Thread 521303090

So, can any of you non-religious fags ground objective morality onto something? Or just concede your entire worldview is just "muh preference".

>>521303090 (OP)
niggers tongue my anus

>>521303090 (OP)
>muh morality comes from a magic jewish book
>this totally isn't subjective ok

>>521303090 (OP)
Yes.

>>521303690
You're welcome to make an argument if you have one.

>>521303690
okay ill go ahead and grant it then its the same as your worldview, subjective, and its just as morally good

>>521304066
My argument is that Christian morality, or any religious morality is just as subjective as any atheist fag, it's not based in anything other than what some old jewish men thought was true thousands of years ago.
>>521304095
If both are equal, why should anyone give a shit? What a pointless thread

this guy clearly wants to limit everyone's freedom (except for white males), and hides behind "morality".
like "hey guy, what's immoral about making white women rape-slaves that can't abort? why are you LIMITING MY FREEDOM TO RAPE. fucking feminists"

but we can't say the quiet part out loud

>>521303090 (OP)
who the fuck are you, to preach about morality here of all places

>>521304211
>If both are equal, why should anyone give a shit? What a pointless thread
then you have no defeater against christian nationalism so stop complaining

>>521303090 (OP)
>muh preference
your religious texts are just "muh preference"
there are hundreds of religions to ground your reality on. you're only choosing the one most convenient to you. a key difference between you and agnostics/atheists is they take personal responsibility for their actions and fate whereas you cuck out to your kike demons.

>>521303090 (OP)
what is the relationship between christianity and platonism?
it seems the "objective morality" thing is just restating a kind of moral platonism.
suppose I was a moral platonist and I ground morality on the abstract form of the good, what would a christian say?
>ok but you need rabbi yeshua for some reason too

>>521304475
also, OP won't respond. this is another version of a slide thread.

>>521304475
>there are hundreds of religions to ground your reality on
Did you read the OP? Or are you just retarded? The OP is for secularists. Hence the "non-religious" instead of "non-Christian".

>>521303090 (OP)
imagine having a wife that has children with three different men

>>521303090 (OP)
>So, can any of you non-religious fags ground objective morality onto something?
no. They can't.
because "do what thou wilt" is precisely the entire point of their worldview.
> Or just concede your entire worldview is just "muh preference"
it is just their preference. That's all it ever was and they know it and everyone knows it.
but they can never and will never admit it.

>>521304834
moral platonism is objective in exactly the same way christianity is.
probably because hellenized jews got the idea from being colonized by the greeks.
christianity is neo-platonism, stoicism and judaism, and these are all neo-platonic kinds of arguments, nothing to do with yaweh or rabbi yeshua.

>>521304448
Christian nationalism is dead on arrival, look at church rates over the decades. Christian nationalism only exists on the internet, amongst losers. Wow such morality

>>521304715
>or are you just retarded
...are YOU retarded?
>OP's criticism is of the morals of the non-religious
>reply says there's no difference between OP's dishonest framing of non-religious morals and religious morals
>DUURRRR DID YOU READ
retard

>>521304066
Just admit it, you never read mein kampf.

>>521304665
it's more likely a shill thread. they see 4chan gets a ton of clicks
but look at the catalogue, nothing is Happening

>>521303090 (OP)
Nonwhite Nuclear Network mutually assured destruction BTC ethics

>>521304976
How did you state there's no difference, when in your reply you clearly say
>a key difference between you and agnostics/atheists

>>521303090 (OP)
Yes, it's called the categorical imperative.
Any moral rule can be defined by its absence.
If murder is not a moral failing, then life would not exist because we would all just kill each other.
Hope that helps.

>>521305505
>categorical imperative
Nice trademarked thought experiment, kid. Try the actual tool kit people actually share.

>>521303090 (OP)
Religious people are the most immoral of all, force their beliefs on everyone and threaten them with eternal suffering in hell if they dont accept Jesus christ as their lord and savior. The religion is an info hazard that weak minded individuals will follow along solely because they fear the concept of hell, not because they truly believe. Fuck religion. I would laugh if our creator hated religious people and punished them to the very thing they threaten others with, but alas there will be no punishments for anyone, how unfortunate.

>>521304475
>there are hundreds of religions to ground your reality on

But they can’t all be right. There is true and there is false, truth can’t be false due to the law of non contradiction governing reality. There is only one truth and anything which is not true is false by definition. There are hundreds of potential answers to a given mathematical equation but only one is correct - that does not justify every possible answer as being equally valid.

Atheists cannot account for why reality exists, is tangible, is reliable, if their mind is even real, etc. They cannot account for why true or false exists or why it matters to believe something true vs something false. Despite this they betray that this is still a value of theirs every time they try to engage in any sort of discussion or debate at all, engage in empirical science etc, so they clearly do not actually hold this view with any conviction.

Judaism/Islam both claim that God is totally unknowable and the idea of Him incarnating as a human and directly communicating with His creation is preposterous, yet they both have incredibly intricate theology about what God is, what His motives are, what His true nature is, etc. this is obviously logically untenable because if God does not directly incarnate and connect with mankind ever and is unknowable how can you pretend to be an authoritative source on His true nature?

Only Christianity can answer any possible question like this in an internally consistent manner ergo it’s the one correct answer/truth.

>>521305505
It's a good try but I think christcucks pretend to be humeans about rationality to say that there's no rational standard for anything without rabbi yeshua. no rational ends, anyway.

>>521305089
I honestly agree with your original post.
>>521304011

>>521305505
If I know someone is planning to murder me but I murder them before they even have a chance, is that considered morally just or unjust? Who determines whether it's a failing or not?

>>521304938
it took 50 years for people to realize Buchanan was right, give it some time. as bad as things get more people give up the lolbert shit and moderates shift to the right over the next century. our timeline is fucked though but it can get better

>>521306542
Do you think the average zoomer or Gen Alpha kid today gives a single fuck about living out a Christian lifestyle? Christianity isn't even relevant to their current needs and interests. Christian Nationalism can only work in a functional country, which ours currently isn't. Christian Nationalism as it stands today is just a costume for kids to wear as they LARP online.

But preference iS morality

>>521306664
Zoomers don't care until they meet a real Christian like me

>>521303090 (OP)
What's the difference between your "muh preference" in denial and my honest variety of the same thing again...?
Oh right, lacking honesty and added pretense on your part.

>>521305975
Murder is defined by whatever government you happen to be under the jurisdiction of. Killing an infidel is not considered murder under some governments and under others it is murder. Does your morality depend on the government?

>you non-religious fags
I live in Alaska and there are Natives. They have a thing called the "Tlingit Protocols" and there is no mention of God.

>>521306664
to change averages takes time but it is happening. again the effect might not even be in our lifetime but it can happen. polls this summer show millenials and genz are going to church more then anyone else on average. its a step in the right direction

>>521306920
The government is determined by the collective body of people. So that's subjective. I'm asking about objective morality and if possible, what secularists ground that in.

>>521303090 (OP)
Well how can you speak that way when your morals are subjective as well. "Muh fiction book" isn't factual so your whole rage bait post is weak

>>521307555
Polls are also showing a strong reversal in support of Trump for Millennials and Gen Z, so I'd be more skeptical. You also have to consider what "Christianity" will mean to younger generations, it's not going to be the strict Christianity in the past. See all of the meme non denominational churches of today.

>>521307745
That’s because Trump is a ziokike Israel shill that wants to import people instead of hiring Americans dummy. “Er they don’t like Zion Don so they must not be Christian.” Kek

>non denominational churches

That’s the “Christianity” which is dying out. Young men who are becoming Christian are largely converting to Orthodoxy or Catholicism

>>521303090 (OP)
Basic risk assessment combined with the acquisition and application of knowledge for the sake of further knowledge acquisition. In the practical form of increasing efficiency.

>>521305505
that's assuming that life existing is preferable, or that you can't have a little murder.

the only objective thing about morality is that is good for group survival. if someone is selfish and puts the group at risk, we don't like it. the religious have tried to make this universally objective by appealing to divine authority and punishment, but most people now realize those are stone age myths. we are moral not because it is objective, but because rationally it is the best for a large, cooperative society

>>521307635
Morality isn't objective. Without humans there wouldn't be morality. It's subjective to our genetics. Is it moral to genocide a people that have caused your people nothing but trouble? It might be for your people, but the other people that are getting genocided might think it's not moral.

>>521307848
Trump is currently backed by the Christian Evangelical establishment, so yeah it matters a lot. This is my point right here, you think Christian Nationalism is what you see in online spaces, nah buddy this is what it really looks like today:

>>521303090 (OP)
i am better than you and npcs in every way shape and form
im closer to omnipotence than the false god of the bible
we all know what is objectively moral it is the highest ideal.
even pagans know what is right
even if there is no god ( there isnt lol not an omnipotent or good one)
we should all strive to be good
the way our ancestors were
but the problem is good has been redefined
being as stupid and evil as weak as possible
aka Christianity and Judaism and its child atheism have turned people into literal npcs
people act like its a bad thing to want evil to suffer
or to punish evil
the solution is to be as good as possible along the lines of traditional morality and try to not hurt anyone if you can help it
the god of the bible a false god does not agree with this
it wants to torture all reality like clay in its hands to stroke its own ego
it is the devil.
sin itself
a evil parasitic eregore inhabiting a super computer at the center of this false 3d universe
which is a door to near infinite false 3d unverses where it does the same thing
do not believe in the lies of the god of the bible who is satan
all it wants is control.

>>521303090 (OP)
>andrew
Nice christcuck gif

>>521303090 (OP)
What makes it the easiest for everyone to get along and live in safety. Murder is bad because its hard to live together with other people if they are willing to murder.

>>521304938
There are more people in the internet than in church, anon.

>>521303090 (OP)
If an action you are about to do will result in you or anyone else to suffer, then it is not the right thing to do and another, different action should be found and executed, one that does not result in you or anyone else suffering.
An action can not be called good if it results in you or anyone else suffering.

How hard can it be?

Yeah, morality is grounded in survival. See degenerate/lolbertarian America dying for a recent example of where lack of morality gets one.

i like how this site is literally 100% bots besides me lmao
a algorhymic mind control website
where everyone thinks its other people
but its just me and the bots
lol
doesnt matter i still make you all mad as fuck

>>521308502
Murder is defined by the government you happen to be under the jurisdiction of. In some places killing a person that's trying to rape women on a subway is considered murder, but most people agree that it's the moral thing to do.

>>521308605
Survival of the fittest morality kinda makes sense. It's just that different populations with different genetics end up agreeing on different morals for their population. Like some Muslim populations think it's moral to kill people that leave the Muslim faith.

>>521308538
You see, in a good world only such actions that do not cause any suffering would be possible, and therefore nobody would suffer. But we don't live in a good world.

Morality and honor and doing the right thing is very easy for me, it comes natural. But seeing the bovine sociopathic niggers all around me, I can understand why religion is important to keep people whipped in line with the threat of hell.

>>521309026
>doing the right thing
Is it the right thing to do if it results in you suffering? Wouldn't the right thing to do be whatever doesn't result in you suffering? Because isn't by definition suffering the result of sin, and therefore if you do something and you suffer as a result, clearly that wasn't the right thing to do?

>>521308538
in our hunter-gatherer days everything we consider a vice now was a virtue. Killing, selfishness, and promiscuity were features that saved our species. But as we invented agriculture we realized cooperation would yield better crops, and destroy less hard work. The original virtues do have their uses, but mainly in dire circumstances

>>521308538
>>521309155
So how would you view twin brothers who fuck each other? They aren't harming anyone. Is that moral or immoral?

>>521303090 (OP)
>objective morality
If that were the case then morality wouldn't have evolved from OT times to now and African christians wouldn't be raping babies to "cure" their AIDS.

>>521309155
Жить cтpaдaть-
Кoмy плeвaть?
Aх, хyи eбaть!

>>521308836
Different environments force different values/priorities too. A poor, uneducated area with lots of diseases will prioritize having lots of children in the hope "the supernatural" spares a few to help with farm work. A highly unstable environment filled with predators like Epstein and Trump will prioritize having children very late after a substantial amount of savings have been built up to protect against homelessness and giving away children to criminal organizations for sexual abuse.

>>521303090 (OP)
>me pretending that my ancient Jewish fairytales are 100% correct is superior to science admitting that we don’t know everything yet
Yeah, no you’re just a retarded coward m8
You will cease to exist forever once your neurones rot away,
COPE!!

>>521303090 (OP)
I’m not an atheist but an obvious answer to this is “Reciprocity,” aka the golden rule which is not exclusively religious by any means

>>521304066
Religious morality is more relative than secular morality because it is more inconsistent, sect-specific, and subject to human interpretation.

1. In the Bible and the Quran, God sometimes allows something, then later forbids it, or vice versa, which contradicts objective morality.
2. Religious people have radically different interpretations of their religions, which contradicts objective morality.
3. Without religious fanaticism, it is impossible to reach certain stages of mass delusion (example: incestuous marriage in Zoroastrianism), which contradicts objective morality.
4. Many religious rules have no rational meaning and no logical justification, which contradicts objective morality.
5. In the Bible and the Quran, God nowhere claims that his morality is objective, in truth it's just his subjective morality.
6. Religious texts contain everything and its opposite (a compelling example: the corpus of hadiths), which contradicts objective morality.
7. No matter what act you are thinking of, you will always find a religion somewhere that allows or commands it, which contradicts objective morality.

>>521303090 (OP)
I don't what you're attempting to bleat about?
A Chimpanzee knows when it's done wrong, when it steals or angers the collective group. And that's it. We Humans have a million years of collective evolution to bring about standards of proper social etiquette and acceptable behaviour. Morals. No Religion Necessary.

>>521310433
>greentext that doesn’t match the post
Why do you spergs do this? It’s literally every single fucking thread now has some young retard inventing things to get mad at and pretending some other post said it.

-social contract
-flourishing of human well being which helps me flourish
-mutually beneficial

on the flipside, you have to admit that if some lost scripture were discovered that said you had to poke the eye out of every third child, you'd have to do it LOL

>>521310525
>God sometimes allows something, then later forbids it, or vice versa, which contradicts objective morality
Get ready for some pilpul about how everything god does is moral because he's god. The circular logic is hilarious.

>>521310525
It’s less relative because it claims to be grounded on the objective existence of a higher power. No, different people coming up with different interpretations does not make that basis “subjective.”

You have no idea what these words mean and no numerical list will absolve your arguments of that problem.

>>521310504
Some people are sadists and some people are masochists. Golden rule only works if everyone is the same.

>>521310639
what do you expect from evil retards lol
their only defense is muh god
they have no morals they are the equivalent of fox news watchers
fuck christianity
its an evil parasitic eregore
fuck the god of the bible and all who worship him
i knew exactly who that rat fuck was the day i came to earth

>>521303090 (OP)
i would argue that morality are things that keep your people and species healthy safe and reproducing
for example faggotry is bad becasue it is not healthy nor good for reproducing

>>521310535
>erm our etiquette was passed down for millions of years but the manifestation of that into religions wasn’t part of that okay????
You are incredibly stupid. Comically so

>>521310700
People are capable of abstractions. You can understand “masochism” as “thing I want done to me.” Even if “thing” differs, the idea of it being “something I want done to me” does not

>>521310433
You're just babbling into the void. Never stated I was religious.

>>521303090 (OP)
Morality isn't objective, retard. It exists solely in our heads and is subjective by definition.

>>521304715
did you really get thrown off by the most simple socratic method shit? he literally just said "the issue you have with secularists is an issue found in your own belief system" and your response was "B-B-B-B-BUT IM ASKING THE SECULARISTS, DONT DEMONSTRATE TO ME THAT THE THING IM BEING CRITICAL OF ALSO APPLIES TO ME "

if you arent even consistent in your own beliefs, why should anyone have to justify anything to you?

>>521303090 (OP)
>Canaanite magic bullshit made up by bronze-age peasants who fucked and killed goats to atone for killing children
vs.
>I have mirror neurons and advanced empathy gifted to me by natural selection as group survival mechanisms; harming others makes me feel bad as a result, so I don't do it
gee OP I wonder which one has a basis in material reality and one is cope by a retard who thinks humans are special.
All morality is ultimately a selfish drive to keep us all alive and free will is a lie. It doesn't matter a fuck though. Just get on with your life faggot.

>>521303090 (OP)
>objective morality
Any action taken with the intent to better yourself and your community. The only caveat is that you must take no action knowingly that would harm someone for your own personal enjoyment as opposed to true positive progress.

>>521310535
NUH UH!!!
YOU’D PROBABLY RAPE YOUR OWN BABY WITHOUT A TELEPATHIC RELATIONSHIP WITH AN ANCIENT JEWISH WIZARD WHO GOT NAILED TO A STICK FOR BEING A TABLE FLIPPING AUTIST!!!!!

>>521310577
You retards aren’t complicated, I’m explaining how you fail to think. Chill out insecure sperg.

>>521310725
No. It's you are incredibly stupid that you have been so duped and blinded that you think Humans can't be moral w/o Religion. Next you'll tell me that Humans have to be governed.

>>521310873
the attempt of religion is to turn it objective with an all powerful beings that supports it
thats obviously not the functional case here on earth so the explanation then goes to judgement, so despite wrongdoing here objective right and wrong will be administered

>>521305835
Ok, great

>>521303090 (OP)
i don't like to get stabbed in the eye, therefore stabbing others in the eye is not a good thing

you act like aesop's fables aren't hundreds of years older than christianity lol, human history is probably a million years old but as long as kikes and niggers exist, it will be a cycle that wipes the slate clean every thousand years or so

>>521310880
>if you arent even consistent in your own beliefs
Please, tell me about my beliefs.

>>521303090 (OP)
Sympathy

>>521310665
Is there ever a situation in which murdering and sexually abusing children is moral? Is it moral if god commands it (he did)? How do you know someone isn't acting on god's behalf when they commit crimes against children?
>>521310710
Universal literacy was the worst thing to happen to religion. We can all see what their gay jewish "holy" books say and they always retreat back to muh god kek.

I dont have a belief in god, yet I dont steal rape or murder. Why is that? Its not just fear of getting caught by the way. I genuinely do not want to do those things. Have any idea why? I know the answer, but do you?

>>521310908
> intent to better yourself and your community
> true positive progress
these are not objective statements
and are arguable contexts

>>521310830
Then I’m not talking to you. You’re just 1 individual, this isn’t your website.
If you really want to know about morality without religion then just ask AI to spoon feed your hopeless retarded ass
Low quality retarded spam thread, consider suicide.

>>521308024
>Good
>Best

Do you realise that these terms are themselves precluded on there being an objective moral framework.
Nothing can be "good" or the "best" if it's not in comparison to an unchanging framework.
If you are not coming from a basis of objective morality then the best you could say is it's "good" in your subjective opinion. But even then you cannot answer why survival is even good in a subjective sense as the view that all people should die is just as morally valid.
Think about this, because midwits constantly use words without understanding the implication they have

>>521311089
if scripture were discovered tomorrow that demanded some brutal or heinous act, you'd have to do it because god decreed it so.

>>521310063
It's quite simple if you would read it again. If yu do something, and neither you nor anyone else suffers as a result, then it's good. I don't know why God didn't do it this way, it seems obvious. I know i would. Do unto others...

>>521310799
There are entire populations with an average IQ of 75. Would it be moral to genocide those populations first so that we don't suffer fools?

>>521311192
Welcome to reality, faggot. Product proves intent. If you genuinely do your best to follow the aforementioned moral definition that's all anyone could ask for. If others are doing the same, you'll be punished for acting beyond that code.

>>521310433
Why is being a coward bad in your meaningless subjective framework?
Since being brave would be equally subjective.

Do you see how you don't even have the capacity to understand the words you use and their proper context?

>>521311310
was the 'faggot' necessary?
or is that what think of when you are in 'reality' practicing your 'code' of shoving a cock up your ass

>>521303090 (OP)
Most morality is just based on intrinsic human norms prevalent throughout different cultures. Stealing/murder = bad predates Canaanite religious texts. You can still call this subjective if you want, and you'd be partially correct but that is true of moral frameworks, including religious ones.

>>521303090 (OP)
>>521303690
It's weird that people who only stick to objective morality do so to avoid eternal hellfire while agnostics/atheists like me just know not to behave like a nigger. I've had this conversation with a few very religious folks and they're incapable of comprehending how I'm not a mass murdering serial rapist without fearing their God's wrath.

>>521304066
>>521310525
I like how these fundamentalists think they've nearly reached objective morality when there's constant infighting within their own religious faith and when there's over 5k religions with different morals. They've also changed their customs over and over again and used to practise rituals that everyone shuns now. Bigger flip floppers than most secular people

A morality based on what leads to human flourishing, self preservation, good health and peace has a much more solid grounding than any of these religions. All it requires is the ability to collect/interpret data and thinking rationally.

>>521303090 (OP)
Best they can do is some variant of utilitarianism.
This inevitably leads to the justification of things like eugenics and genocide

>>521311218
None of that applies to me.
>>521311243
So you would consider it moral? Not trying to strawman you, but that sounds like what you're saying.

>>521303090 (OP)
>Wow you base your own moral framework based off of your own personal beliefs and heritage?
Yes. Do you think holding other men's framework on how to live life is an own? Pathetic NPC.

>>521303690
It isn't because it doesn't vary from person to person.
You may argue it's arbitrary, but it certainly isn't subjective.

>>521303090 (OP)
"morality" is just leftism, the way of the weak

>>521311097
that's subjective
empathy is as innate as the desire for vengeance

there's literally nothing non-theists can point to ground the truth value of moral claims objectively in an ontological sense, yet they still say "x is bad, you ought not to do y, you still believe in z? uff."
under atheism, there's ultimately no moral difference between helping an old lady cross the street or raping her, because there ultimately can be no true morals.
>>521311545
you grew up in a cut flower culture, you're not acting in line with the absence of any line in your worldview and behaving like this life is a dream or videogame where you can mow down pedestrians if you feel like it because from a secular perspective, Christian morality has been imprinted onto you, and from a Christian perspective, the moral law is still written on your heart as a nonbeliever.

>>521311545
>objective morality
>from a book
>written by humans
>>521311719
>christian morality doesn't vary person to person
Is that why there are thousands of Christian denominations?

>>521311218
>If something that didn't happen, happened. You'd be so fucked

Cool story bro

>>521311719
It's absolutely subjective. You believe it is objective due to your own beliefs. Well not YOUR beliefs, but that of another which you base your entire existence on. Again, pathetic NPC.

>>521311816
"the way of the weak" culture conquered the world.
you're speaking our language and using our technology.

>>521311850
>Being a mass murdering grandma rapist is the default without my kike book
Lobotomized individual

>>521303090 (OP)
>muh preference
Everything is about muh preference no matter who you are. Now what? What's the point in bringing this up? That society builds upon preference vs preference? Yes, that why you debate and try to convince and prove to people what's right. It's the only real choice you've got.

>>521311719
The people that write the different religious books use their own morality. And if you think they were talking to their god(s) then it's still subjective based on whatever god wrote the book.

>>521311850
That's not argument

>>521311951
>We took the path of least resistance and now the jews won
>Praise Christ!
Wow, you sure showed him

God says though shalt not kill and yet God's chosen people commit literal genocide throughout the Bible.

>>521311853
no one says the bible is the source of objective morality.
objective morality means the truth value of moral claims are true or false regardless of whether anyone knows about them if they've been revealed.
the Christian worldview that's expressed in scripture gives you grounds for believing such a thing exists (grounded in the nature of an omnibenevolent creator,) but it's an ontological thing and not an epistemological thing so any text or teaching is wholly irrelevant to whether or not it (moral realism) is true or false.

>>521311951
>culture conquered the world.
No, your morality of weakness led to the Dark Ages; only the absence of morality, the selfish pursuit of power and profit, led to world conquest.

>>521311486
>True
Again using words you don't understand, nothing is true when reality is subjective.

>>521311479
Not my code. OP asked for an "objective" definition to a philosophical question, I answered. Faggot, nigger.

>>521311982
>>Being a mass murdering grandma rapist is the default without my kike book
you're misunderstanding.
when you play videogames like grand theft auto, do you follow the traffic laws? do you yield to pedestrians?
no.
you beat the shit out of hookers and run from the coppers, giggling all the while.
why can you do this? because it's a game, it doesn't matter, there's no true moral oughts or ought nots in it.

reality in the atheist worldview is no different.

>>521303090 (OP)
>"muh preference".
That's what yours is too. Its all preference. That doesn't mean it isn't grounded. I bet you don't understand that though

>>521311617
>People disagree on the truth, therefore nothing is true.

Terrible logic

>>521311214
>Nothing can be "good" or the "best" if it's not in comparison to an unchanging framework.
why can't we just use comparison? I can subjectively see that death and decay are worse than survival and flourishing
> But even then you cannot answer why survival is even good in a subjective sense as the view that all people should die is just as morally valid.
maybe it is. our naturally instinct to survive, that gave our ancestors the biologically will to overcome is probably the only reason we think life is preferable to death (most of the time). maybe life should not have been, I wonder this a lot

>>521312194
>inb4: well, the real world has consequences
if consequences dictate a course of action then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught.

>>521312066
It's fucking sympathy .

>>521303090 (OP)
morality isn't defined by anything but the rules of society at the time faggot

there is no God, there is no divine purpose for our existence, and there is nothing special about being human

>>521312135
>>521311951
The British did not conquer and enslaved people and forced the Chinese to buy opium because they were so moral.

>>521312135
Notice how neither coin has ridges

>>521312194
>reality in the atheist worldview is no different
Atheism has nothing to do with morality. So you're framing is wrong. I still have morals regardless if I believe in God or not

>>521305756
"Because God wanted to" isn't an answer to anything. I could say i control the weather and could account for all weather phenomenon in an internally consustent way but that doesnt maje it true. And yes, not all of them can be true, but all of them could be false.

>>521312194
>you beat the shit out of hookers and run from the coppers, giggling all the while.
Christkikes do this IRL, seeing as how you're overrepresented among the prison population.

>>521312135
Explain why the dark ages were bad and why conquering is good without using objective morality

>>521312295
Ring of Gyges

Dont religiousfags know about the discipline of philosophy. In Europe you have to study it in high school

>>521312158
whatever man
go shove dicks up your ass all you want for positive (HIV) progress

>>521312279
what makes our natural inclination toward sympathy (you mean empathy here but let's go) authoritative in how we ought or ought not act, as opposed to natural inclinations toward vengeance, tribalism, etc.

under atheism, you're not imagebearers of God, worthy of dignity and respect. you're a clump of cells, you're my sexual competitor, i need to subjugate you to establish my harem and propagate my DNA.

>>521312066
If the bible isn't the source of objective morality, what is in Christianity? The Church fathers? Some old jewish dudes views on morality are objective to you?

>>521303090 (OP)
>it's objective morality vs. just muh preference
Morality is neither objective (it is not independent of human minds) nor subjective (it transcends any particular human mind). Simple as. Westroons are forever stuck in primitive debates due to braindamaged and delusional philosophical traditions.

>>521305755
I wish i could afford reddit gold

>>521312194
Define benevolent without invoking god.

>>521303090 (OP)
Do unto others as you would have them do to you, is a pretty good philosophy.

I don't think you have to be a Christian to adhere to simple principles that will obviously create a more pleasant world for everyone. This insane idea that without the Ten commandments we'd all just be murdering each other and not noticing that's bad is really stupid. The thing about Religious morality is it's hard to know what came first. Did religion learn this divine knowledge which led to functional civilizations? Or did human culture growing into farming city states find religion was the best way to advocate for useful shared values that made that civilization thrive? It's a bit of a chicken and the egg thing. If it was divine and we were just retarded savaged until God himself told us to stop, then yeah it would have resulted in functioning civilizations. But random evolution and wars would also inevitably created various shared value systems to unify civilizations and help them be stronger overall and more capable in war and resisting conquering. The later seems to be the case since religions varied so much and global communication has reduced war such that war oriented value systems have not adapted well and tend to lose popularity.

Ultimately though, rules come down from authority which is derived from someone's capacity for violence. A King with loyal troops can propose anything he wants as a rule and it will be considered proper so long as it does not cause a revolt. Leaders have been inspired by the Bible but today most of our sense of morality is based on the legal systems that made civilizations stronger. Privacy rights, worker rights, water rights, freedoms to do things like own a gun, or that soliciting sex from a 15 year old girl is bad, slavery is bad... the Bible doesn't mention any of this yet you consider it moral without a religious decree. So maybe introspect more and ask yourself why is that?

>>521312502
>>521312439

>>521303090 (OP)
Christian morality comes from the Greeks and Romans and lots of other pre Christian people. People understand right and wrong pretty well. Rome banned gladiator battles for being barbaric. Christians asking why we’d know not to fuck eachother in the asshole and rape our own daughters and murder eachother for money is just more proof that the religion attracts the most soulless and evil hearted people who need a special reason not to be a dick to everyone.

>>521312414
The dark ages were bad because you live in destitution, which feels bad and power and freedom feels good and leads to riches (which also feel good).

>>521312469
>I'm literally gay
Do you, queen, slay.

>>521312544
He answered in his other post...
>the Christian worldview that's expressed in scripture gives you grounds for believing such a thing exists (grounded in the nature of an omnibenevolent creator,)

>>521312502
That morality did evolve in some Muslim populations. It's all genetics. White people evolved in colder climates and have to work together to survive. People in Africa didn't have seasons and never evolved that way.

>>521312377
>Atheism has nothing to do with morality.
that's wrong,

p1: if atheism is true, then the universe and human life are the result of unguided, non-intentional processes.
p2: if life is the product of non-intentional processes, then there is no intrinsic purpose or value to human existence.
p3: if there is no intrinsic value to human existence, then there is no objective basis for moral duties or obligations.
c: therefore, if atheism is true, objective moral duties and obligations do not exist.
>>521312412
the argument isn't that Christians or people who hold to moral realism act morally superior to atheists or moral relativists. it's that the latter are not acting rationally in line with their worldview.
imagine you had the ability to fly at any moment, and there's no reason for you not to take off and fly, yet you still walk around everywhere like everyone else.
it's bizarre.
atheists like jeffrey dahmer are behaving more rationally in line with their beliefs.

>>521312502
>under atheism
Again with this false framing. Atheism is just a lack of belief in God or gods.

Yet people who don't believe in your personal God still have morals

>>521303090 (OP)
Today's values are secularized Christian values. The philosophical and theological justifications that these values were based on have been torn down, yet the values are still widely held even by nonreligious person -- even atheists.
But how long can values remain effective, or widely held and believed in strongly enough to influence behavior, when they are unfounded, which means that people today have no real understanding of why they even hold the values they do and instead just accept them as a matter of habit or in the same manner that a person accepts a platitude: it sounds good on the face of it, but no deeper understanding is involved.
Today's dominant values are now like buildings without a foundation underneath them, or like castles floating in the air. They're big edifices of thought -- the results of centuries of careful reasoning about ethics, rooted in the general Christian tradition -- and now these edifices, in all their size and weight and complexity, rest on nothing beneath them.
All the attempts to re-justify our ordinary, widely held values have fallen short precisely because the philosophical and theological groundwork on which they were erected (justified) has been chipped away down to nothing by generations, even centuries, of secularizers, or thinkers whose project was to get rid of all those primitive supernatural relics of a bygone time. And really, the reason secular, mostly materialist, philosophers have failed to re-justify these values is because, as Hume pointed out so well (and with a lot of justification and good argumentation), is that you cannot derive an ought from an is, meaning that statements of fact are unable yo ground or justify statements of what ought to be. There are two different domains of reasoning, one theoretical and scientific, one moral or practical, as Kant would say, and the kinds of statements that belong to the moral domain or reasoning are not the same as those of the theoretical domain.

>>521303090 (OP)
Of course you can. Just because you don't practice religion doesn't mean that people can't draw upon its wisdom. Most religious texts were written to improve upon their population. So, their wisdom, lessons, writings, and style can all be used to improve on essentially any population worldwide. The problem comes in religious competition, which usually is really bad for people because, they tend to become radicalized by being led by a false idol. Religion is fine, but radicalism is not. Baptists, for example, are generally really good, kind, caring people. However, the renditions of Baptists, such as the Westboro Baptist Church are lost to hyperbolic animosity and worship of a false idol.

>>521303090 (OP)
they just say that they don't care about this then go live a meaningless life only to wake up in hell

>>521303090 (OP)
Morality is not that deep and isn't difficult to figure out. You just need to see into the future a little and realize your actions have consequences. Abrahamics always portray morality as a mysterious, cryptic secret that only their faiths have the right answers to, which is why they appear so profound to normies. Notice how a Muslim could make the same argument as OP and you'd never know

>>521312502
>i need to subjugate you to establish my harem and propagate my DNA.
You're describing religious behavior again. This is the OT in one sentence.
>>521312731
>atheists are more moral than christians, but it's on accident!
Lol no you're just subhumans.

>>521312703
This is just circular logic. The bible isn't the source of objective morality, it's just that the texts gives you grounds for believing in objective reality. This is nonsense.

>>521312743
>Atheism is just a lack of belief in God or gods.
i disagree with this definition, as it could be ascribed to a rock so it's philosophically worthless as descriptive a position.

but let's go with it.
yes, atheism says "blah blah no god"
but the absence of God in a framework has wide wide sweeping implications across everything from epistemology to moral inquiry, like "no objective morals without a transcendent lawgiver."

Religion is for bootstrapping a moral framework. After a generation or two, social pressure makes it self-sustaining, even if you remove the supernatural component.
Religious morality isn't grounded in anything either. It just appeals to a [FF l fabricated] central authority instead of a distributed one.

>>521303090 (OP)
The jews appropriate basic human things like marriage, healthy family, and virtue, package it with some kapparot sins transfer nonsense and then pretends like they invented ethics and morality.

>>521312881
>Lol no you're just subhumans.
see.
this is that """""sympathy""" that was mentioned earlier.
the thing about it is you can shut it off at will.
>YOU ARE A SUBHUMAN SO I CAN HEAP ABUSE ON YOU.

>>521312246
Because comparison still doesn't answer why one is better or worse, let's say that x product causes cancer in children and y product doesn't. I can see the comparison, but this still doesn't answer why one is good or another is bad. Observation can tell us what something is but doesn't answer what we should do about it, only a moral framework give you the tools to make value judgements

>>521312903
>has wide wide sweeping implications
Yet atheists behave in a way more consistent with christian morality seeing as how fewer of them are sitting in prison kek

>>521303090 (OP)
Blah blah blah
You aren't smart.

>>521312935
>Religion is for bootstrapping a moral framework. After a generation or two, social pressure makes it self-sustaining, even if you remove the supernatural component.
this doesn't last forever.
what happens after the fumes run out and the tank is empty is one of three things:
1: collapse
2: something else fills the vacuum (islam in the UK and al-sweden)
3: revival

>>521312731
I've defeated this argument every day you present it

>>521312731
>p1: if atheism is true, then the universe and human life are the result of unguided, non-intentional processes.
Incorrect. As a God isn't needed to guide and have intention

Failed premise one

>>521312731
>p2: if life is the product of non-intentional processes, then there is no intrinsic purpose or value to human existence.
Incorrect. Someone else's intentional process has no bearing on mine

Failed premise 2

>>521312731
>p3: if there is no intrinsic value to human existence, then there is no objective basis for moral duties or obligations
Human life is inherent worth of a person, independent of their usefulness or status.

And human life is objective worth preserving

Another Failed premise

You fail a lot

>>521312987
Not an argument .

>>521312987
>you can't just talk about me the way christians talked about niggers up until a few generations ago, that's immoral!
What? Then why didn't christian morality stop christians from seeing niggers as subhuman?

>>521311641
How hard is it to understand? If it results in suffering, yours or anyone else's, then it's not good. I don't know what your obsession with twins fucking eachother is or why would it matter here, but ok... In a good world you would only be able to do such things anyway, so there wouldn't be any worry of ever hurting anyone, especially yourself, and we would be able to live in true peace and experience true happiness.
But no, someone wanted us to suffer and feel bad, so here we are.

>>521312903
>i disagree with this definition
Facts don't care about your feelings though

>>521312903
>but the absence of God in a framework has wide wide sweeping implications
To you.

That's all this is. You want people to live how you want. This has nothing to do with God.

>>521311855
>but I did eat breakfast tho...

>>521312893
>This is just circular logic. The bible isn't the source of objective morality, it's just that the texts gives you grounds for believing in objective reality.
it's probably difficult for you to grasp because you're not thinking in categories of ontology (what is) and epistemology (how we know)
the source of the truth value of moral claims is the nature of God. (ontological)
how we can discern what these are is by reading scripture and also the moral law is written on the heart of man. (epistemological)
scripture is one way to know a bit about God (epistemological) but God and the truth value of moral claims exist ontologically regardless of what we know, as as any other truth.

>>521307916
In order to have a preference, you must first exist.

>>521305975
>If I know someone is planning to murder me
You don't. You *suspect* someone is planning to murder you. To apply the imperative, there is a non-zero chance that everyone is planning to murder you. If you murder everyone who might be planning to murder you then we're all dead.

>>521312636
> It feels bad
Already making value claims, compared to what? Explain why feeling bad is morally bad. "I don't like the way it feels" is just describing sense data. It doesn't answer why it is good or bad.
And since you are relying feelings, how could you prove the subjective bad feelings some people had in the dark ages outweighed the total subjective joy that others felt during the time. You can't, and so even that argument falls flat

>>521312194
People do that because they are video game hookers, not real life hookers. It isn't even about lack of consequences, it's about the fact that it's not real. A real world analog wouldn't be an atheist, it would be someone with the belief that they were the only real human being, and everyone else was a soul-less NPC. That isn't what atheists believe, so you are wrong.

>>521313418
you're just rehashing the same circular logic, you're trying to find a way to claim the bible is the source of objective morality without having to claim that directly, because its an absurd claim. How can you know about the 'nature of god' without the bible? You have to choose, is it traditions or the bible this mythical objective morality comes from?

>>521310665
I can tell that you know very little about religion, retard.

>>521308538
Is this objective or not? Anyone?

>>521313418
>by reading scripture
Like when the israelites went around genociding and raping everyone on behalf of god? Cool. If I raped and murdered your family members would you be my advocate if I said I was doing it to please god? How would you prove god didn't tell me to do those things?

>>521303690
One is the refined wisdom of 12000 years of cultural history. The other is the refined wisdom of a 16 yo assclown who thinks he knows it all because he has just read an article on the internet.

>>521312377
How do you justify them?

>theyre my own thoughts and feelings
You are your own god in this case.

Morals are meaningless unless we are supposing there is a "correct" moral system. Which you do, you think its your own. So your a better moral philosopher than anyone in the western Canon, huh?

>>521303090 (OP)
i binge watched a bunch of darth dawkins clips

>>521303090 (OP)
This is the weakest of all arguments from the religious side. Lost count of how many apologists say something like "But what GROUNDS your morality?"

"There are people for whom those thought do not occur, who are deaf to that idea, who only think of themselves, who wouldn't worry about the internal daemon or censor or companion, and there are of course people who only get pleasure from being unpleasant to other people and inflicting on them. The first group we call the sociopathic and the second group we call the psychopathic. /And they occur in nature./ My only problem is with those who think we're all made in the image of God. The one explanation that absolutely doesn't work at all; that gets you nowhere; that explains nothing. We do not get it from Big Brother. If we did, that would degrade it. Being moral for the hope of reward or the fear of punishment /would abolish morality!/" (Christopher Hitchens vs Frank Turek, 2008)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHWanskPYDM

>>521303690
>moral laws are objective, because they are the written and fixed laws of the God who created the universe
Uhh yeah. That's why they're not subjective. Do you really not understand this?

>>521313524
No, that's not the hypothetical I gave. I'll be more specific. Someone tells me everyday for a year he is going to kill me tomorrow on Nov 14th just because he dislikes me. But I kill him today before he even gets a chance to kill me. What makes one morally just and the other unjust? Who or what is the determining factor of this?

>>521313279
>Facts don't care about your feelings though
word definitions aren't facts, language is a social convention.
the "merely a lack of belief in a gods" bullshit crept into the dictionary post 2006 and it's philosophically worthless for the reason i'd already gave.
i don't accept it and no one else does outside of reddit atheism does either.
>>521313573
>you're just rehashing the same circular logic
point out the circularity.
>you're trying to find a way to claim the bible is the source of objective morality
this is not my position and i've already stated that.
>How can you know about the 'nature of god' without the bible?
that's irrelevant ontologically and "moral realism" aka "objective morality" is an ontological question rather than an epistemological one.
i can't dumb it down for you more, sorry.

>>521313656
>If I raped and murdered your family members would you be my advocate if I said I was doing it to please god?
stay classy, fedoralords

>>521313536
>Explain why feeling bad is morally bad.
It's not. I don't think in terms of morality at all. We're animals, and our instincts drive us to action, like all living things. What does that have to do with morality?
>And since you are relying feelings, how could you prove the subjective bad feelings some people had in the dark ages outweighed the total subjective joy that others felt during the time.
By definition, destitution brings no joy to people. Our brain chemicals are not wired to respond positively to such a stimulus.

>>521313844
Is it immoral to impregnate an 8 year old girl that underwent precocious puberty? Justify the answer with scripture.

>>521313667
Morality is subjective on a macro scale and becomes more objective on a micro/societal scale.

People who agreed on the same moral concepts grouped up and made society

How do I justify them? I don't, they justify themselves.

It's that simple

>>521313959
So how would you prove god didn't tell me to do those things, since god has given such commandments before?

>>521313796
The Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/67363

>"The Theory of Moral Sentiments" by Adam Smith is a philosophical treatise written in the mid-18th century. The book explores the principles that govern human morality, particularly focusing on how individuals judge the conduct and character of themselves and others. It delves into concepts such as sympathy, propriety of actions, and the moral feelings that arise in social interactions. At the start of the work, Smith introduces the foundational idea that human beings possess inherent principles that make them care about the well-being of others, attributing it to emotions like pity and compassion. He argues that people assess the emotions and actions of others through the lens of their own feelings and experiences. The opening chapters articulate how sympathy operates in understanding both joy and sorrow, laying the groundwork for his detailed analysis of moral sentiments and behaviors throughout the text.

>>521313844
>point out the circularity.
"the bible isn't the source of objective morality, but you need the bible to understand objective morality"
>it's irrelevant because blah blah
it's almost like you don't have an actual answer and are tossing out Philosophy 101 phrases to look intelligent

>>521313844
>>Facts don't care about your feelings though
>word definitions aren't facts
Sure they are.

But lack of belief defines it.

>>521313959
Kek this faggot always avoid this type of question

Just ask him if murdering babies is OK. He'll make excuses why it is because God said so. Which defeats his objective moral arguments

>>521313356
>I made a shit argument therefore you are a nigger

>>521314077
>"the bible isn't the source of objective morality, but you need the bible to understand objective morality"
holy shit man, that's not even what i said (remember i said the moral law is written on our hearts), but that's not the biggest problem. actually, that's not even a circularity either, but that's still not the biggest problem.

hang on, i'll type something up and it will be plain as day.

>>521314041
So that would just be subjective then. Its an either or kinda thing

So your morals have no basis and any objections I have to them are valid?

his entire worldview as does all other worldviews of apologetics depend on granting him the presupp of god even existing, disregard that and his argument becomes circular

if u flip the christian argument on its head you get a situation similar to this
>x thing bad
>why is it bad?
>my book says it is
>why does ur book decide that?
>because its the word of god
>god doesnt exist
>he just does and ur not a believer therefore im right

in reality however morality can only be applied to the ingroup and is evolutionary, whether it's written down in one text or another is irrelevant and is independent of religion so carrying it's aesthetic into the modern age would be useless , to be moral to the outgroup is to be immoral to the ingroup it's very simple

>>521303090 (OP)
They dont even understand what logic is

>>521314263
>moral law is written in our hearts
another retarded notion, what if my moral law says its ok for me to rape your grandmother, how would you combat that if it's truly 'written in my heart'?
>well I'd go to the scripture
Circular, exactly

it's a mistake to assume that christianity or any other abrahamic sect gave humans moral values, they already existed pre and after them, which is why christians always have to pick out and demonize aspects of religions and civilizations before them to make it seem as if they didn't have any morality, meanwhile the very people who created christianity just a few centuries ago believed in sacrificing humans to yhwh

as other anons pointed out, moral platonism would be the original greek form of morality they adopted and it should be seen as such, not as a product of christians or any other abrahamic sect but as a product of greeks, something you don't need an abrahamic god for or the dogma of christianity or the aesthetic of judaism which christianity carried over thanks to apologetics

>>521314266
>So your morals have no basis
See
>>521313152
>Human life is inherent worth of a person, independent of their usefulness or status.
Living as peacefully as possible and cohesive with my community are all a base

>>521303532
fpbp

FUCKNIGGERS

>>521313994
And you didn't answer why we should care about flourishing vs destitution.

In an athiest worldview there is no metaphysical difference, both are equally valid states to be in.

>>521314263
>(remember i said the moral law is written on our hearts), b
This means nothing. It's fluff language youth pastors use.

>>521313796
retarded garbage.
Completely admitting that you morality is unjustifiable and only based on your preference over some other morality, not only delegitimizes any moral claim you make, and make your moral claims unsupportable, but it removes the very concept of making a moral claim. There are no moral claims in a subjective world, only preferential claims. No one is any better or worse than anyone else. Ted Bundy is no better or worse than Immanuel Kant or Genghis Khan or Osama Bin Laden or Thomas Jefferson. You only prefer one person or their behaviors over another.

>>521303090 (OP)
Treating others as you'd prefer to be treated. Also, natural aversion to things like butt sex and fucking kids. Being religious doesn't seem to stop anyone from doing these things if they want to.

>>521313842
You had a year to do literally anything else.
If you really want to kill him justly, you can prepare for the actual attempt when not defending yourself would violate the categorical imperative.

>>521313536
I don't know man, if you can't distinguish when you're feeling good and when you're feeling bad, independent of one another, by itself, then i really don't know how to help you.

>>521314665
morality in a functional society from the very start could only be based on what creates a reciprocal relationship that furthers cooperation, this wasn't a product of christianity or any other abrahamic sect, we already knew this and have evolved it over time

Why would you need religion to establish basic pillars of morality when those are tied directly to our nature and to logic? We want to survive above all else, thus we stay in groups which makes survival easier and establish rules like "don't murder" or "don't steal" because doing that jeopardizes the survival of the group.
It's as simple as that and the fact you need a book to tell you not to do those things just tells me you are retarded.

>>521314077
>>521314347
okay, first let's define some terms in this context:
ontology = what is
epistemology = how we know
objective = exists outside of human minds, it will still "be" even if no one knows about it
subjective = mind dependent

your claim collapses the ontological question (what grounds objective morality? God's nature) into an epistemological one (how do we access it)

i said
>morality is objective because it's rooted in God's nature (ontology, it exists regardless of Bible or belief or humans)
>we know it via scripture and the moral law written on our hearts (epistemology, multiple access points)
you understood this as "the buybull is the source but you need the buybull to know it! and that's circular!"

no.
the bible reveals, it doesn't create. conscience confirms. atheists still know murder is wrong even though that's irrational under atheism.
there's no circularity.

i absolutely cannot make it simpler than this.

>>521314716
Yes but at least a moral framework can justify why it's wrong in the first place other than, I think it's icky, or making an appeal to nature argument saying it's natural to avoid buttsex therefore good, well it's natural to be polygamous since marriage is a non natural institution.

It's all bad argumentation

>>521314735
If it's the case the categorical imperative can be violated, how can it define a moral rule if the murder can still happen on one side? Murder is not absent in this case. Hell, it's not absent in our modern world.

>>521314862
Here we see a core inability to comprehend the argument.

You do realise I am explaining HIS worldview to him, and that someone can explain another's view without believing the view themselves?

>>521314904
why would anyone grant you the presupp of god even existing, remove that and you're left with a circular argument of god exists because i said so, moral platonism ( which this is ) exists with or without the abrahamic god

>>521314904
>morality is objective because it's rooted in gods nature
>we know it via scripture
Therefore, you cannot know objective reality without reading the bible, a book written by humans with subjective beliefs, making your objective morality subjective. Also, you realize a Muslim could make the exact same arguments about the Quran right? Or Jew with the Talmud.

>>521314651
>And you didn't answer why we should care about flourishing vs destitution.
Because we receive positive stimulation for it, which is the only motivation for any action (even moral action). That's the nature of life. Morality (which is simply the herd instinct) is stimulation that motivates submissiveness to social norms, and if the social norms are bad (which they currently are), it leads to prolonged negative stimulation which clever people avoid. Higher animals suppress or lack herd instinct.

>>521314665
Justified morality in the absence of justified true beliefs is what you're advocating for. You're in essence saying that people wouldn't have X if it wasn't placed there by a deity, and utterly shirking your RESPONSIBILITY in justifying the existence of that deity. Which is the step all theists conveniently skip. Which is what makes religious belief hollow for those of us who actually care about what is true.

>>521314716
>Treating others as you'd prefer to be treated.
So God prefers to be made to suffer as well?

>>521314904
>morality is objective because it's rooted in God's nature
God's nature is telling jews to go commit rape, plunder, and genocide. Again, why would I be immoral for doing this to your family?

>>521315185
>why would anyone grant you the presupp of god even existing,
i'm not arguing that God exists, i'm arguing that moral realism works under theism and doesn't work under atheism and therefore under atheism there's nothing wrong with fucking a dead dog.

>>521303090 (OP)
obj morality doesn't exist

>>521314904
>objective = exists outside of human minds
You're not including the full context here
>This view holds that objective reality consists of facts, truths, or entities that remain unchanged regardless of whether any sentient being is aware of them
>or entities that remain unchanged
God of the Bible fails. As he clearly changed from the OT to the NT

>(what grounds objective morality? God's nature)
Except it doesn't because this very same God commands not to do things but then commands people to do them.

Like murder babies

>>521314904
>i said
>>morality is objective because it's rooted in God's nature
It isn't as God nature's is defined by man and man goes through various changes

Turns out you have no objective grounds to really stand on of your only resort is your preference for a certain God

>>521303090 (OP)
I don't necessarily believe in all of the bible stories and shit, but I can't deny that the moral framework provided by Christianity is what allowed Europeans to flourish. Pretty sure this is what the founding fathers were trying to preserve.

>>521315367
>i'm not arguing that God exists
Then your foundation collapses

>>521303090 (OP)
Andrew wilson ia not capable of making a positive case for any of his beliefs. He knows this and focuses on attack on purpose.

>>521315367
why wouldn't it work under atheism if you use the concept of moral platonism which jews also adapted into christianity, it isn't exclusive only to theist religions hence why you can have morality in a secular society, why even bother arguing for a theist position when it's rendered useless when the presupp isn't granted in the first place

>>521315225
>If the social norms are bad

Again with the value claims, dude I agree their bad. But without a moral framework they are only bad in your opinion!
And if someone else's opinion is that they are good, then your argument is destroyed.

You seem cool and probably have real problems with society, but those problems come from an absconding of moral objectivity and not because of it.

To better argue your point and justify the terms and premises you are using, I really recommend reading some philosophy because it will help you to be more secure in what you believe and why, and be better able to challenge those who disagree with you

>>521315367
>under atheism there's nothing wrong with fucking a dead dog.
Again, you keep up this false frame works.

Whats wrong with fucking a dead dog? Let's see your answer and we'll compare

>>521315218
goodness gracious.

wrong on both meme arrows,
epistemologically, we can discern the truth value of moral claims via scripture + conscience,
the Bible isn't required for the existence of the truth value of moral claims
(atheists know murder is wrong, even though that doesn't make sense under atheism ontologically)

say we have a map of a territory!
this gives us epistemic access to the territory's geography.
the existence of this map or even the person reading the map has no bearing on whether or not the territory exists at all whatsoever.

do you get it? am i getting through to you? i'm trying bro.

>>521315671
>Again with the value claims,
None at all, they're bad because they cause negative stimulation. If women were disposable property instead of person who are nagging me about stupid crap, I'd have less negative stimulation. That's why enslavement of women is good. It's that simple. I can't put it any more simply.

>>521315820
>conscience
Once again you fail to explain why this moral conscience was previously absent and why it continues to evolve.

>>521315820
>atheists know murder is wrong
You're entire argument is no debunked..

And atheist can epistemologically know murder is wrong becaue one can observe the negative consequences they bring to themselves for committing the act as the negative consequences that happens to the victim.

Another L for you

>>521316091
>as
And*

>>521315946
Why is negative stimulation bad, outside of it having the word "negative" in it.

Explain why it's a problem that negative stimulation happens instead of positive

>>521314976
Plenty of religions have had polygamy and I believe Muslims still do so to this day. And whether it's even "natural" or not is up for debate. There is no universal framework to be found for morality within religion as a whole either. That's why arguments always devolve into my religion/sect vs. yours.
>>521315288
The argument could certainly be made that if God exists, he's ontologically evil. I'm agnostic personally. Wouldn't be so presumptuous to make the unprovable claim that no higher power exists.

>>521315671
so why would you adopt an abrahamic model as the source of it without realizing that the moral values change and evolve over time with the common underlining of it starting off due to the need for a reciprocal relationship that furthers cooperation

inb4
>what if everyone agrees that x thing which currently is bad is good in future
this wouldn't happen because morality doesn't exist in a vacuum, it evolved over time to the point where it is currently, something which all apologetics casually ignore when they give that argument which they do all the time

>>521303090 (OP)
Morality is objective at a scientific level. Suppose the year is 0AD, every society picks a system of morality. Fast forward to 2,000AD. The societies that no longer exist picked immoral frameworks. Why? Dead people can’t argue moral superiority. This is how we know western morality is immoral. As it is obvious that Jews and Europeans are being genetically obliterated, their moral framework will be irrelevant because the people needed to support that framework will not exist in the future.

>>521315365
Notice how thar faggot keeps avoiding this?

>>521312157
Reality isn't subjective though

>>521316228
I'm just waiting for the
>god is inherently moral, so it wasn't immoral for him to command that
Argument to get rehashed

>>521316167
>People disagree on what's true, therefore there is no truth

Surely you can see how fallacious this argument is

>>521316164
As already said, we avoid negative stimulation and seek positive ones. That's the most basic nature of all action, of all life.

>>521316164
>Explain why it's a problem that negative stimulation happens instead of positive
It results in us feeling bad.

>>521303690
They are objective because they are unchanging and do not vary from person to person, or, as the Scripture would say, "is no respecter of persons". The moral laws of the Bible are akin to the Laws of Nature - an apple falls because gravity, murder is wrong because it is written into the very fabric of Creation.

You could argue that the codes are arbitrary, which they certainly could be from a limited perspective, but they are absolutely not subjective.

>>521316303
Yup he does that. Which then violates the objective morality because he's using his personal feelings to justify murder

>>521315365
the pilpuling crossjew will avoid saying that (((god))) changed his mind.
the mental gymnastics of these retards are truly something else. lmao

>>521316433
>They are objective because they are unchanging
Nigger the bible itself has how many different versions? lmao
>>521315820
>epistemologically, we can discern the truth value of moral claims via scripture + conscience,
Based on what? Your subjective opinion? My opinion is that that moral claims can be discerned from how my shit looks in a toilet, what makes you any more right than me?

>>521316294
It’s both subjective and objective based on the context. At a highly localized level, morality bends toward irrelevant if not subjective. At the societal level, morality is very much objective. Ethics are a system of social contract meant to ensure the survival of a genetically distinct group of people.

>>521316433
>murder is wrong because it is written into the very fabric of Creation.
Yet the God of commands murder

>>521303090 (OP)
mutual aid is a factor of evolution

if evil was natural part of life then PTSD wouldn't exist. PTSD being a measurable and observable change in the central nervous system.

>>521315594
i can argue the logical coherence of the fact that spiderman lives in nyc even though spiderman doesn't exist.
>>521315648
>why wouldn't it work under atheism
i laid out a syllogism here >>521312731 with my reasoning.
>the concept of moral platonism
doesn't work under atheism
floating abstracts with no ground, no obligation, no access.
no enforcer, nothing binds us.
no bridge to know them.
>>521316047
>Once again you fail to explain why this moral conscience was previously absent
previous to what?
>and why it continues to evolve.
epistemic tuning, better or worse access over time, same with our ability to determine any other truth, not just moral ones.
you're poking my ontological position with questions on epistemology, which is silly.

I have fully materialistic concept for objective morality, but I'm Christian and I don't think I would share my >worthless ideas with kikes, who pretend to be atheists to attack Christianity.

>>521316368
you shouldn't avoid negative stimulation and learn to accept it as a part of life retard

>>521316294
im glad you concede that premise, and I agree it is real and objective. But I ask you then if reality is real and objective are their real and objective truth about reality?

>>521316594
>i can argue the logical coherence
Let's see

>>521315700
>Whats wrong with fucking a dead dog? Let's see your answer and we'll compare

>>521316526
>Based on what? Your subjective opinion?
all truths are filtered through our subjective minds, moral, scientific, biological, philosophical, etc.
you're sliding into solipsism.

>>521316433
>The moral laws of the Bible are akin to the Laws of Nature - an apple falls because gravity, murder is wrong because it is written into the very fabric of Creation.
the bible says idolatry is wrong. idolatry is the worship of anything that isn't yahweh.
There would be universal knowledge about yahweh if your claim were true.

>>521316594
>i laid out a syllogism here >>521312731 # with my reasoning.
And I defeated it here >>521313152

You have no rational arguments beyond your personal feelings

>>521316771
>GOD COMMANDS MURDER!!!
i'm not really interested in interacting with you, sorry.

>>521303090 (OP)
Preferences indicate thought and consideration. You readily admit that the only basis for you showing cooperative behavior is the threat of never ending violence and sadism as a consequence. You are just animals with spiritual shock collars who perform tricks in public but quietly rub your asses on the carpet and hump pillows at home. Even if your God can see you in all your shame.

>>521316776
>all truths are filtered through our subjective minds, moral, scientific, biological, philosophical, etc.
Kek this moron defeats his own arguments

>>521316689
you're most likely replying to a bot
any meme flag is a faggot that can't afford a VPN, or speak english. so they use 'free' AI

>>521316594
the reasoning in >>521312731 requires a presupp of a god existing to be granted which if i refuse to ends up in circular logic

>doesn't work under atheism
i've explained why it does, since it isn't exclusive to theistic religion, moral values can and were established as absolute independent of god before

>floating abstracts with no ground, no obligation, no access.
there is no ground or obligation for the christian ones either if we do not grant the presupp of god existing in the first place, this however isnt true for moral platonism since as a concept it exists independently meaning that the values established can exist and be enforced in secular societies where a dictator or the state takes the position a church and a pastor would

>>521316776
>all truths are filtered through our subjective minds
Therefore Objective morality as a concept is false. Thank you.

>>521316368
>>521316689
You see how this guy instantly deflates your argument, not because he's making better arguments but that yours is equally valid to his.

>>521316689
If not avoiding negative stimulation led to better long-term positive stimulation, it would be valid; if not, then it would be illogical.

>>521303090 (OP)
>morality
Moralitas is a 100% pre-abrahamic pagan practice.

>tf
I guess you took sharting courses instead of reading the Greeks.

>>521316904
>You readily admit that the only basis for you showing cooperative behavior is the threat of never ending violence
no.
moral ontology in the Christian framework has nothing to do with the carrot of heaven or stick of hell, it's about meaning, oughts regardless of consequence.

>>521316927
same with this one
absolute salad for brains. saying a lot, but nothing at all

>>521316689
>just take it, just suffer
What's your motive? Why do you want people to feel bad? What do you get out of it?

>>521316893
AHAHAHAhA look at this faggot run away.

C'mon..it should be an easy answer?

I'll ask again
>>521315700
>Whats wrong with fucking a dead dog? Let's see your answer and we'll compare


You won't answer it becaue you know you don't need a.God to tell why this is wrong

Concession accepted

>>521316594
>previous to what
Are you just playing retarded or what? Prior to the advent of western civilization. American Indians behaved much like the israelites did in the OT as recently as a few hundred years ago. It's odd that this "objective morality" that's ingrained in our conscience was absent nearly everywhere that Europeans hadn't landed.
>you're addressing my argument in a way that I can't handle because empiricism defeats my bullshit
Cry harder, little baby.
>epistemic tuning
Lmfao so in the short span of a few thousand years, god has arbitrarily decided to do a 180 on a multitude of moral questions, which he divinely communicated to us over time through human conscience? Mind you god is claimed to be eternal so you're talking sweeping changes in morality in a time period that equates to mere seconds for humans. You are silly. Your bullshit doesn't pass the smell test.

>>521316410
Why is feeling bad, bad

>>521303090 (OP)
Even a smart non-religious individual can clearly tell the difference between Good and Evil.

An example: In wars people kill people. However, if one side were to kill people then rape their corpses, and remove live fetuses from dead mothers to further rape - then you could most certainly say that particular side is Evil.

Some primeapes also understand Evil and oppression, and when it negatively impacts the group will kill the Evil (selfish) member.

>>521317027
>it's about meaning, oughts regardless of consequence.
OK, so you should have an easy answer for
>>521315700
>Whats wrong with fucking a dead dog? Let's see your answer and we'll compare

>>521317031
>i must have an abrahamic sect to dish out moral platonism eventhough it existed long before and after jews

>>521316994
No, it's just stupid drivel. You don't get that there is a base concepts that are valid per definition of their nature.

>>521316927
>the reasoning in >>521312731 (You) requires a presupp of a god existing to be granted
demonstrate how any of the premises presuppose the existence of God and i will burn my KJV bible on camera.

>>521312066
>the Christian worldview that's expressed in scripture
Which one? Protestantism is all about having your own personal interpretation.

>>521317069
Because it feels bad, isn't this obvious?

>>521317250
because if it isn't granted that god exists you wouldn't be able to justify what you're talking about without appealing to moral platonism, which exists independent of any theistic religion but in your worldview it is required for a god to exist to justify the book where it says x thing good y thing bad

>>521317250
>demonstrate how any of the premises presuppose the existence of God
Because you use the term atheist which is lack of belief in God or gods..and your failed argument attempt to demonstrate why atheism bad, which then presupposes the opposite of atheism which is theism.

Why are you this fucking dumb?

>>521317069
Do you enjoy feeling bad? Do you enjoy when others are feeling bad?

>>521312377
>Atheism has nothing to do with morality
Moralitas is a pre-abrahamic pagan practice.

>>521317027
Not really, the only basis to get on the ride is affirmation of belief but through the framework of jewish subversion that Christendom is. The morality of the system is slave morality, which is why you have so many claiming to believe but they would never dare emulate Christ. Instead they bludgeon you with a cross and live as degenerates. I even have a pastor for an extended family member, did it after he had failed businesses and followed what the mafia came to say in that they should have just gotten into religion instead. He makes fun of the poor and others that tried to come to him and he rejected and see's no problem with this. I am more curious about how people use spiritual frameworks to exploit and excuse behavior. Religion itself is the fifth largest cohort of sociopaths and psychopaths on the planet for a reason.

>>521317556
>pagan practice
>pagan
Isn't atheism.

>>521303090 (OP)
/thread

Believing in X or Y religion is not a choice, I cannot force myself to believe in talking snakes and men who walk on water.

>>521317420
Yes I know it feels bad, explain why feeling bad is something we should stop. If there is no metaphysical meaning there is no good and bad, bad feelings are just atoms bouncing in my head, and so are good. The atoms are of equal worth in an immoral worldview.

>>521317443
nyooooo.
1: atheism --> no objective morals (syllogism stands, no God assumed)
2: playdohnism is just floating forms that don't obligate, still no "ought" without mind.
3: Bible reveals God's nature (epistemology), it doesn't create it (ontology) like a map grants epistemic access to the reader (epistemology) but doesn't create the region (ontology)
my KJV bible is safe.
>>521317655
>doxastic involuntarism
NPCs actually believe this

>>521304475
Christianity is unique. I opposed it for longer than you've probably been alive, until I pulled my head out of my ass and actually considered what was in front of me. I've seen Christ bring peace into people's lives where everything else has failed and I've personally experienced it in a way that broke through my extreme cynicism. It has given me guidance I cannot understand or deny. Anyone I know who is actually out doing good for their community is called to do so by Christ, not by Allah or Vishnu or vague, secular assertions about right and wrong. Christian societies have produced the greatest prosperity in human history and they've only gotten worse as they've become less and less Christian. I don't really give a fuck about debating people over it because debate is fake and gay and there's no point in arguing with someone who's emotionally invested in believing the opposite of what you're selling. I don't give a fuck about hearing nerd arguments against it because I already know them all, I used to use them myself, and they all suck. Christ is the hero of mankind. He has defeated Satan and death. If that resonates with you at all, go listen to Alexander Scourby reading the gospels.

>>521317668
>explain why feeling bad is something we should stop.
What would your answer be? Unless you like having depression and anxiety

>>521304211
>if both are equal, why should anyone give a shit?
Precisely: why should YOU give a shit if people follow the precepts of Christian Nationalism? If it's all subjective to you, then it shouldn't matter whether people do or don't follow it, and you need to shut the fuck up and stop complaining. If it *isn't* subjective, then you need to come up with some reason for why people shouldn't follow it other than "muh magic jew book bad".

>>521317768
>1: atheism --> no objective morals (syllogism stands, no God assumed)
Yes it does. As the opposite is theism

Again, why are you so fucking stupid?

>>521317639
Finally, hopefully this helps some people understand

>>521303090 (OP)
Good and bad are defined by form.
Bad destroys your form.

>>521303090 (OP)
>So, can any of you non-religious fags ground objective morality onto something? Or just concede your entire worldview is just "muh preference".

All morality stems from knowing and understanding the True Form. Christiantiy is universal reform judaism, a delusion created by jews, so it has defective morals, which is why christian countries are overrun by commies, jews and shitskins.

Hinduism, which is the wreckage of ancient white people religion, has an interesting concept called "dharma". No pajeet understands this concept and none of them follows them, but dharma is a very advanced form of morals, where you are held to different moral standards depending on where in society you are. F.ex a merchant is allowed to be cowardly, but a soldier is not.

>>521316316
It's not fallacious at all when your basis for evaluating truth is through the lens of one of many religions. How do you know yours is the correct one? You don't and you can't. Hence why it's called faith. My argument is that there is nothing in any religion that serves as a universal truth or morality. Your only argument against this would be "well, I believe x, y, z, and therefore it's correct." Which is fine and you're allowed to do that. But mistaking that for "truth" is the fallacious argument.

>>521311641
>None of that applies to me.
then you arent a christian
>>521311855
are you completely unable to engage with a hypothetical? if you have faith this is something you must consider. your answer actually tells me everything I need to know, that it wavers when confronted with something like that, meaning your morality comes from somewhere else

>>521317820
You gonna cry, faggot?

>>521317768
>Bible reveals God's nature (epistemology), it doesn't create it (ontology)
Yes it does. We created the ontology

>>521304259
Men raping women and women committing infanticide, on their own offspring no less, are two entirely separate subjects. One does not logically follow the other.

What you've done here is called the Strawman fallacy, and also a Non Sequitur. I recommend you look those up.

Objective morality doesn't exist, even in christcuckery.

Simple example: you could minmax getting humanity to heaven by designating one (1) person that kills babies do they autojoin heaven. This is what happens if you take Christian ideology to its logical conclusion.

>>521303090 (OP)
reason is the ground, read descarte fag

>>521317668
>explain why feeling bad is something we should stop
Because that's in our nature. It's the reality of our animal existence. Why are you so dense?

>>521316765
Some things can be objectivity measured and some things are subjective. You seen to be implying my argument hinges in morality being subjective, which it doesn't. I believe it falls somewhere in between as most humans seem to have a broadly similar set of moral beliefs that are inherent, despite coming from different cultures, religions, etc. As I said earlier the idea that murder and theft is bad predates Abrahamic religion

>>521317966
>Men raping women and women committing infanticide, on their own offspring no less, are two entirely separate subjects. One does not logically follow the other.
Actually they do.

>>521317668
>explain why feeling bad is something we should stop.
I just did. Because it feels bad. That is the reason. Unless you want to feel bad. But why would you want that? There is no reason to feel bad if there is an option to feel good.

>>521317605
>The ancient Greeks, who invented the word moralitas, had no Gods, they were atheists, just trust me okay
American education moment.

>>521308124
It's because the real followers of ancient Churches were modest and thought staying in their lane was proper etiquette. Now they're realizing they can't stay stay out of the mud and need to engage. They'll surpass the heretics inside political orgs with time.

>>521317768
>no objective morals
once again, objective morals exist independent of a god due to moral platonism, take for example the concept of race in any racial ideology, saying we ought preserve x race would be appealing to moral platonism which dictates a moral absolute about race, you don't need a god for this

>Bible reveals God's nature
i don't grant you the presupp of god existing so what are you gonna appeal to?

>>521318130
Try less strawman next time

>>521317982
It is bad for George to participate in activities that lead to his death.
Objective morality.

>>521317982
>you could minmax getting humanity to heaven by designating one (1) person that kills babies do they autojoin heaven
let's say that's true.
where people go or how many people go has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of the truth value of moral claims' objectivity ontologically.

>>521304938
>look at church rates over the decades
You assume that rates will necessarily continue to decline. This is impossible to know for certain unless you have some form of precognition or omniscience, ergo is a logical fallacy, probably Argument from Tradition or something similar.

>>521317605
>atheism
Atheism is rejecting the Gods, like Abrahamists do.

Morality is grounded in compassion, anything else is deception or an appeal to a nonexistent authority. Religions claim their morality stems from revelation, that their foundational texts were authored by God, but deep down they know that's cope and absolute bullshit - metaphysics for the intellectually and spiritually retarded.

>>521313665
Refined wisdom of what race exactly? I thought /pol/ didn't like jews

>>521318228
Can you answer
>>521315700
>Whats wrong with fucking a dead dog? Let's see your answer and we'll compare

Odd you can't answer that

>>521318093
Actually, they don't. Can a man rape a woman but a woman not commit infanticide? Can a woman commit infanticide even absent being raped by a man? The answer is yes, showing that they are not logically connected.

>>521318253
You can very easily make predictions of the future based on current and past trends, you do not need fucking precognition to do this, you sound ridiculous

>>521317955
>if you have faith
Faith is a 100% pre-abrahamic pagan practice.
Read the Greeks you uneducated mutt.

>>521318387
>Actually, they don't. Can a man rape a woman but a woman not commit infanticide?
Depends in the woman. Which is why your arguments fails. I wouldn't force my daughter to keep the rapists baby. Not would she want to

>>521318182
Try not being a fat shartin' mutt next time

>>521318498
No need to project on me because you're wrong lol

>>521318127
That idiot doesn't understand simple definitions.
>explain why feeling bad is something we should stop
It's like saying "why must we be in motion when we change locations?" It's in the nature of the action to move when changing locations. Just as it's in the nature of negative emotions to avoid them.

>>521318298
>Religions claim their morality stems from revelation
Revealed religions are all fake, they are all atheism.

>>521318298
>compassion

>>521318275
>Atheism is rejecting the Gods
Which is a lack of belief, lol

>>521314590
Why does human life have inherent value?

Because we're narcissistic? Most lifeforms would consider us a disease

>>521318606
No. Its an outright rejection

Agnosticism is a lack of belief.

>>521318555
Nothing will ever unmutt you, mutt.
Too late.
You fat, angry, uneducated, sharting mutt.

>>521318591
Even if it's granted fake it still has better prescriptions than any drivel you savages have come up with. Moving away from Christian society has led to degeneration.

>>521317955
>then you arent a christian
Where did I ever say I was?

>>521318174
don't know what to tell you. we're talking in circles now and you still haven't admitted you were wrong about me using a presupp for God in the syllogism earlier.
i'd like to hear your thoughts on the is-ought gap though pictured here: >>521317639
>>521318328
not interested in discussing your fetish.

>>521318668
value of human life arises from the capacity for rational thought and the ability to experience positive states such as love, beauty, and meaningful relationships

And then take those and make society a better place

>>521318719
>No. Its an outright rejection
That's still a lack of belief

>>521318400
You can estimate, for sure, but what you cannot do is say for 100% certain that the trend will continue, thus rendering such an argument illogical. "I believe the trend will continue" is an entirely different thread than "the trend WILL continue".

>>521304259
limiting freedom isn't immoral

>>521318753
Tell me more about your hurt feelings :^)

>>521303090 (OP)
>So, can any of you non-religious fags ground objective morality onto something?
At the end of the day it's all just genetics and your environment that determines your morality. You don't even get to decide it yourself, like the kind of sensations you enjoy or dislike, it's completely pre-determined so that's pretty objective.

>>521318668
>Most lifeforms would consider us a disease
That rare and precious moment when the fat shartin' mutt saw the light...

>>521318821
Looks like you have no backing in Amy of your arguments because you refuse to answer a simple question

Don't worry, I'll keep plaguing you with it for all to see

It is good for your form to have other humans and animals that like you.
You get plumbing and houses and electricity and innovation and other benefits that you don't have to focus on other than being civilized.
Good benefits your form.

>>521318824
>my society would be a better place ridding it of all non believers
nice foundation, try again

>>521318939
is Amy your wife's name?

>>521318821
>you still haven't admitted you were wrong about me using a presupp for God in the syllogism earlier.
He wasn't wrong. You clearly did

>>521318864
No one can claim anything with 100% certainty, what's your point? This is like saying it's illogical to assume that it will rain soon when you see clouds in the sky.
>"I believe the trend will continue" is an entirely different thread than "the trend WILL continue".
This is literally just tomato tomahto, an utterly pointless specification that changes nothing about my statements or arguments

>>521318984
Try less strawman next time

It's so telling when you lot can't respond honestly

>>521318481
>which is why your argument fails
No, that is why my argument succeeds. You're trying to argue that a woman MUST abort her rapist's child, which is an objective assertion, and then you've immediately backtracked and said "it's subjective, it depends on the woman".

The two subjects would only be logically connected IF and ONLY IF a woman MUST kill her rapist's child. If it is subjective, it comes down to preference and thus an "is" claim cannot be made, which is what I'm pointing out.

>>521318801
my mistake, what do you consider yourself?

>>521318579
He needs an explanation on why he should stop feeling bad. Like, what am i even supposed to tell him if he doesn't have it in him? I don't have to think about this kind of things. Imagine getting hurt, and then asking yourself "Hmm, this feels bad, do i want it to stop or not?". Is he even being honest?

>>521318786
>Moving away from Christian society...
You protestant filth moved away from Christian society because Christians started to slaughter you.

>... has led to degeneration.
Those who managed to escape went abroad and created the USA.

You fat shartin' mutt.

>>521319009
>He wasn't wrong. You clearly did
here, i'll post it again.

p1: if atheism is true, then the universe and human life are the result of unguided, non-intentional processes.
p2: if life is the product of non-intentional processes, then there is no intrinsic purpose or value to human existence.
p3: if there is no intrinsic value to human existence, then there is no objective basis for moral duties or obligations.
c: therefore, if atheism is true, objective moral duties and obligations do not exist.

show me where God is presupposed in any of these premises or be a man and walk it back.
it's okay to be wrong sometimes, but aren't you atheists more moral and honest then us disgusting godbotherers?

>>521318987
See what I mean? Zero honesty

Anything to avoid responsibility
>>521315700
>Whats wrong with fucking a dead dog? Let's see your answer and we'll compare
You can try to r/eddit your way out but it won't work

>>521318920
That would be biologically developed preferences, the exact opposite of objective.

>>521308360
kys capeslop nigger

>>521319182
>p1: if atheism
You just did it again, lol

What a dipshit

See
>>521317840
Lol

>>521319272
how does "if atheism" presuppose the existence of God?

>>521318875
You still a mutt, mutt.
Not my problem.

>>521315054
The categorical imperative exists to determine what is moral, not enforce that morality.

>>521319301
Nigger can't read lol

Why is fucking a dead dog bad?

>>521319305
>boohoo intensifies
Lmao

>>521319352
Funny how the more you try to sound smart, the more you use french words.

If a part of God eats a different part of God when is it morally wrong?

>>521319401
>Nigger can't read lol
so what you're saying is that you actually can't point to any premise that presupposes the existence of God in my syllogism?
>Why is fucking a dead dog bad?
a question atheists will never have an answer to.

>>521317458
>Because you use the term atheist which is lack of belief in God or gods..and your failed argument attempt to demonstrate why atheism bad, which then presupposes the opposite of atheism which is theism.
>>521319301
More in depth answer

>>521319228
>That would be biologically developed preferences
Which is also where holy books get their morality from.

>>521319520
>a question atheists will never have an answer to.
This is about you. Why can't You answer

Also see
>>521319542
You stupid faggot

>>521319156
Agnostic, I'm an ex-Catholic that was forced into confirmation in the religion like all Catholic children. I still like using Christian arguments, but I have my own gripes with them. Ultimately, I can understand why Christians think they have objective morality if god is the arbiter of morality. My problem with this, does that mean if god exists, god is absent a mind himself? Overall, I think morality is subjective. But I still like having arguments over it.

>>521319438
>more impotent shartin' fits of rage
You mutt lol.
So fat.

>>521319630
>this will get him now!

Did you get scammed by the horde of immigrants or are you one?

>>521319614
Christ forgives evil.

>>521319775
Unless it's blaspheme of the spook

>>521319182
it presupposes that god is required for intrinsic value of human existence, or for any intelligent design, or that you need an initial cause when we can accept infinity in philosophical terms

if we grant you none of these your argument for theism doesn't work, morality exists independently of any god, so does the concept of moral platonism which is what your religion ADOPTS to make it work, both of which can exist within an atheistic framework as i've explained earlier with for example racial ideologies having moral absolutes that don't require a god and as i've said before morality evolved independently due to the need for a reciprocal relationship which promotes cooperation and as that can't be seen in a vacuum which invalidates the usual argument that theists make of >if x thing bad now but everyone agrees its good in the future is it good

>>521319035
No, it is not tomayto tomahto - it is speaking directly to definitions. "It will rain tomorrow" is not the same thing as "i think it will rain tomorrow".

You may say this is just semantics, but semantics are extremely important in an argument, else how would you know what your interlocutor is even talking about?

>>521319679
>The Amerimutt meme is not real.
Youre a mutt.
So angry and fat.

>>521319605
>Because you use the term atheist which is lack of belief in God or gods.
how does not using "weak atheism" instead of the academic form of atheism presuppose God's existence into the argument?
the syllogism is meaning atheism as strong atheism, or positive atheism, or "God does not exist"

>>521318594
Yes, as in objective compassion opposed to whatever nonsense a woman comprehends as such. Recognizing that suffering is an inextricable part of life, that all living things suffer, and conducting oneself so as to not shift or otherwise burden others with your suffering.

>>521319520
That guy is a jew. God's chosen. Why can't the god of objective morality choose better people?

>>521319834
>it presupposes that god is required for intrinsic value of human existence
it does not presuppose that, it argues for that.
additionally, that wasn't the allegation.
you and ghost of mesa were claiming that my premises presupposed to the existence of God.

>>521319828
>Unless it's blaspheme of the spook
So this resumes christian morality.
Wow.

>>521319933
>presuppose God's existence into the argument?
Again, this nigger can't read
>>521319542
>and your failed argument attempt to demonstrate why atheism bad, which then presupposes the opposite of atheism which is theism
Simple as