₦airaland Forum

Seun:
What? That's not true. Many of the world's richest individuals, who don't follow any religious codes, have pledged their entire wealth to charity.


Theories can be tested. The ones that stand up to scrutiny should be adopted. That's how science works. That's how modern courts work.


Loving your neighbour as yourself is extremely wrong. You should love yourself most, followed by your family, and then all other human beings.

Thus, man is selfish my nature's design as no man will ever love his neighbour like he loves himself. It's almost impossible.

Lol. Johnnydon22 this your thread get plenty k-leg.

I have a few questions.

Morality is an ability to recognize and make a distinction between good/bad. As an atheist and one who dismisses a Creator --- and thus a purpose --, would you say ants are programmed to live their lives for the survival of the colony? Do the ants take on their various roles of their own volition?

Seun:
What? That's not true. Many of the world's richest individuals, who don't follow any religious codes, have pledged their entire wealth to charity.

The motive behind charity is key. Bill gates gives to charity because he makes money from people. It's a business etiquette. Some other billionaires do so to assuage their conscience guilt. Charity given most times is still another effort to attain clean business heritage and reputation too.

Seun:
Theories can be tested. The ones that stand up to scrutiny should be adopted. That's how science works. That's how modern courts work.

Men can never be reconciled to a uniform code of behaviour without a higher moral authority. It will only breed fear, suspension and conspiracy. E.gHomosexuality, marriage, etc.

Seun:
Loving your neighbour as yourself is extremely wrong. You should love yourself most, followed by your family, and then all other human beings.

You just confirmed man is incapable of selfless codes of moral conducts.

That imploration--love your neighbour as yourself-- can never be conceived by men, but therein lies the greatest act of selflessness the world should strive to attain.

joseph1832:
Thus, man is selfish my nature's design as no man will ever love his neighbour like he loves himself. It's almost impossible.

Loving your neighbour as yourself is impossible with or without religion. It's also undesirable. Put yourself first, but be considerate of others too.

AlphaDex:
The motive behind charity is key.

I think the effect of charity is key. If you were starving and I gave you food with no strings attached, you wouldn't care about my motive.

Men can never be reconciled to a uniform code of behaviour without a higher moral authority.

Having a uniform code of behaviour is not ideal. It's better for different societies to try different things in order to find out what works better.

Seun:
Loving your neighbour as yourself is impossible with or without religion. It's also undesirable. Put yourself first, but be considerate of others too.

Loving your neighbour as yourself is golden in what it seeks to achieve and streamline human conducts. That's what socialism strive for. Capitalist will cry foul of course

In the religious context, that imploration shouldn't be taken literally; you should know that. it simple beckons us to do onto others what we wouldn't wish to be the object of.

Seun:
I think the effect of charity is key. If you were starving and I gave you food with no strings attached, you wouldn't care about my motive.

if you have me food while I was starving with no string attached then your motive is pure, selfless. Modern charity is like sponsorship! E.G Mercedes auto company agrees to sponsor an event an in return gets free publication and advertisement. African countries get enough sponsorship from German leprosy NGO and otherWestern NGO, in return they set up shops with their multinationals almost tax free wothout due process.

The effect isn't key, what we're gauging here is morality, Seun, and morality doesn't care for your action but motive.

Seun:
Having a uniform code of behaviour is not ideal. It's better for different societies to try different things in order to find out what works better.

True, but the world has got a single court and humans can be at one end of the world today and another end the next day!

A uniform code of conduct is inevitable at the long run .

Isn't it why there are wars the world over today?

AlphaDex:
Loving your neighbour as yourself is golden in what it seeks to achieve and streamline human conducts. That's what socialism strive for. Capitalist will cry foul of course

In the religious context, that imploration shouldn't be taken literally; you should know that. it simple beckons us to do onto others what we wouldn't wish to be the object of.
if you have me food while I was starving with no string attached then your motive is pure, selfless. Modern charity is like sponsorship! E.G Mercedes auto company agrees to sponsor an event an in return gets free publication and advertisement. African countries get enough sponsorship from German leprosy NGO and otherWestern NGO, in return they set up shops with their multinationals almost tax free wothout due process.

The effect isn't key, what we're gauging here is morality, Seun, and morality doesn't care for your action but motive.
True, but the world has got a single court and humans can be at one end of the world today and another end the next day!

A uniform code of conduct is inevitable at the long run .

Isn't it why there are wars the world over today?

We have people who starve themselves, harm their bodies and even talk down on themselves, if this set of people should practise that "command", won't they hurt their neighbors?

freshcvvs:
We have people who starve themselves, harm their bodies and even talk down on themselves, if this set of people should practise that "command", won't they hurt their neighbors?

Are you talking of those who are mentally impaired?

Apply logic please. If you're to apply Seun's principles then those who stab themselves do worse to fellow man.

You see, your argument is a logical fallacy

HardMirror:
Morality evolves. Take a look at history. Even the christian morals are evolving. Originally women have no authority in the church, but the case is different now else the church would seem to be anti women, so morality is evolving.

If anyone believes morality evolves, such a person should never complain or criticise. Who knows, what you criticise, your morality may evolve to love it soon.

AlphaDex:
Are you talking of those who are mentally impaired?

Apply logic please. If you're to apply Seun's principles then those who stab themselves do worse to fellow man.

You see, your argument is a logical fallacy

Not mentally impaired. There are people who love a bit of pain just as we have some people who love "rough sex", trying to stereotype them to score cheap points won't help you. They are not mentally impaired, rather love different things.

freshcvvs:
Not mentally impaired. There are people who love a bit of pain just as we have some people who love "rough sex", trying to stereotype them to score cheap points won't help you. They are not mentally impaired, rather love different things.

freshcvvs:
We have people who starve themselves, harm their bodies [/b]and [b]even talk down on themselves, if this set of people should practise that "command", won't they hurt their neighbors?

Man, above is your original post!!! Why are you employing clever deceitful veil by changing your own words?

How's harming one's body and starving one's self becomes " loving a bit of pain"?

Seems you're not only looking to score cheap points but also having retrograde Amnesia too.

You contradict yourself even without pressure.

I will rest it here, no more response as your submissions are devoid of consistent substance to even argue with

AlphaDex:
Man, above is your original post!!! Why are you employing clever deceitful veil by changing your own words?

How's harming one's body and starving one's self becomes " loving a bit of pain"?

Seems you're not only looking to score cheap points but also having retrograde Amnesia too.

You contradict yourself even without pressure.

I will rest it here, no more response as your submissions are devoid of consistent substance to even argue with

I thought you know how to read meanings to word, that I said "harm" themselves doesn't necessarily mean they feel hurt by their actions. They love the "harming". I hope you understand better now or do I still go lower before you can grasp?

johnydon22:
Starkly untrue and i will show how



From the post Soldiers that protect the colony, queens, workers and many more [size=20]but for our tale we will focus on the workers.[/size]

It was obvious that the 'Ant analogy' was based on the workers, behaviourial tendencies and collective approach.



Religious basis for morality presents the very apex of selfish propulsion for ethical actions, it subtly proposes an ethical position gunned towards posthumous reward [Paradise] or evasion of posthumous torture [hell].

The actions of the individual is severed from the "need" for ethical actions towards individuals or the society but rather as a greedy means to secure a posthumous end.

That is the height of greed, selfishness and cannot ever be considerately equated with anything near "selflessness".

Here is another tale.

Mr A is in need of Bread, he calls John and asks him to buy a bread for him but John is unwilling to undertake the tasks, he may directly reject or have an indifferent approach towards the request.

Mr A calls John again, brings out a #100 note and promises to give John the money as a reward if he carries out the task, John immediately agrees to the task.
In this scenario, John was not motivated into helping Mr A because he wanted to but for the selfish end of getting a #100 note

Mr A calls John on a second instance, brings out his whip and promises John 100 strokes if he refuses to carry out his request, John also fearfully carries out the task
this scenario also show cases a selfish motive behind John's action, he didn't go because he wanted to, he did so because he was afraid of Mr A's wrath therefore wanted only to save his skin

On a last instance Mr B calls Seun and request he helps him get some bread, Seun carries out the task.
seun unlike John had no reward or punishment option roped around the request, he did Mr B the favour sorely because he wanted to and not because of a "reward" or evasion of a "punishment" as an end

This sorely represents the position of religious moral influence

There are many moral philosophies but to add a nudge towards comformity to these moral lines of action religion proposes a selfish end

Heaven and hell, reward and punishment.

Just like John from the analogy up there, A religiously influenced moral tilt is not fueld by selflessness as you want to argue - but rather a basic means to a selfish end "securing heaven or evading hell"

It is in fact a reluctant approach towards ethical actions that needs 'selfish' nudges in order to be exhibited.

It shows most ethical behaviours as a result of Religious influences in essense cannot be equated as selfless goodness but only a selfish means of gaining a personal goal, take away these "reward and punishment" idea and such a person's moral inclination is severed.

The religious influence of morality makes morality a coercive project - the average religious person does not do 'good' or follow the certain line of moral positions tendered by such a religion because h wants to, he does that only because he wants to Gain a paradise or escape a hell

Here is a first hand example

Here is Malvisguy who holds the idea that you need a God who'd hold you "accountable" before you try not to be a complete sicko serial killer.

A basis for morality based on such not only "selfish" ends but also 'disturbing' concepts are in themselves 'immoral'

Human ethical behaviours should be above such shallow infleunces.

are you a fraud ? Why are you picking word that suit your argument ? Paste the thread and let the viewers read. You want to use cheating and cunning way to win argument like satan ?

malvisguy212:
are you a fraud ? Why are you picking word that suit your argument ? Paste the thread and let the viewers read. You want to use cheating and cunning way to win argument like satan ?

Oh by all means i will https://www.nairaland.com/2557475/delusions-forgiveness-christian-morality

I'm not here win arguments, thats for children.

johnydon22:
Oh by all means i will https://www.nairaland.com/2557475/delusions-forgiveness-christian-morality

I'm not here win arguments, thats for children.

the op was talking about forgiveness, right ? So my reply to him, " if you find it hard to forgive, then go and kill the person" if you, johnnydon don't understand this, I rest my case.

johnydon22:
There have been very wild questions on how morality can be derived without religion, this question though i find it shallow most times comes from a sincere mind and truly an attempt in dealing with that simplistic view of a human ethical wiring purely based on religious interface is vital.

Most people cannot distinguish between human morality and religion, they cannot understand the need for ethical behaviours without religious or external coercions but here is a simple truth human morality has no religious basis, as a matter of fact human morality precedes religious influences

Let me tell a tale of nature, a tale of the most simple of beings, a tale of humility and sacrificial oneness, a tale of enviable order, a tale of selflessness, a tale of the ants

One thing that the human ego has left us is Blind, Blind to the lives we deem lesser than our own, blind to the subtle lessons nature teaches in her ever eventful stage.

I want to tell a tale of the ants, a tale that can teach us what we so blindly cannot see except with a cracking whip of religious influence omniously on our back.

The ants live in holes virtually everywhere around us and each ant hole has a thriving society, A colony.

The colonies are divided into groups according to functions, all groups as important as the other.

Soldiers that protect the colony, queens, workers and many more but for our tale we will focus on the workers.

Every ant's action is gunned towards the good and continuation of the colony, remarkably the human society is a mutilated mimicry of the ant's society except that most human actions are towards "personal [selfish]" ends.

Ants had a well organized society millions of years before the first human crawled out of the caves.

So the ant workers, i have watched them on many occasions working as a single unit, they rarely leave an injured ant behind and there is almost certainly a remarkable care for both one another and the entire colony, they work for the good and continuation of their society.

Many might be wondering why i chose the ants, i wanted to use a life form as common to access as the every day human world, neglected, crude and primitive but still a better organizer than humans ever have been and with a very basic moral behaviour toward each other and their society devoid of the greed of "Afterlife" or the fear of a sinister torture chamber.

So now the question How are you moral without religion?

Human morality was never a religious construct - so how can a human not be moral outside religious influence?

-I doubt if any of us here need the Quran, Veda or the bible to tell us before we bring ourselves to love our parents.

-How many of us need religious coercions to love and care for our young?

So why have we so demeaned human moral and ethical positions to a pitiable shallow state that many cannot concieve "Goodness" without being threatened into it or promised a posthumous reward for it.

it is indeed shallow that many humans cannot see beyond the horizone of such sinister ideas to derive ethical behaviours towards others and the society at large.

A critical evaluation of the 'so called' moral codecs in these pravelent religious doctrines brings to light a bizarre and cruel aspect of 'authorative coercion and some times evil posed as good'.

We humans must break free from this shallow pool of 'selfish' drive to ethical lives and look inward towards our own basis - human morality and ethics have far better and profound basis like

-Love
-Empathy
-Sympathy
-Compassion
-pity
-Family
-Societal bonds
-concern for others and societal well being.

Personally i do not even believe that someone with compassion, empathy, love and is profoundly humane can believe such a bizarre evil disturbing concept as an eternal punishment let alone invoke it as a basis for human morality

There is a saying that "Good cannot come out of evil" how can we hope to achieve goodness through disturbing concepts aimed at our fears.

If you cannot find humane reasons to be good to others except only through religious influence or other external influences such as political ones, then you are operating on a shallow level of human behaviourial potentials.

As Albert Einstein once said "If we humans cannot be good to others unless for heaven or hell then we are a sorry lot indeed"

There also however i can pin point religion and politics has been of useful influence for human ethical shaping as well as many that can also be referred to as disturbing as well as sinister influence from these values.

I am not aiming at discouraging "A moral direction" through religious coercions, it has proved useful on many cases, i am only correcting the niave idea that human morality has a religious or supernatural foundation.

If you can only be good to others because of the promise of heaven or the threat of hell then it shows exactly how little you think of others.

Humanism should drive our ethical positions towards each other, we must derive geniune care and concern and not aim at arriving at selfish ends.

If there are God(s) it appeals to logic that there would appreciate geniune concern and empathy more than reluctant comformity through threat and reward themes.

To claim morality is a religious construct is as ridiculous as claiming that the Alphabets was invented by the English men. [there are in fact Greek]

Morality is neither Muslim, Christian or Hindu, it is a human thing and belongs to no ism, neither is it dependent on any book, doctrines, creed or supernatural for basis. It has a human basis.

As long as there are varying individuals living together on this cosmos of cruel "competitive existence" there must be both positive and negative behaviours in this boundless collision of fates but i think it doesn't take anything to be a nice person neither does it hurt to be less an asss_hole than most people are.

So just like the Ants in our tale, we can derive an ethical behaviour gunned towards personal and societal well being and continuation without the need of religious influence - it is necessary for our continuation.

By Johnydon22

Cc. LoJ, Seun, Dorox....

it's an open floor..... every idea is welcome

Incredible write up johnny.


But next time remember to include me in ur mentions

Owliver:
johnydon22 great points. you impressed me.

my opinion.

when humans formed alliance to work together, then "society" was created. morality was the code of conduct. morality as you have said is relative and it also evolves. society is bound by rules. these rules checkmate the true human nature, these rules are what various religions(culture) call "moral standard"

if you notice when religion takes over government(then Catholic, today Sharia) morality become laws which are enforced, these moral codes become rigid(like Sharia law since 7th century till this day) but when religion is separated from politics, morality becomes an individualistic course which brings about speedy change in morality. this speedy change is really hard for religious people to comprehend hence they label it "immoral"

Interesting