What are the best arguments against the idea that "there

Be excellent to each other

File: 1386342754234.jpg (63KB, 400x388px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 400x388px

>>3346205
>tfw we'll be dancing in the streets all night

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1tu7RNTZaU

>>3346205
That's not an argument. That's like some empty aphorism that's supposed to make people feel warm and fuzzy but has nothing behind it.

>>3346225
Party on, OP.

Stoicism

How could there be objective morale without a god? You need someone to set the objective, if there is no god there is no one to set those objectives. The universe is indifferent to everything we do.

Even the morality with god is highly flawed. If you go to hell for murder, does that mean all US soldiers go to hell for killing Germans and Japanese in WW2? What about police shooting a crazy man who threatens others?
The world is not so simply as that you could just be done with 10 laws and it's all good and fine. What is right and what is wrong is a very difficult question that is mostly simply answered by what pleases us most.

Are there any "archive 4plebs" for /his/? Have a lot of bookmarked pages from ages ago...

>>3346192
Define which God and morality, how they ascribe to each other. Upon the conclusion that there is no uniform religion, there can be no uniform morality, making morality relative- which defeats morality.

It's better to consider morality in a secular way as common to the human experience. Killing and theft undermine civilization, so don't do that, rather than Mars declaring murder okay so long as it is honorable.

>>3346225
The burden on proof is on you to give good reasons for the standpoint that there is no morality without religion. When you do that I'll think about responding with argumentation for a different standpoint.

Your move

>>3346192

Morality is subjective

Ethics tries to be objective

there are tons of arguments toward how ethics generate through history

>>3346277
You need to prove that something exists, not that something does not exist.
Either way, without god there can be no morality because everything is subjective and not fixed.

What is morality even? Religion says it's the rules given by god, but what would that be without god? Can you define what you think morality is? How could we determine what is morally right and wrong?

Is murder wrong? Is the death-penalty therefore wrong? Is self defense therefore wrong if it means killing someone? Is killing an intelligent ape wrong? A dog? A chicken? A fly?

>>3346306

One could argue that civilizations grow more intelligent as they go on, ethics gets more perfect with time, you could compare western civilization with any tribal savages and their western ethics would prevail as better and more defined, thanks to the philosophical background of each culture (with all the arguments and counter arguments to every position, a la hegel history of philosophy).

Probably as western civilization goes on, more and more debates about ethics will appear, and that will enrich the western ethics further

>inb4 but muh western does evil shit!

That's morality for you, people choose or not to be ethical, but ethics is set on stone in culture, everyone agrees that murder is bad, that is set in stone, but the degrees where it's accepted is where people start giving ground toward their own morality, you could say that in western society murder is ethically wrong, and you would be correct even if in western society there is people who murder (those are further from the ethically perfect person in western society, to the idea itself). Ethics isn't rebuild everytime someone is born, but morality indeed does.

While western civilization has debated things like that since long ago, some cultures haven't even thought about this, that's the key difference in ethics

>>3346258
http://desuarchive.org/his/

>>3346192
That's not the proposition.

The proposition is that there is no objective basis for morality without God.

You godless people can steal the morality that God provides, and know in your conscience whether what you do is good or evil, only because God exists and His morals exist, and you exist.

>>3346332
>gets more perfect with time
Therefore it is subjective and not a constant, fixed thing
>better and more defined
What is better? Why is it better?

>but ethics is set on stone in culture
No it's not. That is ridiculous. Just a few years ago being gay was seen as wrong, women had to shut up and stay in the kitchen, blacks were second class citizens, if at all. Morality, what we see as right and wrong, changes very quickly.

>everyone agrees that murder is bad
>where it's accepted
Oh, fuck off you idiot. You are one of those typical fucks that thinks he knows what is right and wrong and it's so easy and then you contradict yourself right away.
No one knows what is ethically right or wrong and you are certainly not better than everyone else by somehow knowing it.

>>3346192
Pointing out that ancient Greeks who laid the foundation of Western philosophy had no problem arguing for morality without appeal to God.

>>3346382
Are you saying the ancient Greeks were atheists?

Because if so, im laffin

>>3346387
>Are you saying the ancient Greeks were atheists?
No, I'm saying that Greek philosophers rarely used "because God" as an argument for being good.

>>3346225
Please explain. It is a real philosophical question, regardless if you believe it's not.

>>3346264
Whats the point though? There's no real motive to be a good person if that's the case. If it's all going to end, and there will be nothing forever afterwards, shouldn't you just do what makes you happy? If you get a rush from murder, why not?

>>3346287
So moral relativism? Explain

>>3346374

top kek, such an edgy post

I can agree that your morality is like the wind, typical of a weak mental fortitude, changing everyday because how you feel, but if you were actually serious about this, you would try to philosophy using reason and logic instead of edgy feelings.

There are tons of discussions regarding ethics, that is why you can agree that ethics nowadays are better than before

This however, doesn't work for the edgy teenager that only seeks knowledge to confirm his world view where every human being is bad and really really scary :(

So since i know you haven't read shit about ethics and morality, I will give you three short books:

Euthyphro by Plato
Crito by Plato
An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals by Hume
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by Kant

>inb4 muh derrida

Fuck off, you don't even know the fundamentals

File: 2902e2e1b93feb300551a04be467aaa3--jesus-as-a-child-jesus-son.jpg (25KB, 347x347px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 347x347px

>>3346244
>>3346368
>>3346382
By pointing out that the existence of God has absolutely nothing to do with morality's justification in the slightest. To understand this, lets first look at the various things people mean when they say morality is "objective"

1. They mean the morality is universally followed. This is evidently not the case, for their is no value or value system so prevalent that all people follow it. Few people argue this, outside certain hedonists, so I'll move on.

2. They mean the morality is universally known of. This is evidently not true either, for if a morality was universally known of we wouldn't be having this conversation. This argument is typically made by people who try and act like their philosophy is universal and their opponents are just lying to themselves and pretending to not know to piss off the arguer in question.

3. They mean the morality is objective because it appeals to some aspect of Nature. This kind of morality is 'objective' only insofar as all of its means take reference to objective cause-effect relationships. Its ends however are entirely arbitrary. Most attempts at 'scientific' morality fall here, as do many moral systems [Aristotle's for instance].

4. They mean the morality is universally enforced. Violators are punished, there is a legislation regarding those who pursue false values. This is where the argument comes to a head, as this is literally the only model of objective morality that benefits from assuming God exists, and it amounts to pure Might is Right. It doesn't prove that the philosophy is superior, merely that there exists a philosophy which is universally enforced by force.
[Cont]

>>3346332
Still, how could most if not all people know that murder, rape, incest, is bad? Instinct?

>>3346368
Thats what I meant. "Is there an objective morality". But ultimately I think everyone else could infer that's what I meant.

>>3346462
Which would be fine, if not for the fact that most of the people who make the argument "God is required to justify morality" are doing so in DEFIANCE of the idea of might makes right. To claim that governments and princes are being illogical when they force their values on others, but God isn't when He does the same, is ridiculous. The typical response "Well they're not God!", tells us nothing of philosophical interest, because concepts like legitimacy or sovereignty or authority all rest on a presumed value system that justifies these concepts, and what we're looking for is a value system to justify them.

So what then shall we say, is there no objective morality? Not necessarily. I myself am a Christian, and I see two possibilities for it. The first is simply that this is a case of indirect divine command theory, which is to say the Deity created the cosmos with certain ends in mind and the creatures within it to seek those ends, and legislates to punish those who don't. Existentially this still isn't a very good objective morality, since it is simply one Being cowering all the others into line. It would mean there really isn't anything wrong with sinners or evildoers, other then their misfortune in being born into a cosmos ruled by a being who doesn't share their values.

The other possibility, which I hold more likely, is that there is some kind of meta-values that exists in all possible conscious beings [God included], as a necessary part of being a conscious being. In other words, all value-sets are merely means of various degrees of efficiency to these base values, which are not held [as though a position] but simply are, and tie into the basis of mind and will itself. What these values could be, I have no idea, other then that simple answers like 'happiness' or 'pleasure' or 'power' are clearly wrong. Something more complicated, becoming perhaps, or craving, or something even more esoteric is more likely.

>>3346463

>>>>>>> >>3346461

Hume and Kant both tries to reply that question in their own way

>>3346436
Why do you even ask such a question? You gave no explanation yourself for what you seem to believe is true.

There is no (objective) reason why we should be nice to each other. If I can fuck your gf and you raise my son, great for me. If I eat your food, good for me. If I smash in your head and live on your fertile land, in the house you constructed, fuck the wife you once had, good for me.

Being nice to each other is only good if the others do it, for yourself it's a disadvantage. It's something we want to portray as a universal truth so as to have everyone act accordingly.

>>3346474

>hurr durr i can be bad and get away with it it means there is no ethics whatsoever XD

Since you only can think with retarded examples, i will give you another one:

People who are unethical always search for someone ethical, unethical people don't like between themselves

>inb4 laarping as a lone wolf that can live a solitary life hunting gathering alone

just kekking at your childish redpill worldview

>>3346485

unethical people don't like other unethical people*

>>3346462
Not everyone is religious, nor do we all have the same religion, nor the same interpretations of our religions. Objectively as you are arguing is actually impossible.
>If morality was universally known
More or less, there's not many cultures that condone cannibalism, murder, or rape (given a few outliers). This is (I think) what they mean when they say "objective". Given not everyone agrees on certain aspects of this idea, of course

>>3346473
I fucking love Kant.

>>3346487
If you bothered to read my post you would know I was arguing AGAINST simple divine command theory as a basis for morality.

You're literally just agreeing with me.

>>3346306
Ok lets start with your argument

>without god there can be no morality because everything is subjective and not fixed.

Your standpoint is "without god there can be no morality". The reason you gave to support your standpoint is that "everything is subjective and not fixed."

Now to get a complete argument we need one more piece of information to connect your reason to your standpoint.

Why do you think that everything being subjective supports your standpoint that without god there can be no morality?

What is the concept that warrants the connection between your reason and your standpoint?

>>3346462
>They mean the morality is universally followed.
Nope.

Universally revealed.

>>3346493
That is my second point, and no such universally revealed morality exists. Seriously does it kill you people to read before commenting?

>>3346474
You seem amoral. If that's the case, I have no more to say.

Also, do I need to include my own views in order to invite conversation? To ask a question?

You would like Hobbes, if you ever get the chance.

Many atheists would argue that there is some aspect of universal morality. You can read up on it, if youd like.

>>3346469
There's a massive distinction between an utter and complete lack of morality and having or not having an objective basis for that morality to begin with.

Using God as the objective basis for morality, each and every human being is evil.

And we don't like that. So we pretend we are not evil, and compare ourselves on a subjective and relative curve to people we think are more evil than we are, proclaiming ourselves to be "good people" in comparison to them.

As God is the objective basis for morality, and the standard for that basis is perfection, and as morality is enforced from above, not just based from above, all of humanity being deemed evil by the Law Giver and Creator is a problem for humanity.

A problem God had to die for to fix.

>>3346496
What society for sport eats 1 year old babies?

>>3346496
It doesn't kill me, but I usually do post something about the first thing, before reading the second thing.

Sure hope that's okay with you.

As far as being universally revealed, it is literally written on your heart, and you were literally given a conscience to know right from wrong, as was all of humanity. So yes, universally revealed.

>>3346192
There are none.

>>3346462
>their is no value or value system so prevalent that all people follow it
All people shame cowards and adulterers.

>>3346508
Trick question, the people who hold to those kinds of values are incapable of maintaining a society. This is the error C.S. Lewis made when he argued for his idea of universally known morality, he only measured societies.

The reason that basic moral concepts like "Do not murder" and "Do not rape" are so widespread in civilized society is because they're a prerequisite for civilized society. If a civilized society exists, it exists because it understood basic reciprocity and long-term planning [for whatever value-set it happened to follow].

I can show you plenty of criminals and barbarians who think eating 1 year old babies is perfectly fine, and have absolutely no moral guilt over doing so.

>>3346520
So God given morality is necessary for a cohesive society.

Good to know.

>>3346462

Why is so hard to understand the difference between morals and ethics? morality is personal, ethics is the case were a perfect judgement would know the perfect outcomes and consequences of every action, and thus would know what is just or not

Since humans lack judgement, they can't choose always the most ethically correct solution, they just choose what it goes more to their morality

Knowledge and philosophy tries to clear judgement through time

>inb4 but what is good judgement

consult your nearest philosophy book and start reading

>inb4 there is no good judgement at all

kys

>>3346527
Morality is good and evil.
Ethics is right and wrong.

>>3346517
>All people shame cowards and adulterers

You literally need look no farther then the modern decadent West to know that is not true.
>>3346511
Except that is not true. The conscience doesn't tell you what's right or wrong, it just makes you feel guilt whenever you do something you believe to be wrong.

If what you were saying was true, we wouldn't be having this conversation about the origins of moral systems, since everyone would simply have the same moral system, namely that of universal conscience. This conversation itself is proof against that idea, if the widely divergent philosophies and values of Mankind in every culture under heaven was not obvious enough a proof.

>>3346517
>All people shame cowards and adulterers.
Not only is this factually wrong, people also disagree on what constitutes those.

You have a vastly different concept of "cowardice" and "adultery" from the Romans, for example.

>>3346461
>kek edgy edgy fedora I'm so much smarter than you big names philosophy you're a teenager so edgy hahaa
God, you're pathetic. What kind of brainlet makes a statement like: "There are tons of discussions regarding ethics, that is why you can agree that ethics nowadays are better than before"
That is the dumbest thing I have read in a long time. Do you really think that this is an argument? It's better and right because there is more of it? You have read Plato, Hume and Kant and the most intelligent thought you have to defend your views is this plus ad hominem?

Why do you people even bother to read anything at all if you use no logic to evaluate what you read or what you think yourself? Without logic you can claim anything and it will be true just because you want it to.

>>3346527
Impressive that you wrote so much and said so little, since what is being argued is precisely the methods by which one determines 'good judgment' and how the only one that benefits from assuming monotheism is the philosophy of force.

>>3346535
>You literally need look no farther then the modern decadent West to know that is not true.
Wrong.

>>3346539
>a vastly different concept of "cowardice" and "adultery" from the Romans
I doubt that.

>people also disagree on what constitutes those.
People might disagree over some specific situations, but in general it's pretty clear.

Without the fear of punishment (which in this case is otherworldly and inevitable), people will act immoraly (talking about Christian morals). Not all of people of course, probably not even majority, but that's irrelevant.
I do not mean to imply that heavily religious societies are great, but you have to consider the IQ distribution among any population and that those people can't easily grasp why acting in some way is good or bad for society as whole. As society unravels everyone suffers.
tl;dr people need directions set by a "higher being"
So individually no, person can be moral without being religious, but on society scale it's bad.

>>3346550
This is a perfect example of my second definition of objective morality. You refuse to believe other positions exist.

Everyone else is just pretending to be retarded because they don't want you to be right.

>>3346553
Why should I expect stupid people to be better at following vague commandments from God than the law?

>>3346535
>The conscience doesn't tell you what's right or wrong, it just makes you feel guilt whenever you do something you believe to be wrong.

Yes, that's how it works.

>>3346540

The only way a philosophical position can develop is when it collides with the counter argument and develops some synthesis

that's why history of philosophy is important, you could name it the history of the mind, or the spirit

what you think yourself is just what developed through that history of the mind, it's laughable that you think it's your own thinking without any reference at all

I will give you a tip, if you increase your vocabulary (which philosophy does by anchoring ideas to words), you can increase your judgement of every situation, in this case, language and discussion is key, there is a reason why people who start thinking on another language usually lose some kind of values and start favoring others, and if they don't know much about that language they become simple minded

>>3346535
>we wouldn't be having this conversation

Your assumption that everyone would choose good and avoid evil is false.

It's the most false thing that has ever been uttered on planet earth.

The empirical evidence for the falsity of that statement is so overwhelming that you could spend the rest of your life uncovering it and not scratch the surface.

And yet it is the most intellectually resisted idea there is.

>>3346564
Because vague comandments have otherworldly and inevitable sanctions. "Fear of God" if you want. It's a very powerful thing.

>>3346570
It's just the love of sophistry. You'll grow out of it next semester.

>>3346491
>You're agreeing with me.
I'm not disagreeing, but I think your idea of objectivity is too strict in some sense. Even if God were a basis for morality, morality might need to be learned. As in there might be a universal morality that not everyone knows/respects.

Look at the crime rates in religious countries. Religion doesn't seem to be too successfull with teaching them good morals.

>>3346576
>"Fear of God" if you want.
Aye, the beginning of wisdom is to fear God. The most evil vicious killer on earth can only destroy your body; God can destroy your body and cast your soul into hellfire forever. And will.

Yes, fear God. Begin the path to wisdom.

>>3346332
>One could argue that civilizations grow more intelligent as they go on, ethics gets more perfect with time

Modern ethics is absolute shit compared to ethics in the Hellenistic period.

>>3346567
Then its useless for telling right from wrong. A person who by Christian standards is totally and completely evil could have a clear and serene conscience because he believes what he is doing is right.

All conscience serves to do then is help enforce consistency. A very useful function, to make people who think certain things are wrong hesitate to do them even when there is no immediate threat of punishment, but utterly useless if we're trying to figure out what actually makes a given action good or evil.

>>3346576
Fear of God is only a thing if you believe. Besides, people still do immoral things even when they do believe
I have more reason to fear the state, personally. I'd be better off worshipping them

>>3346582
Again with the same argument.

If every single human being ever perfectly understood every single one of God's moral commandments, every single human being would violate every single one of God's moral commandments, and thus be evil.

And morality, unlike philosophy, is enforced from above. Crime and punishment. Good is rewarded; evil is punished with death.

>>3346584
Those are usually impoverished societies with difficult history and cultural issues. No one is implying religion magically makes society great. But without religion they would probably be worse.

>>3346589
Not useless. It is meant to drive you to despair, to realize that you can never be good on your own. You can never use your knowledge of good and evil to be like God.

The devil lied.

And in that despair, you can throw yourself at the feet of God and beg for His grace and mercy, which are abundant, and which will be given to you, freely.

>>3346588

faustian modern civilization is rather new, hellenistic civilization was in their last stages before dying

>>3346205
>Be excellent to each other
Morality doesn't deal only with treating other people.

>>3346604
>Wyld Stallions reference

>your head

>>3346598
>faustian
Are you using this term unironically?

>>3346582
But I do not think God is the basis for morality, I think it is likely some feature of consciousness.

I should clarify by morality here I mean values themselves, as in the ends we seek, not specific prohibitions.
>>3346572
I'm not assuming everyone would choose good, I'm assuming everyone will do ultimately what they truly value. Which is obviously a tautology, that "people do as they will".

What I'm saying is that in order for your philosophy to be true, everyone on earth would have to secretly have Christian values, and only be pretending to have other values out of some evil instinct or desire to befuddle you.

This is a ridiculous conspiracy theory of the highest order.

>>3346609

i want to trigger you about how i use terms to define whatever i want

>>3346225
>some empty aphorism that's supposed to make people feel warm and fuzzy but has nothing behind it
How's it any different from religion

>>3346586
>>3346592
You have to understand I am talking about groups, not individuals. I'm not saying this out of malice or feelings of superiority, but do you really think that people of average or below average intelligence (huge majority in any society) can truly grasp secular humanism for example?
Religion (for the masses) is very simple. I am of course not implying that religion is 100% efficient. But it's pretty efficient compared to pseudo-religions. And almost every ideology becomes pseudo-religion when you introduce it to masses. Only pseudo-religions lack the otherworldly and inevitable punishment, which lessens the motivation to act in accordance to accepted morals.

>>3346612
To further inquire, where do you think morality comes from? Consciousness is pretty vague. And if it's instinct, then shouldn't it be known by all?

desu most people follow prosperity theology nowadays

>>3346612
Exactly.

God: Follow my commandments.
Devil: Do as thou whilst.

Most people are children of the devil.

>>3346558
>You refuse to believe other positions exist.
You didn't even mention what these supposed "other positions" even are.

>>3346612
>This is a ridiculous conspiracy theory of the highest order.

It isn't, actually. Every single human being has a chance to believe, and be saved. None were born merely to perish.

File: christ-our-high-priest.jpg (78KB, 600x437px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 600x437px

>>3346597
Would you please stop acting like you have any wisdom at all? Why try and convert me, I have told you already I am a Christian, all glory to the Most High for He is worthy of praise.

Stop spewing simplistic drivel when we're trying to have a serious conversation. Shit like this is exactly why the atheists are winning, you're all too anti-intellectual. Every time the atheists try and seize ground in a cultural issue, you all fall back, you yield ground, you refuse to engage them with anything other then blind repetitions of Scriptures they do not even believe!

We deserve every defeat we get, if THIS is how we act. I get so tired of entering philosophical threads, trying to argue a sophisticated Christian perspective, taking into account all counterarguments to make clear the oracles of God, when some snakecharming mystical fool runs in and starts spewing soundbites he heard in Sunday school against concepts he clearly does not even understand.

>>3346622
Most groups follow their leader. For instance, the Johah story, when he finally gets to Ninevah and tells his version of ISIS that God is going to judge them, the king tears his clothes, puts ashes on his head, and repents. His kingdom follows. He bought them 40 more years.

>>3346643
>Would you please stop acting like you have any wisdom at all?

No Christian would say this to me.

>>3346485
I don't see how my arguments are retarded, if I do bad to others I can have an advantage. Therefore "be nice to each other" is merely a phrase used to motivate people to be nice to each other, but it's not a universal truth.

>>3346492
Because morality, to me, is a fixed set of rules regarding whether something is right or wrong. Similar to gravity or other fixed sets of rules that exist in our universe. If morality exists, we could define it, measure it, clearly say whether something is right or wrong, but we can not. One famous example is murder, many if not all automatically say murder is wrong but then immediately contradict themselves by trying to define special cases where it's okay. It's all subjective, made up by the current civilization.
If you think morality exists, then tell me, is it right to sleep with another man or not? Vast majority of the world will say it's wrong, modern western civilistation will say it's right. Can you determine with your fixed logic whether it's right or wrong?
.
God could make such fixed rules because he can do everything. (though of course one could go one step further and end up asking whether gods rules are moral themselves or something like that. For example, I don't think that flooding the entire earth was very moral and it contradicts with the new testament god that is much nicer. I guess god himself changes his morals in the bible, from mass murder to all loving Jesus).

It's not exactly a satisfying thought that moral does not exist because the world would be much easier if it was black and white, good guys vs bad guys, but it's not. In the end the entire discussion is without merit because we never really defined what all of this means and now we are just arguing about definitions.

>>3346643
>Stop spewing simplistic drivel

The gospel, to you, a professing Christian, is, to you, spewing simplistic drivel.

This is not a tough call.

You are no Christian, at all.

>>3346655
>I don't think that flooding the entire earth was very moral and it contradicts with the new testament god that is much nicer.

If you knew the hybrid monsters that God drowned so that you could live, you would not be so foolish as to think there is more than one God.

>>3346550
>>3346635
Do you believe that the degree of determination of an act matters to decide the morality of the act?

If God came down and cast a spell onto you to feel super horny so that you literally couldn't do anything other than commit adultery, would that be as immoral as someone doing that without divine intervention?
Or is someone doing that without having a spell cast onto him more immortal?

>>3346667
>immortal
immoral*

>>3346643

>be religious for decades
>quit and go atheist
>oh man, there really are a lot of holes in religious argumentation
>ask religious dudes about it
>oh no, nononono, you got it all wrong, this theological essay from more than a thousand years after our religion was funded explains it all
>nobody back in church every bothered explaining this to me
>wonder why people don't take religions seriously when religions themselves only push a simplified version on the average person
>read up theological stuff
>it doesn't make sense either

>>3346649
Again, I never implied religion is totally efficient.
It's just another factor for society. It won't prevent or suvive everything but that doesn't make it useless.

>>3346625
I should first clarify what I mean by 'morality', for I'm using it here in a far more universal sense then usual. I'll summarize my idea.

1. All deliberated actions are the basis of evaluative reasoning, the weighing between alternatives.

2. All evaluative reasoning stems from implicit or explicit value-sets, a hierarchy of desires that are held by a certain person, wherein some values are held to be desirable purely for the sake of another thing [for instance, vitamins are desirable only insofar as they aid health] and others are desired for both their own sake and as means to another thing, and in theory a man's highest values would be those that are desired for their own sake.

This is where all value-systems come from, is their highest values. Every value set starts with an axiom, a presupposition. For instance "Maximize pleasure" or "Obtain eudaimonia" or "Follow the will of God". This is the highest value, from which all other values act primarily as means. The problem is that these highest values are all axioms, they're assumed, they have no basis other then the assertion. This is why philosophers can never agree on anything, they're all starting from their own subjective premises.

My argument's here can help serve as a kind of attempt to circumvent this reality.
>>3346462
By finding some way to judge between value-systems without making recourse to your own value-system. The way I envision this is to assume the problem doesn't really exist. That at the lowest levels of intelligence, all of our supposed highest values are just ideas we came up with to satisfy very subtle fundamental desires.

If this is the case, then all value-systems can be judged on the basis of their efficiency to these primary values, which in theory motivate our every action and which inspired God to create the universe.

>>3346570
You can't even put a fucking point at the end of your sentences or start a sentence with a capital letter, yet you try to lecture me about vocabulary and language?

>>3346612
Did you see my question?

>>3346676
I've never had anyone ask me a question and leave saying they did not receive an answer to their question.

However, they could say they did not receive an answer they liked to their question. Huge difference. And if you're in the Sunday School "Where did Cain get his wife from?" category, or struggling with the triune nature of an eternal spirit being, there is an answer to any question you have.

>>3346686
Why should anyone accept your subjective definition of morality?

>>3346667
Nice evasive maneuvers.

Intentions matter, but being maximally horny won't force someone into adultery, their decision will.

>>3346686
>1. All deliberated actions are the basis of evaluative reasoning, the weighing between alternatives.

Are you 12? Seriously, are you a child who has been kept in a cage?

>>3346192
Unless you're a Sociopath or Psychopath, everyone is born with a general sense of what's right and wrong.

Morals are for Naruto fans. Don't care about people's feelings.

>>3346686
So is there any objectivity here? Or is it all relative/subjective axioms

File: New_Jerusalem_moebius.jpg (152KB, 960x666px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 960x666px

>>3346660
>>3346652
Its not a question of the Gospel, its the fact that we're not talking about the Gospel, we're talking about the origins and ultimate fundamental basis for good and evil.

If a secular person asks to explain what, ultimately, makes an action good or bad and you cannot explain it to them, they will think you are a fool and that Christianity is a religion of foolishness. WE are commanded thus

"4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, 6 and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled."

You cannot cast down arguments by being a clanging cymbal that cannot even argue his position reasonably. For it is written

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear"

And when I look upon the modern church, the books of apologetic unopened, the layman full of ignorance of Scripture and of its interpretation, and both unwilling and unable to engage the secular persons in combat, what can I say except we deserve this! We deserve to lose our civilization, and we deserve our decadence.

We should be ready, at all times and in all ways, to argue any topic at all that might in any way effect the preaching of the Gospel. Just repeating the basic formulas to people who are trying to understand the justifications for those formulas won't do anything! How do you expect to convince people they must repent if they do not even have a solid concept of good or ill!

>>3346710
Morals involve more than empathy or how you deal with other people. Morality involves everything you do.

>>3346710
Those people were as well, but seared their consciences to the point where they can no longer be in touch with them.

>>3346704

>muh behaviorism
>muh animals
>muh instincts before thoughts

>>3346704
Sorry typed too far, I meant to write "All deliberated actions are an exercise in evaluative reasoning"
>>3346717
Its objective in that its an example of my first idea being justified, that there is some value or values that is truly universal and known of by everyone.
>>3346689
I did not, please link it.

>>3346710
tell that to a 8th century mongol.

>>3346727
>How do you expect to convince people they must repent if they do not even have a solid concept of good or ill!

Gee, maybe someone in this thread (me) should point out that no matter what you do, you will never be good under God's standards, and that instead of trying to be good under any other standards, one should approach God and beg for His grace and mercy.

You want to argue with fools (atheists) because you are a fool.

You have been rebuked. How you handle it is your business. It is not between you and God, for you do not have a relationship with God. You merely love beating fools in intellectual sparring matches with no penalties, and no rewards other than inflating your own already inflated ego.

>>3346701
>Intentions matter, but being maximally horny won't force someone into adultery, their decision will.
If God literally decides that I now have to commit adultery, the decision isn't really on me, because I couldn't act otherwise.

Let's make the cases more similar, though:

a) You are horny. You decide to commit adultery, so you do.
b) You are horny. God decides that you must commit adultery, so you do.

How much can either of them be blamed for their action?

>>3346741
Anyone who thinks all human beings carefully sit around and weigh all of their possible alternative actions and then selects the action with the highest possible utility has not graduated from any school worth attending.

>>3346264
>Killing and theft undermine civilization, so don't do that, rather than Mars declaring murder okay so long as it is honorable.
except a ton of civs were happy with you being a rape-y psycho warlord, as long as you did to the guys next door.

File: 1a43328a0fc0431d70df5b30d9b14b76c8384f08.jpg (43KB, 613x771px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 613x771px

>>3346192
Morality is a spook.

>>3346733
So me buying Sunny D at The Dollar Tree today involved morals?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't follow you so well.

>>3346751
God never tempts any man to sin.

So arguing impossible actions or impossible situations is just mental masturbation.

The adultery is complete when there is lust in the heart for someone who belongs to another, just as fornication is complete when there is lust in the heart for someone who does not belong to another.

The human heart is endlessly wicked, and is the source of all sin.

>>3346753

>i model my morality by what the average brainlet does

you are doing great though, since looking at monkeys would be the same, you would get really good morality insights lol

>>3346764
I model morality the way it was presented to mankind, by God.

Be perfect, as God in heaven is perfect.

Are you perfect, as God in heaven is perfect? No?

Then don't pretend you can be "kind of moral".

>>3346749
I rebuke you, and I rebuke all who think like you. It is commanded that you know God, and you clearly do not. For when the early Christians tries to convince the Jews of the gospel they did not just repeat the gospel mindlessly, they looked to the prophecies which the Jews held in high esteem and demonstrated that Jesus was the Christ. And when they went among the greeks, they argued against their philosophy and against their gods and called all their men to repentance.

You are the one who is arrogant, because you believe that you can sell medicine to people who do not even understand they are sick.

>>3346751
>If God literally decides that I now have to commit adultery
I never said that this happens.

>>3346769
What an absolute fool you are.

Tell me, Anon, how did you become a Christian?

>>3346762
I don't know what you bought or where, but yes, it does.

>>3346769
Stop LARPing, man, it's cringy.

>>3346769
>which the Jews held in high esteem

Yes, this is why the Jews were all on the walls of Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, the day Daniel said the Messiah would appear, and then be cut off, because they all believed the prophecies.

And then the nation of Israel, full of belief in their own prophets, crowned Jesus the King of Israel, the 1,000 year reign of Jesus ended, and they are all in eternity now. And we never existed.

thou fool.

>>3346767

humm sweetie, god is perfect but creates imperfection, how is that going up for you?

i hope you aren't just a pantheist that identifies himself as a christian, that would be funny

>>3346781
As the object of that cringe post, I must concur.

>>3346786
What was imperfect about Adam and Eve, as created?

What was imperfect about the world God created, before the Fall of Man?

>>3346781
I'm pretty sure he's fighting the larpers, the idiots who bring this boards level of discourse down with their brainless preaching

>>3346789

god is perfect is an axiom, you can't literally prove that logically wise, you take it for granted

>>3346805
That in no way answered either question.

>>3346774
By investigating the Scriptures and becoming convinced of their truthfulness. I saw the prophecies before, that showed Jesus was the Christ, and I saw the prophecies after, which described the world around me, and I saw the arguments of learned theologians on the First Cause and things and decided these things were true.
>>3346783
Rather then respond to that, I shall point out Acts 8:31, a direct example of what I'm talking about.
>>3346798
Thank you Anon.

>>3346798
I'm pretty sure you're an idiot.

>>3346812
>By investigating the Scriptures and becoming convinced of their truthfulness. I saw the prophecies before, that showed Jesus was the Christ, and I saw the prophecies after, which described the world around me, and I saw the arguments of learned theologians on the First Cause and things and decided these things were true.

So, not a Christian.

Just once, I'd like to be wrong about someone.

>>3346812
So, Philip and the eunuch.

Does your bible have Acts 8:37 in it?

>>3346710
Where does it come from? And EVERYONE other than psychopaths?

>>3346810

I avoided both questions because taking the genesis as literal would be retarded and you need to take it as literal to actually see if it was perfect or not

at the very least, perfect means with no differentiation, and in the genesis there is a lot of differentiation going on

>>3346812
By the way, Philip and the eunuch in no way typifies your idiotic intellectual argument.

In no way.

Because the story is "Believe, and be saved."

>>3346830
You descend from Adam and Eve.
You received the knowledge of good and evil from their act of rebellion against God.
And you were born spiritually dead, because of their sin.

Literally.

You have an irrational worldview that says everything was as it is now.

It is not only irrational, but obviously false.

>>3346763
>>3346772
You're presuming your preconceived Christian notions, but we have, in fact, been talking about Romans, and I obviously meant the pre-Christian Romans.

If we assume that everyone has these preconceived Christian notions, then, surprise, >>3346550 would be right in that his concepts of "cowardice" and "adultery" don't differ from the Romans, but I think we can all agree that the Romans deeply believing in the pagan gods didn't have pre-conceived Christian notions about their whole theology.

In fact, the point o which I was trying to get here was that the Romans did not believe that the degree of determination of an act matters in deciding the morality of an act, which the overwhelming majority of the modern world disagrees with and which is about as fundamental of a different concept of morality there can be.
(Proof: The stories of Electra, or Agamemnon sacrificing his daughter.)

>>3346778
Sunny D is a drink.The Dollar Tree is a store.
I'm guessing you're not American, lucky you.I was born here and I've grown to hate it.

>>3346742
How do they know it though? That was my primary question. Like how does a toddler know what is good or bad? Is it instinctual? Is it their parents?
How does, say, an orphan with little/no upbringing know that murder is bad? If it's instinctual, then everyone should have that same understanding, except sociopaths or whatnot, right?

>>3346839

what goes through your mind when you are taking a really nasty shit in the toilet?

please say the truth, it would be not ethically christian to lie

>>3346843
I'll let you know when I care about anything any Roman said, did, or thought, ever. Except Paul, of course. Him I like.

>>3346851
Just this week: "Holy shit, this smells so bad I think I'm gonna puke."

Bad tomato.

>>3346849
The Law of God is written on their hearts.
They were given consciences to know right from wrong.

Everyone.

>>3346192
In like 99% of the cases everybody knows whats wrong and whats right to do. Philosophers should spend their time figuring out how to avoid doing the wrong thing although you know it is wrong and not about that 1% that is in the grey area.

But if philosophers had a sense of trying to be useful, they wouldn't be philosophers, so I guess my point is void.

>>3346844
Ah, OK.
Your decision of what to drink involves morals, as well. Why are you deciding to drink Sunny D, instead of water?

This looks silly (after all, this is just a small decision), but it actually improves your life.

>>3346852
You should care because this case refutes the claim we have been talking about the whole fucking time (>>3346517).

But, hey, if you close your ears to counterfactual evidence, then you'll always stay right. In that case, though, don't bother other people and go verbally masturbate alone.

>>3346879
What case? The case that cowardice and adultery are frowned upon?

There are tribes living in South America whose absolute heroes are cowards and adulterers.

WHICH IS WHY MORALITY CANNOT BE SUBJECTIVE.

>>3346887
The case for this is in Peace Child, by Don Richardson.

>>3346879
So I guess these claims >>3346887
backed by this book >>3346890
really rape your Roman ethics, huh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94f2h-5TvbM

>>3346890
In 1962, Don and Carol Richardson risked their lives to share the gospel with the Sawi people of New Guinea. Peace Child tells their unforgettable story of living among these headhunters and cannibals, who valued treachery through fattening victims with friendship before the slaughter.

>>3346898
So my geography sucks. Sue me.

>>3346517
>All people shame cowards and adulterers.

I wish that was true, but in some influential social groups my country, being a turbo slut and cheating on your partner is considered "female empowerment" by some people.

That doesn't mean "there is no objective morality", by the way.

>>3346192
Well, I'm an atheist, but I have a moral sense and I care about others. I know many others who are the same way.

>>3346887
>>3346890
>>3346895
>>3346898
You made a universal claim. To refute a universal claim, one piece of evidence is enough, while the same is not enough to prove such a claim.

You didn't even address the correct point. What was contended was whether the contents of these concepts are vastly different or not.

>>3346898
Cannibalism is not really a thing, that was largely invented by colonisers to de-humanise the native tribes. There are certain kinds of ritual cannabalism, like eating the heart of an opponent to absorb his powers, but no "let's make human flesh a regular part of our diet" kind of cannabalism.

>>3346905
Romans 2
...for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Law written in your heart.
Given a conscience.

You can be an atheist and live a cleaner life than a religious person, but it won't matter. Next to God, the best any human has to offer God is as filthy rags. Like a rag that cleaned a bar for 10 years without being washed, used to clean up dog diarrhea for a year without being washed, and then being used to scrub down glory holes for a year, without being washed.

Filthy rags.

>>3346915
First of all, you cannot keep track of who is posting what. I said nothing about cowardice and adultery in Rome until my last post proving it wrong by example of the tribe in New Guinea.

Second of all, no, an exception to a rule does not disprove the rule; it proves the rule.

Finally, I didn't address any point you made to someone else, because I am not someone else.

>>3346917
It's absolutely a thing. Still is. Eating human hearts is cannibalism. Nobody said anything about a society that ate human beings instead of other meat. Just one that ate humans, or parts of humans, and said it was good to do so. Good to fatten them up for the slaughter.

>>3346931
Muh, eating the heart of a warrior you killed because you think it makes you stronger is not exactly the same thing as hunting for humans to cook them because you like human flesh.

File: egyptian book of the dead - ten commandments.jpg (189KB, 1800x553px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1800x553px

>>3346192
Which God, and which Religion?

>>3346931
This is why morality cannot be subjective.

Tribe A: It is good to fatten up people, kill them, and eat them.

Tribe B: Murder is wrong. Cannibalism is wrong.

Who is to decide between them?

>>3346947
There's only one God, and all religions are manmade and therefore full of fail.

File: blood_of_the_vikings.jpg (62KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 650x366px

>>3346485
>People who are unethical always search for someone ethical, unethical people don't like between themselves
Oh, rly?
Unless you mean some of that "even thieves need some honor to not stab themselves and function" stuff ancient philosophy proposes, that's the dumbest stuff i've ever heard.

>>3346926
>First of all, you cannot keep track of who is posting what.
You cannot keep track for certain, but you can make reasonable assumptions. If someone replies to a chain of posts, it is reasonable to assume that he actually cares about the source for that chain of posts.

>Second of all, no, an exception to a rule does not disprove the rule; it proves the rule.
Rule: Literally everyone loves sweets.

Someone: "But over there is a dude that doesn't love sweets?"

Someone else: "The fact that there is a dude that doesn't love sweets proves that everyone loves sweets."

>>3346951
The strongest tribe decides, as it has always been. God does not want sheep that follow commandments. If there is such a thing as God, it has created us to write new values on new tablets. It may not sound pretty, but we live in a world where strenght is the core value that makes all other values possible.

"Companions the Creator seeks, not corpses, herds or believers. Fellow creators the Creator seeks, those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters, for everything about him is ripe for the harvest."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

>>3346962
"The exception proves the rule."

Google it.

>>3346978
>God does not want sheep
John 10:27My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

File: Morality-is-doing-whats-right-regardless-of-what-youre-told.-Obedience-is-doing-what-is-told-regardless-of-what-is-right..jpg (243KB, 850x389px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 850x389px

>>3346192
You can't have morality with God. Only obedience.

Do you describe a child who obeys their parent's every whim, regardless of the logic behind it, moral? No, you call them obedient.

That difference doesn't mysteriously end at adulthood. Morality requires reason. You must understand the processes behind moral acts for them to be moral, find the reasoning to be sound, and act accordingly. If the reason is invariably, "because God wills it", it's no different than the child who blindly follows the will of their parent, or a robot who blindly follows the commands of its programmer.

Perhaps the tragedies described in the Bible might help inspire one to moral acts, but mere obedience to the dictates set forth therein isn't morality, and even if they were, wars have been fought over differences in interpretation. The book doesn't read itself, nor explain itself, that exercise is left up to the reader.

>>3346992
But by that obedience, the righteousness of God is imputed to you, and in that case, you are, in the eyes of God, moral.

>>3346992
>that exercise is left up to the reader.

To the lost, yes.

To the saved, no.

>>3346978

I hope you don't mean strength as in physical strength because you would be an A class retard

and if with strength you mean powerful, you could easily jump into "good" (everything that is good itself) rather than just powerful, then fundamental shit like plato would like to have a discussion with you

it's no wonder that nietzsche fucking hated socrates guts and made a literal adhominem book just to please his ego

>>3346953
Who is there before us to describe and interpret the will of the gods, but man?

>>3347010
The indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit of God who inspired the bible, compiled the bible, maintains the bible, and explains the bible.

From the inside out.

>>3346981
I know about what it means, which is why I say "tests the rule" and notice so often when the saying is misused. This is such a case.

Someone made a universal statement (rule), I tested the rule with my exception. Then someone comes along and says that my exception proves his universal statement (rule) right instead of proving it wrong.

>>3346985
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

>The Gospel of John is anonymous. Traditionally, Christians have identified the author as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved" mentioned in John 21:24, who is understood to be John son of Zebedee, one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. These identifications, however, are rejected by many modern biblical scholars.

>Nevertheless, the author of the fourth Gospel is sometimes called John the Evangelist, often out of convenience since the definitive name of the author is still debated.

>John is usually dated to AD 90–110. It arose in a Jewish Christian community in the process of breaking from the Jewish synagogue. Scholars believe that the text went through two to three redactions, or "editions", before reaching its current form

Your text has no more validity than mine. At least mine has a known author and editors, yours was written by an anonymous nobody and edited by countless others to support different political agendas.

Your Jewish slave morality is a comforting lie told so that people could sleep at ease with their inadequacies.

File: pascals_wager2.png (276KB, 1685x2008px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1685x2008px

>>3347013
Well that guy apparently has a lot of explaining left to do to a whole lotta people, as it seems there's a almost as many different interpretations as there are people.

>>3347018

>unironically using the slave morality term

>>3347003
Everything that is powerful is good, because strenght makes morality. The master-morality of the conquering people becomes mirrored in the slave-morality of the conquered.

The Bible commands us to kill children for the sins of their parents, why don't we do it anymore?
Because the civilization that wrote that is dead, and forgotten, and stronger men have forced other values into society.

>>3347018
If you want to know what God wants, you ask God. You read what God told the people He had closest to Him.

None were closer than John.

And yes, the bible has more validity, and more authority, than absolutely any other writings known to mankind.

>>3347027
An infinite work of God has many deeper meanings?

Wow, almost something one would expect.

>>3347041

im really cringing at your comments

have you ever read plato even? it's like fundamental reading before nietszche, i think you readed genealogy of the morals as your first philosophy books and nothing else

>>3347041
>The Bible commands us to kill children for the sins of their parents, why don't we do it anymore?

It does not.

>>3347053
It's a general post-modern indoctrination that nothing matters, and all is a power struggle between groups typically stratified by race, gender, etc.

Post-modernism is the fall of man; the doom of mankind. All in the pursuit of equality of outcome, an infinitely impossible goal.

>>3347054
"Prepare a place to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities." -- Isaiah 14:21

>>3347047
It was not written by John.
Modern Biblical scholars have disproven it.

>>3347053
>readed
I'm cringing at yours.

>>3347059
>all is a power struggle between groups typically stratified by race, gender, etc.
No, all is a power struggle between individuals.
That's what Nietzsche wrote and you shouldn't conflate his ideas with modern nonsense.

>All in the pursuit of equality of outcome, an infinitely impossible goal.
Again, not what Nietzsche wrote.

>>3347069

i'm italian, i don't speak english perfectly and i don't care too

>>3347073
Not an excuse, I'm not a native speaker either, pastanigger.

>>3347069
>Isaiah 14:21
Literally in a passage called the "Fall of Lucifer" and predicting the siege of Jerusalem prior to the Babylonian captivity.

Nobody in the bible told YOU to go kill people.

The Gospel According to John was written by.......John. The Apostle. kek@BartErhmanVictim#191

Nietzsche was a madman and died a madman, having lived the last decade of his life as a madman. You're well on your way.

>>3347051
If it has infinite meanings, then it has no meaning at all - at least not to finite beings examining it from as many different angles as there are such beings, any one of which may take any number of non-contextual slices of this infinite multitude of meanings, and thus few if any of which can agree upon a meaning of this incomprehensibly vast multitude of "deeper meanings".

At least with morality based on reason, one has to explain and defend that reason, one can question it, build upon it, and improve it. A morality based solely on the ultimately unknowable is simply chaos.

>>3347077
>Literally in a passage called the "Fall of Lucifer" and predicting the siege of Jerusalem prior to the Babylonian captivity.
I will rise up against them," declares the LORD Almighty. "I will wipe out Babylon's name and survivors, her offspring and descendants," declares the LORD.

Too bad such a strong God is worshipped by such a weak people.

>>3346244
1) I'm not sure if you understand Christianity properly (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to). The "10 Laws" you refer to is not the only thing--nor even the emphasis--of the teachings of Christ.
2) I don't follow your logic. Murder =\= killing. Killing in battle or to save others isn't the same as murdering an innocent person. Christian or non christian, many would agree with that.
3) >what pleases us most
This is called hedonism. Do you really think there is nothing wrong with deep frying a toddler alive--assuming you could get away with it--simply because it is pleasurable to someone? Or is there a higher reason as to why he shouldn't do that, even if it would please him? I'm sure--and I hope--that you don't actually believe that there is no morality whatsoever other than "what feels good".

>>3346905
>I have a moral sense and care about others
What's your reason for acting upon this belief? Is it just because you want to be a good person? Why? Because it makes you happy? Then should everyone do what makes them happy?

>>3346992
I don't think you understand the issue of the importance of God in the issue of morality. It is not about avoiding hell or some other punishment, but about the issue of Telos. Ethics without Telos is empty. The issue is if you can find a Telos without religion.

>>3346917
>Cannibalism isn't really a thing
Umm... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism_in_humans

>>3346192
There is no valid counter to it because faith establishes order and order maintains morality. There's never been a civil, righteous world without some sort of religion. People can argue and say "haha remember the crusades and what wars were fought over religion" but they miss out on the entire set of ages before that where wars were fought for land and resources pretty much since mankind could walk. On the other hand, the idea that there is no morality without religion shouldn't really need refuting. Religion, at its very core (ignoring error in translation and misinterpretation) breeds peace through relaxed responsibility and calmness. Morality comes from the individual relinquishing his mortal grasp to material items and choosing empathy because he knows the afterlife rewards that. It's the greatest insurance policy the human race has ever given itself. "if you are good in life, you shall be good after death."

I suppose you could minimize the importance of religion by utilizing the previous assertion that religion is merely there to be a moral bond for a civilization??

File: Fetishes_are_not_spook.jpg (24KB, 386x398px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 386x398px

>>3346759

File: tablets of hammurabi.jpg (23KB, 235x549px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 235x549px

>>3347296
One may as well say one can't have food without religion - for religion, in one form or another, has been around for all of recorded history. As you have pointed out yourself, it has not invariably resulted in moral behavior by outside standards, and often been the cause of just the opposite.

On the other hand, laws regarding morality have repeatedly been set down without a religious backing, including the oldest in recorded history.

There is no god. That much is the rational conclusion of any thinker.

Secondly, there must be a form of morality. Otherwise civilization as we know it will crumble. Moreover, there IS always a form of reality; how it is justified is another matter.

These points must be reconciled, so any logic that contributes to this goal is legitimate.

>>3346517
>adulterers
what are pre-agricultural societies

>>3347436
"No religious individuals are or have ever been rational human beings"
T. Pleb

There have been tons of religious thinkers throughout the ages. If you actually don't know them, that's one thing-- but if you're actually convinced that you have to be an "irrational thinker" to be religious, then you haven't done your history/contemporary philosophy homework.

>>3346192

The fact that believing in god is not correlated with being a good person. In fact atheists are under-represented among all classes of criminal.

>>3347755
I don't see how criminality has to do with being a "good" person. I can be an immoral lying asshole without breaking the law. Also the argument isn't about whether or not being religious makes you a good person--it's about an idea of universal morality.
Also, a religious person may do bad things against his/her convictions. It's not the religions fault.

>>3346192
> there are no gods (prove it), only books written by humans
> the major religions cite a book that condones slavery and violent sexism
> religious people are not crime free
> atheist statistically perform less crime than the average citizen

If you get through all of those and still haven't convinced someone then they are a fanatic that you can't help. You just have to let them live their life.

>>3346192

Kant argues appealing to God is just outsourcing your morals to a higher power and therefore not taking responsibility for your own morals.

Defining morals for yourself is not only more moral, but also logical. As if you create maxims for yourself which are the same as you'd want applied for everyone, the world would run more efficiently.

This can be proven in game theory. http://ncase.me/trust/

>>3347804
Religion doesn't make people perfect. Brilliant observation. Atheists aren't all degenerates. Again brilliant. But if you want my honest opinion, "prove it" is not so clear cut. People have made some pretty interesting progress in that field--even recently. As for the major religious texts, does a cultural/temporal difference really invalidate an entire religion? Not to defend Christianity in particular, but many Christians are not so willing to follow the old testament so strictly (i.e. no one bothers to not eat shrimp,etc) because they believe that the Law is invalidated (or something like that) because of Christ. Furthermore, I can't remember anything about condoning slavery in Bhuddist/hindu texts. I also don't know anyone from any religion believing slave ownership is acceptable.

>>3347864
>Creating your own morals is more moral
So there is no universal morality.
What do you recommend for creating our own morals, if there is no basis of good or bad? What about psychopaths? Hedonists?

>>3346306
Morality is behavior that best promotes healthy living conditions in a society.

> is murder wrong?
A society that condones murder will lead to mistrust and revenge violence. This naturally progresses to family blood feuds and splinter groups forming for defence. Society eventually collapses unless a group become powerful enough to rule by force.
> the death penalty
One, the dp is not murder. Murder is killing someone for personal reasons while the dp is an attempt to deter murder from happening. Both result in dead people but the intent is opposing. I have not looked into it myself but I do not believe the murder rate has dropped due to the death penalty. If it has no measurable effect on crime rate compared to rehabilitation then it is not a behavior that leads to progress, thus wrong.

I could go on but I'm at work and I think you get my point.

>>3347902
>So there is no universal morality.
>What do you recommend for creating our own morals, if there is no basis of good or bad? What about psychopaths? Hedonists?

>“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” - Kant

>>3347944
Kant is pretty great, I'll give you that. But what motivation do you have to follow the categorical imperative?

>>3347753
You don't have to be irrational, but it is an intrinsically irrational view.

Lots of smart Nazis, Lysenkoists, Maoists, etc.

>>3346192
Law is an idea of objective morality, religion is the form that the law takes. Without law or religion, morality is subjective and unrewarding. If a reward is needed to promote virtue, then humanity, under religion, acts according to moral law purely because of the idealized reward. Therefore true morality can't exist with religion and law because with those systems law bribes virtuous action. That is why, without law, one can observe humanity's true nature. Order benefits society by forcing morals on the worst of us, but order also hides the truth of the individual. Based off of this idea, ask yourself, "Am I a good person? If I believe myself to be good, am I this way because I am following a law, or because I am following my heart?"

File: witness-barn-raising-scene-bluray-screenshot-3[1].png (2MB, 1920x1086px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1086px

>>3347990

Can you build your smart phone?
Can you build the tools used to build your smart phone?
Can you mine and refine the materials?
Can you sew your clothes?
Can you weave the fabric?
Can you harvest the crops needed for the textiles?
Can you do all this and still have time to hunt and gather your food?

Civilization and technology can only be created by shared labor and specialization driven by talent. And despite it's flaws, capitalism, or any economy, depends on cooperation.

And at the end of the day, good morals are just cooperation or the categorical imperative.

>>3348194
>"Intrinsically irrational"
Explain.

>>3348245
You can be good for reasons other than maintaining the status quo. Empathy doesn't exist to solidify the structure of society, it exists to give perspective from the eyes of the suffering. I am still going to pity the outcast, not because he doesn't fit into the human world, but instead because of his fear, or sadness. The homeless don't always have the ability to contribute to society, but I will still give them food because it is the right thing to do.

>>3348245
That's it? Cooperation or CI? That seems kind of subjective desu. Plus I still don't understand what would motivate you to cooperate with others or follow the CI, if in the end, none of anything matters. Why play along if it's not what I feel like? What if I really enjoy murder--even to the point that I don't mind serving time in jail for it? Why should I follow the CI? Why cooperate with society? Why not just do what I feel like?

>>3348281

By temporarily or intermittently providing for those who cannot provide for themselves, are you not prolonging their suffering? If they then procreate, are you not compounding the total suffering of the world?

If one cannot succeed in society, they should recuse themselves back into the wild. And if one cannot succeed in the wild, the wild will take care of the problem as evolution intended.

>>3348328

Because the comforts of society and technology depend on it. It's not just a moral truth, but a mathematical truth as proven in game theory.

See: http://ncase.me/trust/

>>3348378
If I'm ready to kill people for pleasure, why do I care about what society needs to function? I don't care at all. And technology? Pft. Let's be real here. I wouldn't care about that either. What motivation do I have to think that I owe society a duty to not fulfill my sadistic pleasures? How about this; if we're in the middle of nowhere after the apocalypse--no laws, no communities, no technology; then you'd be okay if I killed and ate a random, family-less child for my own pleasure right?

Also, just a side note for my autism; "proven" and "theory" are mutually exclusive. I'm not trying to be picky, but... Well okay I'm being picky. Ecks dee

>>3348367
What is prolonged suffering to death and nonexistence? Life is valuable because we don't know what is in the ether.

>>3348451

It's not. But how is outsourcing your morals to a Benevolent God going to stop you either? In fact in this scenario, are you not outsourcing your morals to a God of Murder?

And in the Apocalypse scenario, if you find a troop of survivors, you become a micro society and therefore cooperation is more imperative, due to not having a margin of error for incidents of immoral behavior not destroying a society as it does in a major city. Look at cities like Baltimore and Detroit, how they prospered with low crime and how high crime drove off population and commercial success.

File: beautiful-sunset-8[1].jpg (207KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1920x1080px

>>3348486

Do not fear God. For why would an all powerful, all knowing God fret over the trials of a mortal man?

Do not fear death. For when we are alive we have to face death, but when we are dead we no longer have to face life.

Do not fear pain. For that which is gratefully painful is brief and that pain which is chronic is easy to endure.

And last what is good is easy to obtain. Shelter, substance, friendship -- these are easy to obtain because they are abundant around you. Desiring anything else is unnecessary and failure to obtain them will only cause anxiety and depression.

>>3348519
I'm assuming this person is nonreligious. If he were religious, say, in a modern Christian sense, he might have a reason not to kill and eat the orphan--it would violate his religious beliefs. Even if he ended up doing it, he'd still believe it was wrong or "against God". To answer your question, it may not stop him--but it would give him the conviction that what he's doing is morally wrong without having any other factor play into it. You don't need society, technology, etc. to be moral in this case. In every case you've described, you do need society to be moral. Either way it won't "stop" someone from doing immoral things though.

>If you find survivors.
Assume there are none. Then, is there any reason why he shouldn't? If we know for a fact that these are the only two humans in the world, and there is no way humanity could recover--then it's okay? I know it's super hypothetical but some people would argue that killing an innocent human being for pleasure is never allowed, ever. But if you argue that it is never okay to kill an innocent human, could you argue that morality depends on society/tech? In this case, you couldn't.

>>3346192
>society needs rules and regulations to function (inb4 ancap/com kiddies shitposting)
>rules are determined by a majority vote (everybody's free to move away)
>over time, communities of like-minded people form on a given territory (i.e. countries)
So simple, yet godgoys can't think of it.

>>3349122
So what you're saying is if a majority believes it, it's moral?
>Society needs rules and regulations to function.
Like it was said earlier, does this mean if you take away society, there's no morality? If you're the last person on Earth, then it's totally cool to rape, torture and kill kittens in front of their mother if you feel inclined, right?

I'm afraid it's not so simple after all. If it were, I doubt there would be 200+ replies on this 3000 year old debate.

>>3346192
Morality is and has been whatever allows for both parties to co-exist peacefully in my opinion. That's why I believe it's objective.

>>3349185
>if a majority believes it, it's moral?
Of course it does. Organized religion is basically this with a supernatural twist. Somebody writes down whatever, claims it's "moral" due to it being backed by a deity and, depending on it's popularity, it becomes moral.
>if you take away society, there's no morality
Yes. Morality without society is objectively pointless, since morality, at it's core, exists to regulate human interactions.
>then it's totally cool to rape, torture and kill kittens in front of their mother if you feel inclined, right?
It's irrelevant, so yes. If there were 2 people and one thinks it's immoral, then you can't get the 50.0000...1% approval needed for something to be "moral."

>>3346192
morals are limitations you set on yourself and ethics are limitations set on you by others,
by definition. you don't need a god to make your own rules. ethics is another question.

There are none. Morality has no meaning without a meaningful arbiter.
>>3346277
>burden of proof
Back to r*ddit

>>3346485
>people are conditioned to believe memes so that meme exists
Back to r*ddit
>>3346382
gr*Eks are fucking irrelevant jokes.
>>3346462
No, that is not morality. Fuck off back to r*ddit you stupid fucking kantian. Holy fucking shit was the 'enlightenment' a mistake

>>3346527
>consequences matter
Fuck off, utilitarian.

>>3346553
Fuck off, Christian morality has nothing to do with punishment. Read some fucking theology why don't you instead of rehashing the same Weberian nonsense.

>>3346192
Morality is about certain type of excellence which we call virtues.
I fail to see what god has to do with it.

>>3346676
>it doesn't make sense because im an illiterate morons o there is no god ;c fug u mom idont want to go to church mlp is on today ;c

>>3346870
>In like 99% of the cases everybody knows whats wrong and whats right to do
Absolutely wrong. Everybody is terribly immoral.
>muh use
Take your reddit ideology back there.

>>3349488
Christfags are truly the greatest cancer of this board

>>3346905
You don't, you are a legalist.

>>3346676
>be religious for decades
Irredeemable brainlet confirmed

>>3346992
> Morality requires reason
Wrong.
This is why atheists should not speak. They are terribly stupid.

>>3347069
>disproven
These people cannot read scripture. Pathetic.

>>3347436
>>3348194
Rationality is for children.

>>3348245
Wrong. Stop projecting, moralist trash.

>>3349498
>WAAAAAAAAAAH HE CRITICIZED MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE FUCCCCCCCKING NORMIE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE I HAVE TO DO A RAAAAAAAID MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

>>3349509
Are you feeling ok?

>>3349503
Of course morality requires reason, do you think dogs can be moral beings_

>>3349511
Morality doesn't exist. It's a humanist meme.

>>3349515
That's interesting because ethics predate humanism by several millennia.

>>3346996
At that point you're just changing the definition of morality to obedience. If you're God, I suppose you can do that, but otherwise, those are two separate things.

>>3347222
"Thou shalt not kill" is pretty specific anon

>>3346244
and this kids is the argument from ignorance fallacy

>>3346192
easy

demand evidence from them for their wild assumption the burden of proof is on their side

>>3346244
>You need someone to set the objective, if there is no god there is no one to set those objectives. The universe is indifferent to everything we do.
The universe maybe indifferent to everything we do - but we aren't. There are objective goals to be achieved by morality, such as collective survival, and in that fashion you have objective morality, with or without a deity.

Granted, as flawed beings with limited foresight, we'll disagree as to the past path towards those goals, but that seems to be the case whether you have religion or not, and whether you are aiming towards an objective goal or the amorphous goal of "God's will".

>>3349520
Wrong actually.
Plus, morality isn't ethics.
>>3349814
>muh humanism
Fuck off you stupid cunt.
>objective goals
OBJECTIVE GOALS CANNOT EXIST BECAUSE OBJECTS HAVE NO THOUGHT PROCESSES. A ROCK DOES NOT SEEK TO BE TURNED.
>collective survival
That's not objective you stupid fucking humanist.
Holy fucking shit, go back to /r/eddit you insufferable shit

>>3350803
keked

>>3350811
HAHAHAHAHAH HE DISAGREED WITH ME LMAO IM FROM REDDIT LMAO XDDD YAAAAAS SLAY KWEEN

saying "without God" drives too much attention to the religious and even abrahamitic conception

a better question would be about morality with a rejection of metaphysics

>>3346192
I would say morality without god can exist in a smart nation (Scandinavian nations f.ex.). Intelligent people know how to be good members of society, as they are aware of the consequences following their actions. Unintelligent people are slaves of their inner puppet-strings, their urges. If they are sexually attracted to a girl, they will touch her without consent, or in extreme cases even rape her. An intelligent person knows that it is not worth it, as what follows the assault will be life-changing (in a negative way of course).

>>3350905
>waaaah chrisdandy is bad i dont want 2 go2 church moooooom!

>>3350966
Wrong.

>>3351030
I'm just saying, it would be more useful to concentrate on the root of the issue which you won't reach by working in a specific religious environment

>>3351033
Explain to me why you think I am wrong. I am willing to change my mind.

>>3350803
Ah, but if you seek to turn a rock, then you have an objective goal.

...also, more and more I'm thinking I really need to visit this reddit site.

>>3351089
Wrong, this world belongs to Christ. It can only be saved through Christ.
>>3351110
Back to /r/eddit

>>3351750
Not an argument and I have never been on reddit.

>>3351750
Rector non trollere. Ceasar non trollerabii et div.

>>3349760
"Love each other" is more inclusive I think. I'm not an expert but I think the general theological consensus is that the 10 commandments are not fully applicable to Christianity other than what they might choose as a moral code.

>>3346192
rather than morality we understand it in the eyes of god, which is to say as imperative and not subject to your own whims and views, we need to understand those values are tied to manipulations. Religion/god are just the excsue to have you follow a formula (i.e. morality). Rather, we ought to analyse such things with the understanding that others are doing the same. God is dead as now we understand our own actions. God is dead and we have killed him. This is how things are. Good? Evil? We must go beyond and look at how things ought to be. How we wish to be. How we wish to be whilst becoming.

The problem isn't that without God there could be no morality, but that without God morality and moral codes of conduct wouldn't mean anything more than simple governmental laws or mandates. For example:
With a God
>Don't kill other people
Why?
>Because they are made in the image of God who loves each and every person unconditionally and sent his son to die on their behalf and there will be eternal punishment for you if you kill them
I see how killing would be bad.

Without a God
>Don't kill people
Why?
>Because it isn't cool
But all that a human being is is a slightly more intelligent form of organic life with the same worth as a worm or a rock because at the end of the day none of this matters, we're all going to die, there is no such thing as love, we are here completely by accident, and in fact I'd be doing a good thing by ending their existential suffering.

All I'm saying is that yes, people can be good to one another without a God, but it's pointless

>>3346192
Kant.

>>3352900
That and European Enlightenment in general.

>>3352900
Smh senpai. Read all the other stuff on Kant we've posted so far

yo! i was raised in a Christian family. i had enough Time to learn about the ideals the bible offers.
I'm pretty sure theres no god or ultimate being creating worlds on a whim.
And clearly morality stems from men trying to protect what they own, from greed.
wrapped in divine.

>>3353003
I think I did. My reply still stands.

>>3352900
>>3352907
Literally a fucking joke

>>3353131
>European Enlightenment
>a fucking joke

Here's your reply

>>3353157
Yes, it was a time where everybody suddenly became a fucking arrogant idiot, almost as if the retard lights were turned on.

>>3353287
Ok, please stop posting. Thank you.

>>3353357
>REEEE HOW DARE HE CRITICIZE MY 'its self-evident! there is no god! science rulez!' NONPHILOSOPHY REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>3353365
Sorry dude, but that's literally retarded and not an argument. Are you ok?

>>3353425
>arguments are good becuz reddit sed it

>>3353806
Spoken like a true intellectual

>>3353948
Intellectualism is for idiots.

File: FB_IMG_1501336151377.jpg (64KB, 960x760px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 960x760px

>>3346368
>says god exists with certainty
>expects to be taken seriously

>>3346192
What is your end goal here?
Are you trying to justify being areligious?

If you have a kid, and you let your kid outside, the kid will have to learn to avoid the road.
If you have a kid, and you build a fence, it absolves the necessity for the kid to learn safety.

There are two kinds of ruling in the world. There's the rule of law (natural and artificial): it prevents you from doing something on a physiological level, and it absolves us (like the fence example) of considering anything beyond itself.
Then there's the rule of honour: That even if you had the power to do something, you abstain from it for dignity and honour's sake; like believing and trusting a parent when they tell you that the road is dangerous.

The rule of law (artificial) is completely amoral; it's not relative to any concept of guilt or pleasure; it only exists as a compromise between people, for the sake of cooperation (for individual goals) or universal protection. A city without laws would fall into chaos, because a city relies on the fear of punishment for crime.

The rule of honour is the only true moral system, because it IS relative to guilt. A society built on the rule of honour doesn't abstain from sin for fear of punishment, but does good for dignity's sake.

To put the point simply: Without religion/god, and without law, men will rely on the relationships in their life to derive a sense right and wrong, because honour is a pleasurable feeling.

>>3346192
The argument that there is no morality with god/religion.

>>3353037
My point was you're being redundant.

>>3354072
I'm asking a question. I'm not even atheist. Relax.

OP here. In all honesty I never expected this question to turn out to be such a major shitstorm. I thought a logical discussion might actually occur. Tbh I'm kind of upset to see philosophy treated so... Ad hominem. Calling each other names and making each other's views into memes gets us no further in the quest for truth.

I guess I'm really asking to be called a moralfag here. Ironic. Super ironic, actually.

>>3346244
>f there is no god there is no one to set those objectives.

umm why can't I just do it myself? that's all god is doing, just deciding for himself what's right and wrong, and why on earth would I trust his opinion over my own?

believing you need god or morality is another way of saying: I am a cuck loser who doesn't trust my own opinion nor authority

god = european state depedence, automatic transmission, passenger on rollercoaster
decide own values = american liberty, manual transmission, designed rollercoaster

>>3354680
really bad post, and I'm not even saying this to be "tee hee it's an ad hom thread I'm gonna ad hom op's post to be a memer ;) ", I really mean that it's a bad post. kys.

>>3352586
>Don't kill people
>Why?
>Because it isn't cool

If that's the best secular reason you can come up with for not killing people, then I suppose you do need God. As you were.

>>3346192
>I am not religious
>I have morals
Done.

>>3354601
I don't think you know what redundant means.

>>3355370
Do you?

>>3354748
>God
perfect
>you
literally irrelevant

>>3355370
You don't. You have 'laws'

>>3355552
Ok smarty pants. If we've already been talking about Kant for a while, and you just randomly say "Kant"--even after multiple people have already mentioned him in depth--in what world can you say you're not being superfluous?

Or are you joking?

>>3346758
Yeah but that doesn't undermine YOUR civilization

Well I suppose the simple fact that there are moral people in history that were raised in secular socities.

>>3354763
>"Really bad post"
>No explanation except that he's not ad homing
>?

>>3357535
Wrong, there are no moral people born into secularism.

File: Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png (151KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1280x960px

>>3358178

>>3358343
Back to /r/eddit with your meme chart.
btw you had no evidence either

>>3357502
I, as the other few ppl mentioning Kant, wanted to make the point that, imo, Kants CO might be the best answer to the OP. I could have also quoted the first guy to name Kant and post "This.", but I chose to simply also post "Kant".
It is not superfluous to add another vote to a correct answer.

>>3358359
And this was ad hom. Anything else to add?

File: Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.png (153KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1280x960px

>>3358359
Oh dear.

>>3358410
>>3358421
HAHAH LE REDDIT MEMES SOME MODERNIST CAME UP WITH THIS CHART AND I SAW IT IN BUSINESS CLASS WITH THE OTHER IDIOTS SO ITS TRUE

>>3358474
Lol. Retarded shitposter. I suggest you go over to /pol/ and read the sticky. Then come back, newfag.

>>3358474
Maybe you should go to reddit, since you seem so obsessed with that site, you dip

>>3358494
>newfag
I've been here longer than you've been masturbating you stinky little adolescent.
>>3358496
I'm obsessed with purging them, if that's what you mean.

>>3346192
There is not objective morality, which is cancer, people should define themselves what's right or wrong by what makes them happy and what not. And I'm not talking about pleasure, happiness is fullfilness

>>3358474
>ad hominem
>modernist
Congrats you are officially illiterate.

>>3358504
>ad hom is bad becuz reddit sed it
You are a modernist, by the way.

>>3358502
Hedonist trash

>>3358501
Even if you've been here longer than me, apparently you know shit about this site apart from the porn.

>>3358514
Wrong. Go back to /r/eddit you /pol/fugee.
I don't masturbate, /r/edditor.

>>3358509
>more name calling
Wow.
Also
>ad hom is bad becuz reddit sed it
That would be Cicero, not reddit.
Your turn, shitstain

>>3358520
Cicero is reddit embodied before reddit.

>>3358407
>Discussion style classroom
>"Yes, that's why I think we have a moral duty to--"
>"KANT"
>yes, Jimmy... As I was saying, moral obligation--"
>"KAAAAAANT"
>*facepalm* yes, that's right.
>"I'm not being redundant I'm just agreeing. Kant."

Tbh I'm just giving you a hard time. But we had been talking about Kant for a while, and I felt like being cheeky. No offense intended anon, just playin.

File: 084.png (102KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 300x256px

>>3358531
You ever read Cicero?

>>3358779
Yes. Reddit incarnate

>>3358772
If you look at my post you will find it was a direct reply to the OP. Nobody forces you to keep track off all the other dialogues in a thread. It's not a calssroom situation.

>>3358779
Stop feeding retards.

>>3358803
Good point. I'm out

>>3346192
To be moral is to intentionally do good, why would it be that God is necessary for there to be good and people to choose to pursue it?

>>3358945
>good
Defined by God, you redditor

>>3358945
>why would it be that God is necessary for there to be good
If you don't have a way to express goodness as a form of rationality, then you would actually pretty much need god for something that could be considered 'good' to exist, pham

>>3358973
>R-reddit!
Go fuck off, cuckhold

>>3358976
>cuck hold
Old hag spotted

>>3346192
Only an immoral person has to get his morality from an external god. If that's what it takes to stop someone from killing and raping then they're a piece of shit who has a fucking list and that doesn't reflect well on the god who made them.

>>3359193
>this is what atheists actually believe
>projecting their petty humanist morality onto a perfect and infinite God

>>3359562
The god who invented rape

File: 1429933133891.gif (3MB, 278x165px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 278x165px

>>3346769
> And when they went among the greeks, they argued against their philosophy
tisk tisk, learn your history.

>>3359653
No? Why are redditors so easy to spring into petty humanist horseshit?

>>3359664
If he made everything he made rape dumbfuck

>>3359696
>platonists
Fuck off redditor

>>3359701
>everything pointing out your shitty moral compass is le reddit
Neck yourself

>>3359708
>moral compass
/r/eddit meme

Morality is for lowly men.

>>3359714
I don't doubt that you're lesser than men but this is a whole thread about that. Morality is for men, as opposed to gods which don't exist

>>3359715
>WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH MOOOOOOM! I DONT WANT TO GO TO CHUUUUUUUUUUUUURCH! I HAVE RAAAAAAAAIDING TO DOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

>>3359733
Nice projection of your general interactions with women

>>3359738
>projection
I'm married with a kid, you're a bitter incel.
Morality is nonexistent and is only believed by pathetic humanists unable to accept that their childish musings are irrelevant to God.