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?

Antitheists aren't antitheist they've just replaced their belief system with different priests and a different deity.
Scientists are the priests....systems of government are their gods.
It's all very.....middle of the bell curve stuff that requires very little active thought because you don't have to think as long as the "authorities" do your thinking for you and have created a little dogmatic world in which as long as you adhere to what they tell you, you live a "good" life.

>>510895233 (OP)
>subjectively evil
There is no such thing as objective morality. Your morality is based on your interpretation of a translation of what some shitskin wrote onto a scroll 200 years ago that was based on his king's opinion on how people should act. Even if your god were real (it's not) then your morality would still be based on its subjective opinion about what's right and wrong. There would be nothing objective about it.

>>510895233 (OP)
Religion is a scam in 2025 where youve given women rights

Notice how since the 70s birth rates and marriage rates have been plummeting. Wages relative to cost of living also have decreased. Women make more than the average man and have an easier time finding a job

Theyre are reverting back to their natural form where they select good looking psychopaths to breed with.

why be religious when a 6'6 criminal has a harem of women and you cant even get a match on a dating app

lol at dedicating your life to a fictional jewish prophet

>>510895643
>Scientists are the priests....systems of government are their gods.
Umm, sweaty? We need to trust the science if we ever want to break out of the simulation.

>>510895964
>since the 70s birth rates and marriage rates have been plummeting
It's been a trend since 1900. My grandparents all had 7 siblings each. They had 4 children each. My parents had 2 children. I have none and will have none.

>>510895233 (OP)
Antitheists are jsut as retarded as theists imo. Agnosticism is the way to go.
But anyways:
>If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
Is retarded. Assume for a moment that instead of "god", "satan" (or whatever your brand of judaism calls it) was the one in power. would you base your morality on that beings authority, then? If not, you've got your answer - if yes, I'd suggest roping.

>>510896404
I don't understand. If morality is subjective, why do atheists like to use state violence to enforce their arbitrary opinions on others, all while screeching that religion arbitrarily restricts people for irrational reasons?

the problem is hardly solved even by coating it into the religious framework, you are basically only shifting the burden onto a "big" cosmic sponsor that purportedly adds weights to your moral claims, but then it's basically kicking the can ahead since you have to justify both the existence of this sponsor as well as the "chain of transmission" that guarantees you that those are truly the behests of this god

>>510896186
cause youre blackpilled on religon

Being a good person, following your faith, praying wont amount to anything. There's no such thing as karma, infact many early Christians believed in predestination. They believed youre destined from birth to fail or succeed in life. I wonder why it was scrubbed from modern church discussion lmaoo

Certain people are destined to win and destined to lose; why have faith

>>510896580
>then it's basically kicking the can ahead since you have to justify the existence of this sponsor
That's not "kicking the can ahead", that's something theologians have been doing since forever. Meanwhile secular societies are in a hopeless position of pretending that secular morality is rational even though they can't justify it, and that they represent "freedom" even though they arbitrarily force their rules on the individual.

>>510896571
They can have no rational reason for doing so. However, neither can a religious person, unless they have received some kind of supernatural "gnosis", because otherwise their religion must remain a dogma just as arbitrary as its negation.

>>510897221
Theology is rife with logical and philosophical arguments for the existence of God starting from more basic, intuitive premises.

>>510897442
Which are all worthless because your intuition may always be wrong.

>>510897705
>Which are all worthless because your intuition may always be wrong.
This is an irrational statement, not a valid argument.

>>510897735
What is irrational about doubting your intuition? You may be dreaming right now (or this could be some other kind of illusion) and you have no way to know if you are or how likely it is that you are, even if your intuition may be that you're not.

>>510897868
I didn't say it's irrational to doubt your intuition. Now you're also hallucinating. I think these arguments are taking too much of a toll on you. You are not making sense.

>>510897967
I'm making perfect sense. You want to use your intuition as a premise for arguments but if you can't establish the truth of your intuitions then the arguments are necessarily worthless.

>>510895233 (OP)
>You need abrahamism for morality
>Anyways heres how to sell your daughter into sex slavery for money and rape your sex slaves for offspring

>>510898042
>if you can't establish the truth of your intuitions then the arguments are necessarily worthless.
This is an irrational statement that you can't justify.

>>510898289
It's very easy to justify. No matter how convincingly you argue that A implies B, if you don't know if A is true then you still don't know if B is true.

>>510898362
>if you don't know if A is true then you still don't know if B is true.
So what? If the premises are compelling and the argument is valid, the conclusion is rationally compelling.

>>510896743
you completely missed the point; a theologian can "justify it" insofar as his priors are accepted, and those are heavy priors upon which most of the weight lies; rejected the priors, rejected the moral system, it's just a matter of whose "sponsor" has the biggest "street cred" to use a down to earth image
an atheist might simply have a moral system he justifies by saying "it's natural law", the theist might reply that "oh well, but that doesn't satisfy me!" and the atheist may very well replay that he isn't satisfied either by God as a sponsor for it

>>510895233 (OP)
>Morality didn't exist until jews invented it for us!
>also they rape kids!
>please ignore my contradictory world views though!

>>510898605
>If the premises are compelling
Yes, if, but they're not

>>510895233 (OP)
>If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
On our human intuitions. Same as we already do now.
> Are the kikes truly evil if everything they do is just subjectively evil according to antitheism?
Antitheism doesn't say all evil is subjective. Moral realism is orthogonal to theism.
>Is everything then a result of might makes right?
No.

>>510898710
>Yes, if, but they're not
They're not? Quote the relevant premises and explain why you think they're not. If you can't, maybe take your meds because you're still not making sense.

>>510895233 (OP)
This is a kike slide thread that had been posted multiple times today.

>>510898858
>On our human intuitions.
Can you give some examples of "our human intuitions" that are relevant to this thread?

>>510898907
Intuition in general is not compelling, so no premise based on an intuition can be compelling. Why is intuition not compelling? Well, for one thing, it is often inconsistent and contradictory. For example, right now I have an intuition that I am waking and last night I was dreaming. However, as I was dreaming last night I had an intuition that I was waking. And tonight as I dream I will once again have an intuition that I am waking even though now I have an intuition that I will not be.

>>510899141
>Intuition in general is not compelling
I like how you just jump from one nonsensical statement to the next.

>>510899258
Sounds like you have no further comeback.

>>510899333
Sorry, I'm not going to argue with someone who thinks he's a brain in a vat or that he's arguing in a dream.

>>510899475
Good choice because there is really no argument against it, you can only take it on faith that you're not.

>>510895233 (OP)
there's broadly 3 positions in normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics. none of them have to do with checking with what the jew-god thinks.
in terms of meta-ethics. abrahamism and divine command theories are subjectivists theories. jew worshipers cannot solve the euthyphro dilemma.
Plato and Aristotle are enough to develop a coherent moral framework, you don't need the jew book and their jew god.

>>510899553
I'll leave you to ponder this question with yourself since clearly you don't find your own sense of reality compelling.

>>510899661
Ok, then you should have no trouble justifying your gay atheist moral beliefs.

>>510899673
Well, yes, because I have no rational reason to. Rationality itself cannot be justified for that matter. Where does that leave us? Well, I can pray to receive some gnosis, other than that I don't see a way out of this.

>>510899886
Since you have no faith in your own grip on reality, you also have no faith in any of the retarded "arguments" you spout and neither do I. Carry on.

>>510899754
Moldova is a jewish rape tunnel of a country.
why do you reply to me if you can't answer me?

>>510895233 (OP)
>what should we/would we base our morality on
Just be a utilitarian. Pleasure being good and suffering being bad are directly observable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BYUlKSY4wk&list=PL_HJ0tBxcTkZq-_b-P2xkKFhPkn85-_H9

>>510899971
Can you demonstrate the truth of your assertions by listing our of your gay atheist moral beliefs and then justifying it?

Protip: you will reply but you will make no attempt to substantiate your claims in the way of justifying your moral beliefs.

>>510899970

My arguments have nothing to do with my faith. If you believe in logic then they have become your problem, because logically they are sound.

>>510900035
>drugging children with MDMA and then raping them in the ass is good
Atheist morality.

>>510900052
that's literally what you did to me tunnel rat.
you can't respond to what I said so you change the subject.

>>510900064
You are mentally ill and nothing you say matters. You have already admitted as much by telling me you're not sure if you're living in reality or having some feverish argument in a dream right now.

>>510900126
Notice how I correctly predicted that you will NOT attempt to show how you justify any of your moral beliefs. ID goes to the filter now, but your impotent atheist rage will force you to reply again. SAD!

>>510900182
Again, I may be mentally ill or I may be a talking donkey. It has no bearing on the validity of my arguments. If you believe in logic and you are faced with a sound logical argument that contradicts you then you have a problem, regardless of where it originated.

>>510900249
I predict you cannot address what I said.
prophecy verified.

>>510895233 (OP)
Morally is based on a conceived notion of empathy/Self interest. Religion forces a superfluous design to control the masses away from what instinctively benefits them for the sake of social cohesion.

>>510895233 (OP)
I’m atheist because religions like Hinduism and Islam exist

>>510900283
>It has no bearing on the validity of my arguments
First of all, you didn't make any proper arguments - valid or otherwise. Secondly, your position is based on a dubious premise that your own indulgence in arguing undermines.

>>510900391
>Morally is based on a conceived notion of empathy/Self interest.
Then you should be able to provide an example of justifying a moral belief based on those things. And yet you won't. Curious!

>>510900457
Apparently you are simply not interested in the truth. However, at some point you will have to face your self-deception as we all do.

>>510895233 (OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mEC54eTuGw

>>510900542
The truth is that everyone's grasp of reality relies on intuitive axioms that are accepted out of necessity. The fact that you have to undermine any and all reasoning in your desperate attempt to defend atheist lunacy is a full concession. Thanks for playing.

>>510900676
> necessity
There is no necessity, this is pure self-deception on your part.
I'm not defending atheism.

>>510900760
You are mentally ill and retarded. Thanks for playing. Call me back when you have a better argument than "maybe I'm dreaming".

I’m only as anti-theist as theists spam this board, otherwise I’m pretty ambivalent on believers.

But to answer your question, there is no objective morality. Morality is a human invention that mixes empathy, reason, history, and current events into a behavior system that we feel is better than others. It’s inherently subjective whether you like it or not.

>>510900819
Unfortunately there is no better argument.

>>510900557
I didnt even know that tits. Noice.

>>510895233 (OP)
>If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
Morality is the classification of things as right and wrong, and the associated reasoning. Broadly, "right" in a moral sense means producing desirable outcomes over all situations of interest, and "wrong" is what produces undesirable outcomes. It's possible to formulate this in relation to some religious code of behavior (a popular basis for deontological systems), but that's not the only way to do it. Virtue systems, for example, identify behaviors which tend to produce desirable and undesirable outcomes, and advise acting accordingly. Consequentialism is focused on the specific end results rather than how one gets there. It can avoid edge cases in deontological and virtue systems that don't work well, but it requires much more analysis to practice, which people are generally not prepared to undertake.

But how do you determine what's right or wrong in the first place, if you don't accept a previously-given explanation? You look at how things work out when people do things in various ways. Is cannibalism bad? Leaving aside how the human meat is procured (its own moral issue), cannibalism is a vector for some horrible diseases that can kill off communities that engage in cannibalism, like kuru. It's also very inefficient as a metabolic energy source, far less so than common food animals which grow quickly and are slaughtered young. Can cannibalism work in certain limited situations, like people trapped somewhere without food but with water, and the expectation of a rescue in the next few months, and corpses at hand from the disaster that stranded them there? Sure, but social norms allowing that would probably be less effective at discouraging cannibalism in more common situations where it doesn't work.

>>510900834
> It’s inherently subjective
Why do you support using state violence to enforce a bunch of subjective opinions on everyone?

>>510900934
I m kinda getting 40, fucking 40 this year. That is all the crisis i have. Horrendous.

>>510895233 (OP)
>>510900934
You may notice that I'm being vague about "working" or "not working" above. That's because, while humans disagree on specifics, most humans agree on basics of what is desirable and what is not. Prosperity, safety, food security, the ability to have children, etc. are important to most people, and moral codes can be evaluated by how well they achieve these and other targets of interest. For example, monogamy vs. polygamy. Monogamy tends to produce stable societies which, if other things are in place, can support complex institutions and productive economies. Polygamy tends to produce a population of disaffected young men with no prospect of finding wives in their own society, who are therefore likely to burn society down unless otherwise directed. The traditional direction is to send them off to fight wars of conquest, where they will either die or claim wives from conquered populations, which burns down other societies or invites military responses from others strong enough to resist. Similar considerations apply to other prospective moral concerns. Moral goals are subjective but broadly shared among humans. The ability of moral systems to achieve moral goals is objective, evaluated by observing consequences when they are put into practice.

>>510900968
Because it works.

>>510901109
You get the ruling class your philosophy deserves.

>>510901030
I kinda agree with you but this happens in i dunno "flow state". Similar to your three body problem, you cannot really explain this shit.

>>510901161
My philosophy doesn’t deserve anything, it’s a statement about reality. It could very well be that a ruling class that believes in objective morals had better results in some form that one who didn’t, but it wouldn’t mean there was actually objective morals just that it was more practical if people believed them - which maybe it is.

>>510896693
The ones destined to win are destined to have faith.

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you as the first fruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
— 2 Thessalonians 2:13

>>510901208
>but this happens in i dunno "flow state". Similar to your three body problem
What do you mean?

>you cannot really explain this shit.
What can't I explain?

>>510901332
>My philosophy doesn’t deserve anything
It does, and you're getting what you deserve.

>>510901332
>but it wouldn’t mean there was actually objective morals
It literally does, by your own example in which they produced objectively better results.

>>510895940
If the Supreme Judge of the universe judges something as evil, it is objectively evil.
There is no higher authority to appeal to.

For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself,
— Hebrews 6:13

>>510900886
I'm pretty sure you're the same retard who displayed a lack of understanding of basic logic in the last thread.

>>510901471
>the Supreme Judge of the universe
Judges are lawful. They operate on the law-chaos axis, not the good-evil axis. Why would you suppose that a Supreme Judge of the universe is good? It's trivial to imagine an amoral or evil judge. Simply being powerful does not imply moral standing either. You need more than that if you want to claim that a deity is good.

>>510901518
So you're the one who misunderstood what circularity means in the context of logical fallacies? Your point that x because x is valid if x is true is nonsense. If x is otherwise established to be true then you don't need the argument in the first place. The point of circular arguments is that they would themselves establish the truth of their conclusions. If this is not what you mean by it then your initial response to the guy who said that all world views are necessarily circular made no sense.

>>510895233 (OP)
I find the morality argument to be extremely weak. People have a (God-given) moral intuition whether they recognize God or not. To say that "this good, that bad, because God says so" is childish and makes a mockery of morality (and of God) because it treats morality like a matter of opinion and simply adopts the supposed opinion of the greatest being that would theoretically have the best opinion - but a mere opinion nonetheless, as opposed to anything intrinsic. God doesn't have opinions like a flawed stupid mortal, God determines the conditions of the universe, that are often good and often evil, and is entirely above good and evil and opinions thereof. To suggest otherwise is to take God lightly.

>>510901753
Kek. At least you're not lying about being a different poster. Are you sure you should be arguing with anyone if you don't understand the basic principles of logic?

>>510901471
>Supreme judge
>Sell your daughters into sex slavery for money lol

>>510901889
You can lie and insult me as much as you want, in the end you're only deceiving yourself.

>>510901802
>To say that "this good, that bad, because God says so" is childish and makes a mockery of morality
That's not the point, though. I just want to know why atheists act morally superior to anyone with conflicting values, if under their own framework, morality is just a bunch of subjective opinions.

>>510901948
>you can lie
Lie? You literally just admitted you're the same poster. kek

>>510901889
My romanian defiler one step closer and you arent a passive aggressive bitch.

>>510902062
Not about that, obviously. Clearly you are the one who doesn't understand the principles of logic.

>>510902215
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UM3ecX69Jo

>>510902215
Let's see if you learned anything since the last thread. Are circular arguments valid? Are circular arguments unsound?

>>510902495
That part was not me. I simply said if you accept circular arguments then you would have to accept the trivial circular argument that you are wrong.

>>510902033
Atheism is the non-traditional position in the West, generally speaking. A Western atheist has typically arrived there by rejecting the mainstream position of their society. As part of that which they have rejected, traditional morality is usually regarded as inferior to their present position, even if their present position does not have a replacement for it. To a lesser extent this also applies to more socially-established atheism culturally tied to modernism as a rejection of traditionalism, which people are born and raised into.
>It's current year. Our modern beliefs are obviously superior to those outdated ones.

>>510902579
Are circular arguments valid? Are circular arguments unsound? You shouldn't have trouble answering these questions. :^)

>>510902604
>A Western atheist has typically arrived there by rejecting the mainstream position of their society
Except for their watered-down version of Christian morality which they try to appropriate while undermining its basis. jej

>>510902717
It depends on the rules of your logic. If you accept circular arguments then by definition they are, but on the other hand, again, you then run into the problem that you have to accept any trivial circular argument as well.

>>510902861
>It depends on the rules of your logic
Fucking kek. Sounds like atheists now have subjective logic in addition to subjective morality.

>>510902033
Maybe it's because they Don't actually believe that morality is entirely subjective. I can tell you as a former atheist of a libertarian persuasion that I believed in objective morality as something that could be scientifically discovered, and that sickening atrocities like rape and slavery could be proven to be intrinsically evil.

>>510902997
You can create arbitrary systems of logic, they may just not be very useful. My point is that your system is useless if you accept circularity.

>>510903064
>You can create arbitrary systems of logic
Atheism intellectualism intensifies.

>>510903064
>your system is useless if you accept circularity.
We are now talking about classical logic. Are circular arguments valid? Are circular arguments unsound? You shouldn't have trouble answering these questions. :^)

>>510903137
You're the one who's arguing for an unconventional system of logic by wanting to accept circularity.

>>510903062
>I believed in objective morality as something that could be scientifically discovered, and that sickening atrocities like rape and slavery could be proven to be intrinsically evil.
And now, presumably, you know better. Surely you don't think "scientifically proving" that something is "evil" makes sense.

>>510902717
FUCK ALL THIS SHIT YES THOSE ARE REALLY NICE ARGUMENTS.

>>510903180
Circular reasoning is a fallacy in classical logic, obviously.

>>510903235
>You're the one who's arguing for an unconventional system of logic
This is your schizophrenia talking again. We are now talking about classical logic. Are circular arguments valid? Are circular arguments unsound? You shouldn't have trouble answering these questions. :^)

How is morality derived from religion anymore objective than morality derived from me tipping my fedora? God does not show objective evidence of himself or the validity of his morality, you just feel that he is there and trust the plan, ie your morality ultimately stems from a subjective feeling that appeals to you.

>>510903307
A vicious circle isnt a ben shapiro.

>>510903307
>Circular reasoning is a fallacy in classical logic, obviously.
Obviously! So you should have no trouble answering the following questions:

Are circular arguments valid? Are circular arguments unsound?

kek

>>510903329
I already answered your question as I believe did many others in the last thread. Obviously circular reasoning is considered a fallacy in classical logic. This is well documented ...

>>510903378
>more irrelevant atheist deflection
See >>510896743.

>>510903440
Notice how you will never attempt to directly answer these questions:

Are circular arguments valid? Are circular arguments unsound?

>>510903440
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mEC54eTuGw

>>510903500
if you are not able to explain why your morality is more objective than mine then i will just have to accept your concession.

>>510903715
>irrelevant atheist deflection continues
Adding your retarded flag to the filter given the amount of retardation coming from it lately.

>>510903781
wow, you must be really frustrated.

>>510895233 (OP)
Ayn Rand already demonstrated in her books how virtue ethics and morality can by derived by simply answering two questions and them following the logical consequences of those when taking human nature into account
>Do you want to live ?
and
>Do you want to be miserable ?

>>510903961
>Ayn Rand already demonstrated...
Stopped reading. Post nose.

>>510901471
Don't let jews speak for God and don't listen to a book that IS LITERALLY CALLED HEBREWS

>>510903137
>>You can create arbitrary systems of logic
Yes, you literally can. The binary logic that computers run on is not the same as Bayesian inference, for example. Different systems use different axioms and perform different operations. With suitable formulations, you can prove anything at all, but a system capable of proving anything at all is not useful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_formal_systems

>>510904689
Fuck off, brainlet. Or at least read the exchange first before you post irrelevant wiki articles.

>>510904788
>at least read the exchange first
>>510902717
>Are circular arguments valid?
>>510902861
>It depends on the rules of your logic.
>>510902997
>Fucking kek. Sounds like atheists now have subjective logic in addition to subjective morality.
>>510903064
>You can create arbitrary systems of logic, they may just not be very useful.
>>510903137
>Atheism intellectualism intensifies.
So yes, my response is on point. It is so obviously and non-controversially on point that Wikipedia has stable, non-fought-over articles explaining the basics and giving examples which show how there are multiple logical systems. It's like math. Do you know that there are different kinds of math?

>>510895233 (OP)
American society was developed by Protestants. All the empathy was mplanted into laws and normal culture through their religious beliefs. I'm an atheist and have been since I was 5. I never thought there was a god but I knew stealing was met with punishment, never hurt others because I was taught to put myself in their shoes. So i believe we've taken the lessons and wisdom put forth by the religions and we've discarded the deity.

>>510905504
What the FUCK do your wiki articles have to do with that mouth-breathing retard not understanding what soundness and validity are in classical logic, and claiming "my" rules are "arbitrarily" made up?

>>510906004
>and claiming "my" rules are "arbitrarily" made up?
Anon, I have some bad news about all the rules.

>>510906437
>classical logic is arbitrarily made up
Atheist intellectual #2.

>>510906736
Have you ever read what dudes like Plato got up to?

>>510906839
Are the laws of classical logic arbitrarily made up?

>>510907077
In the sense that it is a human invention tailored to certain particular tasks, yes. It's suited to the tasks it's used for, but there have been different systems with different rules both before and after it. The universe doesn't run on it, for example.

>>510895233 (OP)
You don't base your morality on religion either. The Bible doesn't say it's wrong to rape kids.

>>510895940
atheist shitfaces can never, NEVER give a positive version of morality to aspire to. they only attack, even when an honest question like this pops up. they're just tantrum throwing children who want to escape responsibility.

>>510907439
>classical logic is arbitrarily made up because rational minds formulated it for the purpose of reasoning
Chalking this opinion down to your atheism.

>there have been different systems with different rules both before and after it
Which still rely on classical meta-theory to even reason about them and their properties.

>The universe doesn't run on it,
>run on
I don't know what this is supposed to mean but the universe abides by its laws as far as anyone can tell.

>>510907518
>You don't base your morality on religion either
I base my morality on understanding divine order and aligning myself with it.

>>510908358
>the universe abides by its laws as far as anyone can tell.
Which are not the rules of logic formulated by humans. Some laws of logic seem to map to abstractions of the universe, but the map is not the territory.

>Which still rely on classical meta-theory to even reason about them and their properties.
>philosophy was invented in the 1800s

>>510908829
You sound mentally ill and everything I've stated still stands.

>>510895233 (OP)
If God isn't real (good luck proving that to yourself) you can base your rules and regulations on literally anything you want, but what you cannot do without contradicting your position as an atheist is to claim that anything is good or evil because in such a scenario every man's opinion would be every bit as valid and as authoritative as the other, and all it takes is "because I say so" to dismiss any suggestion of holier than thou. E.g:

. Person A says we should ban sex with children.

. Person B says we shouldn't.

. Person A says "That's evil".

. Person B says "Banning sex with children is evil".

. Person A says "That's crazy, children suffer during sex".

. Person B says "Suffering is good".

. Person A says "Then would you like to suffer?".

. Person B says "No".

. Person A says "Then why allow children to go through that?".

. Person B says "Because I don't care, and you should be killed for attempting to take kid pussy away from me".

...so forth and so on.

>>510901915
what are you referring to shitface?

>>510908923
>everything I've stated still stands.
In your 51 posts, you've mostly made generic insults. Can you quote an actual point that you consider to have "stood"?

>>510895233 (OP)
>then what should we/would we base our morality on
Easy: "An action hurts/damages/ruins a person/thing, therefore the action is bad"
>on whose authority?
Adolf Hitler <3
>Are the kikes truly evil
Yes

>>510909086
>Can you quote an actual point that you consider to have "stood"?
Everything in this post >>510908358, which succinctly explains why you're a fucking retard. You haven't actually refuted anything stated therein.

>>510909181
So, to quote (which you failed to do when requested):
>>510908358
>Chalking this opinion down to your atheism.
Irrelevant to the content being replied to, presented as a strawman of what I actually said.

>Which still rely on classical meta-theory to even reason about them and their properties.
Obviously false given the long history of the philosophy of logic and the relatively recent recent arrival of "classical" logic, as mentioned in the reply. How do you think classical meta-theory came to be in vogue in the first place?

>I don't know what this is supposed to mean but the universe abides by its laws as far as anyone can tell.
To which I replied >>510908829
>Which are not the rules of logic formulated by humans. Some laws of logic seem to map to abstractions of the universe, but the map is not the territory.

Much logic, very reason.

I base my morality on the non-aggression principle (NAP). It is superior to Jesus and Batman.

>>510903285
I've simply become more agnostic about morality. The point is that I believed in morality as being entirely objective, not the opposite, back when I was an atheist (for maybe two-ish years), and that I can see many atheists being of a similar mind.

>>510909827
You're mentally ill, 100%. My points still stand completely unchallenged.

>>510910000
>I can see many atheists being of a similar mind.
Yes, I can also see atheists being incoherent all the time.

>>510910017
>>510909086
*54 posts

>>510910271
54 posts that make sense are better than 15 posts of completely incoherent drivel.

>>510910440
Care to quote an example each of the supposed making sense and drivel? As in an actual quote, the verbatim reproduction of something said elsewhere.

If you suddenly learned there was no God, would you begin acting immorally?

>>510910589
Shut the fuck up, retard. Your posts range from clownishly moronic:
e.g. >>510909827
>Obviously false given the long history of the philosophy of logic and the relatively recent recent arrival of "classical" logic, as mentioned in the reply. How do you think classical meta-theory came to be in vogue in the first place?

... to literally schizophrenic hearing of voices and hallucination of quotes:
e.g. >>510908829
>philosophy was invented in the 1800s

To everything in between:
e.g. >>510908829
>the universe abides by the laws of logic, which are not the rules of logic formulated by humans

>>510895233 (OP)
The kikes made God up to control you.

>>510910970
"Classical logic" refers to certain developments in the 19th and 20th centuries, millennia after the advent of the philosophy of logic as an endeavor. In particular, I was pointing out the difficulty with your statement >>510908358
>Which still rely on classical meta-theory to even reason about them and their properties.
which seems to treat classical meta-theory as a self-justifying circular construct. Rather, there are other reasons why people formulated and adopted it.

>>510910970
>>the universe abides by the laws of logic, which are not the rules of logic formulated by humans
A quote is the VERBATIM reproduction of something said elsewhere. Let's take a look at what was actually said:
>>510908358
>he universe abides by its laws as far as anyone can tell.
>>510908829
>Which are not the rules of logic formulated by humans. Some laws of logic seem to map to abstractions of the universe, but the map is not the territory.
Your question here >>510907077 seemed to be made without the understanding that logic is a human invention, and that there are different systems of logic that have been invented for different purposes. And that, to the degree that they may seem to describe how things work in reality, they are merely a map that may correspond in certain ways to the territory of reality.

>>510911488
>"Classical logic" refers to certain developments in the 19th and 20th centuries, millennia after the advent of the philosophy of logic as an endeavor. In particular, I was pointing out the difficulty with your statement >>510908358 (You)
>>Which still rely on classical meta-theory to even reason about them and their properties.
>which seems to treat classical meta-theory as a self-justifying circular construct. Rather, there are other reasons why people formulated and adopted it.
Every sentence of this is literal psychosis. No connection to reality on any level. Not even reading the rest of your post. Actually take your meds.

>>510911732
Or not every statement to be fail, just every sentence where you try to "reason", as opposed to quoting an irrelevant factoid.

>>510910710
Theories of divinity are not innate, I say look at infants to see human action before the mind dwells on being and existence, do they take what is not theirs? Is it because of ignorance? Is that evil? Are you judging this without preconception or with modern law defined morality? Do you think the first laws against murder theft and other sin was to create order and control or because these human infants are evil from birth? Or both?

>>510910710
>If you suddenly learned there was no God, would you begin acting immorally?
If you suddenly learned that gravity is fake, would you being to float? Physicists BTFO.

>>510911937
If you suddenly learned the Jewish god was real would you stop use electricity on the weekends or still half ass it

>>510912336
>gay irrelevant strawman
Atheism strikes again.

>>510912449
It’s as stupid as your gravity joke except it shows what a hypocrite you are
Claims of knowledge must be substantiated
“God exists” is a claim, onus is on you to prove it
“God doesn’t exist” same thing, onus is on you

Ignorance need only be confessed “I don’t know”

Don’t get mad at me for being curious about your religion that you don’t practice, I didn’t make up the rules

>>510911732
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/
Can you articulate an actual point of disagreement with what I've said?

>>510910112
Not applicable.

>>510911488
>>510912754
>I was pointing out the difficulty with your statement
You were not pointing any difficulty with my statement. The wiki articles you posted in your failed attempt to demonstrate that "logic is arbitrary" rely on classical meta-theory. Appealing to (unspecified) logic systems that precede classical logic doesn't help you because they still abide by classical logic principles like the law of excluded middle, the law of non-contradiction, double-negation elimination etc. even if they weren't formulated in a modern way. In one form of another, these principles go back as far as reasoning goes.

>which seems to treat classical meta-theory as a self-justifying circular construct.
This is just schizobabble.

>>510912854
Very applicable. "Scientifically proving objective morality" is a nonsensical idea due to the is-ought problem.

>>510895233 (OP)
>on whose authority
Suck my dick nigger bitch.

>>510913707
>The wiki articles you posted in your failed attempt to demonstrate that "logic is arbitrary" rely on classical meta-theory.
This one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system explains what a formal logic system is, and that there is more than one such system in existence. This one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_formal_systems lists some. The point was to show that there are, indeed, multiple different systems of logic.

>This is just schizobabble.
You said here >>510908358
>>there have been different systems with different rules both before and after it
>Which still rely on classical meta-theory to even reason about them and their properties.
No, people were not using classical meta-theory to reason about Aristotelian logic, as that would not be invented for more than two millennia. But they were reasoning about Aristotelian logic. You seem to regard "classical meta-theory" as a sort of fundamental reasoning which all logic follows, when in fact not all logic uses the mechanisms of classical logic. Classical logic itself is a development of earlier systems, and those earlier systems did not rely on classical logic for their existence.

So, to repeat my question above, >>510909827
>How do you think classical meta-theory came to be in vogue in the first place?
It's not because classical meta-theory itself said that it was correct like you seem to believe. That would be a circular argument.

>>510915164
>The point was to show that there are, indeed, multiple different systems of logic.
>No, people were not using classical meta-theory to reason about Aristotelian logic
>It's not because classical meta-theory itself said that it was correct like you seem to believe
You are legit mentally ill. Completely unhinged. None of these statements have anything to do with anything I argued.

>>510895233 (OP)
>this thread AGAIN

SURVIVAL
AND
THRIVING

FOR YOUR PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU ARE A SOCIAL ORGANISM

DO WITHOUT THEM AND TELL ME WHAT GOOD YOU "LOGICAL BEHAVIOR" DID, WHEN IT WAS BASED ENTIRELY ON ABSTRACT SPOOKS AND NEVER A SHRED OF THE MATERIAL WORLD

Coincidentally this REQUIRES that you be racist, deny women sexual freedom, and loathe disease spreading sexual degenerates, in addition to the normal things like punishing thieves.

>>510895233 (OP)
Morality? Animals only kill each other for survival, while human beings kill each other for nobility. They are a joke.

>>510895233 (OP)
Basing one's morality on the hunches of retarded superstitious idiots who read the campfire stories desert herdsmen as if they actually happened is a less rational way to base a moral system then on reading Emmanuel Kant, who made a very good moral system that (famously) does not need a retarded superstition.

>>510907950
KYS faggot.
There are basic SOCIETAL NORMS of MORALS at the beginning of your book .
1. Don't steal
2. Don't kill
3. Don't fck your neighbor's wife,
etc.
Those commandments are SOCIETAL NORMS that developed by society thousands upon thousands of years ago.

The fact that the Vatican wrote it in a book now is A TESTAMENT that they WORK .
THEY work in a SOCIETY and before any book or a cult has been invented.

>>510915316
>None of these statements have anything to do with anything I argued.
The existence of other systems of logic means that classical logic is not the be-all end-all of logic.
The invention of classical logic being in the 19th Century really does mean that people were not using it previously, and that your statements to the effect that they were, are incorrect.
If classical logic is required to analyze logical systems, how do you know that classical logic is correct in the first place? If the only support you grant the existence of is classical logic itself, it's a circular argument.

>>510895643
Wrong. It's Luciferianism. I am the greatest I can see. Me. Me. ME!

>>510916302
Not even reading your dumb shit. Here are facts you're gonna have to contend with:
1. The study of non-classical logics still relies on classical logic
2. Even before classical logic, reasoning, logic and argumentation relied on essentially the same principles; it just wasn't developed and systematized to the same degree; classical logic would make sense to Aristotle
3. The laws of classical logic are not "arbitrary", you fucking monkey, they are the same rules humanity has always used to reason

>>510917073
>1. The study of non-classical logics still relies on classical logic
Obviously incorrect. What did people use to study Aristotelian logic 2200 years ago?

>essentially the same principles; it just wasn't developed and systematized
If a logical system has not been developed and systematized, it has not been invented. As I said above, you're incorrectly treating classical logic as the be-all end-all of reasoning. Are you secretly a Platonic Idealist who thinks that it's the Ideal form of logic which all real-world logical systems are instances of?

>classical logic would make sense to Aristotle
Sure. So would Arabic numerals. That's not the same thing as those ideas having been around at the time of Aristotle.

>3. The laws of classical logic are not "arbitrary", you fucking monkey, they are the same rules humanity has always used to reason
No, they aren't. Are you still, even now after all this discussion, legitimately unaware of the existence of different logical systems?

>>510917743
>Obviously incorrect. What did people use to study Aristotelian logic 2200 years ago?
Did you understand the statement you just read? Going to ignore the rest of your post and take baby steps with you. Re-read the statement you're trying to "refute" and see if you spot your mistake.

>>510895233 (OP)
>If God isn't real, then what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
You already do this, every day

https://niicha.neocities.org/morality.html

>>510908358
>Chalking this opinion down to your atheism
This isn't an argument

>>510908358
>classical meta-theory
Which is what exactly?

>>510908358
>but the universe abides by its laws as far as anyone can tell.
No it doesn't. We think it abides by the "laws" we understand so far. And the more advanced we get the more out understanding changes of these laws or the laws themselves completely change

>>510903378
the concept that appealing to authority is a fallacy is lost on retards, sadly

>>510918471
>This isn't an argument
Neither is claiming that logic is arbitrary because it's "made up" by rational minds for the purpose of reasoning. If his insistence on that shows anything, it's that he's fucking retarded. This is not an "argument" but an observation.

>>510918634
>No it doesn't
Then show me an instance of the universe violating classical logic.

>>510908358
>classical logic is arbitrarily made up because rational minds formulated it for the purpose of reasoning
>>510918724
Is also a strawman of what he said

>>510918781
>>510918781
>Then show me an instance of the universe violating classical logic.
When we thought the earth was flat.

Kek. Dumbshit

>>510895233 (OP)
my culture imposes that I follow a honor code within that my morality is objective
your morality is objective in your inferior and false culture

>>510913840
There is no "Ought" in identifying that something *Is* evil.

>>510918781
Also notice how this moron uses the term "classical logic" because it's clear it's changed

>>510918914
>the universe violated classical logic when we thought the earth was flat

>>510917861
>Did you understand the statement you just read?
Let's check.>>510917073
>1. The study of non-classical logics still relies on classical logic
So, you're saying here that people can only study non-classical logic by using classical logic somehow. It therefore follows that you don't think that it was possible to study logic before the invention of classical logic. Therefore, it follows that you don't think that people could study Aristotelian logic until the invention of classical logic more than two millennia later. This is all very silly.

>>510919092
Again, this isn't a argument or a refutation.

Concession accepted. ID goes into filter

>>510919036
>determining that something is "evil" doesn't entail any oughts, ok???
Niggermonkey board.

>>510918781
https://youtu.be/zcqZHYo7ONs

>>510919149
>you're saying here that people can only study non-classical logic by using classical logic somehow.
This is what they do, niggermonkey. You'd know if you had any idea what you're talking about.

> It therefore follows that you don't think that it was possible to study logic before the invention of classical logic
And here you are immediately devolving into psychosis. Stopped reading. Try again.

>>510919287
Explain how this violates classical logic. I know you won't output anything coherent, I just want to see how much I can break a biological LLM.

>>510919149
>This is all very silly
Yeah the Maldovian is well known for being a moron on this board

>>510919316
Can you explain how people studied Aristotelian logic before the invention of classical logic?

>>510919412
Why do you bother engaging with him, then?

>>510895233 (OP)
Moving the goalpoast WITHIN the first post that starts the thread. Wow.
Like Antitheism revolves about jews/Christianity alone. Right, there are no other religions on earth. (not Only the few you think to know).
You're trying to frame sane people who don't believe in "whoaaa a ghost who is real but never shows itself but somehow you have to believe in him/it/them, and nooo it's not a ghost but a man, no a spirit, or some cryptid animal, a demon (insert whatever threaten humens to pay und be controlled, and if you don't we can seduce you, frame you, kill you, do whatever we want. Till you are dead or willing to pay.) antisemitic. That's what you do rabbi nobaum. Anti- Theology, cause that's what it is, is against all of theology. Religion is a fucking scam and so are you.

>>510919443
I won't explain anything to you until you fix your schizophrenic claim.
> It therefore follows that you don't think that it was possible to study logic before the invention of classical logic
This does not follow in any way, shape or form. Fix it, nigger.

>>510919443
Get ready for an ad hom, strawman or red herring

>>510919476
For the same reason you're engaging with me

>>510895233 (OP)
Buddhists are by all practical effects, atheists. Do you see their societies acting as if killing, raping..etc, are moral things to do? Morals emerge from the personal projection of empathy that comes from identifying your self with others. Morals aren't a streamlined thing, this is why you still have murderers, rapists...etc in every society, semitic or not.

>>510919400
>Explain how this violates classical logic.
It physically violates the principle of non-contradiction. The photons have contradictory properties when interacting with filters.

>>510919443
>>510919511
Red herring it is

>>510919476
Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?

>>510919554
Fair enough.

>>510895233 (OP)
Literally anything besides jewish fairy tales.

>>510919705
Thanks anon. I hope you're having a good weekend

>>510919598
>Morals emerge from the personal projection of empathy that comes from identifying your self with others.
By your logic, if you can't empathize with something, it's ok to kill it. For instance, the way atheist females murder their unborn children willy nilly.

>>510919631
>It physically violates the principle of non-contradiction.
Explain how it does that. kek

>The photons have contradictory properties when interacting with filters.
What "contradictory properties" do they have?

>>510895233 (OP)
>what should we/would we base our morality on and on whose authority?
/THREAD

>>510919696
Meh. My tolerance for retards has dwindled significantly over the years. I just wanted to drop by.

>>510919831
Yes, that's why many christians would be ok with killing faggots or people from other religious background, you're getting it. Morals aren't granted, they're developed.

>>510919820
Not really. The humidity is killing me. But I hope you have a good weekend.

>>510919930
>My tolerance for retards has dwindled significantly over the years.
Hopefully you'll run out of it this year and finally kill yourself, redditor.

>>510919873
>Explain how it does that. kek
Notice how this idiot can't read?
He literally did that in the part you didn't quote
>>510919631
>The photons have contradictory properties when interacting with filters.
Fuck this dude is massively stupid

>>510919988
>b-b-but christians
At least you're not disputing that your "morality" is flimsy and arbitrary.

>>510920006
Yeah, that would be nice. Maybe I'll stop coming to this website full stop. I already barely spend any time here any more at all. Indeed, it sure would be nice to finally be free, but the curse will find a way to drag me back somehow. Oh well.

>>510918914
>>510920061
>the universe violated classical logic when we thought the earth was flat
Dumbest niggermonkey on the board. ID goes to the filter but you will reply to me dozens of times after this in your desperate rage.

>>510919991
I'm in Mesa AZ, it's been cloudy today, while that's nice the humid sucks here too. I bet it's worse for you though

>>510919511
>This does not follow in any way, shape or form.
Well, then what did you mean by>>510917073
>1. The study of non-classical logics still relies on classical logic
If you think that people can study Aristotelian logic without classical logic, does that not contradict with what you said there?

>>510919873
>Explain how it does that. kek
The video goes into detail, and is only 17:34 long. Given your apparent ignorance of quantum phenomena, you should probably watch the whole thing.

>What "contradictory properties" do they have?
"Will this photon pass through a given filter?"

>>510920127
>self-absorbed faggot can't help talking about itself

>>510920153
>ID goes to the filter
There's his catch phrase when he can't refute or gets called out hahahaha

>>510920076
>your "morality" is flimsy and arbitrary.
It isn't though, it spawned from my personal paradigm and my interaction with the environment. Pretty much like yours, even if you're larping as if yours was purely granted to you by the doctrine you follow.

>b-b-but christians
Want me to say "abrahamics" instead, there's no way to please you people.

>>510920202
>The video
That's not an explanation.

>"Will this photon pass through a given filter?"
That's not a property.

Try again, niggermonkey.

>>510920277
>It isn't though
You just conceded that it is:
>>510919831
>By your logic, if you can't empathize with something, it's ok to kill it. For instance, the way atheist females murder their unborn children willy nilly.

>>510919988
>Yes

What authority? You have a conscience built in for that. If you are only nice out of fear of some god or what society will think of you, you're not actually nice, you're a hypocrite.
We have plenty of pre-abrahamic myths that teach about morals and how to use your conscience. It doesn't matter if you think the characters and gods in those are real or representatives of ideas and concepts, its always pretty clear what they are teaching.

>>510920202
Bro you arguing against a literal bot. It doesn't matter his much you dunk on him, he will ignore it then strawman it.

>>510920345
>You have a conscience built in for that.
Then why do atheists support murdering their own children in the womb?

>>510895940
So, to answer his question, atheism has no form of right and wrong and anything is permissible.
You really believe that?

>>510920280
>That's not an explanation.
It contains an explanation. One with visuals and a broader explanation of quantum mechanics which would be difficult to relay in text here.

>That's not a property.
Yes, it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization_(waves)

>>510920334
How's that flimsy, my morals came from my paradigm like everyone elses. We both agree on the basics that led OP to open this thread, "killing bad", "stealing bad"...etc.

The arbitrariness comes from deeper elements, elements you and everyone has that are more personal.

>>510895233 (OP)
Recycled crap from yesterday. I honestly don't know why the janitors don't eliminate threads like this, not because they are turds that refuse to stay flushed, but they have zero relevance.

if you dont believe in God because of burden of proof, stay the fuck away from me. you were destined to Hell and that is a personal issue for you not for me.

>>510920570
>It contains an explanation.
Your saying so doesn't mean it's true.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization_(waves)
What of it? What's the contradiction?

>>510920749
Every thread is a repost of a repost.

Get with the times.

>>510920841
>Your saying so doesn't mean it's true
Gee it's like he gave you the link to see for yourself

I'm telling you dude
>>510920570
The anon is programmed to waste your time

>>510895233 (OP)
God's number one rule is love him and all your brothers as yourself.

If my brother is in need, and I help him I am helping myself.
If my brother steals from me I lost nothing
everything belongs to our father
I cannot kill my brother, only satan has the power to kill aside from that we are eternal

Jews are not eternal, they die easily.
They hate brothers, they steal from our father
They are the enemy of all brothers
They hate our father

>>510920598
>How's that flimsy
If you don't understand why basing (e.g.) a prohibition on killing on whether or not you feel empathy towards a particular person at a particular time, all I can do is note your post as an example of what people devolve to under atheism.

>>510919988
>Morals aren't granted, they're developed.
Exactly this notice how the Maldovian moron ignored this?

>>510920841
>What of it?
The photons in question have the property "polarization" which affects whether they will pass through a polarization filter or not. As it happens, you can trivially (yourself, right now, using items you probably already have in your home) set up an experiment that shows photons to have contradictory polarization properties.

>>510921252
>... shows photons to have contradictory polarization properties.
As in you measure a photon and find that it exhibits a particular polarization, but also does not exhibit it? Dumb niggermonkey.

>>510920334
Notice how the Maldovian moron can only reply in another red herring

>>510921354
We have a Dunning Kruger here

The experiment that demonstrates photons having contradictory polarization properties involves the use of polarizers and entangled photons. In a setup where polarizers are placed at different angles, the polarization of photons can appear to be both vertical and horizontal depending on the measurement, highlighting the wave-particle duality and the non-classical nature of quantum states.

>>510921354
Quantum mechanics violates many human intuitions.

>>510921526
>the polarization of photons can appear to be both vertical and horizontal depending on the measurement
And once you measure it and it appears horizontal, it also appears not horizontal?

>>510921009
You're being disingenuous and you've also ignored all the overarching points i've made that respond directly to OP and resolve this "argument".

Empathy births morals and it's not limited to individuals, it affect collectives. You grow up developing your sense of empathy by projecting yourself onto your environment and this is primarily how morals are developed, it's also why kids are little sociopaths.

This is also the reason as to why many religious people come off as disingenuous when they adopt a moral framework from a doctrine, and it doesn't match perfectly their own personal moral framework. You end up with people who are live, love laugh faggots half the day and enraged apes the other half.

If you still don't understand how morals work, then read again cause i can't make it simpler.

>>510921649
Wild, isn't it?

>>510895233 (OP)
>Are the kikes truly evil if everything they do is just subjectively evil according to antitheism?
If there is no objecive basis of morality, then there can only be subjective bases of morality.
And thus, from my standpoint, if they are harming me, they are evil to me.

So yes, regardless of what sort of basis you attempt to judge them by, it is right (for most people) to consider them evil.

>>510921572
You have a photon. You measure its polarization along some axis. Is the result what it is and at the same time something else? Yes or no? Dumb niggermonkey.

>>510895940
Okay, then kikes are justified in importing shitskins to replace you, genociding Palestinians, subverting your countries, and turning your children (not that (You) will have any) into catamites.

>>510921649
When a photon is measured, its polarization state collapses into one of the possible eigenstates of the measurement operator

I knew you don't actually filter IDs. You just say that to avoid an argument you can't refute

>>510921794
Yes, the sheer degree of your mental illness really is wild. Please explain how a single measurement can tell you something and its opposite simultaneously.

>>510921899
>When a photon is measured, its polarization state collapses into one of the possible eigenstates of the measurement operator
So is it (e.g.) vertical and also not vertical, or is it just what it is, you drooling niggermonkey?

>>510921926
>Please explain how a single measurement can tell you something and its opposite simultaneously
It's already been explained to you. Turns out you can't strawman your way out of kek

>>510921982
>It's already been explained to you.
No, all I saw is how you backpedaled and conceded that you won't get two contradictory results from the measurement.

>>510921926
Quantum mechanics does not follow classical logic or human intuition. It is possible for a particle to be in multiple places at once, and for these multiple-positions to interfere with each other as if it's another particle. This is a brute fact at this point, and that quantum works is the basis for things like the computer you're using. Which path did the electron follow in the image here?

>>510921975
>So is it (e.g.) vertical and also not vertical
Imprecisely, yes.

>>510921975
when a photon’s polarization is measured, its quantum state undergoes a process called wave function collapse. Prior to measurement, the photon’s polarization may exist in a superposition of possible states (e.g., a linear combination of horizontal and vertical polarization states, or other basis states like circular polarizations). The measurement process forces the photon’s polarization to "collapse" into one of the eigenstates of the measurement operator corresponding to the chosen measurement basis.

>>510921975
>So is it (e.g.) vertical and also not vertical, or is it just what it is,
Before measurement, a photon’s polarization can exist in a superposition of states, such as a combination of vertical (|V⟩) and horizontal (|H⟩) polarizations.

>>510921982
>Please explain how a single measurement can tell you something and its opposite simultaneously

you drive west from Kansas City 10 miles
you are 20 miles from where you would have been, if you had driven east

>>510922080
>>It's already been explained to you.
>No,
Yup. You are fumbling around shit you don't understand because your pride is so hurt at the thought of you being wrong

>>510922296
This is meant for
>>510921926

>>510922184
Not giving you any more (You)s since you're a full-blown psychotic. At least that other retard understands that you will never measure any part of the state of a photon to be X but also not X.

Let's see what strawman, ad hom or red herring the Maldovian replies with

>>510895233 (OP)
>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?
Ask yourself this. Do you need a skyspook to not be a cunt? Do you need a fictional universe written by some stinky desert meshugenah kike that almost killed his son for his imaginary fren cooming inside his head in order to live a meaningful life in this absurd place? If you answered yes to any of these questions, congratulations, you are retarded. You were too weak to face the existential pain of knowing absolute freedom so you decided to drink jew cum by the gallon.

>>510922214
>>510922342
Didn't read. Is it possible to measure a particle's state component to be X and not X simultaneously? Yes or no?

Notice your blood pressure rising as you try to find ways to avoid answering this yes/no question with a yes/no answer. :^)

>>510922459
>>510922489
Strawman it is lol

>>510922653
Is it possible to measure a particle's state component to be X and not X simultaneously? Yes or no?

Notice your blood pressure rising as you try to find ways to avoid answering this yes/no question with a yes/no answer. :^)

atheism is judaism

>>510922624
>Didn't read
Yes you did. You just can't refute it

>>510922624
>Is it possible to measure a particle's state component to be X and not X simultaneously? Yes or no?
Why are you asking questions about an argument no one made?
>>510922701
Again asking questions about an argument no one made

>>510921659
Do you make moral judgments based on empathy or not?

>>510922624
>Didn't read
Just like you didn't filter my ID hahahaha

>>510922782
Notice how I correctly predict your behavior.

Is it possible to measure a particle's state component to be X and not X simultaneously? Yes or no?

Your blood pressure rising as you try to find ways to avoid answering this yes/no question with a yes/no answer. :^)

>>510922891
>Notice how I correctly predict your behavior
Other way around. Why are you asking me irrelevant questions when you literally just said
>>510922459
>At least that other retard understands that you will never measure any part of the state of a photon to be X but also not X.
Damn dude you are a massive clown hahaha

>>510923029
Notice how I correctly predict your behavior.

Is it possible to measure a particle's state component to be X and not X simultaneously? Yes or no?

Your blood pressure rising as you try to find ways to avoid answering this yes/no question with a yes/no answer. :^)

>>510923073
>Is it possible to measure a particle's state component to be X and not X simultaneously?
>>510922459
>At least that other retard understands that you will never measure any part of the state of a photon to be X but also not X.
You answered correctly for me :^)

>>510895233 (OP)
Jesus was a shit-skinned Jew with mutilated genitals who equated Goyim to dogs and subverted the Roman Empire. His child-mutilating mother was a lying Jewess who cheated on her old Jewish cuckold of a husband, and she said her product of infidelity was a miraculous child of God to dupe superstitious Jewish idiots so they will not stone her to death for committing adultery.