[ 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: 123 KB, 1100x914, laughing hydrothemal worm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3552388 No.3552388 [Reply] [Original]

>You can still have morality without God!

>> No.3552402

>morality

your image name is misspelled you blep

>> No.3552415

>>3552402
oh shit thank you

>> No.3552469

>>3552388
What was the point of this thread again? Making people explain you why your argument is retarded, or...?

>> No.3552498
File: 124 KB, 620x465, aghori.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3552498

>trying to keep morality around while dismissing god
>not keeping god around while dismissing morality

>> No.3552877

>they think we can freely choose our morality or god

>> No.3553543

>yes, you can
>but the public can't

that's why Napolean re-bonded the state of France with the Papacy. also metric system.

>> No.3553720

right because there's a biological basis for morality

>> No.3553725

>>3552388
morality=/=judeo-chritian values

>> No.3553734

>>3553720
>>3553720
>>3553720
>>3553720
This.

Reality check

>> No.3553751
File: 204 KB, 800x494, betaraybill.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3553751

>doubting based Horse Thor

>> No.3553757

>>3552388
go to bed nietzsche

>> No.3553764

>>3553751
this looks like a comic i could actually read

>> No.3553773

>implying the idea of a rewards/punishment system (God) doesn't make morality meaningless.
>implying morality isn't objective.

>> No.3553794
File: 94 KB, 1006x560, 1363065774750.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3553794

>>3553773
>thinks God = a rewards/punishments system

>> No.3553798

>>3553773

>furthermore, thinks biology isn't a rewards/punishment system

>> No.3553941

>>3553794

"Commit 'A' and you shall be rewarded with everlasting paradise, free of pain, and continious worship to me. Although, commit 'B' and face eternal suffering for infinite time."

>implying that isn't the very essence of a rewards/punishment system.
>implying basic philosophy doesn't destroy the concept of God.
>implying you're not committing a red herring.
>implying Biology (think you mean Evolution specifically) is a reward/punishment system when it is simply how the best suited organisms adapt to their perpetually changing environment.

>> No.3553945

>>3553764

You must have awful taste

>> No.3554010

> 2013
> Morals

>> No.3554028

>morals
what am i some kind of pussy faggot

>> No.3554043

>>3552388
>You can still have objective morality without God!
FTFY

and since there is no god...

>> No.3554076

Doing the right thing out of fear of God isn't particularly moral. Just cowardly.

>> No.3554319

>>3554076
>im being coerced into being good, im better than those that choose to be good of their own will
how fundies sound to me

>> No.3554321

>>3554319
That's really just reiterating what I said but with added smug.

>> No.3554325

>>3554319
>im being coerced into being good, im better than those that choose to be good of their own will
how people who are scared of prison sound to me

>> No.3554328

>>3554321
yea, youre welcome

>> No.3554339

>>3554325
What's that got to do with it?

>> No.3554350

>>3554339
Because you herald 'your own will' as some kind of trophy won in a noble battle against theism, pretending altruism is your defining characteristic, when really you have just been conditioned by a society that punishes certain behaviour.

>> No.3554352

>>3553725
People I know and myself for a while seemed to see it that way. Was raised catholic. What exactly is morality? Not being a dick to your fellow man?

>> No.3554374

>>3554350
You seem to be assuming that the law is capable of punishing all misdeeds and that my moral code is therefore tied to it. It is not. I agree, things that are expected of me to do, are not moral choices. It's the things we do above or beyond the law which are the moral choices.

Society and the law do not expect me to help those in need beyond a certain threshold, yet I do. Animals and humans alike, to the point that some people think less of me.
Society and the law require me not to take drugs or trespass or pirate media etc etc yet we do all the same.

I'm not sure where you think "defining characteristic"s come into this. It may not be a large difference in terms of moral choice but doing good out of altruism is still more moral than doing it out of fear. According to my subjective moral code, at least. You can disagree if you really want an excuse to feel superior while being immoral. Babby's first Nietzsche.

>> No.3554382

>>3552402
>>3552415
>>3552469
>>3552498
>>3552877
>>3553543
>>3553720
>>3553725
>>3553734
>>3553751
>>3553764
>>3553757
>>3553773
>>3553794
>>3553798
>>3553941
>>3553945
>>3554010
>>3554028
>>3554043
>>3554076
>>3554319
>>3554321
>>3554325
>>3554328
>>3554339
>>3554350
>>3554352
>>3554374
>2013
>getting rused by op
shiggy

>> No.3554401

>>3554382
>posting posts is duuuuuuuuum!!!!! XDXDXDXDXDXDXD

>> No.3554405

>>3554382
Autism overdose.
Anyway, you don't seem to realize you posted in this thread too.

>> No.3554407

>>3554401
>>3554405
you just got rused by me

>> No.3554410

>>3554407
Are you lost? You're far from home.
>>>/b/

>> No.3554426

>>3554374
>According to my subjective moral code, at least.
That's my point. Your subjective moral code is not entirely your own, but a product of the conditioning that you received at the hands of your environment.

Imagine, if you will, that your parents gave you up for adoption at birth, and you were taken and raised by a family in a completely different culture – maybe a muslim family in Bangladesh, or an Amazonian tribe –, you would then grow up with a different set of values instilled in you, and behave in a different way to what you do now.

I'm saying that your 'subjective moral code' is not wholly your own doing, and is predominantly a result of you environment. Holding up an action and saying 'I am doing this because of my own will, and not through fear of hell' is redundant. Really you should be saying 'I am doing this because my entire life until this point has been a collection of experiences that led to me perceiving this action in a certain way'.

Moral interpretations of human actions are relative (although most have overwhelming consensus), you have just adopted certain ones.

>You can disagree if you really want an excuse to feel superior while being immoral.
I'm not advocating being Immoral. I have adopted moral codes too, and see them as beneficial to both myself and my species. I just don't pretend that they are completely a result of 'my will', and are also based in the environment I was raised in.

>Babby's first Nietzsche.
The fact that a lot of the moral views in western society have a Christian influence is beside the point.

>> No.3554431

>>3552388
> 2013
> Caring about morality

>> No.3554464

>>3554426
Yes, I understand what you were saying there which is why I qualified my statement with "subjective". I'm not entirely disagreeing.
The problem I'm seeing here is that you're saying that no one can be moral because we're all simply a result of our conditioning. If that's the case, then morality is meaningless.
We are human, we exist within a paradigm that considers there to be such a thing as morality within the boundaries of human behaviour.
Yes, I am the result of my conditioning. So is Theist X the result of his. But Theist X only behaves morally out of fear of Deity X. He will admit as much, and even be surprised at the idea that others are not the same. He is not conditioned to be a moral human being. Within the human paradigm (as I see it), he is acting out of fear, not morality. Given the choice, he would be immoral. I have the choice, yet I (strive to) do otherwise.

>I just don't pretend that they are completely a result of 'my will'
I'm not sure where you got the idea I did that also. Maybe I misspoke.
>... beside the point.
Quite, that was a stab in the dark on my part.

Unless there's anything else can we stop this? I don't think we're really in disagreement.
I'm not really a fan of theist-bashing, it just gets my back up when I do something nice and get told it was a very Christian thing to do.

>> No.3554622

hmmm all op did was post a simple sentence and the little white bois on /lit/ pissed their pants and started to foam at the mouth for debates

>> No.3554645

>>3554622
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH5-hLrc1pg

>> No.3554654

>>3554645
i refuse

>> No.3554661
File: 6 KB, 228x221, 1362221641999.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3554661

>>3552388
No shit OP, its called the social contract

/thread

>> No.3554702
File: 1.91 MB, 190x310, 1362365410744.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3554702

>mfw I say that morality has no inherent existence in reality
>its all subjective
>philosophy professor says, "But don't you think that someone would be considered crazy if they think that way?"

Can I get this professor fired for indirectly calling me crazy?

>> No.3554737

>>3554702
He's correct.

Morality does exist, just not in a physical form. It exists in a linguistic web that we apply to actions. If a human steps outside of all moral structures, they have departed so far from social convention that they are deemed crazy by comparative standards.