Why are the prophets of atheism invariably retarded?
>>18456943Because atheism is retarded and degenerate. No need to look any further than communism, arguably the ideology that has killed more people these last 100 years than religion did in 1000
>>18456943They make money off selling their books to midwits. None of these guys would dare talk to a philosopher or even a religious brother or priest worth their salt because their audience would see how full of shit they are.
>>18456943Atheists are all smarter than every religious person simply by virtue of not believing in the most retarded stories imaginable.
>>18456953>None of these guys would dare talk to a philosopherDennett has a PhD in philosophy from Oxford, an extensive publishing history in philosophy journals, and has debated people like Plantinga.
>>18456971Dennett is a joke.
>>18456982Got a pretty high h-index for a joke tho.
>prophets of atheismsorry about your back being blown out in the second evolution thread as well, have fun spamming the chan and drinking alone
>>18456959These stories shaped human character and created the virtues you’re talking about
>>18457003>created the virtues you’re talking aboutChristians and equivocation, name a more iconic combo.
>>18456943I've already told you. Atheists can't reason. They believe there can be a creation without a Creator.
>>18457005Good and Evil wouldn’t exist without God and religion, they’d be defined simply as whats beneficial to oneself rather than whats right
>>18457009Atheists do not believe there is a "creation", my Mexican friend.
>>18457011Are you a bot or do you genuinely not realize that you're equivocating on the meaning of "virtue"? Would be very sad if you got stunlocked by words like that.
>>18456959>believes his ancestor’s a bacterium
>>18457197Lmao methano coccus
The way I see atheists is like trannies. They're the same type of weirdos and freaks as trannies and faggots. A loser who spends all his time on Reddit posting things like "If God real why bad thing happen" and the same slop nine trillion times over and never getting bored of it.
>>18456971>hasHad. Dennett is dead and is presumably in hell.
Sicylian, Sicylian, Jew, Jew
>>18457016Semantic Jew. You cannot infer meaning and emotion from basic concepts, or rather you deny those emotions and thoughts as they arise in spiteful arrogance. Oh, you poor child of Edom.
Real men think it's true that a Jew walked on water 2000 years ago
>>18457705Olay, but seriouslyIf God real why bad thing happen?
>>18457996Because we live in a fallen world... How can an atheist objectively say anything is bad?
>>18457003I study greek mythology too, but I'm not retarded enough to believe it happened.
>>18457999This is just kicking the canWhy do we live in a fallen world?
>>18457009so who was the creator of your diety
>>18457999>can an atheist objectively say anything is bad?Nothing is objectively good or badThings are only good or bad in relation to people's subjective values
>>18458008The first man sinned, the world fell.>>18458015Yeah, so someone who has a proclivity to have their balls stomped on or to murder other people are not evil or wrong in any meaningful sense.
>>18458033No, they would be wrong and evil in relation to my subjective values.How do you not understand this?
>>18458037Your subjective values don't mean anything in a world without moral absolutes.
>>18458040Clearly that is false, because those things are valuable and meaningful to me.What do you mean when you saying they have no "meaning" ?
>>18458033>are not evil or wrong in any meaningful sense.If by 'meaningful' you mean 'objective', yes that would be trivially true.
>>18458054>>18458058Okay, where do you get your moral facts from?
>>18458033>The first man sinned, the world fell.So what?God is good. God is perfect.Why did he create a world he knew would have things he dislikes in it, like sorcerers and gays? There is no answer These things are incompatible with God being good
>>18458073Do you understand that your "objection" essentially boiled down to whining about where objective morals were on a view without objective morals? There's no moral facts that exist independently of people's subjective values. You are again asking for something that is not a feature of the view.
>>18458075>These things are incompatible with God being goodWhy? Because you said so?>>18458090Right, so it's illogical to make any kind of moral judgement in the atheist paradigm.
>>18458098No. People would be making moral judgements in relation to their subjective values.
>>18458108How can you make a moral judgement without anything to inform that morality? You just want to have your cake and eat it.
>>18456943Ben Stiller's face is so asymmetrical
>>18458098Because God is good and perfect, and has a superpower to never fail (omnipotence)God wants the good (NOT sorcerers and gays) God would not fail and make this world he knows will have sorcerers and gays in it It's enitrely straightforward I don't understand how you fail to see the problem
>>18458113>without anything to inform that morality?Read my post again. People make moral judgments in relation to their ________ You should be able to figure out how I would answer this question.
>>18458124Again, this is nonsensical. You cannot derive good or bad from pure sense.
>>18458134>without anything to inform that morality?If by 'anything to inform that morality' you mean 'anything to OBJECTIVLY inform that morality', yes that would be trivially true.This is insanity. You keep doing the same thing Can't tell if it's a skill issue or what Stay a Christian.
On my view good and bad are arbitrary. THERE ARE NOT OBJECTIVE FACTS ABOUT GOOD AND BAD It's just people's subjective values and preference ;( sad, but true People can change their preference on a whimOne day they think abortion is a okay, but then I show them a video of a fetus being torn apart and they whimsically change their opinion and think abortion is bad just cuz the video made them feel sad There's no fact of the matter
>>18458137Dude, anyone with good will can just see it's exactly what I said. You want to say you could make moral judgements but it comes from thin air. Where do these subjective values come from? Is this not a problem to atheists?
>>18458147> it comes from thin air.Where did I say it come from?People's subjective values and preference. ( Contingent on how they are raised, the culture they find themselves in, human biology, all kind of things )NOT thin air
Let us consult the enlightened perennial wisdom only found in religion>The Sages taught: A person should not drink water at night. And if he drank, his blood is upon his own head, due to the danger. The Gemara asks: What is this danger? The Gemara answers: The danger of the shavrirei, an evil spirit that rules over water. And if he is thirsty, what is his remedy? If there is another person with him, he should wake him and say to him: I thirst for water, and then he may drink. And if there is no other person with him, he should knock with the lid on the jug and say to himself: So-and-so, son of so-and-so, your mother said to you to beware of the shavrirei verirei rirei yirei rei, found in white cups. This is an incantation against the evil spirit.
>>18456943What's wrong with bottom right tho? I've never heard a retarded opinion from him.
>>18458153>Contingent on how they are raised, the culture they find themselves in, human biology, all kind of thingsShit answer, btwIn reality we can see that these things come from GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWDNow there's a proper answer
>>18458155>there is a method if you have to beg for food often. Maintain this mantra, and no malevolent person or malevolent dog will cause you harm. If you are before a stūpa, before a buddha image, or before a reliquary, recite and maintain this mantra for a total of 300,000 times. Return on the fifteenth day of the month when the moon is bright, and arrange a great offering. For one day and one night, do not eat, and recite the mantra with correct mindfulness. Then you may be able to see Vajrapāṇi Bodhisattva, and this bodhisattva will approach and invite you to go to his palace.
>>18458147>anyone with good will can just see it's exactly what I saidYeah, I see it with my good willI feel it in my good feelsI like it a lot Objective, btw
>>18458167I suppose if you weren't sired as a result of cousinage, you would understand how preference being the basis for morality is a problem
>>18458155This ought to be read in the voice of a certain American president:>I, Nichiren, have personally suffered each of the nine great ordeals [that Gautama suffered]. Among them, [those that correspond to] Virūdhaka massacring the Shākya clan, going begging but being left with an empty bowl, and being forced to seek robes for protection from the cold wind have been great trials far surpassing those that occurred during the Buddha’s lifetime. [...] How sad I feel that all the people of this country will fall into the Avīchi hell! >Bodhisattva Never Disparaging was cursed by arrogant monks who observed all the two hundred and fifty precepts. I, Nichiren, am slandered and reviled by Ryōkan, who is known as the foremost observer of the precepts. The monks who cursed Never Disparaging, though they followed him in the end, still had to suffer in the Avīchi hell for one thousand kalpas. But Ryōkan has yet to seek my teachings. Hence I do not know what will become of him. He may be destined to suffer in hell for countless kalpas. How truly pitiful!
>>18458176>my morality is right, yours is wrong >on what basis >my moralityThe average religiouscuck everyone.
>>18458179>Noooo tinpot dictator, you can't kill millions of people for no reason!!>Why?>uhhhh
>>18456943atheism currently doesn't have a wave of philosophy that actually makes being an athiest usefull in of itself.so all the smart atheist go and care about other stuff, and just once in a while show of their powerlevel.if religion is as stupid as they claim, it makes sence that being obsesed with debunking it would be stupid, the same way someone who makes it , their entire life to debunk flat earth or feminism.
>>18458181>murder is le bad, my religion says so>except...
>>18458182>currently doesn't have a wave of philosophy that actually makes being an athiest usefull in of itself.>so all the smart atheist go and care about other stuffI would argue that is extremely useful in of itself. Not having to obsess over retarded fairy tales is a big step forward
>>18458183>Conflating war with murderDumb SEAmonkey.
>>18458186>war is when people just tickle each other n shietLmao religiouscuck mental gymnastics never cease to amaze me
>>18458191Dumb SEAmonkeys who are out of their depth should have their lips sewn shut.
>>18458155[Ilu walks along] the sea shore; he strides the shore of the Great Deep.Ilu [sees] two women mounting each other — two women mounting each other, head to “cauldron.”Watch! One sinks down. Watch! One rises up.Watch! One shouts, “daddy, daddy!” Watch! One shouts “mommy, mommy!”Ilu’s member lengthens like the sea — yes, Ilu’s member [rises] like the tide.Ilu’s member lengthened like the sea — yes, Ilu’s member [rose] like the tide.Ilu seizes the two women mounting each other, the two women mounting each other, head to “cauldron.”He seizes [them] and puts them in his house.Ilu has pulled out his “staff”; Ilu has palmed the rod with his hand.Raising it, he shoots skyward: he has shot a bird from the sky!Plucking it, he puts it on the embers: in this way, Ilu ravishes the women.If the two women shout, “Oh husband, husband, pulling out your staff, palming the rod with your hand! Watch out! You’re roasting the bird on the fire, but you’ve burned it on the coals.”Then they are wives indeed, wives of Ilu, wives of Ilu forever.But if the two women shout, “Oh daddy, daddy, pulling out your staff, palming the rod with your hand! Watch out! You’re roasting the bird on the fire, but you’ve burned it on the coals.”Then they are daughters indeed, daughters of Ilu, daughters of Ilu forever.
>>18458185thats an attack of theism, not an defence of atheism.once a person is a atheist , they don't have to really think about anything else in regards to religion, in atheist wordlviewthis makes atheists that absesevly think about religion, just to debunk it, very retarded.like you anon, who samfags in every single religios thread of this board.under your understanding, you are like someone obessesing over starwars movies day in and day out, without doing anything usefull.
>>18458195>seethes because I'm right>resorts to ad hominems
>>18458181So how exactly is this shadowboxing supposed to go down when the dictator talks to a ChristianYou just inform him that it's a OBJECTIVE fact that killing people for no reason is bad, and he goes like: "oops, my mistake" ?This is so dumb
>>18458155>According to Raymond of Capua, at the age of twenty-one (c. 1368), Catherine experienced what she described in her letters as a "Mystical Marriage" with Jesus, later a popular subject in art as the Mystic marriage of Saint Catherine.>One surprising and controversial aspect of this marriage that occurs both in artistic representations of the event and in some early accounts of her life: "Underlining the extent to which the marriage was a fusion with Christ's physicality [...] Catherine received, not the ring of gold and jewels that her biographer reports in his bowdlerized version, but the ring of Christ's foreskin.">Catherine herself mentions the foreskin-as-wedding ring motif in one of her letters (#221), equating the wedding ring of a virgin with a foreskin; she typically claimed that her own wedding ring to Christ was simply invisible. She wrote in a letter (to encourage a nun who seems to have been undergoing a prolonged period of spiritual trial and torment): "Bathe in the blood of Christ crucified. See that you don't look for or want anything but the crucified, as a true bride ransomed by the blood of Christ crucified – for that is my wish. You see very well that you are a bride and that he has espoused you – you and everyone else – and not with a ring of silver but with a ring of his own flesh. Look at the tender little child who on the eighth day, when he was circumcised, gave up just so much flesh as to make a tiny circlet of a ring!"
>>18458200Well, it would probably go a lot worse for someone trying to do that.
>>18458176>you would understand how preference being the basis for morality is a problemTo bad, so sadBut that's how it is in reality.People act according their subjective preference.
>>18458199is not an adhominen anon , my current arguments in this thread don't really care if god is real or not.I am just saying that under your own understanding of the universe , you are a massive retard loser.you got filtered by goat fucker fairy tales, you mind just can't handle them, even if you know they are wrong. so you sethe to fellow retards online.
>>18458206Yeah, that's why trannies, jewish niggas, mohammadan sexpests and jeets are trying to destroy the civilized world now
>>18458208>anon things a little bored retardbaiting on 4chan is the same as devoting half your life to made up shit
>>18458181Atheists can say the exact same sentences in English language as Christians can when trying to persuade tinpot dictators
>>18458211I know who you are anon, you do care and you really should not, its a bad look.but sure plug in your ears and scream, so that you can't hear me.
>>18458155>On the three days before the festivals of gentiles the following actions are prohibited, as they would bring joy to the gentile, who would subsequently give thanks to his object of idol worship on his festival: It is prohibited to engage in business with them; to lend items to them or to borrow items from them; to lend money to them or to borrow money from them; and to repay debts owed to them or to collect repayment of debts from them. >Rabbi Yehuda says: One may collect repayment of debts from them because this causes the gentile distress. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: Even though he is distressed now, when he repays the money, he is happy afterward that he is relieved of the debt, and therefore there is concern that he will give thanks to his object of idol worship on his festival.
>>18456943Attacking a strawman doesn't make them smart, that's why they avoid any real theological debate that isn't jew nonsense, which at the core of Christianity it is in fact jew nonsense, they shut up when this fact is pointed out.
>>18458210RightSo it seems like my position perfectly describes the world we find ourselves inand yours is wish-washy nonsense that does not describe reality or how people actually act
>>18458157>Consciousness is an illusion
>>18458217>real theological debateSuch as?It's bullshit all the way down, emperor got no clothes
>>18458222You say that then ask what real theological debate? How are you this based and retarded at the same time?
>>18458224What is something you would consider "real theological debate"? My position is that there's no such thing. (because it's all bullshit)
>>18456943Atheism doesn’t have prophets and nobody takes everything these guys say as 100% true considering that atheists turned against Dawkins due to his transphobia.
>>18458214But how could you argue that something is "wrong" in an atheist paradigm.
>>18458243You can't, there's nothing such as objective wrong - for people who think morality is subjective
>>18456943People tend to promote ideologies because they gain things from said ideologies. The catalyst for the desire of the aforementioned gain tends to be some sort of predilection toward a behavior that can be traditionally interpreted as sin. In plain words, people promote ideologies that tell them what they want to hear, and they want to hear things that allow them to behave how they want to behave. This behavior is not unique to secular ideology, and the religious traditions have a storied history of trying to either weed these sorts of people out of the leadership pool or limit their influence to a lower level. Secular ideology lacks the framework of a proper religious tradition, so they tend toward a more cult-esque structure.Charlatanry is universal. You cannot escape it without structure. Ideology that preaches against structure and hierarchy for the sake of ideology itself tends toward charlatanry.
>>18457994Amen.
>>18458214>>18458259So atheists say the same words as Christians but they’re lying when they do it to manipulate others into doing what they want, while the Christian is sincerely representing his worldview.
>>18456953>None of these guys would dare talk to a philosopherhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uYfY18A4TE
>>18458302Exactly, and atheist would by lying he said it was OBJECTIVLY wrong kill him for funIt would just be SUBJECTIVLY wrong (and no one cares about that)
>>18458306What does it mean for something to be “subjectively wrong”? I think that’s a contradiction in terms
>>18458302No, the atheists actually believe it as well, but the grounding for their belief is subjective. The Christian grounding for the belief is a claim of objectivity rooted in divine authority. The liberal-minded atheist implicitly rejects the necessity for grounding whole cloth, and that is why their ideology is so epistemically lacking. The entire rationale for libshittery rests upon the historical foundation laid down by Christianity. It cannot exist outside of that context, both in a way that would be recognizably liberal and in a way that wouldn't offend the overwhelming majority of self-professed liberals. The predicates of the liberal ideology are inherent to the Christian religion, and they are inherent to no other religion or ideology.
>>18458309It's when you think something is wrong/bad
>>18458310>No, the atheists actually believe it as well, but the grounding for their belief is subjectiveAgain, I think that’s a contradiction. For a behavior to be wrong means it ought not be done, but for it to be “subjectively” so means there is no such ought. The premise of subjectivity is the denial of any standard by which such oughts are defined. For instance, if another tells me I ought not do something because that is their feeling, they have not given me anything to which I am bound, there is no standard and no ought. Objectively speaking there is no subject, only many different ‘things’, so what would cause the feelings of one thing to be a moral standard binding on the others? And if it is objected that this premise is objective rather than subjective, and that their feelings are not so binding on the others, that is not really to give an argument so much as to concede the whole matter by admitting there is no standard under which they “ought” to do anything. ‘I don’t like that’ is not a moral judgement.
>>18458319See >>18458320
>>18458310Good epistemology is thinking it's true that a man walked on water 2000 years ago
>>18458323https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
>>18458320Only thing that changes is if something is wrong relative to subjective standards or standards that exist independent of people's subjectivity You ought not do that if you want to be moral (in regards to subjective standards) You ought not do that if you want to be moral (in regards to objective standards) same thing
>>18458328Sort your epistemology out, so you're not stuck with ridiculous beliefs
>>18458334I get the impression that you chose to ignore and not read the post to which you replied because I directly refuted that there is such a thing as a “subjective standard”.
>>18458320>there is no standardCorrect. That is the end result of the rejection of objectivity. When all standards are rejected as false, then the primal default becomes the de facto standard. The primal default is power. All atheistic liberals are implicitly Nietzschean.
>>18458338You mean like men becoming women?
>>18458342I don't think men can become womenYou think a man walked on water 2000 years agoClean your own house
>>18458350If there’s no God why can’t a man become a woman?
>taking the nihilist’s bait
>>18458340Being Nietzschean is being a limp-wristed, retarded faggot?
>>18458362He cried for a horse.
>>18458339>>18458320How the fuck am I supposed to respond to this. It's just a mess to untangle you can't go 2 sentences without lying or contradicting yourself>The premise of subjectivity is the denial of any standard No. This is a lie. This is not the premise.>if another tells me I ought not do something because that is their feelingThen those feelings would be the standard they are judging you by >there is no standardThis is a lie. You just established that the feelings were the standard >Objectively speaking there is no subjectI don't understand what this sentence means. In a sense, everything is objective on my view. Is that what you mean? It's OBJECTIVLY true that I SUBJECTIVLY disvalue killing people for fun. Subjectively like pizza and dislike ants that doesn't mean those kind of things isn't made true by people's subjective likes and dislike, values, desires, etc I was more concerned with the ought stuff Probably I think the thing you're talking about and demanding for subjective morality to do - is just gibberish nonsense even if I didn't understand what exactly the complain was supposed to be, It's probably heading that direction It's a feature of my view that it doesn't make claims that people ought do stuff they don't care about. Means it make sense.
>>18458362Yes? Stop being shallow. The individuals on a day to day basis may not be a caricature of the super man, but the ideology the individuals subscribe to enforces itself through Nietzschean means. You may not get into a fist fight with someone for violating the liberal directive, but the state will gladly enforce that directive with violence. The ideology of liberalism serves as an insulation from the harsh power-driven world within which it subsists. Think of liberalism as a walled garden, and think of the wall as the state that interacts with that which exists outside of the garden. Those who attempt to escape the garden are stopped by the wall. Those who attempt to infiltrate are stopped by the wall. The wall is not rooted in truth or fact, but rather rooted in power. You may move freely so long as you remain, ideologically speaking, within the garden.
>>18458369>It's a feature of my view that it doesn't make claims that people ought do stuff they don't care about. Means it make sense.I mean stuff like this:You would probably say that it's true that "I ought to obey God"I think that is nonsense. Suppose I don't want to obey God. Why should I obey God????It can't be made sense of you can just repeat the sentence there is no explanation for how this normative interatrial is supposed to push meThis is made perfectly understandable if obeying God was something I subjectively cared about and wanted to do now there's no mystery I obey God, because that is something I value Is this what you were talking about?This is just more of the same stuff that has been going on the entire threadwhining about how the subjective morality doesn't do things it's not supposed to do of course it doesn't do these kind of things I think is conceptually confused! That's a feature, not a bug
>>18458369Standards are objective by definition. Your entire ideological framework is emotional masturbation. You are not intelligent enough to be having these conversations.
>>18458342>>18458352>Christians in charge of going 2 seconds without thinking about trannies I don't believe men can become womenI don't believe jews can fly or split the red seaI don't believe in Santa Claus That's just how powerful my epistemology is, it gets me to these awesome truths about reality.
>>18456943>these smarmy faggots still make christians and sandniggers seethe 15+ years after they stopped being relevantshamefur dispray
>>18458033>The first man sinnedHow could an onnipotent man not see that this happened?>or to murder other people There are dozens of example of people doing this in the bible and even called righteous because of that and many exmaples of Yahweh commending people to kill other people.Christianity also would have never spread that far or it would possible have ceased through exist if it didn't also spread through the sword. You talk like a complete retard.
>>18458380Clearly I'm using objective and subjective as shorthand for mind independent and mind (stance) dependent
>>18458380>Standards are objective by definition.Objective in a trivial sense - it's objectively true that I like pizza Subjective in the sense that matters to this topic - me liking pizza depends on my subjective preference for pizza This is not a useful point to makeit's not relevant to what we're talking about
>>18458176>if you weren't sired as a result of cousinage1st cousin marriage isn't a sin in the bible. I don't know whether it's a sin if a brother and a sister have sex with each other in the bible. I have to look it up agian but there are many cases of siblings having siblings with each other in the bible including Adam's children unless God created some new humans again but it wasn't mentioned there.
>>18458200What if the dictator is a christian who kills mostly non-christians. Would the christian arguing with you have a problem with that?
>>18458387>>18458394>hobo schizo ramblingsLay off the booze.It makes absolutely no damn sense what you’re trying to say. The objectivity of you believing something is unrelated to the objectivity of the thing you believe. “I believe in XYZ” can be a properly objective statement, but the objective veracity of that precise XYZ is what’s in question. No one gives a damn about your personal opinions.
>>18458369You’re a seething retard betraying your low IQ>y-your lying (read: proving me wrong)If there’s no God there’s nothing wrong with lying anyways so I don’t understand your point>I don't understand what this sentence meansThat’s apparent, because you’re an idiot. But what I’m saying is that a question could be phrased, “why would your feelings be the basis of my moral duties?” But this is a misnomer, because objectively there is no “you”. There is no quality of “youness” which ontologically privileges you compared to other substances, so considering the matter in an objective way we cannot even consider “you”, only one of many things. And then the question becomes, “why would this one thing’s feelings be the basis of morality for other things?” It’s absurd, when the false ontological privilege is removed it becomes self-evidently absurd. To this I pre-empt an objection from an intelligent specimen of your false religion (which is not you, clearly), which asserts that my argument is circular because it assumes an objective premise, i.e. that the one things feelings are the basis of an objective morality which supersedes the feelings of the other things. But as I pointed out, this is not really an objection but a concession, because it grants the original fundamental allegation, that under “subjective morality” there are no moral standards period, not objective and not “subjective” (because objectivity is an intrinsic quality of morality as a concept, as this experiment illustrates), since now that the one things feelings are not a standard binding on the others, we are left in a position where the other did not in fact violate an ought under a standard to which they were bound in any sense, not in any way, shape, or form. Hence, “subjective morality” is simply a contradiction in terms. It is the absence or denial of morality.(cont.)
>>18458369>Subjectively like pizza and dislike antsHowever, “I like this” or “I dislike that” are not moral judgements. Absent from this statement is the potential for any moral objection. >is just gibberish nonsenseI don’t believe you believe that, in fact I think you believe the opposite, that the absurdist garbage you profess is gibberish nonsense. If I strapped you down and started torturing you with a chainsaw, you would be deeply impressed with a sense of the moral injustice of it, because deep in your heart of hearts you know there is an objective moral standard, you’re just suppressing this truth in your heart. You know there is a God, He has revealed Himself to you, the problem is you suppress the truth.>It's a feature of my view that it doesn't make claims that people ought do stuff they don't care about.Ok, I don’t care about not killing people so your worldview doesn’t make claims I shouldn’t kill them then.>>18458377>Suppose I don't want to obey God. Why should I obey God?Oh the answer hasn’t changed since the last time you asked this stupid question. You ought to do what you ought to do because that’s what the word means. Obeying God is your objective duty, which means it’s independent of your own wants and desires, so it doesn’t matter if you want to or not. It’s completely irrelevant from the subject at hand.
>>18458405>why would your feelings be the basis of my moral dutiesI don't think MY feelings is the basis of YOUR duties.My position is that YOUR feelings is the basis of YOUR duties People act according their owns refence and values. Not other people values. Not "moral facts" that exist in Platonic etherspace or God's mind.
Appropriating objectivity just to make your own vacuous beliefs seem less ad hoc is funny, and it’s even funnier that it sounds like something both a crack head and a university professor would try to sell you on. Bless you /his/
>>18458409>If I strapped you down and started torturing you with a chainsaw, you would be deeply impressed with a sense of the moral injustice of it, because deep in your heart of hearts you know there is an objective moral standardThis is so sillyFeeling moral injustice is perfectly compatible with subjective moralityI don't like it when people are chainsawed. I super duper don't want to be chainsawed!I don't have this need to point at some God-standard (that isn't my standard) and say the chainsaw is wrong in regards to thatI'm perfectly fine with saying it's wrong in regards to MY standard, which just is my preference for people not to do that (it's really strong preference, it's very important to me)
>>18458421>I don't think MY feelings is the basis of YOUR duties.>My position is that YOUR feelings is the basis of YOUR dutiesBut this also carries with it self-defeating problems, 1. This still leaves you in a position unable to make moral objections, i.e. nobody’s behavior under any circumstances could be condemned, since it was not wrong according to their moral standards 2. What is the cause of the “duty” here? Why would it be wrong for me to act contrary to my own supposed moral standard? Whence does the wrongness proceed? We still seek any basis for any standard whatsoever >People act according their owns refence and valuesThis is also irrelevant. We are not talking about “is” but “ought”, so how people actually act is simply irrelevant to how they ought to act. I have pointed out many times to you how irrelevant these things are, but you have never ceased to raise them anyways because you are extraordinarily dishonest. Every time we have spoken you have twisted everything you could, you have knowingly raised every irrelevant point you could, you have always pretended to not understand basic concepts kindergarteners can grasp, all plainly with the conscious intention of deceiving. And I believe the reason you are so extraordinarily deceptive is because you are demonized. There is no way to free yourself nor to escape the coming judgement except to turn to Jesus Christ as your savior.>>18458432Believing in moral wrongs is not compatible with denying moral wrongs, no.
>>18458373Sorry dude, I just wanted to say something stupid.
>>18458396The Church banned cousin marriages to the seventh degree.
>>18458434>nobody’s behavior under any circumstances could be condemned, since it was not wrong according to their moral standardsI judge other people in regards to MY standards, not theirsI can sincerely disagree with other people's standards. And super dislike what they do. I don't have to care that they like it. Say "that's horrible!" and condemn them, maybe even try to stop them if I dislike what they do enoughThis is how humans act
>>18458440There is a difference between the church and the bible. And it seemed to have been only the roman catholic church. Protestant churches don't seem to have a problem with it
>>18458445The RCC compiled the bible nigga. You don't think the bible informs Christian teaching and doctrine?
>>18458434Believing in SUBJECTIVE moral wrongs is compatible with denying OBJECTIVE moral wrongs.All your complaining is like this. The problems would evaporate if you disambiguated what you were saying, instead of equivocating and whined about how [my view] doesn't deal with stuff that isn't part of [my view], of course it doesn't - it's not supposed to
>>18458445>Protestant churches don't seem to have a problem with itI’m shocked that liberal Christianity doesn’t have a problem with something. Astonished even. Wow
>>18458452You're such an imbecile
>>18458451The catholic ban on cousin marriage is another proof that morality is subjective. They invented another rule for their own agenda in that case the real reason was to destroy clan structures.>The RCC compiled the bible niggaI think you are brown. It doesn't matter if the RCC compiled the church or not and back when it was compiled there was no catholic church. It all developed over some time.>You don't think the bible informs Christian teaching and doctrine?They invented a rule that has nothing to do with the bible, they invented many other rules that had nothing to do with the bible.You seem not to understand this.
>>18458441>I judge other people in regards to MY standardsYou do treat yourself as a god in your insane idolatry, but this hardly means anything. They still did nothing wrong according to your worldview because they violated no standard. They had no duty to do otherwise.>And super dislike That’s irrelevant, because disliking something isn’t a moral judgement.>I don't have toWhat does that mean? I don’t know what that means>Say "that's horrible!" and condemn them, maybe even try to stop them if I dislike what they do enoughRight, you could say the words “that’s horrible”, but that would just be empty noise coming from an ass’s mouth. You can’t condemn them because you have no basis for it, you only prove your ability to contradict yourself you idiot. And it’s irrelevant if you try to stop them or not. >This is how humans actIrrelevant>>18458452>Believing in SUBJECTIVE moral wrongs is compatible with denying OBJECTIVE moral wrongs.There’s no such thing as a “subjective moral wrong”, it’s a contradiction in terms. What you mean is that you deny the existence of moral wrongs, which is incompatible with believing in moral wrongs. >disambiguated>equivocatingThere’s been no ambiguity and no equivocation, this is a lie you’re suddenly telling with the intention of deceiving people into thinking you haven’t been refuted.>[my view] doesn't deal with stuff that isn't part of [my view], of course it doesn'tOf course your view doesn’t deal with moral standards, your view is a denial of moral standards.
>>18458459>liberal ChristianityBut enough about Romanism
>>18458434People ought to act in a way that achieves their goals and desires. - This is perfectly coherentSuppose someone who only cares about eating apples. They ought to eat apples. It seems like they would be making a mistake if they did something else. You're the one that brings the gibberish:That someone who only cares about eating apples. "Actually they ought not eat apples! They ought to obey God." Why ought they do something they don't care about? How is that supposed to work????This makes no sense This is gibberish
>>18458466>The catholic ban on cousin marriage is another proof that morality is subjective.You stupid motherfucker, you fucking ape.How does that prove ANYTHING? Are you actually brain damaged?
>>18458475>People ought to act in a way that achieves their goals and desires1. Why? 2. So I ought to strap you down and torture you with a chainsaw.
>>18458479>So I ought to strap you down and torture you with a chainsawWhy is that your example? Are you saying that you would do this if you ceased to believe in christianity?
>>18458475>How is that supposed to work?It works because it’s objectively their duty to obey God, so it’s irrelevant if they want to or not.
>>18458482If Christianity is not true there is no reason why it would be wrong for me to do that.
>>18456943They weren't people who got famous for being particularly intelligent, or having exceptionally great arguments, they got famous because they were skilled rhetorically and were good showmen.And the time they had their heyday was a time which was very open to hearing out atheistic arguments.They just weren't exceptional people. And, like most hard atheists, were people just as zealous and irrationally motivated as any priest or imam they tried to debate.
>>18458484So you admit that you are a dangerous psychopath?
>>18458468Obviously I deny what YOU mean by moral wrongs - when you use the term "moral wrongs", you mean "objective moral wrongs"I believe that morality is subjective. I deny that there is such a thing as objective moral wrongs.You think morality is objective, and got a hardon for not disambiguating which way you are using termsWhen you're telling me my view can't account for moral wrongs, you mean that it can't account for objective moral wrongs. Which is trivially true.I'm cornered with subjective moral wrongs, the thing that actually exist in reality.
>>18458479>So I ought to strap you down and torture you with a chainsaw.If that's the only thing you cared about and wanted to do. Why shouldn't you? (not a rhetorical question. Genuinely, why shouldn't you? Make it make sense)
>>18458492>I'm cornered with subjective moral wrongs, the thing that actually exist in reality.Is this really a can of worms you want to open now?
>>18458483You need 3 proofs that zhis would be their objective duty.Your first proof has to be that God exists.Your second proof has to be that God cares about humans obeying him.Your third proof has to be proving that your religion is the right one.If your religion is a false one then it could mean that following your religion means disobeying him unless God doesn't care about religion.
>>18458497Do you think it's crazy that I actually think my view is true?Of course I'm committed to my view being true
>>18458490Not him, but it is entirely possible to refrain from doing something for legal reasons despite not believing it to be morally wrong. The feeling of revulsion you get when someone says torture isn’t wrong is a religious feeling. The existence of an idea or action that offends your piety is not an argument for whether or not the aim of said piety is legitimate. The legitimacy rests firmly within its objectivity, and if it lacks objectivity then it lacks legitimacy. Force is not an argument. It is an assertion of subjectivity outright through violent means. All liberals are Nietzschean.
>>18458483Right. So I don't care about obeying God.Yet I *should* obey God. Just cuz.Gibberish clown view thousands of years of rich philosophical tradition, btw
>>18458504>Just cuzNo, because adherence to the truth is a mark of sanity. You can reject the legitimacy of God, but you cannot reject the legitimacy of truth.Inb4 you do the thing.
>>18458503>it is entirely possible to refrain from doing something for legal reasons despite not believing it to be morally wrongI think this perfectly describes how we see people acting in realityPeople have multiple goals and desires, and sometimes they conflict If you kinda wanna chainsaw people. But you also don't want to go to prisonIt's perfectly rational to NOT chainsaw people. You're still acting in a way that achieves your goals and desires.
>>18458501How could a subjective idea of what people should do exist in reality?
>>18458515Where else would something exist?I don't understand what it means for something to exist and not do so in reality
>>18458521You deny the existence of objective morals but insist that subjective morals are found "in reality" so, where are they found?
>>18458537I'm a Neonplatonist, ideas exist in the human mind as reflections of casually inert forms that float in aetherspace, they have no spatial location
>>18458542>neonplatonist
>>18458542Also wow, you are so ideologically confused that I could only think you're a teenager. How the fuck are you an atheist neonplatonist?
>>18458537Human brain, between your ears
>>18458552Yeah, so are there morality particles?
>>18458555No, there are not morality particlesThere are humans and human behavior
>>18458561Okay, well that's not subjective morality then, is it
>>18458562Keep scrambling
>>18458561Behavior isn’t something that can be objective or subjective. Statements about behavior can be, but not the behaviors themselves.
>>18458565see >>18458426
>>18458565Nice non-answer.
>>18456943Psalm 14:1, next
>>18458566When I use the word morality, human behavior is very much a part of itIf you disambiguated and asked a specific and clearly worded question this would not be a problem"Where is morality located?" is a dumb question Besides, I'm happy with my retarded low resolution explanation This is infinitely better than any explanation moral realists bring to the table I will elaborate on my theory if you explain how human brains got epistemic access to "objective moral facts"
>>18458572You are changing the topic and throwing shit at the wall to see what sticksit's incredibly obvious
>>18458583>Besides, I'm happy with my retarded low resolution explanation Well if you would disambiguate and illuminate then you’d probably be morally fulfilled in an objective subject-specific sense, perspectively speaking of course. It’s al very introspective in an objective sense specific subject-particular case, I’m sure.
How to moral realists explain moral disagreement?Shouldn't humans just have the same morals, if we get our morals by access the same objective moral facts?
>>18458588Where do you think morality is located?
>>18458592>How toCan you learn English before you start typing away with your fucking shit encrusted jeet fingers.The concept has been explained like 20 times in this thread and you still don't understand it.There is no subjective morality. Morality is oughts, you cannot have a SUBJECTIVE OUGHT. OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE WHO ACT CONTRARY TO THESE OUGHTS ARE SIMPLY ACTING IMMORAL. YOU FUCKTARD.
>>18458221>>Consciousness is an illusionThat's literally correct though.
>>18458603How could I go about figuring out if I was acting according or contrary to the objective oughts?
in the defence of subjective anon, one could maybe argue in a sophistic understanding of reality, were the perspective of a person , makes reality and to some degree holds godhood over reality, as to why subjective morality does exist.but I mean thats too much of a shaman mindset I think, most people who belive in subjective morality are materialistic atheists.despite the fact that materalistic atheists should belive in materialistic morality.I think the cruz of it, and I don't totally understand them mind you, is that completle absolutes about life don't actually exist , and we only exist by approximation.but we are also so smart about reality, that we already know how every single concept should work , and their is no more room for exploration.imagine getting into a mindset that is both hyper skeptical, but also thinks are current situation we no posible changes is basically all of reality being understood 99%.like if we discover gravitron or something like that, we would have a "closed" understanding of reality , their is nothing else. sorry for sounding like a twat
>>18458621If I am aware of an illusion then I am conscious to that fact. If that is all I know, how would I know it's an illusion? It's nonsensical.
>something can only be moral if the skydaddy decides itHow retarded does one have to be to think like this?
>>18456943DrBlitz, Forrest Valkai, Justin DZ Debates and Matt Dillahunty. The new 4 horsemen of the Atheist movement.
>>18458645briliant argumentation anon
>>18458663It's not an argument, it's an honest question I have.
>>18458638>retarded circular argumentNot exactly showing your brightest side here. Conscious is an illusion is just what all scientific evidence is pointing towards.
>>18458681What?
>>18458683What don't you understand now?
>>18458685Where is the circular argument?
>>18458687>consciousness is not an illusion because I would recognize it's an illusionThis is your retarded argument, correct?
>>18458688No. Get some glasses.
>>18458690What is it then?I only know the illusion, so it can't be one? That's even more retarded kek
>>18458698I am amazed at how you can read my post twice and come away with two different meanings, neither of which could charitably be taken from it. Maybe you have a brain problem.
>>18458703>doesn't even explain his retarded word salat Cool then, I accept your concession
>>18458707There is no word salad, how the fuck do you not understand the post. It's not an argument, it's just an observation of the fact that if you're AWARE of an ILLUSION, then you are CONSCIOUS of it.If the ILLUSION is -ALL YOU KNOW-, then how could you KNOW ANYTHING EXCEPT THAT? You are fucking stupid and trying to tell me I am retarded? Fuck you.
>>18458708So it was this >>18458698after all, you're just seething I succinctly summarized your retarded argument >waaah being conscious is all I know so it can't be an illusion >as we all know all illusions stop working if we become aware of them
>>18458711No, it would still be an illusion, idiot. But if that is all you know, then how could you ever make that observation?You are aggressively stupid, perhaps there is lead in your water.
>>18458715>if the earth is all you know, how could you make an observation about space Do you realize how retarded you sound?You make the observation by observing other beings with consciousness and what affects it
X is an illusion if assuming that X is real leads to inconsistencies. It is in that sense that consciousness is an illusion.
>>18458717No, it's not like that, Dennett makes an unfalsifiable claim you monkey. I am again amazed by your stupidity. You should consider suicide.
>>18458723>Dennett makes an unfalsifiable claimWhere?
