>>544026950
yes they've been doing that for decades

>>544026950
>Be Portuguese
Do you have running water?

>>544026950
your country has been browner than canada for 1000 years

>>544026950
He was laughed at for other reasons. Almost nobody had attacked him for his position on being self-reliant

>>544026950
Poor fella, he was attacked. We should start a gofundme to help with his PTSD.

>>544026950
Okay stephen but what if i live in their house and they have a gun

I wish that someone itt will be able to articulate WHY is it that, as an atheist, I can't just take someone else's lung. I need your lung. I am stronger than you. I take your lung. Where is the issue?
Appreciate the bumps by the lower intellects or actual humans who agree that there is no argument to be made.

>>544027807
The issue is that people don't care what they say their ideology is, they just want you to do what they want.

>>544027807
What "is" was never the issue. We're talking about what "ought" be. OUGHT you take my lung? Is might your justification for all actions?

You must be very careful with such a claim. If you OUGHT take my lung purely because you can, you could claim such an ought for all sorts of things: you ought steal from me because you can, you ought beat me up because you can, and so on. This sword cuts both ways - if mere capability is your justification, you cannot then turn around and cry when someone does something otherwise terrible to you. We could simply use your own ethical standards on you and say "we OUGHT shoot you dead and throw your body in a ditch for the buzzards to get at", and you could not argue against us because we're just using your own standards.

That you CAN take someone else's lung was never in question, we're questioning whether you SHOULD. An atheist can only ever argue for subjective, preferential morality, they have no epistemilogical justification for objective, unchanging moral standards. Since preference is all an atheist can ever appeal to, we can just say we prefer the opposite, and that's that, it all just comes down to who has force. That's African warlord society, not civilized society.

>>544026950
Instead of making up a strawman, tell us why what they said is wrong.

>>544027807
>I am stronger than you. I take your lung. Where is the issue?
The law stays you can't.

>compares apples and oranges
>believes he has won an argument which never took place

>>544028234
>civilized society
Yea if someone is stronger than me they can do whatever they want to me. You can say that's warlord society but is there really any conceptual difference between that and your society? I don't think so. If you decide to stop complying with the US law, the government will escalate things until you end up dead. They are stronger than you so they get to use force to dictate what is legal and what is illegal.
The only reason you ought not to take my lung is because it's illegal for you to just do that. Which means you overpower me but you don't overpower the lawgiver (the state).
What is funny about Molyneux is that not only is he an atheist but he's also an anti-statist. So in an atheistic anarchic society you can't really appeal to 'civilization'. Unless you're arguing for a stateless civilization which sounds like an absurd utopian position.
To be fair I made it all about atheism but I guess you can justify the ought by using the state but since Molyneux is anti-statist it kinda goes without saying that move shouldn't be allowed!

>>544028580
>stays
Says*

>>544027807
This situation makes no sense. Are you supposed to perform a lung transplant on yourself too?

>Fail to give a younger generation a reason to be vested in your country
>They act like their country is not their problem
Guarantee you'll see new countries form, which means instability and ideological war.
Yay.

>>544028600
>The only reason you ought not to take my lung is because it's illegal for you to just do that.
That's not the only reason. But it is the main equalizer outside of self defense.

Another reason is empathy. I don't want people stealing my shit so I don't steal others. Pretty simple really

>>544028508
>boomers should be entitled to your money because "they payed into it"

If you dont understand what the argument is about you should probably do basic research.

>>544028600
>but he's also an anti-statist
He's a White Nationalist now

Even if I knew God’s preferences somehow, why should I align my actions with them?

Lolbergs are even worse than boomers.

>>544026950
The problem with conservative minds is that they believe everyone is stealing from them, and they don’t belong/contribute back to the fabric of society. They will deem you unworthy or lacking status for any reason first, then use the government to harm you. So this is likely hypocritical.

>>544028761
>makes a retard strawman
Try again kiddo

>>544027807
Because society can't function like that. Plenty of people are willing and able to kill you. Laws are the only reason you are alive.

>>544026950
>>544027807

>overpowered

>by boomers

you limp wristed fuck. we're gonna put all the boomers in concentration camps and process their emaciated bodies into onions green as revenge for all the shit they did

>>544026950
Because stealing other people's organs is wrong, duh. White people (humans, as opposed to brown refuse like yourself) know this intrinsically, and don't need some kind of outside justification for altruism.

>>544028717
That's nice but there's no reason the guy should listen to your call for empathy. He's about to die and he needs a lung.
>>544028848
The funny part about this analogy is that the state is the one giving out "lungs". Molyneux's analogy purpose is to make a comparison with the state giving out pensions to the boomers. So the laws actually tell the guy that he's entitled to a lung.

>>544028234
>An atheist can only ever argue for subjective, preferential morality
Just like you

File: IMG_20260912_120038_697.jpg (139 KB, 1280x886)

139 KB JPG

>>544027807
Based, but why stop there, keep stealing better parts from defeated foes and implant them all to increase performance.

Five hearts, four lungs, auxiliary brains, more fists and a bloodstream of boiling oxygenated syrup

>>544029004
If that's so obvious why isn't every altruistic white boomer in your country refusing to accept pensions? "Lungs" = "Pensions" in the analogy.

>>544029009
>That's nice but there's no reason the guy should listen to your call for empathy
I didn't say they should. But they will either listen to the law or my gun.

>He's about to die and he needs a lung
A) he shouldn't have knowingly destroyed his and B)Should have gotten on a donor list.

>>544027807
Because I have two functioning lungs and you don't, so I'll just kick your ass if you try.

>>544026950
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_Is_Right

>>544029078
Those aren't really equivalent, but I don't receive a public salary so frankly I'm not particularly motivated to educate a stinky thirdie nigger why that is the case. I suppose then it shall remain a mystery to your shriveled little subhuman brain, since I'm not confident you will be able to work it out for yourself lol

>>544029009
It's not an analogy, asshole, it's the truth. The government is god by the will of the people, and is why having an ethnically coherent society is important.

>>544029142
That's funny
>>544029299
Google what an analogy is bro, this is embarassing
>>544029320
It is an analogy. "Lungs" = "Pensions". Not sure why you are talking about ethnicity. You sound retarded.
>>544029117
But he is on a donor list. And the law is on his side. The point of the analogy is that the boomer taking pension money from the working class is like the guy taking the lung. The "law" is an appeal to who actually holds power, the state.

>>544029531
>And the law is on his side
Not to steal,p it isn't
>the boomer taking pension money from the working class is like the guy taking the lung.
Thers more context that's needed. Did the Boomer pay into his own retirement via a job that gave him a pension? Do you even understand the words your using?
>The "law" is an appeal to who actually holds power, the state.
Going back to >>544028717
>it is the main equalizer outside of self defense.

And the law has the ability to be changed if enough people demand it

>>544029531
Case in point, I suppose. I always wonder who is teaching you creatures how to speak human tongues, it must take quite an effort to shoulder the burden of so small a mind.

>>544026950
You can still believe in the morality of Christianity without thinking there's a magic dude in the sky.

>>544029870
This is true. I'm an atheist that believes in the core message of Christ. Rather, my interpretation of it.

>>544029038
It's not subjective though.
Objectively speaking, there will be fewer people experiencing higher levels of their personal subjective happiness in a society where the dominant view is 'might makes right'.
If we have a society where the dominant view is that we should each do to others the same actions that we would prefer others do to us, then objectively speaking, more people will be experiencing a higher subjective level of happiness.

>>544027807
that wouldn't be universally preferable

>>544030042
>It's not subjective though
Yeah it is.

>>544028600
>is there any difference between african warlords and civilized society?
Many. For one, Western society (which is what most people consider "civilized") does not base their morals and thus their laws on subjective preference. You may not agree with Christianity, but God at least offers an eternal, unchanging, objective moral standard by which to judge the morality/immorality of an action. In civilized society, you should not take another person's lungs, even when you can, because it is immoral to do so, was always immoral, and will always be immoral. You receive the same protection.
>You only wouldn't take my lung because the law says so
The law does not decide morality. Morality decides the law. You've got the relationship backward. Even if there were no law saying I couldn't just take your lung, Christian ethics say I should not do so, and so I would not. Law or no law, it's irrelevant to morality.
>Justify the ought by using the state
The state is just made up of individual people. A state comprised of Aztecs is immoral, because Aztecs performed human sacrifice. Just having authority or power does not make one the arbiter of morality, you also need to have either universal knowledge, or access to universal knowledge, to make objective claims about morality. The only being that has universal knowledge is God, ergo, God is the arbiter of morality. Not me, not you, not the state, not stefan molyneux. Just God and God alone. He is the only being that COULD make an objective claim of morality.

>>544030042
>actions that we would prefer others do to us
>we would prefer
>prefer
Preference is subjective. Some people like being treated like shit.

>>544030162
>Quantities are subjective

>>544030320
See
>>544030276

>>544030276
Are you capable of holding the entire thought of my post in your head at the same time? It's not very complicated. Numbers are an objective truth, if more people are experiencing their personal subjective happiness in one pool than another pool, then the pool with more people self reporting their own subjective happiness is factually and objectively speaking more universally preferable than the other. You don't need to satisfy everyone, you only need to satisfy more.

>>544027807
Random people who steal lungs get ousted from the tribe and family because people don't want that around them. Morals are product of evolution there is nothing mystical about them. Certain behaviors in different tribes were just weeded out because people got pissed by these behaviors.

>>544030500
Happiness is a subjective feeling. What if that larger pool of people self-reporting happiness are all so happy because they like swimming in pig feces? Should we then place cesspools all over the place, so the larger number of people are happy? Or, what if that group would be happier if they could just murder others at will? Like, they were all serial killers, and they would be very happy if we legalized murder. Should we legalize murder to make them happy?

Feelings like happiness are a TERRIBLE metric to use for making a "better" society.

>>544030621
You're suggesting that all morality is subjective and able to change over time. If it's just subjective preference, you cannot complain when a society decides to genocide your race - it's not immoral and it couldn't be immoral, it's just unguided chaotic evolution, remember? You just gotta sit there and be genocided, because their subjective preferences are equally valid to yours.

Cmon man, think before you type random nonsense into your keyboard.

>>544030500
>Numbers are an objective truth
That's the the argument. Each "number" has a subjective way of being treated.

>>544030500
>You don't need to satisfy everyone, you only need to satisfy more
And the more you have the more subjectiveness you have.

>>544030789
>If it's just subjective preference, you cannot complain when a society decides to genocide your race
Yes you can. You can get enough people together to change it or move.

>>544030684
Why are you moving goalposts into insanity land?

Statistics are objective reality, even when measuring levels of subjective preferences in a society. You won't address this, because you can't.

>>544030913
Ok, sure, you can whine that it's your preference NOT to be genocided, but what you cannot do is say that those other guys are WRONG. Because they aren't - it's just preference against preference, may the stronger group win. That leads to the African warlord society that the Moor was suggesting earlier in the thread.

>>544030789
Some things are subjective yeah including the christian stuff because plenty of cultures simply do not believe in them.

>>544030868
>And the more you have the more subjectiveness you have.
The number of people reporting happiness, is an objective measure.
The fact that people prefer their preferences, is objectively true.
The fact that given unequal numbers, one is greater than the other is objectively true.

Sorry if Andrew Wilson didn't prepare you for this.

>>544027807
no one can because you already take for granted your own prejudice that oughts can only be bestowed upon by a third party that is above mankind, which is essentially just kicking the can ahead a little since you have to then justify this both ontologically and then epistemologically which usually reduces to "institution with fancy buildings and hats called X said it"

>>544031028
>but what you cannot do is say that those other guys are WRONG
Sure I can. It's wrong to murder people. They may not agree but that doesn't remove my agency or my will to live.

>>544031053
translation: trooning out children is a good thing, chud

>>544031093
>The number of people reporting happiness, is an objective measure
That's not the argument.

But let's play that out. Can you guarantee those people are all happy about the same things?

How do you prevent someone's happiness taking from someone else's happiness?

>>544031148
Nah learn to read.

>>544030970
How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?

Tell me you don't understand hypotheticals without telling me.

Ok, you want a more "realistic" hypothetical: say you're a faggot, and you're in the Middle East. The Arabs enjoy tossing faggots off of rooftops as we all know. Should the Arabs not toss faggots off of rooftops, because it would mean you, a faggot, dies? Why not? It makes them happy to do so, and in fact, more of them would be happy than the faggots they kill be unhappy. The total happiness of their society will increase, so they should toss you off a roof.

>Side note: they SHOULD toss faggots off of roofs, but for a different reason than "it makes them happy" - because faggots are abominations and are objectively a societal ill, a disease. It has nothing to do with anyone's happiness.

File: Atheists.jpg (384 KB, 861x1174)

384 KB JPG

>>544026950

File: 1790200062592959.jpg (50 KB, 640x617)

50 KB JPG

>>544027307
I just donated $1.

>>544031097
Why is it wrong to murder people? That's just your subjective preference. It's my preference that it is right to murder people. Why am I incorrect?

File: Godless.jpg (110 KB, 926x552)

110 KB JPG

>>544031155

File: 1790998258932336.jpg (83 KB, 1024x984)

83 KB JPG

>>544027807
>I'm stronger than y--
>BLAM BLAM BLAM
/thread

>>544029660
>Do you even understand
What are you having trouble understanding?
The state enforces the law. The state has the power. The law says the boomer is entitled to take the pension from your ribcage.
So again, what is it you are not understanding?
By using the law as a core of your argument you are conceding that might is right is the way to go. The might of the state.
>>544029691
You're just really dumb, its all. Molyneux is making an analogy about lungs to illustrate boomers taking pensions from the working class by using the power of the state. It's so funny to see dunning-krugers missing the point and talking about bullshit. I should resist replying to the dumbest poster and getting down to your 0 iq level. I want to reply to the smart posters. It's my bad. Just wanted to let you know you're really dumb.
>>544030230
>Many.
Well, you don't really enumerate any. I'm asking conceptually, as in related to the idea that there is a higher power that dictates how things ought to be done. Whether that thing is some African warlord or a civilized state doesn't really change anything conceptually. There's something stronger than you telling you how to behave.
Also you are appealing to Christian morals but I was asking specifically for the atheist.
>Christian ethics say I should not do so
Nigger the first word in my post is "Atheist" why are you talking about Christian morals. Molyneux is not a Christian.
>A state comprised of Aztecs is immoral, because Aztecs performed human sacrifice.
From their point of view, they are moral. You have to argue from the atheist point of view here and not from a Christian position.
For the atheist, morality is a code of conduct. Like a gentleman's club code of conduct. This club has a code, that club has a code. There is no "universal" in the Christian sense

>>544031227
>Why is it wrong to murder people?
Murder by definition is the killing of an innocent person.
>That's just your subjective preference
Yes but also definable and able for prosecution in a court of law.

>It's my preference that it is right to murder people
Maybe it is
>Why am I incorrect?
It won't matter what I tell you if you've already made up your mind, regardless of the consequences.

>>544031194
It's strange how you can't directly address the OBJECTIVE statistical measures of "might makes right" vs "golden rule" based societies. Is it because you don't understand, or because you're afraid to lose an argument?

File: 656f8d1d7a3c8094d5d9e26c.jpg (43 KB, 800x533)

43 KB JPG

>>544031273
>*teleport behind you*
>*rams mortar shell up your ass blowing you to smithereens*

Heh...nothing personal kid...

>>544031281
>What are you having trouble understanding?
Nothing. You don't seem to understand what a pension is.
>>544031281
>The state enforces the law. The state has the power
Elected democratically, which means the law can be changed. It's not fixed, so to speak

>>544031155
None of that matters, I'm talking about quantities and statistics, which are OBJECTIVE facts.
Appealing to outliers only shows you don't understand the argument.

>>544027807
Is it even necessary to need something to justify wanted to take it? Maybe I just want your shoes, maybe I just want to watch you die.

>>544028600
Lol
You're retarded.

>>544031396
You got me brother

>>544031410
What does your version of reality have to do with me and my desires?

>>544031410
>None of that matters
Context always matters

>>544031410
>I'm talking about quantities and statistics, which are OBJECTIVE facts.
Yes, I know and agree. But that isn't the argument.
>Appealing to outliers only shows you don't understand the argument.
Or that you don't understand context

>>544031281
I understand entirely that atheism does not posit any universal moral claims, because they are incapable of doing so. Their worldview doesn't even allow for universals.

I'm making worldview arguments here. I'm asking the simple question: why should anyone agree with a particular atheist's subjective moral preferences? So one particular atheist "code of conduct" says I should not steal from them. What if a different atheist group says we SHOULD steal. Which group has the correct morality?

That's right: you cannot determine which group's "code of conduct" should be followed, because they are not universal moral oughts, they're just subjective preferences and neither of them is right or wrong when it's all just preference. They could not even argue why I'm wrong to bust down the doors to their clubs and gun them all down like St. Brenton Tarrant.

I bring up Christianity because Christian ethics, like them or not, ARE objective, universal, moral claims. A Christian CAN say what is wrong or right, because their ethics are grounded in objective truth and universal knowledge, accessible because our minds are a reflection of the Mind of God.

Atheists have no grounding. There's no reason to listen to an atheist at all.

>>544026950
you overpower your own children and take their shit... you paid for in the first place. Damn you are retarded nigger.

>>544031562
Eventually you will be too old to fight them off.

>>544031227
People should think it by what is sustainable and what is not. Murderers have been frowned in most cultures all history so the idea of murdering around was not sustainable and the opposing people won the evolutionary battle that's why murder = wrong is very common among people.

>>544031410
>>544031528
>Context always matters
And if you don't think could text matters then I'd advise you to take a hard look at LA, New York City and Seattle where all the druggie homeless are super happy.

That's your scenario playing out in real life.

File: 143447.jpg (195 KB, 896x829)

195 KB JPG

>>544030621
I agree 100%. I'm being a bit inflammatory and facetious. If we are being serious, the roots of morality are based on strength and weakness (not just for the individual but the tribe).
However the point here goes beyond just the lungs thing. Molyneux is using this analogy to reference boomers taking pension money from the young working people. So, in a sense, the lungs are being "stolen" with the approval of the state. Which means they aren't really being stolen, technically. So the real question is "why cant a boomer just take your money through the state?" kind of.
>>544031273
Nice try. Wearing my exosuit. Now gibs me dat lung

>>544031555
>Atheists have no grounding
Incorrect. I have a lot of the same grounding you do, I just don't need to give special pleading to a God or gods for it.

>>544027807
The amount of people willing to kill you on principal to support the lung-haver. Violence and force is the ultimate authority but your not even close to its best operators. This is why all the jewish d&c faggotry, a whiny hook nosed minority can only make demands of a majority through dilution and manipulation

>>544031658
>could text
Context* sorry phone posting

>>544031730
>This is why all the jewish d&c faggotry, a whiny hook nosed minority can only make demands of a majority through dilution and manipulation
As you said, might makes right. So by thay definition and your context. They are right.

File: warhammer-40000-space-mar(...).jpg (159 KB, 1200x675)

159 KB JPG

>>544031678
>Now gibs me dat lung
No u

>>544031347
I'm asking for you to justify why my hypothetical position of "murder is good" is wrong or immoral.
>Murder is the taking of an innocent life
Agreed. Why is that wrong?
>The law says you can't
We can just change the law. In this hypothetical, the law says murder is legal. Why is it WRONG?
>It won't matter, you've already made up your mind
Oh come now, don't give up so easily. I'm absolutely willing to have my mind changed if you can explain to me why murder is wrong in your worldview. Go on, fight.

>>544026950
Charlie kirk is still dead and you still didn't do shit

No one fears the christian

>>544031397
Maybe the context of that Molyneux quote is not clear. He is an anti-statist and arguing against pensions because he believes "taxation is theft" and all that. So he's comparing the boomers relying on pensions to chronic smokers relying on young lungs. It's not that the boomer goes slap you in the face and take your money to get his pension. He uses the power of the state. But the question of a power enforcing "morality" is inescapable.
>>544031469
I don't think so. If you have the power, you make the rules.
>>544031555
>Which group has the correct morality?
Whichever group you belong to. You are conflating individuals with groups. If we are part of the same tribe and our code of conduct says stealing is wrong then we don't steal. Morality is contextual like that.
You disagree with this of course and feel free to do it but it's kind of pointless since the whole idea here is for the atheist to articulate why can't I just take those lungs as long as I have the power. Molyneux is an atheist.

>>544031658
>I'd advise you to take a hard look at LA, New York City and Seattle
And what do any of these have to do with universal ethics? You're not even making an argument.
>>544031528
>Or that you don't understand context
NO U!
Address my central point or fuck off back to Andrew Wilson debate class.

>>544031999
>I'm asking for you to justify why my hypothetical position of "murder is good" is wrong or immoral.
>>Murder is the taking of an innocent life
>Agreed. Why is that wrong?
Because they are innocent.

>>544031999
>We can just change the law. In this hypothetical, the law says murder is legal. Why is it WRONG?
OK, then I change the law back.

>>544031999
>I'm absolutely willing to have my mind changed
Not of you're already committed to murder. The only thing you'll listen to now is my ability to stop you.

>>544031281
It's fascinating, like watching a dog try to decipher images on the TV. You really do imagine that you are making salient points.

>>544032133
>And what do any of these have to do with universal ethics?
Their universe is to be homeless and do drugs without prosecution and with assistance of the state.

>>544032133
>You're not even making an argument
I am, you just lack contextual understanding of yours.

>cries like a baby
I don't know what Andrew Wilson has to do with this but clearly he makes you seeth lol

>>544031730
I can agree with that but do you really think that's what Molyneux is talking about there? He's attempting some moral argument that, to me, sounds like he's telling all the boomers to forfeit their pensions because it's the objective moral thing to do. Not because the younger generations will kill them. Is that something you believe in? That the zoomers will rise up and do the day of the pillow?

>>544031619
The aztecs were around for a long time, they had a fairly successful society, and murder was a core component of their society.

Youve given me finite, limited, temporary instances of societies that thought murder was bad, but those don't get you to a universal claim, and aztecs prove my point immediately.

Appeal to consensus is a fallacy. Doesn't matter if 99% of people throughout history believed murder is wrong, it is possible that 99% of people were incorrect. I'm asking you to demonstrate WHY you think murder is wrong.
>sustainable
Is being sustainable a good thing? Why should we be sustainable? Why shouldn't we flare up and go out in a blaze of glory?

>>544032086
>pensions because he believes "taxation is theft" and all that. So he's comparing the boomers relying on pensions
No, he isn't

>>544031704
Go on then. Ground your ethics. This oughta be good for a laugh. Atheists have been trying to objectively ground their ethics for centuries and not succeeded, but maybe you've cracked the code.

>>544032309
>Ground your ethics
well-being, empathy, and social cooperation

>>544032309
>Atheists have been trying to objectively ground their ethics for centuries and not succeeded
Many do every day. What a silly thing to say.

What you mean is they have a different foundational preference than you.

>>544032086
So it's all one big petri dish of various forms of bacteria fighting for domination over the whole dish? That's your worldview?

I feel sorry for you, but that does explain why Moors have never, ever had anything more than a bare subsistence lifestyle scrabbling in the dirt for their entire lives.

File: twitter13.jpg (820 KB, 1200x1200)

820 KB JPG

HE DOES HAVE A GOOD POINT
HE'S RIGHT YOU KNOW
NOW THAT THE DUST HAS SETTLED
SAY SOMETHING NICE
POWERFUL
REALLY MAKES YOU THINK
WHAT ARE THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
KNEEL
POLITICALLY SPEAKING
APOLOGIZE
BASED OR CRINGE
LET ME GUESS YOU NEED MORE
HOW DO YOU RESPOND WITHOUT SOUNDING MAD
WHAT DID HE MEAN BY THIS
WHY DO AMERICANS
WHO WAS IN THE WRONG
DAILY REMINDER
WELL /POL/
YOUR RESPONSE
IT'S OVER
POL CAN'T REFUTE THIS
THIS IS THE POST THAT KILLED /POL/
POL BTFO
THOUGHTS?

>>544032261
I bet aztects didn't see human sacrifice as murder and I also bet that randomly murdering people in their homes was extremely frowned upon. Also morals are consensus battles that's how they form and that's why we see variation especially when talking about less clear cut things instead of murder.

>>544028836
The faggot government takes money from me every week to pay for faggot niggers like you. They can print money whenever they feel like it, but for some reason we still have to squeeze the working class to give healthcare and education to fat dumb niggers

>>544032501
This anon gets it

>>544032140
I'm playing devil's advocate in order to test your logic through a hypothetical. I don't actually believe murder is good. The difference is that I can ground that in an epistemilogical way. You cannot, or at least, I haven't seen you do so yet, just make a bunch of appeals to consensus (which is what the law is at the end of the day).
>Because theyre innocent
Why ought we value innocence?

It seems that your worldview just boils down to who has more and bigger guns, essentially, is that correct? At least that's a logically consistent position, although I'd point out that if we Christians have the bigger guns, we can impose our worldview on you and you can't say we're wrong to do so, because might makes right after all in your worldview.

>>544032237
>Their universe is to be homeless and do drugs without prosecution and with assistance of the state.
So you have no fucking idea what we're talking about, ok.
>>544032237
>but clearly he makes you seeth lol
Not really, he gets smoked whenever he goes up against someone with a high IQ, as long as the subject isn't wildly in his favor.

Still waiting for you to explain how a numeric quantity representing more people experiencing more happiness is itself subjective instead of objective.

>>544032393
>well-being
Subjective
>empathy
Subjective
>social cooperation
Subjective

Those aren't groundings. Those are preferences. Try again.

>>544032501
>they didn't see human sacrifice as murder
And that is exactly the problem, whether you see it or not. They rationalized and justified what is, objectively, murder. That's what subjectivism gets you: rationalization for the most horrendous of behaviors.
>Morals are consensus battles
The guy who wins the fight is not necessarily the good guy. Winning consensus doesn't mean you're right, or that you have truth on your side. That is why appeal to consensus is a logical fallacy.

Say your side wins the consensus fight, and you mould society to adopt your ethics. If the only reason your ethics are true is because you have the power, then you can't complain when someone with the opposite ethics comes in and takes your throne: now THEIR ethics are true, and yours are false. Do you not see how silly this is?

File: 150019.jpg (59 KB, 606x409)

59 KB JPG

>>544032293
If you see the other posts around this one he's talking about social security being theft. But I'll concede it's not obvious if you don't know the guy. It doesn't really matter anyway. The conversation should be about the might is right thing.
>>544032409
I didn't insult you at any point during our exchange and I was charitable to explain that you need to put yourself in the shoes of the atheist to engage in this conversation since the christian perspective is redundant.

You resort to talking shit because you are shit yourself. Do you think rabbi Jesus is taking good care of your foreskin back in Zion?

>>544032591
>I don't actually believe murder is good
Why?
>The difference is that I can ground that in an epistemilogical way. You cannot
Sure can. Moral knowledge can be discovered, tested, and justified using the same cognitive tools we use for logic and everyday life.

We do not need a divine revelation to know that burning your hand on a stove is bad, or that intense, unnecessary pain is intrinsically undesirable. This direct, conscious experience serves as an undeniable epistemological starting point.

>Why ought we value innocence?
>>544032393
>well-being, empathy, and social cooperation

>>544032591
>It seems that your worldview just boils down to who has more and bigger guns, essentially, is that correct?
No.

>>544032635
>So you have no fucking idea what we're talking about, ok.
Yet you can't seem to refute it lol

>>544032635
>>but clearly he makes you seeth lol
>Not really
>goes onto write a paragraph about him.

>>544032648
>Those aren't groundings
They are. Them being subjective doesn't negate that becaue that's how a society is built. The subjective grounding that many agree on, then build a foundation off it.

>>544032844
>social security
Isn't the same as a pension

>>544026950
Gaytheist you meant Brent bozell

>>544032818
Murder means unlawful killing.
The Aztecs had laws against murder.
They didn't consider human sacrifice to be unlawful killing.
The same way you don't consider jewish doctors strapping newborn babies to a chair to fulfill their bronze age mutilation ritual as wrong.
You are even more retarded than the Aztecs, at least they worshipped their own Gods while you are brainwashed by jews to serve them in this life and the next.

>>544032818
aztec rationale was the complete opposite of subjectivism and essentially equivalent to how religious people understand their morality: a system to enforce the will of the gods/god understood through a priestly class that administers it
they didn't think it was murder like a medieval didn't think killing someone for heresy was murder, it was within a system that justified it based on a purported legitimacy stemming from the metaphysical third party intellegible to the priestly class

>>544032844
I am putting myself in the atheist's shoes. I'm demonstrating through internal critique that your worldview is nonsensical, and by contrast the Christian worldview is at least logically coherent, whether you approve of it or not. The atheist worldview is not logically coherent, that is what I'm demonstrating.

The only coherence that atheists can appeal to is "might makes right". Great, so us Christians can come in and slaughter you all, and that is consistent with your worldview. Glad we cleared that up.

>>544033082
>I'm demonstrating through internal critique that your worldview is nonsensical, and by contrast the Christian worldview is at least logically coherent
Is circumcision of a healthy baby boy objectively wrong to you?

>>544032872
>Yet you can't seem to refute it lol
Yeah bro, but it's because I'm not going to refute something that has nothing to do with the subject. You're making some fucking nebulous claim about government and drug addicts that has nothing to do with the existence of an objectively derived, universally preferable behavior - being objectively superior to any other form of universal behavior you can propose.

>>544027807
I am stronger than you, I am coming for your lung.

>>544033172
>You're making some fucking nebulous claim about government and drug addicts that has nothing to do with the existence of an objectively derived, universally preferable behavior
It does. It's not my fault you can't into the actual context of what you're saying.

>>544032872
The laws and customs of a society, by consensus, do NOT determine whether that society is moral, how many times do I have to explain this? Aztecs, human sacrifice. That is immoral. But it was their custom, so to them it was moral.

If all you have is subjective appeals to consensus, you cannot EVER claim that anything another society does is wrong, because whatever they decide to do is right, to them, subjectively. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Subjective morality is no morality at all, there's no objective truth in it, there is only power and who wields it. If that is the case, we Christians have no reason not to simply put every atheist to the sword immediately, because that couldn't possibly be wrong in YOUR worldview.

>>544033274
Demonstrate an objective moral

>>544033274
>so to them it was moral
Questionable, but one thing is for certain, their neighbors didn't think it was moral hence why they teamed up with the spanish against them.

>>544033274
>Christians have no reason not to simply put every atheist to the sword immediately
Christ never called you to murder nonbelievers. The exact opposite actually

>>544026950
why are all posts and comments with that flag attached are the dumbest shit on this board?

>>544032975
Ok, fine. What I'm getting at is that all the subjectivists in this thread have no ground from which to say the aztecs were WRONG for doing that. We Christians do. Christians can say it was wrong and immoral, subjectivist atheists cannot. All of their ethics are just preferences. The funny thing is that the majority of their preferences are actually based in Christian ethics, even if they don't understand that.

>>544032891
It's the same thing. Retirement payouts are social security. Don't care about some pedantic technicality. What matters is that the government is giving money to a group of people while being funded by taxes.
>>544033082
The atheist worldview is logically coherent, you haven't demonstrated anything other than you having a distaste of it. Where is the incoherence?

Your worldview is better in what way? You believe in a magic Ark with 2 of each animal. You believe that don't you?

>>544033147
Yes. It's barbaric. The practice was done away with with the coming of Christ. It served a specific purpose to our ancestors, and Christ fulfilled that purpose, so it is no longer needed. The jews that still practice it today are retarded Canaanites in a cargo cult that's 2,000 years old.

>>544033454
>Christians can say it was wrong and immoral
Based on what? Your personal preference in a God? A God made and interpreted by men?

So I'll ask my 2 quesagain.

1. Is circumcision of a healthy baby objectively wrong
2. Can you demonstrate an objective moral?

>>544033512
>It's the same thing.
It absolutely isn't

>>544033454
>my group is different
>my group's preferences are oBjEcTiVe

>>544033512
>Retirement payouts are social security.
No dummy, these are 2 separate things. >>544033543
>Yes. It's barbaric
Then it was so when your God commanded it.

So there's goes your "objective" grounding.

>>544033454
>the subjectivists in this thread have no ground from which to say the aztecs were WRONG for doing that
that's because you start from an assumption that forces this conclusion without any room, that the objective ground can only be of the religious kind aka from a third party

>we christians do
you merely kick the can ahead a little, because the atheist can very well say your choice of religion is subjective, a preference, which ultimately still require you, the subject, operating a choice, except that you choose merely the morality provider that does the heavy lifting for you

File: apu_hamantynyt.png (106 KB, 612x491)

106 KB PNG

>>544027807
I mean, you could, but you would die from your body rejecting the transplant and killing you with sepsis.
So I don't understand why you would want to do it, there are easier and less painful ways of committing suicide.

>>544033354
Murder is wrong, always and forever, in all cases and at all times. This is objective because it is grounded in the nature and essence of God, the only Being with universal knowledge and thus the only One with even the possibility of making a universal, objective claim.

>>544033612
>you merely kick the can ahead a little, because the atheist can very well say your choice of religion is subjective, a preference, which ultimately still require you, the subject, operating a choice, except that you choose merely the morality provider that does the heavy lifting for you
Exactly this

>>544027807
Right is good. Good is always righteousness.
Doing harm to people who aren't doing harm is wrong.
Thereby doing harm is not good, doing harm to the innocent is not right.
Rather, you taking someone's lung by force against his consent entitles other people to kill you in his defence. It would be right for them to succeed.

There you go, moral compass in a nutshell.
Don't be a nigger now and argue.

>>544033398
I'm arguing from YOUR worldview, you dunce. Would you look at that: the only reason we DON'T just slaughter all atheists is because OUR ethics forbid it. You're dependent on OUR ethics, our generosity and charity, for your very survival. It's hilarious when an atheist appeals to CHRISTIAN'S ETHICS to defend their worldview.

>>544033680
>Murder is wrong, always and forever, in all cases and at all times.
Why?

>>544033680
>This is objective because it is grounded in the nature and essence of God
Wrong. The "essence of God" is nothing more than man's subjective interpretations.

God had no problem murdering babies

>>544033760
>I'm arguing from YOUR worldview, you dunce
Which you have a fundamental misunderstanding of.

>You're dependent on OUR ethics, our generosity and charity, for your very survival.
And you are also because of mine..

>>544033240
>It does.
Prove it.

>>544033846
See
>>544031658
>take a hard look at LA, New York City and Seattle where all the druggie homeless are super happy.

>>544033559
>>544033607
>>544033559
Yes it is and I already explained why. Boring thing to get hung up on.
>>544033729
There's nothing to argue, it's just circular preference.

>>544033707
Exactly not this. You've again missed the point: it would not MATTER that my preference is Christian ethics - they are objective truth claims regardless of whether I followed them or not. I could be a pagan, and Christian ethics would remain an objective truth claim.

My choice, my preference, my belief, is irrelevant to what is actually capital-T True. It follows that an atheist's preferences are similarly irrelevant. The difference is that they make no objective truth claims at all. I do.

>>544033922
The devil can't argue, quite true.

>>544028600
What does government having the monopoly over power have to do with athiesm???

>moral ought
Cringe

>>544033922
>Yes it is and I already explained why
Pension is paid for by a company. Social security is a tax you pay into and get paid out when you're ~65.

You're a Dunning Kruger

>>544033967
>Exactly not this
I simply disagree and so does logic

>>544033967
>they are objective truth claims
That fail the objective testing.

You've already demonstrated this via circumcision

>>544033967
what do you think is the difference between Molyneux saying universally preferable behavior is objective and you saying christian morality is objective? other than the degree of separation you believe is necessary to call it "objective" while shoving under the carpet the immensity of the metaphysics you have to justify for it?

>>544033967
>My choice, my preference, my belief, is irrelevant to what is actually capital-T True
Not really. I can claim my God says it's ok to murder you. My foundation is my God so there for it's now objective truth.

You won't understand this slippery slope though

>>544033967
You understand that from a non-Christian perspective you're just a self-deluded retard?
So why are you pretending that when arguing from an atheist worldview the atheist has to accept that you have DA TROOF.
Either you step into the atheist worldview and argue from there or everything you say is pointless. It would be like an atheist stepping into a discussion between orthodox and catholic about some theological bullshit and start talking about Darwin. What are you even doing.

>>544033900
Yeah, I addressed it, you ignored it. And now you went full circle.

>>544033766
By definition, God cannot murder: as the ultimate Authority and Judge of morality, it is He that determines guilt or innocence. He killed babies, or rather, commanded His followers to kill babies. Definitionally, this means that those babies were not innocent, by whatever metric He decided to judge them on.

A lot of Christians don't like to talk about that, because it leads to uncomfortable questions about the mistake of thinking Christianity is universalist, but I have no such qualms: those babies were *ontologically* wicked. They were guilty not for anything they did but because of what they *were* - Amalekites. They were worthy of death because they were born as Amalekites.

The vast majority of Christians are universalists. I maintain that this is a heresy. Unfortunately, my word means nothing, but that is my position.

>>544034244
>I addressed it
Not really

>>544027807
Atheists can't. Objective morality does not exist under an atheist worldview because there is nothing universal and purposeful to ground it in.

Everything is subjective and thus they are merely preferences, not moral standards. I prefer that you didn't take my lung. The other guy prefers that he does take your lung. Equally are valid. There is no ultimate authority in atheism to tell you one stance is good and the other is bad. David Hume understood this.

>>544034129
Not a slippery slope. The Christian God is the only one that contains all of the traits and attributes necessary to ground transcendental categories like logic, knowledge, math, etc. The deist god for instance has no explanatory power for what we observe in reality. It is only the Christian God that does this, therefore, any other god you posit is necessarily false.

>>544034355
>By definition, God cannot murder
This is an appeal to emotions. This isn't objective.

Again, you've already debunked your claim by claiming what your own God did was objectively wrong.

You have absolutely zero arguments my man.

>>544034393
>Objective morality does not exist under an atheist worldview
Or at all.

>>544034059
>You're a Dunning Kruger
>Pension is paid for by a company. Social security is a tax
Lool. So you're just ignorant and talking shit? Embarassing.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing-strategy/090916/how-do-pension-funds-work.asp
>While traditional defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared in the private sector, they remain common and often generous in the public sector.
https://www.jblfinancial.com/blog/types-of-pension-plans-what-you-need-to-know-before-you-retire
>Insurance backing for private pensions: Private-sector pensions are insured by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) up to certain limits. Government pensions are backed by the relevant government entity but are subject to their own funding and legislative considerations.

Pensions can be paid by a private company OR BY THE STATE. HELLO? Social security is paid by the state.

The point of the argument is that the government is using their power to give money through pensions or social security.

You are a retard getting hung up on this point for no reason. You were WRONG. Reply only with "I was wrong. Sorry."

>>544034466
>The Christian God
Again

>>544034475
>Again, you've already debunked your claim by claiming what your own God did was objectively wrong.

You keep making appeals to emotional claims

>>544034533
>So you're just ignorant and talking shit?
No, O know what I'm talking about because I live in the very system you don't

>>544034501
>Or at all.
That's a universal truth claim. You can't make objective universal claims under an atheist worldview lmao
That's why atheistic paradigms are self-defeating.

>>544034533
>Government pensions are backed by the relevant government entity
Yeah if you work for the government. Fucking dummy

>>544034475
You clearly didn't read, because I did the exact opposite: I posited that what He did was right, because by definition He cannot do evil. If He does a thing that we think is evil, it is not so, it is merely our own misunderstanding. He had those babies killed for a reason. He is His own justification, BY DEFINITION. It doesn't matter if we mortals do not understand His reasons.

>>544034667
>I posited that what He did was right
Via personal feelings and opinions

These aren't objective

>>544034548
Appealing to God is not an emotional appeal, retard. There are very strong logical arguments for the necessity of God, such as the Cosmological Argument and the Transcendental Argument for God. You are the one that has no grounding for your ethics and so are forced to appeal to emotions and consensus and all these other fallacies.

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist, regrettably.

>>544034667
>It doesn't matter if we mortals do not understand His reasons.
Then you have no grounds to know of its morally good or not

Congrats on debunking yourself yet again.

>>544027807
I want your house so I'll kill you and your family to take it

>>544034759
>Appealing to God is not an emotional appeal, retard
It is because that's the only way you can "prove" to yourself it's real.
>>544034759
>Transcendental Argument for God
A presupposition based on personal feelings. It also doesn't lead to your favorite flavor of god. That takes even more personal feelings

>>544034580
>>544034626
I told you, reply only with "I am sorry for being retarded and wrong. I learned that pensions can be paid for the state."
>>544034759
I'm siding with my brother in Christ here. Even atheists can't stand other atheists. Honestly the best argument against being an atheist is just talking with other atheists.
You are right, there is nothing emotional about appealing to God. This guy would say Plato and Leibniz were emotional unlike him. He has no idea what he's talking about.

>>544035058
Fair enough

>>544026950
jews have won, clearly. It's obvious in threads like this, you're all foaming at the mouth around gaining money. Total slaves in every way. I mean, you guys can act anti-jewish all you want. TKD, blah blah blah. But the fact is you are taking the bait hook line and sinker. You're already lost.

>>544034768
Exactly the opposite again, dumbass: we know what is morality because it's based on the only Being that can objectively ground morality to begin with. We know that whatever God Himself does is good by definition, because He Himself is goodness, again, by definition. If He commands something be done, we do not need understanding in order to have obedience - we can know whatever it is commanded will be Good in the end because He cannot Will a thing that is evil.

By definition. You can disagree with the definition, bur whatever alternative definition you offer will not be God so it is irrelevant to this conversation. God, and everything He does, IS Goodness itself, the Platonic ideal of Goodness, among other things.

>>544034059
>You're a Dunning Kruger
Holy shit he even misuses the term. This has to be ragebait holy shit noone can be this retarded

>>544035272
>that can objectively ground morality to begin with
Again, you've debunked this by saying what your God did was objectively wrong.

Seems like you don't understand what objective means, dumbass

>>544035404
How did I misuse the term?

>>544027807
you're old and feeble and I'll simply cave your skull in it you try to harvest my organs

>>544026950
All you have to do as an atheist who wants to do an ought is accept that ought depends on your point of view. In this case there's:

- The lung wanter who ought to have the lung haver's lung even if it kills or damages the lung haver

- The healthy lung haver who ought to be able to keep their lungs. They are healthy because they did not smoke for 40 years.

- A bystander who may or may not have smoked. They may not like the lung haver. Maybe they are more powerful than them having kept their lungs in great shape. But should the lung haver need an organ they will probably come after theirs. If lung wanter gets lung havers lungs then lung haver is weakened or killed off. And lung wanter is going to keep smoking and destroy their lungs. In the land of one-lungers a two lunger is a marathon runner. Maybe use that to off the one-lungers and take their wallets.

>>544033760
>the only reason we DON'T just slaughter all atheists is because OUR ethics forbid it.
more like because we based atheists slaughtered you blood thirsty niggers in 1789 and you have kept your heads down since. Before you murdered people for not believing in your jew voodoo bs easy-peasy.