa o!

Bros, make i no talk again for my thread?

Logicboy03: So you used to care? I thibnk you still do.......


You care enough to keep. Replying............




To bé honest, i used to like our bb chats but you had to bé a b#### and i had to delete u.


#no homo
#no hard feelings

so you delete the guy? U be small pikin?

I think that you are either being deliberately obtuse and dubious or genuinely becoming silly. . .

Deep Sight: Objective Morality against Murder

Objective Morality against R.ape

Have you watched or read Game of Thrones? A simple answer will do pls.

Two simple examples. You enforce them with the enactment of criminal laws and a criminal justice system based on that objective recognition.

If these were subjective, there would NEVER be any legitimate basis to enact such laws and enforce them: for that would amount to nothing more than the imposition of the subjective views of some over others.

wtf is wrong with you? It is subjective that is why laws are required to enforce on the minority who might have different views which may be detrimental to the structure of society.

- - - - -- - - - - - - - -

CONSIDER THIS:

The position of ALL the subjectivists here means that something such as slavery was MORALLY RIGHT at the time that it was practiced - by subjective opinion of those practicing it.

This not my position. My position is that they THOUGHT is morally acceptable. Why we attack christians using slavery is that the quote a moral standard, Yahweh who is supposed to be eternal yet does not display eternal and unchanging morality.

This position renders that it (slavery) ONLY became morally wrong when abolished.

What nonsense is this? Who here made that conclusion?

This is an incredibly irrational position or implication because - >

1. If slavery was morally right at the time when practiced, there would have not been a moral agitation against it, much less one that led to a universal recognition of its abhorrence.

better reasoning. Something you are showing a distinct lack of in this thread. . .

2. If slavery was morally right at the time when practiced, there should be NO detestation of the historical acts of slavers whatsoever: based on the recognition that it was morally right at the time when practiced: but this is not so.

Your own strawman. Hold unto it. . .

3. The very same people who here declaim that something such as slavery was NOT intrinsically wrong at the time when practiced, but subjective only, go about mocking and condemning the toleration of slavery by, for example, the biblical God, and others. On what basis do they do this? - - - >

Better reasoning. Something Yahweh didn't seem capable of. . .

Notwithstanding that this is, in their opinion, NOT intrinsically wrong, and only entirely subjective. They should rather be silent and contend that whereas they may not like it, there is nothing to condemn because it is a subjective matter. Just as surely as, in the matter of ho.mose.xuality, for example, they similarly may not like it, but do not condemn it as they consider it subjective.

4. The deepest point in all of this, is that of the meaninglessness of the argument of strict subjective perception. Reygenius alluded to this, and I also posted a link of a response I made to another atheist elsewhere on same subject. In summary, and to be most concise, if the argument of the subjectivists holds true, nobody can ever know anything whatsoever to be objectively true, and no argument or statement whatsoever can ever be made: for all things remain strictly within the realm of our subjective perception: nothing can be known to be true. This key point is that which is missed here: and indeed is the reason why I say Uyi Iredia has no idea of the subject being discussed here at all. He is truly ignorant of that which he seeks to discuss.

this is your usual nonsense you tried with Plaetton. How does, there's no objective morality translate to there's no objective anything? Can you address issues as they come without your nonsense generalizations?

@Tex, i really didn't get your contribution to this topic o

That being said, what comes to mind is the medical implications inherent in it. There was a case of a german couple(forgotten much of the details now), brothers and sisters both adults. They were severally prosecuted and jailed but they continued having their relationship and had 4 children, 3 of which were deformed. . .

So, in my view, except for the quite high risk of genetic disorders in the offsprings which should warrant govt regulation, i think they should be left alone.

Personally, i find both in.cest and homo unsavoury but i don't support jailing them. In.cest though poses some risk to the unborn. . .

Allo Allo!