/lit/ - Literature

>objective morality

>>20802498
What does this have to do with literature?

>>20802498
>>>/his/

Next time
Keep it to yourself

>>20802519
Hate him
>>20802556
I'm gonna rape you

>>20802562
Note: Anger may cause schizophrenia

Not literature related

>>20802533
>What does this have to do with literature?

>>20802498
>Are there any books on this particular rhetorical trick?

>>20802582
Historical figures (Jesus) and questions about History books go to /his/

>>20802498
Religion is the belief in good and evil, most atheists are religious therefore, if you were truly an atheist you would not have any preference for what is good, bad or logical

>>20802498
but how could a cat call them on the phone?

>>20802556
>>>>/his/
You know, nappy-headed anon, directing people a known forum for political extremists is technically a terrorist offense now.

>>20802562
I share your sentiment, anon.

I don't know who this man is but the people who post his picture are doing for him what the media did for Trump.

>>20802586
>Historical figures (Jesus) and questions about History books go to /his/
To be redirected back to /lit/ for a book on the subject...?

Don't be fucking stupid now.

>>20802596
You seem confused

>>20802589
>if you were truly an atheist
Who said anything about atheism? I'm talking about the obvious rhetorical ploy of conflating an epistemological (or philosophical) subject with the name of a religious figure in order to deflect the earlier refutation.

>>20802596
>I don't know who this man is but the people who post his picture are doing for him what the media did for Trump.
Newfags need to be drawn and quartered.

>>20802586
OH WAIT i see what you did there
>>Historical figures (Jesus)
xD

>>20802614
There is no argument. You might as well say we can discern god's will using logic, maybe without sounding hubristic even

>>20802628
>There is no argument. You might as well say we can discern god's will using logic
Who's talking about this? I'm talking about the...
>the obvious rhetorical ploy of conflating an epistemological (or philosophical) subject with the name of a religious figure in order to deflect the earlier refutation.

Did the example of Jesus upset you or something? I cant really think of another example of this in the kind of context (i.e. the irrational conflation was accepted later on), so...

...i you want to discuss 'this', ok i guess.

It'll keep the thread alive until one person comes along and gives a book title where the real subject is discussed.

>objectively

Uh-oh.

>>20802605
it's okay anon, I'm just clicking the hide button. I can't stand to see that mans face anymore. I have pity for him for what you're doing to his reputation, whoever he is. I'm sure he doesn't deserve this prolonged harassment.

>>20802648
Are you autistic?

>>20802648
I'm saying there is no difference. If God is objectively good, which I assume you would believe considering he made the whole universe, then you are just saying that we can discern god's will with logic. Idk why you have a problem with religious figures.

>>20802660
Meant for>>20802643

>>20802593
Exactly.

>>20802653
No, I don't have any autism spectrum traits such as speaking in short repetitive phrases or enjoying and sharing similar simple pictures repeatedly. I just get the strongest suspicion that whoever that man is is being abused in some way; posting his absurd image with a nappy on his head in various threads, when he's a nobody, and especially when the image is twinned to a malicious reply can only be serving to create a negative association of that man in the brain of the various readers. I don't know 'why' people are doing that, but I notice it's a fairly constant thing over the last month here, and it always conforms to this pattern when his image is used.

Anyway, off-fucking-topic.

And are you trying to get banned for 30 days for a Hate Crime by using a disability as an abusive pejorative?

>>20802683
>are you trying to get banned for 30 days for a Hate Crime by using a disability as an abusive pejorative?
Holy shit lol

>>20802660
Well I wasn't talking about 'God' in any sense, I said a 'religious figure'. If we were to seek a basis to twin Jesus (the religious figure) 'to' Logos to act like he was the first and last word on scientific inquiry, for example, as being one branch of logic, then we'd need to provide some heavy duty case for this in his various deeds or writings.

Somebody like Galen, for instance, 'could' be described as 'Logos-like', due to his immense contributions to medicine. But when we employ this basis of proof-testing we'd be forced, then, to suggest that Jesus compared to Galen would come out severely lacking in any readily observable corpus - no pun intended - or contributions to one or more areas of logical inquiry. We could not, after all, even say Jesus was Galen-like (i.e. Logos-like).


Again, I'm not thinking here of any God or Gods is or are; however deep into the idea of what a God or Creator Thing, but I am talking instead about the rhetorical ploy of displacing fields of sciences by taking their name and applying it to a man unaccomplished in those sciences.

Maybe another comparison could be, hypothetically, to go looking for The City of Dublin and you find a group of persons declaring a random man to be called The City of Dublin, whilst not being aware that there ever was a City named Dublin. Something completely bizarre like this.

again,
>>20802593
Exactly.

>>20802691
Don't worry, I can't be bothered to test whether 4chan moderators operate on the same legal principle as the rest of the west today.

2/2
>>20802660
Also, this is completely obvious to anybody not in some way having being exposed to Christianity and who understand what the word Logos means in the Old Greek and Roman.

>I'm not thinking here of any God or Gods is or are; however deep into the idea of what a God or Creator Thing,
wow i phrased that one pretty poorly lol

*I'm not thinking here of (what) any God or Gods is or are; however deep into the idea of what a God or Creator Thing ('is' that you want to go),

sorry, long day.

Christcucks are so stupid. You retards are like children

>"Might makes right" has little to do with it.

Might makes right has everything to do with it. Every christcuck argument for the existence of god and objective morality reduces to an appeal to authority in the end. Christcuck "philosophy" is like a little kid telling everyone else his mommy told him something so it must be true. Christcucks have no good answer for stuff like pic related and always have to resort to childish godmodding ("god has a plan for existence of evil, it's all part of god's 5D chess plan brahhhh") to get around them

Even the best christcuck pseudophilosophers like William Lane Craig have absolutely infantile arguments for the existence of god and the validity of morality. I've never seen a single christcuck try to tackle real philosophical problems with morality, such as the epistemological issue of the impossibility of grasping objective truth through the subjective lens of human interpretation. It's all just a bunch of cuckservative mental gymnastics to justify them feeling superior to everyone else lmao.

>>20802691
ANON you started eating your pudding before you dealt rationally with the pork sausage and potatoes that I gave you for your mains.

> I just get the strongest suspicion that whoever that man is is being abused in some way; posting his absurd image with a nappy on his head in various threads, when he's a nobody, and especially when the image is twinned to a malicious reply can only be serving to create a negative association of that man in the brain of the various readers. I don't know 'why' people are doing that, but I notice it's a fairly constant thing over the last month here, and it always conforms to this pattern when his image is used.

I just realized this may not translate into the colonies,
>a nappy on his head
i.e. a Pampers, a childrens or adult Diaper

>>20802808
I share this most of these sentiments.

Apart from,
> the epistemological issue of the impossibility of grasping objective truth through the subjective lens of human interpretation

and

> the existence of god and the validity of morality.
Really a better way to point this out is to refer back to the conversation in the OP, notice how the dilemma was solved One Day but the Next Day the thing that solved the dilemma had been re-appropriated and redefined as something it was not before.


>William Lane Craig
Kent Hovind is my favorite theological comic act, his character arc was pretty elaborate.

>>20802808
2/2
or... the'bad' thing about religions that are observed to produce bad people or do bad things is that they have understood that Virtue opposes Vice (Objective Good vs. Objective Bad), but that they have swapped some Vices with the Virtues, making it seem that harmful an self-harmful or just dumb things are 'highly virtuous'.

When you disentangle Virtue and Vice from religious pseudo-legalism this dilemma melts away almost instantly.

>>20802808
3/3
e.g.
Whether (local god story) is true or not, if you engage in the classical Vices you will have many problems in life, and whether (local god story) is true or not, if you engage in the classical Virtues you will be pretty good.

Industry vs. Sloth
Modesty vs. Vanity
etc. each of these can be proven to objectively correct by the consequence of their application or practice.

3/3
e.g.
Whether (local god story) is true or not, if you engage in the classical Vices you will have many problems in life, and whether (local god story) is true or not, if you engage in the classical Virtues you will be pretty good.

Industry vs. Sloth
Modesty vs. Vanity
etc. each of these can be proven to objectively correct by the consequence of their application or practice. Due to this, then, the statement...
>>"if God isn't real, then we have no morality!"
is a non-sequitur; as the consequences apply in each instance regardless of whether the God is real or not, and are, also not dependent on his/her/its doing.

4/4
since we're on the topic

If a religion wished to claim morality, their holy books would not consist of various acts of barbaric rapacity and mutilation of the body; their holy books would consist of a precise and didactic instruction in how the Virtues and the Vices operate in a clear and comprehensive manner.

If a religion possesses a holy book absent of this instruction then that religion may not claim morality, but they still can claim to be about god, or whatever.

Whereas,
If a religion possesses a holy book absent of this instruction and can be evidenced to praise Vice "as if it were Virtue" (e.g. "I am a jealous God!" Hebrew God) then that religion can be shown to be in error on the subject of both a Good God and of any claims on morality.

>>20802846
>Kent Hovind is my favorite theological comic act, his character arc was pretty elaborate.

>>20802589
Very retarded statement, bravo

The problem is that some things that are good for you, are not good for other people, and there's no logical reason for you to care about every person. In fact, quite the opposite, because many people pose a threat, or a challenge to your place of power. The logical thing to do is to keep a very close knit tribe, and kill everyone who poses a challenge to your land or resources. Potentially take their women and rape them too.

>>20802952
>some things that are good for you, are not good for other people,
> kill everyone who poses a challenge to your land or resources. Potentially take their women and rape them too.
this is overly basic, i've heard thousands of refutations of this; mostly coming back to the undeniably true point of "treating others how you want to be treated" for the sake of not being killed or burned to death in your house due to the consequences of people you've fucked over coming back to get you.

I think that's a fairly easy question long ago already solved - people may ignore it and do evil stupid things,but they still suffer the consequences in real time. That's their stupidity.

> there's no logical reason for you to care about every person.
This is more complicated, I suppose. Logically speaking it's not entirely true that (that) follows; e.g. if you're a fair employer your employees know how good you are compared to other very bad employers, so your reputation and organization gains a great deal of operational integrity as a consequence. The opposite would be to look at a strikers protest or a sexual harassment suit, or something.

However, "being generally decent" does come down to personal choice; you don't need to help people out when you gain nothing, but it is a sign of strength or wealth to be able to 'give' charity (not nessecarily in a monetary sense). A way I reason it is to apply the operationa integrity principle onto veerybody you meet in your life, and compare the two approaches as they would be contrasted;
1) a person doesn't give a fuck, they go through life making enemies and have plenty of people who want to harm them or won't help them ever because of what that person has done to them,
2) the same person instead decided not to be petty or evil, and instead of making a thousand enemies by the end of the year who will oppose them at the first opportunity, they have made a thousand friends by the end of the year who will at least not oppose them ad may lend their active support at the first opportunity instead.

>>20803001
>"treating others how you want to be treated" for the sake of not being killed
Kill them before they kill you.
>the same person instead decided not to be petty or evil, and instead of making a thousand enemies by the end of the year who will oppose them at the first opportunity, they have made a thousand friends by the end of the year
Or they have potentially shown themselves up as a pushover, and invited people to take advantage

>>20803017
>Kill them before they kill you.
No, then someone like me would outsmart you and the outsmarting would involve superior force.

>Or they have potentially shown themselves up as a pushover, and invited people to take advantage
Ah this is true. Better to discern and avoid those people, because it's hard to resist the urge to harm them. But you know a thousand other people will anyway for the earlier reasoning so, hey.

>>20803017
I mean, I do agree in a sense that "fear of violence" is a legitimate and actual reason for self-control; maybe 'the' biggest reason, so that when a person is terrible they get badly hurt because of it and they're scared to do it again. It does seem to be a problem of 'civilized places' that the worst kinds of people are always observed to be reliant on a third party organization preventing them from being harmed.

>>20803045
>No, then someone like me would outsmart you and the outsmarting would involve superior force.
So the logical thing to do is to try to be the strongest and smartest tribe, and then dominate everyone else.
>Better to discern and avoid those people,
But that's not a moral thing to do. That's you making a cold, selfish judgement not to help people, for your own sake.