How would you respond to this, /int/?
ill fookin stab u m8
Dont judge any of Abrahamic religions by their followers.
All of them were corrupted by kings, mishnah writers, sheikhs, hadis writers.
having no religion often ends up in relativism or nihilism. If there is no relative truth (which would be easy to assume if you think there is no god) then anything goes.
Even the atheist has to acknowledge that some things are wrong beyond the need to reason the why. It is more difficult to argue why our instinctive knowledge of what is wrong sprang up out of human evolution than it is to argue that it came from the divine.
but I am sure I will get a euphoric image response on what I just said
>>56452741
Nothing is inherently wrong according to some universal moral compass, but we have been taught to act for the gain of the community over the gain for ourselves, most of our commonly accepted morals stem from that sentiment (don't steal, don't lie, don't kill etc.)
I'd consider myself a moral nihilist, I still act in accordance to moral norms because society as a whole works better when we all try to, but I acknowledge it doesn't really mean anything except to the people around me.
If I steal from my friend I don't worry about going to hell, I feel bad because my friend and I have unsaid agreements not to do shit like that to each other to maintain a precedent of good behaviour and respect
>>56453569
but if you adhere to a sense that nothing really matters or that everything is relative. It is not entirelly immoral to sacrifice someone else to achieve a noble goal. Let's say like, sacrifice a couple of million chinese to achieve a noble socalistic goal. Or kill a couple of innocent muslims in pakistan to kill a couple not so innocent terrorists living near. (even though that is now done by obama, a religious man).
If there are no stated fixed morals anything goes as long as the result is a-okay.
Most people need religion to control their more base impulses.
I dunno. There's tons of cases of ex criminals going straight after finding religion. Even Mike Tyson who was basically a vicious murderer eventually found peace when he joined Islam.
>>56454183
If you're a vicious murderer I don't think converting to Islam is going to help you become less homicidal.
>>56452507
I would respond with
>morality
>real
In fact I heard that Islamofascist groups are trying to convert prison inmates in the US and other countries.
>>56452741
>relativism or nihilism
They're the same thing m8
>>56452741
>It is more difficult to argue why our instinctive knowledge of what is wrong sprang up out of human evolution
Actually it's really easy
imagine a tribe where everyone stabs each other
this tribe doesn't survive
repeat with every other moral laws such as lying, stealing etc
generosity on the other hand is a bit more tricky, but generally it's admitted to have appeared as a way to show dominance and a way to court
i can get you the sources if you want
>>56453844
That's not true. The way you go about securing success sets a standard for how success should be secured in the future.
You kill a couple million Chinese people for something as subjective as 'appropriate political system' then when the next guy that disagrees with you tries to exterminate you, you have nothing to stand on when you say 'hey stop brah'. It's all about setting a standard for social and respectful behaviour to keep the cogs turning smoothly regardless of the absence of divine punishment if you choose to be a dick.
Atheists agree that we all work better when we're not killing each other, and they don't need God to tell you that there will be obvious social repercussions if you go around stealing lying and killing.
I fucking hate nihilists. Whole thing is just an excuse to live like a fucking dog without any real meaning or purpose.
>>56452507
incoming nihilists
>>56452507
Those who cannot be moral without religion should be killed.
>>56452507
it's not determining right from wrong, it's setting the bar at what right and wrong are
in a world pre-dating religion, there was no moral code, there were no niceties and generosity, there was just survival and the what you had to do in order to achieve survival
it was a godless, brutal and chaotic world.
without religion, there would be no foundation on which societies would determine what is right and wrong
>>56454629
>he isn't religious yet thinks morals are a real thing
Spooky
>>56454574
Why do I need to create fake and laughabale purpose? That's silly and unrealistic.
>>56454330
>>56454446
Can we please stop this myth that Islam=Wahabism?
>>56454495
it's not so much about divine intervention or the fear of hell that play a role as most atheists agnostics seem to think it is.
It is more the acceptence that some things are just wrong, in such a way that it is impossible to argue with it why they are wrong.
so called self-evident truths.
if you let go of the idea that there are self-evident truths, as I believe (and some might argue with that) you need to do to become atheist. If you believe in nothing you also believe there is no particular order that decides what is right or wrong. If so, you let choices of right and wrong be rather "relative" to each other. What is right to one might be wrong to another but both can argue about right or wrong because there is no moral standard.
>>56454629
>Those who cannot be moral without religion should be killed.
see? this is what lack of religion does to an individual
so lacking in moral fibre, he deems someone who is unable to be moral should be killed, rather than educated in an institution to find out what is right and wrong
>>56454790
that makes sense desu, China is pretty non-religious, since Mao purged all religion from its land
>>56454693
You will be among those found dead after the Massacre of the Immorals.
>>56454666
>in a world pre-dating religion, there was no moral code, there were no niceties and generosity, there was just survival and the what you had to do in order to achieve survival
source ?
>>56454823
also non-wahabs can be quite cruel, Iran is obviously not Wahabi since it is shia. But they still support hezbollah
>>56454848
There we go. Fucking another man's b-hole isn't bad because religion said so, religion said it's bad because it is bad.
>>56452507
Shinto does not have the doctrine
>>56455011
Shiism is sameshit as Wahabism. The guy who imported Shiism to Iran (Shah Ismail) ended up killing over a million people.
They're both dangerous, extreme forms of Islam and both vehicles for Saudi and Iranian imperialism in the Middle East.
>>56455021
now that's what i call quality argumentation, USA.
>>56455011
Both sunnis and wahabis are non muslims.
There is no forcing in Islam.
In fact hadisist nazi sect destroyed Islam. Umar burned down all hadises and sunnah books.
Its hadisit evils like Imam Shafii who made up stories about Mohammad being pedophile because sultans wanted to marry infants and have pedophilic sex.
>>56455191
Wahabis=shiaits
>>56455191
Well, Kazakhs are Turkic and Turks have never been hardcore durka durkas anyway; they're a laid back bunch who prefer drinking wine and fucking harem girls. Wahabism is an Arab thing and Arabs are a very stern, no-fun allowed culture because they're Semitic and Semitic people are like that (see the inane number of rules that Orthodox Jews follow).
Afghans are also very extreme Muslims however they're a no fun allowed culture as well because Afghanistan is a very impoverished place and life is harsh.
>>56455272
uhm... aren't the wahabi's the ones that want to destroy all mosques planted on graves of people that are holy to shia's? I assume that you as a kazakh (and I guess a non-denominational muslim, since that is big there I guess) know more about islam, but I still think you are very wrong in assuming that both are the same.
>>56454848
>>56454848
I'm not sure if you're saying I should let go of, or hold onto the 'self evident truths'.
I base right and wrong off whether it benefits me or the community, and if it benefits me, I check whether it comes at the expense of the community (it's not as literal as it sounds)
Moral nihilism is only dangerous if you don't have any desire to keep society functioning, if you're merely acknowledging that morals are a social construct but still adhering to them out of genuine goodwill for the people around them, I don't see the problem really.
Seems stupid to me. Different nations often have very different ideas about morality and ethics. Does that mean that some nations lack common sense/empathy?
Common sense is formed by the culture around you, and empathy is limited.
>>56455120
desu you and i both know that a world predating religion also predates written text, and that the scenario I implied was pretty sensible
>>56455385
No, semitic people is not like that.
Arabs first found out evidence of evolution not biological but geological evolution.
Quran is not against human evolution theory. Its written that human was created in seven steps
>>56455417
I didnt mean both are same i wanted to say that i wrote it wrong, i wanted to write shiaits instead of wahabis.
Wahabism is sunni arabic nationalism
>>56455435
hold on to of course. Nihilism holds in itself a danger that at some point in time a group of people , or even just a couple of individuals can be safely done away with for the "greater good". Such as forced labour or even death for those that are seen as unwanted.
I am not denying this cannot happen in religious societies, but at the very least it happens more easily in those societies that abandon religion and it's self evident truths alongside it. Nations like Cambodia where people were being murdered in order to gain a new society.
>>56455640
Just as Shiism is Persian nationalism. Which is why Obama is the king of all morons. His reasoning seems to be:
>SA is funding terrorism and exporting Wahabist propaganda
>therefore shift the balance of power to Tehran
Without taking into account that Iran is doing literally exactly the same thing and it amounts to putting down a bowl of vomit and eating a dog turd sandwich instead.
>>56455458
French anarchists from the 19th believed that the fundamental nature of man was social and moral and that the world before society as we know it was a moral world, and that we should thus return to that world by destroying society (or that's what i understood). I don't know what exactly their justification was but it goes to show you can really say anything about these obscur times.
>>56455642
>Nihilism holds in itself a danger that at some point in time a group of people , or even just a couple of individuals can be safely done away with for the "greater good". Such as forced labour or even death for those that are seen as unwanted.
I don't think that the only thing stopping people from doing this is moral conviction. Like I said earlier, if people did things like this then the standard of respect and treating others how you'd be treated goes out the window. I don't think nihilist and willing to forgo that, and I think you also may have it in your head that nihilists are sociopaths or something.
>morals
well spooked my friend
>>56455877
>French anarchists from the 19th believed that the fundamental nature of man was social and moral
Oh boy were they wrong. Voltaire used to believe this as well until the Lisbon Earthquake in 1755 when he admitted "After all, there really is evil in the world."
>>56455642
Also people being murdered for the greater good, even if that's something that nihilists wanted, it isn't exclusive to nihilism. Can you say for sure that nihilism is why people were being murdered in Cambodia?
I think most people are not inherently good. Get rid of the police for a day and you'll see just how "good" we all are.
>>56452507
nothing to respond to, it's true, religion does not hold a monopol for morality and people who think that it does and without religion the world would be immorale are tools
you can post hats now
>>56455941
I am not saying that they are sociopaths, I am sure they are nice people. But I just hold to the conviction that one needs morals in order to maintain sane and humane. If the proverbial shit hits the fan there are always moments in which taking away the rights of another person seems "okay" or even "right" in some moments.
You should not forget that this adagio: "treat others like you would want to be treated" is treaded each day over and over again, and our democratic systems are based on the whole notion that is is okay for some people to have to contribute more to society in order to benefit society as a whole more.
>>56456086
I am not attacking nihilism alone of course. Relativism, communism (yes you migh object to me putting that in the same list but for me I feel that way). All these ism's that hold true the idea that anything goes as long as the end result is okay are for me incompatible with the idea of "self-evident truths" the idea that there is a moral that is so obvious it is not reasonable to even discuss it's obviousness.
nihilism fits into that because maybe it does not hold so much that "ends justifies the means" is a good thing, but it does hold that it is not evil either, because nothing really matters. And I object to that.
>>56456492
That makes sense. So what you're saying is that while nihilist aren't inherently evil-seeking shit stirrers, there's one less safety net to stop them from resorting to selfish and 'immoral' acts if they were forced into that kind of situation? I wouldn't disagree with you there. I don't know if that justifies a mistrust of nihilists, although thay being said moral nihilism is the kind of thing I keep to myself irl and I probably wouldn't get along with anyone who proclaimed it openly.
You think any of the people in a gay leather parade attend church on Sunday? That's what happens with people who don't believe in anything bigger than themselves.
>>56456938
ALLAH AKBAR
ALLAH AKBAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR
BOOM
>>56456938
Yes, i knew alot of crackers, gays, criminals who visits churches, mosques.
Institute of church/mosque is artificial made up by kings to control people.
Why would a non sinful man visit church?
>>56457137
Do you think though that they actually believe in their religion or that it's not just a cultural thing for them. I mean, all those pedophile priests were...but do you think they were real Christians? I don't.
>>56456938
>That's what happens to people who don't believe in amything higger than themselves
They wear leather?
'They're bad because I said so' isn't a real argument
>>56457281
>Religious people that do bad things aren't 'really religious' but other people who do bad things do so because of lack of religion
Come on
>>56452507
>How would you respond to this, /int/?
Like this
Many atheists seem to think moral realism is obvious, and easy to prove. I disagree.
Consider the claim moral realists are making. They generally claim there are invisible properties in the world not detectable by our usual tools of science, properties of an entirely different sort than the usual “is” facts of science.
These are mysterious “ought” facts, and there is great disagreement about what they are or how we know them.
Now that is a strong claim.
An extraordinary claim, we might say. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right?
So what is the atheist’s extraordinary evidence for this claim? Usually, it’s something like this:
“I experience a world of moral facts. I feel very strongly that rape is objectively wrong, and charity is objectively right.”
“Almost everybody believes in moral facts. It’s just obvious. Until you can prove there aren’t any, I’m justified in believing what people have always believed: that some things are really right or wrong.”
Do those arguments look familiar? They should.
Atheists are skeptical of these arguments when given for the existence of God, but they are credulous and gullible toward these arguments when you replace the word ‘God’ with another mysterious thing called ‘moral facts.’
>>56457281
Jesus never established instute of priests or church.
Praying i.e. speaking with God is very intimate thing, and you dont need to visit church or mosque for that.
>>56457371
>>56457286
And we appear to have summoned that Aussie faggot. Good jerb.
>>56457371
>Religious people that do bad things aren't 'really religious'
They wouldn't be religious if they didn't follow their religion's commandments. :^)
>>56452507
that's pretty simple-minded imho. "common sense" is a meaningless term, so i'll just ignore it. empathy? nobody really "lacks" that but, without faith, everything is permissible
if you really believe that we're all just a bunch of biochemical meat-bags, biding our time in a meaningless, empty, value-neutral universe until we die and are shoved in the ground, then why not murder and rape people? murder and rape are fun, after all
fedoras are so fucking stupid. they think they're innovating something new by their atheism, but really they're just regressing to a primitive state. it's like saying "hey, maybe the wheel wasn't such a good invention. let's get rid of it"
>>56456868
I am perhaps sometimes confusing relativists with nihilists so forgive me if I make a philosophical mistake in the distinction between the two, but both carry the danger in argumenting away the righteous (saving a person) and the unrighteous actions (cutting of ones genitalia) through the lens of A. it does not matter since we are all specks of dust in an empty nothing or B. everyone sees right or wrong through his own lense who am I to judge.
If everything is relative or does not matter then what is right? and more importantly, what is wrong? If I would kill a random stranger on the street a relativist could not tell me whether it was truly right or wrong because there is no truly right or wrong. I am not saying people will do that, of course not, but once shit hits the fan, and maybe one day it will again, big time, you need a static philosophy to keep being a mentsch instead of a savage.
First they say that, later they go on fag parades and oppose women who want to be housewifes
>>56457385
Atheists are the ones that supposedly don't have morals m8
>>56452507
A good point, but consider the following.
>>56457582
Same could be said for the Christian priests who mollest children.
>>56457604
Good point. Soviet communism tried to abolish religion and entirely create a society based around science, but ultimately they removed people's humanity and turned them into automatons with no purpose other than to produce and fulfill the five year plans.
>>56457691
>ROMAN priests who mollest children.
fixed that for you
find me ONE story about an eastern orthodox priest who molested a kid. just ONE. i'll wait
>>56457767
Orthodox clergy can get married, you know.
>>56457767
There are alot of I even have one orthodox priest with his nude photos bit i will be banned if i will post it.
Here enjoy "followers" of Jesus riding luxurios 100.000$ cars.
https://youtu.be/lFZ3bSlCER8
>>56457767
All of them are orthodox priests
https://youtu.be/UgBwyEpHOg4
>>56457860
yup, i know. i'm orthodox
>>56457898
>There are alot
>posts no links to any of them
oh no! they have a nice car! those monsters! are you for real bro?
>>56457898
I know...a Montenegrin poster on /int/ said that he's jealous that Catholic and Protestant churches actually seem to care about charity and helping the less fortunate because over there, when a flood or something happens, the priests just ride around in a jeep with a megaphone yelling that it was God's wrath because of the gay bar in town.
>>56457975
wtf am i watching? i don't speak slav
>>56458092
Drunk and cracker orthodox priests.
Btw criminals with money can avoid line ups queues in orthodox churches if they give money to priests
>>56458017
You are slav you have to know.
Or typical immigrant syndrome shat your brain? Like supporting your shitholes dictator sitting from us???
https://m.lenta.ru/news/2015/05/05/grozovsky/
>>56458182
>Btw criminals with money can avoid line ups queues in orthodox churches if they give money to priests
proofs?
>>56458329
>You are slav you have to know.
i'm not. i converted to orthodox, i wasn't raised in it
>>56458499
Here pedophile orthodox priests catched red handed.
I will try to find english source everything is in russian you wont understand it
https://youtu.be/GPwV3JQJa60
>>56452507
Permissiveness can kill morale and society. Also moral at different ages is different.
>>56458684
well, even if it does happen i'm sure it's much more rare than it is in the western church
>>56458772
Google " Andrey Kuraev, gay lobby in orthodox church"
>>56458752
>tel aviv, 1969
russian jew detected
>>56458802
i don't care about gay rights, that's a separate issue. we were talkin about child abuse
i know to you guys, there's no difference between pedos and fags. your word for both is "pedoras" i believe. but in the west we consider that there's a big difference
>>56458907
What?
Andrey Kuraev is an ex high ranked orthodox priest and PR manager of orthodoxy.
He exposed gay priests who abused little boys in that church and church school and he was fired
>>56458907
pederasty is a male on male pedophilia, peder and all other words are derived from it and used for all homosexuals
considering NAMBLA is a thing, it's not far away from the truth
>>56458907
Pedoras is originally pederast and the noun is pederasty.
Its just illiterate idiots like to niggerize words
>>56459037
pederasty began in ancient greece, but the greeks disapproved of gay relationships between two adult men. it's never been "the same thing." an adult fucking a kid always changes the whole ballgame
>>56452741
Your fuzzy intuitions regarding the metaphysical characterization of "objective" in this case are insufficient. The Objectivity of morality simply means the probability that some action will yield another one given the presence of X variables. Ex: I will be happy if I donate to charity. I'm assuming happiness is something to be desired, and donating to charity will increase the probability of this. Thus, if we were to draw out some axiological scale of value, the moral value of that action can be quantified.
No, you don't need theism for morality to be objective. Btw autocorrect on phone
>>56460751
for some reason I can't help but notice you are a reader of Rand, am I right? It sounds very much like the philosophical buildup she has on the subject of charity. I do not presume to know a definite answer on the question of what is right, I think nobody really can do such a thing, though I have a certain feeling that some actions are more right than others. My interest falls more into the area of what is "wrong".
Holding that there is no supreme lawgiver (whether that is god, allah, tian or tengri) you are left with the conclusion that nature itself gave us what there is, our humanity and all the conditions attached to it.
It is very common I think (and again some might disagree), that atheism often descends into nihilism or relativism, since the more we know about the universe the more it seems there is no real goal, or standard. And therefore it is really difficult to say that some things are "wrong" because the intricate workings of the universe does not seem to offer us a glimpse of that what is wrong. the so called famous "dance of the dna" by dawkins.
Those atheists that do hold that there is a moral understanding of wrong often throw their hands up in the air after some debating over the actual root of wicked acts because there is really no evolutionary reason why we should behave moral, and in fact many societies (tribes) in the state of nature would often not realy care to kill and loot for their own benefit or the benefit of their tribe. I think it is far more comprehensible to hold onto an idea of the divine to give us an understanding of why we people in civilized societies do have an idea of evil, even though we cannot really get to the bone of why that is.
>>56461451
>there is really no evolutionary reason why we should behave moral
dieing
>many societies (tribes) in the state of nature would often not realy care to kill and loot for their own benefit or the benefit of their tribe
i'd say most of them
which is normal, the evolutionnary reason for morals of course ensure the survival of your own genotype which only comprises your tribe or close family, which is why battles between tribes and murder are common and acceptable
furthermore this is common between "evolutionnary moral" or whatever you can call it and religious moral, for exemple the old testament justifies killing someone of another religion, aka someone who shares your memetics which is also governed by evolutionnary laws like survival of the "fittest" etc.
>>56462877
yet in our modern societies we do not kill those who are "different" than us, the only cases that this happens is when there is a government who has very much wedged itself away from the idea of moral standard and has taken an "everything goes" aproach to governing.
It would be beneficial for a certain group to see the destruction of another yet I do not believe many in our current world today would argue for such a thing.
>>56454790
jesus fucking christ on a bike if that was a white country the driver would save the kid and then kill himself because he couldnt live with the knowledge that he hurt an innocent child. What the fuck is wrong with the lesser races
>>56452507
Morality is subjective
>2016
>not being determinist
You're a meat robot. Why are you arguing about morals?
>Morality is subjective
>>56463806
>>56464089
you would say different things with that guy's sword between your ribs
People aren't inherently good and only a small percentage of the population can truly think for themselves and think critically.
What you define as common sense is the fruit of religious leaders and philosophers. spreading their messages until they were firmly engraved into society.
Your empathy is a byproduct of culture and your parents teaching, which was again created by religious leaders and philosophers.
Humanitarianism is effectively a spinoff of the abrahamic faiths and some Greek/Germanic philosophy.
I don't even need a vagina to be raped by Muslims.
