thehomer:

Would the fact that you're human mean that moral reasoning applies to you? Actually, the fact that you can tell right from wrong does impose a moral duty upon you towards others and upon others towards you. That is why you can be sent to prison if you kill someone. And another person can be sent to prison for murder.

So it turns out that I have answered a lot of things with respect to the morality of keeping your promises to people.

You do realize that being morally responsible towards someone doesn't mean that you have to guard them all day, it means that at the very least, you shouldn't harm them especially when you can avoid it.

In order for us not to be arguing at cross purposes, what would you say morality entails?


Let's not play games here. The creator we're talking about is already said to be beneficent to his creation. Unless you wish to retract that, then you shouldn't try to run from the consequences of such a line of thought.

Now why would you say that a creator who you say is beneficent towards his creation doesn't have any moral obligations towards them?

Irrelevant. First of all, you and I are not in a creator/creation relationship with each other or other persons (please don't forget that that's the basis of the question).
Secondly, the creator's beneficence isn't the reason why He ought to be beneficent. That's like asking "why should thehomer be nice?" and you reply "because thehomer is nice". It is a non-answer and you know it.
I am sure that if you asked me "why should God be good?" and I answered "because he is said to be good" you will out-rightly reject such an answer.

Kmcutez you really are a piece of work!!! Lol

Feisty aint you?

Arise Sir Logicboy the knight and defender of anything(I believe you just dote on attention).
You will never concede to a loss even if the evidence struck square and fair in the face. LMAO .

Deepsight refuted your arguments with your words and you are shouting blue murder?

kmcutez:
Even the explaination of ad hominem describes you as not having much upstairs, in other words, an olodo. I have been vindicated.

Yawn...it is getting old now. Calling someone else "olodo" doesn't make you smart in comparison my dear.

chukkynwob: Kmcutez you really are a piece of work!!! Lol

Feisty aint you?

Arise Sir Logicboy the knight and defender of anything(I believe you just dote on attention).
You will never concede to a loss even if the evidence struck square and fair in the face. LMAO .

Deepsight refuted your arguments with your words and you are shouting blue murder?

The worst and most shameless aspect of it is his attempt deny his bare words referring to a claim being made by the scientist "in the first place" for which he said they then had a burden of proof. Worst of all, he does this notwithstanding that that is indeed his own argument as to why they had a burden of proof - even after admitting that the prior position was indeed a claim as well. . .after this he proceeds to demand that we show where he mentioned anything about first, and when shown, he then says that it does not mean "first" is important. . .unbelievable.

Now, this same person goes about the thread calling me a liar for same? What lie did I tell, I wonder?

You see, falsehood is its own revealer.

chukkynwob: Kmcutez you really are a piece of work!!! Lol

Feisty aint you?

Arise Sir Logicboy the knight and defender of anything(I believe you just dote on attention).
You will never concede to a loss even if the evidence struck square and fair in the face. LMAO .

Deepsight refuted your arguments with your words and you are shouting blue murder?

Wow another liar. Keep supporting liars.

Deep Sight:

The worst and most shameless aspect of it is his attempt deny his bare words referring to a claim being made by the scientist "in the first place" for which he said they then had a burden of proof. Worst of all, he does this notwithstanding that that is indeed his own argument as to why they had a burden of proof - even after admitting that the prior position was indeed a claim as well. . .after this he proceeds to demand that we show where he mentioned anything about first, and when shown, he then says that it does not mean "first" is important. . .unbelievable.

Now, this same person goes about the thread calling me a liar for same? What lie did I tell, I wonder?

You see, falsehood is its own revealer.

Wow, you and your garbage supporters can keep up this lie .


Was I denying that the sicentists had a burden of proof? You have started again!


You lied that i said first person to make a claim matters. I denied it and clearly told you that the burden of proof is on the claimant. So it doesnt matter who made the first claim or second claim- everyone has to prove his claims.



[size=18pt]A question for DeepSight and his supporters;

Does the phrase "that was their claim in the first place" have anything to do with establishing who made a claim first or establishing what the original claim was[/size]



If it is the latter (establishing the original claim) Deepsight is a liar

NEVER SEEN A MORE PASSIONATE CONFUSED DISCUSSION

WHAT IS THE POINT?

MostHigh: NEVER SEEN A MORE PASSIONATE CONFUSED DISCUSSION

WHAT IS THE POINT?

The cowardice of the atheist : point

A post from front page : evidence

Gloat, throw away evidence, believe by faith that atheists have nothing to fear, they're just lil teens being silly on the net: christians

The rest: friendly banter..

Wow, you and your garbage supporters can keep up this lie .


Was I denying that the sicentists had a burden of proof? You have started again!


You lied that i said first person to make a claim matters. I denied it and clearly told you that the burden of proof is on the claimant. So it doesnt matter who made the first claim or second claim- everyone has to prove his claims.



[size=18pt]A question for DeepSight and his supporters;

Does the phrase "that was their claim in the first place" have anything to do with establishing who made a claim first or establishing what the original claim was[/size]



If it is the latter (establishing the original claim), Deepsight is a liar

Deep Sight:

Logicboy03:

First claim?

See the liar? When did "first" ever matter or appear in my argument? I said it- you have no point.


The argument is simple- the burden of proof is on the person that makes the claim. First, second or last, you have to prove your claim.


I will pay you £1,000 to show me where I;

-Mentioned/implied that "first" claim mattered
-Or that I mentioned/implies that corpenicus and Galileo didnt have to prove their claims because they didnt make the first claim!

Here is your quote - and please note the bold.

Logicboy03:

Take a look at the bold. What I clearly meant was that they had to prove otherwise with evidence because that was their claim in the first place that the earth wasnt at the centre of the universe and the sun didnt rise! They had to prove their claims!

So now, what is your point? You just showed how dubious you are!

Please I demand payment of the One thousand pounds ASAP.

I hope you can also see, in addition, that you did indeed concede and mix up issues very badly. There it is in bold for you to see yourself. I hope you will not go and edit your posts now?

Logicboy03:

You lied that i said first person to make a claim matters.

I didn't tell any lie son. I QUOTED you verbatim.

I denied it and clearly told you that the burden of proof is on the claimant. So it doesnt matter who made the first claim or second claim- everyone has to prove his claims.

This is just digging your grave deeper, faster and ever more frantically. This is another concession of the point - - - yet again! You say everyone has to prove their claims, bingo! You see, the very simple point made obviously flew over your head. Do you remember the word "default?"

This just shows again what a waste of time it is discussing anything with you.

[size=18pt]A question for DeepSight and his supporters;

Does the phrase "that was their claim in the first place" have anything to do with establishing who made a claim first or establishing what the original claim was[/size]

If it is the latter (establishing the original claim) Deepsight is a liar

Oya, tell me your reason for saying "that was their claim in the first place." Go ahead and tell me it had nothing to do with showing why they had a burden of proof. IN FACT, that is what you were answering to - showing why they had a burden of proof!

Ol boy, don't worsen your embarrasment. When caught out as badly as this, it is better to slink quietly away.

Lol, it just gets worse. STILL re-quoting his gaffe -

Logicboy03:

Take a look at the bold. What I clearly meant was that they had to prove otherwise with evidence [size=32pt]because[/size] that was their claim in the first place

The bold word closes the argument.

Daaammmnn! ! !

Deep Sight:

I didn't tell any lie son. I QUOTED you verbatim.



This is just digging your grave deeper, faster and ever more frantically. This is another concession of the point - - - yet again! You say everyone has to prove their claims, bingo! You see, the very simple point made obviously flew over your head. Do you remember the word "default?"

This just shows again what a waste of time it is discussing anything with you.



Oya, tell me your reason for saying "that was their claim in the first place." Go ahead and tell me it had nothing to do with showing why they had a burden of proof. IN FACT, that is what you were answering to - showing why they had a burden of proof!

Ol boy, don't worsen your embarrasment. When caught out as badly as this, it is better to slink quietly away.

The liar has been caught! So you are now seeing that I was never talking about who made a claim first, rather establishing the original claim?


The whole point of the argument was that the scientists had to prove that the earth was not flat or at the centre of the solar system, which was in opposition to the church, because that was the scientists claim rignially and not because the church had a default position. You make a claim, you prove it

Deep Sight:
Lol, it just gets worse. STILL re-quoting his gaffe -



The bold word closes the argument.

Daaammmnn! ! !

The liar is looking for another avenue to twist.

How does "because" in the quote change the meaning of "that was their claim in the first place"? How does it change anything in the quote you quoted before?

Logicboy03:

Take a look at the bold. What I clearly meant was that they had to prove otherwise with evidence because that was their claim in the first place

LOGICBOY E DON DO NOW HABA!

WHICH KIND JAGAJAGA ARGUMENT BE THIS?

ITS CLEAR YOU INTENTION IS ONLY TO EXHAUST ALL IN THIS DISCUSSION AND NOT TO ENLIGHTEN

MostHigh: LOGICBOY E DON DO NOW HABA!

WHICH KIND JAGAJAGA ARGUMENT BE THIS?

ITS CLEAR YOU INTENTION IS ONLY TO EXHAUST ALL IN THIS DISCUSSION AND NOT TO ENLIGHTEN

Me? ME? MEEE?


No mention of DeepSight? ME?


SMH....just shut up

One interesting thing is how evangelical atheists on Nairaland are quick to shout "liar" when someone "debunks" (I actually prefer Uyi's 'discombombulates') their argument(s).

^^^^


This makes a total of 4 garbage supporters!

Dude you are confusing us here

Logicboy03:
The liar has been caught! So you are now seeing that I was never talking about who made a claim first, rather establishing the original claim?

so now the first claim (original claim) matters. Your problem is who made it?

[quote]
The whole point of the argument was that the scientists had to prove that the earth was not flat or at the centre of the solar system, which was in opposition to the church.....

Again here you suggest that the reason they had to prove was because there was a pre-existing claim it was opposing. Why would they need to prove anything if their claim is neither challenged nor challenges another claim.

.....because that was the scientists claim originally and not because the church had a default position. You make a claim, you prove it

In the very same sentence you do a full 180^o turnaround to suggest that the position that necessitated the need for proof in the first place doesn't matter.

Dude please stop digging yourself further into your hole

Logicboy03: ^^^^


This makes a total of 4 garbage supporters!

Lol isn't it funny how everyone is a "garbage supporter"

Here's a quote for you to consider:

“The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him in the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk, but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."
The Rabbi (Lucky Number Slevin, 2006)

Mr_Anony: Dude you are confusing us here


so now the first claim (original claim) matters. Your problem is who made it?

Again.....AGAIN......The twisting! The lies! Why me?

The first claim or second or 0one millionth claim doesnt matter! Jesus Christ! Are you people foolish? All claims should be poven!!!!!!


Does my comment read like this;

Logicboy:
The scientists had to prove that the earth was not flat because it was in opposition to the church

Or like this?

Logicboy03:




The liar has been caught! So you are now seeing that I was never talking about who made a claim first, rather establishing the original claim?


The whole point of the argument was that the scientists had to prove that the earth was not flat or at the centre of the solar system, which was in opposition to the church, because that was the scientists claim rignially and not because the church had a default position. You make a claim, you prove it

Hint; it is the second one which you failed in twisting

Mr_Anony:
Lol isn't it funny how everyone is a "garbage supporter"

Here's a quote for you to consider:

“The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him in the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk, but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."
The Rabbi (Lucky Number Slevin, 2006)

Not all quotes are sensible.


If 100 people sat that you're wrong and that the earth is flat, would you become a flat earther?

Argument ad populum

MostHigh: LOGICBOY E DON DO NOW HABA!

WHICH KIND JAGAJAGA ARGUMENT BE THIS?

ITS CLEAR YOU INTENTION IS ONLY TO EXHAUST ALL IN THIS DISCUSSION AND NOT TO ENLIGHTEN

Lol, no mind the guy, he is now in the phase of "if I can shout long enough and loud enough, they will go away"

chukkynwob: Kmcutez you really are a piece of work!!! Lol

Feisty aint you?

How am i piece of work? His use of ad hominem was wrong and he refused to take corrections. No problem, i will leave him to wallow in his ignorance.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, no mind the guy, he is now in the phase of "if I can shout long enough and loud enough, they will go away"

Deepsight that was also involved i the argument bears no responsiblity?


Seriously, you guyz.......

Mr_Anony:
Lol, no mind the guy, he is now in the phase of "if I can shout long enough and loud enough, they will go away"

See who is talking. I laugh in ad hominem. olodo.

kmcutez:

See who is talking. I laugh in ad hominem. olodo.

Dont mind the garbage supporter who couldnt differentiate beteen an Ad Hominem and abuse/insult

Oh my! What's this, lb, win at all cost even if it's impossible?

Pls abeg biko ejo arinhide guys forgive logicboy where ever his short comings, please abeg you guys we all know -1 the truth who is wrong here, just let go abeg, pity the boy, do u want him to be sad? Haba, show him some mercy! Ehh! It is this sort of behavior from you christians and deists that made him become an atheist! Abeg make unah stop all this debunking against one boy! Pls treat him like your son!

Ihedinobi: Oh my! What's this, lb, win at all cost even if it's impossible?

Garbage supporter.

@Logicboy, please stop arguing with these Christians before they drag you down to their level. Not worth it imho.

vedaxcool: Pls abeg biko ejo arinhide guys forgive logicboy where ever his short comings, please abeg you guys we all know -1 the truth who is wrong here, just let go abeg, pity the boy, do u want him to be sad? Haba, show him some mercy! Ehh! It is this sort of behavior from you christians and deists that made him become an atheist! Abeg make unah stop all this debunking against one boy! Pls treat him like your son!

Lol....you that muslims are disowning and hiding comments?


As soon as I saw you viewing the page, I knew you would come to troll.

Garbage supporter number 5

vedaxcool: Pls abeg biko ejo arinhide guys forgive logicboy where ever his short comings, please abeg you guys we all know -1 the truth who is wrong here, just let go abeg, pity the boy, do u want him to be sad? Haba, show him some mercy! Ehh! It is this sort of behavior from you christians and deists that made him become an atheist! Abeg make unah stop all this debunking against one boy! Pls treat him like your son!

Did you read the posts or you just decided to come here and sprout all these nonsense.