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?

we already had this thread
jews rape kids

>>510876192 (OP)
I'm literally the guy who made this exact same thread yesterday you faggot.
Stop copying my ideas.

>>510876655
The ride never ends.

>>510876192 (OP)
>what should we/would we base our morality on
Always do the opposite of what jews do.

>>510876192 (OP)
It is just a POV.

>>510841005
Morality is a human invention and disagree on what is moral ALL the time, different religions have different morals despite all claiming to follow god and even people within the same religion do not agree on all things.
Im so sick of people bringing up morality when trying to prove gods existance, its like trying to use fashion to argue that your favorite cereal is the best tasting in the entire world and everyone else is wrong.

>>510877444
So you're saying your moral system is just your opinion?

>>510877573
No, im saying everyones moral system is just their opinion, morality is subjective, not objective and if you researched even a few religions and groups, this quickly be painfully obvious to you because people DISAGREE on what is moral and what is not and religions disagree with eachother aswell.

>>510877983
>No
>morality is subjective
So it's just your opinion. Ok.

>>510878164
You make it sound like something else than what im saying and it gives a very dishonest picture of you.
You might want to work on that.

>>510878668
>You make it sound like something else than what im saying
I ask you what your moral system is based on. You say all morality is subjective. Seeing as the only subjectivity you can base your moral system on is your subjectivity, your moral system is just your opinion as per your own statements.

>then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
we have these things called laws and police

>>510876192 (OP)
Muslims have no morality at all though, we see how you behave, belief in god did not make you nice or moral people

>>510876192 (OP)
God is real and morality is still a spook
God is responsible for everything
Do what you want and fuck the rest
>Inb4 slave cope

>>510878945
>my "morality" is what ZOGbots say

>>510877444
>Morality is a human invention and disagree on what is moral ALL the time
you're conflating moral ontology with moral epistemology.
moral disagreements don't prove that the truth value of moral claims don't exist, no more than disagreements on the shape of the earth prove earth doesn't exist.
just because the reality of moral truths require minds to know and articulate doesn't mean we created these truths rather than discovered them or had them revealed to us, same for any other truth (philosophical, biological, mathematical, etc)

>>510878742
No you are not getting it, im not saying that i base my moral system on my own opinions, im saying that THERE ARE NO MORAL SYSTEMS! Its all made up, the whole consept of morality is made up and therefor its a flawed question to even ask me what its based on. Its like asking what is the best airplane i've been on and then throwing a tantrum when i say that i have never been in any.
Its a loaded question, look it up in the sticky on the frontpage.

>>510879219
>THERE ARE NO MORAL SYSTEMS
If you have no moral system, why did you bother with this thread? The question doesn't apply to you. It applies to people who support some moral system.

>>510876192 (OP)
>If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
Anything is an improvement over savage desert cults that tell you to attack and rape and oppress and enslave people.

>>510879083
Its not my job to prove morality doesnt exist just like its not the atheists job to prove that a god doesnt exist.
I see morality as just another made up thing that religious people use in attempt to prove the existance of their made up god, they have to do this because they cant find any real evidence, but they dont want to stop believing either.

>>510879405
>Anything is an improvement over savage desert cults that tell you to attack and rape and oppress and enslave people.
... except for the French Revolution and contemporary French culture, that is.

>>510879305
A rejection of morality is a moral system within the confines of this discussion. My argument is that morality is a rhetorical mind trap to prevent people from living as they see fit and an attempt at putting the lesser above the greater through cognitohazard bullshit. Slave shit.

>>510879475
>Its not my job to prove morality doesnt exist
You made the claim thereby taking up the burden.

>>510876192 (OP)
Society can only exist through cooperation. It's beneficial for our species that we evolved a sense of morality. It's from that evolution that civilization was born.

>>510879489
I don't care, tranny. That's not what the thread is about.

>>510879537
Do you consider domination cooperation?

>>510879305
>why did you bother with this thread?
I came to correct people who think they have moral systems and to answer question that i felt were directed at me with the "if god doesnt exist" part as i dont believe in a god.

>If you have no moral system
Oh wow, you really are an idiot of some sort, are you even attempting to get my point? Or are you just trying to get me to back off because you dont know how to respond?

>>510879582
>"I don't care"
>Insults me
You clearly do. Just because you don't have an actual rebuttal for my views doesn't mean they aren't valid in this discussion. You can stay mad, though.

>>510879537
>It's beneficial for our species that we evolved a sense of morality
Can you show me any evidence of your watered down version of Christian morality being in any way reflective of humanity's natural sensibilities?

>>510879671
>you don't have a rebuttal of my baseless, subjective opinions
Ok, tranny.

>>510879624
>I came to correct people who think they have moral systems
It's impossible for you to do so, because people do have moral systems, which they empirically demonstrate by showing up to explain and defend those systems. Are you off your medications again?

>>510876192 (OP)
Why is ruining the world and killing billions of people a bad thing, if you don't belive in my sky daddy.
Man, it scary how souless and void of in internal direction you religious animals are.
Is that why you've killed each of endlessly for thousands of years?

>>510879688
>He brings up Christianity when it wasn't mentioned
Lmao
Seething pisslamist

>>510879514
Fuck how i have these silly games you play. Its literally imposslble to prove the nonexistance of anything, my actual claim isnt that there is no something because how would i know, its instead that we have no good reasons to believe that morality is a real thing. For me to prove this we need to examine all the arguments for its existance, now i dont have a list of them, so why do you give me your very best one and then we continue until you cant think of any or concede.

>>510879475
>Its not my job to prove morality doesnt exist
yes the fuck it is, you made a knowledge claim "morality is made up"
>just like its not the atheists job to prove that a god doesnt exist.
yes the fuck it is.
if you say "God does not exist" you're making a knowledge claim and the burden of proof is on you.
you're confused here because you're used to hiding and cowering behind the "agnostic atheist" position where you can just say "uh uh uh i just don't believe your claim, i'm not saying 'god does not exist' so i don't have to prove it!"

>>510879716
>If I keep calling him a tranny I win
I accept your concession

>>510879537
>It's beneficial for our species that we evolved a sense of morality
Can you show me any evidence of your watered down version of Christian morality being in any way reflective of humanity's natural sensibilities?

Protip: you won't because you can't.

>>510879688
Our existence is self-evident.

>>510879803
>Its literally imposslble to prove the nonexistance of anything
Then why did you make a claim you can't prove?

>>510879847
This is not a coherent response. Did you reply to the wrong post? Are you off your medications again?

>>510879786
yes.
half the reason whites latched so hard to religion is that it was the ONLY way to keep subhumans in line without and absurd amount of manpower.
kind of like a store owner that hangs a fake security camera but his grandkids are 100% certain it's real because they were never instructed on it's actual use

>>510879906
Fuck off, kike.

>>510879774
Are you saying that people claiming to have something and then defending said thing is proof of that things existance and then follow this bullshit up by asking ME if IM off my meds?
By your logic this would mean that countless gods actually exist despite that fact that they heavily contradict eachother.
Im starting to feel like you cannot be reasoned with.

>>510879995
If they can formulate the principles of their system they will have demonstrated the existence of that system for the appropriate sense of the word "exists".

>>510877444
Im pretty sure monkeys, dogs, birds and dolphins will fuck each other up if they act out of line. So even animals have morality or basic social convention.

>>510877983
Incorrect. Even faggot anthropologists will tell you that there are universal cultural norms found in all humans. These are so regular across cultures that we have universal human facial expressions that are understood across cultures. You are ignorant, retard.

>>510880206
>there are universal cultural norms found in all humans
Nearly all humans. But how do you get from that to logically justifying your watered down version of Christian morality?

>>510879803
>Its literally imposslble to prove the nonexistance of anything
here you're confusing ontological non-existence (something doesn't exist anywhere) with epistemic limits (we can't know for sure.)
"there is no prime number between 8 and 10." this is a nonexistence claim, and it's provable.
math and logic are full of provable nonexistence claims. so unless you're narrowing your scope, your statement is just factually wrong.

>>510880269
Kill yourself? I made no mention of religion you subhuman piece of trash. I just pointed out one of the ways that anon was incorrect and undeducated. Murder is universally seen as bad but nihilistic cunts say "but we don't agree on circumcision so everything is subjective!". You can argue religion if you want I just made a factual claim you rapist worshipping shit.

>>510880269
Why do you worship a rape demon?

>>510876192 (OP)
The answer to this question can be stated thusly;
God is dead, but I still need to take a shit.

Meditate on this wisdom. It holds the key to everything.

>>510880438
>I made no mention of religion
And?

>Murder is universally seen as bad
Right. Except when you try to define 'murder' "universally" (i.e. the lowest common denominator between all orderly human societies) it degenerates into "killing people without collective approval" rather than whatever your watered down Christian morality defines it to be.

>>510879688
>pedophilia and inbreeding and stone-licking are reflective of humanity's natural sensibilities
Meds!

>>510877983
>im saying everyones moral system is just their opinion
Might makes right nigger here. Ugh, what if I just kill you and declare your opinion invalid? Like, how the fuck am I wrong? We can literally SEE that I won and you lost. It's insane to declare our morals equal and mere difference in opinion when mine allowed me to kill you and yours didn't. You can apply these principles broadly at the civilizational scale.

Having a greater level of scientific understanding helps determine who wins a war. Having a more effective economic system and a healthy economy determine who wins a war. Having a healthy industry and workforce helps you win a war. Having a population that is physically healthy, helps you win a war. Being able to inspire that population through culture and arts to either promote surrender, defeatism, treason or inspire loyalty, support, and the willingness of your people to sacrifice to keep your current system going, helps you win a war. Yet, if you have the other guy beat in all the above categories (or if only in a few, but by so much that it overshadows his other deficiencies) you somehow aren't more correct? Are we just not allowed to apply any metrics when it comes to judging morality? A refusal to even try is pseudoscientific.

I've reached the limit of my patience and run out of time, so sadly i cant continue dealing with the dishonesty in this thread and its not like i would have made an impact anyway.
You guys have fun in here, i'll go fuck some pussy.

>>510880723
Notice how your psychosis is causing you to hallucinate things I never stated or implied.

>>510880644
Incorrect. Shove your pilpul up your ass you kike brained faggot.

>>510880772
>no attempt at refutation
Concession accepted.

>>510880755
You worship a demon. What is it about Baal that does it for you? The rape? Or the murder?

>>510880755
You implied you're okay with these things when you took the muslim flag.

>>510880839
I don't worship anything. You have psychosis. Get help.

>>510880851
>You implied you're okay with these things
No, I didn't. You are hearing voices.

>>510880800
I accept your refutation of Islam and applaud your bravery for rejecting the rapist mohammed as an illiterate demon fuck toy. What about shitskins makes you think just declaring reality to be as you wish makes you smart? You are a fucking cockroach and I would kill you if I could. Even with my watered down morality I want to see filthy insects like you stepped on.

>>510880899
Fuck off muslim. You are not wanted here.

>>510880950
>>510880984
>mentally ill and seething
Reminder that you can't refute >>510880644. ID goes to the filter now, but you WILL attempt to reply to me again. :^)

>>510880381
>this is a nonexistence claim, and it's provable.
Because it’s a limited scope, abstractions argue on an infinite scope so they’re unfalsifiable

>>510880899
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDgfKjtAOgg&t=1s

This explains that islam is one big demonic clusterfuck. You should learn about your "religion".

>>510880749
>Hitler lost because Jewish morality was superior

>>510881051
>:^)
This jeet shill spent a good chunk of yesterday shilling atheism in atheist threads.

>>510881051
paki confirmed

>>510876192 (OP)
>If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
Let me turn this question around, if God is real now why is there so much discussion on morality and authority. It should be perfectly clear what's right or wrong.
But that clearly isn't the case so why would the absence of God cause the discussion to get any murkier.

>thead keeps getting bumped
>no new replies
The mentally ill ameritard keeps replying, isn't he? kek

>>510881155
counterpoint: I want to rape you. Are you bigger than me?

>>510876192 (OP)
>then what should we/would we base our morality on
killing mudslimes

>>510881276
>if God is real now why is there so much discussion on morality and authority. It should be perfectly clear what's right or wrong.
Supposing for the sake of argument that God is a fact, what's to stop retards denying this fact the same way they deny other facts?

morality is anything that benefits group survival, since we are a social species we naturally value that and hate things that undermine it because it threatens our existence

why does a paki muslim spend one day shilling atheism and the next day pretending to be muslim? you fucking cockroaches don't even know the meaning of good faith arguments and you need to be range banned.

>>510877573
Morality is the synthesis of the justification of the principles that you want to believe you hold with whatever you were already going to do anyway - then filtered through what your social group will allow.
It changes all the time and in all different places in case you’ve never read a book

>>510876192 (OP)
>what should we/would we base our morality on
If you think you should have morality, you already have it.

>>510881422
>Morality is the synthesis of the justification of the principles that you want to believe you hold with whatever you were already going to do anyway - then filtered through what your social group will allow.
Proof of this claim?

>>510881392
>morality is anything that benefits group survival
yikes that sounds a lot like evolutionary biology which was cancelled for being toxic and antisemitic. Very problematic and I hope you take a good personal inventory of your values. Maybe talk to your rabbi.

>>510881431
>If you think you should have morality, you already have it.
Nuh uh. All you have is good intentions. It's a nice start but then how do you know what seems good to you at the moment is actually good?

>>510880111
“or basic social convention”
Youre soooooo close anon keep thinking

>>510881155
if the truth value of moral claims are abstracted to the level of pure principle divorced from concrete reality, then yes, it behaves like other unfalsifiable abstractions.
but if one grounds moral claims in rational and metaphysical structures (such as theistic moral realism) then those claims become tested in a limited scope. they are falsifiable to the extent that moral facts are discoverable through reason, revelation, or observation of human flourishing.

for example, the claim "justice is good" might be true because God is just, and we can know this through divine revelation or philosophical reflection.
if rational inquiry can uncover what promotes genuine human flourishing and this flourishing reflects divine intention, then such moral claims are not just statements of sentiment but are truth-apt and potentially falsifiable if contradicted by evidence or reason.

>>510881517

>>510881155
>abstractions argue on an infinite scope so they’re unfalsifiable
The more general the scope the easier it is to refute. All it takes is one counter-example in any context whatsoever. This is why atheists and other leftists always drivel on about "nuance": if you falsify their statement they narrow the scope to exclude your refutation.

>>510881669

>>510880438
“Murder is universally bad”
Faggot you can’t even define murder. Killing is perfectly acceptable under all kinds of social circumstances. We call the times where it’s not acceptable “murder”. Unless you can hand down the objective formula by which ALL cultures define murder then it’s not an objective truth. We’ve been arguing about this “objective” shit for all of time you moron.
It’s a waste of time because you fags don’t even know what the words “subjective” and “objective mean. If something is subjective that doesn’t mean you can just change it freely. That’s what makes life so painful.

>>510881169
Yes. Jews wisely subverted the west into fighting their war. Hitler stupidly wanted to prove how hightest he was by picking fights he couldn't win.

This post confuses me. Are you implying magic exists anon? Obviously, you can't have an effect without a cause. Are you saying there was more to it? If there was more to it, then why did he lose? This makes me scratch my head.

>>510881669
This is wrong if it conflicts with my shitty model

>>510880749
“War is the ultimate divination”
Youre onto something here. Profound autism is making it hard for anons to understand

>>510881727
Don't try to smear your midwittery on me. I am not lost and confused like you. You have blinded yourself by trying to be smart. If you understood real subjectivity you wouldnt be clucking like a jew. Language is insufficient to the task you set for it and in your blindness you think only language offers a path for understanding. Total midwit.

>>510881566
The enlightenment is over. God lost. Reason can’t teach us anything about God. The only way to apply reason to God is to accept a bunch of wishful thinking as presuppositions which gets us nowhere

>>510881727
All you need to do is train a giant Bayesian model to predict the likelihood of a given instance of killing being disapproved of in a given social context and then BAM you have an objective model of human morality with respect to killing. :^)

>>510881883
Do you always panic like this when the dumb shit you post gets refuted by smarter men

>>510881169
Imagine you have a time machine and go back to WWII. Would you tell Hitler anything about the future to change the outcome? If the answer is yes, then you just violated your own moral principles. If 'muh abstract morals' were real, then you would let Germany lose since it lost the """""right way""""". If you would change something then it means you know that is absolute horseshit and there are things that should have been done differently.

>>510876758
Muslims copying the greeks, a tale as old as time

>>510881727
>Faggot you can’t even define murder.
This is kike brained nonsense. Because we can argue against something does not mean it is true or not. Your brain is broken and you're just trying to distract from fundamental logical failings with philosophizing cope.

>>510876192 (OP)
I believe in cosmic consciousness aka the all aka god and I do not base morality on god at all. Why should morality have anything to do with a god?

>>510881469
Muhammad was pedo and allah is an ignorant demiurge

>>510882106
panic? that is a pathetic way to argue. are you a jewish woman or a tranny? OMG YOU'RE LITERALLY SEETHING WITH RAGE BECAUSE I AM SO SMART WIPE THE SPITTLE OFF YOUR SCREEN LOL. Do you think this sounds intelligent?

>>510881469
I don’t have any golden tablets or anything but I’m definitely open to criticism. What alternatives do we have ITT?
“God made the rules but he made them a bit unclear so Jews and Christians all disagree about morality and other cultures are EVEN MORE CONFUSED but we can hold them all accountable using God’s rules that we are forced to interpret and don’t agree on. But it’s toooootally objective and unchanging”

>>510882258
Your seething is just escalating are you okay? Do you have anything useful to contribute?
You should consult your OBJECTIVE BOOK OF MORAL REALITY to see what the correct thing to do is in all situations

>>510880749
Right and wrong in the modern age are decided by systems that are functionally identical to reddit karma. If you play a sport and lose, you can't say it's someone's opinion that you lost. You just lost. A lot of the west seems to not understand that anymore. I'm not sure I go quite to the same exteeme but the west is definitely overdo for a return to reality in its morals.

>>510882362
>Your seething is just escalating are you okay?
nobody on pol likes this condescending bullshit. fuck you and the woman who shit you out.

Theists don't believe in objective morality. They think morality is dictated by god, who is a subject.

>>510881918
"reason can't teach us anything about God" is self-defeating. if reason is wholly incapable of addressing metaphysical claims then your own assertion, a reasoned claim about God's unknowability lacks grounding and collapses.

>>510882205
If we can’t lay down which acts are objectively evil and which acts are objectively good then what’s the fucking point? Objective or relative the result is the same - ALL morality is understood and applied relative to the circumstances. It is not objectively held, passed down, understood, or applied.
You CAN NOT define murder you fucking retard. You claimed it’s an example of objective evil so define it. That should be easy.

>>510882546
"reason can't teach us anything about God"
and
" reason is wholly incapable of addressing metaphysical claims"
are two different claims.

>>510882546
You niggers haven’t even read Kant and it shows. Fucking pathetic.

>>510882430
God is not a subject among others, He is the ultimate, unchanging standard of morality. the truth value of moral claims are grounded in His nature, not arbitrary dictates.

>>510882421
I accept your concession. You tried to put on your big boy pants and talk about something but immediately got in over your head and Jew sperged. Sad!

>>510882372
This right here is why might makes right. All other moral systems are correct in frameworks they first have to create. Might makes right is just correct though, with or without any thought of a framework by the person doing it. You can accidentally do the right thing in might makes right where is that is almost if not entirely impossible in other moral frameworks.

>>510882555
You ignored my points which you did not like, and expect a jewish argument on the points you do wish to argue. Go fuck yourself. If you don't know what murder is you can ask your rabbi. I have no interest in word games with a midwit.

My hope is for others to see that in these threads a particular type of neuroticism is the driving force and not actually a symposium of great men with great ideas. FAAAAAARRRRRTTTTT.

>>510882267
>What alternatives do we have ITT?
Well, it could be the formalization of some principles discovered through self-knowledge. You know... the ones that make up the conscience component of "whatever you were already going to do anyway"?

>>510882719
>God is not a subject among others, He is the ultimate, unchanging standard of morality.
he is a subject among others in as much that he is a subject. the second sentence is just you restating your position.

>he truth value of moral claims are grounded in His nature, not arbitrary dictates.
then an atheist can just claim to believe that the same nature exists without it being a subject and therefor having the same claim to objective morality.

>>510882738
You are truly winning at life.

>>510882797
>Enters thread with poorly thought out anti-opinions
>”You’re neurotic!”
>stays in the thread and seethes
>”im uh… not even trying to win! Cope!”
Asking you to define what you revolved your one and only dipshit argument around has proved to be too much for you I see

>>510876192 (OP)
Morality is to be upheld by the individual, I don't believe in god but have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong. The short of it is to strive to cause your fellow man the least suffering possible. Jews cause mass suffering and should be ground into paste.

>>510882797
Asking you to define murder is entirely reasonable, he’s right if you kill someone in self defense or when conscripted in a war to ex: steal another country’s land it’s seen as acceptable while killing somebody to steal his shit for yourself is not
You could say both are sins but then you run into the problem that God in the OT was forcing people to sin

theists should embrace their morality being subjective given that god is a subject and therefor subjects are higher than objects. also what are people going to do when they disagree with god about morality? wag their finger and then burn in hell? lmao

>>510883001
>I don't believe in god but have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong
Child-raping trannies say that, too, and they actually think their sense of it is better than yours: they respect children as individuals - you see - and they uphold a child's right to sexual self-determination or however enlightened atheist morality frames it. kek

>>510882795
The best thing about might makes right is that there is no fucking whiney femoid pilpul involved.

I am 6'8" and 800 pounds and if you try to split hairs about the meaning of murder I'm just going to rape harder.

>>510883074
>morality being subjective given that god is a subject
Are the laws of physics also subjective because "God is a subject"?

>>510883036
>he’s right if you kill someone in self defense or when conscripted in a war to ex: steal another country’s land it’s seen as acceptable while killing somebody to steal his shit for yourself is not
are you 12? fuck me you really are this stupid. this is why I am not effortposting. you are not nearly as intelligent as you think you are. do you use websters dictionary as a source when you argue irl?

>everyone keeps dunking on the seething retard but it just keeps going
The magic of zero self-reflection.

>>510883001
The Romans didn’t give a fuck about limiting their harm. They had an entirely different worldview in which weak stupid people were ground to dust and society revolved around catering to the needs of the powerful. We are in a period of decline where our morality has shifted from one of conquest and glory to one of preservation and slow decay. One of the main and glaring examples of morality completely changing in Europe.
In fact we’re all basically aware that pre-bronze age morality was completely different than it is today. Christcucks just convince themselves that we just didn’t have the Holy Spirit back then or whatever. The fact is nobody has access to any objective moral standards and even if they did they’d have to argue for it and apply it in a subjective and interpreted way.

>>510883100
It doesn’t matter what other people think though, I can declare myself the sole arbiter of moral truth by divine right.
Unless you want to argue it doesn’t count because I don’t have the biggest stick, but then morality as a concept is just might makes right

>>510882671
not an argument.
>>510882670
if someone asserts "reason can't teach us anything about God," they are makinga universal epistemological claim about metaphysical limits. the kind of sweeping assertion depends on a framework to justify it. so even if the statement doesn't directly say "reason is wholly incapable of addressing ALL metaphysical claims" it still implies a sever limitation of reason in metaphysics.
which aspects of reason are capable of reaching metaphysical truths and why?
if reason can partly illuminate metaphysical matters, wouldn't that undercut the idea that "reason can't teach us anything about God?"
>>510882850
>he is a subject among others in as much that he is a subject. the second sentence is just you restating your position.
God's "subjectivity" as a being doesn't equate to human-like arbitrariness. theists posit His nature as the immutable ground of moral truths distinct from finite subjects.
>then an atheist can just claim to believe that the same nature exists without it being a subject and therefor having the same claim to objective morality.
an atheist claiming a "nature" without a subject introduces an abstract undefined source for morality, lacking the coherence of a purposeful intelligent design.
it sidesteps justifying how a non-personal "nature" grounds objective morality, rendering the claim hollow.

>>510883322
>not an argument.
yes it is. words have meaning youngin.

>>510876192 (OP)
The leaders of the white race are fallen angel worshipers that ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They’ve been tricked. The fallen angels tricked them by saying if you sacrifice yourself by doing evil to help the masses, you’ll be rewarded with good. So say for example you want to be a rock star, but of course to be a rock star you have to get fucked in the ass. You think I’ll just take one for the team, get my ass prolapsed, but since I’m helping out my band members by sacrificing myself it’s ok, it’s even good. This bit of logic tries to force God’s hand which the white devil is always constantly trying to do. That’s why the white devil always loses. You can’t force God’s hand by doing evil.

>>510883212
So murder is ALWAYS OBJECTIVELY WRONG
except for when it’s okay but we’re not going to talk about that or explain it. You’ll just subjectively make those calls and then be judged for it by an objective standard that we can’t see, articulate, or agree upon!
So for you objective morality means “my enemies will be punished after death more or less according to my own understanding of right and wrong”

>>510883286
You have nothing over them as far as rationality is concerned. If anything, they have the upper hand when they challenge you to explain your opposition to their "enlightened" and "liberal" turbo-degeneracy but you can only appeal to your sensibilities.

>>510883412
Their arguments don’t matter, I’m Just by nature and they’re not. My moral assertions are implicitly true.

>>510883370
well, you haven't read shinobu ohtaka and it shows.

So much hot air. Here, let me do something useful: female circumcision is moral and hygienic and all the data we have showing that circumcision reduces disease transmission in men makes a compelling data driven argument for female circumcision. I had to go to south america to get my daughter done but it was better than her being made fun of in the locker room.

>>510883454
>I'm just by nature
Proof?

>>510883485
HOLY BASED.

>>510876192 (OP)
>If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
Not being a fucking sociopath with no innate sense of right and wrong

>Are the kikes truly evil if everything they do is just subjectively evil according to antitheism?
Yes

>Is everything then a result of might makes right?
If you want to live by that philosophy but even pragmatically it's a shitty philosophy.
>Might makes right, fuck the weak, fuck the sick, fuck the poor
>Oh fuck I'm sick help me
>The future is now old man *denies you your medicine and lets you die*

Humans are only as successful as we are because we cooperate if not in grand scales than at least smaller more local scales. A tribe of fully selfish people would collapse within a month as every member who suffers ill would die as others take advantage of him during his weakness.

>>510883507
I just told you? Why do you expect to understand the metaphysical by your own reason, I Just Am that’s how it is.

>>510883412
hey muslim faggot I'm promoting female circumcision. we could have gone in on this one together but you're pretending to ignore me like a woman would do. shameful. this is why the caliphate will never happen.

>>510876192 (OP)
What is even funnier is that people with no religion never get very far in politics, so they will never have might since they were not wise. Look at Obama for example. Biden only got so far because he is Catholic, but since he is not wise all his works burned up by the next president who had wisedom. Trump despite being selfish, full of lust, and desire for material things, he at least has a good understanding of Israel it's religious importance in Jerusalem.

>>510881388
>what's to stop retards denying this fact the same way they deny other facts
Nothing, so when we decide that God isn't real, there will also be people claiming the opposite.

>>510883558
>Not being a fucking sociopath with no innate sense of right and wrong
All the evil and immoral people you hate say this about themselves. They actually believe it, too, and convince others of it successfully.

>>510876192 (OP)
>>510876192 (OP)
> If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
If you needed guidance from "otherworlds" you didn't need a brain in your skull, it would simply be redundant.
Since you DO feel the need for some imaginary magic daddy that you only know from sketchy scripture written by shady authors that no one knows if they ever existed and no one can prove ... to hold your hand while crossing the street, it is obvious that you for one, and other wassmanian-immitating parasite bipeds like you in fact DO NEED morality, guidance and whatnot, but not from the aforementioned comic books, instead from something more reliable like an AI control chip planted inside your empty brown heads .

not an anti-theist, in fact I'm usually on the side of religious people against the secular atheists. but at the end of the day, I'm an atheist, and I can't LARP as anything else. I lack belief.

as for morality, yes that's a big one. I've read some philosophy books and even the philosophers agree, we can't bridge that gap with what we know. some modern thinkers like Sam Harris do a weird move of denying the problem even exists, but I think that's absurd.

so, my conclusion is that morality isn't real. imagine the worst atrocity, done to your most beloved family member, and that's an ontologically "evil" as eating an apple. it's not a real category, it's a human construct. so we can treat morality as chess, in the sense that following some rules help you win the game, and after playing for such a long time the rules start to make sense and even appear "natural", in a way. but they don't exist outside of the human mind.

>>510883599
My deep dive into metaphysics has revealed that anyone who disagrees with me is ontologically evil. You are evil.

>>510883665
Is there something about religion that even HELPS weed out the sociopaths and babyfuckers? No, there’s not. Which is why religion has always been practiced and pushed by effeminate frail old men who just want a free meal ticket and access to pussy.

>>510883662
So what exactly was your point? Supposing God is real, people who base their morality on it can't prove moral laws to those who deny God circumstantially; meanwhile atheists can't prove anything about morality to anyone, ever, in principle.

>>510883790
Yes, the forgiveness of sins helps give people hope in redemption which in turn provides them with the motivation to change and transformative miracles(no one can explain it) that change them.

>>510876192 (OP) (OP)
>>510876192 (OP) (OP)
> If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
If you needed guidance from "otherworlds" you didn't need a brain in your skull, it would simply be redundant.
And since apparently you DO feel the need for some imaginary magic daddy that you only know from sketchy scripture written by shady authors that no one knows if they ever existed and no one can prove ... to hold your hand while crossing the street, it is obvious that you for one, and other wassmanian-immitating parasite bipeds like you in fact DO NEED morality, guidance and whatnot because you LACK the MOST IMPORTANT OBJECT that makes one a HUMAN!
But you don't need guidancenot from the aforementioned comic books, no, instead from something more reliable like an AI control chip planted inside your empty brown heads .

>>510883737
Nobody cares nigger take a class on this stuff. Your ignorance has become boring. Morality isn’t decided upon by individuals. It’s a group thing. You can make whatever moral choices you want to just don’t be surprised when the group your in responds. You can make up whatever morality you can pull off or enforce.
That’s what Alexander the Great did. And Charlemagne. Or Napoleon.

Morality is not an important concept. If you discovered that it were objectively good to rape kids, are you going to suddenly start liking that? Are you going to cooperate with that? You'll probably just choose to be evil instead. So in the end you're always just going to do what you want to do, so why even worry about morality? You only believe in moral systems that support your preconceived notions of right and wrong so why not just cut out the middle man?

>>510883790
>Is there something about religion that even HELPS weed out the sociopaths and babyfuckers?
Yes. They for some reason get angrier about the idea of divine order and objective morality more than anyone else.

>>510883322
>an atheist claiming a "nature" without a subject introduces an abstract undefined source for morality, lacking the coherence of a purposeful intelligent design.
it sidesteps justifying how a non-personal "nature" grounds objective morality, rendering the claim hollow.
Why does objective morality require a subject?
>without a subject introduces an abstract undefined source for morality
Just have god and remove god being an agent, ie an all powerful essence that grounds the rest of being without it being an agent and then that grounds morality.

>>510883998
Not an argument. Try again.

>>510883941
Christians aren’t any more honest, sexually behaved, or peaceful than any other religious or non religious group

>>510883918
You haven’t “proven” a thing. You’re just kicking the problem further away.
>you need to behave or else god is gonna get you!!
>is god in the room with us right now

>>510884033
>If you discovered that it were objectively good to rape kids, are you going to suddenly start liking that?
No, but I'd probably try to figure out what went wrong with me, that causes me to be blind to such objective moral good, then see if there's anything I can do to become enlightened to the benefit of doing the nasty with your stupid and ugly kids.

>>510884277
You sound legit mentally ill. Where did I claim to have proven anything?

>>510883918
My point is that I don't feel any decision about God's existence has any value, since it's impossible to either prove or disprove

>>510884362
>My point is that I don't feel any decision about God's existence...
I don't care. The crux of the question is how do you justify your sense of moral superiority to people with conflicting moral values?

>>510884324
I’m gonna leave the thread now because you’re either resorting to baiting or incapable of having this conversation.
>“Atheists can’t prove anything about morality”
Implying you can

This debate isn't really relevant if God exists. I'll just worship him even his morality is subjective.

>>510876192 (OP)
>Serious question
Religious retards are never serious, you only want to gaslight.

>>510884208
Not everyone who says that are christian or goes to church actually achieve the transformation because they lack faith. At least they are trying.

>>510884463
>Implying you can
No, the implication is that divine morality is at least a coherent framework, unlike atheists denying any objective basis for morality and still trying to impose it on other people while typically also complaining about how religions arbitrarily restrict the individual.

>>510877444
>Morality is a human invention
>therfore its subjective
>therefore you must worship the jew god
Nice try religious retard

>>510884456
This is literally the story of human history. Might DOES make right. We learned after a while there’s other kinds of might besides physical violence. We now coerce each other into all agreeing to more or less the same rules. Even now many many people disagree about what’s right and wrong and our media, courts, etc. use their might to work all that out.
Individuals don’t just draft up their own personal morality you faggot. People get away with what they can and what they feel comfortable within moral systems betond their full control.
Watch a YouTube video about Kant since I know you can’t read at a high enough level to understand it yourself and you’re completely lacking in philosophical background.

>>510876192 (OP)
This is a good and key question. The source of morality is hard to pin down without belief in God. In a purely material world, there can be no objective morality, since a natural fact cannot be used to prove an "ought" state (Hume's is-ought gap). For example, saying that exercise usually helps you live longer does not prove that you should exercise; the statement just tells you that if you happen to want a longer life, then exercising is a good thing to do. But people can, and do, opt against that.
But even if we accept theism, it remains difficult to explain the source of objective morals, due to Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma. This asks if the good, is good, because God says so, or if the good is independent of God and God just agrees with it and says we should do what is good.
Theists like to claim that God and the Good are one entity; God personifies the Good and, therefore, cannot do wrong despite his omnipotence. It would go against God's nature, as a purely good being, to do anything evil. This explanation might work, but it needs more explaining.

>>510884667
See >>510884592
>Might DOES make right.
Then why don't atheists just say that when they try to impose their arbitrary rules? Why do they appeal to humanist principles etc. and pretend to have a moral high ground when all they have on their side is state violence?

>>510884725
See >>510884598
>>Morality is a human invention
>>therfore its subjective
>>therefore you must worship the jew god
You're all snakes

>>510877444
>Morality is a human invention and disagree on what is moral ALL the time, different religions have different morals despite all claiming to follow god and even people within the same religion do not agree on all things.
There are core moral principles all societies agree on despite religious difference. The prohibition on murder, which means human life cannot be taken for the wrong reason, is the most obvious example, but there is also the prohibition on stealing, adultery, lauding pro-social behavior that helps the community etc. etc.

>>510884592
There’s nothing coherent about bringing up a perfect and convenient magical solution to the world’s problems.
You’re not going to find a society where nobody cares whether you hurt them or take their shit. You don’t need God to explain how people started to enforce rules surrounding our interactions. We can even come up with rules that seem arbitrary but we mostly all agree that they improve our lives overall and we can deal with the dissenters in the meantime. This is civilization faggot not “Oh the golden tablets came down from on high now we know what to do!!”

>>510884812
>>Might DOES make right.
>Then why don't atheists just say that when they try to impose their arbitrary rules?
A mudslime complaining about arbitrary rules and playing victim. You can't make shit up. All Abrahamists are snakes

>>510884080
objective moral obligations require a source with both authority and will, an impersonal "essence" lacks both.
you're smuggling in theistic assumptions (grounding, necessity) while stripping away the features that make them coherent.
if this "essence" isn't an agent, it can't prescribe, only describe, which reduces morality to brute fact, not obligation. atheism has no non-arbitrary basis for "ought" without smuggling in a ghost of theism.

>>510884489
Churches are full of faith filled Christians raping each other dude I don’t want to hear it. I wouldn’t let my kids near a church

>>510884812
Do you accept that God is the same entity as satan?

>>510884052
HAH the “divine order” folks are the babyfuckers. Christians perfected rape and provided the template for all the liberal pedos in our public schools.
“God wants a strong leader like me in charge to keep you lambs from going astray. Now here put this in your mouth”

>>510885030
>Churches are full of faith filled Christians
Only God can judge a person's faith.

>>510884913
You just haven’t thought through what you’re saying. Can you define murder? There’s no cross civilizational definition. Murder means “killing without social approval”
The Romans thought it was perfectly okay to kill people for no purpose besides public enjoyment.

>>510885218
What do you even mean by faith? I don't even have a problem with theists it's just that in the modern world theism seems to mean nothing, at least the theists of the pasts actually believed in God, nowadays i don't even think most theists know what they believe or what God even means.

>>510885194
God is all, so yes

>>510884872
>>510884598
is it an invention, or a discovery/revelation?
if your assertion is that it's an invention, what's your reasoning for this?
>well, what about disagreement?
>if different people disagree on the nature of a thing, that means the thing does not exist in reality, only in people's minds.
is this your argument?

>>510884949
You're clearly too low-IQ for this discussion.

>>510884812
>baby’s first history lesson
If you’re just waking up to this fact then I’m sorry son it’s time for you to grow up. Have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? Not everyone in religious societies even believes in the shit. The church and the state use strength to hold their power. Not reason or any kind of objective mandate.

>>510885210
Not an argument. Keep seething.

Theism in the past used to mean 'I believe in a higher power', now it means 'i believe in circular logic'. Ancient religious writings are full of wisdom, modern religious writings are schizo tier manifestos used to generate cults.

>>510885517
Your incoherent and mentally ill rambling is uninteresting. ID goes to the filter now.

>>510884812
Atheist here, most of my people are absolute fucking faggots is why, at least in the west. Asian atheists are better, but they are all over there.

I would argue Christianity and Islam are also might makes right in the end, it's just all the dogma often makes you forget that. Let us not forget, God in both religins will smite the ever loving fuck out of evil eventually, so even there might makes right. I just do not like delegating waiting for it and trusting the plan when the plan was written by jews, thst's all. If there is a God, the whatever, he can torment evil after we're theough with them. If not, then good thing we didn't wait for him to intervene first, right?

Fuck, even jews think might makes right. Look at how quickly they 180 on every talking point they once had the moment they start discussing Israel. It's because their 'morals' never existed. Any rules for thee but not for me are not true morals, merely an excuse. All the hell in the world is by the people who manipulate moral perceptions to frive gullible normies to do evil and think it's good. Fuck that shit. The instant results become all that matters this jewish smokescreen disappears and there is no way to justify Israel without also justifying antisemitism.

>>510885563
>now it means 'i believe in circular logic'.
all worldviews are ultimately circular.

empiricism
>claims: knowledge comes from sensory experience
>support: we observe that observation works
>loop: experience confirms the reliability of experience
scientism:
>claim: the scientific method leads to truth
>support: it has produced reliable results
>justification: empirical success validates method
>loop: the method is justified by its own outcomes
naturalism/physicalism:
>claim: everything that exists is physical or material
>support: all observed phenomena can be explained by physical processes
>justification: because non-physical entities haven't been empirically verified
>basis for trusting empirical verification: because only physical things exist.
>loop: physicalism is justified by empirical methods, which assume physicalism

>>510885194
>Do you accept that God is the same entity as satan?
I dunno, do you have some compelling argument for this dumb shit that you spout?

OP is now samefagging kek

>>510885404
As a christian our faith is only one thing: your belief in the power of Jesus' blood to save you.

>>510876192 (OP)
Is it really a "serious question" or are you pretending to search for an answer while you're actually wanting to advocate your position?
Why not advocate for your position straight up instead of being disingenuous and hide behind asking questions?

The answer to the morality question is quite simple. Morality comes from Reality. Simple as.
>>510879219
Just because it's made up doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Morality is a shared upon code of conduct and it helps to create social cohesion and harmony.

>>510885218
>”real Christianity just hasn’t been tried yet!”
Don’t you have some babies to rape, pastor?

>>510885653
Again, religion in principle at least makes for a coherent synthesis between objective morality, rationality and "might makes right". Atheists typically deny "might makes right" while relying on it to force their subjective opinions on others, all while they screech about how religions impose arbitrary restrictions on the individual for irrational reasons.

>>510885833
What part of no man can come to the Father except by Jesus do you not understand. Of course real Christianity exists.

>Pastor
thanks man that made my day

>>510885453
Fair, but if that is true how can you say something is moral or not? Since God is literally or subjectively an "evil" doer?

>>510886042
>God is literally or subjectively an "evil" doer
How can God be an "evil" doer?

>>510885662
>all worldviews are ultimately circular.
That's a very nice trick but you can't get out of circularity by pointing out that it's circular, you're left back at the beginning.

>>510885459
>is it an invention, or a discovery/revelation?
Doesn't matter and you dont even care or want an honest answer even if i gave you one. You just want to pilpul in circles until I get exhausted and give up and submit to your Jewsus, which will never happen

>>510884725
>In a purely material world, there can be no objective morality
This is postchristian postmodern libcuck bullshit. You are listening to my westernized faggot bretheren and repeating their fudgepacking talking points. Nah, there is objective morality without god and that is that might makes right. Also if there is a god then most versions of that punish the sinners and reward the faithful, so might still makes right. Either way, might makes right. Good loses due to good's restraint, not good's capabilities. That's good suffering because good is too much of a pussy, in which case good is either too much of a pussy or too lazy to truly be good, it is actually evil, and the suffering it endures is warrented and justified. Just let loose on the sinners and degenerates. No sympathy. Call it the power of God, the power of truth or the power of le heckin science, no matter what you call it might will always make right.

Source: lmao nigga look around. Open your eyes.

>>510879599
>Do you consider domination cooperation?
Dominance hierarchies exist all over the animal kingdom as means of promoting cooperation and coordinated social behaviors. Any biologist knows this. It's not controversial.

>>510886227
"Circular" is ok. "Incoherent" is bad.

>>510886111
> why don't you just waste yur time with an unanswerable question?
All religious retards are spiritually jewish

>>510885737
Im sorry but that doesn't mean anything, it's nothing more than a dogmatic slogan that has nothing to do with understanding anything. You might as well say you believe vampirism is the goal of life.

>>510886111
Because Satan is simply the left arm of God, and any evil he does is also God's doing by definition.

>>510886514
>Because Satan is simply the left arm of God, and any evil he does is also God's doing by definition.
But I don't believe in any Satan that does "evil". My worldview is coherent unlike yours.

>>510886231
>says most important question on this topic doesn't matter despite caring enough about his position to state it twice earlier
>ascribes intent to me despite me being a complete stranger
>preemptively shuts down all conversation
>absolute commitment to rebellion of Jesus
depressing post.
why did you even respond, just to let me know you're hurting?

>>510886342
Circular is by definition incoherent but i get what you mean, you mean your system must be internally consistent but not necessarily externally provable.

>>510886605
You don't think Satan does evil? Evil doesn;t exist in your view?

>>510886442
I have seen it transform people though, and it has provided me hope for myself. There is no down side to faith in the gospel.

>>510886643
>Circular is by definition incoherent
Completely wrong. Circularity just reaffirms something via itself. Incoherence is when your own system contradicts itself, as it does with the secular liberalism that atheists embrace.

>>510885664
Is it true or not? If you don't care about truth i have absolutely no reason to talk to you and every reason to believe you're full of shit about your own so called religious beliefs.

Satan was literally created by God, he was one of his angels, God knew he would fall, and in fact Satan does the bidding of God, at the very least Satan is nothing more than God's minion. But it makes more sense if they are just the same entity.

>>510886808
It’s not incoherent my own moral views are absolute in and of themselves

>>510886641
It doesn't matter at all but it's an invention just like language is an invention. However, in order to invent it you rely on making certain discoveries about human nature beforehand. Deconstructing the biases in the question is tedious, that's why he checked out. Why does it matter?

>>510886643
>Circular is by definition incoherent
if something is self-referential it's necessarily coherent.
think n! = n × (n-1)!

>>510886677
>You don't think Satan does evil? Evil doesn;t exist in your view?
"Evil" happens when people go against God's natural order. "Satan" is just a symbol for the internal forces that cause vices when left unchecked.

>>510886808
>Circularity just reaffirms something via itself
Yeah which destroys logic, you can't logically affirm something with itself, to be precise you should say it is logically incoherent, unless you're saying that circular reasoning can be logical, which i don't buy.

>>510886947
>It’s not incoherent my own moral views are absolute in and of themselves
I'm sure your specific version of atheist morality that has never been tried before is coherent. And to the same degree I'm sure it's also vacuous.

Captcha: M4G0Y

>>510886947
That's logically incoherent, you can't prove that logically.

>>510887092
>Yeah which destroys logic, you can't logically affirm something with itself,
Are you retarded? Any given statement necessarily implies itself. This is the very basis of logic.

>>510876192 (OP)
Morality should be whatever favorites the white race, and jews are evil because they're anti-white.
Just my opinion.

>>510886972
>[the truth value of moral claims, ontologically, is just] an invention just like language is an invention.
this is a claim to knowledge, what's your reasoning for thinking this despite it being so counterintuitive?

>>510887167
?
I don’t have to. The morality of my beliefs are not contingent on you accepting them. Even if you killed me I’d be morally correct and you’d be evil

>>510886983
What? This isn't math, this is logic, the foundation math is based upon, it is LOGICALLY incoherent. You can't say, X is true because X is true because you're appealing to the validity of your own statement to validate itself, you just can't construct any system of logic like that, people have tried believe me, it doesn't work, maybe one day someone will find a way to make circular logic compatible with internally logically consistent systems but for now it's impossible. There are other forms of logic but no one has found a way to integrate them with classical logic so far.

Morality doesn't need god to exist, but it does need people that can rub two brain cells together in order to form cohesive thought. Humans aren't the only organism that can act "moral", or in the interest of others. The only reason morality is treated with derision by retards is because greed rules the day. When your not a selfish, greedy piece of shit, morality isn't some abstract idea requiring metaphysical midwit concepts to justify its existence. Don't practice usury, don't diddle kids, and stop acting like a faggot. Humanity can't go extinct fast enough.

>>510876192 (OP)
We base our morality in years and years of human evolution and what works best for us regionally. Religion has nothing to do with it and it's only a tool used for control since the dawn of time. Now that money is used for control, religion has less and less need. Whatever created the universe is your god, but it gives no fucks about you, me or the children born to cancer. Or the innocents suffering at the hands of the evil. Demons and angels exist only as humans. And the demons are winning. Always.

>>510887492
Listen, you dumb, inbred nigger... maybe you should stop for a minute and learn the meanings of the words you use?

>>510886641
>I'm a batshit insane religious retard who believes in ghosts and goblins and demons and magical wizard jews from 2000 years ago
>but I demand that you respect me and have a "logical" debate with me even though I will use dishonest debate tactics
>and if you refuse then I automatically win the debate
>rubs hands
All religious retards are spiritually jewish

>>510887539
>waaah controlling people is le bad
>waaah muh innocents
>waaah muh evil
On what basis do atheists say such things?

>inb4 muh human evolution
Human evolution is ok with humans sacrificing children to the rain god etc.

>>510887520
Why is capitalism bad? Hard mode: without irrational screeching and logical fallacies?

>>510876192 (OP)
It's largely an irrelevant question. If morality is objective and should be based on God, it is still impossible to know which interpretation is correct. In reality, all human societies have vastly different moral standards based on noting more than the inhabitants' opinions.

>>510887210
>Are you retarded? Any given statement necessarily implies itself. This is the very basis of logic.
What? I don't even know what you're talking about at this point you're distorting logic to the point of destroying it. If i say "All eggs are yellow because all eggs are yellow" that doesn't make it true because it's circular? I don't even know what you're talking about.
>>510887281
>I don't have to.
If you're going to make a logical argument you do. If it's just your opinion fine but you can't logically argue for it. You also can't logically talk about morality either. In fact your world view necessitates you give up logic.

>>510887943
So it doesn't bother you at all that your own worldview is incoherent so long as other people can't convince you to accept a more coherent worldview?

>>510887582
That's not an argument brother.

>>510876780
It’s not really possible to tackle the question in a fast moving thread on a chan that has a 2000 character post limit.

If you aren’t completely burned out by trash threads and time wasting rubbish, and don’t have the attention span of a toddler. Here are 200 effort 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

>>510887960
>If you're going to make a logical argument you do. If it's just your opinion fine but you can't logically argue for it

This is a thought experiment how do you disprove my claim that I am ontologically the source of all morality and any disagreement with me is a moral failing on your part
>protip: you can’t

>>510888013
now that's quite a non-sequitur

>>510887960
>I don't even know what you're talking about at this point
Because you literally don't understand what any of the terms from the subject of logic actually mean. kek

>If i say "All eggs are yellow because all eggs are yellow" that doesn't make it true
This is coherent. It's also a valid argument. It's just not a sound one.

>>510887539
Morality is 100% objective and based on simple observation. This debate already occurred during the 1600s-1800s. For example we can't know that a dog experiences pain like we do, but we can see the exact same chemical and electrical response to pain as humans, such as pain signals travelling up to the brain, so we can safely assume the dog DOES experience pain so therefore torturing dogs is wrong. Religious retards who are spiritually jewish try to pilpul around this by asking asinine questions such as "why is it wrong to hurt dogs even if they experience pain?", because religious retards lack are empty shells who lack critical thinking. If you don't know on your own that its wrong to torture animals and you need someone else to tell you, then you probably shouldn't have basic human rights.

>>510888140
Do you think morality is subjective?

>>510887878
I give a fuck less about capitalism being good or bad. Defending any economic system that promotes corruption and degeneracy just fails. Every system does that, its a continuous failing of priorities. People don't realize they're not the priority, they're idol worshippers and love their upper class. That upper class fucks them over, doesn't matter what the economic system is. America is cooked, has been for a while.

>>510888013
>>510888228
>believes in magical demons
>claims other people are incoherent
You're jut gaslighting

>>510888368
Ok, based. Not even gonna argue with you.

>>510887663
sad.
>>510887492
circularity doesn't imply incoherence, recursive definitions like n~ = n x (n-1)! and self-referential systems (ie godel's theorems) rely on it.
tautologies and fixed points validate internal consistency without infinite regress.
your objection overgeneralizes, not all circularity is fallacious.

>>510888362
It doesn't matter. Humanity already collectively acts like morality is subjective.

>>510888423
>>believes in magical demons
This is your schizophrenia talking. At no point did I express belief in "magical demons". The voices are gaslighting you again.

>>510888463
Worshipping a dead jew is what's sad herr

>>510888484
>At no point did I express belief in "magical demons
>Islam flag
Yea you did, stop lying

>>510888593
Still waiting for you to quote my expressing any beliefs in magical demons.

>>510888467
>humanity already collectively acts like morality is subjective.
the complete opposite is true.
to act like morality is subjective would be to never make universal moral claims, yet this is almost universally done.
>abortion is good
>abortion is bad
>genocide is bad
>slavery is bad
>etc

>>510888674
So you're not a mudshit? Why use the flag if not?

>>510888674
>switch to meme flag
My sides are in orbit ah god dammit get this hook outta my mouth

>>510888788
>newfags take memeflags at face value
The Absolute State.

>>510888838
So I was right that you're no here for an actul debate. In fact you're stating to sound like a bot

>>510879537
How do you measure "benefit" without begging the question?

>>510886323
>Dominance hierarchies exist all over the animal kingdom as means of promoting cooperation and coordinated social behaviors. Any biologist knows this. It's not controversial.
Just to add: There are also forms of dominance that create resentment, resistance, and social disorganization, like if the dominance is considered unjust or goes too far. Those sorts of dominance hierarchies, of course, are not pro-social but antisocial and they can destroy a society.
But a lot of dominance hierarchies do exist naturally and humans are no exception. All human societies are hierarchical. The point is so build a hierarchy that works for most people and not just for a few, since exploitative hierarchies end up damaging the society.

>>510888772
what. different cultures all have vastly different beliefs on those things. people that make those claims are ultimately just expressing their opinion.

>>510888976
I was here for actual debate and effortlessly obliterated your atheist hivemind. Seethe about it.

>>510889047
>All human societies are hierarchical.
Provide evidence for this delusional claim. Proptip: you 100% won't.

>>510889103
>some people say the earth is round
>some people say the earth is flat
>therefore, the earth doesn't exist
your argument is silly since the discussion is about moral ontology (the what) rather than moral epistemology (the how we know)
the notion that the truth value of moral claims exist independently of minds isn't invalidated by the beliefs minds have.

>>510889122
See >>510888243
I explained how morality is 100% objective and I actually very simple. If you're am adult and need to be told the difference between right and wrong by a magical jew god then you should be diagnosed with a mental disability. That would stop most of the religious scam artists of which there are many.

>>510889469
>morality is objective because we can measure electrical impulses in dog brains and this is why it's ok for gays to have sex with children

>>510889262
My entire argument is that moral ontology is irrelevant and has no impact on human society.

>>510889670
>My entire argument is that moral ontology is irrelevant and has no impact on human society
It's nice that you boil down your entire argument to a trivially false statement. Moral ontology has had a huge impact on Western society.

>>510889811
>Moral ontology has had a huge impact on Western society.
nope

>>510890279
>American education
I'm just gonna filter your flag at this point. Every American post ITT suggests generations of inbreeding.

>>510889670
saying "ontology is irrelevant" cuts off the branch epistemology sits on.
if there's no "what" to know (moral facts) then the entire process of knowing right from wrong is undermined.
laws, norms, and ethical systems implicitly assume objectivity.
>>510890362
>flag
>post

>>510888125
>This is a thought experiment how do you disprove my claim that I am ontologically the source of all morality and any disagreement with me is a moral failing on your part
Even if that's true it doesn't make your moral opinion more correct, you're back where you started and your moral opinion is just that, an opinion, no truer or falser than anyone elses.

>>510890468
>saying "ontology is irrelevant" cuts off the branch epistemology sits on.
You're trying to argue this point to someone who doesn't know the bare basics of the history of Western civilization.

>>510890468
>laws, norms, and ethical systems implicitly assume objectivity
No they don't. These are all just collective opinions.

>>510888228
>Because you literally don't understand what any of the terms from the subject of logic actually mean. kek
You keep making non-arguments so you've lost the debate by default at this point.

No, circular reasoning is not logically valid and only madmen think so, i'll leave it at that.

>>510888243
I get why you think that but you're wrong, unless you have a moral foundation you can't argue that even the most heinous act is wrong. You can't just say "well X feels pain" because you have to explain why it's wrong for them to feel pain in the circumstances etc.

>>510890531
>Even if that's true it doesn't make your moral opinion more correct
If I’m the ontological source of morality then it does. My opinion is correct yours is a deviation from the universal value system I’m the basis of.

>>510890468
>if there's no "what" to know (moral facts) then the entire process of knowing right from wrong is undermined.
>laws, norms, and ethical systems implicitly assume objectivity.
Pretty weak argument. You can invent a bunch of rules or converge on them without them reflecting any preexisting reality. Over time, the rules themselves become an object of knowledge.

>>510876192 (OP)
We shouldn't. There is cause and effect, and some things are preferable whilst others are not. The ancients understood this and lived happy fulfilling lives.

>>510890674
>circular reasoning is not logically valid
It is, but at least your mentally ill ass stopped saying it's "incoherent". So there's some progress after all. Now get lost for another 30 minutes and look up what "validity" means in the context of logic.

>>510888463
To be precise, circular reasoning implies LOGICAL incoherence, it is not compatible with coherent systems of logic, i have already said this before. Are you seriously saying you can prove the statement "X is true because X is true" to be correct without external reasoning? This is madness.

>>510890788
ACK-chually, as an enlightened atheist I can tell you that I measured the electrical activity in the brains of children on MDMA while having anal sex with them and it was similar to the brain activity of lab rats receiving a treat. Therefore having sex with children is 100% objectively moral and scientific. Yes, I am Canadian, why do you ask?

>>510886803
Ok, I have nothing against anyone giving their opinions, and if it works for you that's fine, but it's still an opinion, in the objective sense. I do think there is a downside to religion in many cases though.

>>510890984
>circular reasoning implies LOGICAL incoherence
Your posts read exactly like DeepSeek V2 on minimal compute. Just senseless stringing of vaguely related tokens.

>>510890910
>We shouldn't. There is cause and effect, and some things are preferable whilst others are not. The ancients understood this and lived happy fulfilling lives.
The Ancient Greeks liked to have anal sex with boys just like modern atheists and the Russian army which I think is very very based.

>>510890843
>If I’m the ontological source of morality then it does.
Huh? You think claiming something makes it true? I can't help you then, you've given up all logic. We can discuss things that logic can be applied to if you start using logic again, otherwise we can talk about cats or fairytales or something.

Specifically I'm talking in regards to not being able to disprove you are the arbiter of all truth or whatever you said, that doesn't mean you can prove you are either.

>>510890984
>To be precise, circular reasoning implies LOGICAL incoherence
nyoooo
it implies epistemic insufficiency if used as a proof. but circularity isn't inherently invalid, it's structural.
take tarski's truth definitions "X is true" X is circular by design, yet it anchors semantic coherence.
or lambda calculus: (λx.x)(λx.x) reduces to itself. trivial? yes. incoherent? no.
your "x because x" ignores productive circularity, like inductive definitions (peano axioms), recurrrence relations.
even modus ponens presupposes its own validity.

dismissing all circularity as madness conflates vicious cycles (fallacies) with virtuous ones (foundational constructs). godel's incompleteness hinges on the latter, you can't formalize math without it.

>>510884949
If you define morality simply as the majority opinion then obviously you can have morality without God, but then the question is, what is the value of this "morality"? Many agreeing on a falsehood doesn't make it right. If you're content with walking along with the lemmings and trusting they're not leading you off a cliff then fine, but some are not. Now, perhaps you're right that there is in fact no such magical solution, no real "absolute morality", but even if so that does not therefore confer any value on majority opinion, it just means that everything is meaningless.

>>510891546
You sure use the word 'logic' a lot for someone who doesn't even know the difference between coherence, soundness and validity.

>doesn't mean you can prove you are
Why does he need to prove it to you?

>>510890949
>BRO CIRCULAR REASONING IS LOGICALLY VALID
>IF YOU DON'T THINK SO YOURE MENTALLY ILL
Lmao, and yes, circular reasoning IS logically incoherent, because it's incompatible with any coherent logical system, maybe read a book on logic before trying to debate philosophy.

>>510891607
i mean
>“X is true” <-> X
like: “snow is white” is true if and only if snow is white

⧸pol⧸ doesn't like certain symbols

>>510891172
Great argument, give me some more.
>>510891107
What are you talking about retard? i was arguing against the Canadians purely utilitarian morality.

>>510891607
>or lambda calculus: (λx.x)(λx.x) reduces to itself. trivial? yes. incoherent? no.
Lambda calculus as a whole is logically inconsistent.

>>510891735
>You don't know this jargon that means you're wrong.
Literal sophistry, make an argument or go back to sleep.

>>510876192 (OP)
Idk ask your god

>>510891752
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)
>In logic, specifically in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.
Go be mentally ill somewhere else now.

>>510891752
>gets given numerous counterexamples to the claim
>keeps asserting it
>>510891928
depends
untyped isn't inconsist because the notion of logical inconsistency doesn't apply to it, it's turing complete.
typed lambda calculi are only inconsistent if they allow for every term to have every type (which collapses the logic)
but simply typed lambda calculus is logically consistent and strongly normalizing.

theres like 2 anti-theists on this entire board
its not that people dont believe in god, they just dont believe the jewish desert fanfictional account is god or has anything to do with god. its a mockery to what god. its well understood that jews broke their brains with plato. they thought themselves so wise and so smart and he was so far out ahead of them that they simply could not make sense of what pagans were doing. there was no monotheist vs. polytheist war, that was a wholly jewish invention. the greeks were both. they used metaphors and polytheism to describe parts of the whole. this is covered in depth in the second part of Plato's Parmenides when Zeno debates Aristoteles.
that is why the gnostics when trying to conceptualize yaldabaoth started making their various gods, and broke their brains doing so. they couldnt do it. and it ruined them, and bled over into jewish theological thought. this is the (((neo))) phenomenon. once something encounters jews it becomes a corrupted and denatured form of itself. its a wrong turn, and a path which you will never recover from, spiritually. the christians atleast had the insight to try to reduce this, but did not properly contain it, and it leaked over into their theology, and today, some 2500 years later, you can visibly see it is still broken.

>>510891607
Sounds like a load of jargon crap, I think you're admitting that you can't prove that X is true because X is true? Correct? But you have some other way you think you can justify circular logic, explain it to me like i'm a retard.

>>510892080
>an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true
Honestly i don't get it, an argument is valid only if it's premises aren't true?

>>510892273
>the notion of logical inconsistency doesn't apply to it
It does when used the way you tried to use it, arguing something about logic.

>>510892273
What's the counterexample?

>>510886342
The only logical flaw with the following argument is that it's circular: "You're wrong because you're wrong". If you accept circularity then you have to accept this.

>>510892563
>runs out of tokens mid-sentence
Kek.

>>510892666
>The only logical flaw with the following argument is that it's circular: "You're wrong because you're wrong".
There is no logical flaw with that argument. If you are wrong it could only be because you are wrong.

>>510892686
That's what it says though. It sounds like i could make an argument with false premises and yet it still be true which doesn't make any sense to me.

>>510892873
What it actually says:
>an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.
You cut it off mid-sentence. Literal meds ASAP.

>>510892624
i was referencing simply typed lambda calculus, which is logically consistent.
you're talking about it "as a whole," but i didn't specify i meant the typed variant, so that's on me.
thanks for pointing it out.

>>510889594
Note how the religious retard has to change what I wrote because they are all snakes

>>510893076
Nah the wiki article is worded retardedly.
I found a better worded definition in the same article.
>An argument is valid if and only if it would be contradictory for the conclusion to be false if all of the premises are true.
Ok i largely agree with that, logical contradictions are incoherent of course.
So, how does that prove circular reasoning is logically coherent again?

>>510893236
>ACK-chually, as an enlightened atheist I can tell you that I measured the electrical activity in the brains of children on MDMA while having anal sex with them and it was similar to the brain activity of lab rats receiving a treat. Therefore having sex with children is 100% objectively moral and scientific. Yes, I am Canadian, why do you ask?

make a new thread i wanna talk about how jews broke themselves and started sucking baby penises and how christians play make believe like children while they pretend to eat foreskins

protip: if youre all eating jesus' flesh, atleast one of you by necessity is eating his foreskin.

>>510890788
>I get why you think that but you're wrong,
No I'm not
> unless you have a moral foundation you can't argue that even the most heinous act is wrong
See >>510888243
>dog DOES experience pain so therefore torturing dogs is wrong. Religious retards who are spiritually jewish try to pilpul around this by asking asinine questions such as "why is it wrong to hurt dogs even if they experience pain?", because religious retards lack are empty shells who lack critical thinking. If you don't know on your own that its wrong to torture animals and you need someone else to tell you, then you probably shouldn't have basic human rights.

Religious retards are a danger to themselves and others. It could be argued that you're not even human, like how psychopaths have lost part of why makes them human.

>>510893209
>i was referencing simply typed lambda calculus, which is logically consistent.
Then you should had said so specifically because "lambda calculus" normally refers to untyped lambda calculus, anon. You LOST this reddit debate.

>>510893481
you couldnt have thought of a better metaphor? straight to fuckin kids?

>>510892755
>If you are wrong it could only be because you are wrong.
Bro that's incredibly retarded.
>>510892666
This, why do so many people think circular logic is valid? Have people lost their minds? This is very very basic shit. I guess there's no other way they can justify their insanity other than giving up logic entirely.

>>510893576
There's just something about atheist immediately reminds me about gays and trannies fucking kids. If you don't like it maybe find a new ideology that doesn't carry the connotation of child abuse.

>>510893508
>No I'm not
NOT. AN. ARGUMENT. STOP. BEING. STUPID.

Religious retards need to be told the torturing animals is wrong. Why do we let these psychopaths have human rights?

>>510893621
>why do so many people think circular logic is valid?
Because it literally is. "X therefore X" is a circular argument. If the premise (X) is true the conclusion (X) can't be false. If this premise happens to be that you're wrong, which you definitely are, then the argument is both sound and valid, because the premise is true.

>>510892308
>theres like 2 anti-theists on this entire board
there's also the richard carrier poster but i think he's jewish.

>>510893769
If you need someone to tell you that torturing animals is wrong them you should be locked up at the very least.

>>510893837
>torturing animals is wrong, therefore we need to torture humans
Somehow militant athiests manage to beat religious fanatics in the insane psycho competition.

>>510893564
me:
>i didn't specify, my bad dude
you:
>you should've specified! you lost! reee

i get the sour disposition, interacting with atheists is aggravating.

>>510893921
>if you don't let !e torture animals them you're torturing me!
See, spirituality jewish just like I said

>>510893988
Interacting with atheists is funny.

>>510892755
If you accept circularity then there is no logical flaw in it, that's my point. So, if, whatever you say, I just say "you're wrong", and when asked to justify that, I say "because you're wrong", you would have to admit that I made a sound argument that you're wrong. Do you not see the problem with that?

>>510887226
Do you even understand what morality is? It's by definition just a code of conduct which entails that it is derived from reality. What about this is counterintuitive to you?

>>510894430
>you would have to admit that I made a sound argument that you're wrong
It's only a sound argument if the premise (that I'm wrong) is true. Otherwise the argument is merely valid (and potentially sound).

>>510894430
>>510894569
And no, I don't see the problem with that. Maybe it'd be a problem if I actually cared what you thought.