/lit/ - Literature

Probably some pleb tier thought like "people commit the greatest evils when they think God is on their side"

>>16750586

Pretty self-explanatory, eh?

>>16750586
society has grown massively atheistic in the last 50 years yet laws on recreational drug use have barely changed, the degree of political opinions that are acceptable has shrunk, and clearly everything isn't permitted as you can't call a nigger a nigger a faggot a faggot or a tranny a tranny.

what is deemed forbidden illegal sexual harassment is also much more strict

>>16750586
That humans will simply enslave themselves with another spook once they move on from the previous spook

>>16750605
But today's experience (I guess he means widespread atheism in secular societies) isn't opposed to that statement at all, for any speck of morality is a sign of belief in god.
The true atheist will see no issue in murdering a child, or raping a woman. For ultimately, he is convinced only by the material world, and take part in no spiritual consideration.
What we have in the west are false atheists, pseudo-non believers. If you truly believe in morality then you believe that your actions have intrinsic meaning, if you believe in good and evil then you believe in god, period.

>That's bullshit!!!! I simply care about the suffering of others
Why?
>Because I wouldn't want it to be done to myself, so I don't do it to others
That's morality, that's you following a principle which brings nothing to you because you believe it is "good"

That good is god.
God isn't dead in the heart of man, he's just hiding

>>16750624
see
>>16750635

>>16750640
>That good is god.
>if you believe in good and evil then you believe in god
>any speck of morality is a sign of belief in god.
citation needed

>>16750649
Good and evil are spiritual concepts, good is approved by and rewarded by god, evil is repudiated and punished by god.
If there truly is no god, then giving food to a straving orphan would not be preferable to simply stabbing him to death, there are no logical basis to defend this theory.

>>16750663
>>16750635
>if you're not a violent psychopath you're not really an atheist
This is advanced cope.

>>16750586
I'd imagine he meant that people have become even more restricted in thought and action since the death of god. This is clearly because of technology more than anything else though so he is probably a retard

>>16750663
Giving food to orphan opens possibility that one day that same orphan will save your life. It's survival instinct controlling you subconsciously to give you the best of chances, when biology already fucked you over in comparison to predators.

>>16750635
I'm not sure this is true, there are coherent secular moral philosophies which can do away with God. Kant's moral system comes to mind, who grounds the moral law in the concept of freedom, rather than any Divine Command.
Also Divine Command Theory seems to have some flaws, insofar as it is technicslly not a moral theory (since it is based on mere authority).

>>16750753
Kant's moral law makes no sense without Kant's belief in God

>>16750687
He's right. All atheists are just an infinite regress into their own floating axiom away from murdering everyone. God, or some other unmoved mover, is a necessary anchor to all moral reasoning. The buck needs to stop somewhere.

He's a pseud. Read real philosophy instead: http://orgyofthewill.net/

>>16750760
He states the opposite in the Appendix to the Analytics in the second critique. He specifically uses the example of Spinoza, as an example of a virtuos man who did not believe in a theistic God (for Kant Spinozist deism is theologically equivalent to atheism).
In the Dialectics he pretty much frames God as a coping mechanism for those who are too weak to act morally out of pure respect of the moral law.

>>16750794
His using an example of someone he considers moral who doesn't follow his God doesnt change that his morality's basis is the objectivity of his God, and specifically his understanding of logical consistency

>>16750794
Kant is wrong, though. Acting out of respect for anything suggests a deeper, sometimes unnoticeable, reverence for Life which derives only from some form of deistic worship.

>>16750798
He denies the objectivity of God all over the book, including page 2-3 of the goddamn Preface. The moral law is fully grounded in the Analytics section, the Ideas of God and Immortality are not required to a) identify the moral law nor to b) follow it. They're just rational tools we can use to cope better with the hardships of the moral life.
>>16750799
Not really. Have you read the third chapter of the second critique?

when everything is permitted then the only thing that matters is the enforcement of ideas. everything is permitted but if 2 opposite ideas exist in the same space then the one with more material force behind it wins. with no god or gods then the strongest rule

i seriously cannot understand people who must bind themselves to a god to do good. you can do good without a god you lunatic, you immoral psychopath

>>16750832
you probably can't understand much of anything

>>16750838
Not an argument

>>16750852
neither was what you said retard, it was a hysterical proclamation

>>16750854
Tell me why I cannot be a moral atheist, then

>>16750859
you said 'you can do good without god you lunatic'
that's not an argument you fucking retard, regardless of whether it's true or not

>>16750832
The point isn't that it's literally impossible to be an atheist and also be a decent person. The point is that people are inherently selfish and violent, and with no objective morality (i.e. morality from God) most people have no real reason not to act on their baser desires. With no God, who defines what's right? The state? How can the state's definition of right or wrong be anything but arbitrary if there's no objective good or evil? Even secular states draw many of their laws from religious sources.

>>16750832
based.

>>16750861
It seems an evident fact to me. I can save a drowning child without having to believe in God, and without expecting anything in return. This is in fact how I usually act.
So, why am i wrong?

>>16750869
We can define what's right through reasoned arguments, as the other Kantbro pointed out.

>>16750872
>It seems an evident fact to me.
yeah still not an argument

>>16750878
>>16750869
I would also add, I fail to see why divine authority is a gamechanger when it comes to normativity in morality.

>>16750880
It is an argument.
You claim that x can't be done (here x is "acting morally while being atheist")
I have observed many istances of x
Therefore the first claim is wrong

So now it's your turn to answer. Why am i wrong? Maybe I'm mistaken in believing that those actions were in fact moral?

>>16750872
>having to believe in God
What you fail to understand is that you precisely need to believe in god in order to have an intensive to save the child.
We're not telling you that you would let the child drown because you are atheist, we are telling you that you would not let the child drown precisely BECAUSE you are not really an atheist

>>16750892
i've observed many instances of you being a faggot, prove that wrong, your turn to answer

>>16750635
terrible post, read Hume

>>16751006
Animals have incentive to protect offspring, even if it was not their own. It's called ensuring the specie will continue. We all carry that instinct, though sometimes it fails, and quite often examples are people that believe in God.

>>16751019
Yawn
>>16751006
Could you substantiate this claim? Im interested

>>16750820
>Have you read the third chapter of the second critique?
Anon, none of these "people" have read Kant.
This is /lit/.

>>16750586
He means that God is the only true, objective basis for morality and that any other moral system is ultimately baseless and interchangeable with another atheistic moral system. It follows that the nuances of opposing moral systems are irrelevant if neither is based in God since neither has any ultimate moral authority. If God doesn't exist, then there is no distinction between murder and kindness, between usury and altruism. I'm sure on top of it all he implies that because we can independently observe the distinction between these things on a basic level, God exists.

>>16750753
Metaphysically, your morality is god. It’s a dogmatic static that controls you. You cannot escape the static and it’s all around. If you want to make the dogma based on rational conclusion, you must still admit that the reasoning being done is still subjective and fallible. You carry it because of faith. You can be amoral and way more successful. It’s not irrational to be amoral. It is irrational to dogmatically align yourself with beliefs that make you fight the urge to experiment with morality. What if you do what you want?

So godchads did what they wanted and secularshits are pussies?

>>16751029
Abortion is one of the hottest issues right now so this doesnt make much sense

>>16751040
Wouldn't that still be subjective? Him telling me about God it and then me trying to interpret it.

>>16750635
Peterson poster

I don't mean that in a bad way, I like the guy and have argued the same thing

>>16750635
explain why a christian god and not any other mr tradcath larp

>>16750586
Just look at suicide bombers, people do absolutely evil things because of their belief in god.

>>16750794
>God as a coping mechanism for those who are too weak to act morally out of pure respect of the moral law.
Moral law is another cope.

>>16751029
are you retarded? Most animals kill the offspring of competitors and even their own if the resources are scarces. Every single fish actively kills children.

>>16750687
What if you're just a mild kind of psychopath who mostly wants to stay home and read?

>>16751073
>Metaphysically, your morality is god.
are you throwing random words? technically or pragmaticallly it could serve the same purpose, but metaphysically it's not at all, it's like the one field where it's absolutely different.

>>16751575
psycopaths are defined by their actions. If you're a normal memeber of society, even if an useless one, you're just that.

>>16750635
>god = morality
you dumbo ;)

>>16750869
>The point is that people are inherently selfish and violent
If people did not have an innate desire to cooperate and foster mutual security, no society could have developed. How could we have evolved to best survive with such an inherently destructive tendency and yet produce civilizations that required cooperation on gargantuan scales? Think of the first people to collectivise: if our base instincts were by far the ruling principle among us, those who wished to cooperate would be so profoundly outnumbered they could never have succeeded in the project. One could frame this as being fundamentally selfish, for desiring a rising tide is in some sense equivalent to desiring that one's own position rises. But this misses bigger picture of how meaningful it is to individuals to have your life tied up in the strands of others.

I don't claim to have a coherent way of hence formulating a moral law from this, but I only wish to question the assumption of yours that I quoted.

>>16750603
youre right but with a bit more nuance to it. religion isnt set in stone to be worse or better than atheism in committing evils.
>>16750586
he means it specifically in the sense that religion provides an ideological framework that can be used to recolor atrocious acts as necessary or just.
Its not exclusive to religion for him though, nazism, stalinism, and liberalism do exactly the same.
central to why they are able do this is that they all have the concept of 'universal love'. he argues in a very Hegelian way that every universal like that has baked within it its exclusion (most obvious for the nazis of course).
instead the aim is a love for the particular, one out of you own or anyone's control, i.e 'falling' in love. its the sort of unconditional love that breaks every from of egoism and everything you think you stand for.
on the societal scale this is defined by a shared struggle, a solitarity between particulars instead of a centalized univeral love.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPpMROV1QdQ
this clip is a good little summary

>>16751109
Overpopulation and having it too nice in life might be an important factor in that. The human specie ain't dying out any time soon.

>>16751631
>If people did not have an innate desire to cooperate and foster mutual security, no society could have developed

I think you're seeing selfishness in an inherently-negative light. Mutually-beneficial egoism exists, and has existed forever. You've heard quid pro quo, Do Unto Others -- aka The Golden Rule --, etc. Those are mutually-beneficial egoism. Society is mutually-beneficial egoism: we help eachother and gain from it individually -- inherently selfish since it has individual gain at its core.

But, you wouldn't say it's bad to have a cooperative society due to this factor. What matters is the outcome of that cooperation. If it results in a decrease in quality of life, I would say that is bad cooperation, and thus, negative selfishness.

>>16751569
I should have probably said a great deal of animals, there's number of factors influencing it. Elephants will all trample you to death if you dare to touch one of theirs, no matter the mother, cause the long time to develop means each baby definitely matters. Fish come out in abundance, so there is really no need for this. Scorpion and some species of frogs carry their young on their back all the time to protect them. And so on...
The point is they don't need to believe in God to do it, it's simply in their nature.

>>16750603
wait žižek is this stupid?? holy fug

>>16750624
because the power of mroalistic christianity was transubstantiated into news media, hollywood &c. (mass media). it's almost like moldbug discovered this over a decade ago and libs like žižek are STILL re-discovering it.

>>16751693
>
s/mroalistic/moralistic

>>16750869
name just 1 thing that is objective about god

>>16751720
first cause.
i'll raise you another: unmoved mover.

Atheists by default cannot be trusted with anything because they have never taken oaths.

Prove me wrong.

>>16750586
he explains

>>16751735
now say we consider this first cause/unmoved mover to be a being with infinite attributes, as God necessarily must be.
we now say immanent material reality is this God, otherwise an infinite being would be limited by material reality, which is impossible.
therefore there is no transcendent God outside of material reality, and therefore all religions do not understand God.
t. Spinoza

ah but maybe we can solve this. what if our reason is not sufficient to talk about God like that? what if our reason is decided by certain categories our mind puts into it, and ones that elude God?
perhaps things like objects, cause and effect, time and space, etc. are put into phenomena by our mind? then for the noumenal reality outside of it there is place for God
fuck but now the first cause/unmoved mover arguments stop working, because we dont have cause/effect and time anymore. we cant say anything about noumenal reality, so no God proofs.
God is left a pure matter of faith.
t. Kant

>>16751808
ok since the first two sentences are neoplatonism i'll just raise literally any of the millions of objections to neoplatonic monism.

>>16751824
read the post and stop watching anime

>>16751584
How can something shift pragmatically without it corresponding with something metaphysical? If it's pragmatically functioning the same, then it's the same metaphysics with different euphemisms.

>>16750586
If there are no gods, then nobody is insuring good. If nobody is insuring good, then we should in their place become gods, and insure good.

>>16750586
are you saying this is a zizek quote

is /lit/ so newfagged out that they literally think zizek said this and not dostoevsky?
>ctrl+F dosto
>no results
how old is everyone in this thread? just 16 year old stirner atheists? shit

>>16752288
oh now I see that the greentext is a zizek quote that contains the dosto quote

still fucking retarded if you think this fat faggot's masturbatory ponderings are worth discussion

>>16752288
>>16752296
What an idiot. Way to jump the gun to feel superior and completely fuck it up you twat. You fuck everything up this bad? Are you angry with yourself?

>>16752288
>>16752296
You think you'll comment on the thread eventually or are you just going to monologue the whole thing?

>>16750869
selfishness is a given with no god, only me
violence is not inherently evil. its the person who is violent either by nature or in that moment

>>16750603
More like, God will forgive anything you repent of.

>>16751565
Seethe.

>>16750586
The political has taken the place of the theological, therefore what used to be forbidden by religion is now forbidden by politics which effectively occupies the same space and role in public discourse as religion did in the past.

>>16750766
There is no more moral reasoning behind refraining from killing someone than there is from refraining from eating feces. There is likewise no more moral reasoning behind becoming angry at a child molester than there is behind becoming angry when you hit your head on a door frame.

>>16750635
sorta good post, not sure why ppl are seething at this

itt: god is whatever i wish god to be, objective morality or subjective morality, a creator of the universe or the universe itself, an impersonal principle and/or a caring all knowing and loving father to all
this shit is by far the worst thing in philosophy, the conflation of god with whatever you want

Anyone else read this? His best work IMO, he should stay away from long pandemic essays and do more like this.

>>16751171
Only christianity has a ban on murder in general, other abrahamite religions are much more lax about the matter (jews think it's okay if it's to the benefit of god's chosen people, muzzies think it's okay if it's against unrepentant kafirs), while eastern religions don't think of it as grounds for damnation in most cases, only as something that is bad for your karma.

>>16750603
I don’t disagree with Zizek here but “God” can be anything, it can be “the greater good” “humanity” “love”. Humans are very good at violence in the name of ideas, calling yourself an atheist doesn’t exempt you from anything

>>16750586
based
tradcells coping hard ITT

>>16752382
>Only christianity has a ban on murder in general

This is a meaningless statement, because every permissible killings is an ad hoc exception and therefore "not murder".

>>16752464
Nah. Permissible killing is mostly a thing in judaism and islam, but not in christianity.

>>16751720
impastor

>>16750586
ALLAHU ACKBAR
*cuts your head off for blaspheming*
*stones you for not wearing a hijab*
*throws you off a roof for being gay*

>>16750635
yES, Atheists are a fraud, de Sade was the last atheist.

>>16751685
Disprove him.

I'm enjoying the godtard cope, keep it up guys

>>16750586
>What did he mean by this?
Nothing honestly, why would no God existing, mean everything is permitted, look at the world, there are consequences for certain kinds of behaviour, if you murder people, society will fear you and outcast you, ditto with rape, theft etc if you eat human flesh you might get diseases, if you commit incest your lineage will become ill, ditto for outbreeding, most proper morality has some basis in nature's law, with that in mind, morality does not need God, as long as the universe is a closed sytem, obeying certain laws which will have negative consequences when broken.

>>16750624
Without God or a concept of trancendence, the here and now becomes more important and moral laws become stricter. Without God there is no forgiveness or salvation either, just the moral code everyone must follow, without question.

Morality is atheistical