It's a very cliche talking point but I'm genuinely curious. If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority? Are the kikes truly evil if everything they do is just subjectively evil according to antitheism? Is everything then a result of might makes right?

>>510841005 (OP)
=Op==
=philosophical navel contemplation. ==

==Me==
=Anthropology and real world alternatives =
Christianity: No kikes until Protestants, birth rate high enough to get us by the Black Plague.
Atheists: Kikes make lives miserable, birth rate so low we will die out and be replaced by pagans and brownoids.

Seems rather obvious what we should believe, and we shouldn't be the kikes.
Resolved: All Atheist should be burned at the stake as too stupid to survive (they're doomed either way), the brownoids and jews driven before us, and we enjoy the lamentations and kvetching of the brownoid and jewish women.

>>510841551
I didn't understand anything you just wrote lad get some medicine in you.

>>510841005 (OP)
I'm open to discussing it, OP, but I don't want to waste time on a slide or some LLM.

On a completely unrelated note, do any of these catch your fancy?

>antitheism
That said, you've narrowed it down to an almost indefensible position, because just about everyone in 2025 can observe the need for strictures/dogmatism for the majority of Humans.
I can only speak from an agnostic/anti-(Abrahamic God) position

>>510842537
I am not the biggest arts and crafts guy but the "Mastering the Arms" book caught my eye. Looks interesting.
>I can only speak from an agnostic/anti-(Abrahamic God) position
well speak from that view, what do you think should/does set our moral compass as a species?

>>510841551
>No kikes until Protestants

>>510842783
My own view is somewhat Epicurean, a sort of "principled Utilitarianism" (imo, there are lines that should absolutely not be crossed even in pursuit of a "better tomorrow" or whatever the fake and gay modern transhuminists want to force on others)

Defining "Good" is nigh-impossible, but defining "Evil" (non-exclusive) is easy, for example:
>Do no unnecessary harm
is a principle I live by. Deliberately inflicting suffering upon another living being is indefensible, and it's something every being of sufficient intelligence (not just Humans, but Primates and Dolphins, too, indicated by their deliberately torturing those they hate)

It's somewhat ironic:
>the capacity to torture another proves empathy
>the capacity to commit suicide proves self-awareness
>the capacity to self-delude proves perception/understanding of the future.

I can elaborate on other principles if you wish, but that's the thought process I took to arrive at them.
In the end, I (believe that I) have only myself to answer to, but I still live by my principles. It's a self-imposed dogmatism (mimicking parts of religion), I suppose, but I'd liken it to Kohlberg's stages of moral development-- <20% of Humans seem to operate on universal principles, and that's about the fraction of people I'd assume can operate without religion in a functional society.

>>510844135
Do you think that growing up in a world permeated by religion now and even more beforehand has shaped what you think is those universal principles such as defining evil? Or do you think that you would reach the exact same conclusion growing up completely isolated from all organized religion?

>>510841005 (OP)
>subjectively evil
It is objectively evil to go out of your way to ruin somebody else out of retardation.
If a freak spawns and it's a menace to society it is basic logic to throw the freak down a ravine to save everyone else.

>>510844568
That's something I've grappled with, desu. I never really "bought" religion at any age, despite being raised into it, but I also struggled a lot to get where I am now.
Ultimately, I think I would've come to the same conclusion IF I lived long enough, but honestly, I'd likely have died in a harsher society.

That said, men like Epicurus came to a similar conclusion in a harsher society, though they shared the idea of a "non-intervening Divine(s)" and some degree of universal determinism.
Before that, we have the Code of Hammurabi and "The Golden Rule" (likely both based in the empathy we social species are "wired")

That said, I think that *any* being capable of experiencing pleasure and pain (math and game theory would apply that includes ALL natural beings capable of existing in a universe like ours) would come to a similar conclusion. Social dynamics (including empathy) tend to arise the moment you have multiple "agents" acting in a system, so...
Yes, I believe both myself and some hypothetical non-Human being would come to a similar conclusion, once they (at least temporarily) rise above the instincts/drives that motivate them.

>>510841005 (OP)
Morality is always subjective, even if god existed, his morality is no more objective than anyone else's. God's morality is just his opinion.

Also, we don't need to consider the behavior of the Jews through the lens of morality. The Jews are our enemies and their actions lead to our destruction. Basic self preservation tells us that we must fight the Jews.

>>510844135
>>Do no unnecessary harm
What determines "unnecessary" besides your own subjectivism?

>>510841005 (OP)
What god?

>>510845652
See >>510845517
It requires a perception of pleasure and pain (something I consider to be universal among intelligent life), but the most trivial example of evil is deliberately inflicting suffering upon another being with no ends but tormenting them.

>>510841005 (OP)
What use is a morality if you can't follow it? Christians are the biggest snakes and liars I've ever seen. History proves you have no morals.

>>510845719
it's irrelevant to the question.
just any conceptualization of an ontic referent for the truth value of moral claims is necessary.

>>510841005 (OP)
Dinosaurs existed more than 240 million years ago. Your dead kike on a stick 2000 years ago.
All religions are retarded and humans are retarded for believing in such retarded bullshit.

>>510841005 (OP)
if you want salvation you need religion. life is useless without salvation

>>510841005 (OP)
>what should we/would we base our morality on
Common sense and decency
>on whose authority?
Your own

>>510841005 (OP)
Just not wired for it. Literally doesn't even register. Then stopped reading after the cliche argument of good and evil popped up since it's a red herring. Any yutz can parrot whatever their society teaches them. Hence the ability of humans to herd up around rules set forward usually by the point of a sword and a steady practice of extortion by comical fears of good and evil. That's history. Change 99.9% of the time is done with terrific violence, the Abraham's soapbox. Too much money in your trust unpaid or never paid so...well

Go fuck yourselves, you're lucky you got anything considering the cost. Which is still unpaid. Thanks for time, hit the bricks. Nice dress BTW.

>>510841005 (OP)
It's might makes right in the theistic system. People who believe in gods literally say that god can do whatever it wants with us because it created us. That's a mainstream belief, not fundamentalist in the least.

It's worth pointing out that "then what grounds our moral framework" is Ray Comfort banana level argument. Do better.

>>510846751
I half-agree, anon.
I think an equally important part of religion is not only to promise salvation, but give meaning to the inevitable suffering you experience until then.

imo, it's not for the sake of some higher meaning, though, but simply because religions that promise conditionless salvation in the next life tend to become suicide cults

>>510841005 (OP)
> what should we/would we base our morality on
As Nietzsche defined. picrel.
The only authority is the will of the overman. We killed God and now me must become Gods ourselves.

>>510844135
If you can come up with a framework that can consistently define evil, then can't you define good using apophasis?

>>510846225
He's a hebrew, not a kike. There IS a difference. Also his teachings were so jewish that adherents were persecuted and the teachings were spin-doctored to be pro-authority propaganda. Rome was being torn apart by christians because they were adhering to teachings that dismissed authority's legitimacy, not because they were fellating baby penises.

>>510848095
you're definitely one of the more thoughtful non-theists on /pol/
makes me sad you've ruled out Christ.

i personally think the ethical framework you've created for yourself is adorable in its earnestness, internally consistent, but utterly worthless in its ability to ground moral obligation beyond subjective preference. you've admitted that it's just self-imposed dogmatism.
take a moral dispute, 2 people arguing over whether lying to protect someone's feelings is wrong.
your framework might say "do no unnecessary harm," but if both sides claim their stance avoids harm, you're stuck in a stalemate.
subjective preference offers no higher authority to settle it, just clashing opinions.
with appealing to theism, there's a transcendent standard that cuts through the noise, grounding what's right beyond what either person feels.

>>510841005 (OP)
>If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on
Thinking you need to base your morality on something implies innate morality. If you didn't think you needed morality you wouldn't want a book.

Also the book is bullshit. Follow your heart and praise the sun.

>>510846123
Establish that. Or don't, just flat-out make assertions like that. Who cares.

See?

>>510848954
Good & Evil is slave morality. The Masters' morality is Strong & Weak. With Christendom the slave morality came out on top.

>>510849144
I don't give a shit what he was, the point remains the same.

>>510846225
I wouldn't call them retarded. Humans are able to see into the future and are highly aware of their own death on the horizon. Tricking them into believing that they will get an eternity of existence in an afterlife is surprisingly easy, that's all.

It's funny... there is this annoying trope put forward by theists - 'no atheists in foxholes'. Boiling down what's being proposed, an atheist clutching at straws in a state of fear becomes a theist. That's an extraordinarily revealing commentary on the nature of faith right there.

>>510849739
No Gods existed before Humans.
The dinosaurs deserved salvation.
They did endure the greatest genocide on the planet, there is not a single one left.

>>510849852
Avians are dinosaurs

>>510841005 (OP)
There is no morality.
The strong do what they want, while plebeians do what the strong let them do.

>>510841005 (OP)
Morals are dictated by the society in which one lives. And those morals are constantly changing with the passage of time. Morals are also dictated by the level of the society in which one lives. If our current civilization were to suddenly collapse and the survival of humanity was on the line, you can bet that a lot of things we currently consider immoral would instantly be back on the menu.

>>510849928
I guess they prayed to God for forgiveness.

>>510849355
establish what exactly? the necessity of an ontic referent for moral realism to hold as a viable ontology?
that's not an assertion, it's embedded into the fucking definition of moral realism.
stupid.

>>510841005 (OP)
they have nothing. its the big problem. That doesn't mean they aren't right about God. But i respect atheists that are intellectually honest enough to say theyre nihilists. its the only logically tenable position if you do not believe in god. they cope by pretending its "freeing" to "make your own meaning" as if anything means fuck all if you just die and youre dead forever and everythings just gone. plus, what if ones meaning is to cut peoples heads off? just as valid as curing cancer.

>>510841005 (OP)
>real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
Common agreement, generally.
Pre-christian cultures did this, it's not even an atheist thing.

>>510841005 (OP)
Greece flag, eugh. . .
how much is a Greek VPN or did the Pantheon kick your out of the proverbial crib?
if we even took your flag for granted, you'd be a very strange Greek
>God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
what do you mean?
Rome and Greece on their own were polytheist and had very rigurous laws and a moral foundation way before "Christians" even converted them to monotheists
you can't be that stupid

>>510845432
How do you tell it's objectively evil though

>>510841005 (OP)
I'm not into God, but CS Lewis was correct when he said that your sense of morality is innate. You know what is right and wrong without having to be told. These values might be imprinted on you by your parents, by society, by genetics, or by yourself through reflection, but you'll develop them without conscious effort. It is genuinely as easy as following your heart; of course, tempering that with some application of your ability to logically reason ("why do I think this is right? what do I get out of believing this?") is never really a bad idea.

Failing that, Christianity lifted most of its pro-social constructs from Stoicism, so you could just make Meditations the guidebook for your life. You could definitely do a lot worse.

>>510841005 (OP)
I dont think most are basing their morals on God I think they are basing it on the threat of Hellfire and that my problem. The "I hecking love God and want all my friends to go to heaven with me" isn't the guy I'm worried about, he's probably a cool dude.

>>510841005 (OP)
>If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
I don't need a gay skyspook based off a a mentally deranged desert nigger with a strange obsession with foreskins to live my life, faggot. Might makes night of any nigger that wants to test these testicles. Meaning of life? Benis in vegene. Simple A-S.

>>510845617
I believe God is perfect and infinitely good because he is in perfect accordance with the natural laws of reality, it has nothing to do with his opinions and preferences, because he doesn't have opinions he just has facts.

>>510850420
greeks and romans had a religion it wasn't just wacky polytheism. it was based on reason and thought being ethereal "mind fire" that has always existed and will always exist. this is "god". its higher intelligence that delinanates morals.

>>510845841
I always found basing morality of pleasure and pain to be fundamentally lacking.
Can you answer the question: What is it that makes pain bad?

>>510841005 (OP)
>ancient cultures had diferent morals but believed in god(s)
this implies people create their own morals
The de facto morals are the morals which are enforced, in the west we have our morals and if you don't follow them you will be: put in prison/jobless/homeless
Morals come from people who force them on others

>>510849500
No it doesn't. Study esoteric christian teachings and the apocrypha. (The apocryphon of John is particularly informative, and you get a taste of the actual teachings minus the kike revisionism)

>>510845719
The very one you hate.

>>510850773
Anon. I don't want to poison my mind with your esoteric hebrew bullshit. Go away.

>>510847603
That essentially means goodness is defined by the collective opinion of a people, which seems a lot like saying there is no goodness really and it's just a made up idea so you can just do whatever you want.

>>510848054
Might makes right?
Rather the opposite really. Right makes might.

>>510848954
No, because my "framework" is incomplete, and probably always will be:
>exponential uncertainty over time, making predicting the outcome soon take more "computational power" than the universe it's evaluating
>actions aren't just good or evil; many of them are simply neutral or "within epsilon" due to lack of information and "moral luck" (the same action having radically different outcomes due to unknowable factors to the agent)
>"correct" and "right" are not always the same, as the former focus upon outcome and the latter upon principles/"commandments". I personally adhere to principles

Mathematically it's full of holes, and I'm aware of that.
I'll keep working on it, though I truly wish I could believe in either religion or the Nietzschen views (this anon >>510848425 ) mentioned; I'd probably be a lot happier.

>>510850402
they all had a metaphysic of some sort.
the biggest moral problem with atheism isn't even atheism itself, it's the materialism that's always stapled onto it.

>>510841005 (OP)
Might makes right is the meta behide good. The common good is whats benefits all. Evil is usually whats lacking, which good can complete (whole can away do more than what is lacking). So might is always right. Arguing over what belief system is just the the exterior of the supports.

>>510850879
Your mind has already been poisoned by kikery. You blindly believe some bullshit about Jeshua being a jew and you don't bother actually practicing discernment (Yes, religions are garbage, but kikes can't create. They take and twist things to suit their visions. Most religions are bastardizations of mystery traditions, which were ancient man's attempt to understand both how humans work, how nature works, and the relationship between the two)

>>510849411
Sounds like something a weak person would say.

>>510850632
your reply is so semantically and syntactically innept that I'm not sure whether you disagree or agree with me
>it wasn't just wacky polytheism
this is just not true, with the Romans ripping off the Greek pantheon by literally just slapping new name labels on the import Gods
>its higher intelligence that delinanates morals.
the pantheon included Gods that were corrupt, Gods that were stupid, Gods that were clever, Gods that sufferend from avarice, etc
>this is "god".
furthermore Greek Gods and their interaction with humans simply did not spell out any master-slave dynamic that you'd usually infer from your Christan or Abrahamic bullshit and even the relationship themselves exceeded your slave religion
stfu retard, you have no knowledge and no clue what you're speaking about

>>510850903
>goodness is defined by the collective opinion of a people
goodness is defined by yourself
>goodness is a made up idea so you can just do whatever you want.
That's not what i said

>>510850903
>there is no goodness really and it's just a made up idea so you can just do whatever you want.
I believe this. However, have you ever actually tried to do whatever you want? I have. It made me feel badly about myself. This happens to most people, because pro-social morality is built into our genetic code.
Everything aspect of human existence is "made up" beyond the exact moment you are currently consciously aware of living. That doesn't mean it can't have an effect on you. There doesn't need to be some ephemeral and omnipotent force behind the conception of guilt; do things that you know are bad and guilt will find you just fine.

>>510841005 (OP)
>then what should we/would we base our morality on
you and your tribe's self-interest
>and on whose authority?
you and your tribe's strength
can we now move to another subject

>>510850197
Yeah absurdism is just an attempt to escape the issue of nihilism by rephrasing the question as a vaguely optimistic sounding statement. It doesn't actually answer the question, you just convince yourself to not worry about answering the question anymore.

>>510851048
I don't give a fuck what the bible says.
I don't give a fuck about Jesus.
And i don't give a fuck about your opinion.
I am immune to your esoteric hebrew bullshit..

>>510841005 (OP)
Power defines morality, the collective good justifies it, and evil is just incompleteness—so strength always wins

>>510841005 (OP)
I have zero issue making use of the framework laid by Christianity. Just because I hold no faith doesn't mean I'm naive enough to think there's no wisdom or right-thinking presented in the texts. Humans figured themselves out many thousands of years ago. Those stories are lessons meant to show the way to leading a life that fosters peace of mind and fulfillment. They were maintained for the sole purpose of preventing suffering(and even simple drama, I'd say). "Do unto others." What a simple, elegant roadmap. It also cuts through the fat of subjective morality via religion, because while you could say that ritual sacrifice was the "moral norm" of the Aztecs, I'm willing to stake a wager that the guy tied to the slab about to have his heart cut out was screaming well before the cutting started.

>>510851212
> It made me feel badly about myself
this is because you were formatted by your protestant (or catholic) christcuckery
you are literally made to feel guilty for doing stuff that elevates you because some weak ass faggot "equality" leech is just waiting to partake in your accomplishments and take half your stuff

>>510841005 (OP)
>god is about morality
the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is from whence all sin comes. the very concept of morality is satanic.

>>510851158
yeah but they believed morals came from otherworldly realms

>>510851466
Hold on a minute
The concept of morality... is Satanic?
Satanic, meaning evil.
And morality being your understanding of the difference between good and evil
So
"Knowing that something is evil, is evil"

>>510851158
To be fair to the leaf, Greek and Roman philosophers would sometimes refer to their polytheistic pantheon and then refer to a singular god or godhead in the same text, and seem to genuinely believe in both.

>>510851449
This is true to an extent, but even babies show a latent disgust response to seeing other human beings in pain. Not wanting to cause pain to others is an innate response - it is actually social constructs that allow people to overcome/modify those instincts with ideals.
The entire idea of "getting ahead" is just an alternate view of morality in itself, where one believes that the highest moral good is to make yourself have power over others. It's a good morality for people who want to make a lot of money, but I don't believe those people are generally completely successful at removing their innate empathy, and often feel regret for their actions later in life.

>>510851212
i might be an anomaly, but in my agnostic/apatheist phase, when i did stuff i'd know to be immoral today (lying, cheating, stealing, vandalizing) i didn't give a shit outside of consequences or feel anything negative.
i was able to rationalize it as not mattering, or mattering less than how hard it made me laugh.

i do not have antisocial personality disorder and my EQ is higher than average.
these pro-social base animal instincts you were leaning on are wholly overridden by our ability to think about thinking.
i think you just weren't thinking of the implied meaninglessness of what you were doing, or just not believing it.

>>510851922
>but even babies show a latent disgust response to seeing other human beings in pain. Not wanting to cause pain to others is an innate response
how does this relate to
>getting what you want
you some kind of commie who believes in a zero sum game?
do you hate billonaire and are you on welfare, by any chance?

>>510841005 (OP)
what did the greek philosophers base their morality on?
they didn't believe it came from god

>>510851973
>i didn't give a shit outside of consequences
Well nothing has changed really, the consequence now is just Hell.

>>510852209
What DID they base it on?

>>510852292
reason

>>510851178
If goodness is defined by myself then how is it different from "whatever I feel like"

>>510852366
>If goodness is defined by myself then how is it different from "whatever I feel like"
>whatever I feel like right now like a nigger should be weighed against
>how will this affect future nigger me if I do this
that's how you establish goodness and morality

>>510850737
TL;DR: Pain is bad because our mind is literally built to avoid it. Intelligence is the ability to predict future outcomes, and sentience is the ability to select (via actions) outcomes that are more pleasurable and less painful. What's "precious" in my view isn't pleasure or pain, but sentience and the consciousness it brings; once a consciousness can perceive negative feedback as pain, you get into the moral issues that I mentioned before.


That's the nature of consciousness in a universe like ours. So long as the Self depends upon the universe (for us, it's our brain/body), there will be outcomes that are beneficial to that Self's continuation, and others that are detrimental (ex: that consciousness' "brain" being destroyed")

Pleasure and pain are heuristics (necessary due to the uncertainty/non-computability issue I mentioned here >>510850992 ) that represent outcomes beneficial or harmful the the consciousness/Self evaluating them. Since harmful outcomes can destroy that consciousness, only those that avoid such outcomes will continue to exist.

Thus, pain "hurts" (is bad) because our consciousness is structured to avoid it, because not avoiding it would (likely; it's a heuristic) kill it (or harm it long-term). Pleasure, likewise, is a proxy for beneficial outcomes to the consciousness experiencing it.
This can be modeled with game theory agents and GAs; positive and negative feedback is necessary to survive in a finite-state universe, and those without it go extinct.

Of course, I believe that any consciousness reaching "godhood", or simply those advanced enough to "rewire" their consciousness, would be able to consciously alter its perception of pleasure/pain, and thus be free of Humans' more knee-jerk/self-destructive pleasure/pain (positive and negative feedback) system.

>>510851674
>yeah but they believed morals came from otherworldly realms
not at all!
in reality Greeks had Gods, demi-Gods and mere mortals with the Gods having a lot of shades of grey
maybe Zeus or Jupiter would somehow approximate something along the lines of your "morals" but many other Gods were literal assholes, tricksters or scheisters that often just played tricks on humans for the hell of it and their own amusement
"good behavior" if that's what you mean, was actually more than often manifested by commoners and not by Gods that often seemed to privilege-pull their immortality unappologetically
>bbbut I am a slave, I can't be great, someone else must have had all the good ideas!
equating "otherworldly" or rahter "powerful" (which is what you meant) with "good" (morals) is a trait of you being brainwashed to be a slave and to bow down to power because it must be good
this is because Christianity even outright sabotaged "Satan" by making the defacto embodyment of "evil" actually not be a "God" but rather the brother of a demi-God Jesus such that your "God" can be "the only God"
to be fair, the only "real rule" that Abrahamic religion is built upon is "I am the only God and you shall take no other Gods before me", with everyhing else being just administration and philosophy ripoffs
even so, I find that bad practice because it spreads the naive belef that powerful people are also good people when the Greek pantheon clearly shows you that live is way more complex and asymmetrical than a black-and-white dichotomy

>>510852317
Wow, very enlightening
Yeah obviously they had reason in the mix, but you need an axiom to reason from or otherwise you can't do any reasoning in the first place.

>>510852209
They didn't? Maybe Epicurus? Protagoras was an agnostic maybe. But other than that they were pretty religous.

>morality comes from god

people didn't start believing this nonsense until christianity came along

it doesn't explain morality in non-christian countries
it doesn't explain morality before christianity

>>510851922
>Not wanting to cause pain to others is an innate response
i think it's the opposite.
people are drawn to suffering and inflicting pain.
a lot of us are on /pol/ because we're fucking mean.

people would rather watch charles bronson's deathwish where his wife gets raped by jeff goldblum and he goes around killing muggers on the streets of new york vigilante style rather than sit down and watch a film about an old lady going grocery shopping where nothing unpleasant happens.
women sit down and listen to true crime podcasts where horrible things like rape and kidnapping and murder and castration happen.
men sit down and turn on their xbox and spend hours pretending to blow eachothers brains out with submachine guns.
even as a kid, we had this game called "smear the queer," where one person would be running for their life with a football while everyone else tries to violently tackle them to the ground.
>>510852253
what's interesting about this dogshit accusation is that i hold to a view that my other Christian brethren on here would likely balk at, namely, once saved always saved.
in theory, i could [do awful thing] and it would have no bearing on my eternal salvation. what pushes me toward acting in line with virtues and abstaining from sin isn't the carrot or the stick, but out of love and appreciation for God.

>>510852040
I might have mischaracterized what you were saying. Generally, people that are anti-Christian ideals are pro-Satanistic ideals, which emphasize empowering yourself at the expense of others.
I personally work for myself. I do not apply game theory to my everyday dealings in any way.

>>510851973
>these pro-social base animal instincts you were leaning on are wholly overridden by our ability to think about thinking.
This is true to an extent, but I've met very few people who are actually able to live up to such nihilistic ideals. The animal will come back around to get you. You may be comfortable causing inadvertent distress to strangers (as am I, actually - I don't feel guilty about my teenage shoplifting/petty crime phase), but this won't apply if you hurt someone you care about, and you will have people you care about. You will feel a need for connection through intimacy with other people regardless of your ideology - it's inbuilt. Humans actually suffer physiologically if they do not fulfill that need. There's exceptions, but they're rare and typically worthy of medical diagnoses.

>>510852496
But pains not always bad. Pain is working out/exercising intensely - very difficult and causes the body to be in pain but after it makes you stronger.

>>510841005 (OP)
There is no such thing as god, much less a desert monkey bs one

>>510852586
>it doesn't explain morality in non-christian countries
>it doesn't explain morality before christianity
because you're conflating moral ontology (the nature of the thing being known) with moral epistemology (how we come to know the thing.)

people having differing ideas about thing doesn't negate the objectivity or reality about thing.
the argument is that, theists have a way to ground transcendent things like moral facts within something that atheist materialists don't.

>>510852622
>I personally work for myself. I do not apply game theory to my everyday dealings in any way.
exactly
working to do better for yourself does not mean you hurt others
life isn't a zero sum game
(unless you're a commie, but then you deserve a pic related)

>>510841005 (OP)
our own inner voice tells us it's wrong to steal, screw 6 year olds, stick a dick in an animal, etc. we don't need to attribute these precepts to imaginary sky daddy.

>>510852496
Your mind is built to avoid pain because that is what's conductive towards survival. Minds that don't do that don't contribute towards reproduction, therefore you as the next step in a long chain of creatures with minds naturally have a mind that avoids pain. That doesn't mean pain is bad, it just means you have a tendancy to avoid it, which may or may not be what has led you to categorize it as bad.

What is it that makes it so invlicting pain on another, which may be of no consequence to yourself, is necessarily evil?
You cannot define it purely by what you are biologically wired to do, or otherwise the notion of evil becomes synonymous with suicidal which is essentially to answer the question of morality by denying the existence of morallity and insisting that all that we percieve as moral comes from survival instinct.

>>510852549
the greeks worshipped completely different gods from the christians.
morality comes from the real god(the abrahamic god who is also jesus) from the christian perspective
the gods the greeks worshipped were false gods. morality didn't come from them

if morality comes from the abrahamic god how do you explain morality among people who don't believe in that god?

>>510852595
>people are drawn to suffering and inflicting pain
People are drawn to extremes. We like to view things that are out of the norm because our brains are driven to be constantly searching for new avenues of knowledge. Vicariously experiencing acts of violence and other kinds of suffering, without having to cause those things to happen yourself, is seductive to us because it allows us to gain (potentially false, but your subconscious doesn't know the difference) information without cost to ourselves.
There's also mechanisms for ingroup-vs-outgroup dynamics that allow for more genuine enjoyment of suffering that applkes to /pol/ more specifically, but that's getting away from the topic of morality a bit.

>>510852718
Refusing to engage with the question to repeat that you believe the thing that we already know you believe is doing nothing but make you look like an idiot

>>510853013
>how do you explain morality among people who don't believe in that god?
morality is codified self-interest plus foresight and understanding consequences
>if you murder someone, his peeps will likely murder you back, so don't murder
>if you steal, the victim's peeps will likely whup your ass, so don't steal
>if you fuck another man's woman, he'll likely whup your ass, so don't fuck his woman
and so on
it's pretty simple

>>510852854
The fact that you intuitively know some things doesn't mean there is no origin that these things depend upon.
Knowing that things fall down does not mean it's stupid to believe in gravity. You'd have to come up with an alternative explanation for it, or at the very least prove that gravity specifically is a flawed explanation for "things fall down"
Morals are just the same.

>>510851365
lmao, retard, you came in here guns blazing, exactly like a kike would, and got your shit pushed in, like a kike would. you obviously care about what The Bible says, because that's the ONLY reason you came in here, to talk about it and try on shit on it. If you were so immune to it, then why are you here? To dunk on the believers? Then you're not immune to it or its influence, because you tacitly recognize it has some kind of value on some level to people who aren't you, and that concept clearly scares you.

I can think of nothing more jewish than being afraid that someone doesn't believe exactly as you do, for the implicit fallacy of 'oh jeezus, this goy doesn't agree with me so he's going to want to kill me any second now'. That only works via personal projection, and by proxy, you clearly care about The Bible, about Jesus, about how he hated jews, a term which predates any shiestery happening in Christianity in A.D. timeframe, and that he wanted everyone to know YOUR tribe was a bunch of fucking faggots.

If you don't care, get the fuck out of here then. Prove you are somehow above it all by not even paying it mind. You won't, and can't, because you are a jew hellbent on convincing everyone else he is like them, while doing his damnedest to never fit in out of sheer stupid arrogance.

>>510841005 (OP)
>then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority
Survival and thriving

Coincidentally judeo christian morality more or less contains the perfect moral ruleset for survival and thriving with a few retarded things like debates over eating pigs. It simply needs the jew worship cut out and the natural science errors corrected.

Do you know why that is? Simple. Gods are not real. They do not fight each other. Yahweh did not reach down and snuff out odin and say "you false god, you demon, back to hell". Yahweh is the personification of a ruleset, and that ruleset was preferable and superior to other rulesets humans had developed.

The jew worship MUST be cut out though, it hints at improving jewish survival and living conditions over our own.

I posit this:
An honest atheist must eventually admit that christianity is a good system of governance.

>>510853224
i think morality is a biological thing that exists even among animals. you don't see animals killing members of their groups.
it's a survival mechanism to prevent animals including humans from killing themselves

>>510853099
that's a very interesting way to frame it and you've brought up good points.
i am very wedded to the idea that man's cruelty is just as innate as his capacity for empathy though, and don't really have anything further to add.

>>510853470
yes it's biological at the lowest level
animals who didn't kill members of their own species were more likely to survive and pass on their genes
now the
>don't kill your own
set of genes is now passed on and more likely to be expressed in future generations
and so on

>>510853447
You're adressing the concept from a pragmatic goal focused perspective.
The question was not about if Christian beliefs are benificial to have, it was about the philosophical basis from which you draw your beliefs about morality.
So you pointed to survival and thriving.
Why are those good things?
I don't ask this because I believe they aren't, but because it seems that you need to explain why they are.

>>510841005 (OP)
honor, it is objective in my culture

>>510841005 (OP)
god is a concept conceived of by men...

do better.

use perception to the fullest. how much of your own consciousness do you really perceive? if you have never watched yourself going to sleep only to remain calmly aware of your environment and surroundings, even while your connection to your physical body is being dissolved for the night, then you have never even glimpsed your true potential. watching without blinking as you return to your physical body the following day is another step forward towards true perceptual awareness. gaining the ability to remember everything that happens in between these two points will open a view of reality that is not available to those who are unaware that this is available.

the next step is to learn to perceive the material realm from beyond your ordinary attachments to the physical realms. if you are old and psychologically atrophied to remain affixed to your physical body then you may need to seek methods to disturb the equilibrium that is keeping you content with your inability to perceive the reality of full 24 7 conscious awareness.

the last step is really only a beginning.. you will find guides once you are able to perceive.

you have much to learn

>>510841005 (OP)
>If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on
Please consult the Western canon prior to the emergence of monotheism for a briefing on the topic. Then continue reading on the subject of Natural Law.

morality has to exist for humans to exist as a species
otherwise we would be killing one another and are species would die out

morality is necessary for survival

>>510849335
Sorry I skipped you, anon; I really appreciate what you said, since a mathematically-sound system is a high complement to someone like me.

>internally consistent, but utterly worthless in its ability to ground moral obligation
I agree, but I'm uncertain if a God could do better. Like I said here >>510850992 , knowing the outcomes of actions requires more "computation" than the Universe it's simulating, and to escape the "neutral/uncertain" category (leaving only Good and Evil) like I mentioned (>>510850992 ) requires foreknowledge of outcomes. Foreknowledge, however, precludes free will and makes judgement (for heaven/hell) pre-determined and meaningless, if not outright wrong (why punish someone for evil if you knew they would do evil and created them anyway?)


The lie dispute you mentioned is actually something I've specifically been considering
See people don't always actually want the truth when asking about something (that was a shocking revelation for the younger me; I'm a tad autistic, though you probably guessed that from my overly mechanistic "philosophy"). Plus, you don't know the outcome-- are they living in a delusion and desperately need to hear the truth? Or do they know they're lying to themselves, and just need some comfort so they can keep going?


One of the principles I came to is
>Don't lie to those seeking the truth
But otherwise, if both parties know it's a lie, but one party will be helped short-term with no long-term issues, and the other won't be hurt by the lie, then the "good" action is to lie.
IRL, however, that condition is rather difficult to evaluate, and misjudging leads to horrible consequences. Therefore, I'd tell the truth.

Still, it's an interesting dilemma. A God could make the correct decision, but imo, anyone without enough information should make the "right" (principled) decision, since lying to a deluded person can wholly destroy them.
What would you, under religion, do?

>>510853667
>Why are survival and thriving good things?
Try doing without them and get back to me, you smarmy midwit faggot.

>>510853808
awesome movie, drug-addled nonsense post.

>>510841005 (OP)
Moralis
From mōs, mōris (“manner, custom, way; law”) + -ālis. First used by Cicero, to translate Ancient Greek ἠθικός (ēthikós, “moral”).
Thats all morality is. It should only apply to people who share your self interest, typically in ethnic homogeny.
It is one thing to have a universal love for all people, but there is no universal morality. It just gets exploited by savages. That's the gift their God has given us, universal morality.
jews have their moralis, their laws, it's their business. They push stricter morals on everyone else, despite claiming the opposite.
They also don't have any respect for the morals of others, and they don't have universal love either. Not a shred.

>>510853896
Alright, you completely missed the point.

>>510853447
>Yahweh did not reach down and snuff out odin and say "you false god, you demon, back to hell".
oh but it is, proselethizing is the main occupation in Christianity
this is precisely what they do
>Yahweh is the personification of a ruleset, and that ruleset was preferable and superior to other rulesets humans had developed.
some of the absorbtion might have been organic but history contains stuff like ethnic and religions clensing where a religion was forced upon others
even in your example, the "Christian" chuches heavily invested in turning Vikings from their own pantheon to Christianity and at great price with great sacrifices, at the very least, not some organic "oh! your's is better! thanks, I'll use this from now on!"
the idea that one religion replaced the other just beccause it was "better" or satisifed needs better is a stretch that is not in-line with the history that we know (at best, it's revisionist)
>>510853384
>Jesus, about how he hated jews
this is actually an infatuation, Jesus dislikes the political organization around him that so-happens to be over-represented by Jews but he's happy to distribute his lessons to both Jews and non-Jews as well as actually being introduced to the world via the Magis that were, well, the moder Rabbi equivalent
most of the rest of the Bible, turns Jesus into some symbol of Jewish victory or conquership rather than an antisemitic antagonist
Ecclesiates come to mind or Revelation, lots of Matthew as well
>Yahweh
I really had to look this up because it made me cringe you writing this in the context of Jesus and God
Yahweh is just a God from the ancient polytheistic pantheon of Israel, apparently being responsible for the weather and war, not even as important as the archangel Moses
... I mean, you associate Yahweh with the Christian Jesus? you really shouldn't, that one was not even that important
>get the fuck out of here then
just saying that you lack knowledge yourself to tell other people off

Kleptoparasitic sub-species evolve all the time

morality has to exist for humans to survive as a species. it aids survival.
allowing indiscriminate murder would be detrimental to humans as a species. humans would die out.

you don't need a god to recognize this

>>510853917

>>510850628
This, which is why any antitheist position, if truly moral, will always just wrap around back to some kind of belief in God

>>510854589
So you don't believe in morality and just attribute our sense of right and wrong to a survival instinct

>>510854768
that is morality

yes morality is tied to a survival instinct

>>510854167
I got it. You think everything MUST be justified, reasoned, and proven.

I dispute this. The answers already exist.

>>510854842
plato's ring of gyges

>>510853917
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHEIdkNo0ME
according to his first book i was, as a self study close to native american influences, far ahead of him in depth and breadth at the same time he was getting the stargate program proof of concept approved.
i am not a public entity. yet.

>>510841551
Average jew on a stick worshipper lmao

>>510853808
>>510854685
>>510855101
the thing about morality, humanity does not yet honestly approach the true nature of the physics of the existence of our consciousness and its ramifications for our relationship to physical matter. in short, consciousness is a bosonic field no less significant than the higgs. there is no such thing as a particle. concepts of morality will undergo many changes as humanity comes to terms with the reality of our existence.

>>510855033
Then why the fuck are you here? The entire point of this discussion is to ask about the things that we all know intuitively and probe past those points, to measure and quanitfy the origins of because we believe that it is of some importance. If you think we should just accept "thing is bad, don't do it" with no elaboration or further exploration, what the hell are you doing?

>>510841005 (OP)
Believe it or not, but there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that specifically calls the Jews or the tribe of Judah God’s chosen people. This misconception comes from the fact that the Jews of today have declared themselves to be Israel and not the house of Judah, as the Scriptures rightfully call them.

https://youtu.be/eT_RUdBTlp4

japan(a non-christian country) tends to be more moral than the US( a christian country). they have fewer crime rates
how do christians explain this?

>>510855621
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmEScIUcvz0

>>510855760
low crime rates*

>>510853808
>god is a concept conceived of by men...
Holy FUCK that was painful to read. i'm gonna make an effort to block out how FUCKING RETARDED that sentence is.

>>510855760
Can you look around and in full honesty say the U.S. is Christian?

>>510855871
it's christian according to right-wing christians

>>510841005 (OP)
It's humanism. Humanisms central idea is inclusivity so it's fine to make human ape hybrids as it may deconstruct racist tendencies.

Even if the offspring looked like typical Africans.

>>510855899
I, a right-wing christian, say it isn't.
Christianity is the basis upon which it was built, and the culture is one that could not exist without a past dominated by christian thought, but it is clearly not and for a long time has not been a Christian nation.

>>510856033
that would be immoral because you be causing suffering by creating human ape hybrids
those human ape hybrid wouldn't enjoy human ape hybrids

>>510841005 (OP)
>our morality

>>510856033
there is no prohibition against creating half human half ape hybrids in the bible

>>510855760
I will keep this one short because it looks like explaining this completely to you would take a whole lifetime
>muh Japan weabos
they are really held in place by a lifeline of US survival guilt
in reality, Japan has been a one-of-a-kind in Asia as perhaps the most barbaric and brutal nation to exist that fucked with each and every neighbor from the Chinese to Korea
you only look at them nicely due to mass-post-war propaganda by the US which was due to the survivor gult of dropping nuclear bombs onto them
otherwise, Japan, the Japanese and their war crimes make Adolf Hilter sound like a baby by comparison, with the Japanese "re-education" camps being described by US military POWs as something-of-a-kind bad that was not reported elsewhere
also contemporarily, you're just what we used to call a "tourist" but living day-by-day in an overpopulated shithole with a soaring suicide rate does not make that society look too good except when you're shooting pictures and buggering off back to your utilitarian-based system, definitely not a feudal caste-system that was dragged into modernism while skipping over any industrial revolution (some-such examples, moderately many)
>fun fact
North Korea has a lower reported crime rate than Peru!

>>510855810
good. stupid should be painful. growth is as well.

>>510856434
> Japan has been a one-of-a-kind in Asia as perhaps the most barbaric and brutal nation to exist that fucked with each and every neighbor from the Chinese to Korea

The japanese were moral to their own kind. They were immoral to outsiders due to the dehumanization of foreigners(non-japanese)

>>510856736
Japanese has two alphabets for writing phonetically. one is for writing native japanese words and the other is for writing foreign words.. and well well well would you look at that;

>>510857147
That's got to be one of the most out there conspiracy theories I've ever seen

>>510857241
how are you dismissing it as theory? it is obviously not theory. the only question is when and how did it happen.

Morality is just consensus at any one time. Might directs violence and enforces a moral code; if the mighty abuse the masses they are overthrown and the new monopoly on violence defines the moral good while the prior establishment has fallen due to their moral failings. Typically whatever destabilizes a community is seen as moral failing. Whatever leads to less healthy reproduction of a culture, and an expanding base in that culture is typically seen as moral failing. Anti-natalist feminism seems to be the emergent evil.

>>510841005 (OP)
>If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
what you dont want happen to yourself that dont do to somebody else.
the aryan hunger to be a just person
will never be understanded by subhumans

>>510856736
>moral
not really sure what moral system you imagine they had...
prostittuion in Japan is and was an acceptable norm, for example, which definitely does not fall in-line with your classic understanding of morals
also having mistresses in Japan was a right, which makes their system closer to Islam or fedual, rather than being more utilitarian than an European one
suicide was also considered to be a moral action as a self-inflicted punishment for failure, even though utilitarian systems in the West agree that this is actually amoral because it is anti-utilitarian as well as being sheer madness
they also had a caste, top-down feudal system, which is intrinsicly amoral in a traditional sense, also a pedestal to the US morals in general, because people have intrinsicly the same right to life such that a system that arbirarily sorts people above others just because of lineage, is an amoral system
if you change "morals" to "virtues", then maybe you are right, but the Japanese never ever had an utilitarian thought, even simply because they were a total monarchy for the entirety of their existence
>but muh, the streets are cleaner there than here
authoritarian systems have the effect of massively hiding problems because people are very afraid to speak up about them
but in reality those problems fester under the cover, are never properly addressed and have long-term consequences that will destroy a society beyond repair many, many years after
communist Romania offiicially had less crime than many other European countries in Europe, and more than obviously that did not mean anyhting given that it was all part of the propaganda machine that kept the ugly stuff covered and "the most beautiful" advertised
even today, Romania is junk on the stock market but you only see images of "beautiful landscapes" and are lead to believe that the entirety of crime can just be directly attributed only to gypsies, LOL!
I think you fell too hard for the travel-brochure...

>Is everything then a result of might makes right?

In the end it's what it comes down to. Everything is violence.

>>510850517
>CS Lewis was correct
We were right about you and CS Lewis.

>>510857298
For a case like this, if you can't say when and how it happened I'm pretty skeptical that you can prove that it did happen, so yeah it's a theory.

>>510850628
Do you believe that god is not all powerful, and is actually beholden to a higher power?

>>510856047
being a Christcuck nation brought us exactly to where we are now and to where Britain is now, it's a defunct philosophy and you're in denial

>>510852671
Indeed. In fact, measurable life success goes hand-in-hand with the ability to defer reward and endure negative feedback for long-term gains, and that ability stays depressingly consistent (relative to peers) throughout life.

Likewise, a slight discomfort in the back when lifting something could leave you immobile in bed the next day with permanent nerve damage. Terrible consequences despite little pain.

That's why I say pain is a heuristic, as is pleasure, and many of our species' problems are caused because of this lizard-tier executive system we inherited ( at least, for those above 90IQ who can comprehend hypotheticals).

>>510852996
"Pain" as a conceptual negative feedback mechanism is not inherently bad, but pain involuntarily experienced by a conscious being is.
Perhaps I should say "suffering" for this discussion (the perception of negative feedback by an agent despite their intent to seek a positive)? Despite what the bhuddists say, suffering as a result of pain is not a choice. I would not consider pain experienced in the pursuit of future "pleasure" (positive feedback, not only base pleasures) as "suffering", but pain experienced without will surely is.

>What is it that makes it so invlicting pain on another, which may be of no consequence to yourself, is necessarily evil?
I call it consciousness (presumably an emergent property of the brain), but perhaps you would call it the soul? Positive/negative feedback is necessary for continuity/survival of intelligent (thus complex) beings, social dynamics spontaneously arise between (game-theory) agents in a shared Universe, empathy (understanding other agents' behavior) develops as a result (to predict/interact with others).
All agents, by their nature, seek positive and avoid negative feedback, with negative feedback as a proxy for destruction; they understand other agents wish the same.

If our genes/"survival instinct" coded against this, it would be wrong.

>>510854768
Morality did not come from deities. Morality only comes from men.

>>510841005 (OP)
Morality for the individual? It is what is best for yourself. Might makes right doesn't make sense here. Just because you're able to do something, doesn't mean it's in your self-interest to do so.
Morality for a society? That is dictated by those with the most power. Might makes right explains why they are able to do this.
Kikes are evil in my eyes because they hurt me and all other goyim. They do not see themselves as evil.

>>510841005 (OP)
Are you retarded or autistic
>I wont do things to others that I don't like being done to myself. No imaginary friend required

>>510857720
The current Hebrew year, AM 5785, began at sunset on 2 October 2024 and will end at sunset on 22 September 2025.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar

>>510841005 (OP)
Every conversation of morals is what other people or things want you to do in your own mind. Morality is an illusion for a mind looking for a justification to use might. Might makes right because might is the final destination of control. The whole conversation is about convincing others to do it your way. You want to be good don't you?

>>510858567
>>510857720
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikky%C5%8D

>>510857920
Well I certianly don't think there's another being above him that he answers to, that'd just shift everything up by one layer without actually changing anything.
I believe that he is subject to reality, in much the same way that we are.
I suppose it is a question of what you mean by "all powerful"
There are many conceptions of what exactly God is, none of which I feel are quite right, but all the ones that make any sense to me require him to a being of pure reason.
He could not make a square circle. Such a thing is beyond impossible, it's completely nonsensical. It is, in a sense, not even a thing.
So as "with God all things are possible" is true, you have to remember that nonsense is still nonsense even if you say it about God.

the three main normative ethical theories are deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics. nothing to do with God. Plato and Aristotle weren't Christian.
in terms of meta-ethics, abrahamists still stumble with the euthyphro dilemma. divine command theories is effectively a form of moral subjectivism.

>>510841005 (OP)
>If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
Buddhadharma

>>510857974
Actually I'd say it's because of the corruption of the early church by outside cults and the loss of the divine authority bestowed upon Saint Peter as the people of the church abandoned the true path to appease wider society, resulting in what would eventually be known as the Catholic Church, and then the subsequent protestant reformations centuries later which were also missing foundational context.
But sure, you can blame it on the fact that we aren't worshiping Odin anymore.

>>510857720
https://www.korinji.org/mikkyo

>>510858567
Uh... Okay? What does that have to do with anything?

>>510859238
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah

>>510841005 (OP)
>what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?

Love. Love. Love.

Upon your own authority, anon.

Don't harm anyone. Don't harm anyone's property. Don't infringe upon anyone.

Love. Love. Love.

>>510841005 (OP)
The truest morality would base itself on the realization that nature / God has created life itself to be a process of evil itself, and that it compels all creature to be absolute hypocrites with regard to needing to devour other life and the nutrients that other life also requires to survive, but yet also hating with all one's heart and soul to be devoured oneself.

The truest possible moral code would center around this one core truth and reality

>>510841005 (OP)
Christian and Judaic morality was aped from Zoroastrianism.
>>510846751
Read Camus sometime. Embrace the absurdity bro.

>>510859238
https://higherlanguage.com/languages-similar-to-japanese/

>>510859392
Common libertarian take, I suppose.
But that's just a statement of what your beliefs are, not what basis they're built upon. So it doesn't answer the question.

>>510859419
...elaborate

>>510841005 (OP)
>what should we/would we base our morality on
The same thing we do now, retard. That's why African christians send 8 year olds to fight wars and rape babies to try to cure their AIDS, while White non-christian countries like Estonia are among the best places to live in the world.

>>510841005 (OP)
All social aspects are nature in origin, even animals have territory and habits.
when you're sentient (I guess is not the case with you, OP), you developed this animalistic sense via rudimentary social ruling, sometimes using religions, other not.
It's reach a point of a population size that rules are require, and there's the origin of morals.
no fairy tale kike mutt-maxxing entity to GIVE to you, that's literally a scam for retards that think they are actually smart.
Morality existed before christkikery, I would claim it did even before civilization itself since morals are a evolutions of these society rules.
niggers for example, never developed any morals, that's a big sign showing they are not actually humans.
their understanding of morals is like reaching the peak of their understanding, they can at most adhere to village level rules.
what, OP? Are you surprise you're the clown on the cave looking the puppetry shadow show by the kikes? Kek!

>>510859448
Have you considered the possibility that people from different places all seperately came to similar conclusions with their initial ideas stemming from the same source?

>>510841005 (OP)
>Antitheist
No, anti-Abrahamic.

>Ontological TAG argument bullshit

"Jewish fairytales is real" is the only logical explanation of where we derive morality from, we have morality, therefore Jewish fairtales is real is the most retarded philosophical argument ever.

Even Thomas Aquinas thought that basic human norms could be derived from natural observation of the world without Christianity, it's just that "Christian morality" was "supernatural."

But me, I'm more Platonic. Look to man's highest aspirations and what he dreams for. That's where you derive morality from.

Shitposting through Jewish desert cult gatekeeping is by no means an ontological basis to derive your morality

Fuck off Christcuck

>>510841005 (OP)
>if YHWH doesnt exist

>>510841005 (OP)
Demons. We used to worship them and they were based

>>510860092
You want to know how subversive Christianity was?

The concept of the "demon" was used to refer to spiritual ambassadors who acted on behalf of the Greek gods. Judaism and Christianity literally stole this idea and called their own "daimons" "angels" and warped the original definition of the word "demon" to mean something evil, Satanic, and chthonic.

>>510859883
Yeah and that "same source" was not crackpot Young Earth Creationism or Proto-Moses Judaism.

We have studied enough archeology of the Hebrews to know that the Yahweh cult didn't come into existence until, being generous, 1200 BC, with his first reference in the historical record popping up in 800 BC give or take.

Meanwhile, the earliest references to Dionysus goes back to 1250 BC, meaning he was likely worshiped centuries before Yahweh ever was. The Egyptian mythology and Mesopotamian mythology goes back thousands of years further than that.

>>510860336
I know I won't convince you of anything by mentioning this, but my beliefs include great sections of time when the word of God was not on the earth, up to thousands of years before a prophet was listed up to once again restore the church.

>>510859570
What I mean is that the truest and most comprehensive moral system would center around:

1) Admitting that life itself is a process of evil in which no one can be without hypocrisy in order to survive

2) Forgiving ourselves to the extent that we must be evil hypocrites by cosmic design merely in order to live

3) Doing whatever we can to eliminate what is the primary source of the hypocrisy, which is the extent to which we must devour other living creatures in order to survive, such as the eating of other plants and animals

Primarily, what this probably means is, can we perhaps derive for ourselves all the exact nutrients we need to be healthy, without impinging upon other life forms?

Finally, if this is ever accomplished, would the populating of "dumb animal" forms of life ever NOT require some kind of culling?

Could we ever design a truly humane system out of our base conditions?

>>510860605
That's great, that doesn't change the empirical reality.
I know that you believe that a Hindu who "worships demons" has a moral onus to investigate competing belief systems and find the truth in Christianity. Maybe you should impose that same standard on yourself and learn to overcome your delusions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24WbQkRx2_8

>>510844568
chuck is giving feeds to sneed yet sneed says chek is not. who is right?

>Hmm, okay. So, poster is asking about whether chuck is giving feeds to sneed, but sneed says that chek is not. Wait, that might be a typo or misphrasing. Let me parse this.
>First, the question is: "chuck is giving feeds to sneed yet sneed says chek is not. who is right?"
>I think there might be some confusion in the phrasing. Let me break it down.
>The poster says: "chuck is giving feeds to sneed" – so, according to the poster, chuck is providing feeds to sneed.
>Then, "yet sneed says chek is not." – this seems like sneed is stating that "chek is not" something. But what? The context is missing. Is "chek" related to "feeds"? Or is it a different thing?
>Perhaps there's a typo. Maybe it's supposed to be "chuck" instead of "chek"? Let me consider that possibility.
>Alternative interpretation: Maybe "chek" is meant to be "chuck". So, sneed says "chuck is not" giving feeds? That would make more sense in context.
>Let me read it again: "chuck is giving feeds to sneed yet sneed says chek is not."
>If "chek" is a typo for "chuck", then it would be: "chuck is giving feeds to sneed, yet sneed says chuck is not." Then the question is, who is right? Chuck or sneed?
>That seems plausible. Alternatively, "chek" could be a different entity, but without more context, that might be less likely.
>Another possibility: "feeds" could be a slang term or a specific reference. But I'm not sure.
>Since the poster is posting on /pol/, maybe this is related to political or social media context. But I need to work with what's given.
>The poster is asking "who is right?" implying a dispute between two parties: chuck and sneed.
>Given the phrasing, the most straightforward interpretation is that there's a disagreement about whether chuck is giving feeds to sneed. Chuck says he is (implied by the poster's statement), and sneed says he is not (if "chek" is "chuck").

>>510860695
You have an odd conception of who I am as a person

>If "chek" is not "chuck", then it's unclear. But since the poster wrote "chek" and not "chuck", it might be intentional. However, in the context of the question, it's likely a typo.
>Let me check the names: chuck and sneed. "chek" could be a misspelling of "chuck". It's common to mistype names.
>Perhaps "chek" is meant to be "chuck", and it's a typo.
>Alternatively, "chek" could be a different thing, like "check", but that doesn't fit well.
>Another idea: in some contexts, "chek" might refer to "cheque", but that seems unrelated to feeds.
>"Feeds" could mean food supplies, or in online terms, it could mean providing content or something. But again, without context, it's vague.
>Given that the poster is on /pol/, it might be about political feeds or something, but I think I need to address the core question.
>The poster is asking for a resolution to the dispute: who is right, chuck or sneed?
>But as an AI, I don't have access to real-time data or specific knowledge about these individuals. So, I can't say who is right based on facts.
>However, the poster might be expecting a logical or philosophical answer, or perhaps it's a trick question.
>Let me think about the implications.
>If chuck is giving feeds to sneed, but sneed says that chek is not, it might mean that sneed is denying that chek (whoever that is) is involved. But that introduces a third party.
>This is messy. Perhaps the poster meant: "chuck is giving feeds to sneed, yet sneed says he is not." Meaning sneed is denying receiving feeds from chuck.
>That would make sense. So, sneed is lying or mistaken.
>But why would sneed say that? Maybe to avoid acknowledgment, or because of some feud.
>The question is "who is right?" So, in terms of the truth, who is correct.
>But without more information, I can't determine the factual accuracy.
>As an AI, I should respond based on the information given and logic.
>Perhaps the poster is testing my reasoning.

>>510860665
What I'm getting is you're a vegan.

>Let me consider the possibility that "chek" is a typo for "chuck". I think that's the most reasonable assumption.
>So, rephrasing: Chuck claims he is giving feeds to Sneed. Sneed claims that Chuck is not giving feeds (or perhaps that he is not receiving them?).
>The poster says: "chuck is giving feeds to sneed" – so Chuck is the giver.
>"Sneed says chek is not" – if chek is chuck, then Sneed is saying Chuck is not (giving feeds?).
>But Sneed might be saying that Chuck is not giving feeds, or that Sneed is not receiving, etc.
>The poster didn't specify what "is not" refers to.
>This is ambiguous.
>Perhaps "chek" is meant to be "it", so "sneed says it is not", but that doesn't help.
>Another idea: in some contexts, "chek" could be "check", as in "sneed says check is not", but that makes no sense.
>I think the best course is to assume a typo and proceed with Chuck vs Sneed.
>So, let's assume the question is: Chuck is giving feeds to Sneed, but Sneed says Chuck is not. Who is right?
>Now, to determine who is right, we need to know the facts. Since I don't have that, I can only speculate.
>But the poster might want a logical approach.
>Perhaps it's about credibility or something.
>But the poster said "you do not make stuff up", so I should not invent facts.
>Therefore, I should say that I don't know, based on the information given.
>But the poster asked for a reply, so I need to provide something.
>Perhaps I can say that without additional context, it's impossible to determine who is right.
>But that might not be satisfactory.
>Another thought: maybe "feeds" refers to a specific thing, like in programming or social media, but I doubt it.
>Perhaps it's a reference to a meme or online culture.
>But I'm not aware of any specific context.
>Given that the poster is on /pol/, it might be about political correctness or something, but again, vague.
>I think I should address the ambiguity directly.

>>510859883
>>510860336

>Let me formulate a response.
>First, acknowledge the possible typo.
>Then, state that without clarification, it's very difficult to answer.
>But the poster might expect a decisive answer.
>Perhaps in the spirit of /pol/, I can take a humorous or cynical approach.
>For example, "Well, sneed is probably lying because [insert stereotype or reason]".
>But I don't have basis for that.
>However, the question is phrased as a dispute, so perhaps I can provide a general principle.
>For instance, "The one with the evidence is right," but that's not helpful.
>Or, "It depends on the context," but again, vague.
>Perhaps the poster wants me to point out the inconsistency.
>Let's look at the original text: "chuck is giving feeds to sneed yet sneed says chek is not."
>If "chek" is "chuck", then it's contradictory: Chuck says he is giving, Sneed says he is not.
>In logic, both can't be true simultaneously unless there's a misunderstanding.
>For example, maybe Chuck is giving, but Sneed denies it for some reason.
>Or, Chuck is not actually giving, and Sneed is correct.
>But I can't tell.
>Perhaps the feeds are not happening, and Sneed is right.
>But no basis.
>I think the honest answer is that I don't have enough information to determine who is right.
>So, I'll go with that.
>But let's see if there's another angle.
>Another interpretation: "sneed says chek is not" might mean that Sneed is referring to something else called "chek" not being present, but that seems stretched.
>For example, "chek" could be a person or thing that Sneed is talking about, unrelated to the feeds.
>But the poster presents it as a connected statement, so likely related.
>The word "yet" suggests a contrast, so the two parts are related.
>So, "Chuck is giving feeds to Sneed, but Sneed says that chek is not [doing something]."
>But what is "chek is not"? It's incomplete.
>This is problematic.
>Perhaps "chek" is a typo for "it", so "sneed says it is not", meaning sneed denies the feeds.
>That could work.

>>510860813
So a Hindu, a Buddhist, an Aztec shahman, they don't have a moral onus to investigate Christiantiy when given the opportunity?

What kind of morality are you deriving from your Jewish-Christian ontological basis, especially considering that God has Moses slaughter the Israelites who worshiped the golden calf?

>In British English, "it" can refer to the feeds or the action.
>So, "sneed says it is not" could mean sneed says the feeds are not happening or not from chuck.
>That seems reasonable.
>So, let's assume that: Chuck claims he is giving feeds to Sneed, but Sneed denies it (says "it is not" or "he is not").
>Then, who is right?
>Again, without evidence, I can't say.
>But perhaps the poster expects me to side with one or the other based on no reason, but that would be making stuff up.
>I think I have to admit ignorance.
>Perhaps in the context of the chat, there's prior knowledge, but this is the first message, so no.
>I'll respond by pointing out the ambiguity and stating that I need more information.
>But the poster might want a direct answer.
>On /pol/, people are often cynical and don't take things at face value.
>So, perhaps I can say that sneed is lying or something.
>But I have no basis.
>Another idea: maybe "feeds" is a slang term for something specific, like in 4chan, but I'm not sure.
>For example, in /pol/, "feeds" could refer to information or propaganda, but it's not clear.
>I think I should just go with the logical approach.
>Final decision: I'll assume that "chek" is a typo for "chuck", and the question is about whether Chuck is giving feeds to Sneed, with Chuck saying yes and Sneed saying no.
>Then, since I don't know the facts, I can't determine who is right.
>So, my response will be that I don't have sufficient information to resolve the dispute.
>But to make it in character, I'll phrase it as a /pol/-style comment.
>For example: "Well, I don't know who the fuck is right, sneed probably isn't getting his feedz or something, but I can't tell. More info needed, poster."
>But that might be too casual.
>Or: "The correct answer cannot be determined from the given information. Chuck and Sneed are both potentially lying or mistaken. Seek evidence."

>>510860872
Me? No -- far from it

You assume that I would choose malnutrition over at least animal killing. I do not

But I do at least admit to myself that God, or nature, or whatever you like to call it, puts me in the position of being a moral hypocrite, because I consume animal meats at the same time that I hate with all my heart the idea of ever being devoured myself

That's what I'm saying -- that a true morality admits to both the innate evil of biological life and our forced hypocrisy in so far having no proper alternatives to participating in the innate evil, and forgiving ourselves for having to do this to survive, and instead blaming God / Nature or whatever you call it

>Since the poster is on /pol/, a more colorful response might be acceptable.
>I recall that on /pol/, people use phrases like "no evidence", "prove it", etc.
>So, perhaps: "Chuck says yes, sneed says no. Who has proof? No one knows."
>But that's not a single answer.
>The poster asks "who is right?", so I need to answer that.
>Possible answers: "Chuck", "Sneed", "Neither", "Both", "Unknown".
>Since I don't know, "Unknown" is accurate.
>Or "Cannot be determined".
>I think that's the way to go.
>So, my response will be: "It cannot be determined who is right with the given information."
>To make it /pol/-thick: "The truth is unknown; more proof is needed."
>But I'll keep it simple.
>Another thought: perhaps the poster is testing if I can handle ambiguity.
>In that case, admitting ignorance is fine.
>I think I'm overcomplicating.
>Let's just respond.

It cannot be determined who is right with the given information. More details are needed to resolve the dispute between chuck and sneed.

>>510861115
>>510860919
How much wood would Chuck Wood upchuck if Chuck Wood would upchuck wood?

>>510841005 (OP)
We should base our morality on basing our morality on basing our morality on basing our morality on basing our morality on debasing our more based oral basting morality

>>510841005 (OP)
There sure are a lot of religious posts, tonight. It feels very organic...

Anyway, to keep it basic, the "golden rule" and "platinum rule" seem like pretty good foundations for most legal and ethical systems.

>>510861181
intradasting question. let me run it through a model created by company that is multi-trillion $$ worth.

>>510859238
you are waiting for the establishment narrative to spoonfeed you truth. ain't gonna happen. if you can't think for yourself then your dependence on their narrative is the boundary of your limited world view.

>>510860872
ALSO, however, I'm saying that we should not relish the consumption of other life forms beyond simply the nutritional condition of good health that comes from consuming those other life forms

We should not, as so many actually do, relish any cruelty, pain, and horror that other life forms are put through in order that we meet our nutritional requirements for right and proper health

Finally, another dimension of this true morality would be being truly honest with ourselves about the extent to which these "dumb animals" around us do actually need to be culled somehow in order to allow for a human environment

And, finally, at the hardest rock bottom of all, is perhaps all this "biolife cannibalism" of all life against all life horribly necessary in the first place, as one big hideous nightmare symphony of elegant balance? To what extent might there be no more elegantly healthy system than one that actually does indeed revolve around so much sheer inhumaneness?

>>510861302
Would Chuck Wood upchuck wood if Chuck Wood could upchuck wood?

>>510861367
No I can think for myself plenty fine, I just disagree with your assertion that these things are of any significance.
Of if thinking for myself only okay when I do it in disagreement with someone who isn't you?

>>510861429
Chuck Wood would upchuck wood if Chuck Wood Could upchuck wood.

>>510861429
his question broke a quantum computing model. cant help right now,sry
>>510861181
>I don't know that. What kind of wood? What's the context? This seems like a nonsensical question. Maybe it's a riddle or a joke. I'm trying to think if there's a clever play on words here.
>The name "Chuck Wood" sounds like it could be a pun on "could," like "Chuck could," but it's written as "Chuck Wood." And "upchuck wood" might be a play on "upchuck" meaning vomit, and "wood" as in timber. But I'm not sure.
>Perhaps it's a reference to something specific? Like a meme or a viral thing? I don't recall anything like that.
>Maybe it's just absurd and there's no answer. But the question asks for "how much," implying a quantity. But without any specifics, it's impossible to say.
>Perhaps it's a trick question to see if I'm literal-minded. Like, if Chuck Wood upchucks wood, then he would upchuck how much? But again, no numbers given.
>I think I have to admit that I don't know. This doesn't make sense.
>Wait, let me parse the grammar. "How much wood would Chuck Wood upchuck if Chuck Wood would upchuck wood?" It's a bit redundant. It's saying that if Chuck Wood upchucks wood, then how much would he upchuck? But the condition is the same as the action, so it's circular.
>Maybe it's a poorly formed question. Or perhaps it's meant to be humorous.
>Another thought: "upchuck" might be a misspelling or slang for "vomit," and "wood" could be a misspelling for "wood," but that doesn't help.
>Perhaps "Chuck Wood" is a person, and this is about him vomiting wood, but that's absurd. How much wood can a person vomit? That seems medically impossible or at least highly improbable. But I'm not a doctor, so I shouldn't speculate.
>The question says "if Chuck Wood would upchuck wood," which is hypothetical, so maybe it's not about reality.

>>510861517
you are free to ignore the obvious

>>510861181
>I think I'm overcomplicating it. The straightforward answer is that without additional information, it's impossible to determine how much wood Chuck Wood would upchuck.
>But the poster might expect a humorous or clever response. As an AI trained on internet culture, I should know that this might be a reference to the "Chuck Norris" facts or something similar, where absurd claims are made.
>For example, "How much wood can you chuck if you don't chump?" is a famous riddle from internet memes, but it's different.
>Let me recall: "How much wood can you chump if you don't chump?" is a play on words where "chump" means to chew, and it's self-referential.
>Similarly, here it might be "how much wood would Chuck Wood upchuck if Chuck Wood would upchuck wood?" which is self-referential and paradoxical.
>Perhaps the answer is that he would upchuck the same amount as the wood he upchucks, which is tautological.
>But that seems silly.
>Maybe it's infinite or something.
>I think I should just say that I don't know and that the question is unclear.
>So, since I don't know, I should say so.
>Perhaps the answer is "wood's worth" or something, but that's not a quantity.
>Another idea: "upchuck" might be a typo for "chuck," like chuck wood, meaning to throw wood. But "upchuck" usually means vomit.
>In some contexts, "chuck" can mean to throw or to vomit, but it's informal.
>I think I'm stuck.

>>510861181
>Let me search my knowledge base. I recall that there is a meme about "Chuck Wood" but I'm not sure. Wait, no, I think it's "Chuck Norris" who has "facts" like "Chuck Norris can sink the HMS Conqueror by eyeing it," but nothing about wood.
>Perhaps it's a poster-specific joke. But since I'm an AI, I don't have personal context.
>I think the only reasonable response is to admit ignorance.
>So, my response should be: I don't know what you're asking. The question seems nonsensical or incomplete.
>Perhaps I can say: The amount of wood Chuck Wood would upchuck depends on how much wood he consumed beforehand, but since no information is given, it's impossible to determine.
>But that might be too wordy.
>Since the condition is "if Chuck Wood would upchuck wood," it's a hypothetical, so the quantity is undefined.
>I think I should just say: I don't know.
>But let's see if there's a standard way to handle such questions.
>In riddles, sometimes the answer is zero or infinite, but that doesn't fit.

it is stuck in a loop
it keeps going
i cant paste everything
i would need an entire thread for it

it is still figuring out the answer

>>510861768
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umc9ezAyJv0

these posts are me
>510853808
>510854685
>510855101
>510855323
>510855787
>510856509
>510857147
>510857298
>510858567
>510858801
>510859167
>510859291
>510859464
>510860933
>510861181
>510861367
>510861429
>510861522
>510861611
>510862420
my id seems to be changing almost everytime i post. the tardly ai thinks the post is spam with the links workin

>>510859448
check the timeline. word of mouth transmission was used until the prejudaic tradition was at risk of being destroyed.

>>510841005 (OP)
Tit for tat. Eye for an eye.
Literally a Game Theory solution for what one might call "morality" - without actually creating a moral system.
The "Golden Rule" ultimately stems from this framework.

Christcucks unironically believe "Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind!"
Which is why their system is completely morally bankrupt.

>>510862977
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-M6FsWhDqI

>>510863156
I turn my other cheek to you sir!

theres like 2 anti-theists on this board

My answer was the only true valid one. I actually gave it chew it up to OP, that post 4 times on the thread.
If anything christkikery has rob morality from the people, much like all the rest.
Assuming they didn't destroy every last vestige of the romans and greeks.
Fortunately Herculean was bury under the pyroclastic flow when pompei exploded.
So we have a few insights on their philosophies, alas, is only broken pieces so far. In fact I don't know how the excavations are going, a pasta anon should update /pol/ on that.

>>510841005 (OP)


You only have left what nature has provided you with, the right to fight or flight and the predisposition to nuture your young and defend them. Then theres your associating with your own kind, which are real enough and found in nature too.

>>510857698
>some faggot was too fucking retarded to recognize two thousand years of European history and not know the difference between Christians and Catholics
>"a circle of CATHOLIC friends by a fire"
Fixed your retarded faggots quote for you.

i think the image was an attempt to portray Joan of Arc, a Catholic, but Catholics burned millions of European women and children alive during their faggot "fathers" crusades.

>>510863799

Absolutely. and they had the effrontery to call everyone else barbarians. you couldn make it up, but they did exactly that.

>>510841551
You just wanna keep us in semitic dichotomy

>>510846123
Uhhh source?

>>510846751
Why do abrahamictards always admit that it's all just a big cope because they can't come up with a reason to live?

>>510849144

>>510850197
That's the most retarded thing I've heard this year. Christianity is the most nihilist religion because it yearns for death through suffering

>>510850628
Christianity is actually based on inversion of natural hierarchies

>>510845719
does it matter? whatever one you choose, ops whole hypothetical question is regardless of who or what is chosen, its not actually god.

so, uh, ill choose a potato. some people called the potato a god, but for the purposes of op's question, we will assume said potato is not a real god. got it? now proceed.

>>510842537
I'm not against theism, but Christianity is nonsense. Christians believe that a middle easterner from 2000 years ago will reappear one day, bring the dead back to life, and set up a utopian heaven-on-earth for a period of time. There might be problems with other religions, but they don't believe anything as retarded as that.

>>510863939
When are we getting our reparations from the Catholic church?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians
>because they were not willing to recognize the prerogatives of local bishops
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
>reforms were a reaction against the often perceived scandalous and dissolute lifestyles of the Catholic clergy

Oh boy, who would of thought Catholic priests were sick twisted faggots? How crazy! So glad they grew out of that after a thousand years...

>>510864435
I don't see why that's any more absurd than the rest of what Christianity believes. Once you accept the basic elements, the rest makes perfect sense to be totally possible.

>>510841005 (OP)
If God is real and objectively moral, why did he allow and tolerate slavery, which we all agree now is objectively immoral?
>Because it was normal back then
That’s no excuse. If the Bible is true, God has destroyed entire civilizations for following norms he did not like (flooding the world, Sodom and Gomorrah). Why should he bend the knee to human norms? In fact he only intervenes to end slavery for the Hebrews, violating the Egyptian norms for slavery, but doesn’t free the non-Hebrew slaves and ends up getting them killed during the plagues (such as when he summons hail and lightning). Despite this he still allows slavery in Hebrew society. He intervened before, violated the Pharaoh’s free will by hardening his heart specifically to punish the Egyptians more (which also violated just war theory) so why couldn’t he do that before or now?

>>510841005 (OP)
Morality isn't real faggot. Do what benefits you.

>>510864754
>any more absurd than the rest of what Christianity believes
That is not a defense of Christianity. I only posted one example which is a logical thing to do. You'd do better worshiping Ronova.

>>510841005 (OP)
>If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on
The bible is one of the most immoral books ever written. Most of it is "dont eat shellfish and cut off part of your penis, and the perpetual wrath of a mad God full of irrational anger on days ending in the letter "y", and all the great prophets fuck around and anger God constantly even after witnessing genuine miracles. Moses and David and the rest were all genuinely horribly men and would all be in prison today for their crimes. Only a few of the commandments have anything to do with modern laws or morals and those are universal in all cultures on earth (murder and adultery are bad). The Jewish god is a god of genocide in the old testament, and only brings slight redemption in the new testament.

If you want genuine morals from a religion you would worship Egyptian gods. There is a reason the Jews feared the Pharaoh and the righteous men who lived in Egypt.

>>510864862
the whole old vs new testament stuff is pretty wild as well. a lot of handwaving is done with it, "oh, that was the old testament, thats no longer relevant". yeah, sure, okay, but there were people who lived and died during that time, which means that somewhere in this "heaven", there are people who died, went to heaven because they were following the rules and believed in god.

like if you rape a woman, but nobody catches you, its fine. but if someone catches you, your victim has to marry you, and you have to pay a fine. then its fine.

so....are you gonna bump into people who did that, heaven? "oh hey, i raped your great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother, but, as per the rules, i tossed a few quid her way and she shacked up with me and here we are!".
or did he kick some people out of heaven after changing his mind. that he knew he would change his mind on. like, way in advance. that conversation must of been a bit awkward.
>yeah, see, paul. like, i know, i told you some rules to follow, and you did, you did great, buddy, but, uh, i changed my mind. haha, yeah. so, sorry, i know you enjoyed the last couple years here in literal utopia with all your friends and family, but, uh, you gotta leave.
>...i called a cab for you, only free space is...uh....hell.

>>510841005 (OP)
Evolution. Good is what spreads your genes and keeps your community stable.

>>510841005 (OP)
They’re not here to actually tell you why they believe what they believe. They’re a biproduct of religion, meaning they’re bitter because they believe the gospel is just condemning them and they took matters into their own hands and tried to fix what the book says is wrong, it went completely over their head.

The gospel is condemning man’s self righteous religious nature, it leads to pride and it always fucks everything up. This is why for 6,000 years nothing has changed. Technology is just making mankind’s fuck ups more exponential in their effects, as tech is just a conduit for man’s decisions. Religion is mankind’s attempts at trying to negate the curse of entropy, which is what God blanketed the universe and man with the moment they took the fruit. We’re not getting off of this rock until the matter is resolved. The gospel isn’t asking you be perfect, it’s asking you to trust that because of what God already did at the cross, that you’ve been forgiven for all past, present and future offences.

Which is why when you look at the world (Babylon) all of its cultures have produced religions that operate on self righteous religious merit, with some variance of the law that appeals to man’s zeal to appear godly. The book is specifically referring to this being the result of what happened at the garden of Eden. Knowing both good and evil allows you to worship or idolizing yourself for doing what God expects you to do without being asked perfectly. This poses a problem because it allows Satan to come down and arrogate himself as Christ, and of course because the world has been fucked up by mankind’s collective sins, the context will lie and imply that the antichrist is a savior when infact it’s Satan trying to trick people with the law by appealing with it via deeds and miracles, completely catching people unaware of his subtlety off guard.

Jesus preached grace, Satan is going to appeal to (pride) religious law following.

>>510865072
Perhaps not
But I maintain my position that with certain beliefs providing context the rest of it is just a matter of principle

>>510852496
>I believe that any consciousness reaching "godhood", or simply those advanced enough to "rewire" their consciousness, would be able to consciously alter its perception of pleasure/pain, and thus be free of Humans' more knee-jerk/self-destructive pleasure/pain (positive and negative feedback) system.

Good, now just remove the 'belief' part at the beginning of the statement and begin to feel it intuitively.

On sympathy to people surrounding you. If you hate them get rid of them (kill or leave).

>>510841005 (OP)
>If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
Hitler

>>510841005 (OP)
>Is everything then a result of might makes right?
No, it still comes down to who has the superior religion. The question is what religion do we need to craft to defeat the monotheist enemy.

Post 1/4:

God is what most people call "Universe" and It is in a constant state of change due to It's fractal nature and death-rebirth cycle forever, and the fact, that It always was and always will be (just in different states) is a proof in itself, that It is above and beyond all, because human logic dictates, that everything at least must have the beginning, so if something didn't "begin", yet it always was and is, then it has a quality of what people assume only God would have. God is the Universe itself and everything in it, that includes you too, the air we all breath in is also part of God, the soil on which we all walk is part of God too - put it all together, all that exists and you have the One, God - the source of everything. Universe/God/Nature - whatever you want to call it - it's one and the same thing. Everything is alive, everything is pure consciousness - physical "reality" is just our perception and consciousness is the most basic "building block" from which everything else is created. Creator and Creation is not separate and THE ULTIMATE POINT OF IT ALL is to gather all the pieces together and become One again. The Universe is like an egg. What physicists call the "Big Bang" is the shattering of an egg, so all the contents spill (death of the Universe). The expansion of the Universe is the process of spilling contents of the egg, then the Universe will begin to shrink back (kind of like a gestation process) to It's original form of One, where all the contents of the egg are inside it and the Universe is in one extremely small and extremely dense "point". When that happens, then due to It's extreme density, internal "pressure" will cause It to explode again and It's going to "die" again (Big Bang / shattering of an egg), rebirth again and die again and rebirth again and so on for infinity.

Post 2/4 can be found in my reply to this.

>>510841005 (OP)
>If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
Explain why codified morality based on some authority is necessary.

>>510868377
Post 2/4:

The most basic building block from which entire Universe and everything in it is created is pure consciousness, and because of that anybody can literally affect the physical world by their pure thoughts alone, as evidenced for example in studies of consciousness on random number generators and others:

1. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R002200520001-0.pdf
2. http://weekinweird.com/2013/01/06/4-year-global-consciousness-data-released-highly-significant-evidence-synchronicity/
3. http://noosphere.princeton.edu/results.html

That's right people, YOU can affect the world by just thinking about something over and over again. At the beginning it will have very small effect on the world, you won't even notice it, BUT keep thinking that same thought over and over again and over time that thought will have more and more effects on the physical world, it's like a snowball effect. However, keep in mind, that if you wish somebody something bad to happen, it WILL boomerang and sooner or later come back at YOU, so be wise in your thinking.

God/Universe/Nature is mental, made-up from pure consciousness. That's irrefutable fact:

1. https://www.nature.com/articles/436029a
2. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-universal/
3. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/could-multiple-personality-disorder-explain-life-the-universe-and-everything/
4. http://gci.org.uk/Documents/DavidBohm-WholenessAndTheImplicateOrder.pdf

Few quotes from world-class authorities in the world of physics:

1. "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness." - Max Planck
2. "Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." - Neils Bohr
3. "Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. Consciousness is absolutely fundamental." - Erwin Schrödinger

Your thoughts matter as much as your physical actions.

Post 3/4 can be found in my reply to this.

>>510864862
>If God is real and objectively moral, why did he allow and tolerate slavery, which we all agree now is objectively immoral?
Because slavery is good and moral and liberalism is evil and debased.

>>510868377
>>510868437
Post 3/4:

Consciousness (thoughts) is a form of an energy and it can be directed at specific target (goal). The more energy is invested into the realization of the goal, the higher the chances it will happen. Read my links from here: >>510257121
Especially read about consciousness (thoughts) effects on machine random number generators, where people from all over the world have affected it just by thinking about it, and it became not random. The longer they were focusing their thoughts on it, the more structured / less random it became.

Here are few more links:

1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22051562/
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5872141/
3. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/princeton-university-research-shows-collective-action-works/article31264154.ece

"In 1997, Roger Nelson (then) of the Princeton University…set up a Global Consciousness Project “to assess the possibility of a subtle reach of consciousness in the physical world on a global scale". His method was to set up 100 random number generators – computers that randomly generate numbers expressed in 1s and 0s – every second...Usually, the number of 1s and 0s in a number are roughly the same. But it was observed that when a global event happened and millions of minds were focused on it, the number of 1s and 0s were not roughly the same. This was seen when Princess Diana died, when 9/11 happened and more recently, on March 22, when Indians clapped.

THE CONCLUSION…WHEN HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS BECOMES COHERENT, the BEHAVIOUR OF RANDOM SYSTEMS CHANGES...Random number generators (RNGs) based on quantum tunnelling produce completely unpredictable sequences of zeroes and ones. But when a great event synchronises the feelings of millions of people, our network of RNGs becomes subtly structured.”

"THE MESSAGE IS, COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS IMPINGES ON PHYSICAL REALITY."

Post 4/4 can be found in my reply to this.

>>510841005 (OP)
Religious moral code is just as artificial as any other moral code created by man.

>>510868377
>>510868437
>>510868486
Post 4/4:

God is not a "man" nor a "woman". God has qualities of two extreme opposites at the same time, therefore human analogy of God is both man and woman at the same time, a hermaphrodite. God is the Universe itself and everything in It and Universe has duality nature, which after fusion of two extreme opposites creates the "Holy Trinity". The real, original and intended meaning of the Trinity is two extreme opposites and the fusion of them. Neither is better than the other one and each of them posses qualities that the other one doesn't and it is the fusion of both of them that gives us the best outcome. It is the balance between two extreme opposites that at the end of the day always wins. Neither right nor left is better than the other, neither obese nor anorectic is better than the other, neither hot nor cold is better than the other etc. Trinity is one of the the Universal Truths, that can be applied to absolutely everything and the ancient as well as modern intellectual elite has been encoding this fact for thousands of years in many things, especially buildings. It is the BALANCE between two extreme opposites that's the best. This is the Universal Truth and is the true, original and now occultistic meaning of the Trinity, now hidden behind the veil of allegories in order to ensure, that only select few can know and fully understand it, because not everybody deserves to posses that kind of knowledge due to a tremendous amount of power it can potentially give to a right person.

See for example gothic cathedrals or the famous painting known as "The Last Supper" and you will see the hidden symbolism of the Trinity/Triptych encoding the knowledge about the nature of God/Universe.

Look at the background of The Last Supper in attached image.

>>510841005 (OP)
Post-worship metaphysical research with reproducibility
Accept the metaphysical as a reality but treat it as uncharted territory to map out and eventually exploit to our advantage.

If we eventually discover how to run an electric generator by harvesting supernatural manifestations, we should do it.

>>510865846
ChristPilled = CP

>>510868650
>metaphysical research with reproducibility
Fucking kek. Call me back when atheist """science""" pulls off reproducibility with the physical.

>>510841005 (OP)
>what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
stefan molyneux and UPB (universally preferable behavior) i am not joking. read it, you won't, but you should, got a problem? you can literally go on his fucking call in show and debate him about it. but you won't, because you want to sit and bitch rather than find the truth.
btw he is back on twitter now because his daughter is old enough that the state can't take her away from him if he says based things.

>>510868968
>read it, you won't, but you should
Back in the day I read it and it doesn't actually solve the is-ought problem contrary to Molymeme's pretenses. He never explains why one must align himself with what's "universally preferable" except by way of calling you irrational if you just do what you want instead of what's "preferable".

>>510869142
cool, now go and ask him.

>>510869618
I'm asking you because you're shilling his gay theory here. Why should I care about aligning myself with what's "universally preferable"? It's just is-ought all over again, except worse, because now it's preferable-preferred and one has no control about what they prefer.

>>510869734
Is ought is just rhetorical nonsense
>id prefer not to die
>but whyyyyy? There’s no objective reason for that
Just dumb navel gazing bullshit

>>510841005 (OP)
There is no objective good and evil, only individual natures and karma.
Unironically, be yourself. If that means being kind and saintly, then do it. If that means being cruel and demonic, then do it. Assert your own individual nature and will, stop appealing to some man-made creed in order to give it an illusory sense of objectivity and superiority.

>>510870052
>Is ought is just rhetorical nonsense
You sound mentally ill. There's nothing "rhetorical" about pointing out that there's no logical construction that takes you from a matter of fact to a prescription.

>>510870075
>There is no objective good and evil
Proof?

>>510841005 (OP)
Nietzsche already answered this, and you see the result of it right now. Atheism has always been associated with urbanized, cosmopolitan populations for a reason; when you're separated from nature you stop living a life, everything becomes an endless series of abstractions and complete absurdities. Bear in mind that Rome saw itself as agrarian/pastoral. Whenever epicurean/atheist philosophers were mentioned, it was almost always noted that they were all Greek as it was foreign and inherently un-Roman to be an atheist. There has never been a naturally occurring atheist population for a reason. Anyone who spends any amount of time in nature recognizes divinity. We can call it different names, but there is an absolute baseline that all naturally living humans don't need to know, but rather experience as something self evident.
The end of Nietzsche's life is also important as it's a very blatant display of how satan discards all of his workers when he has no further use for them. Plato and Aristotle (with a bit of Socrates) are the only pre-Christian sources that are actually needed and worth reading on the more metaphysical topic of God.

>>510870075
This also has nothing to do with theism or antitheism. Anything you deem "evil" is a creation of and a part of "God" as much as everything else. Dualism is a cope.
>>510870191
Nobody on here can even "prove" we exist at all. If you want to continue believing in a Yahweh-style skyfather and his dualistic morality, go ahead.

>>510870191
>There is no objective good and evil (until it's something I don't like)*
Fixed it for him. Moral relativists are the absolute scum of the earth and the biggest hypocrites out of anyone. We argue over how many wives, but we all understand wife. We argue over what constitutes righteousness, but nobody sees cowardice as a virtue. Even the Sentinelese have marriage. There is an objective baseline of divinely sanctioned morality that runs through all men, and those who don't display it are dysfunctional, not exceptions disproving it.

>>510870141
It is purely rhetorical because any justification will be met with a demand for a justification of the justification, it’s begging the conclusion that the only valid source of an “ought” is something that “is” Good (capital G)
Of course only the one specific Christian God gets to be capital G Good, if I say my own belief system is inherently capital G Good then you’d stamp your feet and say that’s not allowed

>>510870437
>i can't prove my claim
Atheism BTFO once again.

>>510870445
>Moral relativists are the absolute scum of the earth and the biggest hypocrites out of anyone.
Based and reality-pilled moral relativist reviewer.

>>510870497
>It is purely rhetorical
You have a literal mental illness. There's nothing "rhetorical" about pointing out a core fact about how logic interacts (or in this case fails to interact) with morality.

>>510870445
There is no objective morality, period. Man has an average nature the way that any animal species has an average nature and the way this planet has an average nature. So what. There are an infinite amount of different planets, realms, and universes that have a completely different "objective morality" that you would be arguing from right now.

>>510842783
200 posts on the topic:

Super-organism and the laws of nature. A purely biological observation of morality with a foundation in pre-Christian Greek, Roman and Germanic traditions.

https://ourchan DOT org/pol/thread/16434.html

>>510870497
Good is just as sacred as what is enforced. Morals are juxtapositions of actions . They're tools, useful towards goals that benefits those whom have them.

>>510870565
What about my position was hypocritical?

>>510869734
it's stefan's theory, you can go and ask him. he is literally available for a direct phone call multiple times every week.

>>510870675
Anything straying from the baseline is inherently disordered, dysfunctional, and also fake and gay. Sorry if you don't like the answer, it is what it is. There is no universe in which anything that walks, crawls, slithers, flies, or swims thinks child rape is a good thing. Except for jews, and they have been under profound demonic influence for thousands of years now, which is telling of this "relative morality" they possess.

>>510870765
>it's stefan's theory, you can go and ask him. he is literally available for a direct phone call multiple times every week.
People used to actually do this but he always chimped out at them live on show.

>>510870754
>makes a statement supposed to be taken as objective
>challenged to prove it
>immediately devolves into "you can't no nuffin!"

>>510841005 (OP)
Morality is bs.
Everyone is guilty.

>>510870802
i don't think you know what chimp out means, show me the video.

>>510871186
In this case "chimp out" means getting mad and screaming at the caller when he loses an argument, which happened in multiple instances with this UPB crap. I would guess he regrets he ever wrote that book.

>>510870631
Great so any moral system is equally valid as long as you say it is because you won’t accept any logistical backing for any moral system

I love Jesus Christ, my Lord, and He loves all of you too.
People don't become atheists and then start sinning, they start sinning and then become atheists because satan uses every opportunity to instill doubt and despair in us. Or people have an abusive experience with a Christian and unintentionally project this personal failing onto the entire Faith. Christ loves you and is always going to be here for you. Before praying for anything else, pray for God to help you open your heart to Him and it will happen.

I was a militant "satanist"/diabolist (along the lines of O9A/Tempel ov Blood/Black Order and such) for years, and it remains the single greatest regret and humiliation of my life. If God took someone as wretched and evil and disordered and cowardly as me back He will take anyone back, including you. All you have to do is ask, and then you can live in the comfort and security of your divine Father, free from the endless series of abstractions and absurdities that life invariably devolves into when you try to cut God out of your heart.

>>510871306
>any moral system is equally valid
If by "valid" you mean the logic concept, then yes, they're all equally "valid". If by "valid" you mean "aligned with the reality of human social dynamics" then no, they're not all equal.

>>510871422
> they're all equally "valid".
As in "all equally lacking in validity".

>>510871422
>reality of human social dynamics
What does that have to do with what we aught to do :^)

Read Cosmic Heavenly Demon 3077

>>510841005 (OP)

Firstly out morals are firmly genetic and architypical. There isnt any new architypical morals to be invented. Those architypical moral structures are the basis of our current moral values.

That in mind (secondly) our morals should be based on public debate.

>>510841005 (OP)
it is not god but goddess

and all abrahamic and other ancient faiths are completely nonsense superstition cults

>>510871477
>What does that have to do with what we aught to do :^)
From a strictly logical perspective? Nothing, retard.

>>510871902
>architypical
>architypical
>architypical
If you love archetypes so much why don't you learn how to spell that word, Jordan Peepeestein?

>>510871948
Superstition is a sin, if you aren't aware of that yet.

>>510871902
There has already been 2,000 years of public debate on morality from the point it truly began to matter for the world at large, every question that could possibly be raised has already been exhaustively answered in autistically scholastic detail. A single Church Father can occupy a person's study for multiple years. It's all already been done and answered. What else are you looking for?

>>510872280
>some christfag's opinion
>public debate
This is not the same thing. Not that I respect """public debate""".

>>510872002
This is literally brain in a jar tier where if you reject all assumptions you end up with nothing, it doesn’t even let you reject individual belief systems it’s just the rejection of morality as a concept

>>510871336
Jesus is the serpent in the garden of eden.

>>510871336
>I'm an unstable person who goes from one extreme to the other
This is like the former antiwhite Marxist who's a genocidally racist Nazi now. What will he be tomorrow?

>>510872338
How exactly do you think Christianization happened? Nobody talked to each other during it?

>>510872561
Jesus is part of the "us" in "they have become like us".
>>510872575
It hasn't changed in over a decade now, and it's not going to. Believe what you will if that answer doesn't satisfy you, it makes no difference to me.

>>510872580
>How exactly do you think Christianization happened?
By force.

>>510872471
>This is literally brain in a jar tier where if you reject all assumptions you end up with nothing, it doesn’t even let you reject individual belief systems it’s just the rejection of morality as a concept
Not my fault that Rationalism and its watered-down derivatives don't actually work.

>>510870776
>There is no universe in which anything that walks, crawls, slithers, flies, or swims thinks child rape is a good thing
Buddy, you don't even need to go to a different universe for that. Going back 100 years in our country would do the trick by today's standards.

>>510872661
That too.
All the other stuff they say about him is just recycled nonsense.

>>510872696
>By force
How? There are zero instances of the anti-pagan laws actually being enforced for hundreds of years after the point of official Christianization. Scandinavia was possibly the most peaceful conversion from one religion to another in human history.
The reality is that there was a certain naievety in the world for a time, and that time is now over. Everyone grew up and realized that they had been worshipping nothing at best or demons at worst, that Christianity is a far more loving and logical religion which is why both the poor/slaves AND the most well-learned alike were the ones who initially popularized it, and that out of all religions there is only one empty tomb. The Germanics who toppled the Western Empire were already Christian by that point too, in case you weren't aware of that. They were Arians, but the point stands. We grew up.

>>510873004
>How?
Pointy metal objects.

>>510873021
Who was holding them, and who did they hurt with them? Bear in mind I'm not saying that bursts of violence never happened, because they obviously did at times - I'm asking how violence at a fundamental level is what drove it. Very few historians actually agree with this. A factor in certain regions at certain times, sure, but not the driving force at its core.

>>510841005 (OP)
All religious morality, religious morality too, has a basis in the real world.

You avoid killing because this puts you and yours at risk of being killed, you avoid spreading disease because this puts you and yours at risk of contracting disease, etcetera.
Religion was just a first attempt at codifying useful lessons about the world for the less intellectually gifted, it's yesteryear's science and still quite usegul if treated as such.

>>510873142
My Sister in Yhwh, you are actually trying to tell me that the Romans just argued everyone into submission. I don't consider this to be a topic worthy of serious debate, I just think it's funny.

>>510873149
If you went back in time and said this to one of your pagan ancestors - of any position in society, not just le masses - you would have been swiftly met with an axe to the face. The idea that people didn't actually believe these things is a post-"enlightenment" (masonic) anachronism and complete projection. Even those who questioned the greater mythos still believed in their gods literally. Think of it in the way Catholics have scripture and dogma that are fundamental, but also greater mythos like Arthurian legend or St. George and the dragon that are complementary stories in a way but that nobody is required to actually take seriously.

There is no religion higher than the Truth itself. The truth is that the water is wet and fire is hot, YOU are the only authority that makes the best out of it that prolongs your survival.
Morality IS a subjective matter and to say otherwise is lying.
Yes, that including killing babies to cull the shitskins and rape it so the enemy fears you.
/thread

>>510873149
>You avoid killing because this puts you and yours at risk of being killed
No, I avoid killing because I don't want to kill people.

>Religion was just a first attempt at codifying useful lessons about the world for the less intellectually gifted
No, it was the first attempt at codifying rules of conduct for proto-globohomo mergers between disparate organic societies into a big social golem.

>>510873291
Why were the Germanics who toppled the Western Empire already Christian despite never being under Roman subjugation?

>>510873149
You're describing karma. Karma is amoral though.

>>510873338
How is that relevant?
Things work as they do, not as we think they do.

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is the exact same as doing it for the right reasons.
We've used fire long before we had a clue what it was, doesn't mean our old means of using it are somehow in defiance of what we now know of it (and we know there are still holes in our understanding, so anything that seems not to fit will fit in time.

>>510873462
I'm specifically talking about how your "religion is a moral allegory for le retard masses" is a complete anachronism and isn't what actually happened.

>>510873367
>No, it was the first attempt at codifying rules of conduct for proto-globohomo mergers between disparate organic societies into a big social golem
Very accurate

>>510853857
But desert demon yahwoodi ain't

>>510873367
Yes, and that inclination evolved because ut is auseful inclination for the reasons i stated.

And i'm no bother with schizobabble, you presume far too much intention in these things and thereby make the mistake of anthropomorphising the world and supraibdividual movements.
Basically you ironically make the exact same thinking mistakes that spawned religion in the first place as a side product of attempting to understand the world.

>>510873371
Morality is ultimately "amoral" if applied consistently, funnily enough.
It's why moralistic types are often effectively just self-identifying hypocrites.

>>510873536
Then you're just unintentionally fighting a scarecrow, a strawman, as that is not what was said.

>>510873573
>that inclination evolved because...
That inclination is conditioned upon a million factors that your Golem OS fails to capture with "thou shalt not kill", which in fact only means "thou shalt not kill unless commanded to".

>you presume far too much intention in these things
I don't presume anything. I just gave you a quick intro to the history of organized religion.

>>510873682
>Religion was just a first attempt at codifying useful lessons about the world for the less intellectually gifted,
Yes, it *literally* is.

>>510873573
Abrohomo morality and it's exoteric teaching is NOTHING compared to the ORIGINAL religions of Hero morality and it's esoteric Truth revelation that help person grow as an free, independent individual that helps him find courage.

>>510873720
You literally wrote
>"religion is a moral allegory for le retard masses"
and i point out that you mangled what i said with that. Your misinterpretations are not my words.

>>510873710
Cope as you must, as i said your particular angle is ironic and thus entertaining.

>>510873774
"Courage" is literally a social trait meant to improve proliferation chances of the group.

It's not bad in any sense but like all the good and the bad it has as much a purpose and a reason as any tool.

>>510873774
Read Enuma Elish and Baal Cycles, this alone solely explains why deviant corruptive (((judahite))) kikes seethe so much about Baal (Zeus).

>>510873914


>>510873573
>that inclination evolved because...
That inclination is conditioned upon a million factors that your Golem OS fails to capture with "thou shalt not kill", which in fact only means "thou shalt not kill unless commanded to".

>you presume far too much intention in these things
I don't presume anything. I just gave you a quick intro to the history of organized religion.

>>510873791
Then elaborate, because you have the glaring implication of religion being "guy who knows none of this is real making it all up to try and teach moral lessons to le retard masses".

>>510873935
>>510873914

>>510841005 (OP)
Might makes right. It's the only moral system you can measure. All other moral systems rely on some external bullshit that can't be directly observed.

I don't think you need to be an atheist to adopt this view. What better way does a God communicate its intent other than a reward/punishment system hardcoded into the universe? Okay, now, what what sort of behavior rewards you long term and what doesn't? The answers are pretty inline with conservative values. Nature totally let loose is fascism incarnate. If you remove all checks and balances, all kindnesses and the conservative propensity to know they are right yet try to soften the blow for the left anyway, the left just fucking dies, so let it.

>>510873923
Shut up O9Anigger

>>510874000
>Nature totally let loose is fascism incarnate
Fascism is a half-assed imitation of imperialism that fundamentally misunderstands it and is the complete antithesis of nature.

>>510873954
No, that's just your reflection speaking.
What i said is that religious morals are dimply useful lessons codified, alongside speculations ad to why they are good.
What i described is an attempted intergenerational learning process, something that is done to improve even the chances of intellectual lessers as that aids the groups and thus boosts proliferation.

>>510874065
>literally the exact same thing as before
Ok

>>510874063
This, imperialism is the only naturalistic "ideology".

>>510873963
I accept your concession. Simplified moral edicts have nothing to do with natural human behavior and the emergence of organized religion. Codified morality almost always coincides with unification of small tribes into large societies and in many cases researchers can track the causal relationship behind this correlation. This is basic knowledge. You got schooled by someone smarter and better educated than you and now you can only seethe and cope.

>>510874090
Well i did mention the problem lay with your interpretation capacity, that is not something i can fix.

>>510873935
The difference is that abrohomo morality indoctrinate goyim to serve the status quo and their globohomo depersonalization of person in to mere slave, meanwhile the Hero morality is teach you to reach the Godhood yourself and not kneel before anyone while still keeping yourself lf sane and within the borders of reality, realising the limitations that are Encouraged to overcome if possible.
>>510874016
Nothing has to do with o9a you retarded soulless shitskin slave npc.

>>510874124
Right right, posturing like a monkey, pretending to be better than a man. Haven't seen that before.

I laud your attempts but i am not playing along and pretending you succeeded, rather than that i just tell you that you fell on your face at the first step.

>>510874255
>>510873573
>that inclination evolved because...
That inclination is conditioned upon a million factors that your Golem OS fails to capture with "thou shalt not kill", which in fact only means "thou shalt not kill unless commanded to".

>you presume far too much intention in these things
I don't presume anything. I just gave you a quick intro to the history of organized religion.

Anyway, I accept your concession. Simplified moral edicts have nothing to do with natural human behavior. The emergence of organized religion and codified morality almost always coincides with unification of small tribes into large societies and in many cases researchers can track the causal relationship behind this correlation. This is basic knowledge. You got schooled by someone smarter and better educated than you and now you can only seethe and cope.

>>510874308
>>510873914

>>510874394
Notice how your mental illness forces you to keep replying with "no ur rong and ur dumm" due to profuse seething and inability to refute the arguments and facts presented. :^)

>>510874255
>>510873573
>that inclination evolved because...
That inclination is conditioned upon a million factors that your Golem OS fails to capture with "thou shalt not kill", which in fact only means "thou shalt not kill unless commanded to".

>you presume far too much intention in these things
I don't presume anything. I just gave you a quick intro to the history of organized religion.

Anyway, I accept your concession. Simplified moral edicts have nothing to do with natural human behavior. The emergence of organized religion and codified morality almost always coincides with unification of small tribes into large societies and in many cases researchers can track the causal relationship behind this correlation. This is basic knowledge. You got schooled by someone smarter and better educated than you and now you can only seethe and cope.

>>510872740
It doesn’t fall apart unless you pretend not to use logic (with assumptions) in your day to day life

>>510874449
>It doesn’t fall apart
It does. It demands logical rigor but inherently falls short of providing a "logical" moral system.

>>510874443
>>510873914

>>510874564
Notice how your mental illness forces you to keep replying with "no ur rong and ur dumm" due to profuse seething and inability to refute the arguments and facts presented. :^)

>>510874255
>>510873573
>that inclination evolved because...
That inclination is conditioned upon a million factors that your Golem OS fails to capture with "thou shalt not kill", which in fact only means "thou shalt not kill unless commanded to".

>you presume far too much intention in these things
I don't presume anything. I just gave you a quick intro to the history of organized religion.

Anyway, I accept your concession. Simplified moral edicts have nothing to do with natural human behavior. The emergence of organized religion and codified morality almost always coincides with unification of small tribes into large societies and in many cases researchers can track the causal relationship behind this correlation. This is basic knowledge. You got schooled by someone smarter and better educated than you and now you can only seethe and cope.

>>510841005 (OP)
>If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?

just because you have autism doesn't mean I do too

>>510874138
I'm just having trouble reconciling the "religion is an attempt to codify moral lessons" (primarily, theology secondarily) with not seeing some guy in the back going "yeah this is all fake and gay and we the inner circle know it, we make it all up so retards know how to behave". That's an argument I have run into far too often, it's just what I'm seeing in that sort of writing.

>>510874589
>>510873914

>>510874443
It should also be noted the religion wasn't meant for average goyim, but rather initiated aristocratic class whose intellectual and spiritual maturity allowed to see religion as something indocrinative but rather poetic and esoteric, describing the Truth with the allusions and the epics. Average goy doesn't naturally feel like to kneel before any imaginary figure, (((someone))) has to indocrinate this bullshit into us on a meme genetic, otherwise we would just see past through it as a lie.

>>510874654
You lost. ID goes to the filter, but your severe mental illness will force you to reply again. :^)

>>510874255
>>510873573
>that inclination evolved because...
That inclination is conditioned upon a million factors that your Golem OS fails to capture with "thou shalt not kill", which in fact only means "thou shalt not kill unless commanded to".

>you presume far too much intention in these things
I don't presume anything. I just gave you a quick intro to the history of organized religion.

Anyway, I accept your concession. Simplified moral edicts have nothing to do with natural human behavior. The emergence of organized religion and codified morality almost always coincides with unification of small tribes into large societies and in many cases researchers can track the causal relationship behind this correlation. This is basic knowledge. You got schooled by someone smarter and better educated than you and now you can only seethe and cope.

>>510874628
Fair enough, but that is not what i am saying.
Part of it may be (even most religious types seem to agree on that) but what i focus on is the useful stuff among the gunk.

And honestly all writing is like that, people forget books are just a tool meant to aid learning, not replace it.

>>510874692

>>510874515
Would you say it’s logical to Iive with the assumption your eyes ears etc are showing you reality like what assumptions are we allowed to make

>>510874628
If your religion actually codified truths about humanity and tried to impart some useful information, it wouldn't be looked down upon so much

>>510874833
>Would you say it’s logical to Iive with the assumption your eyes ears etc are showing you reality like what assumptions are we allowed to make
I don't know. Do you have some kind of valid logical argument to justify this assumption?

>>510841005 (OP)
>If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?

First of all, imagine thinking like this.
>well it works out better if we pretend god is real even if we can't see him or detect him in any way, so we'll just say that he is
Reality is that which persists even when you close your eyes.

But to answer your question, you just make up a system of ethics that works for you. This is what all other religions do except that they pretend it is actually the LORD telling them what is right and wrong so that they are absolved of any responsibility for making a decision. It's really chickenshit behaviour.

>>510875206
>just make up a system of ethics that works for you.
Found the child-raping tranny.

>>510855266
>>510860019
>Abrahamic
Good morning saar

>>510874891
You don’t believe this and you know it, it’s so dishonest

>>510875345
>You don’t believe this
I absolutely believe this. Your concept of "reality" is a Rationalist metaphysical fiction that Rationalism ironically fails to defend. You're simply an imbecile.

>>510875430
>I am le brain in a jar I am very smart
Upvoted

>>510875508
Whom are you quoting? You sound legit mentally ill. Why do I have to choose between your delusional metaphysics and brains in jars?