₦airaland Forum

QuinQ:
I'm amazed you honestly can't see how ignorant this sounds. Soo, on what basis is an atheist covering his private parts? Or not having sex in public? Or not sticking his finger in his nose. So it is religion that precipitates all that?
And you still can't tell the difference between what is indecent and what is immoral. See a list of each below. You likely still won't get it. Some people are simply dull by nature.

And answer my question why would some people consider exposing head and ankle an immoral behaviour that deserve punishment?
Why

QuinQ:
I'm amazed you honestly can't see how ignorant this sounds. Soo, on what basis is an atheist covering his private parts? Or not having sex in public? Or not sticking his finger in his nose. So it is religion that precipitates all that?
And you still can't tell the difference between what is indecent and what is immoral. See a list of each below. You likely still won't get it. Some people are simply dull by nature.

Girl, If a behaviour is indecent, then it's immoral to do so!!!!
Otherwise morality becomes subjective.
What's so hard u don't get
U don't need chatgpt sourced from social media to tell u that.

just forget it. if u think dressing in a swim suit to work is not an immoral behaviour, I think u are far confused and too dull to grasp anything.

see what liberal secularism has turned u into. ask your pastor if dressing in swim suit to work is not an immoral behaviour provided your work colleagues dont tie u down and send u to a psychiatric home.

What I see here is a Christian woman who has based her moral fibre on liberal secular laws.

Dtruthspeaker:
This is the 3rd time i am pointing it.

According to your earlier screeshot, is "respect and proper public behaviour a bad and wrong thing?

No, they are right and good things

And even your post admits that morality is still about doing of the RIGHT things like respect and proper public/private behaviour and more.

So, changing it from decency to indecency still does not change the substance of what decency and morality is which shows that they are the same thing.

And these 3 times you could not reasonably and validly refute it.

Nevermind. Nice chatting with you.
(Some people are simply too stubbornly obtuse for some types of discussions)

SIRTee15:
Girl, If a behaviour is indecent, then it's immoral to do so!!!!
Otherwise morality becomes subjective.
What's so hard u don't get
U don't need chatgpt sourced from social media to tell u that.

just forget it. if u think dressing in a swim suit to work is not an immoral behaviour, I think u are far confused and too dull to grasp anything.

see what liberal secularism has turned u into. ask your pastor if dressing in swim suit to work is not an immoral behaviour provided your work colleagues dont tie u down and send u to a psychiatric home.

What I see here is a Christian woman who has based her moral fibre on liberal secular laws.

Another obtuse genius. Those photos you posted are indecent but not immoral. See one below.

To you too:
Nevermind. Nice chatting with you.
(Some people are simply too stubbornly obtuse for some types of discussions)

QuinQQ:
Another obtuse genius. Those photos you posted are indecent but not immoral. See one below.

To you too:
Nevermind. Nice chatting with you.
(Some people are simply too stubbornly obtuse for some types of discussions)

Do u think the guy is moral but indecent??

SIRTee15:
Do u think the guy is moral but indecent??

I can't believe I'm having this discussion. That guy could be a great warrior for Christ. Appearance does not equate morality.
The most decently dressed person could be morally a devil.
These guys below look very holy until you read the caption!

QuinQQ:
I can't believe I'm having this discussion. That guy could be a great warrior for Christ. Appearance does not equate morality.
The most decently dressed person could be morally a devil.
These guys below look very holy until you read the caption!

pinky swear if that guy approach u to preach christ u wont pick race.

So Paul and Peter who admonished moderation in outward appearance weren't making sense abi
God will help our Genz Christians.

SIRTee15:
pinky swear if that guy approach u to preach christ u wont pick race.

So Paul and Peter who admonished moderation in outward appearance weren't making sense abi
God will help our Genz Christians.

You miss the point. He looks indecent doesn't mean he is immoral. Just as looking very decent doesn't mean one is moral. Wether u pick race or not has nothing to do with his morality!
Oga, sometimes learn a lesson and move on, don't keep.arging nonsense.

Dtruthspeaker:
All these sources you mentioned are still religious based, so, you are still standing with Sirtee and proving him right

No. I haven't proved him right. Religion is man -made, not God -made. SIRTee15 claims all morality is from God or gods. Those aren't the same thing. Even if all my sources were "religious based" that only shows religion shaped me ,not that God authored the codes.

And do you have evidence gods authored those moral codes in religion, apart from the belief they did? This is the question your friend has refused to answer.

triplechoice:
No. I haven't proved him right. Religion is man -made, not God -made. SIRTee15 claims all morality is from God or gods. Those aren't the same thing. Even if all my sources were "religious based" that only shows religion shaped me ,not that God authored the codes.

And do you have evidence gods authored those moral codes in religion, apart from the belief they did? This is the question your friend has refused to answer.

You have already finished proving him right, so you can't deny it.

Secondly, Google says the
A+
1Buddhism is a religion Buddhism is widely classified as a major world religion

Dtruthspeaker:
You have already finished proving him right, so you can't deny it.

Secondly, Google says the
A+
1Buddhism is a religion Buddhism is widely classified as a major world religion

You're still missing the point. Tell me what his position is that you insist I've "finished proving". You can't because you don't know..

And where did I say Buddhism is not a religion?. I didn't. I said Buddhism is a religion with no creator God who gives commands. That's the point. You're arguing against something I never claimed.

Let SIRTee15 defend his own position. If you reply with another strawman, I'll ignore you.

triplechoice:
You're still missing the point. Tell me what his position is that you insist I've "finished proving". You can't because you don't know..

And where did I say Buddhism is not a religion?. I didn't. I said Buddhism is a religion with no creator God who gives commands. That's the point. You're arguing against something I never claimed.

Let SIRTee15 defend his own position. If you reply with another strawman, I'll ignore you.

He has 2 positions
1) morality comes from religion. (His belief but he has kept it aside to ask atheists about their source of morality)

And

2) that your Buddhism is a religion

And see, your words below proves you have changed your statement for you implied that Buddhism is not a religion

I was the one who informed you Buddhism has no creator God who gives commands. So how can the *ignorance be on me " If you had known this from the beginning, you wouldn't have cited Buddhism as proof that morality comes from religion

Dtruthspeaker:
He has 2 positions
1) morality comes from religion. (His belief but he has kept it aside to ask atheists about their source of morality)

Please allow him to speak for himself. You have misstated his position. His claim is not merely that "morality comes from religion". His claim is that morality comes from God or gods, that atheists/agnostics reject God while borrowing the morality he gave through religion, and therefore hypocrites. That's what I have been responding to. If you can't state it accurately you can't defend it.

And

2) that your Buddhism is a religion

And see, your words below proves you have changed your statement for you implied that Buddhism is not a religion

I was the one who informed you Buddhism has no creator God who gives commands. So how can the *ignorance be on me " If you had known this from the beginning, you wouldn't have cited Buddhism as proof that morality comes from religion

No. The obvious implication of my statement is that Buddhism is a religion without a creator God who gives commands, not that Buddhism isn't a religion. If that distinction is too subtle for you, there's nothing further to discuss, because you won't make sense of anything else either.

triplechoice:
Please allow him to speak for himself. You have misstated his position. His claim is not merely that "morality comes from religion". His claim is that morality comes from God or gods, that atheists/agnostics reject God while borrowing the morality he gave through religion, and therefore hypocrites. That's what I have been responding to. If you can't state it accurately you can't defend it.

Yes, this is his end point of his claim but this part is not in issue as i already told you that you were not addressing the aim of the thread being that in the opening of this thread says, he has put his claim and belief aside to ascertain the source of atheists morality.

triplechoice:
No. The obvious implication of my statement is that Buddhism is a religion without a creator God who gives commands, not that Buddhism isn't a religion. If that distinction is too subtle for you, there's nothing further to discuss, because you won't make sense of anything else either.

Now you are lying for you implied that Buddhism was not a religion which is why both of us pointed out that Buddhism is a religion which you have now corrected. So, no need lying

Dtruthspeaker:
Yes, this is his end point of his claim but this part is not in issue as i already told you that you were not addressing the aim of the thread being that in the opening of this thread says, he has put his claim and belief aside to ascertain the source of atheists morality.




Now you are lying for you were implied that Buddhism was not a religion which is why both of us pointed out that Buddhism is a religion which you have now corrected. So, no need lying

You keep repeating you're "lying" because you can't show where I said it. I never said so, or implied it. I said Buddhism is a religion without a creator God who gives commands. That's what I said, and never corrected it.

I'm done with you.

Modified. And nothing like *end point to his claim". "SIRTee15 retreated to" morality comes from religion" because he couldn't provide evidence for his main argument that "all morality comes from God " A person with one true position doesn't need two. He's arguing deceptively and you're defending him because you're clueless about what he's doing.

triplechoice:
You keep repeating you're "lying" because you can't show where I said it. I never said so, or implied it. I said Buddhism is a religion without a creator God who gives commands. That's what I said, and never corrected it.

I'm done with you.

Modified. And nothing like *end point to his claim". "SIRTee15 retreated to" morality comes from religion" because he couldn't provide evidence for his main argument that "all morality comes from God " A person with one true position doesn't need two. He's arguing deceptively and you're defending him because you're clueless about what he's doing.

Your saying you never said so even after i showed you your own words, and the fact that both i and sirtee responded to that implication, is proof of it. I wonder the day you would ever stop lying..

The beginning of the thread sirtee already told us his position and beliefs and that he was putting it aside to hear from atheists the source of their morality

And I was already done if not for the fact that you were lying, yet again

Dtruthspeaker:
Your saying you never said so even after i showed you your own words, and the fact that both i and sirtee responded to that implication, is proof of it. I wonder the day you would ever stop lying..

The beginning of the thread sirtee already told us his position and beliefs and that he was putting it aside to hear from atheists the source of their morality

And I was already done if not for the fact that you were lying, yet again

You're hallucinating. When did SIRTee come to confirm your *implication " after you said so on this page?

He has not. So who is lying between the two of us?. The page hasn't moved. We are still here and anyone following can confirm he's yet to appear on the thread after your false accusation.

You need to check yourself. Something is really wrong with you. I blame myself for engaging you in the first place.

triplechoice:
You're hallucinating. When did SIRTee come to confirm your *implication " after you said so on this page?

He has not. So who is lying between the two of us?. The page hasn't moved. We are still here and anyone following can confirm he's yet to appear on the thread after your false accusation.

You need to check yourself. Something is really wrong with you. I blame myself for engaging you in the first place.

You are so used to lying that you do not appreciate that this is a thread. In your attempt to try to make Buddhism non religious and Godless, you said

" Yes, Japan practice Buddism, but the religion is non-theistic. It rejects the idea of a creator God who Issues commandments, judges... The Buddha himself taught that believing in gods or God is not useful for those seeking enlightenmen"

And sirtee, getting what you were trying to do corrected you saying

"pls go and read about buddhism b4 exposing your ignorance. budhism teaches humans thru enlightement can attain ultimate transcendental reality....

Yes, Buddhism is a religion. It is not a mere philosophy. It has gods, demons, deities, spirits, ghosts, heaven, hell, rituals, liturgy, worship, prayers, practices, eschatology, soteriology, sacred texts, monastics, etc. Yes, Buddhists believe in gods, many gods. Only the uncreated Creator God is denied.".

So, here again, are your words proving you are lying.

SIRTee15:
pls go and read about buddhism b4 exposing your ignorance. budhism teaches humans thru enlightement can attain ultimate transcendental reality. That's a supernatural statement...

Oh! So Buddhism teaches people to delu themselves to escape the pain of real eyeity since God is not going to help them?

So, just like philosophy tries to teach people to live in denial so that they do not face the pain of real eyeity, Buddhism also teaches the same?

No wonder triplechoice and all atheists love it.

SIRTee15:
U are becoming annoying. Now let me expose your hypocrisy.

If your daughter bring any of these guys as her future husband, will u approve? The guy is hard-working, runs a good business, treats your daughter like a queen, respects her and also empowers her.

Will u encourage your daughter to marry him?

If the answer is no, on what basis. What is the source of such objection

Now let's see doublespeak in action.

Your question seems to be mixing moral values, cultural mores and personal taste. People's perception of tattoos and piercings is not a moral value judgement, it is a cultural and/or personal one. I personally do not like tattoos or piercings but I don't see the people who do so as immoral so my objection to my daughter marrying such a person is not because I think the person is immoral. I would object not only for my personal distaste but also because she and the children they'll likely have will suffer needless societal prejudice.

LordReed:
Your question seems to be mixing moral values, cultural mores and personal taste. People's perception of tattoos and piercings is not a moral value judgement, it is a cultural and/or personal one. I personally do not like tattoos or piercings but I don't see the people who do so as immoral so my objection to my daughter marrying such a person is not because I think the person is immoral. I would object not only for my personal distaste but also because she and the children they likely have will suffer needless societal prejudice.

You are still proving sirtee right. You don't have to directly call that tattoo de- monn immoral. The mere fact that you think and judge his looks as wrong, you have judged and called him immoral based on morality

LordReed:
Your question seems to be mixing moral values, cultural mores and personal taste. People's perception of tattoos and piercings is not a moral value judgement, it is a cultural and/or personal one. I personally do not like tattoos or piercings but I don't see the people who do so as immoral so my objection to my daughter marrying such a person is not because I think the person is immoral. I would object not only for my personal distaste but also because she and the children they likely have will suffer needless societal prejudice.

SIRTee would reject what you just explained, even though it isn't much different from my own position.

His question rests on an assumption that atheists/irreligious can feel moral outrage but cannot justify it, and that any moral standard the irreligious appeal to is borrowed from religion, not reason, empathy or social instincts. That's why he ends with "what is the source of this objection?" In other words, "where does the atheist morality come from?" . His answer is, It can only be religion or God. The atheist reject God. To him, that makes them hypocrites for practicing what they condemn.

As it is now, we're debating someone locked into the false belief that all morality can only come from God, a belief he has never evidenced but only asserted.

triplechoice:
SIRTee would reject what you just explained, even though it isn't much different from my own position.

His question rests on an assumption that atheists/irreligious can feel moral outrage but cannot justify it, and that any moral standard the irreligious appeal to is borrowed from religion, not reason, empathy or social instincts. That's why he ends with "what is the source of this objection?" In other words, "where does the atheist morality come from?" . His answer is, It can only be religion or God. The atheist reject God. To him, that makes them hypocrites for practicing what they condemn.

As it is now, we're debating someone locked into the false belief that all morality can only come from God, a belief he has never evidenced but only asserted.

Yeah it seems some believers can't distinguish between what causes moral outrage and an affront to personal taste. I daresay some are even afraid to admit that the things they cover in all the god talk is just their personal distaste which they think would run counter to the belief that all morality comes from their god.

triplechoice:
SIRTee would reject what you just explained, even though it isn't much different from my own position.

His question rests on an assumption that atheists/irreligious can feel moral outrage but cannot justify it, and that any moral standard the irreligious appeal to is borrowed from religion, not reason, empathy or social instincts. That's why he ends with "what is the source of this objection?" In other words, "where does the atheist morality come from?" . His answer is, It can only be religion or God. The atheist reject God. To him, that makes them hypocrites for practicing what they condemn.

As it is now, we're debating someone locked into the false belief that all morality can only come from God, a belief he has never evidenced but only asserted.

Do you not see that when you claim reason or empathy or social instincts you land on God and Religion?

And even this thread shows that you atheists cannot find anything that is purely out of the hands of God and religion to ground whatever morality you hypocritically hold

Sirtee spun a trap that has you atheists thrashing about being unable to escape

LordReed:
Your question seems to be mixing moral values, cultural mores and personal taste. People's perception of tattoos and piercings is not a moral value judgement, it is a cultural and/or personal one. I personally do not like tattoos or piercings but I don't see the people who do so as immoral so my objection to my daughter marrying such a person is not because I think the person is immoral. I would object not only for my personal distaste but also because she and the children they'll likely have will suffer needless societal prejudice.

U guys don't get. why will he suffer societal prejudice and why does that bother u. u people just keep dancing around the loop. come out and admit u benefit from the moral fibre established by religious belief.
no one will bite u.

SIRTee15:
U guys don't get. why will he suffer societal prejudice and why does that bother u. u people just keep dancing around the loop. come out and admit u benefit from the moral fibre established by religious belief.
no one will bite u.

It bothers me because the people prejudiced against him are offering up unnecessary harm. It is their actions that would be immoral not his tattoos.

Moral fibre is borne by conscious thinking beings, religious or otherwise. I know for us as humans we are the ones making moral judgement calls and all evidence points to it. You on the otherhand think an external agency is involved but can present nothing valid to support such a claim.

triplechoice:
You're hallucinating. When did SIRTee come to confirm your *implication " after you said so on this page?

He has not. So who is lying between the two of us?. The page hasn't moved. We are still here and anyone following can confirm he's yet to appear on the thread after your false accusation.

You need to check yourself. Something is really wrong with you. I blame myself for engaging you in the first place.

LoLz. I no longer bother myself responding to him because everybody he interacts with just ends in the pigeon on the chessboard situation.

LordReed:
LoLz. I no longer bother myself responding to him because everybody he interacts with just ends in the pigeon on the chessboard situation.

I have blocked him. He wants to gaslight me to accept his confusion .

SIRTee15:
U guys don't get. why will he suffer societal prejudice and why does that bother u. u people just keep dancing around the loop. come out and admit u benefit from the moral fibre established by religious belief.
no one will bite u.

.No. You're the one caught in a logical loop of your own making . And that's why you keep shifting the goalpost because you can't provide evidence for your original claim that all morality comes from God. Your latest retreat is "moral fibre established by religious belief" But what exactly is this religious belief? You can't answer because answering would end the debate.

Benefitting from something in religion doesn't mean it came from God. And I already told you that there are non -theistic religion. We benefit from Greek philosophy and Arabic mathematics without believing in Jupiter, Athena or Allah. Or do you believe in Allah since you benefit from the mathematics the Islamic world gave us?If you don't, then by your own logic you're an hypocrite since you reject Allah and Islam.

The atheist or agnostic hasn't rejected everything religion has produced. We reject or not convinced that gods authored the moral codes in religion.. Everything else religion has produced, its art, philosophy or its moral wisdom, we can take on its own merits, the same way we take Greek philosophy or Arabic mathematics. Until you understand that, you'll keep demanding that we justify your own belief for you. And that makes no sense.

LordReed:
It bothers me because the people prejudiced against him are offering up unnecessary harm. It is their actions that would be immoral not his tattoos.

Moral fibre is borne by conscious thinking beings, religious or otherwise. I know for us as humans we are the ones making moral judgement calls and all evidence points to it. You on the otherhand think an external agency is involved but can present nothing valid to support such a claim.

Yes, that is it.

SIRTee is convinced an external agency, his God, is responsible for the things he says and does, and wants everyone else to belief it too.

triplechoice:
.No. You're the one caught in a logical loop of your own making . And that's why you keep shifting the goalpost because you can't provide evidence for your original claim that all morality comes from God. Your latest retreat is "moral fibre established by religious belief" But what exactly is this religious belief? You can't answer because answering would end the debate.

Benefitting from something in religion doesn't mean it came from God. And I already told you that there are non -theistic religion. We benefit from Greek philosophy and Arabic mathematics without believing in Jupiter, Athena or Allah. Or do you believe in Allah since you benefit from the mathematics the Islamic world gave us?If you don't, then by your own logic you're an hypocrite since you reject Allah and Islam.

The atheist or agnostic hasn't rejected everything religion has produced. We reject or not convinced that gods authored the moral codes in religion.. Everything else religion has produced, its art, philosophy or its moral wisdom, we can take on its own merits, the same way we take Greek philosophy or Arabic mathematics. Until you understand that, you'll keep demanding that we justify your own belief for you. And that makes no sense.

Guy u already admit that your moral fibre comes from religious belief. Thus, nothing more to discuss with u.

Pls go back and read my initial post. I'm not here to prove evidence of God nor to show u the biblical morality is the best.

All I'm here to show is that atheism on its own has no objective morality to stand on except if they borrow from religious belief.

U guys know the truth, a society or family needs a structured objective morality to function and progress. And as far as I can see that comes from religious belief whose source comes from a higher power or alternative reality.

Otherwise morality becomes relative which is what has become of western world when they embrace liberal secularism as the source of their morality which eventually leads to moral decadence.

U are the one arguing about evidence of God and I deliberately ignored u because I'm not here to play that game.

If u want evidence for God, open a new topic and we will discuss it. Thanks.