₦airaland Forum

Ok

And don't start celebrating you have got the job until they give you an offer

Did he urged them or gave directive, which?

arabianights:
Really? Is this your excuse?.........ok

I don't know I needed one, I only state a fact

Most C&S churches practice what can be called Chrislam (a fussion of Islam, occult and Christianity based on the 7 books of moses), he was never a Christian

So

I will advise BSc to apply also

Bro trying desperately to be relevant, if he likes he should go sambisa forest....

Buhari mobilizing support and forces

The end of Boko Haram is near

The staff represents his authority and blessing

No time for book cooking

At 17 he is going about with condoms ,he needs some back-hand slaps, his education should be paramount to him at such stage.

I was above 26 when I had my first sexual experience and after being active, I have stayed as much as 2 years off sex. Those claiming near-death-experience for lack of sex need sessions with mountain of fire

Double

What evil!!

Ok

What Obasanjo did, Buhari will do more to any group trying nonsense in Nigeria

The man has got some valid points

Having sex with hologram

Antichrist is truly right by the corner

Overkill

As long it is Dino Melaye (and I know it will never be him), APC is getting Kogi

When the measure of Fayose becomes full, he will understand the virtue in talking less

He will soon be sent invitation by EFCC

That shouldnt be all, our police need to invest in quality research and development.

Redlyn:
I did not assume you were a theist.
You said: Assuming I were a Theist, my answer will be 'on the basis of my religious affiliation which denounces both'
My response is I dont see where this is denounced regardless if you really are a theist or not. It is an important point that highlights the moral point of view that slavery is wrong is not from religious text. Discussion is difficult when you choose to hide your perspective.
From your conclusion you appear to have dismissed all answers provided by atheists on this topic, so there is really no more to be said.

No, I havent. I only draw out points relevant to topic in discuss

From my engagement so far, it is apparent atheists have no standard measure for moral good or bad and the nearest to a measure is the law of the land which some said should be the arbiter of what is morally wrong or right.

If one is to accept this position, how then should we judge areas not covered in the law books e.g, there is no law saying lying is wrong therefore under atheism, lying cant be said to be good or bad.

If atheists believe that the law of the land should be the moral arbiter are they then alluding to absolute morality since the law doesnt bend to personal desires?. how can they relate moral relativism to the law of the land which is absolute

I will like to get more opinions from atheists.

[quote author=Redlyn post=36171152]superior1

You still have not answered the case study question. Are my actions moral or not according to your moral standard.

In my eyes and in the eyes of the law, you just committed murder. It is not your right to determine under what condition someone should live or not.

You also did not explain how slavery and rape were denounced. I have not seen this denounced anywhere. So why are they now considered bad?

You are not making much sense here because you assumed I am Theist without me saying so.

How can you consider something immoral, when you do not have a standard of measuring what is moral?
I have explained how a secular society tackles this. If you don't agree or you don't understand then so be it. Repetition will not help.

No, you haven't. I asked you if lying is wrong and you cant give a moral truth in response because you lack a moral measure.

Obviously, our converse as reached a stalemate. It was nice engaging you

[quote author=Redlyn post=36164846]

It is not only inter but also intra. You seem to want to claim that religious groups agree on ALL moral questions. Which is simply not true. Morality is far more complex than that. You still haven't answered: I shot my mother to save her from slow and painful death. Moral or not?

I have already explained WHY most humans share the value to do no harm. Take it or leave it.

I don't agree that it is denounced. Feel free to be more explicit.
In fact religious text was actually used to DEFEND the practice. So why are they now considered bad?

Like the law, it doesnt matter your personal opinion and preference, it doesnt change and so is religious morality to adherents of a particular religion, it doesnt change with your agreement. To answer your question, you being atheist with no moral reference, I dont know what you will or should do in this particular situation to your mother.

Only one thing unites atheists, and that is their lack of belief in God. So there will never be a common anything amongst atheist specifically. However if you talk about humanity then we can look to the golden rule as a guide. Its that simple. And I have mentioned why this is valued. We identify the harmful behaviors and as a society start to consider them immoral. Its an evolving process. Indoctrinated absolutes (like do not wear mixed fabrics) are not needed.

How can you consider something immoral, when you do not have a standard of measuring what is moral?

For the purpose of this discussion lets not over analyse this, its a case study. You could not save her. So you shot her. I am interested to see if from your point of view the "intent" for the action has any bearing on the morality of it.
Euthanasia by the way is a hotly contested topic within various religious groups. If it was clear in the religious text there would no debate and diversity of opinion.

Euthanasia is a political issue which has over the time involved various religious groups, it is not an intra but inter religious disagreement based on each groups sacred text. The point of my over analysis is to return the favor since you mentioned 'your mother', i dont like to think of mine in the mouth of lions, ok?

I will not give you a definition as I will have to look it up. But I have given you an example: Do no harm. I doubt there is a society today that does not share this value in principle. The practical implementation of this is another thing (ie what constitutes harm). It is a shared value because as humans we have a shared vulnerability to suffering.

Look it up and also answer why you think humans should be given value when it was a creation of nothing and serves no purpose. Those who eat their neighbor meant no harm, they only wanted to ameliorate their hunger, what is wrong with that?

Rape and slavery. As a theist do you find these 2 acts wrong? If so on what basis.

Assuming I were a Theist, my answer will be 'on the basis of my religious affiliation which denounces both' it is not necessarily because they are both now a crime against the state

You have not been able to show that atheism has a common definition or measuring standard for what is morally good and bad, hence you cant as a atheist tell me lying is wrong.

Redlyn

BTW by saying things like human values, you are trying to tell me human lives have intrinsic value and worth, may I ask, how come, If we are all a product of randomness and evolution?

By saying human lives have intrinsic value, you must by logic agree human lives have a purpose, what is that purpose?

Redlyn

The diversity you see in a secular society on moral issues is the same diversity you see within any religious group.

You and I know this cannot be substantiated and much as I dont want to discuss religious morality on this thread, I need to add that members of a religious group subscribe to tenets of that religion from which they draw their moral facts, that is what them a denomination to start with, their religious tenets becomes their common measuring standard, so any deviant is judged good or bad based on this.

There are no 2 religious people of the same denomination who will have the same point of view on all moral questions or interpret Absolutes in holy books in the same manner. So the dilemma of what is moral and what is not is not an atheist problem, its a human one. Your holy book of choice has addressed certain moral questions and made them law but the truth is that the moral dilemmas we face every day are far more complex.

Just like I commented earlier, your assertions are wrong, you do not have any empirical backing for that claim. E.g Sunni Muslims draw their moral good or bad from the quran and hadith, there is a common standard for measure, while there maybe areas of opinions, those opinions are still subjected to the directive of their religious tenets.

and we evaluate them on other criteria than any hard and fast law.

For the sake of this topic, note there is a shade of difference between moral facts and the law of a state.

Take this situation. You have a gun with 1 bullet. Your mother some distance away is being eaten alive slowly by a pack of lions. You cannot save her. So you take your gun and shoot her to end her suffering. Was that a moral act or not?

That will be a delimma when you do not subscribe to a faith, mainstream religions have teachings that can be inferred on in that peculiar case and by the way, if you have a gun, why not shoot to atleast to scare the lions instead of killing your mother, how come your mother ended up among lions, how come you exhausted your bullets without adequate contingency plans

Most of us share some basic human values (eg do not harm others) and on this basis we can adhere to some universal ethical codes that promotes the well being of society and individuals. It is this attempt at universal morality that forms the basis of secular documents like the universal declaration of human rights. This is by no means perfect, nor free from disagreement or controversy but its the best we have to objectively evaluate right from wrong.

If I ask you to define what you meant by basic human values, you will give a subjective definition (unless of cause, you refer to the state constitution we have both agreed is inadequate), some culture treat their neighbors, others eat their neighbors and to say one is better compare to the other is a baseline for ethnocentrism.