₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
You said right to life is universal and I just gave you a place where right to life doesn't apply so how is it universal. It's you who does understand what she is saying.

you are only speaking from your world view as an atheist.
In your world view society determines what is right and wrong.

That means if society says rape is good it means it is good.
If society says slavery is right slavery is right So those that fought against slavery were morally bankrupt simply because society considers slavery morally right according to atheist world vie

LordReed:
I know the meaning but you do not. Right to life is not universal. Go to North Korea you'll know that right to life is not universal.

What the heck is self difference?

Know you do not know what you are saying honestly?
A theif steals does not mean stealing is good, that North Korean say people don't have right to life does not make it good.

Maynmann:
I don’t even understand by what she means by “objective morality”.
This same woman said killing babies is not bad ITSELF, it’s bad because humans didn’t create it, and because his deity created it killing babies is right, this theists are amazing.

I am not a woman, by the way.
Does a judge have the right to sentence a criminal?
Do you have the right that a judge have? Why?

LordReed:
If there is an exception then it is not universal.

Do you know what the meaning of universal mean.
Right to life for example is universal, so when you try to or take the life of another person then you lose your right to life.
So self difference is not subjective.

Maynmann:
No where was sinner talked about, how do you read your own context?

Let’s backtrack to verse 6 where your yahweh was laying dominance over all things, good and evil.

6–that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other. 6 so all the world from east to west will know there is no other God. I am the LORD, and there is no other.

7– I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Only if you know how these books were written 😂

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

The comparison is between evil and peace so this isn't about evil morally.

Maynmann:
If my son is in trouble, and I’m a loving father i will help my son first before giving him conditions.
Spanking your child won’t make him change.


Your god didn’t create everything, he didn’t create evil, the devil must have created it, so he doesn’t have dominion over everything and is not the most powerful.

Isiah 45:7– I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Isaiah 45:7 is not talking of moral evil but rather calamity upon the sinners, read according to context.

Steep:
God gave animals to us to eat, you proving again that there is only objective morality and a law giver.
Else can you from an atheists world view justify why animals should be killed and eaten?
I am waiting, and this is for you lord Reed too

Answer this question

Maynmann:
So a soul saying it has freewill is only deceiving him self, your deity has the right to do the soul as he pleases.

Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to [Yahweh] in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck [Yahweh]'s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

— Numbers 31:13–18

free will can be overided for example a criminal can be jailed against his freewill, babies are immunized against their freewill, so.

Did you read that text properly? Do you not see that the women are instigators of the problem, they seduced Israel through sex inoder to make them weak so Israel could be anhillated . They have a evil custom of using sex as a weapon.
The women and little ones who had knew no sex should be saved alive.

But according to atheism morality is subjective So genocide is neither wrong or right.
By the way answer my question

Maynmann:
What conscience?
You said killing babies is not wrong because you didn’t create them, so is the conscience about the killing of babies or because you did not create them.

Yahweh commanded rape and genocide, according to you if yahweh says rape is good it is good.

Where did yahweh command rape?
Since all souks belong to God he has a right to the any soul he pleases.
What is genocide?

Maynmann:
Answer my question first too.

Is it right to do jungle justice to a murderer?

According to Steep, killing babies itself is not wrong, it’s wrong because you didn’t create them.

jungle justice is wrong because you might kill and innocent person.

Killing babies is wrong because you didn't create them, remember in my world view God determines what is right and wrong, UT is not me or you or anybody just God
And God has said Noone has right to murder anyone including babies but God has tight to kill anyone including babies.
And because God is love his actions are loving and just.

Maynmann:
Conscience that lacks what good and evil means, if your god said rape was good your conscience would have said it is good.

Exactly what jungle justice mean.
Is it right to do jungle justice to a murderer?

conscience alone dmis not sufficient hence God gave the commandments. However without God conscience would be meaningless.
God cannot command rape because he is a good God.

Maynmann:
When did he give animals for you to eat?

Is it universally right to eat animals?

Answer my question first?

Maynmann:
That means you don’t know what good and evil means, you are only following orders of the “higher”.

Is it right to do jungle justice to a murderer?

exactly, and the fact he gave us conscience to also guide us.
Without God you cannot justify why something is wrong and why something is bad objectively

What do you mean by jungle justice?

Maynmann:
So killing babies itself is not wrong, it’s wrong because you didn’t create them.

Is killing animals also wrong?

God gave animals to us to eat, you proving again that there is only objective morality and a law giver.
Else can you from an atheists world view justify why animals should be killed and eaten?
I am waiting, and this is for you lord Reed too

Maynmann:
Why is it right for a judge?
Can anyone order a murderer to be killed and it will be right?
Is it right to do jungle justice to a murderer?

The consequences for killing is killing? Is that universally right?

There needs to be one higher than the universal to create laws that is universal.
Murderer can be killed and it will be right.
Juggle justice is wrong because innocent people can become victims.

LordReed:
So it is not universally wrong to kill innocent babies according to you.

It is universally wrong to kill babies because you didn't create them.

Lord Reed has ran away

Maynmann:
Who created men with their desires?
Who created satan?
Before creating man, omniscience god didn’t know man will be evil and they will honor satan?

But the reality is we have more bad things happening to us than good things.

When your god was ordering israelite to kill, will they be rewarded for it?

So a judge that order a murderer to be killed i is wrong?
Or a father that took his children out of a toxic environment is bad?

budaatum:
So, god is subjective too?

Makes sense since subjective humans created it.

you must be crazy to compare God to man.
So far no reasonable response. In athesim world vuew there is no objective morality, everyone determines what is right and wrong for themselves but in theistic world view God determines what is right and wrong for everyone.
This has being established, when you atheistic say for example rape is wrong you are borrowing from the theistic world view of objective morality.
Whatever God determines as right and world is not the issue, you atheists have deviated from the issue to attack non issue.

Amujale:
Is that your submission?

Are you submitting that your proof for your fictional character is based on an indirect archaeological evidence?

Thanks for chiming into the discussion and I hope you continue to study, research and re-educate yourself with regards to history

Since by your own admission, the proof you claim to have for your fictional characters aren't based on evidence that can pass as being authentic, then there's no need for further discussion.

Africans invented all the better things in life, these are the things that can be proven beyond any doubt.

You are just as terrible as white racists.
I as a follower of Jesus christ love everyone regardless of race gender or religion.

Repent and believe in Jesus christ

LordReed:
Is a baby innocent?

A baby is innocent, however I know where you are driving at, that God ordered the killing of innocent babies, in which case you are assuming God exist. If God exist then it is right for him to take back his property if and whenever he pleases because as God he owns all things.
Atheism has no objective basis for right and wrong.

Think of it this way, a father remove his innocent children from a corrupt and evil environment to be with him.

budaatum:
If it is just, lol. Can you seriously not see that what is just is itself subjective, as in, in the eye of the beholder?


It is not because of some god that I do not harm you. I do not harm you because I do not think it is morally right for me to harm you, and it is not morally right for me to harm you because I am certain I would not like it if you harm me. That is subjective, as in a thing that I have decided by my subjective self. I can equally subjectively decide that it is morally right for me to harm you and at the same time decide that it is morally wrong for you to harm me.


Have you not heard of a woman who was standing her ground and shot another woman standing at her door? Subjectively, as in, according to her, she committed no crime, and was only arrested when subjects cried out, but the courts would decide in the end.

Context makes a thing subjective. If context did not matter it would be objective, which it clearly isn't.

you don't even understand what you are saying?

Amujale:
You aren't making any sense.


You claimed that there is tons of archaeological evidence for your fictional characters and I simply point you to the admissions in the article you posted.

It's you who obviously cannot read properly.

Anyways, we await the proof you claim to have as the sources you posted are either not in support of your argument or are completely unreliable.

Perhaps you don't know what is being asked of you.

The consensus amongst all serious minded historians and academics is that the Jesus Christ character is fictional.

There are various reasons it's agreed that the Jesus character is fictional, one of these is due to the fact that there are no evidence anywhere on the planet for the said character that passes as being authentic. Be it archaeological or any other kind.

Kindly provide us with proof of your fictional characters and false narratives or accept the facts as stated above.

Did you read where it said there are indirect archeological evidence?

What consensus Said Jesus is fictional except you are reading back of your phone because that site said all major scholars and historians agree that Jesus is a real and historical person.

LordReed:
Then harming someone is not universally wrong. If there is any situation in which something you would have said to be morally wrong turns out to be morally right then that action cannot be UNIVERSALLY morally wrong. If I save your life by lying am I morally wrong?

you took my words out of context. understand context is key.

Harming someone is only right if it is just in which case it is not subjective.
Understand that justice is part of morality meaning if someone trys to harm another or harms another then that person has lost his or her right not to be harmed because everyone is made by God.
Atheism allows no such, if there is no God then justice is meaningless.

For example not Harming innocent person is objective morality, self defense is objective, the onus lies on context not subjective
So morality is ultimately not subjective but objective.

budaatum:
I did say this was way beyond your ability to comprehend, did I not?

Rape is never a good thing! The subjectivity of what is rape is however glaringly obvious since you can not be condemned for raping your wife in Nigeria where such an idea does not exist, yet. Or have you heard of a husband raping his wife in Nigeria? And if a wife in Nigeria claims her husband raped her would it be a crime?

you have just contradicted yourself, when you said rape is never a good thing meaning rape is morally wrong objectively not subjective.

Amujale:
Furthermore, the article above tells you that there's no archaeological evidence for the Jesus character nor any of your other fictional characters that you intend on peddling here.

It's pretty simple, we ought to bin all these foreign extremist ideologies and concentrate our focus on reality.




"According to Eric Cline, someone who is considered a theology expert, there is no direct archaeological evidence of the existence of a historical Jesus, nor any of the apostles"...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

Did you actually read, what is in your screen short? You just shot yourself on the foot you don't know it yet.
Read slowly again.
The article said lack archeological proof doe not disprove existence of someone however Jesus has indirect archeological proof.
Read well before coming to share ignorance.

Lol, if morality is subjective on what ground do we condemn rape, slavery, discrimination, murder, etc
Answer is none, zilch meaning nothing is actually right or wrong just the way we see it.

The people who fought against slavery did so because they believed that slavery is universally wrong even while the whole society considered slavery as a good thing.
Atheism says it is slavery is ok provided the society see it as good.

budaatum:
Read it again. I have faith in your ability to comprehend instead of you replacing what you've read with your subjectivity.

So, rape is subjective according to you? So rape can be a good thing it all depends on people's choice?

This proves that atheism has no absolute morality.
Actually As a Christian I believe what is wrong is should be wrong regardless of race, gender and nationality.
Morality is not a choice, that is why society can be wrong.
God made every human so every human life is precious, so rape is bad.

LordReed:
There is no such thing. Even your purported god is not recorded as acting by such a standard.

So according to rape rape can be a good thing? Right

LordReed:
No according to you rape can be morally good if your god says it is morally good,

I have not said morality is subjective, it is you that said so, don't try to spin it.
According to you rape can be good it all depends on peoples choice.

LordReed:
So doing harm to someone about to kill you is wrong?

defending yourself is not wrong.
When I said not harming anyone I mean going out of your way to cause harm to anyone.

LordReed:
All moral systems are subjective, even the one you think comes from your god.

So rape can be morally good according to you?