How would you reply to this, /pol/?
>>67659638
It's true.
I would post le fedora meme.
The tone is a little too fedora-tier, but I agree with the general sentiment.
>>67659638
Don't need a fedora or dependence on supernatural forces to build your own principles grounded in logic and tradition
>>67659638
What if I only dont have empathy for niggers
https://soundcloud.com/couchtruthing/emperor-trump
>>67659638
According to common sense, women shouldn't have the right to vote and should remain in the kitchen. 1.3 billion people can't be wrong.
>>67659638
What is there to reply to? Did you think /pol/ was necessarily religious let alone christian? I've only ever heard christians state the converse of this.
I worship the woodsie lord, personally.
I would tip my fedora because I agree.
You don't need religion to tell you that murdering and stealing are degenerate.
>>67659638
>>67659638
Empathy and common sense are largely based on religious doctrine, whether the fedoras want to admit it or not.
>>67659638
Except religion isn't intended to give people a moral compass, it's an effort to explain the existence of EXISTENCE.
>>67659638
While it is fedora-tippy anyone who disagrees with the fact that it's common sense to know right from wrong is just being contrarian
>>67659638
good/bad is a social construct in order to control masses. there is no such thing. its all about interests and conflicts of interests. the smarter ones will get away, meanwhile the dumb will accept defeat with a "you did bad".
>atheists refuse to see the liner impact of christianity in history in relation to technology and medicine
>>67659638
Morality based on feelings is a very dangerous concept as feelings are mutable and with them the morality built on top of them.
God in Christianity is the source of all that is moral good and just.
So to say that you don't believe in God or that you reject God to some Christians means that you reject all that is good moral and just so by definition you can't be moral.
I'm not religious btw just trying to explain their point of view on it.
>>67659856
solid argument
>>67660581
What's the common sense reason that sexual immorality is wrong? What about shoplifting. I'm talking common sense not secular. Something any common person would just sense.
>>67659638
"If there is no God, everything is lawful"
If atheists are doing just fine morally, why are they okay with so many babies being aborted? Why do they encourage transgenders, polyamory, pedophilia, etc?
This statement would be a little less absurd if atheists weren't the most morally bankrupt people on the planet.
>>67659638
All morals stem from religious traditions. Without them there would be no concept of morality. Even atheist's morals stem from them. Read some Augustine
>>67661080
>shoplifting
"If I owned a store, I wouldn't want someone to steal from me, so it would be wrong for me to steal from them."
>>67661356
>why are they okay with so many babies being aborted? Why do they encourage transgenders, polyamory, pedophilia, etc?
Many don't.
Why do religious criminals exist?
Why does crime even exist in religious countries at all?
Why do religious people encourage all sort of bad things if "morals"?
>>67661637
But you don't own a store, and they have insurance.
>Mfw golden rule logic.
>>67659638
>religion explains why these morals are inherent
>atheists say that they are just "common sense" with no explanation.
>>67661926
"Bad" people exists.
>>67661926
Because some "religious" people are only "religious" because it's the norm. The same way many non-religious people are non-religious in non-religious societies.
Some are opportunistic.
>>67659638
Sort of true. The problem is that morality can change. That seems weird to me.
>>67660434
I'd say it's to experience the Other.
>>67661356
>white Scandinavian nations are smart enough to realize Man made religions are false.
>they have a great quality of life
> introduce dumb people
>everything becomes awful
So let's just kill the meme that Jesus or whatever flavor of the millennia is need to know what's good. Some humans are more human and less animal. Their cultures and societies would be fine without religion. Religion and culture are needed because most people are too dumb to invent culture on their own.
>>67660724
>Christfag forgot that pre-Christianity Europe was already all over that shit
>>67659638
Well, we have to ask the question: Where did our common morality originate?
>>67661080
If everyone was sexually immoral society would crumble because a monogamous relationship is essential to a stable family unit.
A stable family unit brings up children who are more intelligent and less prone to crime and more productive to society.
Time effort and money goes into every product that is sold. Stealing breaks the essntial social contracts that to get something you need to give something that the seller considers to be equally valuable.
If everyone stole it's easy to see why society would go to fucking shit.
Catholic here.
It's true, there aren't chosen peoples, but few chosen ones among all the peoples.
>>67662252
>pre christian europe used shit iron and bronze weapons until christian ones cut them to pieces
>implying they could have stopped the so call christian invaders with their "superior" tech
>>67661926
>Many don't
Its a slippery slope though, one that is easily observable. Its like saying moderate Muslims could never have extremist children. There are religious criminals because people are sinners, people get desperate, and people choose to ignore their conscience. Pro-choicers actually believe they are doing the right thing, big difference.
>>67660400
>being so autistic that you think religion came before empathy
>>67659638
Religion is philosophical foundation. Bad philosophy, bad person.
>>67659856
this
>>67659638
Well, you can't have objective morality without religion so, there's that.
>>67659638
You can't have the existence of objective moral facts outside of the subjective human mind without the existence of a god. Tell this faggot to go read some Kant or CS Lewis.
>>67659638
>CCC 1776: "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm
>>67662216
>The problem is that morality can change. That seems weird to me.
Morality is definitely cultural though. What's moral now wasn't moral a thousand years ago.
What was moral then isn't moral now.
What's moral in Britain isn't moral in many other parts of the world and vice versa. If morality was some universal constant set of laws you wouldn't see it changing.
You won't see the Pope or mainstream protestant institutions screaming for witches to be burned today.
>>67662866
>>67662838
DEVILS ADVOCATE
The falsity and improvability of religion does not justify believing in a "noble lie" just because it solves ethical dilemmas
>Pic related to what you get with no base framework for morality
>>67659638
Let people be happy. Rather have someone happy, well manered who goes to church everyday then someone who attacks the intelligence of religious people and just act like dick heads
>>67661080
How do you define sexual immorality? Promiscuity? Because the vast majority of people are not sluts
>>67662909
tbf most Christians usually opposed witch burnings because witches were superstitious though. It was often secular institutions doing it.
And that morality is cultural is part of why I think that without religion, morality is too varied and too quick to change.
>>67663035
>Let people be happy
This is the same attitude that got us GRIDS
>>67663149
The catholic church has written and studied ethics about this for centuries. The basics are save sex for marriage and procreation but within that framework have as much as you want just don't be degenerate with it.
>>67663008
You have to accept a set of fundamentally unproveable axioms as a foundation for any pursuit of knowledge. The axioms I accept are the ones put forward by scripture and the holy tradition.
>>67663307
*Christian institutions
>>67663322
What do you mean by degenerate with it? The overwhelming majority of people have sex before marriage
>>67659638
morality has nothing to do with empathy. The best morality is the one that builds the best society.
>>67659638
Atheists don't want to kill faggots so obviously they have no morals
>>67663459
> The overwhelming majority of people have sex before marriage
That doesn't make it right,sensible or good for anyone involved including the society
>>67663573
I am an atheist and I want to kill faggots.
>>67663588
Surely if the conservative elements of the catholic church were living better than everyone else people would flock to a way of life that involved chastity in droves
>>67663560
So you're a consequentialist. This thought has seemed to infect modern culture. I think the ends never justify the means and morality is a duty that must be upheld.
>objective morality
'no'
So your view of a perfect society is one where people who are unable to tell right from wrong on their own are not given any guidance they'll listen to, and will instead become criminals or psychopaths?
You know it's posts like these that makes me question if atheists really are so big on logic
confirmed liberal
>wants to do what is "right," doesn't care about the consequences on our society or economy>>67663765
>>67663857
subjectivism is bullshit and a liberal lie.
>>67659638
Most people don't have common sense.
>>67663333
Axioms need to be self evident truths.
Statements like "The sky is blue. Two non parallel lines must eventually intersect."
Any ambiguity or contradiction would also need to be immediately removed because it would mean your system is built on very shaky ground.
It's very silly to consider the scripture your axioms.
>>67663996
nice try, schlomo
>>67663923
I'm not a liberal. I'm a conservative deontologist. Read some Kant dumbass.
>>67663912
That's why God invented eugenics
>>67663765
I don't disagree that it's a duty. I don't think you're contradicting me.
This image is one of the biggest things that convinced me to try Christianity again
>>67659638
The problem is that objective morality doesn't actually exist. The moral nihilists are right. Ergo it's always a slippery slope leading to more and more degenerate behavior eventually once society becomes prosperous enough to absorb some of the negative effects. Forcing an arbitrary religious set of rules on people is the only way to stop it and even then that's been failing recently with more and more people rejecting religion.
>>67662731
It did.
Before religion morals were, as follows:
Don't kill offspring unnecessarily
That's it. Religion is the only reason to enforce morality.
>>67664115
Kant's categorical imperative implicitly recognizes the good of society as being the source of the duties.
The whole idea of universalizing a behavior across society is a test that weeds out behaviors that would collapse society.
>>67664070
What is a self evident truth? How is the existence of the outside world self evident? There's no way way of proving this. The only thing that is self evident is the self. The only way you can trust any objective knowledge outside of yourself is if there is a creator who created you to be able to experience objective truth. Have you read Rene Descartes or Alvin Plantinga?
>>67659638
You can have morals without religion, yes, but you cannot have objective morals without God.
>>67664129
Maybe. I just don't think that morality is justified by the outcome but by the fact that it's objectively morally right to do.
This is why the Government wants you to be an atheist /pol/
Whether you have empathy or not is partly biological, partly environmental.
>>67664464
> but by the fact that it's objectively morally right to do
This is circular. Good things are good because they're good.
It doesn't mean anything to simply say that something is objective.
According to kant, objectively bad things are things which tend to collapse a society.
>>67664296
Yes the whole act in a way in which you could will that everyone act the same thing. But wasn't that just a way to come to an objective moral truth through reason? For example, it might benefit a person to lie to a murderer who's asking where there family is, but that doesn't change the fact that it's imperative to tell the truth in all circumstances and therefore is the morally right thing to tell the murderer where your family is.
>>67664746
You may come to the conclusion that through reason things that are immoral collapse society but that does not mean that the ends are what justify the moral duty. Didn't believed in moral duty, not consequentialism, if I remember correctly.
>>67664328
>What is a self evident truth?
Something that can be understood and accepted without truth.
Two apples are less than four apples.
A finite object can be greater or equal to any of its parts.
You can't consider the scripture to be axiomatic. There is controversy in every single religion because they disagree on some issues so they split off into unique factions and denominations.
>>67660400
>Empathy and common sense are largely based on religious doctrine,
Complete horseshit. Go to Latin America. Everyone is religious, yet they threat each other like dogs.
>>67664978
*without proof
You can be moral without being religion, but religion is where all morals of modern society come from.
Also, religion does have an evolutionary benefit. Humans are generally useless lazy cucks who dont like to do much, and telling them that they need to reproduce + do good things for society + generally be a good person helps the human race in the long run.
I mean, murder is wrong, but how can we say murder really is wrong? Who said it, and why is it wrong? I mean, in reality your just smashing a collection of cells, right?
>>67664282
even before religion only autists like you completely lacked empathy
only manchildren need to have their empathy dictated to them
>>67664779
He may have INTENDED to come up with an objective moral truth through reason, however, the test he comes up with is one which prioritizes the good of society.
I.e. all behaviors which would destabilize society if too many people practiced them are bad.
That's what his test actually says. He might have thought he had pulled goodness from the ether, but he's actually giving a mandate for a stable society.
>>67665004
I see where you're coming from. Would it be axiomatic to accept the fact that there is an unmoved mover that is the source of everything, as in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas?
>>67665125
but if I remember correctly he didn't say immoral things were bad for society, but that they were illogical. I think there's a reasonable difference between the two.
There's nothing self-evident, other
than the evidence of self,
which in turn is biased.
Some people do need it, some people don't.
Can't people just fuck off and leave each other alone?
>>67664954
He did believe in moral duty, he was under the delusion that there was some other reason to follow these laws.
And I agree: You should follow them because it's your duty. However, it's your duty because it's for the good of society.
It goes without saying that people have a duty to be moral. That's what moral means. "What one ought to do".
The question is, what behaviors correspond to what one ought to do?
>>67665078
thats true
>You shall have no other gods before Me.
>You shall not make idols.
>You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
>Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
>Honor your father and your mother.
>You shall not murder.
>You shall not commit adultery.
>You shall not steal.
>You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
>You shall not covet.
Source: Bible
i guess we have to argue more?
>>67659638
You don't need religion to have morals. HOWEVER, you do need religion to not go on a homicide killing spree. Like if I 100% was a hardcore atheist right now I would easily be the next Anders Behring Breivik. Like if and everyone else cease to exist when we die I am sure as hell not going to waste my life being dictated and bullied and held back by systems that I fundamentally disagree with.
>>67665252
>but if I remember correctly he didn't say immoral things were bad for society, but that they were illogical. I think there's a reasonable difference between the two.
You're right that these kinds of things were said by him.
It makes no sense to simply say "it is logical".
Any action is logical to do if one labels it moral to do so.
It isn't sufficient to simply say something is logical. Logical based on what premise? You have to have a premise before you can deduce a conclusion.
It's nonsense to simply say that an action is logical because it is logical.
Just read Immanuel Kant's "Categorical Imperative", and you'll know that religion is not needed for someone to have strong moral grounds and a civil behavior. Christians or members of other denominations may be quick to criticize atheists or other people for religion is what had brought them these things without their own individual searching of it.
>>67665577
You do realize that a vast number of atheists are agnostic on the existence of the supernatural, right? Like, I personally don't believe any of the established religious stories are facts, but I'm open to my assumptions being incorrect.
Anybody that tells you they know what is going to happen after you die is a fucking retard, Anon.
What's the basis of reasoning that supports that statement.
>>67659775
first post is always the best post
>>67659638
It's true but i can smell the neckbeard behind the post
>>67659775
/thread
>>67665140
I'm not a philosopher and I'm entirely uneducated on philosphy I'm just airing out my own pleb thoughts to the void.
Movement is inherently defined through time, i believe that it is axiomatic that time has some origin point. So the first cause could be axiomatic I guess?
I still don't see how that would immediately link a Christian God as the first cause.
For all you know maybe the mudslimes are right and Allah is the first cause. (don't they also make claims that allah created other alien worlds or somethign).
Anyway personally I'm agnostic. I don't reject the possibility that there is some creative force that purposely created the universe and even us but I don't really believe that any modern religion is right about who or what this creator is.
>>67659638
DELETE THIS......then behead all those who insult the Prophet
>>67659638
Sometimes I'm perplexed by Stirner, but every confrontation with the contemporary moralists makes me want to go ghostbusting.
>>67666321
I wouldn't, because it's true.
>>67659638
True.
But you need faith in God to be forgiven for inevitable failure to uphold those morals. We don't have the power to escape human fate alone.
"I receive not honour from men."
>>67659638
>>67666425
Forgot to add
>empathy
Literally muh feels.
I'm not trying to be edgy. Muh feels, empathy, ... are atrocious foundations for action. You may yell "appeal to Nature" at Aristotle and Aquinas, but I take their naturalistic moral theory 10x more seriously than any appeal to empathy.
>>67666425
well meme'd
>>67662329
Ape logic.
Some of them are pre-ape even.
It's called adaptive evolution.
>>67660186
>the worlds shittiest religion for the worlds dumbest fuckwits
>common sense
They're two completely different things, anon.
>>67665379
>Can't people just fuck off and leave each other alone?
We live in a society together so no
>>67659638
Empathy and common sense are religious constructs
>>67666507
pls remove this
What religion brings to the table is a set of practices and beliefs that's been developed and perfected over a long period of time.
Problem with atheism is that it's basically "make your own morals". You'll have people who have no morality b/c they literally think it's the right way to go and you'll have people who have some morality (likely derived from law) but are absent in others (from a lack of a certain law). Ultimately atheism is the worst because can you trust someone to make a perfect set of morals?
Problem with religion is that there isn't a specific one to follow, and even if there was one, people are free to believe what they want, so they might not follow what's best for them (or their society).
Ancient China practically had the world beat b/c their belief system revolved around having a healthy society and being a better individual. Then on top of that, you could believe whatever the heck you wanted.
>>67667197
see a doctor, you might need meds. Empathy is human, not religion
>>67659638
Feelings are subjective.
>>67659638
That's true but it doesn't change the fact that people are disgusting animals on the inside and all the best ones (by best I mean the greatest scientists, artists, warriors, and peacemakers) are religious and by extension have their morals based in religion.
>>67665078
>just a collection of cells
It's a collection of cells which gives rise to a sentient being whose experience of reality can be profoundly impacted by your actions, the objective of morality is to improve the overall subjective experience of all the sentients who exist or will exist. Murder is wrong because it dissolves one of these sentient collections of cells, which is profoundly immoral unless that person wants to die for whatever reason (such as painful terminal disease or persistent depression).
>>67667496
>kek
>>67659638
If there is no higher law then all things are permitted. Your reason can lead you to any conclusion, making any and every act permissable because morality is solely up to supposed rational thought.
>not going full opportunistic as an atheist
Retards like this totally exist. The christian ideology is so rooted in their subconscious that they don't even realize it.
>If everyone did something bad the world would be in shambles! It's common sense!
Who cares you exist for 80 years tops.
>W-well it won't make me feel good even though I would gain a lot by exploiting
Ideology in its purest form.
>>67668611
Sociopathic apologetics summed up in a single post (get help)
>>67661356
>Babies being aborted
You're supporting rape babies making the actual father a cuck, or having to be raised by a single mother?
>Encourage transgenders
Trannies kill themselves pretty quickly, all things considered. Let them sort themselves out.
>Polyamory
>Implying you wouldn't want several waifus
>Pedophilia
Come on, this is the most pedophilic board short of /tv/. Besides, so long as they don't act on it, it's fine.
>Atheists are the most morally bankrupt people on the planet
>What are jews, muslims
If you don't agree with this, you are literally fucking autistic.
>>67668908
Morality is objective and law is subjective. A rational is person is a moral person, and recognizes that in order for morality to exist, a higher natural law must also exist.
>>67668908
>>67669277
Also to clarify. There is a difference between the laws of men and a higher natural law, that is the natural basis for human morality. Humand law is subjective and can be changed whereas natural law cannot change.
>>67669646
No man, you don't obey the laws as they have been shaped in the last 30 years of human existence? You're a total sociopath!
>>67663760
And they do. It's called Islam.
>>67669855
>B-but muh whimsical moral principles
>>67669855
>You're a total sociopath!
Ah the Hitchens approach to debate. Just call someone names and imply that they're not very nice. You make your ancestors proud.
>>67660724>>67660724
>Christianity
>Technology
Pick one. Are you forgetting about the dark ages anon?
>>67670100
You really didn't get the irony ? Or this is bait, I dunno
>>67670100
He was being sarcastic mate. And so was I
>>67669277
You don't have to recognize law or higher natural law, you just have to recognize the simple realities of our existence: that we are a social species that live together in societies, once you recognize this obvious fact there are implications that flow from it, one of which is that the positive objective morality is tied inextricably with acting in a way that makes as much of the society happy, content, and not in a state of suffering as possible.
>>67670381
What does the period when Europe rose from the most backwater region of the world to a superpower bring to the discussion?
>spirit science
What an interesting field to study.
>>67666507
What is this supposed to be?
>>67670795
>rose out of it by resurrecting the pagan ideas from Greece and Rome
>Christians constantly try to take credit for it
Never fails to make me giggle
>>67659638
I reply by accepting it as fact, based on my own life experiences.
>>67670952
A Golden Age is usually the fruit of the period directly preceding it and the same thing is with downfall. But go on, keep on believing in ignorant peons who found a book by Aristotle and instantly started colonizing the world.
>>67667086
If that's true, then why do black people still act like animals?
>>67671664
Sure and you can ignore the direct correlation between breaking Christian hegemony, first through reformation, and then through outright disbelief, and progress and power.
>>67659638
Common sense has nothing to do with empathy and the purpose of religion is not to teach people what is right or wrong. Also morals are purely subjective.
>>67659775
Its not true though.
You are influenced by religion simply by the fact that religion exists, and you know some laws placed in those religions.
Man needs law and law starts with religion or belief.
>>67670761
Except that every reason you gave is all up to interpretation. And reduces human rationality to base animal instinct.
>>67670522
You shut your dirty clotted cream hole, with your English sarcasm.
>>67660186
>common sense
>>67660788
Interpretations of God's will are no less so.
>>67672101
>the firing of a pain receptor being received by the brain is subjective
Only if you don't have any knowledge of how nerves and human perception works, and ignore the clear response of the human involved. Just because a person has a "subjective" experience doesn't mean that experience isn't rooted in a foundation of objective measurable events that can be investigated for insight into an objective morality.
>>67672220
Base animal instinct is part of what determines our happiness, rational thought is another aspect of our minds that can be used to investigate and enhance our knowledge of morality based on the realities of our situation
>>67661356
Your post is a massive strawman. Those accusations of all atheists being okay with such horrible things are complete fabrication and you know it.
>>67671954
Reformation happened after Middle Ages. Western Europe was already powerful back then. Moreover, Renaissance started in Italy, not any of the protestant countries.
This is how the atheistic "progressive and scientific" Soviet Union was proving its superiority over religious United States. It was false then, it is false now.
>>67662329
The collective unconscious.
>>67672482
Can you elaborate on that? I'm genuinely intersted.
>>67663573
Ebin XDD
>>67661356
>>67659638
but you still wouldnt have absolute moral values, you're views as tot what's right and wrong would be prone to shifting and ungrounded, and you wouldn't be able to formulate a humanism without religion
It's simply incorrect. Morals don't poof out of nowhere so people have to get them from somewhere.
>You should be moral.
>Why?
>You should be moral for the sake of society.
>Why should I give a fuck about what society wants?
>Because you should be moral.
Secular "morality" is literally a circular argument and C.S. Lewis BTFO of it long ago.
>>67664282
>it did
It didn't.
>>67660331
there are people who don't have that embedded in them, and absolute value of human life is not held high by most atheists (just because a human is not born jet doesn't make him nonhuman)
>>67666974
Empathy is the base of quite a bit of moral theory.
>>67672770
Except that instince isnt linked to our ability to rationalize. And if happiness is the highest standard of morality, the would yoy consider any action to be permissable based upon the net happiness it generates?
>>67672837
And a big part of the Renaissance was rediscovering Greek and Roman writings and ideas and art forms, the reformation was a continuation of the diffusal of Christian power.
Every time a country moved away from centralized Christian power they did better, and every purely Catholic country was shit, the most watered down countries did the best (Anglicans in England) and the biggest most loyal Catholic countries did the worst and were stagnant shitholes (Italy and Spain).
Christianity was an impediment to success and power, and only after dramatic reform was it benign enough to work around.
>>67666507
DELETE THIS RIGHT NOW
>>67673590
Basically this.
Greater men have already addressed secular morality and taken it apart. But because atheishits havent taken the time to listen to anyone other that who they agree with.
>see Fyodor Dostoyevsky
>>67673277
I would but I'm on my phone, basically everything you feel or experience is grounded in physical or chemical phenomenon, and if you know enough about how these things work you can create an objective framework for morality based on how objective events affect sentient beings subjective experience. A good approximation of what I'm talking about is present in the book moral landscape (something like that) by Sam Harris (inb4 retards hate on him).
>>67670931
hes wiping his feet on the ancient stone building, located in the center of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, hence the trigger muzzies replying to this post
>>67660589
Interesting Machiavellian point. Yet, I also believe in the golden rule. Do unto others as you want them to do to you.
>>67673936
That depends on the alternatives available and how much direct harm you are doing, I'd argue that directly harming people in an effort to create happiness for others (even if the happiness is somehow greater than the harm), it is still immoral and I bet you could find an alternative that doesn't harm and results in greater overall happiness.
>>67672203
Well said. You cant legislate morality.
>>67659638
Religion trascends morals. A morally correct man going to hell is just another day on religion.
>>67659638
Empathy and "common sense" are not falsifiable. There is no equation for right and wrong. There is no scientific difference between the electric field generated by a computer and that of a walking meat algorithm, so aside from touchy feely sentiments of spiritual woo there is no logical reason to believe that permanently shutting down or damaging a human mind is any more inhernetly immoral than permanently shutting down or damaging a computer.
Prove me wrong science-fags.
>>67674357
It changes from person to person to an extent tho doesent it?
>>67674357
>muh right and wrong
>>67659638
Its not correct, but its not wrong.
Without a reason to accomplish anything, we would still be living in caves.
Niggers and liberals cannot fathom morality, and blame religous people because religous people shill morality more then atheists who understand morality.
>>67674357
>>67675027
Also meant to post WLC debating Harris and destroying his flawed logic on morality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq1QjXe3IYQ
>>67675018
Yes, but that's part of what you investigate. Let's say one person is into masichism and one person isn't. It's 100% moral for that masichists partner to participated in his partners fetish and hurt that person, but it's not moral for someone to do the same for the non masichist, because that person views it as an unwelcome intrusion.
Well this is all subjective right? Not really, because you can actually dig into these people's biology and find out that yes this masichist's subjective experience is improved by their fetish and here is why in the persons brain. Generally we can just take their word for it instead of experimentally digging into it, but the end result is that your and everyones subjective experience is created and affected by physical phenomena in your brain and body and the things that happen to you can be objectively evaluated and put on a moral scale based on this.
You may absolutely hate being slapped around a little, but in the right circumstances that masichist absolutely loves it, this means someone who slaps you around is morally wrong and the masichist's lover is in the clear, even though it's the same exact act.
>>67666974
Empathy and Sympathy are not the same thing.
Empathy is understanding. It is "walk a mile in their shoes".
Sympathy is mimicry. Like yawning after someone else yawns, or sympathy cravings when your mate is pregnant and eating weird shit. It is the herd mentality.
LEARN THE DIFFERENCE! ALL OF YOU!
>>67675525
>William lane Craig
Lol. Buckle up for circular reasoning and special pleading!
>>67674357
>If you know enough about your brain then you can determine what a system of objective moral values that is true
Non-sequitur. Look up the is-ought problem, and/or distinction.
>>67672203
But also a lot of laws we ignore for some reason, and that were also historically ignored by those religions despite appearing in their text.
>>67675877
This requires the unwarranted assumption that pleasure is moral.
>>67676221
More like buckle up for ad hom from atheists? kek
You guys realize that the good Samaritan wasn't a Christian right?
Obviously didn't have morality tho. derp
>>67675877
You seem to be presupposing that is immoral to act in a way that is unwelcome to another person. But what is your justification for this?
>>67676236
Not sure how that's a non-sequitur, if your brain is a physical system that determines what you experience, and you can investigate how things affect it, it becomes possible to objectively determine the things that make that experience better or worse. You claim it doesn't follow, but seems to me it absolutely does.
>>67676473
No it doesn't, it is an examination of a violent act that in most people elicits negative experience but in some cases wouldn't. In fact inflicting pleasure on people who don't want it is immoral and at no point in my post did I imply that pleasure in itself was inherently moral.
>>67676727
The words 'better,' and 'worse' have different meanings based on when, where, and who is using them.
>>67659638
It's crap ... i mean you need a moral barometer ... without that you would go crazy and rape and murder people.
>>67676983
but it's not moral for someone to do the same for the non masichist, because that person views it as an unwelcome intrusion.
This seems to be strongly implying that pleasure is moral.
>>67676587
Human beings are a social species
Human beings must live in societies
A moral society must defend a person from being subject to direct negative acts otherwise all humans will be subjected to these attacks at will or be in danger of attack at any time, which results in objectively less pleasant lives across society than if people were not subject to constant attack. At the same time exceptions must be allowed for (as in the case of the masichist above or for people who desire voluntary euthanasia, etc)
>>67676546
Arguments for theistic morality don't assert that religion has a magical quality that gives sudden moral revelation to whoever joins it. That's just a strawman made by atheists. Theistic moralism argues that God is infinitely good and knows what is moral for men. The Natural Law is a divine pressure on the consciousness of mankind (shame/empathy) in order to remind us of what is objectively good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A
>>67677490
This implies that the survival of the human species is a moral imperative.
If I were an alien how would you justify this claim to me using logic?
>>67659638
With sophistry.
Make a bold claim, trick them into fighting against their own arguement.
"Abortion is murder and should be punished with the death penalty"
"Thieves should have their hands chopped off :^D"
>>67677458
If you think that's what it says the. Have a great time miaunderstanding it intentionally.
If you actually give a shit though: the act is moral because it's welcomed by the recipient, not because it results in pleasure. Pain and pleasure aren't explicitly placed on the moral scale in fixed positions, though pain is negative enough that we can generally make rules against it as long as we recognize that not every instance is unwelcome.
>>67677490
Pleasure is an interpretation of certain feelings, and emotions. It is not a set of chemicals. It is possible that scientists may one day be able to measure pleasure, but you provide no justification for these moral propositions that you asserted.
Some people need religion, and other people don't. As long as your moral compass matches western values to an extent then you're fine in my eyes.
>>67678165
Why is pain objectively negative?
>>67659638
Empathy is the abstract ability to see things from another's perspective. Nothing to do with right or wrong.
>>67678165
Okay, but you still seem to be presupposing that unwelcome acts are immoral. Can you provide any justification for that?
>>67678609
I agree. I hate it when people say that empathy is necessary for morality. Empathy is an emotion, morality is a certain set of moral values, and beliefs.
>>67677615
Whats the point of questioning gods morality when he can´t tell men what is moral?
>>67677917
You can't justify social rules to a non social species, so why would I try? If we were a species of solitary hunters who lived alone there would be no basis for morality.
If you want to go that route, why would ayy lmaos care about your religious morality? And if you assume they "guessed right" and are whatever you are, why would they respect morality based on any of the other religions?
I'm not interested in defending my ideas to the death, I'm interested in having valid ideas that are rationally consistent, and that means accepting that morality has no basis outside of the basic reality of our existence: we are a social species with subjective experiences that can be better or worse based on objective events that happen to us, as social species we live in societies that make up a big part of what happens to us, and we can arrange the society in a way that results in the greatest happiness for the largest number of people, moving in that direction is "moral" and moving away from it is "immoral".
I wouldn't expect a tiger or a sociopathy or a non social alien species to recognize this as morality. Though I would be perfectly prepared to defend myself from any of the above since the welfare of society and the people within it is a moral imperative based upon this moral framework.
>>67678912
This. Morals are derived from universal truths (religious or not). Empathy doesn't mean anything; you could empathize with an ISIS agent and justify helping him chop heads.
>>67677615
How does God know what is moral, and what is not? Does something determine objective morality, or is it 'just is'?
>>67679224
Empathy may influence one's morality but is not necessary for it. Psychopaths do not have empathy, but that doesn't mean they have no morality.
>>67659638
> How would you reply to this, /pol/?
You could agree. What's the problem with agreeing?
Religion is rarely (if ever) the thing that motivates our inner moral sense: that's just something we seem to start out with. Of course religion can provide an explanation for our (mostly) shared moral sense; it might help us to clarify our moral sense on morally vague issues; and it might give us some additional motivation to do what we innately see as right, especially in the face of temptation to do otherwise. But it doesn't seem to be the source of any of that.
Of course you could hold this view and still be consistent in the belief that religious people are generally more moral, since religion often invites reflection on moral issues and, as with everything else, the more you think about certain things the better you understand them and the smarter you are about them.
go eat shit you fedora one world religion fag
>>67677201
I don't see how that affects my position unless you are assuming I think morality is black and white and there is neve room for exceptions
>>67679187
> If you want to go that route, why would ayy lmaos care about your religious morality?
I'm not the one claiming morality can be discovered through logic without spiritual influence. If objective morality can be discovered independent of religious influence then there's no reason to believe it should not be every bit as demonstrable as any other logical statement regardless of the species so long as that species is capable of understanding logic.
Saying "we're social creatures" doesn't cut it as that isn't a logical justification for ethical behavior, its merely justification not to get caught engaging in actions that would be considered unethical.
>>67659638
They are correct subjectively, but not objectively.
You don't need religion to have morals, but without religion there is no objective reason to have morals.
Without religion why would you live morally? Just cuz? Atheists here will act self-righteous and act disgusted that you imply that there is no reason to act morally without religion but it is an objectively true and logically sound argument.
>>67680077
No. The point is that using words such as those are so vague that they're practically, if not, buzzwords. You need to define your terms in a way that is useful. It's like if a stormfronter used the word "degenerate."
>>67678663
I had a big post to reply to this but my phone lost it for me, tldr; a society that protects its members from unwelcome intrusion into their person is objectively more moral than one that does not because unwelcome intrusion is viewed as negative by virtually everyone, which is again a phenomena that can be investigated and verified.
If the dun kruger effect wasn't real would religion still exist? There'd be no more people screaming at you over who has the best imaginary friends..
>>67680404
So it seems that you're asserting that something is immoral if it is widely agreed upon. It used to be widely believed that it was immoral to let defective/weak babies live, so was it immoral back then?
>>67680392
Which terms would you like to define? I can appreciate what you are asking for here since words tend to get molded into slightly different usages depending on who is using them (e.g. Moral in my usage means resulting in positive health/happiness etc for members of my society or in-group, whatever that happens to be, vs moral as used by someone from a religious perspective which can be defined depending on that religions teachings and beliefs)
>>67674913
What are the 10 commandments.
>>67673892
Such as?
Aristotle doesn't talk about it. Among the non Aristotelian, Descartes doesn't talk about it. Bossuet mentions it regularly for pathos effect but doesn't use it as foundation.
In his long book the foundations of morality, Herbert Spencer mentions empathy near the end.
Thinkers as different as Franz Brentano and Georges Moore don't rely much on empathy.
>>67676020
True but OP obviously meant empathy as I used it.
>>67680878
I recall that you earlier claimed that objective moral values could be justified, so what is your justification for using these definitions, as opposed to other definitions like "whatever is good is what god wants"?
I believe in God, but OP's pic is very true.
>>67659638
Without religion being introduced to humans we wouldn't have the morals and values we have today
>>67663322
>That quote
Christcucks were truly the original SJW's
>>67680267
Even with religion, it is arguably true that there is no objective reason to be moral.
>>67681387
In that case, I would have no problem with that. I would have no problem with no people believing that it is immoral to be transgender, or homosexual.
>>67680866
It was immoral back then and it's immoral now since people are inflicting a negative action on someone else.
You seem to be conflating people agreeing that something inflicted on someone else is ok with people agreeing that having pain inflicted on them isn't ok.
The fact is the vast majority of those babies if they could respond would say no, this isn't cool and I don't like it.
Regardless in both cases we can investigate the objective realities behind both situations and discover that yes, people don't like having pain inflicted upon them, and yes, little babies who are deemed weak do not find it a positive thing to be taken out and killed even if, surprise surprise, most of the people doing it agree that it's totally fine.
>>67681200
My justification is that defining morality in my way results in actual positive good for the people it applies to if it is applied correctly and honestly, whereas defining it as whatever God wants results in objective harm (such as when God murdered almost every man woman child and animal on earth, or the numerous instances of murder and genocide at his command, or the condoning of slavery, or the condoning of sexual slavery, etc.)
>>67660331
That's the problem. YOU don't. A minority of the people in this world are degenerate savages. They need to be manipulated.
>>67681774
But inflicting those negative actions were arguably positive, just by using your definition of moral, because it enhanced their army (I'm talking about Sparta).
Also we can't know whether a baby likes something, or not, objectively speaking, because it cannot be speak.
>>67682249
Which is still not a justification technically, just merely a matter of preference. But is still understandable nonetheless.
>>67678990
>Whats the point of questioning gods morality
Are you saying I was questioning God's morality? What are you saying?
>when he can´t tell men what is moral?
>implying
>>67679262
>How does God know what is moral, and what is not?
Omniscience and infinite goodness; things humans don't have and therefor, have limited understanding of morality.
>Does something determine objective morality
Whatever God says it is. Morality can't just "be", and neither can anything else, without God.
>>67659638
Tell that to Sweden.
>>67667607
Out of the remains of the Roman Empire came an apocalypse-fearing religion that did nothing but build churches and copy old scriptures and it wasn't until the Renaissance that people were re-attracted to philosophy and science. Oh how I wish we could back to the times of the Plague and the Spanish Inquistiton!
>>67681506
What are you talking about? He is against turning a wife into just a slut and tool for sex, but for love. Since when are SJWs for that?
I would argue that Pauline Christianity is the biggest reason why the West surpassed the East, because we value individuals for being "made in the image of God".
>>67659775
This
Statistics confirm that atheists are well behaved
>>67682958
Replying with the 'God is omniscient' is just equivalent to saying 'He knows because He knows.'
If something is moral just because God says it is, then such a reason is purely subjective, and arbitrary, and therefore, is not a justification.
>>67683181
>Statistics confirm that atheists are well behaved
Until they gain enough power to force Atheism on others... every single time
>>67683596
>Stalin, and Chairman Mao
>2 incidents
>Wow guise, clearly dere must be a pattern
>>67682502
There's no evidence it enhances their army, in fact it may have crippled them, since even lame or physically weak People can drive innovation of tactics or equipment, culture or trade, or any number of things that might give them a massive edge over contemporary competition.
Second we absolutely can discover if children find being killed a negative experience, since we can observe pain in action in physical phenomena in the nerves and brain, and having your sentience eliminated is pretty much the definition of negative harm since your self no longer exists (again here we have to make exception for people who want to die for whatever reason).
You could argue that a child isn't capable of really being unwilling to be killed, and you may be right (this too could be investigated though), but since the child is no longer using another persons body as life support, there is no moral justification to terminate it that makes any sense, and as with making rules against inflicting pain, the default stance should be to disallow infanticide.
>>67683596
>switching the topic from "the morality of individuals" to "ideologies being forced onto other people"
>>67683382
>'He knows because He knows.'
Nah it's "He knows, because He's God" God couldn't exist and not be omniscient.
>If something is moral just because God says it is, then such a reason is purely subjective, and arbitrary, and therefore, is not a justification.
You're putting God in human size and limits.
>>67683925
As well as every other communist country, and the French Revolution, and Mexico under Calles.
Honestly I'm willing to bet that the number of atheist leaders who massacred people is higher than the number of ones who didn't. Can you name any other religion that comes close to ocean of blood that atheist rule has spilled?
>>67659638
The United States is a Christian nation where rape and murder are illegal, good family values and a sense of community are encouraged
The middle east is a barbaric wasteland where a religion if hate dominates, women are treated as property and constantly raped, stoned if they're raped while married, you lose a hand for petty larceny and they "honor kill" children
You tell me
>>67682841
It's not merely a preference, it's looking at the output of systems in practice. Theology results in a mixed bag whereas mine would result in positive and sustained change toward maximal happiness (ignoring blatant misuse of both systems)
When you look at two alternatives and one moves you toward more happyness/prosperity than the other, you can choose the one that works better (of course I acknowledge my system is largely theoretical or halfway implemented in reality at best since it's basically science applied to well being)
>>67683181
They're also confirmed to more likely be autistic. Got proof?
>>67684788
Women were treated as property and constantly raped in the us too until a few decades ago, Christianity existed both before and after, your comparison is retarded
>>67684221
> having your sentience eliminated is pretty much the definition of negative harm since your self no longer exists
Why is this more immoral than bricking an i-phone?
>>67659638
Who needs empathy and morals when you have dank memes
>>67659638
What is right and what wrong?
>>67659638
I don't but society obviously do.
>>67684857
>Theology results in a mixed bag whereas mine would result in positive and sustained change toward maximal happiness
So you're ideal world is one where the entire human population is placed into a medically induced coma and kept doped up to the gills on heroin until the day they die?
>>67685076
tumblr, is that you?
>>67685076
Gonna need some sauce on that. Physically disciplining your wife is far different from controlling every move she makes. And I don't think it's been legal to rape for a very long time
>>67659638
Morality is more than empathy and common sense.
