>atheism >morals Choose one

irrelevant and unrelated

>>1779949
>no creepy pedo filename
nice try, nerd

>>1779949

>Morals
>Not a spook

Choose one

File: P5dacd6.jpg (75KB, 828x690px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 828x690px

>>1779949
All in a days work.

File: image.jpg (28KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x400px

What an awful person he is

File: 1471633982988.jpg (31KB, 315x499px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 315x499px

>>1779949
Nihilist here
Morals are a spook

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.’

I find it baffling how atheist claim they are "moral" or have "free will"
Which is nothing more than another abstract concept.

Pic related
It triggers "moralist" atheist

File: jXxsO9o.png (37KB, 870x545px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 870x545px

>>1779949

>Choose one

No.

>>1779949
Might makes right, anon-chan.

>>1779949
Social contract all up in this motherfucker.

>>1779974
>extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right?
No, just evidence.

>>1779970
Bill Gates follows Roman Catholicism.

In an interview with Rolling Stone, Gates stated in regard to his faith:

"The moral systems of religion, I think, are super important. We've raised our kids in a religious way; they've gone to the Catholic church that Melinda goes to and I participate in. I've been very lucky, and therefore I owe it to try and reduce the inequity in the world. And that's kind of a religious belief. I mean, it's at least a moral belief."

In the same interview, Gates said: "I agree with people like Richard Dawkins that mankind felt the need for creation myths. Before we really began to understand disease and the weather and things like that, we sought false explanations for them. Now science has filled in some of the realm – not all – that religion used to fill. But the mystery and the beauty of the world is overwhelmingly amazing, and there's no scientific explanation of how it came about. To say that it was generated by random numbers, that does seem, you know, sort of an uncharitable view [laughs]. I think it makes sense to believe in God, but exactly what decision in your life you make differently because of it, I don't know."

It is very much clear that Bill Gates works on Moral beliefs rather than on religious ones. His actions resemble those of a very religious person (he has donated more than UN for disease eradication and vaccination) and that's why he likes to side himself as a religious person.
In nutshell: His work seems to coincidentally follow the instructions of a religion that's why he calls himself religious.
He doesn't call himself religious because he works and follows the instructions of of a religion.

So the most you could say is that he's a skeptic Christian.
>Atheists btfo yet again

>>1779974
Not a moralist, but....aren't there like plenty of properties that are invisible to the tools of science? (whatever the fuck "tools of science" means) Like mathematical and logical properties? Are you a nihilist about mathematical properties as well? And do you generally believe science actually has anything to tell you about the reality of properties? Why not be a nihilist about scientific properties too?

Or are you only bringing up science because the typical atheist relies so heavily on it?

>>1780062
Prove "morals" and "free will" exist

>>1779949
I'll choose both. If you say I can't I'll kill you.

>>1780072
Turd.
>>1780062
^ This guy has a point even if there are no morals and no evidence. Their point was that extraordinary claims only require as much evidence as anything else - and that point is legit.

>>1780070
It doesn't matter
Nothing does

>>1780083
Not an argument

>>1780090
It doesn't have to matter to answer the question ya ding-a-ling

>>1780095
Actually "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not an argument. All I'm doing is helping to point that out.

>>1779949
atheism

that was easy

>>1780159
Who cares if they are a piece of shit as long as they are not raping and murdering children?

If it keeps them in line then all the better

>>1780165
this.

>>1780165
So then you admit that you don't need the threat of divine retribution to have morality.

So then what's the point of your post?

>>1780101
You are free to disagree with me
Just saying that nothing matters
I'm just giving my opinion.

I just find it baffling how atheist can reject one abstract concept only to be gullible towards another.

>>1780207
Most atheists just reject belief in God but still hold Judeo-Christian morals at heart because they are culturally christian.

>>1780207
Yeah it always confuses my why most theists arent omnists.

I never found the idea of religious morality all that compelling. Assuming Christianity (a safe assumption on an American board) or really any other Abrahamic faith, the idea of morality stemming from God (setting aside his horrific actions) renders the concept into something else entirely. It ceases to be morality (a tool for making value judgments on the world that is, and to determine what you desire the world to be) and just become a feature of God's existence, much like a physiological component. It's absurd, and pointless, because there's still nothing to objectively determine if his morals are better than any other (no, being powerful and creating the universe doesn't get around the fact that we're still only capable of subjectively perceiving reality).

>>1780231

You're not wrong, but prohibitions on stealing your neighbors weed-whacker or murdering his kids are somewhat universal.

>>1780070
Not him, but as a nihilist, I don't think numbers have any inherent external existence; they're just tools we utilize to our advantage. Further I don't think anything can be definitely said to be any particular thing: what is and is not is an entirely idealistic decision. Whether a sharp rock is a sharp rock or a stone axe or just some garbage is entirely found within the minds of thinking entities, not universal fact.

That said, you can still acknowledge the utility of abstractions while not considering them to have inherent validity.

>get taught to be a cuck
>get told it's called morality

religion

File: for-or-against.jpg (36KB, 600x206px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x206px

>>1780068

>>1780260

> I don't think numbers have any inherent external existence

Pretty hard to draw a 3 sided polygon in 2 dimensions and not have the angles add up to pi.

>>1780274
Yes, but even at that, the judgment of that sum as pi is just something born in our mind. The universe itself would have no regard of it.

>>1780292

Bud, depending on your views on creation, you are the universe having regard of itself.

>>1780306
What do you mean? Is this an idealism thing?

>>1780307

I meant that numbers are just short hand for external events or properties. Pi is one of those external properties.

Your post >>1780292 seemed to imply that pi is only noticed by thinking entities, i.e. people, but that the universe itself didn't notice. But since we're built out of the remnants of supernovas, we are the universe achieving sentience and taking notice of it's own rules.

I'm not educated enough on the various schools of philosophy to know if this is something like idealism or not.

File: 1452044432001.jpg (13KB, 187x252px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 187x252px

>>1779949
Can I not arbitrarily choose my morals because it feels right to follow them, whether it be the result of human empathy (which is an observable psychological phenomenon) or cultural conditioning? Does morality NEED metaphysical grounding, or did you make up that requirement?

>>1780331
Pi as a number is a concept that only exists in thinking entities and within the specific mathematical framework humans have devised. The relationship itself exists as in the same way that the speed of light in a vacuum exists. Yes, it can be represented as a number and it is convenient to do so for human purposes, but is ultimately just a type of behaviour.

File: 1474767444073.jpg (232KB, 720x533px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 720x533px

>>1779974

Who cares if they're a spook, you adhere to your morals regardless.

File: sam_harris2242764.jpg (77KB, 735x429px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 735x429px

>>1780165
speaking of rape

>>1780342

What makes you think you choose your morals?

>>1780411
Maybe I used the wrong word there, especially considering I mentioned empathy is a healthy psychological response and whatnot. But given the option to abide or not abide by said morals, I have to make a decision and whether it's me or the aggregate of my experiences and my neurological wiring doing it is largely a question of semantics because the two are, as far as we can tell, one and the same.

>>1780358

I will agree with everything you just said. But I still assert that since we are not separate entities from the universe and have our origin and existence within it, you cannot claim as in >>1780292 that the universe would have no regard of either.

Honestly, I can't even tell if we're really in disagreement anymore or just both wandering off in different directions entirely. Either way, it has been interesting.

File: regina.jpg (29KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x480px

>>1780358
>>1780461

Oh, and since you mentioned Stirner...

>>1780461
That was a different guy.

The universe has no knowledge of pi because the universe has no knowledge of anything. As far as we can see, it's an unthinking mess.

>>1780488
>The universe has no knowledge of pi because the universe has no knowledge of anything.
He's saying "the universe" does have knowledge of pi, as humans have knowledge of pi and humans are a component of the universe.

I think that's a flawed argument, though. It would be like saying that because a specific neuron has "knowledge" of whether it is activated or deactivated, so too must the entire brain know that, when it often doesn't. It would be more accurate to say the universe contains knowledge about pi.

>>1780522

Fair point, but your's is a somewhat leaky analogy.

pi and c are universal constants that any sentient piece of the universe capable of abstract thought will eventually notice.

Since most of the universe in not sentient, it's fair to say that the entire universe is not aware of those properties. But I also think it's fair to say ALL chunks of the universe that achieve sentience and abstract thought will eventually discover both properties.

Virtue ethics don't really rely on a God, though most ancient advocates of virtue ethics often refer to the gods.

>>1779949
>morality
>reality

Choose one

>>1780274
>Pretty hard to draw a 3 sided polygon in 2 dimensions and not have the angles add up to pi.
Let's see you draw one then. And remember, it has to be mathematically perfect.

>>1779949

>I need an imaginary father figure to tell me what I can and cannot do

>>1779949
>I'm "moral" because I fear le magic sky fairy will punish me if I misbehave
Yes, you're "moral" in the same sense as someone who avoids committing rape or murder for the sole reason that they don't want to go to jail.

>>1779949
It's a social fact that all people have morals. Otherwise people could not feel shame and society would fall apart as people could not be bound by the effects of socialisation.

>>1780594
virtue ethics is completely circular though

>>1779949
> Theism
> Not moral relativism
Chose one. if something is good because a God tells you and decide it's true it's the very definition of moral relativism.

>>1779949
classic /b/ posting right here

>>1781097
dumb pass user

>>1779974

Hey man I just don't believe in god, leave me alone

File: Take the über pill.jpg (21KB, 442x383px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 442x383px

Morality is entirely subjective and relative.

The real revelation is in concluding that this is not a bad thing. 'Objective' morality has done more harm to the world than the alternative ever could - for the simple reason that every act is committed by someone who believes their actions are in some way good. No one consciously believes what they are doing to be nothing but 'evil' - no one consciously considers themselves to be 'evil'.

'Evil' is what proponents of slave morality call that which is to their detriment.

>>1780798

Sure. Please specify the tolerances you require, Plato.