NewStats: 3,265,331 , 8,186,409 topics. Date: Saturday, 14 June 2025 at 01:34 PM 1wv64

Logicboy03: Purist described Enigma best;

"use one atheist to label atheism as a whole"

Prove him wrong and....define precisely what your personal worldview is.

Enigma: @Anony

Thinking back to this post you might find the quote below interesting.

From here http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/michael-ruse-humanism-religion/

Per Michael Ruse --- an atheist for that matter

I couldn't agree more

kmcutez:
See charcoal calling pot black. At least it's better than being a deceitful pot.

Lol....good to see that you accept your place

Logicboy03:
Even my christian family is moving towards agnosticism because of my oratory skills.

Look up the word demagoguery

Logicboy03:


Lol....apparently you dont realise that someone is referring to you and your twin.......

delusional

Lol, apparently you didn't realize i was referring to him.

^^^^Lololol, trolling a thread by calling it a troll thread. Oh the irony!

thehomer:

In what sense do you think morality is objective? I ask because you don't seem to realize that there can be objective facts about subjective values.

It is precisely because of the bold that I am sure morality is objective even though it is subjectively percieved. Perhaps you should tell me why you think it is totally subjective

Logicboy03: Another troll thread with no point but to meaninglessly attack atheists.

Trolololo.


Desperate christians

yawn....

musKeeto:
Lol. Keep doing what you do best. :*

Lol, keep doing what you do best :*

thehomer:

I hope you've properly considered the criticisms of your original post.

Actually, I didn't because that was not what I required of you. I am more interested in hearing you define your worldview than hearing your attack on James Turner's poem.

By the way, here is a copy of the humanist manifesto. Does this accurately define your worldview?

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has ed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social ion.

NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and ed by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

thehomer:

My worldview is broadly consistent with secular humanism.

I'd like to hear you state it.

musKeeto: Where the a55 goes, the kisser follows..

Also following closely is the perv with an ass-kissing fetish.

Reyginus: Is this your reincarnation?

Lol, I don't believe in reincarnation. I believe in resurrection instead.

kmcutez:

No mind Bella3 wey no go school. Gullible and unintelligent folks like her will always be deceived by Davidylan's so called intelligence.

Funny enough, I have never seen you post anything vaguely intelligent on this forum. All I see you do is throw insults at people while dutifully kissing logicboy's buttocks.

Well, Whatever floats your boat sha.

Logicboy03: Stalin was an intelligent man despite being a psychopathic killer.

He was right about then necessity of religion but wrong in executing religious people.

========================================================================

So let's say Stalin was having a good day and wants to exercise his intellectual muscles. He then calls a Nairaland christian to debate with him;

-As usual, the Nairaland christian will throw some bible verses, some intelligent design and some claims that Yahweh is the one true God.

-Stalin will tell his guards to tie up the christian to a post. Then, he will tell his guards to give the NL christian a bible.

-Stalin will then tell the guards to point their guns at the NL christian

-Stalin will then say "it is snowing and you will be almost frozen to death within an hour. Your arms are a bit loose so that you can read the bible. Within this hour , you are free to pray and read verses from the bible to call your God to save you from a slow freezing death. If He doesnt save you within the hour, my guards will cut your limbs one by one so that you die even more painfully. This is to show that either your God is worthless as he wouldnt stop evil or you are worthless to him and you shouldnt care about him"

-The christian at this point will start shouting and claiming that one shouldnt tempt God. The christian will then start begging for his life and claiming that God said one should forgive.

-At this point, Stalin will laugh and say; "Daniel walked in the lions den. Elijah was answered by Yahweh by fire to embarrass the Baal worshippers. Does your God treat humans differently? Some get to do stunts and some dont? Furthermore, heaven awaits you therefore, I am doing you a favour"

-We all know what happens to the christian


========================================================================

Bonus; How Stalin would have dealt with NL muslims

Stalin; Why is your religion any better or realer than the christians'?

Muslim; Islam is the perfect way of life. We are not like the 3 in 1 god worshipping christia..................

{Gunshot! Muslim's brain is leaking on the floor}

Stalin; Foolish religious man. Atheism is the perfect way of life for socialist ideal. You must be an enemy of the state to even try to suggest that it is your religion that is perfect

smh

Logicboy03:


Lies. And the Pharisees didnt read the scriptures abi? that their scriptures were no adulterated like the ones you have now.

Actually, there were pharisees who believed in Jesus Christ.

thehomer:

Is your answer still "No" with respect to the Christian God? Please answer with a yes or no. Basically, the answer changes with the example of the creator. If it is different, then you've clearly seen the contradiction with respect to the term "creator" here and are just failing at being evasive.

Yes my answer remains "No" the Christian conception of God regardless

Could the Christian God have been another way? Careful with your answer because you could conclude that your Christian God isn't a necessary being.

Lol, if you grant that God is a necessary being, then the whole question of moral obligations paced upon a necessary being immediately falls to pieces because a necessary being by definition can't be under any obligations. You can't hold both ends of the stick my friend.

God is a necessary being in the sense that He is maximally great. However, His benevolence towards His creation is not a necessary attribute of God as He can choose not to be benevolent towards man.
By the way, I do not hold that God is omnibenevolent rather that He is all-loving. The point being that benevolence describes a God who can never allow pain(what I call a genie) but Love will allow for pain and will even bring punitive justice for the sake of good.
Christians do not see God as an almighty genie whose purpose for existence is to pet them and make them happy. The bible doesn't teach that.

I'm sorry but this is just you trying to be evasive and failing as usual. I asked you direct questions and once again, to avoid answering them, you bracket all the important issues and attempt to summarize because you've been cornered. It simply won't work with me.

The best way for us to have a serious conversation and avoid fallacies is to start with some common grounds and I think these direct questions will help us clarify and begin with common grounds.

You only asked irrelevant questions with the aim of throwing us on a tangent. All I did was bring us back into focus.

Is acting morally synonymous with doing good deeds?

i asked you this same question first. So is it?

Can you please define what you're referring to as a creator with examples?

Lololol. . . .interesting. I'll humor you anyway.

3 examples of a creator and his/her creation:

1. A musician and his music
2. A programmer and his software
3. God and man

thehomer:

What is your point?

The absurdity of moral subjectivism

thehomer: Firstly, atheism isn't a worldview just as theism isn't a worldview. I will now go ahead to dismantle what you've stated point by point.

......then please define precisely what your personal worldview is.

Mr_Anony2: ^^^I think the above pretty much sums up the atheist worldview.

If you are an atheist and you disagree, then please define precisely what your personal worldview is.

Lololol, it appears our in-house atheists on the whole don't like having any burden put on them at all. This is why so many of them don't want to it they have any positive beliefs as well as being atheists. Often when asked what their positive beliefs are they can't even elucidate it properly.

It's always easier being on the offensive than defining your stance isn't it?

Goshen360: Yours acknowledged. I'm busy this weekend but will try see if I can make out time to discuss. If not, anytime from Monday will be fine. Thanks.

That's cool. Take your time with it. I am not in hurry at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp8rMsOCsvY

The above is a rather long discussion however, it is something I would like you to look into and hopefully we can discuss in depth at some point.

The discussion is open for everyone else who wants to in (it is not limited to Goshen). I am not particularly taking sides on this one but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

God bless y'all

^^^I think the above pretty much sums up the atheist worldview.

If you are an atheist and you disagree, then please define precisely what your personal worldview is.

We believe in Marx, Freud, and Darwin. We believe that everything is ok, as long as you don’t hurt anyone, to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your definition of knowledge. We believe in sex before, during and after marriage, we believe in the therapy of sin. We believe that adultery is fun, we believe that sodomy is ok, we believe that taboo’s are taboo. We believe that everything is getting better despite evidence to the contrary. The evidence must be investigated and you can prove anything with evidence. We believe there is something in horoscopes, UFO’s and bent spoons. Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Muhammad and ourselves. We believe he was a good moral teacher although we think his good morals were really bad. We believe that all religions are basically the same, at least the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness, they only differ in matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes nothing because when you ask the dead they say nothing. If death is not the end then there is heaven for all except maybe Hitler, Stalin, and Khan. We believe in Masters and Johnson, what is selected is average, and what is average is normal and what is normal is good. We believe in total disarmament, we believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed, and that the Americans should beat their guns into tractors and the Russians will be sure to follow. We believe that man is essentially good, it is only his behavior that lets him down. This is the fault of society, society is the fault of conditions, and conditions are the fault of society. If man does what is right for him, then reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will re-adjust, history will alter. We believe there is no absolute truth except that there is no absolute truth. We believe in the rejection of creeds and the flowering of individual thought.

If chance is the father of all flesh, then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. When in a state of emergency the sniper kills the child, the youth go looting, or bomb blasts rock the school, it is nothing more than the sound of man worshiping his maker.

This is what it feels like sometimes.....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn-ZggPYmvg

thehomer:

And that is my point. Without properly defining what a creator is, then your entire argument fails. That is why I ended that paragraph with the question: what is a creator?



It relates to the fact that you have to define what a creator is.



Having clear definitions isn't a game in philosophical discussions.



It clarifies the argument which will enable the determination of what conclusions follow from what premises.



This is the sort of slipperiness that bothers me. I expected you to answer the question based on whatever you understood acting morally to mean rather than you attempting to ask me the same question that I just asked you. I'm doing this to avoid making any assumptions for you but you just refuse to be clear about whatever you mean.



What is the redundancy? You seem to be having a difficult understanding that a clear definition isn't a redundancy.



Actually, you have. I'll illustrate it using your syllogism.



If we substitute the Christian God into (2) we get the conclusion that he is bound by a moral obligation towards man. If we substitute the deist God into (2), we get the conclusion that he too is bound by a moral obligation towards man which is wrong because (1) is wrong since that God isn't bound by a moral obligation.

Those are contradictory conclusions and as you can see, whether or not the conclusion follows depends on the particular God you're talking about so which God are you talking about?



Then define what a creator is with an example for clarity.



Based on the fact that you asked me for the context in which acting morally would be not be synonymous with doing good deeds. There is no context in which it is so therefore you're agreeing that acting morally is synonymous with doing good deeds.

Now, are you accepting that acting morally is synonymous with doing good deeds? Please a simple yes or no will suffice.

Secondly, will you be defining what a creator is with examples? Please answer this too with a yes or no. If yes, please go ahead and do so.

Lol, dude I must give it to you. You do enjoy your merry-go-rounds don't you?

Let's cut the chase shall we?

The question before us is: Is a creator under any moral obligation to be benevolent to his/her creation?

My answer is "No"

Your contention: If the creator and creation are sapient, then it puts an obligation on the creator.

My rebuttal: Sapience places no obligation evidenced by a deist conception of the creator vs a Christian concept of the creator. Both sapient yet one is indifferent and the other benevolent. Therefore sapience doesn't impose the obligation to be benevolent.

Your contention: If the creator is said to be benevolent, then His very nature of benevolence places upon Him the obligation to be benevolent.

My rebuttal: This would only be true if the creator had no choice in the matter i.e the creator could not be any other way. If this is true, then such a creator could not be said to be sapient if he lacks the ability to choose whether to be benevolent or not.


This is how far we have come. You have not yet given me reason to believe that a creator is under any obligation to preserve his/her creation

mazaje: So god still speaks to people? When was the last time god spoke to you and how does his voice sound like? How can a person know that it is god and not his imaginations . When I imagine things o hear voices come up in my head sometimes. Did muskeetoo hear an audible voice or was he imagining things the way every body does? Can you tell us exactly how god speaks to peole so that we can know it's him and not just our own inner voice .

Well, Muskeeto is here on this thread. Why don't you ask him directly

cyrexx:

Yes. I may even announce it on Nairaland.

Good, then by your own ission, you would immediately fall into the category of those "talking on God's behalf" Who you would have preferred to be silenced forever. Why the double standard?

I was raised to believe yahweh is the creator God but eventually, it was his silence and indifference to human suffering, plus his vindictive eternal torture of those who disbelieved him; that led me to start questioning my religious faith in the first instance.

But all questions would disappear if you heard God's voice. You will even vehemently preach Him.

If I realised that I am wrong, I will change.

Good

The question is, Anony, do you believe you may be wrong about your idea of God and Christianity?

No, because I happen to know God to be true. It is as firm a conviction as I know that I am a Nigerian man.

cyrexx:

What he heard is his own experience, not mine.

If God spoke to you, will you tell other people about it?

cyrexx:

Hmmmm,

If I hear God speaking to me, and it is God really, not some mythical figures that Christianity or Islam or any other religion is telling us about, it will be foolish and dishonest of me to deny Him and try to explain him away.

I have said it here a million times :

LET GOD HIMSELF SPEAK TO US FOR ONCE, IN AN UNMISTAKEABLE CLEAR MANNER THUS DISPELLING ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS ABOUT HIM; AND LET ALL HUMANS SPEAKING FOR HIM FOREVER REMAIN SILENT. OTHERWISE, GOD IS NOTHING MORE THAN HUMAN INVENTION, AND SUCH HUMAN INVENTION NEEDS THOSE SAME HUMANS TO PERPETUATE HIS EXISTENCE IN HUMAN MINDS.

Is that too much to ask?

*edited*

Well, perhaps you should ask your friend about the voice he heard.

by the way, just a minor question; If God spoke to you, will you tell other people about it?

cyrexx:

If yahweh can talk to ancient men and prophets, why all of a sudden he is silent in these days of advanced communication technologies.

It seems as if the more technology and knowledge increases among mankind, the more silent this god is.

And who says God is silent these days? God still speaks to people all the time. The question is are we listening?

Here is an example from your friend muskeeto hearing a voice speaking to him:

musKeeto:
One night, while laying on my bed thinking about the future and other things, I felt/heard a voice say 'If you are given the opportunity to die slowly(deathbed kind of death, where gather and watch you while you slowly leave this world), will you be happy with the life you've lived?. I knelt down by my bed, said something about forgiveness of sins and all, and asked to be taught the ways of the Lord.

Till date, it's because of this experience I keep reiterating I'm agnostic. I strongly believe that if there's a God, he transcends religion. Maybe he just uses that which you are more familiar with to draw you to himself. Who knows?

https://nairaland.unblockandhide.com/1156627/atheists-please-tell-us-conversion/1#13766379

Perhaps it is God or perhaps it is not God. Question is if you heard a voice from apparently nowhere telling you to repent, will you accept it as God or will you seek every excuse possible to explain it away?

all4naija: It means you haven't been following this thread from the start. The problem is the definition of the religion God. That we have found out it is different from the perspective general people see what would qualify for a God(as in assumption).In a sense there is nothing like that that exist. Yes, I am about the religion God here. God connotes different thing to different people and they are always based on assumptions.

Good so you don't have a problem with God only the religious understanding of God. What then is the correct notion of God to you?