They keep repeating that living beings are insignificant, lacking any immutable, intrinsic dignity; yet, when someone points out the consequences of that worldview, they mock the critic and twist their words.The author of the tweet isn't saying that Christian morality is the only thing holding them back—there could be other, personal reasons. They are making a simple point: "If morality is subjective and living beings are just insignificant sacks of cells, then fucking a corpse is no different from fucking a stuffed animal; they are merely groups of atoms rearranged in different ways."The reason an atheist isn't a necrophile, despite holding that worldview, isn't simply because they are a "good person"; it is because objective morality is so self-evident to any rational being that it cannot be ignored, and also because of personal reasons.That is like someone saying that an object's colors do not exist and are subjective, yet still insisting that a particular square is objectively blue—and that anyone who calls it red is a fool and a bad person.If you’re going to hold that worldview, at least be consistent and don’t contradict yourself, and make an effort to understand what the other person is explaining to you. If being an atheist makes you so intelligent, then grasping what you read shouldn't be a problem for you.
>>18573294>resorts to discussing extreme sexual perversion in graphic detail in order to "OWN" the gaytheistsLet me guess: Catholic?
>>18573294Show me where, in any religion, they discuss having sex with road kill. Show me any atheist who has had sex with road kill, and is defending it by utilitarianism. ...I'll wait.
>>18573294Why do reigious people believe their morals come from god instead of words written down by men?
>>18573306Because we define morality as "what God commands". And he gave us a book detailing those commands.
>>18573302>ad hominem >>18573303>moving the goalposts
>>18573294Did this tweet go viral or something? There's 3 threads about it.
>>18573316its probably said fag trying to promote his tweet, and getting increasingly mad when he doesn't get the responses he wants hence making more threads
>>18573313>MOM>MOM>MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM>YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LOGICAL DEBATE ABOUT CORPSE FUCKING WITH ME>OR ELSE YOU'RE OKAY WITH ME DOING IT!!!It's a shame your parents didn't just beat the stupid out of you when they had the chance. Oh well, the burn pit awaits.
>>18573312He didnt.He doesnt exist.He ws invented by men.
>>18573322Sorry, that's not what the Bible teaches. Have fun burning.
>>18573313Neither. Crack a book. Ad Hominem would be: Interesting you worry about the morality of road kill when you eat meat where living animals you eat live in despicable conditions on corporate farms.Moving the goal posts: oh yeah? Well the religious are responsible for wars, and their priests rape children. ... thus concludes the lesson.
>>18573326Whatever helps you cope
>>18573318I didn't know threads about that tweet already existed. I chose to post it here because I don't like using social media.Also, how would you answer his question? Why is committing [cruel and disgusting act] morally wrong according to an atheist-nihilist worldview, without resorting to circular reasoning?
>I totally didn't know>also I totally don't like using social media, which is why I posted social media content on herenobody believes you bro
>>18573327Yes, it's moving the goalpost because he is asking me to provide examples, and asking for examples is not a counterargument and does not answer the question.
>>18573350I mean that I don't use social media to comment or post. I only chat on messaging apps.And I don't need you to believe me; believing what I say isn't the goalpost.
>>18573341>Why is committing [cruel and disgusting act] morally wrong according to an atheist-nihilist worldview,Because a book i read said it was bad.
>>18573294Nobody fucking cares, this board is just a couple of christian faglords and the guys who troll them. I'd be better off deliberately going insane so I can hallucinate someone intelligent to speak with.
>>18573374Do you mean "The God Delusion"? The atheist bible (a book that speaks only the truth).
>>18573382No it was a book regarding the dangers of necrophilia made a pretty convincing argument i prefer it over the alternative proposed by some that its bad because an jewish sky wizard will smite you
>>18573387Explaining why an act is objectively wrong is not the same as giving reasons to prevent someone from committing that specific act.It seems you are talking about the latter.For example, someone might persuade another person to stop using a certain thing, but that does not mean using that thing is objectively wrong. Persuasion is not always accompanied by the truth.
>>18573392>act is objectively wrongNo such thing all morality is subjective.
>>18573393Why do you think morality is subjective? Moral norms are just as self-evident as the fact that a world exists outside of you.An atheist might say they believe a world exists outside of themselves because they experience it every day and have a strong intuition about it; yet the same applies to morality, and despite this, they maintain that it is subjective.
>>18573404>Moral norms are just as self-evident as the fact that a world exists outside of you.In what way? Morality is based on feelings
>>18573406"Evident" means that something leaves no room for uncertainty because it is so clear, meaning no reasoning is required to reach the conclusion.When people witness a great injustice, they immediately know it is wrong. Even young children, for instance, understand the concept of "injustice."
>>18573415>injusticeCompletely arbitrary and again based on your feelings.
Why is it okay to eat roadkill but not have sex with it? Most people outside of very niche circumstances don’t actually need to eat it to survive. In fact why is it okay to kill and eat any animal, but not have sex with it, when plant based alternatives exist and eating animals is done for pleasure? To answer your question for having sex with roadkill, it isn’t immoral, but is still made illegal for practical reasons (ie sanitation, public health). There are animals you can’t eat as roadkill because of health reasons too. Also, much like roadkill there is no way to prove you didn’t just kill the animal to have sex with it with no resistance, then claimed it was roadkill. This is why there are states in real life that regulate it (someone can kill game, then falsely claim it was roadkill).
>>18573406And is truth not based on feelings either? For example, when someone dreams, they have the intuition that something false is true because they have that feeling. Or when you have the feeling that someone is deceiving you. Does that mean truth is subjective because it is linked to feelings?
>>18573421>And is truth not based on feelings either? Truth is just observed reality.No its not based on feelings.
>>18573429>Observing realityWell, that is how moral norms are known, by observing, feeling, and listening to reality, just as with truth in general.There are cases where feelings clash with reason.For instance, someone might want to hit another person because they caused anger, yet their intuition tells them it is morally wrong. In this example, feelings are being distinguished from moral intuition. If moral norms were merely feelings, it would be impossible to separate them. The brain distinguishes between the truth (doing X is wrong) and feelings (wanting to do it for pleasure or revenge).
>>18573439>by observing, feeling, and listening to realityYes and you have reactions towards these things and then create subjective morals out of your feelings.
>>18573294I still have never seen an atheist derive an ought from an is and I don't image it will ever happen.
>>18573294Ok OP you convinced me that objective morality is correct. Now please use your great mind to explain how a jewish carpenter died and came back to life in three days, and then flew into the sky.
>>18573294Repulsive behaviors are considered repulsive, because most people just hate the idea of participating in them. Most people simply don't want to fuck a roadkill, they don't think it's prohibited, they just don't want to do it at all. Something has to be deeply wrong for a person to ask such a question at all. It reminds me of why gamblers gamble. They just don't care about losing. They celebrate the occasional win, and forget the losses. Most people have zero chance of falling to gambling. They would hate the losses, and quit.
>>18573294What if God commanded you to sex0r the deer, would you do it or would you question Gods morality?
>>18573294How is not fucking roadkill a moral dilemma to your christcucks? Is that something you struggle with daily, the intense desire to prowl the highways in search of a fresh possum corpse to fuck?I don't fuck roadkill because it's disgusting to me. It's not a moral choice, it's just fucking disgusting.
>>18573294Whether or not you should fuck roadkill is not a moral judgement. Christkeks continue to be retarded
>>18573326>being the meme
>>18573294You've hit it on the head OPThis is the logical conclusion of atheism, but since most self-proclaimed Western atheists still pretend to adhere to Christian morality they will deny it while also denying the existence or usefulness of Christian morality.
>>18573327>r*dditspace>does not answer the quesrionMEDS. NOW!
>>18577558>not touching grassYikes sweaty. Megacringe
I can imagine many things that are morally worse than having sex with a roadkill (like, an actual murder). Why are theists so hung up on this argument being some king of gotcha?
>>18577615Because they want to distract you way from the fact religious countries are shitholes crawling with murder and child rape because they think those are no biggie.
>>18573319Hey we're not the ones doing it
>>18577615Atheists have no basis for their morality besides peer pressure. There is no reason, under atheist materialism, why there couldn't be a culture where putting live babies into blenders and making baby soup would be seen as morally good.You're the one hung up on this example because it is so damaging to your pretense of morality. I always loathe people who try to sat "no u" instead of actually engaging with an argument.
>>18578855What's the Christian reason for putting live babies into blenders and making baby soup?>God said itUntil you can prove he exists, that means "my feefees."
>>18578864>"no u", the post
This thread is utterly retarded on all sides but >Atheists have no basis for their morality besides peer pressureThis is correct. See abortion being acceptable when in fact it is murder of a living human being by biological definition permitted because unprotected vaginal sex & inconvenience of carrying to term are seen as more important. Than human life. Yes, legal abortion means a very specific type of sex is more important than human life.
>>18578855Peer pressure created the social structures that suppress weirdos. Christianity degenerates into Taiping rebellions and self-castrators that peer pressure then needed to suppress, so no different from atheists. Same with muslims.
>>18578879So christcucks blend babies. Got it.
>>18579042So you don't have an argument? Just "no u"?So much for "reason" and "logic"!
>>18579189You're the one that has to provide something here. What's the Christian reason for not putting live babies into blenders and making baby soup?
>>18573294>because objective morality is so self-evidentA long-long time ago, there was an ape. And it was afraid of catching a disease.But being a fucking ape, it could not trace the actual sources of the diseases, only apply rule-of-thumb 'disgust/indignation'-rules.That's why Christians shriek 'filth' and 'unclean' even today.That's why it feels wrong to shit in a sink.That's why it feels wrong (for pajeet monkeys) to walk inside home with boots on.That's why it feels wrong (for brazilian proles) not to wear uniform.[1]The object X of "apply a disgust-rule" could be literally anything. There is no self-evidence, retard.[1] Haidt J. - 'The Righteous Mind. Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion' (2012):"I used two stories taken directly from Turiel’s research: a girl pushes a boy off a swing (that’s a clear moral violation) and a boy refuses to wear a school uniform (that’s a conventional violation). This validated my methods. It meant that any differences I found on the harmless taboo stories could not be attributed to some quirk about the way I phrased the probe questions or trained my interviewers. The upper-class Brazilians looked just like the Americans on these stories. But the working-class Brazilian kids usually thought that it was wrong, and universally wrong, to break the social convention and not wear the uniform. <...> This pattern supported Shweder: the size of the moral-conventional distinction varied across cultural groups."
>>185792282/2
You already made this asinine nonsense thread before OP, why did crop the name of the rightoid xitter gaymer eceleb you got this update airdropepd in your skull btw?
>>18579197Because humans are created in the image of God and have inherent dignity? Because objective morality exists?Are you pro-abortion? Then killing babies is fine, at least in the womb. Why not outside the womb? What you do with the dead bodies is of no concern, just like having sex with roadkill. Again, my contention is that atheism does not permit a universal morality to exist, everything is a social construct. So if your society was blending babies, you'd be all for it.
>it's another "we personified our subjective moral beliefs so that means they're objective" thread
I think technically God only forbids cumming on the ground and in a man, am I wrong? I dont think he has opined on any other scenario.
>>18579272Sorry, I was wrong. He forbids sex with animals in Leviticus, BUT, only live animals. So sex with carcasses is technically ok. For Christians. Jews still cant because of the purity laws.
>>18579263>What you do with the dead bodies is of no concernAmen, brother
>>18579263>Because humans are created in the image of God and have inherent dignity? Because objective morality exists?Says who?>Are you pro-abortion?Irrelevant.>Again, my contention is that atheism does not permit a universal morality to exist, everything is a social construct.Unlike what?
>>18573294I'm bored so I'll bite.You can have two coherent views:a) it is not immoral to fuck roadkill. The roadkill doesn't feel, so nobody gets hurt. If the roadkill is fresh, you won't get any disease. It's all fine. Most people are against it because it feels icky, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it.b) it is immoral to fuck roadkill because if someone gets a hobby of fucking roadkill they might start killing animals just to satisfy their urges, and killing animals for fun often leads to harming people. Not to mention that they might start fucking already rotting roadkill which leads to disease.Catholics owned, suck my dick.----------------------------------If you want to own a catholic, the easiest way is to ask them whether it's moral for priests to rape little boys and then for higher-ups to cover that shit up. I still haven't heard a coherent argument why the church wouldn't take institutional measures against crimes that have been legally proven in courts. Their official position on the issue is literally "you can't do shit to us lol".>>18573302Fucking bingo
>>18579263>Are you pro-abortion? Then killing babies is fine, at least in the womb. Why not outside the womb?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#Paleolithic_and_NeolithicBreaking news: cavemen were athiests!"infanticide rates in prehistoric times were between 15% and 50% of the total number of births">Because objective morality exists?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#Middle_AgesBreaking news: medieval chriggers were objectively moral! (no, they weren't)"Whereas theologians and clerics preached sparing their lives, newborn abandonment continued as registered in both the literature record and in legal documents.[14]:16 According to William Lecky, exposure in the early Middle Ages, as distinct from other forms of infanticide, "was practiced on a gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference and, at least in the case of destitute parents, considered a very venial offence" ""very high sex ratios were common in even late medieval Europe, which may indicate sex-selective infanticide."
>>18579263>Then killing babies is fine, at least in the womb. Why not outside the womb?>>18578910>"A fifteenth-century Spanish theologian, Alonso Tostado, describes a comparable experiment attributed to Arnold of Villanova, in which an imperfect humanoid being was created in a vessel from male semen. But Alonso relates that the humanoid was deliberately destroyed by Arnold before he had the chance to know whether God would infuse a rational soul into it."
>>18579288>it is immoral to fuck roadkill because if someone gets a hobby of fucking roadkill they might start killing animals just to satisfy their urges, and killing animals for fun often leads to harming peopleinstead of a convoluted give-a-mouse-a-cookie explanation, how about fucking roadkill is wrong because it just is
>>18579410The Atheist Maxim: Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
>>18579415Your religion is based entirely around the idea that even the most vile corpse fucker can fuck as much roadkill as his cock can handle so long as he says "sowwy, I wepent" before he dies.
>>18579415>Nothing is true, everything is permitted"Whereas hyperstitional agitation produces a ‘positive unbelief’ – a provisionalizing of any reality frame in the name of pragmatic engagement rather than epistemological hesitation – OGU [One God Universe] feeds on belief. In order to work, the story that runs reality has to be believed, which is also to say that the existence of a control program determining reality must not be suspected or believed. Credulity in the face of the OGU meta-narrative is inevitably coupled with a refusal to accept that entities like Control have any substantive existence. That’s why, to get out of OGU, a systematic shedding of all beliefs is a prerequisite. “Only those who can leave behind everything they have ever believed in can hope to escape” (WL116). Techniques of escape depend on attaining the unbelief of assassin-magician Hassan i Sabbah: nothing is true, everything is permitted. Once again, Kaye cautioned that this must be carefully distinguished from ‘postmodern relativism’. Burroughs-Sabbah’s ‘nothing is true’ cannot be equated with postmodernism’s ‘nothing is real’. On the contrary: nothing is true because there is no single, authorized version of reality – instead, there is a superfluity, an excess, of realities. “The Adversary’s game plan is to persuade you that he does not exist” (WL12). ""Both conspiracy and common sense – the ‘normal reality’ script – depend on the dialectical side of the double game, on reflective twins, belief and disbelief, because disbelief is merely the negative complement of belief: cancellation of the provocation, disintensification, neutralization of stimulus – providing a metabolic yawn-break in the double-game.Unbelief escapes all this by building a plane of potentiality, upon which the annihilation of judgment converges with real cosmic indeterminacy."
>>18579410>how about fucking roadkill is wrong because it just is500IQ chad move. Teach me your ways.
>>18573294>if it wasn't for jesus, europeans would spend their free time banging roadkillwaddafug
Is it your conscience that's keeping you from fucking roadkill? But for me it's just that it's fucking gross. In fact it hadn't ever occurred to me
