Stats: 3,187,430 members, 7,932,389 topics. Date: Tuesday, 27 August 2024 at 05:59 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / When We Die! (10957 Views)
Where Do We Go When We Die? / We Come Back as Lesser Animals When We Die - Satire / What Happens When We Die? (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: When We Die! by MrAnony1(m): 10:06pm On Sep 23, 2014 |
Martian:But you can't say that your opinion is right can you? Hence your opinion is meaningless In their opinion, they are doing their duty because of the "absolute morality" inspired by their god and their sacred book.Again based on your worldview, you cannot say that their opinion is right or wrong. All you can say is that it is their opinion. Hence you have effectively said nothing. They are a lot of people that would agree with me and there are people who would agree with them, which makes morality relative. Morality depends on the proclivity of a person and the zeitgeist of the person's geographical location.No it doesn't make morality relative. The fact that people disagree over what is the right doesn't in any way render the right relative. To illustrate this to you; Consider that some people think that morality is relative and others don't. Does this make morality relatively relative or relatively absolute or relatively absolutely relative etc? To deny the possibility of truth just because people disagree leads us to illogical absurdities. Moral relativism is self-refuting and hence cannot possibly be true. We don't have to look too far into the past to see that your cherished faith once wrecked the same type of havoc that ISIS is causing based on absolutism. Sunnis say they are right, and Shias say the same thing. Which is exactly the same as the catholics and the protestants.Erhm no...you cannot say that ISIS or anyone is wreaking havoc because your opinion about what ISIS is doing cannot be said to be true by your own admission (based on the fact that you think morality is relative). For all you know, ISIS may just be doing the best thing ever for humanity. A simple example is homosexuality and the christians' insistence on calling it a "sin" while other people see it as normal.So what? You must agree though that one case must be true. Homosexuality cannot be both normal and abnormal. |
Re: When We Die! by MrAnony1(m): 10:15pm On Sep 23, 2014 |
Martian:Unless you think that your position is false, then you must think that your position is absolute because truth by it's very nature is absolute and excludes any other possibilities. It is either true or false that it is morally wrong for ISIS to go about beheading people. If you think that it is true that ISIS actions are wrong then you are expressing an absolute because you deny the possibility of their actions being right. ....Unless of course you don't think ISIS are wrong in which case you will be directly contradicting yourself when you said the following about ISIS: Martian: In my opinion, they are worthless scum who deserve all the tomahawk missiles uncle sam can muster. |
Re: When We Die! by Kay17: 11:24pm On Sep 23, 2014 |
MrAnony1: I didn't say there was no difference between the two, and that wasn't the focus of my post. Kay17: |
Re: When We Die! by MrAnony1(m): 12:56am On Sep 24, 2014 |
Kay17:What then was the focus of your post? Please do tell. |
Re: When We Die! by rotwailler(m): 12:58am On Sep 24, 2014 |
MTN Bundle plans 250mb....300 500mb.....600 1gig.....1200 whatsapp me on 07066586998 |
Re: When We Die! by Kay17: 8:55am On Sep 24, 2014 |
MrAnony1: I think there are complications in placing a moral responsibility on individuals without the ability to act out their knowledge. There is a futility in that. The punishment has no beneficial end of deterrence. |
Re: When We Die! by MrAnony1(m): 10:13am On Sep 24, 2014 |
Kay17:In that case, I think my answer was sufficient. You are welcome to explain to me is very specific terms how my answer isn't sufficient if you like. |
Re: When We Die! by Nobody: 11:42am On Sep 24, 2014 |
MrAnony1: What is ISIS is doing is not absolutely wrong or absolutely right, it depends on who you ask. There is not justice or injustice in nature, there is no good or bad, individual rights, property rights or any other rights. There is no "right" or "wrong" in nature. The concept of right and wrong is the result of human intellect, the need to survive, civil societies and the laws humans have created to make those societies possible. Most of these laws are to ensure that humans not only survive but prosper, because without laws, humans are just like the other animals on earth; free to do almost anything to each other. It's self interest and self preservation that evoked the need for "morality". Is it murder when a group of lions kill a another lion? No Is it murder when gorillas maul another gorilla to death? No Depending on the circumstances, is it murder when a human kills another human? Yes, because humans have created rules and laws to guide their affairs and without those laws, we are no better than the lions or gorillas. Yes, because killing can be deemed murder and murder is a human concept that has been deemed wrong. Is it wrong when dolphins hound a seal till it's killed? No Is it wrong when a man beats a dog to death? In some societies it's animal cruelty, in others there is no concept of animal cruelty. Morality is totally dependent on these rules and laws that have evolved over time and that also points to it's relative nature. Something that was moral to people fifty years can be considered immoral today and vice versa. What is moral in this country is immoral in that one etc. As far as I know, individuals create rules and try to reach a consensus with the rest of the people. The person who created the rule can also create a "higher being" and say that the rule is from the "higher being" in order to make it authoritative or "objective" but it is still relative. It's relative because not every one will accept the higher being, hence they will also reject it's morality, especially if it doesn't serve their interest. There has never been an objective standard to judge what is right or wrong and different societies had there own code of morality. Historical and scientific knowledge have also helped in shaping moral views because they serve as references about the human condition and what is needed for efficient societies. If objective morality is a fact, there must be a standard that is universally accepted but we both know there isn't. Furthermore, the standard must be consistence and not liable to change with the sensibilities of man. So I can say my position on ISIS is "absolute" and "right" but ISIS sympathizers can say the same. At the end of the day, whoever has the biggest gun and can convince others that it's in their self interest to lend support will be "right". when humans can't agree about "objective morality" and what is "right", they default to their primitive nature and employ violence. 2 Likes 1 Share |
Re: When We Die! by Nobody: 11:44am On Sep 24, 2014 |
MrAnony1: People will disagree about was it right because there is no universally acceptable standard of morality. It depends on the people and what they find conducive. Unless you can produce a universal standard of morality that is independent of man and culture, then your objective morality is self refuting. MrAnony1: Morality is relative. The illogical absurdity is claiming that your unsubstantiated claims and animist beliefs are objective and universal. MrAnony1: MrAnony1: Homosexuality is a natural fact, it's people who have decided that they are going to define it as "normal" or "abnormal". 1 Like |
Re: When We Die! by mazaje(m): 5:06pm On Sep 24, 2014 |
MrAnony1: ![]() I see, so morality is a human construct and therefore right and wrong depend on the personal opinions of men. Ok Morality is a human construct that has gone through thousands of years of evolution by humans. . . . Good so you have changed your stance....but the statement above still contradicts you. Morality cannot be objective and at the same time not be independent of personal opinion i.e. if Morality is objective, then it cannot be a human construct. Why not?. . .Take the multiplication table for example, it is a human construct but also objective. . .We can invent a set of moral values in common with other human beings like us, with the objective perspective being derived from human beings simple. . .No need invoking a supernatural entity. . .If what you are saying is true then atheist or societies that do not believe in deities like the Buddhist and other religions that have no central diety will lack this objective moral value but the reality says otherwise. . . Sorry, I still don't get it. Perhaps you could help me understand by naming any two moral values and the different ways that they come about. Sharia law, the muslims see it as the best objective moral system that was given to humanity by the creator of the universe itself. . .How did it come about compared to a very different moral system like the buddisht moral philosophy of selflessness till Nirvana is achieved? I'm afraid I really can't meaningfully respond to you if you can't make up you mind whether morality is independent of man's opinions (objective) or dependent on man's opinions (subjective). I believe I have already answered your question. . .If morality is independent of man's opinion then on whose opinion does it depend?. . . |
Re: When We Die! by Kay17: 8:46pm On Sep 24, 2014 |
MrAnony1: I acknowledge there is a difference between knowledge of moral norms and choosing/actions. But I said there was a futility in punishing people that are unable to choose or act out their desires (to be good). |
Re: When We Die! by Nobody: 9:26am On Sep 29, 2014 |
MrAnony1: lol, you are doing great. |
Re: When We Die! by MrAnony1(m): 5:45pm On Oct 03, 2014 |
Kay17: Please explain to me exactly how someone who knows that it is wrong to steal yet chooses to steal but did not desire to steal or was unable to act upon his desire not to steal. I think you have made a false assumption here which is that sinners don't desire to sin . . . . . or you believe that the bible teaches this and God punishes them for being forced to sin against their desires? Please cite bible references that convinced you of this. |
Re: When We Die! by Kay17: 1:19am On Oct 04, 2014 |
MrAnony1: Ok. . Assuming men through their sinful desires are driven to sins which they consciously resist and are aware of. Wouldn't it be unjust to punish them for actions they hardly have conscious control over? |
Re: When We Die! by MrAnony1(m): 5:21am On Oct 04, 2014 |
mazaje post=/post/26581937:So you say. You are absolutely wrong on that. Multiplication equations like 5x8=40 and 6x6=36 e.t.c. were true long before any human being existed and will still be true long after all humans are gone. It is logically incoherent to say that something is both a human construct an objective. . . .No need invoking a supernatural entity. . .If what you are saying is true then atheist or societies that do not believe in deities like the Buddhist and other religions that have no central diety will lack this objective moral value but the reality says otherwise. . .Do atheists and buddhists believe in the existence of objective moral values and if so what are these values based upon? Sharia law, the muslims see it as the best objective moral system that was given to humanity by the creator of the universe itself. . .How did it come about compared to a very different moral system like the buddisht moral philosophy of selflessness till Nirvana is achieved?I see. Now I get your question. You are asking that if morality is based on one God, why do we have different moral systems such as are Sharia and Buddhist systems? Before I answer this question, I must ask whether you are willing to grant that it is possible for some moral systems to be wrong? I believe I have already answered your question. . .If morality is independent of man's opinion then on whose opinion does it depend?. . .Morality depends on God's nature. (Please note that I didn't say God's opinion) |
Re: When We Die! by logicboy01: 5:25am On Oct 04, 2014 |
The merry go round continues |
Re: When We Die! by MrAnony1(m): 5:35am On Oct 04, 2014 |
Kay17:So in these men there are two contending desires one to sin and the other to be righteous but the desire to sin is greater hence they sin. Did I get you right? |
Re: When We Die! by MrAnony1(m): 5:56am On Oct 04, 2014 |
Martian post=/post/26572429:You couldn't be any more wrong. Truth is independent of consensus. You don't need a universal agreement to make any fact true. Let me employ your logic for a minute and say that since there is no universal agreement that morality is relative, therefore morality is not relative. Hopefully you now realize how illogical your argument is. Unless you can produce a universal standard of morality that is independent of man and culture, then your objective morality is self refuting.You obviously don't know what it means for something to be self-refuting. Morality is relative. The illogical absurdity is claiming that your unsubstantiated claims and animist beliefs are objective and universal. I see. I particularly like the phrase "unsubstantiated claims" especially when it comes from a relativist. How does a person who denies objectivity talk about substantiating claims? I wonder. |
Re: When We Die! by Kay17: 11:08am On Oct 04, 2014 |
MrAnony1: Yet the key factor is whether or not both desires are in their conscious control. If a conscious latch is lacked over sinful desires, man becomes an automaton in respect to those impulses. |
Re: When We Die! by mazaje(m): 11:51am On Oct 04, 2014 |
MrAnony1: So is the reality. . .A lot of the moral principles in your bible can not apply in some parts of the world today. . .You can not tell a gay that something is wrong with him in the society where I live, if you do you will be breaking the law of the land. . .Try half of the OT morality and ou will end up in prison today. . .We came from people who sacrifice their children and children of others to appease the gods for rain o r to cure outbreak of disease epidemic. . . You are absolutely wrong on that. Multiplication equations like 5x8=40 and 6x6=36 e.t.c. were true long before any human being existed and will still be true long after all humans are gone. It is logically incoherent to say that something is both a human construct an objective. True to whom?. . .The multiplication table is a human construct and makes sense only to humans. . who else uses the multiplication table apart from humans?. . .Of what use is the multiplication table to a goat or a mountain lion?. . .What about the trees, dust, mountains and other things that exist in nature?. . .Of what use is the multiplication table to them?. . .The multiplication table is true and makes sense only to humans and it remains a human construct. .5x5=25 makes sense only to humans. . .It is objective and remains a human construct which humans use understand and make sense of things. . . Do atheists and buddhists believe in the existence of objective moral values and if so what are these values based upon? They are based on humans. . . As I aforementioned we can invent a set of moral values in common with other human beings like us, with the objective perspective being derived from human beings simple. I see. Now I get your question. You are asking that if morality is based on one God, why do we have different moral systems such as are Sharia and Buddhist systems? Before I answer this question, I must ask whether you are willing to grant that it is possible for some moral systems to be wrong? Yeah, like the moral system of your god advocating slavery and encouraging people to sell their daughters into slavery. . Such an example is an example of how wrong this objective source of morality you are advocating is. . .You can not claim that your god is the source of objective human morality when he have him violating it. . .If slavery is objectively wrong then your god can not be said to be its source simply because we have him advocating and encouraging slavery. . .What ever form of objective moral principle you think of we have your god violating it. . .So he can not be the source of such moral principle. . . I repeat the fact that all moral principles come about differently is evidence that they are man made. . .Who created the sharia?. . .The buddisht moral philosophy of nirvana?. . .You want to discard other moral philosophies as wrong and accept that only the one you have been indoctrinated with as the right one, but i will always be there to show you that yours is also wrong just as you believe theirs to be wrong. . .Bottom line is you can not point to any god creating any moral system, you can only point to men who use their various gods as an enforcing mechanism. For moral systems they created. . Morality depends on God's nature. (Please note that I didn't say God's opinion) Which god?. . .There are so many gods which are all man made inventions, conceptions and ideas. . . |
Re: When We Die! by Kay17: 1:37pm On Oct 04, 2014 |
MrAnony1: Do you know what Categorical Imperative is? 1 Like |
Re: When We Die! by Joshthefirst(m): 6:15pm On Oct 04, 2014 |
benodic:The mystery of death can only be understood by grasping the foundation of Life. Once a man denies the source of his life, he lapses into confusion on the subject of his death. |
Re: When We Die! by Weah96: 6:20pm On Oct 04, 2014 |
Joshthefirst: Great, we're getting somewhere. What is this source of life that you speak of? 1 Like |
Re: When We Die! by Joshthefirst(m): 6:30pm On Oct 04, 2014 |
Weah96:The source of life is the source of all things, logically defined as God. Logically. |
Re: When We Die! by logicboy01: 6:34pm On Oct 04, 2014 |
Joshthefirst: false 1 Like |
Re: When We Die! by Kay17: 7:58pm On Oct 04, 2014 |
Joshthefirst: Is the source of life equally life or some substance other than life? |
Re: When We Die! by Joshthefirst(m): 12:19pm On Oct 05, 2014 |
Kay17:The source of life is the source of life. I have no time for your gameplay. |
Re: When We Die! by Joshthefirst(m): 12:19pm On Oct 05, 2014 |
logicboy01:Close-mindedness |
Re: When We Die! by Kay17: 6:07pm On Oct 05, 2014 |
Joshthefirst: There is no game other than the one you play! What does the above mean other than a game?! "The source of life is the source of life" is the most ridiculous response I have ever received. I will make my question clearer, is God life?? if yes, why say God as a form of life has a source?! Doesn't that contradict the Uncaused God doctrine you hang over your neck? 1 Like |
Re: When We Die! by MrAnony1(m): 1:47pm On Oct 08, 2014 |
Kay17:I get your point but you are wrong to say that man is an automaton in respect to his impulses because he cannot consciously choose his desires. While it is true that man is influenced by his desires, he is not controlled by them. A man is able to choose whether or not to succumb to a desire. If it were true that man could not choose whether or not to act upon his desires, but his actions were driven by whatever he desired, then we couldn't possibly have a sense in which there is right and wrong or justice/injustice because every man would simply be an automaton in respect to his impulses. A rapist for instance wouldn't be responsible for rape because he didn't have conscious control of his desires. There would be no such thing as moral responsibility. |
Re: When We Die! by MrAnony1(m): 1:49pm On Oct 08, 2014 |
Kay17:No I don't. What is it? |
Re: When We Die! by MrAnony1(m): 1:50pm On Oct 08, 2014 |
mazaje:I think we are done now. Thanks for your time. |
(1) (2) (3) ... (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (Reply)
There Is Energy Creator Outside The Hologram - Allah And Jehovah Not Same Entity / Have You Ever Asked God, "Why Is My Own Case Different?" / Prophecy: You Will Get Married In 2022 - Fr Kelvin Ugwu
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 95 |