>atheism is contradictory to morality Why do people think

>>268088
>It's incredibly easy to form a moral framework and not believe in any deity at the same time.
Because its even easier to convince yourself that your path is the only path and your morals are the only true morals.

>>268106
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Is believing your morals are the only true morals the same as amorality?

>>268106
I would like to know why, in a purely non-religious, completely objective an non-relative way:
1. Why killing is wrong
2. Why stealing is wrong
3. Why coveting is wrong
4. Why lying is wrong

I don't ask this in an antagonistic sort of way, but as someone who wants to see atheist moral reasoning.

>>268185
None of them are wrong nothing has any meaning not even life itself

>>268193
That's pretty strawman bro, I want to hear the real deal.

>>268185
>1. Why killing is wrong
>2. Why stealing is wrong
You're infringing on another's right to not be directly and forcibly physically or economically harmed.
>3. Why coveting is wrong
It's not.
>4. Why lying is wrong
Depends on the lie.

Of course, I only speak for my own personal morality, I'm sure there are plenty of other atheists with differing views.

>>268185
My arguments amount to "muh feels" but I'll give it a shot.
>1. Why killing is wrong
I find it disgusting that you forcefully end the most fundamental thing a person has. And as you know, atheists don't believe in an afterlife, so this is especially wrong.
>2. Why stealing is wrong
People should only have what they've earned, I feel. When you take something from someone else, you're saying that their hard work or whatever that got them to earning that object doesn't matter as much as your selfishness, which I don't like.
>3. Why coveting is wrong
It can be wrong, but it can also be justified. I think it's wrong when you, for example have proven (like in a contest or something) that the other person is more deserving of the object being coveted. It again implies that your materialism is more important than fairness.
>4. Why lying is wrong
Again, there's a select few instances where it can be justified, but people fundamentally take you on good faith for casual, everyday claims. Taking advantage of that is in very bad taste to me.

>>268193
Speak for yourself faggot, sorry playing WoW all day feels that way to you but keep you shitty poisonous worldview to yourself next time

>>268224
>implying your opinion matters
heh
Try again kid

>>268214
>infringing on another's right
In all seriousness, where do those rights come from if not from God? I'm neither a nihilist or religious btw

Just don't be a dick lmao

>>268214
>You're infringing on another's right to not be directly and forcibly physically or economically harmed.
Why do individuals have a right to not be harmed? If you cite a law, then you gather your morality from the law, just like religious people gather their morality from the laws of their holy texts.

>>268134
I'm saying that in regards to the religious who believe that. It's easy to reaffirm your bias to your own faith by claiming that only your set of morals are real. Claiming an atheist (or any other religion) has no morals is a way to justify to yourself that your faith is the only correct choice.

File: 1437081737316.gif (469KB, 500x290px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 500x290px

>>268240
Because that's the stated extent of every single irreligious person's morality

>>268185

>Why killing is wrong
I want to live. By establishing that we won't kill each other my chances of survival are much higher.

>Why stealing is wrong
I want to live. By establishing that we won't steal from each other my chances of keeping my resources and staying fed and comfortable are much higher.

>Why coveting is wrong
I don't think it is, but one could argue it leads to stealing.

>Why lying is wrong
Everyone lies, no one really thinks lying is inherently wrong. It depends on the lie.

>>268214
>>268216
I understand a little more now, thank you. You both touch on that killing is wrong because the robbing of someone's only life is wrong, does that, in your opinion, extend to Abortion? Is takig a life before it can be lived just as bad as taking a life in the middle of living?

Another thing I want to ask about is a paradoxical sort of thinking I've found in a few of my friends who are Atheist. They say that we aren't special, that we're just animals, but then turn around and say that religion destroy the specialness of individuals. Do you think that humanity is special and deserves praise, or is ot not special at all?

>>268088
They want to justify their belief system.

It's not like a legalist worships the law. They see the law as a useful system. As far as how the laws are created, they're based on what people think is right or wrong. Which in the end the argument comes down to whether or not conceptions of right and wrong must be divinely inspired from the top down, or if a human understanding of the human condition can develop ideas of right and wrong.

>>268088
I'm an atheist and I have never committed any major crimes or felt the urge to.

Checkmate, religionfags.

Inb4 muh fedora, you faggots are just as bad as the muslime shits.

>>268185
Well, from a completely objective sense, nothing is moral or immoral, it just is.

However, all experienced perception is inherently subjective, so I feel capable of evaluating things in ethical terms based off my own life experiences and the observed/assumed similarity in experience in the lives of others.

Killing others is wrong because I don't want to die.

Stealing is wrong because I don't want to lose things that I value.

Coveting is honestly just a waste of time and energy. Bad practice.

Lying is wrong because deception can lead to unwittingly setting oneself up for harm, and I wouldn't want that for myself and therefore for others.
On a less non-theistic note, I also consider the pursuit of truth kind of sacred in and of itself, so that's another reason I avoid lying when able.

Atheists can of course have morals, but for the atheist, morality is a matter of taste, not hard fact.

>>268185

No morals are right or wrong in an objective way.

>inb4ethics

No, fuck off.

>>268185
atheist here

I'm not one for blanket statements like that, because there's tonnes of situations in whic those tings are the moral thing to do

but basically for me, objective morals are derived from my personal judgments. so, x is immoral if I judge x to be immorral

you might scoff and say "hurr subjective", but I will explain my reasoning. all source of morality (including god), actually when analysed come down to nothing more than your own opinion that x is wrong.

so I assume you're a christain. that is, you judge that god's word on morality is better than all the other gods and moral systems. has god forced this judgment on you? or have you yourself, decided to judge that god (and not all the other options) is the correct source of morality.

in saying that "god is the source of morality", you have to use your own moral judgment, in judging that god's word is to be trusted over the other gods, and the competing moral theories.

so, either way it is you using your own judgment to decide which actions are moral and waht aren't. I just cut the middleman and do it myself

god says "x is wrong".
now, that is not the only competing moral judgment, there are other gods, philosophies, moral systems etc
so how do you decide that gods moral judgments are more valid than the others?
you decide this by using your own judgment. you yourself judge that god is the correct source of moral facts

now I say, ok then there really is no need for the god. you're making your own judgments either way, so why not just cut the middleman.

tl;dr, you yourself judge that god is the correct source of moral facts. so if you trust your judgment on that, why not just cut god altogeth and judge whether things are right or wrong yourself? there is no escaping using your own moral judgment

hope this helps

>>268250
Most reasonable reply so far, but it doesn't justify the morality behind it, you only selfishly state reasons why your behavior will pay off in the long run.

Won't killing and stealing improve your chances of survival since you'll create and advantage for yourself by securing more resources? Assuming you don't get caught. Would you steal and/or murder for your own benefit if you knew you'd get away with it?

>>268257
>They say that we aren't special, that we're just animals, but then turn around and say that religion destroy the specialness of individuals. Do you think that humanity is special and deserves praise, or is ot not special at all?
that's because you're putting it in your dichotomy of human vs animal.

Humans are a special kind of animal, but an animal nonethless. Without the specialness that makes a human different from other animals, a human is no different from other animals. A human may be special compared to other animals, but also are the same in many ways.

A platypus is a special kind of mammal. If a platypus did not have it's unique features, it would not be special as a mammal Nonetheless, even with the unique features, it is still a mammal.

>>268238
>>268242
The rights come from the fact that one is a human with free will and thus should be able to practice that free will however they choose.

Stealing/killing are wrong because you're directly imposing your free will over someone else's.

>>268257
>does that, in your opinion, extend to Abortion? Is taking a life before it can be lived just as bad as taking a life in the middle of living?
I don't morally agree with abortion, although if I were forced to choose between killing a fetus or an adult I'd kill the fetus almost every time.

I do think abortion should be legal, though. People will still get abortions regardless of what the law says, just as people have done for thousands of years, and having them performed in shady areas outside of the law only mean that the mother is at risk of being harmed as well, as opposed to legal, hospitalized abortions where the mother is safe.

>>268257
>extend to Abortion?
Ah, abortion... I haven't really morally figured out abortion yet. It's the greyest of grey areas to me. Of course, I think the earlier, the better, and the more justified it is. But I think unless you know you're ABSOLUTELY sure that you're unequipped to be raising it, you shouldn't do it. But then again, if you're raped or something and you didn't want it in the first place... is it morally right to end the fetus's life because you didn't ask for it? I dunno.
> Do you think that humanity is special and deserves praise, or is ot not special at all?
I think that it's natural that as humans, we're inclined to feel a sort of special feeling about ourselves. I daresay that if we were another animals we'd be the same way. We can praise ourselves, sure, but I wouldn't be too arrogant about it.

>>268257
you sound like a young christfag surronded by edgy friends

in the real world atheists are not even a unified group and don't share the same views aside form a lack of belief in god. you'll hear as many answers as there are atheists

personally I think humans are special, because we are the ones who came up with the human animal distinction in the first place. if all humans ceased, there would be no classes of things (which includes human and animal

>>268185

>1. It's most likely engraved in our minds. But this mostly extends to people you're familiar with. Religion or not, people have an easy time killing when they don't see the other as "human."

2. Stealing? If you want to avoid objectivity you could say we see it as "wrong" due to cultural pressure with the expectation of being harmed. "Don't take what is mine or you will be hurt."

3. Coveting doesn't seem like something we'd see as wrong without falling into objectivity.

4. Same goes as lying.

The big issue is that the majority of "morals" are something we just adopt from our surroundings. Hell, even killing can be seen as good if it's taught to be like that.

All in all I think thus just points to culture and society being the fountain of morality rather than religion.

>>268268

>but for the atheist, morality is a matter of taste, not hard fact.

Lol. Morals are subjective. I'm sure the pagan gods where smiling on their people as they sacrificed people.

ITT: literally no one knows what they're talking about. Jesus Christ, read some fucking metaethics you plebs.

>>268268
>morality is a matter of taste, not hard fact.
The thing is, tastes can overwhelmingly overlap. That overlapping can in turn serve as a sort of objective measure. If you fall out of what the vast majority of humans think is moral, that's a safe bet you're immoral in an objective sense.

>Assuming you don't get caught. Would you steal and/or murder for your own benefit if you knew you'd get away with it?
yes I steal all the time and I have killed a dog before, but I haven't killed a human because the risk is too high (life in prison)

>>268294
>The rights come from the fact that one is a human with free will and thus should be able to practice that free will however they choose.
That's your opinion, not a universal truth.

>>268302

Agreed. Atheists and their views can vary tremendously

>>268319
great argument friend

>>268324
Yes, and?

>>268294
>The rights come from the fact that one is a human with free will and thus should be able to practice that free will however they choose.
And why would this be a thing? Why does free will matter at all?

>>268257
I'm not very good at putting this into writing but I think what they're referring to is when you conceptualize man as a smarter ape in an uncaring universe there's both a sense of wonder and ultimate insignificance. The idea that the universe was created specifically for man and that we are its ultimate purpose cheapens both of those things.

File: 085653fe343da50b7c8c079ccca0f893.jpg (106KB, 400x533px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 400x533px

>>268088
Kana is so cute!

>>268185
1. It's not always.
2. It's not always.
3. It's not always.
4. It's not always.

Whether or not an action is right is a matter of whether or not that action ultimately works against its own purpose. Being able to determine this on larger scales essentially requires prescience though.

atheist here

I want to kill my dad. I don't care about life and am suicidal anyway so I don't care about being caught.

Is there any reason why I shouldn't?

I mean I want to do it, so it's like wanting to take a drug or eat a nice food or something. I can't see a justification for not doing it.

>>268257

Aborting a fetus before a certain point isnt killing anything you could really considered alive. Its just a growing organic mass.

its potentially life, sure, but so is cum and nobody gives a fuck.

Late term abortions where the brain actually begins developing is wrong though, and thats why its fucking illegal

>>268326
Well, that's really the crux of the problem then, isn't it? Why have laws that affect everyone equally when everyone has their own moral code and may not agree with the laws? Should laws be arbitrarily based on a set of morals, and if so l, whose?

We evolved into small hunter/gatherer communes, to lie kill and steal is objectively wrong for such communities.

Religion on the other hand allows the murder and theft from non-believers

so which are the amoral ones?

>>268329
>le why does anything matter maymay

Literally the most joyless faggots alive

>>268328
It's subject to people and what they find reasonable rather than aboslute law created by an infallible deity.

>>268320
>That overlapping can in turn serve as a sort of objective measure.
Ah, so Twilight is objectively great literature?

> If you fall out of what the vast majority of humans think is moral, that's a safe bet you're immoral in an objective sense.
This is utterly contingent on temporal concerns.

>>268342
>Late term abortions where the brain actually begins developing is wrong though

but why? to me you are saving the babby from the future suffering it will experience, and the babby doesn't even know it's alive or have a 'self', so it's not really being harmed, and once it's dead nothing will exist to be deprived of the pleasurable experiences it might of had.

I just really don't see why death is a bad thing for a being that can't even conceive of it's own existence

>>268339
Lmao broken faggot.

>I can't think of any reason why I wouldn't want to kill my own father

Stupid dead inside cunt. Fuck off back to WoW before you kill someone you piece of shit

>>268344
Law=/=morality

laws really are kind of irrelevant to morality

>>268361
>Ah, so Twilight is objectively great literature?
Don't the vast majority of those who are well-read think otherwise?
>This is utterly contingent on temporal concerns.
Are you saying morality is contingent on the time period we live in?

>>268356
Okay, but what's your point?

>>268348
>to lie kill and steal is objectively wrong for such communities.

that makes no sense. how could something be objective wrong just for a particular group. that's like objective relativism it make no sense

>>268369
Not particularly, laws are defined by what people see as right and wrong, and therefore morality plays a big role in it.

>>268381
It makes perfect sense for the survival of the/each commune

>>268344
>Why have laws that affect everyone equally when everyone has their own moral code and may not agree with the laws? Should laws be arbitrarily based on a set of morals, and if so l, whose?
The same goes for religion. The morals in a holy text are arbitrary, if they weren't, they'd be inherent and self-evident.

>>268250
>I want to live

You can spin that reason to justify murder and all of those other things

>>268393
You've never read or lived shit stop pretending like you have you dumb faggpt

>>268379
>Don't the vast majority of those who are well-read think otherwise?
Are you advocating virtue ethics, then?

>Are you saying morality is contingent on the time period we live in?
No, you are, since majority opinion fluctuates wildly with time period.

>>268389
no not really. laws are put in place to build a functioning society

just look at drug laws, trespass laws, intellectual property, censorship, consumer law etc etc

most of it has nothing to do with morality, it's to do with a whole bunch of people living in the same place needing rules to not degenerate into chaos

The only morality I need is the simple Golden Rule.
Do unto others as you would have done to you

Do I want to be murdered? No, so I don't murder
Do I want my things stolen? No, so I don't steal from others
Do I want to be raped? No, so I don't rape

It's simple and something you learn in grade school, but I haven't encountered a situation where it didn't apply to me

>>268393
Coveting isn't very self evident, according to what everyone's said about morality in this thread, and that's a big problem. Covetousness means to want to not merely emulate the success of others, but to take their success for your own, by any means. It's the root cause of all other moral wrongs, yet every person who answered the poster's questions said that it wasn't really important!

>>268416
What?

The set of morals given to you by a holy text or a god is not much more arbitrary than the laws imposed upon you by a state.

If you believe religious morals you have are special, why are they more special than any other competing religion's morals? If god is universal, why did he put morals in a book to explain them to people who had no morals to begin with, and why are there so many different books? Wouldn't god make morals an inherent characteristic of man instead of giving him a completely alien and arbitrary set of morals from a book?

>>268428

No, laws are put in place because people put them there.

>>268435
Who knew a bunch of smug genderqueer baristas would have no frame of reference for anything written in a time before netflix

>>268429
Would you be okay with a masochist harming you in a way that would arouse him? He'd be okay with you doing it to him, after all.

Guys morality has been talked about basically since man was able to communicate. I really doubt any sort of agreement is going to be made by random people on the internet.

>>268441
Once again you've never read shit. Your understanding of holy books is fucking middle school tier. You read a couple verses in Deuteronomy and think every holy text is just don't eat clams lmfao. You're a fucking pseud trying to sound smart about a topic you've learned second hand from meme new atheism icons

>>268435
The definition I was always familiar with was that coveting means you desire or want something. There's nothing wrong with that, and I think that's what most people in this thread were talking about. The definition you're using clearly has a lot more baggage.

>>268453
if he's a masochist then he doesn't seem predisposed to harming anyone, in fact quite the opposite.

>>268466
A sadist and a masochist then. Stop being obtuse.

>>268457
I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

If the morals in the holy books are so self-evident, say, thou shalt not kill, then why do you need a religion to tell you that moral? It's it's self-evident, then clearly the root of that moral lies with humans rather than religion, whether the source of human inclination towards that moral is from god or nature.

If the morals of holy books aren't self-evident, and you need to be told thou shalt not kill, then the moral imposed on you isn't any more arbitrary than a nation-state's law saying the punishment for murder is execution.

>>268088
It's super fucking easy to adopt a moral code if there's already several good ones floating around due to religion.

Just take out the parts about praying and being afraid of hell and blam! You got yourself a decent moral code.

If that's not enough, rationalize it with the argument that "there is no soul, you only get one lifetime and so does everyone else. Why not help other people make the best of what little time they have?"

If you can't understand that, then you lack empathy or are just not very smart.

>>268429
Categorical imperative is better.

>>268473
>>268453

No, because I don't want to be harmed.
I have no problem with two consenting adults engaging in such behavior, but I am not one of them.

>>268473
are you really trying to compare consensual sadomasochism to actual violence though?

File: 1435162619103.gif (527KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 625x626px

>>268478
>already several good ones floating around due to religion.
>religions invent moral codes

>>268454
Thanks for the useless post.

>>268475
>writing morals down in an illiterate society disproves them

Ayy Lmao Fuck off back to reddit my man

>>268487
Naw nigga, I just mean you don't have to go reinvent the wheel just because you're an atheist.

I follow basically Christian morals but I've never, ever believed in God or Christ.

That's what I meant. They exist in your culture, why not adopt them if they fit your beliefs?

>>268478
Religions adopted humanistic moral codes that were floating around out there.

This thread is a riot.
You people honestly believe relativism is sufficient for real morality.

>>268088
Because Christians thought that humanity wouldn't find another authority to jerk off without God

>>268518

kill yourself tripfag

>>268497
I didn't say that morals are disproven. Why do you keep trying to strawman? Religious laws are similar to secular laws, they are handed down and enforced by an authority figure. These are either arbitrary, or they are not, but there is little to suggest that secular laws are inherently more arbitrary. The difference is for one, a prophet, or an organization of priests gives you codified laws. The other an authority figure or the government gives you codified laws.

>>268518
absolutely rich coming from an attentionwhore that pretend-talks to an arbitrary jewish ghost

>>268088
I'm more interested in how something becomes moral just because God says it is?

We're, according to most religions, free willed creatures - there exists no reason for why we should follow any moral laws or imperatives.

>>268185
The Categorical Imperative.

>>268088
>It's incredibly easy to form a moral framework and not believe in any deity at the same time.

why have one at all?

>>268541
How is that "objective"? And does that mean masturbating is wrong, as Kant said?

>>268527
Nah, I have an objective morality in which that's wrong for me to do. You, on the other hand, have nothing holding you back. Go for it champ!

>>268216
in sum

Social contract.

>>268247
it really is, honestly.

And the golden rule, crux of the bible.

>>268214
>You're infringing on another's right to not be directly and forcibly physically or economically harmed.

So moral right is whatever the state says it is? Or are you talking about natural rights?

>>268250
None of this has anything to do with morality, because these rules would cease in any circumstance where you could be sure there would be no negative repercussion for yourself.

>>268400
So do religions.

So whats the difference?

>>268528
The fuck do you know about what is or isn't arbitrary moral law living in a white suburb you git

>>268335
>if my purpose is to get money, and it fulfills my purpose, then it is right
Atheism, everyone

>>268556
>it really is, honestly.
No it isn't.

>>268185
Consider life in an ancient hunter/gatherer tribe. Every day you're working together to ensure the survival of the tribe, and by extension, your survival.

Would killing another member of the tribe be good for the survival of the tribe, and by extension your survival?

Would stealing from another tribe member cause a fracture within the tribe that would be detrimental to the unity of the tribe and thus the tribe's survival?

Would wanting the possessions of another tribe member inspire jealousy, and would that then be detrimental to the unity of the tribe?

If you lie to another tribe member, and are then found to be lying...would that negatively affect the unity of the tribe?

This is the theory of many anthropologists. Altruism and moral behavior is considered beneficial to the survival of ancient humans as a group, and thus also beneficial to ancient humans as individuals.

Religion isn't really necessary to construct a framework like that, but it does create an easy way to teach the lessons of why certain behaviors are not welcome within a social unit.

>>268564
The religious have an Apostolic court to ensure the morals passed down by God aren't twisted out of shape.

>>268547
So that you don't suffer and so you make sure others don't suffer.

>>268550
The first part is an application of objective action to subjective action.
Nah, masturbation isn't wrong.

>>268572
>muh tribal life

When will this meme end

>>268552
How is the iron age scribe who wrote your holy book any more "objective" in his moral framework than anonymous on 4chan?

>>268566
What's the purpose of getting more money?

>>268578
When it ceases to be the currently accepted theory.

>>268565
Define arbitrary.

>>268557
>None of this has anything to do with morality, because these rules would cease in any circumstance where you could be sure there would be no negative repercussion for yourself.

These rules have become our morals over time.

>>268575
>Nah, masturbation isn't wrong.
Then the Categorical Imperative requires subjective interpretation, since according to Kant, masturbation is wrong by its standard.

>>268581
God laid down what was written by that "iron-age scribe". Even if it wasn't written down at all, but had been handed down by oral tradition, the commands of God would still be the commands of God, and you'd still have no objective reason to not kill yourself without them =)

>>268582
We live in a capitalist world, getting money isn't a means, it's just an end that's considered the end which drives society.

>>268589
>These rules have become our morals over time.
Then your view of morality is a shell game.

>>268599
>God laid down what was written by that "iron-age scribe"
Stopped reading there. That statement is only apparent by reading the very book in question, so it's automatically circular logic. Try again. =)

>>268601
Then why isn't all production geared towards creating more money printers and gathering the materials for the printing process? Think before you post.

File: 1424889199770.jpg (42KB, 600x575px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x575px

>>268185
Why do the answers need to be objective? Being able to actually stop murder and theft is far more useful to me than condemning it with some abstract moral system. As Hobbes told us, people naturally fear death and band together for strength in numbers. So long as I desire a society without killing and thievery, and most other people desire a society without killing and thievery, societies that ban and punish these activities will arise. This applies to most people across the world regardless of religion. So, in all practical senses, secular law renders religious morality redundant. People are generally more afraid of the police than fear of Hell in everyday life, and statistically atheists have a lower than average incarceration rate in America.

I don't consider coveting wrong at all. It can motivate property crimes like theft, but it's still the action of stealing that remains wrong and not the underlying desire itself, because coveting is not a sufficient condition for most people to steal. A thought that remains a thought is no harm to me or anyone else, and the notion of punishing it would lead to a totalitarian society.

Lying is a mixed bag. Since truth and justified belief are hard to define, I believe only lies which cause significant harm need to be punished. Our justice system already has laws against defamation, false advertising, breach of contract and false alarms... seems like that's almost all the restrictions on lying a society needs. Suggesting that trivial lies like telling your wife her ass doesn't look fat should be considered immoral is just petty, and if enforced, would lead to an unfree society. People also lie because they might be judged or endangered by having unpopular opinions or hobbies, and considering how nosy some people are, I don't blame them.

>>268596
Kant didn't masturbate because he was raised in a heavily puritanical environment. He used the categorical imperative imperfectly to justify he inbred beliefs.

>>268238
>In all seriousness, where do those rights come from if not from God?

The state or the community at large.
These basic rights need to be enforced in order to have a functioning community/society. This sort of baseline rule long predates deism.

Animals have no gods, but they do have rules.

>>268619
Inbred isn't the word I was looking for here, whoops. I meant ingrained or something similar.

>>268615
Because money is defined by its exclusivity. The less exclusive it is, the less it is money. Just like the more water you add to a glass of whiskey, the less whiskey it is.

>>268185
Since we are social creatures it is instinctive for people to bond and be close to one another to help further our society and species so when you cause harm to another human it goes against our natural instinct as humans and that maybe religion was really just a way for people to have a understanding and order to these instincts. Or at least that is what I think

>>268614
>That statement is only apparent
No, whether it's apparent or not is irrelevant. It either is or it isn't. If it is, then God is *the* objective basis for all morality and anyone else is fundamentally existentially wrong =)

>>268626
Like what? Animals rape each other, kill each other, and practice cannibalism regularly.

>>268619
>if you don't like to jack off you're just a prude XD

Fucking pleb

>>268619
He'd say you were raised in a degenerate environment, and so you look for ways to make the categorical imperative not apply to your immoral actions.

>>268635
>>268637
What exactly was Kant argument (using the categorical imperative) against masturbation?

>>268631
No, it isn't irrelevant. Your entire argument hinges on it. You're attempting to attribute divine inspiration to a scribe to give his moral framework leverage over the anonymous poster's. If you don't understand why this is a grave misstep that needs to be addressed before you can continue, then you're hopeless. =)

>>268634

not within their own tribe.

A pod of dolphins doesn't take turns raping each other, and a pride of lions doesn't kill their own.

I have no idea why you bring up cannibalism though.

>>268643
It will lead to massive decline in the white population because men will get satisfaction from porn and jacking off, when the instinct is for them to reproduce.

jk

If everyone fulfilled their sexual desire through masturbation, we'd go extinct. Therefore it is something that cannot be universally done, therefore it can't stand up to the categorical imperative.

>>268635
If you don't masturbate for ethical reasons you are probably an uptight douchebag, yes. Why you'd be browsing 4chan at all is beyond me.

>>268644
>No, it isn't irrelevant. Your entire argument hinges on it
It is irrelevant, because there's no need whatsoever to be able to confirm it. It either is or isn't true. If it is I'm right, if it isn't I'm not. I take it on faith that it is - and if it is you're objectively a faggot =)

>You're attempting to attribute divine inspiration to a scribe to give his moral framework leverage over the anonymous poster's
That's wrong, because it wouldn't be "his" moral framework if it came from God to begin with; it'd be God's. And since I'm assuming it was God's, then for my argument it *wouldn't* be the scribe's.

Tip kok =)

>>268655
>If everyone fulfilled their sexual desire through masturbation, we'd go extinct. Therefore it is something that cannot be universally done, therefore it can't stand up to the categorical imperative.

Nobody is saying we should be doing it constantly. This is why Kant was so autistic. Having the entire world do any activity 24/7 is gong to stop the human race functioning.

>>268655
I suppose it can be said then that it can be interpreted subjectively. But that's applies to all moral systems, religious included.

>>268655
>Therefore it is something that cannot be universally done
Yes it can be. I see nothing wrong with people not reproducing and humans ceasing to exist in the material world through completely non-violent means. Nothing about that is wrong or objectionable at all.

>>268481
>>268484
The golden rule doesn't seem to be a great ethical system. Saying "do unto others as you would have done to you" may be an okay ethical system for small-scale interactions, but what about actions that affect a lot of people? How would this ethical system address whether or not to go to war, for example? Saying, "I wouldn't want to go to war, therefore we shouldn't go to war" seems like a pretty weak position.

File: 1446238782490.png (13KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 320x320px

Even if God existed, his moral system wouldn't be objective. Morals are inherently expressions of subjective emotions. In a world with no subjects, only objects, there would be no moral prescriptions or law.

How do Christians deal with the fact that entire cultures that never heard of their God created their own 'false Gods' and their own morality.

When Christians say "you cannot have morals without God" they must not mean their specific God....none would deny the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Mesopotamian, the Japanese, the Chinese, etc. had morals.

Are they implying you need SOME God, whether it is real or true to create morals? Are they implying that a fake God is just valid a source of morality as a real God? Would this mean I can make up a 'false God' and get my morals from it, just like the Zoastrians made a 'false God' and got their morals from it. And finally would this mean that I can declare myself God and that all morals I create for myself are morals created by God?

Well they must believe these things, ALL of them, including self-deification being an effective method for gaining morals. Otherwise they would be saying that all those non-Christian cultures never had morals....

>>268687
>Even if God existed, his moral system wouldn't be objective
It necessarily would be, because God is responsible for the very fabric of existence in which things inhere. Everything God lays down is objectively Truth in regard to any state or possible state of affairs.

>>268695

Don't think about it too hard.

Its just the solipsism that naturally occurs when people take their hobbies too seriously.

>>268666
Even chalking up the scribe's words to "God" does not automatically make those words any less arbitrary or any more meaningful than anonymous poster's. You would then have to explain why God's words should be considered objective. No one outside of your religious circlejerk is going to accept it at face value. =)

>666
KEK

>>268695
>How do Christians deal with the fact that entire cultures that never heard of their God created their own 'false Gods' and their own morality.
Who cares?

>When Christians say "you cannot have morals without God" they must not mean their specific God
Yes, we do mean our specific God. You need to add the qualifier *real/objective* before the word 'morals' to have the Christian standpoint.

File: 1446776988207s.jpg (3KB, 125x124px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x124px

>>268710
>Even chalking up the scribe's words to "God" does not automatically make those words any less arbitrary or any more meaningful than anonymous poster's
>LEL GOD'S "OPINION" ISN'T WORTH ANY MORE THAN MINE LMAO XD

Objective morality is the avoidance of contradiction.

Every step taken must have a direction. Many apparent directions actually lead nowhere, and it's impossible for a logical actor to take those routes if they can see that. With perfect knowledge, there is only one direction left.

If an atheist says they get their morals from their culture, is it considered separate from religion?

>>268720
Relativism. Read it. Hate it.

>religious nutjobs

>>268723
>irreligious nutjobs

>>268717
And with the anime reaction image and meaningless greentext, the christfag trip's ego lets out another cry of defeat. =)

>>268712
So which is it. Can morality come from a 'false God' or must it only come from a 'true God'

A) Morals can only come from the 'true Christian God'. There for every culture in the past that did not have contact from Christians did not produce morals. The Zoastrians did not have a sense of good and evil because their God is 'false'. In fact before the year 0 MORALITY DIDN'T EXIST outside of the a small tribe of Jews in the dessert because every other place in the world was dealing with false Gods


B) Any God, regardless of truth can be the source of morals. A 'false God' can be a source of morals. Since I can declare myself a God that means I can be my own objective source of morality, after all 'false Gods' can be a source of morality.

You are stuck between choosing two insane options if you want to uphold the sentence "God is the only source of morality"

>>268695
Well starting from the Jewish beliefs, which Christianity springs from, they are directly descended in an unbroken chain of people from Adam to the times of their rulers. They're "God's chosen people" because they're the tribe that had remained most faithful.

Christianity uses this as a base to legitimize itself, but it is an evangelical religion. As a good christian you are supposed to spread the good news. So it's okay if you've never heard of Jesus before and don't believe in god BUT if you have heard of Jesus and his sacrifice, and still deny it, then you're not counted among the saved until such time as you accept christ into your heart and repent your sins.

>>268710
You're too fucking stupid for words

>WHY WOULD I LISTEN TO GOD NO YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP DAD LMAO

Fuck off

File: 1443261616442.jpg (117KB, 601x800px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 601x800px

>>268729
>lel God's opinion is not more important than mine lol XD
>I win the argument!

>>268647
that seems pragmatic to me though
no need for a "morality" explanation

>>268731
>So which is it. Can morality come from a 'false God' or must it only come from a 'true God'
You know the answer to this you stupid faggot.
Also add the qualifier *real/objective* before all instances of 'morality' in this conversation. You can come up with shitty morality that are completely subjective, but that doesn't make them *THE* morality which is what Christianity is talking about you vapid cunt.

>>268737
Are we saying that in this scenario GOD is a physical entity that can be observed and measured and that created the universe in his own perfect image and that he comes down and tells people face to face what is and is acceptable behavior?

Or are you just saying we should accept religious texts (which regardless of divine inspiration WERE written and edited by humans over the generations) are the literal word of god?

>>268741

Why would pragmatism have to be distinct from morality?

>>268731
How about option C you faggot pseud: the truth is the truth is the truth

>>268697
>It necessarily would be, because God is responsible for the very fabric of existence in which things inhere.

This is only one specific concept of God. Most belief in Gods throughout history have not been monotheistic creator Gods, which only rose to prominence much later. This alone is evidence that religions are human constructions unique to a particular place and time, not universal descriptions of truth and law bestowed by an actual universal ruler.

>Everything God lays down is objectively Truth in regard to any state or possible state of affairs.

If God is omnipotent, he must be able to tell lies. Considering God himself has subjective qualities of experience, to apply moral expressions concerning only subjective expressions to the objective universe would simply make God wrong due to the is-ought problem.

Secondly, this kind of argument relies on conflation of human "laws", which are prescriptive and able to be broken, with natural "laws", which are descriptive and unable to be broken. Religious law exclusively falls into the former category, which shows their inherent subjectivity.

>>268750
>This is only one specific concept of God
Yeah; the one I and most Christians are talking about.

>>268737
irony here is palpable
also forgot your trip, faggot

File: dolphin detected.jpg (104KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 640x480px

>>268647
>A pod of dolphins doesn't take turns raping each other

>>268750
>If God is omnipotent...
If you know about this argument in any depth, you know full well that Christian's don't have this problem. Descartes talked about this, describing the 'perfect truthfulness' of God.

>Secondly, this kind of argument relies on conflation of human "laws"
It's not a conflation, since Christians hold there are natural consequences of sin which follow necessarily from certain classes of action/inaction in the afterlife in a mechanistic way, such that they're essentially natural laws. If you sin and do not find Grace, you will find yourself in an eternity without God *period* - that's a mechanistic 'natural law' if there ever was one.

>>268752
Nobody cares what you're talking about, Praceteom. You're like Rei with all the endearing quirks removed.

social contract
/thread

File: 1447489692354.jpg (40KB, 383x415px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 383x415px

>>268777
Cool story bro, tell me another.

>>268781
>lolativism
Fixed it for you.
/thread

If atheists have no morality, then crime rates are higher among atheists, right?

>>268787
Crime =/= morality.

>>268752
That's cute. You've realized that you've argued yourself into a corner and now are trying to redefine the word "God" so you don't have to deal with answering how Ahura Mazda managed to be a source of morality.

Ok. I'll use your defination

if the word "God" refers to the Christian deity and no morality can come from any source other than this "God"...how did the Zoroastrians create their own morality despite never having contact with Yahweh? Fuck man you don't even need to answer! You've actually made it EASIER to prove that morality can be made without a God. Zoroastrians bro =D

>>268782
You've admitted nobody cares about your opinions before. This is your reply.

File: 1368778450334.gif (2MB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 150x150px

>>268790
>and now are trying to redefine the word "God"
So God *ISN'T* the omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent Creator of everything under the Christian religion? WHOA. My mind = BLOWN.

You have *ENLIGHTENED* me by you intelligence.

File: 1432884549524.jpg (41KB, 506x494px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 506x494px

>>268791
And here's yours qt

>>268789
>Crime =/= morality.
Crime comes from a lack of morality, right? Immoral people commit more crimes, don't they?

>>268740
That's true though. I have more faith in my own judgment than God's. My opinion is more important than His. My moral system is the objective one, while His morals are as arbitrary as any atheist's morals.

>>268752
>the one I and most Christians are talking about.
So then literal the word as use by a global minority.

Sure, why not just use that as the default definition. How egocentric can one be.

>>268799
>Crime comes from a lack of morality, right?
No, because what constitutes "crime" is determined by law, which has no tie to morality whatsoever in the Western world, because the prevailing theory of law is legal positivism.

File: 1388626981721.jpg (32KB, 285x285px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 285x285px

>>268800
Fucking comedy *gold*.

>>268802
Because we're *SPECIFICALLY* talking about the *CHRISTIAN* God?

Baka je nai no?

>>268809
>>268802
Actually not even just the Christian God - the God of all the Abrahamic faiths has these qualities.

>>268672
You could apply the same to lying or really anything else the categorical imperative covers. It becomes meaningless when do you that, because the entire criterion of the fucking categorical imperative is, "How would it work if everyone did this all the time?"

So there goes your "objective morality".

>>268673
Except Christianity has an Apostolic council that ensures the morality is interpreted according to God's word.

>>268678
God commanded us to go forth and multiply. There's nothing wrong with celibacy, but the entire race going extinct would be a no-no

>>268800
It's Jim Profit. Just ignore him.

>>268825
>God commanded us to go forth and multiply
God commanded Noah and his sons. They did.

>>268806
>tripfag
>post animu and /v/ reaction images
Welcome to the filter shitlord.

File: 1409880981618.jpg (66KB, 937x646px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 937x646px

>>268834
Cool story bro!

>>268817
So does the Zoastrian God...and the Platonic God....and the Gnostic God. The Zoastrian God and the Platonic/Gnostic Monad is where Christians got their ideas about how to design God's super power from.

You spent 2 posts trying to argue that the Zoroastrian God cannot be a source of morality because he doesn't fit the definition of God.

>>268429
seems stupid

do you want others to give you all their money? then do it
do you want others to get out of the way when you are in the queue? then you do the same
do you want others to not drive on the roads because it's better having ti to yourself? then don't drive

>>268843
>So does the Zoastrian God...and the Platonic God....and the Gnostic God
Sure, but those don't exist, or if they are then they're mistaken characterizations of the Christian God.

>You spent 2 posts trying to argue that the Zoroastrian God cannot be a source of morality because he doesn't fit the definition of God
I haven't mentioned the 'Zoroastrian god' once, actually.

>>268454
he asked for opinions not agreement you fucking loser

I am confused why does it matter

>>268825
>You could apply the same to lying or really anything else the categorical imperative covers. It becomes meaningless when do you that, because the entire criterion of the fucking categorical imperative is, "How would it work if everyone did this all the time?"

Which is why the categorical imperative is a shitty system of morality. I wasn't advocating for it, I believe attempts at moral reasoning are bound to fail because it's inherently emotional. That's why Schopenhauer was superior to Kant in every way.

>So there goes your "objective morality".

I don't need objective morality. As I said in >>268618 the pragmatic function of law renders any notion of objective morality - religious or secular - completely redundant. It's just blabbering abstract frosting on the nature of reality, which is that force determines victory, and people who fear death and theft will bind together to form a monopoly on force that reduces such activities.

>>268829
God commanded Adam and Eve

>>268859
Because otherwise anything people establish is equally valid to anything else, such as the psychopathic murderer's "morality" being equally valid with Judeo-Christian pacifism.

>>268853
Ok. Disprove the Platonic God, the Gnostic God, and the Zoroastrian God.

>>268864
Genesis 9:7.

>>268454
>durrr arguments trigger me

>>268540
>I'm more interested in how something becomes moral just because God says it is?

seems pretty obvious. god is all mighty being. if he commands something is immoral, then it is immoral. I mean he created the entire universe including yourself, I don't see why he couldn't make a few sentences true

>>268870
I don't have to. I'm asserting they don't exist as a matter of faith.

>>268864
How often has mankind actually stuck to its moral values in it's most dark and desperate times?

>>268876
Often if you're talking individuals. If you're talking the collective mob then who cares what they do.

>>268861
>That's why Schopenhauer was superior to Kant in every way.
And Nietzsche was superior to Schop. And Dostoevsky was superior to Nietzsche
>>263040

>the pragmatic function of law
Right, the state replaces God in most atheist morality today.

>>268871
Genesis 1:28

>>268886
Neither of us is wrong. What is your point.

>>268876
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Elisabeth_of_Hesse_and_by_Rhine_(1864%E2%80%931918)

>>268870
Ignore him. Literally every one of his "arguments" come down to the same solipsist cop out.

>>268891
My point is it wasn't a contextual order, it was something intended for humanity as a whole from the beginning, even before the fall.

>>268895
And every one of your shitty beliefs stem from logically unjustifiable positions cocksucker.

>>268800
Lmao

>>268898
Adam and Eve. Noah and sons. Why we ought to extend that beyond them I see no reason whatsoever. We have a New Covenant, and Christ says nothing whatsoever about an obligation to fuck the opposite gender to create progeny.

>>268901
So you're an agnostic theist?

>>268901
You don't know squat about him. For all you know he's a Christian upset that you aren't using sound theological and philosophical arguments to defend your faith.

File: 1435572499512.jpg (57KB, 484x404px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 484x404px

>>268901
>logically unjustifiable

>>268868
The validity you talk about has no meaning. Magic the gathering lore has more meaning. No matter what philosophy you vomit up the psycho will STILL murder people. He will still follow his morality. In the real world his morality IS JUST AS VALID AS GOD'S. The affect of his morality will be XYZ and that effect is a real thing bro. The Christian too with his 'true morality' will do abc and that effect will be real too.

There's a passage in Beyond Good and Evil which says that truth's will continue to exist regardless of if people defend or believe in them. The laws of physics will still exist if you don't believe in them. In morality the only real truth is the outcome of morality, that's the only thing that will continue to exist without defense or beleif. So the only thing that is really 'true' about a morality is the consequence. "Objective morality" would be a fairy tale, even if the Christian God existed. The moment people stop defending or argueing "objective morality" it stops existing.

>>268885
>And Nietzsche was superior to Schop. And Dostoevsky was superior to Nietzsche

Nietzsche to me just seems like an obscurantist version of Stirner with good prose. I haven't read Dostoevsky so I can't comment on him, but I'd be interested to hear your reasoning for this statement, since I gave mine.

>Right, the state replaces God in most atheist morality today.

The state was considered harmonious with God for most of history. Medieval Europeans believe in the divine right of kings. Rome, Egypt, Peru, China and Japan deified their rulers. The state has not replaced God, just outlasted him.

>>268921
No shit?

>>>268922
>You don't know squat about him
I was arguing with that faggot last night - butt out dick-sucker

>>268914
Uh, the point of the new covenant is ultimately to reverse the fall.

File: 424481_314262778621698_575816095_n.jpg (51KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 960x720px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethical_theories
Atheists would subscribe to one of the secular theories on this list (even some religious people may subscribe to a secular ethical theory).

>>268922
He rambles on about unfounded assumptions and then bases entire arguments around inventing personal characteristics of his opponents. Just ignore his childish bullshit.

>>268932
>I was arguing with that faggot last night - butt out dick-sucker

This is an anonymous image board. You don't know who the hell you're arguing with. More than one person may dislike you.

>>268927
>The validity you talk about has no meaning
No, it *HAS* meaning whereas relativism there *NECESSARILY IS NONE*. There is no meaning if everything is equally meaningful, which is what relativism posits. The only way there can be meaning is if there are meaningful propositions, AKA "Truth", and non-meaningful ones, AKA "falsity or not-Truth".

File: 1437721295478.png (1MB, 1071x785px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1071x785px

>>268941
I've only specifically talked about the shit he's talking about last night. Maybe it's some random other dude - if it was he can say something. I'm free to assume it's the same guy you queer dick-licking faggot.

Christain here

>It's incredibly easy to form a moral framework and not believe in any deity at the same time.

I just don't see how though. Or, put it this way, for an atheist what makes moral statements truth-apt? What gives moral statements veracity?

For me, statements like "x murdering y in cold blood is wrong", is made true by gods commandment that tho shalt not kill. God said that, and so it is true - objectively.

For an atheist, what objective thing makes this a true statement? Or, it isn't a true statement? I think atheists like to think things are wrong, at least some things. So it should be easy to spell out what makes moral statements truth-apt. But they can't.

For most atheists, they subscribe to a spiritual and existential void ontology of scientific materialism/physicalism. The only thing which exists if matter and void. So how can an atheist find objective moral truths when there's just cold dead matter? There's nothing in existence which could make, for an atheist universe, moral statements true. There is nothing for the statements to match (or not match) against to make them true or false.

This is what I think. When a christain says "x is wrong", the christain thinks that that statement is made true by corresponding to the truth set out by an almighty being who is responsible for their existence. For an atheist there is nothing for the statement to correspond with. The statment is not even wrong, or right, it's more like when someone says "hello", that's not really a true or false thing to say. it's the same when atheist talk of morality.

And even worse is atheist relativists. You know the type who say FGM is okay because x culture thinks it is.

Well sorry atheists just because a lot of people think something is true doesn't make it so. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

>>268935
>Uh, the point of the new covenant is ultimately to reverse the fall
The point of the New Covenant is for men to find salvation by God's Grace. 'The fall' is irrevocable on Earth - nothing can be done about it. It's only by God's Grace that He grants us mercy where we deserve none.

>>268930
I also believe morals are existential, being an Orthodox Christian. They aren't derived necessarily from reason, but from love. But I suggest you review the excerpts in the thread I linked you to, if you haven't read Dostoevsky.

>The state was considered harmonious with God for most of history. Medieval Europeans believe in the divine right of kings. Rome, Egypt, Peru, China and Japan deified their rulers. The state has not replaced God, just outlasted him.
"Divine right of kings" didn't mean how we think of it today until the 1500's. A king was divinely ordained, but he wasn't infallible; the idea of divine right working how King James and company thought of it was modeled on the Pope, in order to replace him, and that sort of thinking with the Pope also took a while to innovate. Kings could be and were excommunicated, it was very different from deifying a ruler. Furthermore, the state did *not* replace God, the state and Church were harmonious so long as they didn't intrude too much on either other's jurisdiction; the state at most was a material reflection of divine order, but it wasn't a replacement of it, it was an imitation.

>>268950
>'The fall' is irrevocable on Earth - nothing can be done about it
Ah, what? What about the Resurrection of the Dead, and the Life in the Age to Come?

>>268941
Stop responding to him. Every time someone falls for it, the thread becomes 200+ posts long with <20 unique posters of people telling him he's an idiot while he posts anime reaction faces and intentionally uses fallacious reasoning. He's not here to debate, he will drop any standard of logic he previously proposed the second it becomes apparent he's wrong.

>>268947
Because contrary to popular belief, atheists aren't robots and have emotions, and feelings and shit. An atheist is not a nihilist and this argument is beyond retarded. Atheists simply don't believe in god, and don't need god to find human values in things. Morals are inherently a humanistic thing, for interacting with other humans. God has no need for morals because he is the only god, and he created everything the way he wanted anyways. Morals only have relevance to humans, not god.

>>268961
"On Earth."

>>268950
>It's only by God's Grace that He grants us mercy where we deserve none.
As Orthodox, I don't see death being about God punishing us. It's a product of sin, but God said we will surely die from eating the fruit, not that he kills us for eating the fruit. Animals suffer due to man's fall too, do you think they're dying because they're being punished by God?

>>268970
That will be on earth, derp

>>268947
You can use experience and reasoning to figure a whole lot of shit out. Well most people can.
You are basically telling me you would not know whether or not to eat dog shit unless God-Jesus explained this to.

Of course even if you wanted God Jesus to tell you not be a shit-eater you would need to use that same experience and reasoning to figure out which branch of Christianity you should follow. The Catholics and Protestants have very different views on feces consumption. =^)

>>268961
Unless you're talking about Revelations. In which case I don't talk about Revelations.

>>268978
Well which books *do* you talk about?

>>268972
>As Orthodox, I don't see death being about God punishing us.
Neither do I. You can grant mercy to someone you haven't caused any harm to.
It would be merciful to save a guy who tried to kill you who is hanging on the edge of a cliff because he lost his footing on a path - it wouldn't be punishment to let him fall.

>>268982
Everything in the Old Testament and all of the Gospels in the New Testament.

>>268984
Then mercy in this case is saving man from the fall by healing, through Christ's blood, the massive disruption and rift he made in the spiritual fabric.

>>268988
Why only the Gospels in the NT?

>>268991
Sure. I agree with that. I'm just saying I wasn't implying hell is a punishment rather than something akin to a mechanistic state of affairs.

>>268991
>the massive disruption and rift he made in the spiritual fabric

whats next u gonna fire ur fucking spirit gun

>>268947
Empathy.

When I hear of a murder I feel bad. If I steal something I feel guilty. This is how I know it's wrong.
You could argue that this isn't objective, and you'd be right.

I would in turn argue that your religious morality isn't an objective truth either, because your religion is false. It's a delusional myth upheld by a select group of people, and is actually contradictory to the real objective world.
Religious morality only seems objective to the religious. From my perspective, your holy laws are a subjective belief without any real grounding in reality.

>>268994
I can talk about the others, but I view them in like to much of the Old Testament in being contextual history for understanding, and not delivering anything necessary for the faith like is found in the Gospels.

>>269003
Why do you esteem the Gospels in the NT higher than the numerous others?

>>268999
>because your religion is false
You can demonstrate this?

>>269008
Because Christ is in them? And encapsulated in them are the Holy Words of God Himself?

>>268947
>need yhwh to have a soul
If I'm a heathen without a soul, how will god cast my soul to hell?

>>269012
Christ is in a ton of Gospels that aren't in the NT

>>269009
Not without knowing what religion you adhere to, and how literally you take your holy texts.
If you believe in only the things that haven't yet been disproved, then no, I can't prove your belief is false.

I can, however, make a strong case for why your belief is illogical, but that's got nothing to with morality.

>>268956
>I also believe morals are existential, being an Orthodox Christian. They aren't derived necessarily from reason, but from love.

I was raised a Roman Catholic, but to be honest, I have kinda distanced myself from Orthodoxy because most Orthodox people I knew were very angry Slavs that rambled on about how they wanted to kill large swathes of people they considered degenerates. However, I know this is an unfair characterization, and I have heard Dostoevsky is actually renown for portraying atheist characters as real people instead of strawmen, so I will give it a look.

>"Divine right of kings" didn't mean how we think of it today until the 1500's

I am aware that absolute monarchy wasn't really prevalent until the early modern era.

>A king was divinely ordained, but he wasn't infallible; the idea of divine right working how King James and company thought of it was modeled on the Pope, in order to replace him, and that sort of thinking with the Pope also took a while to innovate. Kings could be and were excommunicated, it was very different from deifying a ruler.

I didn't say it was the same as having a God-emperor, but they considered legitimate authority to be derived from God.

>Furthermore, the state did *not* replace God

I wasn't the one who said that, you did. I am aware the church still has important community functions now that separation of church and state are prevalent, but it's not like secular charities and NGOs can't perform charity, either.

If the person I was responding to wasn't you, I apologize for my error, but he seemed to be suggesting in saying "atheist morality replaces God with the state" that being an atheist somehow makes you authoritarian, which simply isn't true. In fact, generalizing atheist attempts at normative ethics as state-derived only applies to a small number of cases. I ignore the concept of moral legitimacy entirely because I don't believe it's necessary in order to achieve a lawful society.

>>269030
I take it as a measure of faith that the Bible contains the Word of God.

>can, however, make a strong case for why your belief is illogical
Oh *PLEASE* try to do this.

>>269026
I reread your post and wait what.

>>269042
There are a shitton of Gospels about Christ. The NT only has four of them in it, the ones the Church determined were canon.

>>269046
I take it on faith the others were falsities.

>>269049
Just so we're on the same page--what exactly do you mean by "take it on faith"?

>>269026
>>269030

You're wasting your time, guys. You're literally feeding a troll.

>>269049
You take it on faith the Church's choice was the right one, then?

>>269053
I believe they were falsities. Faith is synonymous with belief in the Bible - the base word is 'pistis'.

>>269053
He means he has no standards of evidence or logic and will dismiss anything you say that he doesn't like to hear. This is why he believes arguments are futile. He's the epitome of a special snowflake weeb tripfag.

>>269057
>You take it on faith the Church's choice was the right one, then?
Not necessarily. I take it on faith that the Bible I read is the one God intended for me to read. How exactly it happened that it got to me I don't really care, because I don't know nor can think of any way in which I might know exactly how it came to reach my hands.

>>269060
Alright. Now, is your belief that they were falsities based on any particular set of evidence?

>>269070
>Now, is your belief that they were falsities based on any particular set of evidence?
Nope.

>>269070
They never are. How many times do I have to repeat myself. He's a fucking idiot.

>>269067
>I take it on faith that the Bible I read is the one God intended for me to read.
>>269060
So we're clear on this, then: the Holy Spirit guided the Church in her decision of choosing what was and was not canon, yes? Unless you are suggesting it didn't, and the Church just *happened* to pick the ones God wanted?

>>269073
And you're an obstinate shit-poster who can't tolerate people don't ascribe to your ludicrous axioms. Don't let that stop you from being a faggot though.

>>268999
>You could argue that this isn't objective, and you'd be right.

Then on what basis do you have to say that someone else who feels differently is wrong?

For example, you might feel guilty murdering someone, and then 'know' that it's wrong from that feeling. But your friend is a sociopath who doesn't feel guilty, in fact he feels good, so he claims that it isn't wrong in fact it's virtuous.

You can't both be right, so how do you tell who is wrong? You just 'feel' you're right?

This sort of 'feeling' is the kind of thing you atheist hassle christains about all the time.

>From my perspective, your holy laws are a subjective belief without any real grounding in reality.

is that a 'feeling' from your perspective, or an objective truth? it looks like a feeling to me. and if it isn't a feeling, then how do you differientiate between what is truth and what is your subjective feelings, when they both feel the same. eg, you 'feel' murder is wrong, you 'feel' christianity is wrong. and yet you claim one is a subjective feeling and one is an objective truth. you have no way of telling.

basically all you're saying is "my fee-fees say your religion is wrong, and my fee-fees also say that my fee-fees are an objective truth about reality". it's nonsense. This is what happens when you deny the true source of objective truth.

>>269074
>the Holy Spirit guided the Church in her decision of choosing what was and was not canon, yes?
No, not necessarily. God could have written the Bible by His own hands and people mistakenly believed that men had recorded it.

For me it seems that for both theists and atheists authentic, intellectually honest morality is impossible.

For the theist, his morality is not of his own and, as such, morality is still subjugation to his god's law. Killing, stealing and what have you are wrong only because God deems them as such.

For the atheist, you can either be a hypocrite by adopting moral relativism or embrace nihilism and reject morality.

Authentic morality is absolute morality and absolute morality derived from the individual(as opposed to 'God's law') does not exist.

>>269080
But you affirm that the Church selected the Gospels God wrote then, yeah? And do you think God guided them in this regard, or do you think it was pure dumb luck?

>>269087
>But you affirm that the Church selected the Gospels God wrote then, yeah?
No, I don't. They could have, but I don't affirm that they did.

>>269089
>No, I don't. They could have, but I don't affirm that they did.
But you have faith they did, yeah?

>>269091
No. I have faith that the Bible I read is the one God intended I read. Nothing more than that.

>>269073
This is the first time I've encountered this Praceteom fellow, so I'm going to give him a fair shake before I make any judgments.

>>269071
For what it's worth--and I suspect you might already be aware of this--this is where you and most atheists ultimately differ. For some people (many of whom are atheist), deciding that a given piece of information is true or false based on no evidence (i.e. deciding based on faith) is deeply unsatisfying and/or invalid. Whereas for you, doing so is perfectly fine (at least on certain topics).

>>269093
The Bible you read was assembled by the Church out of countless choices. So you either have faith that the Church assembled it through God's will, or you have faith that it was purely coincidentally coinciding with God's will.

>>269097
>For what it's worth--and I suspect you might already be aware of this--this is where you and most atheists ultimately differ
Oh I am *well* aware of that.

>>269098
>The Bible you read was assembled by the Church out of countless choices
I actually don't necessarily believe that.

>>269101
Then you deny history.

>>269101
Why not?

>>269079
Not the guy you're responding to, but this is my reply as a moral nihilist. Moral nihilism is not the same as moral relativism.

>Then on what basis do you have to say that someone else who feels differently is wrong?
>For example, you might feel guilty murdering someone, and then 'know' that it's wrong from that feeling. But your friend is a sociopath who doesn't feel guilty, in fact he feels good, so he claims that it isn't wrong in fact it's virtuous.

People who feel murder is wrong are the majority and will punish murderers.

>You can't both be right, so how do you tell who is wrong? You just 'feel' you're right?

It doesn't matter who is right. Talk does not change the nature of things. If your family is slaughtered by a murderer and he never gets punished, the situation is exactly the same regardless of whether you ascribe an objective good or bad to it.

>This sort of 'feeling' is the kind of thing you atheist hassle christains about all the time.

Saying atheists are against emotion is like saying Christians are against all logic. Can you see how stupid of an over generalization that is?

>is that a 'feeling' from your perspective, or an objective truth? it looks like a feeling to me. and if it isn't a feeling, then how do you differientiate between what is truth and what is your subjective feelings, when they both feel the same.

They are both the same. Calling something morally wrong is expressing your feelings.

>eg, you 'feel' murder is wrong, you 'feel' christianity is wrong. and yet you claim one is a subjective feeling and one is an objective truth. you have no way of telling.

You are conflating moral truths with ontological truths, a distinction which many atheists differ on. I myself reject the existence of moral truths entirely. Problem solved. I believe Christianity is factually wrong, but not morally wrong, because the concept of "moral wrongness" is a confusion of imperatives with statements.

>>269104
History doesn't necessarily correlate with truth. How many patently wrong things do you believe people acknowledge as 'truth' in regard to the past? I think it's a great many.

>>269110
see
>>269112

>>268088
>implying God is a deity
"The Tao that can be spoken of is not the Constant Tao"
Fuck this thread.

>>269097
>This is the first time I've encountered this Praceteom fellow, so I'm going to give him a fair shake before I make any judgments.

You're not giving him a fair shake. You're giving a troll attention and letting him shit up what could otherwise be a decent conversation without his attention whoring presence. Learn from the mistakes of others before you repeat them yourself, it will become gradually clearer as you go on talking to him that I am correct and any attempt at reasoning is futile.

>>269112
But what reason to have to believe history is wrong here?

>>269120
What reason do I have to believe it's right? I don't make a judgment because there's nothing upon which I can *base* a judgment about events I've never experienced. It's questionable whether or not even if I *had* experienced them whether I'd know the truth of the matter, since men's senses seem to betray them in regard to quite slew of things.

>>269093
Hmm, alright. Then, you're aware that some people find the following notion:

Belief--without supporting evidence--that a piece of text was derived from (or even put together) by an omnipotent, omniscient divine being rather than just from humans

to be irrational, or even ludicrous? How would you describe people who hold such an opinion towards your practice?

>>269125
Okay, since you don't take anything on anything but faith: why do you lack faith that the Church assembled them, since God founded the Church?

>>269126
>to be irrational, or even ludicrous?
It's not 'irrational' in the sense of 'reason' being that which has to do with logic. There's nothing illogical about a belief in anything so long as neither the belief itself nor its justification are logically circular or contradictory.

>>269118
I'm not yet convinced he's a troll. Just because someone takes a hostile tone against you doesn't mean that person is necessarily a troll.

From what I've seen so far, Praceteom strikes me as someone who...starts off with a premise that strikes me (and as it turns out, a lot of other people on this thread) as being very unusual. Irrational, even. That does not make him a troll in my book.

>>269081
>Authentic morality is absolute morality

Autistic morality is absolute morality. People who believe in absolute morality end up committing more violent atrocities than the immoral folks they ramble about.

>>269135
That all depends on whether or not they hold love as the ultimate good.

>>269129
I don't see a reason to have faith in that. I have a reason to have faith in the Bible - it provides me and people in general with a divine purpose and an objective standard for what ultimately constitutes value, right, wrong, and truth in life.

>>269142
Your faith is contingent on reason?

>>269133
It's not that, it's all of his characteristics together. He's irrational, illogical, hostile and not interested in conversation or debate. His only purpose is to waste your time with non-sequiturs while you try (and fail) to piece together some semblance of coherent thought in his autistic little mind.

>>269142
This seems like a secular justification for faith.

>>269147
It's contingent on logic, but that isn't saying anything particularly striking, since logic doesn't put all that much of a constraint on beliefs outside the requirement of not being contradictory or circular.

>>269152
I don't think so at all. I can't think of a way I could possibly be *more* convicted in my faith in Christ.

>>269140
"Love" is not a single, unified thing. In fact, love often drives people to become obsessive stalkers in excess.

>>269135
If your morality isn't good enough to die for, either you as an individual or the morality is worthless. ;)

>>269140
Then since atheists can love, God isn't necessary for absolute morality.

>>269154
Faith is contradictory, though. The idea that God can die contradicts God's fundamental nature. The idea that the Son is synonymous with God, and the Father is synonymous with God, but the Son and the Father are not synonymous, defies the very first rule of logic (if A = B and B = C, then C = A)..

>>269162
By love I mean agape, not eros.

>>269171
Atheists can love *because* of God, regardless of whether or not they believe in him.

>>269177
Christians can love because of evolution endowing humans with emotion, even though God doesn't exist.

>>269183
Agape isn't an emotion.

>>269172
>Faith is contradictory, though
I don't think it is. Faith is just belief. You *can* have contradictory faith, but it's not necessarily contradictory at all.

>The idea that God can die contradicts God's fundamental nature
God "died" in the material sense. He didn't *actually* "die" in the sense that a Christian views *REAL* death, which is spiritual death in an eternal separation from God.

>The idea that the Son is synonymous with God, and the Father is synonymous with God, but the Son and the Father are not synonymous, defies the very first rule of logic
It's not; you can finangle faith in the Trinity using some logical devices, such as by talking about it in terms of overlapping colors being one color while simultaneously being another.

>>269169
Dying for your beliefs is pretty much what makes people extremists. As Bertrand Russell said, I wouldn't die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.

>>269188
All forms of love are emotional. There's a reason people react so strongly to stories of self sacrifice.

>>269190
>God "died" in the material sense. He didn't *actually* "die" in the sense that a Christian views *REAL* death, which is spiritual death in an eternal separation from God.
Christ *was* separated from God, temporarily. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

>It's not; you can finangle faith in the Trinity using some logical devices, such as by talking about it in terms of overlapping colors being one color while simultaneously being another.
That's true, but then you couldn't say number 156 blue = the color blue, because the color blue is a category of numerous identities. Just like you couldn't say 1 = numbers. You could say 1 = A number (but that would also be incorrect, because 1 is not equal to each number), but Christ is not A God, compared to the Father being ANOTHER God.

>>269208
Yet having morality is by itself extremist. Having only some preferences you derive from empathy and your cultural background which you may or may not follow based on circumstance("Lying is bad, but if I lie the outcome will be better.") does not equal morality.

The way I see it, morality must equal a worldview upon which all your actions should be based. Sure, you can go against them based on your personal weaknesses, but once you justify your moral transgressions, you can no longer claim to have an authentic moral system.

>>269216
>Christ *was* separated from God, temporarily
That's why there's the caveat "eternal".

>That's true, but then you couldn't say number 156 blue = the color blue, because the color blue is a category of numerous identities
Isn't God? God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. One God with numerous aspects.

>>269208
>All forms of love are emotional. There's a reason people react so strongly to stories of self sacrifice.
Agape transcends emotion. You can have an emotional love in response to things, but it's not synonymous with agape. Agape can in fact be most intense during a total absence of any emotional agitation, such as during hesychasm.

>>269224
>That's why there's the caveat "eternal".
Death doesn't have to be eternal, it just means separation from God. God told Adam and Eve they'd surely die, but they were reconciled.

.>Isn't God? God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. One God with numerous aspects.
Each aspect = God, though. The Son does not equal "a piece of God", the Son = God.

>>269221
>Yet having morality is by itself extremist

Not really.

>Having only some preferences you derive from empathy and your cultural background which you may or may not follow based on circumstance("Lying is bad, but if I lie the outcome will be better.") does not equal morality.

Yes, it does. It's just not your preferred type of morality because it isn't rigid and autistic enough, so you dismiss it entirely with mental gymnastics.

>The way I see it, morality must equal a worldview upon which all your actions should be based.

Empathy and cultural background do combine to create a worldview. People with varying levels of empathy and cultural backgrounds have wildly varying outlooks because of it.

>Sure, you can go against them based on your personal weaknesses, but once you justify your moral transgressions, you can no longer claim to have an authentic moral system.

Nobody can have an authentic moral system due to Hume's is-ought problem. There's nothing objective to derive them from.

>>269229
>Agape transcends emotion.

No it doesn't, you just see it as transcendent because it's a really strong emotion. Your entire post is literally muh feels.

>>269230
>Death doesn't have to be eternal, it just means separation from God
I think the only state of death must necessarily be an eternal one, else it wouldn't carry the weight of "death" we have always attached to the word. A temporary death would be akin to a minor setback or a temporal lapse, which do not carry the heavy and final connotations of "death" which I think that word means to have.

>Each aspect = God, though
Sure, but saying that God is God, the Father is God, the Son is God, and The Holy Spirit is God is not saying any of them are a piece of God - it's saying they *ARE* God. Saying they're thought of as different aspects of the same God and are God themselves isn't immediately problematic. The word 'aspect' is a good one.

>>269249
>No it doesn't, you just see it as transcendent because it's a really strong emotion. Your entire post is literally muh feels.
You say that, but when I'm strongly emotional, I am very agitated.or impassioned. Yet agape is an extremely strong experience, the most powerful there is, and I can most clearly experience it when I'm very calm emotionally.

>>269249
To elaborate further upon my responses

>Yet having morality is by itself extremist
>Not really.

Extremism is defined by wildly diverging from the norm, and since most people believe in some kind of moral law (albeit one you disagree with) being moral hardly makes you an extremist. There would not be widespread condemnation of groups like ISIS if people didn't have a normative and fairly common morality in the first place.

>Agape transcends emotion.
>No it doesn't, you just see it as transcendent because it's a really strong emotion.

The concept of transcendence is just a really strong emotion itself, as in religious ecstasy, which mimics the manic episodes of bipolar people.

>>269251
>I think the only state of death must necessarily be an eternal one, else it wouldn't carry the weight of "death" we have always attached to the word. A temporary death would be akin to a minor setback or a temporal lapse, which do not carry the heavy and final connotations of "death" which I think that word means to have.
That's a personal idea, though, not Christian terminology, as per Isaiah 53:9

>d. Saying they're thought of as different aspects of the same God and are God themselves isn't immediately problematic. The word 'aspect' is a good one.

No, since an aspect of x ≠ x

File: 11539678_1569755853264007_3803395710127707042_n (1).jpg (45KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 960x960px

>>269249
>Nobody can have an authentic moral system due to Hume's is-ought problem. There's nothing objective to derive them from.

Exactly, so that's why the concept of morality should go into the trashcan of history.

>>269265
>You say that, but when I'm strongly emotional, I am very agitated.or impassioned.

You are using the word emotional in a much narrower sense than I am. For me, an emotion is a feeling. It doesn't not have to be "fiery" if you get me, I would consider boredom and contentment to be emotions but they're neither passionate nor agitated.

>Yet agape is an extremely strong experience, the most powerful there is, and I can most clearly experience it when I'm very calm emotionally.

Being calm in itself is an emotion - it generally comes with feelings and associations like security and comfiness. I would say it is related to joy in this sense, albeit much weaker in intensity. If agape is not an emotion, why is it felt as if it were one? It is certainly a state of feeling, and I don't see why that label should only apply to emotions we associate with negative things like anger or anxiety.

File: 1431833753594.png (58KB, 636x674px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 636x674px

>>269280
>should go into the trashcan of history.
>should

You reject morality, yet you're still spooked as fug m8

>>269270
>Extremism is defined by wildly diverging from the norm
No, because only 'extremists' can be moral. I have no love for ISIS or what have you, but they are actually following a strict moral code derived from their particular interpretation of Islam.

> There would not be widespread condemnation of groups like ISIS if people didn't have a normative and fairly common morality in the first place.

Which is not a proof of morality(which is internalized). The condemnations you talk about are based on herd instinct and the desire to feel(=/=be) a 'good person'. "Oh, look at him! He's so passionate that he even changed his FB display picture and cover!" But your average individual will soon forget about the whole ordeal after some time passes. They cry only about the stories which are rendered important by the media and political elite, while other tragedies just aren't that important.

>>269276
>No, since an aspect of x ≠ x
There is already a difference between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit respectively that is incontrovertible I think, and that we can't *but* admit to, because it's impossible to talk about them without it. We *may* refer to each as God, but when talking about them we do so in distinct terms - naming God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy spirit. Christ Himself did this - there's an absolute difference between them in that if you're to talk about a Trinity you must refer to each distinctly even though you're talking about God as being unified.

But I will say that I have a belief in all of the omni-qualities of God that any Christian has, and that those are not logically contradictory. Omnipotence implies the ability to do the logically contradictory, since God by His omnipotence created the universe by which things appear to be structured logically to begin with. So it could very logically possibly be that God Himself defies the laws that He binds us by - there's nothing inconsistent about that belief. In fact, logic necessitates it.

>>269299
English is my second language, m8. Don't expect me to know all the fineries of "can", "may", "should".

>>269294
>You are using the word emotional in a much narrower sense than I am. For me, an emotion is a feeling. It doesn't not have to be "fiery" if you get me, I would consider boredom and contentment to be emotions but they're neither passionate nor agitated.
Neither are they highly intense.

>If agape is not an emotion, why is it felt as if it were one?
Well, because in Orthodox Christianity, we worship with our whole body, not just our spirit. So it will have physical feelings, your brain and chemicals and so on, but it will also have a spiritual dimension absent from other emotions, and that is where the intensity lies.

>>269276
>That's a personal idea, though, not Christian terminology
"Death" is used in different contexts throughout the Bible, and thus in Christian terminology, by different people in different contexts. I think what Christians are to regard as *real* death is what I alluded to, rather than simple bodily death, as death in that sense, for a Christian, can mean something very good rather than something bad that "death" has always really supposed to imply.

>>269312
Smugness is my first language, don't expect me to respect your linguistic difficulties.

>>269308
No, if you say "logic necessitates it", then you're back to enchaining God to logic: God can defy logic because it's logical that God can defy logic.

God exists beyond logic, saying that you can discern that with logic is like saying you can see something by virtue of it being too far away to see. It's beyond logic.

File: Victor Vasnetsov. Viteaz la rascruce. 1878.jpg (145KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1024x576px

>>269325
It's alright, smug anon.

>>269313
>Neither are they highly intense.

I never said they were, but they're feelings and states of mind, which is basically what emotions are.

>Well, because in Orthodox Christianity, we worship with our whole body, not just our spirit. So it will have physical feelings, your brain and chemicals and so on, but it will also have a spiritual dimension absent from other emotions, and that is where the intensity lies.

"Other emotions"... so you admit agape is an emotion now?
I'm not talking about whether other emotions lack spiritual elements, or whether they're less intense than agape, that's a debate for another day. I think pretty much all emotions have physical and mental components though, even if they're subconscious. I'm just saying that, by your emotion, agape is an emotion or feeling, even if you put it in a separate class from the others spiritually.

>>269332
>No, if you say "logic necessitates it"
Logic necessitates *WE* reason that way. That's not a constraint on God Himself - it's a constraint on our reasoning *ABOUT* God.

>>269322
>"Death" is used in different contexts throughout the Bible, and thus in Christian terminology, by different people in different contexts. I think what Christians are to regard as *real* death is what I alluded to, rather than simple bodily death, as death in that sense, for a Christian, can mean something very good rather than something bad that "death" has always really supposed to imply.
No where in the Bible is it indicated that death being temporary precludes it from being death. You might as well say Christ never died bodily either, because that was, after all, temporary.

>>269342
I don't say "preclude". Christ is talked about explicitly as "dying" and rising from "the dead". I'm saying that kind of death isn't the same as the *ULTIMATE* death for any soul which is eternal separation from God. You can say other things are death, but that is the *ULTIMATE* death *for sure*.

>>269337
>I'm just saying that, by your emotion

I mean "by your admission"

>>269337
>"Other emotions"... so you admit agape is an emotion now?
I'm speaking in your terms: agape, so long as we have body, has to be accompanied by physical sensation, because your body is still alive.

> I'm just saying that, by your emotion, agape is an emotion or feeling, even if you put it in a separate class from the others spiritually.
The ripples of it can be felt physically, but the intense splash of it is not a physical sensation.

>>269349
Can you explain your basis for suggesting spiritual death can't be temporary, but bodily death can be?

>>269357
>Can you explain your basis for suggesting spiritual death can't be temporary
I don't suggest this. This is obviously what Christ experienced on the cross. But that's not the same as *real* or *ultimate* DEATH in the sense of eternal separation from God. I can't think of any state of affairs more worthy of being called the *pinnacle* of death *BUT* eternal separation from God.

>>269353
Why do you act like other emotions are purely physical? They are mental sensations accompanied by physical reactions. I do not seeing how adding a spiritual component detracts from this.

>>269365
Then you must agree that God died.

>>269357
Could I ask you to either continue the thought or else recognize the point I made here >>269338
though? I am *very* picky about my logic, and am fairly certain my reasoning is fine.

>>269368
>Why do you act like other emotions are purely physical? They are mental sensations accompanied by physical reactions. I do not seeing how adding a spiritual component detracts from this.
Could you give me an example?

Also, please not that "spiritual" is not synonymous with "cerebral".

>>269375
Faith is God's grace (energies) working through us, so it's not constrained by our fallen limitations.

>>269374
Sure, but not in the ultimate sense. Though His death meant more than all the ultimate deaths of mankind for all time ever could, since it was God Himself rather than our unworthy selves.