/lit/ - Literature

>>14273234
No God = nothing matters = everything matters = what we do is all that matters
That’s my best guess. I’m Catholic

>>14273234

Then what is the use of morality if God its creator is immoral? Why can't he follow his own morality? Why do immoral things happen if God is moral, and if he is not moral, then how can he have made morality?

>>14273234
It's true, and also very based

>>14273248
inmoral things and evil things happen because of free will.

the bible explains it when adam eat the forbidden fruit of knowledge.

>>14273248
god by his nature cannot be immoral. god is good. everything that god does is good.

>>14273234
There are consequences for murder regardless of God’s existence.

>>14273257

That's dark... It's also impossible. God can't be all powerful if he allows free will outside of his power.
One could easily define God as evil. If he has the power to create good he automatically loses the power to create what good is not, hence evil, making his creation of good an evil.

Your argument only works for you because you equivocate your perspective.

You can't see from your perspective an all knowing all powerfull God AND one that does evil, but from God's perspective, there could only be evil if God realized his powerlessness.

In creating free will God gives up the power to create, and then gives up the power to create morality because a moral god would not create immorality, and an immoral god who would allow immorality could not be the moral one who created morality.

So I take God out of it and replace Morality with agreement. See how now there is only Free will and there is no determination. Determination becomes the artifact, thus making the term "free will" unnecessary. I make the person I am from the stories I make that make me, and I choose between stories to preserve the person I am.

See? No god needed.

>>14273234
God, but not your god

>>14273234
How many times will this thread be posted.

>>14273257
>inmoral things and evil things happen because of free will.
No, they happen because of a lack of free will. If you’re truly free, then why do you still sin? Why can’t you freely choose to be perfectly righteous? Do you not want that?

>>14273303
Gods allow humans because I suppose having everything be how you want would be boring as fuck.

like how we make videogames just to be entertained.

>>14273314
I do believe more in the wheel of samsara rather than the christian version.

>>14273234
I was raised Catholic, but I'm fairly sure that atheists can still believe in the inherent value of human life.

>>14273234
Read Kant, retard.

You can do that through logic. Ask any philosopher. There is an entire field called ethics. It might not necessarily be morality, but it is close. This argument is basically saying believe in God or else you condone murder.

>>14273388
not if they want to be logically consistent.

>>14273396
no, its more like saying "believe in God or you only care about people insofar as they provide you with something pleasurable."

>>14273405
To be fair most people are not morally consistent (even within their believes), let alone logically consistent.

>>14273411
Where did you get that conclusion?

>>14273405
Then atheists who don't care about logical consistency can believe in the inherent value of human life, and can possibly believe that killing is morally wrong.

ITT: pseuds who never go beyond the Wikipedia page of some meme philosopher.

>>14273234

People who say there is no morality without god use social acceptance to blackmail people into believing their religious trash. A despicably immoral sophistry that suggests that people who don’t believe the way you do can’t possibly be expected to act morally or in a trustworthy way, as if the inverse, that religious people never act immorally, were never the case.
For me it works just the opposite. People who are moral don’t ever have to bring up morality at all. I can trust them regardless of their background. The only ones that do bring up morality or bring up that it has to be backed by a belief in god are those who plan to fuck me over, or are giving themselves an out so they don’t have to be responsible to act morally to everyone. So just the act of saying there is no morality without god points you out as a backstabbing rat fucker who is guaranteed to act immorally.

It is not morality if you only apply it to your friends. Morality is judged by how you treat your enemies. Morality is your responsibility no matter what, not something you apply only to those who are like you. To use morality as a cheap conman’s trick is the height of immorality, spreading immorality faster than any gain from immoral acts ever could.

I don't want myself or any of my family/friends to be killed. Most people feel the same way. So, humans have established rules and systems to discourage murder. If you kill someone, bad things will most likely happen to you.

>>14273234
Correct.

>>14273314
This desu
>Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but what is worse, as many masters as he has vices.

All these retards trying to equate consequences and morals Jesus Christ where am I

>>14273234
>you can't formulate a morality without the existance of God.
Blocks your path.

>>14273490
>*shits in your path*
>heh, nothin personnel theists

>>14273490
based. Christianity sucks dick and christcucks are massive faggots

>>14273396
Kant was right about a lot of things
His justification for the categorical imperative isn't great though. It pretty much just assumes the conclusion.
That carries over into pretty much every philosopher of ethics, the entire field is a joke. It makes (sometimes retarded, as in Utilitarianism) assumptions and takes them as axiomatic, these are never justified.
Kant's a little better since he tries his general universalization technique to reach a "universal moral principle" that must be shared, which he finds to be 'good will', he tries to tie this into his general categories but it kinda falls flat in actually tying ethics to pure reason. It has to assume that "well people will generally agree with these things so it's universal, and because it must be universalizeable it must be binding", it's kinda weak.
Not saying it's impossible to derive ethics from pure reason, just that Kant's argument wasn't particularly convincing for me.
Beyond that there's only naturalistic ethics to contend with, which Hume BTFO so hard that it's a fucking tragedy that anyone is still pushing it. Completely irrelevant, fucking Anglos still haven't figured it out though.

Not to say you can't act "ethically" without a god, just that it is not at all clear you can derive Ethics from pure reason and you certainly can't derive it from Empirical information. So there's no real grounding for it, leaving ethics as a sociohistorical construct, which seems to me to be the most reasonable place to keep it. Doesn't mean we have to get rid of it though.

>>14273483
Not an argument

Why cant morals be axiomatic?

>>14273314
You can choose not to sin, people just dont and make bullshit excuses for it

>>14273234
God isn't necessary for moral realism to be true. What if the Form of the Good exists instead?

>>14273809
>people just dont
why? Are you telling me that no one wants to be perfect? Because if they wanted to, then shouldn’t they be able to freely will it? Why aren’t you perfect?

>>14273811
who created the form?

>>14273833
Being perfect requires sacrificing carnal pleasure and people are either too unwilling to miss that or too stupid comprehend it so they take the carnally pleasurable instead

>>14273840
Why cant the form be axiomatic?

there is no morality even if there is a god

>>14273868
idk

>>14273234
Define 'God'.
Define 'morality'.

>>14273883
There is no morality *because* there is a god.

>>14273857
>people are either too unwilling to miss that or too stupid comprehend it so they take the carnally pleasurable instead
which one are you, and why? If you’re unwilling, then why don’t you just...will it?

>>14273483
>you should do the right thing because...uh...it’s the right thing to do!

>>14273840
It's beyond being. Self-contained and immutable

>>14273918
Who said i'm not perfect?

>>14273391
>>14273435
Kant's morality is dependent on God, retards
Read Fichte

>>14274035
Jesus

>>14273234
1. Morality concerns what one should and shouldn’t do.
2. I should do that which is most preferable to me.
3. What is most preferable to me is dependent upon the environment and my reaction to it, and cannot be perfectly calculated into the future.
4. While an action is preferable in the short term, it may lead to less preferable results.
5. To maximize preferability, I should do that which leads to a series of events that I prefer over all other sequences of events arising from other choices.
6. I cannot know what decisions will lead to maximum preferability over the course of my lifetime, but instincts and reason can generally guide me in a somewhat right direction.

If God exists, that merely transforms my perspective on what I should do to achieve my most preferred state of existence. Without God, there would still exist a path in life that would lead to the most preferable conscious experience.