/lit/ - Literature

>>16043070
Moral relativism is a fact of life if you are an atheist. Everything else is just cope. If you aren't religious you are just going to have to deal with it. Accept things as they are.

All moral frameworks exist because they are useful to someone. Find one that is useful to you. Don't be like the midwit philosopher, rejecting religion but spending your time coming up with elaborate justifications for why it was right about everything.

Moral realism + atheism = invalid
Moral realism + religion = valid
Moral relativism + atheism = valid

>>16043070
>>16043096
No escape. You need Natural law(God's law) and Consequentialism, no need religion, just common sense.

>>16043070
Look into compassion as a basis for morality.

>Boundless compassion for all living beings is the surest and most certain guarantee of pure moral conduct, and needs no casuistry. Whoever is filled with it will assuredly injure no one, do harm to no one, encroach on no man's rights; he will rather have regard for every one, forgive every one, help every one as far as he can, and all his actions will bear the stamp of justice and compassion.

>[although I experience another's pain as something external], I nevertheless feel it with him, feel it as my own, and not within me, but in another person… But this presupposes that to a certain extent I have identified myself with the other man, and in consequence the barrier between the ego and the non–ego is for the moment abolished….

>[morality is ultimately based on] the everyday phenomenon of compassion,…the immediate participation, independent of all ulterior considerations, primarily in the suffering of another, and thus in the prevention or elimination of it…. Only insofar as an action has sprung from compassion does it have moral value; and every action resulting from any other motives has none.

>>16043070
Morality is incompatible with theism.

>>16043096
What a load of nonsense. Moral realism is obviously incompatible with religion.

>>16043070
Simple, just become a hardcore biological determinist
Compassion is embedded into the human psyche and as such is a goal for human beings
then just do this
>>16043123

>>16043070

If your cognizance, your capacity for language and everything else about you is a product of evolution then why should morality be an exception?
If there is no God that means morality developed as a social survival strategy, and going against morality gets you punished by that social structure i.e. put in prison or killed.
But then you might say: well what is and isn't permitted isn't the same everywhere or across time, what is legal isn't necessarily moral etc.
So people are fallible and have a hard time determining what is and isn't moral in a given scenario, no shit, that doesn't make it any less real.

Just realized believed in moral relativism before knowing the term.
Should I be concerned?

>>16043136
He could, but he doesn't necessarily need to. As Schopenhauer says, there is something metaphysical in this compassion, where the boundary between the ego and non-ego is destroyed. He could just as well adopt Buddhism or Schopenhauerian metaphysics, which are still atheistic and still based on compassion.

First, just because everything is permitted doesn't mean that then there must be a God. It might just be that everything is permitted.
Second, yes everything is permitted.
Third, not everything is good
>oh you dumb atheist what does 'good' mean without God?
It means that we still have feelings that are based on evading psychological and physiological pain and maximising the good feelings. Furthermore, we evolved to be social, which was one of the best stunts in evolution. That social part of our perception creates something like a conscience.
Big Bang, conscience and love are phenomena we observe in nature, just like thunder an lightning many decades before. Just because we don't fully understand then doesn't mean they must have a personal God as origin.

>>16043118
Why do you need consequentialism?
>>16043123
That just skirts around the issue. Sure, nobody disagrees that people have an innate sense for what's moral and what's not, the question is not about that. The question is why should we care about it at all, why should we give those senses any regard.
>>16043128
>>16043133
How so? This is the first time I'm seeing this opinion and it looks retarded.
>>16043136
Ok but why should the goal for human beings in an biological sense be my goal as an individual? What's stopping me from doing whatever I desire, like raping and stealing?

>>16043096
Morality is simply n-person practical reason, which is exactly as rational as 1-person practical reason. The idea of an individual 'person' is a superstition to begin with. One ought always to promote the well-being of the whole. Egoism is deeply irrational.

>>16043153
>That just skirts around the issue. Sure, nobody disagrees that people have an innate sense for what's moral and what's not, the question is not about that. The question is why should we care about it at all, why should we give those senses any regard.
It seems to be a sort of "transcendental egoism". Helping another person is ultimately helping yourself. Hurting another also is ultimately self-harm.
I had another conversation exactly about this a few weeks ago in another

>>16043153
>How so? This is the first time I'm seeing this opinion and it looks retarded
Then you haven't looked into the matter at all. Acting in fear of punishment by a powerful demon is by definition selfish behavior. It has absolutely nothing to do with morality.

>>16043150
>First, just because everything is permitted doesn't mean that then there must be a God
Nobody claimed it was.
What Dostoyevsky claime (by contrapositive) that if something is actually not permitted, then there must be a God.
So your argument is that we should behave according to our innate moral sense because it makes us feel good? That seems fundamentally flawed to me because the basis of this morality is still fundamentally relative (people may regard different things as moral) and a lot of times behaving immorally can make you feel better than doing the right thing (which is often why people do it) so the whole reasoning seems to fall apart.

>>16043153
>That just skirts around the issue. Sure, nobody disagrees that people have an innate sense for what's moral and what's not, the question is not about that. The question is why should we care about it at all, why should we give those senses any regard.
It seems to be a sort of "transcendental egoism". Helping another person is ultimately helping yourself. Hurting another also is ultimately self-harm.

>>16043153
>What's stopping me from doing whatever I desire, like raping and stealing?
Nothing, essentially, which is why you must look inwardly and find out what you're made of. if you're compassionate, then follow this will, if not, then others who do will destroy you

>>16043070
Read Derrida

>>16043153
>The question is why should we care about it at all, why should we give those senses any regard.
Because that is the only rational approach. You should base your outlook on objective facts. You should not jump off a tall building because it's bad for your well-being. Likewise you shouldn't kill other people because it lowers the overall well-being. Same exact logic, the latter is just more complete.

>>16043175
>Acting in fear of punishment by a powerful demon is by definition selfish behavior
Punishment is not what I'm talking about. The issue about the basis of morality. I agree, saying some things are immoral only because you will be punished for doing those things is flawed and retarded (still essentially moral relativism). The argument if you're a theist (which I'm not), I believe, is that morals objectively exist because there is a God who is the amalgamation of everything good and who lets us not what is good and what is not, in which case there is a supreme, transcendent and objective source of all morality. It still works even if he does not punish people for behaving immorally.
>>16043165
So it seems that it's still ultimately based on egoism. You must behave morality because it will make you feel good in the long run. I don't see how that provides a real basis for morality, it still seems relativistic in nature.
Also, you mention the word " transcendental"? What's transcendental about what you just said?

>>16043201
>because it lowers the overall well-being
Why should I care about the overall well-being? What's stopping me from caring only about me, right now.

>>16043070
You can be a metaphysical realist and assume moral realism as an atheist just I can't see any reason the distinction would matter in terms of creation so it can't be an atheistic tenet except vacuously.

>>16043201
We should murder 49% of the population to enhance the wellbeing of the 51%

>>16043070
>how do we escape moral nihilism/relativism?
Why do we have to?

>>16043215
Because I want to live in a moral society.

>>16043220
>muh wants

Depraved

>>16043204
That is logically incoherent, though. How would you identify this entity as "the true God" or "the source of all Goodness"? You would have to determine if the entity is indeed morally good, which requires a pre-existing understanding of morality. Otherwise you are just cowering in front of a more powerful being, selfishly accepting its arbitrary system of norms out of fear of hell or desire for heaven.

>>16043204
>So it seems that it's still ultimately based on egoism.
Even Plato and eastern religions suggest morality is ultimately egoistic. If it is moral, it is moral. Why do you need to make it something external? As the anon said, with such matters look inwards.
>What's transcendental about what you just said?
Transcendental in the sense that with compassion, your ego transcends its boundaries to include another person. Carried to its logical conclusion, your ego will include the whole humanity and animals too. In this sense, you will embrace the highest form of morality, in which the pain the world experiences is your pain as well. See the Schopenhauer quote above.

>>16043209
Why should you care about the well-being of a future time-slice of yourself? Same question. Empathy with other people now is no different from empathy with one of your future selves.

Whether you believe in God or not, there's a morality nonbelievers can find in natural law >>16043118 (See Romans 1:18-20, 2:15)
But I wouldn't say "just common sense."

>>16043220
Just force your subjective morals onto others then

>>16043236
>Why should you care about the well-being of a future time-slice of yourself?
What if you don't give a shit about it? What's stopping someone from going postal and shooting up everyone they know or see?

>>16043231
>Even Plato and eastern religions suggest morality is ultimately egoistic
It might be that we are conflating two issues here. Sure, I agree that it makes sense to say that you should behave morally because it will be better for you that way. In that sense morality can be egoistic. The question is what does behaving morally mean in the first place?

Just embrace the absurdity of life. Morality is not an inherent property of the cosmos, but everyone is running around pretending that it is. What's wrong with that? Nothing. People can lie and kill and steal and there is nothing wrong with that, and people can enforce laws prohibiting lying and killing and stealing and there is nothing wrong with that either. Do not worry about why things happen to be the way they are. Morality is quite plastic anyway and varies from culture to culture. I have read that if you were to take everything that has been considered by some culture or other to be moral and put it in one place, then subtracted everything that has been considered taboo by some culture, you would have nothing left. Morality is relative and arbitrary and illusory, and generally sufficient in whatever form it happens to take. You can behave in a certain way, and attribute your actions to the influence of a god, and there would be nothing wrong with that. You can behave in the exact same way, and acknowledge no god at all, and there would likewise be nothing wrong with that. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Why should it concern you that people generally behave in a certain way, and declare these ways to be moral? If you want to break the law, there is nothing wrong with that, and if you end up in jail, there is nothing wrong with that either. Perhaps you feel guilt. Good. There is nothing wrong with that. Perhaps you disagree with me. Fantastic. There is nothing wrong with that. Perhaps you voted for Donald Trump. Congratulations. There is nothing wrong with that. Do whatever you please, and marvel not when people behave in a socially acceptable manner, and attribute their behavior to morality, and their morality to God, for there is nothing wrong with that.

>>16043249
The law

>>16043259
Morality is an inherent property of the cosmos, practical metaphysics

>>16043070
you don't
it is literally impossible to have objective morality without divine authority

>>16043243
Delusional. No one is strong enough to do that, not even me. And even if I was, I could only make them behave according to my subjective morals when I'm around, it would still be impossible to change their innate moral compass.

>I'm an atheist and I honestly don't know how to answer this.
Because the government will jail you? It's the answer just as good.

>>16043249
Well, yes, if you are a solipsist and reject practical reason altogether, then morality will also be a causality. But "being you" or "being you at time t" is not an objective feature of the world, so it would be irrational to make any judgments on a perspectival basis.

>>16043259
>Morality is not an inherent property of the cosmos, but everyone is running around pretending that it is. What's wrong with that? Nothing
Stopped reading right there. Clearly if you don't recognize OP as an issue, you have nothing to offer to this thread.

>>16043266
Nothing wrong with that, my good sir.

>>16043277
Nothing wrong with that, my friend.

>>16043262
He is saying that he doesn't care what happens to his future self. So "he" would never get arrested, only a future time-slice would experience those consequences.

>>16043274
Are you trolling? If you think laws are enough to force people to behave morally you haven't been paying attention. For God's sake, compare the situation in Brazil and Africa with majority christian countries. Do you think the reason why the former are crime-ridden shitholes is because they have inferior laws?

>>16043259
So you get mad about nothing then? I highly doubt that works as an overarching moral system and instead one's couch you crash on when you're sol.

>>16043288
Then he certainly will not care about hell too.

>>16043255
Again, we return to the first step. Behaving morally would mean behaving sympathetically. Sympathy is the natural, inborn, ability to experience the good and the pain of another as the good and the pain of one's own. And behaving sympathetically would, true enough, mean acting on one's ultimate self-interest. And if morality proves to be ultimately self-beneficial, this is more than enough reason to embrace it.

>>16043292
Yes, such a person would be incapable of any kind of practical reason or planning or delayed gratification. Such a person would be a level beyond sociopath, since he doesn't even care about what happens to himself 5 seconds from now.

>>16043291
So what if I was mad? There would be nothing wrong with that. But you are mistaken. (Nothing wrong with that.) My worldview gives me great peace.

>>16043301
Sympathy is not universal. Some people have more sympathy than others (look at psychopaths).
Also, you don't even have to be a psychopath for this to break down. Humans have the natural ability to dehumanize others we dislike. Obvious examples are i***** with women, liberals with nazis, nazis with jews. Given the fact that most people know someone they feel no sympathy for, what's stopping them from doing what they want with them?

>>16043311
There's "nothing stopping you" from concluding that 2+2=5. That doesn't make it rational.

>>16043149
>where the boundary between the ego and non-ego is destroyed
But this leads to the two connected opposite conclusions.
First, when I think only about myself, I have way more freedom than when I think about others. I can risk myself or harm myself and that can be silly, but not criminal or morally deplorable. Even suicide is usually treated with less condemnation than murder. So if I extend my I to others, I'm suddenly allowed to do worse things to them than I usually do.
Second, when you truly care about someone else as not someone else but a part of you, that's not compassion, but just egoism where your borders of I are a bit wider.

>>16043318
What is irrational about me raping a woman if I feel no sympathy for her, I know I will get away with it and there is no objective authority telling me not to do it?

>>16043318
You could choose to be irrational. There would be nothing wrong that.

>>16043309
But how does it give you peace with this contradiction. You can't realistically agree with every viewpoint. Even a stoic disagrees and endures. If you don't agree w every viewpoint then you must be morally agnostic instead of relativist or nihilist.

>>16043311
Sympathy is not universal, the same is true with sight or hearing. Some people are born deaf and blind. Does that mean the world is without voice or color? Surely not. Those who see the world and hear its voice know that the world is indeed lively and colorful. Similarly those who are born with sympathy will know the pain of another is one's own pain. Though fortunately unlike sight, the average healthy person could actively cultivate sympathy. Various practices in eastern religions are devoted to this. As for those who are born blind, I can have nothing but pity for them.

>>16043328
You could do such a thing, and regard as rational or irrational. You could also abstain from such behavior, and regard it as rational or irrational. In any such case, there would be nothing wrong with it.

>>16043328
Because there is no objective basis for treating the person any less sympathetically.

>>16043330
Choosing to be irrational is wrong by definition.

>>16043274
what about situations where people know they can get away with crimes and won't be punished?

>>16043353
Same as with situations where you sin but think that God will not punish you.

>>16043348
See, that's a problem. I don't want to live in a society in which people think like that. You'd be surprised how little empathy people feel for each other, especially the less fortunate ones.
>>16043344
>Sympathy is not universal, the same is true with sight or hearing. Some people are born deaf and blind. Does that mean the world is without voice or color? Surely not
Right, you make a good point. Sight and hearing is subjective phenomena through which we perceive objective things like light and voice. And similarly a lot of people perceive things as right or wrong, but the difference is that you're saying these things are not objective.
>>16043349
There is no objective basis for treating the person any more sympathetically. Without either of those, a person would be left to act on his instinct, which is to commit an obviously morally wrong act which will make him feel better.

>>16043368
>but the difference is that you're saying these things are not objective.
What thing is not objective? Just as sight and hearing are experienced subjectively, so is sympathy. Just as sight and hearing depend on the external world, again so does sympathy. There is little difference between them.

>>16043336
I can disagree with someone's viewpoint, while acknowledging that it offends no universal moral standard. My standards are personal and pathetic, not worthy of being enforced on the whole of mankind.

>>16043349
>Choosing to be irrational is wrong by definition.
According to whom? The god that doesn't exist? It is wrongness that I categorically reject.

>>16043368
If there is no objective basis for doing anything, then you may throw the "objective" word away.

>>16043368
>There is no objective basis for treating the person any more sympathetically.
There is no objective basis for treating a state of consciousness any more or less sympathetically than any other state, including your own. That's the core principle of morality.

>>16043368
>I don't want to live in a society in which people think like that.
Good news. Most people don't. And there is nothing wrong with that. This is not so great a problem as you suppose.

>>16043380
If you don't believe rationality exists, there is no point even arguing.

Permitted by whom?
What happens if I do it anyway?

>>16043395
I believe that there is such a thing as rationality, and that it is not wrong to contradict it. Most people find this absurd, (a view which bears no wrongness), and thus choose to act rationally. I prefer to argue with anonymous strangers on the internet at 5:00 am because it is the most rational thing I could be doing, and there is nothing wrong with that.

>>16043423
By definition, if you call a course of action "rational" you are saying that there is a reason to do it.

>>16043432
Why should there be anything wrong with that? Do every "rational" thing you fancy for every reason you can muster. A universal standard bearer need not interfere.

>>16043211
>49% vs 51%
Irrelevant. Same argument could be made about any ratio, e.g. kill 99% for the sake of 1%.

It seems OP stopped replying. Did he get convinced by arguments about sympathy? At any rate, if he or anyone else wishes to learn more about sympathy as a basis for morality, I suggest this essay.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/44929/44929-h/44929-h.htm

>This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!

>>16043289
Why did no one tell me that Brazil and Africa were full of atheists?

>>16043289
>. For God's sake, compare the situation in Brazil and Africa with majority christian countries.
You mean "compare more christian countries with less christian countries"?

>>16043070
>Without a divine authority, how do we escape moral nihilism/relativism
"Divine authority" is just another human construct to justify a particular morality that is made up entirely through social norms. It is no different from basing it on any other conception of right and wrong.
You realize what morality is by going outside and actually interacting with other people in ways that are conducive to positive results, not sitting alone in a room jacking off to the thought of how things are going to be when YOU MAKE THE RULES, like some pathetic 13 year old incel
And fuck christcucks reeeeeing about their absolute bollocks m-muh god makes de rules, grow a brain

>>16043627
Or I mean, we can all spend the NEXT 2000 years believing we are all born EEEEEVIL and buttsecks is worse than torture and bonfires
ffs

>>16043636
What's wrong with buttsecks?

>>16043070
All is permissible to me (C) Jesus
this degenerate even didn't read bible carefully. fucking stupid pederast

>>16043070
He's right and correct. Objective morality is nonsense and non-existent without an omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipresent (all-present) creator deity.

>>16043777
It is logically impossible to base morality on the whims of a god.

Basing morality on God is btfo by Euthyphro dilemma.

>>16043777
not creator, punishment. you are faggot who mixes concepts, die horribly.

>>16043070
Dostoevesky being based as always

>>16044080
Somehow, for some reason, I assumed Jesus could speak English.

>>16043070
Without God, not only is morality relative, but truth and also logic. But how can you trust your own logic if logic itself is relative? How can you trust anything is everything is relative?

So either you’re an atheist who believes that nothing can be certain, including that very belief itself, ironically. Or you are a theist who at least has the understanding that without God, nothing, not even our own cognitive abilities, nor our consciousness, can be certain.

>>16044195
You can Euthyphro truth and logic too.

>>16044167
apparently your expectations were based on narcissistic western degeneracy and failed.

>>16043070
>Without a divine authority, how do we escape moral nihilism/relativism?
Biological determinism, though technically this is derived from the concept of unchanging natural laws from a God of truth, so it’s not really atheism

>>16043961
It's not actually dilemma but a false dichotomy.

>>16044254
Then just use its undichotomization for the non-divine morality.

>>16043259
Based
Nothing wrong with that

>>16043070
Dostoevsky may be right, but he's not correct. There is no God and everything is permitted--this is a good thing.

>>16043070
You are an atheist so you are a moral nihilist/relativist. One goes with the other.

If you believe in absolute morality you can also believe that it recides somewhere beyond where we can see.

>>16043162
>Morality is simply n-person practical reason
idk anon, white pepo in the past sure did invoke morality a lot. from the greeks to wwi.

>>16043229
no it isnt you define god by all that is good. weither you do it from a purely platonic or abrahamic lense. in the abragamic lense a lot if what is good is then taken by transendental faith and in platonic it is reduced to the basic elements that produce good, beauty, truth, etc.

>>16043139
The term exists for the sake of naming the concept, not the other way around.

Permitted by whom?

>>16044876
Satan

What is there to escape OP? Moral is subjective, what is good for some cultures is bad for others, only the consensus of a society materialized in the laws should be of any matter to a nihilist/atheist, that is if you don't want to go to jail, if you don't care then do whatever the fuck you want, kill rape live laugh love, life's short.

>>16043070
>Without a divine authority, how do we escape moral nihilism/relativism?
With relative authority.

>>16043150
Utilitarianism is not a valid argument in favor of moral absolutism.

>>16043070
All this thread proves so far is athiest morality is cope. People want to feel comfortable living the mores and judgements they've always had.

>>16045160
This has been my impression as well.

researching and understanding cancer is probably the only modern day solution to understanding why morality is important

>>16043070
I like Zizek's inversion of it. If God exists, everything is permitted. You only get ISIS and beheadings and torturing if you fanatically believe you have divine sanction and God is on your side.

>>16045397
holy fuck thats true

Indeed, the absence of God forces a kind of ethical maturity on a person, because you have to actually philosophize on morality. You have to think about it. You can't simply fall back on an argument from authority which is all God-given morality is.

>>16045160
It proves that most people aren't worthy of atheism and just revert back to Christianity when things aren't going well for them.

>>16045397
Is there a bigger pseud than Sniffles

>>16045449
He's 100% correct though. Without God, the only thing you are permitted to do is whatever your own power grants you, because there is no such thing as absolute power then, only relative sizes of power. With God, institutions can be built which can be used to justify literally any action of the institution-holders, which is precisely what happened in history.

>>16045397
>an excuse is the same thing as moral absolutism
This is just moral relativism with some real leftoid mental gymnastics to say "nuh uh God is why bad things happen"

>>16043070
There's no answer. Dostoevsky was 100% right.

>>16043096
fpbp

>>16045478
>whatever your own power grants you
You’re equivocating. Believing in God doesn’t give you any special powers to do anything you couldn’t previously do. Atheists can create institutions as well. That’s all aside from the fact that the permission they’re referring to is not of ability but justification.

>>16043070
>I'm an atheist

>>16045680
>You’re equivocating.
lol, and people who defend Dostoevsky's quote aren't? Not believing in God doesn't give you any special powers to do anything you couldn't previously do either. In both cases, however, what's happening is that individuals are using their own power to establish themselves as authorities in the world, for the purpose of growing their power. The Christian method just involves more lying.

>>16043231
>Even Plato and eastern religions suggest morality is ultimately egoistic
>Plato
Are you genuinely retarded, or are you a posturing, namedropping pseud? The simple fact that Plato talks about the idea of good (moral), which you can know just by skimming the wikipedia page, shows how stupid your claim is. Either actually read Plato or stop baiting since that doesn't bring anything worthwhile to discussion. Then again, I'm expecting too much from an egoistic brainlet like you.

>>16043070
Read this:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/constructivism-metaethics/

>>16046440
>meme stanford
ngmi

>>16043070
Kindness begets kindness and violence begets violence. Not all of your seeds will take, but that is no reason not to sow them.

>>16043070
Who gives a damn what some dumb Russian cunt has to say about good and evil. As far as I'm concerned, belief in God has justified countless acts of violence and barbarism and, still today, you ppl gloat over your supposed moral superiority. Pathetic.

>>16043070
Which means you'd do it all over again. QED

>>16043153
> Sure, nobody disagrees that people have an innate sense for what's moral and what's not, the question is not about that. The question is why should we care about it at all, why should we give those senses any regard.
No, the question is why shouldn't you give them as much regard as you do to your senses of sight, touch, beauty, or self-preservation? To heed our senses is the default—you don't need a reason to do it, but you do need a reason not to do it.

If there is a god, then why is everything permitted?

If there's no God, nothing is permitted.

>>16043201
>overall wellbeing
Lmfao
Why should the individual give any care to the wellbeing of another entity that does not affect his own wellbeing? Rationally speaking everyone should just be seeking the best possible outcome for themselves. You have no logical recourse for this.

>>16043236
This is completely untrue, they aren't the same thing at all. Obviously we all labor under the belief that there is a "Self" that maintains its existence in us throughout time. Even tossing that belief aside, just like I would rather serve my brother or my son than some random fuck, I would rather serve the future me than anyone else.

>>16043070
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/10/the-desirists-unsatisfiable-desires
Short answer: If youre an atheist, youre a nihilist.

>>16047814
>t.60IQ who never read BK
Dosto has a chapter specifically about the horrors done in the name of religion

>>16043070
The phrase “all is permitted” is too vague. What matters is whether not our actions matter. Whether or not God exists, the sole basis of morality is our experience, and aligning our experiences with our preferences. If God exists, then you should follow the law, because this is good for you. If God does not exist, then you should seek happiness in slightly different ways, though it is still the case that murder will generally be bad for you.

All action stems from preference of experience. With reason alone, there’s no reason to do anything. God or not, we have preferences. But the consequences of disobeying God’s law are much more severe if God exists, rather than simply not following the good paths in life if God does not exist. And so it would be valid to say that there is less of an incentive for an atheist to care about regulating his behavior, because once his life is over, all his deeds and misdeeds are washed away forever, and there will be no eternal hellfire.

>>16043139
There is only moral relativism and people who believe their version is "realer" than others. The only measure is an individual's commitment to a particular moral code, but this does absolutely nothing in confirming if it's "real" or not.

There are thousands of religions all with their own moral code and almost all convinced theirs is the real one. Moral realism is just mid wits convincing themselves of the truth of an unprovable supposition

>>16043197
not if your good at it

>>16043070
"With God, all things are possible". The truth is literally the opposite of that Dosto quote. Without god, good people will do the best they can, evil people will do the worst that can, but for good people to do evil, it requires religion

>>16043070
Maybe if you put your hands together and talk to the being in the sky, he will tell you the answer. lol I'm sorry I can take you averagly educated merimutts seriously. You do realize most people outside of the US laugh at your retarded beliefs?

>>16043070
>Without a divine authority, how do we escape moral nihilism/relativism?
You can't. This is the exact reason why I don't follow laws created by mere men.

>>16043153
>What's stopping me from doing whatever I desire, like raping and stealing?
Your biology.

>>16048652
>catholicism only exists in america
?

>>16043153
>What's stopping me from doing whatever I desire, like raping and stealing?
Either the fact that you don't find it pleasant, or the law.

>>16048767
Well played anon, you really owned that strawman you created in your head. Pat yourself on your shoulder genius amerifat and maybe give a prayer to your lord later and thank him for the help.

>>16043070
Not really since we as a society can determine the morals for which we live by. The murder of a 5 year old child will almost universally be seen as unacceptable. There is also the aspect of most people having a sense of innate morality that were born with. It can change due to culture of course but we have one and it can also change depending on the situation you're in. For instance if its your survival or someone else's murder may become acceptable to you.
Also in many religions the gods or god allow or command what we would consider unacceptable, such as murder of an innocent person or eternal torture for an afterlife for what can be seen as a minor transgression such as lack of belief. is this right to you?
if there is a god/gods then everything should be permitted since the fact that an afterlife exists or an all powerful being with the capability to change anything in the universe then your actions dont matter.
if there is no such thing your actions matter as they are permanent, murder is permanent and so is causing pain. it cant be wished away by god.

>>16043070
Only a deranged moron could seriously believe morality is absolute, so of course most atheists are moral relativists. That's not the same as having no morals, and it has nothing to do with "everything is permitted." It just means that we understand the constructed, contingent, and socially-constructed nature of morality, laws, and ethics, and don't try to fucking delude ourselves that there are easy eternal answers. Most morality is practical shit to make tribes work smoothly together, and makes as much sense with or without religion.

>>16048389
Oh god you must be some Peterson loon, bringing up IQ and Brothers Karamazov in the same breath.

Anyway, what bearing does that have on what I said? Russians aren't committed to objective truth, how many Russian philosophers do you know? That's right, zero. His argument is bunk. If you equate god with morality then of course no god = no morality. But god is a source of comfort for cretins such as yourself, who are as far removed from ἀρετή (excellence) as a dog is to his own tail.

Maybe we underestimate the inherent goodness in life?

The fact that we live in an absolute deterministic universe makes this thread and every other afterwards a natural and logical consequence of everything that happened before.

Consider this.
We play imagination games when we are little, that basically boiled down to a competition to who can think of "the greatist thing in all existance".
I think this little social game is what led us to the concept of god.

Now consider that we have been operating under this symbolic system probably since civilization started.
Now with atheism its like "you can't use god" in the imagination game.
Since this all seemed to telescope out and build on previous foundations and responses to "beat this response", people who play this game with atheists get really confused.
Like first of all, it your imagination, you can tell me what not to think.
Secondly, we still are still trying to play the same game with the same rules, instead of trying to think up a completley different imagination game.
Becuase the game and its rules are too ingrained into their psyche.

I like to think that good actions can be ruled by deterrence.
If I got to choose a lifestyle to have an a society to life I would choose to live in a small society with mostly independent families/individuals where you don’t have to give a fuck about the guy next door.
I fucking hate most people

>>16043137
Nature is a poor justification for morality. Nature tells different people different things, and not all morality is a social survival strategy. Are all moralities, even the "anti-social" ones conducive to social survival? Which one is correct? Of course, everything we are today, you believe we evolved to become. There is not one consummate, evolution-approved morality, as all moralities are the product of evolution. Evolution tells us how these things came to be, but not which one is the best. If people have a hard time determining what is moral, then yes, it is merely subjective. Who's to say that one morality or even ethical system is the correct one? It depends on what you put first, among other things

>>16043150
Everything is permitted, and of course "not everything is good." How do you determine what is good? What is good for you is evil to me, and vice-versa, and this is coming from a religion and morality produced by evolution, no?

>>16043162
Why do you need to promote the well being of the person? Which person? You (egoists), your race (racial supremacists), your religious group (Jews), your species (anthropocentrists)? Who's to say one is for sure over the other, aside from emotions you have that they don't, and an appeal to a whimsical process of natural selection that, remember, created all moralities, not just yours.

>>16043175
If you aren't punished for bad behavior, why even act morally? It doesn't seem to me that atheists have some innate moral sense or sympathy that the bad crucifix man lacks; rather, they are submissive to even transgress any law. Otherwise, whatever their vices are, that is what is moral to them. If they are homosexuals, homosexuality is moral (and since it is legal, there is no fear of breaking the law). I may need to clarify my muddled presentation, however

>>16043197
People will destroy you either way. Remember, we live in an evil world that could not be created by any god but an evil one. Who's to say there's always a pragmatic reason for following your morality?

>>16043201
>You should not jump off a tall building because it's bad for your well-being
What if I'm afraid of further suffering in my life? Your attempts to ground morality in common sense always presuppose something- for example, that life is worth living. Or that well-being is the most important thing.

> Likewise you shouldn't kill other people because...
The overall well-being of what group? Why should it matter to me? You mistake common sense for some belief of yours no one has ever challenged.

>>16043215
Because it's fun to argue. You can do whatever you want without the slightest justification, and that would be a cool thing to do indeed.

>>16043229
Whatever God's morality is is about as moral as a pill is. If a doctor prescribes a treatment, it would be in your best interests to take it. Hell is something you bring upon your own head by refusing the treatment. If you want Hell, no one can help you then

>>16050336
>People will destroy you either way.
This is where you are wrong. Chances of survival and prosperity change the entire game.

>>16043070
Same reason why the Greeks held virtue as the highest among their values, even without the threat of the Abraham divine damnation. It more or less boils down to our quality, we are rational beings - the prisoner is more happy than the tyrant because we are not creatures who are truly sated by wealth, riches or other worldly things. You might say morality is little more than a left-over of cold evolutionary psychology if you're a soulless bugman, and you might be right, but we don't cease to be subject to our quality just because we see its cause. Socrates likened living without virtue and a sense of internal justice to be like a kind of discord or 'civil war', where the desirous component of the soul wages war against our reason, while the virtuous enjoy a state of 'psychic harmony' and serenity, which the vast wealth of the unjust tyrant never yield.

>>16043249
First-world impotence. They have no reason to, because they're as placid as cows. This is why "religious" countries have more crime- it's not the religion, but the people are poorer, less hooked to consumerism and technology (or at least the level of tech and convenience we have).

>>16043289
I think the poverty and corruption would contribute a tad bit to the crime, don't you think? Just a tad bit, no more. It's obviously the damn Bible and that verse telling followers "Thou shalt commit crime."

>>16043301
>Behaving morally would mean behaving sympathetically
Not necessarily. A consummate morality would involve sympathy, but one can perform moral acts without feeling a drop of sympathy towards the person he's helping. Of course, an arbitrary sympathy that can be selectively felt does not justify moral actions, as I see it. I sympathized with every fly I kill, every ant I squash- does this mean it is immoral to kill them? After I grew up, and stopped feeling sympathy, it suddenly became moral to kill such beings, no?

>And behaving sympathetically would, true enough, mean acting on one's ultimate self-interest.
The profit derived from moral actions are usually nugatory. If I give ten bucks to a homeless man, the most I get out of it is an abatement of my pity. He's not going to return the money with interest, for sure.

>And if morality proves to be...
Which morality?

>>16043348
And in either case, we depend on the placidity of the person in question. The more like a satisfied pig you are, the less likely you are to make a mess in the pigsty. Don't rape, go masturbate to a pornstar. By all means, don't go out and be a conqueror, like the non-decadent immigrants replacing you.

>>16043344
That is a poor analogy. Am I supposed to be sympathetic towards everything, to give my life all of its color and voice? Rather, each sympathy (or lack thereof) is a different color. Some prefer one color, others prefer the blander greys (unsympathetic).

>Similarly those who are born with sympathy will know the pain of another is one's own pain


I understand you don't believe the existence of the unsympathetic doesn't challenge your belief in sympathy as the arbiter of morality; I would ask, why does the existence of the sympathetic justify your belief? Sympathy towards whom? How much sympathy? Why is your completeness the ideal, seeing as others see their incompleteness as ideal. Are you even completely sympathetic, or do you lack certain colors?

>>16043349
>Choosing to be irrational is wrong by definition.
And yet nothing stops me from doing it. What do I have to lose from doing something irrational? Will I vex the God of Rationality? Is there some convenient, karmic punishment awaiting me?

>Because there is no objective basis for treating the person any less sympathetically
Yes. He lacks that sympathy. There's no objective basis for treating the person sympathetically, it's just the belief of one who has sympathy.

shouldn't it be something like
> If there is no god, there's no higher instance determining what's permitted and what isn't
the absence of god leaves you with an indifferent universe, not a permissive one, since the universe as such has no agency to tell you what to do, it just _is_

>>16050336
>>16050497
There is literally nothing wrong with any of this. You do you.

Way too many spooks in this thread

>>16050425
>Socrates likened living without virtue and a sense of internal justice to be like a kind of discord or 'civil war', where the desirous component of the soul wages war against our reason, while the virtuous enjoy a state of 'psychic harmony' and serenity, which the vast wealth of the unjust tyrant never yield.
where does he say this? i'd like to read that

>>16050534
Republic Book 4, believe it starts when Socrates is originally laughed at by Glaucon for stating that the unjust tyrant, even with all his ill-begotten gains and palaces, was perhaps the most miserable man of all

>>16043358
There are no such situations. This is why you confess, repent, and try to abstain from sins. To avoid bringing the punishment of Hell upon you. What would you expect? A glutton becomes obese, a glutton of sin becomes a denizen of Hell, because he knows God not.

>>16043379
Yes, but sight and hearing tell us what is, not what ought to be. Should I be sympathetic towards every blade of grass I step on? Should I be sympathetic to the cells multiplying, growing, and dying in my body? Where does the madness end?

>>16043389
There are objective bases for treating entities differently. Meat eaters use these, proponents of the death penalty use these, political revolutionaries use these, and so on and so forth. It seems to be the core principle only of your morality. And you even say "state of consciousness," as if this matters. Should lesser states of consciousness be treated amorally? Are the unconscious to be killed?

>>16043413
Permitted by a lack of a "whom?" Nothing happens if you act as if not everything was permitted, but nothing happens to one who acts as if everything was permitted either.

>>16043537
Yes, but is there a causality between religion and crime. You see, the uncomfortable truth for most over-eager atheists is that these countries are full of poverty, corruption, and turmoil. Nothing says religion and the aforementioned are necessarily concomitant. Replace the church with science, you'll still have the same shit people and politicians. It's like operating on a wooden leg. Hell, those countries need God the most, and the secular countries need more vitality.

>>16043956
This implies that the morality is based on His whims, and not some prescription or pragmatic law.

>>16044167
I never knew Caesar was an alien. Perhaps these reconstructions are imperfect, but I know that amounts to science-heresy.

>>16044357
Argue with the atheists who disagree with you in this thread. They don't see things the same way

>>16045397
Not necessarily. Through intellectual dishonesty, you can make the texts of that god make anything permissible. Just how people interpret the Bible both to make homosexuality permissible and impermissible; there is still but one truth. With the absence of God, there is no such truth because there is nothing to interpret, there is only idiosyncrasy and whim.

>>16045405
Whoah dude... Pass the blunt

>>16045698
>Not believing in God doesn't give you any special powers to do anything you couldn't previously do either
It gives you the special power of having fewer taboos.

>The Christian method just involves more lying
Not everyone is a dishonest televangelist. Power can be used for great good, and not everyone attaining that power is interested in the power as a telos.

>>16048041
It isn't- there are punishments for your actions, which atheists like to whinge relentlessly about (see: Hell).

>>16048639
Good people can do evil with or without religion. Don't try and create witticisms, no one will quote you.

>>16043070
>Without a divine authority, how do we escape moral nihilism/relativism?
We can't. Simple as that. Its because G-d created consciousness and it is a microcosmic version of him. Like a child. That why the gospels say unless ye become as children.
I highly recommend not being an atheist brother [Or a christian for that matter- G-d is one, not Three.]

>>16043123
Degenerates into nonsense hedonism. You not meant to be good because it feels good to do good- or because you would want people to be good to you, your meant to do good because God has ordained that the good is good and He wants us to do good.
Ironic that you post Schopenhauer. I wonder how much compassion he had on that old lady he pushed down the stairs.

>>16043096
Right, this is why in most religious societies atheists were rightfully killed.

>>16043128
You opinion is incompatible with truth.

>>16050742
They were killed because they represented a threat to religious hegemony. Killing atheists was and always has been about religion exerting and maintaining power over secular life.

>>16048740
Of course biology restricts you from doing absolutely anything you want. However, it sadly won't stop you from raping and killing, unless you:

>>16048777
find it unpleasant, or fear the law. Of course, if you want to rape and kill, you probably don't fear the law or will try and hide the act. There are other acts less restrained by our biology that are still viewed as immoral (as of today), such as bestiality or pederasty. It's easier to take advantage of an animal, or child, no?

>>16049360
Such an innate morality is not actually found everywhere, or in the same way. Many of the differences between moralities are not even minor. For one culture in antiquity, it is right to eat their father's corpses. For another culture, it is wrong.

>Also in many religions the gods or god allow or command what we would consider unacceptable...
Yes, it is right.

>if there is a god/gods then everything should be permitted...
No, because the capacity to change everything does not imply the will to do so.

>if there is no such thing your actions matter as they are permanent, murder is permanent and so is causing pain. it cant be wished away by god.
God won't wish away your actions, they're a part of your eternal soul. Furthermore, if there is no God your actions don't matter; you're just pissing pain or pleasure into the void. Their "permanency" pales before the eternity of nothing, and eventually fades into nothing as well.

>>16049862
If everything is moral, then what is the use of morality? You're just relying on people's squeamishness and fear of the law

>>16050058
That is correct, because the tail is attached directly to the dog. Your morality is the equivalent of a dog moving his legs as he chases rabbits in a dream.

>>16050151
It's not self-evident

>>16050404
The compassionate are more likely to be taken advantage of. Compassion with measure is fine. Of course, not being a hurtful, unfeeling ass will expose you to more danger, but being the opposite won't make you immune to it altogether, either.

>>16050667
Pic related for alien Caesar

>>16050759
I guess the atheistic Communists couldn't help but feel inspired. Of course, only the atheists are pure, as you would have it

I am drunk pls forgive

Do any fellow atheists that come from very religious backgrounds wonder what it would be like to part of the constant awe that religious people experience?

I cannot logically bring myself to believe in all this horseshit, but somewhere in accounts of saints, Christ's groveling at Gethsemane, Sufi poems, Shiite sorrow at the killing of Hussein there is this shared sadness and unfettered grief that unites them in their joint delusion that I cannot experience when I believe in nothing divine. There is only my own very mortal and frankly childish sorrows, and I feel it somewhat vain to dwell and mope on my own sadness.

>>16043162
Give me all your money. You're too smart not to, right? It's for the good of the whole.

>>16050776
>seething this hard
I'm not a communist, but good try. You don't have a retort to what I said so you attack a failed ideology I never mentioned instead.

>>16050600
thanks!

>>16043070
The Aristotelian ethical system does not require a God. If that doesn't appeal to you, then try Kant.

>>16050667
>Don't try and create witticisms, no one will quote you.
I am literally quoting someone else, proving your assessment of the quote is categorically incorrect

>>16043070
Find God again.
Even if you have to start from the bottom.
Compile the quanta of truths and work from there.

Craft a coherent rock of stability.
As much as we're "permitted" to believe 2+2=5, the truth is 2+2=4. There are two sexes XX, and XY. Evil / Malum in se exists regardless of what the contemporary law permits. Good exists (even if you have to justify it as an inverse of Evil existing). Truth exists. etc et al.

Eventually you compile them to more coherent and truthful holistic concepts like the logos, and from there the theological Logos (Divine Personhood of the logos). This philosophical complexity of coherence of epistemology, ontology, ethics, and metaphysics is thus elevated to a religious belief system which can be communicated, transferred, and understood by others to share on your path toward reaching the Truth.

>>16050760

>>16043259
>Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
The way you slip this into the middle of your paragraph as though it is meant to be accepted as a simple fact in a list of other facts is intriguing to me.
I am well aware of its origin. Obviously. Now roll a 93 for me.

>>16043070
There is no God and everything is permitted.

But unless you are a psycho you will probably feel bad and hate yourself at the end of the day if you hurt other people. And you will feel happy and worthy if you help somebody out of compassion.

Then there are people who do good only because they fear displeasing their God, not because of the good deed itself. Like a kid doing his homework so that he gets to eat ice-cream after dinner.

I really don't think these things require that much thought. Just listen to your conscience and try to be a good human ffs.