>>542012991Strawman.No one says the 2nd panel?
>>542012991Suffering isn't inherently bad
suffering is bad when it happens to me
>>542013214Suffering is inherently good.
>>542013214What did Nietzsche say about about suffering?
>>542012991>Humans get to set the ruleslolLMAO evenI don't know what's funnier, the idea that you think that free will is a thing or that this is anything other than begging the question>I get to set the rules because I get to set the rules >just becauseHave you considered the possibility that the reason you need to "make up" morality is because it doesn't exist?>>542013214Neither does the will BTWShow me any definition of the will and I will show you that it is either incoherent, unprovable, or the product of circumstance rather than relating to a real "individual" (another incoherent concept)Freddy was a mad romantic who liked writing his own fairy tales rather than reading someone else's
>>542013214Spoken like someone without a painful disease
pregnant men
>>542013569Yes, the concept of free will does not makes sense. But the argument that people can't set rules is even stupider. We set rules all the time. This very website has rules that you are following whenever you post.
>>542013078I do. Under whos authority is killing people and taking their shit wrong, if not God's? Certainly not the dead guy whos shit I took, hes dead and I have his shit. Absent god, all morality is just "things I think are good", and unless you have power over me Im under no obligation to follow your rules. Given that the greatest power of the land appears to be the epstien cabal, lesser rulesets are just slave cope.
>Let me answer the argument that questions my value judgements by invoking more arbitrary value judgementslol these people always end up identifying with the worse kind of morality, whore worship and favoritism anyways. they worship the fallen world as their god which is why they are all hysterical bots that enable evil. Their "empathy and compassion" is dependent on the temporal emotions of their state of mind. Don't forget that it's highly selective as well.Religious morality revolves around the eternal and the transcendental.
>>542013214Going to the gym or sparring with your friends isnt suffering. Suffering is bad by definition.
>>542012991https://youtu.be/pFCybl-FGt8?is=QBWg62rJwLH1LpFG
>>542012991Without a purpose, suffering and pleasure are both meaningless.3rd panel is thinking in political terms, which is not what's up for debate.
>>542013078>StrawmanNew to webcomics?
>>542012991That last panel is retarded because it basically ignores the "good" moral framework that Christianity provides and what the most powerful and influential countries abided by and still do for centuries, go to a nigger filled islamic African country and appeal to the locals by crying about White Christians
>>542012991The image can be rejected on its premise without reading a single word. The creator of the third panel doesnt understand the point of a simple comic with exactly subjects, how could it understand any of the complexity of theology and human nature?
>>542012991>humans set the rulesThe fucking hubris
>>542012991But empathy isn't always beneficial. Why bother with it?
>>542012991>if no god exists, why is suffering bad?Because it feels bad retard
>>542013689>But the argument that people can't set rules is even stupider. We set rules all the time. This very website has rules that you are following whenever you post.That's law, not morality. The fact that you can't distinguish the difference indicates that you're not qualified to have this argument, but fine. The difference between law and morality is that when I shoot someone, I can go without being arrested or punished, but it will still be "wrong".Anyone who equates law with morality is arguing that might makes right. This is only partially correct: any law that cannot enforce itself does not actually exist, so force is a necessary component in any law system outside of one containing arbitrarily perfect individuals whose behavior is indistinguishable from those under physical compulsion to meet arbitrary definitions.Point being, anyone who claims that suffering is wrong is in the impossible position of being forced to erase it whenever and wherever it exists, all the time, forever. This is not actually what this kind of rhetoric is intended to do, however: It's intended to protect the system, that relies on specific behavior to function. Whether you draw the line at what the system is at the physical body of OP, of New Zealanders as a whole, or the global Internet community, point being is that we are expected to take the real argument of>Okay we shouldn't ignore moral rules even when others do because if we do everything collapsesand it's being presented in this format to provide the illusion that it's anything other than an act of biologically compelled and socially pressured fear of the alternative.White lies are one thing, but I'm not going to pretend to give someone a moral high ground that fundamentally doesn't exist in the first place.>Why not?Because I am in turn compelled to point out bullshit when I see it, as I see it. He may even believe it, but that doesn't make it any more built on fucking nothing but hot air and dreams.
>>542013214okay cool. *sets you on fire*
>>542012991If there is a God, then where did God come from?That is my issue with both religion and science. Neither one can tell you how all this got started. It's just moving the goalposts. There is no ultimate answer.
>>542014219Why is it bad that you feel bad
>>542014219>it feels badYou suffering doesnt feel bad to me at all though? In contrast, eating your food and fucking your bitch feels pretty good>it makes me feel bad thoughOhhhh you meant it makes YOU feel bad when I take your shit and hurt you. Well yeah I guess a sheep feels pretty bad when a wolf eats it too, why should I care?
>>542014405There isnt an ultimate answer, however there is an answer at the limit of our understanding, which is probably the best we can hope for. The presence of god provides a basis for moral rules, his absence means that they cant be defined and sets us down a rung.
>>542014513That’s like asking how you know the sky is blue. It’s bad because you can directly perceive it’s badness.
>>542014716I do not like your answer.....
>>542012991Yeah humans “setting the rules” is working out real great for the west, a collection of cultures nearly exclusively run by sadistic, pedophilic psychopaths and narcissists and their demonic liberal cohorts whose entire existence revolves around consumer hedonism at the direct expense of the entire future human race and entire planet as a whole. Excellent humanism, retards.
>>542013929Okay thank you for providing your personal definition of suffering.
>>542015115>That’s like asking how you know the sky is blue.I don't think so, because the blueness of the sky is just that perception of the blueness. "Good" and "bad" on the other hand aren't like "blue", they have to relate to something else.
>>542015151I came to God when doing math in university, I wish I could properly articulate the specific concepts but they werent relevent to my work and it was years ago so they've slipped from me to the point that if I tried to explain them here someone would rip me a new asshole and I don’t want to be some athiests strawman to tear apart.However Ill put it this way. Do you believe that theres anything thats objectively morally wrong? If so, why are you correct and why is someone who disagrees wrong, objectively? If you're just two humans then the authority lies with who can enforce his vision, and given that you live under epstien world then certainly your morality isnt "objectively" right in any way. For an objective human morality to exist, someone has to be handing down that morality to humans, and that lawgiver has to transcend humanity, be it yweh or allah or God or vishnu or whoever it is. The argument for which god or metaphysics are true is seperate, but if you think being king of the world doesnt entitle you to behead and fuck babies then you must nessessarily believe in a higher power that says beheading and fucking babies is wrong.
>>542013214This
>>542013214Yes it is. Objectively so in fact. Anything else is cope or rationalization.
>>542013078Lmao nobody says the third panel either fag.
>>542012991>suffering is bad because it causes people harm>unless it's white people>in which case they're historically privileged and their suffering doesn't existNext argument
>>542013078>muh strawman>no one asks that question OP did, so how about you answer it
Left can't meme.
>>542014097>"good" moral framework that Christianity providesWhat are these good moral frameworks that only Christianity provides?
>>542013569>Freddy was a mad romantic who liked writing his own fairy tales rather than reading someone else'sThis is both incoherent and unprovable
>>542012991>humans set the ruleAs a human, I set the rule that suffering is not bad.What now?
>>542013569One might also require subjective morality if they reject objective morality.
all of these fake arguments stop mattering when you reach 1st grade and realize good and evil do exist. If you shit in a stream upstream of your village you did something bad. If you eat a fruit that fell off of a tree and then shit into a hole and threw the seed into the hole you did something good. We live on a planet where food grows on trees and can be reproduced at virtually zero expense. That means all of our suffering on any given day is authored by HUMANS
>>542017273>upstream of your villageWhat about upstream of your village? Resources are finite and why should I distribute any surplus to you when I could just use them to build a big army and make you do whatever I want?>that makes me upsetNot my problem now dig the hole.
>>542012991Reddit trash
>>542014580That’s not really an argument against suffering being bad. All you’re saying is that your gain outweighs other people’s loss.
>>542015560So what do you think good and bad should be based on?
>>542012991Life is suffering. Good and evil are relative. Christians will cry over muh bebbies but won't bat an eye at soldiers killing kids. Everyone is a hypocrite.
>>542013078
>>542012991>humans get to decideok but humans don't agree with each other. what objectively determines which human is right?it all amounts to "might is right" which is what these people can never reconcile. Maybe they'll eventually just embrace it (see all the Lindsay Clancy support)
>>542018618A nigger fucked his gay dad, at first he was sad about it but then he realized his dad was more happy to receive dat bibisi then he was sad he was raped, so the overall happiness in the world increased
>>542016156if atheists think suffering is bad why is the only thing they produce sufferingand they objectively do btw, every western country is significantly worse post atheism movementand yes it is directly your faultthat was ez
>>542013214Yes it is.
>>542012991I am suffering from the libtarded wall-of-text third panel
>>542014716I mean the hard limit of our understanding is a violation of logic and even that can be kinda mented because that cant be so "overt".
>>542012991christians be like>if god doesn't exist than what will stop me from raping???
>>542019198That is really passive aggressive.
>>542013709Based and authority-pilled.
>>542013214I genuinely can't take this guy seriously at all.
>>542012991I mean, that is right.
>>542016554>No uMad because bad.The 'will' exists as a function of the human body, which is ultimately a product of circumstance, and the environment around it, which is also a product of circumstance. The idea that humanity can create its own meaning is fundamentally doomed to fail because that would require some real 'space' to fill. It doesn't exist outside of social concepts, which are themselves results of the natural progression of the environment and all of its products (including humans) rather than some kind of mysterious will. If the will exists in any meaningful sense, it must emerge as a kind of pantheistic universal will, which essentially reduces it to a non-factor.More to your point, he died after 11 years of insanity in Weimar, so yeah. And what else can you call Thus Spoke Zarathustra but a fairy tale? Doesn't matter whether or not it actually involves any magic, it's essentially just "let me create an author avatar and give him the trappings of a Persian mystic to give my words additional gravity". It's history fanfiction drummed up to seem more important than it actually is, in the same way that any moral teacher deified by his followers ever was. I would rather read a thousand books by Confucius than one by Nietzsche, because the former actually dealt with life as it was, rather than as he would like it to be.
