Dialectics Of Violence And Morality - Religion (11)

Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,152,836 members, 7,817,459 topics. Date: Saturday, 04 May 2024 at 12:39 PM

Dialectics Of Violence And Morality - Religion (11) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Dialectics Of Violence And Morality (32312 Views)

Atheists And Morality. A Question! / Atheism And Morality; Do Atheists Have A Foundation For Morality / Dialectics Or How To Debate (very Important For Both Theists And Non-theist) (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) ... (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) ... (20) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by KingEbukasBlog(m): 11:30pm On Apr 05, 2016

thehomer:

According to Christianity, yes it was.

According to Christianity, it usually is.

Having such ignorance of your own religious beliefs is sorry state to be in.

Wait ... you didn't notice I requited your own style of responding to my questions

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by plaetton: 11:31pm On Apr 05, 2016

Logicbwoy:

Newsflash for Plaetton!

Joshthelast is the only person in the history of nairaland to frustrate Mr. Troll.
Mr. Troll was one of the best trolls on nairaland. He never got angry and was always calm in dishing out sarcastic and funny replies....

......until he met our dear Joshthelast. Mr. Troll made the mistake of using wit and logic to address Joshthelast but little did he know that logic doesn't work against the bible. Just when Mr. Troll had thrown some logical comments at Josh and it seemed as if they were in agreement, Josh pulled out a bible quote and blasted Mr. Troll with it. Mr. Troll tried to repeat the logical points he made so that they could discuss on common grounds but Josh only blasted him with more bible quotes and christian apologetics.

Mr. Troll seeing the futility of the argument tried to end the discussion. Only for Josh to tell Mr. Troll that he (Mr. Troll) was irrational and was running away because he (Mr. Troll) had weak arguments. Mr. Troll went mad- can you imagine after trying to use logic for over 3 pages of arguments to get to a common ground with someone, the person then tells you that you are irrational!

-----------------------------------------------------------

I hope Plaetton can learn from this and realise that explaining deep philosophical concepts such as the evolution of human morality and empathy to one who is not ready to listen to logic is a waste of time.

Thank you brother, and salutations.

You just made me feel a lot Better.
grin

I wish this was a paid job. undecided

1 Like

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by DeepSight(m): 11:32pm On Apr 05, 2016

thehomer:

If that is assessed objectively, then what is your complaint again?

Oh no complaint, good Dr; save that it stands in contradiction to your previous arguments on moral subjectivity. And no, I do not have the energy to go seeking out the links and quotes. Do that yourself. You surely recall the thread of Mr. Troll on moral subjectivity and the ensuing thread where all of these issues were thrashed out.

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by DeepSight(m): 11:46pm On Apr 05, 2016

plaetton:

Josh and kingebukasblog, and perhaps yourself hold that Yahweh defines morality, as expressed vin the ten commandments and other parts of the Bible.

Please remove me from this list as I have NEVER held that morailty proceeds from Yahweh. If anything I have opened threads and made posts condemning the barbarous nature of Yahweh. Examples -

https://www.nairaland.com/438941/yahweh-again-deut-7
https://www.nairaland.com/330967/yahweh-pagan-name
https://www.nairaland.com/434436/yahweh-lying-angels

So, should we not hold Yahweh accountable to his own moral standards ?

I am not interested in Yahweh. It is a waste of time to limit the discussion to Yahweh. If I told you that I was say, a Yoruba traditionalist, would you limit the discussion to myths on Olodumare? If I was an Igbo traditionalist, would you limit the discussion to myths on Amadioha?

Please expand your view and stop picking low hanging fruits such as Yahweh just to make an argument.
The question of moral subjectivity or objectivity far transcends the barbarous Yahweh.

The very fact that Josh and kingebukasblog feel compelled to defend, justify and exonerate Yahweh is evidence that they themselves find the allegations against Yahweh morally reprehensible and embarrassing.

They will have to grow past that.

We can talk about moral relativism in another thread.

We already did, and I cannot bear to re hash it.
There is moral relativism - it does not detract from objective morals. For example, circumstantial issues. It's good to kill in self defense. That's a relative circumstance. And it's still objective and will be measured by objective parametres. I can't go on and on. . .

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by KingEbukasBlog(m): 11:51pm On Apr 05, 2016

plaetton:

The issue of from whence comes morality has extensively debated on this forum. We don't need new arguments for it. We should just revisit old arguments from several years back.

Josh and kingebukasblog, and perhaps yourself hold that Yahweh defines morality, as expressed vin the ten commandments and other parts of the Bible.

So, should we not hold Yahweh accountable to his own moral standards ?
That is my argument here., that Yahweh, even by his own benchmarks, did commit plenty of evil and immoral acts.

The issue of moral relativism is immaterial in my argument ,because, I am not the one on trial here.
Yahweh is.

The very fact that Josh and kingebukasblog feel compelled to defend, justify and exonerate Yahweh is evidence that they themselves find the allegations against Yahweh morally reprehensible and embarrassing.

We can talk about moral relativism in another thread.

I am not sure why God not being subject to his own moral laws is worth arguing against . Its a fact you have to deal with .

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by KingEbukasBlog(m): 11:56pm On Apr 05, 2016

DeepSight:

I really don't know why Dr. Homer inveigled that question into the question of necessary evils. Perhaps on account of his opposition of the propitiatory sacrificial death of the lamb which carries away the sins of men. If that is the case, I wholly support him on that score. The murder of Jesus of Nazareth by a jealous and sadistic mob and establishment could never form an atonement for the sins of men before God. If anything, it heaps on, and increases the sins of men. Be ye not deceived for God is not mocked: whatever a man sows, the same shall he reap. If Jesus' death was destined as a sacrifice for sins, his words on the cross (and also at Gethsemane) would be illogical. Father forgive them for they know not what they do. Eli Eli. . . why hast thou forsaken me? If it be possible, let this cross pass over my head.

Having said all that, yes, Jesus' death was necessary to the extent that he was always going to die anyhow. The manner and timing, and the import given to the event, is what is at issue.

It is very evil.
By the way, I hope you know that I verily agree with Messrs Homer & Co on the lamentable evil nature of Yahweh of the Old Testament. Do not subscribe to imported religion blindly my brother - to such an extent that you attempt to justify the patently barbaric.

It sounds to me as though you would have justified the atlantic slave trade as well, seeing as the white man came bearing a gun in one hand and the bible in the other.

I knew the answers to his questions . I just dont understand his penchant for throwing questions back at someone , so I did same to him - a taste of his own medicine .

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by Logicbwoy: 1:04am On Apr 06, 2016

KingEbukasBlog:

No atheist makes any logical argument so you just told lies . If this story ever happened then JosthTheFirst was right to call him irrational . MrTroll I haven't seen any of your arguments , and I dont care but they are very irrational .

TrojansKong - MrTroll wannabe your sarcasm is dry and unwitty . You make the worst form of arguments after thehomer

Go and sleep.

1 Like

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by Nobody: 4:26am On Apr 06, 2016

KingEbukasBlog:

You ask the dumbest questions and give the stupi-dest explanations . You dont know . You are not worth my time . You are shiit . Mention me when you upgrade

You are getting mean shocked

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by KingEbukasBlog(m): 7:05am On Apr 06, 2016

Muafrika2:

You are getting mean

His purpose is to ridicule Christian beliefs which he does not even understand - that's annoying . So it was easy to leave him in a very difficult situation with Mao's intentions and the effects . I think He understood that and claimed he didn't know , throwing the question back at me - now that's very annoying . grin

1 Like

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by PastorAIO: 8:06am On Apr 06, 2016

KingEbukasBlog:

I asked you : "What is evil and what makes what you see as evil evil"

PastorAIO ... that's how I leave the atheist in a quagmire

And I ask you, Why have I been mentioned in this post?

1 Like

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by Joshthefirst(m): 8:19am On Apr 06, 2016

plaetton:

The issue of from whence comes morality has extensively debated on this forum. We don't need new arguments for it. We should just revisit old arguments from several years back.

Josh and kingebukasblog, and perhaps yourself hold that Yahweh defines morality, as expressed vin the ten commandments and other parts of the Bible.

So, should we not hold Yahweh accountable to his own moral standards ?
That is my argument here., that Yahweh, even by his own benchmarks, did commit plenty of evil and immoral acts.

The issue of moral relativism is immaterial in my argument ,because, I am not the one on trial here.
Yahweh is.

The very fact that Josh and kingebukasblog feel compelled to defend, justify and exonerate Yahweh is evidence that they themselves find the allegations against Yahweh morally reprehensible and embarrassing.

We can talk about moral relativism in another thread.

If you think you can hold yhwh to moral standards or put him on trial then you certainly have to examine your way of thinking.

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by PastorAIO: 9:31am On Apr 06, 2016

DeepSight:

You dis man how you dey? Long time. Trust well. I see you have not changed your ways. May the Holy Spirit descend on you
Anyhow, your statement indicates the possibility of diverse benchmarks, I dont have anything against this really, but it does stand in distinction against Plaetton's for which he is yet to account.

One day you will all come to understand me more properly on this morality issue.

I'm fine thank you. I return the salutations. (albeit with a slight bit of trepidation).

I noticed that there is some distance between where I'm coming and where Plaetton and others are coming from with the relativity of morality thing, so I decided to chill from the thread a bit.

Funny thing is… I believe I already understand you on this morality issue, but I just don't agree with you. Your tendency to throw petulant tantrums do not help if you want to convince me of anything.

DeepSight:

In fact, just another thought.
And this just shows how futilistic your thinking is, has been, and always remains.

When we speak about moral comparisons and you divert to the Celsius or Fahrenheit scale as per comparisons in temperature - this is only a figuristic measurement of temperature only and not a measurement of the state of the thing in question as felt or noted by the human being.

Because the same human being would feel the same thing at the same temperature if he touched it regardless the numeric scale used for scientific notation.

Because further, no human being would touch a thing that is - 10 Degrees Celsius and describe it in terms of how hot it is. No human being would touch a thing that is + 100 degrees celsius and describe it in terms of how cold it is.

Likewise, as humans have a sensing of hot and cold (parameters for numeric notation regardless), they have a sensing of good and evil.

This alone, shows how futulistic, wasteful and shallow your thinking is.
It was a long time ago that I advised you, and I still advise you - that whilst you are an intelligent and knowledgeable man, your approach to issues contributes nothing to any issue. I am yet to see a post of yours that actually contributes substance to a thread. You spend most f your posts chasing an invisible and meaningless tail. Futile.

Perhaps I should take a risk and try to explain relativity to you (at least as I understand it).

Relativity is the position that we will observe different values for an event depending on our perspective.

There are various kinds of values for various kinds of attributes.

There are physical values like 6 feet or 5 feet for the physical attribute of Height.

There are physical values like 1 hour or 20 minutes for the physical attribute we call time.

There are Moral values like Good, better, or evil for Ethical attributes. These are not measured into precise units like physical attributes.

The fact that all over the world at various points in history moral values are variable demonstrates that Moral values are relative. Ie. An event is assigned a different moral value by different people observing it from different perspectives.
From our perspective today, we consider rape to be a vile nasty evil thing. However it is evident that the writers of the Old testament did not think so.

Now, this issue of relativity is different from the issue of Subjectivity or Objectivity. These often get mixed up and that could be where a lot of problems lie for people trying to understand my position.

Let us look at a physical attribute such as Time. Now Einstein has proven to the world that Time is relative. Time is relative to the speed at which the observer is moving. Of course we do not see that because we all pretty much move at the same speed. Even the guy in a fast car and the guy walking on the street are not going to notice any significant difference in the measurement of time.

However for an observer approaching the speed of light Time will slow down considerably. I can't go into details plus I believe you are already familiar with the work of Einstein.

My point is that how you perceive Time depends on the locality (a speed range being a locality) you perceive it from. People who share a locality will measure these attributes to be the same. People in different localities will measure Time differently. These are OBJECTIVE facts.

Relativity is an objective fact.

Someone like you that argues for a fixed Sense of Morality for all peoples throughout all ages is like someone that argues that Time is always measured the same regardless of the speed of the observer even though observers moving at various speeds have recorded their observations and we can all see the difference.

Let me return to the temperature example. (though I admit it is probably not a good example).
You argue that someone touching a 100 degree celsius object will feel the same temperature. that is not true. A simple experiment.

Make three buckets of water. One hot, one room temperature, and the third one cold. Put one hand in the hot bucket and the other in the cold bucket for 3 minutes. Then remove them and put them both in the room temperature bucket. Then tell me if the hand that was once in the hot bucket doesn't find the medium bucket colder than the hand that was in the cold bucket. They sense temperature differently depending on where they are coming from.

Furthermore Temperature is relative to pressure. A volume of gas with a fixed amount of heat energy will have one temperature in a high pressure container and a different temperature in a lower pressure container.

Of course the difference between physical attributes and moral attributes is that you can measure physical attributes objectively and find them to be relative.

However moral attributes cannot be measured by any objective barometer. We depend on our subjective sense of morality. So the only way one can argue these issues is to demand your interlocutor to give a moral appraisal of a situation (such as rape).

However, as with the case with Time where everyone on this planet is pretty much moving within a common range of speed, we are discussing with ourselves and we all belong more or less to a common cultural milieu. We have all been brought up to believe that Rape is evil (I hope).

To truly test this though we have to go to a different set of people from a different cultural context at a different time in history. And what do we find. We find that not only do they rape wantonly, but there is no hint of shame in the actions. There is even no sense that the feelings of the woman matter when justice is brought to bear on the matter of rape.

4 Likes

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by Kay17: 9:46am On Apr 06, 2016

Kay17:
@mranony

Morality is basically rules which contents fluctate with the values and perception a society has.

Societies across the world don't have the same values, neither do they share the same perception.

Therefore can't have the same moral contents.

Good and bad are extremes on a society's moral scale

DeepSight:
Although this thread is for Team A and Team B Members, i cannot resist making a few comments:

Thanks for this Toneyyyyyy. . .

My perception is that basic conscience is common to humanity. Now, given the fact of human diversity there will doubtless be, as you correctly stated, instances of practices which deviate from that which may normally be considered "good" or acceptable. However you will agree that in all such instances, the generality of humanity is able to perceive such actions as unseemly. For example the aztecs practiced human sacrifice. Although it seemed acceptable to them, you will certainly agree that the generality of mankind views such as barbaric. Ditto for killing of twins etc.

Now there is a direct co-relation to secular criminal law that seals this point. In the perception of The State, murder is wrong, and punishable. In the perception of a serial-killer, it might be acceptable. However the perception of the state is representative of what the people as a whole think, in that the secular law is based on the perception of the majority in citizenry, theoretically speaking at least. Thus it would be right to state that for a given country, murder being wrong is indeed written in the hearts of the people EVEN IF there exist people (like serial killers) who think it's fair game.

Accordingly i may equally state that murder being wrong is written in the hearts of humanity as a whole, EVEN IF there are or have been tribes that practiced human sacrifice at a state level.

Now i need to make one important point.

Let me suggest to you that there is a difference between core values and cultural values. Because it seems to me that you are mixing up both when you talked about "observing the sabbath" not being written in our hearts.

Core values, in my view, are values which are timeless and universal. An example might be - "Stealing other people's property is wrong." I doubt that there is or has been any society that does not frown on such.

Cultural Values, however, are not moralistic in the pure sense, but deal with cultural dictates only - the sabbath - might be an example. Cultural values are limited to given cultures, nations or tribes.

May i suggest to you that core values are written in the heart in conscience, whilst cultural values are not. May i suggest to you that core values are the real morals whilst cultural values are mere norms. Does this make some sense to you?

This also finds some grounding in criminal jurisprudence. There are crimes called Mala in se (inherently evil) - such as murder, and then crimes called mala prohibita (wrong because specifically prohibited) - such as not parking your car in the right place, or not paying a prescribed fee, etc. Mala in se deals with things which all men should be able to sense as inherently evil and subversive. Mala prohibita deals with things which are only wrong because the government says so. I think that core values pertain to the former and cultural values to the latter.

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by Kay17: 9:46am On Apr 06, 2016

Dug up from some old thread

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by Kay17: 10:05am On Apr 06, 2016

Morality can also be explained as normative rules decided by a table of values with the most valuable value on top. The table of values vary amongst peoples. Morality becomes a reflection of the table of values and can be deduced therefrom.

How this table is decided is more of a question of taste. For Abraham and Samuel, obedience is more valuable than discretion or freethinking. Murder of an innocent might appear objective because of an intersection between two separate tables of values.

Which leads to Nietzsche's slave and master moralities, what the slaves value differ from the masters. Thus explaining the subjectivity of morals.

It might appear that no one is immoral because everyone values at least something. Being human seems to being moral.

1 Like

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by Nobody: 10:51am On Apr 06, 2016

sonOfLucifer:
KingEbukasblog, JOshthefirst.. is Truth Eternal? Can Truth Change?

Only without time, truth is constant.

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by PastorAIO: 11:24am On Apr 06, 2016

This Guy!! You want to force me to go back and start reading Nietzsche again.

Kay17:
Morality can also be explained as normative rules decided by a table of values with the most valuable value on top. The table of values vary amongst peoples. Morality becomes a reflection of the table of values and can be deduced therefrom.

How this table is decided is more of a question of taste. For Abraham and Samuel, obedience is more valuable than discretion or freethinking. Murder of an innocent might appear objective because of an intersection between two separate tables of values.

Which leads to Nietzsche's slave and master moralities, what the slaves value differ from the masters. Thus explaining the subjectivity of morals.

It might appear that no one is immoral because everyone values at least something. Being human seems to being moral.

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by UyiIredia(m): 12:35pm On Apr 06, 2016

PastorAIO:

Are you saying that God can only exist as an concept?

God exists as a real being but we have various concepts of this being. How you can believe in the real being without believing in any concept of it is the mystery here.

1 Like

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by PastorAIO: 1:30pm On Apr 06, 2016

UyiIredia:

God exists as a real being but we have various concepts of this being. How you can believe in the real being without believing in any concept of it is the mystery here.

It's very easy. No mystery at all. I believe all concepts are necessarily flawed. Not just concepts of God but any concept of reality.

That doesn't mean that they cannot have pragmatic value. i.e. they can be handled as workable hypotheses.

However to carry concepts on your head like a life or death matter, even to the point of denying reality just to maintain the concept, even to the point of fighting your fellow humans or even going to war and risking life and limb…. I nor dey for that one.

Life is a mystery. It is a wonder. Accept it like that.

1 Like

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by KingEbukasBlog(m): 5:03pm On Apr 06, 2016

PastorAIO:

Life is a mystery. It is a wonder. Accept it like that.

Coming from the pit of Hell . You and your devilish doctrine angry

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by PastorAIO: 5:28pm On Apr 06, 2016

KingEbukasBlog:

Coming from the pit of Hell . You and your devilish doctrine

Thank you.

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by PastorAIO: 5:33pm On Apr 06, 2016

KingEbukasBlog:

I am not sure why God not being subject to his own moral laws is worth arguing against . Its a fact you have to deal with .

I have no idea whether it's worth arguing against or no, but I do know that it is a load of rubbish. Perhaps if someone found the rubbish vexing then it would be worth his while to argue against it in the hope that you'd stop making the inane shallow argument. Or then again perhaps one may just be arguing against it to while away the time and so it's value is recreational.

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by KingEbukasBlog(m): 5:34pm On Apr 06, 2016

PastorAIO:

Thank you.

U welcome . But wait ... Did you come along with sonOfLucifer

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by PastorAIO: 5:45pm On Apr 06, 2016

KingEbukasBlog:

U welcome . But wait ... Did you come along with sonOfLucifer

Na only me waka come.

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by KingEbukasBlog(m): 5:46pm On Apr 06, 2016

PastorAIO:

I have no idea whether it's worth arguing against or no, but I do know that it is a load of rubbish. Perhaps if someone found the rubbish vexing then it would be worth his while to argue against it in the hope that you'd stop making the inane shallow argument. Or then again perhaps one may just be arguing against it to while away the time and so it's value is recreational.

You are against God

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by PastorAIO: 6:18pm On Apr 06, 2016

KingEbukasBlog:

You are against God

Can you make another daft statement that is even stupider than this one? If you can I'll give you a prize.

5 Likes 1 Share

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by Logicbwoy: 6:26pm On Apr 06, 2016

PastorAIO:

Can you make another daft statement that is even stupider than this one? If you can I'll give you a prize.

1 Like

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by neocortex: 6:30pm On Apr 06, 2016

KingEbukasBlog:

Knee-jerk response - in its actual sense .

We have a new covenant with God through Christ . Such happened during that dispensation and is not obtainable now .

So much for an unchanging god.
BTW are you ashamed or proud of what god did to the amalekites ?

1 Like

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by neocortex: 6:32pm On Apr 06, 2016

KingEbukasBlog:

As an atheist how is that evil . Which moral law to guide you? Plus you believe that evolution is cruel and life is prolonged for whosoever is fit enough . So what guides your morality ?

Let me answer the question for you .

Religion . As a former Christian , your religious foundation laid was your guide to discern between right or wrong . True or true ?

How about criminal christian and pastors in jail, do they lack religious foundation ?

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by neocortex: 6:34pm On Apr 06, 2016

Joshthefirst:
You've betrayed yourself.

Evil and good are self-evident. Inspite of your hypocritical statements otherwise.

Evil and good are self-evident in our consciousness because there exists a moral law-giver.
This moral lawgiver is God.

Is walking unclad in the street good or evil ?
please help me ask the lawgiver

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by KingEbukasBlog(m): 6:46pm On Apr 06, 2016

PastorAIO:

Can you make another daft statement that is even stupider than this one? If you can I'll give you a prize.

You are against God

Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by PastorAIO: 6:54pm On Apr 06, 2016

KingEbukasBlog:

You are against God

Are you suggesting that it gets stupider every time you mention it? Yeah, i agree, but I really want to hear another one, a fresh one.

2 Likes 1 Share

(1) (2) (3) ... (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) ... (20) (Reply)

Pastor Digs Out Charm During Family Liberation In Imo State (photos) / Mike And Gloria Bamiloye Pictured With Their Children / Widow Gets Lincoln Navigator From Omega Power Ministries In Port Harcourt

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 105
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.