>without god, we would all be raping and murdering eachother

>without god, we would all be raping and murdering eachother

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Look at Europe during Barbarian Dark Ages of Obscurantism, Brutality, Stupidity, Fanaticism and ignorance. Is not it a proof that race is the key factor at living in prehistoric conditions or not?

    The brutality of barbarians is an impossible among sophisticated and cultured semitic and medirerranean cultures, even a fanatical country as modern Saudi Arabia is a paradise compared to the ignorance and brutality of Nazi Germany or Obscurantist Europe.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Protestant Wars of Reformation depopulate entire counties of Europe in the name of God
      >Prior to this is the Dark Age, which is ruled by petty lords infighting and raiding each other until the Pope calls a Crusade to get them to knock that shit off
      >Europe under pagan rule achieves its greatest extent of peace and highest point of civilization, unmatched until the fricking Enlightenment
      Weak bait, I say. WEAK

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >read christian monks's accounts of vikings
      >hate them and wax endlessly on them looting churches
      >no mentions of rape
      >same authors did mention christian knights raping nuns though

      I guess the vikings were more moral than the christians

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    In a sense yes because without religion we fall back to our primal vices so become murderous rapist until the sun explodes. We are however too intelligent to be satisfied with this so we just become nihilistic and suicidal instead.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >What are laws

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >almost every civilization in human history had religion
      >still raped and murdered since time immemorial
      whats up with that?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You realize many religions called for murder, torture and rape? Even modern religions are pretty much all pro-enslavement, even if their adherents choose to ignore those and other writings in their holy books. The God of the Bible for example orders mass rapes, mass executions, mass enslavements, mutilation of newborn infants, genocide, etc.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah slavery isn't immoral but God never called for rape

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          He calls for people to take sex slaves after wars.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Where? You can't take the whole OT at face value

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Man is God's image, If you feel anger then so does God. If you like to avenge loved ones so does God.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    That's not the argument, moron. The argument is that without God, nothing is normative; since existence has no telos and everything we perceive is just the result of materialist processes, then there is no reason to value anyone else's life and well-being, since all morality is just the result of chemical interactions in our brain, programming accrued over millions of years for the purpose of best facilitating the reproduction of our species through evolution -- and reproduction itself does not provide a normative skopos to reality. You do not get punished for inflicting "evil" on others in the afterlife, so there's no reason why to reject morality, which is a spook.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      How does a God existing suddenly mean that there are facts about what I should, and shouldn't, do?

      You said something about God hurting people after they die. That's consequentialism, you can have that without God.
      Besides, it entirely hinges on people's subjective preference to avoid pain.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >How does a God existing suddenly mean that there are facts about what I should, and shouldn't, do?
        1. God as supreme sovereign has imposed certain moral laws that you have the obligation to follow.
        2. Given the existence of God, you have assurance in the rectitude of your own moral intuitions; you are still required to contemplate more assiduously what the Good is, but you can be certain that your own axiomatic presuppositions have validity, and can thus serve as a starting point for further intellectual inquiry.

        >That's consequentialism, you can have that without God.
        No it isn't, it's metaethical voluntarism, and no you can't.

        >Besides, it entirely hinges on people's subjective preference to avoid pain.
        It provides a baseline incentive of the pursuit of moral ends as an extrinsic good, that can serve as the basis of all posterior pursuits of the Good as an intrinsic good.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >you have the obligation to follow.
          this is just restating your nonsense position
          I would like an argument for why I have an obligation to act in accordance with God's preferences
          Suppose I don't care about being "moral" (the word you use for God's preferences). Just saying that I SHOULD be moral independent of my preferences to be so, it's just gibberish.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Acting in accord with God's preferences, because he will hurt you if you don't (and you prefer not to be hurt), it literally is consequentialism
          Try to explain why it's not. You can't. Because it is.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        It doesn't, but it does mean there are facts about what is objectively good for you to do and objectively bad for you to do. Now you don't have to do what's objectively good, just like you don't have to stay fit rather than become morbidly obese, but one is better than the other. Understand?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          The volcano demon is not necessary for obesity to be bad, anon.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You have a third grader's conception of God.
            Anyways God actually is necessary for anything to be good or bad. Without God it's only "I subjectively prefer this to this".

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are you suggesting that the israeli tribal deity causes heart failure?

            >"I subjectively prefer this to this".
            Are you suggesting that there are people who might subjectively prefer hell?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, the implication is that without God heart failure is not meaningfully "good" or "bad".
            >Are you suggesting that there are people who might subjectively prefer hell?
            That's their choice, but they're definitionally bad for doing it. Many people choose to suffer instead of improving themselves, look at NEETs who rot in their basements.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No, the implication is that without God heart failure is not meaningfully "good" or "bad
            Nearly everyone disagrees with you, I didn’t even think that when I was a Christian. You are bearing false witness.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >nearly everyone disagrees with you
            Not an argument, just a fallacy lol. I'm not saying atheists can't know right from wrong, but that right and wrong don't exist in an atheistic worldview.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            People define what good and bad is. You follow countless social and cultural rules that have nothing to do with the Bible, or at least normal and well adjusted people do.
            Tell me why it’s wrong to attend a formal event in gym shorts and a tank top

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not a sin unless you're doing it to cause disarray and conflict at the event, in which case that's why it's bad. You're hurting yourself though. There are amoral social rules we follow for the functioning of society, those are not eternal moral truths.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you do follow morality outside of the Bible. We all do, the Bible is not needed for morality. I rest my case.

            >I improve myself for me
            I used to be like that, and then I realized it was kind of empty. You're improving yourself for you but to what ultimate end? There's no north star without God, no ultimate good.
            >Half the things that involve becoming a well adjusted successful man are explicitly against Jesus.
            Like?

            I said for me, my family and friends. Why did you cut that part off?
            Because you’re dishonest snake, AKA Christian. You people lie and decide constantly. You should be ashamed of who you’ve become.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So you do follow morality outside of the Bible. We all do, the Bible is not needed for morality.
            I never said the Bible is needed for morality, I said God is needed for morality. Massive distinction.
            >I said for me, my family and friends. >Why did you cut that part off?
            Because it really makes no difference in the argument I was making.
            >You people lie and decide constantly
            When did I lie?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I never said the Bible is needed for morality, I said God is needed for morality.
            Don’t backpedal you pussy, you admitted it’s a social and cultural thing.

            It's not a sin unless you're doing it to cause disarray and conflict at the event, in which case that's why it's bad. You're hurting yourself though. There are amoral social rules we follow for the functioning of society, those are not eternal moral truths.

            >Because it really makes no difference in the argument I was making.
            Yeah because you don’t have a moral compass so the idea of actually doing something for others is a write off.
            Christian piece of shit

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you admitted it’s a social and cultural thing
            Yes, social norms and eternal moral truths are different
            >Yeah because you don’t have a moral compass so the idea of actually doing something for others is a write off.
            No, my argument applies to you and your family. If you actually understood the argument you'd get that

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's where we stop. If you don't want to do good things that's your free choice.
            [...]
            >inherent benefits
            They don't have any ultimate value without God

            This is all your personal problem. I do good things and don’t do bad things without belief in some religious god. So does nearly everyone else. Meanwhile the most Christian nations on earth tend to be violent and unstable shitholes.
            You don’t have a leg to stand on, which is par for the course for a snake.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I do good things and don’t do bad things without belief in some religious god
            Yes, but only because God exists and your atheist intuitions are still enough to uncover some parts of the objective moral law.
            >the most Christian nations on earth tend to be violent and unstable shitholes
            The most historically Christian nations are all the nicest ones though.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, but only because God exists
            I don’t believe in your god. I don’t adhere to Christianity and I would not oppose if Biden made it illegal to be Christian tomorrow.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can disbelieve math and physics but it doesn't change the fact they're true.
            >I would not oppose if Biden made it illegal to be Christian tomorrow
            Lol what why?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don’t follow Christianity. I break its rules on a regular basis.
            Why would i not oppose making Christianity illegal? Because people like you have erased all sympathy for the religion. It looks like it bears rotten fruit

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            All I'm doing is just making philosophical arguments and you have a ton of vitriol for me, I think you're the one bearing rotten fruit.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your philosophical argument is that I follow Christian rules when I don’t after you already admitted many moral rules are social custom

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't say you followed Christian rules.
            >you already admitted many moral rules are social custom
            Yes but those rules don't matter as much and are subjective.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Don’t forget that a lot of the Christian internet community is preachers and priests without real jobs preying on vulnerable young men

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You can disbelieve math and physics but it doesn't change the fact they're true.
            Leave it to Christians to never once in their lives wonder if empirical and moral statements have the same nature.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I've thought about this plenty lol, I came to the conclusion that moral truth does exist

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You did not think about it at all.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because I disagree with you?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, because instead of refuting my claim that empirical and moral statements have different natures you just asserted without proof something different.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well why do you believe they have different nature? This seems like an axiomatic disagreement, I don't know how I can convince you apart from all the arguments I utilized earlier

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Well why do you believe they have different nature?
            Empirical statements derive from observation and are testable. Give me any law of physics, and I can construct an experiment for which possible outcomes would give you reasons to doubt the law and consider alternatives. That's literally how ALL scientific research is done, and no empirical claim is considered true if it didn't survive this ritual.

            The same doesn't apply to your "moral truths." There's not a single moral statement you hold for true that you'd be willing to submit to an experiment and commit to revisit if the experiment didn't go as the statement implies. Because your entire morality is "what I believe the invisible israelite said is right," and you are religiously prohibited under threats of torture to ever consider the possibility that any of this could be wrong.

            That's how I know you gave it zero thought whatsoever.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There's not a single moral statement you hold for true that you'd be willing to submit to an experiment and commit to revisit if the experiment didn't go as the statement implies.
            Nta but I would be willing to submit all my morality to such experimentation. You just can't perform these experiments since you can't measure good and evil. The blocker is not on the moral objectivist end. You insisting on science and yet knowing full well science has not yet developed the means. Give it some thought.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You just can't perform these experiments since you can't measure good and evil.
            Yes, that's exactly my point. Empirical and moral statements have different natures.
            Slowly, you're getting there... Very very slowly...

            Okay prove the natural numbers to me
            Prove logic to me
            Prove that empiricism maps onto reality

            I fricking knew you were gonna change the subject instead of coming up with an experiment to test a moral claim or admitting you're full of shit. You morons are the most predictable people in the world.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay prove the natural numbers to me
            Prove logic to me
            Prove that empiricism maps onto reality

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Don’t forget that a lot of the Christian internet community is preachers and priests without real jobs preying on vulnerable young men

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Many people choose to suffer instead of improving themselves, look at NEETs who rot in their basements.
            Sure that doesn’t apply to the Oyish Christian crowd

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It applies to everyone to an extent due to our fallen nature, but we can get closer to God by repenting when we do and changing our behavior

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but we can get closer to God
            Why should I want this?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because it's good. If you don't want to you will suffer, but God gave us free will to make that choice

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            My life has improved dramatically since I left Christianity.
            Stop lying to these vulnerable young men you fricking snake

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            According to what metric? My life has improved dramatically since I left atheism

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >My life has improved dramatically since I left atheism
            How can you make this statement if you cannot make decisions in absence of the volcano demons orders?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            When did I say that? I said none of my decisions matter without God
            >volcano demons
            I'm not a scientologist?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Every metric. Mental health, physical health, socially, financially, artistically, mental strength, conscientousness, fitness, determination, truth and honesty.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            But why is any of that ultimately good?

            >Because it is good to do so, it's good to look for objective moral and philosophical truth.
            Why should anyone care about any of this if it doesn't benefit them?

            Because definitionally there is no benefit greater than "the good". And if you think that's not a benefit that's fine, you're wrong but it's your choice to make.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because definitionally there is no benefit greater than "the good".
            So?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's where we stop. If you don't want to do good things that's your free choice.

            >But why is any of that ultimately good?
            Gaslighting. Christians know very well that people make improve themselves for inherit benefits in and outside of Christianity,
            You really are a worthless piece of shit.

            >inherent benefits
            They don't have any ultimate value without God

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you don't want to do good things that's your free choice.
            Okay.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But why is any of that ultimately good?
            Gaslighting. Christians know very well that people make improve themselves for inherit benefits in and outside of Christianity,
            You really are a worthless piece of shit.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because it's good.
            So?

            >If you don't want to you will suffer
            What, like experience unpleasantness? That doesn't make much sense given that you've spent the entire thread saying that humans are incapable of making decisions based on the experiencing of pleasure and pain. It also doesn't make sense given that you believe that following your religion makes you suffer, so why would I want to do that and suffer?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What, like experience unpleasantness?
            A certain kind of unpleasantness sure.
            >saying that humans are incapable of making decisions based on the experiencing of pleasure and pain
            I never said that
            >you believe that following your religion makes you suffer
            Again when did I say that? We're going to suffer regardless, but God can alleviate that and help us weather the storm so to speak.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I never said that
            >when did I say that?
            But you did, you said so in

            >How does a God existing suddenly mean that there are facts about what I should, and shouldn't, do?
            1. God as supreme sovereign has imposed certain moral laws that you have the obligation to follow.
            2. Given the existence of God, you have assurance in the rectitude of your own moral intuitions; you are still required to contemplate more assiduously what the Good is, but you can be certain that your own axiomatic presuppositions have validity, and can thus serve as a starting point for further intellectual inquiry.

            >That's consequentialism, you can have that without God.
            No it isn't, it's metaethical voluntarism, and no you can't.

            >Besides, it entirely hinges on people's subjective preference to avoid pain.
            It provides a baseline incentive of the pursuit of moral ends as an extrinsic good, that can serve as the basis of all posterior pursuits of the Good as an intrinsic good.

            ,

            And you can get away with doing evils in this life. Not to mention it doesn't alter the arbitrary and intellectually vacuous justification for any of the laws that are imposed upon us. If laws are but engendered by convention, products not of nature but of political life, reflections not of God's eternal justice, that towards which all strives, but man's personal fancy and pursuit of his self-interest, then there is no reason not to circumvent them if the opportunity presents itself.

            ,

            >Clerical elites perform all sorts of evil stuff
            Woah man... that's like... so deep bro...

            >there's a reason for laws that are made.
            Indeed -- it's not objective goodness (which does not exist) but the selfish self-interest of the citizens of a polis.

            >If Yahweh is the ontological and moral ground then any law he posits will be 100% arbitrary by definition.
            No, because in God Will and Intellect are identical, so all His actions are the result of His unbridled Wisdom and Reason. We may not comprehend all His choices from our limited, creaturely perspective, but all He does has a higher transcendental purpose.

            >When Yahweh said "do genital mutilation or go to hell" there was, by definition, no reason for it
            No, the Mosaic laws were perfectly constructed for the Hebrew people and their maladies which they were meant to remedy, which is why they do not apply to New Israel.

            >What you're actually arguing here is for a form of anarchism wherein mankind simply doesn't make any sort of abstract societal structures at all.
            No you midwit, I believe that political life and the nomoi of a polis are the very consummation of God's intention for humanity. YOU cannot argue that and are logically compelled to subscribe to a Sophistic conceptualization of the origins of morality and government.

            , and

            It doesn't, but it does mean there are facts about what is objectively good for you to do and objectively bad for you to do. Now you don't have to do what's objectively good, just like you don't have to stay fit rather than become morbidly obese, but one is better than the other. Understand?

            . If you believe that they are wrong, why did you not chastise them for lying about your religion?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Only one of those is me and I didn't say that in that post

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You didn't answer the question. If you believe that they are wrong, why did you not chastise them for lying about your religion? You could have just admitted that you accept that it's possible for people to make decisions independent of the israeli tribal deity and said that the people making your religion look bad were wrong, so why didn't you?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because I was focusing on your arguments, I can't engage with multiple people at once or I'll get overwhelmed

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Frick that. I improve myself for me, my family and friends. Half the things that involve becoming a well adjusted successful man are explicitly against Jesus.
            Frickin weirdo

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I improve myself for me
            I used to be like that, and then I realized it was kind of empty. You're improving yourself for you but to what ultimate end? There's no north star without God, no ultimate good.
            >Half the things that involve becoming a well adjusted successful man are explicitly against Jesus.
            Like?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No, the implication is that without God heart failure is not meaningfully "good" or "bad".
            But as already stated if you're just arbitrarily fixing these to "what the israeli deity said" then you haven't actually explained why anyone should care what the israeli deity said. The fact that you break the 613 Mitzvot despite being directly commanded to follow them is a demonstration of that.

            >That's their choice
            Then what's the problem? You haven't explained why anyone should care what the israeli deity says, so why shouldn't they be allowed to?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You realize israelites and Christians are different right? The religions split two millennia ago
            >You haven't explained why anyone should care what the israeli deity says
            Because it is the objective truth whether you like it or not

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because it is the objective truth whether you like it or not
            Why should I care about the objective truth?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because it is definitionally good to do so. Again, you don't have to do what's good, that's your choice.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because it is definitionally good to do so.
            Why should I care?

            >you don't have to do what's good, that's your choice.
            Then why bother arguing that I should if neither you nor I get anything out of it?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why should I care?
            You don't have to
            >Then why bother arguing that I should if neither you nor I get anything out of it?
            Because it is good to do so, it's good to look for objective moral and philosophical truth.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because it is good to do so, it's good to look for objective moral and philosophical truth.
            Why should anyone care about any of this if it doesn't benefit them?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No, the implication is that without God heart failure is not meaningfully "good" or "bad".
            Of course it isn't meaningfully good or bad. If someone subjectively comes to nihilist convictions and deduces that he should engage in tbhltory hedonism until he dies and there is no difference between his dying at 50 and his dying at 90 since he sees all life as worthless and therefore he cares not for others, you cannot argue against him on the basis of biomedical rhetoric.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No, the implication is that without God heart failure is not meaningfully "good" or "bad".
            Of course it isn't meaningfully good or bad. If someone subjectively comes to nihilist convictions and deduces that he should engage in tbhltory hedonism until he dies and there is no difference between his dying at 50 and his dying at 90 since he sees all life as worthless and therefore he cares not for others, you cannot argue against him on the basis of biomedical rhetoric.

            Apologies, I misread your argument.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Jesus says don’t worry about your body or what you eat in the sermon on the mount.
          Meanwhile in reality, being fit has countless physical and mental health benefits over being morbidly obese. If I were still a Christian I would not work out or count calories, because that would be going against Jesus

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, not like gluttony is a sin or anything

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You do not get punished for inflicting "evil" on others in the afterlife, so there's no reason why to reject morality, which is a spook.
      Right, you get punished for inflicting "evil" on others in this life. That's how you have norms.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        And you can get away with doing evils in this life. Not to mention it doesn't alter the arbitrary and intellectually vacuous justification for any of the laws that are imposed upon us. If laws are but engendered by convention, products not of nature but of political life, reflections not of God's eternal justice, that towards which all strives, but man's personal fancy and pursuit of his self-interest, then there is no reason not to circumvent them if the opportunity presents itself.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Well first, you get caught. I don’t know what fantasy world you live in but no one just constantly commits bad acts without getting caught unless they have extreme money and power which good luck lecturing them about Jesus in that case.
          Second, most people are not maniacs like you sociopathic Oyish Jesus freaks with no conscience or empathy. They feel bad about harming others.

          This is all a bullshit scripted apologist talking point to make people feel bad about not being Christian

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Well first, you get caught.
            Note how you are not providing any genuine moral argument against doing "evil" (an arbitrary concept per a materialist ontology), merely invoking practical, pragmatic argumentation against dissipation in "depraved" acts; a staunch egoist would never consider when choosing what to do whether or not his activities are "immoral", merely if it is sagacious of him to harm others in order to obviate retribution.

            >They feel bad about harming others.
            And why do they feel bad? Because they have access to an objective truth? Or because evolution has instilled them with certain behavioural proclivities so as to assure the perpetuation of the geneplexes that constitute the essence of our being? Why should anyone care about reproduction, when it is a phenomenon borne from pure chance? Morality is just a mirage, a set of qualia which have no intrinsic value beyond facilitating our survival and reproduction. There's no reason why not to disregard it.

            >This is all a bullshit scripted apologist talking point to make people feel bad about not being Christian
            This is the logical conclusion of your worldview, you atheist ape. We're all just a cluster of space dust who are all going to die one day, so why the frick shouldn't I indulge in my every whim at the expense of everyone else? Their consciousness is a mirage anyway.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why should anyone care about reproduction
            Why should anyone care about divine punishment?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Have fun in hell, buddy.

            >you are not providing any genuine moral argument against doing "evil"
            Neither have you, mong.
            You just said God will hurt us if do

            Because there are two aspects to morality: morality as goodness, and morality as law. Pursuing the Good is intrinsically valuable, but without disincentives for eschewing it, creatures who by their composite nature subject to change and thereby contingently as opposed to essentially good, prone to alteration and evil, will be prone to straying away from it; thus, God imposes morality as a law, to ensure the goodness of His creatures.

            Now, God is by His simple nature an energeia -- activity. In God, there is scarcely any real distinction between His attributes and His operation, we merely logically distinguish between the two, because we cannot conceptualize of God in His ineffable and incomprehensible essence due to our delineating Him on the basis of our creaturely observations; all our descriptions of God are in some way or another on the basis of negation, whether as privation or eminence: we begin to be, so God must be unbegotten; we are composite, so God is ineffably simple; we exist in time, so God is timeless; we undergo alteration, so God is subject to change due to His transcending time and space; we are finite, so He must be infinite. We never truly define God as His essence is unattainable, we merely delineate the realities around Him in relation to ourselves.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you are not providing any genuine moral argument against doing "evil"
            Neither have you, mong.
            You just said God will hurt us if do

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Have fun in hell, buddy.

            [...]
            Because there are two aspects to morality: morality as goodness, and morality as law. Pursuing the Good is intrinsically valuable, but without disincentives for eschewing it, creatures who by their composite nature subject to change and thereby contingently as opposed to essentially good, prone to alteration and evil, will be prone to straying away from it; thus, God imposes morality as a law, to ensure the goodness of His creatures.

            Now, God is by His simple nature an energeia -- activity. In God, there is scarcely any real distinction between His attributes and His operation, we merely logically distinguish between the two, because we cannot conceptualize of God in His ineffable and incomprehensible essence due to our delineating Him on the basis of our creaturely observations; all our descriptions of God are in some way or another on the basis of negation, whether as privation or eminence: we begin to be, so God must be unbegotten; we are composite, so God is ineffably simple; we exist in time, so God is timeless; we undergo alteration, so God is subject to change due to His transcending time and space; we are finite, so He must be infinite. We never truly define God as His essence is unattainable, we merely delineate the realities around Him in relation to ourselves.

            We try to circumscribe Him, but He is uncircumscribable. We differentiate in Him between essence and subsistence -- ousia and hypostasis -- on account of the fact in creatures the hypostasis is ontologically prior but logically posterior to the many ousiai that constitute it, for all existences are but bundles of coexistent attributes, various universal properties predicated of a hypostasis but which cannot subsist outside of it; thus, we say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equally "God" because divinity is a property -- a numerically singular universal -- that subsists in all three hypostaseis, just as the numerically single universal property of humanity subsists in all particular human persons, no different between any of us. Yet when we say so, we conceptualize of the essence as a property as opposed to activity, and of it as ontologically posterior to hypostaseis: but God's essence is identical with Himself, and His Son and His Spirit are not due to the fact that His generating the persons that causally derivative and therefore inferior to Him yet nonetheless ontologically equal on account of the fact that they are mere extensions of His existence -- for to be a mere extension of God is no mere thing, as it requires ontological equality with Him on account of incorporeal, simple, transcendental nature -- is *part* or His essential activity. God is Thought Thinking of Itself, and in the process of His most sublime, supreme contemplation of His grandeur, He generates the Son and through Him the Spirit, for He comes to know Himself most perfectly in the reflection of others: His generating the other two divine persons is indicative of His omnipotence (for He produces minds who equally possess His attributes), His omniscience (for through Them, He most perfectly actualizes Himself by knowing Himself in Their reflection) and His omnibenelovence (for it is the ultimate, most sublime act of Love), but it is undefinable in its essence

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Have fun in hell, buddy.

            [...]
            Because there are two aspects to morality: morality as goodness, and morality as law. Pursuing the Good is intrinsically valuable, but without disincentives for eschewing it, creatures who by their composite nature subject to change and thereby contingently as opposed to essentially good, prone to alteration and evil, will be prone to straying away from it; thus, God imposes morality as a law, to ensure the goodness of His creatures.

            Now, God is by His simple nature an energeia -- activity. In God, there is scarcely any real distinction between His attributes and His operation, we merely logically distinguish between the two, because we cannot conceptualize of God in His ineffable and incomprehensible essence due to our delineating Him on the basis of our creaturely observations; all our descriptions of God are in some way or another on the basis of negation, whether as privation or eminence: we begin to be, so God must be unbegotten; we are composite, so God is ineffably simple; we exist in time, so God is timeless; we undergo alteration, so God is subject to change due to His transcending time and space; we are finite, so He must be infinite. We never truly define God as His essence is unattainable, we merely delineate the realities around Him in relation to ourselves.

            [...]
            We try to circumscribe Him, but He is uncircumscribable. We differentiate in Him between essence and subsistence -- ousia and hypostasis -- on account of the fact in creatures the hypostasis is ontologically prior but logically posterior to the many ousiai that constitute it, for all existences are but bundles of coexistent attributes, various universal properties predicated of a hypostasis but which cannot subsist outside of it; thus, we say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equally "God" because divinity is a property -- a numerically singular universal -- that subsists in all three hypostaseis, just as the numerically single universal property of humanity subsists in all particular human persons, no different between any of us. Yet when we say so, we conceptualize of the essence as a property as opposed to activity, and of it as ontologically posterior to hypostaseis: but God's essence is identical with Himself, and His Son and His Spirit are not due to the fact that His generating the persons that causally derivative and therefore inferior to Him yet nonetheless ontologically equal on account of the fact that they are mere extensions of His existence -- for to be a mere extension of God is no mere thing, as it requires ontological equality with Him on account of incorporeal, simple, transcendental nature -- is *part* or His essential activity. God is Thought Thinking of Itself, and in the process of His most sublime, supreme contemplation of His grandeur, He generates the Son and through Him the Spirit, for He comes to know Himself most perfectly in the reflection of others: His generating the other two divine persons is indicative of His omnipotence (for He produces minds who equally possess His attributes), His omniscience (for through Them, He most perfectly actualizes Himself by knowing Himself in Their reflection) and His omnibenelovence (for it is the ultimate, most sublime act of Love), but it is undefinable in its essence

            Thus, God is Pure Act. And being simple, He has a single activity: His eternally perpending Himself. Thus, Creation cannot be a second activity, rather it is an operation that is an extension of His essential rumination of His own Self. Ergo, the ultimate purpose of Creation is to serve as a monument to God's glory, and all creatures within it are destined for eternally imitating God, seeking to contemplate Him as He does Himself, but failing to do so; and in doing so, vindicating His ineffable glory, for even finite, imperfect creatures such as ourselves are left stupified by His magnificence despite our inability to fully comprehend it.

            The skopos and telos of Existence is epektasis: our eternally circling around God, growing in our knowledge of Him, but never exhausting all that can be said and known of Him. For He is like an infinite well of water from which we seep, yet also infinitely greater than infinity, for His being infinity is merely a notion we have of Him in relation to ourselves -- His infinity is comprehensibly incomprehensible, but His essence is so incomprehensible we cannot even comprehend it, for we can have no direct notion of it.

            Everything in Creation exists to facilitate our contemplation of God; God man made in the image of God, and his existing in a community is a most sublime imitation of the loving, perichoretic unity of the Godhead. The community of men is a symbol, an icon, of the Most Holy Trinity. We seek to attain its perfection, but never can, for the Son and the Spirit are extensions of God, His Being and His Doing, eternally subordinate to His will; God is one since in the Godhead there is one source—the Father; one will—that of the Father; one nature and power—that which the Father communicates to His Son and Spirit; one activity—that which the Father completes through His Son and Spirit.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Have fun in hell, buddy.

            [...]
            Because there are two aspects to morality: morality as goodness, and morality as law. Pursuing the Good is intrinsically valuable, but without disincentives for eschewing it, creatures who by their composite nature subject to change and thereby contingently as opposed to essentially good, prone to alteration and evil, will be prone to straying away from it; thus, God imposes morality as a law, to ensure the goodness of His creatures.

            Now, God is by His simple nature an energeia -- activity. In God, there is scarcely any real distinction between His attributes and His operation, we merely logically distinguish between the two, because we cannot conceptualize of God in His ineffable and incomprehensible essence due to our delineating Him on the basis of our creaturely observations; all our descriptions of God are in some way or another on the basis of negation, whether as privation or eminence: we begin to be, so God must be unbegotten; we are composite, so God is ineffably simple; we exist in time, so God is timeless; we undergo alteration, so God is subject to change due to His transcending time and space; we are finite, so He must be infinite. We never truly define God as His essence is unattainable, we merely delineate the realities around Him in relation to ourselves.

            [...]
            We try to circumscribe Him, but He is uncircumscribable. We differentiate in Him between essence and subsistence -- ousia and hypostasis -- on account of the fact in creatures the hypostasis is ontologically prior but logically posterior to the many ousiai that constitute it, for all existences are but bundles of coexistent attributes, various universal properties predicated of a hypostasis but which cannot subsist outside of it; thus, we say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equally "God" because divinity is a property -- a numerically singular universal -- that subsists in all three hypostaseis, just as the numerically single universal property of humanity subsists in all particular human persons, no different between any of us. Yet when we say so, we conceptualize of the essence as a property as opposed to activity, and of it as ontologically posterior to hypostaseis: but God's essence is identical with Himself, and His Son and His Spirit are not due to the fact that His generating the persons that causally derivative and therefore inferior to Him yet nonetheless ontologically equal on account of the fact that they are mere extensions of His existence -- for to be a mere extension of God is no mere thing, as it requires ontological equality with Him on account of incorporeal, simple, transcendental nature -- is *part* or His essential activity. God is Thought Thinking of Itself, and in the process of His most sublime, supreme contemplation of His grandeur, He generates the Son and through Him the Spirit, for He comes to know Himself most perfectly in the reflection of others: His generating the other two divine persons is indicative of His omnipotence (for He produces minds who equally possess His attributes), His omniscience (for through Them, He most perfectly actualizes Himself by knowing Himself in Their reflection) and His omnibenelovence (for it is the ultimate, most sublime act of Love), but it is undefinable in its essence

            [...]
            [...]
            Thus, God is Pure Act. And being simple, He has a single activity: His eternally perpending Himself. Thus, Creation cannot be a second activity, rather it is an operation that is an extension of His essential rumination of His own Self. Ergo, the ultimate purpose of Creation is to serve as a monument to God's glory, and all creatures within it are destined for eternally imitating God, seeking to contemplate Him as He does Himself, but failing to do so; and in doing so, vindicating His ineffable glory, for even finite, imperfect creatures such as ourselves are left stupified by His magnificence despite our inability to fully comprehend it.

            The skopos and telos of Existence is epektasis: our eternally circling around God, growing in our knowledge of Him, but never exhausting all that can be said and known of Him. For He is like an infinite well of water from which we seep, yet also infinitely greater than infinity, for His being infinity is merely a notion we have of Him in relation to ourselves -- His infinity is comprehensibly incomprehensible, but His essence is so incomprehensible we cannot even comprehend it, for we can have no direct notion of it.

            Everything in Creation exists to facilitate our contemplation of God; God man made in the image of God, and his existing in a community is a most sublime imitation of the loving, perichoretic unity of the Godhead. The community of men is a symbol, an icon, of the Most Holy Trinity. We seek to attain its perfection, but never can, for the Son and the Spirit are extensions of God, His Being and His Doing, eternally subordinate to His will; God is one since in the Godhead there is one source—the Father; one will—that of the Father; one nature and power—that which the Father communicates to His Son and Spirit; one activity—that which the Father completes through His Son and Spirit.

            But in man, there are many wills and many activities, which only contingently and not essentially as in God align. We can never be like the Trinity God engenders, but through living imbricated in a community, we can most truly and fully come to know ourselves, for man can only comprehend himself in relation to others; and by comprehending himself as the extension of a community, he can begin to comprehend the community of love, will, nature and activity that God engenders through His Son and Spirit.

            By learning humility through existence in a community, where man is compelled to rely on others as an extrinsic good -- extrinsic, inasmuch as he is compelled to rely on others to accord the material conditions prerequisite for the leisure necessary to engage in contemplation of the divine -- and intrinsic good -- intrinsic, inasmuch as his reflection on himself and others allows him to comprehend divine realities -- man learns humility before God; and through humility, reverence for and unity with Him.

            That is the source of all morality.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I have a conscience and empathy. I LIKE doing good things I DONT LIKE hurting others. This is normal.
            You are not normal and neither are your creepy Christian closeted maniac cohorts.
            And yes, you will get punished for doing bad things, you will get caught.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I have a conscience and empathy
            What the frick does empathy have to do witb morality, lol?

            Think about it a bit.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What the frick does empathy have to do witb morality, lol?
            It motivates pro-social behavior. ASD?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So it motivates people towards a good thing, it isn't the good thing in and of itself? Then why use empathy as a justification for morality?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Empathy motivates moral behavior. Unreal how this needed any elaboration

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I agree, but we can't define moral behavior without God. You can be perfectly moral with 0 empathy and extremely immoral with lots of empathy

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You can be perfectly moral with 0 empathy and extremely immoral with lots of empathy
            Then empathy doesn't matter because morality is determined solely based on Yahweh's arbitrary decrees.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >arbitrary
            Why is it arbitrary?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If the volcano demon is the moral ground then that's it, he's the bottom, there's nothing below him. Something is "moral" because he says so, and it's immoral if he says otherwise (there's a theoretical gray area where Yahweh could say that X is moral, Y is immoral, but just not comment on Z but all Abrahamic religions have hermeneutics that reject the third possibility so we can just ignore it). There is then by definition no reasoning why he says that it's moral or immoral, it's immoral or moral because he says that it is. If Yahweh were to say "don't do X because [a reason]" then he wouldn't be the moral ground (there's a theoretical gray area where he could just be relaying information about the world that he knows via omniscience but all Abrahamic religions have hermeneutics that reject this so we can just ignore it).

            For example, the volcano demons says that sacrificing gentile babies to him is moral, ergo it axiomatically is. There's no reason to it, he just says that it is. Likewise, he says that sacrificing israeli babies to him is immoral, ergo it axiomatically is. But it could just as well have been the other way around because there's nothing "below" the volcano demon, and thus it is arbitrary (and if you're a Christian you have to accept that he changes his mind for no reason, meaning that it literally is his arbitrary whims).

            The Greeks were talking about this while the israelites were living in mudhuts and shitting in trenches, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There is then by definition no reasoning why he says that it's moral or immoral
            Then there's no reason for literally anything by that same standard

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Correct, it's all just the arbitrary whims of the israeli deity.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I mean okay, but I don't think that really matters. God is everything, if everything's arbitrary then nothing is. Why are math and physics not arbitrary in an atheist universe?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God is everything
            This is a heresy punishable by eternal damnation as per the Church Fathers.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay I meant more "god is the basis for everything", not literally "god is everything". My mistake

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why don’t you nosedive off a bridge and explore the answer yourself

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Consistency is when fall on face

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why are math and physics not arbitrary in an atheist universe?
            Math and physics (as in "the intellectual body") are consistent, consistency doesn't have to be reflected in reality in any way. We can talk about 4D Euclidean Spacetime despite the fact that we don't live in it (we live in 4D Minkowski Spacetime).

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            And why is morality not consistent?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            This was all addressed already you fricking moron.

            Have fun in hell, buddy.

            [...]
            Because there are two aspects to morality: morality as goodness, and morality as law. Pursuing the Good is intrinsically valuable, but without disincentives for eschewing it, creatures who by their composite nature subject to change and thereby contingently as opposed to essentially good, prone to alteration and evil, will be prone to straying away from it; thus, God imposes morality as a law, to ensure the goodness of His creatures.

            Now, God is by His simple nature an energeia -- activity. In God, there is scarcely any real distinction between His attributes and His operation, we merely logically distinguish between the two, because we cannot conceptualize of God in His ineffable and incomprehensible essence due to our delineating Him on the basis of our creaturely observations; all our descriptions of God are in some way or another on the basis of negation, whether as privation or eminence: we begin to be, so God must be unbegotten; we are composite, so God is ineffably simple; we exist in time, so God is timeless; we undergo alteration, so God is subject to change due to His transcending time and space; we are finite, so He must be infinite. We never truly define God as His essence is unattainable, we merely delineate the realities around Him in relation to ourselves.

            [...]
            We try to circumscribe Him, but He is uncircumscribable. We differentiate in Him between essence and subsistence -- ousia and hypostasis -- on account of the fact in creatures the hypostasis is ontologically prior but logically posterior to the many ousiai that constitute it, for all existences are but bundles of coexistent attributes, various universal properties predicated of a hypostasis but which cannot subsist outside of it; thus, we say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equally "God" because divinity is a property -- a numerically singular universal -- that subsists in all three hypostaseis, just as the numerically single universal property of humanity subsists in all particular human persons, no different between any of us. Yet when we say so, we conceptualize of the essence as a property as opposed to activity, and of it as ontologically posterior to hypostaseis: but God's essence is identical with Himself, and His Son and His Spirit are not due to the fact that His generating the persons that causally derivative and therefore inferior to Him yet nonetheless ontologically equal on account of the fact that they are mere extensions of His existence -- for to be a mere extension of God is no mere thing, as it requires ontological equality with Him on account of incorporeal, simple, transcendental nature -- is *part* or His essential activity. God is Thought Thinking of Itself, and in the process of His most sublime, supreme contemplation of His grandeur, He generates the Son and through Him the Spirit, for He comes to know Himself most perfectly in the reflection of others: His generating the other two divine persons is indicative of His omnipotence (for He produces minds who equally possess His attributes), His omniscience (for through Them, He most perfectly actualizes Himself by knowing Himself in Their reflection) and His omnibenelovence (for it is the ultimate, most sublime act of Love), but it is undefinable in its essence

            [...]
            [...]
            Thus, God is Pure Act. And being simple, He has a single activity: His eternally perpending Himself. Thus, Creation cannot be a second activity, rather it is an operation that is an extension of His essential rumination of His own Self. Ergo, the ultimate purpose of Creation is to serve as a monument to God's glory, and all creatures within it are destined for eternally imitating God, seeking to contemplate Him as He does Himself, but failing to do so; and in doing so, vindicating His ineffable glory, for even finite, imperfect creatures such as ourselves are left stupified by His magnificence despite our inability to fully comprehend it.

            The skopos and telos of Existence is epektasis: our eternally circling around God, growing in our knowledge of Him, but never exhausting all that can be said and known of Him. For He is like an infinite well of water from which we seep, yet also infinitely greater than infinity, for His being infinity is merely a notion we have of Him in relation to ourselves -- His infinity is comprehensibly incomprehensible, but His essence is so incomprehensible we cannot even comprehend it, for we can have no direct notion of it.

            Everything in Creation exists to facilitate our contemplation of God; God man made in the image of God, and his existing in a community is a most sublime imitation of the loving, perichoretic unity of the Godhead. The community of men is a symbol, an icon, of the Most Holy Trinity. We seek to attain its perfection, but never can, for the Son and the Spirit are extensions of God, His Being and His Doing, eternally subordinate to His will; God is one since in the Godhead there is one source—the Father; one will—that of the Father; one nature and power—that which the Father communicates to His Son and Spirit; one activity—that which the Father completes through His Son and Spirit.

            [...]
            [...]
            [...]
            But in man, there are many wills and many activities, which only contingently and not essentially as in God align. We can never be like the Trinity God engenders, but through living imbricated in a community, we can most truly and fully come to know ourselves, for man can only comprehend himself in relation to others; and by comprehending himself as the extension of a community, he can begin to comprehend the community of love, will, nature and activity that God engenders through His Son and Spirit.

            By learning humility through existence in a community, where man is compelled to rely on others as an extrinsic good -- extrinsic, inasmuch as he is compelled to rely on others to accord the material conditions prerequisite for the leisure necessary to engage in contemplation of the divine -- and intrinsic good -- intrinsic, inasmuch as his reflection on himself and others allows him to comprehend divine realities -- man learns humility before God; and through humility, reverence for and unity with Him.

            That is the source of all morality.

            You seem utterly unaware of Suarez's stance on the Euthyphro Dilemma and his synthesis of metaethical intellectualism and voluntarism.
            https://figshare.utas.edu.au/ndownloader/files/41238579

            >The Greeks were talking about this while the israelites were living in mudhuts and shitting in trenches
            Perhaps you'd like telling what the stance of Plato, Aristotle, the Middle Platonists and the Neoplatonists on God were.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but we can't define moral behavior without God.
            Everyone I know does it every day. Better luck next time.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not like adding God to the mix gives you an informative definition, the good is just whatever God happens to prefer

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I mean I guess but because there's nothing without God it's not really arbitrary any more than math is arbitrary

            >The argument is that without God, nothing is normative
            No, they're the same thing.

            >Atheists can be moral in a religious universe.
            >Nobody can be moral in an atheist universe
            Do these look the same to you?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Did you respond to the wrong post? This has nothing to do with what I said.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            can be moral in an atheist universe
            But you admitted that this was wrong in

            I guess to an extent everyone is a utilitarian under an extremely strict definition, but that doesn't mean the God debate doesn't matter.

            .

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But you admitted that this was wrong in

            I guess to an extent everyone is a utilitarian under an extremely strict definition, but that doesn't mean the God debate doesn't matter.

            (You) #.
            I didn't? What I meant is that you can choose to view preferring objective moral good as a subjective preference

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, you can't have God-morality without God

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It motivates pro-social behavior.

            Actually, not truly.
            Empathy just means putting yourself in one's shoes.
            Problem is, that doesnt mean you will reach a positive conclusion.

            You can tell someone on the far-left/right, or a radfem/MRA, and make him imagine a life in the day of his boogeyman, and he will suppose the other person is likely a piece of shit that just thinks about fricking him over, and hate him MORE.

            Or as simple as seeing a hobo.
            Some guy might think he's a lazy bum that should get a job, or if hes a bleeding heart, actually block him out, because its too ugly to see.

            Scammers and terrorists also are empathic, ironically, when they think about to see thing from the victim's perspective, to plan his attack.

            I have an entire article i saw once, that talks about this.
            Empathy is a horrible replacement for morality.

            >ASD?
            There is a chance i have a mild case.
            Which is another nail in your theory.

            If people like us are built differently, brain-wise, your logic doesnt apply to us, because we process things differently.

            And thats not getting into people that are biologically blunted in this regard, like sociopaths, which use empathy only in a predatory way.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Actually, not truly.
            Empathy just means putting yourself in one's shoes.
            It also includes feeling their pain and emotions which makes you act in concert as a unit to some degree.
            I seriously can’t believe this needs to be explained. Seems like pre-requisite for conversations of this 200 level college caliber.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://aeon.co/essays/do-we-need-a-telepathy-machine-when-we-already-have-empathy

            >Although it seems self-evident that people who feel more empathy will behave more morally, in practice there is only weak evidence that feeling someone else’s pain induces you to do something about it. Some data even indicates that people who sense others’ emotions most intensely tend to avoid situations that will expose them to deep suffering. Their own pain prevents them from helping those who need it the most.

            >As a premise, it’s a terrible idea,’ says Zaki. ‘I don’t think that understanding what people are feeling would make you like them.’

            >He points to studies that instruct rivals to empathise with one another, and have the paradoxical effect of fostering unethical behaviour. In competitive negotiating scenarios devised by the psychologist Adam Galinsky of the Columbia Business School, for example, people who were told to think about the mindset of a rival became more likely to lie or cheat in order to win. Galinsky suspects this is because that act of mind-reading serves as a reminder that a rival is capable of being equally dishonest.

            >In other experiments, people asked to consider the feelings and perspectives of rival groups were more selfish, more intolerant, and judged outsiders more harshly. In a study pairing Mexican immigrants and white Americans, the neuroscientist Emile Bruneau of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that asking lower-status immigrants to take on the perspective of the dominant group tended to lower their opinions of the higher-status whites.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >christoids b***h about scientific papers
            >will literally post blogs and pretend they’re indisputable fact

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Its an example.
            If empathy only works for people that are like you, you already have a decent opinion of, and arent too much in pain, and otherwise makes you more dishonest, bystander-ish, and racist, well, its fricking useless.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think Christians would want to grant that sometimes God creates people without the capacity to tell right from wrong

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't think Christians would want to grant that sometimes God creates people without the capacity to tell right from wrong
            Actually this forms the core of Christian Antiracism. In short, if you're not a Blacklater you just flat out lack a soul and need to be removed from society for your own good.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >And you can get away with doing evils in this life.
          Can you, though? Clerical elites perform all sorts of evil stuff and still get to go to heaven because they're clerical elites, so clearly "do X or you go to hell" isn't normative.

          >Not to mention it doesn't alter the arbitrary and intellectually vacuous justification for any of the laws that are imposed upon us.
          But it does, there's a reason for laws that are made. The only laws that are actually arbitrary and intellectually vacuous are those that exist solely because Yahweh says to. If Yahweh is the ontological and moral ground then any law he posits will be 100% arbitrary by definition. When Yahweh said "do genital mutilation or go to hell" there was, by definition, no reason for it, it was 100% arbitrary and intellectually vacuous.

          >If laws are but engendered by convention, products not of nature but of political life
          But they are, politics is driven by nature.

          >reflections not of God's eternal justice, that towards which all strives, but man's personal fancy and pursuit of his self-interest, then there is no reason not to circumvent them if the opportunity presents itself.
          What you're actually arguing here is for a form of anarchism wherein mankind simply doesn't make any sort of abstract societal structures at all. At that point "morality" as an abstraction is pointless because there's no society and no societal enforcement of norms, it's just Yahweh zapping people for breaking one of the 613 Mitzvot, and he clearly doesn't appear to be doing that. This could be because the punishment for breaking the 613 Mitzvot is solely postmortem, in which case your anarchism is even greater because you can't even make an argument about why we should give a shit about eternal damnation for eating shellfish as that would entail an argument for following man's personal fancy and pursuit of his self-interest.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Clerical elites perform all sorts of evil stuff
            Woah man... that's like... so deep bro...

            >there's a reason for laws that are made.
            Indeed -- it's not objective goodness (which does not exist) but the selfish self-interest of the citizens of a polis.

            >If Yahweh is the ontological and moral ground then any law he posits will be 100% arbitrary by definition.
            No, because in God Will and Intellect are identical, so all His actions are the result of His unbridled Wisdom and Reason. We may not comprehend all His choices from our limited, creaturely perspective, but all He does has a higher transcendental purpose.

            >When Yahweh said "do genital mutilation or go to hell" there was, by definition, no reason for it
            No, the Mosaic laws were perfectly constructed for the Hebrew people and their maladies which they were meant to remedy, which is why they do not apply to New Israel.

            >What you're actually arguing here is for a form of anarchism wherein mankind simply doesn't make any sort of abstract societal structures at all.
            No you midwit, I believe that political life and the nomoi of a polis are the very consummation of God's intention for humanity. YOU cannot argue that and are logically compelled to subscribe to a Sophistic conceptualization of the origins of morality and government.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            None of that actually addresses anything that he said.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but all He does has a higher transcendental purpose.
            So then what you said in

            And you can get away with doing evils in this life. Not to mention it doesn't alter the arbitrary and intellectually vacuous justification for any of the laws that are imposed upon us. If laws are but engendered by convention, products not of nature but of political life, reflections not of God's eternal justice, that towards which all strives, but man's personal fancy and pursuit of his self-interest, then there is no reason not to circumvent them if the opportunity presents itself.

            is wrong, and we shouldn't be practicing Hasidic Judaism because it's just "the right thing to do", it's because Yahweh's plan gives us material benefits. So, you're really just a utilitarian with extra steps.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That doesn't follow from what I said at all. Are you moronic?

            >the very consummation of God's intention for humanity
            Why should anyone care about this?

            Because the ultimate bliss and self-satisfaction lies with God.

            I have a conscience and empathy. I LIKE doing good things I DONT LIKE hurting others. This is normal.
            You are not normal and neither are your creepy Christian closeted maniac cohorts.
            And yes, you will get punished for doing bad things, you will get caught.

            >I have a conscience and empathy. I LIKE doing good things I DONT LIKE hurting others. This is normal.
            You have evolutionary programming that you have never questioned but which has no intrinsic value beyond resulting in more human babies.

            >And yes, you will get punished for doing bad things, you will get caught.
            Oh? Is this some kind of natural law? Proven scientifically? Naive child. People get away with wrongdoing all the time. This world is rife and replete with suffering and injustice. Justice is the exception. Only a transcendental force can make all things right in the end.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You have evolutionary programming that you have never questioned
            I’m fully aware it’s evolutionary programming. You going to ask me to question my thirst for water too?

            >Oh? Is this some kind of natural law? Proven scientifically?
            It’s called leaving your house

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I’m fully aware it’s evolutionary programming.
            Then it doesn't really matter.

            >You going to ask me to question my thirst for water too?
            If someone says they don't mind dying of thirst, what would you say to them?

            >It’s called leaving your house
            Can you tell me how many perpretators of Soviet and Chinese Communist mass genocide and ethnic cleansing got punished for their crimes historically.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >how many perpretators of Soviet and Chinese Communist mass genocide and ethnic cleansing got punished for their crimes historically.
            Most, there was an incredibly high turnover rate among Party Officials between purges during and after the regime.
            >okay but mao was really fat and stalin lived in a palace
            Stalin went insane and died of an incredibly painful stroke that took a week to kill him, Mao suffered from crippling lung and heart failure (cigarettes gave him Parkinson's), and spent three months in agony as a result of a heart attack (the second heart attack killed him). Not that this really matters because Chinese Christians believe that Mao was a Saint for killing gazillions of Pagans and for establishing the CCP's supremacy (the CCP is the foremost patron of Christianity in China and is single-handedly keeping it from imploding into whacky cults).

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're forgetting that the Russian Orthodox Church considers Stalin a saint.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Most
            Nope. Most of the ethnic cleansings conducted by the Soviet Union were done after the Great Terror, and basically none of the organizers ever truly got punished.

            >Stalin went insane and died of an incredibly painful stroke that took a week to kill him, Mao suffered from crippling lung and heart failure (cigarettes gave him Parkinson's), and spent three months in agony as a result of a heart attack (the second heart attack killed him).
            So you basically believe in karma, because there was no causal link between Stalin and Mao's deaths (which were scarcely all that excruciating, all things considered -- many regular people who have done little wrong have suffered similar deaths) and their misdeeds; you're also incapable of demonstrating that that is some kind of inviolable, necessary law.

            >Christians believe that Mao was a Saint for killing gazillions of Pagans and for establishing the CCP's supremacy (the CCP is the foremost patron of Christianity in China
            Pure, unadulterated schizophrenia. Murder is evil, irrespective of the religious convictions of an individual. Just retribution for their acting out evil deeds in accordance with said convictions is licit of course, but fricking no-one thinks that millions of Chinese innocents deserved to die. You strike me as a deeply psychologically disturbed individual.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Then it doesn't really matter.

            Yeah dude you’re a sociopath or on the autism spectrum.
            When normal people have this explained to them they don’t and can’t just throw out the fact that they care about other people.
            This is Oyish, no shit you’re deranged, have some frickin self awareness.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because the ultimate bliss and self-satisfaction lies with God.
            So then you're just a utilitarian, and your initial argument that decision making in absence of the israeli tribal deity is impossible was wrong.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I guess to an extent everyone is a utilitarian under an extremely strict definition, but that doesn't mean the God debate doesn't matter.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The entire debate is over whether or not you can make decisions in absence of Yahweh. A utilitarian can absolutely make decisions without Yahweh, you're just arguing that they should account for "if this guy's specific interpretation of israeli mythology is correct then heaven is pleasurable and hell is unpleasurable".

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The entire debate is over whether or not you can make decisions in absence of Yahweh
            I already admitted you can, that debate is a strawman though.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No it's not, it's just what the post that started this argument was arguing. See

            That's not the argument, moron. The argument is that without God, nothing is normative; since existence has no telos and everything we perceive is just the result of materialist processes, then there is no reason to value anyone else's life and well-being, since all morality is just the result of chemical interactions in our brain, programming accrued over millions of years for the purpose of best facilitating the reproduction of our species through evolution -- and reproduction itself does not provide a normative skopos to reality. You do not get punished for inflicting "evil" on others in the afterlife, so there's no reason why to reject morality, which is a spook.

            .

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            They're different arguments lol and you can't understand it, you're crazy

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The argument is that without God, nothing is normative
            No, they're the same thing.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The entire debate is over whether or not you can make decisions in absence of Yahweh.

            >Because the ultimate bliss and self-satisfaction lies with God.
            So then you're just a utilitarian, and your initial argument that decision making in absence of the israeli tribal deity is impossible was wrong.

            >your initial argument that decision making in absence of the israeli tribal deity is impossible was wrong.
            Holy shit, what is with you mediocre philosophically illiterate yet pretentious, supercilious homosexuals that you can't comprehend the argument that ethics require a metaphysical basis? It's absolutely not a question of whether or not atheists or non-Christian in generals can engage in meritorious and virtuous ways, since the foundation of the Stoic and Christian view of natural law is that all men are naturally imbued with a desire for God and an knowledge of moral truths; Christian thinkers looked at the universal acceptance of common moral axiomatic claims across cultures as munificence from God. What is at stake is whether atheists can intellectually anchor their instinctual moral assumptions in some internally coherent coherent systematic account of first principles, and they cannot.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the very consummation of God's intention for humanity
            Why should anyone care about this?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      What he said
      The argument that "no God = no morals" is to address something like the Nazis, who ultimately didn't value human life and viewed humans as biobags of meat to be shaped into something "superior" by mercilesss eugenics and not living beings with a sacred life.
      If there is no divine law or afterlife, what's to stop a powerful man from simply doing what he desires? If he can get away with it, there's no real consequences.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        You should tell all the powerful immoral men to believe in Christianity anon, good luck with that

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Obviously it's not a flawless system, hence secularisation, but it's an explanation as to what is actually meant by God's role in defining "morality".

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah dude you’re a sociopath or on the autism spectrum.
      When normal people have this explained to them they don’t and can’t just throw out the fact that they care about other people.
      This is Oyish, no shit you’re deranged, have some frickin self awareness.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >atheist understand a hypothetical challenge: IMPOSSIBLE

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          The scenario only applies to people with serious social disorders or literally moronic people. Getting basic science explained to people doesn’t turn them into the terminator. I know my uncle is made out of electrical fields and oxytocin activates the neural pathways that make me like him. That doesn’t make it not happen.
          You’re out of your mind.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Yeah dude you’re a sociopath or on the autism spectrum.
        Funny you say this, since studies have shown that atheism is positive correlated with autism and visuospatial shifted intelligence.

        >When normal people
        throughout history were all deeply religious. You are the insane freak here.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Funny you say this, since studies have shown that atheism is positive correlated with autism and visuospatial shifted intelligence.
          Good thing I’m not atheist and you’re portraying a total lack of social ability and emotions

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Literally what happened in Ussr
    They raped and pillaged themselves nonstop until last communist died in 91'

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    But the Hindeo-Jew-Christian-Islamics ARE raping and murdering each other. Lmao

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is the dumbest strawman ever. Without God we would have no reason not to rape and murder each other beyond our personal whims, which are insufficient to apply to other people.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      why is it insufficent to apply to other people?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's narcissistic to say that your whims and desires are superior to others'

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    As an atheist I have to physically restrain myself from raping every woman I pass by on the street. My morality-free deterministic brain simply wants to mate with every veganal opening but thankfully my positivist masters of analytical school taught me good and proper utulitarian values that let me quickly conduct hedonic calculus to find out the ratio between risk and reward of endless rapeage and murder that my soulless materialist "self" (a bundle of sensations, really) strives to do every day

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    You ever wonder why Christians give off this uncanny, creepy, fake inhuman vibe? It’s because a lot of them are deeply disturbed and using Christianity a veil to hide it.
    Next time a Christian is lecturing you about right and wrong ask yourself if they really believe in any of this and if there might be something hiding underneath.

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Wow nice comeback limp dick

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's a stupid argument because some people do want to rape and murder, and an atheist can't tell them they're wrong for it. Yeah personally I wouldn't want to in an atheist world but I'm sure some Christians would, and I'm not gonna reprimand them for that.
          The atheist pride tells them that their desires aren't bad.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Coal yaroslav nu-variant

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >with god, we would only be raping and murdering eachother some of the time

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Alot of fedoras cannot understand that religion is the cause of civilization, the monoliths of the neolithic were built due to religious insanity not scientific curiosity.

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine two worlds
    In one world pirating videogames made by old defunct developers is immoral
    In the other world, it's not immoral

    Now, how could we go about figuring out which of these world we find ourselves in?
    ....
    ..
    Whoa, it's almost like there's no discernible difference between the two worlds. What does it mean?

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