tintingz:
There are many Gods in every Religion and cultures with thier moralities, I don't still get your point?

let's use the Christian god as a focal point.

budaatum:
But we are not talking about God's laws!
We are talking about human's morality, as in what we, as individuals, do!

For instance, an atheist might think it okay to murder you, but the law of the land would not agree, would it?
Does that change the moral position of the law, or make the atheist any more immoral.
What if a Christian does the murdering, is there any difference?
Or do Christians not commit the immoral act of murder because God saying, "don't" ?

The first murder occurred before the advent of the atheist.
The first murder occurred before the law of the land had statutes that would or would not agree with it
The same first murder occurred, before the advent of the christian

The first murder occurred, without God saying a, "dont" or without God saying any "Thou shall not..."
The cry for justice, the complaint, is the reason why it isnt OK to murder another person

tintingz:
Lol, ok

Atheists are bound to the laws of the land.

Christians, Muslims also have problems with some laws of the land same as atheists, this is why we have activists.

Yes, this here agrees with my premise that ancient morality is irrelevant today.

Muslims, Christians, atheists and some other groups may have problems with some laws of the land, this is why we have activists.

Infact activists, protesters (the people) play important role in amending laws.

We all have empathy, it's innate, most atheists are empathetic when it comes to morality.

Because I'm an atheist does not mean I shouldn't adopt other things, the position of atheism is another thing.

Athiesm is not an association or Religion that dictate to people how to live, once you're empathetic you know what's good and what's bad, when the law says don't do drugs then don't do drugs.

I don't speak for all atheists.

Does theists also have definition of what's good and what's evil?

This also apply to everyone not only atheist.

if atheists are bound to the laws of the land, why protest it. the laws are subject to man, man isn't subject to the law of the land.

the only reason why the law of the land stands is because it is the subjective opinion of majority.
man is not bound to the law, man can change the law.

the fact that laws are amended shows that the law is not proof of morality.

not everyone is empathetic. there are egoists in this world. those who think of themselves alone.
empathy is not a function of atheism.

now you get my point. if you are moral, it is not because you are atheist. atheism has no position on morality.
atheism does not tell you how to live. an atheist is free to live however he likes. my original position.

if the law says after that drugs are fine, would you suddenly become perfectly okay with drugs?

theists do. their god defines what is good and what is evil.

theist believe their god's definition of good and evil is binding on everything. it is objective.

budaatum:

buda is short for budaatum

Oh! i didn't know.

but can't you summarize what God told buda instead of me reading that long epistle.
'cause i wan sleep abeg...

.

Gggg102:


on what standpoint do you assert that I'm wrong?
what makes that atheist stupid or ignorant?

his' was determined by him. the only reason he finds himself in jail is that the subjective morality of the majority disagrees with his morality.
something simple like slavery for example; in biblical times, you can't go to jail for owning a slave but now you will.

depends on the atheist judge morality and more importantly, the enforced morality of the majority called the law with which the judge presides.

You are wrong in thinking the morals of the atheist you described is determined by the atheist. Somewhere in that atheist's lifetime, someone would have informed him that killing was unacceptable. If they hadn't he should have been killing people from when he was young, but when he got caught, he would have been told again.

Your slavery in the Bible is a clear example of humans determining the law, and then claiming they dropped down from God in heaven. Unless you want to claim God made a mistake initially, and subsequently changed it's mind.

The fact is that we humans determine morality. Some, like don't murder, don't steal, are almost so universally accepted and ancient that they seem to have dropped down from God. But even in the Bible, murder was abhorred by those non-Yahweh worshipping Egyptians whom God never gave the law to or Moses would have had no need to flee. And if theft wasn't on the list, do you think any society could survive if it were okay for someone to go harvest my crops in my farm without some law to protect me? Do you think anyone would farm under such circumstances? And wouldn't we all starve to death?

Societies pass laws because they come to the realisation for the need for them. Slavery, as you pointed out, is a clear example. The abolition of discriminatory homosexual laws and anti abortion laws in some countries are clear examples.

You accused me once of arguing unnecessarily. I shouldn't be thinking you were complaining about the speck in my eye now, or should I?

Gggg102:

if you are moral, it is not because you are atheist. atheism has no position on morality. atheism does not tell you how to live.

Correct.

Gggg102:
an atheist is free to live however he likes. my original position.

Wrong! And a Scotsman fallacy indeed! That second statement does not automatically follow from the premise in the first, and is the error you keep making.

Just read what you yourself wrote, and perhaps you'd see the muddle you are creating for yourself.

If "atheism has no position on morality", how then does it follow that the very same atheism, that has "no position on morality", now gives one the "position to freely do as one morally wishes"?

Is "choosing to do as one morally wishes" not a "position", which you, in your second statement, is claiming "atheism gives one", despite claiming "atheism has no position on morality" in the first statement?

Go rest. You must be exhausted by now!

MuttleyLaff:
The first murder occurred before the advent of the atheist.
The first murder occurred before the law of the land had statutes that would or would not agree with it
The same first murder occurred, before the advent of the christian

The first murder occurred, without God saying a, "dont" or without God saying any "Thou shall not..."
The cry for justice, the complaint, is the reason why it isnt OK to murder another person

When did the first murder occur, muttley?

budaatum:

You are wrong in thinking the morals of the atheist you described is determined by the atheist. Somewhere in that atheist's lifetime, someone would have informed him that killing was unacceptable. If they hadn't he should have been killing people from when he was young, but when he got caught, he would have been told again.

Your slavery in the Bible is a clear example of humans determining the law, and then claiming they dropped down from God in heaven. Unless you want to claim God made a mistake initially, and subsequently changed it's mind.

The fact is that we humans determine morality. Some, like don't murder, don't steal, are almost so universally accepted and ancient that they seem to have dropped down from God. But even in the Bible, murder was abhorred by those non-Yahweh worshipping Egyptians whom God never gave the law to or Moses would have had no need to flee. And if theft wasn't on the list, do you think any society could survive if it were okay for someone to go harvest my crops in my farm without some law to protect me? Do you think anyone would farm under such circumstances? And wouldn't we all starve to death?

Societies pass laws because they come to the realisation for the need for them. Slavery, as you pointed out, is a clear example. The abolition of discriminatory homosexual laws and anti abortion laws in Somme countries are clear examples.

You accused me once of arguing unnecessarily. I shouldn't be thinking you were complaining about the speck in my eye now, or should I?

and what makes that someone right and him wrong?

you clearly are coming from your atheistic world view. I assume god is real and actually gave those slavery laws. BTW the slavery law is unchanged biblically.

the fact that we humans determine morality is the problem of morality. we can change anything anytime.
murder could have been abhored by their gods and they would have no option than to obey or else they would be judged, or it could be the subjective opinion of the majority and therefore would have no real power. one's subjective experience cannot be superior to another's.
society would survive although only the fittest. ones morality doesn't have to care about others.

.

budaatum:

Correct.


Wrong! And a Scotsman fallacy indeed! That second statement does not automatically follow from the premise in the first, and is the error you keep making.

Just read what you yourself wrote, and perhaps you'd see the muddle you are creating for yourself.

If "atheism has no position on morality", how then does it follow that the very same atheism, that has "no position on morality", now gives one the "position to freely do as one morally wishes"?

Is "choosing to do as one morally wishes" not a "position", which you, in your second statement, is claiming "atheism gives one", despite claiming "atheism has no position on morality" in the first statement?

Go rest. You must be exhausted by now!

you must be confusing my statement atheists doing whatever they like to mean atheists have no hold on themselves. they are unleashed.
what I mean is that atheism does not care how you live your life. you could become a saint, or you could become the devil. atheism does not care at all.
atheism offers no moral position.

that atheism doesn't care what you do gives you freedom to live your life(good or evil or anything else) without jeopardizing yourself with respect to your atheism. your being saintly/devilish does not affect your atheism, so you are free(not bound by atheism) in this regard.

[quote author=budaatum post=70358570]

That's exactly the problem, "indoctrination", and feeling the need to "believe", and that's if one actually bothers to read it at all, which most don't.

I tell you bro. Religions are good at that so as to keep their adherents in mental slavery. They can never read open-mindedly. The fear of "thou shalt not ask too much questions" is affecting their brains.

Anyone who knows about the history of the Bible would understand that these two concepts (indoctrination, and believing), are the trick that some use to blind people and keep them enslaved. First they convince people some god wrote it, then that it contains some mystery that only an elect few can comprehend, then they stand on a pulpit and claim they are those enlightened ones who understand it, and in effect, "bow down and worship us the elect", while in their hearts knowing "we'd tell them there's a god, right!" And the poor gullible fall for that trick, because "if we don't believe what we are told, we'd go to hell!"

Ironically, the Bible also contains the means for emancipation from that slavery, but the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it, it seems.

I think I'll become a preacher myself and make me some dough off their ignorance and get me a private something! My doctrine would be "Know! Don't you dare believe"

Fear is the most powerful tool used in the indoctrination. Religions hide behind the common phenomenon "DEATH" so as to make the adherents believe in afterlife (hellfire or heaven). Of which there is no any afterlife any where.

Since atheism does not care what the atheist does, does that mean nothing else could morally ground the atheist so the atheists can go and do whatever they like, because the atheism that has 'no hold on them' has 'unleashed them'?

I perhaps should introduce you to ma and her koboko. I sure would have loved to have you convince her of your view of atheist me that you hold on to here, except I'd have to deal with her eventual stupidity if she were to accept it and I'd rather not have to, thank you very much.

In your mind, somehow, you seem to be equating atheism to some sort of divine thing, like it's a god or some sort of religion, albeit a bad one, which any atheist would tell you is not the case, but which you just refuse to accept. You've done this from the very first post of yours I've seen, but you just can't seem to stop assuming. Goes to show how open you mind isn't I suppose, contrary to whatever you seem to think.

Reality does not support you on this view of yours and you have not provided anything to convince anyone that there's any sense in your opinion. I know someone who would, but you'd have go find that supporting person. Hopefully, before then though, I'd be done here; you know how the ape and I just can't get on.

I just wish evidence would play a part in your opinion, but, well, I don't always get what I wish for I guess, so you go ahead making atheist me up in your head, why don't you, while claiming it is I, buda, who is confused.

Gggg102:


you must be confusing my statement atheists doing whatever they like to mean atheists have no hold on themselves. they are unleashed.
what I mean is that atheism does not care how you live your life. you could become a saint, or you could become the devil. atheism does not care at all.
atheism offers no moral position.

that atheism doesn't care what you do gives you freedom to live your life(good or evil or anything else) without jeopardizing yourself with respect to your atheism. your being saintly/devilish does not affect your atheism, so you are free(not bound by atheism) in this regard.

Omooba224:

I tell you bro. Religions are good at that so as to keep their adherents in mental slavery. They can never read open-mindedly. The fear of "thou shalt not ask too much questions" is affecting their brains.

It makes me weep tears, I tell you. The book itself is fantastic, and then they wrap it up in religious stupidity and literally crucify the same Christ they claim is saving them. And they have the audacity to claim it is the atheist who is damned! Can they not see that their Lord Jesus the Christ himself was an atheist as far as the Jews of his time were concerned?

I weep serious tears for them! It's a pity there's no afterlife, at least then they would eventually know how silly they have been.

budaatum:
Since atheism does not care what the atheist does, does that mean nothing else could morally ground the atheist so the atheists can go and do whatever they like, because the atheism that has 'no hold on them' has 'unleashed them'?

I perhaps should introduce you to ma and her koboko. I sure would have loved to have you convince her of your view of atheist me that you hold on to here, except I'd have to deal with her eventual stupidity if she were to accept it and I'd rather not have to, thank you very much.

In your mind, somehow, you seem to be equating atheism to some sort of divine thing, like it's a god or some sort of religion, albeit a bad one, which any atheist would tell you is not the case, but which you just refuse to accept. You've done this from the very first post of yours I've seen, but you just can't seem to stop assuming. Goes to show how open you mind isn't I suppose, contrary to whatever you seem to think.

Reality does not support you on this view of yours and you have not provided anything to convince anyone that there's any sense in your opinion. I know someone who would, but you'd have go find that supporting person. Hopefully, before then though, I'd be done here; you know how the ape and I just can't get on.

I just wish evidence would play a part in your opinion, but, well, I don't always get what I wish for I guess, so you go ahead making atheist me up in your head, why don't you, while claiming it is I, buda, who is confused.

I think you are the one that keeps misunderstanding me.

I already said atheists can be moral. I said their morality is outside their atheism.
atheism has no hold on morality. it doesn't determine morality.
for atheists, something outside their religious stand is their basis for morality. my position is that anything outside religious stand might not be a strong enough base generally as it is most likely a subjective base.

atheist you does not have to be good or evil as your goodness or evilness does not affect your atheism.

in my mind, atheism is a lack of a divine thing. in my mind, the only strong enough base for morality is an objective one, in this case, a divine thing which atheism lacks. I don't think there is any alternative that will sufficiently act as a judge of morality due to lack of objectivity of the alternatives. why should a man follow another man's morality code based on his personal conviction. what makes one man's personal conviction superior. with a divine being, you can't question his authority. his position is final. you have no choice but to follow.

if you set a law for yourself, you would have little trouble breaking it. afterall you made it, you can't be slave to it.
if an higher authority sets a law for you, you can't break it as easily because there would be consequences you can't just waive. that's the point of objectivity. I think this is everyday experience.

budaatum:

It makes me weep tears, I tell you. The book itself is fantastic, and then they wrap it up in religious stupidity and literally crucify the same Christ they claim is saving them. And they have the audacity to claim it is the atheist who is damned! Can they not see that their Lord Jesus the Christ himself was an atheist as far as the Jews of his time were concerned?

I weep serious tears for them! It's a pity there's no afterlife, at least then they would eventually know how silly they have been.

My brother, whenever I see an apologist I pity him or her. To them you are the one that is lost or they will tag you "devil's incarnate not knowing that they are the ones in bondage. Their Christ committed heresy as well by deviating from the Jewish norms. Up till today, the Jews don't recognize any Jesus (if at all he ever existed). A devoted Christian can never reason in this manner. Meanwhile, only a man can free himself..

Gggg102:

atheist you does not have to be good or evil as your goodness or evilness does not affect your atheism.

Stop seeing "atheist" as some sort of mindless animal species perhaps. Maybe if you consider that before I am anything, I am a human being first. Then you just might get your head around the muddle you twist yourself into!

Or would you now claim my atheism trumps the fact that I am a human being with feelings, and that my feelings are not affected by "goodness or evilness" done to me because I'm an atheist, and that as an atheist, I can't possibly understand how other human beings may have feelings too that may be affected by my "goodness or evilness" towards them? Or perhaps atheists don't have feelings according to you?

Can I just be a prick, Gggg102, because I am an atheist, and "goodness or evilness" done to me or that which I do to others does not matter?

Niflheim:
According to "christian nairalanders", Johnny Bravo is now a prophet for predicting the fall of the Twin Towers!!!

This is just so funny oooo

budaatum:

Stop seeing "atheist" as some sort of mindless animal species perhaps. Maybe if you consider that before I am anything, I am a human being first. Then you just might get your head around the muddle you twist yourself into!

Or would you now claim my atheism trumps the fact that I am a human being with feelings, and that my feelings are not affected by "goodness or evilness" done to me because I'm an atheist, and that as an atheist, I can't possibly understand how other human beings may have feelings too that may be affected by my "goodness or evilness" towards them? Or perhaps atheists don't have feelings according to you?

Can I just be a prick, Gggg102, just because I am an atheist, and "goodness or evilness" done to me or that which I do to others does not matter?

now I feel like you are deliberately misinterpreting me.

that you are an atheist does not point you to morality or immorality.

a theist for instance is instructed by his god to be moral.

an atheist is not instructed by his atheism to be either moral or immoral. atheism does not instruct morality.

an atheist gets his moral compass from other sources. humanity, feelings, empathy, human intellect, the law...

atheism does not give a moral compass be it good or evil.

I am not saying atheists can't be moral or they can't have any sense of morality. I am saying that their sense of morality is not gotten from their atheism.

Gggg102:

I am not saying atheists can't be moral or they can't have any sense of morality. I am saying that their sense of morality is not gotten from their atheism.

So, an atheist can have morals just like any other human being, right? Thanks. Can I have a compass too? Something that determines my morality is pointing North so that I don't just wake up in the morning and find it pointing in whatever direction it might feel like, please?

No atheist ever told you they got their morals from atheism! Every one of us is taught it by our parents, surroundings, environment and from thinking rationally, and just about anyone can reason rationally and learn from their surroundings, environment and parents. They are not the exclusive property of atheists, and neither are morals the exclusive property of the religious or their gods!

A prick is a prick, period, gods or no gods.

budaatum:
When did the first murder occur, muttley?

Remember, the first murder,
which is a homicide, actually was a fratricide bud.
It occurred with the unlawful killing of a brother, without any justification, good reason or valid excuse for carrying out the dastardly act

budaatum:

So, an atheist can have morals just like any other human being, right? Thanks. Can I have a compass too? Something that determines my morality is pointing North so that I don't just wake up in the morning and find it pointing in whatever direction it might feel like, please?

No atheist ever told you they got their morals from atheism! Every one of us is taught it by our parents, surroundings, environment and from thinking rationally, and just about anyone can reason rationally and learn from their surroundings, environment and parents. They are not the exclusive property of atheists, and neither are morals the exclusive property of the religious or their gods!

A prick is a prick, period, gods or no gods.

yes an atheist can have a moral compass.

my issue is with the objectivity of their moral compass.



is your definition of a what constitutes a prick objective?

jesmond3945:
One more thing I have friends who are atheists. I live in europe and the reason is because of science, technology and philosophy. These 3 areas of human endeavour are anti-religion. When you come in contact with either of the three the chances of you believing in what you cannot see dims. Now these 3 area have virtually solved all of human issues so why would I believe in GOD but there is one thing they have not solved which is death. How can science, technology and philosophy make someone who is dead to rise to life? if any atheist in this thread can answer this question and prove it to me that it happened then I would stop believing in God. Now if you ask me whether I have seen somebody rise to life then Dr Ngozi Durueke and he didnt rise to life because of this 3 areas I mentioned but because of Jesus because the man was stone dead and his body was decaying. So there you have it, answer my question and I would join your group.

if everyone refuses to die, the ecosystem will be imbalance, it doesn't make sense to live forever. Raising the dead on a large scale of thought doesn't make sense to science because the earth resource is finite and if humans keep refusing to die, it will be at the expense of the balance in the ecosystem.

nwabekeyi:
if everyone refuses to die, the ecosystem will be imbalance, it doesn't make sense to live forever. Raising the dead on a large scale of thought doesn't make sense to science because the earth resource is finite and if humans keep refusing to die, it will be at the expense of the balance in the ecosystem.

so science is only a one way function that is humans dieing but science cannot answer how a human can move from death to life but only how someone can move from life to death. And your reason is balance. That means science has more questions than answers. So suffice to say you failed to prove anything rather highlight the limitation of your belief.

jesmond3945:
so science is only a one way function that is humans dieing but science cannot answer how a human can move from death to life but only how someone can move from life to death. And your reason is balance. That means science has more questions than answers. So suffice to say you failed to prove anything rather highlight the limitation of your belief.

if humans refuse to die, it will put the whole planet in chaos. It doesn't make sense having immortal beings.

The earlier you realise this, the better you stop asking those questions. Science makes life better, it doesn't make life immortal.

I have issues with both atheism and religion, they both have their merits and demerits

Gggg102:


you can answer the question too.

what makes today morality better than that of the stone age?
that you are more enlightened does not make your morality better. afterall, morality is subjective. what is good is whatever that person accepts to be good. you can not, with your enlightenment, judge me. if I see slavery as good, then it is my own subjective truth. your enlightenment has no effect.

Dude we're in 21st century not in stone age, human behavior is changing, I told you to merge the morality of the old testament era to our era if you time travel back, will it complement each other? Why do you think Christians cherry pick when it comes to the old testament?

people still practice slavery in Libya. in their eyes they are right and the law is wrong. your morality and the law is immoral to them.

Many people in Libya are still influenced by some archaic ideology, why can't they practice slavery publicly like it was done in the past?

does something being lawful make it right?

No.

who made you judge over what is barbaric and what isn't? why should your opinion of what is barbaric matter to anyone but yourself? intellect has no place in subjective morality.

Civilization made me judge, my empathy made me judge, if your actions are harmful to the society, you're immoral.

that consensus is just the subjective opinion of the majority. it has no effect on the subjective truth of those who feel rape, slavery... is good. the fact that majority agree does not make it right especially for subjective morality.

Rape, slavery is harmful to the society, the people have consensually condemned it, anyone partaking in this is evil or a psychopath.

If anyone thinks he's been unjust in his ideology on taking people as slaves and raping people, they can go protest that they want to be raping people.

for you to say something is moral or something is immoral, you have to first define what morality is and what makes something right or wrong.
that is impossible if morality is subjective because what is true to you may be false to me and there is no actual truth.

Yes, morality is subjective in reality, even in laws it changes, what's consider lawful today can be unlawful tomorrow.

as long as morality is subjective, there can be no better morality or worse morality.

There can be better morality and worse.

This is among the reasons i began to doubt the Bible
What have we to do with a certain tribes history, war stories and so on...

TOSIN116:

Are you not the one asking me to prove Moses existence.
if you know Jesus exists then there's is really no need to prove Moses's
If Jesus who can't lie talks about Moses i think that evidence enough!

This is fallacy, a false dichotomy and appeal to ignorance.

If Superman talk about Braniac, there's no need to prove Braniac? Or if A talk about B therefore B exist and does not need to be proven or if Sango talk about Obatala, there's no need proven Obatala?

The existence of Jesus is still a debate among scholars, but Jesus of the bible is definitely not the real Jesus.

My premise is show me archeological evidence Moses existed in Egypt.

nwabekeyi:
if humans refuse to die, it will put the whole planet in chaos. It doesn't make sense having immortal beings.

The earlier you realise this, the better you stop asking those questions. Science makes life better, it doesn't make life immortal.

I have issues with both atheism and religion, they both have their merits and demerits

so when humans die then more humans are born then if they refuse to die then humans won't be born. So the planet has the way of balancing the population of human beings in the world. So if someone committed suicide he did so that the planet can allow some other being to be born to balance things. So the world is in chaos because of population. So the planet solves the problem by allowing people to die. You amaze me by your thinking. I won't argue with you again. So if science doesn't solve the immortality problem then because of that you won't believe in its existence. How do you even think science came to be if not from the unseen. Please don't quote me again.

jesmond3945:
Read my reply after this where I explained everything. Thank you.

You're being sentimental, replying your post is a waste of time.

How you know the predictions in the bible are not just some assumptions or some after event compilations is something I don't get.

jesmond3945:
Proof to me that the generation he meant is this one and not the next. You cant just make a scanty statement without proof.

“Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished” (Mt. 24:34).

Even Jesus himself was a failed prophecy, the Jews were expecting a Messiah that will fulfill the prophecies.

tintingz:
Dude we're in 21st century not in stone age, human behavior is changing, I told you to merge the morality of the old testament era to our era if you time travel back, will it complement each other? Why do you think Christians cherry pick when it comes to the old testament?

Many people in Libya are still influenced by some archaic ideology, why can't they practice slavery publicly like it was done in the past?

No.


Civilization made me judge, my empathy made me judge, if your actions are harmful to the society, you're immoral.

Rape, slavery is harmful to the society, the people have consensually condemned it, anyone partaking in this is evil or a psychopath.

If anyone thinks he's been unjust in his ideology on taking people as slaves and raping people, they can go protest that they want to be raping people.

Yes, morality is subjective in reality, even in laws it changes, what's consider lawful today can be unlawful tomorrow.

There can be better morality and worse.

they don't do so publicly because the general subjective consensus is against them. the general consensus is nothing more than the opinion of the majority.
one's opinion is as equally valid as the other.

your empathy is your own personal opinion.
not everyone base their morality on empathy. there are those whose morality is based on what makes them feel good. their moral code does not care about others.
your personal opinion cannot rule over their's.

you base your morality on what is good or harmful to the society, others may not. to you, the other person would be immoral and, to the other person, you would be immoral.

that the people condemn it does not make it wrong. people condemn based on their personal opinion. if the people condemn mixed marriage today, it would suddenly become unacceptable.

what if they protest and majority actually agree with them?

you yourself agree that the law is not proof of morality.

A thinks his morality is better than B and B thinks his morality is better than A. there is no way one can be objectively better than the other since everyone is entitled to their own opinion on what is good.