Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,201,607 members, 7,979,045 topics. Date: Friday, 18 October 2024 at 07:04 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al (2640 Views)
The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE / Questions For Hardmirror / Why Do The Atheists Bother If They Don't Believe? Here Is Why. (2) (3) (4)
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by Originakalokalo(m): 9:10pm On Dec 21, 2018 |
Originakalokalo: It is the truth that Will set them free. |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by Originakalokalo(m): 9:32pm On Dec 21, 2018 |
Jesus forgives sins and justifies his children. The truth shall set you free...if you accept it. |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by Originakalokalo(m): 12:19pm On Dec 22, 2018 |
Where are the free thinkers? Where are the atheists? They cannot defend their reasoning and have left this thread? Let them come and give us "intelligent answers nah? Hmmm. |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by alfaman3: 12:36pm On Dec 22, 2018 |
op, I just read that you haven't had sex in more than a decade. What is wrong with you? |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by toyosi20188(m): 6:19pm On Dec 22, 2018 |
alfaman3:I used to think these atheists were some sort of moral teachers or a bunch of Mahatma Gandhis. Imagine the ludicrous opinions. They accuse theists of hypocrisy meanwhile themselves are like whitewashed sepulchres with all filth within. |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by Originakalokalo(m): 6:45pm On Dec 22, 2018 |
toyosi20188: Lol. A child of God should not listen to them... They are what they are. |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by LordReed(m): 7:07pm On Dec 22, 2018 |
toyosi20188: Ludicrous because we agree a woman should have the right to determine how her body is used and by whom? 1 Like |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by johnydon22(m): 7:45pm On Dec 22, 2018 |
HardMirror:I grew particularly interested in your comment mostly due to the use of morality and the insertion of subjectivity in a quite ambiguous context. I hope we can discuss this. But, apart from this your subjective bias towards your own child, you do not think that abortion generally is in fact morally wrong? Uuuuhm, when a sperm cell meets an ovum cell and they fuss to form a zygote, when else do you think? You are made of atoms but you are not an atom. You are made of cells but you are not a cell. A fetus is made of cells but is not a cell. A sperm is a distinct cell. So, this is grossly a false equivalence. But consciousness or self awareness isn't really the definition of life. You probably have seen on many occasions when you try to kill an ant or anything out there, it recoils and tries to escape from such imminent danger. In fact even an amoeba does same. A fetus actually also follows similar patterns. An observable objective goal of life is to not die. This does not come necessarily due to consciousness or intelligence, it is rather more automated. No. You are not. That is not really how moral problems work. Morality is not based on individual judgement. This is actually absurd. You can further extend this past the fetal stage and go on to say, sometimes it is better to just kill that human and save it the unfortunate realities of life. I do not know why we think murder is wrong then. |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by johnydon22(m): 7:51pm On Dec 22, 2018 |
janettee:And there is a way you can do this without killing them; abstain from sexual contacts, contraceptive methods and what not. Actually, most orphanages and motherless baby's homes are run by religious institutions. demonstrably untrue. Actually, a Christian who is pro-abortion does this with defined knowledge that it is in direct consonance with her/his spiritual beliefs. P.s: Before it devolves into "you religotards" i am actually an atheist. |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by Originakalokalo(m): 7:54pm On Dec 22, 2018 |
These are the response I have gathered here so far... 1. Abort to stop the child from suffering. 2. Abort. Besides, 99% of the theists commit abortion. 3. Other evil occurrences in the world are actually committed by the theists. 4. You can abort since there is no consciousness of life yet ....the child is not aware of himself. Can you see these comments for what they are? These are thoughts from the intelligent ones whose minds of understanding have been darkened. 1. Abort to stop the child from suffering. Are you the giver of that life?..why take it? How do you know that the child will suffer? because others that came in similar situations like her suffered? Why were you not aborted? Your parents should have taken those decisions on your behalf...so that you won't suffer... 2. Abort. Besides, 99% of the theists are the ones doing it. Have you heard the word...THOU SHALL NOT KILL? Does the fact that *all* theists abort make it right? Does all theists abort? Some will not even take blood transfusion let alone abort.. If 99% of theists abort and they commit evil, you all have also joined the 99% since all comments on this thread say so... 3. You can abort since the child has no consciousness yet... Do you know there is preexistence of everyone in the infinite mind of God?.. .he told Jeremiah. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you and ORDAINED you a PROPHET" yes. You heard that correctly. Can you understand that mystery? No. Do I understand? No. When they speak about spiritual concepts as if they know it all, I laugh. Many of them are chronic liars and fornicators. Unrepentant adulterers and thieves. Their souls stink of evil and all immorality that is found in man. In their secrets, they scheme evil and come to condemn the children of God.. Porn addicts and angry souls they are. Yet some gullible children of God listen to their hell bound doctines . Some children of God are even swayed by their dark belief. It is a pity. Then, one of the comments read thus...let me paraphrase.. Your religion does not stop you from insulting anyone... This came from someone who lives and breathes insults per word. HYPOCRITE... Why not live a life that is free of insult and then teach that theist who insults? You may not know this, let me show you. For every weak children of God that you dissuade with your evil doctrine, The wrath of God is on you...and the devil stands before your soul to accuse you before the holiness of the Almighty. Since I made this submission, they disappeared. |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by HardMirror(m): 10:32pm On Dec 22, 2018 |
johnydon22:you made a lot of good points. But in the end it is a tussle btwn the powerful and powerless. Chickens have rights to life as much as humans do. But we take their lives at will. Same applies with abortion. The child is at the mercy of the mother. We really cant tell her what is right or wrong. She would use her power and there would be no consequence from the child fighting back. Only consequence would come from the action of equally or more powerful beings such as the mother herslf 1 Like |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by johnydon22(m): 10:40pm On Dec 22, 2018 |
HardMirror:Because the concept of human morality is primarily based on human as the center point. A pack of chimpanzee wouldn't have as much problem killing you as they would killing another member of their pack. This can be applied to virtually everything. A girl i invite over to my house is at my mercy. Actually we can, human morality is not up for individual definitions. This doesn't really imply moral permissibility of an action. It would then be consistent to argue that getting away with a crime (lack of consequence) dilutes the moral weight of an action which isn't in fact so. Moral permissibility doesn't really require consequences. |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by LordReed(m): 10:45pm On Dec 22, 2018 |
johnydon22: Interesting. In a different thread when I brought this up you objected to it. |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by johnydon22(m): 10:46pm On Dec 22, 2018 |
LordReed:show me it could most likely you didn't understand my argument. |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by LordReed(m): 10:49pm On Dec 22, 2018 |
johnydon22: https://www.nairaland.com/4903801/what-termed-moral#73871536 |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by johnydon22(m): 10:54pm On Dec 22, 2018 |
LordReed:Show me exactly where i disagreed.
|
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by LordReed(m): 10:56pm On Dec 22, 2018 |
johnydon22: The link I posted is to your comment. You clarified by saying individual not global. Meaning what exactly? |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by johnydon22(m): 11:02pm On Dec 22, 2018 |
LordReed:lol. So, in otherwords, you can't show exactly where and how i disagreed? As i said when you brought this up "it's most likely that you didn't understand my argument" and it turns out to be so. I am mostly extremely careful when making an argument, anyone who misrepresents my argument either didn't understand it or didn't really follow the context of an isolated statement. Individual not global means that every organisms need to survive is an individual drive that doesn't necessary extend to them needing for others to survive too. A man drowning would use other people as raft just to survive even though it means they would drown and die. the very elementary natural principle connotes this, survival of the fittest, kill anything you can to survive, do what you must. So, survival is an individual struggle. savvy? |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by LordReed(m): 11:07pm On Dec 22, 2018 |
johnydon22: The question now becomes did I ever state that the need for survival was other than individual? That's why your "individual not global" was confusing to me, I didn't understand what you were objecting to. 2 Likes 1 Share |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by johnydon22(m): 11:08pm On Dec 22, 2018 |
LordReed:I can concede to this point. It wasn't much of an objection but more of a injection of clarity but going over it now i think it was rather unnecessary. So, i agree with you. |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by HardMirror(m): 2:57am On Dec 23, 2018 |
johnydon22:john i dont agree with this. You cannot. See, the concept of right or wrong is an illusion we create for ourselves. Abortion is as good as killing a chicken too. Humans are hypocrites we think we are intelligent, we create laws we believe favours us the most. The illusion that all humans are equal, the illusion that we fight wars for peace.... it is not so. Abortion can be debated ONLY because the babies CANNOT fight! It can be LEGALISED only because the babies have no political influence. Take a look at the big picture. The world will fvck you real good when you have no power. There are no right or wrongs society lives by an unspoken contract of the gains of laws. All what we live by are results of the human societal evolution. Learning over time to live together in ways we believe profits us the most. The law that i should not steal is because it makes me spend less effort protecting resources i gather. We live be this mutual contract, dont steal from me so i wont steal from you. See for get about a chimp not killing a chimp. Do you think humans are exclusively intelligent? The chimp needs to propagate the population of it's own species as much as the resources permit. It is an advantage. So dont make it look like humans have a right to kill other species. It was never about rights, it is always about POWER and advantage. The powerful will stoop for the weak if there is a symbiotic advantage to be gained. Abortions would go on as long as people can get away with it. No one would go to the police station to report a missing unborn baby. The mother wont feel the same guilt as killing a born child, because the level of relationship is different, because it is a murder she can get away with. Just the way it is. No need for us pretending about it. 1 Like |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by johnydon22(m): 5:04am On Dec 23, 2018 |
HardMirror:Oh, it is something we create for ourselves alright, but in an intersubjective manner not in a subjective manner as you wrongly think and would have us believe. Wrong again. It is as good as killing another human. We do not think we are intelligent for the fun of it, we are in fact not just intelligent but very very very intelligent. Because every animal society primarily focuses on the said animal. Oh i agree, equality is a social myth, an imagined order, doesn't make it less effective though, does it? Conflict is one of the most primitive aspect of existence and is inherently inevitable. Which makes them needing of every protection they can get by law. In principle, human law is for the weak. Without the law, we would operate based on the primary natural order of operation, the strong prey on the weak, kill whoever you can, take whatever you want from whomever you want, but we don't, the law as humans have conceived abhors these. Bills on domestic violence predominantly favors women more than men because women are inherently more vulnerable than men then needs more protection -Babies presents the most vulnerable stage a human can be and for the fact that this does not call for more protection for them is ironic and defeats the very principle of the law protecting the weak. I am arguing more of a moral permissibility than political and i believe this OP and your first comment which i quoted was based on a premise which is more morally based than political and i'd like to maintain that original premise. On a political note - I'd still argue that ignoring the weak fails the fundamental principle upon which human law was built. Actually i am looking at the big picture, i have considered the historical and even biological evolutionary variables. Human laws, human morality exist on the same fundamental state, which is -Imagined order and this has helped us live and become the most dominant specie in this planet, in fact due to our capability to apply imagined order, we can decide the fate of this planet and the fate of every thing in it however we choose. Human laws as you pointed out have gone through social evolutions, our laws are no more objective than our moral beliefs, both are imagined orders. Human cooperation may have elements of "do on to me as i do on to you" but to assert this is the guiding principle of our application of law as it stands today is largely untrue. The law is not a choice at our discretion, it is in fact an applied obligation. Why? Evidently so, at least, more so than any other being in this planet or any other being ever to exist as far as we know. Exactly, it is an evolutionary tool. Species who kill each other are in fact at a disadvantage evolutionarily. Humans in the evolutionary sense can be classified as largely one of the most successful species ever to walk this earth and can be easily classified as the most dominant, we achieved this even though we lack large muscles and lethal physiological aggressiveness like per say lions or elephants. We achieved this due to imagined orders such as morality and laws. The concept of right is also a human idea, you seem to not be understanding this enough. If you are invoking cosmological inherency, we have no right to kill animals neither do we have any rights or obligations not to kill them. See? So, we can and we do. Let us get something abundantly clear: concepts such as Power, morality and laws are not the same and conflating them leads to a meshed up premise that is inherently flawed. Human morality dilutes imbalances in the intricacies of human social interactions human laws fundamentally protects the weak Power is an inevitable consequence of human hierarchical capability which is arguably an evolutionary trait. That is exactly how social myths work, it thrives on belief, that isn't my argument. My argument is based on the irony in the application of the definition of defining concepts that constitute our moral outcomes. Based on this abortion premise - Murder as defined in human morality and largely by law is wrong. Murder in definition simply means willful termination of a human life. Therefore, fundamentally, human morality do not permit murder. Specifically, abortions are willful termination of human life and therefore meet the definition of murder as described but somehow is morally excusable? That is a funny irony. Again, consequences are not determinants of moral permissibility. What if a serial killer doesn't really feel any form of guilt whatsoever about all his victims, and all his crimes go undetected, does this make his actions morally neutral? Should this your argument extend to that? |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by LordReed(m): 10:16am On Dec 23, 2018 |
johnydon22: If we are going by definitions then you are subtly wrong: Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Meaning there are situations where it is lawful to kill. Those situations will be sanctioned by law. Self defense for example, there is no way the right to kill will be exclusively denied because we have learnt that extreme situations will occur that will require it. Abortion if established as lawful is not murder. 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by johnydon22(m): 10:39am On Dec 23, 2018 |
LordReed: I am much much aware of such definitions but if you have not noticed, I am making a moral permissibility argument not a legal one. In fact, I question the deviation from the fundamental basis of which murder is condemned on the very exemption of abortion as a crime. From my post you quoted I am arguing more of a moral permissibility than political and i believe this OP and your first comment which i quoted was based on a premise which is more morally based than political and i'd like to maintain that original premise. On a political note - I'd still argue that ignoring the weak fails the fundamental principle upon which human law was built. So abortion is just morally adorable as any premediatated murder. See? So, I still identify the irony of our legal juggle on the deviation from the fundamental basis it is originally based on. |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by LordReed(m): 10:45am On Dec 23, 2018 |
johnydon22: Is this not using the very objective principles you seem to object too? How is abortion morally reprehensible when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus has debilitating developmental defects that will ensure that the ensuing child is not more than a vegetable? Is it also morally abhorrent under such circumstances? You can't say something is universally wrong without considering the circumstances and then tell me you think morality is intersubjective. Where is your intersubjectivity? 1 Like |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by johnydon22(m): 10:51am On Dec 23, 2018 |
LordReed:When the mother's life is in danger, it is then an act of self defence on the mother's part to terminate the pregnancy which then is excusable under moral permissibility. But the idea of killing due to inconvenience is not and they are hardly the same thing. I have addressed the mother in danger part over and over again in previous threads. Would you like me to show you where? Humans are morally excused to kill another on the occasion of said person being a mortal threat to their life directly. Lol. The circumstances of abortion are just as similar as the circumstances surrounding post natal murder. So, it is quite easy to figure out. If you kill someone because they inconvenience you, every one should agree that that is the height of moral abhorrence. If you kill someone because they are a mortal threat to your life directly about to kill you, that is self defence and is morally permissible, in fact morally expected. These two occassions are easily identifiable in abortion cases. |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by LordReed(m): 10:55am On Dec 23, 2018 |
johnydon22: Very good. So you define a fetus as someone, on what basis? Answer this as well when census takers encounter pregnant women do they count the fetus in the womb? |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by johnydon22(m): 10:57am On Dec 23, 2018 |
LordReed: On the basis that it is a homo sapien therefore by definition human. And the very reason humans define killing another as morally wrong is based on the imagined belief of the sacredness of human life. |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by LordReed(m): 11:00am On Dec 23, 2018 |
johnydon22: First answer why census takers do not count fetus. |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by johnydon22(m): 11:02am On Dec 23, 2018 |
LordReed:Oh I do not know. Not my problem or my argument. If I am asked to guess then I'd say probably because they are at a natal stage. I can also show you instances fetuses are legally recognized as humans (even though human is not a legal label but a biological one) Would you like to know of such instance? And what is the point of the census question though? |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by LordReed(m): 11:05am On Dec 23, 2018 |
johnydon22: Its my argument, they are not considered persons yet. A fetus is a potential individual, its not yet one. So when you say kill someone, a fetus is not a someone yet. |
Re: A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al by johnydon22(m): 11:08am On Dec 23, 2018 |
LordReed:A fetus is a human. When I say someone, I am referring to a human. Not regarding a human as a human doesn't make such human any less human because "human" is not an arbitrary tag hinged on an subjective or intersubjective human belief. No. The term human defines an objective reality, a group of homo species. And even to dance to this music of legal acceptance with you, do you realise that if you kill a pregnant woman, you are not charge with 1 murder but murder of 2 persons and this is specifically under law? So, you see the laws if I am dancing by your argument still recognizes a fetus as a person therefore somebody. Lol. I bet you didn't see that one coming. |
Christian Women How Does It Feel To Date An Uncircumcised Male / Lagos-ibadan Expressway: Rccg & Mfm: Whats The Solution? / Jesus Is Still Alive
(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. 114 |