When I'm arguing with a Christian, whenever the subject of morality without religion comes up I always hear the same thing: "You can't be moral without religion because the morals you have right now are Christian morals anyway." What does that mean? What are Christian morals? Is there something unique about Christianity that somehow helped morality progress further?
That picture is pretty neat
>>1028603
Glad you like it. I'll drop some more for you, bump the thread in the process
>>1028603
>"You can't be moral without religion because the morals you have right now are Christian morals anyway." >What does that mean?
It means absolutely fuck all, as Christians themselves don't even follow the morality that supposedly everyone follows.
If you don't believe me, punch them in their face and see whether they offer you to punch them in the stomach as well. Or ask them how many possessions they posses right now and how much of their former possessions they've given to the poor for free
>>1028598
No.
Unfortunately most just pervert their religion to reconcile it with their worldly ends anyway.
>>1028598
well it caused sodomy to become considered immoral in the West and before Christianity only women had to stay faithful in a marriage; men could sleep around and do whatever they wanted. so really christianity only had huge effects on our views of sex
>>1028598
He means that if you were born in Saudi Arabia, you wouldn't think stoning over adultery was wrong, that the morals you posess have been molded with a heavy judeo-christian frame around them.
It's a bad argument though. Unless they could convince you to believe all morals are irrelevant and merely illusions. Which is absurd.
>>1028649
**convince you NOT to believe, dammit
>"You can't be moral without religion because the morals you have right now are Christian morals anyway."
I'm Christian and even I know this statement is bullshit brought out when someone has been backed into a corner during an argument and can't accept defeat.
>>1028649
Well that seems pretty convincing to me. You can argue Christianity provided the grounds for those morals to be accepted. Of course there is nothing "Christian" about those, some Far East religions take it pretty far for example but you can still make that point
Christianity is a shitty meme that successfully diverted the subject of morality to itself. In reality, christianity is not even a system of morals, it is a set of moral pronouncements that don't really add up or have any justification behind them besides "GAWD DUN SAID SO".
>>1028679
If you follow Christ's teachings on nonviolent resistance then the justification is world peace
>"You can't be moral without religion because the morals you have right now are Christian morals anyway."
Humans are social animals and the concepts of empathy and fairness are INNATE to us. Like chimps, only with more advanced social skills. The parts of western morality most associated with Christianity as opposed to something else (like, for instance, even other religions and systems of law that came before, all of which prohibited shit like murder), are the parts that make the least sense and are the most intellectually abhorrent.
>hurr durr drugs pull you away from god
>hurr durr gays r le devil
>>1028700
No, not really. The bible focuses embarrassingly little on the reasons for its moral pronouncements. To follow Jesus' example is to be holy, not to be helpful to human society.
>>1028630
And even then most western Christians don't follow their own bible.
I'm mean for Christ-fucks sake. They ignore the countless passages that state usury is forbidden.
There are millions of fundamentalist Christians in the United States that own a fucking bank account that charges people interest. Much less having 401Ks of companies that really wring people on subprime loans.
>>1028741
You should see the Jews.
tho
>>1028760
And they wonder why they lost their promised land.
>>1028760
The Jews got around money lending because the old testament said not to loan your own people loans at interest. So loans to Christians were fine and you could exploit them all you want (though some Christian monarch's defaulted and expelled the Jews).
That said... The new testament says no to usury as well:
"And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked."
—Luke 6:34-35
Christianity or this/that other religion is just a cultural mode for god contact and is as Essential to truth/beauty/love as a spoon or lobster tail
>>1028662
>Well that seems pretty convincing to me.
Well you're stupid so nothing you say matters anyway.
I could teach my son that 1+1 is 3 and not let him go to school to learn otherwise, but that doesn't mean it's suddenly true.
gg no re my man. GG no re.
>>1028741
charging interest on loans encourages people to give people loans, which fuels economic development. not allowing interest to be charged on loans is short-sited and simply bad economic policy. sure loans sharks exploit people but there is little exploitation involved in getting a mortgage to buy a house
>>1028792
>there is little exploitation involved in getting a mortgage to buy a house
>what was the 2008 economic meltdown we're still stuck in
>>1028792
>not allowing interest to be charged on loans is short-sited
nuh uh, allowing interest to be charged on loans is short-sited. Cause that's like a pyramid scheme and also the banks don't have the money they're supposed to have given interest.
It's all pretend money, it doesn't exist. Imagine you can't print more money, that gold was the standard again. Putting out interest on a loan of all the gold in the world would essentially be pretending to create more gold than what already exists, as an extreme example.
>>1028801
Nothing would happen if it wasn't for government interventionism.
>>1028801
that was due to banks giving loans to people who shouldn't have been approved, then packaging all the sub-prime mortgages into one big ball of shit and selling it, not the practice itself
>>1028792
As an atheist I agree, but you can't say you are a Christian and have a fucking bank account that earns interest from bank loans to people.
That is why you cannot take western Christians seriously. They don't follow their own religion.
To be fair, some Orthodox Churches has their own finance system in certain areas that actually follows these rules.
What I am saying is... Your arguments as a Christian are invalid when you don't follow your own rules when it suits you.
>>1028816
>you can't say you are a Christian and have a fucking bank account that earns interest from bank loans to people.
Dude, do you even know what Christ's sacrifice means?
The Old Covenant is fulfilled.
>Orthodox Churches has their own finance system in certain areas
That's choice as fuck though.
>>1028715
>(like, for instance, even other religions and systems of law that came before, all of which prohibited shit like murder
Which was not the moral norm. Read the Anabisis. That was considered the guide to how a soldier should act.
>are the parts that make the least sense and are the most intellectually abhorrent.
Like not leaving babies to die of exposure or watching female slaves get raped to death by animals.
>>1028818
>The Old Covenant is fulfilled.
Nice meme. Guess homosex, eating shrimp, lying and murder is a-okay now, christfaggot.
>>1028818
Didn't you read the part where the new testament also specifically says not to charge people interest as that is being wicked.
I mean for 1000 years almost the Catholic church punished Christians for usury because it was pretty well outlined in the Bible.
Yet sometime after the 1700's they conveniently stop following those rules because they'd rather be rich and still pretend to be good Christians. (Mostly protestants, but Catholic church eventually became money lenders too).
I mean both Mitt Romney and Cruz claim to be good Christians but they I'm 100% sure they not only have bank accounts that charge interest but shares in companies that exploit it.
>>1028598
For the religious morality is defined by it being objective. From this they go:
-God is the only way there can be an objective morality
-therefore the existence of morality in our society is the proof and product of God (and that this God is the Christian one).
Short answer you guys have different definitions
>>1028821
>Which was not the moral norm.
>Like not leaving babies to die of exposure or watching female slaves get raped to death by animals.
The fuck are you talking about? The earliest sets of laws prohibiting lots of shit like murder and stealing date back thousands of years before christianity.
>>1028598
Hammurabi's code.
>>1028841
I'm talking about how Rome did things
>The earliest sets of laws prohibiting lots of shit like murder and stealing
from a small subset of the population.
>>1028803
>Cause that's like a pyramid scheme and also the banks don't have the money they're supposed to have given interest.
your post is garbled nonsense. how is someone giving you a large sum of money which you then gradually pay back plus interest a pyramid scheme? do you even know what a pyramid scheme is? most people don't have huge piles of money lying around to allow them to open a business or buy a house. loans allow people to do what they otherwise couldn't. no loans means less investing, which causes economic growth to be stifled
>>1028835
>homosexuals
Extramarital sex isn't ok, and you can't marry the same sex.
>eating shrimp
Whatever bro, it's your life.
>lying and murder
Pretty sure Christ says something about loving your neighbor as yourself and how the devil is the father of lies or something.
So no.
>>1028837
Matthew 25:27
Parable of the Ten Virgins
like this thread am I right
>>1028638
These sexual views existed before Christianity. In Focault's history of sexuality he actually traces these ideas back to some early Roman philosophers and than identifies the first Christians who absorbed them, the Christians actually directed quoted the Roman documents.
The idea that there are moral ideas totally unique to Christianity is absurd. Morality is an evolving process that is constantly changing. New ideas do not simply appear out of thin air, they are always come from interpreting older ideas.
>>1028862
I think his point was that modern Christians refer to Leviticus when arguing against homosexuality, but ignore its not eating shellfish and pork rules.
>>1028861
>how is someone giving you a large sum of money which you then gradually pay back plus interest a pyramid scheme?
I constructed a nice little thought experiment for you that you completely ignored so I'll restate it.
Suppose we could take into account every item of value in the world, and then tally the total units of value for those items. I lend you the sum of that value at 5 % interest annual.
Where in hell are you gonna find the value to pay back that interest?
You can't, because the value of that interest is completely imaginary. You'll never be able to pay back that debt.
>>1028875
>that modern Christians refer to Leviticus when arguing against homosexuality
Well they clearly have no fucking clue what they're doing and are likely American Protestants so don't lump the rest of us in with them please.
Nobody ever seems to realize that gay sex is literally just fornication. Even less than that in a way, it's closer to masturbation than sex.
>>1028877
Not that anon but that makes the false assumption that growth can only come from from discovering existing resources rather than improving upon them.
Synergy is a legitimate concept.
>>1028877
this is completely meaningless. you've purposefully constructed it so you can't pay it back. let's stick to how things actually work in real life: I buy a business with a loan. the business makes a profit, some of which I pay back to the bank gradually overtime along with interest. what is the downside here? there is a net benefit for me, the bank and the economy as a whole
>>1028883
I thought of this, and can account for it.
Just add to the original loan the total value of any and all possible expansions to that value.
>improving upon them
Besides, the only real way of improving the value of capital is by using up other capital. Since we've already tallied all possible items of value their synergistic effects should have already been taken into account.
No way out man.
>>1028893
>you've purposefully constructed it so you can't pay it back.
I haven't constructed anything, I'm trying to show you how debt is make believe by use of an extreme example.
The "real life" ramifications of this truth will be made clear over a period of time wherein debt is slowly and methodically accumulated and massed.
Someone will realize eventually that the game is up and everything built around this structure will come down.
>>1028881
>my sect of a worldwide religion is holier than yours
>>1028895
>
Besides, the only real way of improving the value of capital is by using up other capital. Since we've already tallied all possible items of value their synergistic effects should have already been taken into account.
Synergy is 1+1=3, your analysis fails to accept this possibility. Combining these goods and services it different ways can create all new avenues of value. Think for instance the Poles discovering the process of refining kerosene, suddenly oil had a value, suddenly people could work at any hour of the day, suddenly new inventions that required a compact power source became viable.
Your argument just ignores this very real factor in our economy. New discoveries, inventions and combinations of goods and services as a matter of course create value far in excess of its component values
>>1028905
>I'm trying to show you how debt is make believe by use of an extreme example.
what exactly is make believe here? who is claiming that interest is added value? it's simply a system of getting people who have lots of money to give it to other people. the business example I gave is something you can see occur time and time again in the real world. of course this can be abused and you can get stupid shit like the 2008 crash. but that was due to banks giving people loans who shouldn't have been getting them in the first place, not because of the practice of giving loans
>>1028598
TURN A TURN
TURN A TURN
>>1028919
>Synergy is 1+1=3, your analysis fails to accept this possibility.
No, it's closer to multiplication than addition.
I said their synergistic effects should be taken into account.
>Combining these goods and services it different ways can create all new avenues of value.
No shit, that's what I said. Literally that you all any and all possible expansions upon that value.
This is a thought experiment, please think. Maybe imagine it's an omniscient being doing the calculations, who could know for certain the total possible value of all universal items of value in addition to the total synergistic value of their ultimate combination.
All the possible value in the universe, and then ask for interest.
It's absurd how difficult you're being right now.
>>1028808
Revisionist history isn't supposed to happen so soon after the fact familia
>>1028934
TUUURRRNNNNNN AAAAAAA
>>1028862
How stupid do you have to be to think love is a deterrent to murder? Especially in a religious context?
>>1028945
>The mustache
>>1028948
>deterrent
What the fuck are you talking about?
>>1028598
Most "Christian" morals cited are actually derived from pre-Christian Greek and Germanic sources and many regions (especially more remote and/or isolated ones, such as Scandinavia) kept their local flavor exceptionally intact on top of that.
>>1028965
Read the post i was replying to, you pittle turd.
>>1028950
It's so stupid, but I love it.
>>1028937
Im a different anon to the one youve been argue with I just came in at >>1028877 I dont deny things like fiat currency or fractional reserve lending to be clear.
>This is a thought experiment, please think. Maybe imagine it's an omniscient being doing the calculations, who could know for certain the total possible value of all universal items of value in addition to the total synergistic value of their ultimate combination.
In that case, then yes interest would be an impossibility. However when you start making these kind of requirements you are getting further away from an investigation into the nature of things and closer to fantasy navel gazing that obscures rather than illuminates.
>It's absurd how difficult you're being right now.
Coming from someone whose thought experiment requires taking a loan from a banking God thats pretty funny.
>>1028979
>obscures rather than illuminates
Not so, I've simply demonstrated that lending at interest when taken to it's logical conclusion is a simple impossibility.
At more realistic levels, you've only got to remember the truth that the system is basically unsustainable.
>>1028985
>Not so, I've simply demonstrated that lending at interest when taken to it's logical conclusion is a simple impossibility
Having literally "any and all possible combinations" being accounted for is not a logical possibility any more than those Utopians who base their society off of morally perfect humans. You've literally had to shoehorn omniscience into the equation.
>At more realistic levels, you've only got to remember the truth that the system is basically unsustainable.
Oh its sustainable but unfortunately in a way that produces misery and destruction. Until a form of total and desirable central planning can be implemented it will persist.
>>1029007
>You've literally had to shoehorn omniscience into the equation.
only to hammer the point through to a skullfucking moron desu.
The point stands even without divine intervention.
>>1028598
Christian here:
most of my fellows are actually wrong -- Christian morals are solidly aristotelian in character (I.e. focused on "final cause", or rather, striving to make yourself like a presupposed "purpose").
secular ethics are explicitly inverted from this principle -- they're based on the idea of developing yourself in line with where you come from (I.e. Aristotle's essential cause). think about the famous existential statement "existence precedes essence" -- that's the sum of secular ethics; that we strive from our origin towards what our origin demands.
normally, when Christians say "you can't have ethics without religion", it's because their ethical paradigm is aristotelian, and thus it is harder for them to understand how one can determine final cause definitively without God.
seculars like you are confused because your ethical system is functionally antithetical to theirs and needs no God.
just to leave with a thought, though:
one of these systems leads to the hight of civilization. the other leads to Nietzsche dying a syphillitic moron screaming about how power validates action.
>>1029047
>The point stands even without divine intervention.
It doesnt though as synergy caused by innovation allows for new value to be created. The only way to factor that in is to have a loan which could only come from an allknowning God that based the loan on every possible creation and combination.
How can you get around this issue without such a being?
Perhaps they mean to say that whatever morals you have are from a place of spirituality, which is simply a feeling of connecting to another presence, whether that be another human or 'nature'. Christ, as this individual may believe, was interested in teaching others how to open their hearts above all else.
Therefore, by this person's logic,, we're all Christian because if we are moral, we follow the teachings of Christ, whether we mean to or not... That being said, I'm not sure I agree, as it insinuates that compassion was taught only by Jesus.
>>1029051
Arent final causes rather subjective in their formulation and formed based on idealism rather than observation like other causes?
The one thing that always fascinates me is this whole claim that morality doesn't exist if it isn't objective. Morality exists whether or not it is derived from transcendent or water-tight inferences. That people have had certain values and expressions regarding conduct is beyond question.
>>1029051
>one of these systems leads to the hight of civilization. the other leads to Nietzsche dying a syphillitic moron screaming about how power validates action.
>falling for simplistic linear causal narratives
Oh wait you're an aristotelian, we can't expect anything insightful from you in the first place
>>1028798
usury is John Calvin's fault.
>>1029063
...which is why you need a god for Aristotelian ethics to work.
even Aristotle himself developed monotheism as part of his theories of essence.
>>1029051
If you don't realise that Nietzsche was a profound developer of Aristotelianism then I doubt that you have read either with any real depth. Nietzsche criticism of slave morality and his claim that he is an amoralist is actually much more interesting than a pathetic Christian could ever hope to realise. If you look at Nietzsche's ideal, you realise that it is extremely similar to Aristotle's virtuous man albeit with much more confidence and less moderate. A christian could also never hope to be an heir to Aristotle when your final cause is the non-existent life beyond the grave, Nietzsche's final cause is civilisation and the life worth living. Never will we have a noble society without the powerful as our model, if you look at Renaissance conceptions of life, you will see their influence in Nietzsche's writings. Just another pathetic Christian using ad hominem to attempt to dismiss the man who absolutely fucking destroyed your pathetic death-cult.
>>1029079
You mean like lumbering Nazi-era type experiment giants? Yeah
>>1029072
it's my final cause to tell you to eat shit
>>1029083
But that makes it seem like it was just creating divinity to dispel unpleasant or unobtainable truths
>>1029086
>final cause is the non-existent life beyond the grave
this is false, though. the final cause of man is to attain perfect communion with God in order to convey god's communion to the rest of the creation.
>>1028598
>When I'm arguing with a Christian, whenever the subject of morality without religion comes up I always hear the same thing: "You can't be moral without religion because the morals you have right now are Christian morals anyway."
that is a combination of two moronic arguments
>you cant be moral without religion
and
>ur a christian even if you say you aren't :DD
>>1029091
Which is finally achieved at death.
>>1029089
read metaphysics. he develops monotheism by observing the relationships between menial laborers, overseers and master craftsmen. each knowing more about the general and overall processes involved in a project than the next lowest, he conjectures that you could track backwards until you get to the thing which is perfect in all knowledge...which would also encompass the lower aspects, and thus be God.
Christianity even gives a shout out to this meme with the whole "I am the alpha and omega" thing.
>>1029094
no. it is achieved by living a virtuous life (at least, the non metaphysical aspects of it are).
not all of Christendom is billy Graham bullshit that focuses on the get out of hell free card.
>>1029100
...but where is the hierarchy he is tracing back to get to God? Also this analogy doesn't exactly work because people at the top of a hierarchy do know more about the overall processes but they know less about the minute details of the work.
>>1029106
That is not the final cause though. The ultimate end in Christianity is life beyond death, how can you deny this? All Christians agree that this life is merely a stage.
Aristotle doesn't attribute personality to God and his view of the Afterlife is fairly sketchy. In Aristotle the good life of the virtuous man is an end in itself. A Christian would never believe that life is an end in itself.
>>1029115
chapters one and two explain
>https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/metaphysics/book1.html
>>1029100
Is that a reasonable way to extrapolate such a understanding of the universe though? Why should that serve as the model?
Sidne note: did aristotle have any writings about the demiurge who would certianly fit this model?
>>1028598
yes there is.
chistianity managed to install a moral instance within the subject itself, rather than outside of it. Where people of roman or greek communities sacrificed animals or herbs collectively to satisfie their gods, christians dont have that option anymore.
jesus basically preached against this cult of the collective sacrifice and for a sacrifice of ones own body. That is why you hear statements like "jesus lives within your heart" or "love thy neighbor" or "turn the other cheek" or whathaveyou.
It is in fact the most cruel of gods, because there is no way of hiding from him behind collective rituals and also no way of satisfieing him whilst living on earth because the flesh is the source of all the evil.. You will be rewarded in the afterlife, that is what christians believe.
from such a perspective, morals take a turn for the extreme, because they are the connection with god, they are seen as sacrifices that ensure a good conscience. Christianity is a religion of self-loathing that leeds people to feelings of superiority, whenever they chastise themselves. it's pretty ugly. noone should subscribe to that.
>>1028875
>but ignore its not eating shellfish and pork rules.
Because those aren't valid.
Seriously, the whole "Old Testament rules validity" is the most important issue in the New Testament, and why it split from judaism.
>>1029132
the ultimate *purpose*, however, is communion between God and creation with man as an intermediary.
>In Aristotle the good life of the virtuous man is an end in itself.
And for the most part, a man communing perfectly with God and the creation would essentially be living a virtuous life.
>A Christian would never believe that life is an end in itself.
sure, but I would hazard that life is a necessity for meeting the goal.
>>1029143
Ten commandments mean nothing just like the shellfish laws?
>>1028649
Western morality is molded around judeo-christian values, our own cultures (lot's of them celtic, germanic and pagan) and ideologies like classical liberalism, socialism and democracy.
It's not a shitty argument, in islamic countries you don't have that mix of values, they praise order before liberty and theocratic rule over democracy. Here life and individuality is more important, hence the values of cooperation over conflict.
A gear isn't a machine, but a machine sure ha gears.
Anyway you can be non.religious and still have morals, obviously they'll be more about ideology and your own perception of life than pure spirituality or faith.
>>1028598
Christian morals are pretty flexible, once slavery was ok, then it was not and so on. In the end, pretty much every holly book has the same set of basic morals, which means it is a universal human thing and does not depend on a hypocrite interpretation of some bronze age books.
>>1029212
THIS THIS THIS
+9001
If moral evolved from Christianity why there is still Christianity? Checkmate.
>>1028598
What they really mean is that you can't get rid of moral relativism without god because there's no absolute authority on the subject otherwise.
