/lit/ - Literature

>>17874007
What do you consider as morality?

>>17874007
correct. All you will get is secular cope.

>>17874007
wow... thats like.....
wow....
thats like 7th grade phil guy.
there are a dozen explanations, from them simply being mores of social animals from a biological perspective,
or as a tool from an egoist perspective,
etc.

A better question is why a belief in God does nothing to stop men from doing wicked things.

>>17874007
>I was only being good to make my parents happy
Grow the fuck up kid, you don't want to spend your life 100% in the diapers stage

>>17874007
If there are morals, why do God even matters?

>>17874029
but depending on the religion, there could be a punishment for your actions.

There is existential meaning in keeping a balanced life.

>>17874012
Follow up, watch this video OP >>17874007

https://youtu.be/lroKN5gdm08

>>17874022
None of that sounds convincing. There's no difference between a cockroach and a human being without God. And now with animal rights and postmodernism, you could argue they're not only on the same level but that the cockroach is actually more important.

>>17874007
>If there's no God, why do morals even matter?
If there are morals, why does "god" even matter?

>>17874058

>>17874058
>it’s only indoctrination if I don’t like it

>>17874007
Just because there's no god does not make naturalism true.

>>17874068
How is not indoctrination, it fits the definition?

>>17874007
>If there's no God

there is though

>>17874081
Nice reading comprehension retard. I’m calling out the midwittery of the person who wasted time making that picture

>>17874022
All of them bullshit cope.

>>17874088
>there is though
Where is he?
Prove him?

>>17874007
>he needs heaven and hell to not rape, kill or steal
I'm starting to think Christians are the true psychopaths and barbarians of society.
We have laws, we have social contracts, we have ethics. All of it to prevent braindead savages like you from ruining other people's lives with your knuckles ragging ways.

>>17874103
athiest strawman #125412

>>17874077
Why not?

>>17874103
This is very uncharitable. He's making a point about moral ontology. He's not saying he needs religion to do good things.

>>17874007
>why do morals even matter?

Timestamped for your convenience
https://youtu.be/DDi7_4BcvTg?t=598

>>17874103
You operate off a christian mindset if you think shit like human rights or ethics objectively matters

>>17874103
>We have laws, we have social contracts, we have ethics.
And all of them are arbitrary and meaningless at the end of the day.

>>17874117
How does God have any bearing on that? Why do you need God for there to be a soul, for materialism to be false, or for there to even be an afterlife?

God is a fag.

>>17874053
> convincing. There's no difference between a cockroach and a human being without God.
i never said there was, just that a comparison can be drawn between an ant who’s pheromones smell different and is thus killed and a human zoophile.
>>17874099
no its an explanation for a phenomenon. unless you dont think moralizing is a thing.

>>17874103
>>17874103
>We have laws, we have social contracts, we have ethics.
If you need earthly restraints in order to be a good person then it is you who is a psychopath and a barbarian

The fact of the matter is, that all of these things you mentioned can be twisted for the benefit of people who are not virtuous

>If Santa isn't real, do fiat currencies even matter?

>>17874007
>why do morals even matter?
They are a good metric to ensure equal cooperation among the people as well as to foster good relationships and trust; all of which contributes to the survival and progression of our species.

>>17874101
it is difficult but possible to convince someone of gods existance if they do not believe in god, it is impossible and pointless to attempt to do so if they actively do not want to and refuse to believe. Seek and you shall find.

>>17874150
It's almost like all social myths aren't equivalent and different spooks might be spookier in certain societies, my property.

>>17874114
You're basicly admitting that if there is no God, you can just do whatever. It's stupid and shows your only doing "good" because you want to obey.
Slave morality at its finest.

>>17874123
Its the same line of thinking these sickos always come up with. "oh no without God everything is allowed". Guess what it's the exact opposite, if you claim to act in God's name you can do anything, commit terror attacks on innocents, rape infidel women, marry children, indoctrinate non believers with dogma. God is what can make good people do bad things, it's not the other way around. It narrows your mind and constricts everything that human freedom is.
Morals font come from an outside source like a father to our children, they come from within us and thereby among us. It's entirely a human relation and feeling, not some sicko fantasy that enables their hate.

>>17874156
This is a morally bankrupt way of viewing the world. It robs human beings of anything other than instrumental value.

>>17874156
why should I care about the group and not myself?

>>17874160
>just believe it bro
Fucking retard

>>17874150
If only materialism is real, anything goes, yes.

>>17874126
brooo god encourages blood sacrifice and slavery and raoe!!! let me put up single verses for 1 second on the screen!!!

>>17874165
why should I care about morality?

>muh hell

Well that's just a threat, proof of might making right, an idea designed to artificially skew my behavior.

ITT: atheists shitting on Christians but still operating off an inherently Christian mindset

>>17874156
>survival and progression of our species.
And this is absolutely important because?

>>17874170
>materialism is real
Good luck getting that one through

>>17874162
Anyone can personally justify anything to themselves. They don't need religion to do that. See Stalin.
>it's not the other way around
There are tons of bad people who become religious and improve their lives. Happens all the time in prison, dude. Do you even think about these atheist slogans for a few moments before you regurgitate them?

>>17874126
>treating God like a human being
only redditors are this arrogant

>>17874185
What do you mean?

>>17874148
>>17874132
>>17874131
"hurr durr nothing matters"
Fucking faggots, put your money where your mouth is. If you really believe in God, then give away your possessions to the poor, become a missionary in a third world country and do everything you can to get into heaven since that's all that matters.
But no, you live perfectly fine under secular laws, in secular states and enjoy a secular lifestyle, while doing NOTHING to live a "Christian life".
But nope, you want to act like all laws, moral standards and ethics we have are meaningless, while you also uphold every single one of them, and do none of what the Bible says are good virtues.
You want it both ways, live a nice secular life with democracy, freedoms and luxury, but also want to be edgy and pretend God has anything to do with the structure of modern society. Fucking hypocrites.

>>17874051
Holy shit this video is terrible. He says that because he as an individual as a research scientist has a phd that therefore science is better than religion because you don't need qualifications and is just a product of culture. besides the blatant appeal to authority, nobody needs a fucking phd to believe in science and most scientific education is taught culturally and there are many dogmatic beliefs in science that are socially unacceptable to disagree with (evolution, climate change, human biodiversity). He should be comparing himself as a research scientist with published papers to a theologian or a high ranking member of a church but he's not honest enough for that.

>>17874164
> It robs human beings of anything other than instrumental value.
Yes, the problem isn't viewing people as instrumental value, it's that the beings that are misjudge and undervalue well being over utility.
>>17874165
Regardless of whether or not you participate in the group or like the group, seldom can you live outside of the group. Whether you like it or not, your own wellbeing has some semblance of outside ties that you should foster to some degree if you care about your own self-preservation.

>>17874135
That's an interesting proposition but what exactly do you have in mind? What existing belief systems fit your critiria?

>>17874048
what a nice meaningless sentence

>>17874184
>And this is absolutely important because?
Because in a world seemingly absent of meaning it is our job to ensure that we can sustain ourselves indefinitely to either find it or create a world with meaning as a backup.

>>17874198
I mean science won't support you

>>17874172
Slavery

Exodus 21:20-21
Colossians 3:22
Ephesians 6:5

Blood Sacrifice

Genesis 8:20
Leviticus 1:5
Leviticus 12:6

Human Sacrifice

Genesis 22:1-2
Judges 11:30-39

Misogyny

Genesis 3:16
Esodus 21:7-8
Corinthians 11:8-9

Genital Mutliation

Genesis 17:10-14
1 Samuel 18:27
Leviticus 12:20-3

Genocide

Deuteronomy 2:33-34
Numbers 21:3
Joshua 6:21-27

Infanticide

1 Samuel 15:3
Exodus 12:29

Thought Crimes

Matthew 5:27-28
Exodus 20:17

Rape

Deuternonomy 22:28-29
Zechariah 14:1-2
Genesis 19:7-9

Trivial Death Penealties

Exodus 35:2
Leviticus 24:14-16
2 Samuel 6:6-7

>>17874217
>it is our job
Why? Who determines this?

>>17874192
That's not religion doing anything, it was themself. The people doing evil shit in God's name are also just acting themself.
Proclaiming to act in the name of a higher power does not remove the fact that YOU are the actor, period.
>atheist slogans
Good job brainlet, keep telling me how God wanted 9/11 to happen since it was an act carried out in his name. The nice people even shouted his name as they crashed the planes, but its okay, they were acting in the name of God.

>>17874221
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

—The Epicurean paradox, ~300 BCE[148]

>>17874218
Science wouldn't support materialism and/or physicalism?

>>17874221
>old testament

>>17874103
>>17874202
>I wanna coom without feeling guilty about it >:(
This is what atheists truly want but won’t admit it. They just *need* to rationalize.

>>17874228
>Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
You can't judge God like would judge the leader of the Spice Girls. Imagine seriously thinking like this.

>>17874230
Nope, look at quantum theory. Naturalism and physicalism are bugmen copes.

>>17874053

>you could argue they're not only on the same level but that the cockroach is actually more important.

Okay. Walk me through that argument.

morals matter because you 'programmed' in a way that is unable to act without morals. objectively they don't matter, but you are unable to be objective no matter how you wished to be

>>17874231
>>old testament
Is the old testament not the word of god?

If the old one doesn't count, who's to say the new one does?

>>17874228
>judging God with human standards
heh... *sheathes katana* is that the best you could do?

>>17874241
>quantum theory
How is that not physicalism?

>>17874007
Read the Euthyphro

>>17874239
So evil is okay when god does it?

>>17874254
What other standards am I supposed to judge him by, its called morality faggot.

https://youtu.be/DDi7_4BcvTg?t=598

>>17874202
holy seethe, where are you getting any of this from?

>>17874243
>programmed
Care to elaborate?

>>17874255
It states that we're unable to pinpoint subatomic particles as a physical entity fixed in time and space. There it arises questions regarding physicalism and naturalism, as there might be evidence of something other than matter existing.

>>17874205
okay, so you’re saying the only reason I should care about the group is if it benefits me as an individual, and outside of that it’s meaningless and if I were to gain power over this group I am in no way obligated to serve its needs and I should rather bend it to suit my will. Thanks for proving my point.

>>17874247
Christ, who is God manifest, supersedes the old law.

>>17874209
Buddhism (except no soul), Jainism, Hindu Samkhya and Mimamsa - all reject classical omnimax theism and yet are opposed to naturalism.

>>17874261
God is bound to a different set of standards, commie.

>>17874224
>Why?
Currently there is an absence of concrete evidence in an afterlife which would lead to the easy conclusion that nothing but the void awaits us in death. With no reference point to know what nothing feels like, the easy path to follow is happiness which we know can be found in life. Striving to stay in lofe until we can know what's in death is a good call.
>Who determines this?
Currently me, maybe others. Preferably everyone. Biology could also be considered a form of evidence for it.

>>17874239
>>17874254
So according to you its okay to kill babies

1 Samuel 15:3
Exodus 12:29

rape


Deuternonomy 22:28-29
Zechariah 14:1-2
Genesis 19:7-9

and genocide people


Deuteronomy 2:33-34
Numbers 21:3
Joshua 6:21-27

but I'm the bad guy for considering these things immoral, and using simple syllogisms to expose the fact that you're entire philosophy is dangerously self contradictory and stupid >>17874228

I hope you faggots die so you can join god in the magically theme park in the sky.

>We're no better than beasts in that scenario and like beasts anything goes.
Pretty sure that most theists aren’t exactly very civilized either

>>17874243
This. As Tolkien put it, the Moral Law is simply the correct way to run the human machine. It’s our Creator’s manual of instructions. When we don’t act accordingly, the machine breaks (i.e death).
Death is the wages of sin.

>>17874280
>God is bound to a different set of standards
Why faggot?

I reject his standards.

>>17874265
What are Christians today? They have all adapted to live a perfectly normal secular lifestyle like everyone else, except they feel guilty about jerking off and having sex.
Where is God's opinions on driving cars or watching the Super bowl? Why does God only care about things that existed in the desert 2000 years ago, but cannot comment on what's going on now? We could use some guidance on AI and technology in general, or some help with medicine and treating cancer? Nope, Christians just go with the flow and live like everyone else, only they can easily justify their bigotry and hatred by bringing up how their sky daddy tells them to be ashamed of everything they do and obey him.

>>17874271
Interesting. Are you familiar with the holofractal theory?

>>17874281
>which would lead to the easy conclusion that nothing but the void awaits us in death.
you can’t prove that “nothing” exists, the concept of a void afterlife is just another placeholder for the unknown

>>17874275
> I were to gain power over this group I am in no way obligated to serve its needs and I should rather bend it to suit my will.
Techicnally yes, but I'm of the opinion that we'd all share the same end goals, you would be self serving yourself more via cooperation. Short term satisfaction wont matter if the end goal isnt met or can be changed.

>>17874302
Holy seethe, where did you get the idea that I or any of the other posters you reeed at are Christian?

>>17874280
>God is bound to a different set of standards, commie.
Why?
>Because I said so commie
Cope more faggot

Worship your kike on a stick

>>17874295
>Why faggot?
Because he's not some jerkoff on the street. He's literally God. What's so difficult to understand?

>>17874303
Not at all

>>17874271
is this what string theory is? where can I read up on this?

>>17874310
*and none of this proves morality matters btw

>>17874261
No that's your subjective opinion, this guys videos are really cringe and he is philosophically illiterate btw. The 'muh slavery' 'muh genocide' etc is nothing more than a bad reading of the bible divorcing everything from it's original context and ignoring the real epistemological issue of morality.

The dishonesty in this video is actually sick man, a picture of god with an angry face saying "kill all babies" when we know very well what atheists support, fucking laughable.

>>17874202
"hurr durr nothing matters"
Fucking faggots, put your money where your mouth is. If you really believe in the Christian God, then give away your possessions to the poor, move to a Christian country and do everything you can to get into heaven since that's all that matters.
But no, you live perfectly fine under Ottoman laws, in Ottoman states and enjoy an Ottoman lifestyle, while doing NOTHING to live a "Christian life".
But nope, you want to act like all Islamic laws, moral standards and ethics we have are meaningless, while you also uphold every single one of them, and do none of what the Bible says are good virtues.
You want it both ways, live a nice Islamic life with comfort, freedoms and luxury, but also want to be edgy and pretend the Christian God has anything to do with the structure of modern society. Fucking hypocrites.

>>17874318
ok coomer

>>17874319
>He's literally God.
He can’t get rid of hunger, famine and war. Why should I consider him higher than any random jackoff?

Doesn't this question imply we can't adhere to the golden rule without some supervisor watching over us and making sure of it?

Animals have been shown to adhere to the golden rule, by the way.

>>17874264
human is a sensor organism that can look even at himself, but never have full information on his processes. one of these is morality.
and no I don't mean (not necessarily) intellectually programmed

>>17874328
You right, all forms of Abrahamic retardation are dumb, and should rejected

>>17874316
You're even worse then, you cannot commit to being either Christian or atheist. You're just lukewarm, living the secular life until sometimes you get some "wow deep thoughts what about God lol" thoughts and then you jerk off and sleep.
Take action in your life and fucking decide on something, and then stop entertaining the idea of God if you can't even fucking commit to living like you believe.

>>17874322
Just Google quantum theory and the experiments Niels Bohr and Heisenberg did. Max Planck also has a quote where he dismisses naturalism as modern physics has hit a point where it looks more like there being other forms of being than traditional matter.

>>17874345
make me, faggot

>>17874318
>not understanding there's a cosmic hierarchy
kek why are commies so dogmatically atheist and materialist and Earth-bound that they find the grandeur of space and the myriad mysteries of cosmic intelligence anathema.?

>>17874320
It sounds similar.

>>17874354
I don't have to, you're gonna live a pathetic life if you don't do something yourself, so ball is in your court, bitch boy.

>>17874304
Preferably we'd end up finding an afterlife and meaning which I'd be ecstatic for; but without substantial evidence pointing to the contrary, I dont need to prove that the negative exists. Without an afterlife or a rebirth, the logical conclusion is nothing.
>>17874324
I was never trying to prove that morality matters, simply stating how even without God it is a tool to be used for the species.

>>17874007
This is the redpill. either there is god or there is complete depravity

>>17874353
>Heisenberg
What did he mean by this?

>>17874359
What the fuck did you even say? This post sounds like someone ate a thesaurus, had a diarrhea fart attack and then huffed his own farts

>>17874359
>dogmatically
There is literally zero empirical evidence for an immaterial soul. If anything is dogmatic then it's you faggot.

>>17874367
Googling it, sounds interesting.
I don't get why naturalism is still the common understanding in the mainstream when modern physics has made incredible discoveries like this.
Perhaps it's because biology hs become too influential, they need to be beat down.

>>17874375
He never said that.

>>17874373
>what is virtually every society before monotheism and virtually every society after it

>>17874373
>Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

>>17874380
>There is literally zero empirical evidence for an immaterial soul.

I wonder why that could be... holy shit

>>17874375
If you go all the way with modern physics you end up at a point where you have even more questions about how everything functions, to the point where our naive understanding of reality no longer cuts it.

>>17874388
The assumption that there exists a moral order is already tacitly recognizing God. If you believe in right and wrong you are not really an atheist.

>>17874319
So god is a 'do as I say, not as I do' sort of fellow? And you expect us to worship him?

>>17874398
kek atheists want 3D evidence of something that exists in other greater dimensions

>>17874406
>The assumption that there exists a moral order is already tacitly recognizing God.
Well, Hammurabi got his code from Shamash, and Hammurabi’s code is the basis for Jewish law. Does that mean that Yahweh is the wrong god to worship?

>>17874398
I don't know how to play the semantic game. But there is evidence of consciousness existing independently of brain.

>>17874418
*is no evidence

>>17874380
>There is literally zero empirical evidence for an immaterial soul.
The absolute state of atheists

>>17874414
Yeah, or any evidence for that matter, and not your bullshit ‘a dog ate my homework’ excuses

>>17874438
Then present us some

>>17874438
Read this >>17874418 I was talking about eternal consciousness which is what people call a "soul".

>>17874217
>it is our job to ensure that we can sustain ourselves indefinitely to either find it or create a world with meaning as a backup.

Immortalization through procreation is a creation of meaning and, of course, a death cope. It's not really anyone's "job" to ensure a species continues -- as some intrinsic thing, I mean.

>>17874007
Good and bad are useful ways to guide human behavior??

>>17874353
I was hoping for some good books on that subject, not some online articles and quotes

>>17874444
It's like a 2D cartoon character asking another 2D cartoon character, 'bring me evidence that 3D footballs exist.' Souls operate in another dimensions different to our own.

>>17874007
I sure do miss that guy.

>>17874053
Dude humans working together is one of the fundamental reasons we’ve succeeded as a species. We can talk and do things together and collaborate most animals can’t do that, the reason is because we evolved to be highly social. That’s why being antisocial was nearly a death sentence in older times, you could not survive without the tribe, social death meant literal death. Morals arose from the need to be socially accepted. It’s ingrained in us to an extent. You have a natural tendency to not do things that will jeopardize your standing within the group.

>>17874447
There is also literally zero empirical evidence for the existence of

>mathematics
>logic
>your free will
>the past and the future
>the identity of objects

however you presumably believe in these things, the problem is not lack of empirical evidence, it's your arbitrary assertion that you will only accept material evidence for an immaterial thing which you would never do for other conceptual truths that you believe in.

>>17874481
Huh?
You might as well say that my sneakers rule few galaxies but you can't confirm this because they operate in an other dimension.

>>17874481
Sounds conveniently unfalsifiable. How do you know that this is knowledge beyond are grasp, did you check this?

>>17874007
>If there's no God, why do morals even matter?
does the typical dog go around attacking everything in its sight or destroying its environment? is a dog aware of the existence of a god? a dog will act in a way which helps to preserve its life. whether that be killing or acting friendly. the textbook definition or morality may seem confusing if you don't understand the meaning of 'good', 'bad', 'right', or 'wrong'. these things just help guide your way through life in a society based on the feedback you get from the society your mind determines what is 'right' or 'wrong'.

>>17874481
Prove souls, prove other dimensions, prove they're related and prove you're not a faggot.

>>17874022
>mores of social animals
>tools from an egoist perspective
so things that don't matter? thats the whole point of the thread retard no one cares about an egoist toolbox and it shouldn't be taken seriously

>>17874497
Then any position would be dogmatic and suspension of judgement would be suitable for this problem.

>>17874497
Again, more shitty excuses. Half of the things you mentioned are descriptive tools, and the other half are unknowns. Yet you claim to know for a fact the entity that created the universe, that he handcrafted a ghost that lives in your head, and that he wants the whole world to talk telepathically to his son who’s really him who died on a cross because a talking snake convinced a ribwoman to eat an apple

>>17874053
If I crushed your balls in a vice for a lark, would you have any sort of judgment on whether my action was good or bad?

>>17874058
>Religion is a mind virus
So is your ideology Dawkins

>>17874007
It doesn't feel good to be immoral

>>17874532
Also, the goal of animal rights movements is to treat animals as persons, morally speaking. Which is opposed to your idea that “anything goes” in the jungle

>>17874529
Dude if you don't believe in the past or that a dog is distinguished from the ground it is standing on or that mathematics and logic are objective and universal then you can't have science and your idea that empirical evidence has some kind of absolute veracity is laughable. How can you believe in your empirical evidence while simultaneously thinking preconditions for knowledge itself are just unknown or human inventions.

>>17874498
>muh [insert inanimate object] in space
Stop reading Russell. Yes, your sneakers ruling the galaxy is the same as cosmic intelligence existing.
>>17874503
>>17874513
Interesting advancements and theories have been proposed that give us a glimpse into all of this. See: quantum theory.

>>17874561
It is fine in China, which is a godless non-Christian society.

>>17874261
Relating that Exodus quote to thought crimes is a huge stretch

>>17874571
Almost no neuroscientists believe in the existence of souls.

>>17874571
>Interesting advancements and theories have been proposed that give us a glimpse into all of this.
Advanced that you’ve cherry-picked to confirm your specific point of view. Quantum theory isn’t a get out of jail for free card for God

>>17874007
And yet it turns out people don't like you if you're an asshole, so being an asshole means you will live a short, shitty, and miserable life
Why is this board full of Freshman level morons?

>>17874588
Neuroscientists are materialists. That's not surprising.
>>17874592
The topic was souls, not God, though.

>>17874601
>caring what people think and being le wholesome
Why is this board full of redditors?

>>17874602
I’m sure you totally won’t use the existence of souls to revive the tenets of your specific religion and the obedience that cones with it

>>17874022
>wow... thats like.....
>wow....
>thats like 7th grade phil guy.
>there are a dozen explanations, from them simply being mores of social animals from a biological perspective,
>or as a tool from an egoist perspective,
>etc.

>>17874602
No, most of the scientists are materialists. And they don't believe in the existence of souls.

>>17874007
of course not but working together is easier and safer

>>17874561
This. What other reasons do you need? You feel it within yourself

>>17874566
Well then why you're taking any position?

>>17874007
you're right OP and anything anyone can say about morality otherwise is pseud cope. atheists like the foundations of christian society even in secular operations in the broader goings-on of everyday citizens, but if you allowed that to slowly crumble bit by bit you would have barbarians running around in the streets. the collapse of organized religion is just a start, we are still living in a christian society, it's just that remnants are holding it up.

>>17874612
Not sure what you mean exactly.
>>17874617
>materialists
Then the only difference between a man and a cockroach is the number of atoms. Everything else is shallow sentimentality. Killing a man and killing a cockroach is not fundamentally any different under this view.

>>17874566
>your idea that empirical evidence has some kind of absolute veracity is laughable.
Sorry, when have I ever said that? It’s true that empirical evidence is better than bullshit hearsay like the Bible, but it’s not absolute. However, I do need any evidence before I take your claim serious at all, and your credibility increases based on how good your evidence is. So far, the amount of evidence you’ve presented for any claim amounts to diddly dogshit, so that’s also how seriously I take your claims

>>17874256

>>17874663
You can achieve a lot from mutual thinking. And that's how laws were and are made. In religious wars you were allowed to rape, kill, steal etc. See >>17874162
For religious people the lives of other are same as a cockroach too, even extremely wrost in the case of eternal hell and history proves this.

>>17874058
>>17874065
I miss when anons actually made drawings for these things, or at least some unique stick figures with funny faces. Now it's just this sort of abomination.

>>17874228
>Then why is there evil?
Because true free will cannot exist without the capacity for evil.

>>17874007
Exactly right op. Altruism only exists because it serves us and our position in our “tribe(hate that gay term)

>>17874829
Do people in heaven have free will?

>>17874843
Of course, it's your own actions and desires that led you there in the first place.

>>17874230
No, it's only ever accepted anything with a margin of error. Lay believers in science confuse "close" with "exact", in the same way they confuse statistics with probability. Hard materialism or physicalism in science means you don't know what the fuck you're doing.

>>17874103
All laws, order, even consciousness itself is due to the Sacred and religion, for it is these that cease the phenomenological flux of chaotic violence, hunger, individuation and gives rise to the symbolic and community. Read more.

>>17874843
The soul does not will in the same manner as man

>>17874864
Is there a capacity for evil in heaven, then?

>>17874637
Because it's impossible to really live and not believe in some things. The only question is how we can justify them and we can't do it on a materialist basis.

>>17874669
What empirical evidence convinced you that empirical evidence is 'better'? My point is that all religious debate is a debate about epistemology and not evidence, if you only accept empirical evidence then you will never be convinced of any religion which relies on metaphysical truth as its basis. The only question is what justification you have for this
empirical bias and I think there is none, it's arbitrary.

If we were to talk entirely about evidence I could point to the complexity of nature, the fine tuning of the world, the appearance of design etc. But that's all wasted breath because it isn't convincing to someone who has an arbitrary materialist bias.

>>17874871
>All laws, order, even consciousness itself is due to the Sacred and religion
Which one?

>>17874872
How does that even make sense? Aren’t you a soul right now?

>>17874883
>What empirical evidence convinced you that empirical evidence is 'better'?
Probably the time when I ate half baked chicken and nearly pooped myself to death

>>17874883
I am not denying the possibility of common sense for functioning in daily life. I am talking about taking a position philosophically. If you're doubtful even what is material then why are you searching the non-materialistic areas?

>>17874022
faggot

>>17874806
The golden age of /lit/ is over, we failed to gatekeep the plebes and now we are run by them.

>>17874058
>>17874081
From my observation people who become Christians question God more than an atheist

>>17874748
Religion can be peverted and doesn't equal God, though. See: Martin Luther.

>>17874893
No, I'm a brain who gets to make choices that ultimately impact my soul. The immortal soul transcends things like personality and knowledge. You can't assume the mind and the soul are one when mental illness exists.

>>17874103
>rape bad
>kill bad
>steal bad

>>17874959
Then where does the soul exist if not the brain? Why body doesn't say alive when you cut the head?

>>17874959
That’s nice, but that doesn’t answer my question though. If you have free will in heaven, why won’t there be evil there?

>>17874959
See >>17874221 >>17874285

>>17874964
Why don’t you, then?

>>17874877
Yes, but no one would will to, it's that great to exist in the kingdom of God.

>>17874979
This is reply to >>17874948

>>17874980
>heaven
Free will to choose between multiple goods

>>17874929
Have you ever read any epistemology anon? Hume or the like for example.

>>17874999
See: >>17874239

>>17874973
Small brained take

>>17874979
What do you want me to say about a book that has been edited thousands of times for political motives?

>>17874980
Can you even do evil in a place that transcends the meaningless material desires we have on Earth? You tell me.

>>17875027
No, I haven't read Hume but I have watched few lectures on YouTube on Sextus Empiricus. His ideas are really cool which put an end to this debate.

>>17875074
>Small brained take
Are you retarded? There is no "take" I am just asking questions.

>>17875134
>I am just asking questions.
I never said "there's no such thing as bad questions."
Do better next time.

>>17875074
>Can you even do evil in a place that transcends the meaningless material desires we have on Earth? You tell me.
So it’s not about free will then, but about the bad options you can choose from?

Why doesn’t God just take those away right now? He could literally snap his fingers without anyone needing to suffer or die, and we would all live in paradise in an instance

>>17875161
Have a (You) retard

>>17874228
>implying good is objective
Holy retard

>>17874929
Because there are certain beliefs that are necessary for knowledge itself, and all of these are non-materialistic beliefs that nobody got because they looked under a rock or did an experiment. Science itself is predicated on belief in logic, mathematics and "common sense" as not just human descriptions but fundamentally true. But these are all abstract principles and laws that you don't find physically in the world, they are just acting on the world perpetually in this mysterious way, so the non-material is more fundamental than the material and by believing in the non-material you justify the material, but if you try the reverse you get nothing.

>>17875183
>Because there are certain beliefs that are necessary for knowledge itself
Why?

>>17874007
Athiest like to rail on the religious for cowardice but these threads prove the vast majority of athiest are not only cowards but hypocrites as well.

>>17875222
How so?

>>17875167
>So it’s not about free will then, but about the bad options you can choose from?
What bad options are you choosing during your heavenly stay? What free will are you trying to exercise? Try answering away from the perspective of your dopamine addicted mind.

>Why doesn’t God just take those away right now? He could literally snap his fingers without anyone needing to suffer or die, and we would all live in paradise in an instance
Suffering is not evil, please don't confuse the two. And immortality within your mortal coil is another form of eternal torment. Again, your body and brain is not your soul.

>>17874007
If there is no God then individual intelligence is the dominant axiom. If I have to explain that further then you're just a fucking moron. Morals are simply ethical precedents. Sometimes their applications are relevant, sometimes not. It's about energy expenditure. How do you decide the relevance? With your individual intelligence, obviously. Well not yours, you fucking moron.

>>17875226
Living on and enforcing codes of morality as if they were absolute while acknowledging their ultimate irrelevance.

>>17874068
Correct

>>17874353
>quantum cope
I mean the amount of flip flops you have to do get from randomness (only apparent) to a theist god being is mind boggling

>>17875268
How is this not strength but cowardliness?

>>17874239
If you're able to stop someone from suffering but you don't do it, you're malevolent no matter how you slice it.

>b-but suffering is good

Okay, sadist.

>>17874007
Because without morality our lives would be objectively worse. Also morals are innate for anyone who has empathy so it's not like you can just switch them off like you're a robot

>>17875196
Because if they were false then it would be impossible to know anything. Think of a skeptic who denies the law of non-contradiction or the existence of their own mind. These are so fundamental that it is impossible to deny them because you are claiming to know something that makes knowledge impossible.

>>17874007
>morality without God

No. One of the problems atheists have is the unbelievers' assertion that it is possible to determine what is right and what is wrong without God. They have a fundamental inability to concede that to be effectively absolute a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter.

On this misunderstanding is a supposed conundrum about whether there is any good deed that could be done only by a religious person, and not done by a Godless one. Like all such questions, this contains another question: what is good, and who is to decide what is good?

Left to himself, Man can in a matter of minutes justify the incineration of populated cities; the deportation, slaughter, disease and starvation of inconvenient people and the mass murder of the unborn.

I have heard people who believe themselves to be good, defend all these things, and convince themselves as well as others. Quite often the same people will condemn similar actions by different countries, often with great vigour.

For a moral code to be effective, it must be attributed to, and vested in, a non-human source. It must be beyond the power of humanity to change it to suit itself.

Its most powerful expression is summed up in the words 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends'.

The huge differences which can be observed between Christian societies and all others, even in the twilit afterglow of Christianity, originate in this specific injunction.

>>17875283
Why would God care for saving bodies when the souls of man are his children?

>>17875315
So some believe that God is the reason behind that and some say God isn't. Then who is right and who is wrong? How can I confirm the validity of those claims? Why should I confirm the validity of those claims?

>>17875281
It shies away from acknowledging the moral conclusion of their thought. It's continuing prior values laid down by theological societies for comfort and cope.

>>17875350
>One of the problems atheists have is the unbelievers' assertion that it is possible to determine what is right and what is wrong without God.
This is true and it's why I'm a post-theist pantheist. Being an atheist makes as much sense as being a polytheist or monotheist does.

>>17875378
If prior societies weren't shied away from continuing prior values laid down by theological societies with different Gods for comfort and cope then why should atheist be hold accountable for this?

>>17875403
Athiest do not have a absolute transcendental reasoning to.

>>17875411
They do and it's called humanism.

>>17875352
Why does God put souls through physical existence if it doesn't matter?
Why is physical existence pure suffering for certain people and pure bliss for others?

>>17875354
You confirm the validity by taking these necessary beliefs and following them to their logical conclusion. If they are necessarily true and yet outside of the material then what kind of world has to exist for them to be that way? And that leads ultimately to believing in God. You can also do the same in reverse by following atheism to its logical conclusion and you end up with nihilism and hard solipsism.

>>17874242
There isn't, because he is either some christcuck or nihilism.

>>17875427
>humanism
Bullshit and full of spooks. Ultimately baseless without spiritualism.

>>17874242
bugs are gooderinos animalinos. humans are virusinos evilinos.

>>17875427
>"trascend" to what you already are
???

>>17874946
…cause of perpetually exercising in mental gymnastics to justify their belief.

>>17875454
>Why does God put souls through physical existence if it doesn't matter?
Steel has to be tempered.
>Why is physical existence pure suffering for certain people and pure bliss for others?
Either it's not for mortals to know, or it's ultimately our task to figure it out.

>>17875505
>Steel has to be tempered.
What was tempered in the life of a child who suffered and died from natural circumstances like cancer?

>Either it's not for mortals to know, or it's ultimately our task to figure it out.
Translation: shut the fuck up and obey.

>>17874007
try poooping your pants in public and looking me in the eye and telling me there's nothing wrong with it after

>>17875536
Shame reflex wouldn't prove anything. We're talking about ultimate morality here.

>>17875528
>What was tempered in the life of a child who suffered and died from natural circumstances like cancer?
You sound angry, as if you believe God himself afflicted the hypothetical child. The mortal universe that we inhabit has no concept of good or evil, things just occur due to other things. Perhaps the child would have no cancer if we were better at things, either better at not polluting or better at medicine. The child would see heaven regardless.

>>17875528
>Translation: shut the fuck up and obey.
So you don't think it falls on man to eliminate the evils of his own manufactured society and create true equality and thus peace among all? It certainly sounds like something we're capable of. Heck Star Trek figured it out decades ago.

We are not beasts. We are humans. Our Nature is to reason. And in reason we find morality.

>>17875591
lmao

>>17875581
>The mortal universe that we inhabit has no concept of good or evil, things just occur due to other things.
Where did the cancer come from if not God, and if not God, why didn't he stop it? You aren't answering the main questions here.

>Is he willing, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
>Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

>The child would see heaven regardless.
So why have the child suffer at all?

>So you don't think it falls on man to eliminate the evils of his own manufactured society and create true equality and thus peace among all?
Is this an argument in favor of God? Doesn't sound like it. I can personally feel that it is up to us to improve our lot, and it doesn't require belief in a nonsensical, or malevolent, or weak God.

>>17875591
You can't be this naive.

>>17875486
>Christianity
Bullshit and full of spooks. Ultimately baseless if it isn't Islam.

>>17875497
Of course. See: Transhumanism

>bugmen arguing about cancer in children
every time

>>17875631
You said humanism, though.

>Christians can't refute Epicurus
every time

>>17874028

Asking the real question for this edgy OP.

>>17875472
I have followed those beliefs and got nothing. So why I should give importance to your beliefs much more than atheists beliefs?
And logical conclusion to atheism isn't just nihilism. That's just one interpenetration of it.

>>17874058
>>17874065
>a mind virus
>telling you to marry, have kids, be mentally healthy, be good to your neighbors
>vs
>a mind virus telling you to never have children, cut off your cock and balls, stick your dick in poopholes, take psychotropic medication

>>17875631
>y-yeah but you're full of shit too!
Okay, religions contradict each other, but at least their morality is based on a valid ultimate principle.

>>17875649
Already refuted. He's refuted in every thread.

>>17875647
For people of other religions there is no difference between you and atheists. You are an atheist for them because you don't believe in their true God.

>>17875661
>That's just one interpenetration of it.
It is the only true conclusive interpretation.

>>17875670
>based on a valid ultimate principle.
These are empty words for people of other religions. They would say that those are false principles.

>>17875674
Not true. There is a common ground, particularly in Abrahamic religions.

>>17875678
According to whom?

>>17875688
Of course not. Muslims openly say that Christians will go to hell and they follow a false prophet and false values.

>>17875664
you dumb kant are you seriously making consequentialist argument for god?
would you be content if I'd said belief in unicorns lowers the murder rate, it will a perfectly fine argument for unicorns? JEBUS CHRIST GET REAL!

>>17875701
*Not false prophet but Jesus isn't not the Son of God

>>17875623
>Where did the cancer come from if not God
Nature, of which God is mostly hands-off. And again, nature is not fundamentally evil, getting cancer at 2 years old isn't evil, it's just unfortunate.

>able
>willing
This is always so tiresome to read because it's posted from the perspective of a dopamine-riddled mortal who is overly attached to his carbon body and thinks that God is his flesh's personal babysitter.

>>17875623
>So why have the child suffer at all?
Because he was born at the wrong place/wrong time and possibly of poor generic aptitude.

>>17875623
>Is this an argument in favor of God?

God gave us our world and flesh. We're the ones who fucked things up for everyone, not him. You clean up your own messes like an adult.

>>17875729
>it's posted from the perspective of a dopamine-riddled mortal who is overly attached to his carbon body and thinks that God is his flesh's personal babysitter.
Then why he should be concerned about the individual actions of such a petty little creature?

>>17875674
>>17875686
We're talking about the validity and hypocrisy of morality without God. Religions and spiritual systems have a validly based morality within themselves, regardless if they contradicts other religions and spiritual systems. Atheist do not. That's the point. Your argument now is just 'you too', which, besides being not true, doesn't change the point.

>>17874007
if there is a god why do morals even matter?

>>17874007
God exists, but everything is already permitted. If you reduce God to the schema of morality, then you give too much authority to your own "will". In reality there is only one will, God's, and our "will" is merely the choice of whether or not we devote ourselves to God. There are many instances where obedience to God is not necessarily the moral thing. In any case, reducing God to moral decision-making only shows that you're obedient to your detached human concept of religion rather than God.

>>17875749
Your "God" or transcendental standards literally means nothing for the people of other religions. Just like you justify morality on the basis of your God atheists justify their morality on the basis of common understanding and for the love of their God which they call humanity. Just like Christianity adopted the cosmology and morality from previous religions, atheism adopted morality from previous religions and there is nothing that they should feel guilty about. If you want to call out atheism on topic then call out every other religion which did the exact same thing.

>>17875747
>Then why he should be concerned about the individual actions of such a petty little creature?
Your actions throughout life temper your soul and then you'll determine for yourself whether you want to enter heaven. Those with too much sin, or those who are pained by the existence of God will choose to lock themselves up in Hell.

>>17874103
All of them are either based on the inherent dignity of human beings and are thus merely secularized religions or are based on utilitarian bugman materialism and are thus feeble like straws. Nice try though

>>17875782
The difference is "humanity" is not an actual transcendental standard. We cannot derive absolute meaning from ourselves. The religious basis is valid.

>>17874007
>no better than beasts
insolence. why would anyone believe that we are better than beasts to begin with?
>better
there have been cases of hunans who behaves worse than "Beast".
>better
that means good which implies bad which implies a set values. His claims fails to understand the power of language.
>like beasts anything goes
considering his retoric, by "Beasts" he actually mean "Vermins". And most vermins are bugs rather than beasts.
Then we must consider Domesticated Beasts as well. One could argue we have been domesticated by our companies...
please, disregard all other replies above this one for they were discussing a fallacy thus amounting to nothing.

>>17875824
The difference is your "God" is not an actual transcendental standard. We can derive absolute meaning from ourselves by mutual agreement. The religious basis is not valid.

>>17875789
First you were telling people they are insignificant and now you're telling them that they are significant. What is the deal with you?

>>17874007
Junior's first foray into philosophy.

>>17875837
>arguing semantics

>>17875891
Your soul is significant, and your soul is not your brain, nor is it your body.

>>17875922
Christcuck gymnastics man

>>17875789
Why would God not retroactively save all those who choose to enter hell

>>17875891
>"God" is not an actual transcendental standard
It is, by definition. A beyond, infinite, ineffable, from our limited reason justifies the irrational ultimate good.
>We can derive absolute meaning from ourselves by mutual agreement.
Human's are fallible, limited, and stand on nothing by themselves. Our very own reasoning can always come back to distort or refute ourselves.

>>17875991
>It is, by definition. A beyond, infinite, ineffable, from our limited reason justifies the irrational ultimate good.
Yes, but my God not yours

>Human's are fallible, limited, and stand on nothing by themselves. Our very own reasoning can always come back to distort or refute ourselves.
Believers are fallible, limited, and stand on nothing by themselves. Their very own reasoning can always come back to distort or refute themselves.

>>17875973
So what happens to those with mental illness who no longer have conscious control? Do they sin?

>>17875975
God denies no one entry into his kingdom. Those in hell lock themselves in.

>>17876046
Yes, because they have free will. And there is no way a person can lose the free will.

>>17876010
>Yes, but my God not yours
This doesn't matter. Again, the contradiction between spiritual systems does not change the reasoning of their moral systems from being invalid in source. It is all an acknowledgement that morality is derived from beyond.
>Believers are fallible, limited, and stand on nothing by themselves.
Right, but they stand on God. You're an annoying faggot, quit copypaste arguing.

>>17876090
>This doesn't matter.
Of course it does. For me your God and values are nothing. Because the source of those morals, beliefs and values is invalid. It is all an acknowledgement that your morality is derived from nothing.
>Right, but they stand on God.
No, I don't consider your God a God.

>>17874013
said and done!

We have an inborn life aesthetic. Do you wanna fuck your mom? Do you want to suck your dads cock? Do you want to cut off a baby's head and shove it up your rectum?

We don't do these things because God tells us not to, but because they violate our inborn aesthetics.

Even if God does not exist, natural law objectively does exist. I would also argue that psychological principles can also be understood in terms of natural law.

If not for God, then for nature.

>>17876058
>And there is no way a person can lose the free will.
Well then I suppose we disagree.

>>17876140
How one person can lose free will? Who determine those merits?

>>17876133
>natural law objectively does exist

>>17876118
>No, I don't consider your God a God.
Okay, we seem to have the same problem over and over. I WOULD NOT CARE as a religious person if your faith disagree with the validity of mine. I can carry out my own faith's moral system with a belief of its absoluteness, without hypocrisy, because the source of that system is absolute. There are disagreements among spiritual systems but there is a consistency in that they derive morality from an absolute transcendental source. Humanism does not.

>>17876167
The absolute transcendental source means nothing to me. Just like you can create a moral system out of nothing people can create a moral system out of nothing too.

>>17876133
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>17876153
In your case, we just put a huge cock in front of you. Pretty soon, you will get the urge to suck it that completely overrides your free will

>>17876181
Whether or not it's 'out of nothing' is another thing. But at least we can admit atheist morality is essentially nothing.

>>17876205
Thank you for showing me your Christian kindness.
God bless.

>>17876214
>Whether or not it's 'out of nothing' is another thing.
No it's the same thing. Yeah we can agree the religious and atheist morality is the same thing.

>>17875672
>See my head? See how deep into the sand it's buried? It's so deep I've refuted the sky!
lol

>>17875729
>Nature, of which God is mostly hands-off.
...and where did nature come from? Try answering without moving the goalposts this time.

>it's posted from the perspective of a dopamine-riddled mortal who is overly attached to his carbon body and thinks that God is his flesh's personal babysitter.
Right, but when that dopamine-riddled mortal overly attached to his carbon body writes the Bible, suddenly it's the word of God.

>Because he was born at the wrong place/wrong time and possibly of poor generic aptitude.
Why did God do that? If he didn't, why didn't he at least stop it? If he couldn't, he isn't omnipotent; if he could have but refused to, he is malevolent. And if he could have but refused to in order to teach something, what could he have possibly taught to that child or to any other animal that suffered in isolation without any significant consequence in the world? "That's not for us to know"; so why are we talking about God at all and living according to what God wants or thinks?

>We're the ones who fucked things up for everyone, not him.
So we created cancer? We created disease, storms, volcanoes, predators larger than ourselves? To some extent, that is true, since death is a part of our perception only, but hey, God seems to want us to believe in death, because otherwise there would be no afterlife, so how are God's hands clean of this situation exactly?

>>17876214
True, but atheist morality isn’t the only form of morality that competes with Judeo-Christian morality. There was plenty of moral thought done by the polytheists. In fact, much of Judeo-Christian morality is based on polytheistic morality

>>17876153
>How one person can lose free will?
Mental illness. Try googling it for yourself next time.

>>17876236
>noo why cant I live forever in ecstasy on earth!
Disgusting. Take a look at the natural world and youll see why. You as an organism deserve no more than what a cricket gets when a bird swoops down. But as a child of God, you have so much more.

>>17876252
Why do mentally ill people lose their free will?

>>17876236
>lol
You can't even define what's good and you can't judge a God like would judge a peasant on the street. All Epicurus did was taking some logic out of his ass and then mistakenly apply it when it didn't even fit.

>>17876257
This post has absolutely nothing to do with mine, so I'll just assume you're out of ways to weasel out of the questioning. As usual, Epicurus remains unrefuted by Christians.

This could, by the way, be so much easier if you just admitted that God is evil, which is obviously the case, and that evil is good, which is a bitter but not necessarily false pill to swallow, but this goes against the message of the religion, so you can't do that.

>>17876268
>You can't even define what's good
What benefits me is what's good. There, I defined it for you.

>you can't judge a God like would judge a peasant on the street.
So God is free to do what he wants, include fucking kids in the ass from time to time, without judgment? Splendid.

>>17876264
Because they’re huge homos, that’s why

>>17876283
We had no sense of good or evil until we disobeyed and ate the fruit :^)
Our suffering is a result of knowing good and evil, its our doing :^))

>>17876291
How do the homos lose their free will?

>>17876299
Big juicy cocks

>>17876238
Why assume I'm only talking from judeo-christian morality? Maybe a problem was anon's assuming I'm arguing as some hard-liner from a single organized religion. I'm not.
>>17876231
You could say the foundation of faith's, are irrational and impossible to convey, something based on transcendent experience beyond what any human mutual agreements or reasoning's could reach. So I disagree.

>>17876302
How does BJCs make them lose free will?

>>17876307
You're transcendental experience is nothing for me. So your morality is based on nothing.

>>17876290
>What benefits me is what's good. There, I defined it for you.
What's beneficial for you might not be beneficial for me or Billy Everyman. Therefore, if you can't objectively define what's good you can't define what's malevolent and you can't say that God is malevolent.
>So God is free to do what he wants, include fucking kids in the ass from time to time, without judgment? Splendid.
Why would God perform your closeted fantasies? That has no precedent at all.

>>17876317
This isn't about you, though. The point of the matter is, there's no morality without a God. All that's left is mere sentimentality.

>>17874007
Yes.

>>17876371
This isn't about you, though. The point of the matter is, there is morality without a God. All that's left is mere sentimentality.

>>17876411
There is no morality without God. Materialism and physicalis kill morality. Science kills morality.

>>17876422
There is morality without God. Materialism and physicalists don't kill morality. Science doesn't kill morality.

>>17874058
>>17874065
This person grew up in a protestant church and kept it's worst aspects when they became an atheist.

>>17876432
Under materialism then the only difference between a man and a cockroach is the number of atoms. Everything else is shallow sentimentality. Killing a man and killing a cockroach is not fundamentally any different under this view and you can't prove otherwise.
>inb4 copying this reply and adding 'not' somewhere

>>17874007
Secular morality works as long as humans remain sacred with a decent enough justification. But materialists are basically either insane, or under heavy cope if they act as if morality still exists for them.

>>17876449
See >>17874228 >>17874221 >>17874285

>>17876449
See >>17874748

>>17876478
See: >>17874239 >>17876268
>>17876365

>>17876471
Also secular morality usually doesn't go far beyond "don't hurt other people" these days, which allows a lot of shitty things to happen, from solyent green to zoophilia.

>>17876496
>You can achieve a lot from mutual thinking.
Meme sentimental redditry
> And that's how laws were and are made. In religious wars you were allowed to rape, kill, steal etc.
muh history. See: >>17874948
>For religious people the lives of other are same as a cockroach too, even extremely wrost in the case of eternal hell and history proves this.
Inaccurate. You can save your soul from eternal fire.

>>17876499
>Just because God said so
This means nothing to me. So your morality is based on nothing.

>>17876520
>Dude that's not real Christianity even if it's written in the Bible
Kek
>Just because God said so
Meme sentimental redditry
>Inaccurate. You can save your soul from eternal fire.
Inaccurate. You can save your soul from eternal fire by believing in my religion.

>>17874007
>like beasts anything goes
Not true btw

>>17876365
>What's beneficial for you might not be beneficial for me or Billy Everyman.
Yeah, and? I wasn't talking about "objective morality" because such a thing doesn't exist.

>if you can't objectively define what's good you can't define what's malevolent and you can't say that God is malevolent.
I never said God was malevolent objectively. God is, however, malevolent as far as we are all concerned.

>Why would God perform your closeted fantasies?
My point was that we couldn't judge God for doing that, according to you. You've just enabled a monster to do whatever it wants at our expense. This is why the church committed atrocities in the past.

>>17874007
Why do you need god to have morals? I can think of right and wrong without it having anything to do with god.