/lit/ - Literature

Your genetics

Tyler here. Probably your height.

If we are to get the answer from the bible, God himself.

>>11058923
Lack of omnipotence

This panel illustration suggests that Christians only avoid this behaviour out of fear of the Angry Sky Father
And were it not for this fear they would readily engage in it
That isn't moral at all

>>11058923
Find a way to live in a psychedelic experience forever

>>11058923
well, are you based?

>>11058969
Not fear, love.

>>11058969
The argument I've heard from Christians is "atheism does not have a valid basis for a morality". I've not heard the idea of morality as "commands from a sky-god" outside of atheists misrepresenting the arguments of others.

>>11058969
Are you accusing the Christians of suffering the human condition as well as you and I?
If so, you're not exactly breaking new ground in philosophical thought

>>11058990
>atheism does not have a valid basis for a morality
A materialist can't base it on anything, that makes no sense.

>>11059007
>human condition

>>11058990
>I've not heard the idea of morality as "commands from a sky-god" outside of atheists misrepresenting the arguments of others.
What is there to misrepresent?
The panel claims that with no God you can lie and cheat - this means this behaviour was only kept in check because you feared the repercussions from a higher power
>>11059007
>suffering the condition as well as you and I?
Are you suggesting this is mans natural state of being to act amorally to others?

>>11059008
I agree about materialism, was just trying to correct a strawman and not dive into the topic.
As I see it, there can be atheistic views with morality, but they require mostly arbitrary metaphysical assumptions.

>>11058990
explain why morality needs "a valid basis"
most of the things that most first world societies now consider "moral" are by common consensus, not because of any religious doctrine. in fact in some cases they are the opposite of religious doctrine

>>11059025
There's a huge difference between "atheistic justifications of morality fail" and "the only reason Christians don't do these things is fear of God".

>>11058923
MILKIEESSS

>>11059036
>>11059036
Dangit keep replying to one thing to see you posted another. You're espousing here a consensus-based morality? There's obvious problems with that being moral in any real sense- no reason to follow what everyone else thinks.
I guess you could say morality doesn't need a valid basis if you reject it wholesale, but that's exactly the point of the comic and the not-straw-manned Christian argument, regardless of the behavior in practice of people acting without accepting any moral system.

>>11058988
So if you didn't love God you'd rape and pillage across San Francisco?

Aight

>>11059007
>human condition
>engaging in random acts of violence for fun
Hmmmmm

>>11059025
No, the theistic view of morality isn't to say, 'Well I'd better not go beat up that guy because then God would punish me', rather it is saying that without the existence of a theistic god who is all-good, all-knowing, omnipresent, etc., there can't be a thing such as morality.

They're not saying that without religion, everyone would start killing each other; they're saying that without a higher power who is good then we're just animals with no intrinsic value, we can rape and kill all we want.

It can be summed up in this syllogism:

1. For morals to exist, god has to exist.
2. Morals exist.
3. Therefore, god exists.

>>11059171
Why does god have to exist if morals do?

>>11059050
>there is a huge difference between
I am talking about what the panel believes would happen if there was no threat of repercussions fro a God
>>11059171
>the theistic view of morality isn't to say, 'Well I'd better not go beat up that guy because then God would punish me',
It is what the panel depicts
>Evolution does away with morals
>Wow, anything goes! I can lie, cheat...
This comic panel believes that without god and morality people will behave heinously
That the only thing keeping this in check is the existence of God and the threat of His wrath and Eternal Damnation
>They're not saying that without religion, everyone would start killing each other
That's literally what the panel says
You can say other people argue X, Y, Z
But that is not what in OPs picture

>>11059185
Because he believes people only adhere to them out of fear

>>11059171
>1. For morals to exist, god has to exist.
But how can the existence of a God justify morality? If some cosmic author is writing a book then that doesn't necessarily mean he gets to control what is moral or not. In fact, that sort of supreme being seems to suggest morality does not exist.

it is funny how mainly believerfags are the first ones in identifying being a god with features like lying, cheating, murdering...

wow

>>11059105
>Dangit keep replying to one thing to see you posted another.
??? >>11059036 was my only post in this thread

>You're espousing here a consensus-based morality?
i'm not espousing anything, i'm asking you a question

>There's obvious problems with that being moral in any real sense- no reason to follow what everyone else thinks.
the only problems are for those who oppose the system of morality, as this would tend to mean they fall foul of the legal system or risk being ostracised by society or something similar

>but that's exactly the point of the comic
the point of the comic would appear to be to reject the theory of evolution. which is of course stupid, since evolution says nothing about morality (except i guess that people who reject the moral consensus risk having reduced mating opportunities) and is accepted by practically all mainstream religions

>>11059185
I'm actually undecided on this issue but their line of reasoning would go something like this:

Without God, we are just creatures who spontaneously evolved on this planet, which randomly just so happened to support life, and none of us have any intrinsic value or significance whatsoever. We are no different from the animals who don't have a sense of morality (a zebra doesn't rape, it forcibly impregnates, for example).

>>11059188
No, that picture is exaggerating what it would be like if people actually took atheism to its conclusions, or, more accurately, it is saying if atheism were true, that's how people would act like.

>>11058923
me.. don’t you remember?
we met in a park to discuss control of female sexual desires. I’m 6’9 and I beat you up and my gf smashed your head with a copy of the book we discussed.

>>11059209
> that doesn't necessarily mean he gets to control what is moral or not

This is called the Euthyphro dilemma, Socrates says: 'Is the good loved by the gods because it is good, or is it good because it is loved by the gods?'

The theist philosophers' response to this has always been this: God is himself the good. Good is inseparable from his nature; that is, the platonic ideal of 'good' is a part of God and not a separate standard he uses to determine morality.

>>11059171
Not a very good argument, outside of personally preferring morals to exist it's harder to use this argument this way around than the reverse.
>>11059188
Ah, didn't read it that way. Thought its point was more just that there are no morals implies can do whatever. The become God part is rather meaningless anyways.
>>11059219
My mistake, conflated you with someone else.
Morality, if it exists, needs a valid basis, otherwise it should have no influence on our actions. If you don't agree with consensus morality, good, it doesn't even fit meaningful definitions of morality, but is the question just why we need morality if people act well enough without? I'd argue that the existence of morality is dependent on prior things anyways, and agree that arguing God's existence from morality is foolish. Morality derives from an metaphysical/ontological system, and while reductios are possible, arguing the other way doesn't generally work.
And yes, rejecting evolution is stupid, though thinking it disproves morality is also. Not a very meaningful comic, to be honest.

>>11058923

Nothing, really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henosis

>>11058923
chick tracts r fuckin dum

>>11058961
Omnipotence is an erroneous idea invented precisely in order to combat notions of self-Godhood.

Do you have full power over your world / domain? You certainly can, if you are strong enough. And that's all that a God really is.

>>11059371
Exactly. Therefore God exists, because in order for us to have purpose, we must have derived the principles of this purpose from something that moved us.

Read Aristotle

>>11058923

What is a god? Is it any "higher power" in regards to spirituality or influence? Someone/thing that sets rules and morals and influences men's lives, directly or indirectly, often to carry out their will?

If one does not believe in a "higher power" then there can be reasonable argument that humanity itself is the "highest power", at least in regard to relevance in life. By realizing ones potential, one can, by certain definition, fit into the abstract concept of a god.

Of course, if one considers a god omnipotent, or omniscient, or something of that nature, than no; I doubt there is a way to perceive the entirety of the universe and the knowledge within as it was, is, will be, could be, etc., nor to create or destroy at a thought or on a whim- in a "magical" sense, anyway. But gods as they have appeared in certain myths and legends are not always such; they can be fooled or outwitted, or beaten, or opposed successfully. They can even be killed. How much different are they, really?

>>11059377
>God exists
Yes. It's the one who has power over things. Which you can have, or someone else can have over you. But ultimately, it's you who has it, since at any time you can block out the world or take your own life and end the world along with yourself, which makes you and the world inseparable, which makes you God.

>>11058923
I’d honestly have no problems with Christianity if the Bible didn’t have misogyny, slavery, anti-masturbation rules, and especially the utterly illogical concept of heaven and hell. Like what? I get the concept of Karma in Dharmic religions but heaven and hell don’t make sense to me, along with original sin.
I don’t hate Christianity, it’s just that I don’t understand it. If I had more time,I can read a cathecism book or the Bible, any other suggestions for understanding Christianity?

>>11058923
Memento mori

>>11059391
>God=power
God does not equate to power and control, Nietzsche. Primacy is necessary for God’s existence, if he is the one that has set your ancestors in motion teleologically, and helped create you and set you in motion and GAVE you power over other things, then this is God, not you, you megalomaniacal heretic.

>>11058990

>I've not heard the idea of morality as "commands from a sky-god" outside of atheists

You're surprised Christians don't openly say "I would lie and cheat and steal and whatever else if there weren't an omnipotent deity pointing a metaphorical gun to my head" even if it's true? Even they wouldn't be so foolish (most anyway).

Of course, it's all the more retarded because most do it anyway despite "knowing" there's a metaphorical gun to their head. But they can also conveniently make their weekly visit to church and feel bad about it for 5 minutes to make it all better before they go off and do it all again.

>>11059406
>Primacy is necessary for God’s existence
You are the primacy of existence.

>>11059432
That is the most ridiculously selfish, simple-minded view of the world I have ever seen. You must have been reading some new age French philosophy or some shit.

Things existed before your consciousnesss came into being. Bottom line. There is an objective reality.

>>11059401
Aquinus and Augustine.

>>11058923
mortality

>>11059443
>You must have been reading some new age French philosophy or some shit.
I was reading the Germans, Schiller and Nietzsche to be precise. The "I" and the "world" come into conscious view together; these are inseparable. Remove your head and you remove the world. The world is you and you are the world.

>Things existed before your consciousnesss came into being.
Yes, but you only encounter them after you have colored them with your perspective, i.e. you have interpreted them. "objective reality" is unknowable and at no point in your life does it actually have bearing on you.

>>11058923
sad how many boring onions repost this chick tract screencap to make fun of christcucks instead of recognising the seeds of their own liberation...

>>11058923
God exists because he can exists. Since we can imagine a being with qualities such as eternal, omnipotent, etc. then that being will exist. Since God is defined as having no power above himself, then you can not become God. Becoming a god is a but different, if you define a god as someone who simply holds power over others. But you will never be God, the god of the gods and all below.

>>11058923
You suck. You can try though. Will probably make you a better person.

>>11059457

This is Cathy

>>11059478

>>11059457
>mortality
Many of the primitive deities are mortal.

>>11059476
that’s not what defined God at all you have a sick definition of divinity from your gay fucking semitic mercy cuck cult

>>11059492
Then what is God? I'm not Christian btw

>>11058969
That's one possible reading, but no. This panel illustration suggests that Christians only avoid this behaviour out of fear of themselves and each other.

>>11059476
>you will never be God
But you already are. See >>11059460

>>11058923
Mortality niqqa

>>11059457
>>11059478
>>11059479
ha i remember there was a christian bookshop in my town that used to stock little leaflets that had all these kind of stupid cartoons in them
i wonder if they still have them

>>11059401

The problem with religion is similar with any organization, it becomes a structure that confines, restricts, and directs those within. Spirituality is ultimately a very personal concept, but within a religion the individual is subsumed by the group. The beauty of each person's unique thoughts, behaviors, and experiences is erased; what was once a multitude of sculptures is crushed, ground down into a single mass of dust, reconstructed as identical bricks to build up the temple of religion.

Understanding Christianity is simple: it's an organization like any other, focused on increasing itself before championing whatever cause it purports, its rules set with claims of achieving or furthering that cause or goal but in reality meant to cage and control those on whose backs it rests.

>>11059479

I like Tyler

I'd vote for him

>>11058930
I'm a Tyler and I'm a manlet
Are these things related?

>>11059460
> "objective reality" is unknowable and at no point in your life does it actually have bearing on you.

Incorrect. And actually, Id like everyone reading to please take note this is the worst mistake you can possibly make. Like evolution, this mistake is founded on nothing but speculation, and consists of nothing but speculation. In my reality, I am objectively defined as the ends of the previous movers who set me in motion, in many ways. No more, no less. We are all constructed of the ends and accidentals of other motions, even our ideas are constructed of these. We set things in motion as well, pricing we have free will, proving we are like God, proving God exists, proving he must be like unity, first and is composed of, and reciprocally, composes all reality

>What's to keep me from becoming a God?
Maybe physical laws, probably laziness.

But that's not really the question at hand. The question is what's keeping an atheist from being evil and the answer is a simple appeal to empathy in the context of evolutionary psychology.

>>11059579
nice try, individualist. too bad the collective is the state of nature, and your perspective is an innovation refined throughout late antiquity, reformation and enlightenment, in response to the alienation of mass culture and structuralisation.... *poos on your cum idiot* yeahh how you like that byby..

>>11059407
>all christians are arguing in bad faith.
Nice. Isn't this textbook straw-man argumentation?
>people don't act consistently with their beliefs
Well who'da thunk. Maybe water's even wet.

>>11059579
>a structure that confines, restricts, and directs those within
When what you're confining and restricting is sinful behavior, and what you're directing people towards is the salvation of their immortal souls, that structure is objectively good
>what was once a multitude of sculptures is crushed, ground down into a single mass of dust, reconstructed as identical bricks to build up the temple of religion
Your gay paganism is dead and it's never coming back lmao
>it's an organization like any other
False, the Church was established by Christ and She is His Bride
>increasing itself before championing whatever cause it purports
>increasing the number of saved souls through the salvific mysteries of the faith is a bad thing
>in reality meant to cage and control those on whose backs it rests
dude like religion is just a cage free ur mind lmao

>>11059611
cringe

>>11059586
>centuries of philosophical observation is "nothing but speculation"
Cute.

Schiller:

>That which first connects man with the surrounding universe is the power of reflective contemplation.

>As long as man derives sensations from a contact with nature, he is her slave; but as soon as he begins to reflect upon her objects and laws he becomes her lawgiver. Nature, which previously ruled him as a power, now expands before him as an object. What is objective to him can have no power over him, for in order to become objective it has to experience his own power.

Nietzsche:

>From the fact that something ensues regularly and ensues calculably, it does not follow that it ensues necessarily. That a quantum of force determines and conducts itself in every particular case in one way and manner does not make it into an "unfree will." "Mechanical necessity" is not a fact: it is we who first interpreted it into events. We have interpreted the formulatable character of events as the consequence of a necessity that rules over events. [...] Necessity is not a fact but an interpretation.

>It is only after the model of the subject that we have invented the reality of things and projected them into the medley of sensations. If we no longer believe in the effective subject, then belief also disappears in effect things, in reciprocation, cause and effect between those phenomena that we call things. There also disappears, of course, the world of effective atoms: the assumption of which always depended on the supposition that one needed subjects. At last, the "thing-in-itself" also disappears, because this is fundamentally the conception of a "subject-in-itself." But we have grasped that the subject is a fiction. The antithesis "thing-in-itself" and "appearance" is untenable; with that, however, the concept "appearance" also disappears.

>If we give up the concept "subject" and "object," then also the concept "substance" — and as a consequence also the various modifications of it, e.g., "matter," "spirit," and other hypothetical entities, "the eternity and immutability of matter," etc. We have got rid of materiality. From the standpoint of morality, the world is false. But to the extent that morality itself is a part of this world, morality is false. Will to truth is a making firm, a making true and durable, an abolition of the false character of things, a reinterpretation of it into beings. "Truth" is therefore not something there, that might be found or discovered — but something that must be created and that gives a name to a process, or rather to a will to overcome that has in itself no end — introducing truth, as a processus in infinitum, an active determining — not a becoming conscious of something that is in itself firm and determined. It is a word for the "will to power.'

1/2

>>11059628
2/2

Nietzsche:

>Man projects his drive to truth, his "goal" in a certain sense outside himself as a world that has being, as a metaphysical world, as a "thing-in-itself," as a world already in existence. His needs as creator invent the world upon which he works, anticipate it; this anticipation (this "belief" in truth) is his support. All events, all motion, all becoming, as a determination, degrees and relations of force, as a struggle— As soon as we imagine someone who is responsible for our being thus and thus, etc. (God, nature), and therefore attribute to him the intention that we should exist and be happy or wretched, we corrupt for ourselves the innocence of becoming. We then have someone who wants to achieve something through us and with us. The "welfare of the individual" is just as imaginary as the "welfare of the species": the former is not sacrificed to the latter, species viewed from a distance is just as transient as the individual. "Preservation of the species" is only a consequence of the growth of the species, i.e., the overcoming of the species on the road to a stronger type.

>That things possess a constitution in themselves quite apart from interpretation and subjectivity, is a quite idle hypothesis: it presupposes that interpretation and subjectivity are not essential, that a thing freed from all relationships would still be a thing. Conversely, the apparent objective character of things: could it not be merely a difference of degree within the subjective?— that perhaps that which changes slowly presents itself to us as "objectively" enduring, being, "in-itself"— that the objective is only a false concept of a genus and an antithesis within the subjective?

>The idea of the "true world" or of "God" as absolutely immaterial, spiritual, good, is an emergency measure necessary while the opposite instincts are still all-powerful— The degree of moderation and humanity attained is exactly reflected in the humanization of the gods: the Greeks of the strongest epoch, who were not afraid of themselves but rejoiced in themselves, brought their gods close to all their own affects—. The spiritualization of the idea of God is therefore far from being a sign of progress: one is heartily conscious of this when considering Goethe—in his case, the vaporization of God into virtue and spirit is felt as being on a coarser level—

>That which has been feared the most, the cause of the most powerful suffering (lust to rule, sex, etc.), has been treated by men with the greatest amount of hostility and eliminated from the "true" world. Thus they have eliminated the affects one by one — posited God as the antithesis of evil, that is, placed reality in the negation of the desires and affects (i.e., in nothingness).

>>11059631
>>11059628
I know how Nietzsche works. He isn’t hard to grasp.

>>11059625

>>11059638
worse cringe. i'm not a liberal.

Literally the only defense religionfags have is
>lol fedora
>cringe
>prove the negative

>>11059641
Of course you’re not. You’re a neo-reactionary Darwinian Nietzsche-reading neo-Nazi, the worst kind of atheist

>>11059635
However you think he "works," it obviously has little to do with what he means.

>I am objectively defined as the ends of the previous movers who set me in motion
Each of these words, these ideas, are created by you — not another source.

>>11059644
no, though i don't see what's so shameful about nietzsche-reading, any more than aquinas-reading. remove the log from your eye.

>>11059653
Again, read Aristotle. I read and got over Nietzsche by the time I graduated college, which you probably didn’t do

>>11059674
>got over Nietzsche
I'll bet.

>>11059674
cringe

>>11059250
Derek?

>>11059371
>You certainly can

You objectively can not

If you have to ask, don't bother

>it might be not true
>but its better if people believe its true

If you think like this consider suicide