₦airaland Forum

^^

Stryktli-brah!!!

Do learned helplessness, culture and morals play a role in determining a society's success?



I'll get back to the other thread btw, when off mobile, tonight I suppose.

musKeeto: ooman, can you start a new thread, like a part 2, just to avoid derailers.

I recommended this thread for frontpage to the mods and I'm glad it got there. I hope to take a sample of posts from the religious as possible and ask well-meaning Christians if these posts are generally or Biblical based views..

viewing most of the responses from the religious here, it's quite certain now that religion has been harmful to our people. i state religion here not God, in respect to those who would have us believe that the actions of majority of the adherents are not representative of the faith they uphold.

You caused this?? ? I should have known... With your hippie desire for peace and progress... Isn't mocking religious enough for you??

If abrahamic god keeps quite it potentially could help his case. He should keep things 'mysterious', rather than boasting to his prophets all the time. Less chance of exposing his eediocy that way.

davidylan: you could keep quiet if you have nothing cerebral to add to the topic. Just saying...

That's exactly my point to you, see? Again, what does your tangent have to do with the op?

davidylan: I'm interested in speaking as one scientist to another

What are you talking about?


Ad homi-what? I couldn't resist, sorry. I mean, really?

Besides, what does your current tangent have to do with the op? Though he indulges you...

Who let front page cancer in... This was shaping up to become a decent thread...

Well, considering the op, it's a valid decision. But still...

Billyonaire: You my friend are a sophisticated goat in humanoid plumage. Back off!

I'm not intelligent yet I'm sophisticated? What is wrong with you? Consistency is key...

Now, I'm asking questions. You did ask us to ask, yet here you are calling me a goat. How did you come to that conclusion? You've met a goat that can type? You seem to have done naught but demonstrate your world class reasoning skills so far.

Please don't miss the sarcasm.

So, back to question time, my good billyonaire (still can't figure out why you mentioned hotels, I suppose I should be asking paris hilton for spiritual advice then). Do you honestly believe the hogwash you vomit around here? Could you also demonstrate by astral projecting to a location in 9ja? We could organize for someone to be present there to verify having seen your...ghost? Or whatever imaginary object you think travels.

onetrack: I'm pretty familiar with the arguments but I just don't agree with them. I do agree that much of what we do is driven by emotion, more than we could imagine (high road/low road brain systems, etc).

Yeah, they should be fairly obvious or common. Evolutionary biology, for instance, has walked down that path.

Bottom line, to my argument of course, is self-preservation is not the only viable objective. The objectives are what determine how logical an action is. And I think our objectives are determined by emotions, regardless of how it looks on the surface. It could seem to one that a strict 'survival of the fittest' is what determines our actions but in practice, that really isn't so.

It's (mostly) emotions, emotions, emotions. And you know how rational those are?

onetrack: That might be the only circumstance in which preservation your children (your DNA) would be a logical reason to do something which you know will result in your death. Every other reason is either emotional or illogical, in my opinion.

You assume self preservation is the only goal one could have, it isn't. Once it's not, the other options become logical.

I've some long post about how some people are wired to take one for the cause biologically, I'll link it later (though it should be stuff you already know). And emotions DO determine our actions, most of the time your purpose is determined by emotions, even if it doesn't seem that way. Another post with that explained as well, I'll link later if need be.

ijawkid: I hate caSsava sef like no man business.....

What is the use of paw paw? Even the name is silly. Coconuts, apart from the sweet juices inside are terrible. Even oranges, why not just buy oranges? You insist on buying the fruit and spitting seeds everywhere. Sugarcane na suffer man food. Well, it's not even food.

But cassava, yes, is arguably the worst offender. Tastes like $hit, and to top it up you remove those silly whatever they are while eating it. Inefficient, horrible nonsense. Why did your god create all these horrible food/fruit?

onetrack: I agree that crimes can be committed with some logic behind them, but the 9/11 plotters were not logical because at the end they died in a fiery crash of their own creation. How is suicide the result of logical and rational thinking?

It can be, easily. Your life in exchange for that of loved ones.

Yes op, the infamous problem of evil.

I don't see why we should bother trying to eradicate religion. Some non-sheeple religious need it, why should we ruin it for them? It's their right. But yes, the excesses are at an obscene level here in africa.

@muskeeto: Lemme run around in circles here. If we can find a religion that we agree has more positive than negatives, or better yet, positives that cannot be attained via an anti-religious stance, that would be interesting. I doubt we can though.

And of course, most sheeple wouldn't agree with us on what is 'positive' and thus the suffering and smiling. They're objectives are different, as the you and the op note in various places. They are more interested in getting into heaven, the ultimate cop out, the easy way to attain your desires, in a sense. The rest of us are more interested in building heaven here, which involves less certainty, less security and of course we have to do the work ourselves, as opposed to sky daddy doing everything for us. So, as you've more or else noted, what qualifies as successful to us need not necessary qualify as successful to them, many don't actually see a problem.

Now, if religion is what promises them the after life, planting the seed which makes them 'lazier' here in the real world, then it probably deserves the opprobrium we assign it. But yes, there might be other factors involved. Actually, it's probably some sort of synergy, but it's hard to discard the notion of religion as one of the main components.

Ah, no time to properly explain my point...

Billyonaire: Santa ?: No, I dont know what Santa is, I feel its folktale
Drug Combo: I love marijuana vodka solution to ease me and make me sleep, its also cool for erectile functionality, last time I drank it was 11 months ago and i still will do so in future
Astral Projection: I think I should, but I am busy with autocard designs of my 40 rooms hotel, my project for 2013
My Cult?: You are it, its starting and I get average of 5 people writing for induction daily, yes it will feature the creme de la creme, the poor in intelligence like you are not welcomed.

Marijuana and vodka do nothing for erectile dysfunction. If it does for you then you're a weird one.

This sounds a bit like a bitter response, one would think there was a d.ildo up your a$$. For instance, was there any need to name drop your supposed autocad skills and opinions about my intelligence? You asked for questions, I'm asking some.

This is true though, I wouldn't be caught dead anywhere near your commune.

So, do you genuinely believe the horse $hit you spew? Do you think the nonsense you peddle is objectively true?

Why not? You invited us

Nothing special, these questions

Do you honestly believe in santa?
What is your favorite drug combo? Where can I get them please?
Why aren't you astral projecting right now to me so you could shut me up?
When exactly do you intend to fully start your cult? Will it feature kool aid?

J12: You're not being realistic. If morality is completely subjective, then there will be no laws guiding human conduct in societies.

Erm, but there are. Look around you.

alaric saltzman: 1. U lite the match 1st
2. He stood on ice block which has melted
3. 2nd place of cos!!
4. This one is very logical...then again, that's what dis whole fing is all abt...anyways, the answer is in d questn...a bit, bit and it!!!

See wickedness
I don't get the first one though

Why'd you ask atheists to contribute? You're looking for trouble brah...
I mean really....

Lord_Reed: Now we are getting some where. So do you think a comparison of moral systems can occur objectively by any means?

I cannot think of any objective measure, suffering or a version of the golden rule are the best I can come up with.

Random: Any viable measure you use is going to be tricky. Then again, what even determines 'viable'? Who or what sets the objective or purpose. This alone settles the problem as being subjective. For the moment we settle this in most of the world via consensus. Needless to say, that is not objective.

Even if one chose your god (ie, if he existed) as the arbiter, he'd only be forcing his own subjective 'good' unto us, like we do the other animals on this planet. Some religious people like to label this 'objective', but that's false.

Purposes and objectives are determined by emotions and feelings. A machine, without any feeling, would just sit there. It would desire nothing. Programmer though, would desire food to make him FEEL good, and thus program the machine to achieve some goal. You could say just to survive, but one wants to survive because one enjoys surviving. In other words, surviving FEELS good. Feelings are of course, subjective.

Yes, nature or anyone else for that matter could program mindless automata that just want to survive. And these could become some sort of deistic god (but not first cause, note, that would have to be mechanical). True, but these would have no other ambition than to survive. To do more one would need emotions as the driving force, to possess a will. Your god would need emotions as the basis for desiring this world, emotions are subjective. If it had no emotions, then it really wouldn't care. I'm not even sure it would qualify as 'conscious', and there's the issue of free will. Anyways, at the end of the day, so long as the god is conscious it wouldn't be any different to what we do with lesser animals, and we are driven by emotions.


The golden rule is sort of flawed sef. And as for injury, some suffering is considered 'good' as far as attaining a purpose is concerned, so how do you determine good suffering? etc etc..

And I've just wasted quite some time just now with this random...

Logicboy03: Havent I answered you? With logic and reasoning.



If by "frame of reference" you mean "holy book" or a book of some sorts, you are asking a fallacious question.

Use productivity maybe? Or the HDI. You choose the frame of reference. It is, more or else, subjective as well


What am I doing? I don't have time for this....

J12: All humans cannot possess the same moral values.

Its impossible since most human values are relative. However, some moral values have stood for ages and they're likely to remain that way till infinity. These are absolute moral values that cut across all human societies and cultures.

In other words, Some moral values are subjective, some aren't.

Let's go back. I think what exists, so long as a conscious intelligent being exists, is good and bad. Simply put, morality. However what is 'good' or 'bad' are completely subjective. Best you can hope for is to use natural evil, or suffering/the amount of injury an event causes, to measure morality. But even that is shaky at best

Mistade Regal: 1. Census
2. Bestiality
3. Homosexuality
4. Lesbianism
5. Corruption!
Very soon RAPE also will be legalised! Where is the World heading to?

OMG!! THOSE HEATHENOUS OYINBOS JUST CREATED....THE ROUND WHEEL!!!!

WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH EVERYONE OFUSUNIASFEESAEUNFAS 2012 WE'RE ALL GOING TO DI..oops...2013 WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!

Btw, "cencus" were illegal? Corruption is being legalized? Lesbianism is not homosexuality? Brah...

Heathen: op, don't be selfish, next time you have a chat with god, ask him why does he let children born in places like somalia starve to death.why exactly do some people come into this world and all they ever get to experience is suffering and pain?

squirtle, squirtle squirtle. squirtle squirtle squirtle squirtle. squirtle

Ah, for those who don't speak pokemon, translation; silly, it's real simple. Because they were evil in past lives. True

I'm not joking, that's what some religious actually say, while looking you straight in the eye...




random: To anyone who's ever said that; squirtle, squirtle squirtle

No, I won't translate, just know it's not exactly polite...

Logicboy03: Two words ;


F4ck you!




However, you are still my guy. I prefer that we keep bashing Anony and co. It's more productive.

Heheheheheheheheheheh

Where you go sef? I was expecting a reply like 5 mins after I posted it. How is the real world? Is cameroon playing live now or is this an old match?

ooman: And you find the lost by blowing them off? You may be completely insane. Dont talk to me again. You bleed religism

That's it. Fatwa for you. Your name sounds like usman sef, indicating apostate. Excellent. I bleed jihad through and through, and I'm free this weekend. A beheading is always a nice way to pass the time...

pastor glorious gloriously praying for the glorious dick

Poor jokes asides, really, playing with fire here. Minors. If your kids fall ill you should be obligated to take them to a hospital first. You can call prayers and resurrections etc later. Not saying that isn't what was done here, but this could send out the wrong message to sheeple. Rather than going to hospitals they now rely on resurrections. Sorry to say there's no confirmed documented occurrence of that ever working. Kids now die because of parents incompetence. Etc etc

Adults want to leave their fate to faith, that's very fine. They shouldn't be gambling with kids lives in that manner though

ooman: what? a muslim replying my post? i guess the next thing i will hear is a bomb blast!

I have nothing to say to you, obligate murderers

You may be completely lost

ooman: Nigeria won, who cares what the boko haram think

Is that all you care about? I didn't even know we were playing. What is disturbing here is it seems he has to ask allah for permission before supporting a team. Really, for something as trivial as this?? For more important things then, our hero will blindly follow allah then? Even when allah calls for a few things that would be more than a little disturbing, like say violating the rights of others?

It's his prerogative though, till he crosses the line of course.

maclatunji: It is his personal choice to support or not to support the Super Eagles for whatever reason. The person with a problem is you who does not respect that choice and seeks to lampoon and ridicule it via this thread.

Get busy with something positive and stop going round the website looking for trouble.

Ah shut up. Just like it's my personal choice to criticize if I see fit. What's that completely alien concept? Freedom of speech? Calling this looking for trouble? Do you see anyone calling for his head? Or demanding we rewrite the law so we could stone him? What do you expect will take place, a riot?

You're just afraid it makes your beloved islam look bad, and it does. What a silly, slavish reason to support a team. I mean, his prerogative, but how STOOPID. How divisive is that, hmm?


Meh

Adding to the list


6. Gambling

7. Assisted suicide (hmmm)

Very weak, lb. Bordering on pathetic actually...

Logicboy03: Fail....epic fail.

1) I never said/implied that animals have the same rights as humans
2) I was talking about human interaction with animals
3) I never talked about animal interaction to humans. So, you are putting words in my mouth because that would mean that I support animals have the right to eat humans to survive? See how you assumed nonsense?
4) Consent only applies to se.x in defining ra.pe.
5) Killing/murder are different.


Stop embarrassing yourself. You made a lie that I claimed that animals have the same rights as humans. I never implied or said that. There is no way you can get that from my comment without assuming that I engaged in the first sentence in number 2. Remember what we said about assumptions? hmm?

Errm, logic. Read my post again...s-l-o-w-l-y. You've clearly assigned human rights to animals, arbitrarily. Cherry picking style. When it fits your goals they're consent becomes an issue, when not it doesn't. Just like xtians that choose to discriminate against gheys yet eat shell fish with relish. Do you see your folly now?

Logicboy03: My exact statement was that no court will put me in jail. Any blundering fool could tell that since I mentioned "court", there could be a trial.

And no, I wouldnt go to jail. my choices were either suicide or killing the other man.

How you can tell such a bold faced lie...che...

You would unquestionably go to jail for murder if both of you were fit and healthy. If your victim was mortally ill, dying, then you might get away with it. You would get away with cannibalism if the other party died of natural causes, no problem. But murder? What you smoking? I suppose you think you would deserve a medal as well?

And by the way, you do know things other than trials tale place in courts, yes? Perhaps that's why you used the word 'could', my dishonest one.

Logicboy03: Dogs can survive without meat. What is your point? That we arent omnivorous or what?

No. In case you missed the obvious, it's that we do not need meat in order to survive. At all.

Do note also that omnivores like dogs are not capable or reason. They cannot build farms and such, yes?

Logicboy03: I expected basic reasoning skills from you.



Fail. Wolves and dogs are different but related species.

Dogs are a different subspecies.

Dogs are wolves. Wth is this? Dogs are domesticated wolves. In your words, gaddem?! I guess you're not an ape as well. And this is not even the same as comparing chimps and humans, as dogs are a subspecies of wolves. They're wolves through and through, just a subset.

Logicboy03: They mostly avoid humans as stated by your article. Stop the Anonyism

Majority of them avoid rap.ing us humans, just like majority of us avoid rap.ing animals. Your point is moot. Gaddem....

Read all those bits again. Perhaps work on your comprehension skills first

Logicboy03: 1) My exact statement was that winter was in other countries.....not all countries. What is wrong with you?
2) Your skin would be as dry as wood, no matter the amount of cream you use. Too much sunlight is bad. one year without shelter and you'd be dealing with some serious complications not limited to skin cancer.





1) Plants are conscious by even your own definition- they are aware of their surroundings. They react to it.
2) Plants hibernate also.
3) You cant be a vegetarian without killing- you'd have to avoid tubers, roots and bulbs. Thats 3/4 of vegetarian diet.
4) Every seeded fruit you eat without planting is a killed potential plant.
5) Killing a plant is still killing a living thing.
6) We must kill to survive

Plants are not aware of their environment in any conscious sense whatsoever. They can detect light but don't think to themselves 'oh yeah, lemme go that way then'. They don't think, at all. And they don't feel pain, in any way. If they can do either of the above, show how or shut up.

Anyhoo, we clearly, and this is the most salient point of all my good hypocrite, DO NOT have to kill in order to survive (except inadvertently, eg bacteria and whatnot).

Do you even try to regulate your meat intake? You can survive without having to kill animals, or even plants, yet you seat here after chowing some good meat, premeditated murder mind you, and somehow think you have the moral high ground over people who shag animals. Said people probably don't eat meat as well, due to their ehh, needs. *Now, ra.pe victims look away pls*. What choice do you think most beings capable of consent would take, ra.pe or death?




That's about as much time as I can spare probably. Gaddem what a waste

Ubenedictus: wen i talk of secularism, i mean
www.newadvent.org/cathen/13676a.htm
the devolopment of man on nothing more that "natural morality" away from theism or atheism. Problem no 1 natural morality is a mirage, on its own very problematic, very subjective and prone to relativism. There is hardly a thing called "natural morality". It is purely according to individual perspective. With such "morality" i wont be suprise if involuntary euthanasia is done on a drone sydrom patient 10yrs from now. Becos d so called natural morality is ever changing.

That response wasn't for you, but I suppose it's relevant.

From my pov all morality is 'natural'. You could claim yours is trandenscendant but of course to me it wouldn't be so, it would be man made. And even if genuinely transcendant, it looks to me like still blindly following the god(s). Good acts aren't good because they are intrinsically good but because god says they are.

Just about the whole OT has atrocity after atrocity which xtians would call good simply because god said so. If the name god was substituted with satan in those passages xtians would no doubt find these stories even more fitting. Or what's the difference between giving eve apples and hardening the phaeroes heart then punishing him and myriad innocents? Yet god of OT is still heralded as good, it's the same thing as calling hitler good.

Consider that your trandenscendal morality is not absolute, it changes, whimsically even. Even by your own admission the nt, which addresses some of the excesses of the ot (thankfully imo), changed the moral code. So even if your god existed it seems to be changing its mind as well, its will is not absolute. There is the danger of it declaring rather suspect acts as good, just like humans. Unlike human made morality where questioning is more readily encouraged, with god his word is supposedly final (yet it still finds a way to change as time passes by), so it's even more difficult to change if it is found to be flawed with time. And of course it is more easily abused by 'charlatans', etc, who can bend and twist even the 'good' parts as they see fit with less supervision, checks etc. All they need do is have a sweet tongue and claim is they're mandated by god, then watch sheeple fall in line

In essence, it looks a lot worse than regular morality to a non believer. Actually, it looks like regular morality, except with needless disadvantages. Inflexibility and a patent lack of accountability. The more advanced muslims on these boards still think stoning, spousal abuse, finger cutting, heck even jihad are acceptable in this day and age because allah says so. Do you honestly agree with that?

No moral code can be perfect. Perfect to who? What purpose? But addressing that fact and coming up a fluid yet balanced system, with checks and balances, is easily the best way to go. Secularism is the best system at (or at least attempting to) providing that. Theocracies? No

striktlymi: Good morning wiegraf,

In the spirit of fair play, I will delay my response till after you are done with your post.

Ty! Just reread it and it seems good enough. Whenever you're ready brah

Logicboy03: Psychopath christians


https://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mam9siQoTf1qj1z44o1_500.png

He best be trollin'
In which case he's done an excellent job