/lit/ - Literature

>>18191053
True. There is no limit to man's evil. Humanity was a mistake.

>>18191053
Not an atheist but that line is pure midwittery.

His God, Christ, would still permit him to do everything. That's the point of free will.

Either way, the original quote is completely untrue. There will always be forces who will quite blatantly not allow you to express yourself in certain ways, so God is actually the only being who would give you his permission.

>>18191120
There's less limits to man's creativity.
A truly intelligent person can "Tom Sawyer" degenerates into pious results.
The race still goes on

>>18191053
https://youtu.be/WpL6SBOMxvE

>>18191130
You don't even understand the quote lol.

>>18191053
Why do atheists need to refute this? Everything is permitted if we’re talking about human action

>>18191053
It was retroactively refuted by Stirner

We exist instead of not existing so atheism is already refuted by reality

>>18191153
https://infidels.org/library/modern/andrei_volkov/dostoevsky.html

>>18191157
Not an argument.

>>18191053
I appreciate the need to romanticize the very practical, selfish reasons not everything is permitted. He’s still wrong tho. Keep dreaming sweet Dosto...

>>18191053
More like there is no rebuttal to this period.

>the only reason I'm not a monster is because I'm afraid of daddy
>religion

>>18191053

Humans aren't capable of suspending other humans in a state of eternal suffering, and so in both that respect and also to the (criticiseable) extent that we actually exist, we are better than god. But yes if you take god away then that leads to diddling kids and masturbating in your own feces and reading Harry Potter and so forth. Even so, humans intersubjectively police each other to a point, though this might permit diddling kids depending on the culture (South East Asian/New Guinean culture is relatively permissive of the final taboo), but even there only grudgingly so.

If there is an all-knowing God, that means that if he says that X=Good and Y=Evil, then that is objectively true. That means some actions are truly objectively condemnable.
If there is no God, then there is no objective higher moral authority. The only moral authority I will look towards is myself. The law certainly isn't some higher and objective sense of morality. I can adopt any set of moral laws that I feel is right and, as a result, everything can be permitted. The only moral limit to my actions is my own determinations, whereas if there was a God, those actions would be objectively wrong no matter what I determined.

>>18191053
Everything is permitted, but not everything is convenient.

>>18191053
Why does there need to be a rebuttal?

>>18191309
Because it proves that God is a moral necessity.

>>18191331
Morality is inherent in us. You don't need a fucking book to tell you killing others is bad

>>18191345
lol, we have been conditioned to think murder is bad. You are an idiot if you think human beings just naturally think murder is bad.

>>18191345
lol, we have been conditioned to think murder is bad. You are an idiot if you think human beings just naturally think murder is bad. The fact that so many people are more than willing to perform crimes if they feel it is in their interest says a lot. History will show you this even more. It's not just specific outliers, but most people. If most people thought they could benefit and certainly get away with their crimes they would.

>>18191053
>if there is no God, then God permits everything
The statement makes no sense when you dig underneath it and see what it's implying. If there is no God, then there are no grounds to make any kind of universal claim as to what is permitted or not, i.e., no one can say "everything is permitted" without assuming the position of God. All you can do is lay down laws over the land you have control of, which is how it's always been anyway.

>>18191387
Yes, not to mention the many crimes in the name of god

>>18191410
Yep, people will do anything, including twisting and warping the true word of God, for their own interests.

>>18191053
"Yeah, it's fucking awesome"

>>18191387
I'm pretty sure the Bible says that gentiles and other people who are jews feel guilt for what they do wrong even because God is inside everyone(or something like that, I don't really remember). If that feeling exists, there are other ways to emphasize it other than religion.

>>18191331
The obvious reply to this is that both God and morality only exist in the human imagination. That's the point. We know how our Gods and moral philosophies - religious or secular - came into existence, so to speak, and it wasn't through the discovery or revelation of objective knowledge. Humans made it all up. That does not, however, mean that religion and moral philosophy aren't interesting or historically and philosophically significant. It just means that none of it is actually true. The majority of self-styled atheists deny this. Instead, they claim that, while moral knowledge isn't revealed to us by a higher being, it both 1) exists and 2) is attainable. Sam Harris' work concerning this topic is a perfect example of this kind of arrogant attitude that's so prevalent among atheists. The argument you're making only works on atheists who subscribe to moral realism, which is a pseudo-religious view.

>>18191053
Mercilessly filters the midwit

>>18191331
Really because I generally find murder and rape unappealing. Maybe you're just a shitty person.

>>18191153
this shit is cringe, how do you miss the point so hard

>>18191499
Besides, some of Dostoevsky's other main points kind of debunk his own quote. While everything may be "permitted" in the moral sense if there is no God, his disbelieving characters still experience the guilt that comes after doing something that is considered to be immoral by themselves or others. They also face consequences in the form of ostracization, criminal punishment, psychological breakdowns and so on. Who cares if "everything is permitted" if there is no God? That sounds like a thirteen-year-old atheist having a eureka moment. Humans will find an excuse to believe in some kind of moralty no matter what. While the so-called death of God did lead to a change in people's morality, it didn't shake most people's delusions concerning the existence of "morality" itself. The moral rules changed, but the dogmatic belief in morality persisted.

>>18191345
Tell that to billions of sub-humans living in shitholes

>>18191153
Confirms Zizek is a con-man.

>>18191581
Yes instead it has created a society in continual cope and contradiction.

>>18191153
Theists blown the FUCK out

>>18191171
Yes, it is an argument. Even if you are free to do evil, it is still evil by the measure of God. Without God there is not that measure.

>>18191053
Everything is permitted even if there is a god.

>>18191153
didn't know zizek was this much of a retard wow

>>18191579
>>18191603
>>18191702
He's right though

>>18191120
I think Dosto was saying that if there is no God then there is no such thing as morality and hence no such thing as evil, not that without a God man would be infinitely evil.

>>18191199
>heh sky daddy doesn't exist lmaoing at christcucks
>why shouldn't we murder and rape each other? Ummmm... because it's bad, do I have to explain this?
>why is it bad? It just is, ok!

The reasons atheists are almost always bootlickers of the state is that divinity and morality are inseperable, and since they don't believe in God, their morality comes from human constructs and the state, so they worship those things.

>>18191715
Nah ur dumb

>>18191568
I don't find it unappealing, but I find it abhorrent. Doesn't change the fact that its how 90% of the population would behave.

>>18191160
The sublime art of the retroactive refutation is preserved only for Guenon (pbuh)

>>18191130
hnnnngggggggg

Who is this chick? Where can I find more?

(make this post related to /lit/ so the mods don't delete this post)

And uhh Dostoevsky, yes. Yes, mighty fine good author, if I do say so myself. One has only to recall the brilliant conversation between Raskolnikov and Porfiry the detective, of course.

I just wonder which character Dostoevsky himself related to more. Raskolnikov or Porfiry.

Anyway, who is that chick, bro? And where can I find more?

>>18191499
>Sam Harris' work concerning this topic is a perfect example of this kind of arrogant attitude that's so prevalent among atheists. The argument you're making only works on atheists who subscribe to moral realism, which is a pseudo-religious view.
I'd say it is the overwhelming dominant attitude amongst atheists.

>>18191153
>arbitrary human interpretations of God's will = the metaphysical reality or non-reality of God's will
this misses the point

Something about this quote brings out the fucking midwit in everyone both defending and attacking it and I don't know why

>>18191581
IDK man, millions of people in third world shitholes think everything is permitted as long as it serves their interests and feel no guilt as a result.

>>18191715
>hedonism is the abuse of natural phenomena like sex and drink
>"well if it makes you happy, then anything can be hedonism"
I thought Nietzsche was smarter than s m h

Being atheist is just too boring, though.

I mean, if you can believe in something higher, even if there isn't, that seems far more magical of a life to me than the alternative of having a logically bleak view of absolutely everything.

I fuck with the boy Dosto for this reason.

>>18191053
>>18191153
Dostoyevsky and Zizek are saying the same thing but from opposite ends
Dostoyevsky: you need a god to maintain something as non-permissible. Godless people are "free" to do anything but this is a cursed freedom where all acts are ultimately meaningless
Zizek: you can't justify an act unless you have a god. Godless people are "free" to do anything but don't have the freedom of being sanctioned by an eternally true idea.

>>18191861
>hedonism is the abuse of natural phenomena
Right, and theists use faith to commit the greatest amount of abuse of natural phenomena humans are capable of.

>>18191836
>millions of people in third world shitholes
billions of people in the world
fixed that for you

>>18191594
I am curious, what is human to you? Is it someone that can build a fire with two sticks, build shelter? Is it a scientist that looks at the night sky and sees both large spheres of nuclear reaction and the belt of Orion? Is a human one with woven textile cloth on their body, smeltered metals dug out of a mine...turned into gears created generations that keep an accuracy of something called "time"? Or is human beyond what we understand or know?

>>18191932
thanks

>>18191730
Hm....i wonder if your Great grandfather saw God as he had to fend off bullets and bomb-shells in the Second World War? Did your Great Grandmother think of God as she had to go without meat in her diet or tear her favorite blanket into strips, to make bandages for the troops that may be only a few towns away or a continent away?

>>18191053
dostoyevski didnt say this. its a quote from smerdyakov in brothers karamazov. the fictional character who believes this is a psychopath

>>18191153
>literal unintelligible babble
How did this retard get popular from videos? It's impossible to understand him.

>>18191967
Well, only a psychopath could make full use of everything is permitted.

>>18191053
SNIFF
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37RLn28mrLU

>>18191967
And 'don't be a psychopath mantra' is the only alternative to 'God' in creating morality, just as great Fyodor showed us in his great book.

>>18191158
Theists pretend this rebuttal never happened

>>18191961
what the fuck are you talking about
you fucking schizo? If your argument is "even without god, evil exists," then you just BTFO yourself because evil necessarily implies a morality, and if there is a morality inherent in human beings, then GUESS what the fuck THAT is? Use your little pea-brain to think real hard about how badly you just played yourself

>>18192095
>what the fuck are you talking about
>you fucking schizo?

This is the go to for people who lack basic intelligence.

>>18192113
>oh no he's right better ignore his entire post and act like a disingenuous retard

>>18191158
>>18192082
Everything is "permitted" but things are punished and viewed as bad with god/dharma/religion whatever you want to call it. You relativist retards have literally no argument against murder/ crime whatever. Might makes right, it's just nature! Whoever holds the power makes the rules!

>>18192113
embarrassing post.

>>18191053
Yes, there is no cosmic/divine morality. That doesn't change the fact that morality as a product of valuing agents (us) is still crucial to the success (or demise) of our societies.

Now if average people are more likely to behave morally if they believe in the lie of divinity, then I don't begrudge them it... But let's not pretend this quote is anything but a platitude.

>>18192152
Yes we do. It’s the common sense of the golden rule. I am against murder under most conditions. Guess what? Murders, senseless murders are committed even when there is a world full of god believers.

>>18191861
Confirmed for knowing nothing about epicureanism

>>18192204
Murder feels good tho

>>18191053
>character that said that phrase literally went mad
/lit/ not reading, what a surprise

>>18192221
Only people in /lit/ who reads are in that genre thread.

>>18191864
You seriously think the universe is too boring by itself?

>>18191530
The midwit that doesn’t read because the best characters in the book are literally ecclesiastic

>>18192152
Well wouldn't that be the case for g*d as well? He makes the rules, because he's the big omnipotent guy, right? Do religious texts typically make exhaustive philosophical arguments for moral pre/proscriptions or to they tend to stick to divine command (i.e. do this or burn in hell)? Honestly, your obliviousness is hilarious.

The only people who even bother to make detailed moral arguments are those philosophers who aren't content to leave their moral frameworks up to the whimsy of the 'divine' (whether they believe in g*d or not).

The obvious argument against rampant murder and crime is that it's maladaptive at some point... When you're just warring small tribes then it might be advantageous to do it to the other guys but not your own tribe, and when we graduate to civilizations it would destroy social trust. What's your argument against it? Because g*d said so? Ok, brainlet.

>>18191967
wasn’t it Ivan that suggested it to Smerdyakov?
Ivan is not necessarily a psychopath, more like an utilitarian. Smerdyakov is just deranged because he was born from the town’s retard.

>>18192221
Also
>lifehack quotes

>>18191499
If one's moral philosophy is grounded in the evolution and biology of our species, then I don't see how that's just "made up". That's about as objective as one can get.

>>18191053
I have never understood why this quote is so controversial. Why can't all actions be determined by a cost/benefit analysis? Why do we actually need to believe in good and evil?

>>18192315
>Why do people believe in ARBITRARY VALUE? Why can't we all agree that ARBITRARY VALUE is better?

1. Dostoevsky never said that, one of his characters did.

2. "Permissable" in this case is also often translated to "Lawful"

this invalidates 90% of the posts in this retard thread

>>18192483
>judging actions by their material consequences
>judging actions according to the whims of a semite on a stick
Yes, totally equivalent.

>>18192315
Benefit = Good and Cost = Evil. You still need to decide which is which. Read Euthyphro and begin your journey of awakening.

>>18192291
I think when he says it’s not real he means it’s not an a priori concept. It relys on subjective human experience to understand the concept of morality.

>>18191429
the bible says that god will kill all nonjews after he created them

>>18192291>>18192549

>our species,
there is no ''our''


I am amazed how atheists have turned genes into the new god. Make me laff when they say their dad was a fish too.

Guess which theory is true according to ''them''

theory 1 : humans descent from humans, which is verified at every human birth

theory 2: humans descent from a fish, then a monkey, yet it was never observed and fish today dont become monkeys and monkeys today dont become humans, just trust me bro


hhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Ho and btw, they did the same with their bigbang

you believe a uncaused bigbang with the size of rice grain created the whole universe, then your granddaddy was a fish, then you daddy was an ape.


yes the bigbang is purely theoretical. nobody ever experienced a bigbang and nobody did a bigbang in a controlled lab.

bigbang= claim that there is a universe [placeholder for ''everything'', universe was never observed in a lab]+claim that universe is expanding+claim of conservation of energy+reversing time in some mathematical model

there is a cause for the bigbang or there isnt. so far science says there is not, ie bigbang= god

>>18191568
>>Really because I generally find murder and rape unappealing.
>>18191786
>>I don't find it unappealing, but I find it abhorrent
Only because you have been educated this way.

if you were born 300 years ago, you would not hold this view, especially about rape like all feminists do today.

>>18192219
Only to degenerates.

>>18191130
Love her happy trail

>>18191961
>Great grandfather saw God as he had to fend off bullets and bomb-shells in the Second World War? Did your Great Grandmother think of God as she had to go without meat in her diet or tear her favorite blanket into strips, to make bandages for the troops that may be only a few towns away or a continent away?
I'm sorry sweaty, but WW1 and WW2 were created by the atheists and according to them science is true, ie humans are just a bunch of atoms in an empty cosmos. There is no meaning to life beyond following orders of the atheist bureaucrats controlling the military and the general population.

So when your Great grandfather saw some humans being killed, he knew that it's only some star matter being untied and by the principle of conservation of energy, this matter will go back to being dust and then 5 billions later it will be burnt by the sun expanding and killing all the remaining meat.
Then there will be the heat death of the universe.

>>18192315
>Why can't all actions be determined by a cost/benefit analysis? Why do we actually need to believe in good and evil?
Because Atheists have created the dogma that all humans have human dignity, even though it's not a scientific valid, so they are scared to fall into the relativism that they created after they rejected theism.

>>18192676
I have to assume this is bait. This post does not resemble a response to the two quoted posts

>>18191130
*holds back vomit*
fuck off
im 100% sure this is a white guy who fetishizes goblinas

>>18191130
>His God, Christ, would still permit him to do everything. That's the point of free will.
Have you ever heard of the Christian concept of afterlife, little brainlet?
>His God
yours as well friend...

>>18192817
YHVH and his "son" Yeshua are only your god if you're a jew or submit to jews.

I can not believe I have to deal with all these religious nutcases again. When did this happen?

>>18191821
Newfag kys

>what is divinely commanded genocides, thought control and pedophilia and are they common within Abrahamic religions

>>18191053
brb
>>18192676
ever heard of the theory of very small variations?
>>18192683
some instinct to behave socially well
>>18192709
this was the humanist project, from Comte and others, to substitute the ancien regime ways for secular morality
>>18191053
if something is not permitted, there is a God
God's finality is deontic, has been, will continue to be. Gives us the no-doubt in attitude, so envyed, allows us to act with certainty and purpose, from not needing to think, and just knowing how to act. I only think if I'm in doubt. This is how it's supposed to be. Doubt and thought are meant for transitions, for agitated times, not meant to be permanent. God's cultural purpose is dispelling doubt and allowing us to lead a happy life in a community where all myths are integrated. The ancients never expected anyone to discover the mysteries of nature that we have, so the details by which now we disprove the "creator verb" among other things are irrelevant. They never expected the sincretism from cultures meeting each other either.

So, yes, the duties implies by the existence of God would serve as social glue, morality would belong to the world, and not be a fiction. Since that is not the case, what else is left? See, there's no more categorical imperative "thou shall not kill", there's only... conditional imperative. If you kill, you shall be killed/arrested. You do not wish to be killed/arrested, therefore you shall not kill. Notice the keyword "wish". It is your will to live and avoid pain etc that determines this, and it isn't God who is dealing punishment, but mere men. In the same sense also to pleasure, you are open to bargaining. It is secular morals, without a guide, and if you're enough of a monster to avoid punishment, yes, it is all permitted.

But, as Plato would argue, this leads certain flaws of character that would cause a certain disharmony in the body.

>>18191053
>If God doesn't exist that would be scary, therefore God exists
Fantastic argument

>>18192982

That isn't the fucking suggestion of the thing. t. atheist who rejects god and who has read Dostoevsky

>>18191053
Hypocrisy is in human's nature

>>18191053
Everything is permitted in the world we live in. The only laws that matter are the laws of physics. Is this proof against the existence of god? This isn't how reduction and absurdum works. This is an appeal to emotions.
Why are you like this?

>>18192982
The argument is actually pointing out the fundamental irrationality of most atheists, not proving God exists. Most atheists will still become enraged and seek to physically punish when someone acts according to their own notion of what is right or wrong. They essentially create a surrogate God based on their own personal inclinations in order to excuse their own sadistic behaviour.

>>18191153
Zizek is radlib moralfag. He wants to usurp Christianity because he worships gay browns like all liberals.

>>18192817
Does the existence of prison make breaking the law immoral? This is just advanced hedonism.

>ITT Theist moral objectivists and Atheist moral objectivists fail to come to any reasonable conclusion because they fail to realize that their shared belief structure; moral objectivism, has even less evidence than the existence of god
In fact, even if god exists, there is no reason why that would make morality "true".

>>18193571
>When god punishes, he is just
>when an atheist punishes, he is sadistic
Of course.

>>18193605
Men are finite, temperamental and fallible, God isn't. If God exists, then there is an objective standard by which to judge actions, otherwise there isn't. So in this sense, Christians are more rational on the moral plane than atheists because their morals are grounded in something more than psychological complexes. That is basically what it means.

>>18191836
Most of those people are deeply religious, anon, so what is your point? That religious people, who believe in God, can also be immoral? If that's the case, you're right.

>>18193603
based. Moral objectivism, religious or not, is toddler tier philosophy

>>18193661
Why is there an objective standard by which to judge actions if God exists?

>>18192532
Yes, actually. Judging actions by their material consequences and judging them according to some made up God are both arbitrary.

>>18192315
>Why can't all actions be determined by a cost/benefit analysis?
Stuff like this makes me embarrassed to be an atheist

>>18191199
>the only reason I'm not a monster is because I'm afraid of daddy
That's not what he was saying at all. He's saying that without god there is no objective morality, not that there is no morality altogether.

>>18192226
He probably does. This is the extent to which religious indoctrination poisons people's minds

>>18191199
What's the point of being an atheist if you're just going to moralfag even harder than the christcucks? Holy shit, liberals are exhausting. Why are you like this?

>>18191153

>>18192113
Big oof

>>18192221
kek

>>18193685
Because God IS that standard, by definition. By even hypothetically affirming his existence, you are explicitly affirming that objective standard.

Why would atheists need a rebuttal? What he's saying is true.
t. atheist

>>18193725
By whose definition? Why am I objectively affirming "that" objective standard by hypothetically affirming God's existance?

Ivan was insane and his hallucinatory devil was a pretty funny guy

>>18193734
Because God IS moral perfection. If He isn't, then he's not God. It's not a matter of "who's definition", it's the definition implicit in the concept to anyone who invokes it. One can't define God as merely a unicorn, because then it is no longer God. Likewise one cannot include under the definition of God moral imperfection or absence of morality, because then it is no longer God, by definition.

>>18193751
If god is just a synonym for moral perfection then proving the existence of a big man in the sky wouldn't prove the existence of god and proving the existence of god/moral perfection wouldn't prove the existence of a big man in the sky. It's also a very different definition from the entity in the Bible, the Koran and every other holy text and is therefore inaccurate.

>>18193751
God defines everything. If God does it, it must be moral, then?

>>18193751
Why don’t we have slavery anymore, then? God seems to be pretty okay with that, was he wrong, or did he change his mind?

>>18193772
Liberalism is a religion with less evidence than Christianity. Why are you like this?

>>18193777
That has nothing to do with what I posted. Is slavery wrong, yes or no? God approves of it in the Bible, so if slavery is wrong, is God wrong?

>>18193709
morality here just means ''things i like''

>>18193787
>if slavery is wrong, is god wrong
Why would slavery be wrong if god approves of it and god is to be viewed as the moral arbiter? This is what I meant as you being a follower of the liberal religion. Christians have a 2000 year old book. You have absolutely nothing except retarded quips.

>>18193772
>God seems to be pretty okay with that
How so? Our planet is deteriorating as we speak. Slavery is superior to our modern capitalist/liberal system where even the lowest among us are treated as individuals with an Aristotelian "inner sovereign".

>>18191053
of course everything is permitted. the only thing you HAVE to do is die

>>18192204
>the golden rule
>anarcho-butters unironically believes this

>>18191053
>150 years later christcucks are still braindead trolls
Can you get the fuck off /lit/ already illiterate twerp

>>18192152
So might makes right is stupid... unless we're talking about god-levels of might, in which case it's sacred and makes total sense?

>>18192204
Based

>>18192226
Not at all. I think when you seriously consider the Universe, you end up inevitably considering something like God. To me, having an atheistic view of the Universe reduces everything to mere data or information which results in a bleak and boring view.

>>18193806
>Why would slavery be wrong if god approves of it and god is to be viewed as the moral arbiter?
Would you accept being someone else’s property based on this line of reasoning?

>>18193815
And if it were applied to you, you’d have no problem with it whatsoever?

>>18194367
What did God say about treating the slaves? I think there is a difference between being abused as a slave like niggers in america and being a mere servant. Do slaves have certain rights according to the OT?

>>18194394
>What did God say about treating the slaves?
Why does that matter? It’s someone owning someone else. I don’t give a shit if the master treats his slave well, it’s still the master’s property, and if God’s law is apparently perfect, why is owning people not considered moral anymore? Was God wrong?

>>18191053
All you have to do to refute atheism as anything to be taken seriously is just to ask "why" until they can come up with a logical justification for their beliefs. Protip: they can't because at the core their beliefs are grounded only in emotion. They believe what they do because it feels right, not because of any scientific or logical justification.

>>18191053
yeah... no
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmrpiCsuv6w

>If there is a God, everything that the leaders of the church want is permitted
That's the refutation

>>18194577
dumbest post in this thread

>>18192152
>god/dharma/religion
You just clustered together 3 different things each with it's own implications

No they say "if you need a book to tell you not to be evil, you're a horrible person" i.e strawman shame you into submission. To an atheistically minded person, the simple response to this is "the only reason to not do evil under atheism is in order to 1) not be negatively affected by it directly (through social punishment, lets say) and 2) not feel the shame and guilt which we feel because evolution has baked these emotions into us so that we are able to function socially". In other words, there is no basis for "not doing evil" beyond practical, selfish considerations, under atheism/scientism.

>>18194577
and the award to the biggest pseud itt goes to...

>>18191053
Permitted by whom

Wow, people still believe in moral relativism? I thought it wasn't taken seriously in Philosophy anymore.

>>18191861
If you read a book you would understand his arguments better than if you read image macros

>>18191864
>I mean, if you can believe in something higher, even if there isn't, that seems far more magical of a life to me than the alternative of having a logically bleak view of absolutely everything.

"Something higher" does not have to be an anthropomorphic deity. Religionfags will reply that their god isn't anthropomorphic by appealing to things like neoplatonists' "One" and Aristotle's "prime mover" (which are incompatible), but the fact remains that even their best thinkers, after arguing for a subtle conception of God, attach the addendum that actually a bunch of specifically human qualities were "revealed" to be true of Him.

>>18194769
me

>>18194764
>To an atheistically minded person, the simple response to this is "the only reason to not do evil under atheism is in order to 1) not be negatively affected by it directly (through social punishment, lets say) and 2) not feel the shame and guilt which we feel because evolution has baked these emotions into us so that we are able to function socially".
And?

V nice thread, my bread is almost done, please continue this circus.

>>18194764
>In other words, there is no basis for "not doing evil" beyond practical, selfish considerations, under atheism/scientism.

Is this not true of God meting out rewards and punishments?

>>18191053
>assuming it needs a rebuttal
Why shouldn't atheists agree with this?

>>18194862
Because the opposite is usually true?

>>18192315
>I have never understood why this quote is so controversial.
Because God is used instead of objective morality. That's it.

>>18191053
Not an atheist but what Dosto is saying is quite obviously false for reasons of theology. Christ came to preach repentance and forgiveness of sin, not to tell us what we should and should not do.

The theologically correct thing to say is "if there is no God, then nothing has been forgiven by Him, and we have only a wicked and self-serving humanity to rely on for mercy"

You can see here that if Dosto's God were dead, we ought to rejoice in the death of an unmerciful tyrant. But if we understand that God forgives all our sins, then His death is actually a regression into legalism. If God is dead, we cannot say forgive your brother even if he sins against you seventy-seven times. On what authority do we say such things without God?

>>18194437
Even we accepted your un-argued assertion (I don't), how would it be any different for theists?

>>18191199
No you cant have morality without christianity my fellow christians and I already agreed you can't do that

>>18194912
metaphysics is based on logic how ever you want to deny it, atheism requires break of this logic train in order to not self deconstruct

>>18194783
>Wow, there are still people who aren't perfectly obedient automatons of civilization like me? I thought we canceled those types already.

>>18191160
Refuted? Stirner would concur with what Dosto said only from the opposite side

>>18194928
So eternal torture for finite crimes is moral? Also, why are you right, and are any other religions wrong? Islam will claim the exact same thing about their beliefs

>>18194783
Tell me about the moral program that is indisputable, and if it’s Christianity, explain why you haven’t given away all your possessions to the poor like Jesus said you should

Erik Wielenberg defends objective morality as an atheist.

>>18191961
>>18192113
Cringe

>>18194966
Because biblical literalism is stupid

>>18194437
>Implying anyone needs anything else or is even capable of it.

>>18194948
And that "break" is, specifically? Stop evading.

>>18195416
I think he’s a presupositionalist. They’re bringing up meta logic. You can’t prove logic with logic, under a theistic worldview logic is justifiable because God makes it work. I don’t find this argument for God convincing, but it’s interesting to think about.

>>18191053
Even with god, everything is permitted.

>>18195481
until he kills you, just like the secular bureaucrats

>>18195529
He doesn't kill you, he doesn't intervene with earthly matters.

>>18194783
>I thought it wasn't taken seriously in Philosophy anymore.
why would the atheist academia reject relativism

>>18195059
So the Bible isn’t absolute, then? How do you distinguish the literal from the non-literal?

Also, I love how the Bible suddenly isn’t the word of God anymore when it’s applied to the faithful themselves. Tells you everything you need to know about their ‘faith’

>>18195718
I don't really understand that the bible is the word of God, except in islam. isn't the only word of God the ten commandments and whatever Jesus and God say in dialogue?

>>18192315
Because without an objective and transcendental moral code of ethics, one has to deal with utilitarian moral dilemmas like "If five people are lost at sea and starving to death on a boat, is it morally justified that four individuals collectively hold down and murder the other individual (who is unwilling to die) to eat his flesh?". In a pure cost/benefit analysis, this is morally justified, because the outcomes are four people surviving, as opposed to 0. Yet, it is clearly a situation involving an immoral act, namely the murder and cannibalism of an unwilling victim.

>>18195718
>>18195842
The Bible is interpreted in the light of Tradition by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

>>18195455
>You can’t prove logic with logic
You can to a limited extent, as the most basic kind of logic (that of apodictic truth) is necessarily true because it can't be any other way... Such as in the case of being certain of your own existence (and the brute fact of existence in general). So at the very least, non-contradiction holds. Subsequent layers of logic may not be likewise apodictic, but since we don't actually have any other means of reasoning (everyone thinks logically, the difference being how rigorously they do so), the question of certainty would seem to be moot.

Justification is another matter. Pragmatic efficacy is sufficient for justification, and logic provides it in spades.

>>18195915
Not that anon, but I find this rhetorical tactic of oversimplyfing utility calculations very tiresome. It is easy to imagine there being a social utility in having the kind of people who would rather go out together (at least on a small scale like that) rather than kill the unwilling. The comprehensiveness of utilitarian ethics is only constrained by the amount of variables one can apprehend, and those who propose otherwise are displaying a (frequently disingenuous) failure of imagination.

You're also conflating objectivity with universality. Utilitarian ethics are arguably objective in a way less empirical moral codes can never be. It is entirely possible that morality is objectively non-universal.

Now if you're saying that average people can't relate to complex moral calculations (and so sophisticated philosophy may not be the most pragmatic moral vehicle), I'd agree... But that's a very different argument.

>>18196176
The point is that two different utilitarian philosophers could give two wildly different answers to such a moral dilemma, whereas transcendent objective morality provides a firm and unshakeable code which is universally comprehendible and applicable by all who know its tenets. Utilitarianism is purely subjective, at the end of the day, and will lead to a society of moral relativist hedonists.

>>18191053
No table of the law ever descended from the sky to tell us that everything is permitted. Permission is a transcendance and atheists deny any transcendence.

>>18191967
Has anyone here even read the fucking book? It’s Ivan. And he even goes as far as to say that
>evildoing should not only be permitted to man but even should be acknowledged as the most necessary and most intelligent solution of every godless person

The fucking kneejerk midwit responses in this thread are appalling.

>>18196480
Since we're all such idiots and we are thankful to have someone as wise as you, my good sir, would you mind kindly letting us know which page number or even chapter you are referring to for this supposed quote by Ivan?

>>18196269
>two different utilitarian philosophers could give two wildly different answers
No they couldn't, not if they had access to the same breadth of information and were being logically rigorous. Even if said philosophers themselves belonged to morally divergent populations, they would be able to assess the objective facts of each other's circumstances and come to similar conclusions about what is non-universally optimal (or at least heuristically attainable) for those groups.

>Utilitarianism is purely subjective
Quite the opposite, as it relies upon matters of objective fact to inform it. Subjectivity would be constructing a moral system from non-empirical axiom(s) chosen by its originator, regardless of how universally idealized it is in the abstract. Again, you can't seem to understand the difference between objectivity and universality (the latter possibly being an idealized concept which has no real manifestation).

We are all already hedonists. We are all driven to act and reason—in every instance—by the impulse to improve the way we feel in some way or the other, whether you want to admit it or not.
The only question remaining is how efficaciously different moral models pragmatically function in the long term (which I would accept as an argument against utilitarianism, as opposed to your completely incorrect ontological assertions).

PAGE 589 IN THE PEVEAR-VOLOKHONSKY TRANSLATION
BOOK XI, CHAPTER 4, A HYMN AND A SECRET

>And Rakitin doesn't like God, oof, how he doesn't! That's the sore spot in all of them! But they conceal it. They lie. They pretend. 'What, are you going to push for that in the department of criticism?' I asked. 'Well, they won't let me do it openly,' he said, and laughed. 'But,' I asked, 'how will man be after that? Without God and the future life? It means everything is permitted now, one can do anything?' 'Didn't you know?' he said. And he laughed. 'Everything is permitted to the intelligent man,' he said. 'The intelligent man knows how to catch crayfish, but you killed and fouled it up,' he said, 'and now you're rotting in prison!' He said that to me. A natural-born swine! I once used to throw the likes of him out—well, and now I listen to them.

>Without God and the future life? It means everything is permitted now, one can do anything?' 'Didn't you know?' he said. And he laughed. 'Everything is permitted to the intelligent man,' he said.

Many of you are grossly misrepresenting what Dostoevsky is actually saying in the novel in this particular part. (Re-)Read it for yourself to grasp the essence on your own. The idea of everything being permissible AS IT RELATES TO God and human intelligence, as Dostoevsky is discussing it here, is far more nuanced than the crude summary that many of you have put forward.

>>18196670
And you're welcome.

/thread

>>18192113
keep reading

>>18191130
who is she

>>18195940
Weird how you need an entire apparatus to interpret what the direct word of the creator of the universe actually means. You’d think that’d be crystal clear, since the work itself makes it clear that people agreeing with it is essential. Also, you still don’t address why you need 50 layers of reinterpretation and reevaluation when biblical principles are applied to you, yet none of this careful examination and reexamination is present when biblical principles are applied to someone other than you, almost like benefits are more important than morality or something

>>18196869
Because language is a cloak. The cloaks must be taken off to see and witness the Word.

>>18195940
>The Bible is interpreted in the light of Tradition by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

No comma is needed between the One and Holy.

>>18196665
>No they couldn't, not if they had access to the same breadth of information and were being logically rigorous. Even if said philosophers themselves belonged to morally divergent populations, they would be able to assess the objective facts
I believe you are incorrect in this assertion, because utilitarian ethics are not based around some objective measure, like a blood serum sampling of serotonin of all agents involved, but some form of subjectively-designated end ("happiness" or "well-being" or "pleasure"), which will be affected by the cultural presuppositions of the philosophers (eg. a scholastic Catholic and a post-revolutionary French would have different socio-cultural perspectives on the utilitarian value of sexual intercourse, and so would assess a given situation involving it differently).

>as it relies upon matters of objective fact to inform it.
Please share some examples of objective facts which utilitarian philosophers are able to analyze in their decision-making process on moral dilemmas such as the one I outlined previously?

>We are all already hedonists. We are all driven to act and reason—in every instance—by the impulse to improve the way we feel in some way or the other,
You speak for yourself. There are some individuals who have clearly taken actions which go against their feelings of well-being and comfort, such as self-sacrifice for strangers, martyrdom, self-flagellation as penance, severe asceticism in various religions, accepting torture over selling out the location of team-members, etc.

>>18196665
>No they couldn't, not if they had access to the same breadth of information and were being logically rigorous. Even if said philosophers themselves belonged to morally divergent populations, they would be able to assess the objective facts
I believe you are incorrect in this assertion, because utilitarian ethics are not based around some objective measure, like a blood serum sampling of serotonin of all agents involved, but some form of subjectively-designated end ("happiness" or "well-being" or "pleasure"), which will be affected by the cultural presuppositions of the philosophers (eg. a scholastic Catholic and a post-revolutionary French philosopher would have different socio-cultural perspectives on the utilitarian value of sexual intercourse, and so would assess a given situation involving it differently).

>as it relies upon matters of objective fact to inform it.
Please share some examples of objective facts which utilitarian philosophers are able to analyze in their decision-making process on moral dilemmas such as the one I outlined previously?

>We are all already hedonists. We are all driven to act and reason—in every instance—by the impulse to improve the way we feel in some way or the other,
You speak for yourself. There are some individuals who have clearly taken actions which go against their feelings of well-being and comfort, such as self-sacrifice for strangers, martyrdom, self-flagellation as penance, severe asceticism in various religions, accepting torture over selling out the location of team-members, etc.

>>18194783
>moral relativism has been disproved with facts and logic, goy. Transgenderism is objectively morally righteous.

>>18194367
No, because it is not my desire to be someone else's slave. Morality is irrelevant. This is pure self-interest.

>>18194091
It isn’t a matter of believing it. It’s simply psychologically logical. You want to be treated fairly by others, treat these others well. Want to start a fight, push.

>>18196882
Right, or you’re just an inauthentic fraud. After all, if you weren’t, you’d be acting, not preaching

>>18197271
The happiness and/or health of a society is objectively measureable to a useful degree of accuracy, via the aggregation of various metrics (e.g. reproductive trends, genetic and phenotypic health, cultural optimism, social trust, political polarization, divorce/single motherhood rates, and so on). The happiness/health of any particular individual is not what morality is concerned with; rather it's about what behaviours are adaptive for the collective.

Pleasure/satisfaction is not a subjectively designated end, it is the end to which we all necessarily strive. The observation that one person's or even an entire population's 'pleasure system' functions differently than another's isn't subjective either.

>There are some individuals who have clearly taken actions which go against their feelings of well-being
This simply isn't possible. All actions we take are to achieve some kind of satisfaction, even if only psychological and fleeting. We can definitely be wrong in our assessments of the efficacy of those actions, but we are not capable of acting out of any other fundamental motivation.

You haven't examined these topics as thoroughly and critically as you think you have. My advice would be not to bother... If you cleave to some axiomatic moral system and that helps you to behave more decently, then just be content with that. You don't have to make an ontological case for it (there isn't one anyway), the pragmatic efficacy is justification enough.

>>18197569
Not that anon. But I'll explain it better.

"Do what is pragmatically helpful to society" is the axiom utilitarianism is founded on.
Sure, you can logically measure health of a society by a certain standard, and you could possibly find out what you should do pretty accurately to achieve greater society health/happiness.
No one is arguing that it can't be internally consistent.

However, the moral axiom of utilitarianism itself cannot be justified through any sort of logic.
It's literally just a statement you have to take for granted.
Axioms can't prove themselves.

i dont need to believe to be good. i believe because i am good. live the word and you will learn who authored it

>>18197500
When you are kind to others, others will seek to take advantage of you. The golden rule does not work.

>>18197569
>The happiness/health of any particular individual is not what morality is concerned with
Which is why utilitarianism fails when dealing with the most important thing on a day-to-day basis - the interactions between individuals.

>Pleasure/satisfaction is not a subjectively designated end, it is the end to which we all necessarily strive.
I disagree. I believe that happiness is the end to which we all necessarily strive, and I do not believe happiness consists in pleasure or satisfaction. I believe that pleasure/satisfaction arise as a proper accident from that perfect good of happiness, but that in and of itself, pleasure does not constitute happiness.

>This simply isn't possible. All actions we take are to achieve some kind of satisfaction
Again, no, this is the type of bugman thinking that utilitarianism inspires in people. It is absolutely possible for people to take actions against their feeling of well-being. As I've already said, people accept brutal torture rather than giving out the information as to the whereabouts of their team-members, people undergo intense, and sometimes harmful, penances and asceticism for the express purpose of feeling uncomfortable ("bearing a cross").

>My advice would be not to bother...
Your advice is respectably rejected. Although you may believe you have it all figured out, I believe the materialist utilitarian moral perspective is insufficient in explaining and optimizing various aspects of human life, especially interpersonal relations and spiritual philosophies, especially when compared to universal, objective, and transcendent moral-ethical codes derived from theological revelations.

>>18197569
>The happiness/health of any particular individual is not what morality is concerned with
Which is why utilitarianism fails when dealing with the most important thing on a day-to-day basis - the interactions between individuals.

>Pleasure/satisfaction is not a subjectively designated end, it is the end to which we all necessarily strive.
I disagree. I believe that happiness is the end to which we all necessarily strive, and I do not believe happiness consists in pleasure or satisfaction. I believe that pleasure/satisfaction arise as a proper accident from that perfect good of happiness, but that in and of itself, pleasure does not constitute happiness.

>This simply isn't possible. All actions we take are to achieve some kind of satisfaction
Again, no, this is the type of bugman thinking that utilitarianism inspires in people. It is absolutely possible for people to take actions against their feeling of well-being. As I've already said, people accept brutal torture rather than giving out the information as to the whereabouts of their team-members, people undergo intense, and sometimes harmful, penances and asceticism for the express purpose of feeling uncomfortable ("bearing a cross").

>My advice would be not to bother...
Your advice is respectfully rejected. Although you may believe you have it all figured out, I believe the materialist utilitarian moral perspective is insufficient in explaining and optimizing various aspects of human life, especially interpersonal relations and spiritual philosophies, especially when compared to universal, objective, and transcendent moral-ethical codes derived from theological revelations.

>>18197816
Morality is inherently pragmatic though. In metaethical terms, it is the formalization of behavioural strategies that evolved to confer adaptive benefits to societies. That's what morality is. It's not an axiom, it's an empirical observation.

Ironically, the position you present is the consequence of already accepting some axiomatic definition of morality which doesn't refer to empirical reality (as best we can apprehend it).

>>18198640
>As I've already said, people accept brutal torture rather than giving out the information
You aren't thinking critically about this. Anyone who sacrifices themselves or endures hardship for some cause is deriving some psychological satisfication from behaving in accordance with their values (in this context a sense of dignity/honour/nobility).

>>18197271
>There are some individuals who have clearly taken actions which go against their feelings of well-being and comfort, such as self-sacrifice for strangers, martyrdom, self-flagellation as penance, severe asceticism in various religions, accepting torture over selling out the location of team-members, etc
You may find this hard to believe, but they are all acting in their own self-interest. In the case of the martyr, if you were not only aware, but certain, that there was going to be 72 virgins in heaven for martyrs, alongside the usual dogma that the material world is ultimately worthless, then you would have no trouble becoming a martyr yourself. Similar trains of thought can be found in all your other examples of 'altruism' and 'asceticism'.

>>18199160
>>18199229
So you two would suggest that a non-religious person jumping in front of a bullet for a complete stranger, or donating a kidney to an unknown benefactor, is by necessity doing so out of selfishness and self-interest? You would deny that a completely altruistic act is possible?

>>18199262
Yes. The completely altruistic act is a complete lie.

>>18198589
No, even then you stick to the golden rule. Being weary of tricksters and frauds is another lesson.
Have you even read the Odyssey?

>>18192204
You know, I wonder what Butters would think if we lent the Golden Rule to someone with an 'anything goes' mentality, like Stavrogin.

>>18199342

>>18199355
So your only recourse is to kick out Stavrogin? So much for your Golden Rule.

>>18199309
Sounds like a massive cope from the typical semi-sociopathic bugman who looks at every human interaction from the lens of utilitarian economic factors. A non-religious individual jumping in front of a bullet for a complete stranger, fully expecting to die and without any time to logically deliberate on the potential social rewards if he survives, could only be construed as secretly selfish by the ultimate bugman robotic NPC.

>>18191053
Everything's already permitted, it's the confines of being a created soul that's a far greater entrapment (not in the gnostic sense) than anything reductionist ethics can bring to the table. This quote is before Rudya has faith in God, his theological statements are reflections of the secular world, and not dosto's (or the book's) actual conclusion.
t. christian

I sure miss me those good times when people believed in god and didn't murder, rape, pillage and wage wars.

>>18199388
>A non-religious individual jumping in front of a bullet for a complete stranger, fully expecting to die and without any time to logically deliberate on the potential social rewards if he survives
This event has simply never happened.

>>18199388
Sir, your soýlent spilled.

>>18199379
Explain the character and the issue you have. Please.

>>18194067
>the only thing you HAVE to do is die
And be born. Take the Buddha-pill.

>>18199401
I think you meant to say:
>While neither me or the other guy can know if this hypothetical event has ever happened in the history of humankind, I happen to know with absolute certainty that it has never happened, not because of any evidence, but because if it had happened, my entire philosophy would be shown to be incorrect

>>18199414
OK butthurt bugman, not sure how it's in your enlightened self interest to waste time interjecting useless buzzwords, but you do you. The insult doesn't even make sense, because it's moral-relativist materialists who are all for cockroach milk, bug protein, and onions-based meal replacements, anyways.

I'm not gonna join the fight but there's something called ethics and people have made ethics systems for ages with out having to use GOD as an argument
I would recommend Ueber die Grundlage der Moral which is older the OPs 150 years
>this is clearly bait and good luck fighting over the right use the Nintendo switch while Tyrone handles your poly wife

>>18199438
I know what I said. It has never happened.

I will, however, confirm what has happened. Your soýlent has definitely fell over. It is spilling by the gallon as we speak.

>>18199445
>I'm not gonna join the fight but there's something called ethics and people have made ethics systems for ages with out having to use GOD as an argument
Only for the last few hundred years have they done this. God was used for most of human history.

>>18199438
>While I can never know if this hypothetical event has ever happened in the history of humankind, I happen to know with absolute certainty that it has happened, not because of any evidence, but because if it had not happened, my entire philosophy would be shown to be incorrect

>>18199473
ethics is greek its as old as the Greeks
Its in Plato's republic 375 BC the would a bit early or are you talking about Jewish ethics?

>>18199497
Plato was a religious mystic. His ethics do not make sense without the existence of The Good (which is his transcendent God), as well as the Demiurge (immanent God/creator), see Timaeus. This is why most moderns reject Plato as a valid ethical system, because he relies on transcendent assertions (The Good / God). Even the Stoics believed in God (albeit purely immanent) as the fundamental basis of their ethics. Additionally, if you cite someone like Heraclitus, it is worth noting that, while they did not assert the existence of God, they hinged upon almost equally as strange beliefs such as all matter fundamentally being driven by a conscious substrate (this is known as panpsychism).

>>18199507
I'm not gonna waste me time here. find someone dump enough to argue semantic with
>classic Homonym, god now mean gods to fit your argument
>just take the goal post and start running
>and don't act like you never heard of the where does morality and ethics come from if not from god
Its Cleary bait so for that reason I'm out

>>18191053
>Everything is permitted
>Including refusing to permit things

>>18199471
Yeah, except you have no idea whether it happened or not, fedora. You are just desperate to say that it never has, because you know a single instance of that event happening will dismantle your entire bugman economic theory. Everybody can see that you have no evidence to support your assertion - it very well might have happened, but you are so ideologically invested that you are now acting irrationally - it might not seem foolish to you, but it definitely on display for any rational entities reading this. Anyways, your fellow bugmen worker drones are the ones who drink onions, but I do appreciate the hard projection - it helps to show everybody your sociopathic, estrogenic nature.

>>18199537
You haven't read Plato, and it seems like you don't even understand the connection between the "theory of forms" and The Good in his philosophy. Plato was literally the philosophical basis for Christianity; it would never have spread through Greece in the early Roman Empire if it wasn't for him.

>>18199547
If my philosophy is so fragile that a single instance of an event can destroy it utterly, then show me the instance. Afterall, any 'rational entity' knows that the onus is not on me to prove a negative, but is instead on you to prove a positive. It should hardly be difficult to find an example in a world of 7 billion people...wait a minute...
>non-religious person
so that's maybe around a billion people, world-wide
>jumping in front of a bullet
I guess you will have to look in America
>For a complete stranger
So far, we are looking for someone, not just without religiosity, but with complete sensory deprivation
>fully expecting to die and without any time to logically deliberate on the potential social rewards if he survives
So he must have enough time to react to the event and jump in front of the bullet, whilst simultaneously having no time to consider his actions? Yes, I'm calling it from the start, this entire example is bullshit.

>>18199388
>>18199438
>>18199547
Literally the secular equivalent of Jesus' resurrection.

>>18199569
Read this again >>18199438
For some reason you fail to understand that this is not "debate" about if god/gods exist, its about your opinion
>150 years later atheists still have no rebuttal to this and the age old debate of where does morality and ethics come from
Which both are objectively untrue, proven here >>18199438
The essay is earlier then the date given by OP and is built with out the need for a god to justify ethics or morality disproving the quote
You then follow it up with yet another false statement
>Only for the last few hundred years have they done this. God was used for most of human history.
Didn't you just agree that it is as old as the greek.
I'm not gonna try to humiliate you because you did fine by yourself


Now you will try to call me names but this is my last response good luck

>>18191053
Everything is permitted because a force greater than any deity allows it.
God is simply a name given to a belief that there is only one single deity in existence by the english speaking followers of a random guy in the middle east.

>>18191646
You're implying that the deity you have given a name has a finite end with saying he is scaleable to any of us

>>18199388
You know, you were being fairly courteous before starting in with this bugman ad hominem stuff. Although lacking in philosophical acumen, you appeared to possess a refinement of character. It's a shame.

>>18199547
>Anyways, your fellow bugmen worker drones are the ones who drink onions, but I do appreciate the hard projection
Are you sure you aren't the one projecting with all that seethe?

>>18191053
Everything is permitted if there's a God to permit it. Both good and evil (mostly evil throughout history).

>>18199661
>>Only for the last few hundred years have they done this. God was used for most of human history.
This still hasn't been refuted, and are you still dumb enough to claim Plato was an ethical secularist? I hope you realize how silly your view of history is if you really believe secularist ethics have been widely popular for most of human history (which you have still provided zero evidence for apart from an appeal to Plato, which was blatantly false).

>>18199621
>So he must have enough time to react to the event and jump in front of the bullet, whilst simultaneously having no time to consider his actions?
Not only that, but to have never even entertained the idea his entire life, as we are doing now in this thread.

>240+ replies
HAHAHAHA atheists BTFO

>>18192204
Golden rule is a meme in a world where materialism rules. Darwin trumps everything in a bugman view.

>>18199547
Soýlent overdose

>>18199621
You've obviously missed the point. I brought up a hypothetical situation, which could very well have happened at some point in human history. Instead of taking the rational position of saying "If this had happened, it would be a selfless and altruistic action - however, most actions have some degree of selfishness", you have to sperg out and claim that it could NEVER have happened, even though it very well may have. It is very telling that you've chosen to take this route - it's because you dogmatically and irrationally hold to this utilitarian philosophy.

>>18199725
I am only human. I just hate this type of materialist moral-relativism that preaches the dogmatic gospel that everybody is a selfish worker drone, and that altruism cannot exist. This type of reductionist philosophy seriously damages our social cohesion and undermines the spiritual institutions that bind our society together, and I hate seeing it ironically spouted, potentially poisoning the minds of those who interact with it.

>>18199730
>>18199760
Ackshually, as Parmenides said, "He who smelt it, dealt it" - thus, he is the one who drinks onions.

>>18196665
>non-empirical axiom(s)
yeah you should lay off popsci for while
and start reading philosophy of logic and history of logic, same thing with science

>>18199735
You said god not gods you had to redefine it to cover all possible gods for your argument to work and to set up an straw man
>God was used for most of human history
I didn't claim belief didn't have any thing to do with it, just that monotheism wasn't the only kind

>>18197569
>>The happiness and/or health of a society is objectively measureable to a useful degree of accuracy, via the aggregation of various metrics (e.g. reproductive trends, genetic and phenotypic health, cultural optimism, social trust, political polarization, divorce/single motherhood rates, and so on).
Why do atheists keep saying truth lies in statistics? Is it because that's all those bugmen have?

>>18199827
Plato believed in both gods and God. Do you know what qualified monism is? Plato actually asserts that the gods are planets, and not transcendent beings as such, but that a transcendent Being does exist in the Form of the Good. Again, read Timaeus, it's all in there.

>>18199770
>You are so irrational, your philosophy is so irrational. I am, on the other hand, so supremely rational. In fact, I am gods gift to rationality!
Which is the more rational out of the two philosophies, the one that asserts that people act in view of an incentive, or the one that wishes people act because...they can? By the way, your failure to bring up an example, and your subsequent 'it was a hypothetical situation', all the while conveniently ignoring my points as to why that event could never occur in real life has not been lost on me. What you are asking for is physically impossible
>b-but it could've happe-
Never happened.
>Your just a psychopath
Didn't you know? Psychopaths are typically characterized as more rational than your usual breed of human.

>>18199770
You were the one who smelt it first, though. See >>18199388

>>18199770
a) It is not a given that such a situation has happened or could occur, and improbable hypotheticals do not make for sound ontological arguments.

b) If it did happen, the moral agent in question would be acting in accordance with their pre-established values, which leads us back to >>18199160 the psychological satisfaction from doing so (however brief).

>preaches the dogmatic gospel that everybody is a selfish worker drone
You're losing yourself in rhetorical buzz-word land. There's nothing about biologically/materially reductionist ethics which precludes us from appreciating beauty or discriminating between less and more noble actions, even if they're all driven by the same fundamental motivation. The only thing your hostility is likely to do is to alienate potential social allies among the secular, who do not agree with the status quo clown world and would work with you to fight it (albeit from a different angle).

I'm afraid you're also massively overestimating the impact of rarefied philosophy. It's the platitudes and pithy one-liners that do the real damage, e.g. "all men are created equal". The mass-immigration of divergent populations (the proponents of which are very religious and non-biologically reductionist in their thinking) does far more damage to social cohesion than reductionist ethics ever could.

>>18199862
That still doesn't change your statement
>God was used for most of human history
Didn't I tell you that belief played a role but a model with one god is not the the default in human history polytheism is.
So what does Plato's personally beliefs have to do with it other then to try to make a new argument and pretend that everything haven't already be answered ?

Is it one of you default argument that you feel strong in and is that why you try to railroad you way into it ?

I will still claim it to be a straw man because you took a argument redefine a word them claimed it could be right with the new meaning that you just add after the fact

>>18199940
I never implied the other anon was a onions drinker in that response. It was an ad-hominem that arose after that response. I don't take back any of what I said about materialist utilitarianism being a bugman philosophy.

>>18199952
https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-meet-hero-took-bullet-000022846.html
>In the middle of a gunman’s terrifying rampage, Ian stepped up to save the life of a man he’d never met
>“I wasn’t really thinking when I did that,” says Ian.
>"I was just doing what anyone should have done for another human being.”
Will utilitarians ever recover?
>inb4 "nooooo he was lying when he said he wasnt thinking, humans are always selfish, this guy was secretly super selfish for taking a bullet to the chest for a random guy in the heat of the moment"

>>18199968 me
Here's the simplify version
>one horse could fill a barn
>I disagree
>I meant all possible horse that could or would exist
>take your pills
>but this dude both have one and many horse that could fill the barn

>>18199997
>this guy was secretly super selfish for taking a bullet to the chest for a random guy in the heat of the moment
Do you actually understand what you are talking about? He said that he "was just doing what anyone should have done for another human being". If he were interrogated further, he would've most certainly brought up, in his own way, a sort of argument for virtue ethics. He only took the bullet because he didn't want to be the type of person that didn't take the bullet - that is, ultimately, a selfish motive.

>>18199997
You still haven't addressed >>18199569 or part b) of >>18199952. That fellow was obvious acting in accordance with previously established values (i.e. he had thought about the notion of self-sacrifice in a general sense). The account also doesn't tell us that much... Was he actually intending to take the bullet for the other guy, or just risking such to pull him out of the way? If he wasn't thinking at all, then what do we make of his intent? Do you view some intstinctual or conditioned response as truly altruistic? I'm sorry, but your 'gotchas' are just laughably superficial.

Oh well, showing your true colours now. Have fun with the other shit posters.

>>18200063
*>>18199621 not >>18199569

>>18200053
It's easy to say this guy was selfish for a post-hoc analysis of his actions from the safety of your room, but in reality, it was probably an extremely fast-paced, adrenaline-fueled situation with not much time to deliberate on his previous conceptions of virtue ethics, assuming he had consciously had any at all.

>>18200063
>>18200077
This >>18199621 statement does not contain any point for me to respond to. Even though I brought up the situation as a hypothetical, and was thoroughly derided for it, I was easily able to find a real-life instantiation of the hypothetical, with the altruistic actor not expressing any religious rationale for his potentially suicidal action on behalf of another person, and expressly stating that he was not really thinking when performing the action - this is still not enough, for some reason. With regards to >>18199952 point b), the burden of proof is on that anon to demonstrate that this individual had previously established a set of moral ethics, which is not self-evident, and definitely cannot just be assumed. This individual might not have ever consciously deliberated on virtue ethics in his life prior to that event.
>If he wasn't thinking at all, then what do we make of his intent?
In the event that he literally did not deliberate at all, and acted purely on adrenaline, we can definitely surmise that he was not performing a selfish action. This alone demolishes the utilitarian gospel, and yet I'm sure you will still find another armchair economist way of suggesting that this hero was actually selfish and seeking to increase his feeling of well-being.

>>18200012 also me
I did tell you to argue semantic with someone dumber it where a tip not insult and see where it has left you pic related its OP grounds he won In this sissy fight cya I'm gonna go be illiterate somewhere else now

>>18199734
This rebuttal was posted multiple times but always gets ignored. I'm convinced that monotheists are mentally incapable of grasping it.

>>18199968
The distinction between a single God or gods is irrelevant (especially when you consider that the esoteric parts of many ancient pagan religions were essentially monist - eg Hinduism), the point is that they base their views on morals in the Divine rather than the mundane. That is the entire, real purpose of the argument before I chimed in about your mischaracterization of Plato. The point is, for the vast majority of human history and civilization, Divine Power, whether singular or multifarious, has been the guiding force of human morals up until recently.

>>18199832
>statistics is all atheists have
>according to theists, known for asserting that most people are theists and that theists have higher fertility rates
I’m afraid the bugman is you

>>18199997
>>18200122
>Ian asked the harasser to leave and then escorted him out of the restaurant – but about half an hour later, the man returned with a gun and opened fire in the restaurant. When Ian attempted to approach him, he was shot.
This is only vaguely like your hypothetical. Besides the fact that was clearly not jumping in front of any stranger like you said, do you really think that, in that half-hour period, he did not get to know the two would-be victims?

>>18200212
He literally used his body to attempt to obstruct the gunshots of a man aiming at a stranger who he had, at most, known for less than a half-hour. The fact that you consider this a rebuttal to the man's clearly altruistic actions , shows that you are so thoroughly ideologically invested that you can't rationally follow the evidence where it leads. The logical position would be to admit that while most actions in human society contain some element of selfishness, altruistic actions do happen occasionally.

>>18200183
Are you still trying to prove an opinion that I never brought up?
You made a mistake and I can't see why you would think that I care about something that doesn't prove or disprove what I have actual said.
What the fuck are you doing ? Talking to yourself to try to start a new argument that I don't really care to follow you into
Every thing I have said so far has been proven.
So what do you want? Attention? This could be a symptom of an underlying personality disorder so you better remember to take your pills

>>18200122
>It's easy to say this guy was selfish for a post-hoc analysis of his actions from the safety of your room, but in reality, it was probably an extremely fast-paced, adrenaline-fueled situation with not much time to deliberate on his previous conceptions of virtue ethics
I think you were never in any fast-paced, adrenaline-fueled situation yourself. A fast calculation is still a calculation nonetheless, and it contradicts your hypothesis that a man has precisely no time to consider his actions.
>expressly stating that he was not really thinking when performing the action
Consider the word 'really'; that's him comparing the quick thinking he did in that situation with the sort of thinking done, as you say, in your room. It is not an admission that he did not think at all.
>assuming he had consciously had any at all.
If he didn't, then he wouldn't have volunteered to get shot.

>>18197569
Anything can cause pleasure or pain. See the Sramanas and Wim Hof. Thus, the metric is completely mobile. You can choose a higher goal and train your body to obtain pleasure from moving towards that goal. That's why you get pleasure from arguing on anime imageboards instead of choking to death on McDonald's.

>>18191053
Foolish to say for him to say that like it is a bad thing. But it does not require a need stop worshipping god.

>>18200255
>What do you mean 'complete stranger'? I've never said that! You are clearly the dishonest one here.

>>18199355
So your tolerance does not include those who support the interests of cishet males of European heritage? Then of what benefit is your ideology to us? It seems your use has expired.

>>18200261
>Every thing I have said so far has been proven.
Like what? You were already grossly wrong about Plato.

>>18200271
>baselessly assuming that his hypothetical calculation would have involved a consideration of virtue ethics
>baselessly assuming that the usage of the word "really" in his sentence implies that he must have intentionally performed a consideration of virtue ethics or potential social rewards prior to acting
>baselessly assuming that for an individual to perform a selfless act in the heat of the moment, they must have intentionally deliberated on virtue ethics in the past
Your prior ideological positions are clearly clouding your judgment on this matter. First, such an event was laughable, and could have never happened - now that there is an example, the goal posts are suddenly shifted so that you won't have to critically revise your bugman philosophy. It's quite apparent for anybody with eyes to see.

>>18200327
>I don't actually know how to engage with any of his arguments, so I will call him a bugman. Again
I accept your concession. No, actually, I want to know your philosophy, Mr. 'Rational entity'. What precipitates human action? I've already presented my case, tell me why this man would 'selflessly jump in front of a bullet', to put it generously.

>>18200371
>I accept your concession
Is this the NPC way of saying "I admit I was wrong and have no evidence to support my baseless claim"? I don't need to present my case, all I need to do is show that your reductionist philosophy cannot accurately explain all of reality, to all those lurking this conversation. Frankly, I find it very unpleasant to have a discussion with you, so I'm going to stop now that you've demonstrated you are out of arguments, implicitly conceding the argument. Later, bugman.

>>18200400\
>You're not allowed to declare victory, because I'm proclaiming victory first
I accept your concession.

>>18200315I'm not gonna join the fight but there's something called ethics and people have made ethics systems for ages with out having to use GOD as an argument
I would recommend Ueber die Grundlage der Moral which is older the OPs 150 years

I'm sorry I used GOD so what retard are you to try to redefine what I have said and then try to pass it of as an argument made by me that's still a strawman


You redefine god to cover all gods after this statement then told me here >>18199735 that by your!!! new meaning of the word made what i said wrong yet >>18199445 this argument still holds true unless you disagrees that A Ueber die Grundlage der Moral was written after the date given
And
B Ueber die Grundlage der Moral is some how not a ethics system without a god

Both are objectively true and covers both argument that I actual made

Where the simple version of the god/gods thing again >>18200012

Stop being a attentionwhore that preys on the midwit on /lit/
It doesn't make you look smart it makes you look pretty pathetic.but I do enjoy the sissy fights you have with people that doesn't understand your larp

>>18200408
>refuses to respond to the actual arguments presented
>just says "i win"
Luckily, your NPC opinion doesn't matter - it is only the opinions of the 80% of people who read threads without posting, that matter. I don't care if your bugman self thinks you won, the point is that the impartial observer will see that you failed to actually respond to any of the challenges.

>>18200426
What actual arguments? If you don't have a case, then I win by default.

I accept your concession.

>>18191053
Its true though. A lot of shit can be mental gymnastics to be permitted under religion though

>>18200434
I called out your three baseless assertions here >>18200327, and rather than reformulating your conjectures as actual evidence-based statements, you responded with the intellectually devastating "I accept your concession". Thus, reductionist utilitarianism was BTFO by a single selfless boi taking a bullet for a stranger. Later nerd

>>18200418 me
Op its funny that you call people bugman when it looks like you argue by instinct like how a animal or bug would function
Stimulating then reaction with no thought in between.

>>18200454
They are hardly baseless at all.
>assuming that his hypothetical calculation would have involved a consideration of virtue ethics
covered here >>18200053
Not my fault if your poor dieting choices has lead to a poor memory
>assuming that the usage of the word "really" in his sentence implies that he must have intentionally performed a consideration of virtue ethics or potential social rewards prior to acting
It proves that the contrary circumstance, him not thinking at all, is not true.
>assuming that for an individual to perform a selfless act in the heat of the moment, they must have intentionally deliberated on virtue ethics in the past
I have never assumed this, because the selfless act does not exist.

I am accepting concessions.

>>18191053
If there is a god, why is everything still permitted?

>>18191053
Permitted implies someone is there to permit it, the phrase should be that "if there is no god, then nothing is forbidden"

300 years later and we're still dealing with utilitarianism brainlets and objective morality brainlets

>>18191130
>His God, Christ, would still permit him to do everything. That's the point of free will.

Yeah, you try it and see how long you last, faggot. You know that joke people make that if you do wrong you get struck by lightning? There is truth in it. If you do wrong; wrong will follow. That's real spit- real shit, nigga.

>>18191053
why do people act like it's some great wisdom, every edgy 15 years old figures this out on their own

>>18191130
You are the actual midwit for not getting the quote

>>18192315
because you need to know what is cost and what is benefit

>>18195915
>Yet, it is clearly a situation involving an immoral act, namely the murder and cannibalism of an unwilling victim
So why is it an immoral act?

>>18199388
Why would someone take a bullet for another if they did not gain a sense of power from doing so? An individual's sense of power is complex and unique to the individual, and formed by the individual's psyche and morality, among other things.

>>18191053
A shit argument that the likes of Matt Dillahunty have refuted many a time. How have you possibly missed the 8+ years of Christcucks getting BTFO on YouTube? The debates are over; your figureheads all got destroyed.

>>18191199

Yes.

>>18202829
Which religion?

>>18191861
>I thought Nietzsche was smart
You were wrong.

>>18202774
why don't you explain his arguments for the guys here that don't watch rick and morty?

>>18191418
It's always "twisting" this or "warping" that until god explicitly instructs the Israelites to genocide a competitor and rape and pillage their land. Then it's a divine mandate that cannot be questioned because it was part of The Plan.

permission implies allowance
without god nothing is allowed and everything is a sin
or rather this is as true as that
Nothing is permitted and everything is permitted.
Or rather: Nothing is true.

>just take a leap of faith and believe in God lmao

>>18203662
this but unironically

>>18191053
So what if everything is permitted?

>>18202890
Nordic paganism.

Then everything is permitted.
>N-no, everything can’t be permitted
>I-It just can’t ok??

>>18202774
>Matt Dillahunty
"Hello my fellow atheists"

>>18202774
It has never been truly refuted. All that bugmen do is favor another faggot form of liberal morality which is in itself BTFO by science, ironically.

>>18203662
>>18203683
>implying faith is suprarational

>>18191836
Sounds like Americans.

>>18192226
Yes. It's not enough.

Isn't this what Ivan says that sets off Mitya? I don't think this this is Dostos self-insert

>>18192860
Why so intolerant bro?