/lit/ - Literature

>>10310637
I WANT to a sink into nihilism and hopefully be relieved of life's suffering as a result.

>>10310637
You may want to read a book

>nihilism: the reality

moral codes of behaviour have probably been ingrained since primitive social life - not needing external justification until tribes/cities/civilisations come into significant contact with each other and gain awareness of alien moral codes, as well as when their own moral definitions lose context due to change in social structure etc.
in other words when the ephemeral, partial nature of morality is realised it becomes necessary to philosophise. monotheism and objective morality necessary development for cosmopolitan humanity to thrive. then once that disintegrates... what comes next?

Cause morality is a myth.
We don't commit crime cause we don't want to/don't want to be punished/can be caught.
We do good things cause it feels good do them.

>>10310877
Any deeper moral code is made by ourselves.
Just see how easily we break the sabbath, this supposedly top 3 most important "holy codes".

Atheists cannot be moral.
>>10310701
Back to plebbit, STEMsperg

>>10310637
Op is not a fag!!! All you atheists are cheating yourselves of really pleasurable lives, succumbing to your conditioning. Lol you lot is the biggest parody this side of the paxific!! Lololololol

>>10310637
>finds some obscure tribe in the amazon rainforest has moral beliefs that slightly diverge from the predominant world-wide norm
>"THIS PROVES THAT MORALITY IS A COMPLETELY BASELESS SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!!11!"

This is what modern people actually believe

>>10310890
why do you think im stemsperg? literally just talking about ethics

>>10310920
muh evolutuonary psychology is STEMspergery, not ethics. No serious ethicist takes it seriously.
Go back to listening to Ben Stiller.

>>10310924
This tho. Utility/isness is the lamest ethical argument one can surmise. Pseudamentary my dear

>>10310924
There's no evopsych in my post at all. All I'm pointing out is that primitive man is a social creature, constrained by social mores, not an egoist. Are Hobbes, Rousseau, etc. STEMspergs for having theories about the state of nature?

>>10310936
I didn't mean to imply that morality exists or "should" exist because of its utility. I was just framing its evolution, and how the situation we are in came to be, in response to OP's question.

>>10310637
Nihilism is a learned behavior.
Children do not come out of the womb only to hold their breath and die.
Life desires more life and seeks to perpetuate it through reproduction.

Make no mistake, your purpose on this planet is to have children, especially if you're white. :^)

There must be a truth out there and humanity is evolving in order to come closer to finding it.

If humanity ever becomes immortal, then everything becomes a certainty and we will eventually find the truth.

Have faith friend, have children so you can say that you've done your part for the future generation that will discover the truth.

>>10310918
Just means it's not ordained or revealed.

>>10310918
>predominant worldwide norm

>>10310965
>There must be a truth out there and humanity is evolving in order to come closer to finding it.

>>10310637
they were all created in the image of God and bear an imperfect form of His morality. Athiests try to deny this and some nihilists try to overcome it

>>10310637
>Why do atheists follow moral codes despite the absence of a deity?
Culture/socialisation. But morality is inherent and inescapable. Having a rule saying there are no rules is a contradiction. If you say "no limits" or "full freedom" you are trapped by your deterministic approach to do "whatever you wish". Marquis de Sade knew this, and that's why all the libertines in Sodom end up dead, following their moral code of "whatever you want".

>>10310973
Gettem!!!

>>10310637
Life is longer than you think. You can't be a nihilist forever, it's unsustainable.

>>10310938
>primitive man
Fuck off back to plebbit.

>>10311168
not that Anon, but what do you really seek by instigating this argument? It's clear you will simply hand-wave anything against your thought process as "us vs them". What is the point, then? He even stopped to articulate what he meant.

>>10311215
>primitive man
is the very definition of 'us vs them' hand-wavery. Read your shit or you'll get hit.

>>10310966
Or maybe the tribe are fucking retarded and can’t listen to god properly

>>10311300
Oh so instead of being the better man you will answer buzzwords with buzzwords thus continuing the cycle of shit.

Carry on then.

>>10310973
To suggest that there is no truth is absurdity.
Reality is truth in its own right, even if you accept that there is no noumena, no reality, then you would still accept that "Being", as Heidegger states, as truth.

Believing in absurdity is nonsense.

>>10310637
>Why do atheists follow moral
The weak can not resist pavlovization.

>>10310877
I remember when I was 16

>>10311515
>All morality is just pavlovian , any kind of behavior which is inherent or modal to a specific people or animal is a spook
Edgy and incorrect

>>10310637
once you've gone through nihilism, you never have to go back

youve got to go through though

>>10311142

i mean not if you kill yourself

All arguments based around morality requiring a deity can be reduced down the needing a carrot dangled in front of you to move forward. It reduces all of us to stupid slaves who must be told what is right and wrong instead of empathetic beings who can learn what does and does not hurt other people.

I hate my stupid mother. She is an alcoholic waste of space whose greatest achievement was shitting out a kid. I want to kill her, but I do not, not merely because I may be punished for my actions, but because it is the wrong thing to do. I would not want anyone who hated me to kill me, so I do not do the same things to others. This is human empathy.

>>10310637
Empathy

You shouldn't be a dick to other people because you understand it sucks when people are dicks to you.

You shouldn't slip into nihilism because there's so much joy and happiness you could be enjoying and sharing with others. You could argue that it's better not to feel than to feel bad, but I'd say it's better to feel your emotions and understand them and how you react to them and using them to your advantage rather than just not feeling at all.

>>10311168
>>10311300
What? What is "us vs them" about it? When I say primitive man, I mean before history. Not anyone who exists today.

>>10311583
>You shouldn't be a dick to other people because you understand it sucks when people are dicks to you.
What exactly is the "shouldn't" doing here? It should be qualified by an explanation - such as "if you wish to experience/attain x" "for God has decreed it wrong" etc. Unfortunately, though we all crave it, there is no independent "ought".

>>10311587
>implying one can know 'before history' or even anything 'during history'
Fuck off, modernist.

>>10311613
I suppose you'd know, by appealing to revelation though, huh? The prehistory of man, and his fall.

>>10311597
Not objectively, but we exist as subjective individuals. If you subjectively feel like you are being a dick then you are creating a subjectively negative experience. If there's no objective reason to be a dick and there's subjective reasons to not be a dick, why would you be a dick?

>>10310924
This is objectively false. Anthropology and biology play an important role in much modern ethics, particularly in virtue ethics which is a field that has been gaining traction for a while now.

>>10311690
What if someone subjectively enjoys being a dick?

>>10311784
Then they're enjoying themselves more than a nihilist would.

>>10310637
You've been brainwashed by Christianity to think that morality is inseparable from religion. Outside Abrahamic religions, this is not how most people throughout history thought of morality. More often they would see piety as one virtue among many.

>>10311784
Then he probably enjoys it more than the other person is saddened by it. Therefore the total happiness in the world goes up. So whatever.

>>10310637
>Why do atheists follow moral codes despite the absence of a deity?
It honestly scares me that some people legitimately think this. What if they lose their faith? Are they just going to shoot up a school or something because the only thing they could rely on was a deity? What a shit life that must be.

>>10310965
>If humanity ever becomes immortal, then everything becomes a certainty

what

>>10311520
It's still more mature a position than behaving in a certain way because someone told you the big sky-daddy will spank you if you don't.

A lot of 'atheists' are still religious in that they are adherents of irrational moral systems like antiracism. If you're an atheist and not a moral nihilist or moral subjectivist, then you haven't truly lost your religious thinking.

>>10310877
>we don't do a thing because we either:
>don't enjoy it
>would like to, but are afraid of the consequences
wow

>>10311842
You're missing the point. Filthy moralist. Weakling...

>>10311860
>It's still more mature a position than behaving in a certain way because someone told you the big sky-daddy will spank you if you don't.

>>10312059
Not an argument.

>>10311842
If you're really interested in a possible explanation, read Nietzsche's Will to Power.

Essentially, a shift of value from religion to science means nihilism -- at least in the 20th century.

>>10312061
>>10310877
Why do certain actions and behaviors make us feel good?
>in b4 'muh procreation'

>>10312223
>What does 1+1=?
>in b4 '2'

>>10312223
Because things that behave in certain ways become prominent, and self-perpetuate. Like a mechanism. Impartial - simply cause and effect.

Can you describe this moral code that supposedly exists?

>>10312251
It's about 6'2", aromatic with a nutty texture, drives a Ford Focus.

>>10310918
>finds some well-known mesoamerican tribe that wages wars for shits and giggles and ritually rips out hearts from the chests of their living enemies
>finds an ancient European empire that thought it was fine to entertain itself by making slaves and animals fight to death in arenas (also by making animals eat the people they disagree with on religious grounds)
>llalalalalalala can't hear you morality is objective and obvious

>>10310637
>needing divine commande to be """moral"""
Brainlet detected

>>10310637
I think it's mostly because, unless you kill yourself, you'll become bored until you feel the need to do something with your life

>>10310637
>Why do atheists follow moral codes despite the absence of a deity?

They actually don't, their morals are as flexible as blades of grass. They read or watch something in pop media, and suddenly decide being that gay is okay, or that they should join the nazi party. Most of the time they choose whatever is the easiest and most pleasurable, and if they don't see an immediate negative effect they do it.

>>10312226
My point being it's an intellectually shallow argument with no insight whatsoever. And it's not to say that the argument doesn't have some truth, it's just such an empty insight -- which as pointed out, any 16 year old could state.

People have been believing in the spirit for thousands of years because it gives to them some fulfillment and makes them 'feel good', how might this perpetuate procreation?

>>10312389
If it's obvious then why are you asking for further insight and explanation?

>>10312389
not the same poster you are replying to, but the way you write makes it seem like you have at most a double digit IQ
stop trying

>>10312234
>Cause and effect
with possible causes being?

>>10312399
>>10312396
Asking for a better argument for the sake of the possible bettering of my own insight? I'm interested lol, isn't that the objective of discussion?

>>10312389
>>10312396
>>10312423

for fucks sake, please stop repeating "insight" ad nauseam
goddamn teenage internet armchair philosophers

>>10312389
>The fact that 1+1=2 is intellectually shallow with no insight whatsoever. Not that it's wrong, just that any 16 year old could tell you. If you were a deep and insightful 17 year old like me, you'd know that 1+1 = Souls and 2 = God.

>>10310637
>Why do atheists follow moral codes despite the absence of a deity?
Since absence of a deity is a scientific fact you may as well ask why religious people follow moral codes despite the absense if a deity.

>>10312437
>Since absence of a deity is a scientific fact

Alright, show me at least one (1) publication from a proper scientific journal which supports your thesis.

>>10312431
right because the principle follows, from 1+1=2 we can figure algebra. There certainly can't be any better explanations.

>>10312430
fair enough

>>10310981
Thanks for the spoiler fuckface

>>10311524
Edgy for sure, but why incorrect?

>>10310637
Because they are stupid

what's strange is that nihilism has taken the apatheia of early christianity and twisted it into a useless trait. what we see with nihilism is that the statement "life has no point" quickly 'points' to the statement "death is the solution" in the most hilarious way possible. the truth, my friends, is that your life has a predestined point, and if you're such a failure that you determined it to be "suicide at 20", then go right on ahead. nobody is stopping you from fulfilling your destiny. I, a good christian, am "apatheia" to it,

>>10312601
You don't think nihilism has a point?

>>10311860
>behaving in a certain way because someone told you the big government-daddy will spank you if you don't instead.
See, I can do this too, you fuckwit. It's not that hard.

>>10312226
Actually his question is more "why does 1+1=2" but please by all means continue to feel smart even though you're only really of middling intelligence at best

>>10310637
You don't need to invoke a deity to be believe in the non-natural objective existence of morality

>>10313066

A lot of edgy atheists are misunderstanding the purpose of Religion.
Every human tribe/peoples ever has had a form of religion
Morality likely comes from within, but subjective morality is not conducive to a collective morality by which human civilization lives. This is because subjective morality may clash and cause friction.
Religion steps in to grant axioms by which a tribe may live and ensures that peace is maintained.
The religion becomes law and that's ultimately where any country's laws come from.

Only the most edgy atheists say "BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE COERCED" and perhaps it shows in their birth rates, because by selecting to ignore the reason for the existence religion, they elect not to participate socially.

Besides, you don't have to believe it, just abide with it to a degree.

>>10311729
No it's not.
Virtue ethics isn't serious ethics, any ethics that appeals to STEMspergery is not serious ethics. Try again.

>>10312234
Cause and effect doesn't happen. You're a couple hundred years in the past friendo.
>>10313358
Fuck off with your functionalist bullshit. m-m-mm-m-m-muh white civilizashun!!!!

>>10313397
What a worthless dismissal, Mark.

Do you even try to understand?
Do you have a world view founded upon asking "Why are things the way they are?" or do you selfishly use your emotions and feelings as your guide to navigate the world?

You know why religion exists, the justification for its existence is very clear and yet you choose to ignore the rhetorical truth in front of you in favor of your own whims.

>>10310637
Because we are brought up in an environment that propagates following a set of written and unwritten moral codes. Because if you break those codes, you’ll be punished one way or another. Because it’s more comfortable to live in a society that follows these codes.

If you’re implying nihilists do not follow moral codes: wrong. They’re punished by society and law the same way theists are. Punishment is not desirable.

>>10311459
>we will find the truth!
>dude just believe truth of being is the only real one

>>10311784
I subjectively enjoy being a dick towards you.

>>10313544
>emotions are bad becuz muh psy ants sez so look i explained religion SOCIOLOGICALLY IM LE OBJECTIVE SCIENCE MAN
Back to plebbit you intellectual deadweight. The Will to Truth is a disease.
>>10311459
This is what happens when laymen (platonists) read philosophy.

>>10313733
>Ad Hominem and arguments based solely upon feeling and emotion
You are the perfect postmodernist, any psych ward will admit you for studying purposes.

>>10313733
must suck to be nothing, sorry for whatever has or hasn't happened to you anon. if you anhero dont take any of us with you

>>10313749
You do realize that 'muh raisin' 'muh troof' is totally based in emotion, right?
Stop listening to Peterson. Scientism and functionalism are cancers. Peterson is a prime example of a sufferer who hides their scientism behind blinds.
>>10313760
I'm the greatest man to have ever lived. I make mountains seem as nothing.

>>10312621
i think he's saying that nihilism doesn't imply any necessary ethical claim about the world.
like there's nothing wrong with feeling like your life has no point, but it doesn't follow logically at all from that that you should kill yourself, or you should become a christian or any actionable claim about how to respond to that nihilism

>>10310657
Losing belief in the significance of pleasure is part of Nihilism, no fat person is a nihilist as they still worship their stomach

>>10313768
>can't argue for your beliefs on rational grounds so you throw reason out the window and fling shit like an ape, suggesting that instinct and emotion are better guides for man than observation of reality through cognition and reason

What belief do you hold, that you simply can't seem to abandon, that you would deny reality in order to maintain it?
For Kant and Hegel it was tradition, culture, and religion.
For Nietzsche it was his narcissistic belief that instinct was a better guide than human reason, that the enlightenment had marginalized his worth through cognitive observation and rationalization. As if he were so important or mysterious that he could not be weighed and measured.


So were do you fall?
Where is your strongly held contention that you can't hope to prove through simple observation and trust in reason?

>>10313791
>muh raisins muhfugga
Back to plebbit, brainlet.
Reality doesn't exist. Stop projecting your feefees onto existence.
>For Kant and Hegel it was tradition, culture, and religion.
WIR
WAREN
KAENIGE
N
SCHIESSE
Find a noose mate.
There is no reason for reason, it is a sentiment. Hume realized this, but g*rman brainlets took a bit longer. Yet there are still *nglo scum and g*rman scum that fall for the same shite because they want to LARP as imperialists.

>>10313810
What do you believe in?

>>10313814
nothing because belief is for jews and other subhuman degenerates i am l'homme des Science my ancestors were all emperors and they were all cumskins like me if you think romans and greeks were anything but fucking pale youre a fucking jew ok reason is the only reasonable reason to believe reasons... because it is reasonable. qed fucker read some russell you fucking degenerate btfo there is no so-called god only cultural gods like þor who totally btfo your stupid jew god WHO ISNT EVEN REAL

>>10313826
I like some of the aesthetic wordplay, but really, what do you believe in?

>>10311836
Perfectly sums up the current state of /lit/

>>10313835
i am l'homme des Science i blieve in nothing because that is irrational I TURNED MSELF INTO A PICKLE MORT

>>10313860
>the absolute state of your Being

>>10313880
MY BEING IS A PICKLE HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH LHOMEM DES SCINC

>>10313914
What do you do for a living?

>>10313926
fuc bichs lmao XDDD

>>10313936
Do you have any family?

>>10313940
Married with child yes

>>10313860
legendary bait, good work anon. triggered at least 4brainlets

>>10314019
Occupation?

>>10310637

Because morality is just a synonym for beauty, and every human being aspires to beauty whether they call it god or not.

>>10314023
fuc bichs

>>10314030
Can't be easy to remain married that way.
Does your wife sleep with other people too or is it monogamous and your wife's name is Bichs?

I feel like there's some neuroscience involved here, but it hasn't been brought up.
What's lit's take on neuroscience?

>>10314032
fuc bichs

>>10310637
Morals are guided by the society that deems, whatever they are, to be valid, so when you are born in a christian based society as a kid and everyone is atheist now and still follows the moral practices of christian basically "treat people how you want to be treated", it is because they grew up learning that this way of behaving is beneficial to everyone.

I don't really believe in the christian God that says very specific rules that seem silly to us because they have some historical context that was used to control people back in the past, but I believe there probably is something that created the universe or something that is cosmic karma, something that rights things, something that makes us dream and acts in our unconscious which is why we have such terrible guilt like Raskolnikov or we are consumed by our conscience.

Don't fall into the fashion of the era, our morals are dictated by our growing up ( if you are like me and many other first world countries ) in a christian society and following the lingering sentiments that other people have lived by and impressed on us, when we lose base of moral slowly by the watering down of generations, how long does it take to ascent into savagery or blindness.

>>10310877
Entry level neitzche ova here.
Pleasure isn't the source of a desire for morality. A sense of morality comes from the human necessity to create beyond ourselves and exert our own will to power over reality.

>>10310877
wow how very deep

>>10310965
muh "we are the human race" meme (comes from kant and the anthropo-zoologists i.e. aristote)

>>10313777
Food has ceased to be a pleasure to a fat person. Like junk loses pleasure for a junkie

>>10314082
I don't agree with the mindset that society ingrains so heavily into the brains of human beings.

The idea "treat others you want to be treated" is ingrained heavily into altruism itself, and that's why a good deal of people subscribe to the notion that morality is there because human beings desire to help one another regardless of the existence of religion.

Nietzsche even straight up says this is another, possible and valid perspective toward morality itself.

>>10314241
>>10314082
I think that to understand morality, you need to first understand evil, and you need to feel the impact of evil to understand yourself and your desires to not do evil unto others.

There's more to being a human being than will-to-power, and, while it is the underlying process behind everything, there are other forces such as will to life, etc.

>>10314263
>evil
There's no such thing. There's only the platonic form of good and everything else is entropy of that ideal.

>>10314273
>There's no such thing as evil

But there is.
When you force others to suffer unnecessarily, that's the best definition of evil.

You can say whatever you think, but on a tangible level, evil is real.

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

If you ever encounter something like that in real life, you'll see that it's a reality of the world we live in, and the "platonic good" has an inversion that impacts human beings for the worst.

>>10314090
how are we overcoming reality?

>>10314316
Good question. I think Neitzche would argue we have very little control over a big portion of the things that would define 'reality' but that small portion that we do have control over is what can be conquered and overcome. This is where morality and integrity to one's self comes into play because excercising your creative will on reality is what you can do as an individual against an otherwise meaningless universe. You can't really conquer reality completely, there is a limit to the things that we can really do; most of circumstance is out of our hands, (ie I didn't ask to exist or ask to experience suffering). But where that limit ends is where your own individual will begins. You cant guarantee to not experience suffering but you can create something from it and respond to it in a way that you believe is appropriate.

>>10314273
I love how you retards can be absolutely sure of something philosophers have been asking themselves for thousands of years

>>10310637
>not to sink
a weighted question. negative presupposition prevents the possibility of an accurate answer. congratulations.
>why do atheists
to reveal the fundamental want of imagination that led them to this impasse. in other words, it isn't voluntary.

>>10314450
Appreciate the response. Lots of questions lol

By creating we are expressing domain over an aspect of reality we can control, correct?

Where our predetermined dispositions end is where our will begins? Aren't those dispositions the limitations?

How is a creation overcoming reality? What exactly are we creating? What is the goal of the creation?

>>10314082
Nobody cares what you think, flaming retard.

>>10312214
I've read Will to Power, and it provides no explanation for why people would believe this. Nietzsche would be the last person to ask the meme of a "moral barometer" question. He explicitly states that man must overcome itself in order to provide new moral structures. Remember, the ones that make this claim are believers, not "nihilists" in the sense Nietzsche meant. Nietzsche did not advocate that since God is dead nothing matters, and if you think that's what Nietzsche was saying you are a regular ol' brainlet.

>>10314662
literally read the first chapter
"downfall of the moral interpretation of the universe, which loses its raison d'etre once it has tried to take flight to a Beyond, meets its end in Nihilism."

>>10314662
"Nihilism harbors in the heart of Christian morals"

>>10310657
fixed it

>>10314560
>By creating we are expressing domain over an aspect of reality we can control, correct?

Yes


>Where our predetermined dispositions end is where our will begins? Aren't those dispositions the limitations?

Yes, think of how many things are beyond your control.

>How is a creation overcoming reality? What exactly are we creating? What is the goal of the creation?

As far as I understand it Neitzche would argue it's really just our nature to create, as much of a cop out as that may be. Creation is just an extension of exerting your will to power over things and your will to power is really just an extension of the instinct/nature that you born into.

>>10312309
>implying equivalent behaviour doesn't continue today

>>10310637
>Where does the desire to not sink into nihilism come from?
>Why do atheists follow moral codes despite the absence of a deity?
What does this have to do with literature?

>>10310637

Because morality never came from a real, immanent god in the first place, but only ever came in the first place from the physical reality of how humans are, and how it is that we both remember things and understand that others are capable of remembering things, hence the golden rule etc. religion is a sort of grand metanarrative which we are regrettably hard-wired towards, and which will excuse itself at all costs.

Materialism is true. The rest is hand-waving.

>>10311860
You dont understand religion at all.
Stop talking about things you know nothing about.

>>10310637
getting off the fucking computer you little pussy

>>10310657
>the american dream: behind the curtain

>>10315805
Or what, bitch? I'll go to hell? I'll remain on the cycle of samsara for another incarnation? Step up, pussy.

>>10310637
because the entirety of atheism comprises of teenages, that have no idea what the world to come is to be. They choose to dismiss religion, and take on everything on the planet at once, because they dont want to the archetypal teenager that we've come to know.
"I was 16 once, I remember when I had the whole world figured out. So they literally grasp on the first simple thing they can to in a sense "figure the world out." They don't actually have the ability to critically think, and major moral decisions at that point. Their entire being is what stability their parents gave them, which most of the time is religion. So its the easiest thing to rebel against and develope their individual identity.

>>10310637
I never understood this, why do people get depressed because there is no God? So there is no God, doesn't mean I can't live life to the fullest and be more moral then most gays should be massacred by the millions with fire. Plus I might add that I always figured that if this "being" is just then he/she shouldn't be mad at me for not believing in it because of the rationality it place in the universe. But even with that opinion, I don't believe in shit.

>>10315805

Not that guy but he actually does. That's what terrifies you.

What you want to be able to do is to justify religion through a certain performativity of adulthood. What actually turns out to be true, in the final analysis, is that a certain petulance is the appropriate attitude to take towards the world. Normal, adult human thinking rejects this petulance as unattractive. Normal, adult human thinking is wrong for doing so, especially in the service of the currently popular cult (the greek pantheon, hinduism, christianity, later islam, whatever it is this age, and so on).

This is closely bound up with the delusion of the productive adult: "I have kids and I work a job/tend my fields and I am able to consider life from various angles, I am a full participant in society, (and consequently, materialistically, the right chemicals are dumping into my head since I'm fulfilling my animal urges in a complexly gratifying way) therefore society is basically good and I'm basically right to be participating in it." All just animals made up of atoms and chemicals moving along as they will, the analogy to lesser-animals always holding good, especially in view of the fact of the unpleasant actions which the higher animals are carrying out - /with conscious intent/, as the other fellow-species animals well know.

It happens that these sorts of animals made of chemicals (borrowing Steve Murray's language about The Europe Syndrome) do fun storytelling which they mischaracterize as wisdom, especially due to the above central delusion. True wisdom is petulance.

>>10315813
>>10315819
Two very underrated comments, literally made me laugh.

>>10310637

Social norms and the potential for exclusion.

This only becomes a problem if:

1. Nihilism is a commonality.

2. Exclusion leads to defiance and direct disobedience of moral standards.

3. Enough people are outcast that deviation is largely celebrated.

Eventually nothing would be left to rebel against, and we'd be left with contrarians as the majority.

Without any popular opinion to oppose things would devolve into pointless denial and self-aggrandizement.

>>10313066
What he realises and you don't is that the analogy is really irrelevant to the core argument. 1+1=2 because 2 is the sum of 1 and 1, complaining that the reason is too simple and we need to bring God into the equation just so it can seem "deeper" is ridiculous.

>>10315843
No he doesn't. Back to plebbit you intellectual deadweight.
And neither do you. You're 14 and took 1 (one) chemistry class, almost failed it too because you're 'smart but lazy'.

>>10315843
>performativity

t. undergrad

>>10310637
Morality is a product of evolution. It's literally genetic.

>>10315940
>becuz i sed so

>>10315921

Rather, you picked up on my repeated use of the word "chemicals" and thought that that would justify you in your reply and make you look smart when all that you were really doing was to repeat a word-form..

Human beings are unjustified in religion. Their natural feelings on the matter are wrong. And it is no defense of religion to say that humans /must/ have religion, for whatever reason. What that amounts to, is that humans are not good enough, smart enough, whatever you want to call it (you wouldn't like to call it either one of these things), to do without religion.

>>10315949
Fuck off Chester you autistic child

>>10310637
For me personally, an autistic psychopath, I've wanted to kill people before but decided not to because of the threat of punishment. I still do things like shoplift and cheat though.

>>10315944
>too much of a brainlet to understand Jungian archetypes

>>10311168

>le leddit boogeyman in place of intellectual argument

>>10315973
Intellectualism is cancer

>>10310637
>If there is nothing but what we make in this world... Let us make good.

>>10313358

The only 'collective morality' a human civilization needs are Hoppean property rights. Everything else follows from that.

>>10315956

Now I know I've really planted the seed in you. The genuine idea. Good.

>>10313384

Spouting buzzwords like 'STEMspergery' and vomiting unsupported tautological assertions isn't an argument, fuckwit.

>>10315940
Religious belief is a product of evolution. It's literally genetic. Moral belief - which entails 'moral' action, does not necesssarily mean external existence of morality. Now of course the question may be - what does external existence of morality matter? But it does matter, because it is always external to the individual who is aware of his individuality, the individual who asks "what ought I to do?" Because if he receives an answer, it has to come from somewhere or someone, and then since it does, he can evaluate whether that somewhere or someone is worth listening to, whether it really has the authority it claims.

>>10313768

I'm not seeing a single argument being conceptually unpacked here. You pretentiously present an air of mendacious intellectual superiority ill befitting your lurid lack of coherent argument. Mcfucking kill yourself or stop being such an arrogant fucking prick.

>>10316000
The question is why or how are people moral. The answer is by nature. It's true that people are also religious by nature, even if the religion is untrue. It remains true however that there is both a proclivity for religion and morality as a fundamental aspect of humanity, neither is derived from the other.

>>10313810

>>10316000
>does not necesssarily mean external existence of morality
it does literally in your DNA

>>10315988
>le alt right face

>>10315930

The word can be uncoupled from obscurantist jargon to lend rhetorical weight to arguments of merit. I just did that. If you were a good reader, then you would understand that and separate the word itself from its baggage, and yours.

>>10316020
And I suppose (purely hypothetically) that if the concept of God were proved to be inherent in human DNA, you would then say "God literally exists". Well yes, "God" exists. The concept. The driving force. But does it have its own existence outside of our perception? Does our belief in God correspond to a God who does not need our belief to be God?

>>10316033
>The concept.
yes
>The driving force.
no.
The concept of space orks exist but the whaaaaarg itself does not.

>>10310637
Humans are social animals

>>10316009
He's a postmodernist in his own right.

There's a hill that his beliefs/virtues died on in a battle with Modernity and his only options were to accept the failure or reject the defeat.
By rejecting the defeat and taking a skeptical position, he is able to keep his beliefs that are fueled only by his feelings and whims alive.
So precious and personal are these sentiments to him that they were an extension of him and the loss of this magnitude would require fundamental changes.

Ad Hominem is the domain of a Postmodernist. The vicious attacks on one's character or ideas does not need to be true, only that it scores a direct hit upon the psyche of his opponent or to deflect the argument away from challenging his own beliefs, which are an extension of his very character.

>>10315986
>Be excellent to each other.

>>10311529
To be an atheist is to be a mere animal. Monkey see monkey do. To be a man is to be religious.

>>10314858

>>10319123
Stereotypes are reality. Hedonists are not nihilistic, even though they sacrifice many great virtues in their thirst.
Believe it or not, humans need goals. They need meaningful and purposeful goals.

>>10310637
Evil is stupidity. Goodness is relative to intelligence.

>>10316033
In a sense, since it compels us to act as though it is the case.

I think God designed us to search for him.

There's a wonderful phrase I heard from Stan Hauerwaus (paraphrasing):

>God made us out of an infinite desire to have us as his friends.

Isn't that wonderful?

>>10321518
appreciate anons like you, stay away from knowledge friend

>>10321524

>stay away from knowledge friend

I really hope you're not implying that faith is a childlike state of wonder made possible only by the lack of familiarity with certain facts.

>>10319142
which peterson lecture are you on