Deism is a waste because you lose all the benefits of atheism and gain none of the benefits of religion. Mainly having a place in Heaven and an objective moral system
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Mainly having a place in Heaven
Well, if you don't already believe in heaven, then that's not even a possible benefit to be gained. Becoming religious isn't going to make heaven real if it isn't. Anyway, most of the historical deists believed in heaven. >an objective moral system
Why can't you have that without religion?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Why can't you have that without religion?
Religion is really cozy
2 years ago
Anonymous
>then that's not even a possible benefit to be gained.
Depends on the religion and the goal is to actually believe in the religion. >Why can't you have that without religion?
There is no objectivity without God. Just like there is no objective answer on whether Beethoven is better than Mozart or chicken is better than beef.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>There is no objectivity without God
Why not?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I already told you. How can you proof chicken objectively tastes better than beef or Mozart is objectively better than Beethoven. You can't
2 years ago
Anonymous
Does there need to be an objective answer to either question?
And how would God existing have any bearing on whether or not chicken is better than beef?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Does there need to be an objective answer to either question?
Isn't that subjectivity?
>And how would God existing have any bearing on whether or not chicken is better than beef?
If it comes from God is it objective.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Isn't that subjectivity?
Yes, whether chicken is better than beef is an inherently subjective question. >If it comes from God is it objective.
If God says chicken is better than beef then all this tells you is God subjectively prefers chicken.
2 years ago
Anonymous
God is perfect though.
2 years ago
Anonymous
But that question literally does not have a wrong answer, it's a matter of preference. Unless God has knowledge that beef is poison, in which case it would be an objective fact that it's worse than chicken regardless of if God existed
2 years ago
Anonymous
Shit could be better than chicken and God has the right answer and we have the wrong tastebuds. Anything God says is objectively correct. He is beyond logic
2 years ago
Anonymous
homie youre moronic.
Stop kissing Gods ass so much.
If she thinks shits tastes better, thats just like.. her subjective opinion.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Okay but how can God prove shit is better than chicken? He can't, unless he miraculously made these two substances different. >He'll send you to hell if you disagree
Then God's morality is subordinate to utilitarianism and bases itself on pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If it comes from God is it objective.
everything comes from God, therefore everything is objective. A chicken is a chicken and it taste like? Chicken.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't think you can do that, but I don't see any reason to think that moral claims are similar to those kinds of things.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Moral claims are similar though. It's why no Moral Realist has shown us a moral fact. They act like they exist but they're delusional. There is no way to say objectively prove that something is morally wrong or morally good.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Here is a moral fact: Torturing babies for fun is wrong.
Now give me some good reason to doubt this intuition that would not also compel me to doubt the existence of the external world and all of the rest of common sense.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Torturing babies for fun is wrong.
How do you prove that without appealing to emotion?
2 years ago
Anonymous
How do you prove the existence of the external world?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Without going into that question how is this different from me saying
>Torturing babies for fun is right based on my intuition and if you disagree you disagree with the existence of the external world
2 years ago
Anonymous
I would doubt that such a claim could really feature as part of a coherent moral system. Of course people are going to have differing intuitions, and our intuitions are not flawless, but unless you prefer the alternative of radical skepticism, you're going to have to put with reliance on intuitions in philosophy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
This is literally the problem. You can have moral systems which sound good but you can't find two moral philosophers of the same moral system who agree. Intuition is useless when everyone has completely different beliefs. Morals are really no different than the concept of beauty.
>but unless you prefer the alternative of radical skepticism,
How to best run a society is different than stating that you have objective proof of a moral fact. I agree with moral realists that we need a rational moral system.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>you can't find two moral philosophers of the same moral system who agree
Moral philosophers agree on lots of things. Moral disagreement is overrated.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>How do you prove that without appealing to emotion? >appealing to emotion
Appealing to humanity.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Appealing to humanity.
lmao that doesn’t mean anything
2 years ago
Anonymous
beca
2 years ago
Anonymous
you don't need to make an appeal to not torture babies. The burden of proof is on them who do. Most people have a natural instinct on right and wrong. Logically or emotionally.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The burden of proof is not on you to tell him why it's wrong?
2 years ago
Anonymous
So if someone didn’t have emotions, you couldn’t convince them that torturing babies was immoral. Got it
2 years ago
Anonymous
200 years ago the popular intuition was that slavery was okay. You have to be mentally moronic to think your intuition is objective moral fact.
2 years ago
Anonymous
So morality doesn't come from God then. Because the Bible is cool with having slaves.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why you try to bring two separate argument conversations together lol
2 years ago
Anonymous
How are they separate? He has a point.
God of Israel who hates gays and sorcerers, doesnt seem moral to me.
Where do you
get the idea that objective morality comes from God, which God are you referring to?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>How are they separate? He has a point.
The intuition argument hads nothing to do with religion. It's strictly atheistic moral philosophy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why is it wrong to offer babies as a sacrifice to gods? This was common practice throughout ancient history.
2 years ago
Anonymous
murder is bad
2 years ago
Anonymous
>murder is bad because..IT JUST IS OK?!
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah. There's no reason why you need to appeal to the commands of some supernatural being as a further explanation for why murder is bad.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And what further explanation do you have, exactly? Society? Subjective feeling? Those things change in time and space, and in intrinsic ways. Therefore, they can never be consistent and will contradict themselves as a rule.
2 years ago
Anonymous
There is no explanation for the fundamental moral facts. They're necessary truths, like logical and mathematical truths.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Very well. Necessary based on what principle?
2 years ago
Anonymous
This guy is just trolling. Leave the thread and save your time
2 years ago
Anonymous
What do you mean?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Logical necessity is based on validity. Then, what would moral necessity be based on? It must presume some kind of principle which applies to instantiated cases.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The moral facts are necessary in the sense of metaphysical necessity, i.e., they're true in all possible worlds. They're not logically necessary.
2 years ago
Anonymous
So moral facts are necessary based on metaphysics. That is, reality is such that these moral truths must necessarily be the case.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah, I guess you could say that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If that's the case, there must be some aspect of reality which moral facts necessarily find their source. Wouldn't this be 'the good?'
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why? I mean, lots of philosophers believe in moral properties. So, they would say that the "source" of moral facts is just the fact that certain moral properties necessarily attach to certain states of affairs, whether these moral properties are natural properties or non-natural properties. Said moral properties would not be anything like God because God is not a property. Personally, I have strong nominalist leanings and I'm sympathetic toward the deflationary theory of truth, so I don't think that believing in moral truths commits you to any moral ontology. I think you can make true predications even if there are, strictly speaking, no properties.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>evolved monkeys thinks his desires are transcendent absolute laws, episode #632893427
2 years ago
Anonymous
How are they separate? He has a point.
God of Israel who hates gays and sorcerers, doesnt seem moral to me.
Where do you
get the idea that objective morality comes from God, which God are you referring to?
Hating gays and sorcerers is based. There's nothing intrinsically evil about slavery, but how it happens matters.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>There is no objectivity without God.
You mean there is no enforcement of moral rules without God. But that doesn't mean the moral rules are justified. Power does not equal morality. (Apart from the trivial "Whatever the powerful do is by definition good".)
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Mainly having a place in Heaven and an objective moral system
The only way to level up from deism is by inventing your own religion. Instead of joining something you don't believe, you can mash everything you believe together into a new religion and shill it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I think you're too autistic to have any kind of faith at all
>God created gays >God created humans im his own image
Therefore God is gay.
Ya done goofed .
See you in hell.
2 years ago
Anonymous
In the Bible he says gays are an abomination from Satan
2 years ago
Anonymous
>he says gays are an abomination from Satan
So what is God gonna do about it?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Send them to hell if they continue to have gay sex and not repent
2 years ago
Anonymous
I know you root for the Nordcucks, but Medshits look like they have your back and they appreciate you more.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why do you think gays get aids and monkeypox? Just a coincidence?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Unfortunately there's no demand for a "rational" religion like there was in the 18th and 19th century. Stuff like deism, unitarianism and Freemasonry evolved as an alternative to atheism or agnosticism for rationalists. There's not as much need for them nowadays so more liberal churches end up only appealing to far left weirdos.
I also cant escape Deism.
My personality has aspects of mysticism. I call it rational mysticism.
I know its moronic, but deep down I know theres a God out there. Something at the quantum level.
I understand evolution, im not a religious nutjob or whatever, maybe im just moronic.
Causality isn’t real, base reality is pure Chaos and unlimited freedom, the true God. Everything is just an illusion, a coincidence. Many worlds exist without laws, others exist with the appearance of laws, but they are just appearances. Everything is evolution and natural selection. Universes are selected, then stars, then planets, then life. Order from disorder. This is the simplest explanation for everything, Occam’s razor to the extreme. Everything is unnecessary, including your idea of God
The core of Cnristianity is, of course, the Incarnation. God becoming man and dealing with all the crap we have to deal with, and triumphing over it all in the end. Isn't that better than a generic deism?
I mean, read atheist philosophers? That's the only advice I can give you. Though I'm not sure why you want to "get out of it" if you believe it.
I mean move towards actual religions
Why do you want to be religious?
Deism is a waste because you lose all the benefits of atheism and gain none of the benefits of religion. Mainly having a place in Heaven and an objective moral system
>Mainly having a place in Heaven
Well, if you don't already believe in heaven, then that's not even a possible benefit to be gained. Becoming religious isn't going to make heaven real if it isn't. Anyway, most of the historical deists believed in heaven.
>an objective moral system
Why can't you have that without religion?
>Why can't you have that without religion?
Religion is really cozy
>then that's not even a possible benefit to be gained.
Depends on the religion and the goal is to actually believe in the religion.
>Why can't you have that without religion?
There is no objectivity without God. Just like there is no objective answer on whether Beethoven is better than Mozart or chicken is better than beef.
>There is no objectivity without God
Why not?
I already told you. How can you proof chicken objectively tastes better than beef or Mozart is objectively better than Beethoven. You can't
Does there need to be an objective answer to either question?
And how would God existing have any bearing on whether or not chicken is better than beef?
>Does there need to be an objective answer to either question?
Isn't that subjectivity?
>And how would God existing have any bearing on whether or not chicken is better than beef?
If it comes from God is it objective.
>Isn't that subjectivity?
Yes, whether chicken is better than beef is an inherently subjective question.
>If it comes from God is it objective.
If God says chicken is better than beef then all this tells you is God subjectively prefers chicken.
God is perfect though.
But that question literally does not have a wrong answer, it's a matter of preference. Unless God has knowledge that beef is poison, in which case it would be an objective fact that it's worse than chicken regardless of if God existed
Shit could be better than chicken and God has the right answer and we have the wrong tastebuds. Anything God says is objectively correct. He is beyond logic
homie youre moronic.
Stop kissing Gods ass so much.
If she thinks shits tastes better, thats just like.. her subjective opinion.
Okay but how can God prove shit is better than chicken? He can't, unless he miraculously made these two substances different.
>He'll send you to hell if you disagree
Then God's morality is subordinate to utilitarianism and bases itself on pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain.
>If it comes from God is it objective.
everything comes from God, therefore everything is objective. A chicken is a chicken and it taste like? Chicken.
I don't think you can do that, but I don't see any reason to think that moral claims are similar to those kinds of things.
Moral claims are similar though. It's why no Moral Realist has shown us a moral fact. They act like they exist but they're delusional. There is no way to say objectively prove that something is morally wrong or morally good.
Here is a moral fact: Torturing babies for fun is wrong.
Now give me some good reason to doubt this intuition that would not also compel me to doubt the existence of the external world and all of the rest of common sense.
>Torturing babies for fun is wrong.
How do you prove that without appealing to emotion?
How do you prove the existence of the external world?
Without going into that question how is this different from me saying
>Torturing babies for fun is right based on my intuition and if you disagree you disagree with the existence of the external world
I would doubt that such a claim could really feature as part of a coherent moral system. Of course people are going to have differing intuitions, and our intuitions are not flawless, but unless you prefer the alternative of radical skepticism, you're going to have to put with reliance on intuitions in philosophy.
This is literally the problem. You can have moral systems which sound good but you can't find two moral philosophers of the same moral system who agree. Intuition is useless when everyone has completely different beliefs. Morals are really no different than the concept of beauty.
>but unless you prefer the alternative of radical skepticism,
How to best run a society is different than stating that you have objective proof of a moral fact. I agree with moral realists that we need a rational moral system.
>you can't find two moral philosophers of the same moral system who agree
Moral philosophers agree on lots of things. Moral disagreement is overrated.
>How do you prove that without appealing to emotion?
>appealing to emotion
Appealing to humanity.
>Appealing to humanity.
lmao that doesn’t mean anything
beca
you don't need to make an appeal to not torture babies. The burden of proof is on them who do. Most people have a natural instinct on right and wrong. Logically or emotionally.
The burden of proof is not on you to tell him why it's wrong?
So if someone didn’t have emotions, you couldn’t convince them that torturing babies was immoral. Got it
200 years ago the popular intuition was that slavery was okay. You have to be mentally moronic to think your intuition is objective moral fact.
So morality doesn't come from God then. Because the Bible is cool with having slaves.
Why you try to bring two separate argument conversations together lol
How are they separate? He has a point.
God of Israel who hates gays and sorcerers, doesnt seem moral to me.
Where do you
get the idea that objective morality comes from God, which God are you referring to?
>How are they separate? He has a point.
The intuition argument hads nothing to do with religion. It's strictly atheistic moral philosophy.
Why is it wrong to offer babies as a sacrifice to gods? This was common practice throughout ancient history.
murder is bad
>murder is bad because..IT JUST IS OK?!
Yeah. There's no reason why you need to appeal to the commands of some supernatural being as a further explanation for why murder is bad.
And what further explanation do you have, exactly? Society? Subjective feeling? Those things change in time and space, and in intrinsic ways. Therefore, they can never be consistent and will contradict themselves as a rule.
There is no explanation for the fundamental moral facts. They're necessary truths, like logical and mathematical truths.
Very well. Necessary based on what principle?
This guy is just trolling. Leave the thread and save your time
What do you mean?
Logical necessity is based on validity. Then, what would moral necessity be based on? It must presume some kind of principle which applies to instantiated cases.
The moral facts are necessary in the sense of metaphysical necessity, i.e., they're true in all possible worlds. They're not logically necessary.
So moral facts are necessary based on metaphysics. That is, reality is such that these moral truths must necessarily be the case.
Yeah, I guess you could say that.
If that's the case, there must be some aspect of reality which moral facts necessarily find their source. Wouldn't this be 'the good?'
Why? I mean, lots of philosophers believe in moral properties. So, they would say that the "source" of moral facts is just the fact that certain moral properties necessarily attach to certain states of affairs, whether these moral properties are natural properties or non-natural properties. Said moral properties would not be anything like God because God is not a property. Personally, I have strong nominalist leanings and I'm sympathetic toward the deflationary theory of truth, so I don't think that believing in moral truths commits you to any moral ontology. I think you can make true predications even if there are, strictly speaking, no properties.
>evolved monkeys thinks his desires are transcendent absolute laws, episode #632893427
Hating gays and sorcerers is based. There's nothing intrinsically evil about slavery, but how it happens matters.
>There is no objectivity without God.
You mean there is no enforcement of moral rules without God. But that doesn't mean the moral rules are justified. Power does not equal morality. (Apart from the trivial "Whatever the powerful do is by definition good".)
>Mainly having a place in Heaven and an objective moral system
The only way to level up from deism is by inventing your own religion. Instead of joining something you don't believe, you can mash everything you believe together into a new religion and shill it.
I think you're too autistic to have any kind of faith at all
Become a Unitarian Universalist?
I'm not a fan of gays though
>God created gays
>God created humans im his own image
Therefore God is gay.
Ya done goofed .
See you in hell.
In the Bible he says gays are an abomination from Satan
>he says gays are an abomination from Satan
So what is God gonna do about it?
Send them to hell if they continue to have gay sex and not repent
I know you root for the Nordcucks, but Medshits look like they have your back and they appreciate you more.
Why do you think gays get aids and monkeypox? Just a coincidence?
Unfortunately there's no demand for a "rational" religion like there was in the 18th and 19th century. Stuff like deism, unitarianism and Freemasonry evolved as an alternative to atheism or agnosticism for rationalists. There's not as much need for them nowadays so more liberal churches end up only appealing to far left weirdos.
I also cant escape Deism.
My personality has aspects of mysticism. I call it rational mysticism.
I know its moronic, but deep down I know theres a God out there. Something at the quantum level.
I understand evolution, im not a religious nutjob or whatever, maybe im just moronic.
Step 1: Don't assume God's self-evidence.
That's it. It's literally just one step.
Causality isn’t real, base reality is pure Chaos and unlimited freedom, the true God. Everything is just an illusion, a coincidence. Many worlds exist without laws, others exist with the appearance of laws, but they are just appearances. Everything is evolution and natural selection. Universes are selected, then stars, then planets, then life. Order from disorder. This is the simplest explanation for everything, Occam’s razor to the extreme. Everything is unnecessary, including your idea of God
The core of Cnristianity is, of course, the Incarnation. God becoming man and dealing with all the crap we have to deal with, and triumphing over it all in the end. Isn't that better than a generic deism?
Shestov