₦airaland Forum

monex:
indeed. The existence of objective morality is a philosophical question that has no answers till this day. Some schools of thought say there is and some even go further by using religion to define it. I respect that you say there isn't and i acknowledge that it is practical to assume there isn't and, rather than seek an objective morality, seek to define one (maybe by populist demands etc.)

I agree.

monex:
humanity connotes something collective of all humans i.e. the human race. This is in contrast to various societies and environments that have sprung up. Morality in Afghanistan is different from Morality in Sweden.

Thank you. And that's my point exactly....it is in the collective.

Kobicove:
Every human being was born with a conscience, an innate ability to know right from wrong.

If you were born in a family that eats human fresh, I bet your conscience will not have problem with that....

@unknownqueen: I am happy to say that I dont know. And I dont believe anyone knows. But I do believe there is something mysterious and beyond our understanding at the root of existence.

And yes, something are evidently timeless.[/quote]I wholeheartedly agree with you Deepsight, however since we can't say for certain or better still describe what this mysterious Entity or element is, why don't we just say we dont know like the agnostics instead of saying for a fact that there is something when you cant even describe it..

Atheists are plain dumb for thinking there is no God and that they and everything else that exists are by accidental.

Kobojunkie:
Going by what you have up there, are we to assume then that every human being is a moral being? Please stop repeating this nonsense. 🥱🥱

2. You have that right. Stalin who killed 10s of millions of people and Mao were both of the religion of Atheism. The biggest problem with their religion was that there was no codified standard of morality, though. So, yes, the most religious to date commit the worst attrocities meaning religion has its very ugly side. However, the other side of religion is that no nation run by humans can cohesively and sanely exist without it still. 🥱🥱

Completely false. Plenty of societies live cohesively and purposefully while being highly irreligious. Japan is a great example of a harmonious society with a very strong social fabric where religion plays next to no role in public life.

SIRTee15:
It's like this one hasn't heard of Epstein island where millionaires go to do touchy touchy of little girls.



u guys are just going through a round hole. The so called societal norms morality comes from where. where does the society gets its morality from?
pls answer the question

It came from 'Natural law or law of nature', and that is what made us homosapiens. This laws were innate, raw and naturally built with our biological composition.

If I may ask you, where did a family learnt that it is not good to sleep with one another along the blood line? Why do you feel it is not appropriate to sleep with your beautiful sisters or mum?

Obi1kenobi:
✓ Completely false. Plenty of societies live cohesively and purposefully while being highly irreligious. Japan is a great example of a harmonious society with a very strong social fabric [s]where religion plays next to no role in public life.[/s]

Are you here to dribble with yourself or focus on the topiic at hand which is source of morality? Name one nation or society out there that is able to survive without any form of religion to it. 🥱

yemmit90:
✓ It came from 'Natural law or law of nature', and that is what made us homosapiens. This laws were innate, raw and naturally built with our biological composition.
✓ If I may ask you, where did a family learnt that it is not good to sleep with one another along the blood line? Why do you feel it is not appropriate to sleep with your beautiful sisters or mum?

Natural Law? Do these natural laws apply to animals as well? 🥱🥱🥱

2. You mean you don't know there are places out there were family members sleep with each other and don't even talk about it? 🥱🥱🥱

allthingsgood:
✓ Atheism is not a religion. Also psychopaths exist whether they are atheists or religious

I am afraid you are wrong. Atheism, like every religion out there, is built on falsehood and not facts. 🥱🥱

geoworldedu:
✓ Okay God is his standard of morality and this God of his commanded that he should kill his disobedient and drunk son in a honour Killing.
✓ Are you saying that I as a non-religious being doesn't have the right to challenge the morality of his God, even when he told me already that the act of killing one's son because of disobedience is not moral.
✓ So if the act is not moral, can the person who commanded it be classified as being moral? I was trying to ask him, but he doesn't want to be direct with me.

1. I don't know about that. He is not an Israelite.from over 2000 years ago -- the law in question ceased when the Romans took over complete rule of the nation of Judea and the seat of power in Jerusalem -- living in the land of Israel where that codified law of the time insisted that no exemptions were to be made for sons who commit treason... disobedience of the law was considered treason at the time. I stay clear away from prescribing presentism when analyzing such issues. 🥱🥱

2. You can challenge the morality of his deity for certain.What I instead alluded to is the fact that his deity, by virtue of providing him his moral compass, cannot then be considered immoral unless you have another moral standard by which to compare him or it to. 🥱🥱

3. Who decides if an act is not moral? You by virtue of your current brain farts -- our brain farts change over time and situation, mind you? Or what other deity or system (standard of morality) out there decides this? 🥱🥱

A moral being/system is one that has been chosen as such by a consensus. You are not a moral being simply because you think yourself so. The human ego plays the craziest tricks on us. 🥱

AgentNairaland:
✓ What is he then?

According to reports on him, he is a traditionalist. 🥱

Kobojunkie:
Are you here to dribble with yourself or focus on the topiic at hand which is source of morality? Name one nation or society out there that is able to survive without any form of religion to it. 🥱

You made a false statement that I addressed.
You'll have to elaborate on what you mean by "survive without any form of religion to it". What is the relevance of religion to Japan or Scandinavia? As far as I can see, you seem to be "dribbling" yourself by conflating correlative factors (every society has at least a small fraction of religious people - however few) to causative ones and trying to create massive extrapolations from small fractions of religious people in such societies.

Morality is a product of our human consciousness. Humans evolved over tens of thousands of years from very primitive hunter-gatherers to building civilizations through cooperation - allowing us to co-exist. Humans cannot co-exist without the implicit agreements and rules that make coexistence possible. We imbibed moral systems that allow us coexist the same way we learnt engineering or advanced medicine. Claiming humanity learnt not to kill each other because some nameless person wrote "thou shall not kill" in a book in the Jewish Torah is obviously ridiculous. We didn't develop a moral system because of religious texts. We developed the moral system and expressed it in the religious texts that we wrote. Assuming that our morality is a product of religion degrades human beings as little more than animals operating only on our basest instincts if a sky daddy isn't given us moral instructions.

Kobojunkie:
I am afraid you are wrong. Atheism, like every religion out there, is built on falsehood and not facts. 🥱🥱

No. Atheism is not a religion. A religion requires a dogmatic belief system, rituals and practises, and organized community and structure. And it's not built on any falsehood - unlike sky daddy believers.

Obi1kenobi:
✓ No. Atheism is not a religion. A religion requires a dogmatic belief system, rituals and practises, and organized community and structure. And it's not built on any falsehood - unlike sky daddy believers.

Atheism is founded on the dogmatic belief, without a foundation in facts, that there exists no power higher or greater than that which is currently known. It is a religion. It is all built on falsehood.🥱

Obi1kenobi:
✓ You made a false statement that I addressed.
You'll have to elaborate on what you mean by "survive without any form of religion to it". What is the relevance of religion to Japan or Scandinavia? As far as I can see, you seem to be "dribbling" yourself by conflating correlative factors (every society has at least a small fraction of religious people - however few) to causative ones and trying to create massive extrapolations from small fractions of religious people in such societies.
✓ Morality is a product of our human consciousness. Humans evolved over tens of thousands of years from very primitive hunter-gatherers to building civilizations through cooperation - allowing us to co-exist. Humans cannot co-exist without the implicit agreements and rules that make coexistence possible. We imbibed moral systems that allow us coexist the same way we learnt engineering or advanced medicine. Claiming humanity learnt not to kill each other because some nameless person wrote "thou shall not kill" in a book in the Jewish Torah is obviously ridiculous. We didn't develop a moral system because of religious texts. We developed the moral system and expressed it in the religious texts that we wrote. Assuming that our morality is a product of religion degrades human beings as little more than animals operating only on our basest instincts if a sky daddy isn't given us moral instructions.

1. You truncated a statement I made in order that you can assert a meaning different from intended by the full statement and context in which it was presented. Yet, you insist that I am the one here doing the dribbling and conflating? 🥱🥱

Japan has Shintoism and Scandinavian societies were formerly built on norse paganism, a tradition with the country cherishes to this day even with the supposed addition of elements from the religion of Christianity over the centuries. 🥱🥱

2. Clearly, you prefer to argue meaninglessly. I am interested in this here.🥱🥱

Kobojunkie:
Natural Law? Do these natural laws apply to animals as well? 🥱🥱🥱

2. You mean you don't know there are places out there were family members sleep with each other and don't even talk about it? 🥱🥱🥱

1. Yes, it does. If you don't know about them all, at least you can studies the likes of lions, termites, eagles, elephants and some others to get your answer.

2. Why didn't the said families say it out? Or can you proudly mention their names or tribes?

yemmit90:
1. Yes, it does. If you don't know about them all, at least you can studies the likes of lions, termites, eagles, elephants and some others to get your answer.
2. Why didn't the said families say it out? Or can you proudly mention their names or tribes?

1. So, explain how these natural laws prescribe morality for all? How are those laws a moral standard for animals and for humans? 😒

2. The same reason most people don't say all they do behind closed doors in public. They only air their situation outside when they are safely among those who agree with them. Take, for instance, the rape of children by their fathers, brothers, or uncles, or in general pdfilia, if individuals who found such practices acceptable were to locate for themselves their own private island under laws that allowed them to freely practice, do you think it would not happen? In places like Pakistan, the claim is that 9 out of 10 children on the streets have been graped by adult men. 36% of all girls and at least 29% of all boys have been sexually abused.
https://theworld.org/stories/2013/08/15/pakistani-children-face-high-rates-incest-receive-little-support-family-state

Do you think that the government, women, and society are not aware of the problem? Do you think the victims have not tried to get help, only to be ignored? 😒

yemmit90:
It came from 'Natural law or law of nature', and that is what made us homosapiens. This laws were innate, raw and naturally built with our biological composition.

If I may ask you, where did a family learnt that it is not good to sleep with one another along the blood line? Why do you feel it is not appropriate to sleep with your beautiful sisters or mum?

u have to prove that.

as far as I'm aware, incest is considered immoral in all ancient religious text- mesopatamia, ancient egypt, ancient greece, ancient Rome, ancient akkadian.
marriage btw son and mother or even siblings is seen as a curse and could bring the wrath of the gods on the land.

So yes ancient civilisation derive incest morality from a higher power not some innate nature as u claim. There's clear evidence for this.

anyway we know close family marriage is unhealthy and brings about genetic disease in the offsprings, so I'm not even going to bother about that since incest should be discouraged based on health ground.

Kobojunkie:
1. So, explain how these natural laws prescribe morality for all? How are those laws a moral standard for animals and for humans? 😒

2. The same reason most people don't say all they do behind closed doors in public. They only air their situation outside when they are safely among those who agree with them. Take, for instance, the rape of children by their fathers, brothers, or uncles, or in general pdfilia, if individuals who found such practices acceptable were to locate for themselves their own private island under laws that allowed them to freely practice, do you think it would not happen? In places like Pakistan, the claim is that 9 out of 10 children on the streets have been graped by adult men. 36% of all girls and at least 29% of all boys have been sexually abused.
https://theworld.org/stories/2013/08/15/pakistani-children-face-high-rates-incest-receive-little-support-family-state

Do you think that the government, women, and society are not aware of the problem? Do you think the victims have not tried to get help, only to be ignored? 😒

1. Can you please define 'morality', "immorality' and 'Nature"? If you can perfectly do this, you will understand how the concept of these natural laws prescribed morality for all. In short, it is a moral standard for animals and humans because they are the acceptance social norms brought by nature.

2. You still never answer the question, or may be you don't get the logic behind the question. That something is bad, doesn't mean people are not doing it, so try to focus your argument on whether it is morally acceptable or not.

No

SIRTee15:
u have to prove that.

as far as I'm aware, incest is considered immoral in all ancient religious text- mesopatamia, ancient egypt, ancient greece, ancient Rome, ancient akkadian.
marriage btw son and mother or even siblings is seen as a curse and could bring the wrath of the gods on the land.

So yes ancient civilisation derive incest morality from a higher power not some innate nature as u claim. There's clear evidence for this.

anyway we know close family marriage is unhealthy and brings about genetic disease in the offsprings, so I'm not even going to argue that since incest should be discouraged based on health ground.

Lolz, no one derived a particular moral law from higher power because religion is man made traditions. Humans introduced the concept of God in their own ways and traditions. What you think is moral in one society, might be immoral in another. Natural law exist among the people that shares the same values, cultures, gods, lineages and traditions. In some cases, there were universal laws that binded all humans, the same law exist among animals, which can also be regarded as "instinct".

yemmit90:
No

Lolz, no one derived a particular moral law from higher power because religion is man made traditions. Humans introduced the concept of God in their own ways and traditions. What you think is moral in one society, might be immoral in another. Natural law exist among the people that shares the same values, cultures, gods, lineages and traditions. In some cases, there were universal laws that binded all humans, the same law exist among animals, which can also be regarded as "instinct".

pls stop going around in circles and answer my queston.

whether u believe in the gods of a culture or society is irrelevant. That culture is telling u that the source of their morality is from their gods. whether u think its an imaginary sky daddy is completely inconsequential. They derive their morality from religious belief.

Now u tell me, what is the source of your morality if u don't believe in an imaginary sky daddy.

stop appealing to ancient civilisations that dont share the same opinion with u regarding the source of their morality.

yemmit90:
1. Can you please define 'morality', "immorality' and 'Nature"? If you can perfectly do this, you will understand how the concept of these natural laws prescribed morality for all. In short, it is a moral standard for animals and humans because they are the acceptance social norms brought by nature.
2. You still never answer the question, or may be you don't get the logic behind the question. That something is bad, doesn't mean people are not doing it, so try to focus your argument on whether it is morally acceptable or not.

1. Morality refers to the foundational set of principles, beliefs, and standards that a people, society, or nation subscribes to. It provides clear differentiation between what is considered right (moral) and what is considered wrong (immoral) for a particular people, society, or nation. Thinks of it as axioms(base truths) aka the grounding on which all subsequent laws are meant to derive from. 😒

2. I can't answer a literally stewpid question though. There is nothing universal about what is considered moral in your society, state, or nation. When you say such things as laws of nature, you hint at some sort of universal moral standard to which we all hold, a standard that nature itself administers and adjudicates, yes? Well, when men sexually assault their children or relatives in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, or any other -stan where women are seen as tools for the pleasure of the men, I don't see nature stepping in to do anything about that. Therefore, I think it is ridiculous to suggest at this point that nature has moral rules for us to argue on. 😒

Again, pay close attention to the meaning of morality, so you can better narrow your scope to that which is relevant to the conversation.😒

Kobojunkie:
1. You truncated a statement I made in order that you can assert a meaning different from intended by the full statement and context in which it was presented. Yet, you insist that I am the one here doing the dribbling and conflating? 🥱🥱

Japan has Shintoism and Scandinavian societies were formerly built on norse paganism, a tradition with the country cherishes to this day even with the supposed addition of elements from the religion of Christianity over the centuries. 🥱🥱

2. Clearly, you prefer to argue meaninglessly. I am interested in this here.🥱🥱

I took your comments in the context you intended it and you've gone further to confirm that context, so I have no idea what you think I "truncated". Your argument seems to be that every society has at the very least some small surviving population of religious zombies, therefore human society can't "survive" without religion. This is incredibly fallacious. I might as well claim human society can't function without murderers and rapists because every society has murderers and rapists. Religion is irrelevant to the "survival" of Japanese society cos it plays no role in public life. Its utility value is largely in cultural identity and history - same as most Europeans see Christianity as cultural identity rather than an actual religion, and their churches are basically museums with beautiful architecture and art.

I've already told you the roots of human morality, which you didn't address, so it seems you're arguing "meaninglessly".

geoworldedu:
I have told you betimes that I am not an atheist. You can call me a knower, because I actually believe in the God Almighty who created Jehovah your god. You can find that out from the BOOK OF UNIVERSAL HISTORY revealed to us by OTEM.

Now once again, you want me to tell you the source of my morality, but you haven't answered the question as to whether your God is immoral. Your god actually commanded killing of disobedient and drunk son. You said doing that is not moral, but you haven't answered me concerning the giver of that command, whether he is moral or immoral. I'm still waiting.

if u not an atheist, then I think u should take a back seat. This thread is for those who are outright atheist or doubt existence of God. if u believe in God, then no point being here.

besides, I find it very disturbing u said there's nothing wrong pi.mping your daughter into prostitution. u even said u will join her in the business. daughter is calling customer, father is doing the transaction.
That doesn't look like a healthy family at all.

Pls in the name of whatever u worship, dont raise your daughter with such mindset and pls go and seek help from a therapist.
dont take this advice lightly.

Obi1kenobi:
➜I took your comments in the context you intended it and you've gone further to confirm that context, so I have no idea what you think I "truncated". Your argument seems to be that every society has at the very least some small surviving population of religious zombies, therefore human society can't "survive" without religion. This is incredibly fallacious.
➜ I might as well claim human society can't function without murderers and rapists because every society has murderers and rapists. Religion is irrelevant to the "survival" of Japanese society cos it plays no role in public life. Its utility value is largely in cultural identity and history - same as most Europeans see Christianity as cultural identity rather than an actual religion, and their churches are basically museums with beautiful architecture and art.
➜ I've already told you the roots of human morality, which you didn't address, so it seems you're arguing "meaninglessly".

1. Your submission regarding my statements thus far is wrong. Now, please try to take your personal delusions out of everything I have said thus far, and begin processing my responses as written. 😒

2. That is a very naive assumption that you make there. What we all know as the Japanese way of life, work ethics, respect for the environment, etc, all come from traditional Japanese beliefs, which are all tied to the Shinto religion. If you do not know this at all, then what are you attempting to argue here? Why? 😒😒

3. All you have done is spew forth brain fart after brain fart expecting something to land at some point. Well, nothing has! 😒😒

Kobojunkie:
Atheism is founded on the dogmatic belief, without a foundation in facts, that there exists no power higher or greater than that which is currently known. It is a religion. It is all built on falsehood.🥱

That's not what "dogmatism" is. Many religious people either misunderstand what atheism is (because they're incapable of grasping what an absence of belief is) or they love to play games by redefining atheism. Again, religion requires a dogmatic belief system, rituals and practises, and organized community and structure. Even if I grant your proposition that atheism is "dogmatic" (which is nonsense), it doesn't satisfy the other criteria of what a religion is.

Kobojunkie:
1. Your submission regarding my statements thus far is wrong. Now, please try to take your personal delusions out of everything I have said thus far, and begin processing my responses as written. 😒

2. That is a very naive assumption that you make there. What we all know as the Japanese way of life, work ethics, respect for the environment, etc, all come from traditional Japanese beliefs, which are all tied to the Shinto religion. If you do not know this at all, then what are you attempting to argue here? Why? 😒😒

3. All you have done is spew forth brain fart after brain fart expecting something to land at some point. Well, nothing has! 😒😒

You're obviously a completely pointless person to engage cos you don't even bother to put forward anything resembling cogent, substantive arguments. What can one do when you outline the roots of our moral systems in evolving human civilizations and a completely pointless person just claims you "spew forth brain fart after brain fart". The classic case of playing chess with a pigeon - knocks over the pieces, shits all over the board, and struts around as the victor. Enjoy your bliss.

SIRTee15:
if u not an atheist, then I think u should take a back seat. This thread is for those who are outright atheist or doubt existence of God. if u believe in God, then no point being here.

besides, I find it very disturbing u said there's nothing wrong pi.mping your daughter into prostitution. u even said u will join her in the business. daughter is calling customer, father is doing the transaction.
That doesn't look like a healthy family at all.

Pls in the name of whatever u worship, dont raise your daughter with such mindset and pls go and seek help from a therapist.
dont take this advice lightly.

I didn't say I will love-vendor daughter into prostitution. You are lying like a Christian oga. I said I will ask my child who wants to be an onlyfan model if she is ready to face the consequences of what her society will dish out to her. If she thinks she can, then she's an adult and it's her choice. So why do you lie a lot.

As for me, I want to be an onlyfan actor. How can I join sef?

Your god who commanded killing of disobedient and drunk son can never be close to me in morality even if I join onlyfan

God Almighty who created Jehovah your god bears me witness that your god is highly immoral

DeepSight:
Of course but can you see what I am trying to drive at. That the metric of wellbeing of humanity can deliver unpleasant conclusions as well. It's just one example out if many possible.

Indeed which is why we have concepts like justice and law so that we can take a look at unpleasant conclusions and attempt to mend what was broken. I am not sure we'll ever arrive at a perfect system but it is part of the drive for survival to reach for it.

Kobojunkie:
Atheism is founded on the dogmatic belief, without a foundation in facts, that there exists no power higher or greater than that which is currently known. It is a religion. It is all built on falsehood.🥱

Is it god belief that is built on facts? Why then can you lot never produce these facts when asked?

LordReed:
✓ Is it god belief that is built on facts? Why then can you lot never produce these facts when asked?

On the God issue, Science still does not pretend to have the facts. That means the very claim that God does not exist is also of religion. So...yeah! 🥱