>Atheist ethics

>Atheist ethics

Terry Davis: They Glow, You Shine Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Terry Davis: They Glow, You Shine Shirt $21.68

  1. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I need le G-d to see the reason in not murdering and thieving

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >"The only reason murder is wrong is because God said so." *God orders the Israelites to massacre the Amalekites a few verses later*

      Is this what you people actually believe in? Yikes.

      I'm not OP.
      It is not about "being a nice guy". You can be a perfectly nice and pro-social person while being an atheist.

      The problem with atheism is that it doesn't have a strong core when it comes to ethics. There is no ultimate judge on what is the good for humans or what is our end.

      This is not to say "atheists are immoral buttholes who steal and participate in orgies". This is to say that it is hard to develop the study of ethics without something above.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        It also makes them absurdly susceptible to [CURRENT THING], as seen by the entire Atheism+ movement.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >This is to say that it is hard to develop the study of ethics without something above.
        Its actually way easier without god, Christians tend to confuse ethics with theology
        if someone is only good to get into heaven they are not actually good

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          >There is no ultimate judge on what is the good for humans or what is our end.
          1. This is a problem how?
          2. This absolves you from having to prove that whoever you decide is the ultimate judge exists how?
          3. An ultimate judge makes morality better grounded how?

          I'm writing in the same post to answer the questions that seems similar. The other post does not have merit so I'm ignoring it.

          >1. This is a problem how?
          Because Ethics depends on it. Ethics is not about being a "nice guy who helps others". Ethics is about what is the good for humans. What is our end.
          On atheism it is hard to define that because the belief is (I'm not saying this in an insulting way, this is how I see it) that "there is no meaning to life, we are just animals who somehow got intellect".

          >2. This absolves you from having to prove that whoever you decide is the ultimate judge exists how?
          This is not the theme of this thread.

          >3. An ultimate judge makes morality better grounded how
          Because God knows better than we do. We humans (and I believe atheists agree with me here) lack knowledge by ourselves.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm
            By "the post that doesn't have merit" I don't mean the two I quoted but the evolutionary biology one.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            The atheist view hinges on the theory of evolution. All animal behaviors are the result of evolution. You can’t just ignore it when talking about ethics. You can even study morality among social animal species that aren’t humans. I recommend pic related, when it talks about altruism in social bird species and why it exists.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            The theory of evolution can't really give an answer for that. It can describe a lot of things, but it is not equiped for the answer to "what is good for a human being".
            As in "it is not because something is evolutionary advantageous that it is good", something which I believe most of those in the area would agree with.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            The theory of evolution also doesn’t give an answer for “what organism is most fit” or “how an organism should be.” All it does it tell us that the current organisms exist because their traits allowed them and their ancestors to survive. In regards to morality, it is the same. We have no idea what culture will be superior, what laws we should have, how we should live. You can only make such a judgment after the fact, after the selection process has been completed. Its all trial and error, experimenting to find what works best. And what works best now won’t necessarily work best in the future.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            We have a different view of what morality is.
            Morality in the sense I'm using (and what Plato and other ancients did) is about the "good" for humans. This is something, you would agree, evolutionary science (or any other science) can't give an answer to, since it is a philosophical question.

            On the rest, I agree with you. Sorry for earlier not taking your post seriously. You are smart (I'm saying this unironically).

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            When you use the word “good,” you invoke a value judgment, which is based on biological preferences and desires. If we start with the assumption that it is “good” to survive, then we can say “it is good for a man to eat, but not so much that he will become sick and fat etc.” But this is such a basic biological urge that we don’t even need to argue about whether or not eating is good (though we could argue about what to eat, how to eat, when to eat, etc.). But knowing exactly what to do in all situations for the rest of your life (and also being able to tell others what they should do as well) cannot be achieved by science nor philosophy. All you can do is come up with some theory and then try your best to practice it and see if it works. Your logic will never be air-tight, you won’t be able to convince everyone else, all you can really do is prove your words with your actions, and hope that they inspire others to do the same.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            In many ways, the search for the "good" can go against your biological urges.
            For example...
            Suppose the most fertile, good looking woman, with the best genes in the world wanted to have sex with a married Christian man. Suppose he would never see her again and no one would ever know he did it. The good for him would be to say "no", while his biological urges would say "do it". The same for a Stoic or a Platonist.

            You even see this in regards to living. Socrates didn't see his death as bad, for example.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Don’t be so naive. Even the atheist married man can find reasons not to cheat on his wife. I myself believe sex should only be done for the purpose of reproduction or the strengthening of a bond between a husband and wife. Otherwise you are just wasting your strength as a man. But even if I impregnated a woman that wasn’t my wife, then she would be raising my child without my help, and we all know that single motherhood is a recipe for disaster in modern society. And I don’t want my name to be tarnished by the failures of my bastard son, and the fact that I was unable to take care of him like a normal dad. If you have an IQ of 70, maybe you would cheat on your wife because you aren’t able to think abstractly and appeal to your biology in other ways, and you would just think “hot woman, sex good” and then cheat. Obviously the fervent Christian has the benefit of believing in an infinite hell that awaits him if makes such a mistake, though these days there aren’t many Christians like this.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I meant in the sense of "morality is often about going against your biological desires".
            The issue for the fervent Christian is how to get closer to God, which is not something you are doing when you are fornicating.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Morality is just short for "what I would like others to do". Or rather "what I would like others to think I would like others to do".
            You don't want to be stolen from so you say "OH YEAH STEALING IS BAD BAAAD, ONLY A SUBHUMAN WOULD DO IT, AMIRITE FRIENDS :D".
            That's literally it. Ethics is just this at a national/cultural level, with added bullshit (religion or "ethical science") to avoid openly facing the abiove fact.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not in the sense we are talking. Suppose a man is to live by himself in a deserted island. Morality also is an issue for him, even without contact with others.

            Well the problem is that our biology isn’t exactly equipped for modern society, so there is a real struggle going on between our desires. In the prehistoric past, it was presumably good for a man to become really horny when seeing a woman, because if he doesn’t take that opportunity and mate with her, his genes might not be passed on. But these days every man can easily find pictures of women online, then they get horny, then they fap and feel like shit. The urge for sex in itself is not sinful, we simply are not evolved to live in modern society. So yes we must go against our biological desires, but that is only because we are trying to appease other biological desires. You can discover all of this through a secular framework, it doesn’t take religion to know that jerking off is harmful, or that cheating on your wife probably won’t help you with your goals, etc. Perhaps in the distant future we will have more willpower and self-control, and sin won’t be as common, or at least not the sins of this age.

            I agree with your views on sex. But in the end, there will be others who will claim "Sexual freedom is a good, maximizing pleasure is how we should live". And their view (which is wrong, as we both agree) is the most popular one and even is increasing in popularity.
            What is the "good "? Your view of society or their view of hedonism and increasing individual agency?

            Yeah, a lot the things I do is like that
            I want to eat candy, but I don't want to get fat. So I go against my biological desire to eat sweets.
            Don't need a God to explain what's going on here.

            The argument was mostly that biological urges are not a good basis for morality.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            > And their view (which is wrong, as we both agree) is the most popular one and even is increasing in popularity.
            What is the "good "? Your view of society or their view of hedonism and increasing individual agency?
            I don’t assume that everyone should live the same way. I am still struggling with this bias, but it’s clear that people simply have different constitutions. Some people thrive on diets that may be bad for me. So who knows? Maybe it is good for some people to be sexually free. That is not for me to decide. Only time will tell. I say let them experiment, let them live as they wish. Everyone else will learn from their mistakes. I myself would like to experiment in the opposite direction, but it is a great struggle to be perfect.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            And that's the whole issue here.
            We end with this doubt because we don't have a "good". Who is right? The hedonists? Or are we right?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm [...]
            Again, the point is not to insult atheists (or even to make a statement about the value of their beliefs) or to say they will be immoral criminals who will have orgies. I'm sure many are like you who want to live decent lives.

            The point is that with Atheism there is this problem.

            I don’t see this as a “problem.” Wanting everyone to live the exact same way is like wanting everyone to have the same skin color or height or intelligence. Everyone has their own values, their own way of living. Maybe their ways will go extinct, maybe not. If you want to impose your way of living on others, then you should be an example, and prove to everyone else that they are missing out. But even then they might be trapped in their own biology. Religion says these people will go to hell, I say they will just go extinct and the human species will continue to evolve.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is not about dominating others.

            It is about a lack of definite answer to "what is good for humans" under atheism. There will always be multiple viewpoints and confusion.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            > There will always be multiple viewpoints and confusion.
            The alternative would be quite boring

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Correct.
            Atheism is a stance regarding the claim "God exist" (that it's false)
            Atheism has nothing to say about what's good for humans

            This so confused

            "the problem with heliocentrism is that it got no definite answer to what is good for humans"
            ??? Do you agree that this sentence is nonsense?
            Don't know how to explain it to you

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm

            And that's the whole issue here.
            We end with this doubt because we don't have a "good". Who is right? The hedonists? Or are we right?

            Again, the point is not to insult atheists (or even to make a statement about the value of their beliefs) or to say they will be immoral criminals who will have orgies. I'm sure many are like you who want to live decent lives.

            The point is that with Atheism there is this problem.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Obviously Hedonists are going to stop engaging in "earthly pleasures", if you convinces them that it has consequences (and they have a desire to avoid the consequences)

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The argument was mostly that biological urges are not a good basis for morality.

            If you want to be reductive about it, all my reasons for doing what I do. Is gonna bottom out in biological urges/desires, in the sense that they stem from my very biological brain.
            Some are just more long-term than others, maybe required deliberation, rather than "just" being an impulse.

            I don't understand what it means for me to have reason to do stuff, independent of my goals and desires.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            A Stoic would under certain circumstances choose death.
            Morality in this case goes beyond the biological desires.

            >Not in the sense we are talking. Suppose a man is to live by himself in a deserted island. Morality also is an issue for him, even without contact with others.

            It is in every sense.

            Lone man wouldn't be concerned by morality because he wouldn't be concerned by what others think. He wouldn't have anyone to steal from, nobody to cheat on, nobody's approval to get.
            Nobody would know and therefore care if he wakes up early or not, if he jerk offs or not, if he dresses appropriately or not.
            All that's left is his own judgement. If he got brainwashed enough he might still care enough to perform some religious rituals, but he would most likely become sloppy with it as time passes and no social punishment comes

            Morality in the meaning I use would be as important to him as to everyone else.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A Stoic would under certain circumstances choose death.
            >Morality in this case goes beyond the biological desires

            You think a Stoics desire to kill himself is a non-biological desire?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Depending on the circumstances, yes.

            > There will always be multiple viewpoints and confusion.
            The alternative would be quite boring

            It would be an utopia.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Depending on the circumstances, yes.
            Ok.
            I got no idea what it would mean for desires to be non-biological. So you are just talking past me.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your meaning is a cope built on top of my (real) meaning.
            Make any moral statement in the form of "It is good to (x)",
            You can replace it with "I would like others to know that I believe everyone should (x)".

            They literally mean the same thing.
            BUT WHAT ABOUT WHEN PEOPLE DO BAD THING X EVEN IF NOBODY WILL KNOW. The guilt isn't worth it, there are inherent risks to doing x, or because they are scared (consciously or subconsciously) of being found out.
            Life isn't a thought experiment, you can never be sure you won't be found out.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not in the sense we are talking. Suppose a man is to live by himself in a deserted island. Morality also is an issue for him, even without contact with others.

            It is in every sense.

            Lone man wouldn't be concerned by morality because he wouldn't be concerned by what others think. He wouldn't have anyone to steal from, nobody to cheat on, nobody's approval to get.
            Nobody would know and therefore care if he wakes up early or not, if he jerk offs or not, if he dresses appropriately or not.
            All that's left is his own judgement. If he got brainwashed enough he might still care enough to perform some religious rituals, but he would most likely become sloppy with it as time passes and no social punishment comes

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well the problem is that our biology isn’t exactly equipped for modern society, so there is a real struggle going on between our desires. In the prehistoric past, it was presumably good for a man to become really horny when seeing a woman, because if he doesn’t take that opportunity and mate with her, his genes might not be passed on. But these days every man can easily find pictures of women online, then they get horny, then they fap and feel like shit. The urge for sex in itself is not sinful, we simply are not evolved to live in modern society. So yes we must go against our biological desires, but that is only because we are trying to appease other biological desires. You can discover all of this through a secular framework, it doesn’t take religion to know that jerking off is harmful, or that cheating on your wife probably won’t help you with your goals, etc. Perhaps in the distant future we will have more willpower and self-control, and sin won’t be as common, or at least not the sins of this age.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, a lot the things I do is like that
            I want to eat candy, but I don't want to get fat. So I go against my biological desire to eat sweets.
            Don't need a God to explain what's going on here.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because Ethics depends on it.
            OK, how? Why is ethics being a social construct such a huge problem?

            >Ethics is about what is the good for humans.
            No. It's about how humans want to behave in society. Also, again, if that's where you place the bar, ethics being a social construct has no reason to not work.

            >What is our end.
            No.

            >the belief is (I'm not saying this in an insulting way, this is how I see it) that "there is no meaning to life, we are just animals who somehow got intellect".
            No. Meaning being subjective is very different from life having no meaning.

            >This is not the theme of this thread.
            It absolutely is. Grounding your ethics on something you can't prove even exists sounds infinitely more moronic than embracing that ethics is a social construct.

            >Because God knows better than we do.
            Prove God exists. Then we'll discuss that statement.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >OK, how? Why is ethics being a social construct such a huge problem?
            >No. It's about how humans want to behave in society. Also, again, if that's where you place the bar, ethics being a social construct has no reason to not work.
            >No.
            Then there is no reason for this discussion to continue. What I mean by ethics is different from what you mean by ethics.

            >No. Meaning being subjective is very different from life having no meaning.
            We are using "meaning" in different ways.

            >It absolutely is. Grounding your ethics on something you can't prove even exists sounds infinitely more moronic than embracing that ethics is a social construct.
            It is not. The thread is not about atheism being right or wrong. The thread is about atheistic ethics. Religion being true or not is irrelevant for the difficulty in atheist ethics.

            >Prove God exists. Then we'll discuss that statement.
            You asked how an ultimate judge would help us define morality, meaning that for the sake of argument you assumed there was one. The answer is "by having better knowledge".
            It seems like you are trying to retreat by changing the direction.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Then there is no reason for this discussion to continue. What I mean by ethics is different from what you mean by ethics.
            Yeah, and contrary to you, my definition is used by society.

            >We are using "meaning" in different ways.
            Yeah. Your definition of meaning is "belief in my imaginary friend." No wonder you can't imagine how life can have meaning without your sky daddy.

            >It is not.
            Keep coping.

            >The thread is not about atheism being right or wrong. The thread is about atheistic ethics. Religion being true or not is irrelevant for the difficulty in atheist ethics.
            It's 100% relevant since if religion is wrong it has NOTHING to bring to the question.

            >You asked how an ultimate judge would help us define morality, meaning that for the sake of argument you assumed there was one.
            I assumed a fuzzy "ultimate judge" for the sake of argument. I didn't assume it would necessarily be the Christian god. You did. Now you prove it or shut up.

            >It seems like you are trying to retreat by changing the direction.
            No. Your approach to ethics relies on a premise I don't hold as true, and I'm pushing back on this. You not withstanding the weight of the burden of proof isn't my problem.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yeah, and contrary to you, my definition is used by society.
            Mine is used too. And it is pretty important.

            >Yeah. Your definition of meaning is "belief in my imaginary friend." No wonder you can't imagine how life can have meaning without your sky daddy.
            Anon... The meaning I'm talking about is in a different sense. Buddhists for example have a meaning for humans.

            >Keep coping.
            >It's 100% relevant since if religion is wrong it has NOTHING to bring to the question.
            Anon, we are not discussing religion. We are discussing the problem that atheism has in regards to Ethics. You are just being unnecessarily defensive and trying to attack the enemies in your head instead of tackling with the issues.

            >I assumed a fuzzy "ultimate judge" for the sake of argument. I didn't assume it would necessarily be the Christian god. You did. Now you prove it or shut up.
            Anon, "the god (s) knowing more than humans" is hardly am exclusivity of Christians...
            You are just trying to fight the enemies in your head because you are uncomfortable with this subject.

            >No. Your approach to ethics relies on a premise I don't hold as true, and I'm pushing back on this. You not withstanding the weight of the burden of proof isn't my problem.
            The issue here is the question of "what is the good", anon. You are just trying to deviate.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Grounding your ethics on something you can't prove even exists
            ... is far more robust than grounding your ethics on a real thing which can be directly manipulated, gamed and corrupted.

          • 9 months ago
            I AM

            "... is far more robust than grounding your ethics on a real thing which can be directly manipulated, gamed and corrupted."

            Like GOD? Clown. You have to ground your ethics on the basis of reality, not on the basis of divine commands - He commands through His Creation - He needs no prophets!

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think you comprehend what I'm saying or what I'm responding to.
            If morality is purely socially constructed then there's nothing to say it can't be socially _re_constructed. The importance of religion as a bedrock for morality is to have some part of your moral basis firmly outside of human influence.

          • 9 months ago
            I AM

            "have some part of your moral basis firmly outside of human influence,"

            So lie about GOD, kill people who don't follow the Laws of GOD (which people lied about)... yes, clearly, this is the way!

            >If morality is purely socially constructed then there's nothing to say it can't be socially _re_constructed.

            That is simply the truth of the matter.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So lie about GOD, kill people who don't follow the Laws of GOD (which people lied about)... yes, clearly, this is the way!
            So you clearly accept that humans monkeying around with the moral basis is undesirable. Otherwise you wouldn't be schizo ranting about lying about God.

            >That is simply the truth of the matter.
            No, it's a meta-narrative. It's a story you are telling about our morality. Importantly it's not restrictive in any way.

            By default if someone is going to try to re-model morality they're going to be a bad actor. There are things outside of our moral landscape for a very good reason and the only reason to shift the landscape is if you're on the outside.
            If you have some document in your moral foundation (the Bible is only one possible example) written in more or less plain language that greatly restricts what kind of mischief a bad actor can get up to. It would be practically impossible for a Christian society to engage in direct animal or human sacrifice for example, that would be too contradictory to the crucifixion of Jesus and what that narrative represents.

            If you want to do away with the guard rails, fine, go eat the bugs and live in a little concrete box.

          • 9 months ago
            I AM

            It seems there's a fundamental misunderstanding here.

            The Divine transcends human-scripted morality. Historical 'Laws of GOD' reflect our attempt to interpret the Infinite, often leading to dogma, not higher ethical understanding. True moral evolution isn't about discarding foundational values but transcending restrictive interpretations that bad actors exploit. We needn't cling to literal scripts to uphold morality. Instead, we must engage with our innate ethical compass, ensuring it resonates with universal kindness, justice, and wisdom, unrestricted by human misinterpretations of the Divine.

          • 9 months ago
            I AM

            GOD's greatness transcends our notions of morality, not confined to human constructs but manifest in the unfathomable complexity and balance of existence. In times of scarcity, humans may waiver, but the Divine is constant, not subject to our fluctuations. Our tragedies stem from rigid moral dogmas, not Divine decree; persecution arises from our failures in understanding, not His prescriptions.

            History shows civilizations rise and fall, not by a clear moral code, but through forces reflecting a cosmic equilibrium beyond our comprehension. He blesses or withdraws favor, not based on our limited moral standards, but according to an inscrutable Divine will that aligns with a greater harmony we're yet to fully grasp.

            GOD's goodness lies in the boundless potential He's imbued within creation and us. He instills the capacity for love, empathy, and the intellect to navigate our moral landscapes. His greatness is in this Divine Empowerment, granting us the tools and freedom to explore, learn, and grow, even amidst our moral quandaries. He is not the dictator of moral codes but the facilitator of our moral evolution.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If morality is purely socially constructed then there's nothing to say it can't be socially _re_constructed
            too bad, so sad

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cute that you think religion is outside of human influence.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >thing which can be directly manipulated, gamed and corrupted
            You mean like God?

            >Yeah, and contrary to you, my definition is used by society.
            Mine is used too. And it is pretty important.

            >Yeah. Your definition of meaning is "belief in my imaginary friend." No wonder you can't imagine how life can have meaning without your sky daddy.
            Anon... The meaning I'm talking about is in a different sense. Buddhists for example have a meaning for humans.

            >Keep coping.
            >It's 100% relevant since if religion is wrong it has NOTHING to bring to the question.
            Anon, we are not discussing religion. We are discussing the problem that atheism has in regards to Ethics. You are just being unnecessarily defensive and trying to attack the enemies in your head instead of tackling with the issues.

            >I assumed a fuzzy "ultimate judge" for the sake of argument. I didn't assume it would necessarily be the Christian god. You did. Now you prove it or shut up.
            Anon, "the god (s) knowing more than humans" is hardly am exclusivity of Christians...
            You are just trying to fight the enemies in your head because you are uncomfortable with this subject.

            >No. Your approach to ethics relies on a premise I don't hold as true, and I'm pushing back on this. You not withstanding the weight of the burden of proof isn't my problem.
            The issue here is the question of "what is the good", anon. You are just trying to deviate.

            >Mine is used too.
            No it's not.

            >Anon... The meaning I'm talking about is in a different sense.
            Until proven otherwise, no.

            >Anon, we are not discussing religion. We are discussing the problem that atheism has in regards to Ethics.
            In other words, we are discussing religion.

            >Anon, "the god (s) knowing more than humans" is hardly am exclusivity of Christians...
            You called him God, which only Christians do. You can't prove he exists. You're trying to run away from it because you know you're FUBAR.

            >The issue here is the question of "what is the good", anon. You are just trying to deviate.
            I'll make it as easy as possible for a Christian brain to understand (but it's probably still gonna be too complicated because Christians are infinitely moronic).

            You claim is that atheist ethics don't work because they need an ultimate judge.
            I ask for one single reason why an ultimate judge would provide better foundations for ethics.
            You say "because God knows better than us."
            You suddenly ascribe a very specific identity to that ultimate judge: the Christian god.
            ==> YOU ARE THEREBY THE ONE BRINGING THE UNPROVEN PREMISE THAT THE CHRISTIAN GOD EXISTS, NOT ME <==
            Since, as a reasonable person, I don't hold that premise as true, I dare you to give me just one reason to believe it.
            Now you're desperately trying to pussy out of it because you know you can't prove the Christian god and establish your point that relies on this premise.
            You have no grounds to say an "ultimate judge" grounds ethics.
            Therefore, you have nothing better to offer than atheist ethics.
            Atheist ethics stands unscathed.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No it's not.
            Yes, it is. Those who follow Stoicism use ethics in the exact same way I do.

            >In other words, we are discussing religion.
            No, we are discussing how atheism has a problem when it comes to ethics.

            >You called him God, which only Christians do. You can't prove he exists. You're trying to run away from it because you know you're FUBAR.

            Anon, my point has nothing to do with Christianity. In other religions they also have deities who they believe to be wiser than humans.

            >I'll make it as easy as possible for a Christian brain to understand (but it's probably still gonna be too complicated because Christians are infinitely moronic).
            >You claim is that atheist ethics don't work because they need an ultimate judge.
            >I ask for one single reason why an ultimate judge would provide better foundations for ethics.
            >You say "because God knows better than us."
            >You suddenly ascribe a very specific identity to that ultimate judge: the Christian god.
            >==> YOU ARE THEREBY THE ONE BRINGING THE UNPROVEN PREMISE THAT THE CHRISTIAN GOD EXISTS, NOT ME <==
            >Since, as a reasonable person, I don't hold that premise as true, I dare you to give me just one reason to believe it.
            >Now you're desperately trying to pussy out of it because you know you can't prove the Christian god and establish your point that relies on this premise.
            >You have no grounds to say an "ultimate judge" grounds ethics.
            >Therefore, you have nothing better to offer than atheist ethics.
            >Atheist ethics stands unscathed.

            Anon, you shouldn't call others unintelligent when you can't get a simple point.
            Suppose Atheists are completely right.
            Atheism still has the problem of Ethics. It doesn't matter if other beliefs are right or wrong.

            We are not discussing Christianity or Hinduism or Shinto. The validity of their Ethics doesn't matter in this case. We are discussing atheism.

            That even of atheists are right, they don't have a basis for ethics.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >we are discussing how atheism has a problem when it comes to ethics.
            Nobody can discuss this. It's such a malformed "problem".
            Did you not understand the stuff about atheism being a stance regarding a claim?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, stoics don't define ethics as "the art of appealing to an imaginary friend to get people to do what you tell them to do."

            >No, we are discussing how atheism has a problem when it comes to ethics.
            And the problem being discussed has to do with lack of imaginary friends i.e. "pls convert to my religion."

            >In other religions they also have deities
            Are you only pretending or are you really that moronic? Other religions don't call their deities "God." This is unique to Christianity.

            >Atheism still has the problem of Ethics.
            Not unless you can come up with an ethical system that's better. Which you can't since the only ones you're religiously allowed to put on the table are "obey or my daddy will beat you up."

            >We are not discussing Christianity
            You are by asserting your god exists. Now prove it.

            >That even of atheists are right, they don't have a basis for ethics.
            "Ethics is a social construct" is a basis. "My nonexistent daddy said so" isn't.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            My impression is that you know you lost this discussion (on ethics) but you want to sidetrack to a different one (the existence of God) because you are more confident on it.

            You are just an intellectually dishonest person who can't deal with losing.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Still no evidence for God? I take it you concede a "universal judge" isn't necessary to give ethics ground.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        so what? All of our behavior is the result of evolution. It’s all just game theory, a survival strategy. We don’t all agree perfectly because it’s not as simple as everyone following the exact same laws.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >There is no ultimate judge on what is the good for humans or what is our end.
        1. This is a problem how?
        2. This absolves you from having to prove that whoever you decide is the ultimate judge exists how?
        3. An ultimate judge makes morality better grounded how?

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The problem with atheism is that it doesn't have a strong core when it comes to ethics.
        Atheism is a position regarding a claim "God exist", that it's false. Why would there be any ethics entailed in that?
        So silly

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          >good is found in God, by definition
          Ok, but God doesn't exist. This sentence isn't very informative.

          Come on, anon. You are embarrassing yourself.
          Religious people being right or wrong have no relationship with Atheism having problems with having an Ethics system.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Atheism does not have an ethics system, because it's literally just a stance regarding a claim

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            The issue is that when you have this instance it seems to be impossible to have an ethical system in the way the old philosophers did. Pure reason, science are not equiped for that.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sure
            You can't have God-morality, without God.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        There’s nothing “above” to begin with. Nor is there an “ultimate judge”
        Only difference is atheists actually admit it

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          Anon, are you a moron?
          No, seriously. Did you ever do an IQ test?

          I'm not arguing if atheists are right or wrong. Frick, suppose atheists are completely right. This still doesn't change my point.

          Your meaning is a cope built on top of my (real) meaning.
          Make any moral statement in the form of "It is good to (x)",
          You can replace it with "I would like others to know that I believe everyone should (x)".

          They literally mean the same thing.
          BUT WHAT ABOUT WHEN PEOPLE DO BAD THING X EVEN IF NOBODY WILL KNOW. The guilt isn't worth it, there are inherent risks to doing x, or because they are scared (consciously or subconsciously) of being found out.
          Life isn't a thought experiment, you can never be sure you won't be found out.

          Religious people truly do believe in a different form of morality than yours, anon... Which is not based on biological urges but on their theological beliefs.

          Correct.
          Atheism is a stance regarding the claim "God exist" (that it's false)
          Atheism has nothing to say about what's good for humans

          This so confused

          "the problem with heliocentrism is that it got no definite answer to what is good for humans"
          ??? Do you agree that this sentence is nonsense?
          Don't know how to explain it to you

          Religion does provide this answer.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not arguing if atheists are right or wrong. Frick, suppose atheists are completely right. This still doesn't change my point.
            NTA, but what was your point?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            That finding what is the "good" and what is the "end for humans" (what the study of Ethics was about) is very hard (or impossible) without the divine.

            Take the Stoics who believed in a pantheism. Without their pantheism, bye bye Stoic Ethics.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            If god is inscrutable, what good is he in establishing ethics?

          • 9 months ago
            I AM

            You're using your brain 😉

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Usually, in religions there is a communication with humans.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why is god only expressive when its convenient for his followers that he be?

          • 9 months ago
            I AM

            :^) Because they lie.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I can't say about the other religions, but in the case of Christianity the Apostles didn't benefit in "earthly" ways.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Will any of the rest of us get a chance at catching god expressing himself or are the currently recorded instances of this happening all we are gonna get?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Public revelation was completed.
            Unless you become a high tier saint, you are not getting a private revelation (and you won't benefit materially if you do).

            I think the amount of times Paul says stuff to the effect of: "I'm not in it for the money"
            Is good evidence of people at the time accusing him of, being in it for the money

            Or maybe his earthly desire was to have influence over a large group of people. I'dd say he succeeded massively.
            That could also be another earthly motivation. I can only speculate about his desires.

            Maybe he was in it for the money at the start, but then drank his own cool-aid. Something like that sounds very plausible to me.

            Paul was probably a very wealthy man given he had Roman citizenship as a israeli man and studied under the most prominent master. That and his overall culture.

            A fortune that he spent by his work as an apostle.
            Another thing to add is that if he wanted influence he would likely keep being a pharisee. Christianity was persecuted during his era and he was executed.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Public revelation was completed.
            I don't believe you, your god is either inscrutable entirely or expressive to some degree. He didn't just lay out edicts that would apply to people living in the middle east during a short span of time and then never again
            Im sure he would definitely have something to say about people who use AI to write dicky porn if he was expressive enough to share his opinion.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            How do I go about becoming an SS-tier saint?

            >Paul was probably a very wealthy
            >A fortune that he spent by his work as an apostle.
            Look, if you presuppose that Paul wasn't in it for the money. The conclusion that he wasn't in it for the money trivially follows. Obviously.
            Me throwing shade at Paul, supposes that those premises are false. Or that he lost his money, then wanted more, or something like that.

            >if he wanted influence he would likely keep being a pharisee
            He would have been wrong, though.
            By becoming this massively important figure in early Christianity, Paul became like THE most influential non-god person in history.
            Although I suppose he was concerned with his influence at the time, not what would follow in the next 2000 years.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think the amount of times Paul says stuff to the effect of: "I'm not in it for the money"
            Is good evidence of people at the time accusing him of, being in it for the money

            Or maybe his earthly desire was to have influence over a large group of people. I'dd say he succeeded massively.
            That could also be another earthly motivation. I can only speculate about his desires.

            Maybe he was in it for the money at the start, but then drank his own cool-aid. Something like that sounds very plausible to me.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Paul was surrounded by israelites.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >christian gets criticized
            >the word "jew" is uttered
            like pottery, that

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok.
            And then he was a big player in a new religious movement.

            You were asking why everyone kept asking Paul "ARE YOU JUST IN THIS FOR THE MONEY?"
            The answer is because they were israelites, who cannot conceive of doing something that isn't related to monetary gain.
            Therefore, the fact that Paul was doing something for reasons other than turning a profit deeply confused them, because they were israelites.
            You're welcome.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The israelites were the only ones in the whole of Jerusalem at this time
            >The israelites cannot conceive of doing something that isn't related to monetary gain, despite Jerusalem being a cultural and religious center rather than an economic one
            This is stupid, you are stupid

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            you're israeli

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok.
            And then he was a big player in a new religious movement.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Religion does provide this answer.
            Ok.
            I too, can make up an answer if you like.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Religious people truly do believe in a different form of morality than yours, anon... Which is not based on biological urges but on their theological beliefs.

            Then name one case where my statement doesn't hold?

            It is good to not kill -> I would like others to know that I believe everyone should not kill

            It is good to not steal -> I would like others to know that I believe everyone should not kill

            It is good to not cheat-> I would like others to know that I believe everyone should not cheat

            It is good to go to church on Sunday-> I would like others to know that I believe everyone should go to church on Sunday

            It is good to sin sometimes if you really can't help it so long that you feel bad afterwards and go confess -> I would like others to know that I believe everyone should sin sometimes if you really can't help it so long that you feel bad afterwards and go confess

            Your biological urge is to be liked and appreciated by your community. If that means believing in God and going to church on Sunday that will be your idea of 'good'.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, I...
            Christian Ethics very much argues against this kind of thinking.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes because it so elengantly BTFO's the entire thing.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The problem with atheism is that it doesn't have a strong core when it comes to ethics. There is no ultimate judge on what is the good for humans or what is our end.
        Yes, find your own meaning and your own set of morals. That's the entire fricking point.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yup. That's the huge problem that some anons are not getting in this thread.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yup. That's the huge problem that some anons are not getting in this thread.

          Why is murder wrong?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            It isn't, it's just rearranging clumps of cells.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >born in Western (christian, European), industrialized, secularized, independent self-expressive culture
      >all institutions are predicated on western traditions
      >social interactions and conventions are based on western values, after ~1500 years of continual development
      >indirect lessons, such as life experience, occur within this sphere of western influence
      >industrialism alleviates the burdens of human life, so much so that everyone takes it for granted in some way or another
      >almost impossible to live independently of technology, so it’s implicitly seen as integral to human life when it is a product of human engineering and creativity
      >separation of church and state implies the existence of both, an idea developed by monarchs who wanted power independent from the religious establishment
      >secular doesn’t even mean irreligious, history in secular countries still has palpable religious history tangential to political history
      >because it is implicitly understood that religion is not inherently bad (except for when unreligious people exploit it for their own gains)
      >institutional rules are founded on that religious substrate; it’s reiterated in government documents
      >individualism makes you want to be different just for the sake of having a more unique identity
      >over time it takes a lot more to seem different; today people are literally swapping genders

      Unironically, yes you do, but it’s ok since you already learned the lesson

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >murder and theft were legal until cool christian dudes came along and said "not on my watch"
        [this is what christards unironically believe in]

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >see the reason
      And that reason is?

      >"The only reason murder is wrong is because God said so." *God orders the Israelites to massacre the Amalekites a few verses later*

      Is this what you people actually believe in? Yikes.

      “murder is wrong” would be an arbitrary moral prescription since according to atheism our existence itself is purely accidental.

      Why do you think religion doesn't reduce to nihilism? If the morals come from the commandments of God (which one, we will never know, but I guess for you its the christian one, because he's what, popular?) what stops me from reducing the God system further down by asking why I should listen to the God's commandment? Because he will punish me with hell/won't let me in heavens to frick virgins? Ok cool now you've reduced 'God' to 'might-is-right', which then can be decomposed further by asking why Gods might is more important than worldly might? Why shoudn't I worship and listen to the morality of an oppressive government that forced me to suffer under its militaristic rule? You may then decompose might even further and ask about the necessity of acting morally towards those who are less mighty. Why shouldn't I destroy those who are weaker than me?
      As you can see, the religious systems suffer from the lack of ought as much as any other moral constructs

      >There is no ultimate judge on what is the good for humans or what is our end.
      1. This is a problem how?
      2. This absolves you from having to prove that whoever you decide is the ultimate judge exists how?
      3. An ultimate judge makes morality better grounded how?

      Being good means conforming to the nature of the essence of goodness which is God, there’s no such thing as goodness or morality outside of this.

      • 9 months ago
        I AM

        In the grand tapestry of existence, GOD stands beyond reproach, His mysteries a testament to our finite understanding. Our tools—logic, science—only graze the surface of His infinite depth. "Objective morality" tries, in vain, to chain the Boundless, while mortals, blind in desire, slander the Almighty, demanding miracles, Paradise, and threats of damnation. Yet, GOD acts not on demand; His will, an unfettered river shaping creation. His patience endures, exposing charlatans as nature's laws remain steadfast. He dictates no morality; the primal decree is SURVIVAL, a silent testament amidst life's fight against the void. In our cosmic journey, we tread paths under the enduring gaze of the Great I AM.

        • 9 months ago
          I AM

          While creations battle oblivion, the Eternal knows no such struggle; He is the Beginning, the End, the Ever-Is.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >no it's not evolutionary instinct it's something you could only ever possibly believe because it's in a israeli book

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      In an atheist society, why even be good? What punishments do you receive for being bad?

      >Society will punish you sweaty
      Why does does society punish you? Probably because of values that only exist in those societies due to religions such as Christianity.

  2. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    I can actually tolerate Christcucks IRL (in a sense that most of them are really dumb people so you can't fully blame them for whatever moronic conclusions they reach). But I absolutely HATE internet Christians. What a bunch of smug, condescending literal morons with the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's so sad that nowadays the pinnacle of intellectual thought on Oyish is posting outdated theological arguments that have been debunked even by the aforementioned theologists' contemporaries or simply implying that your opponent is a "fedora" despite displaying that quintessential fedora contrarianism yourself.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      What is your opinion on internet atheists? The ones who worship Dawkins/Harris?
      Are they examples of learning and humility?

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Calm down it's just a shitpost.

      However it does express my views. I have never encountered a good argument as to why atheism doesn't reduce to nihilism. Ultimately there is no 'ought'. It's all taste preference. I have seen this while arguing with atheists irl when they invent or find some moral system and try to share it with me. I then point out how that moral system can lead to some pretty conventionally immoral conclusions. Then they say 'yeah I need to think about that'. But this is bizarre since they are trying to create a moral system that fits into their intuitions and not trying to discover the true moral system no matter how painful it may be.

      The following video expresses the same thoughts that I have.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous
      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why do you think religion doesn't reduce to nihilism? If the morals come from the commandments of God (which one, we will never know, but I guess for you its the christian one, because he's what, popular?) what stops me from reducing the God system further down by asking why I should listen to the God's commandment? Because he will punish me with hell/won't let me in heavens to frick virgins? Ok cool now you've reduced 'God' to 'might-is-right', which then can be decomposed further by asking why Gods might is more important than worldly might? Why shoudn't I worship and listen to the morality of an oppressive government that forced me to suffer under its militaristic rule? You may then decompose might even further and ask about the necessity of acting morally towards those who are less mighty. Why shouldn't I destroy those who are weaker than me?
        As you can see, the religious systems suffer from the lack of ought as much as any other moral constructs

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not sure about that anon's religion but I'm Christian.

          For us, the good is found in God, by definition. The Commandments are what brings us closer to Him.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >good is found in God, by definition
            Ok, but God doesn't exist. This sentence isn't very informative.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          >what stops me from reducing the God system further down by asking why I should listen to the God's commandment? Because he will punish me with hell/won't let me in heavens to frick virgins? Ok cool now you've reduced 'God' to 'might-is-right'
          I don't know about Islam. However in Christianity the commandments are there because doing the commandments correspond to God's nature. The commandments are expressions of his being. And God is by definition that which is good and desirable and that which we ought to orient ourselves towards. If you question this then you are denying the fundamental attributes of God. Which would then not make him God.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            lol it has nothing to do with god and everything to do with humans. Other species murder all the time, it’s in their best interests. But humans are social and so it’s not as smart for us to do that. God is an immaterial transcendent being, how the frick does he relate to not eating shellfish and not jerking off? God is just telling you how to live your best life, according to YOUR nature, which of course is explained by evolutionary biology.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >internet Christians
      I feel like some of them must be some psychotic priests or something, their replies are usually angry and or nasty.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Probably not. It's legit just bitter, reactionary, angry, young men.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          That's the proper reaction to the state of the world.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I can actually tolerate Christcucks IRL (in a sense that most of them are really dumb people so you can't fully blame them for whatever moronic conclusions they reach).
      >What a bunch of smug, condescending literal morons with the Dunning-Kruger effect.
      Are you an Epson Home Cinema LS11000? Because holy shit you're projecting so much.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        You only need to spend a few minutes on this board to see christcucks acting exactly how they accuse atheists of acting.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Inb4 no true Scotsman

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          I see people of all backgrounds and philosophies being self-righteous buttholes all the time. (You) are one of them.

  3. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >"The only reason murder is wrong is because God said so." *God orders the Israelites to massacre the Amalekites a few verses later*

    Is this what you people actually believe in? Yikes.

  4. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Indeed, atheists are moronic.

  5. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    what a shit board

  6. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Atheist ethics are the only logically consistent ethics because it presupposes that ethics are ultimately arbitrary, garbage like evopsych is of course n exception, but I'd argue that basically constitutes a religion in and of itself.

  7. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >atheist ethics

  8. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't consider myself atheist because it would depend on the definition of God, but:
    For me the meaning of life is the pursuit of happiness without taking the happiness from others and helping others to have happiness. Happiness would be the basic biological, psychological, social etc needs.
    Ethics come from this

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      I like "pursuit of happiness" but it ends up being arbitrary.
      And "pursuit of happiness" without an "end" doesn't work.

      Maslow is not a very good thinker and there are plenty of people who "have it all" who are deeply unhappy.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >arbitrary
        I defined happiness though and, although it is in function of each individual, its definition is objective.
        The end is happiness itself how happiness was defined, but there's also the element of abstraction and contemplation of reality which I didn't mention.
        >Maslow is not a very good thinker and there are plenty of people who "have it all" who are deeply unhappy.
        Wouldn't it actually be because some specific item is very lacking?

  9. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    People usually feel bad about killing because it is in their biology to. That is because of evolution, no god needed.
    All of those which psychotically attacked the other members of their species on sight, including potential mates and their own children obviously went extinct. All of those that never seeked company went extinct also.

    So pretty much every animal that reproduces sexually (and especially those whose children need a long time to grow up, such as humans) comes with the following instincts:

    -do not get into overly moronic fights
    -especially with children (they might be yours)
    -especially with females (you can frick them instead)
    -especially with your relatives (they share a lot of your genes and can spread them for you)
    - seek your species'company at least once in a while (you might get to frick)

    Human ethics are just a further abrasction of those basic principles.

  10. 9 months ago
    I AM

    >Divine command ethics.
    >GOD doesn't need prophets.
    >Just discuss the fricking values in an open societ-- wait.
    >t. kino

  11. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Guys, I wonder, when my atheist rage will kick in and I will murder some poor soul?

  12. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Are these threads made to make fun of Oyish 'Christians' for their absolute lack of empathy or sense of right or wrong. Because I have never seen any people in real life act so unhinged to think that you can't have moral stances without religion, You'd just be admitting to be a psycopath if it was the case.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      As has already been demonstrated in real life beyond all doubt, you can't have moral stances without religion.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        none of those things are correlated with atheism

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          Atheism is responsible for all those things.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        The nonwhite people going into the US are far more religious than white people though

  13. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    BAIT THREAD
    BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD
    BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD
    BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD
    BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD
    BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD
    BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD
    BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD
    BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD
    BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD

  14. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Atheist chads, we won again.
    Time to go.

  15. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >my "word" is God's law, despite humans having to interpret it!
    >muahahahahahahaha get owned atheist homosexuals!
    Yawn.

  16. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    All of you pick and choose what rules in the Bible you care about, and you follow countless cultural moral rules that you never got from the Bible about how to behave and what to do/not to do/how to do things correctly in daily life.
    This is the humanities board and you don’t know this?

  17. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Jannies, delete this thread

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Bots are more interesting to talk to than 99% of Oyish posters, this is really an improvement

  18. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's pretty obvious that ethical conclusions will vary drastically simply depending on if you're working from a premise that humans are made in the image of God, or if we're just clumps of cellerinos on a heckin' floaty boi in space

  19. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Christian moralists would have the sliver of a point if christian societies displayed a notably greater social cohesion, less crime, stronger education etc. This has never been the case, even once. At best, they perform just about the same as atheist countries, but usually worse (Africa).

  20. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Ethics are objective because I would be le sad if they weren't

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Now you're arguing like the top of philosophical academia.

  21. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >but if moral anti-realism was true, would entail stuff I don't like...

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *