"..but in this case..." Those words presuppose an even higher law than the one that says, "thou shalt not." That God, the one that examines things on a case by case basis, always rules in favor of the individual, which is why he was kept around.
But the crucial mistake is to assume that the retention of this enslaved God is for the purpose of justifying one's behavior, to assuage the superego. That same absolution could have been obtained from a traditional Christianity, "God, I'm sorry I committed adultery, I really enjoyed it and can't undo that, but I am sorry and I'll try not to do it again." Clearly, Christianity hasn't prevented people from acting on their impulses; nor have atheists seized their freedom and become hedonists.

The absence of guilt is not the result of the justification, it precedes the justification. Like a dream that incorporates a real life ringing telephone into it seemingly before the phone actually rings, the absence of guilt hastily creates an explanation for its absence that preserves the symbolic morality: I don't feel any guilt..... because in this case..

nazi legal theory meets philosophy of religion? anyway good post i don't know how to add to it

>>85832188
I'm a Christian because it's evident the bible is right in saying the moral law is written on every man's heart and yet they choose not to acknowledge God. Every human seems to know intrinsically basic right from wrong, even those who willfully do wrong still know it's wrong. But people don't want God because the idea of actually being held accountable for their every inner guilt is scary and painful.

I mean among other reasons but that's just my point for now.

Athiests do everything in their power to reason that you can have morals due to your biology (it being evolutionarily beneficial to cooperate with other humans) or that it's simply a sign they're more developed and a better person since they don't need the threat of hell to be "good". However all their reasons always have flaws. Whenever I actually push an athiest to prove that their morals are actually truly good, there's no real reason beyond just "because." It's whatever you have been taught or maybe personally decided is good based off your own experiences. But nothing makes your morals more right from the guy who wants to genocide everyone because without deeper meaning to life and the universe, the only truth winds up being might makes right. Whoever can enforce their morals should be the winner.

And yet, everyone seems to intrinsically know killing another person is wrong to at least some degree. That stealing something that is someone else's isn't good.

And biology can't work because reality shows that the people in our society who are more selfish and morally bankrupt succeed more. If anything being "good" usually means disadvantaging yourself more than anything. But people still do it, and why? In my eyes it has to speak to a higher power and a universal morality.

>>85832462
>If anything being "good" usually means disadvantaging yourself more than anything. But people still do it, and why? In my eyes it has to speak to a higher power and a universal morality.
Well, for one, it's just empathy; don't bring harm to others, just like you don't want to be harmed yourself. Maybe I could have more money by robbing the elderly next door, but I can feel the suffering I'd cause them, so I choose not to. It's a very selfish reason (I don't want them to suffer so that I don't suffer), one that puts me right in the center of everyone's lives, replacing them with a version of me to whom "the bad things" happens, more than any higher power or universal morality.
In other words, hurting others also hurts me, so I don't do it. At the same time, if you were to catch a robber that likes to say beat grandpas and stomp on kitties, then hurting him would NOT hurt me, because I would not be able to put myself in his shoes. In that case, I'd gladly break his bones or cut his balls without experiencing any guilt, which means I can only do good (as in not harm, help etc) towards myself

>>85832188
god and religion as a whole was replaced in large part by social media. It is a place for people to come together and believe in a larger community. It is constantly watching and you expected to follow the doctrines laid out by it. If you are determined by this omnipresent entity to be in the wrong you are condemned and "canceled".

We did kill god, but quickly built a mechanical messiah in his place.

>>85832619
It is empathy, but you have to stop and consider why is it a thing? If in most cases it's not beneficial to be kind to anyone outside of your family or personal "tribe" why would we have evolved such a trait. Furthermore concepts like justice and repaying evil actions is also a universal trait among basically all humans. Even if the defenition of evil changes slightly, a murderer would probably get revenge on someone who did them wrong.

Does all of morality really come down to what does or doesn't hurt your feelings? Feelings are fickle and inconsistent from person to person. Not to mention the sheer vastness of the earth and how different cultures are and yet broadly speaking humans share generally similar moralities. Don't murder (kill without just reason), don't steal (take without permission), don't lie (purposely not tell the truth), etc. Evil people may not feel guilty for doing these things, but they know they're wrong and by extention would feel equally as upset if these things were done to them in return.

>>85832462
>And biology can't work because reality shows that the people in our society who are more selfish and morally bankrupt succeed more.
see this is you failing to understand that biological evolution works on multiple scales at once. The broader population scale evolution, which drives groups to cooperate and develop altruism toward others of their species to make the population more likely to spread and grow. but there is also individual intra-population level evolution like you describe. The high value traits, conferred theoretically by many alleles and genes in a population allow for individuals to pass on their genetic information within the population more rapidly. It results in the tug of war we see in reality, groups are often kind and supportive towards those similar to them, but individuals can and often do become powerful on their own through being ruthless and "evil".

genuinely read the selfish gene by richard dawkins. It's my favorite book of all time because it opened my eyes to the sheer complexity of evolution. It is not just a single faceted layer of biology. Every single layer of biology is constantly striving, independently and together, towards optimizing fecundity and fidelity. Down to the very genes themselves, and up to whole ecosystems.

Cellular level evolution within an organism is a great example of this, though we don't often think of it. Cancer is when cells develop characteristics which benefit their own fecundity in the short term, but in the larger scale of the organism they end up killing themselves off.

>>85832188
People will always have faith in something. Even the concept of science can only stand on the faith in certain outcomes following certain conditions. Some people believe in nihilism which just means they are mentally retarded. You dont need to believe in a specific god or higher power, but you need to understand that a secular lifestyle contradicts how humans have built up civilization and ultimately how we evolved or were created or whatever. Why does being sexless cause some people distress? There are some things that are core to the human experience, and being demoralized or falling out of favor with your religion or traditions or community is a bad thing, whether you think you see truth better or not. Religions adapt slower than individuals but they eventually adapt.