₦airaland Forum

kayusbrown: Moral issues are always controversial and complicated. [size=14pt]What determines the moral correctness or wrongness of a deed is the perspective from which the deed is viewed or the basis on which the deed is judged[/size]. Endless arguments results when the perspective or basis of judgement is not agreed upon. The author of the article judged Goldie from his (the author's) religious perspective or personal moral convictions [size=14pt]which Goldie perhaps was not under any obligation to comply with[/size]. Life is all about choices. Choices that definitely come with their consequences. What makes us human is the ability to choose how we want to live our life. Even God does not choose for us how to live our lives, He only suggests the best way and leaves us to choose with divine guidance (our conscience) and warning that there will be consequences for every choice made. [size=14pt]Castigating individuals for the choices they make, when the consequences of those choices does not affect us, is like denying them the right to live and live freely[/size]. Goldie made her choices while she was alive and that's all that matters. I'm sure she faced the consequences of her choices while she was alive and if such consequences extends to the afterlife, she alone will face it. [size=14pt]Those who have the rights to complain about the choices she made are the ones who probably were affected by those choices like her Widower, her immediate family members e.t.c and I've not heard anyone of them complaining about how she lived her life.[/size]

Beautiful! Absolutely beautiful!!

Ironic that some of the people condemning Goldie's "immorality" here are the same hurling insults. I suppose insulting people is a very moral act. Everyone is suddenly comfortably seated on their moral high horse, praising the writer for his "insight" and thanking their various gods and stars that "sensible" people like him still exist in the country. Apparently, one of the downsides of being a celebrity is that they become easy targets. For the record, I am no fan of Goldie and had no idea who she was until her much publicized death.

Indeed, one has got to wonder how this writer arrived at his conclusions and deemed Goldie as "immoral" and "dishonourable". This write up, though contains some salient points, generally reeks of extreme self-righteousness. If you ask me, this sanctimonious rant qualifies the writer as immoral and dishonourable as well. Don't ask me how; my methods are the same as the writer's. You see, the problem with passing moral judgments is that our individual and collective senses of what constitutes morality are often subjective. For example, some would have you believe that certain hairstyles are immoral. Or certain clothings; even jewelries. Who defines these things?

I do think that for most people (if not all), what passes for "immoral" is nothing but our personal disgust for that thing in question (especially when it is sex.ual in nature). I do often seriously wonder how anyone would reasonably expect 7 billion people to hold on to similar values and standards. Or why they would deem their own values as superior to anyone else's for that matter.

Lastly, that final quibble about "mentally colonized perverts" who seek to "justify" homosexuality and likening it to ince.st is especially idiotic and borders on extreme ignorance.

LOL. Neddivine probably has Nairaland open on one tab, por.n on another tab, and a bottle of Vaseline somewhere close.

Logicboy03: Many of them are se.xually repressed while claiming to be virgins or against premarital sex. This is why many of them are later caught pants down like hypocrites

https://www.nairaland.com/1025789/effect-religion-sex-life
(don't know who moved it to the sexuality board! )

musKeeto: Interesting.. Thanks..
Same experience here. The reevaluations are necessary. Jayrigial's definition of atheism made me more receptive to the term. Sometimes, I wonder if there's something more to life. If there's, it's done a good job hiding itself..

Indeed, there may be more to life. Something might have created this world quite alright. But I'm bloody damn sure nobody knows whatever this thing or things are; we all just speculate. And some speculations are far more ridiculous than others.

musKeeto: @Purist: what made you disbelieve? How long did it take, your transtition period.. I've been hoping to ask u for a long time now.. Abeg no return to sniper mode just yet..

lol @ sniper mode.

My deconversion story is an uninteresting one, because there's no story to begin with. Nothing dramatic, no tragedy in my family, no disappointments of any sorts, etc. For me, it was just kind of like a Eureka! moment. The transition, I'd say started around 2006/7. Started with doubts, questioned stories in the bible e.g. garden of Eden, tower of Babel, etc. Transition was quite typical though - Serious Christian -> Liberal Christian -> Deist -> Agnostic -> Agnostic atheist (of course, I'd rather avoid these labels altogether). In fact, I'd say the transition is still on, as I constantly re-evaluate my position from time to time. For instance, I saw the movie, Cloud Atlas, last night and while the rational part of me dismissed the whole concept (reincarnation) as nonsense, I still found myself wondering, "what if..?"

In short, the whole thing just stopped making sense to me. I can't exactly pinpoint to the "what" that made me to start disbelieving. One thing though, is that I have always been very curious, even as a kid. Once, I asked my mom who created God and the response I got was "shut up!". I have always questioned stories in the bible and practices in Christianity for as long as I remember but as a Christian, I learned to just accept even if it seemed senseless because my understanding, I was told, was "limited". After all, God's ways are not our ways. Thinking of it now, probably I was never really a Christian (NL Christians would so love to hear that ), maybe I have always been an unbeliever who simply tried too hard to be a Christian. Although in my Christian days, if anyone told me I'd ever stop believing, I'd have thought them mad, absolutely mad. So I guess the transition was just a bolder me coming to terms with the questions I've always had in my mind and seeking to address them once and for all.

Logicboy03: Tell me about it. The leader of student fellowship in my uni was a por.n master. Had folders of por.n.

This por.n thing appears to be another common denominator with these fellows. Either that, or it's mastur.bation. Often times, it's both.

Not that I have any problems with either act anyway, it's just the hypocrisy that really irks me.

kmcutez: @Logicboy, the most moral people I have met were atheist or rather close to atheism, and the most devious were christians.

My survival guard always goes up around christians. There is nothing christlike with 99.9% of them, esp the ones on nairaland. They should be named devilians.

See how they profess christ, meanwhile their mouths abi na hands, is worse than a septic tank.

Although I am usually too careful to make behavioural distinctions along religious lines, as I believe that there are maybe other factors that contribute to one's moral standing, I cannot just help but note the fact that based on personal experiences (and believe me, I've got loads), I have repeatedly found the above to be true, so much that it's become worrisome. I live in a country where "God" means nothing to the vast majority. Still, the people are probably the most honest anyone would ever come across in their life time. As for Nigeria, we all know that the situation is the exact opposite. But that's somewhat beside the point.

I have also come to find that I suddenly become wary of people the moment I discover the depth of their religious inclinations. In fact, my observations have also led me to discover that the liberal Christians (a.k.a unserious/nominal Christians) generally tend to be more morally upright than the deeply religious ones (a.k.a 'spirikoko'). Where I live, there are a couple of Nigerians as well, and again, the observation is that the ones that attend church the most among them (midweek, Sundays, special programs, etc) are often the ones whose behaviours are most appalling.

The other day, one of them who constantly tries to preach to me and persuade me to attend church with them, had lured a teenage girl to his room supposedly to "discuss" the word of God with her. She is an atheist, and he wanted to make her see the light. Long story short (according to the girl), he started to grope her and the poor girl was terrified that she demanded that the "discussion" continued outside the room. And this guy is one whom I used to think was one of the better Christians among them because of his calm and friendly approach. This is just one of many other sick stories among the religious circle. Initially, it used to come as a shock to me when I learned of their escapades, but not anymore.

It almost seems as if the religion acts as a cover or smokescreen for their dark side, and that the less evil/immorality you care to hide or indulge in, the less religious one tends to be.

jayriginal: I'm great oh. Good to hear from you.

Same bro. Good to hear from you too.

Logicboy03: Purist?

He caught me lurking.

jayriginal: Purist !!!!

lol... you caught me there. How are you doing bro?

Michael Owen on De Gea:

"Unbelievable save by David De Gea. I know I'm right when I say he is top class. You wait to see how good he is in five years.

"Inevitably he will make more mistakes throughout his career. Even the best do, especially in his position. I'm sure people will then try to highlight it more than they would normally do because he is an easy target. Other goalkeepers have made far more mistakes than him this year but very little is said.

"The price you pay playing for a famous team, maybe? Fair enough. But considering his age he is top drawer. Look at Van der Sar when he was his age. Similar build. Then look at what he looked like in his prime. Best is yet to come."

What is Christianity?

https://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/images/christianity.JPG

Interesting piece of statistic for the De Gea critics: De Gea is the 4th best keeper in Europe this season. Yep, better than Hart, better than Cech, better than Lloris, etc. Considering United's rather shoddy defending so far this season (in part due to injuries and Fergie's chopping & changing), this is very impressive for the 22-year-old.

Not far behind Tremmel is the third most expensive goalkeeper in footballing history; Manchester United's oft-criticised David De Gea. People regularly focus on the young Spaniard's flaws when coming for crosses rather than the great shot-stopping abilities that were on show, in particular, in United's recent draw at Tottenham. While he was once again unconvincing under crosses, he excelled when facing attempts on goal, many of them from close range. His save success rate of 78.7% is the joint 4th best in Europe's top 5 leagues.

http://www.whoscored.com/Blog/cn_uyjpro0sf1kw2s_rvzg/Show/Player-Focus-Goalkeepers-Save-Success-Rates

Mutual delusion. . .

Enigma: You remain a thicko, slanderer and intellectual nonentity.

And as I said before:

"Those who matter don't mind; those who mind don't matter."

Jesus loves you too.

Reyginus: Seriously, you guys(Enigma and Purist) are going below the maturity line.
We're watching.

My apologies.

Enigma: ^^
If you are confident you won't be so keen to rehash here.

Maybe you want to learn, but I am never keen to have a thick mumu or dunce for a student.

Mumu who does not even know that the first step is to read the cases, who also does not know that it is unreliable to rely on persons who themslves had not read the cases.

Intellectual nonentity wanting me to be his teacher.

I'm gonna spare you the agony for now. I've played with you enough for today. Now I shall attend to things that actually matter.

Enigma: ^^^ So you no longer have confidence that people going to the thread can see my argument --- and so you want to rehash here.

Lmao. . . look at this unrepentant buffoon. Conveniently forgetting that I was the first person to draw attention to that thread by providing the link for everyone to see how foolish you are.

I remain super-confident that the intelligent people on this board will draw appropriate conclusions from that thread. Keep crying foul, you may win some sympathy eventually.

Enigma: ^^^ And you have the same answer. You still remain too thick to understand the argument; so I will not bother to answer your misrepresentations. You have proven yourself unworthy of that.

However, I will show how much of a nonentity you are intellectually: you have never read the cases in issue.

A person who is not a thicko would read them first before feeling competent to discuss them ----- but on that thread you mumus relied on third hand information from others who similarly had not even read the cases.

So, NO I cannot take you seriously on the substantive issues.

For posterity:

Enigma's duplicitous argument all along (and till this day) was that atheism IS, in fact, a religion simply because the US Supreme court made a special provision under certain circumstances to accommodate that classification for a specific case.

(P.S. If this is a misrepresentation of his argument, why does he ALWAYS bring up this court case whenever he wants to "prove" that atheism is a religion? There, you have your answer. )

Enigma: ^^^ You still remain too thick to understand the argument; so I will not bother to answer your misrepresentations. You have proven yourself unworthy of that.

However, I will show how much of a nonentity you are intellectually: you have never read the cases in issue.

A person who is not a thicko would read them first before feeling competent to discuss them ----- but on that thread you mumus relied on third hand information from others who similarly had not even read the cases.

So, NO I cannot take you seriously on the substantive issues.

Your attempt to poison the well is well-noted. You can't fool anyone here.

Once again: Enigma argued that since the US supreme court ruled that atheism was a religion under special circumstances, therefore, atheism in itself IS, in fact, a religion.

This is not a misrepresentation. This was your argument all along. Denying this will only further confirm the 'liar' status already conferred on you.

Enigma: ^^^ For posterity: I stand completely by my arguments on the thread quoted above and related threads though the thicko above is trying to misrepresent those arguments.

Just to be clear. . .

For posterity: Enigma argued that since the US supreme court ruled that atheism was a religion under special circumstances, therefore, atheism in itself IS, in fact, a religion.

For posterity:

Purist: Have you no shame, Enigma? A full grown man like you telling lies on a public forum just to score cheap points? Are you friggin' kidding me??

For anyone that is interested, here's the post Enigma is referring to: https://www.nairaland.com/966459/arming-faithful-against-logic/3#11175237

Your argument was NEVER an attempt to explain how atheism had ever been held at law to be a religion. That explanation itself would have been totally unnecessary as no one ever disputed that for a moment. Instead, your duplicitous argument all along (and till this day) was that atheism IS, in fact, a religion simply because the US Supreme court made a special provision under certain circumstances to accommodate that classification for a specific case.

In other words, you argued that since the US supreme court ruled that atheism was a religion, therefore, atheism IS a religion. Everyone, including I, pointed out to you that even though that was the case, you cannot use that solitary example to impose a universal definition of what atheism connotes, especially as it was a legal interpretation restricted to a particular jurisdiction.

You then ridiculously went ahead to recall my previous Bill Maher quote to attempt to save face. You implied that since I quoted an American earlier, I was being hypocritical to condemn you for quoting an American law. Unfortunately for you, you failed to recognize the sheer idiocy of this comparison. People quote others all the time if the words resonate with their convictions, and it wouldn't matter if they were American, Chinese or Namibian. You, on the other hand, attempted to impose a universal definition with a legal interpretation that was CLEARLY SPECIFIC and restricted to a certain jurisdiction.

Even Deep Sight who is a theist like yourself destroyed your idiotic arguments completely on that thread, so much that all you could muster at the end was a feeble "tell that to the birds".

If you're going to misrepresent people and be telling lies all over the place, you should at least have a good memory to boot.

===
Sorry for going off-topic guys.

Enigma: ^^^ Ah, see!

You have yourself now conclusively proven yourself to be a LIAR

But then that was always the way of thickos; once they can not measure up on a substantive debate they resort to your kind of lies and desperate tactics.

LOL. . . You seem to be getting some form of gratification from simply echoing my words in the opposite direction. I won't indulge you any further.

Feel free to have the last word.

Seriously, Enigma, when did you turn into this? You used to be one of the sanest Christians on this forum. Now you're just sitting comfortably on the other extreme.

Enigma: ^ You see that you are the unashamed liar now.

So where is the evidence of this "legendary" lying with straight face on my part.

As I said before, on the substantive matter you are too thick and dense and too much of a dunce to be able to understand let alone present my argument. I will not even waste my time in that regard.

However, you could show me to be this "legendary liar" ------ by producing evidence.

You are a rather skillful liar, I must admit. Attempting to turn the tables by asking me for "evidence" will not do you any good. Your numerous lies about atheism being a religion on the back of a US court pronouncement are well-documented on this forum. Heck, even you just admitted to having more links to show where you have peddled these lies.

Again, your lie on this thread that you were only "using an American case to explain that (evangelical) atheism has even been held at law to be a religion" is also still there above for everyone to see. This is a patent lie that I cannot even imagine that you'd try to defend it. An extreme oversimplification of your position at best, but a lie, still. All these lies while keeping a straight face and you still have the gumption to demand "evidence"? Are you having a laugh?

It's funny to observe the way you're desperate to wriggle your way out of this rather that owning up to your sins. I guess I'm simply expecting too much from a religionist. I can only shake my head.

Enigma: Addendum: apart from being a thicko and a dunce, the mumu is also a liar and a slanderer otherwise by now he would have produced evidence of his accusation about me lying and keeping straight face ------ which is supposed to be "legendary".

The evidence you seek is just a few posts ago. Are you so obtuse that you do not realize when you've been exposed as the reprobate charlatan that you are?

Damn, this is getting too embarrassing. I'm beginning to feel like a bully.

Enigma: I am too thick and too much of a dunce to be able to refute your post properly; so I couldn't be bothered.

There, corrected.

Logicboy03: PURIST!!! GADDEM! You sabi finish person ooo!!


Abeg, Enigma, this is the second person (the first was me) that has exposed your lies here and on that thread in detail. In detail.


You are not fooling anybody here. Go away

Enigma tells lies for a living.

(apologies to jayriginal and Deep Sight)

Enigma: And in those very words you are lying as is natural to dunces.

Otherwise, point to my lying and keeping a straight face.

Look, my business here is done. I already elaborated your argument in detail and recalled all that transpired on that thread including what led to the post I first responded to on this particular thread. I have shown how you dubiously attempted to accuse me and others of appealing to authority when all we did was quote the words of people that buttressed our points. It's all there for everyone to see and reach their conclusions accordingly.

Be assured though, that whatever intelligent conclusions that will be reached by anybody will certainly not portray you in a good light. There's no wriggling your way out of this one this time.

Enigma: Cool that the link is there; I can in fact give quite a number of other links where the issue was again discussed ---- specifically in two and peripherally in the others.

I am never afraid of what an intelligent person will make of my posts; and I am never bothered about what a dunce makes of them.

"Those who matter do not mind; those who mind do not matter."

LOL. . . keep trying to deflect attention. Maybe someone will fall for your gimmicks. Just hope.

Meanwhile, your ability to tell lies and still keep a straight face when confronted with it is quite legendary on this forum. You, sir, deserve a medal.

Enigma: As I said, any intelligent person can go to the link and make their own conclusions; they can also decisde when I was "lying".

It is irrelevant that some dunce makes a false accusation against me -- neither here nor there.

Of course the link is there for all to see. Lol. . . I brought out the link first, so don't even try to start painting some picture of persecution here.

Any intelligent person can easily see through your lies, and yes, they will. Your silly attempts to play the victim won't save you at all.