To the atheists and agnostics of /pol/: yes, non-believers can live highly moral, deeply empathetic lives. The question is can your worldview justify the objective obligation to be good? When you look at the world in a descriptive way, for example "action X causes pain" you make an ungrounded leap to a prescription "therefore, action X is wrong" >By what epistemic right does a purely physical arrangement of matter create a binding moral duty?If the universe is a closed system of material cause and effect, "harm" is just a rearrangement of atoms. To say we ought to minimize it introduces a transcendent value that materialist metaphysics cannot account for.How is this relevant to /pol/ you might ask? Because the consequence of ignoring the IS/OUGHT problem is emotivism. Modern debates are now just screeching matches because none of you can truly say something is wrong, just that you dislike it. You are now reduced to the screaming sjw, just with different preferences. You have no access to objective moral truth because your worldview cannot produce any.
shut up faggot
>>536551401For utilitarians: >How do you bridge the gap between the descriptive fact that "Humans prefer pleasure" and the prescriptive rule "We ought to maximize pleasure," without importing an unstated objective value?>For moral realists who are atheists:What is the ontological status of a "moral law" in a godless universe? Where does it reside, and how does it exert a binding obligation on human will?If morality is ultimately a byproduct of evolutionary biology, how do you escape the conclusion that your deepest moral convictions are merely adaptive survival mechanisms rather than objective truths?
I pretty much got to the bottom of everything. Its just spirals nigga, its all spirals. It doesnt make sense because you didnt come to the conclusion yourself so sorry to ruin it but there it is.
>>536551539Nice meme, but it completely ducks the metaphysical question. You are hiding behind Aristotle because you can't answer the IS/OUGHT problem.First, you’re equivocating on terms. Aristotle’s megalopsychia (magnanimity) is explicitly defended as a virtue by Thomas Aquinas (ST II-II, Q. 129 if you want to look it up). Catholicism doesn't condemn the accurate recognition of excellence; it condemns superbia, the delusion that you are the uncaused cause of your own excellence.Second, Aristotle is dead weight for an atheist. His entire ethical framework relies on teleology.If your materialist worldview is true, there is no telos. Nature has no intentions. Therefore, 'virtue' is an illusion, Alexander the Great was just a bio-chemical machine acting on evolutionary impulses, and his 'glory' has the exact same objective moral value as a cancer cell multiplying.You haven't justified an objective 'ought' with this meme; you've just admitted that your preference happens to be LARPing as a bronze-age warlord. It's still just emotivism you turbonigger.
>>536551889troy fell to the greeks for a good reason, reconstructing their semantics in the form of authoritative infallibility doesnt change the practice of virtue
>>536551401How is that a problem? That is an advantage. I can do whatever I want to fullfill my biological imperatives while you're are bounded by imaginary metaphysics. Thus, I am a superior biological machine.
>>536551401Is/ought also BTFOs leftoids because racial differences are very real and are only suppressed in academia by taboo and gayfag butthurt.
>>536551401Watch me nuke this thread just by entering, like the one with the "gods arent useful" guy 5 minutes ago. I swear, christ cucks and lgbt worship and retarded bullshit of every variety are encouraged...until someone mentions the Sun or SOL...then the jannie Jews shut it down faster than a subway shackle meeting.Praise SOL regardless.
>>536552128Thank you for completely conceding my original point. You’ve openly admitted that your worldview cannot justify an objective 'ought.'1. You don't have free will. You boast that you can do 'whatever you want,' then you call yourself a 'machine.' A machine doesn't have an independent will; it operates entirely on deterministic physical inputs and biological programming. You aren't a liberated free-thinker; you are a complex biological clockwork that couldn't have typed anything other than what your neurons dictated.2. 'Superior' by what metric? In a purely material universe, 'superiority' doesn't exist outside of raw reproductive data. If a traditional religious community out-reproduces your demographic over the next century, then by your own evolutionary metrics, their 'imaginary metaphysics' made them the superior biological machines, and your philosophy was just an evolutionary dead end.
>>536551401i've really been trying to learn how to paint snow like this. Monet has been my guide but i've never seen this painting before. It seems to be a mixture of lots of colors usually. Reaching for white right away is always a mistake.
>>536552502But think about how much the maintenance on that centrally heated and cooled concrete and glass building stimulates the economy compared to that stone one
>>536551401you are operating under the assumption that morality originates/emanates from religion. Any religion is simply a worldview just as athiesm or agnosticism. What make a religious worldview more valid than one which does not include a diety? Do the gods or god of your religion espouse morality or even offer moral teachings?whats the point of the endless arguing about how people view their reality? why do you care so much what another believes? Are your beliefs so weak that they require a mass of others so you feel more secure? religion offers even less objective moral truth (if that even exists) because of the dogmatism of thought. If any of your tenets are challenged you simply hide behind faith. Anything undiscovered is simply "god" But what about all those things that once were god and have been discovered?
>>536551401Religious don't have soul and steal lego.
>>536551401>If the universe is a closed system its not, its actually an open system and we don't need a "transcendent giver" of values when the physics of electrohydrodynamics proves that organization > chaos.morality is just the optimization of complex flows in an infinite eternal system.so "Good" is the mathematical imperative of structural coherence and complexity, while "Bad" is nothing more than entropic decay. your emotivism argument fails because you cant see that ethics are just the high level expression of cosmic thermodynamics.tl;dr your fake made up jew god isnt needed (and isnt real).
>>536551578dont you even see whats happening around you? People are like ants or bees. We live in a colony and depend on one another. The exception is we have "free will" and the desire for pleasure.the current totalitarian movement seeks to end this free will in exchange for a hive experience which may or may not create greater efficiencies for the queen bee. this will never work because free will is built in to our soul, not our bodies. If you choose to deny your own soul spark then you will live as an ant or a bee, but it will kill any humanity and you will no longer be human. morality is an agreed upon set of rules by which we all live. they adapt with time but generally remain similar across history. They change with discovery, technology, efficiency and communication. They are not ordained by a god. The ten commandments are not followed in this day and age and no god has returned to amend them. They are constantly challenged and adapted by living humans.
>>536551401Is/ought is a conundrum for brainlets who take existentialism too seriously and isn't actually a problem.
>>536551401The is/ought problem is not a real thing. You do not need a perfect model of reality to make an ought statement. This fruit is poisonous, therefore I ought to not eat it. Kind of like how you can think the earth is flat and still navigate the sea by looking at the stars.
>>536553061>cart before the horsengmi
And to you the arbiter of objective moral is a two thousand year old book written by schizo jews?
>>536552835You’re throwing up a lot of smoke screens to avoid facing your worldview's epistemic debt, so let’s untangle your errors one by one:1. The 'God' Error: You ask if 'the gods' espouse morality, treating God like a powerful cosmic king passing down arbitrary rules. In classical Catholic theology, God is not a 'god' inside the universe. God is Being Itself (Ipsum Esse Subsistens). Morality isn't an arbitrary lecture, it's a reflection of the rational order of existence itself. That is why a theistic worldview can ground objective duties, while materialism cannot.2. The 'God of the Gaps' Fallacy: You claim religion just hides behind the 'undiscovered.' This is a 19th-century caricature. God is not an explanation for physical mechanisms we haven't figured out yet. God is the primary cause sustaining the very existence of the physical laws themselves. Science discovering how a mechanism works doesn't eliminate the Creator any more than analyzing the ink on a page eliminates the author of the book.3. The Flat-Earth Worldview Claim: You say all worldviews are equal. Wrong. A worldview is only as good as its explanatory power. If your worldview affirms human rights and moral duties, but your metaphysics reduces humans to accidental meat-computers in a closed material loop, your worldview has a fatal self contradiction. Asking you to logically justify your moral assertions isn't 'insecurity.' It's holding you accountable to the rules of reason. If you want to claim objective moral truths exist without a metaphysical anchor, you still need to explain the mechanics of how a collision of atoms creates a binding cosmic 'ought.'
>>536553061You think science sees structural coherence/complexity as objectively good and entropy/chaos as objective bad? It doesn't, those are just two descriptions of physical phenomena. Plus, if ethics are just 'the high-level expression of cosmic thermodynamics' then you've just erased moral culpability, enjoy your flood of criminal negroes.
>>536553465>1. The 'God' Error: That is why a theistic worldview can ground objective duties, while materialism cannot.Whats the difference? How do you judge one person as religious and another as athiestic? Belief. Words. Meaningless. Go start your own religion and give it a go. The big religions all adapt to societal shifts that they do not lead. They follow.>2. The 'God of the Gaps' Fallacy: You claim religion just hides behind the 'undiscovered.' This is a 19th-century caricature. God is not an explanation for physical mechanisms we haven't figured out yet. God is the primary cause sustaining the very existence of the physical laws themselves. Science discovering how a mechanism works doesn't eliminate the Creator any more than analyzing the ink on a page eliminates the author of the book.Show us proof of this theory. >3. The Flat-Earth Worldview Claim: You say all worldviews are equal. Wrong. A worldview is only as good as its explanatory power. If your worldview affirms human rights and moral duties, but your metaphysics reduces humans to accidental meat-computers in a closed material loop, your worldview has a fatal self contradiction. Asking you to logically justify your moral assertions isn't 'insecurity.' It's holding you accountable to the rules of reason. My point was that an individuals worldview doesn't matter to the world. >If you want to claim objective moral truths exist without a metaphysical anchor, you still need to explain the mechanics of how a collision of atoms creates a binding cosmic 'ought.'i dont need to explain anything. Waves collapse into particles when observed. That good enough for you?
>>536553465>treating God like a powerful cosmic king passing down arbitrary rulesI don't think this retard has ever read the bible lmfao. >Morality isn't an arbitrary lecture, it's a reflection of the rational order of existence itselfThis is what they retreated to when asked where in scripture pedophilia is explicitly condemned kek.
>>536551401>The question is can your worldview justify the objective obligation to be good?This isn't the question because it doesn't matter and religion doesn't provide a separate option. Morals do not require a guaranty from the creator of the universe to be valid, or at least as valid as any such claim can be. Moreover, merely claiming that you have such a guaranty does not make it true. Every religion can claim to provide "objective" morality, but such morality has never actually appeared. The real history of religion looks exactly like competing subjective claims to morality because that's what it actually is, in spite of every religion claiming to be the one absolute truth. Religions can't even fight off internal deviations from their "objective," "universal" morals, since every single one has schisms. All the Abrahamic religions have schisms, and the various heathen religions of the world also have varying ideas about which gods are most important or how their myths should be told. The only way to have a religion without a schism is for it to die in short order.This idea of religion providing "objective morality" is a backwards claim that emerged in response to the New Atheist movement. Many theists moved from debating truth, which they couldn't win on, to debating utility, which they felt they could. This idea that religion provides some heavenly realm of certainty above the scrum of moral debate was thereby invented to create a reason for religion to be followed in spite of not being true. But in reality no religion has ever delivered on the promise of objective morality, and no religion ever will. They're not actually guaranteed by the creator of the universe so they can't. The fact is that we are all stuck debating morality until the last thinking creature is dead.This is a false bill of goods. You're being asked to trade your skepticism for something religion can't give you.
>>536553294>cart before the horseare you really so stuck in newtonian dualism that you cant grasp emergent properties?your "cart before the horse" analogy relies on a false separation between mechanism and outcome.
>>536551401>Theists like Jay Dyer, Jimbob, and Andrew Wilson BTFO atheists with this simple trickI love watching them destroy atheists>>536553227>This fruit is poisonous, therefore I ought to not eat itBut you're just begging the question. It's circular logic. The fruit is poisonous and therefore I ought not eat it because it is poisonous. If reality is subjective, so are value judgements. You would have to appeal to natural but that itself is a naturalistic fallacy. In a reality of random matter and only matter, there are no morals you can extract from it that prescribes that eating poisonous fruit is wrong. From the plant's point of view, you can argue it's good that you eat the fruit so you can spread its seed. But again, not really because good and bad cannot be grounded in the materialist worldview.
God has left only one Way forward that ends well.Take it.
>>536553880>From the plant's point of view
>>536552502I don't care if on average religious communities reproduce more, in fact I actively desire it. I prefer to live in religious, tolerant societies like modern Christians because its easier to explore and outcompete weak retards bounded by slave morals. Regardless, the potential for reproduction in religious communities will always be inferior to a really enlightened and successful atheists. The most successful individuals at reproducing were rarely religious on a traditional western sense or worried about metaphysics bullshit. Look at genghis khan or most medieval warlords that would just kill males and take hundreds of warbrides. Or more recently look at Musk, he has like 40 children with different women just by paying them. Christians and most other religions would never do that because of their limiting beliefs. Your point about freewill is irrelevant. If I'm right (I am), neither of us would have freewill regardless of what we think, and if you're right (you're not), I would still have freewill even if I believed I don't. As you can see, discussing freewill is largely pointless for anything, but these types interested in metaphysics often enjoy arguing about nonsense like that.
>>536553722 >>536553779 Both of you are making the same error. You think the theist and atheist are in the same boat because both have beliefs. The difference is ontological, not psychological. The theist says moral truths are grounded in the nature of God Himself. They exist whether anyone believes in them or not. Two plus two equals four even if every human being on earth believes otherwise. The atheist says moral truths are human constructs or evolutionary byproducts. They only exist insofar as we believe in them. One worldview can account for the objectivity of moral claims. The other cannot. You can disagree about which God exists. You can disagree about what is moral. But the structure of the theistic position allows for moral truth to be real and binding regardless of opinion. The atheist position does not. That is the difference. The claim that religion just adapts to culture is lazy history. The Catholic Church ended the gladiatorial games when they were popular, ended infanticide when it was universal, ended slavery when every economy depended on it, and refused to adapt to divorce, contraception, or abortion when every surrounding culture embraced them. Religions that follow culture exist. They are called mainline Protestantism and they are dying. The Church that refuses to adapt is still here after 2000 years. Read the actual history before you repeat a meme.
>>536553760 The pedophilia claim is a meme, not scholarship. The Greek word porneia used throughout the New Testament is a broad term covering all sexual immorality including what we now call pedophilia. The Didache, the earliest Christian manual written while the apostles were still alive, explicitly commands you shall not corrupt boys. That is a direct prohibition of pederasty. The Church has consistently and universally condemned sexual abuse of children from the first century to the present. You are repeating a claim invented by Reddit atheists who have never read a primary source. If you want to debate the grounding of morality, bring an argument. If you want to trade memes, you already lost.
>>536554021>The theist says moral truths are grounded in the nature of God Himself.>>536554042That's nice lil bro, but your god condoned pedophilia in the OT, impregnated a minor, and made females capable of reproduction at ages as early as 7 years old.>The Church hasNot a very scholarly line of reasoning there, lil guy.
>>536553880The poison can be declared a priori bad, just like murder. You ought to kill has the same moral weight as you ought not to kill.
>>536553695you fundamentally misunderstand systems theory tho. actual real empirical science doesnt have to decide that complexity is good, complexity is the prerequisite for any system capable of processing information or maintaining agency.the entropy isn't bad in a moral sense but in any closed or open system uncontrolled entropic influx be it thermal noise or social disintegration through niggers is objectively destructive to the structural integrity of society as a whole.so even within a purely materialist framework, a society is a complex, high order structure.highorder structures require homeostasis and predictable feedback loops (laws/norms) to prevent decay. bringing in chaos nigger elements that represent pure chaotic nigger entropy wether through biological predisposition toward anti sociality or jewish cultural subversion is simply an invitation to systemic collapse.so generally speaking a functioning civilization requires the minimization of nigger/jew chaos to maintain its complexity.you see we don't need a God to tell us that letting parasites/jews destroy the goyim host is a bad move, thermodynamics tells us that much more efficiently than your imaginary sky dictator ever could.
>>536554125 Numbers 31 records judgment on the Midianites who had seduced Israel into idolatry and ritual prostitution at Baal Peor (Numbers 25). Thousands of Israelites died in a plague as a result. The passage is harsh because war is harsh and the ancient Near East was not a nice place. The Catholic tradition reads these texts through Christ. The Old Testament is progressive revelation: God working with a fallen people in a fallen time, gradually drawing them toward the full moral law. You do not read Leviticus as the final word on ethics any more than you read the Code of Hammurabi as the final word on justice. Christ fulfilled and completed the law. He said let the children come to me. He said whoever causes one of these little ones to sin it would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck. That is the standard. The OT records the journey. The NT is the destination. Your other claims are equally weak. Mary's age is never specified in scripture. The claim that God made females capable of reproduction at seven is biology, not a moral command. You are conflating description with prescription, which is exactly the IS/OUGHT problem you are supposedly here to debate. If you want to argue that objective morality is impossible without God, you are making my case. If you want to argue that the God of the Bible is evil, you need to actually read the Bible, not cherry-pick verses from atheist meme sites.
>>536553779>Morals do not require a guaranty from the creator of the universe to be valid, or at least as valid as any such claim can beYou miss the point. It's rather that transcendentals, things that are not material, can be explained by being derived from a divine universal mind. You can't see, taste, or hear things like morals, reason, or logic. But most people wouldn't argue that they don't exist. Materialists cannot explain those phenomena because they have nothing to ground them on. How does something like the concept of good derive itself from just atoms and bits? Theists have God from which all transcendentals are derived from. Materialists have matter, which is insufficient in explaining transcendentals. The funny thing is how self-defeating the atheist worldview is especially when it comes to providing prescriptions. If everything is subjective, then the pursuit of truth doesn't matter and therefore trying to debate theists doesn't matter either kek.
>>536554236>pedophilia is ok because war is le harshNice AI slop, faggot. Anyway as other anons have stated is/ought isn't actually a problem and you're cowardly looking for a way out of addressing why your god would allow 7 year olds to breed, while not explicitly prohibiting you from doing so.
>>536554021This post doesn't engage with my point at all. Gods aren't real and never have been. The state of being where moral truths are human constructs or evolutionary byproducts is the only state of being that has ever existed, and no religion has ever accomplished anything that indicates they're exempt from this reality. Anything you mention about what an objective morality would be like is meaningless since it's not on offer.It's a fake debate. Threads like this are predicated on the implicit lie that if only you'll accept some form of religion, you'll receive as recompense this wondrous benefit of "objective morality" or "moral truths" grounded in something eternal and unchanging. But religions cannot provide this and never have. Why debate the benefits of a product nobody can make?This narrative is about religions trying to create a need for their gods to fill, like an electrolyte company spinning a narrative for why you can't get hydrated unless your water also has their product in it.
>>536554287So a materialist would reject evolution because you can't see, taste or hear evolution? A materialist would reject price discovery because you can't hold it in your hand? Does that sound like something that's actually true or something you're using as a strawman?
>>536554328Theists can ground transcendentals in the concept of a divine universal mind. Atheists can't. Atheists must accept their worldview is circular and therefore fallacious. Unless you want to dig yourself deeper in your hole and argue that transcendentals don't exist to keep your worldview consistent.
>>536554452Macro evolution isn't a transcendental. It's a theory and a faulty one at that.
>>536551401christcucks are bad people. i always hear this sort of argument from you people, that morality cant exist without god.you are just exposing yourself as an amoral piece of shit, your morality is completely performative and tied to whether or not you will get into heaven. you are projecting your own bleak worldview onto others and passing it off as theirs.the thing is, christians have no obligation to be good either. the entire religion is based on performative virtue signalling.even jeffrey fucking dahmer is in heaven right now with his victims because christianity offered him a path to salvation through christ.according to you faggots all it takes to get into eternal paradise is accepting christ as your savior and begging him for forgiveness. being a good and empathetic person is completely optional because "no sin is too great for God's forgiveness"
>>536554236>God made children capable of procreating, but does not command you to procreate with them, so it's not actually immoral!>I have le won!Pol Pot was right to do what he did to the "intellectual" class.
Jay Dyer twist atheists into pretzels with their own logic. This was hilarious.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6hk5Y3LD8k
>>536551636Uh hello retards! I just gave up the super duper secret of the universe everyone's trying to express but doesn't know how! Just think about it for a second u knobgobbling assfuck.
>>536551401>justify the objective obligation to be good?I don't need to justify it. I see people and I want to help them. Simple as. I don't know what else to tell you, man.
>>536551401>no you can't define morality by harms caused!You can and should. If basic morality doesn't reinforce your religion, you are engaging in blasphemy.Good luck, retard.I recommend you cease preaching.
>>536551401There are two dominant forces that cause all organisms, especially social organisms, to behave as they do:1) Genetics2) Might makes rightGenetics gives humans innate empathy (especially toward members most genetically similar), and innate tendency to cooperate and socialize for mutual gain, survival instincts, etc.Might makes right, whether it is in humans, other organisms, or even between species, might makes right is, by far, the most powerful determiner of social behavior as opposing forces create a natural order and often a hierarchy in an ecosystem. While our genetics can influence us to empathize or not to empathize, a superior force can change this by directly triggering the instincts for survival.You are bound by your genetics instincts and the opposing forces of others (human or otherwise).Thus, atheists, just like all people on Earth, and all other living things on Earth, arrive to the equilibrium behavior within the ecosystem via genetics and might makes right.Theists believe that religion gives them direction. In reality, religion only instills fear in children which crystalizes into adulthood, shaping their behavior. Religions are create and managed by the elite to control the masses. Psychological manipulation is a form of might that the elite use to assert their right to your mind, labor, property, etc.Morality does not exist. What exists are opinions. The opinions backed by force have power. Opinions without force are powerless.
>>536554617Thank you for perfectly demonstrating my point about emotivism. When pushed to provide a logical, structural foundation for your morality, you completely broke down into a screaming match of vulgar insults because your worldview has no access to objective truth.Beyond the emotional coping, your entire attack relies on a laughably illiterate caricature of theology. You are projecting a cheap Protestant version of 'faith alone' when this has not been the position of the apostolic churches (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox).-Catholicism explicitly rejects the idea that you can just 'accept Christ' and bypass justice. We believe in temporal punishment and purgation. A soul must be entirely purified of the stain of its choices before it can stand before God. -Catholic morality isn't rooted in the fear of punishment or desire for reward. True morality is rooted in Charity: Loving the Good for its own sake because God is the Good.You claim I’m 'amoral' for pointing this out. You are confusing acting good with justifying good. I have never denied that an atheist can feel empathy or perform kind acts. My question, which you have utterly failed to answer, is how a universe made of nothing but accidental, colliding atoms can create a binding, objective obligation to be good.In your materialist worldview, Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't objectively evil, he was just a biological machine with a different set of chemical preferences than yours. If you want to claim he was objectively wrong, you have to appeal to a transcendent standard that your own metaphysics forbids.
>>536554617>that morality cant exist without god.Try to make an argument that objective morality exists in a materialist's understanding of the world. It's not so much that morality doesn't exist. But rather that the materialist worldview fails to explain where morality comes from. And it's entertaining to see the atheist's mind do mental gymnastics and using fallacious circular reasoning to try to explain where it comes from.
>>536551401>The question is can your worldview justify the objective obligation to be good?Why is that the question? Who makes it the question and for what purpose? What end does the revelation serve?
>>536554617bed denotes teleology - purposewhich design are you deferring for your ontological purpose for 'people'? what is dictating what constitutes the way a person is meant to be such that any one can fall away from that intended design and be determined 'bad'?
>>536554833>I see people and I want to help them. Simple as. I don't know what else to tell you, man.>I want to help them because I want to help themBegging the question fallacy. Simply not an argument for where morality comes from.
>>536554971>But rather that the materialist worldview fails to explain where morality comes from.Uh, no it doesn't. It comes from eusociality. There isn't even the slightest struggle to describe this. It arises naturally over and over because it works..
I'm too lazy to read all these walls of text
>>536554864>What? What does withholding support have to do with anything?Opinions without force are a signal that you're being cut off from access to the community.No, you won't be able to interpret this as "might." Might does not and never will make right. Please try again.
>>536554938>you can't be objective without religionTranslation: "I am incapable of adhering to the basic tenets of religion without religion. I am a projecting retard."Again. Cease preaching.
>>536555079>Might does not and never will make right.Is that why early Christians killed at least 20 sects of gnostic Christians and etc? Because they wouldn't win, which they then did?
>>536554864>Morality does not existAt least you are keeping your materialist worldview consistent with that belief and not contradictory.
>>536551401there _is_ no is/ought problem, because "is" has not been properly defined.what is is the very thing in question. what ought to be the case then reduces to a question of power games of imperfect information. the churches knew this which is why the spent so long cultivating intelligence networks, spies, banking structures, warlord armies and influence over sovereign rulers.any philosophy done in language is poorly grounded, you don't even have a universal human language so how can you pretend to even speak for the species let alone all of reality.
>>536554938>-Catholicism explicitly rejects the idea that you can just 'accept Christ' and bypass justice. We believe in temporal punishment and purgation. A soul must be entirely purified of the stain of its choices before it can stand before God.thank you for conceding to my argument.the only difference between my "cheap Protestant" version and Catholicism is just that there are extra steps to be taken.>We believe in temporal punishment and purgation. A soul must be entirely purified of the stain of its choices before it can stand before God.this doesnt conflict with what i said at all lol. you can do whatever you want in this life, accept christ, take your "punishment" and "purgation" and still go to heaven no matter how grave your sins are.so therefore, christians, including catholics, have no obligation to be good. >My question, which you have utterly failed to answer, is how a universe made of nothing but accidental, colliding atoms can create a binding, objective obligation to be good.it doesnt. there is no obligation to be good in a godless universe. and people choose to do it anyway. thats why we are superior to you. we dont need a reason to be good. we just do it.
>>536551401Just don't harm anyone.It's the right thing to do.It really is that simple.
>>536555168Thank you for responding without reading or understanding my statement.Your binary worldview is not reflective of reality.
>>536555079I'm not sure what you are trying to say.> Opinions without force are a signal that you're being cut off from access to the community.Ostracism is a social behavior found in many species, including humans. The threat of ostracism forces members to behave in accord with the collective opinion or the opinion of a particularly powerful member(s). Members that are ostracized often die from a lack of societal support for resources and protection from predators or are cut off from viable mates.Ostracism is definitely a form of might.
>>536554559Again this is just failing to engage with the point. A dumb strawman was presented that atheists only believe in things they can physically sense, which is a "point" that doesn't stand up to five seconds' worth of scrutiny. In response you singled out something else, said something off-topic about it and ignored the rest. I included price discovery specifically so you couldn't veer off into just denying evolution but you did it anyway because there are no other plays in your book.>>536554494For all of the thousands of years of religious bloviating about this or that metaphysical concept, not one has ever delivered anything that could be called an objective morality. You can type words into the text box like "transcendentals" but they don't have anything to do with anything, as they're not tethered to anything real.Whatever crap you have to say about atheism or the consequences of it is also immaterial, because the better option you're trying to propose isn't a real option, it's fake. Maybe it would be nice if there was a divine universal mind; whatever that means; but there isn't so whatever subjective whirlwind that leaves us with is the truth of the situation, whether that's fallacious or down a hole or whatever. I don't need to defend atheism as some paragon of virtue, it is simply the only game in town, whether anyone likes it or not.
>>536555267>Reality is not reflective of realityLol I hate you dumb little fucking fat kids who sit around on the internet acting like you're in any way smart or insightful It's so fucking tiring you don't have a single thought to add
>>536555273Ostracism is never considered a valid outcome for most that espouse "might makes right." That you are capable of seeing it implies you have better words for the concept."Social cohesion makes right" just doesn't have the same ring, does it?
>>536555318>not one has ever delivered anything that could be called an objective moralityGolden rule
>>536555174Nature is amoral. Humans are part of nature. Humans are thus amoral. However, some humans, incorrectly, believe morality exists. Their judgement clouded by having their minds overwritten by powerful psychological manipulation tactics of the elite members of our species.
>>536555065Naturalistic fallacy. Because something is "natural" or found in nature, does not necessarily make it good.
>>536554617Dahmer raped tortured and ate people as an atheiest, because there was zero reason not to. You simply prove OP correct. What's more, if given the choice, you absolutely would choose to live in christian society over athiest society. You just don't know it and can't admit it. You are the spiritual version of what browns are culturally.
>>536555327>I'm apparently fat nowNews to me. Is this that vaunted "projection" I keep hearing about?"Binary" describes so little of the world that I am baffled you haven't noticed yet.Your senses are primarily analogue and logarithmic.
>>536555210>It's the right thing to do.Why is it the right thing to do? What grounds morality in your worldview? Try not to use circular reasoning.
>>536555408>Dahmer was a retarded fuckwit that didn't understand that psychopathy is actively detrimental to the selfFTFY.>>536554617At a certain point you have to realize that God doesn't judge people once.Forgiveness? Lol.
>>536555185I appreciate your honesty. By explicitly stating: 'There is no obligation to be good in a godless universe,' you have completely surrendered the entire debate. You have officially conceded my original thesis: your worldview is meta-ethically bankrupt and incapable of grounding objective moral duty.But your attempt to spin this surrender into a victory is completely incoherent, as is your lingering misunderstanding of Catholic theology.-You claim you are 'superior' because you choose to be good without a reason. But if there is no objective obligation, then 'goodness' is just your personal, subjective preference. A secular person who chooses to be a sadist is following their preferences just as validly as you are following yours. In a universe of accidental matter with no objective duties, your empathy has the exact same moral value as a preference for a specific color. You can't be 'superior' for having a preference; you've just admitted your morality is an empty emotional posture.-You think Purgatory is just a prison sentence you serve after 'doing whatever you want.' That is dogmatically false. In Catholicism, if you choose to 'do whatever you want' and commit grave evil, you destroy Sanctifying Grace in your soul. That is called mortal sin. If you die in that state, you don't go to Purgatory; you go to Hell. Purgatory is only for those who die in friendship with God but still require purification from the temporal stains of already forgiven sins. You cannot treat God like a bureaucrat you can fool with 'extra steps.'It's been fun chatting with you :-)
Is it morally correct for me to hate niggers but still want to get gangbanged by a bunch of big dick ones who manhandle me? Does God want me to di that?
>>536555336Might makes right encompasses all forms of might that can be used to assert your right over something you deem valuable to the exclusion of others (human or otherwise).This includes, force or threats of force, the use of wealth (paying people to do something/bribery), charism, lying/cheating, sexual appeal, protection rackets, psychological manipulation (religion/philosophy/indoctrination of fear), etc.
>>536555408>Dahmer raped tortured and ate people as an atheiest, because there was zero reason not to.christians do these things too (and much worse things btw), because they know they can repent their sins and be forgiven for it. because according to your gay book nobody is beyond redemption.>if given the choice, you absolutely would choose to live in christian society over athiest society.that depends completely on what time period it is, christians have been responsible for some of the great atrocities and crimes against humanity in history. the inquisition is one good example of this.
>>536551401Didn't read, I like the painting though
>>536555529I need you to remember that the primary audience you seek to criticize are self important imbeciles.When a self important imbecile sees "might," are they going to successfully understand the entirety of the concept?Stated differently, narcissists can't into morality. This thread is a case study.
>>536555318>A dumb strawman was presented that atheists only believe in things they can physically sensSome atheists are strict materialists. It's not a strawman. What is your position? Tell me what the Price Discovery is.>"transcendentals" but they don't have anything to do with anything>Logic and reasoning doesn't have anything to do with anythingKek. So you aren't using logic and reasoning right now? Are you arguing that they don't exist or that they exist and you don't care. Tell me your position so I don't strawman you.
>>536555554>>536555408There are many Christian societies, most are in Africa. Look at how that has turned out.What makes Christian society appear so well is because people only focus on the WHITE societies.White societies, regardless of religion, tend to outperform others. There is a significant genetic element at play.
>>536555354It's hard to even come up with a test for "objective" morality since it's a vague concept, but I'd put it at the very least as something that all people recognize as what they should do in all places at all times. In which case the Golden Rule does not count, as simple as it is. No tribal society I'm aware of adhered to the Golden Rule outside of its own tribe, and not totally then, nor did they necessarily see it as immoral to not adhere to it. Many religions, governments and peoples have felt it perfectly moral to treat others as they would never have themselves be treated.>Well do none tribesmen count as "other" though?Just asking this question rips out the foundation for the Golden Rule to be an objective moral. If we can't agree on who's included, what can we agree on? And given the sheer amount of places and times and circumstances that are possible, how could it be true that you should always treat someone as you would be treated? There's no situation where at least some people would think it moral to do otherwise, whether that's stopping short or going beyond?And furthermore we have to ask; if it only applies to humans and human behavior, can we really call it "objective?" Do rocks have a burden to act according to the Golden Rule? If so...how?And we have to remember that the fundamental idea of objective morality, as it is sold to us by theists, is that it's something which radiates out from some divine entity. So if there isn't a divine entity to radiate out the Golden Rule, it isn't an objective morality, even if it is subscribed to by all humans, which almost no rule is.
>>536555708>no you can't use that!Translation: I don't like being reminded that my actions say "please kill me."You may /diy/ yourself at any point. You never needed us.
>>536555620The majority of our elite members are psychopaths, and most psychopaths are narcissists. They absolutely can and are narcissists. These same people create the vast bulk of the moral fictions (religions/philosophy, etc) that people follow today. They perfectly understand morality, but they understand morality in a more mechanistic sense, as one of many tools of control.
>>536555376>Duhhh fawwacyIt's not good because it's natural it's good because it works you fat FUCKING dumb reddit brain redneck retard No person who types "x fallacy." Has ever won a single argument or gotten pussy one time. Fucking loser lol
>>536555806They absolutely can and are understanding morality*
>>536555806>they perfectly understand morality>that's why they ignore itYou are a strange breed of imbecile. You possess the necessary awareness but refuse the conclusions it grants you.If it helps, "karma" is the harm you cause yourself in harming others.
>>536555554I would argue they don't, because then they're not Christians. Christianity is a way of life, and a way better one than anything athiests have come up with so far and when you break the rules, you're technically something else. Sooo using people who break the rules to, argue that the rules/way of life is bad just sounds fucking stupid to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>536555376Bad news, mate.You don't understand "natural." It doesn't mean "exists in nature."That it was ever designated a fallacy is itself fallacious. A better translation would be "Does it serve?"
>>536555655A fair point but, again I'd argue that they're not really christians because they're going to rape and steal and shit because some of them are genetically incapable of living a christian life.
>>536555491Define "good"
>>536555896>> they perfectly understand morality>> that's why they ignore itThey follow currently popular morality where it benefits them, ignore it when it does not, and create new ones and indoctrinate others to a moral belief that more benefits them when they can.This is not contradictory. People who understand that nature if amoral and that morality is malleable have an inherent advantage over others as they are not bound by rigid rules that could harm them.
>>536555638Don't pretend to be generous now, nobody's buying it. There is no such thing as such a strict materialist that they don't think patterns exist or that trends exist, which is what something like evolution or price discovery is. Which I'm not going to describe, highlight the text and search it if you're that bereft of knowledge.To remind you of what you posted with your own free will;>>536554287>You can't see, taste, or hear things like morals, reason, or logic. But most people wouldn't argue that they don't exist. Materialists cannot explain those phenomenaThis was posted to create the impression that because reason can't be physically present in a room, it therefore can't be explained by materialists, and therefore this must be something metaphysical, therefore it must be possible for metaphysical things to exist, therefore God. This is a really dumb argument. It's not clear how any materialist could even live if their entire worldview consisted literally of matter only and none of the effects that matter presents or none of the patterns that appear in matter as it changes and moves. That is the bog standard definition of a strawman, making up a version of your opponent's life that's so obviously dumb that it's exceedingly easy to win the argument against it.Which gets us back to our main point; gods are fake and always have been, no theist can provide convincing evidence that they're real and never has, and therefore any debate about objective morality guaranteed by such entities is pointless since such entities don't exist to do the guaranteeing.
>>536555852So you're not arguing from a naturalistic fallacy, but the pragmatic fallacy AKA "it just works" fallacy. Kek, gotcha.That doesn't tell us anything. Plants use light for photosynthesis because it just works. Now try to derive morality from that photosynthetic pragmatism.
>>536555491>I appreciate your honesty. By explicitly stating: 'There is no obligation to be good in a godless universe,' you have completely surrendered the entire debate.i never disagreed with you in the first place. i don't need the promise of heaven or eternal punishment to be a good person and do good things. you do. that's why i'm infinitely better than you.>In a universe of accidental matter with no objective duties, your empathy has the exact same moral value as a preference for a specific color.lol and? that just proves my point even more. you can sit and say that none of this matters if there's no god, but there are still consequences for being a vile person. you can still be tied up in a basement and tortured slowly regardless of whether there's a god and heaven or not. but in your worldview, the person doing it isnt beyond redemption and can still end up in heaven with god. hell, he can be a devout catholic and still do it, repent, accept punishment, and still end up in heaven while his victim would go to hell because they cursed god for letting such a terrible thing happen to them. it's actually pretty sickening.>You think Purgatory is just a prison sentence you serve after 'doing whatever you want.' That is dogmatically false. In Catholicism, if you choose to 'do whatever you want' and commit grave evil, you destroy Sanctifying Grace in your soul. again, for the third time, no one is beyond redemption. >If you die in that state, you don't go to Purgatory; you go to Hell. thats exactly what i've said several times retard LMAO. "No matter how many mortal sins a person commits, the door to forgiveness remains completely open until their final breath."so yes, for the 10th time, you can do anything you want in this life, even as a devout catholic, as long as you don't die with unrepented sins, you go to heaven. because your religion is dogshit. have a great night.
ITT: people argue against someone using ai to build their arguments. Do the same.
>>536556050>I am perfectly capable of being better than I am but refuseHuh. Interesting.Take your pyrantel pamoate.
>>536555960>A better translation would be "Does it serve?"So you're trying to shift from the naturalistic fallacy to the pragmatism fallacy. It's good cause it works. But why is pragmatism good under a materialist belief system?
>>536556011Christians, regardless of race, have done the same things. Raping and stealing, etc. has a significant genetics factor related to the warrior gene quantity and variety.Romans were not Christians initially and yet developed a spectacular civilization, same as many other non-Christian societies. Atheist white civilizations will also thrive at great heights.
>>536556100That's not how you derail threads, anon.
>>536556100But then how would the AI know how wrong it is? It should be fed something a little more high class than reddit posts.
>>536556177>why why whyI do not currently have stewardship of a 3 year old. You must be 18 to post here.
>>536556065>because reason can't be physically present in a room, it therefore can't be explained by materialists,Then explain where reason comes from. How do you get from atoms bouncing around and interacting with one another to immaterial shit like reasoning, ethics, and morality?
>>536556213>I cannot ground my worldviewYes, we know. That's the point lol. Just admit morality doesn't exist like >>536554864 conceded. His worldview isn't contradictory like yours. Try to be less contradictory.
>>536556128Your opinion of someone else is entirely irrelevant. What makes someone "better" only has two real sources:1) the subjective evaluation of the individual by the individual.2) Nature and its selection pressures determining who survives and reproduces or not.
>>536556373"Subjective" and "objective" are not antonyms.You're welcome.>>536556371Engaging in bad faith discussion does not yield good faith results. Get your own fucking spoon.
>>536556462No one is stopping you from making an argument, dude. I have yet to see an argument from an atheist that believes in morality about where it comes from that isn't fallacious. Concede morality doesn't exist or attempt to ground it outside of a divine universal mind.
>>536556462Everything is subjective. Objectivity is a fictitious ideal. The closest we can get to objectivity is from two sources:1) Collective subjectivity2) Empirical non-falsified theories and empirical statistical consistency (neither of which promise absolute truth now or in the future)."Objectivity" is a word invented to mean only things that are true in the mind (axioms) invented in the Medieval era and later taken on by Rationalists that believed that all reality could be imagined in the mind (no Empiricism needed). We now know that objectivity is strictly impossible.
>>536554864The last thing we need is more bootlickers like you validating the moral corruption of elites. Big peter theil fan?
>the objective obligation to be good?since no such thing exists, the rest of the OP's whiny cuntpost can be discarded
>>536556624"Subjective" and "objective" are not antonyms.They are not opposed.They are not at cross purposes.Both can be simultaneously accurate.Your argument serves no purpose.>>536556616>No one isDo not deny the results of your own actions, faggot. Lampshade yourself."Morality" is implicit.
>>536556642When a lion kills and eats a gazelle is it a fan of Peter Theil?When you defend your life, the lives of those you care about, and your property, are you a Peter Theil fan?Nature is absolute. You can not pick and choose what you like about it. You are an active participant whether you like it or not. If you do not like the elite, you are certainly free to change the rules and power structure, become your own elite, etc. It's not an easy road, but things of such great value are usually never easy in nature.
>>536556710Subjectivity exists and determines everything that we actually know and determines all our behaviors and thoughts.Objectivity is a fictious idealized state. Now a defunct belief by those that understand nature.
>>536553779>Moreover, merely claiming that you have such a guaranty does not make it true.this point here completely flys over Dyer morons heads every time. Dyer's own wording of this point is an admission of its subjectivity. He almost always uses the phrase "gives an account for objective morality""gives and account for" is literally the weakest assertion for the truth of something one could possibly claim. "Gives an account for "= "creates the possibility for", Possibility = not certain.the guy is literally saying "morality COULD only be true if god exists." not "morality IS true only if god exists". That distinction is too subtle for Dyer minions. I guess to be fair it is kind of subtle in general but thats what these debate bros should be specialized in anyway.
>>536556834You don't sound like the rebel you think you do. You sound like someone who's coping w/ being ruled by religious people, jews, technocrats, etc
>>536556896Objectivity arises via observation.That something is subjective for you does not mean it isn't objective for me.THEY ARE NOT ANTONYMS.This is not difficult.Engaging in bad faith discussion does not yield good faith results.Don't make me define "antonym" for you, retard. Get a FUCKING spoon.Words mean things.
>>536556915I never said I was a rebel of any sort. If anything, I am a significant benefactor of the current societal order. > You sound like someone who's coping w/ being ruled by religious people, jews, technocrats, etc.Any ruler that is not me is not preferrable. However, the current rulers are not outright terrible, there could have been far worse. The rulership will change over time and I believe it will naturally improve for a variety of factors (increase in the variety of elite with different opinions, the increase of individual power in the masses, technologically induced hyper abundance, etc.)
>>536556710>"Morality" is implicit.Circular reasoning. Try again or just admit morality is bullshit in your worldview.
>>536557135>I am a significant benefactorOops, that's not what that word means.
>>536551401DELULU IS THE SOLULU!Fuck off christard. Your messiah celebrated hannukah. All we need is Unka Adolf and Frens.
>>536556996Observation is a subjective activity. The observer is a subjective entity.Two people can observe the same thing and come away with different opinions. Or all observers can be wrong. If observation were objective then scientific theories would never be falsified. Yet, we know that scientific theories are falsified frequently by more and better observations. It is impossible to say that we have ever achieved truth/objectivity we can only say that a scientific theory is not yet falsified.
>>536557265It is impossible to discuss known knowns and known unknowns with one for whom only unknown unknowns exist.You deny reason itself. Good luck, retard.
>>536551401I'm an atheist and while I am made up of atoms, I don't experience life in the scale of atoms and therefore I don't base my actions on scale of atoms. I don't base my actions on the position of stars either.Morality does not stem from a god, it is innate property of humans. Groups of people have found it easier to live together if they abide by similar set of behavior. It can be loose bound as in morals, or tightly dictated like in the books of law.Religion doesn't make anything right. It just adds a dimension to the debate, and hardly any value. There are so many religions out there, and there have been even more religions which have died out. All are saying to be the correct belief system. I choose experience over believing
>>536557278Beneficiary and benefactor.
>>536556899Number one, I have no idea who "Dyer" is and I don't care so don't bother telling me I'm scrolling past anyway. If I agree with him on something(??) then I reinvented his point I guess.>"morality COULD only be true if god exists." not "morality IS true only if god exists".This is a distinction without a difference. If there's no possibility for morality without a god then these are the same thing, since we've still gatekept morality behind the acceptance of a god, whether we're saying god is real and therefore morality, or god has to be real before there could be a morality. Rhetorically it serves the same purpose; >You have to go through a god to get to morality, and why not mine while you're at it?Nobody buys that this is about high-minded debate of philosophy, this is about manufacturing a need for religion in an era that cannot find religious claims credible on their face, and using whatever clever-sounding words we need to get there.
>>536557329>reee stop telling me I'm bad at wordsBeing wrong by choice is not an objective action. Recognizing that observation is prone to error is.Not. Antonyms.>it still refuses to query a dictionary on the internetGood luck.
>>536551889I'd love to see you yelling at the sky atguing with an asteroid before it destroyed this jeet-infested mud ball."BUT WHAT ABOUT TELOS?!!!!"
>>536551401intentions of greed, hatred, and delusion lead to the long term harm and suffering of yourself and othersnon-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion lead to long term welfare and happiness
>>536551401>objective obligation to be goodThere is no obligation to be good. Good, which is subjective, makes sense on a logical basis if we are discussing empathy and compassion. If the standards of society are rooted in understanding and civility, then the majority's peace, stability, opportunities, well-being, etc. incrrase in relation. This is why even the meekest members of your society should be uplifted, and, honestly, treated better than those who already have inherent privilege.Because:What if it were me?Humans are inherently selfish, and atheists skip the silly fairytales and go direct to human natute. Use that selfishness for "good."On the opposite end, most religious texts are not "good." There is a lot of scripture throughout actual religous dogma, especially judeochristian canon, that supports universally "bad" ideas. Genocide, infanticide, homicide, racism/tribalism, sexism, religous intolwrancd (ironically), torture, etc. Remember, in America the abolitionist had to largely break with the Christian bible, because it wholesale supports the institutuon of racial/tribal slavery.To summarize, we can't even start having a conversation about the implicit good in your mythology, because your mythology tries to convince rational people that universally "evil" things are actually good. I would never argue that killing the first born children of my enemy is "good" or morally just...that is where your argument starts. I may as well argue with my toddler about the economic policy of the tooth fairy.
>>536557446For anyone that can't read this, this usage of "welfare" does not mean "gibs," it means "fare well."Yes, that is also a common form of "goodbye."
>>536557359What are you getting at here?>You deny reason itselfHow am I denying reason? We are all using reasoning here. Except the thing is the atheist position should deny reason exists to remain congruent because it cannot account for where reason comes from in their worldview. It's lazy thinking to just say "it just is, dude"
>>536557521>there is no obligationYou deny the source of your own drives.You deny the drives themselves.To summarize, we cannot even start having a conversation about implicit good until you pull your head out of your commie ass.
>>536557575Define "good"
>>536557428https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/subjectiveObjective is an antonym of subjective.I gave you a full explanation of why you are wrong with the hopeful belief that your stupidity is arising from a lack of enlightenment. But I see that your stupidity can not be resolved via edification, rather it is built in.
>>536557569>I'm not being unreasonable, I just refuse to understand reasonYour pipul practice session has ended. I pivoted to treating you exactly as you deserve(both subjectively and objectively) many posts ago.
>>536557446That is morality and that derives from God. Without God, there is no way to argue for why morality exists without a foundation.
>>536557617>hides behind thesaurusSo you looked it up, understood my point, and fled to a different option that will explicitly say something about how accurate it is.I gave you a full explanation of all the components you require to dismantle your own arguments. You never needed me.>>536557595The opposite of what you just did.
>>536557636Why would that derive from a higher being?greed, hatred, and delusion all proliferate craving and accumulate the burden that you're always carrying with younon-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion don't proliferate craving, and result in letting go of the burdenthis is orthogonal to any being which may or may not lay down laws or create existence, as the truth about suffering precedes all of that
>>536557672Was creating lucifer with the foreknowledge that he would become satan "good"?
>>536557672You have failed to make any discernable argument. You contribute nothing.
>>536557735It should be noted that all of the cardinal sins have versions that are not remotely sinful.Repose, earned rest, is not sloth, but may be misinterpreted as such.Degree and indulgence are opaque to the indulgent.
>>536557407>Groups of people have found it easier to live together if they abide by similar set of behavior.Appeal to consequences fallacy. That doesn't explain why morality exists. Why do atoms care if the biological machines they make up live together easier or not? Actually, the concept of entropy means such a concept would actually be counterintuitive to the laws of physics in the materialist worldview.
>>536557742>was mixing multiple myths in bad faith God's fault?Gee, I fucking wonder...>>536557745Failing to convince you to take yourself seriously is not mine. I cannot take ownership of this.
>>536557794It matters where your intentions are.For example, with rest, are you giving in to a desire to just "shut everything out", or are you simply not engaging with craving and sensuality? That desire to shut everything out is another form of craving which leads to more craving, thus it's harmful.A desire to abstain from craving and sensuality puts an end to those things, thus it's beneficial.
>>536557844The root of fallacy is Truth.Fallacy lies in application, not accuracy and adequacy.You are complaining about communication errors whilst refusing to communicate.
>>536557423>>"morality COULD only be true if god exists." not "morality IS true only if god exists".>This is a distinction without a difference. If there's no possibility for morality without a god then these are the same thing, since we've still gatekept morality behind the acceptance of a god, whether we're saying god is real and therefore morality, or god has to be real before there could be a morality. Rhetorically it serves the same purpose;i was arguing on your side for your point you moron. And there absolutely is a distinction.One is a logical rule about how the universe might work; the other is a claim about what actually exists. Merging them is a logical error."you're not even smart enough to see when someone rephrases your own point to reinforce it.
>>536557856> Failing to convince you to take yourself seriously is not mine. I cannot take ownership of this.Non-sensical ambiguous statement. I've had better trolls to play with.
>>536557856Why are you afraid to answer? Are you just going to pretend to not understand?
>>536557886Such profoundly simple concepts.And yet, this fucking thread.
>>536557620>both subjectively and objectivelyObjectively too? So outside of the mind. Are you claiming you are god? Thanks for conceding the argument that god does in fact exist. Kek.
>>536557856Your moshiach rabbi yosef was squeezed from a jewish cunt and celebrated hannukah.
>>536551578>If morality is ultimately a byproduct of evolutionary biologyThis worries me. If it's just another apple test then what? And what natural percent of the population are 5s?
>>536557575>implicit goodThere is no implicit good. There is useful good. Is turning a woman to salt for having sympathy for those suffering good? Is keeping the women and children of your rival tribes in chattel slavery for generations good? Is turning brother upon brother against each other, not because they've done one another harm, but simply because they worshipped one of the hundreds of other gods...good?That's your conundrum. Good luck with all of that. It looks like a rocky problem...Again, you can't have a conversation about good, because you're tied down by the inexcusable weight of all the bad in your ancient propaganda. Even now you fall back to violent rhetoric. Why? Someone disagree with you for the millionth time? That checks out.Debates are reserved for rational, logical beings.You are free to spin a good yarn and proselytize to your heart's content but I find it incredibly boring, and will not partake. At least the Greeks had interesting drama.
>>536557949I understand so well that I decided you could do without knees.You are NOT incognito.>>536557956>godCowardice. It's "God."I knew morality before I knew God. The hell did you think childhood was?>>536557981>be half jew>be better than full jew>full jews forever screechingHonestly, it's just sad.
>>536557999Eating beef is an implicit good.Eat beef.
>>536558031Ultimately god is all knowing and the creator of everything material and transcendental, so he is the creator of satan and the creator of evil. Now how would you define "good"?
>>536558031The torah / old testament is judeo-supremacist historical fiction. There was no monotheistic yahwehist kingdom in Judea prior to the Persian intervention. Yahweh was one war god in a pantheon, even had a consort. Exodus never happened, Moses didn't exist and Egypt never enslaved 'Israelites'.
>>536557844>Appeal to consequences fallacy. That doesn't explain why morality exists.It absolutely does. Certain behaviors leading to more favorable reproductive outcomes for certain animals causing more animals that exhibit more of that behavior to come into existence, ad infinitum, is a perfectly sensible explanation for why that type of behavior exists.You're not even using that fallacy right. The fallacy is if you say something like>Yeah but if you say morality is subjective then people might do immoral things!since you haven't addressed the claim, just said that if the claim is left unchallenged it will lead to bad consequences. The explanation that moral behavior arises from what's advantageous to organisms isn't that at all. No bad consequence was named for why people should have to believe his point or not challenge it. Ironically, appeal to consequences is closer to the theistic argument that you can't question religion because people might become immoral as a result.You are like most of the theists I have ever debated on this subject. You have learned a series of rational-sounding ideas for how to defeat evil atheists who are trying to take your god away. These rhetorical mechanisms are not anywhere close to what actually drives you to be theistic, they are not what you would try to convert someone with, but you have learned they sometimes make the atheists go away. Which is why you use them imprecisely and without any real understanding of what they're supposed to mean. You hurl them out the same way someone might hurl garlic at a suspected vampire.
>>536557985Do you really need to ask that?
>>536557954It's not that simple, if it were, then everyone would be Buddhist.The problem is that people don't want to look at their own intentions and face the uncertainty of not knowing what to do or why they exist, so they cling onto nice sounding fantasies to cope. The root fantasy is the craving for a sense of self. It's purpose is to allay the anxiety of the utter uncertainty of things. Beings experience suffering and don't know why or what the escape is. The only way that unenlightened beings (including myself) know how to deal with suffering is to ignore it and cover it up. It takes a lot of effort to willingly try to uncover what your mind has been depending on ignorance of. "It's hard to convince a man of something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it"
>>536558135>>536558137I continue to find the inability to synthesize meaningful statements from disparate anecdotes amusing.There is no god. Only God.God is.Now, back to the Godless nature of morality, if you would.>but that means bad!No, it means not component of God.
>>536551401Wow is that cutting edge ethical debate from the 1960s ? How nostalgic
>>536558254"Profound" was always about stating what should have been obvious.Conversion of unknown known to known known.
>>536558211>Certain behaviors leading to more favorable reproductive outcomes for certain animals causing more animals that exhibit more of that behavior to come into existenceI mean at that point you've twisted yourself into a pretzel trying to defend your position that using that logic you can argue that religion is good because it propagates the species. An atheist advocating for God. You're welcome for the conversion.
>>536551578https://web.archive.org/web/20250911181904/https://ourchan DOT org/pol/thread/16434.htmlIf you are interested in learning, then you will have to stop with one liners, psyop threads and start reading.
>>536558316Well, that has worked wonders for them... And I bet the numbers are still inflated by non-practicing/default Christians. I probably referred to myself as Christian into my mid-20s (southern roots, very religious family -- deacons, ministers, elders, etc, sunday school, etc.). It wasn't until some self-reflection and life experience that I realized I was closer to Deism.Now, I don't even think about it at all...
>>536558316And atheists still get farmed by theists in debates because they still have no argument against it. That tells you how much of a dead-end and self-contradicting worldview atheism is.
>>536557915Since this dude obviously cannot simplify and explain what is wrong with Dyer's ought/is scam argument, i'll just spell it out for those who are familiar with his BS.Dyer claims that ought/is dilemma as PROOF of god. It is not proof because It is a negative argument, not a positive proof: Claiming that "atheism cannot ground objective morality" only attempts to defeat the atheist's position. It does absolutely nothing to prove that the theist's position is automatically true, secure, or objective. The Euthyphro Dilemma.Even if a theist claims God is the source of morality, they still have to answer a classic philosophical problem: Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good? If it is just because God commands it, morality becomes arbitrary (God could command murder tomorrow and make it "good"). If God commands it because it is already good, then morality exists independently of God, and the theist has lost their monopoly on objectivity. tearing down an opponent's foundation does not automatically make your own foundation solid. And this is exactly what Dyer says his argument does. Btw im not an athiest so im an idiot for trying to team up with one here in this thread.. Just dont agree with OP(Dyer moron) dumb argument.
>>536551578>If morality is ultimately a byproduct of evolutionary biology, how do you escape the conclusion that your deepest moral convictions are merely adaptive survival mechanisms rather than objective truths?Why would anyone need to "escape" such a conclusion, especially considering that such adaptability has served us well on balance as a whole species? Only solipsistic assholes possessing main character syndrome, terrified of cessation of existence due to their meaningless fear of an inevitability they can't prevent would feel the need to stuff personal meaning into the world.
>>536558254"Fantasies are cope... now excuse me as I attempt to transcend this realm through meditation, OUMMMMM OUMMMM OUMMMM..."
>>536558266I shit on your jew god yahweh and his consort shemesh. Fuck abrahamism.
>>536554236The old testament is bullshit. Exodus is fiction.
>>5365514011 The obligation is entirely built on fear which is why so many of you believers have mental issues.2 You're some of the most depraved people on Earth. You replace peoples, destroy nations, mutilate children, enslave people, marry kids and cousins, you go as far as to divinize torture itself, and you do all of it with a big proud smile on your faces.
>>536551578>If morality is ultimately a byproduct of evolutionary biology, how do you escape the conclusion that your deepest moral convictions are merely adaptive survival mechanisms rather than objective truths?Inert matter in the universe becomes conscious somehow, that inert matter in the universe now animated develops complex moral systems. This is the problem with purely materialistic thinking, where do you stop. Do you stop at the animated material that is consciousness now, or go all the way back. Why should electrons have the ability, in any configuration, to abstractify complex moral systems.
>>536551401>I want something to exist that doesn't exist so I imagine an all mighty being that can do by definition everything.
>>536562204True, but the problem goes both ways: how can consciousness create matter?
>>536551401>You have no access to objective moral truth because your worldview cannot produce any.So how is this solved by religion, exactly? Let's grant that God is an objective soruce of morality. How do you access this source? It's not like God comes down personally to judge every moral conundrum ever. We're stuck reading scripture, which means everyone's going to have different interpretations of what it means. Two Christians can see something as simple as "Do not murder." and come out with wildly different opinions on self-defense or abortions or war. What do you do about issues not covered by the Bible, like generative AI? Well, you have to argue about what God 'would want us to do' and oh boy doesn't this sound like the very screeching matches you just lambasted, OP?
>>536551401The is/ought problems was actually something I focused on when I was studying ethical philosophy.My take in simple form was this. I used a natural law argument to establish that there are certain objective facts for what is good for you as a human being. You need air and water on a simple level on a more advanced level you have desires like freedom or love, etc. These can be said to be objective a priori facts that one can observe as true. It IS the case that you are human and humans have certain things that have value to them. From there you can employ logic to assert that human beings OUGHT to have a set of objective morals based on what IS valuable to them. This runs you into Hume's OUGHT problem; but since the basis is logic the objection must be why OUGHT I believe what logic says? But if you accept that premise then you break down the basis of apriori and a posteori reasoning and with it your ability to know anything about how the world IS. Even "I think (IS) therefore (Ought) I am (IS) is ultimately an Ought statement. TLDR: If you accept logical truth IS then you accept OUGHT conditions based upon it.
>>536563122So when I assert that morally a human being "OUGHT" to do something if I do so from a position justified by logical reasoning and a posteori facts then I'm essentially making a predictive truth statement about the way the world IS and what IS going to be good for a human being. In the same way I might say that I Ought to water my plants if I want them to live. I don't have to want the plant to live; but if I do I should water it. By the same token being a human being I am compelled by my nature to value certain things so it is not a question of if I OUGHT to care if I have enough water to stay alive It simply IS the case that I do. That's natural law and from that you can have morals. They may not be the sort of cosmically true morals a God would have; but they are true for you as a human being and since you are a human being that's what matters.
Bummer, someone actually posts a philosophy thread about something I studied and by the time I see it everyone has already fucked off.
>>536551401>none of you can truly say something is wrongfucking children and justifying it is wrongdone
