₦airaland Forum

obadiah777: SOUP HAD TO BE TASTY FOR YOU TO THINK YOU CAME FROM IT. NOW THATS ONE HECK OF A SOUP. SOUP SO SWEET IT DRIVE WIEGRAF CRAZY. SOUP SO SWEET IT DRIVE YOU ABSOLUTELY BONKERS. NOW YOU DONE LOST YOUR MIND AFTER EATING THAT PRIMORDIAL PEPPERSOUP

YOU'RE ALREADY SALIVATING? THIS IS WHY WE SUPER-ATHEISTS DON'T GIVE Y'ALL TOO MANY GOOD THINGS FROM SCIENCE. IF WE RELEASED OUR TIME TRAVELING MACHINE, I CAN GUARANTEE ONE OF YOU CRAZIES WILL GO BACK IN TIME AND TRY AND DRINK THAT PEPPER SOUP...

obadiah777: VERIFIABLE CRAZIES ? WELL IF THAT AINT THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK SMDH YOU GOT TO BE COMPLETELY BONKERS AND ABSOLUTELY BANANAS TO THINK YOU ERUPTED FROM PRIMORDIAL SOUP

LOL
TO EACH HIS 'CRAZE' (NO QUOTES IN YOUR CASE)
I WONDER IF THE SOUP WAS TASTY

obadiah777: OH NO SIR. SERRIALINK HAS GONE APOSTATE. HE IS PROLLY SOMEWHERE NOW BURNING INCENSE TO AMADIOHA JK. DUNNO BRUV. THE GUY JUST VANISHED INTO THIN AIR.

It seems all the reasonable xtians abandon us. Well, that makes sense, they're probably off being reasonable somewhere and aren't the type to proselytize of course. But that leaves us with the likes of you, anony, hisblud, emusan, etc etc. Verifiable crazies. Atheists can't have nice things *sigh*. Perhaps atheists of my flavor and I should try being nicer?
























Dohohohohohohohoho
I'll consider that when your hell freezes over... Reprobates gonna reprobate

obadiah777: HE IN THE VALLEY OF DRY BONES WORSHIPPING IFA AND ODUDUWA. THAT BROTHER DONE WENT APOSTATE SMDH

DOHOHOHOHO

ABEG, OGA...TELL ME YOU'RE TROLLING..

obadiah777: ATHEISTS DONT WANT NONE OF THIS FIRE THIS TWO EDGED SWORD, THE WORD THAT IS, HAS A REPUTATION OF SLICING AND DICING ATHEISTS DOWN TO THE MARROW. I BELIEVE A FEW ATHEISTS HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE ER AND HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD FROM EVER SINCE AFTER COMING IN CONTACT WITH THE SWORD. LOGICMIND COMES TO MIND. AND A VERY BELLIGERENT FELLOW CALLED >>>> CANT REMEMBER HIS NAME NOW. HIS NAME HAD 3 LETTERS.

WHERE SERIALBRAH GO?

GRRRRRRM: “Ser? My lady?” said Podrick. “Is a broken man an outlaw?”

“More or less,” Brienne answered.

Septon Meribald disagreed. “More less than more. There are many sorts of outlaws, just as there are many sorts of birds. A sandpiper and a sea eagle both have wings, but they are not the same. The singers love to sing of good men forced to go outside the law to fight some wicked lord, but most outlaws are more like this ravening Hound than they are the lightning lord. They are evil men, driven by greed, soured by malice, despising the gods and caring only for themselves. Broken men are more deserving of our pity, though they may be just as dangerous. Almost all are common-born, simple folk who had never been more than a mile from the house where they were born until the day some lord came round to take them off to war. Poorly shod and poorly clad, they march away beneath his banners, ofttimes with no better arms than a sickle or a sharpened hoe, or a maul they made themselves by lashing a stone to a stick with strips of hide. Brothers march with brothers, sons with fathers, friends with friends. They’ve heard the songs and stories, so they go off with eager hearts, dreaming of the wonders they will see, of the wealth and glory they will win. War seems a fine adventure, the greatest most of them will ever know.

“Then they get a taste of battle.

“For some, that one taste is enough to break them. Others go on for years, until they lose count of all the battles they have fought in, but even a man who has survived a hundred fights can break in his hundred-and-first. Brothers watch their brothers die, fathers lose their sons, friends see their friends trying to hold their entrails in after they’ve been gutted by an axe.

“They see the lord who led them there cut down, and some other lord shouts that they are his now. They take a wound, and when that’s still half-healed they take another. There is never enough to eat, their shoes fall to pieces from the marching, their clothes are torn and rotting, and half of them are shitting in their breeches from drinking bad water.

“If they want new boots or a warmer cloak or maybe a rusted iron halfhelm, they need to take them from a corpse, and before long they are stealing from the living too, from the smallfolk whose lands they’re fighting in, men very like the men they used to be. They slaughter their sheep and steal their chickens, and from there it’s just a short step to carrying off their daughters too. And one day they look around and realize all their friends and kin are gone, that they are fighting beside strangers beneath a banner that they hardly recognize. They don’t know where they are or how to get back home and the lord they’re fighting for does not know their names, yet here he comes, shouting for them to form up, to make a line with their spears and scythes and sharpened hoes, to stand their ground. And the knights come down on them, faceless men clad all in steel, and the iron thunder of their charge seems to fill the world…

“And the man breaks.

“He turns and runs, or crawls off afterward over the corpses of the slain, or steals away in the black of night, and he finds someplace to hide. All thought of home is gone by then, and kings and lords and gods mean less to him than a haunch of spoiled meat that will let him live another day, or a skin of bad wine that might drown his fear for a few hours. The broken man lives from day to day, from meal to meal, more beast than man. Lady Brienne is not wrong. In times like these, the traveler must beware of broken men, and fear them…but he should pity them as well.”

RIP Stryktlimi
2012 - 2013


Long live homo olodo

All wrong good ser, strictly speaking by my moral standards. But my standards may be impractical.

I will gladly indulge or support some of these so long as they were done as humanely as we could manage (eg drug testing). I will gladly eat meat too (hypocritical), etc.

And also other factors may be involved on a case to case basis, like I personally usually give priority to sentient life, then life with nervous systems, etc. And I may also consider completely unavoidable, necessary evils, or nature just doing what nature does. Ultimately, determinism.

Focused enough? Can't see where this is heading.

Ooh, yeah, more random of sorts. The pastor is correct about most of what he's said, it's just something most ignore. It's similar to how an atheist might tell you he is fully sure no gods, but when asked to give a number he'd say 99.999^. You cannot fully know anything, for practical reasons I just ignore this though.

And I'll let this die now...

Deep Sight: ^^^ Sorry, that post, with every respect to dear wiegraf, was meaningless, illogical rambling. In fairness, to him, he confessed as much before so saying. Random thoughts whithout any logical construct, thought development, direction, conclusion or pith of meaning whatsoever.

That post could only be a delight to one such as yourself, who delights in the art of the vague, the meaningless, and the science of saying and concluding nothing, every-time.

I have a different turn of mind. Whether you agree or disagree with what I say, I like to have said something, rather than always being the "neither here nor there-ish", "tend to-ish", "bias for-ish," "cannot know anything-ish" sort - or meaninglessness, which should only exist in outer space and not within the committee of the living, the purposeful, the sentient, the sapient.

As for death, the thread died long long ago, when the likes of thehomer and wiegraf refused to see kindergarten contradictions such as non material considerations for materialists and being an animal, but being evil for acting as all animals do. Everything that has been said afterwards were merely epitaphs on the thread. . . --->

DOHOHOHOHO

You're not alone, seems I have trouble getting through to a few folk. My bahdt (not saying I'm going to be doing much about it though, so I'm not really sorry).

A somewhat abridged version. Materialism says nought (well, nothing directly) about your morality. It doesn't say you should respect human life more. Then again, it doesn't say you should respect human life less either. Just like it doesn't insist you marry 4 wives, or roast babies. It doesn't say you should worship the sun because you believe it is made of matter. Not sure how you're drawing conclusions like these, perhaps you are looking for dogma somewhere? You might have well just opened an 'Atheism is A Religion' thread. So yes, waste of time. I can only hope you weren't trolling.

Something like Humanism on the other hand is a little more involved...

dexmond: 1. Yes. He is the Authority on matters of Morality. 1 peter 1:16

Then you should not have bothered trying to justify his actions to us. What he says is good is good, shikena.

So long as he declared Stalin good, then he's good, yes? The crusades, all holy wars, the Palestinians/Israeli and their never ending conflict, of which both sides believe god is on their side, all good so long as he says so. He could make Hitler's atrocities look like kindergarten stuff, but it would still be good, yes?

No need for you to justify yourself. You just require us to be slaves.

dexmond: Moreover, No proof shall be given you except you humble yourself and request the proof in a petition to Him. Some of us who have received proof of Gods love received it out of grace, while some diligently sought for this proof in humility. In taking a position already your mind is made up.If you accept my offer, for the Lord to show you proof of His majesty and Glory, then, concerned Nairalanders shall pray for you and your heart shall be able to receive the revelation of the Lord.

Did I ask for proof? Not sure. Anyways, again, there's no need to justify yourself. No need for proof, I'm expected to just comply. Even if I did encounter him, all that's expected is I slavishly commit, see? I have no choice in the matter. He need not justify his actions, no need to meet him or for you to try to prove anything.

Uyi Iredia: That's a possibility I would consider if I were strapped with another human in an extremely isolated place, at the peak of my limit to go on without food or water. You are also inanely ignoring artificial constraints such as laws against the act. The option is even shown less logical when I consider that there are other sources of food readily available.

Che.. Limit the foolishness, pls. You are ignoring just about EVERYTHING.

My point is those laws are there despite you yourself admitting it's perfectly logical in some situations, like the bolded, yes? It is still VERY illegal and considered morally bad even in those situations, why? Because of the VALUE most of us place on human life, a value that need not be logical*.


I have no idea what sort of mental block some of you here have. It's usually related to gods, I know. My point is very, very simple. Your motivation, goals, desires etc dictate your values. Your values dictate morality. Especially not logic. Logic is just a tool you use to achieve your aims, simple. Lower animals do not have logic/reasoning skills of note like you would have us to believe, else pls do show us an animal explaining why it took such and such action. They act on instinct, little to no thought involved, yet they have their own rudimentary moral codes, yes? In fact, that's why the op uses them as an example in his misguided attack on materialism, yes?

Random, skip the rest if you wish, not really relevant;
As for this thread in general, now, we humans tend to value human life more than others, we place a very high premium on it. This is not necessarily logical. Look around, we're the greatest scourge this planet has ever seen. We ought to have killed off more species than any other extinction level event by now. We are a vile, VILE species (you disagree? I give you...well, human history...read up), yet most of us go around entitled, assuming we're extra special and good, and this entire, ginourmous universe was custom built, just very special just right just for special just us.

Please, we won the lottery, attained intelligence, that's ALL (usual materialist's stance).

Op's whole argument is built more or else around this, thus the question of why we value human life more than other animal life. Humans are simply animals, a particularly nefarious bunch no less, arguably the worst ever. So why place more value on human life than on other animal life? That's not logical, is it?

Ignore society and it's effects, ignore the standards of most society's morality. If we were being strictly logical, materialists perhaps should push for the position of valuing all life equally, ie assuming there's nothing particularly special about humans to a materialist. For instance, when you examine what humanity has achieved and balance it with the mayhem it's caused you can possibly see the case for this view (and I do actually, but like I said, I'm a hypocrite, for one, other animals taste too good). Basically, logically speaking, why put such a premium on humans? We're animals, we act like animals (albeit more intelligently), so why so special? Why different rules? (Again, ignore practical effects related to what the populace thinks).

Most people think they are ordained by a 'higher power' (DOG!) to assign a higher value to 'spirit' lives, which supposedly we humans qualify as. Obvious rubbish, but they at least use it to justify why they assign more value to human life. So again, the question here is what is the materialist's excuse?

As has been pointed out to both you and the op for the n'th time, morals DO NOT derive from logic. Again, VALUES. Simple. We value human life more than others, each and everyone of us who has this stance for whatever personal (read: subjective) reasons. For all who place this value on human life, other human life helps us achieve our personal objectives, whatever they may be. Trivial $hit, I want to watch the CL Finals yearly, make sure high quality pron is always available, etc. To more basic, fundamental stuff; food in stomach, family concerns, etc. All these are things I VALUE. Without them I FEEL like $hit. Note the word FEEL. Same with other animals @uyi, they might not be able to compute or reason like us, but they FEEL hungry, then react. Feel h.orny, then react. Etc, etc.

One could deceive himself into thinking that respect for human life need be ordained by a 'higher power', that this is the only option. THIS IS PATENTLY FOO.LISH. Peel off all the layers, our moral codes are dictated by our values, simple. Hence, if I stop valuing life? Suicide. I value 72 virgins in the next life more than my current life and the lives of a few victims? Suicide bomber. Etc, etc, etc. All these 'evil' things now become 'good' to you, see? Your logic used as a tool to achieve an objective, but the objective is based around your values, or what makes you FEEL good.

Everyone has his/her own convictions. So what of a materialist? NOT necessarily linked to morals, and I've stated this repeatedly. However, he would place a rather high value/respect on/for life generally, moreso than most religious people actually, as he doesn't place any value on any life other than these ones. No spirits, no next lives, etc. Hence you hear all the talk about you have only one life to live, live it well and try to do the best for humanity, etc.

Consider when you combine these views with being say a humanist, which note, does indeed directly say something about your values and morals unlike materialism, then one would also place a high value on the potential of what humans can achieve, and thereby award them much more respect than say a religionist, whose ultimate focus is - god. You could say humanists worship humanity (or at least its potential), and want to see it progress as far as is possible, unleash all that potential we piss all over. There's a saying that's something like 'within everyone is the potential to move mountains', that sort of optimism is to be found often in humanists. Not so with most religious, everything is contingent on.....gods. Look at muslims eg, hold back half the population (women), why? Because god. Look at xtians, deny people's happiness (homosexuals) why? Because god. Etc etc. You're not going to find many secular humanists affording santa that much respect, no sir.

Anyways, tldr; Your values determine your moral code, not logic.




*btw, general trend is if in such a situation, assuming the victim was at death's door and you can show that, actually is you usually don't get convicted when tried (arguing with @LB actually made me look it up sometime ago, don't tell him he may have been right though). However, in such situations people usually consider the act a necessary evil. Still evil, but unavoidable. Some would even consider it good. As with all things morality, it depends on who you ask and what he values, see?

EDITS

Mr anony: Only the man that performed the deed knows exactly what motivated him.

Che...

Anyways, wiki

Mr anony: Motivation is a psychological feature that arouses an organism to act towards a desired goal and elicits, controls, and sustains certain goal directed behaviors. It can be considered a driving force; a psychological one that compels or reinforces an action toward a desired goal. For example, hunger is a motivation that elicits a desire to eat.

Motivation has been shown to have roots in physiological, behavioral, cognitive, and social areas. Motivation may be rooted in a basic impulse to optimize well-being, minimize physical pain and maximize pleasure. It can also originate from specific physical needs such as eating, sleeping or resting, and sex.

Motivation is an inner drive to behave or act in a certain manner. "It's the difference between waking up before dawn to pound the pavement and lazing around the house all day."[1] These inner conditions such as wishes, desires, goals, activate to move in a particular direction in behavior.

In summary, motivation can be defined as the purpose for, or psychological cause of, an action.[2]

My point being all these are very, very, subjective. They need not be rational. And these drive your moral code.

Deep Sight: WOW! SOMETHING JUST OCCURRED TO ME!

I WONDER WHAT OUR FRIENDS HERE THINK ABOUT CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AND THE VARIOUS LAWS DEVELOPING AGAINST CRUELTY TO ANIMALS!

OMG! THIS ACTUALLY SHOWS UP THE ARGUMENTS AS TRULY EMPTY AND WORTHY OF THE TRASH CAN!

OMG!

1. - - - It is morally okay to kill and eat animals

Quoting myself waaaay back, first post

me: All this is my view only.

..........

Ideally, no. But I wouldn't apply the same standards to both sentient and non-sentients. I think it would be silly, so yes. It's acceptable and unavoidable. Some what related (but not really) sef, think of all the micro-life you kill inadvertently or necessarily.

Deep Sight: 2. - - - It is not morally okay to hurt or torture animals

Quoting myself waaaay back, first post again

me: No. As we're capable of advanced reasoning I hold us to higher standards. But I'm hypocritical.

Deep Sight: 3. - - - (2) above, hold true because animals are living creatures that feel pain, hurt, fear and psychological stress and grief

Yes

Deep Sight: 4. - - - But it is morally okay to kill and eat animals

For me, again, no. But I'm hypocritical.
A necessary evil, if you will.

Deep Sight: I guess the Hindus are on to something after all!

OMG! This discussion is a hypocritical waste of time.

Yes and no, for various reasons, and probably not for the same reasons I imagine you would think of

Deep Sight: @ Lightninglord. I am sorry but I cannot make head or tail of your posts. Perhaps you need the whole thread in your spare time. If you cannot do that, answering these specific questions would help -

1. What is strict materialism.

Borrowing wiki

wiki: In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter.

Deep Sight: 2. Does strict materialism admit of the existence of anything non-physical?

Borrowing wiki again

wiki: Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many,[2][3][4] all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of and how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter.[4]

Deep Sight: 3. Are humans animals?

Yes

Deep Sight: 4. Is it wrong for smarter animals to develop smarter ways of effecting natural predatory and territorial behavior?

By my standards, if you mean inflicting more pain on life rather than making it more humane (with an eye towards eradicating it completely), yes.

Deep Sight: 5. Is the predatory territorial behavior IN FACT observed [b]both historically and currently[/b]y among humans in nature.

What do you mean? Yes, but obviously our moral codes (and therefore this behavior) is much more complex

Deep Sight: 6. Is it possible to qualify either historical human predatory territorial behavior among themselves as immoral.

Yes

Deep Sight: 7. Q. 6 for same behavior in modern times?

Yes

maclatunji: There is also something called reality. The reality is that you cannot survive on salty water. Hence, your having fresh water to drink is an act of mercy from God, the fresh water which you so eagerly describe with "science" could easily turn salty and you and science would be left looking stupid. The case of people like you is like a football commentator who says because he can describe events on the field so accurately, he has become the highest goal scorer of the season.

#Boring and not #Insightful.

And this obvious truth is the brilliant, scientific truth allah so graciously left us with?

What in whargarbl is your point? God pitied us maggots and therefore made fresh water? Does all life survive on fresh water? Since there's a hell of a lot more salt water available, why didn't he in his infinite mercy grant us the ability to survive on salt water as well? He didn't love us enough, I get it. I mean he was just being merciful to scum like us. In the meantime, the deluded scientist will continue to look for ways to make salt water drinkable. You know, because it could potentially save A LOT of lives.

Perhaps we should abandon the scientific method and just use the koran to figure out these issues? Toss out your computing device so we can begin, we don't want to look like hypocrites. And of course should they succeed, you make sure to never drink any water purified by these stupid godless scientists.

Deep Sight: There is a thread Plaetton opened on which I will address that - that question derails from the discussion here.

I disagree as that is, more or else, the source of morality, therefore very relevant. You seem to be ignoring that.

Deep Sight: Now, what I say, and this derived from thehomer's position - what I say is that the strict materialist cannot be a strict materialist and at the same time reject physical nature as his reference point for morality. That is contradictory and absurd. No escape there. Absolutely none.

And, as has been asked (or pointed out) time and again, how is this a dilemma? Are you saying that because someone's views are materialistic one cannot object to say cannibalism? We have shown you that that is false, yes?

Deep Sight: Logical fallacy? Are you kidding me? This can never be a logical fallacy for a strict materialist who beleives that everything that exists is physical and all things derive from nature. He has nowhere else to derive his morality from bur from said nature. So the strict materialist cannot do a double-flip on this. I will not let you play word games on this one: this point is cast in iron and adamantine.

Even if one indulged you, are you implying that consciousness, which comes with a heavy dose of emotion, emotions that are responsible for our goals, is not.... natural? Why? Because you say so?

Where did your magical spirit being get it's goals from?

HerexG :
First i want to thank you very much for your encouragedment

Your perfect god forgot to fit you with a sarcasm detector. Or perhaps he thought you unworthy of one, or his mysteriosunesses plans do not involve you having one, etc etc. Anyways, here's how they usually work

https://global3.memecdn.com/Ooh-sarcasm-detector_o_118097.jpg

This is N vs S. Especially NTP vs SJ

Yes op, people living their (note 'their', not 'your') lives as they see fit, while not infringing on your rights in no shape or form whatsoever, is a virus.

My question always remains, why are they still muslims? At the very least they should spin off and form a sect or something. Still major fail, but just a wee bit better.

And this should be in the cancer ward, where they'll no doubt (hilariously) balk at the idea of a religion spinning off islam. What do most think of say the bahai, I wonder?


This is accurate

op: “The problem with Pakistan is that everyone believes he is in charge of other people lives and can best decide about the morals of others but that’s not the right approach and we are in this state because of our clergy, who have hijacked our society which was once a tolerant society and respected individuals freedoms.”

Come in pls, eediots who somehow claim they've discovered the 'objective' morality everyone of us most follow.

Arrant nonsense

*Kails*:
dear i am not trying to sell anything though.
it's a fact.

theism + science together were the foundation for every great civilization there was in the ancient world. once egos came to play it all went down hill.

What happened when Galileo et al essentially formed the modern scientific community, spurring the age of enlightenment, which featured a focus on separating science from religion/superstition unlike any other seen before, roughly ~500 years ago? Notice the effects?

Or would you rather return to one of those great civilizations that was doing stuff right? At least consider tossing out whatever godless device you're using to browse atm. It's a another terribly product of the scientific method, yes?

Mr anony: An action cannot be called a moral action if it isn't done for a reason.

Stop right there.

What determines your reason, what determines your objectives?

Mr anony: Here's an example for you: A person ought to keep his promises

Really? Supposing I promised a genocide? Or to roast you for eternity whatever reason?

Mr anony: 1. It is truly evil to r[color=#000000]ape[/color] women for fun.
2. It is truly evil to torture babies for fun.
3. It is truly good to forgive offenses.
4. It is truly good to save a child from drowning

1, 2 & 4, not if you have a less than positive view of life.

3. Haha, not at all. A simple example, repeat, unrepentant influential offenders. Or to defend your own, like the op implies.

Anony, with regards to this, what exactly do you want addressed?

dexmond: Being the creator and owner of the world, he he reserves the right to send them wherever it pleases Him.

So, basically, whatever he says is good is good, regardless, yes?

dexmond: Are you judging the Almighty God? The innocent children will surely be accepted into heaven because they know no sin.

Who are YOU to judge your Almighty God? If he says those children go to hell, then they go to hell, simple. In your words

dexmond: he he reserves the right to send them wherever it pleases Him.

dexmond: He God is still good seeing that he saved the innocent children. It should come as a surprise to you that Israel was punished when they did the very same thing that led God to take those land and give them to Israel. At a time they began worshipping Idols and engaging in the same practise of the people of that Land which led God to punish them by other Nations too. Is God not Just? You, thehomer will also account for all your actions after you die, in fighting the Lord Jesus and his Church. I pray that the Lord opens your eyes.

The italicized, yes, how gracious. I mean, he could have just let them die, killed them himself or ordered their deaths as usual. And again, why are you judging god? He can do as he wishes, he is good regardless of your opinion, yes?

As for just, as above, it clearly is a case of what he says is just is just, no? He can do as he sees fit, yes? So despite loving nonbelievers unconditionally (perhaps you should redefine the terms 'love' and 'unconditional'), he will roast us for eternity (mostly) for simply demanding proof of existence before we become blind, happy slaves, or questioning his clearly EVIL deeds (by modern standards) and standing up for humanity, dignity and decency.

Anyways, good ser, if you could address the above.

Mr anony: Have you even read it at all?

Abeg... I'll come back and read it properly.... I'm serious.. You know how it is, with my concentration..... I'll try to see what your point is....

Mr anony: Then you are wrong

I see, because you say so.

If you're asking that I accept this just because you say so, kindly SHARRAP!!! Really, do I look like sheeple? When you do find this logically absurd magical formula, do show it though. I suggest you start searching for it where you'll find the legendary 'divide by zero' , '6 foot dwarfs', santa, god etc.

Mr anony: The whole thing if you may

You may not may me. What exactly? It's all been addressed before methinks. Get to your point if you will, good ser, then I'll clarify my stance.

Mr anony: Are you really saying that it is only immoral as long as someone deems it so?

Yes. Hence no universal immoral

Mr anony: Read my comment on what objective moral principles are in the case of Mr DeepSight vs Madam WitchKiller here:
[url] https://www.nairaland.com/1294489/basis-human-morality/7#15884362[/url]

Tell me what you think.

About what part exactly, if you will?

Deep Sight: Wiegraf, you do not seem to be addressing yourself to the pure logic of this matter.

Please start with the question of whether or not such a thing as a malum in se exists.

Nothing like objective morality.

Deep Sight: Your answers are now actually contradicting your earlier statements. This is of course what happens when people have yet to think full circle: same as dear Pastor AIO who still does not see his great contradictions.

You probably misunderstand me, assuming this is about necessary evils ie. This is my very first post on this thread for some general context

wiegraf: All this is my view only.

....

Ultimately I believe in a deterministic and probalistic universe. My stance may be even more 'ruthless' than where I think you're going, as I don't hold people responsible for their actions per se. But I think being morally good (in the somewhat traditional sense) is the practical, reasonable way to go, however you look at it.

Moving on, you eventually assert (or reassert) that having a materialistic world view leads to certain unavoidable conclusions, roughly here

ds: @ Plaetton and all others arguing in terms of group survival and efficiency, etc, you still have not got the point at all. ....

The question therefore, would be if these acts of war targeted at achieving resources, are immoral or evil? ....

If we are merely highly developed animals, you can never argue that acts of warfare or seizing resources from one another are wrong or evil. NEVER.

My response

me: Regarding some of what you've said, if we all go around warring and killing each other, revenge ensues, standards of morality are lowered, etc, where does it stop? How does that ensure safety? You're still making the environment a more dangerous place to operate. It's against your (and our) interests.

All sides think god is on their side. A lot of foolishness may be involved (see Hanlon's razor), all sides probably have honest intentions, but they'd still all be wrong warring. There's always a better solution to violence (do note again that I can be a hypocrite, short-sighted and impatient).

Again, sapience separates us from the rest, hence we should use it to our advantage. We should be evolving past strife, petty or otherwise. So in general, god might be on every side, but as he's wont to; he's wrong morally.

You could take a practical approach, but you're still wrong ultimately. Necessary evil does not mean morally good. I wouldn't persecute some 'necessary evils', in fact I'd very loudly support them, but I wouldn't call them morally 'good' either.

Need I add that this is my (subjective) world view?

I couldn't (and still can't) see why being a materialist is vital to my moral code (and this btw is crucial to your arguments). I therefore do not explicitly state that I'm one (still not sure) due to the uncertainty of if I qualify as one, but I left that there as an example of the views of a materialist, or at least of someone similar.

You yourself point out these are my (subjective) thoughts. My reply here

me: Logic to attain what purpose?

If your point is that being logical will lead to situations we generally consider morally wrong by today's standards, mine is that this is probably a false dilemma. The premises do not inevitably lead to where you're heading. Despite how counter-intuitive it may seem, violence, necessary evils are not necessarily the most logical course. Strife leads to less stability, less productivity, etc. These objectives are usually not desirable, therefore it would be illogical to pursue them.

It remains to be seen if materialists disagree with this logic.

Note the italicized in particular. I don't think I need clarify further on this, yes?

edits

Mr anony: Why should I try to make the world a better place? Why not squeeze out every bit of sensual enjoyment I can before I go back to sleep?

Because you're twisted? The hell do I care what you do (so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others). Note I posted that with an (imo).

Mr anony: Is the act immoral because it is murder or because it is in broad daylight?

Neither and both, along with other reasons. Basically though it would be immoral because chances are someone would deem it so, simple. It would also be moral to some. What you want to ask is "is the act inherently immoral?". No.

Note this says nothing about whether it's illegal.


Random: And flexibility is a good thing, loudly endorsing it is a good thing as well, despite what some fear. Unless you think say living as if it were 1400 years ago today, as our good muslims with their objective moral code for all the ages do, is a good idea. You know how many atrocities have been committed through history by people who thought they had arrived at an objective good? With infallibly good god on their side? How many objectively 'good' deeds did the god himself do in the OT sef? People need to negotiate, discourse and see the other side before making judgements. To hone their reason.

If there is an objective moral code, someone should present this magical, logically absurd formula which can somehow quantify or objectify personal values, which of course are primarily determined by personal feelings. Replace 'personal' with 'societal' and you'd still get the same results. Until then talk about this mysterious objective moral code is just that; talk.