/lit/ - Literature

How did he BTFO varg without even acknowledging his existence?

>>16505501
Bast and beb-billed

dude just make a bunch of screamo metal and murder your best friend lmao

>>16505501
Why does Varg run from the morality question like it's the plague?

>>16505615

Because he's a literal murderer?

>>16505625
He claims objective morality but denies the existence of a literal God. Where does he think objective morality comes from and who does he think judges actions according to the objective morality?

>>16505501
Why do people like to larp as this faggot? I met one like him way back in 2016 on the internets.

>>16505636
Do you know what the word objective means? If it comes from someone it's by definition subjective. Judging is by definition subjective

>>16505501
is Varg worth reading?

>>16505725
Nice job avoiding the actual question, LARPagan. Varg believes hamingja is the sum of one's honorable achievements throughout their cycle of rebirths. Therefore he concedes that there is a greater power that imposes its will on the living.

>>16505756
What question? I'm just responding to how stupid saying objective morality can come from God is

>>16505751
No, he presents an idea without any proof to back any of it up, and a lot of the time he contradicts himself.

>>16505762
The question in the post you first replied to, you braindead LARPagan.

>>16505768
Again nothing to do with what I was talking about. Saying God is anything besides subjective is stupid

>>16505768
I don't even know who Varg is

>>16505778
God judges us based on the objective morality He established and ordered us to follow. How can you braindead LARPagans fail to understand that? Have you got worms in your brain from eating undercooked meat when trying to be more like your LARPagan ancestors?

>>16505805
How is it objective if God established it? If I make up some rules they are subjective the same with God

>>16505501
As you can see, OP, this post >>16505814 should be enough to sway you against reading anything produced by Varg.

>>16505825
What do you think objective means? Seriously you don't even have a dictionary level understanding.

>>16505725
Is anything objective?

Does 2+2=4?
Or is 4 just my subjective interpretation of 2+2?

>>16505825
>>16505805
Varg is a retard and everything he says can be disregarded as such; the fact that you consider him to be an intellectual equal to yourself is incredibly sad.

Having said that, what anon is doing is called "the Euthyphro dilemma". Start with Lysis.

>>16505501
All sorcery is demonic repent or burn.

>>16505865
Is anything subjective? Pulling some rules out of your ass seems like it is subjective if anything is

>>16505828

>>16505901

>>16505910

>>16505894
What kind of answer is this? This board is filled with angry idiots.

>>16505922
You have yet to say why God saying to do something is objective but anyone else saying to do something is subjective

>>16505894

>>16505932

>>16505934

>>16505785
Pagans are as stupid as Christians

>>16505636
Obviously it comes from Thor you silly nigga

>>16505939

>>16505932
You said
>If it comes from someone it's by definition subjective
Which is not just wrong, but also idiotic. I didn't say anything about God, but keep strawmanning

>>16505501
Stop posting off topic threads.

>>16506106
So I can just come up with a morality and it would be objective? There you go that's where objective morality comes from

>>16505901
lol, in actuality Christians lied that their God was actually a warrior god and kings who converted for reasons of trade forced it on them topdown.
Not that I give a shit what LARPers, odinists or tradcath or baptists, pretend about history.

>>16506115
>>16506134

Lord of the Rings is at least honest about being fiction, and its metaphors are just as effective...

>>16505501
Is that...is that a christian cathedral? AAAAAAAHHHHH SAVE ME WOTAN

>>16506115
You're right, objective morality doesn't exist. There's no evidence whatsoever that killing you is bad.

>>16506172
Objective morality doesn't exist but most people agree that murder is wrong. If you don't agree and murder someone society punishes you. Ethics is like aesthetics except that if your subjective ethics is to contrary to societies you're probably going to die

>>16505934
>I'm such a genius that I always knew Christianity was bad intuitively
>Just ignore the fact that I lived in one of the most secularized countries in Europe

>>16506149
>>16505959
>>16505934
>>16505910
I didn't realize this was a cringe thread

>>16506180
So rapping kids isn't wrong because of the suffering it causes, it's wrong because I'll be punished for it. Suffering is subjective, too, right? Like if I cut your hand off, and you claim it hurts, then for all I know you could be lying, and it wasn't "wrong" unless I get punished for it.

>>16506230
I think it's wrong but that's my subjective opinion. I'm not a child rapist like you

>>16506333
Why is it wrong? You said morals are subjective, which implies they're arbitrary. But you clearly have some notion that raping people hurts them.

Since suffering can be measured with brain scans, which are objective, isn't it accurate to say suffering is objective?
And, since certain behaviors cause needless suffering, isn't it fair to say morality should be objective? Morals are essentially just behavioral guidelines.

>>16505501
Wicca BUT racist.

>>16505751
His roleplaying books are OK if you're a /tg/ poster.

>>16505501
>tfw KRISTIAN Vikernes derives his worldview from a Fantasy novel written by a Catholic.

Fucking treecucks btfo.

>>16506388
Your judgment about suffering is subjective. And I clearly have a subjective opinion that suffering is wrong like you do. We agree but people agreeing on something doesn't make it objective. See my comparison to aesthetics. And besides if what you say is true(it's not) there could clearly be an objective morality without God

>>16506180
What do you think aesthetics aim at? Is the role of aesthetic subjective? Does aesthetics aim at Justice? Or do you think there is an objective, common aim that is Beauty? Now what about morality?

>>16506448
Of course there isn't an objective measure of beauty. Aesthetics doesn't aim at anything it's just a collection of subjective opinions that certain people share. The expression is there is no accounting for taste

>>16506466
Subjective opinions concerning what? These subjective opinions are not random about anything. You don’t contemplate a piece of art and derive a mathematical sense from it while your friend derive a sense of justice. You are either the dumbest or the most dishonest person in this thread.

>>16506445
I never once said anything about God. That was someone else.

>your judgement about suffering is subjective
So I'll ask again...

Does 2+2=4? Or is that my subjective interpretation?
Is gravity subjective? If I say, "gravity is the attractive force between myself and the earth," is that the truth? Or just my truth?

>>16506498
Wtf are you talking about deriving a mathematical sense from a piece of art? Aesthetics is the quintessential example of a subjective standard of opinion. Ethics is similar except the stakes for getting your ethics too dissimilar from societies are much higher

>>16506502
You didn't answer my question about what you think is subjective >>16505894

>>16506134
Eh, its not nearly so one dimentional, sometime it was a warrior god, sometime it was a god of peace, sometimes of ultimate universal authority sometimes it was bottom up and often it was top down.

>>16505916
lmao gaygans pretending their sum of collective ethics isn’t engaging in degeneracy wherever it existed

>>16506514
This is the problem: you refuse to answer what aesthetics deals with, what morality/ethics deals with. The measure is subjective but the ground is objective.

>>16506603
They don't deal with anything as ground since they are not objective. You do believe people can have none objective opinions right? Or do you think subjectivity just doesn't exist?

>>16505501
This book fucking sucks

>>16506684
So since they are not objective what is the difference between anything?

Morality and thus (moral) laws are at the complete mercy of the acknowledgement that there is a God, thus dogmatically upholding and exalting him, because while the whole logic of the closed system of morality can be flowing flawlessly, the precedence that it requires to be valid presupposes a supreme entity which exists outside space-time and is unaffected by the mechanical laws of the universe. The general agreement in society that a supreme, awesome and incomphrensible being exists then washes away the nihilism that eats at and rots the system of morality in society and thus the bedrock upon which the whole moral system sits on is justified.

>>16506701
The difference is just people's opinions. You agree that opinions are subjective don't you? If opinions aren't subjective wtf is?

>>16506710
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and ESTABLISHES THE OF A GOD, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.[

>>16506713
What is the difference between Aesthetics and Ethics? Are different opinions on aesthetic matters the same as different opinions about ethical issues?

>>16505501
Imagine studying ritual magic in any serious sense and badmouthing Christ lmao

This is why you shouldn't let niggers read books

>>16505894
It's not subjective because the truth of 1+1=2 doesn't come from man, that would imply solipsism. We interpret

>>16506985
Would you agree that 1+1=2 no matter what God says? Being objective means something is not dependent on any person saying it is so.

>>16506997
God is not like an individual person with limited intellect, God is the Logos, it is the Reason of things, you dumbfuck, holy shit.

No.

>>16506425
But /tg/ shits on MYFAROG.

>>16505763
>he presents an idea without any proof
as opposed to what? all proofs started with some nigga who just invented some shit.

Bump