Thread 17840176

I believe god does not exist. AMA

>>17840176 (OP)
How many christcucks did you mog with your based logic and science?

>>17840197
No idea. I don't care about mogging people so I don't keep track.

>>17840176 (OP)
When's your reassignment surgery?

>>17840262
>reassignment surgery
What's that?

>>17840176 (OP)
How can one be good without God?

>>17840361
Man survived on earth by using his mind and senses to interpret reality to a degree previously unseen in the known universe. It can be safely assumed that the human mind is the reason humans still exist, as we are not half as strong/fast/tough as most other creatures here. Thus, to infringe on a human's consent (the product of that mind) is to mistreat him, you are treating him as less than human. There, initiating force is evil and respecting consent is good. No mysticism required and you would have to ignore the most basic survival mechanism a human has to pretend it's not true.

>>17840366
anything that's consensual is therefor good?

>>17840361
Define "good".
>>17840366
Don't answer on my behalf, chud.

>>17840373
Between two human adults yes. If you want to eat each other's shit you aren't initiating force on anyone.

>>17840375
Your answer is gonna suck because you're already pussyfooting around definitions.

>>17840375
moral excellence and righteousness

>>17840381
If two adult cousins want to fuck each other and eat each others shit after the act is that still good?

>>17840385
If they use a condom it's none of my business, I would personally not associate with people like this but I'm not gonna run down their front door to stop them either. Having an incestbaby on purpose is dooming another human being with your bad choices which is a form of initiating force, like injecting your newborn with a cancer cell.

>>17840389
>If they use a condom it's none of my business
you sure? what if your son and your daughter have a quick fuck with a condom? both consenting adults btw

>>17840398
Once they are 18 they are not my responsibility anymore. I would hate for them to do this but it is their right as an individual. I would be disgusted, but my opinion does not equate to their freedom. They are not my property.

>>17840381
>wanting to avoid some retard throwing out a million different equivocations is "pussyfooting"
Kill yourself immediately.
>>17840382
Just do shit that is morally excellent and righteous, duh.

>>17840401
>I would hate for them to do this
>I would be disgusted
okay but why tho? what does "freedom" have to do with anything? Is it morally good?

>>17840411
>Just do shit that is morally excellent and righteous, duh.
What is morally excellent and righteous and why?

>>17840419
>What is morally excellent and righteous and why?
You tell me. It's you who wants to do those things after all.

>>17840415
You're pretending you haven't read >>17840366. Humans survive by reasoning, we have to reason to cook our food instead of getting poisoned. We have to reason a coat to keep us warm. We have to reason a spear in order to eat good meat. Reasoning is our raison d'être and using force (bypassing consent) is ignoring the mind of a human. It is cutting the wings off a bird and expecting it to still survive on its own.

>>17840426
Mark 12:30-31

I dont have an atheist's alternative sadly

>>17840430
>I dont have an atheist's alternative sadly
If you define moral excellence and righteousness as acting according to the content of Mark 12:30-31, then it indeed isn't attainable by an atheist. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

>>17840429
Is our ability to think and reason perfect or flawed?

>>17840437
Flawed, there is an objective reality that is independent from man's mind. Man's mind is the best apparatus in the known universe currently at interpreting it but it is not perfect. We do however create greater and greater technology to find truth our own senses cannot see like a tele/microscope for instance. Using the scientific method we can then discover objective reality by detaching our subjective experience from it (proving things).

Short answer, flawed but the best currently available.

>>17840436
I understand. Do you have a different concept of what is moral and righteous? Is good something else?

>>17840441
You mean if I use the same word to describe something different than what you describe?

>>17840442
Yeah I want to know if you think good means something else if it does and why?

>>17840440
>there is an objective reality that is independent from man's mind
how can you be sure?

>>17840449
>if you think good means something else
You mean if I use the word in a different way than you? I probably do, yeah.
>why?
Definitions are social conventions. You want to know some sort of historical account of how I came to use the word "good" the way I use it?

>>17840451
Because if you wish the sun to not exist, it will still be there. Your mind does not influence or dictate reality, it merely senses and interprets it.

>>17840462
Yes, perhaps its best to understand the words "use" rather than its "meaning". Go ahead.

>>17840469
So you assume objective reality exists outside your senses?

>>17840262
I literally can't stop thinking about trannies

>>17840473
Yes, existence is primary and consciousness is second. The tree in my yard will exist physically even when I don't see it. It's in the term "senses". You sense things that are already there, you don't create them from thin air.

>>17840471
When I use the word "good", I usually refer to a thing being up to some sort of standard or providing some kind of utility. It can often be contrastive ("this is a good spoon, that is a bad spoon") and whether the standard I refer to is my own or a more general one depends on the context.
This description of my use of the word "good" probably isn't exhaustive, but it's a general outline off the top of my head.

>>17840483
this the difference between a good spoon and a bad spoon subjective or is it objective?

>>17840495
I honestly don't really care. I bet you can talk up a storm about the relative status of different spoons, their classifications, various metaspoonery etc, but if your spoon has a hole in the bottom, I'd prefer not to eat soup with it.
If you start questioning that at dinner, you'll just end up making a fool out of yourself.

>>17840504
I agree. A good spoon is really quite objective. A bad spoon is more obviously so. And these qualities are shared wherever you may find spoons. Id say they depend on something real separate from us.

>>17840523
I don't think you need a ghost spoon instantiating the essence of spoonness through the immaterial aeons of reality in order for a spoon with a hole in it to be a shit utensil for eating soup m8.

>>17840530
Based Plato hater, anyone who truly understands Plato either hates him or sees his rhetoric as a useful tool to gaslight and control others.
>noooo you cannot understand what reality is and need *me* to interpret it for you!
>How do I know what reality is? REEEEEE

>>17840579
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A&ab_channel=superic
Behold, the atheist's nightmare