₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight: ^^^ Confused garbled nonsense, not that I could ever expect anything else from you after your demystification of your self with your very low minded posts on this thread.

This is how we know those who aren't ready for serious discussions. They run from clear responses.

JMAN05: I am not here to debate with you, I was just reading the posts here when I saw your reply, it shows you either did not understand where DP is coming from or that his words were too hard for you to comprehend. If you go through that question, and that is the answer you think suits it, then I dont think discussing with you will make sense 'cos you no doubt, will manifest such... again.

I'm not here to debate you either but if you find my responses too difficult to understand, then I see no point in engaging you because further explanation on my part would only confuse you further.

JMAN05: let me honestly say that you dont seem to understand ... I don't want to be specific, so that you don't see that as an insult.

I'll say that you actually don't understand anything I've said so far. You're welcome to say what has you confused.

JMAN05: habah! oga this is no answer abeg.

How does it not answer the questions?

Deep Sight: I just looked at your link, and it is obvious you are not ready to discuss anything. There is nothing there that discloses anything meaningful in terms of this discussion.

And he runs away as usual. What do you think the purpose of the link was?

When the going gets tough, run.

Deep Sight: ^^^ If you want a serious discussion, then please be serious. I don't have the energy for pages of meaningless back and forth where discussants deliberately strive to misunderstand simple issues.

I'm always ready for a serious discussion. I just won't abide irrelevant distractions.

Deep Sight: This here - - ->


- Is most annoying. Those are not a "new set of questions." You never answered the first question at all - and that up there was only a clarification that you never answered those questions at all. I made that clear by saying. You are asked what morals are based on and you say values. That says nothing. If someone else was asked what values are based on, he could equally flip it around, and say they are based on morals. You have answered nothing at all. You just introduced a replacement word for your morals.

I did answer your question. You asked what I based my morals on, I told you I based them on my values. No you can't flip it around. Your values are a basis not a derivative. It isn't a replacement. Follow that link for more understanding of what I mean.

Deep Sight: If you cannot go back and answer the question, then just forget it, its not worth the bother.

I have answered it but you just don't like it. You would have been better off referring your next question to what my values are keeping in mind what your own values are as you ask that question because I may just ask you the same.

Deep Sight: As to my questions, I have addressed them over and over within the thread (and you claim to have read the thread). I said that such (judging x or y as wrong/ the existence of criminal laws) is only tenable because of the existence of objective morality based on the existence of such things as mala in se. The discussants on the opposite side of the table say that there is not, and that all morality is subjective. If that is true, then the basis for criminal laws still begs for an answer.

What you've said above is devoid of meaning. The Latin phrase mala in se means "evil in itself". Saying the existence of objective morality is based on the existence of "evil in itself" is empty. What is "evil in itself"? Is it an idea, a process, an action or something else? Does it have anything at all to do with your own values or with human beings?

Our shared values are also the basis of criminal laws. Talking about whether it is objective or not may not be applicable until you clarify what our shared values are and once you're talking about that, you'll need to realize that the sort of objectivity under consideration isn't the type of objectivity that applies to mathematical truths.

I'm always here whenever you're open to expanding your mind.

Deep Sight: Please speak straight to the question. You are merely pushing the goal post further away.

What are your values based on and are they objective or subjective. This question will go to the root of what is being debated on this thread and show you the real issue, and also show you why your posts are off point non starters.

Please answer these questions you posed. Don't ignore them.

Deep Sight: 1. On what basis can anyone condemn the actions or moral choices of any one else?

2. On what basis should any criminal laws exist or be made?

When you've answered them, the way you expect me to answer, then I'll answer your new set of questions.

Deep Sight: You see?

That up there is wrong circular reasoning.

When you are asked these questions -



You cannot answer: saying - "on the basis of moral reasoning" - - - ! ! !

That is the most horridly circular answer I have ever seen in my life.

How is it circular reasoning?

Deep Sight: Of course the question is WHAT your moral reasoning is based on.

So please get serious and answer properly.

For the question said - "If all morality is subjective, then on what basis. . . "

And you revert saying - "On the basis of moral reasoning" . . . ! ! !

Reboot.

My moral reasoning is based on my values.

I see that you're once again making a lot of noise. For some reason, you didn't answer your own questions. Why don't you do that in your next response? To jog your memory, here they are again.

Deep Sight: 1. On what basis can anyone condemn the actions or moral choices of any one else?

2. On what basis should any criminal laws exist or be made?

Please don't forget to answer them again.

Deep Sight: Maybe, in addition to the above, before anything else, you should also answer the question as to whether such things as Mala in se exist or not.

They are ideas. They exist in the same way other ideas exist.

Deep Sight: Be mindful of the implications of your answer, and also address these questions ->

- - - > If ALL morality is subjective, then - - - >

Maybe you need to first think through what you mean by subjective. In what sense do you think morality is objective? Is it objective in the sense that two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen make one molecule of water?

Deep Sight: 1. On what basis can anyone condemn the actions or moral choices of any one else?

On the basis of moral reasoning.

Deep Sight: 2. On what basis should any criminal laws exist or be made?

Thank you.

On the basis of moral reasoning and principles of justice.

Now, you answer your own two questions above.

Deep Sight: ^^^ Please don't get confused so early in your involvement. We understand the OP when he talks about morality evolving and we know very well that that is not a Theory of Evolution issue.

If you understand that, then why do you keep saying "killing the weak" should be moral?

Deep Sight: When I speak of the implications of the theory of evolution vis-a-viz morality, I do so to show those who think that all that we are is derived from evolution, that they are wrong. If that were the case, and if that were to hold true and consistent, they should subscribe to significantly different moral paradigms, and be willing to do humanity great genetic and evolutionary favours by exterminating weak genes. That is a point wholly different from the argument on moral subjectivity which has been the main issue on this thread. It is a point I simply thought to draw the attention of our evolutionists to, for their consideration - on the matter of subjectivity! They need to wonder why it should be wrong for a Hitler to think that way, for example.

Though your phrasing is clumsy, I will say yes, we are products of evolution.

How does the fact that we are products of evolution mean that it must be morally right to kill people you think are weak? You keep committing the same error in thinking that I've pointed out over and over again.

Deep Sight: If indeed we are a product only of evolution, please can you tell me if there was anything wrong with the viewpoint of those who sought superior genetic progression by eliminating the weak and inferior?

What is wrong with your statement is that moral reasoning isn't based on the theory of evolution.

Deep Sight: And if you say there was something morally wrong with such: then please tell on what basis you say so - remembering of course, that the OP and his cohorts declare all morality to be subjective.

Thank you.

On the basis of carrying out moral reasoning.

Do you think there is something morally wrong with your statement? If you think there is, can you tell me the basis?

Deep Sight: All of them.

See how easy it is to just declare?

That wasn't a declaration, it was a question. If you were serious, you would have actually quoted the ones you thought were unfounded.

Deep Sight: Mr. Troll and wiegraf have expressed positions here on this thread that disclose them to be such.

I have coined that term with reference to them; people who deny the existence of an objective morality and believe morality to be wholly subjective having evolved STRICTLY AND ONLY as described in the OP, and having no objective source or inherent nature.

Then you don't understand what you read in the OP or even what the OP was about. The OP talks about how morality evolved. It doesn't follow from the OP that it is moral to:

Deep Sight: EXTERMINATE, EXPLOIT AND ENSLAVE THE WEAKER AND INFERIOR ONES AMONG US FOR THE GENERAL GOOD OF MANKIND, SO ONLY STRONGER AND SUPERIOR GENES WILL SURVIVE AND THEREBY MAKE HUMANITY STRONGER AND BETTER CONTINUOUSLY.

Until you understand your basic confusion, you'll remain stuck with attacking strawmen. Saying that morality evolved isn't the same as saying that moral reasoning is entirely based on the theory of evolution.

Mr Troll said:

Mr Troll: What is morality? I will paraphrase Robert Green Ingersoll: “Morality is doing the best under the circumstance. What is the best? The sum of what will increase human happiness or at least reduce human suffering.”

You keep talking about some actions being intrinsically wrong. How do you determine whether or not an action is intrinsically wrong?

Deep Sight: I see you are only ready to make unfounded statements and not ready to actually reason through anything or proffer an actual argument.

That is only to be expected, of course.

Which of my statements were unfounded? You're welcome to begin your clarification by telling me who you think would qualify as a "strict moral evolutionist".

Deep Sight: Are you so dim witted that it escapes you that that shout up there is not my position, but the implication of the position of strict moral evolutionists: those who contend that morality is the result of evolution only.

Are you so stupid that you don't recognize your own strawman? Sorry if you had, you won't be making such a fallacious line of argument. You're welcome to show me who you think is a "strict moral evolutionist".

Deep Sight: If morality is the result of evolution only, no one can EVER contend that it is wrong to exploit, enslave and exterminate the weak among us.

If anything, one would thereby be doing a great genetic and evolutionary service to mankind.

Then you're expressing an ignorance of both morality and the theory of evolution.

Deep Sight: This is no joke: this was the point of view of people like Hitler and other extremist Nazis who were bent on creating a super-race. Eliminate the weak, the inferior, the less intelligent.

Are you arguing against people like Hitler or extremist Nazis?

Deep Sight: Besides i would adjure you to please read through a thread fully before commenting.

I've read enough to see that you're deeply confused about morality and the theory of evolution. So confused that you present fallacious arguments.

Deep Sight: Been a while. I hope your robotic a.rse is doing fine.

I'm well enough.

Deep Sight: [size=20pt]AND I CANNOT SHOUT IT ENOUGH: IF EVOLUTION AND SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST HOLDS TRUE, THEN IT WILL ALWAYS BE RIGHT TO EXTERMINATE, EXPLOIT AND ENSLAVE THE WEAKER AND INFERIOR ONES AMONG US FOR THE GENERAL GOOD OF MANKIND, SO ONLY STRONGER AND SUPERIOR GENES WILL SURVIVE AND THEREBY MAKE HUMANITY STRONGER AND BETTER CONTINUOUSLY.

FACT: CAST IN IRON.

CIAO.[/size]

As usual, you rapidly commit the naturalistic fallacy. The fact that a certain process is natural doesn't make it moral. e.g the fact that peanuts are natural and eaten by people doesn't mean it is moral to feed it to people who are allergic to it. Shouting and throwing about mere assertions won't make you correct.

davidylan: Trust me, when i need to rub minds this is the last place i will come to. I mean seriously... i should be looking for ideas from half-baked plagiarists?

Half baked plagiarists. So citing sources is plagiarism? Quoting reputable information is plagiarism? Maybe just maybe you don't know what plagiarism is. Since you're not here to rub minds, what are you here to do? Goad people and complain?

davidylan: Perhaps when you lay out the scientific treatise for the theory of evolution we can talk no? I should not be responsible for defending my faith AND defending the logic of your own viewpoint too.

I've not asked you to defend the fact that evolution is a scientific theory. I only asked you to explain why you think it isn't a scientific theory.

davidylan: Oh bother. Who cares? So my opinion dies not jive with your idea of reality... And I should are because?

You should care because like other reasonable people, I thought you would prefer to have more correct ideas than incorrect ones. Especially when you have the opportunity of correcting those incorrect ideas. If you're that special type of person who doesn't care whether their ideas are correct or incorrect, you can quickly say so here.

davidylan: The only claim made on this thread is in the title, evidence for which I provided in the first 2-3 pages. I don't know what other "evidence" you're whining about.

I'm talking about your complaints that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. If you can, you're welcome to explain yourself on that issue.

I guess you still find it difficult to read and respond to my response on page 4 here.

Deep Sight: How does caring about humans equate with showing up physically?

Humans are physical creatures. How else can he show up if he cares about humans?

davidylan: you're being deliberately obtuse and dishonest. Obviously i made it clear the caliber of "atheists" here are largely an ignorant bunch who simply parrot what they read on google without much thought. If you think evolution is real, you can start by lining up your factual evidence right here. Failing which of course i can simply consign you to the dustbin of irrelevance.

We're going on 77 pages and you cowards haven't changed a bit.

Here we go. The usual grand-standing and name calling while remaining in ignorance. It does nothing to help your cause in any way. The factual evidence you're looking for can be found through google so why do you complain when they're presented to you? What is the source of the information in the Bible?

And 77 pages in, you have nothing new to support any of your claims. You can begin by lining up your claims and evidence for them right here.

davidylan: Obviously you have a problem with comprehension. Infact i state my own opinion on the biblical creation story in one of my responses to Mr.Rothstein. Appears like you folks do nothing but regurgitate the same windbaggery each time without thinking.

Obviously you have a problem with reading because I'm not Mr.Rothstein. A reasonable person would have realized this and directed me to this so-called response. As surprising as this may be to you, merely stating your opinion doesn't make your opinion coincide with reality. Right now, it isn't clear that you can tell the difference between myth and scientific theory and my questions are to simply show your actual positions on these issues.

davidylan: It is pure fantasy. to believe otherwise is a fools errand.

So are you saying the theory of evolution isn't a scientific theory?

Secondly, what would you classify the stories of creation in the Bible to be? Scientific theories?

Deep Sight: And how do you know this. You cannot even say this for sure about extra-terrestrial intelligent beings (Aliens), if they exist.

I know this because he is supposed to care about humans. If he doesn't care about humans, then I see no reason why I should bother with him.

zinaunreal: Are u saying that he can't or we are just living organisms that became evolved by fluke with no form of origin or direction?

Yes I'm saying he can't.

zinaunreal: I think God should show himself before judgment day because there is a massive line between the old testament and the present day. Those stories in the holy books now seem more like fairy tales of unreal supernatural manifestations.

I think he should show himself too but it is unlikely that he will because he can't do it.

zinaunreal: God shouldn't just blow a trumpet n say I told you so.... When did he tell us so? From a book? Just imagine you getting born into a world as a newbie and someone shoves religion in your face telling you that you must believe in it and just have faith , with no proof whatsoever.

It can only get worse I believe.

I think it can get better as religious belief dwindles.

davidylan: . . . .

2. The smaller group is also suspect of herd mentality. This section would be a great example - the atheist viewpoint is usually advanced by a tiny minority... the rest of you just piggyback. Besides 100% of the arguments from atheists here are as unoriginal as air. Most of them are brazenly plagiarized from other atheist websites. Talk of herd mentality.

. . . .

Nothing wrong with reusing a good argument.

davidylan: By its nature... faith is the believe in something even when you havent seen it. I have no shame in declaring myself a follower of Christ. My problem is with atheists like you who trade one "myth" for another (the theory of evolution) while declaring themselves skeptics.

Do you have faith that Santa Claus will appear to some children? How about faith that faeries will be dancing round toadstools?

The difference is that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory while the core premises of Christianity are mythical. Trading a scientific theory for a myth makes a lot of sense.

zinaunreal: I would say its been a real while since God actually manifested his Glory to his children. Since the old testament, he has been utterly quiet using signs and wonders and mostly his ministers and prophets to talk through him but all this seem not to be enough.

God might just put a total stop to all this conflict and evil if he manifests one more time in physical form to his creation.

He would if he could.

plainmirror: There is a 'living God' , fear HIM

Why?

Reyginus: I'd appreciate more comments.

I'm still here though. You can call on others to step up to the plate.

benzion72: President GEJ kneeling on Jesus tomb praying. May God give him the wisdom to manage this country in a better way
www.nairaland.com/attachments/1380054_jona_prayed__jpg8cf98bb3219963a55d4ed66cf5e63ec4

What a shame. This man should get off his knees and get to work. He can begin by declaring his personal assets and encouraging other members of his cabinet who haven't done so to do so. This pointless showmanship won't fly with me and shouldn't fly with many people commenting here.

If he died, then he's still dead.