Thread 18006419

>without god no one would know killing people is bad!

Hmm. I wouldn't like it if someone killed me, so I think it would be wrong to kill someone else.

>>18006419 (OP)
>I wouldn't like it if someone killed me, so I think it would be wrong to kill someone else.
Non sequitur. I am me, and somebody else is somebody else. I have no inherent opposition to murdering people whatsoever.

>>18006419 (OP)
The morality argument for god is dumb there are better ones, humans have morality because of self-preservation instincts you are correct.

>>18006438
If murder wasn't wrong you would risk yourself getting murdered

>>18006441
By "Better" do you mean funnier because of how dumb they are?

>>18006446
No i mean actually better, because people needing to make god a moral figure is irrelevant to the existence of some kind of god.

>>18006445
............What? Are you saying that murder doesn't exist?

>>18006447
I've never seen such a creature.

>>18006448
It's pretty clear what i said
>>18006451
God wouldn't be a creature obviously

>>18006455
>It's pretty clear what i said
I don't think so, because your wording implies that murder doesn't exist, which is obviously untrue. There is always a risk of being murdered, because there's other humans running around in the world with the capacity for murder.

>God wouldn't be a creature obviously
So he doesn't exist, or is not actually a sentient being, but instead some kind of inanimate object? Is "God" a rock?

>>18006419 (OP)
>I wouldn't like it if someone killed me
nice opinion but that doesn't make it "wrong"

>>18006419 (OP)
You wouldn't know lusting after your neighbor's wife is bad, you wouldn't know pride is bad.

>>18006475
Why are either of those things bad?

>>18006479
God knows why. That's what matters.

>>18006541
He's not real, though.

>>18006419 (OP)
>Hmm. I wouldn't like it if someone killed me, so I think it would be wrong to kill someone else.
nigger that's literally the golden rule

>>18006438
The ability to realise that other people are entities with the same thoughts, feelings, and consciousness as you is something you're supposed to put together somewhere between the ages of 2 and 5

>>18006441
>humans have morality because of self-preservation instincts you are correct.
explain WWII Japan

>>18006448
He's (obviously) saying murder is not socially (or legally) acceptable. If you had a society where murder was not that big a deal just part of life deal with it, your own chances of being murdered significantly increase

>>18006561
Wow, you have such bad luck to miss out on heaven.

>>18006479
Rearing of children is necessary to the future of civilisation for obvious reasons. People don't wish to invest decades of resources and effort into raising "their" child, before finding out it wasn't theres. By creating a society where fucking your neighbours wife is considered bad, you discourage that behaviour and reinforce monogamy, which in turns makes rearing healthy children more likely

>>18006561
She*
God creates life, ergo she's female

>>18006571
Why should i care for others feelings.
Even if they cared about mine, thats still no explaination.

>um acktually
Might is right, and God is the mightiest.

>>18006419 (OP)
>it would be wrong
Why? By what standard?

>>18007747
By his feelings, unironically.
I don't get why he expects someone else to care about his biological reactions besides in a society where people believe human life is divinely sanctious.

>>18007756
Exactly. Without God we would not know it's wrong to kill. This is not to say atheists don't know it's wrong to kill, it means they know God.

>>18006445
Cope weakling

>>18007805
you're just dumb and detached from reality

>>18007294
You don't have to care about other people
If all you care about is hurting other people, you would be irrational not to

>>18007764
How exactly does God make it true that I should not kill people?
Suppose the only thing I care about and value, is killing other people. I have no care for my wellbeing or tomorrow. I just want to kill people.

Why shouldn't I kill people? (I don't care about God. I don't care about morality. I don't care about being good.)

>>18006419 (OP)
hmm, as a troon i wouldn’t like it if someone misgendered me, therefore it is wrong if anyone misgenders someone else.

>>18008055
>i don’t care about oughts
>why ought not i kill people?
why do people on this board ask such retarded questions

>>18006464
Morality in this context is shared self preservation instinct which comes from empathy aka understanding how others feel or putting yourself in their place, since humans are social animals so it's kind like a trust pact that ensures the survival of the group as well as the individual, so the risk is much higher like the other anon said if murder wasn't a taboo.

As for god i'm agnostic about it but i feel like there's mind behind reality
>>18006586
it doesn't really contradict what i said i was mainly speaking about the basics of morality why murder or stealing is wrong and that stuff but it happens that people self destruct as well

>>18008065
Why shouldn't I kill people?

Seems like an easy question to answer

>>18008065
Yes, that is a problem for people who claim morality to be objective.
It still 100% hinges on people's subjectively care about and value

There existing some magic float platonic fact written into the fabric of reality "thou shalt not kill" - it carries zero normative force
You can't tell me why I shouldn't kill, unless that was something I already didn't want to do

No, but seriously, how does God make it true that I shouldn't kill people? What does it mean?

If the response was something like, "he'll hurt you forever if you do."
That at least would be something I could understand. It just would be true in virtue of my (subjective) desire to avoid hell - not an objective fact

>>18008108
If it's true then it's just true. It's true that the sun is round but you're not gonna die if you don't believe that. Not sure what you want lol

>>18008108
God decreed murder to be wrong for human beings, that's why. You seem to be implying that means moral laws are objects or rules of physical reality. When a country passes a law then that law also becomes an objective fact that it exists and is binding upon the citizens.
>"he'll hurt you forever if you do"
That's just one of the enforcement mechanisms

>>18008129
What's stops someone to decree otherwise? A king can just made murder legal and it wouldn't be wrong from that point.

>>18008121
Because the claim is about what *I should* do. Not about the shape of the sun.
It's just fucking gibberish.

What do you mean when you say I *should* do things I don't care about?
You are making a normative claim. But I don't care.

Am I making some kind of mistake when I act in a way that achieves my goals and desires instead? No.

>>18008129
>You seem to be implying that means moral laws are objects or rules of physical reality.
No, I am not doing that.
People who think it's true that I should do something, regardless of me caring about it or not, are doing that.


"It's true that you SHOULD follow the law"
I don't care about the law.
What exactly is it that's supposed to be true?

>>18008145
I don't see gibberish in just saying something is true. If you don't care about truth then obviously it wouldn't matter to you

Stuff like this is very easy to make sense of on my view

When I say: "You should follow the law"
I am merely expressing my subjective desire for you to follow the law. Maybe I'm hoping to persuade you to act in way that aligns with my values.

>>18008162
Why shouldn't I kill people?

There are 2 parallel worlds. One where it's true that you shouldn't kill people, and one where there's no such moral fact.

You wake up in one of these worlds.
How do you go about figuring out which one you're in?

>>18008135
You could but the kings enforcement mechanism and dominion is inferior. It's as if you declared the law for the entire planet. It's meaningless and nobody would care
>>18008151
>What exactly is it that's supposed to be true?
That the law exists obviously? You don't care great, doesn't make it not an objective fact

>>18008175
By reading the Bible and trusting word of God.

>>18008184
Right, so my argument is not that things disappear if I don't care about them.
But that it's just fucking nonsense to say I SHOULD do things I don't care about

>>18008175
>How do you go about figuring out which one you're in?
prophets and messengers from God, innate human intuition, etc
>>18008195
You should do it in the sense that it is your purpose to worship God and that means following his laws. It's as if you are a robot designed for one purpose but you also are free to ignore it and face the consequences. The fact you can do otherwise does not mean you weren't made for a reason

>>18008167
Because people aren't meant to be murdered, it'd just be an erroneous action

>>18008204
>>18008186
Only difference between the worlds is the moral fact
you still have the same bible and your same feelings

>>18008213
There is no possible world where your hypothetical exists

>>18008208
>erroneous action
What exactly am I doing wrong, though?

I don't care what God means for people.
I don't care about being moral, or going to jail or going to hell.
I just want to act in a way that achieves my goals and desires. (which for the sake of argument is killing people)

Next time I should pick another example of something that is less universally agreed upon, so I don't have to keep repeating I" want to kill people" again and again. lmao
>I just want to worship Idols!
yeah...

>>18008215
lol

>>18008213
No you won't because there's no reason to have a feeling it is wrong to harm those that are not beneficial to your survival. For most of human history we murdered the fuck out of those outside our tribe just to take their stuff so clearly evolutionary speaking that is advantageous. Feeling bad about it is useless and even goes against your people's survival strategy. As for the prophets there would be nobody sending them so the phenomenon will not be as prevalent

>>18006571
>The ability to realise that other people are entities with the same thoughts, feelings, and consciousness as you is something you're supposed to put together somewhere between the ages of 2 and 5

I realize this. It doesn't make me care about their lives.

>>18008219
>I just want to act in a way that achieves my goals and desires.
This applies to ignoring traffic laws too. But I don't see you complaining about the reason you should follow them. If you don't care about your well being then that's on you lmao

>>18006593
The "future of civilization" isn't necessarily valuable, nor is there any real evidence that your concept of monogamy, recently invented, is ideal for this.

>>18008230
Everything looks the same
You still got the same bible, ink on paper. And people telling stories that a god talked to them
Everything you obverse in the world and feel inside your head is the same

>>18008204
What a dull worldview; thinking you were made to be some Jewish demon's bitch.

>>18008219
The error is doing something that wasn't intended. I.e. if I design a plane and you use it as a submarine, you've erred. If it's true that people aren't meant to be murdered then committing murder violates that purpose and is an error

Same with worship. If worship is a thing that is only meant to be directed to God then directing it to something else is an error and misuse

>>18008240
But what about spiritual revelation? Surely the Holy Spirit would grant me a higher awareness of moral facts. It would guide me on the right path. I would simply intuit what is right and what is wrong and then act accordingly.

I have experienced the Holy Spirit, and I can tell you that spiritual revelation is elevated spiritual truth inaccessible to the intellect. In reality, it's always a kind of fundamental, common truth that you've known all along on an spiritual level but were unwilling to admit. I can't give you a better explanation than that.

>>18008240
I just gave you reasons why that can't be the case, how about you challenge them? Why should people have the same feelings? Why should people claim deities talked to them?

>>18008243
Nice shitty opinion, serving God is the peak of human existence. Meanwhile you don't think it is dull to think of yourself as a meat sack designed to seek pleasure

>>18008256
No, not at all. I love pleasure. Just blew a fat nut thirty minutes ago.

>>18006419 (OP)
carthaginians thousands years ago literally sacrificing babies, you moron

>>18008237
>traffic law
With traffic law, you appeal to consequences. I have specifically asserted, again and again, that I don't care about consequences

I don't care about being hit by a car. I just want to walk into the road.
What mistake am I making by walking into the road?


I think the reason people slip back to consequences is, because they make sense!
Consequences are not mysterious, they are coherent. None of this nonsense about it being true, even if I don't care.

>>18008248
You didn't give a reason. You just told me it was impossible.
What am I supposed to say? Get on your level?

Nu-uh! It is possible.

>>18008248
>>18008265
Ahh, sorry.
>>18008215 That was not your post. Disregard that.

I don't want to make stuff up about biology. I wouldn't have anything more interesting to say than you analysis being wrong.

>>18008259
That's the standard atheist experience. Of course a retarded gooner cannot distinguish what is dull or not
>>18008265
Yes I did. How about you try again? Tell me what is wrong with my reasoning

>>18008273
There's nothing glamorous in worshipping a foreign demon, I'll tell you that.

>>18008263
I know you claim you don't care about consequences but once your skin starts sizzling that arrogant attitude will soon change.
>What mistake am I making by walking into the road?
Ending your life or harming yourself which is objectively wrong

>>18008280
>which is objectively wrong
How so? Prove it.

>>18008279
There's nothing glamorous about your brain dead nationalism. There is however about worshiping the creator of all people.
>>18008283
Oh so you have conceded I see. If there was something as objective morality then even if you didn't care about following it then you still should follow it

>>18008263
BTW that traffic post isn't mine. I wrote >>18008208 and my post was >>18008244. Though I'll be leaving soon so won't be here long fyi

>>18008294
There is no "creator of all people". Humans evolved naturally from bipedal apes.

>>18008294
>If there was something as objective morality then even if you didn't care about following it then you still should follow it
Well, no, I'd just ignore it and keep doing whatever I personally prefer. I don't care what some Jew book or Jew demon says I "should" do.

>>18008280
Me wanting to avoid hell, because I have a subjective desire not to have my skin sizzle forever - is perfectly comprehensible
I have never taken issue with this claim

>>18008309
>Me wanting to avoid hell, because I have a subjective desire not to have my skin sizzle forever
There is no such "Hell" in the Bible.

>>18008273
I'm not going to have anything interesting to say
I will just point you towards evolutionary psychology. A species don't survive on an individual creature basis

CLEARLY there is an advantage to the survival of the human species, if we don't just murder each other fun - and help each other out
I don't understand how you could disagree with that

>>18008321
I don't care if the species survives or not.

>>18008055
>How exactly does God make it true that I should not kill people?
Because it is against His law.
>I don't care about
This presupposes morals are subjective, however because they are objective it is irrelevant what you do or don't care about, it is your duty.

>>18008314
Okay.

>>18008280
>once your skin starts sizzling
Again with the consequences
Consequences makes sense. I have NO problem with people acting in a way to avoid consequences they dislike.

This just doesn't have anything to do with morality

>>18008326
I don't care about "duty" lol

>>18008329
I don't remember asking

>>18006419 (OP)
Without God stupid people wouldn't know that killing is wrong. And utimately it doesn't matter whether or how you're able to reason it or not if some retard who can't will just stab you in the end anyway

>>18008328
>I have NO problem with people acting in a way
Do you have a problem with people acting in any way?

>>18008302
God created a world where that was possible.
>>18008305
That's just a lie. If you don't care about suffering then cut off your arm right now to demonstrate it

>>18008305
>I'd just ignore it and keep doing whatever I personally prefer
Of course you will, you are dead in sin. And if you do not repent, you will burn for them forever.

>>18008321
>CLEARLY there is an advantage to the survival of the human species, if we don't just murder each other fun - and help each other out
That can apply to the tribe only and you would reap the benefits of mass murder and a stable society. Why would you feel bad about ripping a baby out of a foreign pregnant woman from a tribe that has absolutely no chance of ever getting in a position of power above yours?

>>18008328
>This just doesn't have anything to do with morality
Of course no, it just has something to do with the reason you should do something or not. Something being objectively wrong is not a reason not to do it after all

>>18008325
Right
But you understand how that would be disadvantage to the survival of the human race, if everyone thought like that always?

Besides, it's not like abstracted complicated concepts like "human race" would go in to the psychology
This is just me giving you a description. The actual stuff simple, like empathy


Have I earned a response to MY hypothetical yet?

>>18008246
Yeah, you still got the same feelings of thinking the holy spirit makes you feel moral stuff

>>18006419 (OP)
>I wouldn't like it
This is the actual issue. Without God people mostly build their ethical understanding (arguably the most important frame of reference) on emotions (arguably the most unstable thing we have). Empathy undeniably plays a massive role in ethics, but at the end of the day it's a feeling, a type of signal that can be manipulated so easily that even advocating for a presidential candidate 4% more right leaning than a blue-haired they/them's favorite candidate will put you on their no-empathy list and they will cheer for your death.
You can base things on intuition, but basing it on one specific emotion is one of the worst imaginable scenarios.

>>18008333
They would probably know it's wrong, but the question is that this knowledge would be no better than an opinion just like "sushi sucks" or "knock knock jokes are out".

>>18008360
>Without God people mostly build their ethical understanding (arguably the most important frame of reference) on emotions
So just like christcels.

>>18008368
My worldview is based on the bible.

>>18008343
Yes, evolutionary psychology don't keep up once human society/technology gets rolling
I think this perfectly describes what we see in reality, people don't care about other tribes. It's exactly why we got all kinds of wars and atrocities

Which is why I think a lot of what we got is learned behavior, and not dictated by biology
why you can condition Aztecs into being totally cool with human sacrifice, and have it being reprehensible in other societies

>>18008368
Never heard of those, I'm only familiar with Christians and their ethics go against default emotional knee-jerks quite often.

>>18008373
It's built on how you feel like interpreting the Babble.
Let's be real, pretty much everyone regardless of religious (non)affiliation agrees on all the big stuff aside from morality around sex, and the little stuff which actually makes up 99% of your daily moral decisions isn't clearly legislated in the Babble.

Is it OBJECTIVLY IMMORAL to download a videogame whose developer has long since gone defunct with peer to peer software?
Keep in mind, there's a fact of this matter, written into the fabric of reality

>>18008384
See >>18008392.

>>18008397
>>18008392
I feel like you thought "merging on a highway isn't ethically legislated by the Church" was a point that moved the discussion forward, perhaps even in your favor. Did you really think that?

My morality is based on the emotions of 2600 year old jews

>>18008401
I would like to acknowledge that you are attempting to duck my point because you can't think of a good reply.

>>18008383
>people don't care about other tribes.
Yes they do, moral ones at least. Evil ones will just do what is most favorable to the survival of their specific tribe. And exceptionally evil ones will only care about themselves. That's the point I am making. There is no reason for anyone not to be evil this way but clearly this isn't the world in its entirety
>why you can condition Aztecs into being totally cool with human sacrifice, and have it being reprehensible in other societies
Satan's handiwork is actually quite universal. The problem is Abrahamic religions made it immoral with the binding of Isaac/Ishmael because it was made obvious to even such people that human sacrifice is not desired by God

>>18008408
Oh damn you really did think that. I just wanted to make sure...
The obvious reply is that legislation for 99% of your daily moral decisions is an absurd goalpost. If you're talking about Christians (which from your point about "feel like interpreting" isn't even completely clear), you're pointing out they missed a goalpost they never aimed at. If this argument is a success in your book, so be it.

>>18008392
I interpret the bible the same way I interpret you. There is no grand mystery to biblical interpretation, the text is perfectly clear if only one applied the same common sense historical-grammatical method they do for any other verbal substance. All of my moral decisions and all of my beliefs in general are based on this clear word from God, if a situation arises which is not specifically addressed in scripture, this does not imply the basic undergirding principles are not.

>>18008393
Secular laws are social contracts that you implicitly accept as a citizen or resident of a particular territory, breaking such contracts is immoral therefore downloading abandonware you have no rights to is also immoral. It isn't theft however

>>18008425
>word from God
The bible doesn't make that claim. You will find the OT much more in line with this belief but the writings of Paul is not the writings of God. Scripture being inspired by the HS is not the same as scripture being authored by God, that's a muslim belief

>>18008424
Oh no, an illiterate Christian. Go back an reread my post, lil bro. I clearly say that everyone already has the same feefs about the big stuff aside from sex so that's a wash, leaving us to compare the small stuff where christcels gain no advantage anyway. That is the actual argument. You missed the crucial first part because you're cortically challenged.
>>18008425
Oh no, another christcel who cannot address the argument. How unexpected.

>>18008441
I accept your concession.
>>18008435
>The bible doesn't make that claim
Would you like a list?
>Scripture being inspired by the HS is not the same as scripture being authored by God
No that's exactly what it means. Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. It is not remotely ambiguous how the bible presents itself.
>that's a muslim belief
Islamic and Christian doctrines of inspiration differ chiefly as to mode, not substance. Both absolutely insist their holy book is the very verbal word of God, but while for muslims it is merely that, we believe in what might be called double authorship, that there was also a human being from whose mind the scriptures are really derived, not as undermining God's speech but being the very vehicle thereof, the intention of the human author being identical to that of the divine.

>>18008441
I obviously don't aim to challenge that a post-Christian society has very similar big-picture feel to a Christian one. Again, if you felt that point moved the discussion forward in any way, I'm really glad for you but ... you made no point there. You made a point elsewhere, I replied to it and you now dodged it. How unexpected.

>>18008449
>I accept your concession.
Nice non-argument. The funniest thing is that your initial argument hinges on my argument being true because you need people to agree on the big stuff for them to be swayed by the idea that no religion = xyz le bad outcome.

>>18008456
Chinks and jeets have a very similar big picture feel too, lol. Also see how your attempted argument pressuposes the validity of mine >>18008458.
You didn't even pretend to make a point because you're ironically a very emotional thinker.

>>18008465
>Chinks and jeets have a very similar big picture feel too, lol.
You did this again lmao. Brought up a meaningless point just to dodge >>18008424. How unexpected.
>see how your attempted argument pressuposes the validity of mine >>18008458.
>>> you need people to agree on the big stuff for them to be swayed by the idea that no religion = xyz le bad outcome.
My argument isn't about what I need or don't need.

But anyway, two separate anons are trying to get you to stick to actual points and we are both failing so I suppose whenever you feel like it, address >>18008424, everything else you say, while interesting, is meaningless to the disagreement at hand.

>>18008428
Piracy is not illegal where I'm from, just profiting from other people IPs, not the downloading

I find this view that what's objectively moral to depends on what's currently legal to be a really bad view.
It's not like killing babies becomes moral, just because abortion got legalized.

>>18008483
Throwing your arms in the air and saying "wait did you really just say THAT??!?!" is not an actual argument.
>Brought up a meaningless point
I was specifically addressing your point about the consensus being a post-christian one. If that is a meaningless reply to you, so was the point it was responding to.
>My argument isn't about what I need or don't need.
I didn't say that the argument is about what you need. I said that people arguing on the big stuff is necessary for the argument to work. Those are not the same thing.
If you appeal to consequences, the appeal can only ever be effective if the target audience shares your views/feelings about the consequences being good or bad. "If people don't have a system which makes them think X is bad, they will do X, which is bad." is not an argument that can ever work with people who do not think X is bad. This means that whoever this argument works on already has a system that makes him think X is bad and does not need yours.
>address >>18008424
I already did. My point is that the Christian has no advantage in the conundrum you provided, as demonstrated by my arguments this far.

>>18008506
>n-no you can't shrug over meaningless points
>if my reply was meaningless then so was yours!!! no U!!
>[a paragraph expanding on a meaningless point]
Ok brother.

> the Christian has no advantage in [basing ethics on emotions]
Goalpost not met a single time, though I appreciat the "you FEEL like interpreting text" attempt.

>>18008511
>n-no you can't shrug over meaningless points
>if my reply was meaningless then so was yours!!! no U!!
If you didn't want me to reply to your point about post about post-christian society and felt like such a reply would derail the conversation, you shouldn't have posted it in the first place.
>Goalpost not met a single time, though I appreciat the "you FEEL like interpreting text" attempt.
I see you've completely given up on responding to my arguments. Grandstanding is all you have left!

>>18008531
>>[satire pointing out flaw of a specific argument]
>I see you've completely given up on responding to my arguments
Sure.

>>18008540
If you say I said something I didn't say, you can feel really good about yourself. That much is true.

>>18008543
Your argument was pretty bare in here: >>18008392
>It's built on how you feel like interpreting the Babble.
It's either pure ignorance of classical exegesis or it's a sad admission of how emotionally you yourself read texts. In either case it is factually wrong. Of course, you will not respond to this and instead argue how chinks and jeets agree on stuff.

I don't get it
Morality doesn't become objective just because you offload work on ancient jews
It's still YOUR preference to act in a way that aligns with the bible

>>18008551
Why are you being dishonest? As I already said, if you feel like my point about non-christian societies is derailing this conversation, you shouldn't have brought up the point about post-christian society. You can't make a point and the expect me not to reply to it.
Anyway, I see you've misunderstood my point. It's my bad really, I should've phrased it more clearly.
It is true that Christians will come up with the same or very similar interpretations of the big picture stuff. However, they will not agree on the small daily stuff. Like let's say you have some sort of disagreement with your coworker. Two Christians can easily view that very differently, both looking through a Biblical lens.
The result is a consensus on big picture stuff but disagreements about small daily stuff, which is on par with non-christians. Hence Christians have no advantage.
The rest of my argument was supporting the claim that either a)there is broad consensus about the big picture stuff or b)there is not broad consensus about the big picture stuff but your argument doesn't work because of this.

Imagine standing on a battlefield about to blow yourself up for the greater good.
What is the greater good?
If morality is objectiev there would be a clear answer.

>>18008560
>I don't get it
Nothings more impressive than being a retard

>>18008583
He's right though, why do you think you'd rape random women on the street and rob convenience stores if you didn't read stuff written by Babylonian rabbis?

>>18008570
That is not the argument quoted. QED

>The result is a consensus on big picture stuff but disagreements about small daily stuff, which is on par with non-christians. Hence Christians have no advantage.
On par with non-christians? Yall niggas can't decide what a woman is. Also, the advantage goalpost wasn't a consensus (where Christians definitely excel over atheists), it was stability of the ethical framework.

Ask yourself this.

Why do good?

Give a non selfish answer.
No, "it makes me feel good".
And saying i am scared of consequences doesnt make it out of the goodnes.

>>18008594
Because it's good.

Asking "why do good?" is like asking "why run with speed?"... that's just what running is.

>>18008588
>That is not the argument quoted.
I initially sketched out a brief point. When I clarified it in subsequent replies, you refused to engage with these clarifications. That's your problem, not mine.
>On par with non-christians? Yall niggas can't decide what a woman is.
If you want to make an argument with the following form:
>We all ought to be a Christian because otherwise there will be trannies.
That's fine by me.
>Also, the advantage goalpost wasn't a consensus (where Christians definitely excel over atheists), it was stability of the ethical framework.
If anything, Christians are consistently moving towards secular views on the topics where secularists and Christians differ.

>>18008586
If there's no God there is nothing wrong with those things.

>>18008600
I'm not talking about whether there's anything wrong with them, I'm talking about whether you'd do them. So are you honestly afraid you'd rape random women on the street and rob convenience stores had you not read the writings of Babylonian rabbis? It's a simple question.

>>18008599
>>On par with non-christians? Yall niggas can't decide what a woman is.
>If you want to make an argument with the following form:
>>We all ought to be a Christian because otherwise there will be trannies.
>That's fine by me.
Thanks for the approval. My argument was obviously that your judgement of non-christians having consensus was wrong lmao.
>If anything, Christians are consistently moving towards secular views on the topics where secularists and Christians differ.
They absolutely might, because they are getting more secular altogether. I will grant you all populational trends you like, Anon. It doesn't affect the argument and the goalposts which you adjusted and still missed.

>>18008597
>why run with speed
Why run in the first place?
Ypur argument is terrible.
Give me an answer, if there are no consequences why shouldnt i rape my crush.

>>18006419 (OP)
verse is a verse

>>18008607
>My argument was obviously that your judgement of non-christians having consensus was wrong lmao.
I never said non-christians had consensus regarding all epistemic questions. I said there was broad consensus regarding non-sexual normative questions.
>They absolutely might, because they are getting more secular altogether.
Then Christianity does not in fact offer the stability you talked about because Christian societies catastrophically failed at maintaining the first commandment.

>>18008609
You might have missed the metaphor so let me expand it a little:
You're asking for an explanation of the gap between something being good and something being worth doing. There is no such gap. Just like there isn't a gap between moving and having speed. It's the same obscured by semantics.

>>18008612
>I never said non-christians had consensus regarding all epistemic questions.
I'm aware. You just pretended the same people who can't agree on some of the most basic words actually come to massive normative agreement down the line. This is not accepted.
>Christian societies catastrophically failed at maintaining the first commandment
They probably failed at all of them. We are all sinners. The goalpost was neither this though.

>>18008615
Not trying to be direspectful i really am engaged in this coversation and try to learn something.
In fact i always thought the same way.
But recently my fews shifted and it seems morality is made up so weak don't get crushed by the strong.
So i ask again why should i not rape my crush if there are no consequences?

>>18008628
Because it's wrong. Again, there is no gap between "good" and "should" or between "bad" and "shouldn't". If you felt there was a gap there and that this gap was filled by karma causality or something, then your question is only natural, but if you omit a whole realm of reality from the answer (causation), you cannot possibly expect an answer that will be comprehensible in terms of "why" or "how".

>>18008616
>You just pretended the same people who can't agree on some of the most basic words actually come to massive normative agreement down the line. This is not accepted.
If you think there is such broad normative disagreement, I can use that to re-run the previous argument by replacing the "X" with normative stability.
>They probably failed at all of them. We are all sinners. The goalpost was neither this though.
Well my point is that if Christianity doesn't allow people to maintain normative stability on account of everyone becoming more secular, it does not actually matter if the teachings written in the Bible are stable. I can say the teachings written on some third wave feminist's blog are stable on account of being accessible via wayback machine, but that carries no real significance if it does not in fact create stable normative views among people.

>>18008638
Run anything you like, Anon. Your argument is not sound and I've showed you where.
>>They probably failed at all of them. We are all sinners. The goalpost was neither this though.
>Well my point is that if Christianity doesn't allow people to maintain normative stability
It absolutely does. They all knew killing was wrong.
>I can say the teachings written on some third wave feminist's blog are stable
Oh you absolutely can! And this would actually be more stable than mere emotion.

>>18008633
Imagine your a soldier.
You fight on the side of, mabe not good but at least lesser of two evils.
An enemy tank is rolling towards you. You get a belt grenades and crawl under it. Ready to sacrafice yourself you hear ypu comrades scream what are you dooing?
You shout back it is for the greater good and blow yourself up. You died for the greater good, but what excatly is this. What did you die for.

>>18008594
>Give a non selfish answer.
>No, "it makes me feel good".

>what's 2+2? DON'T SAY 4 GIVE ME A REAL ANSWER

>>18008628
It stems from empathy anon, which you demonstrably lack per your posts.

>>18008640
>Run anything you like, Anon. Your argument is not sound and I've showed you where.
You actually haven't. You pointed out where my argument does not address your original claim but a different one (desirability X stability), but you haven't shown that the desirability argument does not work. Now I'm saying that you can plug in a concrete variable to switch the same argument from desirability to stability.
>It absolutely does.
If it did, there would be no rise in secularism (i.e. destabilisation of the Christian normative paradigm regarding the first commandment).
>Oh you absolutely can! And this would actually be more stable than mere emotion.
If "stable" simply means that a text making a normative claim keeps existing, then yes. If it means that people will keep following a normative system, then no. If your claim is simply connected with the former, then it's fairly trivial.

>>18008647
>why are you giving bread to the homeless
>because i get a raging boner, also i wouldnt do it if this didnt happen

Wow really out of the goodnes of his heart.

>>18008656
I do good things because I treat other people the way I would like them to treat me. This isnt unique to the Bible almost every religion says this

>>18008656
A good heart is one that is happy when others thrive, anon.

>>18008653
Empathy, chemicals in the brain.
Idf you do goid because otherwise you will feel bad, wouldn't that be selfish. Other people feel good shoving someone in his locker.

>>18008661
Absolutely, but what determines if we have a good heart.
You probably say ourselves.
Then why not choose to have a bad heart wich thrives on suffering.
Sounds weird i know but still.

>>18008658
Would you sacraficf yourself for your familie?
You probably say yes.
Would you kill your familie in exchange for saving a hundred people?
You probably say yes.
Always trying to serve the greater good.
Now anon, what is the greatest good?

>>18006441
What are these better arguments?

>>18008759
Anything that doesn't appeal to morality but logic instead

>>18008794
I don't get it
All arguments use logic, the way they are structured. As far I understand
But no arguments appeal to logic. Arguments appeal to premises, but premises are not logic

I don't understand what an argument for God appealing to logic would looks like

>>18008055
>>18008076
How exactly does your psychopathy refute the fact that human life is sanctious though?

>>18009460
Is it?

>>18009569
Yes, but that's besides the point.
For example, a nudist wouldn't disprove the fact that humans have shame.

>>18009593
Proof it?

>>18009605
???

>>18009460
It doesn't

The point is that you claim it's objectively true that I shouldn't kill people. That means it's true for me not to do that, regardless of my subjective preferences.

But when I ask a real simple question, "Why shouldn't I kill?" You are unable to give me a reason, without appealing to my subjective preferences
this is because objective morality is a dumb half-baked position

>>18009607
>The live of others is important brcause uhh.. uhh

>>18009645
Post nudes with timestamp, then we'll talk.

>>18009649
Just answer why it is and i admit defeat.

other people are not me, I don't die when they die, I don't feel their pain, in a cold calculating atheist materialist universe it doesn't matter what happens to them

>>18009651
We are made in the image of God, not just mere matter in motion. That's why. This is Biblical theology 101.

>>18009665
Everything god wants is morally right.
Its just perchance that he doesn't wan't you torturing people.

>>18009644
Give me a reason I shouldn't kill, that is true independent of my subjective values and goals

This thread is starting to make me think that the only reason religious code exists is to constrain subhuman psychopaths from going postal.

>>18009679
It's less about want but more so about His nature.
You have to reflect Him, and using our free will to detract from His nature is called sin.
For example, stealing is a sin because God is not a thief.

So when you are admitting that you're wrong?

>>18009689
Morality concerns what we should, and shouldn't, do

I don't understand why I *should* care about detracting from God's nature
I don't care about sinning, I just want to steal
Why shouldn't I steal?

>>18009691
>If I reject responsibility, then what am I responsible for?

>>18009689
>his nature
You are impliying he doesn't have free will
Why would an all powerfull (no consequences) and all knowing (always knows what the best solution is) beeing choose out of his free will to be good?

>>18009696
What are you even talking about?

>>18009694
Right, so if I (subjectively) care about being a responsible person. This all sorts itself our rather nicely.
I think morality depends on people's subjective values, so this is perfectly understandable on my view.


Your view is the one that is left mute, and unable to answer the most simple question

>>18009697
What do you not understand about what i wrote?

Why does god choose out of his free will to be good?

If you say he is by nature, then its not out of his free will.

>>18009695
I am just asking for a reason not to steal, that doesn't hinge on me subjectively disvaluing stealing, the consequences of stealing, etc

I've yet to be provided with a reason.
People just tell me God is so big and strong, or God will be sad if I do, stuff like that.
But I am asking for a reason that is applicable to ME. Not how God feels about it.

>>18009705
You will be held accountable regardless of what you care about.

>>18009709
Yes, I understand that.

I don't understand - why I shouldn't steal, regardless of what I care about.
Which is what's being claimed by people who put forward objective morality.

>>18009705
You can play gods sure but I don't see why someone stronger has to entertain your delusional bullshit.
>Your view is the one that is left mute, and unable to answer the most simple question
>The question in question: >>18009694

Imagine a different universe with a different god.
Yet this good thinks it's really funmy to push children down the stairs. It would be morally right to do this. And a morally good society would even encourage such behaviour.

>>18009709
So this would NOT be a reason, unless I subjectively care about being held accountable.
I'm still waiting for a reason that is objectively true

>>18009719
Because it's wrong. See >>18008633, you're asking "why does A=B when B=A". It's the same thing.

>>18008645
For loyalty, for justice, for home, for your family, I cannot guess what a soldier's motivation would be.

>>18009722
average mexican birthday party

>>18009721
God can hurt me all he wants. He got that power, right?
I'm not saying God can't do that.

I just want a reason that is applicable to me, that doesn't hinge on my subjective preferences

>>18009725
To clear things up let me ask: Do you think you "subjectively" care about being or non-being?

>>18009726
banging the table and going like: "NO! You REALLY should"
is not a reason that applies to someone who doesn't care

>>18009726
The greater good.
Yet you haven't answered what it is.

>>18009730
Everything I care about would be subjective. I don't understand t he question.
It's not like I objectively care about stuff, that would be using the word incorrectly

>>18009733
Banging the table and saying "reasons don't exist unless I subjectively say they do" is not a valid stance for anyone. The reason objectively exists. That you choose not to consider it is your problem.

>>18009737
I gave 3 examples.

>>18009738
Okay so your question boils down to "if all reasons are subjective, which reason is objective?" Your premise is your conclusion, it's a circularly reasoned stance.

>>18009740
I still do not know what this greater good is.

>>18009744
See >>18009726. If spelling it out in multiple instances is not comprehensible enough to you then I suppose I'm just not capable of explaining things as simply as you need and I'm fine disengaging, your call.

>>18009740
You could have said love, the live of others or gods will. And still i can ask why is this the greater good. Yet you can't answer that, ergo you don't even know what is morally right.

>>18009753
I could have added any number of greater goods to the list and you could have any number of questions about them.... so?

>>18009758
Say Civil war starts in your country one side wants to push children down the stairs and make it law to do so. The other side doesnt. Wich do you join.
There will be follow up questions.

>>18009767
All things be equal I would join the one that is against pushing children down the stairs.

>>18009773
Ok, why i will als join the same side. Why did you choose this side?

>>18009776
Because causing needless harm is bad and I am not aware of any need for kids bruised from stairs.

Why do you care about the lives of other people?

>>18006419 (OP)
You know, today I was wondering why did the bible not forbade splitting the atom or refining uranium to prevent we from building weapons of mass destruction

>>18006571
and I stopped believing it at age 6 when I saw brown "people" for the first time.

>>18009780
they're conscious beings like me I suppose which is interesting, the problem is they are mostly malicious and a threat

>>18010081
If they're mostly malicious and a threat wouldn't it be cool to have law to put them in their place?

>>18010081
How does this prove theyr lives are of importance?
An advanced AI is to some degree concious.

>>18009069
I mean instead of using something ambiguous like morality to prove god you use reality and it's logic instead, meaning stuff like intelligent design, the question of why there's something instead of nothing, why reality is so conveniently this way with it's law and order and symmetry, all point to a first cause and a sort of intelligence if you will.

>>18009739
Sorry about suddenly stopping replying, had someone pull me away from the computer

>reasons don't exist unless I subjectively say they do
This is not what I'm trying to say.
My critique is against a specific type of reason, that motivates my actions - how I should act
or rather that I'm never provided with such a reason - that doesn't hinge on what I subjectively care about (shared values, avoiding harm, consequences, personal goals, etc)

People do things because of reasons, right?
I don't understand what it would mean for me to have a reason to do something that I don't care about
But this is precisely what's being claimed by moral realists. That I have a reason to do the good, be moral. Regardless of how I feel about the matter, and my subjective goals, desires and values. It's objectively true that I should do the good.
That doesn't make sense to me!

Why should I do the good?
If we remove the subjective reasons, IE: suppose I don't care
No one can explain this to me.

And the conclusion of this line of inquietly, what I'm trying to draw out by telling you "I don't understand" again and again,
is that there is nothing to understand, objective morality is incoherent, it makes no sense when examined from this angle

most people don't commit murder for several reaons, any non-retard would be aware of the social circumstances, basic human empathy, probably have some fear of death themself, and not think it's worth it to cause so much damage and face severe repercussions.

if someone is only willing to not kill people because they don't want to be punished then they are probably going to do it anyway because they have the intent to.

>>18010172
>intelligent design
so you do mean the dumb&funny arguments

I just wanna know why should i do good.

>>18010172
Intelligent design is an argument from biology, right?
And it just seems to appeal to the intuition/feeling that God is a better explanation of animals, than evolutionary theory. It doesn't really explain why that is the case. At least not successfully so, imo.

This is really not what I think about, when I hear the word 'logic'.
It seems much the same kind of argument as why God is a better explanation of morality, than non-god theories