₦airaland Forum

Steep:
Do you know what the meaning of universal mean.
Right to life for example is universal, so when you try to or take the life of another person then you lose your right to life.
So self difference is not subjective.

I know the meaning but you do not. Right to life is not universal. Go to North Korea you'll know that right to life is not universal.

What the heck is self difference?

Maynmann:
The Old Testament was originally written in old hebrew. And in Hebrew EVIL – RA רע , the isiah verse is talking about evil.

I never said your son can kill someone, the same way you never said my son will be an armed robber abi, are they not examples?

You said this whole thing but you can’t take what you dish out?
“ When you said you would help your son first, you should have looked at all the possible things a wayward child might do to warrant his father's help. And you should have known that issues are in categories (the waywardness of a child as well as the calamities that may eventually befall him). You should have weighed matters well before making that comment. I didn't change anything because I didn't paint any previous scenario. I painted that robber child scenario to help you see the danger in your stance.”

You were the one who gave a personalized answer to a scenario I painted. I never directed words at you or your son. I'm not going into any further argument about this.

And also I wouldn't argue the Bible with you because it would end fruitlessly. Neither you nor I would agree to anything. So, let it rest.

Maynmann:
I don’t even understand by what she means by “objective morality”.
This same woman said killing babies is not bad ITSELF, it’s bad because humans didn’t create it, and because his deity created it killing babies is right, this theists are amazing.

I am not a woman, by the way.
Does a judge have the right to sentence a criminal?
Do you have the right that a judge have? Why?

LordReed:
I know the meaning but you do not. Right to life is not universal. Go to North Korea you'll know that right to life is not universal.

What the heck is self difference?

Know you do not know what you are saying honestly?
A theif steals does not mean stealing is good, that North Korean say people don't have right to life does not make it good.

FxMasterz:
You were the one who gave a personalized answer to a scenario I painted. I never directed words at you or your son. I'm not going into any further argument about this.

And also I wouldn't argue the Bible with you because it would end fruitlessly. Neither you nor I would agree to anything. So, let it rest.

How did i give a personalized answer?
What words did i use that you didn’t use and more?
I dislike people that can’t take what they dish out, i was only making an example, how you suddenly got offended by it after you have done the same to me countless times is amazing.
It’s you that took it personal.

The bible means collection of books.
We have the christian bible called New Testament and the Old Testament that belongs to judaism and it’s called Tanakh.

You can’t argue facts, if you can present your facts about the “bible” then why would i argue?

Exposing Yahweh the isrealite god is easssyyy.

Steep:
I am not a woman, by the way.
Does a judge have the right to sentence a criminal?
Do you have the right that a judge have? Why?

A judge has a right to sentence a convicted criminal that has been found guilty, he can’t sentence just anyone on the street, he is also under the law and sentences people within it.
Before judges and courts were created, who did you think had the right to sentence people?
When samuel killed that king, which judge sentenced it?
When israelites were killing women because they seduced them, which judge sentenced it?
And is it universally morally right to kill someone that seduces you?

Maynmann:
How did i give a personalized answer?
What words did i use that you didn’t use and more?
I hate people that can’t take what they dish out, i was only making an example, how you suddenly got offended by it after you have done the same to me countless times is amazing.

The bible means collection of books.
We have the christian bible called New Testament and the Old Testament that belongs to judaism and it’s called Tanakh.

You can’t argue facts, if you can present your facts about the “bible” then why would i argue?

Exposing Yahweh the isrealite god is easssyyy.

See the screenshot below. See what I said before you answered that "If my son..."

And actually, I'm not offended. I only rejected the personalization. And, truly, I'm not interested in dragging endless arguments.

Steep:
Know you do not know what you are saying honestly?
A theif steals does not mean stealing is good, that North Korean say people don't have right to life does not make it good.

You said right to life is universal and I just gave you a place where right to life doesn't apply so how is it universal. It's you who does understand what she is saying.

FxMasterz:
See the screenshot below. See what I said before you answered that "If my son..."

And actually, I'm not offended. I only rejected the personalization. And, truly, I'm not interested in dragging endless arguments.

Yes, i was talking about my son. “If my son”,
if i was talking to you I would have said “if your son” 😂

LordReed:
You said right to life is universal and I just gave you a place where right to life doesn't apply so how is it universal. It's you who does understand what she is saying.

you are only speaking from your world view as an atheist.
In your world view society determines what is right and wrong.

That means if society says rape is good it means it is good.
If society says slavery is right slavery is right So those that fought against slavery were morally bankrupt simply because society considers slavery morally right according to atheist world vie

FxMasterz:
If the thread is literally about morality, what's the point in addressing atheists alone? Is it not because they said there's no god?

The thread tries to talk about morality from the perspective of an atheist, but it talks about morality nonetheless.

Then how comes the universally accepted moral laws that are not set by man? We're still talking about morality from the Atheists point of view.

You're shooting yourself in the foot more than you realize. You just talked about "universally accepted moral laws", in a world with different religions, and gods, and lack thereof too. So you're indirectly making reference to a sort of morality that exists regardless of the belief in a god.

The analogy isn't different because moral problems exist as well as crime problems. Both have laws to combat the problems. Laws from both sides were made. They're not self existent laws.

Again, when i talk of the moral dilemma, i'm talking about something different. It was explained on my other thread, but for the sake of not wanting to derail this one, I'll let it go for now.

There's a difference in accepting my position merely for the sake of a discussion rather than accepting my position as truth because the former puts you only in an argumentative position with a close mind. That'll lead to useless and endless arguments. I have no time for such. The later puts you in a fact finding kind of argument that could lead profitably to a destination.

Accept what position as truth? That an unproven god exists? How does that help our discussion? I've already said for the sake of argument, I'll accept that a god exists. I'll even take it further. For the sake of this discussion, I will assume that a single creator deity exists. So not polytheistic, but monotheistic.

By accepting this premise, it means we won't be running into any of the problems associated with a disbelief in this god. You'd be proving to me that your god is indeed the creator the same way you'd be proving to a deist or someone else who accepts the concept of a god, but is unsure of which one.

So once again, go ahead

Wilgrea7:
The thread tries to talk about morality from the perspective of an atheist, but it talks about morality nonetheless.



You're shooting yourself in the foot more than you realize. You just talked about "universally accepted moral laws", in a world with different religions, and gods, and lack thereof too. So you're indirectly making reference to a sort of morality that exists regardless of the belief in a god.




Again, when i talk of the moral dilemma, i'm talking about something different. It was explained on my other thread, but for the sake of not wanting to derail this one, I'll let it go for now.



Accept what position as truth? That an unproven god exists? How does that help our discussion? I've already said for the sake of argument, I'll accept that a god exists. I'll even take it further. For the sake of this discussion, I will assume that a single creator deity exists. So not polytheistic, but monotheistic.

By accepting this premise, it means we won't be running into any of the problems associated with a disbelief in this god. You'd be proving to me that your god is indeed the creator the same way you'd be proving to a deist or someone else who accepts the concept of a god, but is unsure of which one.

So once again, go ahead

If you don't accept that a God exists, there's no point discussing who's the true God.

Universal morality is not based on religion, culture or traditions. I believe you're pretending not to understand. What has the subject to do with multiplicity of gods or religions or the lack of ir? Humans generally know certain things are right or wrong without recourse to any written law. That's what we're talking about.

Steep:
you are only speaking from your world view as an atheist.
In your world view society determines what is right and wrong.

That means if society says rape is good it means it is good.
If society says slavery is right slavery is right So those that fought against slavery were morally bankrupt simply because society considers slavery morally right according to atheist world vie

The problem I have with this your "society defines morality" narrative against the atheists, is that you don't realize how much this applies to you. Like, you're describing yourself in so much detail and you don't realize.

The only difference between you and the people you claim get their morality from "society", is the unproven claim that a "god" said so.

Till now I'm yet to see any god who claims to have created us, spell out its so called moral laws in a clear way for everyone to see or hear. All we have are reports of people claiming they heard from a god. claims that cannot be substantiated in any way.

What's worse is that these so called "laws of gods" are very, very identical to the societal laws you would expect.

There are time frames in the bible where things slavery, polygamy, apostasy and genocide were perfectly normal in the society at the time.

Even today, you're doing as society tells you. But not this society. the society of several years ago. The only difference is that you claim a god told you to do so.

A god who is still yet to be proven, and whose method of revelation seems to be almost identical to someone who received no revelation, but claimed he did so.

Steep:
you must be crazy to compare God to man.

No Steep, I am not comparing any god to man. What I am comparing is you to your own opinion of your god.

Your god is after all not an object but a subject created by subjective you, though I'm aware you aren't aware you create your god in your own image.

FxMasterz:
If you don't accept that a God exists, there's no point discussing who's the true God.

If you say so. I've already told you there's no difference between accepting for the sake of discussion and accepting for real, as both situations would start from the exact same premise. But if you say so, then okay.

Universal morality is not based on religion, culture or traditions. I believe you're pretending not to understand. What has the subject to do with multiplicity of gods or religions or the lack of ir? Humans generally know certain things are right or wrong without recourse to any written law. That's what we're talking about.

If you're talking about morality regardless of religion, then of what use is the existence of god in the discussion?

If you're trying to prove the source of morality, then by all means go ahead. But so far I'm yet to see you try.

Your position seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong), that morality is more or less ingrained in us as humans. Why? Because a god made it so. All the while failing to prove said god.

It would be akin to me saying we have ingrained morality because our digital overlords in the simulation programmed us like that, or because there is an undiscovered element in human brains that make us moral.

Without any proof, the claim remains a claim. You can argue for a source of morality. But the moment you begin to describe the attributes of this source, you need to provide evidence. And so far, you've provided none.

Steep:
you are only speaking from your world view as an atheist.
In your world view society determines what is right and wrong.

That means if society says rape is good it means it is good.
If society says slavery is right slavery is right So those that fought against slavery were morally bankrupt simply because society considers slavery morally right according to atheist world vie

Wrong. That's what you are saying. You wrote it very clearly if your god says something is good then it is good.

You asked for the basis of my morality and I gave it, it has nothing to do with what society says.

Your so called objective morality DOESN'T exist since all morality is subjective. In your case you think your morality is based on what your god says which is in itself subjective.

FxMasterz:
If you don't accept that a God exists, there's no point discussing who's the true God.

Universal morality is not based on religion, culture or traditions. I believe you're pretending not to understand. What has the subject to do with multiplicity of gods or religions or the lack of ir? Humans generally know certain things are right or wrong without recourse to any written law. That's what we're talking about.

The same universal morality that accepted slavery at some point then said slavery was bad at another?

Wilgrea7:
The problem I have with this your "society defines morality" narrative against the atheists, is that you don't realize how much this applies to you. Like, you're describing yourself in so much detail and you don't realize.

The only difference between you and the people you claim get their morality from "society", is the unproven claim that a "god" said so.

Till now I'm yet to see any god who claims to have created us, spell out its so called moral laws in a clear way for everyone to see or hear. All we have are reports of people claiming they heard from a god. claims that cannot be substantiated in any way.

What's worse is that these so called "laws of gods" are very, very identical to the societal laws you would expect.

There are time frames in the bible where things slavery, polygamy, apostasy and genocide were perfectly normal in the society at the time.

Even today, you're doing as society tells you. But not this society. the society of several years ago. The only difference is that you claim a god told you to do so.

A god who is still yet to be proven, and whose method of revelation seems to be almost identical to someone who received no revelation, but claimed he did so.

My world view is, if there is God then it makes sense that morality would be objective, because he made everyone and we all belongs to him, so it makes sense that what is right in one place would be right every where.
That is why, North Korea would be wrong for denying right to life.

What you are trying to do is compare society to God which is illogical because the definition of God and the definition of society is not the same.
Just because birds can fly does not mean fishes should fly.

budaatum:
No Steep, I am not comparing any god to man. What I am comparing is you to your own opinion of your god.

Your god is after all not an object but a subject created by subjective you, though I'm aware you aren't aware you create your god in your own image.

There is no such thing as your god here, I am talking of God as a real being.

If there is God then morality would not be subjective simple, trying to push a subjective view point into a world where there is God does not work, it is a contradiction.

LordReed:
The same universal morality that accepted slavery at some point then said slavery was bad at another?

Please research about the topic. Slavery does not count as universal morality.

LordReed:
Wrong. That's what you are saying. You wrote it very clearly if your god says something is good then it is good.

You asked for the basis of my morality and I gave it, it has nothing to do with what society says.

yes that is what you implied, you said morality is subjective and you used north Korea as an example,

Your so called objective morality DOESN'T exist since all morality is subjective. In your case you think your morality is based on what your god says which is in itself subjective.

morality is objective because there is God, objective morality exist that is why you could say rape is wrong, murder is wrong racism is wrong, that is why you know North Korea is wrong for abusing humans on and on.
If morality is subjective then you cannot say anything is right or wrong since it all depends on individuals or society.

Wilgrea7:
If you say so. I've already told you there's no difference between accepting for the sake of discussion and accepting for real, as both situations would start from the exact same premise. But if you say so, then okay.



If you're talking about morality regardless of religion, then of what use is the existence of god in the discussion?

If you're trying to prove the source of morality, then by all means go ahead. But so far I'm yet to see you try.

Your position seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong), that morality is more or less ingrained in us as humans. Why? Because a god made it so. All the while failing to prove said god.

It would be akin to me saying we have ingrained morality because our digital overlords in the simulation programmed us like that, or because there is an undiscovered element in human brains that make us moral.

Without any proof, the claim remains a claim. You can argue for a source of morality. But the moment you begin to describe the attributes of this source, you need to provide evidence. And so far, you've provided none.

And I've told you that I can't discuss anything just for argument sake. I don't have such time.

Please, I'm not talking about morality but universally accepted moral laws. Nothing you said up there addresses the issue

FxMasterz:
Please research about the topic. Slavery does not count as universal morality.

What is universal morality?

LordReed:
The same universal morality that accepted slavery at some point then said slavery was bad at another?

The bible never accepted slavery, but however the bible takes a different approach. This approach was gradual holistic, God's plan is to change the heart of men true his love and forgiveness this he achieved through Jesus.

Steep:
There is no such thing as your god here, I am talking of God as a real being.

If there is God then morality would not be subjective simple, trying to push a subjective view point into a world where there is God does not work, it is a contradiction.

If horses had wings too they might fly. Unfortunately they don't so we created airplanes instead.

You may assume you are "talking of a God as a real being" as much as you want, but it is rather obvious that you are talking of the god that you understand and accept and believe in and there's nothing real about it at all.

You are trying to make your subjective opinion and belief an objective irrefutable fact, is what you are doing, but you can't just create something in your subjective mind and expect intelligent rationale beings to accept your subject as an object without showing it to us so we can see it for ourselves. For that is like trying to sell us something without us seeing what we'd be buying, and some are just not gullible and stupid enough to hand money over on that basis.

Here is some education for your consideration.

Steep:
yes that is what you implied, you said morality is subjective and you used north Korea as an example,

morality is objective because there is God, objective morality exist that is why you could say rape is wrong, murder is wrong racism is wrong, that is why you know North Korea is wrong for abusing humans on and on.
If morality is subjective then you cannot say anything is right or wrong since it all depends on individuals or society.

I didn't imply it, I stated it clearly. All morality is subjective.

Morality based on your god is also subjective because if the god changes his mind then the morality also changes.

I certainly can say something is right or wrong, what carries weight is the reasoning behind my saying so and people are free to agree or disagree. I dunno why you think things happen otherwise.

Steep:
The bible never accepted slavery, but however the bible takes a different approach. This approach was gradual holistic, God's plan is to change the heart of men true his love and forgiveness this he achieved through Jesus.

LMAO! Buy your slaves from other nations is not an acceptance of slavery. Bwahahahahaha!

LordReed:
What is universal morality?

that was an error on my part , rather objective morality, objective morality does not depend on society or individual preference. For example rape is wrong regardless of whether society accept it or not, regardless of individual preference or not. It is wrong because it degrades because people are made in God's image.

LordReed:
I didn't imply it, I stated it clearly. All morality is subjective.

Morality based on your god is also subjective because if the god changes his mind then the morality also changes.

I certainly can say something is right or wrong, what carries weight is the reasoning behind my saying so and people are free to agree or disagree. I dunno why you think things happen otherwise.

So in your world view rape can be good right?

Steep:
So in your world view rape can be good right?

No, in your world it might though.

Steep:
that was an error on my part , rather objective morality, objective morality does not depend on society or individual preference. For example rape is wrong regardless of whether society accept it or not, regardless of individual preference or not. It is wrong because it degrades because people are made in God's image.

So why did the Bible accept certain types of rape if rape is simply an objectively unacceptable thing?

LordReed:
What is universal morality?

Universally accepted moral laws is what we're discussing.