Is it possible to refute the idea that even in atheism we still assume most of the same moral premises of religion? Is secular humanism really just our modern form of religion?

The usual reply is that the values you're presumably referring to are not caused by religion, but by biology, and are thus prior to it. If you're talking about something more specific, you'll have to elaborate.

What moral premises do I, an atheist, assume? That stealing killing raping eating poo scamming are bad? A groundbreaking thought right there.
>Is secular humanism really just our modern form of religion?
You could argue this from the angle of "they believe in believing nothing", which is retarded no less. But from the viewpoint of "assuming moral values"? No. Having morals and values is not a religion.

Don't know shit about religion or moral philosophy or anything really, I just go with the flow. So far I haven't murdered or raped anyone so it seems to work

>>24528488
The argument in this book is that modern science has proven that humans are just animals and our humanist beliefs are a holdover from Christian humanism. A true atheist would not hold humanist views or look at human life as optimistically as we do. The rational thing would be to view the world as hopeless, cruel, indifferent, miserable for the vast majority of people, etc. Instead we believe in things like progress, equality, moral duty and freedom. These things should not even be a consideration for a true atheist, which means we really aren’t true atheists or irreligious at all today

>>24528468 (OP)
"Least harm" is the only moral framework that is not distinctly Abrahamic, or even moral at all. If you are looking for an escape from religion, aim for "least harm". I know it seems contradictory; On one hand, it implies that other moral systems do not aim for least harm, on another, it implies a certain overwhelming, scientific supremacy to this moral system. Both true... But "least harm" is an empty term. Harm—for who, how is it measured, what is harm, who can be harmed, what harm is justified &c&c... "Least harm" is shorthand for "Nothing at all", or "most agreeable to me". Harm is subjective, what is justified is subjective, what is prohibited is entirely fluid, what is "least harm" beholden to the rhetoric of the given situation. If the data proved that there would be less harm in allowing a subset of adults to skull fuck a certain subset of non-conscious post-natals ... who are you to argue against the science?

Other systems create these pseudo-religious dogmatic principles e.g., "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" or "Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen", even "Freiheit statt Demokratie", within each an enumerated set of laws and proscriptions that are sanctified with all the zeal of worshiper at the feet of his God. It isn't merely a legal issue to violate the SECOND AMMENDMENTS, the CIVIL RIGHTS, the HUMANITIES, it is a religious one. True, one may say that the average "progressive" is as religious and as zealous for his own NOTHING as any man might be for his GOODNESS and VIRTUE. I mean only that this zeal is of a fundamentally different character than all prior faiths and creeds. It is morality absent the good. It is the religious enshrinement of, quite literally, NOTHING AT ALL. One may ask why a rational people who value their skepticism and rationality above all else could so fervently argue for any such idiosyncratic postion, knowing that they do the academic opinion on what constitutes "least harm" varies wildly not only by centuries or decades, but by election ... nonetheless, they take to the streets, hold lamplit vigils, shriek and cry, eyes red and fists beating at the breast for NOTHING, as if they mean to appease the great NOTHING for doing NOTHING AT ALL, which will then be overturned FOR NO REASON, to achieve NOTHING—and if not? Then NOTHING.

To answer your question OP, yes it is possible. "Least harm", or "NOTHING". Those who believe in "least harm" are the absolute refutation of good, and the majority, conscious of it or not, already worship NOTHING.

>>24528468 (OP)
That doesn't make sense from an anthropological perspective.

>>24528509
If everyone saw that way, culture would fail to take root as people wouldn't see any reason to formulate it in the first place

Nietzsche is correct that trying to have Christian-style morality without belief in Christ is a fool's errand that is destined to unravel.

>>24528557
>Abrahamic
how does that refute OP bout being secular humanistic? To be individual means recognizing others 'outside', others that follow the one means then there is a 'inside' group.
>Other systems
<you> ARE the other system, you preach on grandeur but assume it yourself. You talk about "less harm" but point at nothing. The life it leads to is circular padding you have to show everyone you carry everyday that says, "I won't hurt myself"

>>24528509
>value judgement
>"rational thing"
Lmao.

People believe in "things like progress, equality, moral duty and freedom" because it feels and works better to do so, than to be an Underground Man insufferable to everyone including himself. They believed that before and independently of Christianity and continue to do so after, Christianity was just one of the forms that such a tendency took.

>>24528620
This seems to be an AI assisted reply, because you failed to understand the post. For example
><you> ARE the other system,
Is irrelevant because the post doesn't claim moral supremacy of anything in an objective sense and
>circular padding
(being good) is the point of the post. The conclusion is that of all ethical systems, only that of "least harm" does not adhere to any form of morality, and the fact that it generally reflects secular humanism is a biproduct of it being new and not having had the time to challenge every single moral axiom yet.

Implicitly, I also answer
>Is secular humanism really just our modern form of religion?
with "Yes."

>>24529128
>The conclusion is that of all ethical systems,
*Prominent. I'm sure you can conjure up teenage "Stirnerites" or any other system that 0.4% of people believe, which all end up being suspiciously similar in effect to humanism of some variety.

>>24528847
Yes I’m aware that the average person is utilitarian cattle who goes through life believing in quasi-religious nonsense “just because”

Samefag here
>>24529128
>"Is it possible to refute the idea that even..."
was OP's question.
After reading all that circular padding "tl;dr" shit about my post you still prove - and will probably continue to - that <you> act just like a Christian that will die on this hill as a shillbot.
>btw, Straw Man comes included, complete the whole set, kids!

>>24529834
Do you have a diagnosed mental deficit or are you still using an AI summary?

>>24529834
>"Is it possible to refute the idea that even..." was OP's question.
Also it's surprising that you weren't able to grasp that the post itself was an answer to this. Did you want it at the kindergarten level?

Are his newer books about the decline of liberalism worth reading? I hear mixed reactions.

>>24528509
>A true atheist would not hold humanist views
A true atheist is anybody who believes deities don't exist. That's it, that's what the word means.

>>24528468 (OP)
While it's true that decent people will arrive at the same conclusions and behave decently regardless of the belief system they're raised with, the same does not apply to the large percentage of humanity that only behaves with any semblance of humanity because they fear retribution from spiritual forces and deities if they don't

>>24528509
philosophy? That humanist beliefs are just nonsensical assumptions. I don’t think postmodernism advocates for anything antihuman like this book seemingly does but point is this isn’t really a new idea.
And honestly whatever humanistic beliefs people hold today feels like a response to postmodernism by regressing into modernism. Where they acknowledge there’s nothing to be known but you might as well do it just to do it. Be optimistic because there’s nothing else to do. Like if this book was listened to nothing would be done. What’s the point of being pessimistic? It’s not any more real anyway. And even if humans were just animals that doesn’t mean humans are inherently bad. I (and I think most people) think nature is still good and beautiful even with the blood and violence

>>24530193
Isn’t this just postmodern philosophy?* And my bad I meant enlightenment/humanist

>>24528507
Don't be so sure of that. Pride comes before the fall.

>>24528468 (OP)
Fear molds the atheist.

>>24530090
yes, please take me there, I believe we were already on that tracking. The imagination <you> are using is captivating, keep going.

>>24530068
>o'rly, you don't even

>>24530429
>>24530425
>o'rly, you don't even
Yes, you don't.
>keep going.
Sure. You first misunderstood the post here:
>how does that refute OP bout being secular humanistic?
Because the post in itself provided the answer. The answer was "yes", because the comparison between very secular ethical philosophies and religion was explicit. OP's first question was
>Is it possible to refute the idea that even in atheism we still assume most of the same moral premises of religion?
And the post provided a partial solution; The "moral premises of religion" in this case are the ones that founded western secular humanism, largely Christianity and the specific style of Abrahamism (this can be extended to many religions, like Hinduism, although I only speak of what is directly related). The absolute refutation of this is any form of consequentialist ethic, primarly those that justify themselves by "least harm". In the post, I argue this point by comparing the unshakable dogmas of humanistic ideals — of freedom, of equality, of love — with the absolute null of utilitarianism.

Yes, it is true that everything must be interpreted subjectively. But there is only so far that you can stretch "The right to keep and bear arms", or "Thou shalt not steal", or "don't rape" before it breaks. This dogmatic law based moral system is an essential part of Abrahamism. Something is not good because it causes people to be happy, it good because God, or in other words the circular justification of Good, says it is Good. The 1st Amendment is not justified by its goodness, or by the lives it saves, or by the harm reduces, it is justified merely by its enshrinement as the First of laws. Sure, it may be amended, the Bible may as well, but watch the masses cry out, again, with religious fervor.

In contrast, consequentialist "least harm" forms a totally empty signifier. There is meaning in "do not steal" if only in the action itself of taking that which is not your property (this again is subjective, but there is an action), but there is no meaning in "least harm". Do not steal — unless it is the least harm. Do not skull fuck babies — unless it is the least harm. Do not X, unless it is the least harm. Even "harm" is an empty signifier. Do not 'X' unless whatever 'Y' you want. There is no amendment or law or dogma which supercedes this "dogma"; The final law is NOTHING.

This is the short of it. Common utilitarians do not abide by pure utilitarianism and often mystify the process with "humility" or "authenticity", or fully dilute it into secular humanism with freedom or autonomy. Yet in stark contrast to the osseous, monolithic mass of "religious" GOOD is the fluid, vaporeous, and ineffable NOTHING. This is the truest expression of atheist morality, and the solution I gave OP.

>>24530425
>>24530429
>>24530686
Everything else you have raised is a misunderstanding or irrelevant.
><you> ARE the other system
Is a misunderstanding because you moralize my position, likely because you felt your specific belief was attacked.
>You talk about "less harm" but point at nothing.
This is an idiotic statement, as if I ought to point somewhere at all. I am answering OP's question.
>The life it leads to is circular padding you have to show everyone you carry everyday that says, "I won't hurt myself"
Yes. That is the essential point. This is not a critique, you are only reiterating what I said back to me.
>btw, Straw Man comes included, complete the whole set, kids!
No straw man was used. You mean "ad hominem", although it wasn't an argument. An ad hominem bases a refutation on an attack on character, whereas I was only insulting you for being an imbecile before moving on.
>After reading all that circular padding "tl;dr" shit about my post you still prove - and will probably continue to - that <you> act just like a Christian that will die on this hill as a shillbot.
And? This is not an argument. Where is the "circular padding"? What do you think I'm trying to justify? This is you moralizing and attacking something that does not exist.

Now whine that it's too long because you're just the kind of illiterate pseud who can't read on the literature board. Typical for /lit/.

>>24530283
Shit bro, you were right, I was just walking down the road and thought to myself, why don't I rape and murder? It's logically sound after all, so I went on a bit of a spree, it seems I'm wanted in at least three states, if only I hadn't read this thread

>>24528468 (OP)
The initial position is flawed because it assumes that mortality is not possible without religion, and that it did not exist before it

>>24530701
He likely means in the sense that you believe it is justified. This would be a semantic game on "murder". He says you must adhere to likely Christian doctrines because only the Bible or the Church can inform you on when such and such is justified. He's not literally saying you will rape and murder arbitrarily.

>>24530704
He doesn't say it isn't possible without religion, just that our modern morality is entirely based on the premises of Christianity

>>24530727
I would argue that actually it is the premises of Christianity that are based on a more fundamental morality than it

>>24530698
>thank fuckin everything above
>was this post that difficult?
The first linear and well structured post all day from you, twat. After sifting through your 'mah power level' bs, <you> made fucking sense. Either way, there's nothing to explain because "blah blah my lamenting bedlam."

>>24530756
Kek, I'm glad you liked the kindergarten treatment. This board is a crude satire.

>>24530768
samefag here.
>I am thankful of those that relish discourses contently. It is a bane to those that cast their nets long, haphazard, and hewed.

>>24530705
>>24530727
>>24530745
It's a weird thing. The author is perpetuating and confirming what he heard or read on the internet to chew it in his mouth a few minutes and spit it out for everyone - imho. Guess that is what sells a book now, idk.
Christians were not the first to come up with these magical keywords anon here >>24530686 uses everywhere, and what are easily found everywhere there is a society. What anon fails at is here, performing the perusal simultaneously casting the normalized assumption/projection/deflection routine.
>Is a misunderstanding because you moralize my position, likely because you felt your specific belief was attacked.
This routine could now easily be labeled 'cult-tivated' 'white magic' - or simply 'white magic'. It surfaces regularly, it's easy to induce others to mimic, and again here >>24530160 shows that most of the time these weird 'athiests' just carry that name around as a banner and use others as their discount "human values" meat shields. Thus, just by their actions, a value CAN be added to their system.

>>24528509
If I already felt like this, believed this. Is it worth reading?

>>24528468 (OP)
Humanism is a belief system. A belief system does not require a deity. It also doesn't need to be based in facts.
Atheistic humanism is a belief system that's in the atheistic sense adherent to logical positivism but in the humanistic sense directly opposed to it.
The humanism remains (for now) because it's a useful model for handling social interactions. When it stops being useful to those in power, it goes away.

>>24532097
>Christians were not the first to come up with these magical keywords anon here uses everywhere, and what are easily found everywhere there is a society.
Of course, but OP's question is asking for whether we can refute the basis of modern morality being religion. Because it is fairly reasonable that all societies will have traits in common (like 'don't murder') we must find what is distinctly religious in law.
>Mark 10:18
>And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
>St. Augustine, Confessions, Book VII:
>Did not my God, Who is not only good, but goodness itself?
>...
>For corruption does no ways impair our God; by no will, by no necessity, by no unlooked-for chance: because He is God, and what He wills is good, and Himself is that good;
>...
>seeing God, the Good, hath created all these things good. He indeed, the greater and chiefest Good, hath created these lesser goods; still both Creator and created, all are good
>St. Aquinas (Summa Theologica I)
>he called God the absolute good, from whom all things are called good by way of participation.
>Everything is therefore called good from the divine goodness, as from the first exemplary, effective, and final principle of all goodness. Nevertheless, everything is called good by reason of the similitude of the divine goodness belonging to it, which is formally its own goodness, whereby it is denominated good. And so of all things there is one goodness, and yet many goodnesses.
The essence is that the law is not justified, but rationalized. The law is good because it is Good (because it is of God, because it is God). As an example, stealing a dollar from a billionaire that does not affect him is wrong in itself, with no concern for the magnitude or the consequence of the act itself. It is wrong because, and for no other reason, than that stealing is prohibited. When an act is justified by its effect rather than its status as good- or bad-in-itself, then it is not religious.

Thus when a man kills another, and you judge punishing him by some calculus results in more harm than not, then it is not religious, it is "least harm". But to punish when there is no benefit but to exact "Good", that is religious.

Hindus:
The ending of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ is extremely good and contains a similar Good = God quotation:
>Good is the Intellect which comprehends
>The coming forth and going back of life,
>What must be done, and what must not be done,
>...
>Good is the steadfastness whereby a man
>Masters his beats of heart, his very breath
>Of life, the action of his senses; fixed
>In never-shaken faith and piety:
>...
>Whoso performeth--diligent, content--
>The work allotted him, whate'er it be,
>Lays hold of perfectness! Hear how a man
>Findeth perfection, being so content:
>He findeth it through worship--wrought by work--
>Of Him that is the Source of all which lives,
>Of HIM by Whom the universe was stretched.

>>24532097
>>24532575
I am also not unaware that "least harm" can be thought of as a dogma and a "Good" in itself, but I have briefly explained the difference and can further separate them. But to re-iterate, it is not possible to refute the claim that modern secular humanism is religious in nature. Religiosity seems to be inherent to human beings, even those utilitarians take on a religious character when calling for absurd policies. When speaking purely of a moral frameworks and NOT the characteristics of their participants, only that of forms of consequentialism can sufficiently distance themselves from dogmas to question everything, and go beyond freedom and dignity. The participants themselves may believe religiously first that removing tissues from the brain presents the least harm, then in twenty years the opposite, then they will reverse in sixty, then again... Because "least harm" prohibits nothing, it is nothing.

>>24532575
>refute the basis of modern morality being religion?
>The essence is that the law is not justified, but rationalized!
Indeed. The average "atheist" does not conceptualize these two ideas at the same time, imho, because of modern influencing media causing confoundedness to the base. Now obscure reasoning, it seems - for the better - is actually getting replaced by mature and recognized concepts where <they> seem less alien (maybe that is an indirect consequence, idk) I think the title of OP's book is critical and does not adorn any honor to the individuals/groups wherein - just another symbol of revulsion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e6a7SW8wZA

>>24528468 (OP)
The pursuit of Eudaimonia is the only real grounding for morality, and it is not a religious one.

>>24532185
It’s worth reading yes. It has an aphoristic style inspired by Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, a lot of interesting tidbits about history and philosophy and our intense hypocrisy in modern times.

>>24532602
It’s less so that atheism itself is a form of religion, and more that secular humanism basically is, and it happens that the vast majority of atheists are secular humanists by a very massive margin. It has been said over the centuries so many times, but it really bears repeating because of how true it is that most people today are zombified spiritual Christians who still believe in the good-in-and-of-itself

>>24533444
To make it clear, I have not called atheism a religion, only the same as you do.

>>24533432
>>24532185
YEsss, Rread it anon, it is like a cookbook for UR brainz, just like the old brownies recipe from so and so way back.
>lol

>>24533444
>>24533555
>wasted digits
you talk in circles and interject dumb shit into what you say - that's what you should "make clear" to yourself - instead of writing to anons assume are complete idiots and need these fucktard points beared.

>>24534335
What are you even seething about

>>24534384
I think it's an ESL (?) or someone using ChatGPT

>>24530727
So what does he want us to do? Return to Paganism? His nihilist ass would complain it rests on its own moral axioms, and you can't create society or culture without having moral boundaries. It just doesn't square circle.

>>24530701
Well if you say so. As far as I'm concerned, using Gray's scientism against itself, there's no claim to truth, and logical fallacies are just another way for his ilk to control discourse and shape narratives. Following that, now you need to prove a negative.

>>24534564
I don't even know what he wants honestly. He's one of those people who shits on liberalism and Enlightenment beliefs but then readily confesses that liberal society is better than all others. I think he just wants to be ahead of the curve in predicting the liberal West's decline among all his intellectual circle, and finds satisfaction from that.

God is the means whereby "is" becomes "ought", because God (as a concept) is capable of justifying the infusion of duty and obligation into bare facts. If there is no God then no "is" can ever yield an "ought" and all human mental concepts are rendered as unreal, merely impotent thoughts. For example the relationship of "parent" and "child" is unreal. The biological relation is concrete, but anything beyond that bare fact, like what parenthood entails or what actions it obligates the parent/child to perform (or not perform), is unreal and has no binding power over anyone. No one can be obligated to do or not do any thing, for any reason, ever. That doesn't mean God is real -- that sort of argument is silly -- but that's the consequence of God's nonexistence, which most "atheists" are not willing to admit.

>>24534837
Why is it silly, though?

>>24534880
Because finding the result of a proposition to be distasteful or intolerable does not render the proposition false.

>>24528468 (OP)

>>24534837
>without God, parents taking care of their children would be nonsense
Are Christians actually this fucking dumb?

>>24534913
This book is anti-reddit

>>24534995
>filtered by metaphysical arguments
Sad!

>>24534384
>>24534409
>>24534995
Congrats to all of <you>, all of which got lost in the tall grass - you've successfully proven why OP's book is named "Straw Dogs"

>>24535140
I beg to differ honestly

>>24534889
Okay if that's the case then look up evopsych studies on rape.

>>24535163
>muh metaphysics
>when simple biology (continuation of the species) already addresses it
You people are fucking tryhard pseuds.

>>24535240
Its not that simple, though. Metaphysics is a higher level process to biology. Putting epistemology before metaphysics is putting the cart before the horse and is one of the errors of modernism.

>>24535240
>>24535171
>>24535167
Literally posting about a book about straw dogs
>definition : one who fetches straw, as for a fire
>ye olde definition : one who fetches fags/faggots, as for a fire.
Get a clue fuckin niggers

This thread is proof of the empty internet theory

>>24534409
wouldn't want to overwhelm <you> with too much pajeetPT so here's >>24535485

>>24535496
yes, the ancient conundrum of, "I'm not surrendering to my erection - I am the erection!"

>>24528468 (OP)
>refute...assume...moral premise
Yes, because: morality is not something employed universally, esp. religious, and esp. everyday. Most universally WELL KNOWN morality is not common either - it is specially selected from an individual - usually not known by many - which brought together many more others under their umbrella - that a single choice led to the the populous receiving helpful rewards leading to surprising prosperity.
By and through that selection process, most would answer "no" because they already live within a populous that has received those rewards.
>secular humanism...modern form of religion
The former is loosely reinforced by actions - which could be either deception/reception of the notions of the majority of the body. It has no inclusive reward(s) except an individual to feel accepted/rejected.
The latter has strong reinforcement, has many organs that filter through deception/reception of issues, makes decisions as "organically" as human kind allows, and then reaches throughout their other parts - temple, church, community center(s), etc. - to establish what that means reflexively (maintenance, service output, reformation, etc.)
The appearance(s) of one group can/will seem to make one decide if the others' idea(s) collaborate/discriminate their own - this is a natural human fight/flight syndrome that reaches beyond every era.

>>24532602
>>24533444
Anons clearly have not read the Greeks. Eudaimonia does not require religion or dogma.

>>24535919
thanks for the recommendation, anon.
>>24528557
>least harm
borrowed from the medical field "do no harm" to make one feel like they are living a well surgically manicured thesis of a life. Ironic how often one calls themselves "individual" and "free", but, "if you don't do it this way it's wrong."

>>24535942
>believing "least harm" = immorality = imperfect = not nothingness
>believing "no harm" = morality = perfect = everything

>>24534995
I'm not a Christian. There's nothing about having a child that can obligate you to take care of it. There's nothing that can bridge the "is" to create an "ought".
>>24535240
Biology can't obligate you to do something. You may feel a biological urge to do it, but you have no actual duty to do that thing.

The modern "atheist" humanist:
>Christians try to give reasons for why you have to follow their moral code, which makes them bad people
>I won't give any reasons for following my moral code and that makes me a good person because I don't need reasons, and if you ask me for reasons that makes you a bad person
>My moral code is 95% the same as Christians but my moral code is logical and scientific and NOT based on Christianity (no I will not explain it logically, are you a bad person or something?)
>That 5% difference in morality is what makes me a good person and the Christian a bad person
>If you disagree with me on anything you best have a good reason for it but I'm not going to listen to it because if you disagree with my self-evident (NOT Christian) moral code then you are a bad person
>By the way here is my consent-based argument on why it's okay to have sex with dogs

>>24535485
Would scarecrows suit you better?

>>24536410
>Strawman
Cringe, anon. Christians can't even decide whether God commands good because it is good, or whether good is good because God commands it.

>>24536727
Meanwhile you can't know what its like if you didn't eat breakfast this morning

>>24536729
You must be American. Pitiful.

>>24536727
No, I'm an atheist and I'd say that's an accurate representation of my interaction with other atheists. You're basically Christian moralists who pretend that you aren't, along with the same religious self-righteousness. And if anyone points it out to you, you assume you're dealing with a Christian.
>Christians can't decide between blah blah
So? Do you think that means you have some kind of leg up on them? They disagree on something while you can't give any reasons whatsoever. You might be more blindly religious than they are.

>>24528468 (OP)
>Is secular humanism really just our modern form of religion?
That would also make religion "just an archaic form of secular humanism" and that's a seethenvke.

>>24536797
It wouldn't, because secular humanism itself is baseless imitation of religious morality.

>>24536805
>immediate demonstration of the seethe
See? Seethenvke.

>>24536807
I'm an atheist, I'm not seething. The idea is just dumb.

>>24536807
Basically you're just ignoring the criticism and trying to spin it around with words. That's usual for secular humanists though since they can't give any arguments for anything they believe, and are just retarded moralfags.

>>24536817
solid, anon, you have a point - and it does contrast with the avg <atheist> like night and day.
>>24536807
illegitimate immediately - discounting the breath taking minute for you to make your judgement
>>24536805
anyways, I think the "humanism" part of the OP argument is what is throwing many off. It could have simply been about "secularism" but it is not. The humanism issue imo implies there had been a separation/transcendence from the "being" part, simply. From a logical perspective: a simple outcome implies a complex system, and, a complex outcome implies a simple system. I agree the author has a big case for writing this book today among the convolution from a word with simple definition/explanation to what flowered into some kind of impractical-magic believing group.
>>24536589
It does, I think the term straw dogs is diminutive.

>>24528594
No, Nietzsche is full of shit as usual.
Every adult has a conscience (formalised by Freud as the superego), which is a function of his socio-tribal instincts.
You can't pretend your conscience doesn't exist without serious psychological consequences. As Nietzsche himself found out ...

>>24536956
>I have le feefees so I have to obey them or idk
>t. most intelligent atheist humanist

>>24536969
>I have le feefees so I have to obey them
You certainly need to reach a compromise with them, or you'll foster an internal confict that leads to neurosis.
Like I said, don't take my word for it - read about Nietzsche's life.

>>24536975
At least you seem willing to admit that i have no moral obligations whatsoever and can do literally anything I want. Good job.

>>24536815
>>24536817
>>24536942
Oh my Sc-ence the chain reaction keeps expanding!

>>24536979
No, your reading comprehension is clearly lacking.
You have moral obligations to your superego.

>>24537011
>You have moral obligations to your superego.
I do not.

>>24537021
Your superego disagrees.

>>24537092
Okay
*does action anyway*
Now what?

>>24537096
You have the remorse to look forward to. It will come eventually. Have fun with that.

>>24537102
The possibility of remorse does not obligate me to not perform an action. An action having a consequence does not obligate me to not perform it. It's not possible for me to have an obligation in any sense, ever, for any reason, unless a "god" exists to confer such a thing upon me, otherwise an "obligation" is just a thought in the brain, and not something that has any ontological bearing on a person.

>>24537105
>a "god" exists
Okay
*anon sins anyway*
Now what?

>>24537105
>The possibility of remorse does not obligate me to not perform an action
Of course it does. An obligation can be broken if you choose, but your superego will reassert it sooner or later.
The law obliges people not to rob liquor stores, but it still happens. An obligation still exists, even if you violate it.

>>24537113
If a "god" existed, you could be imputed "guilt" on an ontological level independent of your mind, as an attribute of your "being".

>>24537130
>The law obliges people not to rob liquor stores, but it still happens.
Human laws don't obligate people to not do things (this would only be true if a "god" existed to give laws ontological bearing). Laws are unreal mental concepts and are at most threats. If I tell you to give me your lunch money or I'll shove you in a locker, you are not obligated to give me your lunch money.

>>24537136
>If I tell you to give me your lunch money or I'll shove you in a locker, you are not obligated to give me your lunch money
I would be if I didn't want to be shoved in the locker. Is this really so hard to understand?
You break an obligation, you face the consequences. That's all I'm saying.

>>24537142
>I would be if I didn't want to be shoved in the locker. Is this really so hard to understand?
It is, because you are not talking about obligation, you're merely talking about how you choose to respond to a threat. There is not anything "obligating" you, you are not being conferred a "duty" that you must perform. You are just making a personal decision about how to respond to something.

>>24537142
>I would be if I didn't want to be shoved in the locker.
Also "wanting" something does not obligate you. Suppose that I want a hamburger. I am not "obligated" to acquire a hamburger. I do not have a "duty" to acquire a hamburger. It's simply a desire that I have. I can acquiesce to it or not.

>>24537146
>There is not anything "obligating" you
You mean threatening someone with force isn't obligating them? Coercion is obviously a form of obligation.
But really, these word games are boring. My point is that your superego will punish you for actions it considers immoral. You are not free from the moral consequences of your actions.

>>24537151
Luckily, you are not forced into a position of choosing if, or when, to get a hamburger. If somebody threatens to push you into a locker, you are *obligated* to decide there and then.

>>24537159
>>24537168
I think I need to clarify what I am talking about. When I say "obligation", I mean an ontological duty to perform or not perform an action. I'm not using the word casually to mean anything that motivates a person to do something. Your definition is too casual as well, since the terms "force someone" and "make it necessary" have no bearing on anything, they're just being used as stand-ins for laws/coercion, which can be disobeyed with no ontological weight.
>If somebody threatens to push you into a locker, you are *obligated* to decide there and then.
I have obligation (ontological duty) to do any particular thing in that situation, anymore than I have an obligation (ontological duty) to choose to continue breathing at any given moment.

>>24537175
>I have obligation (ontological duty) to do any particular thing in that situation
I have no* obligation

left a word out

>>24537175
Fair enough. The only point I'm interested in making is this one >>24536956
Nietzsche thought he was free from the demands of morality. He was dead wrong, and suffered for it in the end.

>>24528588
It's almost like if every civilization we know were based on religious thought... Waow...

>>24536956
That's why I prefer Hegel, keep your mind into : logic, spirit, art, aesthetics, world history...

>>24536769
Personally I resonate with the Greek notion of Eudaimonia and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics as a way to achieve it. Nothing "Christian moralist" about that. In fact, most of Christian morals are themselves poached from earlier traditions.

>>24536410
>>24536769
>>24538437
I'm even going to expand my answer because your original post was so off base. Let me make it absolutely clear: I find the practice of ritual human sacrifice gross and far from feeling clean by accepting the benefits of such a sacrifice, I would feel eternally filthy. I'll let Lovecraft explain how incompatible Christianity is with actual Western ethics.