/lit/ - Literature

Sam Harris already overcame the is-ought gap. Science can give us values.

Brother Karamazov clearly presents 3 brothers with 3 different outlooks, one is agnostic one is christian one is atheist

that's what is so beautiful about his novels he clearly presents different perspectives in a comprehensive manner

you're the retarded child who dostoieski would kill off at the end of the novel

>>22199865

>objective morality

>>22199865
>>22199872
Refuted by /lit/chads and redditors a million years ago.

>my philosophy actually has value because I added in that some diety said it

>>22199872
I genuinely can't believe this is one of the foremost "intellectuals" of our time.

>>22199872
Stopped reading at "suck"
Define suck. Sorry Sam everything is power, try and cope all you want.

>>22199892
considered one of*

*by plebs and pseuds

>>22199872
what a retard

>>22199886
No one has yet to refute this.

>>22199872
All I got from your pic is a mental image of Sam Harris chasing people down with a George Foreman grill and scorching their limbs for asking the wrong questions.

>>22199847
Sure, but there would no objective morality with god either, because god having the power to send people to hell for disagreeing with him doesn’t make his subjective morality any less subjective than mine or yours any more than Kim Jong-Un jailing and starving dissidents makes his morality objective.

>>22199981
>um achually my opinion is just as valid as the ultimate being who created me and everything else and knows quite literally everything in the universe and has total and complete power over the aforementioned and whose judgement is infinite
I don't have a brainlet or onions wojack big enough for this

how is it people to be so stupid? do they not teach math in school anymore? do people just not understand what infinity means anymore?

>>22200086
how it possible*

>>22199847
Plato disagrees.

>>22199925
>There are no deities

Here. I refuted it.

>>22199886
Incredibly dumb take. There are things that are clearly not out of human mouth. Maybe a human said it, but it wasn't him to actually talk. Expand your brain, midge.

>>22200108
Please provide evidence that a diety exists first.

>>22200111
The proof is precisely what inspired men have pronounced in rare, sparse moments of human history.

>>22199872
>4/
baka

>>22199981
>God
>Subjective

There's no objective morality with god, either.

>>22200086
>how is it people to be so stupid? do they not teach math in school anymore? do people just not understand what infinity means anymore?
It's narcissism. Modern people think they are nihilists when in reality they are just incredibly self-centered due to years of conditioning which insists they are special and intrinsically valid so they can be good consumers and not worry about merit, talent, knowledge, etc... They are all of them enlightened dissidents, what the academic refers to as "individuals", never mind the fact they all adopt identical and completely innocuous heresies to evidence this. Their being right or wrong doesn't depend on anything like merit or logic because it never had to, the bourgeoise exists well beyond such petty constraints as they live in a world without danger and do so in order to perpetuate a perfectly delimited curriculum, they produce the rote by rote and for rote. Anyone with a background in psychology understands this even if they can't affect it, narcissism is fundamentally a term referring to a delusional state where a person projects personage while lacking it and so never obtains it. Critical thinking can only lead to "narcissistic injury", and is the only real evil in such a world.

If morality exists, it is objective.
There is no subjective morality.
Either morality exists or it doesn't.

>>22200136
Ding ding ding. End of the thread.

>>22200122
My 5 year old said something similar about her teacher after failing their spelling test.

>>22200147
2+2=5 is not without its attractions

>>22200086
How does god being infinite make his morality objective? He would still be using his faculties to arrive that moral opinions like everybody else.

>>22200168
*arrive at

>>22200086
>what infinity means
Infinity is not real in any way whatsoever, it's literally the opposite of something that doesn't exist, or the lack thereof. You tried being big brained for a while there, but there's no actual proof of the fact that something even remotely close to infinity exists. It's the most brainlet take there is, and if it really were to exist then practically everything would be meaningless. The very notion of cherishing something comes from the fact that there might be a definite amount of anything you could experience from a human's ability to live that is in itself finite. If you can't actually experience infinity and if it's a concept you pick up after learning something abstract, then not only is there no proof of infinity actually existing, but it holds no actual value either other than trying to describe something so vague as infinity.

>>22200195
>it's literally the opposite of something that doesn't exist, or the lack thereof
A confused person typed these words

>>22200086
Sure, God is more powerful than me. I despise him for putting me into this world and making me play by his rules or else I'll suffer eternity in hell. Why couldn't he just let me stay in the void or something? Because of that I reject his morality, for that's the only act of rebellion I can do - even if it damns me like it damned Ahab.

>>22200195
if you weren't so dumb you'd realize you are making my argument for me, because god does exist

>>22200168
You are not equipped to ask this question, learn some math and them come back, because you clearly don't understand what infinity means.

>>22200222
>holy palindrome trips of truth
very nice

>>22200201
Not even in space, common beliefs of something like a black hole swallowing things and in turn them ceasing to exist, is true either. If something that exists can't stop existing, the opposite of infinity, can't happen as we know it today, then it doesn't make for a very compelling argument to say that infinity exists. Comforting, but not true.

>>22200168
>How does god being infinite make his morality objective?
>He would still be using his faculties to arrive that moral opinions
> like everybody else.
This is like someone asking how come red isn't four better than pineapple monday? It's total nonsense that reveals you don't have any strong definitions for your terms or even a basic understanding of the logical grammar you're pretending to use a. In the same way god doesn't "arrive" at "opinions" (he is a transcendental being beyond time superimposed across everything ever) you don't have opinions independent of god, god by definition created, informs, subsumes, and transcends everything in the universe.

Put it this way, you could say god literally creates facts, but it would be redundant when you could just say "god creates", they are the same thing.

>>22199847
Then give away all your belongings like the Bible says

Why do trannies and fedoras always lose in these threads? It's kind of sad reading their copes every day, especially because they cycle through the same strawmen, cherry picked lies, and strategies for denial each time.

>>22200231
>something that exists can't stop existing, the opposite of infinity
You're just a confused anglo. Either take your meds or read some Greeks. The opposite of infinite is limited. Has literally nothing to do with ontology.

>>22200265
>In the same way god doesn't "arrive" at "opinions" (he is a transcendental being beyond time superimposed across everything ever) you don't have opinions independent of god, god by definition created, informs, subsumes, and transcends everything in the universe.
So where does human free will enter into the picture?

>>22200280
Most atheists fail to grasp the concept of morality since they so deeply want to see themselves as good people yet refuse to acknowledge where "good" comes from.

>>22200115
Yet you can't provide any examples of said proof

>morals are objective

So how does one discover these objective moral facts? And why do so many cultures disagree about them?

>>22200291
>The opposite of infinite is limited
Limited is a constant, by using the word infinite or trying to make something cease to exist, are two sides of the same coin. Limited is the argument I'm trying to make, as it can be observed, lived, and makes sense. You say infinite, the word doesn't define anything in specific, so it loses its value. When it comes to just about anything else in the world, you can attach a word for it and it defines something.

Analytic philosophy has ruined the West

>>22200327
>So how does one discover these objective moral facts
Through the word of God. Or you don't. It doesn't matter if you discover them or not. That which is objective simply is.
>And why do so many cultures disagree about them?
What an idiotic question.

>>22200346
>That which is objective (to me) simply is (because I said so)

Christians only have scoffs and insults, no real arguments. Fucking embarrassing.

>>22200353
>>That which is objective (to me)
Do you understand what objectivity is? Genuine question because neither of your posts have indicated that you do.

>>22200358
At least we have objective morality while atheists don’t.

>>22199847
Why is God needed? Unless you get platonic about morality, it's also subjective if it's based on his commands. If you are platonic about it, then there is no need for God.

If infinity was something people could experience and be measured and wasn't as vague in its description as it is, then it'd probably be called something else other than infinity. If you have a word to describe something impossible and also improbable, if to understand the defintion you have to be alive and if it only makes sense to people that will never get to experience infinity then what's the purpose? When it comes to defining physical things that exist you don't need to be a human being to understand. If you were to try and talk to something that wasn't human and lived forever, you'd realize that the word infinity in itself is a concept only relevant to humans.

>>22200412
>it's also subjective if it's based on his commands.
No it isn't. Your interpretation is subjective but the morality that you are trying to interpret is objective.

>>22200412
God is morality itself, not just another person.

>>22200136
This I’m not following. You can have morality ad the result of cultural reinforcement, power relations, a multi-generational psyop, etc. as people insist. It’s just not objective morality. But it is morality nonetheless. How is it not morality?

>>22200222
checked

I think the unfortunate reality though is that people don’t care. They do have morals and they think those morals are legitimate. That we can use intellect to point out that those morals are not logical or contradictory if they subtract God, doesn’t really matter.

>>22200433
>You can have morality ad the result of cultural reinforcement, power relations, a multi-generational psyop, etc. as people insist.
No? How the hell did you arrive at this conclusion.

>>22200168
You think God is a human man in the sky, don’t you?

>>22200444
If I inherit some moral code from my culture, I might be misguided because while I take them as “objective” they’re in fact culturally relative and not truly objective but they are still morals. I still have morality. They’re subjective, but they’re still morals.

>>22199872
>put your hand on a hot stove
that sucks
but putting YOUR hand on a hot stove would give me pleasure

>>22200136
If God exists, morality is objective.
If He doesn’t, then it’s subjective.
God = Morality

>>22200454
>>22200462
Personal interpretations of what is good and evil doesn't have anything to do with morality. Morality is, or it isn't. If morality isn't, then you cannot have a subjective view on it. If morality is, it is.

>>22200486
God is not a personal interpretation. God is morality itself.

>>22200513
Yes, so without God, there would be no morality. Without morality, there can be no subjective morality either since it hinges on the existence of morality.

>>22199847
So what?

>>22200522
So atheist “values” are worthless.

>>22200527
So what?

>>22200530
Ah, it’s a negro who repeats the same phrase over and over.

What even is this thread. Some kind of competition to see which christcuck can vomit the most retarded take? Because they are really outdoing themselves

>>22200446
I think god would have a mind and thus would have reasons for doing what he does, reasons he would have to arrive at through some means, otherwise his morality would simply be arbitrary.

>>22200556
Your understanding of God is inane.

>>22200486
I think you’re trying to say that the only type of morality that can exist at all is objective morality, but I don’t think that’s the case. Morality, in my mind, is just a set of principles and values. It’s definitely correct to point out that without God, morality can’t be objective, but it can still be morality. It’s just subjective morality. Even religious fundamentalists would agree with this because they can point out that for example, Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists all have moral codes, but two of them believe in two entirely different Gods and one doesn’t believe in any sort of God at all. So you can definitely still have morals even if they’re not objective morals.

>>22199847
Yeah there isn't. I guess we just have to accept it and live with it

>>22200556
It doesn’t make sense to assume that God uses or is bound by reason in the same way you use or are bound by reason. You’re a creature, but He’s creator. We owe our reasoning faculties to Him in the first place.

>>22199847
So?

>>22199847
God is a human construction to help dimwits understand how to live in a civilized society. Morality is the base for civilization. God was invented from morality, not the other way around.
Strong, immutable guidelines.

>>22200346
How did you speak with a transcendental being beyond time superimposed across everything ever?

>>22199847
Isn't it funny that when we humans try to come up with an all encompassing being and creator of everything the best thing we can come up with is just a legislator/judge?

>>22200571
>Morality, in my mind, is just a set of principles and values.
Here lies the disagreement then.
People can have values (which are subjective), but if their reasoning is that "X is bad because it is evil" it still relies on an objective morality to explain the concept of evil. Values and morality are not the same thing.

>>22200629
Not really funny, no.

>>22200603
Do I have to explain to you what religious scriptures are?

>>22200634
A little bit

>>22200640
If you say so, mr comedian.

>>22199847
>There’s no objective morality without God.
OK and? Morality doesn't need to be objective to work as a value compass for people, people just need to have faith in it

>>22199847
I don't care what God thinks. I only care what I think. If I say it is good then it is good. If I say it is bad then it is bad. I believe in morality but if your being honest every person can come to their own conclusions about morality and in most cases the similar morals will come together to make a stable society while the eccentrics will be tolerated on the fringe unless they are dangerous. I do what I think is right because I think it is right. I avoid what I think is wrong because I think it is wrong. If that isn't what God wants then that's his problem. If I am damned for that I accept it because any man who lets fear of punishment control his life is more rat than man and deserves no respect. Heaven, hell, it's all irrelevant to me because my morals come from my own conclusions and as long as I lived as I feel is right I do not fear what anything else thinks higher or lower than me.

>>22200651
That means morality is as volatile as a fart in the wind.

>>22200657
you are retarded

>>22200513
Which God? Because different Gods have different morality systems.

>>22200653
Today you are euphoric

>>22200639
Shit that someone wrote and said it was a space alien.

>>22200659
Only one God is capitalized :D
But sure, play the fool

>>22200665
Allah, Zeus, Pewdiepie, Trump.

>>22200633
I don’t think it necessarily has to be grounded in objective morality though. I completely agree that ultimately there is no one morality without God and to talk of some action as evil (in an objective sense, presumably) makes no sense. But I could refer to some action as “wrong” and have that “wrong” be couched in cultural understanding. In that case, I would still have a conception of wrong action. It just wouldn’t be wrong in any objective sense.

>>22200658
People tend to use insults that they themselves would be hurt by.

>>22199847
It seems to me that throughout history a lot of people have claimed that their ideas of what people should and shouldn't do are objective morality

>>22200666
Go away, devil!

>>22199847
You are your own god. You make your own rules.

>>22199847
>If
There is no god, everything IS permitted, yet I don't see the apocalypse nor the society collapsing. Seems like nobody ever needed your god to begin with, you Russian emo faggot.

>>22200686
Alas my reality dissipated for I have become an illusion, a man made ghost. Cucked out of real life

>>22200684
That’s what degenerate are so upset about.

>>22200639
Yes. How do you know what is scripture and what isn't?

>>22200690
Animism is the natural state of man. The gods run the world and leave us to sort ourselves out. They may demand things here or there but they have no need for our total obedience.

>>22200695
Speak english when you reply to me please

YOUR GOD WHO CREATED ALL CREATED TRANNIES. WHAT SAY YE TO THIS GOD? I SAY NAY.

>>22200701
That’s what degenerates (like you) are so upset about.

>>22200703
Trannies are perverted fetishists. They are acting on their own.

>>22200712
EVERYONE IS ACTING ON THEIR OWN, GOD MADE REALITY, GOD IS A FETISHIST
CRUCIFICATION
VIRGIN IMPREGNATION

>>22200690
You don’t see society collapsing? lol

>>22199847
If there is a God, everything is still permitted because he hasn't told us what's not allowed yet.

>>22200719
Yeah wtf hasn't he seen all the outrage content I spent all day consuming online?

>>22200724
>Nooooooo that’s not society!!

>>22200731
My view of the state of society couldn't possibly be warped by my internet usage habits

>>22200734
>If you saw it online, it’s not real!

>>22200412
>Why is God needed?
Because without God then you go
>Why do I have to follow X morals?
>Because its useful/makes you happy/helps others/strengthens society/preserves your life
>Why are those things morally good?
And then there's no answer. Most people act in a moral way, but that's only because their life would be destroyed. It's all utilitarian/materialistic reasons. ("I have morals because of the benefits to myself and others")

>>22200739

>>22200749
Good movie. Better book.

>>22200748
>you shouldn’t sin
>why not?
>because then you’ll go to hell
seems pretty utilitarian

>>22200748
99.9% of people won't spend their nights thinking about "why".
Most people go about their lives, following a system of government, law, only to not get arrested, acquire currency so they can eat and then heave fun in their spare time.
The "bad" men who rape, rob and steal also exist under this God, yet it does not stop them. They do not consider morality or concern themselves with whys, regardless of God or lack of it.
Sick people will do sick things and decent people will just carry on not causing waves, good people will help others. God or no God.

>>22200748
Modern western morals are just remnants of the Christian era with some “Enlightenment” era ones like faggots and whatnot.

>>22200755
“Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you.”
It's as simple as this, this is all you need.
You don't need God.
You don't need threats.
Just stop being retarded, selfish little cunts.
And give death penalty to all rapists and murderers.

>>22200755
You shouldn't sin because God said that you shouldn't. Revealing the existence of Hell was a mistake IMO, it made materialists pretend they were Christian out of fear instead of being honest about what they were, which eventually led to all problems in modern society.

>>22200762
Death penalty is immoral

Which "god" are you talking about?

>>22200764
God didn't tell me I shouldn't sin. Some guy said he said that.
>>22200766
>Put someone in a cage forever at the cost of taxpayers money, robbing them of a future and robbing us of money
>More moral than just removing a cyst

>>22200758
I'm an atheist, anon, I don't believe in God. What you read isn't an argument for religion, its an argument for proving that morals are bullshit.

>>22200758
Uh oh. Bad people exist. Looks like we better pack it up, guys. The whole thing is fucked because bad people do things regardless. Better to just disintegrate into total moral anarchy.

Makes perfect sense.

>>22200772
You can only think in absolutes huh? If I'm not on your side then I'm a "moral anarchist".
I believe in being good. But it's not an entity making me do it. It's me not acting like a fucking selfish retard.

>>22200769
Life is more important than money

>>22200781
Not the life of someone who takes a life. Becomes moot.

>>22200781
I hope your girlfriend gets raped and murdered so you can forgive her killer, turn the other cheek, kiss him and suck him off while saying "your life has value, I forgive you".
Cuck.

>>22200775
What does it mean to “be good”?

>>22200787
Philosofy is a circlejerk for pseudo intelectuals that are bored and have too much time on their hands.
It doesn't matter the definition. Let others be happy, help others be happy, don't hurt others. It's that simple, instead of jerking off on your free time about the significance of things, the verbosity of your intelectualism, trying to defy others in a battle of pretentiousness go put a smile on someone's face, give a coin to the homeless, pet a dog. I don't fucking know. Make the world a better place grain by grain.

>>22200782
If you murder a murderer you don’t fix the pain he left behind, you become another murderer.
>>22200785
What gf? HAHAHAHAHAHA this isn’t reddit.

>>22200795
Your boyfriend then, I don't judge.

>>22200762
Golden Rule is pure retardation and if it was followed then civilization would never have reached this level and we'd be in the stone-age forever until we went extinct

>>22200799
What level? Monkeys but we can use TikTok and go around in fuel propelled metal boxes? Wow!

>>22200797
You clearly do judge. And you fantasized about men giving blowjobs to killers. Weird.

>>22199847
>There’s no objective morality without God.
if you boil down God to consciousness then yeah. given the capability and circumstances to make that decision, it is objectively immoral to allow a raging chimp to attack a helpless child. that idea cannot exist without a conscious observer

>>22200806
It's my month, stop being a bigot.

>>22200809
Okay, Lawrence.

>143 replies
>32 IPs
Can you obsessed atheist schizos go back to shitting up his instead? You're too obvious and dumb to even waste anyone else's time but your own.

>>22199886
>diety

>>22200748
>Why do I have to follow X morals?
Because some people believe in upholding ideals regardless of the utility they bring. I will give you a fictional example, a liberal example, and a right example

Batman doesn't kill Joker because he believes murder will make him just as bad as the villains.

Liberals want more welfare and social programs for minorities even though they will have to pay more in taxes because they believe this brings society closer to their ideal of "equality"

Right-leaning accelerationists want the destruction of the status quo even though it will destroy the economy and undoubtedly bring new hardships because they believe in removing corruption from society.

>>22200794
In other words “I dunno, but I’m gonna assert things as if I do know”.

You’re a pseud.

>>22200358
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/sentence-fragment/

>>22200339
Agreed

>>22200317
They are contradictory beings

>>22200748
Why do I have to follow what God says?

>>22200857
you’re a midwit, never touch a novel or you’ll hurt yourself

>>22200131
>It's narcissism. Modern people think they are nihilists when in reality they are just incredibly self-centered due to years of conditioning which insists they are special and intrinsically valid so they can be good consumers and not worry about merit, talent, knowledge, etc...
I feel personally attacked

>>22200884
>novel
You revealed your midwittery by mentioning novels instead of the superior form of literature—the epic poem, of course. I actually don’t have anything against bending the rules of English. What grinds my gears is inane dogshit like fragments of “fucking embarrassing” like in your original comment: Your greatest work would (if you ever got off your ass to write something) be titled something like “The Profound Journey of Saying Fuck it and Embracing Shitstorms.”

>>22200882
>Why do I have to follow what God says?
Enjoy your banana.

>>22200318
All sacred literature

>>22200781
Spoken like a westerner who's neurotic about death.
The more you fight death, the more damage you do to posterity with your passing. Imagine a cancer patient who could have died in a few months and spent their hard earned money to make it the best possible time for them and their family. Instead they take that money and go to the hospital, take all of these poisons, turn into wispy ghouls of themselves that suffer tremendously for those last few years they bought, because LIFE IS SO IMPORTANT NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF LIFE IT IS! And then they begin abusing their family members because they're in pain and said family members can't help them.

This is what a life sentence is. It might not even be the fault of the criminal in question. He could be nuts, he could have been victimized, but if he did something that was so appalling, it earned a life sentence, he's sending you a clear message about what he thinks of his own existence. Better to let him become air.

>>22199847
There's no good or evil with God. God is commonly taken to be the standard of goodness, so anything he does is 'good.' This is why Christians can smugly look into the eyes of a child dying of cancer and say it's 'all apart of His plan,' as if that justifies this divine act of callousness. But what does it really mean to use God as your measure of what's good? It's to be entirely arbitrary. There is no objectivity in God's actions, it's whimsical and beyond accountability. If you are to use God as an '''''objective''''' guide to moral action, you can do anything you please, just so long as you interpret His guidance correctly. How convenient for those who claim to be His guide here on Earth.

>>22201007
There's no point in engaging with the "substance" of this post because it is in fact nothing more than a smokescreen put up to hide the bitterness in your heart that you hold against God, the cosmos, and life itself. The simple fact of the matter is that religious people love life and the world despite all of its trials, in no small part because they can transcend them, and you do not.

>>22200111
>>22199886
This mofo said "diety" twice..

>>22199873
Stirner as a meme < Using Stirner to meme

>>22200111
If you go back long enough someone has to be creator that wasnt created.

>>22199847
Why are there and why have there been so many religions if God's morality is objective?

>>22201021
You are a terrible apologist. Christers are not sending their best. Even Plato has an opinion on this, and you were supposed to have copied him.

>>22199847
>>22199866
If you are alluding to Dostoevsky’s worst novels, then, indeed, I dislike intensely The Brothers Karamazov and the ghastly Crime and Punishment rigamarole. No, I do not object to soul-searching and self-revelation, but in those books the soul, and the sins, and the sentimentality, and the journalese, hardly warrant the tedious and muddled search. Dostoyevsky’s lack of taste, his monotonous dealings with persons suffering with pre-Freudian complexes, the way he has of wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity – all this is difficult to admire. I do not like this trick his characters have of ”sinning their way to Jesus” or, as a Russian author, Ivan Bunin, put it more bluntly, ”spilling Jesus all over the place." Crime and Punishment’s plot did not seem as incredibly banal in 1866 when the book was written as it does now when noble prostitutes are apt to be received a little cynically by experienced readers. Dostoyevsky never really got over the influence which the European mystery novel and the sentimental novel made upon him. The sentimental influence implied that kind of conflict he liked—placing virtuous people in pathetic situations and then extracting from these situations the last ounce of pathos. Non-Russian readers do not realize two things: that not all Russians love Dostoevsky as much as Americans do, and that most of those Russians who do, venerate him as a mystic and not as an artist. He was a prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. I admit that some of his scenes, some of his tremendous farcical rows are extraordinarily amusing. But his sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes are not to be endured for one moment—by this reader anyway. Dostoyevsky seems to have been chosen by the destiny of Russian letters to become Russia’s greatest playwright, but he took the wrong turning and wrote novels.

Its actually the opposite , without a conception of God there is no objective humanity, since to find the divine within man has always been the goal of every human endeavour and creation not to as to pose stable unchanging moral laws. Men make Gods and as a result become men with a concrete reality. The quetist hesychast wilful surrender to dogmatism and faith while admirable in some cases, is still a post-secular reaction to this event, that the only real God is an alienated human god.

Read Spinoza
Read Hegel

>>22201319
I read Spinoza's Ethics and he said in Proposition XVII, the corollary: "Strictly speaking, God does not love or hate anyone. For God (by the foregoing Prop.) is not affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain, consequently (Def. of the Emotions, vi. vii.) he does not love or hate anyone."

But then: "Proposition XXXVI: The intellectual love of the mind towards God is that very love of God whereby God loves himself, not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he can be explained through the essence of the human mind regarded under the form of eternity; in other words, the intellectual love of the mind towards God is part of the infinite love wherewith God loves himself." Corollary being: "Hence it follows that God, in so far as he loves himself, loves man, and, consequently, that the love of God towards men, and the intellectual love of the mind towards God are identical."

Playing awfully fast and loose with words here Spinny boy.

>>22201336
The "intellectual love of the mind" is distinguished from love as an affect driven by pleasure/pain

>>22201336

In the first proposition he says "strictly, God does not love or hate anyone". God as an entity, idea, nature, system of ethics or what have you, does not love or hate anyone, and that seems correct to me.

In the second quoted proposition he talks about "The intellectual love of the mind , towards God". It is the human mind through love of God that ponders eternity and ponders that God must love men, *if* men love each other.

Thats how I understand it and I don't see anything contradictory with what I posted.

>>22201350
Why use the word love? Can you restate it in a more clear way? Because the way it's stated clearly carries massive baggage which seems to be obscuring the author's real meaning (perhaps intentionally, since the use of the word "love" is quite perplexing in this context).

>>22201362
What's all the stuff about God loving himself and loving man? At minimum you must admit it's a muddled passage.

>>22201362
If God does not love anything, then if man is convinced that God loves him through man's love of God, man has clearly come into error, no?

>>22199847
I mean, yeah, but Dostoevsky is probably not the best person to illustrate any Christian worldview with. Russians in general, really, they tended to only swing from Godless sadistic niggers to pious cattle in humble need of repentance (and rinse and repeat). Though it's probably better than now, using God as a justification for whatever, from war, ethnic replacement with Muslims to communism.

>>22201376

God cannot exist unless he loves man, otherwise he is a useless proposition. You can say there are a mirriad spirits that were worshiped like the "thunder gods","rain gods", "mountain gods" etc. But that speculation exists only insofar as they accomodate mans ethical being. The more complex our being becomes, the more we think of the infinite and the infinite possibilities of mans ethical accomodation in society the more complex our love for God becomes and therefore we have to speculate of a God loving man. That is very the essence of all mysticism , of all of philosophy and all of true religious feeling. This is what Spinoza means by "intellectual love" , a mode of being, that is more precicely an ethics of living, not a morality (i.e.reified social laws).

>>22201406
>God cannot exist unless he loves man, otherwise he is a useless proposition
Irrelevant, Spinoza already defined him as not loving anyone, and as such, not loving man. This is actually my main point, the way that Spinoza defines God makes him a useless proposition.

>>22201381

stop thinking of God as skydaddy

>>22201420
Spinoza repeatedly refers to him in terms of a loving being of greater or higher magnitude than himself. It's hard not to see these things are paternal projection.

>>22201406
>>22201406
>God cannot exist unless he loves man, otherwise he is a useless proposition
The rest of your post is irrelevant, Spinoza already defined him as not loving anyone, and as such, not loving man. This is actually my main point, the way that Spinoza defines God makes him a useless proposition.

>>22200168
>>22200265
>>22200690
Capital G when you say The Man's Name

And that god is called Zeus.

>>22201364
Idk if this is Spinoza or Deleuze's Spinoza or my Spinoza but basically under such a reading God is reality (or the substance of reality) as an indefinite whole and any finite entity (such as me or you) is just that God in extension, hence an increase in our power or knowledge is an increase one's expression of God, and this sparks joy, so it is love, but not the kind that is withdrawn when a positive affect is subtracted or turned to hate when a negative one is added, it is an irreversible progression. You cannot really reduce Spinoza to a pure materialism since the feels are real.

>>22199847
>There’s no objective morality
Could have stopped typing there.

>>22199847
> Objective morality
> God existing
My brother in Christ, you are the one jumping through hoops

>>22200358

>>22199847
>humans must name their universal forces
>once provided with a name the human style of worship can be applied
>semantic relationships are human technology
>human technology expands the recognition of God

Its all so suspicious

>>22199847
https://youtu.be/37RLn28mrLU

>>22200086
>argumentum ad baculum to an infinite degree = objective morality

>>22202192
That's not an ad baculum at all.

>>22200086
God puts in the bible that broccoli tastes good. Is that statement objective or subjective? If you personally find that broccoli tastes bad, does that make you objectively wrong?

>>22202212
If god made broccoli taste good then it'd be an objective fact.

>>22202235
the christtards aren't sending their best.

>>22202176
10/10

>>22202243
>try to employ specious argument
>get btfo
>post wojacks
A tale as old as time.

>>22202368
>god makes broccoli
>it must taste like something
>therefore god must have made it taste like something
>some people say it tastes good, and some people say it tastes bad
>god made it so
>therefore god made it simultaneously taste objectively good and bad
don't reply

>>22199872
>slave morality is the solution to the is/ought fallacy
wew lad

>>22202235
>>22202368
This is legitimately a wonderfully economic and even elegant rebuttal, it's precisely the strength of the simplicity behind it that filters people because it cuts right through the fallacious logic of the question simultaneously rejecting it and exposing it (if you aren't a retard).

>>22202381
Lmao, look at him unable to understand. He thought he was slick by suggesting god might write something that he didn't do and all these other small retarded implications, but anon is having none of it.

>>22202381
>>it must taste like something
It tastes as god made it taste.

>>some people say it tastes good, and some people say it tastes bad
God made it what people say/taste.

If god made it good it follows he'd make people such that they find it good, otherwise what in the fuck does "making it taste good" even mean. You are talking yourself into incoherent circles. You don't even know what the terms you are trying to establish mean as you use them contradictorily in the same breath.

You really are dense huh?

>>22202401
Christianity is a sect of Judaism.

>>22202415
Yes maybe, but 'Judaism' as most people conceive of it isn't the Judaism that preceded and is contained within Christ. The modern Jewish religion is a Satanic perversion of what is actual Judaism, the mantle of which has been taken up by Christianity. Yours is a very loaded and misleading comparison.

>>22202412
>>some people say it tastes good, and some people say it tastes bad
>God made it what people say/taste.
>If god made it good it follows he'd make people such that they find it good, otherwise what in the fuck does "making it taste good" even mean.
The term "objective" is not used to describe this phenomenon. The post I replied to used the term "objective" to describe the taste of broccoli.

>>22200168
Because there is nothing greater than God (defined as the supreme being) to determine what morality is or what a good or bad action means. To put it in Thomist terms, God is the efficient cause for everything, meaning everything is dependent on God. If the morality of actions is dependent on moral laws or values, and those moral laws and values are dependent on higher order laws or values, and so on and so on… God would be the being which all of those are dependent on, and since there is nothing greater than God (if God is infinite), then there can be nothing greater to condition moral laws (such as an independent moral realm or substance). It’s like asking “how can god create the universe without breaking the laws of thermodynamics?” The answer is that there is nothing greater than god which conditions those laws, rather God is the greatest thing which conditions them and all flows from God.

I’m an atheist btw, this is just very basic theology. I think you have a confused understanding of what people mean when they talk about a supreme being.

>>22200222
Checked. I was an atheist but now I believe.

>>22202428
>I am the real Jewish person, that's why I am an anti-Semite
do christers really?

>>22202515
>RECLAIM JUDAISM FROM THE JEWS

>>22202432
You are low IQ, it's nothing to be ashamed about. But you really shouldn't be trying to grapple with Aquinas like arguments you clearly can't understand.

>>22202532
feel free to trot out an argument, fag

>>22202455
>>22200222
Checked and kek'd

>>22202543
I choked on my drink reading this

this captures the brainless spirit of fedora fags so hard it's amazing

>>22202546
Yes it's pretty remarkable that atheists can be just as stupid and stupid in the exact same way as creationists are. There's a grand ecumenical beauty in it that bespeaks of an ultimate creator.

>>22202546
>Muh symbolism

Christians have no answers so they must reflexively dismiss all questions.
Either answer the questions or stop trying to do apologetics.

>>22202522
>they took this from you!

>>22202543
>the bible's actually made up and merely allegory for theology all along; can i be a respectable neoplatonist now?
the absolute state of apologists

>>22202567
>answer my question
>NO NOT LIKE THAT
You realize you're the one dismissing the answer because it demonstrates how wrong your logic is, right? If you can't even entertain the abstract of what is being discussed you shouldn't pretend to have an organic or unbiased view as it's clear you have either no intention or ability to argue in good faith.

Assuming this is the same anon who just got btfo and needs to samefag (again) to save face (to himself, lol).

>>22202581
the point
a gay fedora
your head

kek

>>22199847
Every faggot says this but gets offended when I poison my coworkers to lower their performance and harm their mental health.

>>22199847
>There’s no objective morality without God
Yes. What's the issue here?
>Jump through hoops all you want
Why? The only reason anyone gives a shit is because they convinced themselves of "supposed to be" by believing in God in the first place.
>BUT EVERYTHING IS PERMISSIBLE I COULD KILL THAT BABY AND IT WONT EVEN MATTER!!!!!!!!
Okay, then kill the baby. Just don't cry about it when you get killed back, because you invited revenge which is permissible, too.

>>22201302
Why? Just because you can't imagine it?

>>22202591
if you are a self-declared Christian who doesn't believe in the bible because you are embarassed by it that's fine, but by the rules of the very religion you are pretending to believe in God will know his own, i.e. you're fucked

>>22202587
there have been 0 (zero) valid replies to this comment
>>22202381
>god made it so, so it just is, OK????
not a valid reply
>implying i'm jewish
not a valid reply

>>22199865
kek, nice bait. Have a (you).

>>22199872
he is literally starting with a premise that is the whole reason 2000 years worth of philosophers have agreed that there is an is-ought gap, and just... ignoring the is-ought gap it contains. What a midwit pseud. Whose signature is on his "doctorate"?

>>22199847
Dostoevsky's brilliant observation is not comparable to a philosophical claim, but to the claim that "communism doesn't work."
It's not that you need to calculate different communist economic figures, labour, wages, etc., and analyze to decide if communism works. What you do is you allow people who believe in communism, attempt to apply communism to a nation of a sufficient size, and you see what happens. History has probably several examples of this and each of them was disastrous and violent.
So, back to the original point: "If there is not God, everything is permitted." You don't have to calculate and analyze if God exists, you just have to have a population of people who don't believe God exists, give them power over a nation of sufficient size, or over a nation's institutions, and see what happens. Since the west went secular, we've seen that, indeed, EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED. Nothing is off the table. Clown world made manifest because a little silly, demoralizing analogy is the best description of what happens when there is no God acknowledged in society.
Dostoevsky was retroactively proven 100% correct.

>>22200361
I know what objective is. And it is certainly not arbitrary morals derived from some imagined deity.

>>22199872
>If we "should" to do anything in this life, we should avoid what really and truly sucks.
truly, one of the great thinkers of our time

>>22199847
>There’s no objective morality without God. Daily reminder. Jump through hoops all you want.
True. Additional daily reminder there is no objective morality with God either. Something that depends on the judgment of a person is by definition subjective not objective. If morality can't exist without God it's not objective.

>>22202652
Not the same guy, but you understand that morals can't be deemed "arbitrary" without making a non-arbitrary judgement about them.

>>22199981
Traditional Theism says God is the Form of the Good. So it's not a matter of what God says, it's a matter of what God is. Things are not "good" because God says they are, they're a matter of proximity to the source of Goodness. Like getting closer to a source of light makes the individual brighter, and further away makes the individual darker. Actions either bring one closer to God, or further away from God.

>>22202658
>the judgement of a person
>of a person
that's not what happens when God enters the picture, which is the whole point.

>>22202665
Word game circles won't prove your point. This is how it works.
>Imagine that a god exists
>attach arbitrary morals to that deity
>"le objective morality exists bros"

But sure, go ahead and make whatever word game point you were trying.

>>22199847
It's not objective morality if it comes from the subject of God retard. It is objective if it is true independent from any subjectPlus God changes his mind on what is moral more often than I change my underwear.
Third Kant has given objective morality without God.
Fourth there is no objective morality.

>>22202693
That's such a superficial understanding of morality and of God. Are you thinking God must be a anthropomorphic being? A "you" or an "I" with a body and human-like agency and reasoning?

>>22202669
>that's not what happens when God enters the picture, which is the whole point.
So God doesn't decide what morality is? Then you don't need God for objective morality. If God does decide what morality is that is by definition subjective in the same way my moral judgments are subjective.

>>22202702
>Are you thinking God must be a anthropomorphic being? A "you" or an "I" with a body and human-like agency and reasoning?
You're such a faggot coward. But sure go ahead. Explain how your idea of God establishes objective morality.
Also define objective morality in a way that doesn't destroy the meaning of the word objective

>>22202702
>Are you thinking God must be a anthropomorphic being?

Completely irrelevant

>>22202605
>dumb larper making noise
>doesn't even know genesis in from the old testament
yep checks out

>>22202606
>>god made it so, so it just is, OK????
>NOOO JUST BECAUSE I SAID GOD DID SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN HE ACTUALLY DID IT
>GOD ISN'T REAL YOU FUCK, EVEN IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL WHERE I SAY HE IS
>YOU FUCKING IDIOT STOP SAYING GOD IS REAL STOP STOP STOP
bugs...easy on the ass carrots

>>22200265
What is this Parmenides, Spinoza? These versions of "god" or whatever are fine, but don't sit and pretend it makes any sense the "god creates" can be consistent with any sort of morality question. If god creates a whore to test my virtues, and I fail, then didn't God make a broken toy (me) that was destined to fail? He gave me the freewill, but also the personal inclination and environment to tend toward whatever random shit she hates. And this is supposed to make any sense?

>>22200317
100% of godfags are unable to actually discuss morality because they just want to see themselves as good, but don't have any actual ground to stand on. That's why they randomly lash out at one or two lines in their bibles.

>>22202709
the "attach arbitrary morals to that god" is that part that makes me think your view of what God must be is too anthropomorphic. Who said anything about "attaching morals to God"?
Everyone has been saying, merely, that WITHOUT God, there can be no objective morality.

>>22202709
Then by what reasoning may we "attach arbitrary morals" to God if God is not anthropomorphic?

>>22202729
God created everything. My eyes literally glazed over reading your facile garbage, you complain about logic while you contradict yourself revealing you don't or don't care to try and understand what you're bitching about to begin with. Spinoza is a good read, but obviously not for you, maybe try Clifford the Big Red Dog instad.

Honest question, I would like to have faith but I wasn't raised in any religion.
How do we know God's morality?
It seems that most people of any religion only cherry pick religious texts and prioritize the culture of that religion/sect over the actual texts themselves.
Even within certain religions/sects, people impose their own ideas of God and therefore have different ideas of God's morals.
Why did different cultures have different ideas of God?
Wouldn't older religions be more legitimate than newer ones?

>>22202747
>Personal attacks instead of actual thinking
Yup, definitely a Christian.

>>22202720
I wasn't the one who said god made broccoli taste good, that was some christfag
>reading comprehension

>>22202707
See >>22202668. Morality is objective in the same sense that your proximity to your car is objective. Only you're measuring your proximity to God in action, rather than distance.

>>22202737
>>22202743
It doesn't really matter if you say that God imposed morality in an anthropomorphic sense or not. When I replied to that other guy I was arriving at the point that the "objective" morals, that he thinks are derived from God , are themselves arrived at subjectively. NOT by God but by humans. Making the statement
>That which is objective simply is.
Stupid and embarrassing in that context

>>22202759
I'm not the same guy, but let's go back to the assertion in the OP, which is that all is permissible if there is no God. Do you at least agree with that?

>>22202720
>>22202757
oh i get it, you took my post mocking that dude by pointing out the impossibility of the hypothetical for being in earnest because you're retarded. nevermind.

>>22199847
Why not just say "There is no objective morality?" Its simpler.

>>22202752
>NOO YOU CAN'T JUST POINT OUT MY LOGIC IS FAULTY
>YOU'RE MEAN
lewl
I wouldn't call you such a dumb fuck if you weren't doing this over and over. Stop trying to place sleight of hand with biblical concepts and maybe everyone won't call you a retard all the time.

>>22202668
How does one know what God is?

>>22202758
The claim was that morality can only come from God which fails for the reasons given. All you've done is define morality as God which anyone can do with anything. Atheists can pick whatever morality they want and say it is objective how close a proximity you get to it in action.

>>22202771
>Stop trying to place sleight of hand with biblical concepts
>Stop trying to place sleight of hand with sleight of hand

>>22202751
The answer is ultimately you just gotta give in to dogma somewhere down the line. Religions have no evidence of anything. It all goes back to "well you can't understand because you're only human." The grandest example of this is the simple question of the existence of god. The god who is some sort of Zeus like being (because that's where modern Christians' idea of god is derived) could any time they want reveal themselves to the human race. But they don't. You'll be told it'll be "revealed to you" if you just read this book, but why shroud this shit in such a way? The response: YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND GOD'S WILL YOU'RE JUST A MORTAL. OK, sounds really reasonable.

>“Do not seek a wife. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.” (1 Corinthians 7:27,29-31)
>“The end of all things is near…” (1 Peter 4:7)
>“…the coming of the Lord is near. …the Judge is standing right at the door.” (James 5:8, 9)
>We who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4:15-17).
>Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matthew 24:34)
Uhhh... Christcuckbros? I thought it was literally 2 more weeks away?

>>22202771
Did you point out anything specifically, because all I see is you say I'm dumb and you're smart and god made everything. So, once you actually go through it we can talk, until then you're just another Christian confusing being mad with making good points.

>>22202760
Well no. For two reasons.
1. If there is an objective morality then why can't it have its own independent ontological grounding without God?

2. If there isn't an objective morality even then everything will not be permissible for the average person since this would only render morality a posteriori to the human condition. Infact all humans operate on self organising principles, hence it is impossible for a human to not have morals. Even thieves and scum have their codes. It could be possible for different things to be permissible to different people but still impossible for everything to be permissible to a single person. This is what the word "subjective" means.

To the greater Universe everything is indeed permissible, so maybe OP is right in that particular sense. But that doesn't mean morality stops becoming a part of human condition itself.

>>22202773
Well you see: Some guys talked to god directly. But not those other people who claimed to do that, just the one's approved by us. And they all can be read and explained to you which things to actually care about for a nominal fee of a 10% tithe on your income.

There is no objective morality and everything is permitted.

>>22202791
1. Because there is no ontological grounding without something transcendent of humanity, and God is, by most definitions, the thing which transcends humanity. Everything below that is merely human machinations and delusion clumsily transposed onto an anthropomorphic conception of "God" or "morality".

2. That is, I think, precisely the point. If we (as humans) are going to try to conjure up some sort of universal standard of morality, it will inevitably be subjective. And if it's subjective, that means everything is permitted because one person can choose, will, or arbitrarily declare that such and such is permissible under HIS specific moral principle.
>to the greater universe, everything is indeed permissible
Yes, which is the point.
>but that doesn't mean morality stops becoming a part of human condition itself.
It doesn't, but don't you see? As long as humanity is involved in the equation of morality, all things can be reasoned into permissibility. That is Dostoevsky's point. We are, ostensibly, governed by several things, but reason is perhaps the most powerful of them, the second, perhaps, being emotion. And emotions themselves follow a sort of human reasoning too, above and beyond the mere chemical interactions in our bodies.

>>22199847
If you need god for that you are ngmi

>>22199847
Which God? Humanity invented many Gods, so you're going to have to be more specific.

>>22202835
God is not an individual, midwit.

>>22202836
My mistake, can you point out which concept of a deity you're specifically referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_deities

>>22202826
>Everything below that is merely human machinations and delusion clumsily transposed onto an anthropomorphic conception of "God"

Soooo, the only conception that truly matters. Unless you have some meatless borderline deistic a-religious idea of God at which point you might as well argue that God himself is morality (or vice versa). Which again renders the question of how can human be aware of such objective morality without religious revelation.

>As long as humanity is involved in the equation of morality, all things can be reasoned into permissibility.

And as I said before, everything can be reasoned into permissibility. But not everything can be permissible simultaneously. Know the difference.

>>22202826
>God is, by most definitions, the thing which transcends humanity
How does something that was invented by humans transcend humanity?

>>22200275
Still zero responses to this one.

>>22202854
>which renders the question of how can humans be aware of such objective morality without religious revelation
You tell me. Everything you've said has supported the notion that if humans have a say in morality, it must be subjective. It seems that the only way God can be defined must include something regarding morality that is beyond the comprehension of humans. (It does not escape me that the mere mention of such a notion might corral it into the realm of "human comprehension", similar to how "an indescribable sight" has actually just been described by saying those words, but that is becoming almost too semantic to maintain meaning in reality).
>everything can be reasoned into permissibility
By humans, yes. Which is why, without God to temper human reason, desire, and will, everything is permitted.
>not everything can be permissible simultaneously.
Elaborate, because there is nothing about the nature of permissibility that renders it exclusive of anything else, unless you're going to resort to semantic paradoxes, such as: "It is impermissible to regard things as permissible" or some such nonsense.
[going to sleep, but keep the thread alive for six hours and I will reply. Enjoying our dialogue.]

>>22202858
the same way something which transcends the material world can be spoken of in the material world. The fact that it is regarded or described using sound waves and vocal chords and human language doesn't diminish the essence of what is being described.

>>22202858
I think this is mostly a syntax thing. Like to define something as dark you have to define light so light exists just because you defined light

>>22202859
You need to be more subtle, make them write the words themselves. Even if you made someone realize that their beliefs are irrational and they would stop believing in that particular thing, they would just find another thing to cling to. That next thing might be more destructive than the current relatively harmless sky daddy belief.

>>22202775
>The claim was that morality can only come from God
In the sense that "good actions" and "bad actions" only make sense from an objectively defined point, yes.

>All you've done is define morality as God
No, morality is action. God is not "morality", God is the Good. Moral actions are actions that act in accordance with the Divine Logos that permeates creation, immoral acts are ones that go against it. It has nothing to do with divine command theory, that's a strawman of actual theist thought.

>Atheists can pick whatever morality they want and say it is objective
Not without being consistent to their own beliefs they can't. Lets face it if an atheist picks an "objective" morality they know it's a LARP. Theists actually believe God exists and that ethics is an actual science of discerning it through created being.

>>22202867
>>22202869
It would help if you could point out a single historical record (or any evidence really) of any other living being than humans (or their ancestors) having a belief in God(s).
>it came to me in a dream

>>22202864
>Everything you've said has supported the notion that if humans have a say in morality, it must be subjective.
Indeed. I think we can both agree that without objective morality, morality would be..... subjective. (sounds pretty redundant when you put it that way)

>Which is why, without God to temper human reason, desire, and will, everything is permitted.
Humans have morality because they are self organising. Are you trying to argue that self organisation(ethics) among humans requires the presence of God as arbitrator of morality? That's basically begging the question.

>Elaborate
A human being without morals, for whom everything is permissible cannot exist. Because a lack of morality means a lack of organisation in thought and consciousness. Which would render the actions of any such human completely random. Which means that for human behaviour to remain human a self organising (ethical) principle is required. What is not required is for that principle to have any grounding a priori to the human to whom it applies.

>>22202887
I'm not talking about "without objective morality," I'm talking about "without God, everything is permitted."
>humans have morality because they are self organizing
What moral system do humans have, if everything can be reasoned into permission via humans? if one man's morality is another man's sin, and the overlapping of each of these notions allows literally everything to be permissible by one standard or another?
>a human being without morals, for whom everything is permissible cannot exist.
Inded. Not everything is permissible TO HIM PERSONALLY, but everything that can be conceived as permissible by humanity is, if that is the only morality available, permissible. That's the whole essence of moral relativism that Dostoevsky is referring to: not that everything is permissible to all individuals at all times, but that the range of permissible things is infinite if humans are the source of moral guidance.

>>22202543
>Origen

>>22202894
> "without God, everything is permitted."
"Everything is permitted" can have different meanings. It could mean that morality is subjective or there is no morality at all. Since the latter is retarded (and I sincerely hope you are not trying to make that dimwit point) we'll assume the former.

Then tell me why can't transcendent objective morality exist without God. (bonus points if you can do that without conjuring a meaningless a-religious notion of a God). Infact, since you mentioned Dostoevsky, I must remind you that he was a christian and the christian God is as anthropomorphic as they come.

>that the range of permissible things is infinite if humans are the source of moral guidance.

That is indeed how things are. Can't disagree here.

>>22200086
>um achually my opinion is just as valid as the ultimate being who created me and everything else and knows quite literally everything in the universe and has total and complete power over the aforementioned and whose judgement is infinite
Yes. Power means nothing before the Truth.

>>22199886
Theoretically if there was an omnipotent being that would torture me forever for behaving in a particular way, in the absence of anything else, that provides sufficient incentive to adhere to its commands. This puts religious moralfags leaps and bounds above atheist moralfags. Pascal's wager is a far better argument for an absolute morality than "being mean is bad :(" and "being mean is whatever I say it is, just cause, it's obvious". It is absolutely bonker that the latter argument is the basis for human rights law and US constitutional law (so-called hidden rights). This is unironically why our society is collapsing. It's not because we need Abrahamic morality. The Romans and Japanese did just fine without it. It's because we grew so accustomed to universal absolute moral dogma that we are having a hard time coping with our new-found individual freedom. This shows itself both in conservative moral panics and in liberal moral panics. There is no argument against being homosexual. There is no argument against homophobic either.
I think generation Z will be the first generation to know true psychological freedom in two thousand years.

>>22200486
Then morality is bullshit and what we're discussing has been something entirely different.
There are laws, there are social expectations, there are personal interests and power dynamics. There is no morality.

>>22200086
You don't know what the ultimate being thinks. You just assume whatever religion you follow didn't lie to you. Hence it is moot.

>>22199872
>1. Assume there is no ought or should
>5. If we should, we should

>>22203103
You don't have access to this omnipotent being, you have access to several dozen contradicting sects each claiming their sky daddy will torture you forever is you don't blindly submit to their truest god of all, ignore the several dozen minus one other claimants.
That the Americans in the year of our Lord 2023 still have trouble with scaremonger torture cults is not even funny. What other European syphilis made the trip over the ocean I wonder.