Dtruthspeaker:


Surely, this is no atheism but God-Hateism!

you can call me satan if you wish.

Kobojunkie:
I am not happy though because I came expecting I would be in "good" company. Only I could not find the Light that is Jesus Christ, shining, everywhere I looked, even in those who claimed to know God.

of course you can not be happy when you are under the Curse of "he that confirmeth not all the words of This Law to do them.

Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way.

Cursed are you and Cursed shall you be!

Hashabiah:
If there were no God, there would be no atheist

Actually, if there were no God there might still be atheists. Atheism is a response to the belief in God or claims about God and not a response to the existence of God. There are atheists because there are people who believe in God and talk about said God.

PS: I believe in God but I had to drop this because your reasoning is flawed.

[s]

hiddendude:

Actually, if there were no God there might still be atheists. Atheism is a response to the belief in God or claims about God and not a response to the existence of God. There are atheists because there are people who believe in God and talk about said God.

PS: I believe in God but I had to drop this because your reasoning is flawed.

[/s] Atheist steal from God. The moral standards they claim to have originate from God. Or do atheist have a moral standard by which they operate on?

XXXXTENTACION:
If God existed you would not have created a thread to prove so.
God only exists in people's minds.

This is a Bifurcation fallacy. God existing and creating threads to prove so are not mutually exclusive. Using your logic, it could also be argued that if God didn't exist, you wouldn't have to say it, we'd all just realize it.

Hashabiah:
[s][/s] Atheist steal from God. The moral standards they claim to have originate from God. Or do atheist have a moral standard by which they operate on?

While I agree that there is an objective standard for morality, there are other moral theories that do not beg the existence of God.

1. The Categorical Imperatives put forth by the philosopher Immanuel Kant, precludes God as a dictator of morals. It is derived from various formulations that are quite intuitive. The most popular of the four formulations that make up the categorical imperatives are the principle of Universalizability and the formulation on humanity.


2. Utilitarianism also precludes God. It grounds morals on the desire for happiness and the achievement of the ultimate good.

3. Contractarianism is a theory that claims that morality doesn't exist in nature but it is borne out of the need to survive in a harsh world. Moral codes exist according to the specific needs of an era according to this theory.

hiddendude:

While I agree that there is an objective standard for morality, there are other moral theories that do not beg the existence of God.

1. The Categorical Imperatives put forth by the philosopher Immanuel Kant, precludes God as a dictator of morals. It is derived from various formulations that are quite intuitive. The most popular of the four formulations that make up the categorical imperatives are the principle of Universalizability and the formulation on humanity.


2. Utilitarianism also precludes God. It grounds morals on the desire for happiness and the achievement of the ultimate good.

3. Contractarianism is a theory that claims that morality doesn't exist in nature but it is borne out of the need to survive in a harsh world. Moral codes exist according to the specific needs of an era according to this theory.

Except you are in denial, there is an objective standard for morality. And if there is no objective standard, then how can we be sure that what we are doing in society is right?

Kobojunkie:
I worry more that the author of this piece may not truly know God but may have simply traded his unbelief for belief in the person of God.

Mr. Opposites, Mr. Hot-Cold (or is it Cold-Hot?) Mr. Two-Mouth and Mr. ContradictionJunkie.

People, do you not see this his peculiar magic show of being Accursed to Speak Opposites?

Can the Author who made that presentation
1)"Not Truly know God"
2) present his knowledge of God
3) have "unbelief"
4)"belief in the person of God"?

As produced and directed by Mr. Opposites, kobojunkie?

Does this information make or have any good sense?

Cc:BecaciaBarbie:

Hashabiah:
Except you are in denial, there is an objective standard for morality. And if there is no objective standard, then how can we be sure that what we are doing in society is right?

And this is where All Atheists fall for it is God Who Has the Best, Highest and Unbeatable Standard of Morality!

In Morality, God is the World Champion!

Dtruthspeaker:


And this is where All Atheists fall for it is God Who Has the Best, Highest and Unbeatable Standard of Morality!

In Morality, God is the World Champion!

True talk.

Hashabiah:
True talk.

Thank you!

kingxsamz:
Lmao, wetin be this?

LoL, another person looking for attention from atheists.

Hashabiah:
Except you are in denial, there is an objective standard for morality. And if there is no objective standard, then how can we be sure that what we are doing in society is right?

I did point out that I believe in an objective moral standard. Immanuel Kant believed same but according to him, morals take root in intellect. To know what is moral according to him, is to envision what it would be like for an action to be universalized and if it produces a conceptual contradiction, then it isn't moral. He states this formally as:

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction"

Take stealing as an example. If one has the urge to steal, they should first consider the maxim of stealing (i.e the rule behind the concept of stealing or what stealing assumes or presupposes). Stealing is a concept that presupposes that there is such a thing as a private or personal property and if one intends to make a thing their own by illegally obtaining it, then they're universalizing stealing (saying there is no such thing as private property) and if there cannot be private property, there cannot be such a thing as stealing because it begs the idea of private property to be a thing. Hence, stealing is self-contradictory and cannot be moral.



This way Kant said, we'd realize moral truths without God. The objective moral standard in this case, is logic or intellect.

Ps: Kant actually believed in God.

Hashabiah:
Except you are in denial, there is an objective standard for morality. And if there is no objective standard, then how can we be sure that what we are doing in society is right?

Do you like being assaulted or raped or having your food stolen?

hiddendude:

I did point out that I believe in an objective moral standard. Immanuel Kant believed same but according to him, morals take root in intellect. To know what is moral according to him, is to envision what it would be like for an action to be universalized and if it produces a conceptual contradiction, then it isn't moral. He states this formally as:

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction"

Take stealing as an example. If one has the urge to steal, they should first consider the maxim of stealing (i.e the rule behind the concept of stealing or what stealing assumes or presupposes). Stealing is a concept that presupposes that there is such a thing as a private or personal property and if one intends to make a thing their own by illegally obtaining it, then they're universalizing stealing (saying there is no such thing as private property) and if there cannot be private property, there cannot be such a thing as stealing because it begs the idea of private property to be a thing. Hence, stealing is self-contradictory and cannot be moral.



This way Kant said, we'd realize moral truths without God. The objective moral standard in this case, is logic or intellect.

Ps: Kant actually believed in God.

You are an interesting theist. May I ask, what convinces you that a god or gods exists?

LordReed:


You are an interesting theist. May I ask, what convinces you that a god or gods exists?

Experience! But I do not use my experience in arguments because the other party has no way of verifying whether or not my experience is true.

hiddendude:

Experience! But I do not use my experience in arguments because the other party has no way of verifying whether or not my experience is true.

Watch Out for that guy, he is A Satanist and Satan's best recruiter on nairaland. He Hates God with an insane and blind hatred, the way Satan must.

Even in the presence of Irrefutable Good Reason, he will not accept it but he intends to take you by the same "good" reason.

So reasoning with him is only meant to swallow you up as An Anaconda to an Antelope!

Many of the Antichrists, Haters of God and Satanist that you see here today were former "Christians" who once contended with him and we're swallowed whole by him.

He is very well informed, intelligent and cunning.
Guard your soul!

Dtruthspeaker:


Watch Out for that guy, he is A Satanist and one Satan's best recruiter on nairaland. He Hates God with an insane hatred, the way Satan must.

Even in the presence of Irrefutable Good Reason, he can not be convinced.

So reasoning with him is only meant to swallow you up as An Anaconda.

Many of the Antichrists, Haters of God and Satanist that you see here today were former "Christians" who once contended with him and we're swallowed whole by him.

He is very well informed, intelligent and cunning.
Guard your soul!

This is just ad hominem! Everyone that isn't philosophically aligned with your beliefs is diabolical? Dude, this is the era of information, no more backwards thinking. I've debated atheists since God knows when, yet I haven't become one myself.

LordReed:


LoL, another person looking for attention from atheists.

hiddendude:

This is just ad hominem! Everyone that isn't philosophically aligned with your beliefs is diabolical? Dude, this is the era of information, no more backwards thinking. I've debated atheists since God knows when, yet I haven't become one myself.

I am An Authority and Teacher of "That which makes A Person Fall" called (Fall,acy which is in similitude to "legitim,acy, Supreme,acy and all the "acy" things).

And Natural Truth, like the ground under your feet does not make a person Fall.

I am just giving you a warning about who you are engaging with and how soul damning his works are which are plainly recorded here in nairaland.

After that, what you do, is up to you, but I STAND WITNESS TO SAY THAT YOU WERE WARNED!

hiddendude:


This is just ad hominem! Everyone that isn't philosophically aligned with your beliefs is diabolical? Dude, this is the era of information, no more backwards thinking. I've debated atheists since God knows when, yet I haven't become one myself.

This reaction of yours to Dtruthspeaker's statement, I find very Interesting!

For the 1st time I see you display an emotional response quite in variation from all your responses I have noticed so far!

Further, I would have thought seeing from your posts an appearance of reasonability, that your reasonable response would have been to enquire into the reason for Dtruthspeaker's statement but you rather concluded hastily and responded emotionally as though you were the one on trial!

Very Interesting indeed!

truespeak:


This reaction of yours to Dtruthspeaker's statement, I find very Interesting!

For the 1st time I see you display an emotional response quite in variation from all your responses I have noticed so far!

Further, I would have thought seeing from your posts an appearance of reasonability, that your reasonable response would have been to enquire into the reason for Dtruthspeaker's statement but you rather concluded hastily and responded emotionally as though you were the one on trial!

Very Interesting indeed!

Errm, it actually is an ad hominem and how else am I meant to respond? My response is very valid given his claims.

hiddendude:

Experience! But I do not use my experience in arguments because the other party has no way of verifying whether or not my experience is true.

That's fair.

Dtruthspeaker:


I am An Authority and Teacher of "That which makes A Person Fall" called (Fall,acy which is in similitude to "legitim,acy, Supreme,acy and all the "acy" things).

A fallacy is simply a flaw in reasoning. It undermines an argument. Where you got your own definition of a fallacy is simply beyond me.

And Natural Truth, like the ground under your feet does not make a person Fall.

Okay

I am just giving you a warning about who you are engaging with and how soul damning his works are which are plainly recorded here in nairaland.

After that, what you do, is up to you, but I STAND WITNESS TO SAY THAT YOU WERE WARNED!

This is a fallacy known as "poisoning the well" or a smear tactic. You want me to feel a particular way about a person without giving me the opportunity to relate with such a person to know if I'd like them.

hiddendude:


A fallacy is simply a flaw in reasoning. It undermines an argument. Where you got your own definition of a fallacy is simply beyond me.

What do flaws do? When a bridge or building or car or anything is flawed, what happens to them?

Aside!

hiddendude:

This is a fallacy known as "poisoning the well" or a smear tactic. You want me to feel a particular way about a person without giving me the opportunity to relate with such a person to know if I'd like them.

Give you a particular feeling? Do Warnings not elicit certain feelings?

Do what seemeth good to you!

Dtruthspeaker:


What do flaws do? When a bridge or building or car or anything is flawed, what happens to them?

Aside!



Give you a particular feeling? Do Warnings not elicit certain feelings?

Do what seemeth good to you!

Ok

hiddendude:

Errm, it actually is an ad hominem and how else am I meant to respond? My response is very valid given his claims.

Hmmm!

Very Very Interesting!

Your initial character as displayed by you at the first is quite different from what I see here!

Also it was and it is still hasty to conclude it was ad hominem without first conducting an enquiry into the reason for the statement for that is what any reasonable unbiased fellow would do!

Your explosion to the comment has betrayed you which I find Very Very Interesting!

truespeak:


Hmmm!

Very Very Interesting!

Your initial character as displayed by you at the first is quite different from what I see here!

Also it was and it is still hasty to conclude it was ad hominem without first conducting an enquiry into the reason for the statement for that is what any reasonable unbiased fellow would do!

Your explosion to the comment has betrayed you which I find Very Very Interesting!

Do you know what an ad hominem is? It is an attack on a person's character with the aim of undermining their arguments or garnering supporters.

Even if there is a reason for the statement, it is still an ad hominem. And the reason for the statement does not matter because a person's identity or personality has no bearing on the arguments they make.

hiddendude:


Do you know what an ad hominem is? It is an attack on a person's character with the aim of undermining their arguments or garnering supporters.

Even if there is a reason for the statement, it is still an ad hominem. And the reason for the statement does not matter because a person's identity or personality has no bearing on the arguments they make.

Again, as I said your response is unusual!

A right reasonable person always enquires as to the reason for a thing before coming to a conclusion on a thing!

You did not but a rather defending your unusual response which is another unusuality!

truespeak:


Again, as I said your response is unusual!

A right reasonable person always enquires as to the reason for a thing before coming to a conclusion on a thing!

You did not but a rather defending your unusual response which is another unusuality!

Just shut up! Shut the f*ck up because I'm tired explaining a very basic thing to you. Even if there is a reason he made such a statement, it is still an ad hominem fallacy because he attempts to use that reason to get me to think less of the other guy.

hiddendude:

Just shut up! Shut the f*ck up because I'm tired explaining a very basic thing to you. Even if there is a reason he made such a statement, it is still an ad hominem fallacy because he attempts to use that reason to get me to think less of the other guy.

[img]https://media./images/c140420a1d306e8985d809ba56087e00/tenor.gif[/img]

Now your true self shows!

Told you I knew who you were!

truespeak:



[img]https://media./images/c140420a1d306e8985d809ba56087e00/tenor.gif[/img]

Now your true self shows!

Told you I knew who you were!

Of course, the usual assumption that a person's bad mood is their true self like people shouldn't get angry at someone who's unreasonable.