₦airaland Forum

Image123:
https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/michael-tait-sexual-assault-claims-newsboys-response-1235991500/

https://www.instagram.com/p/DKh8DiZScIO/

This is where you see that the meaning of sexual assault is in issue for every time a person throws sex, an assault has taken place. Therefore, every one is guilty of sexual assault.

Meanwhile, all marriages and social relationships that includes sex are all based on sexual assault.

And deep guy has just expressed what we all know happens between a man and woman.

https://www.nairaland.com/8445491/no-means-maybe-unspoken-games#135659980.

So, he is just a guilty of being human.

Well, sinners love to see a righteous man fall

GOFRONT:
So because he is a Gospel Artiste make he no fvck again??

As a Christian, e no get right to fornc.(fvck).

LordReed:
Even the ones that exhibit the so called Christ likeness get involved in nonsense. We are humans, no sky daddy magic will change that...

Unfortunately for you, God does help us and He even does more, which is to lead us till we get to live above and beyond this sh...

LordReed:
Nope. Sin is religious nonsense layered on top of what is natural and normal ..

So when you say it is Natural have you not admitted that sin or whatever shi. you choose to call it is inherent?

And from your statement, you prove you support sexual assault because every person sexually pressurises (assault) another person into persuading them into having the meet no matter the word they call it whether toasting or cajoling. All are assaults of sex

GOFRONT:
So because he is a Gospel Artiste make he no fvck again??

Christians are notoriously known for doing exactly that which they condemn others for partaking in. Na every week we dey read about pastors, bishops, GOs, and members — all from the Christian and Catholic world combined— committing many of the same sins they go around claiming their god does not like people who don't believe in their god committing.

DeepSight:
Does the bold include murder?

Sure!

For it is natural and normal as he said to kill.

Dtruthspeaker:
Sure!

For it is natural and normal as he said to kill.

I think LordReed was being overly careful with me because he probably thought I was coming from the religionist angle which would argue that all these things are normal if one does not believe in God, and only belief in God grounds morals. But that's not where I was coming from at all.

LordReed:
Animals don't murder, they kill. Murder is a legal term indicating illegal killing.

Killing is a murder! Then from your use of the word "illegal", you have moved post to another issue which is whether the kill/murder is right or not.

So that's a different thing and do note cats murder rats even when they don't eat them.

DeepSight:
I think LordReed was being overly careful with me because he probably thought I was coming from the religionist angle which would argue that all these things are normal if one does not believe in God, and only belief in God grounds morals. But that's not where I was coming from at all.

True. However, Reed is always careful and always tries to put his answers beyond questionability and impeachment as he tries to play godness and omniscientness.

DeepSight:
Clearly you haven't seen cats killing mice or lizards which they do not eat but use as toys. Clearly you have not seen lions kill other lions for the sake of winning a lioness. And other animals do the same. I can go on and on but there are myriad scenarios where animals kill outside for food or defence.

Now you should know that I know murder is a legal term. But what has law got to do with philosophy at an existential level. I am speaking about primal instinct and you are telling me that murder is a legal term. I am speaking about the way the universe might view a matter and you are telling me that murder is a legal term.

As you well know, throughout history greedy tyrants have killed on a grand scale and indeed mass murder has been the prime way in which conquest was done and conquest pretty much established the demarcations and borders of the nations of today. The mere fact that we pick up an pen and scribble down some rules describing what manner of killing is legal or illegal will not change the fact that our world and its borders today have been set up largely by mass murder.

Who even gets to define murder. Was what Bush and Blair did in Iraq mass murder or not. Is what Putin is doing in Ukraine mass murder or not.

Remember I said even as higher animals we will only find higher ways to fulfill primal instincts. So look at the problem of corruption in the world - the abuse of power for private interest. Is this theft of a kind or not, and is it normal for human beings? The law might say it is not, but history and the world around us decidedly say it is normal.

You really have to ask yourself this question: is it normal, in the sight of the universe, for one higher animal to kill another for land, to seize its wife, or to enslave its children, or indeed for any other gain? The law (of today) might say no, but history decidedly says yes.

Lastly - be careful not to conflate the word "normal" with "good" or "right."

Beautiful observation.

But do you real eyes that when you ask the question in bold that you are asking for the Judgement of Some One greater than humans?

LordReed:
Cats hunting mice and other small animals is part of their predatory nature...

So, now we see that you appreciate that it is animals murder and as you said, it is normal and therefore should be allowed.

Dtruthspeaker:
Beautiful observation.

But do you real eyes that when you ask the question in bold that you are asking for the Judgement of Some One greater than humans?

Not necessarily the judgment of someone. Perhaps the sensititivity of something.

Joshthefirst:
is sexual assault and drug misues normal human behavior?

Maybe you're downplaying God because you want to continue to live in sin. That's the majority reason people claim to not believe in God. So they can go on deceiving themselves that they won't ever be accountable. But their conscience bears or once bore witness and judgment is coming

The bold is the most funny part of atheism. Can they count how many times they have submitted themselves to the scrutiny and judgement of strangers at checkpoints or in job interviews or even simple house search, yet they hate being judged and do not want to be judged. What an entertainment they are.

DeepSight:
Not necessarily the judgment of someone. Perhaps the sensititivity of something.

Can a thing eg a jug or pot be sensitive? Or can a plant or animal judge?

No.

Judgement Always and Only comes from a Living Person.

Dtruthspeaker:
Can a thing eg a jug or pot be sensitive? Or can a plant or animal judge?

No.

Judgement Always and Only comes from a Living Person.

A thing can be sensitve - in the sense that it can react to a causative chain of events.

Dtruthspeaker:
The bold is the most funny part of atheism. Can they count how many times they have submitted themselves to the scrutiny and judgement of strangers at checkpoints or in job interviews or even simple house search, yet they hate being judged and do not want to be judged. What an entertainment they are.

Atheists dont generally worry about being judged - their chief concern is that the alleged Judge does not exist.

LordReed:
My saying murder is a legal term should have already keyed you to my position. First off, there is no objective right or wrong...

You obviously don't know the meaning of objective and objective right else you would have real eyesed that all over the world, equity and justice and fair contract and marriage etc are examples which are universally accepted as right and good

DeepSight:
Atheists dont generally worry about being judged - their chief concern is that the alleged Judge does not exist.

That's not true. We see and hear how they grumble and complain about being judged

Dtruthspeaker:
That's not true. We see and hear how they grumble and complain about being judged

Do they grumble and complain about courts and human judges?

DeepSight:
I think LordReed was being overly careful with me because he probably thought I was coming from the religionist angle which would argue that all these things are normal if one does not believe in God, and only belief in God grounds morals. But that's not where I was coming from at all.

Not at all did I think that. Why would I when I know you aren't a religious proselyter?

LordReed:
Not at all did I think that. Why would I when I know you aren't a religious proselyter?

Just the principle.

DeepSight:
Just the principle.

What principle?

DeepSight:
Do they grumble and complain about courts and human judges?

They are actually not mindful and aware that they do not really complain about man judging them through courts and all but when another man called a Christian does that, then we all hear them complain.

Meanwhile, all the just and right Laws which man affirms as right are still the same Laws Christians use for judging.

LordReed:
My saying murder is a legal term should have already keyed you to my position. First off, there is no objective right or wrong.

Good. There are many ways to make this collapse. But I'll use the easiest.

You just said "there is no objective right and wrong"

This statement you just made, is borrowing from an objective stance. You said there’s no such thing as objective right and wrong — but that statement actually assumes there is an objective truth.

If you’re saying it’s objectively true that no objective morals exist, you’re contradicting yourself.

You can’t deny objective morality without accidentally affirming it.

Dtruthspeaker:
They are actually not mindful and aware that they do not really complain about man judging them through courts and all but when another man called a Christian does that, then we all hear them complain.

Meanwhile, all the just and right Laws which man affirms as right are still the same Laws Christians use for judging.

Secular laws do not criminalise adult consensual sex for example.

Joshthefirst:
Good. There are many ways to make this collapse. But I'll use the easiest.

You just said "there is no objective right and wrong"

This statement you just made, is borrowing from an objective stance. You said there’s no such thing as objective right and wrong — but that statement actually assumes there is an objective truth.

If you’re saying it’s objectively true that no objective morals exist, you’re contradicting yourself.

You can’t deny objective morality without accidentally affirming it.

Hmmm! What a beautiful trap.

No way he could escape embarrassing himself.

@LordReed, @Deepsight

Subjective morality sounds tolerant and open-minded, but in real life, it’s unlivable and logically incoherent.
We all recognize certain things as truly good or truly evil.
That means there must be an objective standard — something outside of us — and that points us to objective morality, and ultimately to a moral lawgiver.

Subjective morality doesn’t make sense in reality because it collapses under its own logic when applied to real-world situations:

1. Subjective morality makes moral claims meaningless

If morality is just a matter of personal taste (like “I like chocolate”), then saying “torturing babies is wrong” is no different from saying “I don’t like pineapple on pizza.”
There’s no truth value — just preference.

But in the real world, when we say something like:

“Slavery is wrong.”
“Rape is evil.”
“Genocide is unjust.”

We don’t mean it’s just our opinion. We mean it’s actually wrong — no matter what anyone thinks.


2. You can’t condemn genuine evil

If morality is subjective, then Nazi ideology, terrorism, and child abuse are not objectively wrong — just “different values.”
But we know they are wrong, regardless of cultural or personal views.
Subjective morality makes it impossible to rationally condemn evil practices — even if your gut knows they’re wrong.
Don't be dishonest. You literally have to argue on the side of Nazi's and mass murderers and serial killers if you want to hold on to subjectivity


3. It destroys justice

If everyone makes their own moral rules, then there’s no real basis for law or punishment.
Why shouldn’t someone steal or murder if it “feels right to them”?
In a subjective framework, you can’t say, “You’re wrong to do that,” only “I personally don’t like it.”
That leads to moral anarchy.

Finally, like earlier, and for me the most glaring; It’s self-refuting

If someone says, “All morality is subjective — there are no objective moral truths,” I ask:

“Is that statement objectively true?”

If yes → they’ve contradicted themselves.
If no → then you can ignore them, because it’s just their opinion.


Unfortunately, a non theistic worldview, will NOT hold up in any side of the divide;
Whether it tries to hold onto objective morality without a moral lawgiver (which is illogical) or subjective morality (which doesn’t make sense in reality), a non-theistic worldview ultimately fails to provide a coherent explanation for the existence of moral truths.

In other words, non-theistic worldviews that try to explain morality in any form without a divine source are logically flawed and incorrect.

Without a moral lawgiver, non-theistic worldviews struggle to ground moral truths in a way that aligns with how we experience right and wrong in the real world. Therefore, in the context of morality, such worldviews fail to provide a practical, logically consistent foundation for living a realistic moral life.

Joshthefirst:
@LordReed, @Deepsight

Subjective morality sounds tolerant and open-minded, but in real life, it’s unlivable and logically incoherent.
We all recognize certain things as truly good or truly evil.
That means there must be an objective standard — something outside of us — and that points us to objective morality, and ultimately to a moral lawgiver.

Subjective morality doesn’t make sense in reality because it collapses under its own logic when applied to real-world situations:

1. Subjective morality makes moral claims meaningless

If morality is just a matter of personal taste (like “I like chocolate”), then saying “torturing babies is wrong” is no different from saying “I don’t like pineapple on pizza.”
There’s no truth value — just preference.

But in the real world, when we say something like:

“Slavery is wrong.”
“Rape is evil.”
“Genocide is unjust.”

We don’t mean it’s just our opinion. We mean it’s actually wrong — no matter what anyone thinks.


2. You can’t condemn genuine evil

If morality is subjective, then Nazi ideology, terrorism, and child abuse are not objectively wrong — just “different values.”
But we know they are wrong, regardless of cultural or personal views.
Subjective morality makes it impossible to rationally condemn evil practices — even if your gut knows they’re wrong.
Don't be dishonest. You literally have to argue on the side of Nazi's and mass murderers and serial killers if you want to hold on to subjectivity


3. It destroys justice

If everyone makes their own moral rules, then there’s no real basis for law or punishment.
Why shouldn’t someone steal or murder if it “feels right to them”?
In a subjective framework, you can’t say, “You’re wrong to do that,” only “I personally don’t like it.”
That leads to moral anarchy.

Finally, like earlier, and for me the most glaring; It’s self-refuting

If someone says, “All morality is subjective — there are no objective moral truths,” I ask:

“Is that statement objectively true?”

If yes → they’ve contradicted themselves.
If no → then you can ignore them, because it’s just their opinion.


Unfortunately, a non theistic worldview, will NOT hold up in any side of the divide;
Whether it tries to hold onto objective morality without a moral lawgiver (which is illogical) or subjective morality (which doesn’t make sense in reality), a non-theistic worldview ultimately fails to provide a coherent explanation for the existence of moral truths.

In other words, non-theistic worldviews that try to explain morality in any form without a divine source are logically flawed and incorrect.

Without a moral lawgiver, non-theistic worldviews struggle to ground moral truths in a way that aligns with how we experience right and wrong in the real world. Therefore, in the context of morality, such worldviews fail to provide a practical, logically consistent foundation for living a realistic moral life.

Fair points. I have personally argued extensively against subjective morality on this platform. Have a look at this thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/1520806/evolution-morality

However there is a difference even if nuanced and slight, between subjective morality and relative mortality. The latter is more situational. It speaks to how different circumstances can have an impact on what is moral or immoral. For example I don't think that a person telling a lie to hide a Jew from a Nazi extermination team during the holocaust has done anything wrong.

DeepSight:
Secular laws do not criminalise adult consensual sex for example.

First, It was penalised before. Pr0stitutes, gays, fornicators all run away from their homes and it was them who started new areas living like smugglers where they could do all of these things. And since they were living like criminals then they started attacking villages and now the world now had armed robbers and bandits and and claiming of other people's lands..

Dtruthspeaker:
First, It was penalised before. Pr0stitutes, gays, fornicators all run away from their homes and it was them who started new areas living like smugglers where they could do all of these things. And since they were living like criminals then they started attacking villages and now the world now had armed robbers and bandits and and claiming of other people's lands..

There were many silly laws based on religious nonsensicalities in times past. I hope you know the Bible also contained injunctions against shaving your beard, for example.

Joshthefirst:
Good. There are many ways to make this collapse. But I'll use the easiest.

You just said "there is no objective right and wrong"

This statement you just made, is borrowing from an objective stance. You said there’s no such thing as objective right and wrong — but that statement actually assumes there is an objective truth.

If you’re saying it’s objectively true that no objective morals exist, you’re contradicting yourself.

You can’t deny objective morality without accidentally affirming it.

Pardon my French but this is nonsensical. You didn't ask me about objective truth so why are you attempting a bait and switch?

DeepSight:
There were many silly laws based on religious nonsensicalities in times past. I hope you know the Bible also contained injunctions against shaving your beard, for example.

Now you are talking religion forgetting that in those days the religion that you are talking about did not exist yet these Laws were already in place all over the world.

And the Bible's law on shaving is what people call the traditional law and custom of the people called Isreal. But all this is departing from the issue.