₦airaland Forum

FxMasterz:
Please and thank you are not the moral laws where discussing here.

You and I know that universally accepted moral laws exist. The universe itself operates on some scientific laws which were not set by man. Someone higher than man set them.

Those universally accepted moral laws and the scientific laws that govern our universe are pointers to the existent of a God.

What is moral is not universal, and morality has nothing to do with scientific laws. If you throw an apple in the air it will universally, on earth at least, fall to the ground, but there's no universal accepted law to dictate what would happen to you if you kill someone. The law might consider you committed manslaughter or even acted in self defence. The clue is in accepted. Some countries accept homosexuality as moral while some wouldn't mind stoning homosexuals.

As for the existence of your God, sorry but that's irrelevant to me. It's not as if God would do anything to you if you killed anyone or were homosexual.

Maynmann:
I say it again, if you didn’t start the insult i wouldn’t insult you, take what you dish out.

If it was widely publicized incident in Russia, it should be online.
Why are ALL your stories no where to be found online.

Many who have lived adult lives before the proliferation of the internet would agree with me.

For instance, I read a book in 1997 titled Oren Knox. It was a classic. The book detailed a fictional story of how a young orphan boy rose into prominence in America. Starting as a cigarette factory worker at a very tender age, he went on to own a compendium of large cigarette companies including the ones he once worked in, in just a few years. The book contains rich lessons for Entrepreneurs. I was searching online for the book of recent, and to my amazement, nothing about the book could be found.

There's no reason why I should lie to defend a point. I consider such attitudes very demeaning.

budaatum:
What is moral is not universal, and morality has nothing to do with scientific laws. If you throw an apple in the air it will universally, on earth at least, fall to the ground, but there's no universal accepted law to dictate what would happen to you if you kill someone. The law might consider you committed manslaughter or even acted in self defence. The clue is in accepted. Some countries accept homosexuality as moral while some wouldn't mind stoning homosexuals.

As for the existence of your God, sorry but that's irrelevant to me. It's not as if God would do anything to you if you killed anyone or were homosexual.

First off, I never said morality has to do with scientific laws. Moral laws and scientific laws were two separate points I made. Don't muddle things up.

There are generally and universally accepted moral laws. No matter how much you deny them. You and I know they exist.

FxMasterz:
Many who have lived adult lives before the proliferation of the internet would agree with me.

For instance, I read a book in 1997 titled Oren Knox. It was a classic. The book detailed a fictional story of how a young orphan boy rose into prominence in America. Starting as a cigarette factory worker at a very tender age, he went on to own a compendium of large cigarette companies including the ones he once worked in, in just a few years. The book contains rich lessons for Entrepreneurs. I was searching online for the book of recent, and to my amazement, nothing about the book could be found.

There's no reason why I should lie to defend a point. I consider such attitudes very demeaning.

There are so many information that are on the internet that precede when internet was created.

The example you gave has nothing to do with the discussion about if your claims are true.
You are using another claim to backup a claim.

If you so want people to know you are not lying why don’t you try to find evidence for your claims, have you thought of that?

Steep:
My world view is not subjective, I believe what is wrong is wrong universally because there is a universal creator. Atheism cannot allow for objective morality.

What is wrong is not universally wrong. Some countries kill criminals while some don't. Homosexuality is wrong is some countries and not wrong in some. Some religions condone lying and deceit under certain circumstances while some don't under any circumstance. Some regard women as equal to men while some think women are men's ribs. Some don't think it wrong to say fuq god while some say fuq god whenever they feel.

Morality is subjective. What is moral for you might not be moral for me, as you yourself are showing by claiming atheists have a different morality because they have no gods.

FxMasterz:
There are generally and universally accepted moral laws.

State those "generally and universally accepted moral laws", and let's see how general and universally accepted they are.

Maynmann:
There are so many information that are on the internet that precede when internet was created.

The example you gave has nothing to do with the discussion about if your claims are true.
You are using another claim to backup a claim.

If you so want people to know you are not lying why don’t you try to find evidence for your claims, have you thought of that?

I'm not using that as backup to defend my point. I was just making a reference. You know that your position about the internet is flawed. It's like saying every child in a community who preceded the creation of a school in that community must definitely have passed through that school.

The internet contains many things. It doesn't contain all things.

FxMasterz:
I'm not using that as backup to defend my point. I was just making a reference. You know that your position about the internet is flawed. It's like saying every child in a community who preceded the creation of a school in that community must definitely have passed through that school.

The internet contains many things. It doesn't contain all things.

Your analogy is flawed, because internet is not a school.

How come the internet don’t contain ALL your claims?

budaatum:
State those "generally and universally accepted moral laws", and let's see how general and universally accepted they are.

Don't let us deceive ourselves just because we want to hold on to some ideologies.

You yourself know some things you'll do without knowing any government law, but after doing such, you'll immediately run away or seek to cover up your tracks even in places where there are no Governments.

See the images below:

Maynmann:
Your analogy is flawed, because internet is not a school.

How come the internet don’t contain ALL your claims?

The internet didn't contain only one claim I made. Then the other claims were claims I made to prove that the internet does not contain all things. The claim of the Baby fish is something anyone who was an educated adult in the 1990s can easily remember, that was why I raised that claim to prove that not all things or events have found their ways online. The book I just mentioned now is an example. Some of the things that happened pre-internet are not online. You can only know if you've been an adult in those days.

FxMasterz:
The internet didn't contain only one claim I made. Then the other claims were claims I made to prove that the internet does not contain all things. The claim of the Baby fish is something anyone who was an educated adult in the 1990s can easily remember, that was why I raised that claim to prove that not all things or events have found their ways online. The book I just mentioned now is an example. Some of the things that happened pre-internet are not online. You can only know if you've been an adult in those days.

Who is the author of the book you mentioned?

The internet does not contain all things, it’s not omniscience.
The internet contains information feed to it by us, how come no one except you as gone online to talk about it.

No educated person that has lived in 1990s has thought of putting it online except you?

It seems You are the only adult that has these informations.

Maynmann:
Who is the author of the book you mentioned?

The internet does not contain all things, it’s not omniscience.
The internet contains information feed to it by us, how come no one except you as gone online to talk about it.

No educated person that has lived in 1990s has thought of putting it online except you?

It seems You are the only adult that has these informations.

Let's leave this. I don't think we'll get anywhere with it. But you've already said that the internet contains information that are fed into it by us.

Information itself is Intellectual Property. I can feed information online if I own it. A piece of information may not be online if the owner does not deem it fit to put it on the internet.

You are the only adult that has these information, no one else has thought of putting it online except you.
Mention the name of the author, let’s see if it is only you that also knows this author, no other adult has read its book or knows this author.

FxMasterz:
Let's leave this. I don't think we'll get anywhere with it. But you've already said that the internet contains information that are fed into it by us.

Information itself is Intellectual Property. I can feed information online if I own it. A piece of information may not be online if the owner does not deem it fit to put it on the internet.

Mention the name of the author, let’s see if it is only you that also knows this author, no other adult has read its book or knows this author.

Can you take a picture of this book, I seriously doubt it

Maynmann:
Mention the name of the author, let’s see if it is only you that also knows this author, no other adult has read its book or knows this author.

I've forgotten the author's name. He's an unpopular author but that single volume was a hit, and I thought it should be discovered online by just referencing the book's title.

budaatum:
What is wrong is not universally wrong. Some countries kill criminals while some don't. Homosexuality is wrong is some countries and not wrong in some. Some religions condone lying and deceit under certain circumstances while some don't under any circumstance. Some regard women as equal to men while some think women are men's ribs. Some don't think it wrong to say fuq god while some say fuq god whenever they feel.

Morality is subjective. What is moral for you might not be moral for me, as you yourself are showing by claiming atheists have a different morality because they have no gods.

You mean for example rape is not universally wrong?

FxMasterz:
I've forgotten the author's name. He's an unpopular author but that single volume was a hit, and I thought it should be online by just referencing the book's title.

Why won’t you forget, but you perfectly remember what happened in the book.

Maynmann:
Why won’t you forget, but you perfectly remember what happened in the book.

That's one thing about books. You'll remember the touching content of the book but you may forget the author. It's funny actually but it happens to all of us.

FxMasterz:
That's one thing about books. You'll remember the touching content of the book but you may forget the author. It's funny actually but it happens to all of us.

What a coincidence, it is that same book you are using as reference that you don’t remember the name of the author, you also can’t take a picture of the book, and the book is not online, no adult except you has read this book.

Maynmann:
What a coincidence, it is that same book you are using as reference that you don’t remember the name, you also can’t take a picture of the book, and the book is not online, no adult except you has read this book.

Infact, a friend gave me the book. And, take note of the year. It's 1997. That's 25 solid years ago. It would take a super sound mind to remember even the book's content, late alone the title and then author's name.

FxMasterz:
Infact, a friend gave me the book. And, take note of the year. It's 1997. That's 25 solid years ago. It would take a super sound mind to remember even the book's content, late alone the title and then author's name.

Still more claims.

But a sound mind is not needed to narate lies stories like this.
“ The book detailed a fictional story of how a young orphan boy rose into prominence in America. Starting as a cigarette factory worker at a very tender age, he went on to own a compendium of large cigarette companies including the ones he once worked in, in just a few years. The book contains rich lessons for Entrepreneurs. I was searching online for the book of recent, and to my amazement, nothing about the book could be found.”

FxMasterz:
Infact, a friend gave me the book. And, take note of the year. It's 1997. That's 25 solid years ago. It would take a super sound mind to remember even the book's content, late alone the title and then author's name.

And even the claim i asked you to prove are when you claim miracles.

Are miracles that rare and scarce?

Maynmann:
Still more claims.

But a sound mind is not needed to narate lies stories like this.
“ The book detailed a fictional story of how a young orphan boy rose into prominence in America. Starting as a cigarette factory worker at a very tender age, he went on to own a compendium of large cigarette companies including the ones he once worked in, in just a few years. The book contains rich lessons for Entrepreneurs. I was searching online for the book of recent, and to my amazement, nothing about the book could be found.”

If I were of the literary class, maybe I could have been able to provide more details. Unfortunately, I didn't do English language or any of its related courses.

Meanwhile, there's a Japanese book I read in 2002. The book was titled Samurai. I didn't remember the name of the author too, even though I remember the story. But in contrast to Oren Knox, the book Samurai is available online.

FxMasterz:
If I were of the literary class, maybe I could have been able to provide more details. Unfortunately, I didn't do English language or any of its related courses.

Meanwhile, there's a Japanese book I read in 2002. The book was titled Samurai. I didn't remember the name of the author too, even though I remember the story. But in contrast to Oren Knox, the book Samurai is available online.

Still more claims 🥱

FxMasterz:
Don't let us deceive ourselves just because we want to hold on to some ideologies.

You yourself know some things you'll do without knowing any government law, but after doing such, you'll immediately run away or seek to cover up your tracks even in places where there are no Governments.

See the images below:

Go back to the beginning of the thread and you might see my point.

budaatum:
It is very objectively wrong for you to murder me or lie to me or commit fraud on me or cheat me or for me to do any of those things to others based on their religion, region, tribe, race or gender. And it is definitely not right for me to murder you or lie to you or commit fraud on you or cheat you regardless of your religion.

If you studied the history of the evolution of humans you'd know better. We not only stole with impunity, we murdered and cheated and lied and raped too, until we evolved to understand how detrimental it was to us and society. It is universally accepted that stealing is morally wrong, but that does not mean some do not steal. But why is it wrong, you should ask.

Well, if I steal (your farm produce, or wife or children), from you, I'd need to stand watch over what I stole so you can't steal it back, which means I would not be able to go do anything productive. And if you do manage to steal it back, I might have to hire some people to help me steal it back from you. The to and fro of our stealing from each other would eventually end up with one of us killing the other so no more stealing occurs between us, but there's others who might steal from me after you are dead which is detrimental to all since it would result in complete eradication of that society.

Humans, being the thinking beings that we are, would eventually pass laws against stealing therefore, so they can keep what they have instead of having it stolen without recourse, hence laws you now claim came from gods, when in fact we created gods to make the laws more effective. It's after all more effective you being convinced that some god said "thou shalt not steal" from me, as opposed to me saying it, especially if you are convinced gods will punish you if you steal. Or perhaps you don't think I could be wise and smart enough to say "God said" what buda is saying. Do note that I do not leave it to gods to punish you for stealing from me, but would also pass sentence on you for stealing from me, which would not be the case if it were laws of the gods.

As an aside, Nigeria, as a society, has not evolved that far as to pass and enforce laws against stealing yet. If we had, our political leaders would universally accept that stealing public funds is immoral and detrimental to the society, and we the electorate would not elect thieves. But for now, ọmọ wa ni, so let them steal, unfortunately, which would not be the case if we adopted the moral laws of say China which dictates the chopping off of the head of political thieves, which shows how simple "thou shalt not steal" is not universal nor objective but very subjective indeed.

Maynmann:
And even the claim i asked you to prove are when you claim miracles.

Are miracles that rare and scarce?

Miracles aren't scarce and are very common. But they're not like magic which you go everywhere to show off. If you must see miracles, you'll go to where they're happening. I gave you some references then, if you visit where they're happening, you can judge things for yourself.

FxMasterz:
Miracles aren't scarce and are very common. But they're not like magic which you go everywhere to show off. If you must see miracles, you'll go to where they're happening. I gave you some references then, if you visit where they're happening, you can judge things for yourself.

Why can’t the miracles be seen by everyone?
Was Iesus chrestus or people in the tanakh miracles not seen by everyone?

Why do i need to go to a shrine before i can see the “miracles”?
Why are they not performing the miracles at hospitals and mortuaries?

budaatum:
Go back to the beginning of the thread and you might see my point.



If you studied the history of the evolution of humans you'd know better. We not only stole with impunity, we murdered and cheated and lied and raped too, until we evolved to understand how detrimental it was to us and society. It is universally accepted that stealing is morally wrong, but that does not mean some do not steal. But why is it wrong, you should ask.

Well, if I steal (your farm produce, or wife or children), from you, I'd need to stand watch over what I stole so you can't steal it back, which means I would not be able to go do anything productive. And if you do manage to steal it back, I might have to hire some people to help me steal it back from you. The to and fro of our stealing from each other would eventually end up with one of us killing the other so no more stealing occurs between us, but there's others who might steal from me after you are dead which is detrimental to all since it would result in complete eradication of that society.

Humans, being the thinking beings that we are, would eventually pass laws against stealing therefore, so they can keep what they have instead of having it stolen without recourse, hence laws you now claim came from gods, when in fact we created gods to make the laws more effective. It's after all more effective you being convinced that some god said "thou shalt not steal" from me, as opposed to me saying it, especially if you are convinced gods will punish you if you steal. Or perhaps you don't think I could be wise and smart enough to say "God said" what buda is saying. Do note that I do not leave it to gods to punish you for stealing from me, but would also pass sentence on you for stealing from me, which would not be the case if it were laws of the gods.

As an aside, Nigeria, as a society, has not evolved that far as to pass and enforce laws against stealing yet. If we had, our political leaders would universally accept that stealing public funds is immoral and detrimental to the society, and we the electorate would not elect thieves. But for now, ọmọ wa ni, so let them steal, unfortunately, which would not be the case if we adopted the moral laws of say China which dictates the chopping off of the head of political thieves, which shows how simple "thou shalt not steal" is not universal nor objective but very subjective indeed.

Bro, even psychologists are not in support of your views. When people murdered and raped and stole, did they start announcing themselves about that they're killers and thieves? But when a man does commendable things, he uses it to get glory.

FxMasterz:
Bro, even psychologists are not in support of your views. When people murdered and raped and stole, did they start announcing themselves about that they're killers and thief's. But when a man does commendable things, he uses it to get glory.

You must see nigerian politicians lol.

Maynmann:
You must see nigerian politicians lol.

Lol.

FxMasterz:
Lol.

Mention the universally accepted laws.

FxMasterz:
I've forgotten the author's name. He's an unpopular author but that single volume was a hit, and I thought it should be discovered online by just referencing the book's title.

You obviously don't know how to seek until you find, which is no surprise since you forgot the title and authors name.

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/a/borden-deal-7/the-tobacco-men/