menxer:
Good.

Then endeavour to explain:
1) the morality of women subjugation and inequality.
2) the absence of female gender In the Trinity.


Morality of good/evil as opined is still an extension of the concept of duality that pervades all creation but is missing in the all male Trinity and in heaven.

hopefulLandlord:
OP is very confused

says atheists use subjective judgements, then proves religious belief is subjective

ergo, he proves religious morals are subjective

THT80:

The above paragrah, which I am guessing you didn't read, contradicts the statement you just made. Please read it.

JackBizzle:



Yet atheist tend to be better behaved than most christians.

On nairaland alone, can we even name one agheist that is a scammer? But we have caught so many christian frauds

hopefulLandlord:


its you that need to understand my own post

You're proving Morality is subjective then criticising atheism for having subjective morals, that sounds like hypocrisy

you can't possibly talk about what is common amongst all of you and use that as a point cuz there are atheists in Jainism and Jainism is the most peaceful religion in the whole world, no religion comes close to it in terms of the things you listed up there "Love, selfless service and doing good to others"

so OGA, you no get point abeg, all you've done is argue that atheists should join Jainism at best

THT80:


You seem to have a problem with verbal comprehension. Did you skip your comprehension classes in high school?

Tell me a religion that doesn't have it's core moral values predicated on avoiding sin, bearing in mind that the concept of sin is tailored around the question of how to treat others and how to live righteously?

What answer does atheism provide on the question of how to treat others? On what foundation does atheism base it's moral values on?

THT80:
[/b] If we obliterate all forms of religion, where then do we derive our morals from? The common answer atheists provide to such a question is an answer that I consider to be potentially dangerous. Atheists are of the opinion that humans can use the tools of rationality and even science to answer questions that apply to morality.
Atheists however are faced with a series of moral problems. Since they aren't accountable to any set of divine moral principles, on what basis are they to define an action as right or wrong?

THT80:


The question of female inequality isn't really a question of how to treat others or how to make decisions and live our lives in a way that it doesn't harm others. Unlike religion, atheism doesn't have any value system that answers these kind of questions. Questions like: Is it right to kill? Isn't it rational to put my interests ahead of that of others, whether or not it can potentially cause then harm? What's the basis upon which I make moral decisions? The answers to this kind of questions are uniform within religious circles, but are entirely subjective and dependant on the individual answering them as far as atheism is concerned.

Mind you, issues surrounding gender aren't just religious issues, but also cultural issues, and our ideas about gender tend to evolve with time and interact with our political environments.

THT80:
We've all heard of them. Some of us have encountered them a couple of times online trying to proselytize us away from our beliefs, using their so called tools of reason and empirical evidence. They call themselves atheists - a lucky set of rational humans that have been able to unshackle themselves from the chains of religion and from the irrational belief in the existence of a God.

Although the arguments of atheists for the most part are compelling, they don't seem to provide a tenable or compelling argument in their favor on the subject of morality. They are of the opinion that humans don't require religion to answer our moral questions.
This to me doesn't seem like a wise opinion to have, let alone one to organize your life around and expect others to, because if we take the belief in God away from our lives, then upon what foundation do we erect our moral values? If we obliterate all forms of religion, where then do we derive our morals from? The common answer atheists provide to such a question is an answer that I consider to be potentially dangerous. Atheists are of the opinion that humans can use the tools of rationality and even science to answer questions that apply to morality.

Irrespective of how varied all religions are, there is a unifing thread that runs through all of them, and this is the explicit acknowledgment that humans were created by a divine being, possess a soul, and have a moral responsibility to uphold the value system endorsed by this divine being or beings, because it affects not just the conscious experience of the individual, but the development or journey of the soul. This is essentially what's at the core of most religions. And although religions differ slightly in their doctrinal prescriptions, they say the same thing on the question of how humans should treat others - a question by which morality is essentially defined by. There is no religion that doesn't have it's core moral values organized around love, selfless service and doing good towards others. And as a result of the fact that adherents of a religion understand that they are morally accountable to their maker, and the decisions that they make affect the development and destination of their souls, they are strongly incentivised to uphold these moral values that in turn positively influence the moral progress of their environment.

Atheists however are faced with a series of moral problems. Since they aren't accountable to any set of divine moral principles, on what basis are they to define an action as right or wrong? I regard the atheist's position as inherently dangerous because questions of morality become questions of subjective judgements, and subjective judgements tend to be selfish in nature.
If a person doesn't believe in the existence of a divine being that created him, then he isn't morally accountable to such being or any transcendental force whatsoever and hence he is at will to do anything and his actions can be justified on the basis of his own judgements and needs.

THT80:


Is this really all you can muster as a response to my argument? Really?

First, it's really silly of you to authoritatively assert that atheists are better behaved than Christians because you don't have any analytical or statistical evidence whatsoever. You don't even have the data on the number of atheists and theists in the world or in whatever geographical context you are couching your assertive statement in.

Again you are displaying a staggering degree of naivety and an extremely disappointing inability to argue sensibly and coherently. How is a statement like
"On nairaland alone, can we even name one atheist that is a scammer? But we have caught so many christian frauds" a tenable response to my argument? And how am I supposed to answer this question? How is anyone supposed to answer this question? Do we all walk around with the names and religious or nonreligious identity of every user on this forum? And even if there are more theists than atheists that have been caught engaging in unlawful practices, isn't this merely a consequence of population distribution? If the ratio of theist to atheists on this forum is 98:2, wouldn't it be more likely that anyone caught engaging in an unlawful practice would be a theist?

dalaman:


Which God made the moral laws marry 4 wives as a muslim man? Which God also made the moral law not to eat pork as a muslim?

Homosexual relationship is no longer immoral in the west, which God made such laws?

hopefulLandlord:


OP says atheism is dangerous because atheists use subjective judgements, meanwhile NOBODY has been able to prove Morality is not subjective; every theist just screams "morality is objective!!!" but tell them to prove it and they would start stammering

hopefulLandlord:


make your replies to me civil or I'll leave you hanging


and I already showed you a religion called Jainism that doesn't worship any god, its the most peaceful religion in the whole world and atheists can join them

Jainism emphasises those things you regard as good morals more than any other religion you can think of, so yes you're just sitting there arguing that we should join Jainism at best


Atheism has NOTHING to do with morals

like I said previously, you have no point

dalaman:


Stammering and crying.

hopefulLandlord:


Maybe this discussion can be directed to this question: How do we OBJECTIVELY resolve moral dilemmas? I define a moral dilemma as a set of facts that present a situation in which, regardless of which choice we make, we violate some recognized moral principle.

You know the common example:
>Do I lie to the Nazis to save the Jews I have hidden in my basement from capture (and likely death)? (Dilemma: Do I tell the Truth, or save a Life?)

But also consider this:
>Do I keep quiet (or lie) about the government's illegal domestic spying so to protect national security? (Truth, or the "Greater Good"?)

Another one:
>Do I perform an abortion to save the mother's life? (Save a life, or save a life?)

Or this:
>The practice of medical triage?

One would likely say the Nazi dilemma is easy to resolve--life trumps truth; but is life over truth an objective standard? In the domestic spying scenario, is it an objective truth that the greater good takes precedence over truth, or vice-versa? What about killing one innocent life to save another? (What is the objective standard?)

I submit that these dilemmas are resolved, not by objective truths, but by the facts of the situation (Situational Ethics!!); and the facts we find to be salient are those we are culturally conditioned to deem as such according to our shared values (Cultural Relativism!).

Thoughts?

THT80:


Please don't draw a correlation between Jainism and atheism and don't present Jainism as a position atheists can easily switch to while still holding their views on the nonexistence of God. Jainism is a byproduct of Hinduism and lots of it's doctrines draw inspiration from the Indian vedic texts. Also, although Jains don't proclaim a belief in a God, they aren't devoid of a concept of God; which is that God is a perfect being that exists within themselves, who anyone can strive to achieve or become. This ideology bears lots of similarity with a lot of eastern religions as well.

Unlike Jainism or any other religion, atheism doesn't present an incentive towards upholding moral values. Atheists don't have any conception of a perfect being or God which they aim to attain. Their moral values aren't even defined and are completely subjective and relative to individual judgements.

How can you say atheism has nothing to do with morals? What a disappointing statement to make. Morality is essentially a question of how we treat others and the decisions we make in relation to our interaction with other humans. If our ideas and beliefs affect our answers to these questions, and the judgements we make in our day to day interaction with other humans, how then can you confidently assert that atheism, which is an ideology and belief that informs our actions and decisions, has completely nothing to do with morality?

Let me bring the question home because it seems you have a penchant for conveniently ignoring questions you have no compelling response to. On what foundation do you as an atheist base your moral values on, and how exactly do you define morality?

THT80:

Copying and pasting responses from atheists online is really appalling.

hopefulLandlord:


which atheists online?

hopefulLandlord:


Maybe this discussion can be directed to this question: How do we OBJECTIVELY resolve moral dilemmas? I define a moral dilemma as a set of facts that present a situation in which, regardless of which choice we make, we violate some recognized moral principle.

You know the common example:
>Do I lie to the Nazis to save the Jews I have hidden in my basement from capture (and likely death)? (Dilemma: Do I tell the Truth, or save a Life?)

But also consider this:
>Do I keep quiet (or lie) about the government's illegal domestic spying so to protect national security? (Truth, or the "Greater Good"?)

Another one:
>Do I perform an abortion to save the mother's life? (Save a life, or save a life?)

Or this:
>The practice of medical triage?

One would likely say the Nazi dilemma is easy to resolve--life trumps truth; but is life over truth an objective standard? In the domestic spying scenario, is it an objective truth that the greater good takes precedence over truth, or vice-versa? What about killing one innocent life to save another? (What is the objective standard?)

I submit that these dilemmas are resolved, not by objective truths, but by the facts of the situation (Situational Ethics!!); and the facts we find to be salient are those we are culturally conditioned to deem as such according to our shared values (Cultural Relativism!).

Thoughts?

hopefulLandlord:


i have to break protocol here, Nice one!

butterflyl1on:


This online

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/not_even_hitler_can_help_this_christian_argument/

Copy and paste argumentator

THT80:


Shame on you. I'm abandoning this argument since it's clear that atheists on Nairaland can't formulate their own opinions and have to resort to plagiarising the online posts of foreign atheists. How can I engage in a debate with people who borrow all their retorts from online websites.

You are pathetic!!

Cc felixomor

THT80:


Shame on you. I'm abandoning this argument since it's clear that atheists on Nairaland can't formulate their own opinions and have to resort to plagiarising the online posts of foreign atheists. How can I engage in a debate with people who borrow all their retorts from online websites?

You are pathetic!!

Cc felixomor

THT80:


Shame on you. I'm abandoning this argument since it's clear that atheists on Nairaland can't formulate their own opinions and have to resort to plagiarising the online posts of foreign atheists. How can I engage in a debate with people who borrow all their retorts from online forums?

You are pathetic!!

Cc felixomor

hopefulLandlord:


interesting, I've shown you have NO point so far, don't use this as an excuse cuz my copied quote wasn't even directed at you

my points so far have been simple

in OP you proved morality is subjective

then criticized atheists for using subjective judgements, what makes the religious judgement "unsubjective"? that's been my challenge to you

and get this straight " ATHEISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALS"


.