₦airaland Forum

Yes, @diehard, I'm still waiting for you to show me the merry go round. I'd like to believe you are capable of forming your own thoughts, yes? You don't just photocopy everything, yes? Could you pls show it to me?

diehard: "Don't waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Don't throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you. Matthew 7:6

Even to mock, or whatever you're attempting to do, you need to quote?

And as is being pointed out elsewhere, as the current generation(s) of younger start to take over the reins and the older retire from the world, it can only get worse for fundies et al.

Ihedinobi: I think you'll find that Ileke Idi is an old-timer around these parts, a real atheist (if there's such a thing), quite unlike the baby brand you guys tend to exemplify

At least she's a she, yes? Wouldn't want to get that wrong


Edit: btw you've been here longer than @logic? I would have thought it was the other way round actually. I always assumed you were a new comer

Mr_Anony: As I said, I have no interest in your foolishness at this time, if you can't follow an argument right, then that's your problem. Feel free to continue your rant from here onwards. If you like you can feature goatmen, cattlemen or whatever have you, I am not interested.

Naughty anony. What sort of christ like behavior have you picked up these last few weeks? Calling my argument stoopid then me foolish. And in the same thread. You sound mad (though I actually prefer this version of you). This is the first thread I personally am seeing you get this mad. And I might be the only one I remember you directly insulting before. I'm quite honored, this is very touching. Btw, where do I rant? They literally were goatmen

Dohohohoho

Oh yes, you say I can't follow an argument (you make so many baseless assumptions/accusations btw, assumptions in particular though). You point out altruism is incompatible with 'survival of the fittest'. I point out altruism is one of the tools of 'survival of the fittest'. I'll add that in fact, even without observing altruism, if you put all the elements of evolution together and do the math you would predict altruism. You rant and xter abuse* to distract and escape. This, good ser, has been a total failure on your part. Perhaps next time you should find something you can defend or stick to arguing about things like "who's strongest? god, satan, FSL or spiderman?" etc



*you won't get anywhere with that btw, I'm not particularly well liked already so even if I cared you couldn't do any more harm

diehard: @Logicboy, i am surprise you can allude to a link to provide support to your argument, when you recently accuse me of copy and pasting articles to support my point. All you've done all day is to tactical dodge the point My Anony has been making. And as for wiegraf, it is no use answering your comment cos most are really merry go round.

*SMH*
You fall for anony's sophistry as well? The other articles were not enough? Do you have a mind of your own? Demonstrate the merry go round

*Ileke-IdI:
If I had believed they were the only atheist couples, I wouldn't be asking you for factual proof.

So you've listed three couples, that's not significant enough. Give me atleast 27 more. And it would be better to know the length and state of such union.

I'm rational, that's why I'm not popping off and getting angry (like you) over a simple request.

Don't mind @logic joor. You still have your wits about you because you just came by now. Dare I say perhaps you should leave, for your own good. Considering the stoopid on display here at times (from all sides, even I'm guilty, but the theists will take some real catching) if you'd been here as long as he has you'd probably be a little angry as well. Plus he's not as lecherous as say me

no, it's not 0...

Logicboy03: A google search that shows numerous scientific journals on morality and evolution.


A wise man is not cowed by knowledge.


You have lost the argument.


Humility is not a christian value as I have learnt from Anony's behaviour today

I tire sef...
When science is completely done with morality wait and hear how they'll spin it... God can never lose, it seems...It will be a translation problem...

Mr_Anony: My friend, I don't have much time for a pointless argument. You have argued that self-preservation or preservation of the group is our greatest good because we 'evolved' that way.
My counter argument is simply that self-preservation is not our greatest good because we ascribe the highest moral value to those who put themselves in harm's way for other people infact the more unrelated to you the subject of your kindness is, the more value we ascribe to your "goodness" i.e. dying for someone else and being kind to a stranger are what we hold in higher moral esteem as opposed to being selfish or helping only close relatives.

A "survival of the fittest" phenomenon such as evolution would have favoured selfishness or anything that seeks to preserve the most similar genes instead of self- sacrifice. Our morality runs contrary to this because we value kindness to strangers as morally better than kindness to self and family. When we are kind to family, we don't really regard ourselves as heroes but see it as duty.

If you get it you get it, if you don't you don't. I have made my point. I am not interested in a merry-go-round argument, your pal logicboy has filled the slot for st[color=#000000]u[/color]pid arguments for this weekend. Try again next weekend, I'll probably be free to play again then.

In essence, you're running off?
You could have just said so rather than wharrgarbl again
This is still clearly LALALALALALALALALALA. No shananigans can cover that. Blatantly ignoring how altruism aids the group. Or how we have intelligence and so can extend on our own in built moral system. Come up with ethics, religions and such (which consciously value altruism in this day and age). There's a half point there, you're not looking at the full picture because its conclusions do not agree with what some shepherds said ~2000 years ago, and said goatmen happened to brainwash your ancestors
Train, then please come up with something better next week

Logicboy03: Make up sex is great!

well...

Logicboy03: Then why are you hating om atheist/christian relationships?

Why shouldn't she? She at least is diplomatic about it.

I've found this thread slightly worrying. You're soft logicboy. You think you could change the world with love?

hahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha

You need some good blind hate in you. They are the enemy. Say this to yourself: "no prisoners."

seriously, marry a fundy?

Chyih


See the guy bling bling sef...

musKeeto: hmm... na..

I haven't given it much thought since then, but now that I'm back

GIMME SOMETHING TO WORK WITH!!

Is it mathematical?

Mr_Anony: If you claim that self-preservation is our greatest good, then self-sacrifice must be at the other end of the spectrum as they are mutually exclusive. You cannot simultaneously give ultimate value to preserving your life and sacrificing it. They cannot be complimentary. When one person sacrifices his life for someone else, he has not preserved it but rather has preserved the life of another person. Incidentally human beings tend to attach more value morally to the person who gave up his life than to the one who tried to preserve it i.e. one that sacrifices his life is the hero(good) while the one that tries to preserve it is a coward(evil). This sort of moral value system does not logically follow from "survival of the fittest" rather it contradicts it.

Ok, I have heard you.

This is blatant LALALALA. Not yet wharrgarbl, but close. Like I've already said, altruism aids a species or group's survival rate (in some cases, not all species are social). The groups with the more altruistic traits among members survive. Altruistic genes spread, they are now the 'fittest' in the survival of the fittest competition. So, altruism may not aid you ostensibly as an individual but it aids the species or tribe, pack, etc. Hence its ubiquity in the social species.


Random: above is all that's needed to explain the rather obvious biological basis for altruism, this is just for kicks.

You have a rather simplistic view of the situation. There is no contradiction, they do in fact complement each other to form a balance. The ultimate aim is survival and you cannot survive on your own. The individual is constantly weighing, "survival of the group, or just me?". Depending on the persons empathy levels, conditioning etc, he would at times choose the group, at other times just himself.

So for our species, we have genes wired for altruism. They won the survival of the fittest gig and established us as a social species. There is the biological imperative to aid the group, to cooperate in order to survive. Of course these genes are balanced by the more immediately selfish ones, concerned with the self only. The overall goal is survival. Sacrifice is necessary for the group to survive. In extreme cases for instance, rather than just one individual dying as a sacrifice, the whole group dies because no individual was willing to be the sacrifice. So when sacrifice is deemed necessary an individual will be altruistic. When not we revert to selfishness (or more of a balance, if you will).

As for the complexity of our morality, nature gave us feet to move around, but considering we have conscious intelligence we've been able to build cars, planes etc to help our feet. Nature has also given us the basics for morality, but considering our intelligence we've also built; ethical codes. We can take it (and a lot of other things) further faster than mother nature because we have intelligence and goals.


edits

Mr_Anony: This is still a long way from explaining how self-sacrifice is our greatest good instead of self-preservation as should naturally follow from a "survival of the fittest" phenomenon. If you argue that man is a social animal, at best you get reciprocity but never altruism and self-sacrifice. These are in direct contradiction to genes whose sole aim is to survive.

Self-sacrifice isn't our greatest good (I'm not even sure what I said that gives you the idea I subscribe to that notion). Ultimately, for the vast majority of us, ie, those of us with the standard genes, self-preservation is. It's in the interest of members of the species that the whole species survives, not just the individual. Either ways members of your species will still carry your genes. So altruism/self-sacrifise actually aids your self-preservation, just indirectly. Survival of the fittest doesn't just involve your neighbor, it involves other tribes, other species, etc. Early humans that cooperated more, armed with more empathy (probably our primary tool in shaping up morality) won the 'survival of the fittest' gig, we are their legacy.

Mr_Anony: I didn't make such a claim

Ok

Mr_Anony: And what has this got to do with morality?

Demonstrate just how much behavior can be passed down biologically. In this case personality being strongly shaped by genes. Apply that to morality, or empathy of humans

Image123: I'm not required to tolerate Jesus Christ, but required to believe on Him. You're the one preaching fine examples of tolerance. For example, would you tolerate a goat as your sister in the name of tolerance?

I would take your answer as no? That's fairly insensitive to the dog's a$$. It might have feelings, you know, like imaginary friends do...

Persistent, over a few days now even though you were more or else being ignored. Are you running on hate? That's a fairly powerful motivator it seems.

Do you have a point? Then get to it. Ask silly questions, get silly replies. That's if I don't get bored even

Random @wiegraf to @anony

Seems like you fail to understand how simply being born human comes prepackaged with morality (except for maybe sociopaths, as they lack empathy)

Natural selection favored 'morals' in our case, and many other species
Popular examples used, ants have a 'moral' code, the caste system, comes in built
Wolves have a 'moral' code, they have the alpha male, hierarchy, etc. No wolves aren't conscious the way we are, this is biologically written into their system. Comes in built*
Need I mention the other great apes have 'morals' too?
Humans are born with a 'moral' code in built, similar to other species. Empathy plays a huge role in shaping it. In our case, society, or nurture, helps shape it as well. But the bare structure would still exist even if one were raised away from society. Experiments with infants point that way, and simple logic actually. We are, after all, a social species, and like I said already all the other great apes have 'moral' codes. Of course with our conscious intelligence, we freestyle with it, and nurture/environment influences it. We take it places other species don't; rituals, religions, etc.
So, as a member of our species, unless you're missing some rather common genes, you come prepackaged with morality

And are you the one claiming there's an atheistic moral code? Not sure who is. If you are, stop it @anony, after all this time? Bad @anony! So, is there a theistic moral code all theists conform to? Or maybe one all deists conform to? These are not religions, or cultures even. No codes, rituals, etc...



*All sorts of peculiar behavior are written into genes btw. For instance some dog breeds love to chase cars, others don't. The ones that do you'll find were used by shepherds back in the day. So they see a car moving, they substitute 'goat' for 'car' and start chasing. This, of course, even if they've never seen a goat, cow etc before or were trained to chase cars. They're just hard wired to chase big moving objects. Other breeds could care less

Mr_Anony: Lol, when I have surplus time...........but then again why bother if I am only going to waste my opinion on closed-minded folk who are only waiting to "rudely rebuke". A waste of time I tell ya.

No, I'll be good... heh, who am I kidding, probably won't. Read it though when you have play time, it's kind of good
And I can't see how you'll escape logicboy on this. Xtianity approved slavery. Shikena

Back to @op, the moral code of your religion changes according to the whims of the population, hmmm. Why is it so? Even the science is changing, the pope now accepts the big bang and evolution (I think, can't remember for sure). Is it possible men are drafting these laws?

never_say_never: Too much time wasted as you said, and to think we've totally diverged from the topic. Let's agree to disagree.

Yup, I'm cool with that.

Kudos

Image123: you can be hypocritical too? Is that not atheistically wrong? Is it an atheist value to be hypocritical? i do not speak of intolerance, i speak of tolerance. Can you tolerate a goat to be your blood brother in the name of tolerance?

N.B I'm asking you something very reasonable and fundamental to the thread. You speak of a fine example of religious tolerance. Can you practice it, or you cannot tolerate that's why you've being dodging and forging? you can phone a friend too, you know?

All this goat talk brings to mind an older thread in which that [s]cretinous, though he actually had a decent case so his suing me was justified[/s] alien that represents those chimps spotted god.

So I have a serious question for you as well, which is relevant to the topic as it's relevant to the question you claim is relevant to the topic.

Could you tolerate this dog's a$$ as your Lord Jesus Christ?

Image123: how it felt about me/ You're the one preaching tolerance, the joke is on you, as it were. Can you tolerate a goat for a sister in the name of tolerance?

Can you tolerate being ignored till you have something reasonable to say?

And on a general note, do note I can be hypocritical as well. It's sometimes do as I say, not do as I do with me. Though in this case, what intolerance do you speak of? I did warn you beforehand, no?

onetrack: I've been traveling for the past week. Looks like I've missed out on being condemned to the hellfire! Oh well, another opportunity will soon come knocking.

You can depend on that
The weekend was fun actually. These last few days, not so much...

Image123: so you wouldn't? even if it was adopted?

Meeeeeehhhh
Meh, meeeeeh, mmmehhh, mmmeeehhhh

Closest goat I could find, that was his response when I explained this situation to him and asked it how it felt about you.

Btw, @anony, when you have surplus time to play, read this

www.nairaland.com/1090616/biological-basis-morality

It's rather delicious towards the end. Your opinion would be welcome (and rudely rebuked).

Mr_Anony: @diehard, nice of you to raise this discussion it is unfortunate that you are wasting it on folks who have no appreciation for logic and reason.

About Slavery: Let me share an experience I had at a church in Surrey.

It was one of those Sundays at my church in Surrey, we had just finished having this wonderful session of praise and worship and were about to hear the God's word from the mouth of the vessel He would be using that day. The pastor came up and introduced the guest speaker to us. She was a missionary who traveled the world preaching the good news of Christ. She was also involved in rescuing children from child slavery and forced prostitution in many different countries all over the world. She was one of those christians you just wished you were - you know, those ones actually "fighting the good fight of faith".

Anyway, so this lady started telling us about some of her ordeals, the places she had been and the cruelty some people mete out to child slaves. She showed us slides with picture of abused children in Nepal, India and other Asian countries.
I remember thinking to myself how cruel people must be to enslave and force little children into hard labour. I was happy when she would show slides of children that she and her organization had rescued from slavery. I was even pondering thoughts of how I might become a part of her charity and help out.......Then she began to talk about Ghana and how young boys and girls were taken from their parents in the village and taken to the city where their slave owners would maltreat them and force them to do manual labour and hawk goods on the dangerous streets were some of them would get killed by motorists and some of the young girls would get raped. She was lamenting that even the pastors had slaves in their houses.

Now at this point my enthusiasm had died down a bit. I knew exactly what she was talking about. Who she was calling slaves are who we regard in Nigeria as houseboys and housegirls and apprentices. We do not see them as slaves at all and not denying the fact that some of these househelps are maltreated, for the majority of them - or at least in my experience - the being a househelp/apprentice in the city would be their only chance of obtaining an education or learning a trade. Also, these house-helps and apprentices are not seen as slaves in the strict sense of the word even in the eyes of their so-called masters who most of the time are actually blood-relatives such as an Uncle, an Aunt, a well known family friend or even an elder brother or sister. For her coming from a European background, she couldn't fathom it but for me; Househelps are a part of our Nigerian culture and we don't see it as evil.
Now imagine my horror when she started talking about 'rescuing' these kids. I immediately thought to myself "Oh no! she's actually kidnapping them but she doesn't know it!"

Now this made me begin to think, perhaps those children carrying bricks in Nepal don't quite have the same perception of slavery as we think of their condition. Are they really enslaved? Are the children in sweatshops in China really in slavery as we like to think?

I have gone through this ramble so as to put this issue of slavery in some sort of context and invite us to question if the slavery in the bible was really experienced as we like assume it was experienced.

Ha ha, anony, you're a fan of anonyverse logic, you know that. What reason do you speak of?

And yes, I do regard some of these cases of house boy etc as slavery of sorts. Not too long ago over here I was bitc.hing about how quite a few parents should be in prison. You born pikin so that him go dey sell bread for road? No school, etc? Wtf you gave birth to them for that? That is 4king slavery by my definitions. Somehow the pikin owes you for giving birth to him? Did he ask you? Whatever happened to responsibility? The cases were kids sent out are overworked, uneducated, the line is undeniably being pushed. Or you think all these kids are treated fairly and sent to school?

When they 'move', they're quality of life depends on the whims of the 'master'. There are many good ones, for sure. There are also many bad ones. Something needs to be done*

Bible's case is particularly questionable sef as, like I've said, alternatives were being used, salaries, just that they were being used only on their tribesmen. So they're the only ones who were exempt from slavery?

And note, for all the above, rights (particularly consent). Rights of a slave differ from that of a salaried worker. Mostly, adult workers in this day and age could always walk away. The kids, well, theoretically maybe, but not so much


@die you don't know me, don't make such assumptions. Let's just say I do what I can in my own little corner.



*actually I've always thought given some sort of power to make these decisions I'd become a dictator. Lots of things I'll force down peoples throats, better I stay away...

diehard: Exodus 21:16 ESV
“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 5:1
For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Deuteronomy 23:15
“You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you.
Deuteronomy 24:7
“If a man is found stealing one of his brothers of the people of Israel, and if he treats him as a slave or sells him, then that thief shall die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
Leviticus 25:42
For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves.
Luke 4:18
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
Exodus 21:1-6
“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ ...
1 Timothy 1:10
The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
Leviticus 25:39
“If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave:

*pokemons music blaring*

"Hoooh, after copypasta was defeated you've now chosen #version bible"

"Ok then, simple comprehension skills, return"

*sound effects, scs returns to ball*

"Wiki, I choose you"

*chiuw chu chu*

* http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery * has joined the battle


Seriously, I should have read the article before even engaging. It seems to be saying exactly what I'm saying: no proper condemnation, rules regulating it. I don't have to point out again that regulating it means approval, yes?

Enjoy for now, when I come back with a proper pc, I'll be quoting specifics, assuming my wiki is not done dealing with your bible on its own by then

diehard: I think you really did not read my post or you just skimp through it, let me quote myself again, "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16). that is what the Almighty God decreed, how else do you want it to be spelt. (in your own language or what)

You're pushing it bro, seriously. Do you need diagrams or miracles before you grasp what you yourself copy/pasted?

Ignoring the rest of my post (clearly beyond your comprehension), where does it say here that slave owners should be killed? That is an admonishment of slavers, not slave owners. The article even goes to pains to explain that there was voluntary slaving. In these cases, supposedly no one was 'kidnapped'. Again, this here statement says nothing about buying or owning slaves, it only concerns itself with how the slave came to be one. You really think only voluntary slaves were bought? Slaver brings slaves from foreign lands to sell, they probably can't even speak the language, you actually think the buyers cared if they were voluntary or not? All the jews were exempt from doing was catching slaves themselves.

Regardless, discarding reason and assuming every single slave were voluntary, there clearly were alternatives yet voluntary slaving was allowed. The alternative, which they used only on members of their own tribe was: salaries (who came up with such a brilliant idea!). You think salaried workers and slaves had the same rights? Like were salaried workers forced to have s.ex with their masters, just like ordinary slaves? Yes, read your article again, slave owners were only exempt from boiling other people's slaves, you can imagine what they did with their own.

Do you understand now? Do you just accept anything you read that's ostensibly pretty. Both articles you posted aren't even easy on the eye actually. They're both, at most, sophistry. Maybe even less

Image123: you're a proud rationalLY DISPOSED fella. Would you tolerate a goat as your elder brother in the name of tolerance?

I am?

That's biologically impossible.
Ask a silly question, don't complain if you get a silly reply

diehard: @wiegraf, What is your point really? i'll attemtpt to logically give you proof of God existence if only you'll have an open mind

My points look pretty clear to me unless you have comprehension problems or you just read that without giving it any thought. You wouldn't be asking me to clarify otherwise. I'll indulge though, I enjoy masochism once in a while, heh. Ok, I'll grant mayhaps I might be wrong and it might be a bit of a chore for most to understand it

Both: He allows slavery to persist, he only asks the parties involved be nice to each other

Both: if slavery were a non-issue, which the article seems to imply, why bother to attempt to free the xtian slave or ban slaving jews?

OT: He condones slavery, but not against jews. Why not apply the solution (salaries, time limits) used for downtrodden jews on everyone else? Omnixxx god is tribalistic? Is he jewish?

NT: The author notes that there was a particular interest in pleasing slaves, as many early xtians were slaves themselves. This is of course self-serving

NT: paul only suggests ambiguously that a slave be freed, and mostly because said slave was xtian, and potentially a good evangelist.



OT: As for condemnation, there's only don't slave or die. This can't be taken too seriously as it was decreed in the OT. The OT also decrees that people who work on sabbath or eat shellfish should be put to death. Death seems to be the answer for everything in that book, like say not wiping your a$$ after visiting the toilet*. Put in that context death is not a particularly strong rebuttal. Indeed, the law was ignored as they later state slavery existed just not of fellow jews. And also note, importantly, it recommends death only for the slavers, not slave owners.

NT: The eventual attempts by NT god at condemnation are weak, similar to those of a practical (or maybe cowardly and/or self-serving) politician who privately doesn't approve of the practice but is seeking to maintain or gain a power base. Omnipotent (impossible, but we've been ignoring a lot anyways) god wouldn't need to make half-measures, would it? It should be able to just come out and say, unequivocally, "slavery is wrong, don't do it in any shape or form", no? Is he afraid of losing votes? (Actually since omnipotent, it should be able to just eradicate slavery, simple. But that's another long topic, we can ignore that, for now)


And you're asking an atheist, who is open minded enough to consider a belief system which is far from the norm in this society to be open minded? How much 'close-mindedness' do you expect to find in a person who's positions are diametrically opposite to that of popular opinion?



*i even went out of my way to look into NT stance on slavery, as you guys seem to conveniently cherry pick old testament verses that suit your purposes. The times OT is particularly egregious you'll say "but jesus died for our sins, OT is void/irrelevant' etc

Image123: i think you feel strongly that you're the goat in question, you're quite emotional for a proud rationally disposed fella. Would you tolerate a goat as sibling in the name of tolerance?

I wouldn't be unjustified in thinking you view atheists as goats, yes?

Btw, I'm a proud rational fella?

Cool story bro.
I usually ignore grammar (I'm no pro as well), but what happened to punctuation?