[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 64 KB, 1200x900, henryrollins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10208073 No.10208073 [Reply] [Original]

Are you an atheist or a theist, /lit/?
http://www.strawpoll.me/14273927
Is secular morality possible?
http://www.strawpoll.me/14273930

>> No.10208095

I can't answer this question.

>> No.10208123
File: 113 KB, 564x616, 5d68af6d3a14c400a3c61405154e3fc4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10208123

Theist.
Morality that does not abide in the eternal God is no morality at all, but an idol and fabrication.

>> No.10208128

>>10208073
Does secular morality include virtue ethics and final causes? Or does secular morality entail only materialism?

>> No.10208164

>>10208128
it would have to be the former to be true morality

>> No.10208167

>>10208073
I am agnostic, so I opted out of the first poll.

>> No.10208178

>>10208167
There's no real difference between an angnostic and an atheist.

>> No.10208211

>>10208178
Not true. Atheists do not believe in God at all, I on the other hand believe in the possibility, but do not know for certain.

>> No.10208219
File: 28 KB, 290x290, 1503140572896.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10208219

>>10208073
>is secular morality possible
Yes, Ayn Rand hard-proved it.

>> No.10208473

Religion is a spook. Morality is a spook.

>> No.10208499

I don't have imaginary friends

>> No.10210251

>>10208499
They're friends of friends, but you have them.

>> No.10210257
File: 121 KB, 1000x647, Henry Rollins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10210257

>>10208073
somewhat related but I absolutely love Joe Rogan's interview of Henry Rollins. It (kinda) inspired me to read more and start working out

>> No.10210261

>>10208167
Seconded.

>> No.10210283

>>10208123
You seem like you might be biased

>> No.10210575

>>10208211

That's not true at all. Think about the formation of the words. Gnosticism, from the Greek "to know" or "to have knowlge" - agnosticism - "to not know". So, someone who's agnostic does not know whether God exists or not.

Theos: "God". Atheos: "No God". Atheism: "The belief of there being no God"

You might notice I used two different words when describing the two concepts "knolege" and "belief" and that's because there is a difference. You can very well believe in something without knowing it - in fact, that is the difference between "knowledge" and "belief". Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no God, but no Atheist knows it for sure (how could we? It's an proposition that cannot be tested). So, in fact, every Atheist IS Agnostic, and those who preffer the seccond label most likely just don't want the associations that come with the first. However, more than likely, their views on the existence or not of God do not differ.

>> No.10210761

>>10208073
Only secular morality is possible

>> No.10210838

>>10208123
Morality put in terms of the eternal God is just opportunism.

>> No.10210924

>>10208095
I cannot either, yet. Still thinking it through, but I feel Im getting close

>> No.10210933

>>10208073
I voted no on secular morality. Religion is part of the natural law.

>> No.10210945
File: 43 KB, 1633x393, morality2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10210945

>> No.10210951

>>10208073
>Is secular morality possible?

hobbes answered this

>> No.10210964

>>10210951
Yes, because Leviathan sets out such a moral state.

>> No.10211119

>>10208128
Virtues don't depend on divine morality, read Aristotle.

>> No.10211245

>>10208073
It depends if by 'morality' we mean, as is usually implied, slave morality.

>> No.10211250

>>10211119
Yes, they depend on teleologically ordered biological metaphysics continually set in motion by the unmoved mover.
Which is to say they depend on God, but not in a direct way.

>> No.10211708

>>10210575
I'm open to the idea of God existing, whereas Atheists believe God does not exist. So I still opt out of the poll.

>> No.10211724

>>10211708
Meaning, there's no real difference in any relevant way, except how you label yourself.

>> No.10211748

>>10208073
>Are you an atheist or a theist, /lit/?
I usually say "sure"
if that doesn't work, I usually default to athiest

>> No.10211752

>>10211724
The difference lies in what the person believes. Theists believe god is real, atheists do not. Agnostics lie in a grey area.

>> No.10211772

>>10211752
Agnosticism is a grey area. Any thinking man has to agree that there is a possibility, however slim, that God may not exist. This does not denude the moral precepts of Jesus, and a degree of belief in God gives them greater weight.

>> No.10211776

>>10211772
Glad we could come to an agreement.

>> No.10211779
File: 97 KB, 420x420, 1496003007488.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10211779

>>10210945
So the essence of this argument is to say that God's decisions are "arbitrary"?
That's rich.

>> No.10211886

>>10211779
Does God decide what is moral or is He Himself enforcing some larger objective morality that exists regardless of His endorsement?

If the answer is the former, than God could make rape and murder morally correct on a whim, which is ethically problematic. If the answer is the latter, than God is only an enforcer of an inherent truth larger than Himself, which makes Him essentially irrelevant in the argument of morality.

>> No.10211904

>>10210945
>different people at different times have understood this one thing in many ways
>therefore it is not one thing, but many things!
kek when will relativist brainlet learn?

>> No.10211909

>>10211886
God is the Summum Bonum, the Highest Good. He is the source and standard of all morals. He cannot arbitrarily make an intrinsic evil good which is contrary to the nature of His own goodness.

>> No.10211919

>>10211772
>Any thinking man has to agree that there is a possibility, however slim, that God may not exist.

Once you understand that God is the one source and summit of all being, it becomes just as absurd to doubt your own existence as to doubt the existence of God. Which is proven by the fact that those that deny the existence of God do in fact end up denying that they exist, e.g. Buddhists or materialists who say that the "self" is an illusion.

>> No.10211924

Reminder that Agnostics are even more atheistic than atheists for not even believing in their beliefs.

>> No.10211925

>>10211919
In other words, those that deny the existence of God, in the end, end up denying all existence. If you follow the logic you will end up either as a theist who understands that all beings exist in he supreme being God, or as a nihilist who thinks that all existence is some kind of illusion and that nothing really exists.

>> No.10211975

>>10211886
>If the answer is the former, than God could make rape and murder morally correct on a whim, which is ethically problematic
This is an irrelevant argument, the morality defined by God is a permanent eternal one, since it is inherently good and what he decides as inherently good does not change. Since God is eternal and omniscient, why would he decide to change the morality he has set upon us? He has no reason to, therefore the idea that morality is temporary is wrong.

>> No.10212048

>>10211975
If you just change "could make" to "could have made" in the other anon's post I very much doubt that you have solved his problem.

And anyways, how much of a victory is it to say that there is, somewhere, some set of things that are the correct interpretation of good? You yourself use the term "inherently good," as does >>10211909; why not cut out the middle man and go directly to your inherent good, which has nothing to do with God? (Or shouldn't without being circular)

>> No.10212072

>>10212048
Because God created everything, including the notion of an objective good which we must follow. To deny God would also be denying the idea of an objective good.