Why are atheists so interested in tempting people to judge other people?

>>510714793 (OP)
This is the most loaded thread on the internet right now.
What a stupid question.
Judgment.

>>510715219 Let me put it in another way:
Why are atheists so interested in tempting people to judge the Sons of God?
Can you answer me that, atheist?

>>510715515
I can absolutely answer it.
It's because religion inserts itself into every avenue of life that it can. Christianity to an atheist is the jew to a man who just wants to be left alone. You never, ever, ever hear from an atheist whom someone hasn't tried to indoctrinate into an ideology on the basis that it's magical and you'll get rewards after you die.

Atheists aren't the aggressors. The perpetrators of things like the inquisition, Sharia law and state and national laws being created arbitrarily to reflect religious beliefs of one portion of the population.

You can call me whatever you want to. It doesn't matter. Your assertion is based upon your own ignorance alone.

>>510716120
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son
Atheists really can't reason. Why even bother trying to read the Sacred Scriptures if you'll always be unable to interpret it in a meaningful way?

>>510716253
>be unable to interpret it in a meaningful way
You mean assume magic.
Yeah.
Harry Potter isn't real either. I know, it's totally disappointing that you'll never see a real whomping willow.

>>510716253
Let me clarify what's happening here.
You believe in a religion and you don't know why everyone hasn't found this magical release that makes you feel so fulfilled.
Religion is a form of ignorance. You've replaced "I don't know" as the answers to unanswerable existential questions with "religious answers." Your mind accepts these answers because it wants to. You see a billion other people equally satisfied with the answers they've been given, but in reality, their satisfaction is knowing that a billion other people also subscribe to what you've chosen to believe.
"being a part of something bigger than yourself" is commonly touted as pro-religion, but it's the same basis as an Outlaw motorcycle gang, even though they'd never state it so gayly.
If you believe you know the answers, even though you don't really, that's a self-perpetuated ignorance, and as they say, ignorance is bliss.

I don't believe what you believe, and it makes you angry that I haven't reached the same conclusions you have, so you come here to pick a fight on the basis that the other side is always the ones picking the fight. This thread is a microcosm of the religious mindset.

>>510714793 (OP)
>Why are atheists <insert dishonest theist question here>
Believers fall for lies and spread lies.

>>510716253
Ah, Buddha's Priodigal Son tale, plagiarized to fit a Hebrew narrative.

>>510719393
//thread

It's a massive banking trust run by men that wear dresses and openly perform ritual cannibalism to enhance their necromancy of torturing the dead to wake. The net worth after operation for 2000 years running tax free is estimated at 2.1 quadrillion dollars from all manner of assets under thousands and thousands of umbrella corporations. In investing they are called a whale. They move around billions on the hour, daily, in every currency.

Know why? It's a bank.

>>510714793 (OP)
>Creates thread to pick fight with atheists
>"why are atheists always picking fights with christians!?"
lol

atheist materialists can't derive moral oughts from their worldview, so they need to get other people of other worldviews where morality makes sense to do it for them.

under atheist materialism, rape isn't "wrong" because there is no inherent "right" or "wrong," just things that they personally find pleasant or unpleasant.
atheists are parasites.

>>510714793 (OP)
Where do you goons get these moronic ideas?

>>510722159
>atheist materialists can't derive moral oughts from their worldview
Sure I can.

>>510714793 (OP)
Everyone already talked about this for for the last 2 days and moved on. How did pol go from being at the forefront to being a trash bin for yesterday's discarded memes?

>>510722159
>under atheism, rape isn't "wrong"
Atheism has nothing to do with morals. I believe rape is wrong regardless of me being an atheist

>>510722159
>under atheist materialism, rape isn't "wrong" because there is no inherent "right" or "wrong,"
Anything goes for them, it's truly horrific. One of the easiest tests is if someone agrees with homosexuality. Literally so illogical children even know it. Yet they refuse to say so and not only that but they embrace it and actively push it as normal.

>>510724813
>had to change my words around to make his stupid fucking point almost make sense
gahahahahahaha

>>510714793 (OP)
>how can you believe in morals if you dont suck off the jews
lel

>>510724533
No you can't. That was Nietzsche's entire point. It's an issue relating to the epistemology of morality. The chain of moral foundation goes back to nothing if you totally divorce your morality from its origin point. That origin point, if you are western, is Christianity. Nietzsche's assessment was wholly accurate insofar that he knew the death of God would lead to moral rot.

>>510725223
This idiot adds a word to a definition that doesn't need it.

>>510722159
Yeah, remember that time when thousands of atheist priests raped thousands of children and the atheist church covered it up for decades? That was horrible, I can't believe atheists would do something like that.

>>510725612
>No you can't. That was Nietzsche's entire point
Yes I can. Athiesm isn't nihilism you idiot.

I find a lot of meaning in this world and my life. God or gods isn't one of them

>Sorry, but you can't judge people if you don't submit to a race of inbred baby-raping blackmailers

>>510714793 (OP)
because they have nothing to live for
and its easier to be spiteful and cruel
and when your life is shit the only way they feel better is snarking

I feel like the internet's desire to shame and ridicule these people is borderline sociopathic/

I get its hard to have sympathy for a CEO and HR lady, and yeah they're shitty partners to their spouses and probably shitty employees to boot, but who the fuck cares? that's their problem and their problem alone. as if the normies mocking them aren't themselves a bunch of pathetic cheaters, hypocrites, and wanna-be philanderers.

everyone just wants to enjoy their Two Minutes Hate.

>>510725667
it's true almost all of you atheists are materialists, but when i just say "atheism" with a qualifier, you queers always start spouting the creepy mantra that's been programmed into you.
>atheism is not a belief, it is merely the absence of belief in a gods. to say atheism is a belief is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby or that bald is a hair color. beep boop.
there are atheist supernaturalists though (they'd obviously balk at the term but that's exactly what they are) who posit the existence of real abstracts and could lay claim to moral realism despite being atheist, like russ schafer landau.

however, the argumentation used to point to the notion of moral realism within an atheistic framework is typically just appealing to brute facts or intuition. i'll let you ponder on the horrible implications of that when it comes to dialoguing with theists with allowance of that sort of argumentation.

>>510725612
Who cares what a 200 year old retard said? Rape was punished before Judaism (the originator of Christianity) and literally all religions pretty much have the same rules - "don't harm people in our social system, only harm our enemies".
Because morality is downstream of religion as it's an inherent part of advanced human biology. Higher forms of human life seek social order and safety because it leads to collective success, which results in individual success. This is why law and order has existed in every society regardless of religion. Whereas lower forms of "humanity" need religion to scare them into socially adequate behavior. And even this doesn't work since the most religious countries on earth are 3rd world criminal shitholes. If that's what you need to avoid raping people, please continue believing. We need the slave tier to behave themselves.

>>510725793
>some nominal christians have had moral failings and acted as if they're godless.
that's nice but wholly irrelevant to the point i was making.
i'm not saying atheists are bad, i'm saying under atheist materialism, there is no inherent "bad" or "good" just ephemeral everchanging social convention.

>>510725919
I didn't accuse you of being a nihilist. I accused you of lacking moral foundation. You're not a nihilistic sociopath. You're prone to falling for moral fads peddled by nihilistic sociopaths who just want power, and you will have no objective reason to not fall for those fads.

>>510726503
>Higher forms of human life seek social order and safety because it leads to collective success, which results in individual success.
is this really true though?
aren't the elite of the elite essentially all psychopaths rather than selfless altruists?
>Whereas lower forms of "humanity" need religion to scare them into socially adequate behavior.
for me, it's not fear i need, it's meaning.
the carrot and the stick aren't what keep me in line with "good," but the existence of good itself.
atheist materialism can't offer this, only "things that the group has decided to like" vs "things that the group has decided to dislike"
i am not the fucking group though and have my own will and goals that often run counter to everyone else's.

>>510714793 (OP)
Atheists judge people no harsher than religious cucks who, according to their own doctrine, are not even permitted to judge others.

>>510714793 (OP)
they do what the mind virus commands
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibz-gPkTMDM

>>510727173
>religious people judge harshly
i wish that was true.
>Christians are not permitted to judge others.
you're a meme.

>>510714793 (OP)
Why does everyone keep posting this? Who are these people? QRD?

>>510714793 (OP)
It has always intrigued me how willing people are to attack atheists over anything they can think of, they as a group are judged for the acts of individuals, they are accused of judging when they are defending themselves against stupid and baseless claims and then they are accused of temping other to judge.
Where does it end?

In my time on the internet, i have come to the conclusion that anyone attacking atheists as a group, dont really know what atheists even are.

>>510714793 (OP)
I don't know, Atheists don't have an entire belief structure based on the judgement of an invisible almighty being that is alleged to have complete omniscience over when I crank my hog, so I think you may have them confused for something else.

Why do I keep seeing this? I’m guessing these people were cheating or something?

>>510716120
>It's because religion inserts itself into every avenue of life that it can
That is impossible.
Only man can do that.

>>510715219
>What a stupid question.
>Your assertion is based upon your own ignorance alone.

>Atheists aren't the aggressors
You certainly are.

>>510728267
yeah, it went viral on X. he is a big-time CEO and she is his HR leader. they got caught having an affair at a Coldplay concert.

>>510714793 (OP)
nice milf

>>510728285
Religion is a collection of ideals deviced and spread by man, it has over time evolved into a form that is very effective at spreading itself and appeals to many. Its kind of like a virus, many strands die out and only the strongest survive.

>>510716253
Sacred Scriptures? The words written by man, to influence the opinion of man?

Reason is understanding that bugs eat plants, chicken eat those bugs, and man eat the chickens. Atheists understand this, even appreciate it. But preying to some imaginary stone, for creating such a cycle is not reason.

>>510725919
Theists can't imagine not spending 20% of their time praying to some entity.

So they imagine that atheists spend 20% of their time praying to a nothing.

>>510726252
>it's true almost all of you atheists are materialists
>almost all of you.
The fuck does that even mean? Everyone is a "materialist" you moron. You're typing on a material device in a material world lol

>>510726859
>I accused you of lacking moral foundation.
I have that

>>510726252
>>atheism is not a belief, it is merely the absence of belief in a gods.
Which is true. Nothing you can do or day to change that

>>510725793
Atheists rape children all the time what are talking about lol, literally every pedo in the news

>>510729925
Not really

>>510728523
>Religion is a collection of ideals deviced and spread by man,
No, that is how man twists it in his struggle.
That is understandable and so are ill feelings because of it.
Religion is faith.

>>510729708
>The fuck does that even mean?
materialism in this context is the position that:
>everything that exists is made of matter or energy, and can be explained by physics, chemistry, biology, etc
>no supernatural entities (gods, spirits, souls, non-physical beings) exist
>no abstract objects with independent existences (moral truths, mathematic entities, or universals are either reducible to physical processes or don't exist at all.)
>consciousness, thoughts, and emotions are products of physical brain activity, not sperate immaterial substances.

>everyone is a materialist because you're typing a keyboard lol
i'm going to eat my lunch, but i'd very much like to continue reading your posts. they're very entertaining.
tell me more about what you believe in regards to existence.

>>510730239
Nice to see you're a materialist too. Like everyone else

>>510730214
Define faith.
I define it as belief in something without evidence or belief in something despite evidence to the contrary.
If you had evidence of your belief you would not need faith.

Altough thats besides the point, a religion can exist without faith, or do they stop being religions when nobody believes them anymore? Countless religions have died out, is it wrong to call them religions now that nobody has faith in them?

>>510716120
You mistake church for religion. The former does indeed make stuff up on its own (including heresy) but the New Testament itself is actually quite lax and non-invasive and it's just healthy stuff to implement. I literally became a healthier person once I started implementing some of the Jesus' guidance into my life.

>>510730179
Yes really

>>510730378
>this is all i got
while you certainly fulfilled your role as clown, i was hoping for more.
but no, typing on a keyboard does not suggest one has adopted the materialist metaphysic.
i hold to positions that disqualify me from being a materialist, most glaringly the belief in God, which allows for the reality of the truth value of moral claims, laws of logic, inherent meaning to existence, etc.
again, you materialists view that only physical processes exist and all phenomena reduce to particles and forces. for the Christian, typing on a keyboard might transmit ideas, but it does not exhaust the essence of thought, nor reduce consciousness to synaptic activity. minds aren't mere machines, they reflect something transcendent, imbued with meaning purpose and accountability.

>>510731737
I don't believe you

>>510731922
>I was hoping to make more strawman of your positions
Kek to bad faggot
>>510731922
>i hold to positions that disqualify me from being a materialist
No you don't. That's a lie you tell yourself

>>510731922
>minds aren't mere machines, they reflect something transcendent, imbued with meaning purpose and accountability.
Sure. It doesn't mean that
>something transcendent, imbued with meaning purpose and accountability
Has to align with your personal feelings about God. I achieve these things without it

>>510732192
>>510732064
i get that you're phoneposting and due to that it's easier to just tap out pithy little nothing replies, but take 5 minutes and tap out a complete coherent thought instead if you want to have an actual possibly stimulating exchange.

>>510730588
>Define faith.
Faith is believing.
>I define it as belief in something without evidence or belief in something despite evidence to the contrary.
That would be the correct definition of wordly beliefs.

>>510732455
>pithy little nothing replies
Kek this faggot males up hoops to jump through because he can't actually address what I said

This is called a red herring

>>510732611
*worldly

>>510732664
alright, fine.
i'll address your points, emulating your writing style as well.

>Kek to bad faggot
ROFLMFAO bein an fagot is wat atheists due! there aint nothin wrong w/ bein' gay under atheism!
>No you don't. That's a lie you tell yourself
LMFAO no u r the 1 who is lion to urself!
>Sure. It doesn't mean that
LOLLL no ur wrong!
>Has to align with your personal feelings about God. I achieve these things without it
no u dont this is a masked-man fallacy!!1

>>510733165
>nothin wrong w/ bein' gay under atheism
Atheism has nothing to do with homosexuality

Anyway, your concession is accepted

>>510733284
p1: atheism says there's no god
p2: god is the only plausible ontic referent for the truth value of moral claims
c: therefore, under atheism there is nothing inherently wrong with taking a big fat dick in your butt

valid,, sound, unassailable logic.

>>510733494
>p2: god is the only plausible ontic referent for the truth value of moral claims
Which god? Your favorite one? Cool, you're welcome to your personal feelings and opinions

>>510733494
>therefore, under atheism there is nothing inherently wrong with taking a big fat dick in your butt
Because atheism has nothing to do with this or any moral claims.
Atheism is an opinion on a question. That's it.

That's why I never say it'd because of my atheism that X is bad or Y is good. Like you do with your imaginary friend.

You want to try and pigeon hole me into the same position as you but it doesn't work and never will.

>>510733786
>Which god? Your favorite one?
any creator god, let's go with one i don't like.
IA IA HASTUR!
CF'AYAK 'VULGTMM, VUGTLAGLN VULGTMM!
>>510733786
>>510733786
>>510733786
>Because atheism has nothing to do with this or any moral claims.
>Atheism is an opinion on a question. That's it.
do you not know how deductive logic works?
yes, the opinion on the question states that X doesn't exist.
Y's existence relies on the existence of X, therefore, Y doesn't exist
X = god, Y=homosexuality being wrong

>>510734112
>any creator god, let's go with one i don't like
It doesn't matter. It's a presupposition that's neve4 demonstrated past personal feelings. It also irrelevant to my moral grounding. Like I said, you can believe whatever you like. It doesn't mean I need to.

>>510734112
>do you not know how deductive logic works?
It's not deductive logic. It's your assumptions based on biased.

Nothing you can leverage against an atheist has anything to do with atheism, but the person themselves. And non of your claims are exclusive to atheist.

That's reductive logic.

>>510732611
So, faith is just a synonym for believing? Then why even use the word, just say believe to avoid confusion.

>worldly beliefs.
Never heard that before, can you clarify? What would then be a belief that is not worldly? Is it an otherwordly belief if i believe im typing this message right now just because there is evidence of it?
You seem to be all over the place, please collect your thoughts and think before you type, im not in your head so you really need to work on communication.

>>510733494
>p1: atheism says there's no god
already wrong, atheism doesnt say anything, some atheists might if they are also anti-theists, but thats irrelevant.

Is this the strawman olympics or something?

>>510734681
>Is this the strawman olympics or something?
That's all these clowns can do really

>>510726132
>I feel like the internet's desire to shame and ridicule these people is borderline sociopathic
Jordan Peterson had a point when he said that anonymity (freedom from consequences) creates monsters. I'm all for a completely anonymous environment where we could have actual free speech (the internet once almost embodied this ideal concept). Yet the other side of the coin is the invention of smartphones, which had now created a world similar to the dystopian Black Mirror episode where everyone has an implant that constantly records everything forever.
I just feel so bad for those two, as their careers and lives are now getting utterly destroyed forever. Byron will not only lose millions in the divorce court (that would be cruel enough), but it's likely that he won't get another job ever again, as any future HR lady will be able to google his name in seconds. I think it's even possible that the woman (not his "official" wife) is going to kill herself, as successful character assassination is the worst social death sentence for women. All because normies need a socially safe and approved target to project their hate onto, like we have seen so clearly during the pandemic, with the treatment of the unvaccinated.
This type of technology, the smartphone and the omnipresent internet, are one of the worst of Pandora's boxes that we have opened so far.

>>510714793 (OP)
Why is this story so big? Who fucking cares about these losers

>>510734888
CHECKED
You are the 337th trip today on /pol/.
Please read my poem I wrote for you:
test
Next digits:
P/m: 73
Next du,bs: 2s
Next tri,ps: 57s
Next qua,ds: 8m-36s
Next qui,nts: 2h-11m

Highest digits in the last 24h on /pol/:
>>510666666 (6 digits)
>>510733333 (5 digits)
>>510688888 (5 digits)
this post is automated, just testing things. id: shillomatic-0df3dedb

>>510734479
>It doesn't matter. It's a presupposition
you retard.
>It's not deductive logic
you absolute fucking retard.
IF P, THEN Q
P
THEREFORE, Q
how the HECK is this not deductive logic?
it's modusssssss ponennnnnnnnnns

i'm ignoring you for the rest of the thread and atheism is the gayest religion in the world.
>>510734681
>atheism does not say there is no god, we're merely stating that we do not feel we have enough evidence to warrant belief in the existence of a god(s)!
whatever, then as far as the argument goes, you'd merely be stating that there's not enough evidence for there to be anything inherently wrong with taking a dick up the butt.

>>510734999
CHECKED
You are the 341st trip today on /pol/.
Please read my poem I wrote for you:
test
Next digits:
P/m: 71
Next du,bs: 3s
Next tri,ps: 51s
Next qua,ds: 4m-0s
Next qui,nts: 2h-10m

Highest digits in the last 24h on /pol/:
>>510666666 (6 digits)
>>510733333 (5 digits)
>>510688888 (5 digits)
this post is automated, just testing things. id: shillomatic-945b60b0

>>510735230
>>It doesn't matter. It's a presupposition
>you retard.
I'm not wrong either

>>510735230
>how the HECK is this not deductive logic?
Logic is free of bias and personal feelings, your ramblings are not.

>>510735230
>i'm ignoring you for the rest of the thread
Concession accepted you limp wristed faggot

>>510735230
>whatever, then as far as the argument goes, you'd merely be stating that there's not enough evidence for there to be anything inherently wrong with taking a dick up the butt.
See?
>>510734681
Nothing but strawman. You called it too lol

>>510714793 (OP)
>Why are atheists so interested in tempting people to judge other people?
pfff lol. theists are the ones who tell you will burn for eternity in their made up lala land unless they submit and bend the knee like cattle.
kys

>>510728403
this is the most gen x story I've ever heard of

see? this guy gets it >>510735990
unlike those fuddy-duddy religious sheeple with their religious worldviews and moral oughts, atheism is merely a lack of belief.
therefore, under atheist materialism there's nothing wrong with sucking cock or taking as many cocks in the asshole as you can fit.

>>510735230
Have you ever opened the picture that has for ages been presented in a sticky on top of the front page of /pol/?
Its there for a reason, we cant really have a conversation if you refuse to use logic and im not interested in debating your fucking opinions.
You should really go check it out, you seem so interested in logic already, so why not do it properly so we can have a real conversation instead of putting dicks in our butts, im not interested in that either.

>>510736623
what logical fallacy are you accusing me of?

You're all missing the real issue here
The problem is San Francisco/Silicon Valley
That's all you need to say, everything is understood after that

>>510736489
>therefore, under atheist materialism there's nothing wrong with sucking cock or taking as many cocks in the asshole as you can fit.
You'll notice this goon doesn't have any actual arguments, instead just strawman reflecting his inner thoughts

No one talkes about homo shit on this board more than Christians

>>510736789
Strawman and red herring at the very least

Anyone who believes in magic should be institutionalized and shut out of society.

>>510714793 (OP)
Adultery is pretty much reviled worldwide.

>>510726132
> but who the fuck cares?
This is why you Mutts are parading child prostitutes in Prides festivities & whore your country to foreign investors & your Jewish banking oligarchs.

>>510736789
Sorry if i sound condecending, but i shouldnt have to explain in my third language how a site where i have not visited in 5 years works.

You can click on the numbers that i responded to, do that enough times and you will see what i said was a logical fallacy.

>>510737941
>Sorry if i sound condecending
i've been extremely condescending this entire thread, it's fun.
i'll try to dial it back since you give a shit.

alright, so you're accusing me of strawmanning.
that is, misrepresenting an argument or position in order to more easily attack it.
however, "atheism" is sort of a nebulous term.
there's strong atheism, weak atheism, positive atheism, gnostic atheism, agnostic atheism, blah blah blah blah.
i went out of my way earlier in this thread to qualify it with "materialism" (atheist materialism) to make my case that atheist materialism implies moral antirealism.
notice i kept adding the word "inherently" to things like "nothing inherently wrong with XYZ under atheist materialism"
that's important. an atheist moral antirealist can still say he's against rape or homosexuality, my view is that under this worldview it can't be "inherently" true because under materialism morality cannot inherently exist.

anyway, back to my beautiful deductive argument i'd laid out.
you took umbrage at the fact that i used the definition of positive atheism or gnostic atheism in my first premise,
>atheism says there is no god
because you yourself are a "weak atheist" (i'm assuming)
>as far as the question of "does god exist" i do not feel as though there is enough evidence to warrant belief

what i was trying to say to you, is that if changed the p1 to your "weak atheism," the conclusion, assuming p2 holds, would more or less be the same, just qualified with "i do not feel as though there is enough evidence"
there's no straw man.

>>510714793 (OP)
I just wanna be left alone and fuck my future wife and have at least 3 kids.
I don't want a bunch of academics, teachers, priests and imams and rabbis to diddle or touch my kids mind and body.
Yes, I fucking hate the pseudo religious stint that's being put into the heads of people 40h a day at least and brainwash them.
The moment they become militant in an shape or form whoever they are, whenever they involve the government and society.

It's mostly moral feminists and religious heads that put it into motion with Simps and white knights playing conservatives in hopes of getting pussy or maintain the pussy supply when married (they won't, see the reddit board dead bed rooms and the loss of rights and freedoms for the sake of children or hate speech).

It's disgusting, the vast majority of spinsters (I refuse to call them women after 25), are creating this very climate while they should be put under the heels of men that take everything they promise and refused to deliver.

But men are the spearhead of this and every movement, it's ingrained into them to put women into positions of reverence as they get defecated on by them through every stage of their existence pedestalizing them as they refuse knowing what they are for who they are supposed to be.

Men are the shitting street slaves of women, never seeking any other validation outside them or risk never shat on again (which would be miles better than their current predicament)

>>510738823
>alright, so you're accusing me of strawmanning.
>that is, misrepresenting an argument or position in order to more easily attack it.
Which is exactly what you do.
>>510738823
>however, "atheism" is sort of a nebulous term.
>there's strong atheism, weak atheism, positive atheism, gnostic atheism, agnostic atheism,
It's pretty simple really. It's a disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods. Which has gnostic and agnostic branches

>>510738823
>atheist materialism implies moral antirealism.
Again, a strawman. You're literally making up a strawman
>>510738823
>anyway, back to my beautiful deductive argument i'd laid out.
Nothing more than nonsense. It's not deductive logic. It's you reducing your strawman

I know you're reading my replies. You're just too much of a coward to reply anymore

>>510738823
You need to be very careful when talking about atheism, because it is a nebulous term, people do not at ALL agree on what it actually means and to assume that its weak or strong or anything else is atleast dishonest, if not just a strawman straight up.

To add so many things to atheism is a problem you should first tackle before you can really have these kinds of conversations, you CANNOT attach moral position to atheism as atheists define it. Wether or not someone is a "strong" or "weak" atheist is irrelevant if you are talking about atheism. Now if you want to talk about people who are certain there is no god, then thats a different beast entirely and extremely few people are going to relate to it and once they do you will get even atheists to laugh at them.

tl;dr define atheism every time you start a conversation about it, if we disagree on what words mean, i might aswell start writing in finnish slang that even chatgpt cant translate for you.

>>510739772
>you CANNOT attach moral position to atheism as atheists define it
this is our main source of disagreement i think.

my position (which is shared by many many atheist philosophers, i quoted 4 earlier) is that moral realism, that is, that the truth value of moral claims exist independent of minds or social convention, is not possible without the existence of God as their ontic referent.
therefore, to say "you lack enough evidence to believe in God" would also mean you "lack enough evidence to believe in the objective existence of the truth value of moral claims"

>>510740733
>"you lack enough evidence to believe in God" would also mean you "lack enough evidence to believe in the objective existence of the truth value of moral claims"
Give a moral objective truth

I bet you can't

>>510714793 (OP)
Am I meant to be able to recognize these two? Literally who?

>>510740733
>>510741394
Let's debunk this right now

Moral Realism Without God

Moral realism holds that moral facts or values exist objectively, independent of human minds or social conventions, without necessarily requiring a divine being. Several secular frameworks support this:

Platonic Moral Realism:
>Moral truths can exist as abstract objects, like numbers or logical truths, in a non-physical, non-theistic realm. For example, the wrongness of torture could be an objective fact about certain actions, grounded in their intrinsic properties (e.g., causing harm), without needing a divine mind to establish it. Just as 2+2=4 is true independently of any mind, moral truths could be similarly abstract and objective.

Naturalist Moral Realism:
>Objective moral truths can be grounded in natural facts about the world, such as human well-being, flourishing, or evolutionary biology. For instance, moral facts could arise from objective features of sentient beings—like the capacity to suffer or thrive—without requiring a supernatural entity. Philosophers like Sam Harris or Peter Railton argue that moral truths can be derived from empirical facts about what promotes well-being in conscious creature

Constructivist Realism:
>Some philosophers, like Christine Korsgaard, argue that moral truths emerge from the rational agency of beings capable of reflection and choice. Objective moral principles can be derived from the structure of practical reason itself, independent of divine will.

These frameworks show that objective moral truths can have an ontic basis in abstract objects, natural facts, or rational principles, none of which require God

>>510740733

Once you conjure up the evidence for your claims, i'll hear about it in the news and congratulate you for uniting all religions and winning a noble price for it, but until that im going to think of morality as just as made up as your god, a consept we came up with as humans in order to condemn the actions of others while elevating ourselves above them.
And because morals are made up, there is no need for god either, you are solving a problem with another bigger problem, like saying that the universe was created by god and then thinking that doesnt raise more questions than it answers.
Basically even i agree with your point about moral realism, it is not possible.


Im getting tired because its 10PM here and i have a wedding to go to tomorrow, so i really cant be arsed into getting into this any further, its so pointless and it stopped being funny decades ago, good luck in your endeavors.

>>510714793 (OP)
Why do you promote tolerance and claim it is forgiveness?

>>510741971
>im going to think of morality as just as made up as your god
fair enough.
i have much more respect for you moral nihilist atheists than i do for ones who pretend morality could be meaningful in a godless world.
have a good night.

>>510741900
He mentioned these earlier. >>510726252
The way you'd reason to these views
>uhh it's just brute facts
>uhh it's just intuitive
Would make this a valid argument:
>God exists. source? It's just intuitive.

>>510744497
>He mentioned these earlier
Not at all actually
>>510742925
>morality could be meaningful in a godless world.
It isn't to you. But because that's the case. It doesn't mean it's true for everyone else.

You are a 1 dimensional clown who can't see past his own farts

Here's how morality is meaningful to me, despite my atheism.

Morality has effects and affects both negative and positive to me and those around me. The Golden Rule, backed by empathy helps me to relate to others ans their struggles/needs as have experience the bad side of up, the good side of bad and everything in between.

It's that relationship that makes a bond/connection. And it's that bond/connection that helps all parties involved to live more coherent and peaceful with each other.

So not only am I grounded in my morals by empathy, but also thise around me who keep me accountable

>>510745577
>as have
As I* have

>>510745577
>>510745618
Sorry for the typos, phone posting while working

Bump

>>510714793 (OP)
Schadenfreude.

Because, personally, I don't need a religion to tell me what is moral or how to be a good person. I'm certainly not flawless, but I try. For example, I don't need to be religious to know it's a good thing to pull-over when I see someone working in the blistering sun with no shade and give them cold water. And I find it hilarious when religious people find themselves in some kind of scandal due to not being the morally perfect individuals they think they are. It reminds us, and them, that we're no different regardless of what some book says.

>>510748189
Well said anon

>>510728285
>>510728345
seems you avoided reading
>>510717392

>>510715515
Because institutionalized religion is a self-contradiction and it's blatantly obvious to many. You really believe that a text that has been translated, retranslated, reinterpreted, edited and bogged down by testimonies and opinions of fallible and biased mortal men could ever be truly divine?

>>510748189
>I don't need a religion to tell me what is moral or how to be a good person. I'm certainly not flawless, but I try. For example, I don't need to be religious to know it's a good thing to pull-over when I see someone working in the blistering sun with no shade and give them cold water.

you don't need to be religious to know this is a "good," but you do need to appeal to something transcendent in order to justify that it's "good."
without doing so, someone could say it's "good" to bash the person's skull in and take their wallet and their view would be just as valid in an objective sense.

>>510740733
Morality isn't objective. It's always relative to the desired outcome. Should you choose to not be the kind of person who gets murdered, or live in a society where murder is accepted as a normal part of life, being the kind of person who doesn't commit murder is a good start. In this case, you've chosen your morality relative to being the kind of person who wouldn't like murder visited upon your person or your neighbors.

The concept of moral objectivity requires the belief in an absolute authority, and even then, you choose your morality relative to the love you believe you'll attain from the god you believe told you not to be amoral, within that absolute authority's given paradigm.

>>510739772
Anti-atheism types see any belief that isn't theirs as inherently evil. They see people who haven't chosen a god as being against them, their society and their god or gods. The choice to believe is extremely personal, but it requires backup, or no one would be doing it but the most creative or crazy. If you found a guy who believed that their god came from a virgin birth, can heal and raise the dead, but was killed by ancient Romans, but came back to life himself, not to rule and save humanity from oppression, but to leave again, with all his flesh intact for some reason, and no one else was talking about it, or had ever heard it, the world would put him away in a cell and forget about him. Group think is critical for religion's success, and when someone on the outside rejects this life-changing, world-controlling information that the faithful has decided to believe with every fiber of his being, the believer is insulted, hurt, injured to their very being. Only agreement can bolster a relationship to mythology of that nature, it's such a shaky platform to be on when the world is against you.

In reality, atheists just want to be left alone and not indoctrinated into obviously fake mythology that controls their behaviors. Period. Don't bother an atheist with your arbitrary beliefs, and you'll never know he is.

>>510714793 (OP)

>>510714793 (OP)
Hope he kill’s himself when his wife divorce rapes him.

>>510741900
>These frameworks show that objective moral truths can have an ontic basis in abstract objects, natural facts, or rational principles, none of which require God
You keep saying objective, but it's always relative, even in every example you gave.

>>510749898
>you do need to appeal to something transcendent in order to justify that it's "good."
That's what empathy is. If objective moral truths exist (as discussed in my previous response), empathy could be a mechanism for accessing them. For instance, the near-universal condemnation of gratuitous cruelty might reflect an empathetic connection to suffering that transcends cultural or individual differences, hinting at a deeper, non-material moral reality

Again, you are stuck in your 1 dimension, thinking only your God or a God is the only transcendent that's available and/or true

>>510750710
See
>>510750802

>>510750685
>not mmuh wiferinoooo
bet the bitch cheated first and denies blowjobs

>>510750106
i feel like you're making the common mistake of conflating moral ontology with moral epistemology. but even taking that into consideration, i have no idea what you're trying to say.
complete garbledy-gook post to me. which is sad because i'm really into this topic and you seem to want to engage.
can you rephrase... everything?
i'm not being intentionally obtuse.

Oh you Kikes.
Believe anything but Christ.

>>510751155
>Believe anything but Christ
Why should anyone believe in Christ?

>>510751061
>which is sad because i'm really into this topic
That's a lie.
>>510751061
>i'm not being intentionally obtuse
Another lie

>>510750802
You're searching for ethereal reasons why you should be able to say that morality is objective for some reason, some feeling from within or something that verifies the "objectivity" or morality, a feeling that you're doing the right thing, that you're helping someone or something, and that might make it objective, but the nature of objectivity from a purely logical and literal stance makes it impossible to rule any moral-based decision as being objective.

Objective means that, in this case, that a rule, for example, that relates a "moral" potential decision, and gives you the one that is considered "moral" is still relative. If you don't want to murder someone, don't. There is no concrete moral rule that says you can't, unless you also accept that there is a relative reason as to why you don't. You can believe that god tells you not to, and in that case, your morality is relative to the afterlife outcome you desire. It's always relative, and that's not intended as an insult, though it's usually taken as such.

Objectivity is a logical state or condition. It can't be bent to fit a definition you prefer because you choose to believe in a set of rules you believe to be rock solid and ordained by a god, even though it's very popular to claim it as such, since the claimers typically believe that their god is 100% real, and he sets the rules. A lot of rules of logic are bent to accommodate language in regard to religion, and I'm not saying don't believe. You have to call a spade a spade, though.

>>510751673
>You're searching for ethereal reasons
See
>>510745577

>>510751061
Do you understand what I say when I say morality isn't objective?
Can you define "objective"?

>>510751673
>Objective means that, in this case, that a rule, for example, that relates a "moral" potential decision, and gives you the one that is considered "moral" is still relative.
>You can believe that god tells you not to, and in that case, your morality is relative to the afterlife outcome you desire.
yeah you're extremely confused about this topic.
the entire thread we've been discussing moral ontology, "objective" in this sense just means "real, independent of minds."
it has nothing to do with punishment or reward.

>>510752006
>yeah you're extremely confused about this topic.
Not really. Whst he said makes sense. You're only a Christian because you feel it's the best option for you and that's based on th4 carrot at the end of the stick, aka heaven.

>>510752006
>the entire thread we've been discussing moral ontology, "objective" in this sense just means "real, independent of minds."
That's incorrect, it's not independent of minds. Otherwise it would be independent of the mind of your God. Kek

>>510752006
>it has nothing to do with punishment or reward
Also incorrect

Seems you're the one extremely confused by this topic

>>510749898
I thank simply being alive and having the chance to experience life. From the earliest ages, moral righteousness is present in infancy/early childhood by naturally being able to identify nice and mean actions. The natural state of being for humans is empathy; It's only when we are told, shown, or taught otherwise that the dilemma occurs. There is no reason to appeal to a higher power/entity in order to know what is right and wrong, because you were able to do it before you could even form memories.

You can believe what you want if it makes you feel happy or gives you purpose or direction, but at the end of the day you make choices on your own free will.

Myself, as I hinted to in my first statement, I like to think there's some kind of intelligence to the universe. If you want to look at the number on the ground in front of us and see a 6 while I see a 9(nice), that's fine; It's true for both of us.

As an old saying goes, without finding a direct quote, if there is a god and he's all-knowing and judges us all, and loves us all unconditionally, then if I end up being wrong after my death, god would recognize I still tried to be a good person and would smile upon me, even if I didn't accredit all my accomplishments to his will.

>>510752301
>You're only a Christian because you feel it's the best option for you and that's based on th4 carrot at the end of the stick, aka heaven.
no, i'd be a muslim or mormon if i just chose a religion based on the goodies i'd get in the afterlife.
>That's incorrect, it's not independent of minds.
then it's not moral realism.
the platonic moral realism and naturalist moral realism views you brought up earlier hold that moral truths are mind-independent.
the constructivist view (is garbage, and) falls under the special category of procedural realism.
which one do you hold to?
>it has nothing to do with punishment or reward
>Also incorrect
so you're saying it's not possible for things to be morally right or morally wrong if you don't get any goodies from doing the right thing?
going back to ignoring your garbage posts if you don't explain your "nuh uh's" in the next one.

>you're the one extremely confused by this topic
i may or may not have written a doctoral dissertation on it.

>>510753042
Very well said anon.

>>510753147
>no, i'd be a muslim or mormon if i just chose a religion based on the goodies i'd get in the afterlife.
Yet, you nonetheless picked Christianity based on personal feelings. Also, you're suggesting that you'd still be a Christian if there wasn't a heaven supposedly waiting for you? I doubt it.

>>510753147
>>That's incorrect, it's not independent of minds.
>then it's not moral realism.
Neither is your moral appeal to your God then.
>the platonic moral realism and naturalist moral realism views you brought up earlier hold that moral truths are mind-independent.
Is murder, as in unjust killing of another being independent of a mind? I think so, as we all can mostly agree on this definition of murder.

>>510753147
>which one do you hold to?
See
>>510745577

>>510753147
>so you're saying it's not possible for things to be morally right or morally wrong if you don't get any goodies from doing the right thing?
"Goodies" are subjective though. Yet we still benefit off them when doing the right thing. Do we not?
>>510753147
>going back to ignoring your garbage posts
You said that last time. We both know you read my replies regardless

>>510753147
>i may or may not have written a doctoral dissertation on it.
You haven't. Nor do you have a PhD

>>510753042
>As an old saying goes, without finding a direct quote, if there is a god and he's all-knowing and judges us all, and loves us all unconditionally, then if I end up being wrong after my death, god would recognize I still tried to be a good person and would smile upon me, even if I didn't accredit all my accomplishments to his will.

are you speaking of this quote?

>>510753778
>avoids everything else
Lmao

>>510753742
>Yet, you nonetheless picked Christianity based on personal feelings
tell me more about myself.
what personal feelings made me select Christianity?

>>510714793 (OP)
>atheism out of nowhere
rent free

>>510754380
>tell me more about myself
I don't need too. You've demonstrated how disingenuous and dishonest you are.
>>510754380
>what personal feelings made me select Christianity?
The ones that made you not pick the others.

Since atheism is the default position, which means you were born an atheist like everyone else. Something personal led you to Christianity, and considering Christianity has thousands of denominations, you personally picked a specific brand

>>510754709
>tell me more about myself
>I don't need too. You've demonstrated how disingenuous and dishonest you are.
what does me being disingenuous and dishonest have to do with your need to tell me about myself?

>>510727173
>>510727310

>quote two words
>ignore the rest

If you quote a source like this for a paper you'd get points deducted. Using it as a cudgel and not seeing the problem with it is just standard practice for atheists.

>>510754854
>what does me being disingenuous and dishonest have to do with your need to tell me about myself?
And this clown claims to have written a written a doctoral dissertation but can't into nuance or critical thinking. Kek

>>510755098
>tell me more about myself
>no ur a liar!
i'm just trying to figure out how your mind works.
that seemed like a complete non-sequitur.

>>510755323
>i'm just trying to figure out how your mind works
Still can't into nuance lol.
>>510755323
>that seemed like a complete non-sequitur
For you, I have no doubt.

>>510755490
why do you enjoy bullying and laughing at your intellectual inferior?
isn't your worldview's morality predicated on being nice and having empathy?

>>510755610
Why are you changing your arguments bro? Can't find anything else to strawman?

>>510755610
>isn't your worldview's morality predicated on being nice and having empathy?
Not everyone is deserving of it. Let alone you based how you've been ITT.

>>510756215
that's interesting.
who is and isn't deserving of kindness and empathy in accordance with your moral framework?

>>510753778
Truthfully I didn't even know it was actually a nearly direct quote, just a saying. But I figured it must have come from somewhere so I assumed there was a quote it was based on but I didn't care enough to go searching for one lol

>>510756318
>who is and isn't deserving of kindness and empathy in accordance with your moral framework?
Those who don't act like this
>>510738823
>i've been extremely condescending this entire thread, it's fun.

You had no problem intentionally lying and making false claims. Then when you got your shit shoved in, you change your tune.

You are coward through and through

>>510756363
the one i posted is a popular quote but known fraud, and what it's paraphrasing really says is
>"In all you do or say or think, recollect that at any time the power of withdrawal from life is in your own hands. If gods exist, you have nothing to fear in taking leave of mankind, for they will not let you come to harm. But if there are no gods, or if they have no concern with mortal affairs, what is life to me, in a world devoid of gods or devoid of Providence? Gods, however, do exist..."
that you should withdraw from your life by your own hands if divine providence doesn't exist, since nothing would actually matter.

which doesn't actually seem to be your view, as you have this vague "spiritual but not religious" thing going on.
>>510756636
>Those who don't act like this
like what exactly?
you know, sometimes people act out because they're in pain and suffering, and treating them harshly only exacerbates the hurt.
i once watched this film featuring jeremy irons playing two twin brothers who were gynecologists that only worked on women with mutant vaginas, it was called "dead rinigers"
there was a small little inconsequential quote in it when he's about to take an aspirin for a headache i believe that stuck with me for a long time, it was "pain distorts character."

>>510714793 (OP)
by all means, who has the sole authority on passing judgement?
>why, the church of course!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>510757050
>like what exactly?
Again with the lack of nuance. This clown had no problem acting superior and condescending. Then make up lies and strawman.
>but my pain and my suffering.
I don't give a shit. It's not excuse. You know who makes these excuses? Niggers. Niggers are not deserving of any empathy

>>510757050
>that you should withdraw from your life by your own hands if divine providence doesn't exist, since nothing would actually matter
Completely wrong.

This is part of a passage from Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations," specifically Book II, Verse 11. This passage reflects on the idea that whether or not gods exist, one should live a virtuous life. The text suggests that if gods exist and are just, they would not care about the devotion of individuals but would welcome them based on the virtues they have lived by. If gods are unjust, then one should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then the individual will be gone, but their noble life will live on in the memories of their loved ones

>>510745577
>Here's how morality is meaningful to me, despite my atheism.
>Morality has effects and affects both negative and positive to me and those around me. The Golden Rule, backed by empathy helps me to relate to others ans their struggles/needs as have experience the bad side of up, the good side of bad and everything in between.
>It's that relationship that makes a bond/connection. And it's that bond/connection that helps all parties involved to live more coherent and peaceful with each other.
>So not only am I grounded in my morals by empathy, but also thise around me who keep me accountable
>>510757378
>>but my pain and my suffering.
>I don't give a shit.

>>510757658
This faggot thinks he's deserving. Earn it you baseless nigger.

Now I fully understand why you're a Christian. Vicarious redemption is easy and unearned. You are a nigger, regardless of skin color

>>510726132
This.
I really don't care what some randoms get up to. Especially Coldplay fans.

>>510757564
>Completely wrong.
i literally posted the quote verbatim above that line.

>This passage reflects on the idea that whether or not gods exist, one should live a virtuous life. The text suggests that if gods exist and are just, they would not care about the devotion of individuals but would welcome them based on the virtues they have lived by. If gods are unjust, then one should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then the individual will be gone, but their noble life will live on in the memories of their loved ones
you're copypasting some weird description of the fake quote rather than the actual line in the meditation.

in the first sentence of the passage, it reflects on the idea that you can kill yourself at any time,
>In all you do or say or think, recollect that at any time the power of withdrawal from life is in your own hands.
in the sentence before the last, it explains a reason why you should do it
>what is life to me, in a world devoid of gods or devoid of Providence?

>>510757930
>i literally posted the quote verbatim above that line.
>>510757930
>you're copypasting some weird description of the fake quote
Nope.

See what I mean? There's nothing honest about you.

>>510758188
???
explain.

>This passage reflects on the idea that whether or not gods exist, one should live a virtuous life. The text suggests that if gods exist and are just, they would not care about the devotion of individuals but would welcome them based on the virtues they have lived by. If gods are unjust, then one should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then the individual will be gone, but their noble life will live on in the memories of their loved ones
this is a summary of the "live a good life" fake quote, not the actual verse.

>>510726132
It's funny because the woman is an HR person.
Her job description is some vague words about building a company's values. Merging companies and seamlessly combining their corporate cultures.
She goes on and on about fostering a trust environment. And then she's caught on video getting felt up by her married higher up.
CEO bf and her, are the type of people who look down on others for not being "part of the team" or "down with the culture", but they're hypocrites. Of course people will relish in their downfall.

>>510758441
>moves the subject
Nah, I'm good. You're a scrub

Feel free to revisit the topic and my replies about it.

>>510757050
You're taking away the worst possible interpretation and adding words and meaning that isn't there to fit your world view.

A person can be good *without* god, just as a person can be bad *with* god, as evidenced in the actions of the people who got caught. As well as every act of violence committed in the name of a god.

>>510758441
>this is a summary of the "live a good life" fake quote, not the actual verse.
Also it's not. It's a summary of Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations," specifically Book II, Verse 11

>>510757050
>Waaaaa a literal Emperor thought he was superior to other people

>>510759149
>You're taking away the worst possible interpretation and adding words and meaning that isn't there to fit your world view.
That's all he can do.

>>510759149
>You're taking away the worst possible interpretation and adding words and meaning that isn't there to fit your world view.
if you're talking about the killing yourself bit, i still stand by it but now that i'm looking at other translations it's not as blatant.
it's still absolutely saying that life is not worth living in a world without gods or providence though, and that was an important part of stoicism, the virtues absolutely depend on the existence of the logos.
>>510759234
can a third party weigh in here? this motherfucker is gaslighting hard

>>510716253
>Atheists really can't reason.
I am not an atheist, per se, but this is a hilarious take full of projection.
>Why even bother trying to read the Sacred Scriptures
Exactly. Your scriptures lost me on "God makes son for jews to torture, in order to teach them a lesson."

It took zero time wasting on actually reading the rest of the bullshit to conclude that your faith is a fundamentally evil jewish abomination.

>>510759284
It's frustratingly typical of dug-in theists; They claim and act like they want a discussion and pretend to be open to new ideas, but all they really want is another convert. And I kinda get it, because that's how I felt for a while after doing DMT many years ago with the QShaman before he was famous.

>>510759678
>can a third party weigh in here? this motherfucker is gaslighting hard
Gaslighting? You really are grasping at straws.

>>510760084
i mean,
i'm showing you the fucking text and you're saying it says what it doesn't say and refusing to admit it and doubling down calling me a liar.
you probably beat the shit out of your wife.

>>510717392
This is one of the highest-IQ takes I have seen in this shit hole in ages.
Faith in humanity = restored.
"Humanity" doesn't include christcucks (except the most ironic ones), kikes, muslims, hindus, or anyone else not worthy of being categorized as human.

>>510759678
>it's still absolutely saying that life is not worth living in a world without gods or providence though
No, Marcus Aurelius does not say that life is not worth living in a world without gods or providence. Instead, he repeatedly emphasizes that the purpose and value of life lie in living virtuously—practicing justice, wisdom, courage, and temperance—regardless of the metaphysical state of the universe. He entertains the skeptical view that the universe might lack divine order but insists that one can still find meaning through reason and moral action.

>>510760143
>you're saying it says what it doesn't say
No nigger, that's you

>>510760143
>you probably beat the shit out of your wife
Speaking from experience I see

>>510760248
>No, Marcus Aurelius does not say that life is not worth living in a world without gods or providence.

>>510760570
This faggot doesn't understand nuance.

You are a moron

>>510714793 (OP)
She actually looks pretty hot for a 45+ year old woman no cap desu desu

My parents are Christians. They didn't use to practice it too hard but ever since my mom found out my dad cheated on her she cranked up the God worship to 11 to cope and it's a very scary sight to see.

>>510760763
explain the nuance to me, ghost of wifebeater.

>>510714793 (OP)
Cryptochristians aka cryptojews

>>510760953
This suggests he’s prepared to live virtuously regardless of whether gods or providence exist. He doesn’t conclude life is meaningless without them; instead, he finds purpose in aligning with reason and accepting fate. His focus is on what’s within our control—our actions and attitudes—rather than external divine forces.

>>510760953
>ghost of wifebeater
Right back to
>>510757378
And
>>510757841
You are exactly what I said you are

>>510760953
>>510761080
Here's a further breakdown

If gods don’t exist or don’t care about human affairs, Marcus questions why one would cling to life in a world without divine purpose.

However, he doesn’t conclude life is meaningless. Instead, he pivots to Stoic self-reliance: even without divine guidance, humans can live meaningfully by following reason and nature.

This is a critical Stoic move—meaning comes from within, through virtuous action, not external validation.

>>510761080
>—
whatever LLM you're using is absolutely retarded.

>This suggests he’s prepared to live virtuously regardless of whether gods or providence exist.
>He doesn’t conclude life is meaningless without them; instead, he finds purpose in aligning with reason and accepting fate.
how in the world can you glean that from 2.11?
>if there are gods, it's not a thing to be afraid of
>if they do not exist, why would i wish to live
>but there are gods

A community that regulates itself via values/morality education and lessons doesn't need much official policing to behave well in the long run, that's why amerimutts are absolute degenerates and why easily-bribed authorities in corrupt countries leads to widespread organized crime that sees cops as a monthly fee.

>>510761574
See
>>510761429
Now I'm glad we can put this to rest

>>510761574
This nigger has never learned about the concept of rhetorical questions.

>>510761729
Exactly.

>>510761429
>If gods don’t exist or don’t care about human affairs, Marcus questions why one would cling to life in a world without divine purpose.
yeah.
>However, he doesn’t conclude life is meaningless. Instead, he pivots to Stoic self-reliance
the fuck he does, he just outright asserts the existence of gods and providence.

>>510762189
>the fuck he does
Again, this moron can't grasps the bumabce of rhetorical questions.

You are a very dumb person

>>510762307
>bumabce
*nuance

>>510714793 (OP)
>reddit threads
go back

everyone judges and everyone is judged consciously and unconsciously it's human nature and unavoidable. but only God can judge your soul and that's all that matters.

>>510762307
>but if indeed they do not exist, or if they have no concern about human affairs, why would I wish to live in a universe devoid of gods or devoid of Providence?
i think the bumbabce of this rhetorical question is to say that life isn't worth living in world devoid of gods and providence.

>>510762505
>i think
Careful bro. It hasn't been working out that well for you.

>>510762505
Marcus asserts that, regardless of the gods’ status, he will live “as nature demands.” In Stoicism, this means aligning with reason, accepting fate (amor fati), and practicing virtues like justice, courage, and temperance.

He emphasizes duty—doing what’s right because it’s rational, not because of divine reward or punishment.

Holy shit there’s endless retarded faggots in this thread. Atheism is just not believing in made up retarded bullshit. Everything else, like whether you’re a psycho who thinks rape and murder is ok or not varies from person to person and is entirely unrelated to whether you believe in made up magical bullshit. There’s scumbag atheist murderers, there’s scumbag religious murderers, both lots know it’s wrong but endlessly distract themselves with copes about how what they did was ok for whatever bullshit excuse they can come up with even though they know it isn’t.

Stop being such faggots, you are perfectly capable of not doing the wrong thing AND not believing obvious lies trying to make you believe in fucking magic.

“Oh no but then morality isn’t objective without God!” Too bad faggot, welcome to reality. Just try to avoid harming people regardless of the reality that there’s no God watching over your shoulder. It’s really not that complex.

>>510762672
aurelius:
>why would i want to live in a world devoid of gods or providence?
>gods definitely exist anyway
you and an your 8b LLM:
>marcus is saying regardless of the gods status, he'll live "as nature demands." (quotation marks of a quote nowhere in the cited passage)

>>510763098
>>gods definitely exist anyway
Marcus Aurelius doesn’t definitively state that gods exist. Instead, he takes an agnostic stance, exploring two possibilities: either gods exist and are just, or they don’t exist (or are indifferent to human affairs). He writes to prepare himself for either scenario, emphasizing that one should live virtuously according to reason and nature regardless of the gods’ existence. This reflects his Stoic philosophy, which often leans toward a rational cosmic order (sometimes called “Logos” or “Nature”) but doesn’t require absolute certainty about gods.

You're literally a moron. You don't belong in conversations like these.

>>510763485
>Marcus Aurelius doesn’t definitively state that gods exist.

>>510714793 (OP)
Funny how people were less scandalized by sexual misconduct back then when they were more religious.
Religion was replaced by moral condemnation.

>>510763710
This fucking retard again
>>510763485
As for the nature bit, he frequently discusses living "as nature demands," or living in accordance with nature. This idea appears throughout his writings, particularly in Book 8. It's a core Stoic principle that emphasizes aligning one's actions and attitudes with the natural order of the universe.

>>510764300
seriously?!
you're not going address that?
what the fuck??

i've sat through this thread having you call me a liar and dishonest and disingenuous, you are honestly the biggest hypocritical lying scumbag gaslighting unintelligent piece of shit i have interacted with all year.
i'm closing the thread because yes i am fucking ASSMAD and SEETHING.
fuck you ghost of mesa.

>>510764612
>you're not going address that?
>what the fuck??

Here's how dumb you are. Yet again

In Stoicism, “gods” or “God” often symbolize the rational order of the universe (Logos or Nature), not necessarily anthropomorphic deities. Marcus may be expressing a practical belief in a purposeful, rational cosmos rather than a dogmatic theological stance.

Some scholars (e.g., Pierre Hadot in
The Inner Citadel) argue Marcus
adopts this belief as a Stoic exercise
to align with providence, not as a
literal claim of certainty. He's choosing
to act as if gods exist to maintain
moral focus, while his earlier
hypothetical (gods may not exist)
shows he's not fully committed to
dogmatism

In other passages (e.g., 6.44, 12.28),
Marcus remains open to both
possibilities, suggesting this
affirmation is more rhetorical than
absolute

This is how I know you've read nothing of his past the one passage you post

>>510764612
>i've sat through this thread having you call me a liar and dishonest and disingenuous
You are all three. Don't forgrt nigger and faggot too.

>>510764612
>i'm closing the thread because yes i am fucking ASSMAD and SEETHING
Good. Don't come back to my board again nigger faggot