>Atheist >Morals Choose one :3

>>36340807
Why not both? Atheists aren't the ones behind all of them crusades and wars in the middle east!

File: monk.png (194KB, 1251x585px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1251x585px

>>36340807
A self-aware atheist cant have any morals besides "if i dont treat you like shit, you will probably be kind of nice to me" which is pure egoism.
that doesnt prove theism right though and thats the shit part.

>>36340807
Quit spamming this shit on arcanine and go back to /b/ faggot.

We don't need this board flooded with christfags vs athiestfags

>>36340807
Nice bait but religion and morality are different concepts

>>36340833
Crusades and Inquisitions were the shit back then

>>36340807
A codified set of morals is for fags and slaves.

File: 1491851793556.png (15KB, 160x169px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 160x169px

Look who's speaking.

A human waste.

Saged/hid/reported.

>>36340838
>A self-aware atheist cant have any morals besides "if i dont treat you like shit, you will probably be kind of nice to me" which is pure egoism.

Why not? You don't need a divine decree or divine dogma to make moral rules. Just because there's no physical moral dimension to reality doesn't mean you can't make moral prescriptions. Besides, most people's understanding of morality is just an extension of their intuitive understanding of fairness and guilt.

>>36340941
>you don't need divine decree to make morals
Yes you do. Yes you literally do.
Man made morals have no value or weight.

This is bait and im retarded so im going to reply anyways, religious people have less morals than atheists because they have to be threatened by god to actually get them to be good people.

>>36340941
So give me a reason other than a religious one for not stealing something or abusing someone if I dont get caught?

>>36340971
but how are man made morals worse than morals from deities which are just man made up too?

>>36340971
They're all man made nigga.

>>36340971
This is false as fuck. Base your morality on the continuation of life, and you can still live an objectively moral life.

>>36341004
because I wouldn't want that to happen to me either, or to anyone I know... it is called basic logic you religious people lack...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsgYOwWIL3M

>>36341004
Is empathy not enough?

>>36341026

>Base your morality on the continuation of life

So, prolonging all life as long as possible, regardless of the costs in terms of utility?

>>36341043
It is not basic logic. Instead it would be pretty unlogical to not abuse a situation like that. Im not even religious, just discussing.

>>36341053
Empathy is a weakness in a materialistic society though. Of course you can feel it but in the end people without it would be better off.

>>36341053

Empathy is understanding how another feels. You can have a lot of empathy and understand how that person feels, but just not give a shit at all.

Sympathy is what's really important. If you can feel pain on behalf of another, even if you don't exactly understand the nature of that pain, you will feel compelled to minimize that other person's suffering, because their suffering becomes your own suffering.

>>36341026
>prolonging all life is somehow moral
It's literally impossible, and it's just your opinion that it is moral
>>36341043
That's not "basic logic"

>religion
>intelligence

Choose one

>>36341093

>Empathy is a weakness in a materialistic society though.

What kind of "materialism" are you talking about here?

>>36341093
>Empathy is a weakness in a materialistic society though

No. That's you projecting.

>>36341011
>>36341025
God isn't man made.

>>36341133

Is God omniscient?

>>36341155
>is God real?

No, now neck yourself

>>36341155
All knowing? Yes

>>36341120
>>36341122
I copied the wrong definition from the other post. What I was talking about was >>36341095 sympathy as explained by this guys.
I was talking about materialism as in absence of a god/soul (or anything not in the material world) and talking about pseudo-darwinistic "survival of the fittest" / capitalist society.

>>36341133
God is the oldest meme in the book, yet people still fall for it.

>>36340807
ah man thats great

>>36340971
>Man made morals have no value or weight.
Why not?

It's not like religious doctrines are anything but man-made anyway.

>>36341004
>So give me a reason other than a religious one for not stealing something or abusing someone if I dont get caught?
Because I'm a good person, that's why I continue to do good things. Aside from that, I still feel guilt, and I would like to avoid that.

What other reason would their be to do good things? If it is not your personal will to do good, your adherence to morality is either a sham for personal benefit, or a sham born from your obedience.

>>36340807
>Christians actually believe that you have to have a belief on how the world came to be even if it makes no sense at all and there is no evidence for it.

Why do you feel like you have to make a judgement on how the universe came to be when its ultimately irrelevant to your existence and you cant prove it?

>>36341213
Of you say X is immoral, and I say X is moral, both of our claims are equally valid, but they contradict.

>>36341191
>I was talking about materialism as in absence of a god/soul (or anything not in the material world) and talking about pseudo-darwinistic "survival of the fittest" / capitalist society.

The overwhelming majority of people are empathetic/sympathetic.

>>36341213
>religious doctrines are all man made
Christianity and the doctrines sent forth by Jesus Christ

>>36341176

Then God knows, for certain, everything you will ever do, before you even know what you're going to do.

He would know your thoughts, before you would even think them. He would know what words you would say before you even knew, and what movements you would make before you made them.

And, if we assume that God created you, then he created you of such nature that you would be that way, and do those things, and would be completely unable to do otherwise, in an ontological sense.

>>36341213
>because I'm a good person. "Good" is subjective.

>>36341267

>"Good" is subjective

That entirely depends on the definition of "good" being used here.

When a utilitarian says "X is morally good", by "good", he is talking about a different thing than when a divine command theorist says "X is morally good".

>>36341247
>what is free will
What makes you think the future is set in stone?

File: 1489742503686.gif (221KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 512x512px

>>36340807
You're fucking spooked m8.

>>36341213
>Because I'm a good person, that's why I continue to do good things. Aside from that, I still feel guilt, and I would like to avoid that.
Not a reason, if there is nothing besides "feeling like a good person" or "not feeling guilt" that makes you behave good, that guilt should be suppressed.
>What other reason would their be to do good things? If it is not your personal will to do good, your adherence to morality is either a sham for personal benefit, or a sham born from your obedience.
Thats true so you should overcome obedience shouldnt you? And only live by the bare minimum of morals to survive in this society (which is not that much to be honest). That cant be a goal.

>>36341241
Does it make it better? Dont get me wrong, I have lots of morals and live by them. But I dont really see a justification for having morals, just some "feeling of empathy/sympathy" isnt enough for me to logically justify them.

Objective morality isn't real, guys.

>>36341346

>what is free will

That's a great question. Why don't you answer that for us?

>What makes you think the future is set in stone?

You believe God knows everything, right? In that case, God knows everything that ever has happened, everything that is currently happening, and everything that ever will happen, with absolute certainty.

Omniscience logically implies strict determinism.

>>36341363
>heh you thought I would actually risk having an opinion on something? Jokes on you, I'm a nihilist

Try again sweetie

>>36341363

When you use the term "objective morality", what kind of a concept are you trying to express?

Is it something that you believe doesn't exist, but COULD exist, at least in theory? Like, say, "Lord of the Coconuts". There might be no such thing, but it doesn't seem like there COULDN'T be such a thing.

Or, are you talking about something that logically does not even make sense as a concept (like "five-sided square")?

File: 1279148330919.jpg (38KB, 366x401px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 366x401px

>>36340807
In my opinion, the most annoying thing about religious people is their smug assumption that Divine Command Theory is correct.

Most religionfags who spout this ">atheist >morality" garbage don't even know the historical context of the debate about morality. They have never heard the term "Divine Command Theory." They don't understand that this theory of morality has fallen out of favor even with theologians, who are now formulating new arguments to support their biblical world view.

Long story short; morality is not an "easy" topic. Morality might be objective, it might be subjective, it might be neither. There are significant flaws with each of those options. That's why morality is an open debate to this day in the philosophical community. It is one of the most prevailing difficult ongoing conversations in the philosophical world and the pursuit of the answer to moral questions has spawned new branches of philosophy.

For a religious person to ignorantly say ">LOL ATHEISTS NO MORALS" as if ">muh bible" is a real argument is just fucking sad and shows how absolutely dumb & ignorant you are. Why do you assume the sanctity of Biblical morals, when myriad famous philosophers have ripped through that view of the world to the point that even theologians are backing off of it?

>>36341354
>isnt enough for me to logically justify them.

Unless you're a legit psychopath (or perhaps a philosopher) you don't logically justify your morality, you just take what "sits right with you". Admittedly what sits right by you will be informed by a lot of other things (your upbringing for one).

>>36341457
Im gonna need a tldr on this

>>36340807
I'm not necessarily atheist in that I don't devoutly deny the possible existence of divinity. I acknowledge that divinity is possible within our limited knowledge of the universe. However, there is little to no valid evidence supporting divine existence as of yet (let alone which school of divine thought is correct if any at all), so for now I choose to operate under the assumption that there are none. Even if divine existence had undeniable proof, I still wouldn't change the way I live my life. My loyalty lies with fellow humans, and that is unlikely to change.

I seek the betterment of my country and of mankind in whole, and base my personal sense of morality on those principles. I do not claim these to be the true right way of morality, and any who do claim to be the authoritative true morality are narcissistic, egoistic, and above all incorrect.

>>36341536
TL;DR; "muh bible" is the shittiest argument of morality in existence, even worse than "morality is purely subjective" that you characterize all atheists as having.

There are numerous extremely serious flaws in divine command theory.

>>36341536

See my earlier post

>>36341049

>>36341491
But this is a philosophy (maybe also theology/metaphysics) thread so I was trying to do that. Of course I dont logically think about it in my everyday actions.
But in the end, it is illogical in a lot of cases, so I want to know more about it.

>>36341536
tl;dr
>religion is annoying
>you should read about divine command theory
>morality is a difficult thing
>i am a 15 yo and i laugh at kind of innocent and cute old people when they think jesus cries when you cheat on your partner

>>36341025
WOKE
O
K
E

>>36341630

>But in the end, it is illogical in a lot of cases, so I want to know more about it.

I don't think it's illogical that you feel sympathy for others. It's a consequence of your brain having developed as it did.

The idea that that would be illogical seems predicated on some kind of extreme ethical egoism.

>>36341670
Well that egoism would be kind of the "blank canvas" of our society, wouldnt it?
If there is nothing else that gives you rules or goals besides you, your only goals are egoistic goals. Can you show me examples of non egoistic ones, provided that there is neither a god nor a prewritten (but so far unknown) goal for life/existence?

>>36341451
Objective morality as a concept could exist but human nature and the way that we understand morality prevents us from truly being objectively moral.

>>36341233
Of course, I wouldn't contest that. I don't believe in any natural morals. I don't see a reason to believe that there would be, given that there is no moral particle or measurable morality inherent to reality, rather than just personal opinion about what is fair and deriving rules based on whatever arbitrary starting point you choose. I don't see anything wrong with that.

>>36341246
And? I have no reason to believe he is divine.

>>36341267
Of course, I wouldn't disagree. But whats wrong with that?

>>36341354
>Not a reason, if there is nothing besides "feeling like a good person" or "not feeling guilt" that makes you behave good, that guilt should be suppressed.
How so? How is that not a reason? Why should that guilt be suppressed? I meant more as an immediate reason to behave, but it's not the only reason I'm moral. I don't see a problem.

>Thats true so you should overcome obedience shouldnt you? And only live by the bare minimum of morals to survive in this society (which is not that much to be honest). That cant be a goal.
You're completely misunderstanding my motives and twisting my words to fit into some ideal where survival and pleasure are the only two goals to my existence, which is not the way things are.

Simply because there is no divine command telling me to do more than merely do what pleases me best, doesn't mean I don't have other goals.

>>36341670
well, strictly speaking, empathy is a process provided by the right supramarginal gyrus whereas most logical processes are provided by the prefrontal cortex. empathy is not a logical function, neurologically speaking

morality is essentially the cognitive (logical) reasoning used to justify the influence of empathy

>>36340807
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

File: 14445946_1705459086443853_6785265318345803985_n.jpg (47KB, 480x678px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 480x678px

>>36340807
I'd argue that on an individual basis, atheists can be moral. But you can't have a morally righteous society without religion, since there is no baseline for what is right or wrong.

>>36341835
>...but it's not the only reason I'm moral. I don't see a problem.
>...doesn't mean I don't have other goals.
>...fit into some ideal where survival and pleasure are the only two goals to my existence, which is not the way things are.
So what is it? Tell me then.

>>36341761

>Well that egoism would be kind of the "blank canvas" of our society, wouldnt it?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I don't believe any society is comprised primarily of ethical egoists and I think any such society would soon fall apart due to a lack of cohesion.

>If there is nothing else that gives you rules or goals besides you, your only goals are egoistic goals.

The entire concept of "you" is very fuzzy and ill-defined to begin with. It isn't as if there is a homunculus sitting in your brain, picking "values" willy-nilly. Your goals, whether for just your "self", or for all of society, are the result of genetics and conditioning factors.

>Can you show me examples of non egoistic ones, provided that there is neither a god nor a prewritten (but so far unknown) goal for life/existence?

In an absolutely pure sense, all behavior could be said to be egoistic on some level. I refrain from harming Person A because, as a sympathetic person, harming Person A would be harming myself too. However I cannot simply choose not to be sympathetic. The way my brain is structured compels me to be that way.

Beyond that, as a skeptic that there is such a thing as a true, immutable "self" to begin with, the separation in "my" mind between my "self" and the rest of society is not nearly as strong as it is for some other people, who have a stronger sensation of an independent and immutable self. "I" just see the self as a very persistent illusion and a useful pragmatic construct, but not a "real" part of the universe.

>>36341837

>well, strictly speaking, empathy is a process provided by the right supramarginal gyrus whereas most logical processes are provided by the prefrontal cortex. empathy is not a logical function, neurologically speaking

There is no way you can discretely categorize the human brain that way into "logical" and "illogical" parts. The entire thing works as a cohesive whole.

Without functioning of the supramarginal gyrus, we wouldn't even be able to move properly or integrate our sensory perceptions. Our ability to use logic would be affected.

>>36341917
I guess we are nearly talking on language philosophy levels now and it is hard for me to do so as it is not my mother language.

>The entire concept of "you" is very fuzzy and ill-defined to begin with. It isn't as if there is a homunculus sitting in your brain, picking "values" willy-nilly. Your goals, whether for just your "self", or for all of society, are the result of genetics and conditioning factors.
Ofcourse I am aware that I am the product of my social background and biological coincidence. But I can still try to imagine a pure "you" as a person free from any background, free from culture.


Your last part is very interesting to me too as I feel very differently. I guess I really have a low sympathy/empathy for people and my morals mostly come from avoidance of complications with others. I tend to think of the world in a very "mechanical"/"logical" way and I guess that is what makes it especially hard for me to accept my (and society in totals) helplessness when it comes to these topics that stretch the boundaries of logic and reason.

>>36341896
I have a will to do good.

I don't think any actions are purely by reason, because you need a goal or direction to head to. Reason is only logic and there is no inherent goal or desire in pure reason. It is inevitable that at some point you push down far enough that you reach a volition that is nothing more than some subconscious desire or will for some goal to become real. But I don't see any reason why that is wrong or troubling.

>>36342113

>But I can still try to imagine a pure "you" as a person free from any background, free from culture.

Such a person wouldn't be able to speak, write, or think in words. Without socialization, their brain would develop deformed, and they would likely never have the capacity to learn any language to native or near-native proficiency. They would probably struggle a great deal with logic and mathematics as well.

Your other points in this post were interesting, but I don't really have a response to them.

>>36341998
>There is no way you can discretely categorize the human brain that way into "logical" and "illogical" parts. The entire thing works as a cohesive whole.
Yes, there is. Each part of the brain does a certain thing. The prefrontal cortex is the part that does what we call "logic" and "reasoning." Picture a car. A car operates as one cohesive whole, but the individual components do specific things, all of which are necessary for proper function.

>Without functioning of the supramarginal gyrus, we wouldn't even be able to move properly or integrate our sensory perceptions. Our ability to use logic would be affected.
Well, yes, assuming total failure of the entirety of the supramarginal gyrus. It itself has several individual components that can individually fail, but that is beside the point.

Yes, much like how a car cannot operate properly without its sensory components, our brain is the same way. But the components still do individual, specialized things.

The point is that empathy (well, at least true empathy - affective empathy) is not a function of the prefrontal cortex. I will concede that cognitive empathy is a logical function within the prefrontal cortex, but really that is a different beast altogether.

>>36341133
God doesn't exist though faggot, you're arguing with athiests and the premise of your argument involves the existence of God you're a dumbass

>>36342204
For me it is deeply troubling. If we can really push down every human action to desire, humans would be really pathetic creatures. Of course, you can say: Thats right, but why would you care?
And thats the core struggle I have to deal with. I have the feeling that we have to care about humanity as a whole and step beyond our animalistic roots.

>>36342212
Take a fully functioning normal human, make them forget everything besides their language and logic. It is not about something that could really happen, its just a model, like you would find in economics.

We never needed religion just a decent system

>>36342407
>says God doesn't exist
>calls me retarded
Wew lad that's some top tier irony

>>36342561
Then get me a scientific demonstration of the existence of god.
The good thing about science is that if you doubt it you can reproduce it to be sure.

>>36342561
Wee lad sure got me there! Have fun sucking your churches dick

>>36342369

>The prefrontal cortex is the part that does what we call "logic" and "reasoning."

The supramarginal gyrus is also involved in logic and reasoning. It allows us to process experiences of the world around us, sensory data, the position and movements of our limbs, in cohesion with the rest of the brain.

Sensory data is incredibly important to reasoning. Even most rationalists would agree with that, because rationalists generally don't think ALL knowledge is a priori.

>The point is that empathy (well, at least true empathy - affective empathy) is not a function of the prefrontal cortex. I will concede that cognitive empathy is a logical function within the prefrontal cortex, but really that is a different beast altogether.

Empirical evidence strongly suggests otherwise. See the section called "The role of the prefrontal cortex in empathy"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2717040/

>>36341853
Sure was a whole lotta nothin' in that video. Barely got halfway through before I gave up on him.

>>36342722
Sure thing. Let's both die and see what happens, with our own perspectives, after we die.

>>36342369
The certain parts are still pretty general. You can't say 100% of logic and reasoning is in the prefrontal cortex

>>36342772
Demonstration not fucking experiment

>>36342779

There's also the fact that octopuses don't have a prefrontal cortex, but still appear to have some degree of reasoning ability. Perhaps there is a similar structure in the octopus brain that evolved independently.

>>36342485
>For me it is deeply troubling. If we can really push down every human action to desire, humans would be really pathetic creatures. Of course, you can say: Thats right, but why would you care?
And thats the core struggle I have to deal with. I have the feeling that we have to care about humanity as a whole and step beyond our animalistic roots.

But why is it a problem at all? That there is no divine decree, either through a divine being or written in matter itself, is no reason to feel empty. It gives people the opportunity to create a system of morality that they see fit. Instead of just having something to give in to, we can create what we want. Religious dogma is morality training wheels, and it feels great to create a beautiful moral system without the need to cede our decisions to a divine decree.

As far as choice goes, I again don't see a problem. What else would there be but our basic desires? At some point you have to start with something, what is wrong with starting with them? Even if they can lead to bad results, they don't necessarily do. It's not as if our reasoning ability doesn't influence us either. When people are presented with hypothetical scenarios that highlight a contradiction in their moral thinking, they can come to a different understanding that is beyond their base instinct about fairness or morality. Even if what drives people to read this thread is personal gain through enjoyment or smugness, the result might be positive and extends beyond our base desires.

>>36340838
>space age society
the space age was almost 50 years ago damnit

>>36340807
>theist
>peace
Choose one.

>>36342743
>The supramarginal gyrus is also involved in logic and reasoning. It allows us to process experiences of the world around us, sensory data, the position and movements of our limbs, in cohesion with the rest of the brain.
Yes. It is involved in logic and reasoning. I never claimed that it wasn't. But the structure itself doesn't PERFORM logic and reasoning. It doesn't make decisions or plan. It (as well as all other sensory components of the brain) process raw stimuli into concepts that the prefrontal cortex can operate with, but they don't use the concepts for anything themselves.

>Sensory data is incredibly important to reasoning.
Yes. A person cannot reason without concepts to reason with.

>Even most rationalists would agree with that, because rationalists generally don't think ALL knowledge is a priori.
I think you may be confused with my position here. When I use the term "illogical" I don't intend any negative connotation. I mean the strict definition of the term, which is "not a result of a logical process." And to clarify further, when I use the term "logic" I mean base functional logic, not "smart guy" logic. Logic more in the sense of computation and processing.

>Empirical evidence strongly suggests otherwise. See the section called "The role of the prefrontal cortex in empathy"
The article reinforces my point regarding affective and cognitive empathy. It directly (and frequently) "indicate[s] that the prefrontal cortex is active during empathic processing" which refers to the function of cognitive empathy, which is the process of turning emotional stimuli into something meaningful to the conscious mind. Affective empathy, which is the sensory component of the empathic process chain (and what most people refer to directly as "empathy") is not a logical process. It is sensory. It is what the majority of human social structure is founded upon. Dysfunction of it is the cause of neurological sociopathy.

(too long)

>requires a book and the threat of hell to do good
>morals

choose one

File: 15380541_1655347348096087_2348072982144569512_n.png (413KB, 502x711px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 502x711px

atheism is just another religion

>>36343504
Are you legitimately retarded or what? Try reading some philosophy.

File: 1487114117631.png (18KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 800x600px

>Doing something because you expect reward and fear punishment
>moral
So dogs are moral.

File: tips trilby.jpg (38KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 479x720px

>you need some ancient book written by desert dwelling goatfuckers during the bronze age and then reinterpreted and rewritten so that the ruling and prelate caste could submit the population and justify all kinds of degeneracies

Christcucks and religioncucks in general, everyone. I'm an atheist and my morals come from what I feel is right and respectful of the laws of civil society. I don't need no fucking book to tell me to not be a degenerate, unlike you fucking christfags who would commit all sorts of degenerate act if there wasn't your godly good boy points system in place that sends you to hell if you don't behave.

>>36343596
no because they lack self awareness and cant make the decision to do the good thing
doing good neccessitates the abillity to know right from wrong

>>36343596
They are. That is why dog is god written backwards and why they all go to heaven.

>>36343596
>thinks humans can determine what is and isn't objectively moral
Mysides.png

ITT: retards who need to read some Kant

>>36343656
but how can I read it if I Kant?

>>36343631
A dog can understand that if it behaves it gets a treat, and if it misbehaves it gets yelled at.
>>36343646
I think you need to look up what objective means.

>>36340807
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

>>36343559
3/10 bait, atheism is an ideology. Also, evolution is not a myth, it's a scientific theory with overwhelming amount of evidence going for it.

>>36343683
so?
morals =/= doing whats useful

>>36343704
Atheism is not an ideology. It just means a person isn't a theist.

>>36343720
So dogs are as moral as christians.

>>36343704
>theory
>overwhelming evidence
pick one, friend

>>36343745
Exactly. They are very good boys!

>>36343721
Ideology: the ideas and manner of thinking characteristic of a group, social class, or individual.

>>36343752
The evidence is there, it's still a theory though because there is no way to actually see it in action.

>>36343788
The denial or lack of a single idea is not an ideology.

>>36343788
>it's still a theory though because there is no way to actually see it in action
That's funny because I can see God's creativity in action all around me.
It's sad how atheists don't even truly believe they're own creation myths.

>>36341871
We have our own rules and sensibilities now that we have laid down the foundation of modern civil society. We don't need some ancient piece of shit book written by desert dwellers during the bronze age to tell us what is right or wrong. Why do you need the fucking bible to tell you that something is wrong, when our society, ethics and sensibilities tell us that said thing is wrong? Why do you need to say that "god" claimed something is wrong, is our own law not enough? Also, considering the bible or any other holy piece of shit book was written by man, what's the difference between it or any country's constitution then?

Religion is bullshit, it's obsolete, and it holds us down as a species, while also making us seems special when we're nothing more than another animal on this planet.

>>36343882
>That's funny because I can see God's creativity in action all around me.

It's much more profound to see and realize things as they really are, the product of millions of years of evolution, rather than shit that popped up once because some magic man decided it would be like that. Until you free yourself of the chains of religion, you will never truly grasp the majesty of the universe. It will always be the whim of some bored magic man in the sky that popped everything out of nowhere. How simple minded and moronic is that? Not to mention, how fucking pretentious and selfish is it to believe that said magic man made you, a fucking monkey, in his image, you're nothing before the immensity of the cosmos, you're the product of evolution on this planet just like insects or birds or any other living thing.

File: file.jpg (48KB, 500x342px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x342px

Christfags, debate this!

>>36343683
>humans
>making objective morals or being objective in general
Pick one (1)

>>36344075
I see you didn't look up objective like I told you to.

File: IMG_2075.jpg (172KB, 1024x702px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1024x702px

>>36344010
>this entire post
Originally grow a damn brain, you child

>>36344104
>insults
As expected from a bible thumping simpleton.

>>36344042
Been debunked already, by many.
>>36344098
Oh really? Care to actually support your statement?

>>36344129
>Been debunked already, by many.

Post them. I've yet to see one that makes any sense and didn't sound like the ramblings of a caveman.

File: delet.jpg (40KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 640x480px

>>36344042
>then whence cometh evil?
it's called the free will of humanity
and I'm glad i have it

>>36344120
>hypocrisy: the post
If you call me out for insults, but not >>36344010 then you must be illiterate

>>36344129
>been debunked already

Not an argument.

>>36344157
>what is free will
God gave us free will, we chose to create and commit evil with that free will. To prevent evil, he would have to either wipe us all out (which he did once, and promised not to do again), or take everyone's free will away so that we become robotic sheep, which entirely defeats the purpose of creating humans in the first place.

>>36340971
Morals in a nutshell: Make your decisions do as little harm as possible, taking into account every possible factor.
If you have a dying dog, you might need to put it down.
If you can help the dog without wasting sufficient time and resources that would be put to better use alleviating someone else's suffering - say a human or two dogs at once - then by all means go for it.
If that dying dog was found on the street and you choose to ignore it, you have opted out of that moral decision.

It's like starving african kids. Most people don't really give a shit because it's a problem that can't be solved with a standard amount of resources because the problem will not go away until those lazy niggers get their shit together as a community and form a working system. Time and money would be better spent contributing to a system that will grow and help more people (and in return those people will help MORE people)..

I'm drunk btw, correct me if I'm wrong.

>>36344158
The will is limited by the physical body. It is not free. A person cannot will away mental or physical disorders. The choices they make often come under duress.

>>36344129
I could tell you what objective means, but I think it would be better for your self-esteem if you went and looked it up now.

>>36344211
There's no reason for me to abide by your morals.
Those are your subjective beliefs

SHUT UP
I MADE THIS THREAD FOR CHRISTIANS AND CHRISTIANS ONLY
ATHIESTS GET OUT

>>36344219
I've already looked it up. What in my comments makes you (mistakenly) believe I don't know what objective means?

>>36344267
Your use of objective as an adjective to describe morals.

>>36344229
What's your alternative then?
Also, my post was describing more of a way to measure morality than an actual "set of morals".

>not having subjective morality and your own values in spite of the lack of god
>he isn't ubermensch
laughing @ you weak minded fools

>>36344196
>which he did once, and promised not to do again

I'm sorry but I cannot take you seriously. You probably mean the deluge story, which is literally a children's fairy tale at this point. There is literally no evidence anywhere that a deluge or a flood of that calibre ever happened.

>>36340807
Le reddit atheist here

I mostly just go off of what i like or not with some empathy here and there but i do follow the fucked up laws of my nation only because they will shoot / inprision me but for example i am far more affected by animals being harmed than people show me a suffering person over a dog anyday

No such thing as objective meaning. What happens, happens, what doesn't, doesn't. People may not like some of those things, and it may be detrimental to some peoples personal goals or what they value, such as their property or life, but that doesn't change it. If a big rock accidentally happened to be caught up in the earths gravitational pull and smashed i to bits, "morals" wouldn't prevent humanity from being wiped out by it. It would just happen. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy acting in the ways that people call "moral", but you have to realize that the only meaning that it has is the relative mensing it has to you. Which is fine by me, "morals" wouldn't change whether or not I like doing certain things and don't like others.

>>36344161
>more insults, zero arguments

What the fuck are you even doing on this cesspool of degeneracy that is 4chan? I'm sure your god, whichever one that is, does not approve of this.

Or maybe, you're on a holy mission to convert us deeply sinful internet shitposters, porn watchers, atheists, and faggots?

I'm sorry to break this for you but you're not being very convincing with your lack of arguments, childish insults and shitty mspaint comics.

I have some questions for you religioncucks and especially christcucks.

What makes you so sure your god and your book is the correct one?

What makes you think Muslims are not following the right book, aren't they the fastest growing religion after all?

What's going to happen if you die, god exists, heaven-hell exist, but you were following the wrong dogma all along? Will you go to hell?

What makes you so sure that in the immensity of the cosmos, this tiny wet ball of rock is the one that god likes the most? There couldn't possibly be another planet out there with life, and if that's the case, what makes you so sure of it?

Why in the aforementioned immensity of the cosmos, god should care about what you do with your penis? In such immensity, is how you play with your penis that important to god, and if so, why?

If god created us in his image, and we are capable of absolute evil (no other living being is capable of such evil as humans) wouldn't that mean god is also evil?

Considering the overwhelming amount of evil going on in the world since the advent of humankind, how can you still refute that god isn't malevolent?

Considering the fact that according to you, god has a divine plan for everyone of us, what's the point of praying if nothing's gonna change?

I have more, but first give me the answers.

>>36344623
I forgot an important one:

What are the criteria for having a soul, do animals have soul? If animals have no soul, what about humans who are born retarded or insane? If someone is insane and his insanity makes him commit all sorts of sin, will he go to hell? If so why, considering he had no real free will?

>>36344293
That's because it is an adjective...
>>36344315
Are you claiming that helping people is moral and harming people is immoral? Or not very moral?

>>36344415
>no evidence anywhere
Now you're just denying reality
>>36344477
Here's your (you)

>using religion to define morals

Kek. I'm sure the conquistadores who wiped out the aztec/mayan/inca civilizations found it moral to do so because they were godless savages.

Why are christfags such incompetent retards?

Here's how the discussion will go every time:
>there is no scientific evidence of a God
>oh yeah well ur going to Hell :)
You literally can't build an argument for Christianity lmao how do people still fall for this in 2017 y'all gettin memed on

>>36344779
>no evidence, no arguments, no logic, only insults and some memes

You keep doing it. Why even post if you have nothing to say? Are you even capable of forming arguments? Did your god bless you with rational thinking at all, or did he made you a mindless shitposting slave?

>>36344811
Religion is the biggest meme of all. It's the ultimate meme. It's almost embarassing at this point that people still getting memed, and respond to criticism and skepticism with nothing but more memes, and when it's not memes it's strawman, moving the goalpost, red herring, ad hominem, and more logical fallacies.

>>36344822
Except that's not true at all, friendo. I've presented logic arguments. In fact, I even point out your hypocrisy. Stay mad, brainlet.

>>36344754
Square is also an adjective. If you used square to specify a certain type of triangle, it would be obvious that didn't know what it meant though.

>>36344925
Point me to them, you sure did nothing but shitpost in reply to my own posts. Maybe you presented logical (implying) arguments to someone else. Please quote said post where you didn't act like a complete childish bible thumping moron.

>>36344964
Objective can only describe morals if they come from God.
I'm not misusing the adjective there

>>36344754
Neither, it's not that black and white. Sometimes you have to harm people to help more people, meaning it will still be the more "moral" action by the standards I've given, right?

Think about these scenarios:
>would you rather kill a terrorist or save ten children?
>would you rather save three plumbers or a doctor?

File: 1492429228006.gif (977KB, 400x318px) Image search: [Google]

977KB, 400x318px

>>36340833
>Implying the leaders who pushed for them weren't doing it for financial gain

>>36345056
>if they come from God.
Then they aren't objective. Objective qualities are independent of subjects, like for example a God.

>>36344709
You should also ask the definition of free will and how God judges people who were never introduced to his dogma. Would he judge a good person who is not Christian to go to hell? If he does not, then why should anyone bother to follow his dogma?

What's even the point of debating with theists, and especially muslims and christcucks, their religions are ENGINEERED in a way that they are self validating and self fulfilling (the bible/quran is true because it says to at page x), vague in a way that is endlessly reinterpretable and readaptable, you can turn and twist it in any way, which is what most ruler did to justify their crimes against humanity as a whole. It's entirely futile to debate with people who are brainwashed by a self validating dogma.

>>36345114
Dude, just stop.
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts
God is the only one who can objectively give us morals.

>>36345194
>vague in a way that is endlessly reinterpretable and readaptable

I'm reading a book on the history of marriage and I laughed out loud at how many times the church changed their mind on what God said marriage was supposed to be for. They were shameless with that shit.

>>36345066
And what if I chose to kill the children and the terrorist?

>>36345253

All throughout the Bible, God demonstrates that he has feelings. Oftentimes angry ones.

>>36345253
Do you understand what opinion means?
Examples of objective qualities could be, round, sharp, hard, soft. They are qualities inherent to the object, not granted by a subject. Since good needs a subject to give it meaning it is a subjective quality.
It is clear to me that you haven't studied any bit of epistomology, and is just using objective as a synnonym for 'in accordance with reality'.

>>36345115
The game seems rigged to me, it is rigged for too many people who will never have a chance due to their environment or physical condition. What about someone who has sinned but then got in a head accident got insane, how is he supposed to repent? If god had already planned this, it means he IS malevolent and that his big game is rigged as fuck. Or even worse, if I kill and ruin people's lives, then I do repent, will I go to heaven? So if the cucktholic dogma is true, and I know of it, do all kinds of evil in my life, then genuinely repent, I will go to heaven, while someone who could not repent because I fucking killed him, will go to hell.

Rigged as fuck. How can anyone believe this nonsense boggles the mind.

>>36345282
Is there a reason for doing so? Children have a huge potential to do a lot of good with their growth, so unless you fear they'll grow to be allahu mudshits and do more harm then good or something then there would be no reason to be an edgy shitlord. You'll be depriving the world of 10 possible contributions.

>>36345377

>They are qualities inherent to the object, not granted by a subject.

What about color?

Is a red ball objectively "red", if there is no one to perceive it as being that color?

>>36345424
>What about color?
Color is how we see the 'wavelength' of light being reflected by an object, and so could be argued to refer to either our perception of this, which is subjective, or the quality possesed by the object causing it to reflect certain 'wavelengths' making it objective.

>>36345375
His actions lead people to believe he has feelings and that his feelings directed/influenced his actions.

>needing morals
Fucking normies

>>36345392
No. No reason. Not even personal pleasure or desire to do it.

This seems a good thread as any to ask this.

American christcucks, have you ever wondered why it's only your shithole fucktarded burger country that has "Creationists"? There are no creationists in europe, not even in Italy which is the cradle of christianity. Why is it just an american thing? Have you ever wondered it might just be because you're fucking retarded bible thumpers and the rest of the world is not as retarded as you?

If creationism wasn't absolute nonsense, it would pop up in other countries as well, but nope, it's just you shitheads. Why is that?

>>36345692
It's just burgers and muslims actually. Radical muslims do not accept evolution for basically the same reason as radical christfags.

Really makes you think huh?

>>36345692
Are you implying all American Christians are the traditional creationists?

>>36345771
I'm implying that creationism is just an american thing. As an european, when I first heard such a thing as creationism existed, it boggled my mind due to its sheer stupidity. I literally NEVER EVER heard of it before, and I live in Italy, we have the motherfucking pope here, yet, there is no such thing as creationism here, or in germany where I lived for 3 years, or in france which I visited a few times as a tourist.

>>36345538

>Color is how we see the 'wavelength' of light being reflected by an object, and so could be argued to refer to either our perception of this, which is subjective

But can it be an objective fact that person A is seeing the color red in that ball at a given time?

>>36345066
>>would you rather kill a terrorist or save ten children?
>>would you rather save three plumbers or a doctor?
I'm not qualified to make this decision. The Bible says nothing about this.

>>36345967
The bible says nothing about 4chan yet here you are you spastic bible thumper. Why don't you get the fuck out and take your outdated medieval fairytale book with you?

File: classic little sexy slut.jpg (239KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1280x960px

>>36345194
There's no point but it's fun and makes me feel superiour.

>>36345915
If you mean seeing as the physical process of light going into a person's eye and electrical signals being sent to the brain. Then it could be an objective fact.
Of course seeing is both.

>>36345870
What about Mormonism? It's origin is American, as well.

>>36346081
Just as fake and retarded as scientology. Which coincidentaly is also an american invention.

>>36346081
When it comes to american retardation I stopped at creationism, I don't know anything about mormonism. It's probably some money making scheme like geovah witnesses and scientology. Just more proof that religion was and still is a great way to shackle your diminutive brains and control you and get your money.

>>36346143
I'm seeing a pattern...
>>36346164
>implying all religions are the same

File: pepe is smug.jpg (10KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x250px

>>36346197
>implying all religions are the same
Although they are not the same, they are all equally fake.

>>36340807
Divine command is the most cringeworthy meme ever. You're literally saying the reason you don't kill people or rape is because God tells you not to. You have no empathy or long term thinking

>>36346197
Are they not the same? Every religion I take a look at, I see the same brainwashing, control, submission, and enslavement of the mind. And of course, they're all man-made and not true, not supported by fact, not logical, and primitive as fuck.

>>36346264
Religion is a great way for actual degenerates to keep themselves in check. If they didn't have their divine good boy points system in place, they'd freak out.

If you are not a degenerate by nature, you don't need some ancient fairy tale to tell you to not be degenerate.

If you think about it, we NEED religion and especially good boy points religions like christianity, most humans are degenerate, emotional, ignorant, irrespectful, illogical, stupid as fuck, and we need religion to control them or the world would get fucked over overnight.

>>36346164
>being this naive
Go post a Christian thread on /pol/ and tell me how "shackled" they are, Schlomo. A lot of Christians don't even trust most churches.

>>36345608
Read: everything past the first sentence.

>>36346282
>brainwashing you to be a moral, law-abiding citizen as opposed to a degenerate hedonist scumbag is a bad thing
See >>36346354

>>36346254
>equally fake
Nope. Actually, varying degrees of fakeness
>>36346282
Then take another look at all the thousands of religions and realize that Christianity is the truth

>>36346404
Okay, then I'm an "edgy shitlord" as you childishly put it. Are you claiming it is immoral to be an edgy shitlord?

Morality is subjective. To prove that it is objective you must first prove that God or some third party that's detached from humanity that can judge morals exists.
That being said, most people in the west get their morals from society, not from the church. Sure these morals may at one point been preached by the church, but in modernity the church isn't needed to support the moral system most of us subscribe to.

>>36346404
>going to pol
How about no. And don't call me shlomo, I'm atheist but I dislike jews as much as I dislike you bible thumpers. If you think ANYTHING because an ancient, primitive and outdated book of fairytales tells you to, you're shackled. Ironic is the fact that in Italy the shitting pope is brainwashing the catholics to be tolerant and pro-muslim immigrations because the bible tells you to help your fellow humans no matter what. How do you explain that? Your piece of shit book can make you a /pol/cuck as much as it can make you spread your asscheeks for the islamic invasion you alt-right bible thumpers so despise.

>see
That is also my post. I am starting to see religion as nothing but a tool to keep you ignorant mass of degenerate simpletons in check. I don't need it because I'm not a degenerate.

>>36341246
I'm not a Christian, but I can see how those who are believe in Christ/church/doctrines/, but I cannot believe than anyone is stupid enough to believe the bible and church teachings come directly from god. Even if they did originally, the words have been though a 3000+ year old game of telephone and have been changed multiple times for political reasons.

>>36346497
>retardation
If being an edgy shitlord means killing ten children without reasoning, then no shit. Your parents should've aborted you.

>>36346536
>religion is bad goy! Just look at how happy Tyrone and Stacy are!
Also,
>implying I'm a christian
Your post is nothing but assumptions

>>36346669
>>religion is bad goy! Just look at how happy Tyrone and Stacy are!

Holy fuck what is wrong with you? Where did I ever claim or let alone imply that? Also how do you get against "stacy and tyrone" according to your precious bible or whatever religion you follow? Is there anywhere in the bible or whaver other religion you follow that says interracial marriage is wrong? And who are you to tell that stacy should not be with tyrone? Can you objectively say that Stacy cannot get fucked raw by Tyrone? What makes Stacy mate with Tyrone objectively immoral?

Also, I know you will now resort to name calling, ad hominem or just post some memes and be done with it, since I just proved you're a fucking moron.

>>36340807
>human being
>consistent moral calculus
select but one my friend

>>36346650
Well the most important part, the gospel, is as close to Jesus as we can get without dying or divine intervention

>>36346963
Why do you think that is? Because the people who told you that you NEED them to get close to Jesus said so?
Again, I'm not religious, but I could see myself believing in God without the church.

>>36347020
I don't even go to church anymore. But I see what you're getting at.
I think the gospels are the closest to Jesus, physically, because they tell his personal life and his teachings.