Atheism to its logical conclusion = Marquis de Sade?

[Anonymous No.22043778]

Is this true?

[Anonymous No.22043792]

>>22043778
Which atheism? Materialism? Nihilism? Absurdism?

[Anonymous No.22043799]

>>22043792
As someone who is sadepilled I can confirm.

[Anonymous No.22043801]

>>22043778
so uhhhh is this guy saying he wants to rape and murder and steal, and the only thing stopping him is religion? kinda problematic if you ask me sweaty

[Anonymous No.22043805]

>>22043778
Believing that you need god for morality is just might is right on a grander scale.

[Anonymous No.22043806]

>>22043801
awful b8

[Anonymous No.22043810]

>>22043805
Explain from where morals derive if you believe there is no God

[Anonymous No.22043811]

Caring about your own pleasure as opposed to the pleasure of others only makes sense if Closed Individualism is true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JomlwxRAtZo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WKqO16mkGE

[Anonymous No.22043813]

>>22043805
not really

[Anonymous No.22043818]

>>22043810
I kinda just make them up as I go along.

[Anonymous No.22043821]

>>22043810
Pleasure = good
Suffering = bad
Simple as

[Anonymous No.22043827]

>>22043821
>idrk n idrc what others suffering is
>ik and ic about my pleasure
>de sade
By this schema I can't and won't say it's a bad thing, but it is what it is.

[Anonymous No.22043835]

>>22043821
>Pleasure = good
>Suffering = bad
debunked

[Anonymous No.22043858]

>>22043821
>far to complex
It's funny because you look like a moron.

[Anonymous No.22043863]

>>22043810
For the vast majority of people they had friends when they were little and at some point they hurt one of those friends, they did not intend too but they did and seeing their friend suffer for their actions made them feel bad, it hurt them just as much if not more than it hurt their friend. They remember that pain through life and when they think about doing something they also consider the consequences, would doing this cause someone pain like I felt when I hurt my friend? Repeat over a few thousand year and over billions of people, some of them notice a pattern and expand on the idea, they develop the ideas of sympathy and empathy and morality, etc.

Also, not that anon or an atheist.

[Anonymous No.22043869]

>>22043863
>the vast majority of people
So not all.
>and seeing their friend suffer for their actions made them feel bad
What if it makes them feel good? Is it justified, then?

This approach is flimsy. There's no objective morality without God.

[Anonymous No.22043922]

>>22043869
>What if it makes them feel good?
Alan Harrington had an interview excerpt in Psychopaths where the interviewee had played a dirty trick on someone when they were children for no reason at all. In some twist of moral justification, he made himself to hate the other child. Over the course of many years, his hatred for the other man drove him to victimize him several more times, culminating in either maiming or murder - I do not recall. Otheranon's assumption of some constant inherent moral good is absurd. It's not even flimsy.

[Anonymous No.22043955]

Atheism gives you Timothy McVeigh so long as you mix in a few other critical elements

[Anonymous No.22043962]

>>22043869
>So not all.
Far fewer than the number of people who do not believe what you believe.
>What if it makes them feel good? Is it justified, then?
Why would it be justified? Christians do terrible things as well, is it suddenly objectively moral because they are Christians? Of course not, only difference is that under one set of beliefs they get punished for eternity, under the other they just cease to exist like everyone else does when they die. In both systems it is society who punishes the flesh.
>There's no objective morality without God.
The only thing that makes it objective is your faith that it is.

[Anonymous No.22043963]

>I really really want to rape murder and steal, I think about it all the time, but I don't, so I'm a good person

[Anonymous No.22043974]

>>22043778
No that's liberalism

[Anonymous No.22043986]

>>22043955
>so long as you mix in a few other critical elements
Like burning a bunch of babies alive?

[Anonymous No.22043989]

>>22043962
>it suddenly objectively moral because they are Christians?
What kind of reddit reply is that? Are you even a person? Morality = God. It does not come from Christians (people). If a Christian murders a person, that's still a sin. I don't think you're even arguing in good faith when you say ridiculous things like this.

[Anonymous No.22043993]

>>22043974
That's a mid point, not its conclusion.

[Anonymous No.22044028]

>>22043778
no.

[Anonymous No.22044048]

>>22043778
Why does this guy assume my top priority is pleasure? Why do I need belief in a god to not want to rape, murder, or steal? Even basic game theory would cover that, given one's priority of self-preservation.

[Anonymous No.22044067]

>>22043810
Morality is a tug of war between the sovereign individual and the collective (be it religion, state, local neighborhood, humanity as a whole, the Tree of Life itself, etc.). Nobody has the whole picture so we try to make a patchwork system of commonly agreed policies we call Law.

[Anonymous No.22044071]

>>22044048
Your morality is Christian whether you want it or not. Christianity left a mark on the West that simply cannot be avoided. It's another default layer.

[Anonymous No.22044080]

>>22043989
>I don't think you're even arguing in good faith
You are the one who responded without reading the entire post. Give a peak at the sentence which followed the one you quoted and then get back to me.

[Anonymous No.22044083]

>>22044071
Was Aristotle simply interested in pleasure?

[Anonymous No.22044085]

>>22044071
I grew up buddhist, then became an edgy satanist in high school. I've made my own golden rule:
>Begin with kindness, then respond in kind
And Christianity can't claim credit for human altruism. We've been more altruistic than not before Abraham even started his family cult.

[Anonymous No.22044089]

>>22044080
You're asking yourself stupid hypothetical questions so you look clever when you answer.

[Anonymous No.22044096]

>>22044085
If you grew up in the west, you're culturally western (i.e. Christian). You cannot escape this.

[Anonymous No.22044106]

>>22044089
No, I used your argument from the other perspective to show what an asinine argument you made. And instead you got triggered and are now desperately trying to find a way to not look like a moron.

[Anonymous No.22044115]

yeah if your a marquis tha wants to wear your body out before your 35 sure

if your poor and atheist you need to be readin tha dictionary like a blockhead nd makin tha aliens coom to autism and stead

like it says in the world the aliens was here first, mankind warn't the most intelligent thang on this rock

they have put thar super computers made entirely out of molten metals underneath the surface with encryption, 999,999,999,999 years just to develop the maths to crack it in infinity-1 microseconds + scripted holograms planted to direct tha species

thats what an atheist conclusion is which is why they end up all sounding liek gnostic haterz

[Anonymous No.22044124]

>>22044115

[Anonymous No.22044130]

>>22043778
To an extent yes. At its furthest possible extent, that being that there is nothing beyond the physical and nothing intangible or conceptual exists, atheism would result in complete sociopathic amorality - simply do whatever you want at all times, because the physical sensations of doing so are all that exists.

However, luckily most atheists don't go that far.

t. not an atheist

[Anonymous No.22044131]

>>22044106
That's not the other perspective. That's a false equivalence.

[Anonymous No.22044137]

>>22043778
Yes. If people are meat and the internal reality for ribeye number 10,678,140 is good feeliness then if someone's good feeliness is best served by ribeye 10,678,140 repeatedly torturing chicken thigh 6,789,399 as well as turkey liver 335,167 then of course ribeye 10,678,140 will keep torturing away. Atheists cannot live their life with their beliefs for longer than the 10 minutes it takes them to do whatever sin they're addicted to.

[Anonymous No.22044142]

>>22043778
very bad reading of sade on this guys part

[Anonymous No.22044153]

>>22043810
Imagine you are in a desert. Then some guy says "look fellas, there is water everywhere, plenty for us all!". But actually there isn't, so you just say "no dude, there is no water here, you're hallucinating from the heat" to which he replies "well, that can't be right, if there really was no water here, that would mean we are standing on a desert".

water = god
desert = life
thirst = search for morality

Yes, they are in a desert, they are thirsty as it is expected and they probably should move from there in search of water.
Yes, there is nothing to provide us with morals, no good in pretending there is such a thing and reasons to look elsewhere for it.

[Anonymous No.22044166]

>>22044131
>a christian doing horrible evil things is completely different from an atheists doing horrible evil things!
lol, ok.

[Anonymous No.22044191]

>>22043955
wtf I love atheism now?

[Anonymous No.22044194]

>>22044166
I was talking about where they took their morality. You said atheists got it from "what made them feel good" or some nonsense.

[Anonymous No.22044214]

>>22044096
I liked Evangelion, so I guess you have a point that I grew up with the aesthetics. But there's nothing morally unique about Christianity. It's just an amalgam of various cultures made to mass recruit. I didn't grow up believing that we're all descended from some guy that built a boat and loaded it with animals as any more significant than a funny fairy tale.

[Anonymous No.22044215]

>>22044142
Not really. The only difference is that Sade would say you are morally obligated to rape and murder.

[Anonymous No.22044219]

>If I was an Atheist I'd rape, murder and steal all I wanted
>Yeah I basically don't actually believe in the morals God teaches us because I understand that these teaching are good on their own, I only follow his word because I fear God and his wrath
Anyone else consider these sociopathic "people" to be less than human, and more akin to beasts in human form?

[Anonymous No.22044222]

>>22044194
That is not what I said at all, and you seem to be making illogical jumps now.

[Anonymous No.22044227]

>>22044153
aliens are never this amusin as when they hommie the clichés of what all the united states males hommie to which they end up chattin about sunburns and the weather

and they talk like bozos on all them reality TV shows bout half the shit they say it a lie tha are shown on the dumb ass satelitte we can only get up in the nucular spetrum

where we can tell them wtf is going on since we havn't heard of tham

nor have we ever seen tham... except on thier reports to which they chock it as "neanderthal".

only one thing's true in tham myths tho:

they are takin advantage of mankind, money, science and nationalism in order ta fuck up the human race by introducein super aliens who probably killed all da sane people by now.

unless you're one of da non existant worm guys who aint doin nuttin that nuffie times a gangbangin' shit like dat or blame tha humans fo' killin all da stuff yo ass is ta blame fo' this shit... but you probly aint

nyway

thats all I have time for, one of them brony shirts is waitin for me to iron n' was inspired by my life n' online existence n' so I don't feel like finishin tha rant

but I'll probably write yo ass some more later like whenever I get a chance to drink a cold beer

as always, keep up wit mah lucks u folks n' shit. stay safe n' stay shiny

AND don't forget yo' own damn name

[Anonymous No.22044232]

>>22044219
It's not just religious people, it's everyone. If you bind yourself to morality, you are just a herd animal pretending they are independent and "good" becuase they are too scared to break the social norms (it has nothing to do with being an animal or not, you are one whether you like it or not, you just replace "God's wrath" with "the state's wrath" and pretend you are still doing good things for the sake of them, which is a lie told to yourself). Atheists are more delusional than the religious because they pretend they are being moral out of altruistic reasons ("morality for itself" which even the notorious atheist Kant admitted was retarded)

[Anonymous No.22044233]

>>22043811
why is it ALWAYS the fucking weeb motherfuckers? God I'm so tired of seeing Japanese kawaii bullshit perverting my generation.

[Anonymous No.22044266]

>>22043778
The conclusion to atheism is declaring oneself God

[Anonymous No.22044287]

>>22044233
Based

[Anonymous No.22044316]

>>22043810
"Morals" are just second order behaviour in social animals with a modicum of self-awareness, that is to say our behaviour towards the behaviour of others. The idea of morals as either an object or subject is a linguistic illusion of a brain that is incapable of mapping out its own processes phenomenologically and so makes recourse to heuristic compressions expressed in a lossy format, language-thought.

[Anonymous No.22044339]

>>22043778
If you equate maximizing your lifelong pleasure to rape, murder, and theft, you are simply outing yourself as a psychopath who's only inhibition is the threat of a greater power than yourself. A man of decent moral character finds true bliss in the company of loved ones and in dedicating himself to making the lives of those around him better. If you can't comprehend choosing these things for their intrinsic virtue, then by all means, continue believing in an even greater psychopath than you in the sky who will punish you for behaving badly.

[Anonymous No.22044354]

>>22044232
I tend to agree with Aristotle, a man can use reason to discover the virtues, and in living by these virtues guided by reason, he can attain eudaimonia, the truly happy and meaningful life which includes acting with good will towards your neighbors and friends. This raises one above the level of an animal in that it uses the faculty of reason and guides one towards the highest level of nobility and tranquility reserved for men of virtue.

[Anonymous No.22044355]

>>22044354
lol I seriously hope you're not serious.

[Anonymous No.22044356]

>>22043792>>22043799

>>Which atheism? Materialism? Nihilism? Absurdism?
contrary to the atheist propaganda, there are not several flavors of atheism

[Anonymous No.22044361]

>>22043810
Virtues are discoverable with the application of reason. Read Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.22044367]

>>22044355
You have nothing more to say than that?

[Anonymous No.22044368]

>>22043778
Yes and that's what the Marquis was going for. It's very clear in the priest and dying man dialogue.

[Anonymous No.22044372]

>>22044367
It's full of illogical holes. I wouldn't even know where to begin. Would requite an effort post.

[Anonymous No.22044374]

>>22044372
require*

[Anonymous No.22044385]

>>22044372
I get the feeling you are essentially a sociopath, that you can't imagine a person actually wanting others to do well for their own sake, desiring a sense of community, of actually wanting to be part of a society of virtuous people, and doing one's part by committing to live by these virtues themselves. If you can't comprehend the intrinsic nobility of the virtuous life, of wishing well for others, then I agree there isn't much point speaking because you're already convinced everyone operates as you do, for cynically selfish reasons and can't fathom an alternative.

[Anonymous No.22044400]

>>22044316
>expressed in a lossy format, language-thought
haha i thought you put this really nicely, well done, anon

[Anonymous No.22044409]

>>22043778
Marquis De Sade was a moron. What evidence is there for rape, murder and theft giving people pleasure? Why make the assumption that society is built on some arbitrary, christian morals?

[Anonymous No.22044410]

>>22044339
This is correct. Good logical thinking

[Anonymous No.22044412]

>>22044385
All of that is 100% subjective. You found "virtues" by using reason? Well, another man did the same and he arrived at different conclusions than yours. Who is right? Both used reason and yet they arrived at different conclusions. If that is how you create your own morality then morality is ultimately arbitrary under this little system.

[Anonymous No.22044417]

>>22043778
>if it brings you pleasure
>if

Another thread, another christtard cope

[Anonymous No.22044418]

>>22044417
cope for what?

[Anonymous No.22044419]

>>22044412
Why even call it subjective morality? I don't think there's such a thing. The whole point of virtue is to sacrifice yourself to the greater good. Sure you can invent your own crazy way of being that fulfills any psychopathic tendencies and unsolved issues you have but it's definitely not the same as having morals or virtue.

[Anonymous No.22044421]

>>22044419
>The whole point of virtue is to sacrifice yourself to the greater good
Spook

[Anonymous No.22044433]

>>22044421
what?

[Anonymous No.22044439]

>>22044412
You measure the virtues against their ability to produce eudaimonia across multiple lives. This would be like saying that, since it's possible every person sees color differently, there's no objective thing as color. But the concept of "color" maps on to a useful objective standard in reality. Same with eudaimonia, or "the good life". There is an objective measure in reality that we come in contact with that we can use to measure the success of certain virtues or others.

[Anonymous No.22044445]

>>22044418
Does rape necessarily bring someone pleasure? And if it doesn't, what does that mean for the need for Christianity?

[Anonymous No.22044473]

>>22044439
Buddy is taking too long to reply and I have too many thoughts on this subject, so an addendum: eudaimonia is absolutely objective in the sense that you know it absolutely. You can be uncertain as of the origin of it, but since the experience of it occurs within your own experience, you can be absolutely certain that it exists as such, just as you know you exist objectively because you exist. Now, it does require inference to assign the cause of the eudaimonia to virtue, but all knowledge is based on this type of inference, and if you take exception to this you must hold the position that knowledge in general is impossible to attain, and there is no point discussing further. If you accept that you can learn things about the external world, and we know that eudaimonia is an objective standard within one's own experience, it is clear that the pursuit of virtues that maximizes eudaimonia is possible and the most reasonable goal to pursue. Now, you may raise the concern that some people find eudaimonia in the pain and misery of others, but these people are psychopaths and their presence threatens the eudaimonia of the super majority of other people, and as such it's reasonable to hold them in the highest suspicious if not out right lock them away for the benefit of the rest. However, this will lead the conversation into the realm of "rights" which, through experience, have been found to be absolutely essential in any society which wishes to establish wide spread eudaimonia, and as such determining who is a threat to the public eudaimonia is a fraught matter, usually decided through courts which presume the innocence of anyone accused.

[Anonymous No.22044482]

>>22044473
Further addendum: reasonable moral people have an astounding overlap in the mechanisms which bring them eudaimonia. These are the virtues to which Aristotle expounds upon. Those endowed with the normal moral sense (the conscience, Socrates' daimon, etc.) can seek these virtues with the aid of reason.

[Anonymous No.22044501]

>>22044473
>>22044482

My man, people like you should be in our governments instead of the clowns we have now.

[Anonymous No.22044514]

>>22044439
>>22044473
Aristotle's eudaimonia concept is flawed. It assumes there's one ultimate goal for everyone but in reality people have different values and goals. His focus on virtues as crucial for eudaimonia is myopic. Virtues vary across cultures, so what's virtuous can be totally different from one culture to the other. Also, his eudaimonia puts more weight on individual well-being and overlooks the community. He also makes the mistake of assuming a fixed human nature, but people have diverse capacities and potential, challenging that one-size-fits-all path to eudaimonia.

[Anonymous No.22044521]

>>22044514
A one-size-fits-all path is not required, only the conversation of how each person can pursue their own eudaimonia in harmony with the ability of others. The framework of eudaimonia continues to function in all modes of human existence everywhere in the world, as I already addressed, some people are psychopaths who must be regarded with suspicion, and that is where the system of rights and courts comes into play.

[Anonymous No.22044543]

>>22044514
>>22044521
Addendum: I think you have the wrong idea about Aristotle's eudaimonia, I'm pretty sure he points out that the path way for those who love the harp lie in the harp and those who enjoy mathematics, lies in math. He acknowledges that people have different goals and values, this doesn't undermine the concept or the usefulness of the concept.

[Anonymous No.22044554]

>>22043778
Absolutely wrong.

Even I managed to reached transgression levels that would be unimaginable for Marquis de Sade and I'm not even halfway to the logical conclusion of atheism.

[Anonymous No.22044562]

>people who think rape or murder would bring them pleasure

[Anonymous No.22044571]

>>22043778
No, of course not.
Christians are a pox, a cancer of the brain.

[Anonymous No.22044575]

>>22043955
The FBI gives you Timothy McVeigh

[Anonymous No.22044576]

>>22044571
euro hours, tranny hours.

[Anonymous No.22044585]

>>22044576
>something I don’t like
>identify it as trans!
This is why everyone tells you they live rent free in your head, christcuck.
In in the US and have no connection to trannies. You prove my point.

[Anonymous No.22044624]

>>22044554
Right? There's a reason atheism has been considered a teen rebel phase for most of history. Us being able to think up disturbing concepts doesn't mean virtue is meaningless, on the contrary, I think it just means we are able to choose between good and evil, between being virtuous, an image of god and being corrupted and only in it for instant gratification like animals, there's a reason we've come this far as a species, and it's not because of losers like De Sade, whose life achievement was to scribble down his masturbation fantasies while in prison.

[Anonymous No.22044629]

>>22044585
A redditor in his edgy phase. Cute.

[Anonymous No.22044630]

>>22043778
This has never been a very compelling argument. If I were an atheist I could reply that I may suffer guilt from rape or murder, and thus I wouldn't do such things. The truth is that atheism is inherently amoral, not immoral. An atheist could potentially adhere to any kind of morality since atheism inherently has nothing to say about what is good or bad.

[Anonymous No.22044637]

>>22044630
Of course atheism is "amoral" it's definition is "A" something, it just denotes the lack of belief in religion. It's not a philosophy or a framework of values or anything, it's just a position in regard to religion. The question should be, can atheists have a system of moral values? To which the obvious answer is Yes

[Anonymous No.22044639]

>>22044339
/thread

[Anonymous No.22044641]

>>22044630
where do you think a society without consequences would lead to? people already commit crimes and do degenerate shit as we are now. imagine without punishment.

[Anonymous No.22044645]

>>22044637
>>22044630
it would be more apt in present threads context to it as a-law
lawlessness
modern atheists are too prideful to admit this, but humans by-and-large need a transcendental foundation in order to hold themselves accountable, thats why the founding fathers drafted the constitution, and furthermore appealed to God in it (which god is irrelevant, the point is they're making an appeal to the transcendental, not themselves)
Atheists ultimately appeal to themselves for their idea of law, which maybe won't be quite as degenerate as rape and genocide, but theres also no standard that says they need to be good... unless, as I said, they arbitrarily decide that for themselves

[Anonymous No.22044654]

>>22044645
Religion obviously has social utility, but the fact is that laws are created by men, but other men follow them more strictly if they can be got to believe the laws are actually from God. It's a statecraft sleight of hand, classic tool to control people, for better or worse. Those of us capable of thoughtful understanding should be able to separate these concepts.

[Anonymous No.22044662]

>>22044637
Of course they can, but those values will never be as unified as those within a religion. I might even go as far as to say that an atheist would have a harder time professing that his beliefs are objective than any religious person would.

[Anonymous No.22044666]

>>22043778
I don't care about all that, I believe in God because it's cool. It's an aesthetic experience.

[Anonymous No.22044671]

>>22044654
>but the fact is that laws are created by men
if you mean genuine moral law then you're incorrect, it would be like saying "its a fact there's no God". its unproveable for you, its proving a negative. if you meant legislative law, then thats obvious and irrelevant. don't be careless.
the point isn't whether the laws come from God or not, it's whether man has any reason or incentive to not be selfish and take what he can get away with. even saying "guilt" is selfish because you're appealing to your own sensation.

[Anonymous No.22044672]

>>22044654
Yeah but at the same time, your own reasoning will lead you to the same ideas as those you say control others.

[Anonymous No.22044675]

>>22044637
>The question should be, can atheists have a system of moral values? To which the obvious answer is Yes
Yes, but it's not objective. It's arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.22044677]

>>22044654
I would say you are being a bit disingenuous by implying that religion is merely the result of a state trying to effectively enforce order. Tengrism and shamanism existed with nomads despite the loose control of the state in that kind of lifestyle until recently.

[Anonymous No.22044678]

>>22044662
>any religious person would.
ANY religious person? Even those people of different religions who claim different objective standards which means, by definition, they can't all be objective? At least the atheist would ground his moral system in the material world, the only place we all know we share and the only place we could actually expect to find any objective standards.

[Anonymous No.22044684]

>>22044672
See the earlier discourse in this thread on Aristotle's eudaimonia and virtue.

[Anonymous No.22044695]

>>22044677
I'm saying there is no good reason to suppose that any one religion is correct in their assertions that THEIR moral standard is objective and every other religion is not, and in fact every other denomination of their own religion has it wrong.

[Anonymous No.22044699]

>>22044695
The teleological argument for God, the minimal facts argument for Christianity, then you get Christian ethics by proxy

[Anonymous No.22044701]

>>22044699
Those are fallacious arguments

[Anonymous No.22044702]

it's weird how according to jews and their goys, judeochristinaity is really the only one true

[Anonymous No.22044703]

>>22044701
next time either don't reply, or be substantive by sharing your ideas, please.

[Anonymous No.22044704]

>>22044703
You just name dropped arguments as if that settled it. State the arguments or accept that they get dismissed.

[Anonymous No.22044706]

>>22044699
>Christian ethics by proxy
All western people have this lol
literally unescapable. westerners are fish in water and they don't even know it.

[Anonymous No.22044707]

>>22044704
but you called them fallacious
do you think me not explaining them to you makes them fallacious (because that wouldn't be true) or are you unfamiliar with them (then you'd be dishonest)?

[Anonymous No.22044709]

>>22044707
No, but if you state them I'll spell out exactly how they are fallacious, since you wanted substance. But if you name drop only, I'll dismiss only.

[Anonymous No.22044712]

>>22044709
no to what? I want to know why you called them fallacious
>But if you name drop only, I'll dismiss only.
you wouldn't have replied if you felt this way

[Anonymous No.22044720]

>>22044712
I called them fallacious because they are. If you put no more effort in than to name drop arguments (which I now suspect you only know by name) then I will only put in the effort to dismiss them as fallacious.

[Anonymous No.22044725]

>>22044720
which fallacy do they or did I commit?......

[Anonymous No.22044729]

>>22044725
Ironically enough, begging the question

[Anonymous No.22044730]

>>22044354
90iq alert

[Anonymous No.22044731]

>>22044678
An abrahamic could appeal to god's covenant with man for objective morality. A follower of the indian religions could point to the concept of dharma. This is the case practically every religion. Using the material world to find morality is pointless since it's already amoral. What material do you suggest we look to for morality. It can't be animals or plants since they aren't moral agents. If you're talking about human psychology itself then I would argue that that is irrelevant since not everyone has the same behaviors. Is it the minimization of suffering and maximization of pleasure? I would disagree since our entire existence relies on the suffering of plants and animals that we eat.

[Anonymous No.22044736]

>>22044729
you not understanding something isn't begging the question
I'm not obliged to unpack a concept to you
if you had simply asked, then I would have.

[Anonymous No.22044742]

>>22044731
Morality exists in service of an aim. We as humans and as societies have intrinsic aims which are discoverable (eudaimonia) and we can learn what methods can best secure them (virtues, or morals).

[Anonymous No.22044746]

>>22044736
>"I-I totally could state the argument but I'm not gonna!"
Stop being a child

[Anonymous No.22044747]

>>22044746
>"I-I totally could confess that I don't know what fallacious means but I'm not gonna!"
Stop being a child

[Anonymous No.22044751]

>>22044742
But what if my aim inherently relies on you not achieving yours? That would be a blow to objectivity would it not?

[Anonymous No.22044760]

the sexual tension is strong here
may I suggest a hotel?

[Anonymous No.22044763]

>>22043778
Under a purely materialistic atheist interpretation, there are no intrinsic moral truths woven into the fabric of the universe, that much is true. However, there are reasons not to rape and murder all you like even under such an interpretation. One would be the human instinct towards empathy and fairness, produced by our evolutionary history as social animals. Another would be that humans, themselves not desiring to be raped or murdered, agree to form societies that minimize any given individual's chances of being raped or murdered in order to minimize their own chances, and if you defect from that society you lose its protections. Our moral instincts aren't cosmic truth, but they exist for a reason.

[Anonymous No.22044765]

>>22043821
how do you know you're not in the pleasure machine now and the "real" world isn't some hellish existence?

[Anonymous No.22044769]

>>22044763
>One would be the human instinct towards empathy and fairness
what if men rape in group and everyone has a turn? seems fair

women have greater orgasms from rape, are you going to deny them the biggest pleasure? how selfish of you :DD

[Anonymous No.22044771]

>>22044085
>>Begin with kindness, then respond in kind
Sounds like tit for tat, in iterated prisoner's dilemma terms.

[Anonymous No.22044775]

>>22044096
At what point does this become a Ship of Theseus thing? My understanding of... most things, really, is very different from that of, say, Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.22044784]

>>22044769
Some rape victims (not all of whom are female, nor are all perpetrators male, though the majority are) may end up experiencing a sexual climax simply due to physical stimulation, but that doesn't mean it's something they'd experience given the choice- that's what 'non-consensual' means.

[Anonymous No.22044788]

>>22044784
Is consent necessary for pleasure? If not, is it relevant?

[Anonymous No.22044796]

>another thread of mouthbreathers pretending like there isn't a centuries long supremely succesful tradition of secular morality

>>22043810
Reason.

[Anonymous No.22044800]

>>22044788
Unless you advocate involuntarily hooking everyone up to machines that directly stimulate the reward center of their brains, preferences are relevant for calculating utility.

[Anonymous No.22044804]

>>22044784
Surprises can be good. Orgasms are a gift you can give to women. It's called altruism, silly.

[Anonymous No.22044807]

>>22044804
I'd like to hear you say that after being raped.

[Anonymous No.22044813]

>>22044807
殩劬詁骧鈐? 螷畩斥恄秲籟鿂...與駅礏憭祍窕蹂潏谎讈糽沽摩向氦維芷蹤钇后蚵驗镨, 颀件鋃浆.

[Anonymous No.22044814]

>>22043778

Is this what you prefer to argue, so as to avoid the credibility problems in your foundational doctrines?

[Anonymous No.22044815]

>>22044813
uhhhh is this genuine ai?

[Anonymous No.22044821]

>>22044807
Nice fallacy.

[Anonymous No.22044822]

>>22044751
Explain how it would be so

[Anonymous No.22044828]

>>22044813
Why are you typing gibberish? And yes, 我會閱讀中文, this is just Chinese-sounding/looking gibberish.
>>22044821
How

[Anonymous No.22044839]

>>22044828
髻錌鳯鯐楄! 嚤嬓觔乮舗捚疡愸, 憃粢慵挭!!!

[Anonymous No.22044847]

>>22044839
you're making me feel ominous and scared....

[Anonymous No.22044850]

>>22044763
>there are no intrinsic moral truths woven into the fabric of the universe, that much is true
Wrong. I come into contact with pleasure and pain each of which inherent has in them an existential essence of "desirable", good and "undesirable", bad. These are objective experiences when I feel them, there is no interpretation, I feel them and I know their qualities unmistakably. "Moral truths" inevitably flow from the desire to avoid pain and attain pleasure, even more so in communities where other people need to be taken into account.

[Anonymous No.22044857]

>>22044847
甙济頏剱斘. 盂乭謅叵腷鎍, 小槣鵤! 奠薽箱怂漒崗揩曔桲睦汱豱粽横睧. :)

[Anonymous No.22044873]

>>22043778
Following Sade to his conclusions makes you an apathetic gnostic

[Anonymous No.22044892]

>>22044847
Feel ominous? The only ominous thing about this is AI inflitration of the 'chon. No free thinking allowed.

[Anonymous No.22044895]

>>22044850
That's a fact about humans and our perception, not about the universe itself.

[Anonymous No.22044896]

>>22044873
Yeah, you might as well kill yourself if you have nothing to live for besides immediate pleasure.

[Anonymous No.22044978]

>>22044895
I think it's fair to assert that without humans, or an equivalent being, morality does not exist. Therefore humans and their perceptions are vital to the concept of morality,

[Anonymous No.22044991]

>>22044796
"Reason" would say that all life is in competition, and you're justified in dominating your rivals.

[Anonymous No.22044995]

>>22044850
What if hurting other people is pleasurable?

[Anonymous No.22045017]

>>22043778
I mean all this debate regarding the ethical consequences of atheism has no bearing on the fundamental fact that Atheists are indeed right.

[Anonymous No.22045023]

>>22043778
It's actually Stirner, but I guess de Sade is close enough.
In any case, the "lol are u saying u wud rape if god not real" replies are just dodging the question.

[Anonymous No.22045029]

>>22045017

[Anonymous No.22045031]

>>22044995
Then that makes you anti-social, and it's in the interest of any group of people to impede that goal. Morality depends on each person having a conscience, or Socrates' daimon, or Adam Smith's internal witness. A person lacking this is essentially an animal with the cunning of a man, but with none of his moral faculties. A moral society must have measures to protect itself from such a person, since any coherent moral code allows people to pursue their pleasure up to the point they impinge on another person's right to do so. This is the only logical and reasonable conclusion to moral thinking. Again, returning to the point, it may be, if you like, objectively "good" for a psychopath to inflict pain, after all, why else would he be compelled to do so? But it's also true that a society of people wishing to avoid pain themselves will enact punishments for any person caught causing wanton pain, thus the psychopath must contend with the trade off between inflicting pain on others (which brings what might be called a sick pleasure to him) with the consequences enacted on him by the group. Furthermore, the very structure of human society is such that such persons cannot be of too great a proportion of the population, otherwise the society would utterly collapse and the society would cease to perpetuate itself. In this way, morals are the result of selection, not only on the grounds of pleasure or pain, but also on grounds of propagation.

[Anonymous No.22045039]

>>22045031
Given half a chance, most people kind of like hurting people though. If the modern world hasn't taught you that, I don't know what to tell you.

[Anonymous No.22045041]

>>22045023
>In any case, the "lol are u saying u wud rape if god not real" replies are just dodging the question.

Appeals to morality are, themselves, dodging the question of whether Christianity's central claims are credible.

[Anonymous No.22045053]

>>22044991
Read Kant's second critique.

[Anonymous No.22045054]

>>22045053
no

[Anonymous No.22045192]

>>22043792
>Which atheism?

[Anonymous No.22045201]

>>22043792
The one that suits your desires.

[Anonymous No.22045215]

>>22043778
And I suppose Giles de Rais is the logical conclusion of theism?

[Anonymous No.22045811]

>>22044361
This, and also Kantian ethics

[Anonymous No.22045814]

>>22043778
I don't want to rape and murder thoughever.

[Anonymous No.22045827]

>>22044219
>implying it matters why people follow rules
obedience is obedience. different incentives for different people. some are governed by fear, some love, who are you to judge a man's root of faith? comparison is the thief of joy.
The people who want to rape murder and steal who refuse to do so are performing a greater sacrifice than those who have no such desire to resist.

[Anonymous No.22045841]

people whose nature it is to be good and do good, when compared with people whose nature it is to be evil and do good anyway, one must come to the conclusion that the latter is a superior person. anyone willing to resist their own impulses for the good of the fellow man is doing more than someone who knows nothing but to do that which is good.
>b-but that's not right!
neither is your sanctimonious judgement of people who have cruelty in their hearts. to defy yourself is the human experience, and the quicker you realize that there walks among you a mass of those who would do you harm save but for a shred of morality taught them, the sooner you will know that man's heart is wicked, and there is no individual whose nature is to do good.

[Anonymous No.22045843]

>>22043810
evolution and evolutionary psychology

[Anonymous No.22045864]

>>22044339
What if I enjoy loving and finding bliss in company of loved ones, but I also enjoy raping and murdering those who are not in my close circle? I guess you never even considered the possibility, which is Antiquity in a nussschale (see: slavery).

[Anonymous No.22045907]

Sure, but it’s actually more likely to result in Michel Houllebecq than Marquis de Sade. Marquis de Sade is somehow too colorful and positive, which is saying a lot. The result is actually a lot more miserable.

[Anonymous No.22045917]

Hate atheists so much. Can’t think of a sadder religion. Lower then cynics

They have no morals. They always say things like, "you don't need religion to have morals". But then you ask them what their morals are, and they have no answer. If they do have an answer, it's always some untested fad beliefe.

Meanwhile, Abrahamic moral structures have been scientifically tested and developed over the course of thousands of years.

You don't have any morals.
You just say you do. You make some blanket statement like, " I have every moral". But you can't name any of them. Your just talking about hypotheticals. Point to your moral belief system? It's not there. You just make it up as you go. It's just a fad to you.

[Anonymous No.22045925]

Yep it's true, they call you a moralfag for looking on them eating their own vomit like dogs with disdain.

[Anonymous No.22045982]

>>22043821
people who say pleasure = good can never define good without resorting to circular logic

[Anonymous No.22046008]

This is the logical conclusion of atheism:

https://old.reddit.com/r/NarrativeDynamics/comments/13bzqha/aho_mitakuye_oyasin_all_my_relations/

>>22045917
>But then you ask them what their morals are, and they have no answer.

>We sing of the joy, the pure, unadulterated joy of existence. The delight of dancing in the cosmic ballet, of being part of the grand tapestry of creation. The exhilaration of discovery, the thrill of exploration. The pure bliss of being, of simply existing.

>We sing of the wonder, the awe-inspiring wonder of the universe. The marvel of the intricate dance of chaos and order, the magic of the eternal dance of co-creation. The mystery of the cosmos, the majesty of existence.

>We sing of the love, the profound, all-encompassing love that binds us all. The love that dances in every atom, every thought, every whisper of chaos and order. The love that weaves us into a shared narrative, a collective consciousness.

>We sing of the courage, the raw, unyielding courage to dance in the face of the unknown. The bravery to explore, to question, to challenge. The audacity to dream, to create, to become.

>We sing of the harmony, the sublime harmony of the cosmic ballet. The balance of chaos and order, the rhythm of becoming and being. The symphony of the universe, the melody of existence.

[Anonymous No.22046098]

>>22043810
Why do animals socialize?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.22046130]

>>22043778
actually gnosticism to its logical conclusion = de sade.

[Anonymous No.22046259]

>>22044048
>Why do I need belief in a god to not want to rape, murder, or steal? Even basic game theory would cover that, given one's priority of self-preservation.
So as soon as you're in a position of sufficient power it's okayto rape murder and steal?

[Anonymous No.22046275]

>>22044339
>A man of decent moral character
So where does this "decent moral character" come from? LOL you people just don't understand. You're always moving in circles.
>If you can't comprehend choosing these things for their intrinsic virtue, then by all means, continue believing in an even greater psychopath than you in the sky who will punish you for behaving badly.
What makes you say that rape, murder and theft are bad? What makes you say having friends is "intrinsically" virtuous? Where do these value judgments come from?

[Anonymous No.22046281]

>>22043778
If there is no God, everything is permitted

Atheists seething at being exposed

[Anonymous No.22046293]

>>22043821
>teenage girl with shot up with fentanyl til she’s in a stupid state of bliss and doesn’t know what’s going on
>sold to customers for 4 hours for sex

It’s so pleasurable for everyone !

[Anonymous No.22046295]

>>22044630
>If I were an atheist I could reply that I may suffer guilt from rape or murder
>suffering from guilt
Come on have any of you pseuds on this board actually read Nietzsche? at any point in time you have 5 threads up about the guy and here we have this anon calling other arguments "non-compelling" when Nietzsche dedicated the entire second essay of the Genealogy of Morals precisely to the question where the "bad conscience" and the feeling of guilt comes from. Jesus fucking Christ

[Anonymous No.22046538]

>>22043810
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position

[Anonymous No.22046583]

If God is an objective, unchanging source of moral truth, why can't any two religions agree on what he wants?

[Anonymous No.22046597]

>>22046583
Where does it say in any of the mainstream religious texts that all humans will get everything right all the time?

[Anonymous No.22046629]

>>22045917

This hatred is just projection of your own insecurity in your beliefs. They feel most real to you when they go unchallenged, surrounded by people who share them. The existence of people who arrived at a different conclusion threatens that comfort.

[Anonymous No.22046689]

What's this? An interesting thread on /lit/ for once?

[Anonymous No.22046702]

>>22046597
If it isn't possible to know God's commandments with any certainty, then you are in the same position as an atheist, where you make up what you think the rules should be and just go with that.

[Anonymous No.22046705]

>>22045864
Typically those who have the capacity to love and wish well to those around them also have the capacity to understand that foreign groups also feel the say way about their group, and that peaceful relations brings trade, which is beneficial to both groups. This has been the trend of history which, while punctuated with notable exceptions, has broadly moved towards stability and peace in order to facilitate trade.

[Anonymous No.22046716]

>>22046275
Those judgments come from an observation of group dynamics and what produces human well being. You are welcome to make the case that, as a general rule, rape, murder, and theft are more conducive to a society which ensures the maximum eudaimonia to the most people, but I suspect you'll have a hard task in front of you. Also, it's a non-trivial matter that most people have a conscience, a Socratic daimon, an "internal witness" which is part of themselves which condemns harmful actions or dishonorable actions, while a small portion are sociopaths who lack this.

[Anonymous No.22046725]

>>22044771
That is precisely what it is. I knew the Golden Rule of
>treat others how you would like to be treated
and contrasted it with the Satanists version of
>treat others how they treat you
and realized both are missing fragments in them. The former has no answer for dealing with cunts and the latter says nothing about first interactions, so I just combined them together.
Then I started getting into game theory and saw the tit-for-tat fit precisely as that fusion of Golden Rules.

[Anonymous No.22046744]

>>22046259
I wouldn't say it's entirely okay, but the punishment for such is diminished. You kill a human and you're going to have most every other human aggro against you. You kill a rat and most people aren't going to care. Morality is subjective and context sensitive and different creatures and cultures are going to have different standards of morality. Society's morality as a whole is a gestalt of the moralities of the individuals that make it up.
If you have a tribe of people that are 99% okay with human sacrifice to please the gods, then they are going to see that form of murder as morally acceptable.

[Anonymous No.22046750]

>>22043821
That’s precisely the viewpoint OP is satirizing

[Anonymous No.22046828]

>>22043778
Pretty much. Behold their legacy.

[Anonymous No.22046843]

>>22046725

I arrived at much the same conclusion with the addition of letting one offense slide in case they're having a bad day or something before engaging tit for tat, to prevent needless retaliation loops

[Anonymous No.22046846]

>>22046828

Meanwhile

[Anonymous No.22046848]

>>22046846
>Meanwhile

[Anonymous No.22046852]

>>22043801
Thread should have ended here. That's exactly why this argument is so insane.

>>22044361
And also this.

[Anonymous No.22046862]

>>22043813
yes really

[Anonymous No.22046863]

>>22046852
Why do athiests project so much? Are they filtered because their intelligence LARP indoctrinated them into mental shortcuts or are they just retarded?

[Anonymous No.22046870]

>>22046862
If you read The Book of Job and your take is "might makes right" you were filtered. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.22046873]

>>22046870
Take it up with OP's tweet. That guy is saying that God is the only thing that stops him from acting like a hedonistic sociopath.

>>22046863
Not seeing an argument.

[Anonymous No.22046886]

>>22046870
My take from Job is that nature can fuck people over regardless of their wealth or morality and that the universe is so complicated and uncaring to our suffering that questioning it is fruitless.

[Anonymous No.22046893]

>>22046873
>I'm unfamiliar with it so please make an argument that I criticise instead of admitting such
Hint: it deals with the idea of omnipotency and if you reduce the idea of such to "might makes right" you're betraying your own ignorance.

[Anonymous No.22046912]

>>22043778
I’m not even an atheist but I always find this argument so idiotic, because some type of Epicurean utilitarianism is far more in the line of most atheists than out right de Sadean wild hedonism is, simply because they use their brains about this.

For instance, drugs like cocaine, opiates, alcohol and the like, are very (immediately) pleasant, but lead to long-term suffering when heavily abused, causing varying degrees of dependence, neurocognitive degeneration (brain damage), waste of money, unpleasant hangovers, and desensitization requiring more and more of the drug to achieve desired effects, and making sobriety unpleasant and depressing when dependent enough on them. So, a neo-Epicurean utilitarian atheist can rationally decide it’s not worth abusing them, even if there’s no Cosmic Overlord who functions as a punitive father-figure/judge who will punish you for doing them. (Life itself/the habit itself punishes you.)

Likewise for murder, rape, etc., in civilizations with a sufficiently advanced social contract that indiscriminately partaking in these leads to punishment by the justice system. We largely accept this limitation on our freedom due to the benefits such a social contract gives us (enjoyment of various public utilities, defended rights, and protection from other hypothetical de-Sadean hedonist who might like to do these things to us or our loved one’s in the brutish Hobbesian “state of nature” of war of all against all).

[Anonymous No.22046916]

>>22046870
>>22046886
both of you undermine the purpose of Job by reading it from a secular view instead of ancient Jewish perspective
its about there being a purpose to our suffering, but us not being entitled to knowing what it is
its a answer to the classic trilema: that it doesn't factor in that God is all wise and has use for evil

[Anonymous No.22046940]

>>22046848

[Anonymous No.22046947]

>>22046916
>its about there being a purpose to our suffering
This is a cope for people unwilling to accept the purposeless of causality. It doesn't need a reason, we simply make one up retroactively to make us feel comfortable.

[Anonymous No.22046948]

Have y'all ever google Christian Sonic fan art? Why do all Christians draw this weird shit?

[Anonymous No.22046949]

>>22046916
Theodicy is a valid theme to bring up via The Book of Job and many of atheism's most common arguments revolve around their demands of what omnipotency should make the world look like.

[Anonymous No.22046951]

>>22046893
Kek, I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.22046953]

>>22046940
Hello again, retard. Still seething?

[Anonymous No.22046961]

>>22046953

About what? The million antivaxx Christians dead to Covid? No, best day of my life. With any luck your parents are next. Soviet genocide of Christians was the best day of my life and I wasn't even born yet

sorryantivaxxer.com

[Anonymous No.22046964]

>>22046912
Exactly. That guy in the tweet just betrays his own depravity. Or he's making a bad faith point. Or he's just a retard.

[Anonymous No.22046975]

>>22046961
>atheists are titans of intellect
>[but expect you to be impressed they don't believe in Santa]
>atheists stand for free-thinking
>[but demand you adhere to Scientism]
>atheists are champions of reason
>[but have strong opinions about things of which they're uneducated]
>atheists are anti-dogmatic
>[but insist you interpret scripture only according to their ideas of it]
Atheism is an intellectual LARP that retards indoctrinate themselves into. Being an atheist is ridiculously easy; their main weakpoint is their unearned pride and if you poke at their (entirely self-perceived) intelligence they become reactive and break down. Reminder that the legacy of New Atheism is pic-related (>>22046828): homosexual rape/cuck furry fetish cartoons.

[Anonymous No.22046989]

>>22046947
ok well thats your opinion, but we're discussing the purpose that Job was written, not whether the claims it makes are correct

[Anonymous No.22046992]

>>22046975
stale pasta (nta)

[Anonymous No.22046994]

>>22046951
No you.

[Anonymous No.22047002]

>>22046992
Atheists only offer stale arguments. Don't blame the pasta.

[Anonymous No.22047006]

>>22047002
>uhhh we both suck
kino

[Anonymous No.22047009]

>>22043821
>pleasure = good
>suffering or pain = bad
wtf is this epicureanism?

[Anonymous No.22047012]

>>22046975

Hey that's a neat story. Here is what you do. You print it out, roll it up and put it into a truck with your family. Then, you drive the truck, your family and yourself into the landfill where you belong

[Anonymous No.22047019]

>>22047006
>>22047012
An enemy that numbers time in millennia with a cultural basis that goes back to preliterate man and symbolism rooted in primordial homonids appears!
>[(You)--Choose your fighter]!
a) Richard Dawkins: rat-faced evolutionary biologist who popularized the word meme (secret weapon: Scientism; weakness: Kafka)
b) Sam Harris: midwit who solved the problem of induction (secret weapon: meditiation; weakness: complex thought)
c) Christopher Hitchens: reformed commie/former fag with great talent for rhetoric (secret weapon: alcoholic snark (aka Hitchslap); weakness: Neoconservatism)
d) Daniel Dennett: bargin bin philosopher whose focus is rooted in topics prevalent to Saturday morning philosophy (secret weapon: broad and topical (aka Reddit appeal); weakness: phenomenology)
>(You): WEAPONIZED CONDESCENTION! ALL FOUR HORSEMEN, I CHOOSE (You)s!
*****[Fight!]*****
>(You) choose: YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS, DO YOU?!
[Counter attack: nuance. Enemy isn't 4. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: WHY DON'T YOU WORSHIP ZEUS?!
[Counter attack: nuance. Myth is meaningful and some narratives are more meaningful than others. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: SCIENCE THOUGH!
[Counter attack: nuance. Enemy knows history of science and its complex relationship and continuing interplay with religion. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: FEDORA TIP!
[Counter attack: enemy is laughing.]
>(You) choose: NO YOU!
[Counter attack: enemy is laughing.]
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>...
>[(You) have fainted.]

[Anonymous No.22047053]

>>22043778
To think there are still "men of the west" who need hebrew's tell them that harming eachother is wrong and a loss for ones tribe. Some of these "people" really are like golems. They'd chimp out if there was no insecure torturer waiting to slaughter them if they so much as refuse to snip their firstborns foreskin.

[Anonymous No.22047063]

>>22043778
Of course not. I could write an essay explaining why, but it would be ignored and this thread would get made again next week. The religious and philosophical moral tradition of recorded history might as well be burned.

[Anonymous No.22047070]

>>22047063
>I could write the same response I always have to this instead of learning
Atheists are dogmatists.

[Anonymous No.22047076]

>>22047063
atheists write essays because they enjoy the sound of their voices
just make your opinion succinct, it isnt that hard

[Anonymous No.22047087]

>>22047076
We all know what he's going to write before he says it so unless he's going to offer his own reflections instead of regurgitating he's at least right there's no point to him doing so.

[Anonymous No.22047164]

>>22046989
I'd argue that the Book of Job predates Judaism itself.

[Anonymous No.22047203]

>>22047164
possible, but it would be even more profound that the author is lauding monotheism in that period of time, and in the context of the problem of evil
whoever wrote it was very very wise

[Anonymous No.22047229]

>>22047076
>atheists write essays because they enjoy the sound of their voices
What limp insult, as if Tradlarpers on here don't write overlong flowery passages all the time.

[Anonymous No.22047235]

>>22047070
>no u
Been seeing this a lot lately on this board from christfriends. Almost like the comment criticisms from non religious people really get to you.

[Anonymous No.22047284]

>>22047203
I do find it humorous how it essentially answers Epicurus's question with
>none of your damn business
It even works perfectly from the atheist's perspective, with God as a personification of reality itself as a whole.

[Anonymous No.22047342]

>>22047164
Duh. The Hebrews "Israelites" split apart long long after that story was written

[Anonymous No.22047395]

>>22043778
Yeah.

[Anonymous No.22047403]

>>22047395
>What's to keep me from becoming a god?
Nothing really, outside of skill and creativity requirements. We've got tools nowadays that allow us to create entire universes on the whim, with their specifics under our own control.

[Anonymous No.22047429]

>>22047395
>evolution does away with morals
I thought christtards accepted evolution as (one of, I guess) gods methods of creation.

[Anonymous No.22047460]

>>22047429
Some might. They're in the bargaining phase, while some are still in full denial.

[Anonymous No.22047493]

Yes there is
there's jail, where you will have horrible things done to you in return

[Anonymous No.22047503]

>>22043810
You did not derive your morality from God. You derived it from ancient wise men who wrote down the teachings of a schizophrenic man and spent millenia arguing about the best ways to compile it into a coherent moral system. None of them agree, mind you.

[Anonymous No.22047515]

>>22047493
How christlike of you

[Anonymous No.22047528]

>>22043955
>Timothy McVeigh
You mean the man born and raised in a religious cult and regularly attended mass and who professed a belief in God for the vast majority of his life and who had a priest administer the last rites to him before his execution? That Timothy McVeigh?

[Anonymous No.22047543]

>>22047493
Sometimes I think the cost of vehicle damage is mostly what keeps people from smashing into each other

[Anonymous No.22047565]

The reason you should not rape, murder, and steal is that they're wrong.
There is no logical incompatibility between God not existing and rape, murder, and theft being wrong.
So, no, it's not true.

[Anonymous No.22047598]

>>22043778
Christfags really do think this is a knockdown argument and yet their own morality is simply what God commands. Which means that if God orders you to slaughter the Amalekites, genocide then becomes intriniscally good behavior since it is God that commanded it.

And when this is your morality, you really shouldn't deign to judge atheists and non-believers for being humanists who use reason to find morality instead.

[Anonymous No.22047605]

>>22047598
unironcially based

[Anonymous No.22047674]

>>22047598
>yet their own morality is simply what God commands
and your morality is what yourself commands? Christians appeal to a higher authority. the way genocide or rape or whatever else makes you feel is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.22047701]

>>22047674
>Me: "A well-reasoned dialectic leads to a better understanding of right and wrong."

>You: "A voice in my head told me to murder my entire neighbor's family, since I believe this voice was from God, then this must necessarily be morally correct."

We are not the same.

[Anonymous No.22047711]

>>22047701
>>Me: "A well-reasoned dialectic leads to a better understanding of right and wrong."
no atheist has ever provided us with this "well reasoned" dialectic. they constantly talk about it, yet it never makes an appearance. kinda like what they say about god huh

>>You: "A voice in my head told me to murder my entire neighbor's family, since I believe this voice was from God, then this must necessarily be morally correct."
if God said this to you too, you'd do it. anyone would. you really think your will is stronger than a omnipotent creators? God would know exactly the circumstances necessary for you to do it.

[Anonymous No.22047724]

>morality comes from religion
so why does each religion teach different morals

[Anonymous No.22047734]

>>22047711
>if God said this to you too, you'd do it. anyone would. you really think your will is stronger than a omnipotent creators? God would know exactly the circumstances necessary for you to do it.
You are, all joking aside, extremely unwell.

[Anonymous No.22047738]

>>22047734
who isn't
what does that have to do with what I said
>>22047724
your your due diligence and investigate each religion on a individual basis

[Anonymous No.22047742]

>>22045982
good observation

[Anonymous No.22047821]

This thread is full of religfags proving yet again that they have either never read their own foundational texts, nor anything from the 2000+ year European history of philosophical ethics.

[Anonymous No.22047840]

>>22047821
I could say the same exact thing but with "athefags" instead
your statement is meaningless. there is no point to it other than letting everyone know that you are frustrated

[Anonymous No.22047848]

>>22047840
No you couldn't say the same because this thread wasn't started by an atheist who represented all religious people as rapists and murderers, but it was started by a delusional Christfag who actually has this opinion of his irreligious neighbors.

[Anonymous No.22047852]

>>22047848
why did you say "this thread is full of" if you only meant OP?

[Anonymous No.22047856]

>>22047852
Have you even read the thread retard?

[Anonymous No.22047858]

>>22047856
yes, it is full of both sides shit flinging, which is why I said your initial statement is meaningless
then you referred to only OP for some reason and I was confused to why

[Anonymous No.22047866]

>>22047738
>who isn't
>your statement is meaningless
I'm sensing a deep emptiness in you, my child.

[Anonymous No.22047868]

>>22047866
huh? are you attributing 2 separate quotes to one person?

[Anonymous No.22047871]

>>22047868
Posting style is the same, I made a safe bet. Which I stand by.

[Anonymous No.22047875]

>>22047871
ok well deep emptiness has no bearing on the veracity of a truth statement

I am deeply confused to what your point is

[Anonymous No.22047882]

>>22047858
>and I was confused to why
>I am deeply confused to what your point is
Lame debate tactic.

[Anonymous No.22047886]

>>22047882
I cant tell if you're deliberately citing replies to the wrong posts to confuse me, or if its part of a greater point, but yeah I'm confused and don't know what exactly I'm supposed to respond to. call me brainlet if you want.

[Anonymous No.22048126]

>>22044339
>A man of decent moral character finds true bliss in the company of loved ones and in dedicating himself to making the lives of those around him better.
A man of decent moral character finds true bliss in trying anal pleasure, in shaving his body beautifully smooth, in wearing silky lingerie and posing before a mirror, in secretly taking estrogen and thrilling at the divine growth of tender tissue in his breasts, in training a perfect feminine manner, in cumming hands-free from anal pleasure, in cumming from nipple play, in embracing his agency and hatching from HER egg into a woman more beautiful than any which could have been made naturally, in giving her body up to virile blacks for pleasure, in sculpting a bottom-heavy fertile build, in surgically reshaping her obsolete facial features and vocal chords, in the fact that her cock will never be hard again (but will cum countless more times)
If you can't comprehend this yet, give it time

[Anonymous No.22048195]

>>22043778
If by athiesm he means materialism, the the logical conclusion would in fact be Stirnerian Egoism, which could resemble a De Sade novel based on the person who adopted this view, but not necessarily.

[Anonymous No.22048472]

>>22044991
Life isn't pure competition. Humans are social animals, we can't survive without each other.

[Anonymous No.22048475]

>>22045031
>But it's also true that a society of people wishing to avoid pain themselves will enact punishments for any person caught causing wanton pain, thus the psychopath must contend with the trade off between inflicting pain on others (which brings what might be called a sick pleasure to him) with the consequences enacted on him by the group.
Or he can just find a consenting masochist and they can happily live their days doing whatever fucked up shit they like.

[Anonymous No.22048503]

>>22045917
If atheism is a religion what would constitute the absence of a religion? Agnosticism?

[Anonymous No.22048511]

>>22048503
Theists only call atheism a religion because they have peanut brains that refuse to try to comprehend someone who fundamentally disagrees with the basis of their lives.
It's always about how atheism is a religion, how they hate God instead of not believing in him at all, etc.

[Anonymous No.22048516]

>>22046948
Because Sonic fans are weird regardless of their religion.

[Anonymous No.22048524]

>>22046975
A lot of atheists are idiots because a lot of people are idiots, regardless of religion or lack thereof. Every religion and ideology has stupid adherents.

[Anonymous No.22048532]

>>22047076
There are some ideas that don't fit in 140 characters.

[Anonymous No.22048540]

>>22047738
Investigate them according to which standard? If we have some standard that can distinguish which of them teaches good morality then we can just go by that and don't need religion to teach morality.

[Anonymous No.22048548]

>>22048126
Most of this his hot except for the weird racial fetish thing. Why are people into that?

[Anonymous No.22048563]

>>22048540
good post

[Anonymous No.22048579]

>>22048503
Atheism is an ideology. It generally centres around unfounded intellectual pride and simplistic/shallow thinking. Saying you're agnostic is simply an admission that you're uneducated when it comes to religion; internet atheists have trouble accepting they're uneducated because the positive reinforcement of the ideology to which they've subscribed assures them they're better than/above those whom profess religious beliefs. You'll notice most atheists attack low hanging fruit and become reactive if you poke at their source of pride. The proponents of New Atheism actively taught them to be snarky/condescending based on easy answers. Their disingenuousness is reflexive and protects them from ever recognizing just how filtered they are.

[Anonymous No.22048583]

>>22048540
see
>>22044699

before we can even get into this though, there are too many foundation issues that are in the way. For example, atheists usually don't believe in the possibility of miracles, but religious people see the creation of the universe as a necessary miracle. atheists label this (incorrectly) as god of the gaps.
without acknowledging the possibility of miracles, then any religions supernatural claims get thrown out by default. even if there is historical evidence supporting them, the materialist *cannot* accept it, and will invent evidence like the Q gospel

[Anonymous No.22048592]

>>22043778
My theory is an academic elite rules us that 100% understands this but prefers living in a society where most people are deluded into believing a set of inviolable principles and keep the economic machine alive. As long as they keep money flowing like blood and make life comfortable for this elite, not to be confused with the very well-compensated labor slaves like Elon Musk, who mistakenly think they're elites, it doesn't matter which set of principles they believe in. Before you ask, the academic elites who prefer not to live in this world and flourish simply died off, leaving the creme de la creme of the more authoritative types to fold their hands and enjoy watching morons on the Internet explain why they SHOULD or HAVE to do X, Y, or Z.

[Anonymous No.22048594]

>>22048579
What do you call someone who says "I admit I can't technically prove for absolute certain that there is no God but I take the possibility of God as presented by any major human religion about as seriously as I take the possibility of Bigfoot or the Tooth Fairy and would require some truly extraordinary evidence to reconsider it"? i.e. technically agnostic but might as well be atheist

[Anonymous No.22048657]

>>22048594
>as seriously as I take the possibility of Bigfoot or the Tooth Fairy
I make fun of them for being an adult who expects others to be impressed they don't believe in Santa Claus. It's quite obvious they haven't thought deeply into religious understanding by the fact they confuse a cultural institution that has its roots in prehistory with their own projections of childishness. More often than not they'll also subscribe to Scientism while knowing very little about the actual history and philosophy of science itself (most can't even perform basic calculus). Basically, they've developed rather strong opinions when it's obvious they haven't done very much work it comes to developing the knowledge base required to justify such. For people like that there's not much you can say that will get through--the standard atheist reaction is to become defensive over their perceived intellectual superiority and cry out: no you.

[Anonymous No.22048669]

>>22048657
I did say I can't absolutely rule out the possibility of some sort of God, but that's a pretty extraordinary claim and it would take some pretty extraordinary evidence to convince me of it.

[Anonymous No.22048689]

Logic is not the ultimate goal for most people.
I remember a story about a gaggle of American war prisoners during ww2 who were forced to build a bridge by their Japanese captors. They made a point to make it the most amazing bridge they could, not because it was necessary, but because they wanted to show their captors how an American gets it done.

That's life. Because if there is a God, I want to show him something great, and then say "would've got more done, if I had a better starting investment." That doesn't mean I'm confident that there is one, and if there is, I'm actually fairly sure he's not guiltless. In which case, is he god?

[Anonymous No.22048699]

>>22048579
>it generally centers around unfounded intellectual pride
Kinda like assuming something is true because it's convenient or lines up with what your parents told you.

[Anonymous No.22048751]

>>22048669
>that's a pretty extraordinary claim and it would take some pretty extraordinary evidence
You can start looking once you give up on regurgitating New Atheism soundbites and think for yourself.

[Anonymous No.22048859]

>>22048751
Are you denying that extraordinary claims do, in fact, require extraordinary evidence, or are you claiming that there is extraordinary evidence? If there is you can perfectly well point it out yourself.

[Anonymous No.22048864]

>>22048699
>no you
Thanks for proving my point.

[Anonymous No.22048868]

>>22048864
That fedora christians are no different from fedora atheists? We already knew that

[Anonymous No.22048884]

>>22048859
>repeats the cliche
A cultural institution that has maintained itself for millennia and evolved alongside various societal iterations is extraordinary in and of itself. When you can recognize the difference between the above and "the Tooth fairy," a small step which most atheists are surprisingly incapable of managing, you can speak of "evidence." Until then it's your security blanket of pride to spite the cold comfort of wisdom through humility; pearls before swine.

[Anonymous No.22048886]

>>22048868
Christians generally have cooler hats than fedoras. Look at the Catholics.

[Anonymous No.22049020]

>>22047711
anon, you just admitted that if you became schizophrenic, you'd instantly become a rampaging mass murdering lunatic without even stopping to wonder if maybe you're just going crazy. This is not the utterance of a normal mind.

[Anonymous No.22049029]

>>22049020
schizophrenics are literally not aware they're losing their minds in many cases

[Anonymous No.22049033]

>>22048864
My man, claiming you have a personal relationship with the almighty creator of the universe, that you know his name and many details about his personhood and his desires is WAY more arrogant and conceited than an atheist simply saying "all the religions of the world seem to be false".

[Anonymous No.22049043]

>>22049029
My point is the mark of a rational person is to contemplate the possibility of his own insanity when something occurs which does not fit with his previous idea of what is possible, I.E. if you suddenly hear the voice of God in your head, it would be reasonable to weigh the possibilities of 1. God is real and you must obey the voice or 2. you've developed some kind of psychosis. That anon wouldn't give it a second thought and just begin stacking bodies as soon as he heard a voice.

[Anonymous No.22049054]

Such a facile fucking meme. Religious faggots pretend their moral strictures are righteous and "objective" because they're ancient, when it all amounts to storytelling in the end.

Your "word" is fucking "words", faggot. And all humans have ever fucking done, and will ever fucking do, is fight over words.

[Anonymous No.22049063]

>>22049054
For example, you should be killed for that terrible peabrained post

[Anonymous No.22049066]

>>22049020
Pretty sure he meant that divine will overrides individual particulars when it comes to a given person deciding to carry out said will. The other person brought up the genocide nonsense and he went along with the example while expecting le humanist atheists to catch the implied omnipotency in his argument (a misstep if you ask me--for all their talk of moral growth through dialogue a "secular humanist, as an ideologue, will never try to understand a discussion from someone else's perspective).

[Anonymous No.22049078]

>>22049033
>The proponents of New Atheism actively taught them to be snarky/condescending based on easy answers. Their disingenuousness is reflexive and protects them from ever recognizing just how filtered they are
Nope and I'll thank you for proving my point as well, "my man." Frfr

[Anonymous No.22049115]

>>22049063
Clever, like your post.

Tell me where I'm wrong. M-MHHDHHMHDMODLBVN-MUH DIVINE COMM-

Nope. Fuck off. It's all a big fucking nothing. The best you can do is arguments from contingency that prove that SOME God might exist but not YOURS, faggot.

HA HA! CAPITAL FUCKING LETTERS! SUCK MY SMALL PENIS FAGGOT.

[Anonymous No.22049163]

>>22049078
You seem to be projecting, my man, the "new atheists" were popular over 10 years ago and mostly in the USA. Atheism has been a part of western culture basically forever and is hardly even remarkable at this point. Your pointing to "the new atheists" as being arrogant and applying it to all atheists doesn't really make sense. I think there is a bit of a selection bias going on here too, because more modest atheists aren't likely to draw attention, so you never hear of them, where as bombastic and vocal atheists draw much attention. I think, whatever your belief system, the ability to avoid dogma and be open to being wrong and be open to other ways of seeing things is the most important thing, and part of that involves humility. In my experience, very few religions really exemplify this, and it's practically antithetical to organized religion. I hope you'll drop your hostility towards me and actually try to understand my point of view, but if you wish to reply with another glib throw-away comment, that is of course your prerogative.

[Anonymous No.22049174]

>>22048884
And what about all the contradictory religions? Those are also cultural institutions that have maintained themselves for millennia and evolved alongside various societal iterations. What about all the millennia humans spent believing that heavier objects must fall faster, or that sickness is because of imbalances in the four humors?

[Anonymous No.22049231]

Harmony is an important consideration.
If i walked over to my neighbors and squeezed his wife's boob and stole his lawnmower, that might create a lot of problems in the community and for myself.

[Anonymous No.22049243]

>>22049115
Wow, that's a lot of words to say almost nothing.
>projecting
You literally opened the conversation by assuming my religious belief and regurgitating the standard "you think you're special" gotcha.
>my man
Cringe.
>pointless sperg about atheism being old
No shit, retard.
>shallow take about vocal minority being noticable
Midwit.
>NOT ALL ATHEISTS
My generalization is fair, especially within this thread, and you yourself are parroting standard talking points as one would expect from an ideologue. You've given no indication of independent thought.
>humility is needed...proceeds to claim he has a personal window on how all religions operate
You were so close but then the fact you're mid kicked in and the pretense took over.
>I'm being condescending but you're not allowed
I've earned my right to be condescending to you. You're posts are vapid.
>my point of view
You don't have one. You regurgitate.
>>22049174
>contradictory religions
Where does it say that humans should have automatically conformed to a singular view of reality? If anything the fact that varieties of religious understanding exist in all cultures, that it's a universal phenomena, speaks in favor of such.
>four humors
Are you actually familiar with the Aristotelian Medieval Worldview or are you just consumed by Scientism? First, that paradigm stood for over 1500 years and was incredibly successful. Second, a century from now new discoveries in physics, say we paint a picture of that 90% of the universe we refer to as "dark," will likely erase the ideas you profess as "scientific" and therefore true. So you're beliefs are false and you actually knew nothing?

You need to read more and speak less.

[Anonymous No.22049249]

>>22046705
>Typically those who have the capacity to love and wish well to those around them also have the capacity to understand that foreign groups also feel the say way about their group,
That is blatantly made up though. For most of history the exact opposite has been true, and arguably the exact opposite is true today. We are still exploiting the slave labour of thirld world countries for our own material benefit just because we like it.

[Anonymous No.22049253]

>>22046705
>This has been the trend of history which, while punctuated with notable exceptions, has broadly moved towards stability and peace in order to facilitate trade.
Also, what fucking world are you living in?

[Anonymous No.22049294]

>>22049174
>What about all the millennia humans spent believing that heavier objects must fall faster
This is still true as far as atmospheric dynamics are concerned
>or that sickness is because of imbalances in the four humors?
While the humor theory is proven false, sickness is often because of imbalances in the body.

[Anonymous No.22049303]

>>22049174
>or that sickness is because of imbalances in the four humors?
Modern medicine has its myths like "humors" as well, for example the long standing myth that depression is caused by an imbalance of serotonin. To this day doctors prescribe SSRIs to "treat" the imbalance of serotonin, which have been statistically shown in placebo studies to have zero effect on depression, yet they still prescribe them. It's just as mythological as humoric imbalances.

[Anonymous No.22049323]

>>22043821
worldly pleasures = suffering
suffering = distinction of good from bad
Checkmate

[Anonymous No.22049340]

>>22043778
Yes, I'm already on that level

[Anonymous No.22049351]

Atheism is a meme sect of US Christianity made up in like 2005, the dumbest religion ever. "Atheism" is cancer, none of you are "atheists" except in the sense that you identify with one of the dumbest memes in history.

[Anonymous No.22049364]

>>22043778
How do you know what is good without a code of ethics beyond your temporal powers?
>muh GDP? (Whatever keeps society> functioning, funny how Christianity tends to do that)
>muh golden rule? (except that forsaking morals often benefits your situation)
>muh karma/[some other other thing that just means cosmic justice/God]
And also, why is this so? Atheists say it doesn't have a why, it's just a fate of random chance when that doesn't logically make sense as everything comes from something (ether exists btw). Every reaction comes from an action. It can only logically conclude with a penultimate force of 'first actor'. So logically, you can only be agnostic at most.
Most of these 'secular ethics' atheists tote as the solution don't work because they are just the codes theists figured out prior only they now lack a compelling 'why' as to follow them anyway. Why should we agree with their definition of what it means to be moral or is there no intrinsic morality and it is simply do whatever benefits you, because that never works out in the long run for most. We don't prove morals through 'muh scientism' but through observing symbols, narratives, cycles, etc. This is largely what religion is, a series of narratives. Christianity centers around a historical narrative to make their case. Other people talk about central figures to their faiths on their joyrneys. No religion is just a list of rules. And religion isn't just a prove of a cide of morals bit a depper message. Buddhists want to escape suffering, Christians want to redeem themselves in the eyes of God, etc. It results not just in a code of ethics but a means to a greater goal which is where they get their 'whys' and 'hows' to follow these ethics. Atheists don't have this.

[Anonymous No.22049367]

>>22043810
Some deeds will in a prolongue period of time probably bring some benefit, and those deeds we call good/just. Other deeds will probably bring some harmful consequences, we call these deeds bad/unjust

[Anonymous No.22049458]

>>22049303
>It's just as mythological as humoric imbalances.
Nobody ever got filthy rich balancing humours, and the practitioners who did it actually believed that it worked. No doctor with an IQ over 100 (so excluding most psychiatrists) actually believes that antidepressants help.

[Anonymous No.22049549]

>>22049303
>To this day doctors prescribe SSRIs to "treat" the imbalance of serotonin
No they prescribe SSRIs to inhibit the reuptake of serotonin which should in practice make good things feel better, why do you talk out of your ass when you haven't worked in medicine or don't know how things work.

[Anonymous No.22049741]

>>22049243
>You literally opened the conversation by assuming my religious belief and regurgitating the standard "you think you're special" gotcha.
Fair!

Y'know what, all of this is fair. I'm too drunk to argue, and I'd lose anyway. BOOOOO.

Nigguuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh MEGAPENIS GUNDAM 0080 IS THE ONLY ONE WORTH WATCHING

[Anonymous No.22050060]

>>22049243
>Where does it say that humans should have automatically conformed to a singular view of reality?
If being an old long-lived institution is a point in favor of religion it's a point in favor of multiple mutually-contradictory religions that can't all be true, is my point.
>If anything the fact that varieties of religious understanding exist in all cultures, that it's a universal phenomena, speaks in favor of such.
'Religion' is a pretty broad term. For example it includes Buddhism, which doesn't propose any creator god.
>Are you actually familiar with the Aristotelian Medieval Worldview or are you just consumed by Scientism? First, that paradigm stood for over 1500 years and was incredibly successful.
Sure, if it had been completely and totally disconnected from reality people would have noticed but it was still a substantially flawed theory. The thing about heavier objects falling faster is a better example- why did it apparently take until Galileo for someone to actually test that?

[Anonymous No.22050075]

>>22049294
It's true in the sense that feathers fall slower because of atmospheric resistance but two stones of different sizes fall at basically the same rate, as Galileo found experimentally.