>>24878218
"Read Spinoza" says a guy who's never read Spinoza, only summaries that his AI feeds him.

>if no God then no Morality
>czechm8 atheists
another day, another twitter slop thread featuring two retards arguing over who's more retarded.
at least this one features some pseudo-Christian roleplay, this board loves thinly pretending to believe in God.

>>24878224
unless you read him in the original latin, you're pretty much doing the same thing

>>24878280
1) I can read Latin

2) No, reading in translation is not the same as reading an AI summary

>>24878288
yup AI is better than relying on one translator.

Spinoza is an egoist though? He just considers knowledge to be the most gratifying pleasure to himself but he believes everything does and can’t only do what is gratifying to itself even if everything is ultimately one

>>24878280
His original work was in Dutch, the Latin was published later. I know Wikipedia says it was written in Latin but he wrote one in Dutch first and frankly it would be way easier if that were used as the basis of the translations because the Latin can be a lot more ambiguous

>Spinoza’s metaphysics of God is neatly summed up in a phrase that occurs in the Latin (but not the original Dutch) edition of the Ethics

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#Ethi

>>24878308
Ironically btw the Latin was written for people who couldn’t read Dutch

>>24878308
Feitgecheckt door 100% echte nederlandse patriotten

>>24878280
btfo

>>24878218
He's right. Read Spinoza, Engels and Lenin to understand why things are the way they are.

>>24878218
no

>>24878218
>you are permitted to do whatever you want

I see this line of thinking a lot. If there is no god, anything is permitted. It's such a weird fucking idea to me. Permitted by whom? And if there is a god, clearly he permits all kinds of horrible shit anyway. So what the fuck is the point of statements like this?

>>24879045
>Permitted by whom?
You

>>24878369
Or don't unless you want to be possessed by demons

If he'd read my 4chan posts he'd realize Spinozism is pure evil.

File: EthicalIntuitionism.jpg (65 KB, 324x500)

65 KB JPG

>>24878218
Read Huemer.

>>24878218
suffering based ethics

Religion hijacking morality is one of the worst developments in human history.

>>24879527
There is no real morality without a religious basis.

>>24879554
There is no religion without a forced, narrow version of morality based on telephone tag and conjecture. Religious texts are full of genocide, rape, slavery and instructions on how to ethnically cleanse nonbelievers. But it's ok because it's right and just in the eyes of my specific deity that only talks to me

>>24879527
I think theology hijacking history is the worst development in history.
adding phony moral judgements to purely historical events and simple records warped through botched translation.

>>24879568
Right. His points stands though. No need to be pissy about it, this isn't /v/

>>24879568
???
No need to be mad. Morality depends on your ultimate beliefs about reality.
If you are an atheist, there is no basis whatsoever. The best you can do is some form of hedonism, but it will be arbitrary.

>>24878308
And do you know what that original Dutch said? It said "we hebben een serieus probleem".

>>24878308
god dood wat nou

>>24878218
>without god there is no right or wrong
People who think this are genuinely crazy.

>>24879595
But that's true. Without God there is no basis for morality.

>>24879527
Nietzsche would agree (read The Antichrist)

>>24879595
Feel free to explain why you think that is.

>>24879599
But Nietzche more or less agreed that there is no real morality without religion, so he made some Superman cope.

>>24879598
god and morality are both fictions
also many people who believed in god had the divine mission to burn people alive so that's interesting

>>24879609
>>24879568
You guys really can't stick to the argument huh
/r/heckinwholesomeatheism isn't sending their best

>>24879609
>god and morality are both fictions
Yeah, if you are atheist, you believe this. Thank God I'm not an Atheist

>>24879609
>god and morality are both fictions
"god" isn't a fiction they were real tangible living and breathing beings with advanced technology.

>>24879595
it's less crazy and hubristic than believing your moral standards universal

>>24879605
I think he argues that the structure of morality is not rigid. Religion and dogmatic thinkers (Kant BTFO lol) try to force reality into precise structures that do not exist. Morality isn't a perfect idea that was created by God, but instead an imprecise way of thinking that evolves with society and human intellect. Dogmatists can't help but hijack the process, set it backwards, and claim to be superior moralists. Maybe I misinterpret everything, I am just a STEM fag that is trying to become a lit fag and philosopher fag.

>>24879621
He wrote about how without a belief in God people would fall in nihilism. He proposed something, but even so.

>>24879619
I'm not saying my moral standards are universal. That's moving the goal posts. What was said was "without god there is no right or wrong." Right and wrong exist whether or not god exists. They are not tethered to one another. And if you think they are, please explain why, because it seems like a massive leap in logic.

>>24879626
>Right and wrong exist whether or not god exists.
Well, what is right and wrong?

>>24879626
>I'm not saying my moral standards are universal.
>" Right and wrong exist whether or not god exists.
Uh?

>>24879628
Answer my question. Why does right and wrong cease to exist with god?

>>24879624
Yes but didn't he suggest that overcoming that nihilism is what makes us Supermen?

>>24879630
Because there is no objetive frame for morality, anon. Anything can be justified under a certain moral frame. Therefore there is no such thing as right or wrong.

>>24879600
If there is an ontological right and an ontological wrong there would be a material expression of such things, and humans would be subject to either the right and wrong or the higher law that causes them. If they aren't ontological, then there's only moral relativism. Those who claim that right and wrong are rooted in God would therefore posit that right or wrong aren't entities in themselves but only exist through an interface, that interface being God who maketh things right or wrong by His Grace. But that's just a load of shit. We have an innate understanding of right and wrong because all of us have evolved under the law of Maat and we know at a deeper level that it needs to be upkept lest Isfet goes loose and causes havoc.

>>24879635
That's not what was said. You're moving goal posts again. I'm not here to argue objectivity in moral frameworks. I know morality is grey. That's not what was said. Without god there is no right or wrong. That's what was said.

Ok, lets Pascal this shit. Let's take rape for an example. Let's say god exists, so rape is wrong (even though the 10 commandments dont condemn rape). Ok? We're good? God exists = rape is bad.

Now lets say, hypothetically, god doesnt exist, so rape isnt wrong. Because with his non-existance rape is now permitted. What has changed? Can you explain?

>>24879630
How do you even define right and wrong without God?

>>24879639
What is the law of Maat? Is it some Sumerian thing?

>>24879667
nta but maat was an egyptian goddess of truth or something

>>24879648
>I know morality is grey.
Pseud

>>24879648
>That's not what was said. You're moving goal posts again.
Am I?
>I'm not here to argue objectivity in moral frameworks. I know morality is grey.
It sounds like you are, but sure.
>That's not what was said. Without god there is no right or wrong. That's what was said.
Allright, let's try it again
>Ok, lets Pascal this shit. Let's take rape for an example. Let's say god exists, so rape is wrong (even though the 10 commandments dont condemn rape). Ok? We're good? God exists = rape is bad.
>Now lets say, hypothetically, god doesnt exist, so rape isnt wrong. Because with his non-existance rape is now permitted. What has changed? Can you explain?

What has changed is that there is nothing objective defining that rape is bad, is there? It's a social consensus from a gynocentric society. If God surely exists, and if God surely decides rape is bad, any partial frame you choose to justify rape not being bad is inherently flawed, because it goes against the objective morality that holds the "belief" that rape is bad.
Would you disagree?

>>24879667
The Egyptian goddess of truth, balance, order, and justice, and some other things but there's layers to it, so it's not like just a goddess, it's a principle. What I mean is, the physical laws provide 'funnels' for matter to organize itself. There are points of balance which are themselves eternal just because the laws of the universe dictate their existence, or rather, the quickly occurring nonexistence of everything else, as everything else is unstable. So you would inevitably have planets, star systems, galaxies, and whatever. Now we are evolved under this sort of funneled law. We are evolved to upkeep the overarching systems, like the ecosystem we exist in, or our tribe, because those who aren't die out, either through destruction of themselves, or of the system they inhabit. We are tuned to upkeep this balance, which is where the innate understanding of right and wrong comes from. This understanding is peculiar to humans, but it is also an expression of a larger ontological principle.

>>24879710
>the laws of the universe
And where do they come from?

>>24879720
So wait, your point isn't 'if there is no God, there is no morality', it's 'if there is no God, there is nothing at all' or maybe a finer 'if there's was no God, the Universe would be different'?

>>24879740
No, I'm asking where the laws of the universe come from.

>>24879665
How can humans comprehend God's view of right and wrong, since he is inherently beyond our comprehension?
>I believe in God
>I believe in right and wrong
>therefore God must be the source of right and wrong
This is pretty weak when you look at it.
I'm a very edgy magical atheist and I have very clear ideas about right and wrong. How about that.

>>24879754
>I'm a very edgy magical atheist and I have very clear ideas about right and wrong.
But what is right and wrong?

>>24879743
They come from your imagination, and are reinforced by people you interact with, just like all other social dictums.
>It is wrong to drive 100 miles an hour down a sidestreet because you might get a ticket or run over someone's kid or lose control and kill yourself.
None of those reasons require got to know that you should avoid that behavior, for example.

>>24879754
>How can humans comprehend God's view of right and wrong, since he is inherently beyond our comprehension?
He's all powerful and can do so if He so chooses
Next

>>24879757
Give me a moral situation and I will give you my judgment. I have a very advanced understanding of good and evil,.

>>24879758
>They come from your imagination,
Lol

>>24879760
>source: my ass

>>24879760
Lazy.

>>24879762
>I have a very advanced understanding of good and evil
Then, surely, you could explain what is good and evil?

>>24879764
Humans imagine God, and that gives them a framework to work with. Those weak imagination fail to understand this.

>>24879768
I can. Describe a situation and I will assess it.

>>24879769
You just said the laws of the universe comes from your imagination.
Are you Haruhi or something?

>>24879768
Thinking that you need God to understand evil is evil, for example.

>>24879772
Giving your views on a situation is different from defining good and evil.

>>24879767
Might be lazy, but is there any hole you can poke there?
>>24879766
I don't feel like engaging you anymore, you're kinda tame. By definition God can choose to be compreended by us in some measure and still maintain his ethereal character. Many christians would argue the whole life of Christ was exactly that. So yeah, God has agency to do as he pleases. Got anything else?

>>24879775
Why?

>>24879773
The laws of the universe have nothing to do with it. Good and evil are solely within the human social sphere. Good and evil predates modern concepts of God, and without humans there is no need for good and evil.
The physical laws of reality have nothing to do with good and evil.

>>24879779
>The physical laws of reality have nothing to do with good and evil
If it's a human concept and humans are subject to them, they have everything to do with good and evil

>>24879776
Good and evil is entirely based on human actions, and human actions are based on human circumstances and motivations. It is like. You can only know it when you see it.

>>24879779
But you were the one who started with the laws of the universe thing and Amon
-Ra or something

>>24879777
>777
Looking for an easy one-size-fits-all moral framework does not accommodate the infinite complexities of human situations and interactions, and leaves the lazy individual with huge gaps in preparedness for what they actually may encounter. Because of this, they will be led astray by other, smarter humans to do things that are evil, without even knowing it. Shall I go on?

>>24879781
So you can only instantiate good and evil in a given situation that you assess, is that your take?

>>24879781
So, you don't really have a definition of good and evil?

>>24879780
The rules which govern the formation and destruction of stars, for example, are outside of human judgement. Sure, we can harness these rules, and use them for good or evil ends, but those kinds of rules cannot be judged by man.

>>24879743
Something too primordial to be reasonably studied

>>24879784
I don't think your post has anything to do with God's omnipotence.

>>24879777
>By definition God can choose to be compreended by us in some measure and still maintain his ethereal character. Many christians would argue the whole life of Christ was exactly that. So yeah, God has agency to do as he pleases. Got anything else?
and I say God can only eat 3 cheeseburgers at a time. It has as much basis as your claims. because He can do as He pleases. this is probably the greatest argument in the history of mankind

>>24879784
I did not do any of that. I just answered his question: if god real how can we understand god
Overall, I am merely indicating the fact that without God anything can be made justified and none of these justifications in inherently worse than any other

There are objective laws of the universe becasue th universe is conscious

>>24879791
Sure, whatever you say anon, I accept you have nothing else

>>24879787
No one has presented anything for me to weigh my judgement on. Assessing good and evil can only be applied to actual scenerios. The Old testament is full of judgements like this. Something has to happen or about to happen for human value to be applied to it. Good and evil don't exist in the abstract, because they are just words.
There are countless dictionary definations of good and evil, and parroting them here does nothing.

>>24879795
>Good and evil don't exist in the abstract, because they are just words.

So, without God there is no morality.

>>24879790
God is infinite, God is great, etc. But good and evil is much smaller than that. Good and evil is within the human sphere, since it is directly tied to human concepts of judgement. Universal good and evil is beyond out comprehension, and outside our assessment.

>>24879794
I'm just claiming stuff about God like you do. and He can do as He pleases. didn't you say that?

>>24879797
But that post had nothing to do with the question asked.

File: IMG_6776.jpg (301 KB, 1102x952)

301 KB JPG

>>24878224
Did you?

>>24879792
Without God it is very easy to see if something is good or evil based on the outcomes it yields. Killing all the sparrows, as the Chicoms did under Mao, was very evil because it caused a huge and a ton of people died purely because of government retardation.
Founding America and revolting against the British Crown was good, because England sucks as anyone can see.
God is outside of the good and evil in both of these historical facts.
Raping a man's wife is evil, because it will have repercussions for the wife, the husband, and the rapist.
Jacking off to blender rape porn VR is neutral, because no is harmed. Again, all outside of God.

>>24879595
that's subjective THO

>>24879045
If there is no God, then morality was invented by humans, thus it's relative and not objective.
If morality is relative, then the robber is doing a good according to himself, the murderer too according to himself, and so on. Good and wrong really do not exist, they are simply a way of our brain to get laid and survive.
>inb4 uhh morality is decided by the whole of society and not just a person
The same argument can be said about societies who commited genocides or sacrificial rituals.

>>24879609
>people who think that without god there is no right or wrong are crazy
>I don't believe in god and think that morals are fiction btw
Huh?

>>24879807
>then the robber is doing a good according to himself, the murderer too according to himself, and so on
and the god believer is doing a good according to himself

>>24879796
Morality predates God, and still exists now that God's power is at an all time low. Morality is a human framework for behavior, nothing more, nothing less. Without god, there are repercussions because Man will enforce morality. Justice, morality, and understanding outcomes are all possible for anyone of a certain level of human intelligence. God, with his infinite intelligence, is clearly not that interested in what humans do to each other in the name of morality.
Example: A government policy is asking you do something that is retarded, and all the moral retards are going along with it. Is it moral to do what the retards are doing, or is more moral to do what is actually morally right? Again, you don't need God to know the answer.

>>24879800
I was responding the previous post. There was no Question, and several people are posting and responding all over the place. One of which is God, one is Satan, and one is an enlightened atheist, all of whom have different takes on morality.

>>24879804
Why is it a problem that a ton of people die purely because kf governmenr retardation?
You believe you are acting above platitudes and upon objective reality, but you are so embedded by such measures that you fail to see that the stuff you consider to be good or bad are just secularist views of religious morality. You're essentially sayinf life is good, and worth living. By your second example what you really mean to say is that it is just to revolt again what is unjust, and that freedom is the measure of a nation. This is literally Moses opening waters so slaves can flee in the slit he produced.
There is absolutely no objetive metric for why the things you posted to be good or bad are in fact good or bad. The US is a a nanny superstate and Israel proxy that has done irreparable damage to many, many other nations, many other peoples, many other artistic sensibilities on the guise of doing what is right. All of the vermin that survived from not being eaten by Sparrows still revere Mao as the best thing ever.

>>24879808
but I'm not the same anon who posted what the person who I replied to was responding to

>>24879788
Sure, good and evil are applicable only to humans, but their conception rests on the same principles that guide non-human entities. If one finds the principles behind these concepts, one could apply these principles to any entity to produce an understanding of good and evil from the entity's perspective.

let's settle on a few possible laws
>reciprocity
>self defence

>>24879812
You are starting to get why good and evil are such slippery concepts, and attributing them to an all knowing, all powerful God is very lazy and shortsighted.
Mao thought he was doing good, but he was ignorant of how ecology works. American revolutionaries thought they were doing good, while laying the foundation for mass production.

>>24879812
Just to revolt against what is unjust*

>>24879814
What sort of entities are you imagining, that would be interested in Good and Evil?

>>24879820
It is irrelevant whether you think it is lazy and shotsighted, because without an objective frame of morality anything can be justified and all of those justifications weigh the same.

>>24879815
Seems reasonable. But defending yourself against state actors can come with huge consequences, even though it can be morally justified.
Charitable acts, with expectation of reciprocity can lead to disappointment and bitterness.
Either way, God has little interest in the goodness or evilness of the actors involved.

>>24879812
Well said, anon. Damn.

>>24879825
They may be justified, but they will have repercussions, and the repurcussions may reveal that it was actually not good to whatever it was that was done. All without God weighing in.

>>24879827
reciprocity is a principle, if they don't engage with you fairly then reject them and seek an alternative.

good and evil have become loaded terms so should be avoided if possible, seek something more fundamental

>>24879829
The point is, anon, that we can extend the same analysis to the repercussions themselves, and it will give us zero information about anything being good or bad, because there is always one frame in which it can be seen as good or as bad, depending on whatever you want to defend.

>>24879810
You argued that
>Good and evil don't exist in the abstract, because they are just words.
And you seem to be confused

>Example: A government policy is asking you do something that is retarded, and all the moral retards are going along with it. Is it moral to do what the retards are doing, or is more moral to do what is actually morally right? Again, you don't need God to know the answer.
What is morally right?

>>24878218
Do non-abrahamic religions even have a divine justification for morality? Obviously they might have some moral lessons in their myths but as far as I know the Greeks and even the Norse seem to understand the immorality of their Gods and all the problems they cause, and they clearly do have moral systems, just ones that are at times very alien to our own

>>24878218
Spinoza wasnt an atheist. Is elon musk okay?

>>24878218
>the universe is cold amd uncaring
>the universe is warm and caring
Explain what either of these claims means. I'll tell you the day is usually warmer than the night and that observation is independent of a tertiary belief.

Spinoza is a mediocre philosopher, the only thing notable about him being his anccestry, which is ironic given how they disliked him

>>24878308
Got a better source on that, or what was this Dutch version? That SEP entry is vague and sounds like BS. Maybe (I seem to read something like that) he first started working on what would later become his Ethics in Dutch, but I don't know if this version was preserved, much less published. After all, all modern Dutch editions of the Ethics are translated from Spinoza's Latin.

>>24880137
>which is ironic given how they disliked him
*his money hungry sister

>>24879809
We are talking about hypotheticals here. The god believer is doing a good according to himself IF god is not real, just like how the atheist is doing something good according to himself IF God is not real. But IF God is real, then everything was created by an intelligent mind, if everything was created by an intelligent mind then everything has a purpose, if everything has a purpose that it can achieve or not, and achieving it is called "Virtue", which is the bases for ethics, making morals objective (The purpose from God to us) and not subjective (whatever we belief).

File: G4ElS72WsAA4VkW.jpg (196 KB, 1080x1370)

196 KB JPG

>>24878218
I don't want to hear this pseudo-intellectual boomer shit head's opinion on morality

how close was Spinoza to achieving CHIM in the godhead?

>>24880242
>The god believer is doing a good according to himself IF god is not real, just like how the atheist is doing something good according to himself IF God is not real.
even if god was real, the god believer is functioning on a subjective moral system. he can for example leave the religion, he can not follow any religion at all, or he can join another church of the same faith that the believer agrees with more.
I don't see how a person who believes in god is immediately following an objective morality code, he fundamentally follows what the believer himself thinks is right or wrong to do, just like if you think morality doesn't come from god. You can have principles that aren't based on the existence of a god and even find more meaning in doing the right thing other than "because god all powerful told me heaven awaits me if I follow some rules"

>>24878240
It's an irrefutable argument.

>>24879639
>We have an innate understanding of right and wrong because all of us have evolved under the law of Maat and we know at a deeper level that it needs to be upkept lest Isfet goes loose and causes havoc.
Okay so its still the "morality is contingent on a transcendental God" argument, just rebranded under Spinozian babble.

>>24880302
>demiurge worshipping materialist
In hell, preferably.

>>24880439
*He's in hell

>>24879986
Pantheism is atheism at the meta level.

>>24879630
>Why does right and wrong cease to exist with god?
Because the alternative (monism) is a cope, as we're all evidently disembodied selves navigating existence for our own egotistical reasons. It's only through God that multiplicity becomes justified.

>>24880392
It's a pseud filter. You have to have an IQ below 110 to fall for it.

>>24880457
>It's only through God that multiplicity becomes justified.
NTA but if this were true, sociopathy would be the default state of humans as a species. We evolved to be social; people that do not act in accordance with the Moral mores of their group become pariahs.

>>24880507
Making appeals to default evolutionary states when its commonly believed that evolution is a blind, directionless force is incoherent.

>>24878218
I’m not trying to be pedantic, but atheism is too broad of a category the same way that “theism” is too broad. Religions are not entirely similar on the basis of a shared belief in a deity or deities, as they have clearly varying ontological narratives and assumptions. The atheism of Buddhism is not the atheism of Nietzsche is not the atheism of Marx. If you’re talking about enlightenment mechanistic atheism, which I’m assuming the OP is referring to. I would agree. Not even necessarily as an ontological impossibility, although it’s true, but as a rhetorical impossibility if we are to reject universalisms and emotions as a superior cognitive judgement.

>>24880340
That doesn't change the fact that there is an objective morality. Just because humans can't appreciate it enough to know it 100% doesn't mean it doesn't exists.
Just follow the purpose you were created for, and stop trying to subvert it. It's literally that easy.

>>24878218
That wayne guy is retarded. There's no such thing as morality.

>>24880589
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqSZhwu1Rwo

>>24880543
Embarrassing attempt.
Evolution is directionless, but you can see a creature as it presently exists and recognize that its current state is what won out over alternatives, across millennia.
Humans are, primarily, not sociopathic. Ergo, we evolved to be that way. Even if we take the retarded view and say homo sapiens spontaneously popped up in its present state, sociopathy is still an aberration.
Belief in God is not a factor in whether or not a person is suited to living in a civilized society,

>>24880648
>Embarrassing attempt.
>literally believes morality is based on a tautology where things are good because that's the way things are
Lmfao, fucking retard. Evolution is literally your God. I myself do not carry such delusions.

>>24880648
Pseud post.

>>24880493
And yet you and everyone else failed to make an argument against it

>>24880155
Read any academic book on Spinoza lil bro

>>24878218
why is spinoza right
because he wrote some shit in a book?
any fucking prick can write anything in a book and now he's the barometer of truth if he can fool you

>>24878288
The AI summary is almost certainly far better than whatever liberal roastie translation you read.

File: 1733665316016938.jpg (50 KB, 564x834)

50 KB JPG

>>24879809
>and the god believer is doing a good according to himself
Hey, that's not allowed to be pointed out. The Catholic Church has always been a beacon and existentially-defining example for good moral behavior throughout all of human history.

File: 1762202094944646m.jpg (88 KB, 395x1024)

88 KB JPG

Elon is exactly the kind of rootless midwit faggot what would love Spinoza.

>>24879554
because you say so?

>>24880283
And his daughter will grow up to hate men and claim oppression despite these views. This is not a niche opinion by the way. Men have always been considered disposable, and scapegoats for all bad things that happen. No wonder the suicide rate for men is so much higher than womens. I think If I heard my wife was having a boy, I would force an abortion.

>>24878240
I dunno, my mother reads the bible very, shall we say, religiously. She and I have gotten along much better since I've found God.

>>24879568
whats wrong with rape? some guys can't have sex unless they do exactly that.

>>24878218
the original claim is vacuously true because god is a necessary being, so you can principle-of-explosion yourself into concluding literally anything if you take his nonexistence as a premise
elon's response is just embarrassing. spinoza isn't even an atheist! being called that as a slur by your enemies doesn't make it true.

>>24881160
>literally believes morality is based on what schizophrenic Jews wrote while tripping balls 3000 years ago
I can do that too, midwit.

>>24879687
>there is nothing objective defining that rape is bad, is there?
Ok. And how does god communicate to us that rape is objectively bad?

By putting it in a holy book? A book written by a human? How is that any different from a man made secular law? Does god communicate rape is bad to us by making us feel guilt? Don't we feel guilt when we do bad things regardless of whether or not god tells us, because we have empathy? Does god communicate rape is bad in the afterlife by throwing rapists down to hell? Well how do we know in life that rape is bad if god doesn't tell us?

I get that you say morality is objective if god exists, but if god exists, and objective morality exists, then how does he teach us this objective morality? And if god doesn't teach us, then how is it any different from our own secular morality?

Atheists have had 300 years to come up with a secular basis for morality and every time they just come up with the gayest shit possible.

>>24881632
It depends on the god in question, on how the tradition of that given god plays out, etc, etc. I don't want to discuss this, I am just advocating for the fact that without god there is no objective moral framework. How that works and if that is even a good idea is not for me to decide. The very notion of god is the supreme anchor of objective morality. Anything else is another debate altogether.

>>24881490
LLM prose is always so insincere and gay. Psueds used to try harder.

>>24878218
>>Without God objective morality doesn't exist.
Why are chuds so hooked up with this retarded idea?
>He doesn't realize we are literally same species
>He doesn't understand we are programmed to think and satisfy societal needs.
>He doesn't realize we developed as tribes and communities thus making thinking in societal terms necessary

>>24882873
you left out the part in which humans developed by killing strangers and stealing their women

>>24882899
So? That's just one of the aspects of human development. Thanks for proving my point though.

>>24882908
I don't think I even understand your point desu. "We were programmed to do X, therefore X is objectively morally good" That's it?

>>24878218
there's no evidence of Morality existing before city states. Kinship shame and taboos where all we had before large complex civilizations.

>>24878218
His point is that Spinoza was Dutch, and that if you're Dutch (or Afrikaans), it's obvious that life has value and meaning, while the atheist Anglo-S*xon cannot accept such a thing

>>24882932
>>We were programmed to do X, therefore X is objectively morally good.
>>I don't think I even understand your point desu.
yeah i can see that.
>Killing someone is wrong and unjustifiable
>Why?
>cuz.. muh you will.. feel g-guilty or something
It's pretty intuitive really to think that something is wrong due the way humans developed throughout all these years. Why would killing someone of your species be 'good', when evolution made sure to develop societal and tribal functions? it's also natural in the same way to feel pain, guilt etc when doing similarly something bad to other human. I dont say that this is universal though, since the interests and functions homo sapiens developed in different regions vary a lot.

>>24878218
IGDI, Spinoza was a theist and an amoralist which is the diametrical opposite view. Or is Musk trying to demonstrate that theists can come to the same amoral conclusion too?

>>24878218
Yeah, that follows from atheism, and it follows from theism too. The existence of god or gods has no bearing on anything morally. 'Moral truths' can not even be actually conceived of, it's as speculative as metaphysics can get, just total non-sense. The preoccupation with moral ontology so historically and currently present is beyond puzzling to me.

>>24879807
Morality is required to live with other people, and our species had only persisted in existing due to our ability to live with other people. Murdering and stealing undermines the very foundation upon which people exist at all, thus if a person accounts it as a good thing, they are simply too shortsighted. Also, murderers and thieves are almost universally unhappy and unfulfilled people, so even on an individual level you are unlikely to obtain the best life for yourself pursuing those actions.

Your mode of existence can either be more or less amenable, that is, you can judge yourself to be in a better or a worse position. Morality is that thing by which the most amount of people can pursue the best conditions for all. As mentioned, our species has these mechanisms ingrained in our DNA, the vast majority will only be happy within healthy communities that hold a fair moral code.

On the subject of genocide, we have seen from history that civilizations which persist in existing set up mutually beneficial trade relations with their neighbors, whereas overly militaristic civilizations end up dying by the sword. The basic realities of human existence call for a moral framework, one which treats all parties fairly and encourages buy-in from all parties, thus creating a stable foundation for synergistic interactions.

>>24880242
Are you prepared to claim you know the mind of God? You know the purpose and code of God? Is there any higher form of arrogance? Is there anything that could not be justified with such hubris (cutting up the genitals of new born babies)?

A much better and more sound foundation would be simple Nicomachean ethics according to Aristotle, based on sustainability and balance in order to live in harmony with one's neighbors. This can be judged based on the ability to obtain one's aims (how well you get along with your neighbors, how tranquil one can stay over time, etc.). In short, eudaimonia is the only justifiable aim of morality.

>>24881555
Make a book like where's Waldo but instead where's God. Though it's probably been done already

>>24879807
> If there is no God, then morality was invented by humans, thus it's relative and not objective.
It’s funny how godbotherers can’t think clearly. If there is a God he can be capricious. He can be evil. He can be uncaring. Suddenly the christkike starts to trot out Aristotle like he’s chief thinker for them, they even give him half sainthood and pretend he was discovering their “God”-trinity even as a pagan. This is because they had zero brainpower among the christkikes themselves. In fact most problems of understanding the greeks come from this retard brigade having to mutilate their arguments to fit a kike on a stick theology.

Most arguments they use are deist, and then they just expect you to teleport to the three god christfaggotry if you so much as say “maybe it was created”. It’s pathetic. It gets even worse when you realize the call is coming from inside their own building, the humanists secularized because of all the dumb shit in the Bible and then evolved into separating out miracles and unprovable crap and settling for the god of nature being the real idea behind a very flawed book. You can detect this debate very early if you pay attention. Even simple obvious problems like the God of the OT clearly being a spiteful and evil being different from anything in the NT was enough for primitives to realize it made no sense. They recreate Zoroastrianism in a good deity and a bad one. Even today the average Christian denies the OT God entirely. They don’t support his murders or retard dealings with jews. They think he sucks and would rather not acknowledge him at all. Nor anything said about a limited heaven where non-believing relatives and their dog won’t show up. This is normal and sane rewriting of the Bible as the book is trash and so is the theology, so they just pretend it doesn’t matter and invent a new religion.

Even the LARPers online don’t actually give a shit about this they just use it as another way to stroke themselves off with online “debates”.

>>24884999
Not reading all that shit. Christ lives in your mind rent free. I never mentioned christianity. The post is a critique of atheism. I'm sorry that your parents forced you to go to church.

>>24884365
Why would you want to be happy? And why would you want to live? Just to get those juicy chemicals from your brain? If you live an happy life you will end at the same place as if you lived a unhappy one. Absolute nothing, death. You can't escape it.
As far as I know, most atheists are either some kind of nihilist (No reason to live) or hedonists (use pleasure as cope until death). Then there is the third type like Spinoza or Nietzche who are hedonism with extra steps and don't even understand that we are social animals.

>>24885228
>Why would you want to be happy? And why would you want to live? Just to get those juicy chemicals from your brain?
You have correctly identified the only motivation for all action.

>>24879599
>make your own morality idk... it's pretty based to create your own system of morals.
says Nietzsky, passionately

>>24881490
>this isn't relativism. It's rigor...
>redditism
despite the clear AI speak, most people lack the faculties to read Spinoza in the first place

>>24881169
>no argument
cope

>>24886471
For someone with a very superficial mind who can't think about the future.

>>24886971
Think about the future in service of what? The only answer is "what you think will be best" which is just another way of saying what makes you happy or reduces what will make you unhappy.

>>24880392

No it isn't. You have purposely ignored that it's presuppositional. If your morals come from Yahweh, who you cannot prove exists, you don't have objective morals either. What you have then is not an argument to the effect that Yahweh is real, but an appeal to consequences argument to the effect that we would benefit from pretending he is real, & will suffer harms if we don't. You may post your petulant hat meme now

>>24887011
Look even more into the future. I'm talking about death. Someone who lived a happy life will end at the same void than someone who lived an unhappy one, and someone who lived 99 years will meet exactly the same destiny as a dead baby. Their memories will be gone with their brains, their legacy will be gone when the people who know them unavoidably die too, everything they did will be devoured by entropy.
Some day Shakespeare will be forgotten.

All of this, of course, if we are talking about a purely material universe. Read Ecclesiastes.

>>24887062
Why do you view time as an arrow, a progression of events which are obliterated once passed? Perhaps all of time exists always, thus, it is of infinite importance to live a happy life since it was, will have been, will always be.

Each person has their life, they are born, they live, they either produce offspring or not, but each of us is part of the great tapestry of our ancestors and our cousins, each of us related to that dead baby and that 99 year old, each of us is bound to the course of life, and all life is bound to the course of the universe, and beyond the universe is mystery. Our lives fit within a profound framework, and to embrace this reality is to honestly and forthrightly take up the challenge of finding the good life, the good society, to seek eudaimonia.

Further, any move to try and ameliorate the anxiety over death is just another flavor of pursuing happiness. Embracing illusion may make you feel better, but it won't change what exists and what will exist. We must see past these petty illusions, witness existence as it is, rejoice over the good, commiserate over the bad, but recognize the precious time we have, the precious relationships we have. We know they are precious in the same way we know we exist, it is self evident, to apprehend it is to confirm its existence.

>>24887203
Either you are not reading what I'm writing, or you are literally my example of the superficial person that can't see two steps ahead of himself. This discussion is now useless.
>yea but we are all related lol
One day, Shakespeare will be forgotten. You too. If the universe is material, and time is infinite, one day all of the human race will die.
>Why do you view time as an arrow, a progression of events which are obliterated once passed
If the universe is material, then events are literally obliterated when you die, your memories are destroyed, your feeling of happiness too, and since everyone is also forced to die theirs will too.
>you are le coping
I am simply stating facts of the consequences of metaphysicals beliefs.

>>24878308
>>24881278
Again, for the SEP to write the "original Dutch edition" (further on they write, "The friends who, after his death, published his writings left out the “or Nature” clause from the more widely accessible Dutch version") - they are referring to the concurrent Dutch edition of his Opera posthuma, the Nagelaten Schriften, both of 1677. The Dutch Ethics contained therein was translated (by Glazemaker) from Spinoza's Latin - as all Dutch editons (translations) continue to be. It is bad wording on the part of SEP, and misinterprets the sense of "original [edition]"; a point is being made about the first Dutch edition, in its publication history, but not about the urtext, which was Latin.
There is Spinoza's "Korte verhandeling van God, de Mensch en deszelvs Welstand", written originally in Dutch and not discovered till the 19th century - an early work which prefigures ideas later developed in the Ethics - but it would be incorrect to call this the original version of the Ethics, nor is that what the SEP is referring to.

>>24878224
Elon is too autistic to sit still with a book.

File: images-3.jpg (28 KB, 447x447)

28 KB JPG

Maybe you dorks should check out pragmatism as an ethical principle.

>>24887396
You are clinging to a one-dimensional view of time. You seem unable to even contemplate alternatives to your current viewpoint, which is actually a reliable characteristic of a superficial person. It does not matter if a man or a race dies. It matters that they lived, and that they lived well. That can never be taken away, it is etched into the fabric of reality. It will always be there, and it does not rely on any person's memory.

>>24879743
they emanate from the one

>>24879812
>This is literally Moses opening waters so slaves can flee in the slit he produced.
God, not this illiterate shit again. If Exodus is about freedom, why are there legal codes on slavery later on? You dumb revisionist fucks reinterpret the Bible based on liberal values and then claim the text had those values all along. It makes a mockery of this debate whenever you pull this shit, it goes entirely in favor of the social origin of morals.

>>24887928
>If Exodus is about freedom, why are there legal codes on slavery later
certainly not the chattel variety. that is outlawed in exodus itself. your "slavery" is the same as you flipping burgers at master mcdonald's and then getting bump 7 years later or the choice of staying. your "slavery" is working off debts from crime.

>>24887958
>another illiterate retard who thinks a law targeting Israelites in particular is akshually universal
Try Leviticus 25:44-46, where foreign slaves are passed down as property. That's literal chattel slavery, and precisely what European slavery did in conscious accordance with the Bible.

Atheists that do not understand that God is a prerequisite for objective morality are among the most idiotic people on this board. I genuinely struggle to think of a group more stupid. They get completely humiliated in all of these exchanges yet continue to spew their nonsensical babble day after day.

>>24880596
He isn’t even claiming there is. He claims that (objective) morality exists only within religion, which is true.
Elon musk is the one saying that objective morality exists without God.

File: 1761333358008943.gif (26 KB, 362x360)

26 KB GIF

>Religion.
The great filter is just retards screaming at the sky and praying to their own unconscious to save them from themselves.

Is anything funnier than a religious thinker trying to do philosophy?

File: images-1.jpg (11 KB, 246x205)

11 KB JPG

>>24887987
>Objective morality.
How can a subsequence of a system contain the sum-complexity of that system, retard?

You're essentially claiming that the number 1 contains infinity.

>>24887987
There's no such thing as objective morality, retard. If people kill or rape, then I just hope that I'm not one of the victims. That's all there is to it.

>>24887978
same europeans led by wilberforce that went around ending the trades? mosiac laws were temporary baby steps 3000 years ago towards an elevated society, beginning with the israelites as an example to their heathen nation neighbors. divorce wasn't condoned by God either, despite it being allowed in these man made laws with caveats.