/lit/ - Literature

>>18385628
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/#Bib

Critique of Practical Reason

It's the best attempt ever made and still fails

>>18385653
Parfit's "On What Matters" is a significantly better attempt.

>>18385653
Reminder that God doesn't give objective morality either. If me saying to do something is a subjective opinion so is God saying to do something.

>>18385691
God can say it much louder though, which makes it scarier and thus objective to us.

>>18385708
This would be true in a practical sense but I've never heard God say anything. Or seen any evidence at all that he exists.

>>18385691
low iq post

>>18385691
You're not God mate. If God says A is good, then it's objectively good, since that "opinion" is based on His perfect knowledge. Your opinion is subjective because you don't have perfect knowledge and are in time and influenced by it. Any worthwhile definition of God has Him out of time and with omniscience.

>>18385719
But it's needed. What should be an obvious statement is totally missed by loads of christcucks.

>>18385724
So God doesn't decide what is good instead he just knows what is good?

>>18385689
I've never read it, only gotten the meme summary version, which sounds retarded. "Every major approach to ethics actually arrives at the same set of answers, so it doesn't even matter". I am sure this is wildly incomplete but it puts me off from giving a shit regardless

>>18385724
>Any worthwhile definition of God has Him out of time and with omniscience.
Not really. Not everyon shares the classical Aristotlian definition.

>>18385748
I just read the wiki and again, I won't speak too strongly abt shit I've not actually read, but how is a formula for morality which includes a phrase like "one of the principles whose being universal laws would make things go best" supposed to be taken seriously. "Oh, we should just do things that go best". What is "best"? That's the question you're supposed to be answering

>>18385744
I'd say that is accurate, but largely irrelevant from our perspective. What He knows to be good, that we instinctively disagree with, He might as well have just decided it was good, since we'll never comprehend it.

>>18385794
It's not irrelevant at all. Would you rape a baby if someone told you there was a good reason for it you would never understand?

>>18385628
Good God I found this thread, I'm currently researching about it. Any serious documents / authors talking about moral ontology and moral epistemology? I find nothing but theistic sources on the internet.

>>18385807
If that "someone" is an all omniscient being, then I hope the baby like's pancakes because that's what I tend to go for afterwards... Oh, wait, there's someone at the door.

>>18385724
What if A is a command to rape and murder your own children. Would that be good then?

>>18385807
>>18386824
abraham was commanded by god to sacrifice his own child

>Atheist
>objective morality

Hm?

>>18386864
72% of philosophers consider themselves atheists and 56% pf philosophers believe in moral realism. There is probably significant overlap between those groups.

>>18386864
Reminder that God doesn't give objective morality either. If me saying to do something is a subjective opinion so is God saying to do something.

>>18385628
why should one? your imagine answers perfectly why it isn't possible.
now think if someone(thing) come outside of the whole and told you an objective moral fact and you would also know that it would be true one. even if you started following it, you wouldn't ever be able to deduce why it would be the case.

>>18385628
>>18385727
>gnostic thinks he is on equal terms with God
don’t let this mans trickery fool you. This is nothing but Gnostic scumbaggery.

>>18385628
None that I haven’t read before.

>>18386852
But then stopped him. God always knew Abraham had enough faith to do it, being omniscient, and knew that no harm would come to Isaac. I’m not sure you can separate cause and effect like that when trying to discern an omniscient gods motivations.

moral realism is cringe

>>18385691
>Reminder that God doesn't give objective morality either. If me saying to do something is a subjective opinion so is God saying to do something.

>>18385628
Read Principia Ethica by G.E Moore

>>18389022
I know I'm laughing my ass off

>If the creator of the known universe says to do something, that's just like, his opinion, man.

This poster is literally a caricature of the Jewish people during their guidance from God, while being led through the woods/desert.

>>18386879
To believe in God is to believe that objective morality exists, because an all knowing God would know what is good and bad, even if it was just what was good and bad for you. So out of all the possibilities for your future he would know which one you yourself would consider the most good.

Try Norman Geras. He argues for it from a Marxist perspective

>>18389056
Obviously in Christian Theology God is objectively good since he is by definition but that's just baked into the specific metaphysics. It would be possible for an omniscient god not to be omnibenevolent because either moral truth doesn't exist or the god is willfully evil

>>18385628
I'm sure there's an evopsych tome out there somewhere that accurately describes morality as a behavioural social strategy.

It's important to distinguish between objectivity and universality though... I conclude that morality is objectivity non-universal (it works via overlap of our natures, not true universality).

>>18389037
It is just his opinion. What does he have property rights or something? What is the justification for property rights?

>>18389056
> because an all knowing God would know what is good and bad, even if it was just what was good and bad for you
Why? What is the step that lets God give you objective morality and why can't atheists do the same thing? To be clear I don't believe in objective morality I'm just pointing out that neither atheists or theists can provide it.

>>18389112
>It is just his opinion. What does he have property rights or something? What is the justification for property rights?

>>18389247

>>18389135
Trying to define god isn’t gonna give you the cut and dry answers you want man. Even a concept like omniscient is outside the scope of human understanding. You might understand the definition, and have some version of it in your mind, but god would KNOW and completely UNDERSTAND what it meant for a being to be omniscient. The same would be true for objective good and evil. Humans can’t even define good and evil, why would you think they can provide its meaning?

>>18389263
>Humans can’t even define good and evil
If we can't even define good and evil that kind of ends the argument in my favor doesn't it? God can not provide us with objective morality since we can't even know what good and evil are

And what the hell is "objective morality" supposed to mean?

This phrase always seems like its deployed by atheists specifically to "debunk" religious morality, yet they never explain what it means.

>>18389287
I've always seen it used the other way around from christcucks claiming God can give objective morality and atheists can't. Objective can either mean facts capable of empirical verification or logical deductions following from a chosen set of axioms. Either way God can't provide anything that atheists can't

>>18389300
Could you provide an example of moral behavior that's derived from logic or empirical evidence?

Like, who behaves like that?

said, and in Abrahams AFAIK was to show that even if what we need to do to follow God will destroy what we have wished for with all of our might that we still need to follow him and that he shall provide for us, be it in this life or the next

>>18389326
Again I don't believe in objective morality. But when atheists do try to provide some type of objective morality they usually start with some moral axiom like "don't kill" or "do no harm". Christians attack that and ask why should that axiom be moral which is a valid attack. But an equally valid attack against Christians is why is the axiom "God is good" or whatever you start with moral? If you can discount the axioms of atheists you can just as easily discount the axioms of theists.

>>18389082
In Christian theology god isn’t a moral agent like humans are. Concepts and descriptions like “god is good” or “god is love” are partially informed anthropomorphizations. Questions like “what is good?” may be subjective from a limited human perspective, but they wouldn’t be from an all-knowing gods. Whatever god felt was good (more accurately what he knew goodness to be) would objectively be the true definition of goodness. If he thought the best thing you could be was a selfish prick who spent eternity fucking with humans, then the most good you could do from your individual perspective would be whatever made you happiest, even if it was fucking with other beings.

>>18389350
This sounds like so much bickering to me, and I wouldn't respect either side if all they're doing is rejecting each other's axioms.

Is there anything productive to this line of argument?

>>18389357
And again this is just defining God as the true definition of goodness. If you can't accept a definition for example that murder is bad why should I accept the much less intuitive God is good? And why would my defining murder as bad be subjective while you defining God as good be objective?

>>18389369
The productive part is forcing the christcucks to admit they can't provide an objective morality just like they're accusing the atheists of being incapable of.

>>18389380
So, then, isn't "objective morality" seen to be a self-defeating concept? So why care about it?

>>18389392
Again atheists aren't the ones I see bringing it up. Christians want to pretend that God provides objective morality that atheists can't. But that's wrong neither side can since objective morality doesn't exist.

>>18389350
>Christians attack
which is quite heavily frowned upon in the Bible

>>18389285
>god cannot provide us
It was my understanding that were you arguing that objective morality doesn’t exist at all even if god exists, not that humans would have understanding of it. Were you not the guy who made the original comment about human understanding of good and evil would be just as subjectively true as gods?

>>18389419
I'm saying that if something doesn't even have a definition you don't even know if it exists or not

>>18389403
>>18389380
So, you consider "owning" "Christcucks" to be productive? That's an incredibly stupid thing to admit. Next time, at least pretend to be genuine.

>>18389457
Christianity has a whole field of apologetics. I assume you think that is stupid as well.

>>18389451
>doesnt have a human definition
>humans cant know if it exists or not
this is totally unproductive, because your yardstick for truth is through human understanding, and i think ive made it clear thats a silly way to look at this, per the premise that an omniscient god exists in your original comment

>>18389539
Alright I have some property skurrxi that I'm not going to give you the definition of. Can I give objective skurrxi? You should be able to answer this since you think God can give of us objective morality without human's even knowing what good and evil are per your words

>>18385628
>an atheistic form of objective morality

I can tell you books that explain why this is impossible.

>>18385691
You’re not God…

>>18389567
And I can point out the extremely famous is-ought problem that shows God can't give objective morality either

>>18389465
>whataboutism

>>18385744
>So God doesn't decide what is good instead he just knows what is good?

It’s both, retard. He decides and knows.

>>18389573
Is it a decision based on subjective judgment or is it knowledge based on something outside of God?

>>18389573
Does God arbitrate morality or is he subservient to morality? Are you saying he is subservient to some morals and arbitrates others?

>>18389555
Not the guy you are responding to but: By definition God is the highest thing that there can possibly be, the Highest good, the highest love - we humans might not know what EXACTLY that is (christianity makes a point that we are born fallen, so we will never know that perfectly during our stay on earth). The whole point of religion and God worshipping is to always aim at something higher. Think you know the best outcome for a moral dillema? - There is always a way you could have done it better. Gods morality is absolute because it is infinitly Good by definition. We call our morality absolute because we strive to know and mimic God's absolute goodness.
Religious belief develops through the bible, art, oral traditions, and thousands of years of human interaction and conflitct, and although veeery slowly, our morality do change and evolve over time - it changes in order to shape our belief according to our increasingly clear picture of God.

>>18389649
I can tell you're not the guy I was responding to because I've already been through this with him. If you won't accept an atheists definition say of murder being bad why should anyone accept your definition of God being the highest good? The one I was responding to tried to dodge this by claiming we we weren't defining God as the highest good here >>18389263
>Humans can’t even define good and evil, why would you think they can provide its meaning?
And anyone can see how ridiculous it is to claim a property you don't even have a definition for as my example made clear>>18389555

>>18385691
Based

>>18385691
low iq

>>18385691
Unless "god" is the Monad, which is something like the core of reality, thus you could argue objective. As for objective morality, evolutionary morality is a good bet. Like, eating your babies is bad because it selects your gene-pool out of existence.

>>18385691
cringe low iq post, go read books

>>18390347
Go read up on Euthyphro and the is-ought problem

>>18390359
refuted by a redditor

>>18390719
Neither of those haven been refuted.

>>18385628
Kant is the best you're going to get, and he isn't even really properly atheist.

>>18385691
it makes it worse since if god says to do this he will punish you and do that he will reward you so you have no free will to decide to do the right/good thing because you face punishment. Without choice and free will you can't be moral.

>>18387500
I left the most important part out: even if someone from the outside tells you what objective morality is and you change your behaviour accordingly: you have only do so because of the teller, ie. the causality cannot lie on you.

>>18385628
you couldn't handle my strongest theory. You're not ready - because you're still asking!

>>18391138
God refutes them

>>18385628
Honestly, I want to know. Why do people like you still believe this hundred year old argument of atheists having no morality; why do you even call them atheists?--is that not the issue, that they are not people, but believers and non-believers, that one of them deserves rights and the other doesn't want to deserve them?

Your whole language is constructed in such a way that it is impossible for someone who does not believe in an all powerful being, which is by no means the standard defintion of god, divinity or morality, to have morality, to be objective: to be more than just a little monkey.

This is seriously weak. I'm not going to kid around here. This is the weakest thing I've seen and this is probably from someone who's never set foot in a university, or church, or cared to listen to anyone making a point which's direction does not point toward said selfish, said subjective goal of proving god through morality. You don't even know what objectivity and subjectivity is. If you'd have read even Augustinus or Aquinas you'd know how to construct a better argument; if you'd read Spinoza or Leibniz, or Kant, or whoever else, giving the benefit of the doubt to them and their objectivity, their Being as a person who is not yourself or by you influenced, or serving a purpose for you to be them, you'd at least care for an answer.

>>18391169
You have free will you just face consequences for using it poorly. Do you think the existence of prison removes your free will just because you face punishment?

>>18385628
Kant's moral system is compatible with atheism (although he has a preference for theism)

>>18389585
for each moral rule he both arbitrates and is subservient to it. this is called dialectics

>>18389649
If it changes and evolves over time then God's words are not eternal, and if you claim you do not have access to God then your moral system is basically your opinion.

Even more importantly this flexibility in interpreting God's words tells me that there is something even more fundamental than God that governs your ethics. You contort the contents of the bible and force it to bend to its knees to your wants and needs. There is already a movement towards accepting homosex within the christian community, and a few decades down the line most christians will be vegans and talk about how Jesus wouldn't approve of meat eating, because the truth is that religion is a means to an end. It is used to justify people's desires and possession of power.

>>18385628
1. Korsgaard: Sources of Normativity (and basically everything else she's ever written)

2. Huemer: Ethical Intuitionism

3. If you don't mind historical philosophy, Kant's 2nd critique + metaphysics of morals and groundwork.

There are lots and LOTS of these attempts. Most fail. But most religious theories of objective morality also fail.

>>18393092
I'd add Aristotle's Ethics and maybe After Virtue by McIntyre. They're quite atheistic and actually not metaphysical. Read Korsgaard's Creating the Kingdom of Ends to see a metaphysically deloaded reading of Aristotle that does NOT rely on teleology or other suspect metaphysics.

>>18393097
I think most would argue that Aristotle states 'prudence' is essentially Godliness.

If you want atheistic morality, your only hope is to look in the annals of the recent infidels :3

>>18393128

Hi. I'm not sure I understand your comment at all.

(1) I presented a source arguing this is false. (Creating the Kingdom of Ends and Fellow Creatures together with Self-Constitution of Agency provide a completely secular reading of Aristotle)

(2) Even if Aristotle did believe that "prudence" is essentially godliness, why not drop that assumption? You can pretty easily build a naturalistic ethical system out of a conception of function as defined in terms of wellbeing. Dismissing an entire class of potential secular views because the founder of that tradition had a non-secular belief is kind of absurd.

>>18386824
Can you objectively prove those things are ‘bad’

>>18393185
>>18393185
Consequentialists usually think you can prove some act is bad because it causes more suffering than the alternative. If they're right about their meta-ethical commitments, then it is a relatively straightforward empirical problem.

If you're not a consequentialist, you'd think you could prove it through (1) rational intuition, (2) rational argument or (3) something else. Otherwise, (and I'm not aware of any philosopher who holds this view) you might think it can be objectively right or wrong, but you can't know it. Seems plausible to me.

>>18393185
>the old testament warps people minds enough that they turn into the pejoratively "postmodern" clowns they claim to hate

>>18391611
Good post anon. I don't understand how pseuds dont get this.
>I wanna be free to do whatever I want
>REE what do you mean that I'm held accountable for my actions?

>>18385691

Indeed, Gnostics sell themselves short by claiming that Jesus is preceded by Pleroma, likely Catholic-to-Gnostic ascription to depurate the Catholic idea, rather, Jesus is preceded only by Yaldabaoth who, as you say, is not only arbitrary in his Morality but necessarily wrong simply for there being no alternative. Only in and from the finality and alternative of Pleroma, which follows the Christological advent, can there be true Morality, without tyranny.

>>18385628
Ayn Rand

>>18393400
In your worldview what makes killing and raping your children objectively ‘bad’? Surely you’ve got access to some objective, unchanging standard to judge the ‘goodness’ and ‘badness’ of things right? Without God, the aforementioned acts have no more or less moral significance than a pen rolling off a table. It’s just a bunch of atoms hitting each or whatever. Saying you thinking killing your children is ‘bad’ is like saying you don’t like ketchup; just your subjective opinion dude.

>>18394341
>In your worldview what makes killing and raping your children objectively ‘bad’?
Killing and raping children is bad. That's a starting definition for me. Why do I need a reason for it to be bad? Do you need a reason for God to be good?

>>18394361
>Why do I need a reason for it to be bad?
Without a reason it would be arbitrary. If it’s arbitrary then I would say that you wouldn’t be able to justify it. So if you came across a tribe of people somewhere who ritualistically raped and murdered children, you couldn’t really tell them that their actions were objectively bad and that they were obligated to stop, outside of your own personal opinion, if you get what I mean. I don’t mean to be argumentative btw just interested in understanding your view. I do believe that we have some sort of innate conscience that tells us what is right and wrong to an extent, although I guess this could be a byproduct of evolution and the need for a cohesive society in order to survive.
>God to be good?
Necessarily God must be the ultimate good, it’s an attribute of his.

>>18394411
The lack of self-awareness is incredible. If my saying rape and murder is bad is arbitrary how is you saying God is good also not arbitrary?

>>18394420
Well I believe in revelation that tells me that God is the ultimate good

>>18394427
So you have an arbitrary revelation that says God is good and you believe that provides you with objective morality? I have an arbitrary revelation that murder and rape is bad. Boom objective morality without God.

>>18394420
Without a mind prior to the human mind to define good and evil, then good and evil is a individual human invention, a taste. Do you prefer brocoli or sweetcorn? Do you think rape is good or evil? They aren't either without God, they simply just - are

>>18394439
What does the human part have to do with anything? Something decided by a mind is subjective an opinion or taste. God's decision are just as subjective as mine or they're not decisions.

>>18394447
If its subjective, then it isn't God. God is the first movement, otherwise its an infinite regress.
Regardless, you can't have objective right or wrong without God.

>>18394459
You can't have objective morality with God either. A decision made by a intelligent entity without outside restriction is the definition of subjective. If God decided right and wrong without some outside objective standard his decision is by definition subjective.

>>18394411

It's arbitrary even in the Catholic Church so I don't see your point. Obviously it's bad because most people can relate to a desire to protect your kids and everyone can relate to the experience of being a child. Since tribes are more egalitarian, child rape is less common or even non existent.

People who rape kids do it because they have the power to. No ideology can stop that happening, only addressing power dynamics can. This is bluepilled.

>>18394433
>arbitrary revelation that murder and rape is bad
What if someone had a revelation that they weren’t bad? How would you two come to a conclusion about who is correct?

>>18394492
I also have the revelation that God doesn't decide morality. How do you know I'm wrong?

>>18385628
What do you mean by atheistic? Platonian approach doesn't require existence of God, but if you accept it and you want to be coherent, you should also accept existence of God.

>>18394477
>>18394477
Saying God "decided" is arguing against a God of your own creation. God's character is just, and he created us in his image and for a purpose. When we go against our purpose, and his will, we are doing wrong.
If an objective standard existed before God, then that isn't God.
You can't have objective reality without God because you have no objective basis, just your personal beliefs

>>18394520
>You can't have objective reality without God because you have no objective basis, just your personal beliefs
Why not? This is just an arbitrary definition you've come up. Here let me try one "You can have an objective reality without God and God doesn't provide an objective basis." How do you show my arbitrary definition is wrong and your arbitrary definition is correct?

>>18394544

You don't have to bother with this. Any proscriptions and rules attributed to God are derived solely from scripture and revelation, the works of men. If objective morality does exist, Christians don't have it.

>>18394544
Because if you were to say to me that child rape is objectively wrong, you are stating a personal belief with no objective basis. Youre not right, I'm not right, everything just is, atoms interacting and our opinions on that as pond scum that per chance evolved to a higher order.
Morality can only be objective if a mind, prior to the human mind defines it. We call that instance God.

>>18394520
More generally Christians recognize that constantly asking why about secular morality ends up with some unjustifiable foundational axiom or definition. But they're too stupid or intellectually dishonest to realize that constantly asking why about they're own beliefs ends in the same way.

>>18394562
I think it's fine if you don't believe it exists. Just that honest atheism is acknowledging that there is no objective morality in their world view.

>>18394588
If a mind decides it that is the definition of subjective. What do you think the definition of subjective is and why doesn't it apply to God?

>>18394596
I don't really get what you mean, could you explain?

>>18394598
And honest Christianity is acknowledging that there is no objective morality in their world view either.

>>18394602
I didn't say decides it. Nor should you latch onto one word of the whole for definition play.
I think you should know what God means. If it were subjective, it isn't God

>>18394598
Belief isn't acknowledging, anon. I am agnostic, have always called myself agnostic.

I don't allow myself to fall into the trap of idealism and we are all shaped by our socio-economic backgrounds. Rich people legit don't see any moral issue with raping kids, as long as the masses don't find out.

>>18394604
Atheist says murder is bad. Christian asks why is murder bad? Atheist says it just is. Christian says got yah that's arbitrary and not objective.

Christian says God is good. Atheists asks why is God good? Christian says he just is. Atheist says got yah that's arbitrary and not objective.

>>18394608
That's the Christian understanding of reality. You may believe it's wrong but it is consistent, honest atheism is acknowledging that life is ultimately meaningless.
As that French philosopher would ask, why not commit suicide?

>>18394619
So if God has no subjectivity he can't decide anything. So God's commands can't be a basis for morality since he can't even command anything.

>>18394628
Why can't atheism have arbitrary moral axioms just like Christianity? Murder and rape are bad.

>>18394628
You don't support people's right to assisted suicide? I do. The threshold at which life becomes unbearable is highly individualised.

>>18394622
Seems like a poor way to represent things , I don't really want to discuss caricatures.

>>18394621
Sounds like totally unrelated gripes with capitalism or something. The question stands if it is ultimately wrong tho-not if people will get away with it or not

>>18394649
It seems like a poor caricature to you because it shows your position is untenable. The criticism of secular morality by Christians can be directly applied to Christianity. Both types of morality end with fundamentally unjustifiable moral definitions. If atheists can't provide objective morality neither can Christians or God.

>>18385628
OP's pic conflates epistemic and moral obligations.

>>18394649

It's not unrelated at all. It is a blatant contradiction between the values society claims to hold and the actual forces which cause things to happen.

I don't know if there is objective morality, but true morality decided upon by the masses changes nothing as long as there is a lack of transparency and an imbalance of power.

Christian societies have NEVER in history followed even so much as their own 10 commandments, yet modern Christians still uphold those institutions.

>>18394640
Athiesm isn't a thing that has anything. Athiesm means simply anti-thiesm. You stating it's bad is your opinion, of which means nothing to me.
However if you were created by God with a purpose, to love others and to love God. And you mistreat othersmade in God's image. You are committing wrong doing. That is objective as it is true whether everyone believes it or no one does

>>18394647
Seems like a divergent issue desu

>>18394667
And if murder is bad and you murder someone that is objectively a bad thing. An atheist can easily hold the position that murder is bad.

>>18391611
You can't equivacate both prison and hell. One you serve your punishment and if you had immortality you would leave. If you had immortality on hell instead you just burn forever. Also religions perspective of free will is telling you to kill all non religious why not do that? If you don't do that, you might get eternal punishment. If you are not led by some divine person, or if you live something similar in a republic, you are just serving heretic nations hence you will burn in hell forever.

>>18394621
>Rich people legit don't see any moral issue with raping kids, as long as the masses don't find out.
I see a lot of real life issues as just power struggles desu, like the whole Palestine situation.

>>18394622
Except the atheist case has no legs to stand on, as there really is no reason that murder would be bad under the presumption that there is no God.
Under the presumption of the existence of God, as he created the universe and is the final call for what is good. It doesnt matter if it's not objective to the fags on earth, because they're not the only ones in the equation. He created everything, he get's to decide.

Of course this falls apart if there is no God, but that's not what Christians argue either. If there was no God, the christian definition of good would be equally arbitrary as the atheist's, but if there is then it's not arbitrary, meanwhile the atheist's view is STILL arbitrary.

>>18394658
But one is objective and one isnt.
Christianity would pose that it is true, a real intangible value that is true even if no humans were left to act it out.
Athiesm would state it is bad, then could decide tomorrow it is good. There's no value to it other than your opinion

>>18394676

It's just an inference. If your life is unbearably painful and there's not even the faintest glimmer of hope that it won't get worse, then why wouldn't you kill yourself?

The notion that someone living a good enough life without a higher purpose would simply want to commit suicide is absurd. Also I don't see many non-human animals going about killing themselves. The desire to live and press on is encoded in our genetics.

>>18394684
You can hold its bad but that's your subjective take on it. Someone else can say it's good and that's it for you

>>18394696
You saying God is good is the exact same as an atheist saying murder is bad. They're both arbitrary moral axioms. If everyone decided murder is good tomorrow that would not change the moral axiom that murder is bad. Either both axioms are objective or they're both subjective I really don't even know what to call an axiom.

>>18394700
What if you felt the opposite tomorrow?

>>18394706
And you can easily hold that God is good but that's your subjective take on it. Someone else can say God is bad and that's it for you.

>>18394691

Everything is a struggle of power. I firmly believe mankind was fucked from the moment we established the first Chiefdoms.

Suddenly we went from egalitarian tribes led by essentially the tribe daddy to warbands under the iron fist of religious figures/generals/patriarchs and started killing and subjugating each other.

>>18394709
It's not the exact same. One has the eternal creator of all, from which we derive purpose and goodness from his just character. From this we say that right or wrong are real values, outside of the human experience that are true no matter what time or place.

The alternative: murder just IS bad. Which is my opinion, and therefore not objective by definition.

>>18394713
What does that have to do with an objective reason not to? In my experience of loss, that kind of optimism just causes more suffering for everyone involved. Nobody's ever operating with all the information.

>>18394687
No it's not directly equitable, but the point still stands. Just because the punishment is different doesn't mean that you didnt have the free will in the first place.

>>18394715
In your world view yes that's my subjective take on it. Now you're getting it! And with honest athiesm I'm not wrong, your not wrong, it's all relative.


However if there is a God, boy do I have news for you!

>>18394730
Saying murder is bad is subjective I fully agree with that. But saying God is good is equally subjective.
>One has the eternal creator of all, from which we derive purpose and goodness from his just character.
Why is this not a subjective judgement just like murder is bad?

>>18385628
Magnus Vinding thinks that objective morality exists, since the inherent badness of suffering is directly observable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6xHWsvd0QI

>>18394734
And what if you felt the opposite?

>>18394740
The original argument is that Christianity can provide objective morality while secularism can't. I said that neither can provide objective morality
>In your world view yes that's my subjective take on it.
You've agreed with me

>>18394640
You can explain the moral axioms of murder and rape being bad by evolution by natural selection. Our ancestors had lived in small numbers, even dying one person of tribe would mean all of the people dying in that colony. Murder hence bad, the ones who thought murder is bad populated the earth than. Rape bad because if all the woman on a tribe were pregnant who would assist on every other aspect of a tribe? All religion people always forget that, humanlikes were once just primitive hobos who lived around world. You can always explain something with your ancestors, if you can't explain something that doesn't make it some god made it. Evolution by Natural Selection explains our a lot of common traits nowadays before even religions developed but the religious will never think deeply about these.

>>18394755

Then I would be wrong. I've yet to see a single person cure cancer with quartz crystals when given a definitive, poor prognosis.

>>18394741
Saying god is good is subjective. If God were to exist as we know it. It would be an objective fact and value that God is good. God is literally goodness.

>>18394784
If God is the creator of everything, then would God not be badness as well? Isn't it redundant? I know you lot think that all evil comes from original sin, but that's a garbage explanation for why bad things happen.

>>18394784
So where does the bad come from then? If all omnscient being were to be good, then wouldn't it know what is bad too? It contains all the good and all the bad of it. Why just say it's good? He has the knowledge of what is the most evil too? Why not say he is evil too?

>>18394760
Christianity states that there is objective morality. I can't provide it.
And we've covered secularism obviously can't.
That's a separation of what beliefs you have and conclusions you come to.

>>18394784
You can't just define your way to winning an argument. Not murdering someone is literally goodness. You can say that's subjective but then how is God is literally goodness not subjective?

>>18394769
Seems irrelevant

>>18394798
Christianity states INCORRECTLY that there is an objective morality. We've covered the reasons why there isn't, they're the exact same reasons secular morality can't provide objective morality. If secular moral axioms are subjective why aren't Christian moral axioms subjective

>>18394715
>>18394760
The fact that you're just switching words and thinking that youve proven something shows how dishonest you're really being. You ignore the entire presumption that makes the arguement relevant in the first place.

If [RELIGEON] is false you're correct. everything is arbitrary. congrats.
If [RELIGEON] is true then you're lacking the evidence to support your claim whatsoever.
Why only argue the half you want to be true?

>>18394743
Like Sam Harris?

>>18394797
>>18394796
These are great questions! And they are questions that have been hashed out by great minds for centuries.
Given our gift of free will, we can do the opposite of good, which we term as evil.

Now evil is not something in itself, but a lack of something that should be present, e.g. a lie lacks in truth. God does not create evil since it is not a thing to be created. Evil is an imperfection, lack or void in God's creation.

>>18394806
Me saying it from your perspective is subjective. If God real its objective. That is my perspective and my objective projected

>>18394798
You can provide it actually. Literally, every aspect of human behaviour of today can be explained to some extent by evolution by natural selection. Our ancestors mostly developed our morality. You can explain why incest is bad with evolution by natural selection. Adam and Eve myth can NOT having any inbred charles the second of spain can NOT explain this. You will say god made them ubermensch too religious one? Sure go ahead.

>>18394812
Because God is the first movement

>>18394824
Because I'm not arguing against religious moral axioms being true. I'm arguing against the idea that Christianity can provide objective morality while atheism can't. The moral axiom that murder is bad can be true just as easily as God is good. If that is the case then atheism can provide just objective morality just as easily as Christianity. The same question you ask can be turned back on you what if murder is bad? Wouldn't that be an objective morality without God?

>>18394827
>>18394743

>>18394838
And me saying murder is bad is subjective from your perspective. If murder is actually bad it's objective.

>>18394828
> Evil is an imperfection, lack or void in God's creation.
So a creation of god is an imperfection because he chooses to not believe him? Why call him omnipotence if he can't make perfect by showing himself to me right now? If i have the lack of god, hence i am an evil then?

>>18394839
You can't provide that as it wouldnt be objective tho

>>18394859
Yes if there is a force prior to the human experience to create it that is eternal, then yes it would be objective. If not, its just like, your opinion man

>>18394862
It's just the contradictory of faith or belief. Unbelief has to exist, which is necessarily imperfect.

I'm happy you all want 100% faith to exist, but if that were the case you couldn't be atheists, so I guess... thanks God? :3

>>18394862
>Why doesn't god do what I would do

>>18394872
What do you think objective means? Anon linked a definition here >>18394856. If God decided what morality was solely based on his personal feelings it's not objective.

>>18394880
Yes I agree, that's not the Christian God tho. Objective in this sense means totally true, no matter where, who, when or how many believe it otherwise

How come God changes his mind about things throughout the Bible if morals are objective?

>>18394875
words have meanings, retard

>>18394902
I would say we are projecting what we think his intentions are, and recording it in our usual human way. The book of Job tackles that issue well

>>18394895
You messed up by sticking the who in there. Does that mean if God believes something is wrong that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong? Since it doesn't matter who believes otherwise

>>18394865
Yeah, it would be straight fact.
>>18394873
If a god is so perfect, why can't he make a third option? You either believe or not believe, he should just show me himself. Why is considering to show himself is bad at all? It just breaks the illusion of free will right? Why no fourth option? That happened already actually, showing himself to some people who were probably under the effect of some psychedelic fungi or else.
>>18394875

>>18394909
^
>>18394828

>>18394918
>if God is so perfect, why doesn't he do what I would do?

Why does it matter if God has objective morals, if we as humans can never understand God? (or his morals)

>>18394919
>Evil is an imperfection, lack or void in God's creation.
The same thing I've covered repeatedly above. Why is this definition not arbitrary? If you can call murder is bad arbitrary what makes your definition different?

>>18385628
>objective morality
picrel; read Stirner

>>18394839
Let's return to the topic of incest actually. Why does god think incest is bad? What is his "objective morality" on this question? Why a perfect omniscience thing wanted Adam and Eve to populate the earth? Why not create a bunch of people? Isn't incest an objectively bad thing?

>>18394918
>If a god is so perfect, why can't he make a third option?
You want to know why contradcitories or contraries can't be binary options? Read Aristotle's Metaphysics or his On Interpretation.

Every single aspect of reality can be reduced to a broader contrary or contradictory, only two options exist for any of those. It's just how reality is.

You're arguing why the shape of a square couldn't have five AND four sides at the same time, or more specifically, you're arguing to keep everything else the same and remove the four sided figures from reality altogether.

Impossible.

>>18394907
I don't think interpreting God reacting differently to comparable situations is a bold claim

>>18394972
Should've said non-binary when I said binary, sorry.

>>18394972
He could made all of them together in a reality he wished. Isn't he omnipotence?
He has chosen only two ways. Hence his objectivity comes from his choosing. He knows he can make a universe that contains every oppurtunity yet he only makes with two, bad and evil. It all comes to the conclusion that he just chooses whatever he wants.
>>18394926
>if God is so perfect, why doesn't he do what I would do?
Hence he is not a perfect thing.

Believing in something without empirical proof is dumb.
Thus, religion is stupid.

>>18394873

Faith is the synthesis of disbelief and belief. In order to have faith you have to question your belief.

>>18395002
Well that’s logic, induction, and any conception of the ‘self’ gone out the window.

>>18395002
>I don't trust my body and mind so I let others brainwash me with their jargon
Read Jung, also; low IQ take

>>18394998
>He could made all of them together in a reality he wished.
But they have to follow reason, correct?

You are doggedly saying God could do this God could do that, there is, actually, only one way that God could have made perfection. There are infinite ways to deviate from this perfection.

God's morally objective good makes children born with genetic diseases, but i guess that is part of some kind of divine plan. Yeah a really good objective morality i can see on that. Maybe they deserved? An unborn child right? They were some kind of objectively bad? How to define they were bad so they have born with genetic diseases? If a person didn't commit any bad before even born, how come they have a genetic disease which can be considered objectively bad ? Where comes the morality in it?

>>18395026
all spooks.

>>18395021
Long -term faith in God without disbelief is much harder on any individual, but I think it is productive of more miraculous things.

The Koran talks about God understanding what goes on in your head, again and again. It's important to understand that the source of disbelief is sin. Why would you ever allow yourself not to believe in God? :3

>>18395029
>But they have to follow reason
Where do you thing reason comes from?

>>18395002
>Believing in something without empirical proof is dumb.

Got some empirical proof for that statement?

>>18395044
Perfection. Perfect reason is perfect reason, there is nothing better.

Chalking it all up to subjectivity is bullshit. There's a reason why 3 of the major world religions all believe in the same God.

How do you know that you know?

>>18395046
I said it, so it's true.
I am the only conscious being I know exists, and am a god of my own world
Thus, my word is objectively true, and empirical by nature

>>18395042

Not just God, but also the dominant religious institutions. As for those, I believe the real threat of punishment in this life to be the primary and material motivator.

>>18395046

>>18395029
Why it should follow a reason? In a universe where no physics of law can be applied, which it would be non reasonable, a god can make something similar to this. Yet this world can be the perfection.
>>18395042
Yeah koran also talks about the sky is being held by some pillars, and the sun is covered with mud, the stars are there so they can be throwed at the devils. It isn't true though.

God cannot change himself?

>>18395065
Based

>>18395035

The old testament addresses this. It's basically God fucking with people to test their faith. If they fail he shows up and knocks them down a few pegs through a show of force.

>>18395086
Such a weird take on [good]

>>18395086
What a objectively, morally good thing to do. Oh i know, old testament was actually not that good, yeah i should go read new testament right? Yeah and i should go read other books that explains everything, maybe go mormons? Protenstants? I feel like maybe i should go to jehova's witness today, maybe they can explain to me what is this objective good on take of, adam and eve, and genetic diseases.
Other religions talks about the genetic disease stuff by having sex on the bad months, having weird clothes on you, having cat or dog around you, looking at cat or dog, having sex when there's full moon etc.
They can't explain shit but evolution by natural selection can explain everything they can't. Incest is bad, because it kills the tribe. It weakens the tribemen. Genetic diseases are there, because not all of our ancestors got rid of the effect of adapting to environment, having effect of malnutrition, or the diet change. You CAN explain everything with science to some extent, but you CAN NOT put the god of gaps to everywhere when you decide to escape from answers.

>>18395140
Morality? What morality are these fuckers talking about? It's the survival of the fittest. Just because we weren't trying to survive for 7000 years or so doesn't mean that were always like this. God is objectively good? Yeah only if you can survive then you can think about god, you can create the image of god. God is punishing me or not so i have to trust his objectivity? Only if i could hunt this weird meaty creature, i can think about the weird shapes that around the sky.
People always think that we thought about god and stuff, but we were just hunting, trying to survive and climbing the chains of food. You are not thinking about anything if you can't even develop you thinking ability. Ah yes the world was created about 7000 years ago right, because if we all add up the ages of prophets etc it's around that year or so. Yeah yeah i know the fossils were faked.

>>18395101
Read the book of Job, it's absolutely fucked up.

TL;DR

>Job is a good Christian. Lives very well off.
>God is excessively proud of Job. Boasts about him being a righteous man to everyone.
>Satan (who is God's advisor, not the devil) suggests to God that Job is only so pious because he's a 1%er.
>Challenges God to test Job, hypothesising that it will break his faith
>God just fucking accepts lol

>God immediately releases a plague that kills all of Job's livestock, his servants and 10 kids (who had done absolutely nothing wrong.)

>lolwut

>Job still prays to God and doesn't renounce his faith

>Satan is fucking pissed, goes back to God and asks for permission to fuck with Job personally...

>God says "Okay, but don't kill my boy Job, but any other form of torture is fine."

>Satan essentially gives Job superAIDS and leaves him writhing in pain and weak.

>Job's wife gets fucking sick of this shit, tries to tempt Job away from God, mirroring the story of Genesis, but Job is having none of it

>Job's friends visit him and he tells them about his life which is now totally fucked

>Job's friends essentially victim blame him and insist that he must have done something to anger God, or else this wouldn't be happening and that his children and servants deserved it

>Job is fucking PISSED, starts questioning his faith, goes off the deep end and feeling cheated. Screams out to God to just fucking kill him and send him to hell.

>Another of Job's friends tells him that Job has too high of an opinion of himself and that misfortune is how God communicates with us to set us on the right path

>to be continued...

>>18395189
>>18395101

>"Finally, from a whirlwind, God Himself interrupted the conversation. God demanded Job to be
brave and give answers to his questions. God’s questions were rhetorical, aimed at showing
Job how little he knew about creation and God’s power. God described many detailed aspects
to show the extent and power of his creation, praising especially his creation of and control
over two large and frightening beasts, the Behemoth and Leviathan (sometimes thought to
be the hippopotamus and the crocodile, or mythical creatures).These beasts are said to represent the disorder and chaos that can be found in God’s world. Overwhelmed and humbled
by the encounter with God, Job acknowledged God’s unlimited power and admitted that our
human knowledge is very limited. God was pleased with Job’s response, but was upset with
Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar for their poor reasoning and advice. Job stood up for his friends,
and God forgave them. God restored Job to good health, gave him twice as much property as
before, new children, and a very long life he lived 140 more years and saw four generations of grandchildren."

>>18395177
>>18395140
You okay?

>>18395206
Most likely not

>>18395206
No, i am sick of these stupid questions. They only ask, look at what god made, god is this and that. Objective they say, there is no objectivity to gods desire, he just wishes and then it happens. God calls himself all good, but he is all knowing so he must be all bad too. He can make a world which is all good because he is all powerful yet he chooses not to. He chooses to show his duality by making both perfections on this world and showing diseases. He calls this diseases is there so we can believe in him, he chooses random people to show everyone that we "could" be like them, and we are not. He chooses to show me his good by making other people suffer and depend on him for an eternal life. I refuse to call him objectively, morally good being.

>>18395205
>>18395189
>>18395101

So to summarise, God isn't all knowing, God does play dice with the universe, Job legitimately did nothing to deserve it, God doesn't even care about innocent deaths, God DOES reward fealty with land and prestige and objective morality is whatever God decides to happen, because he's da BIGGEST and DA STRONGEST

>>18395205

Based God.

>>18395189
>>18395205
It's just a Biblical story. God didn't actually do these things.

>>18395434

Yet people get triggered when you call it fiction and start mincing words.

>>18394743
That is begging the question.
If these faggots are desperate to create an objective value system have the balls to say power is good and we only disagree what to assign power to.

>>18395035
>If God real why do bad thing happen

>>18394936
God is goodness and goodness is God. God is eternal. Good is derived from God's character which is just. If good was decided by God arbitrarily, it wouldn't be God you are talking about as it implies a movement before the first movement - infinite regress.
For a value to objectively good, it requires a mind prior to the human mind to define it. Therefore right are wrong are real intangible values that exist whether we are here to perceive them or not.
So when you say you ought not to have done that, you are appealing to a law above the law, which is written on men's hearts

>>18395277
Crazy my guy you should write for South Park

>>18393185
That's not an answer to the question. If your going to embrace divine command theory you should have an answer to that question.

>>18391385
The is-ought gap is a fact even if moral realism is true. The Euthyphro Dilemma has never had a satisfactory response.

>>18394949
Truly 'universal' morality is the spook, not objectivity. Learn the difference.

>>18397441
It isn't a fact, it's a foolishly assumed dichotomy. There is no 'ought' in a concrete sense; all so-called normative statements contain implicit descriptive content (notions about desireable outcomes and the means to achieve them).

>>18397386
Again and again the same shit over and over. If me saying murder is bad is arbitrary and subjective you saying God is goodness is arbitrary and subjective. The existence of God can not provide objective morality unless you subjectively assume that God is goodness.

>>18385691
This is what Muslims and Orthodox Christians believe. Just with extra steps.

>>18397460
Yeah but I don't think denying that normative statements even exist is the answer Christians want to the is-ought problem.

>>18397460
The is-ought thing is a problem with deduction. You can't get a conclusion from this syllogism:
p1. You're watching a woman being raped
p2. You can stop it

>>18397469
If God is real as the Christian understands it, there is objective right and wrong.
From your perspective that is a subjective assumption of course.

>>18397475
Which is why they should stick to faith instead of participating in debates about meta-ethical ontology. I have no problem with pragmatic illusions; in philosophy, however, the truth (as best we can apprehend it) must remain paramount.

>>18397517
I would argue further that because we use ought statements, and people in this thread call out for their to be objective morality because it fits their human experience - that points to some kind of God, a moral law giver

>>18397517
But the same logic applies to an atheist assuming murder is bad. For that atheist there would be an objective right and wrong. So do you agree that in the sense you are using objective atheists can have objective morality?

>>18397501
We don't use deduction in moral calculation. Our conclusions are contingent upon empirical matters of fact. How you feel about something is also a kind of fact.

>>18397445
>Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal,
>Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic...
wow that took 5sec

>>18394341

The objective, unchanging standard of me: I am not sanctioned by any Subject, not even my own, and I am never not me.

>>18394828

Need I mention the glass again?

>>18394619
>when the old testament warps people's minds enough that they turn into materialists

What distinguishes such a God and his Morality from the Materialist vacuous Cosmos and its Morality of catastrophe and happenstance?

>>18394743
>since the inherent badness of suffering is directly observable.
Suffering make Grug feel bad therefore it is bad? Hell of an argument there. Funny how atheists will demand the most stringent proofs for Gods existence and will claim we can't say God exists until you can put a little slice of God under the microscope but pull shit like this and say it's fine to just say objective morality exists because my fee fees get hurt by seeing bad things happen.

>>18395189
You have the autism. The Book of Job is a poem meant to be performed by three people like a play. The thing with Satan and God is just a framing device for the story about Job coping with, what seems to be to him, unjust suffering.

>>18397739
>Suffering make Grug feel bad therefore it is bad?

What is your objection?

>>18397748
Homosexuality makes me feel revolted therefore it's bad.

What's your objection?

>>18397746
>just a framing device

How does this alleviate its content?

>>18397751

I have none.

>>18397739
Why is this hard to understand? Yes, suffering make grug feel bad, so grug tries to adapt non suffering. This is evolution by natural selection, that abrahamic religions can't refute at all. Objective morality exists on this scale because it's a reaction to bad things happened when your ancestors were just primitive hobos. You can explain why incest is morally bad with the tribesmen logic, you can explain why they thought there were gods when they looked at mountains, sky, rivers, lightning, tree etc. You can explain why there are genetic diseases,
>>18397355
Yeah, and what is your objection? Do i have to only see the "great" creations around me? How about parasitic creatures, that kill the host when they hatch from it? How about you explain to me the adam and eve myth, since you think this is actually a good thing right?

It seems to me that no matter what you have to take this as a matter of faith.
Atheists can't prove that objective moral facts exist.
Christians can't prove that God exists.

>>18397954
Not him but pain and suffering don't prove objective morality since they are contingent on someone existing to experience them. If there were no beings to experience pain, then pain wouldn't exist, meaning it's only a subjective experience and not an objective fact of the universe. Therefore you can't derive objective moral truths from the existence of pain, only subjective ones.

>>18398017

See: >>18397649

>>18395035
>why didn't God create a world where literally nothing happens
maybe having genetic diseases is just an accident of how our DNA and evolutions of cellls happen. take the mechanisms away of why those things and happen, and you'd be left with nothing.

>>18398063
>and you'd be left with nothing.

All the better.

>>18398073
why don't you become nothing?

sounds like people still don't realize that God is meaningless
objectively

>>18385628
Check out Erik Weilenberg’s books.

is there any literature on why we do things we consider good? do we really consider things bad if we still do them?

>>18398085

I don't know how to do it.

>>18398105
wouldn't dying do just that?

>>18397537
An honest athiest would acknowledge they have subjective morality

>>18397954
Sounds like you have a stick up your behind that makes you antagonistic towards God. How's your relationship with your father?

>>18397683
I don't know what youre talking about

Thomas hobbes leviathan.

>>18398117

Probably not, since it is an idea of the world.

>>18398355
>it
What do you mean?

>>18395046
every fucking time
when will those brainlets learn?

>>18398339
No, if morality is a behavioural strategy which exists to confer collective survival advantages, then it is metaethically objective. It just isn't truly universal (since divergent populations have somewhat divergent thriving conditions). I wish you guys would start by properly understanding the terms involved here.

>>18398411
>then it is metaethically objective
the absolute state of this retard

>>18385628
Rothbard

>>18398017
Have you considered that all subjective instances are subsets of the objective? At some level/in some form anything which is experienced must be objective, since it has occurred. Do you actually believe that subjects are not continuous with objects?

>>18397739
Consider why 'x' makes grug feel bad in the first place... It is because such a feeling has conferred some kind of survival advantage to the population he is a part of. That is the 'telos' of morality as a behavioural strategy, if you will.

>>18397582
That's incorrect. Objectivity and universality aren't identical concepts, and you are perpetuating a fallacy (which indeed wouldn't take long to realize if you bothered to think critically about it). It is completely logically coherent to suppose that morality is objectively non-universal.

>>18398418
the absolute state of this non-argument

>>18398490
>Have you considered that all subjective instances are subsets of the objective? At some level/in some form anything which is experienced must be objective, since it has occurred. Do you actually believe that subjects are not continuous with objects?
This has got to be some of the biggest sophistry that I've seen on /lit/

>>18398518
another great argument, you guys are truly crackerjack philosophers

>>18398411
What if you felt the opposite tomorrow?

>>18385628
>atheistic
DO YOU MEAN AGNOSTIC?
ATHEISM IS A FUCKING MEME OP

>>18398345
Pretty good actually, thanks for asking. Couldn't care less about whatever your god thinks about me, since he is not real, just like his moral ambiguity.

>>18398490
The religious would never understand the evolution by natural selection, he would consider his morality to be objective, but survival of the fittest to be subjective. He could go on about a perfect being having perfect look on anything so that makes him morally everything but he can't comprehend that human beings longing for survival is not an morally good thing. Grug having subjective opinion on survival, learning from it, teaching it to his tribe thereby making it universally objective survival theme is not "objectively good and morally applicable" to the religious, but some dude having probably psychedelic fungi bread telling us an all powerful, all knowing creature is all great on objective morality. Because everything is him and he is everything or something thereby he is all morally good and some other weird form is all morally bad.

>>18385628
The Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard.

>>18399089
btw, Objectivism surely has its weak points but if it's meme tier for you then you're beyond help already.

>>18385691
This guy is actually right: explaining objective morality on theism is as difficult, if not more so, than on atheism. First of all, if you buy divine command theory you have to contend with the Euthyphro dilemma. Eventually you find yourself making a ton of implausible claims about the Good’s relation to God. Finally, even if divine command theory is true, theists would have a difficult time explaining what it is exactly that makes a descriptive claim, that God commands x, for example, morally obligatory. Is it because God is more powerful than us? That God is the creator of all things? Both of these statements are descriptive, and moral obligations would still not arise from them. Perhaps if one adds the proposition that one should obey the commands of powerful creators of all things, the inference would be justified, but what basis do we have for that proposition? Plenty of atheists have offered plausible accounts of objective morality; Philippa Foot in particular comes to mind.

>>18399195
>Is it because God is more powerful than us? That God is the creator of all things?

Yes, vulgar Christianity is just might makes right except even worse, God is simply the tyrant of tyrants and the abomination of abominations: >>18397721

My understanding of the Greeks before Socrates was that this back and forth bickering over semantics and definitions is faggy and a waste of energy. You need to live your life by your morals and ethics, make them real and tangible in action, otherwise you are breathing hot air. There's a neurosis in this thread that is nauseating.

>His hidden meaning lies in our endeavours;
Our valors are our best gods.

>>18398550
Feelings aren't the only variables that change... Where have I proposed that moral calculations are static? Again, there is no real 'ought', only the circumstances of 'is' and our navigation of them.

What doesn't change, however, is why morality exists in the first place. The behaviour is there because it provides collective survival advantages (a kind of social technology, if you will). If we understand this, then we can understand the sense in which it is objective (any individual's maladaptive feelings or faulty reasoning isn't going to change the fact that indiscriminant murder/thievery/rudeness/etc. is detrimental to the group).

I might be a brainlet, but I don't understand what is wrong with God being the Goodness itself.

>>18399666
I don't think that's how you live your life tho

>>18398591
I only ask because Athiests tend to have father issues. If you were wrong, and there is a God, how would your respond?

>>18394880
God has no personal feelings because he's not a person (even though his being includes personhood).

>>18395002
There is no such thing as an empirical proof.

>>18402007
Alright his own personal interpretations or prejudices then. There must be some internal reason for him to make a decision. If it's only an internal reason that is the definition of subjective

>>18401916
You’re thinking of fascists
Fascists have father issues.

>>18385691
How can you be this wrong?