/lit/ - Literature

>>18501650
>inb4 "ackshually even with god everything is permitted still"

>>18501650
>there's no objective morality without God
ok and?

>>18501655
Without god it’s impossible to have beauty on earth, because there are no objective qualities of beauty we see not only morality but also art become deconstructed

>>18501668
and?

>>18501655
yeah why does it matter? it's not like christianity even covers anything that matters ethically and nobody ever cared anyway aside from gay monks or whatever

>>18501655
why do you think there is objective morality anon?

>>18501670
I choose God because I do believe there is objective beauty on earth, beauty is only possible thorough God

>>18501655
And this is why atheists should be killed

>>18501650
Those aren't real atheists, they are anglos

>nooooo you can't enjoy beauty subjectively!!!!! you have to kill someone if they disagree with you!!!!!!!!

>>18501655
>>18501670
>but why?
>but why?
>but why?

>>18501689
>you can't enjoy beauty subjectively!!!!! you have to kill someone if they disagree with you!!!!!!!!

Objective morality exists, it just wasn't scribbled down by God in some book. The religious have no more access to it than atheists. Also, if it's just some arbitrary thought of God, it's not really objective. If it pre exists God then appealing to God is unnecessary.

>>18501655
this is the response every time this quote is posted, no one is getting mad except theists

>>18501700
refuted by divine simplicity

>>18501650
>Why do atheists get so mad when you tell them it’s impossible to have objective morality without God?
Because it isn't? And they have to argue with idiots like you?

>>18501655
If you’re an atheist, you should try and argue objective morality does exist without God, otherwise you’re basically conceding it would be ok for others to kill you on the spot. It’s a completely untenable position.

>>18501668
>Without god it’s impossible to have beauty on earth
Beauty exists when there is a perspective to perceive it. Objective morality does not play a part in this process at any point.

>>18501650
The golden rule

>>18501689
Yes, love is the highest emotion, and therefore when one feels love it also invokes all the lower emotions such as jealousy and hatred. If you truly love something you must be willing to kill and die to protect it.

argument from epistemic norms destroys the moral relativist

>>18501721
Dostoevsky believed that Christian love is the most beautiful thing on earth as it’s only possible though God, I agree, even if God is not real it’s the belief in him that enables beauty to be created.

Just look at atheists art, it’s horrible and ugly. Christian art is the greatest there ever was.

>>18501705
>God doesn't have goodness but simply is goodness plus other attributes that aren't attributes but also identical with his existence
Incoherent.

>>18501725
an abstraction is less real than the thing it is trying to abstract from. Remember this when you're spouting your retarded dogma.

>>18501716
Refuted by Kants categorical imperative

>>18501716
I'll die being right

>>18501716
it's illegal to kill people on the spot you dumbass

>>18501740
Do Christian films like Left Behind compare to 2001 and Barry Lyndon?

>>18501740
>even if God is not real it’s the belief in him that enables beauty to be created.
Belief in God has been replaced with belief in multiple perspectives. There are once again many gods, and we ourselves can be gods in our own right if we have the will to be so. Basically, all the good Christians shed their Christianity and you're confused by wordplay when you still talk about "objective morality."

>>18501716
you don't need to work within an objective moral framework to have a sound moral system that makes it wrong to kill, you would just be making a leap of faith that comes from something other than god.

>>18501697
unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven
>>18501716
come on & try it bud

>>18501716
But I don't want to be killed. That can still be true without "objective morality."

That is correct. Only braindead theists believe in "objective morality"

>>18501757
Films are not art but consumerist pop garbage

>>18501725
>therefore when one feels love it also invokes all the lower emotions such as jealousy and hatred
This is retarded, you're just making shit up

>>18501778
Tasteless square.

>>18501716
>all these seething and coping atheist redditors
kek BASED POST

>>18501758
> I get my morality from the laws of my land

Ultimate slave mindest

>>18501757
Tarkovsky was Christian, so yes, there are some great Christian directors.
>Tarkovsky was also a deeply religious Orthodox Christian, who believed great art should have a higher spiritual purpose. He was a perfectionist not given to humor or humility: his signature style was ponderous and literary, having many characters that pondered over religious themes and issues regarding faith.

>>18501740
there's no such thing as "atheist art" or "christian art" in this conception. art doesn't have beliefs, and men within it do so metaphorically. the *artist* has some, but you can never assure yourself these are naively translated into their art, hence the naive didacticism of christians.

>>18501780
Imagine you have a wife you love, if you love her you will feel jealous about her with other men and you will want to kill other men who try to flirt with her

>>18501773
Doesn’t matter what you want. My subjective morality says I can kill you regardless. In fact, my subjective morality says I am morally obligated to kill you, and maybe your family as well.
>>18501758
Legality has absolutely nothing to do with morality

>>18501792
Orthodox """""""Christians""""""""" are atheists you fucking fedora.

>>18501792
He is indeed a great, I was just saying you can point to great atheist art and terrible Christian art too.

>>18501815
cope

>>18501811
would you legislate against acts because they're immoral?

>>18501799
I don't see why that has to be the case, or should be. Save your cuck jokes, it's too predictable. Jealousy is the pathetic response of men without any faith or confidence. If you love your sister would you try to kill a guy who flirted with her?

>>18501748
This is why we say that our idea of goodness is analogical to God, not univocal.

>>18501794
>there's no such thing as "atheist art" or "christian art"
Would a basilica not constitute “Christian art”

I’ve yet to see any architecture that is as beautiful as Christian archiatecture. I look at this building and think it is objectively beautiful. Objective beauty is only possible through God.

>>18501822
Fair enough. Although Kubrick was not really an atheist by his own admission (and his daughter's comments). He believed in something higher out there, which is what he explores in 2001, where God is at the core.

>>18501811
>my subjective morality says I am morally obligated to kill you
No it doesn't you huge faggot

>>18501836
but in the case of this basilica (it's very nice, btw), apprehending it is first as itself, then its meaning ascends to god, then descends back to us as a beautiful thing? it requires both god and the thing itself.

>>18501650
Morality and God contradict.

If morality is lower then God, then God can change morality and moral rules are meaningless.

If morality is higher then God, then why worship God?

If morality and God are the same, then who needs God?

The truth is that morality is an atheistical concept and can only properly function in an atheistical society.

>>18501836
>I look at this building and think it is objectively beautiful
>I look at this building and think
That's subjective, dipshit

>>18501773
so you're saying people ought to not kill you? Why?

>>18501716
Objectivity is simply a measure of how powerful one is, and it has always meant this, since Christians have always used the word "God" to really mean "the most powerful being." To be "more objective" is to be more powerful, which is to say to have a greater influence over the universe than others. Framed this way, atheists are a bit misguided when they say that there is no God (because "God" just means "the most powerful being" and clearly there is such a being somewhere at all times relatively speakin), but they are correct in rejecting the God of Christianity because the religion no longer has the capacity to control people.

>>18501853
God is morality itself.

>>18501836
A beautiful gothic cathedral is an expression of the beautiful racial soul of its makers.

>>18501842
Nice argument pseud. Face the facts. If you’re going to argue objective morality doesn’t exist, I’m going to argue that I can kill you and your entire family.

>>18501861
Then why bother with God at all?

>>18501650
>it’s impossible to have objective morality without God?

Very easily, demonstrably false.

>>18501882
they're the same thing

Very easily, demonstrably false.

>>18501886
Why don’t you demonstrate it then?

>>18501872
Larping as a killer doesnt make you one. Millions of people can do nothing but follow their instincts and these are not "hur dur kill yo family" because evolution destroys such pychopathy.

>>18501872
You could but you won't

>>18501888
>they're the same thing
Oke. Please awnser why bother with God and not just use Morality instaid.

>>18501908
>please answer why i can't pretend this thing is two things and then discard one of these imagined two things
they're. the. same. thing.

>>18501913
Again. Why bother using the term God at all if they are the same?

>>18501921
because they're the same

>>18501923
>because they're the same
Let me rephrase it, why bother using the term God if people feel more comfortable with the term morality.

>>18501932
because they're the same. it doesn't matter which one i use, they're THE SAME. lmfao how dumb are you?

>>18501901
>>18501902
Under my moral framework, I am compelled to rob you and kill you because you do not have green eyes. Sorry bros (but not really, as I am morally righteous for doing so)

>>18501716

>>18501941
>it doesn't matter which one i use, they're THE SAME.
So I could pray to morality?

Morality will come from the sky to judge the world?

Morality slays giants?

This makes sense to you?

Face it, you are an atheist trying to blur the concept of a God.

>>18501650
FFS, OP. Is Kant a fucking joke? Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals, enjoy.

can't take anyone who talks about 'moral facts' seriously

>>18501945
Except that is just a larp. You cant just wake up one day and become a killer, your instincts amd upbringing wont allow it.

>>18501957
Works with aliens too. Considering that they are intelligent forms of life. That's how good it is.

>>18501932
Through God's essence we perceive through our finite intellects many attributes of God, just as we see multiple colors of one ray shooting through a prism.

>>18501965
What are you talking about? Thousands of people become killers every day.

>>18501968
If morality is just one essence of God, then morality is not God and so God could change the moral rules.

>>18501978
No, being born with severe pychopathy or having a traumatic childhood make people killers. Morality is not just a switch you turn off.

Yes, objective morality is a theistic concept. It is however a flawed concept. It takes the common sense of a 10 year old to see that what is actually happening is people formulating their own moral preferences and then trying to refine them through other peoples' moral preferences. Once you accept this "burden" you realize that what you're exercising through morality is what kind of person you are, and what kind of person you want to be. If you subordinate your morality to "God" you're doing the same thing people do when they subordinate their morality to the state.


the actual red pill is that God loves rape and murder just as much as he loves cuddling with teddy bears, all things are an expression of The All.

>>18501869
This. Christians should learn to realize the immanence of genetics within all perception and expression.

>>18501982
The definition of essence in philosophy is "what makes something what it is."
We are claiming that morality is God's essence. Meaning, it is what God is.

>>18501964
That's because you're a stupid nihilist.

>>18501716
based

>>18501956
yeah. yeah. yeah. yeah. they're the same thing.

>>18501997
Is morality God or a part of God? If morality is God, then would it make sense to pray to morality? If morality is a part of God, then God could change it at any time.

Argument for objective morality being dependent on God

>1)For something to be objective it must be immutable. It cannot be changed by humans or anything else.

>3)God is the only immutable being that exists (Argument from Motion).

>4) If God does not exist, there is nothing that is immutable. Therefore objective morality would not exist

>4)Therefore, if morality is objective/immutable it follows that morality is dependent and identical to God Himself.

>>18502005
So morality will come down from the sky one day to judge all mankind, morality will also love me more then my mothee ever could? This makes sense to you.

>>18501716
It would be ok for God to kill you on the spot under your so called objective morality, it would therefore be perfectly fine for any schizo that declared themselves god to kill you

>>18502017
Morality is God's essence. We do pray to God who is goodness itself.

Categorical Imperative. This shit is so powerful that it made to common sense. I have literally heard people who can't read talk about it.

>>18502018
>4)Therefore, if morality is objective/immutable it follows that morality is dependent and identical to God Himself.
Nice, lets all pray and worship the great morality on its throne surrounded by angels.

>>18502030
>Morality is God's essence. We do pray to God who is goodness itself
So now God is not only morality, but also goodness, now why bother with morality of we can all pray to goodness instaid of god. Lol

>>18502041
>Nice, lets all pray and worship the great morality on its throne surrounded by angels.
Yes.

>>18502060
>Yes.
You see, its all a joke to them.

Morality = rejecting God = atheism.

>>18502033
I don't find the categorical imperative at all convincing.

Moral law is based on love. Kant tried to turn morality into an intellectual exercise, but that doesn't motivate people. Understanding moral law is one thing, but you need love (which is not in his theory) to practice it.

I'm also not convinced that there's a unique solution. No matter what we have, there may be another set of universal laws that could work. If that's true, then I don't see why we should bind ourself to any one set of universal laws.

>>18502070
I think your still confused on what we mean by God being goodness itself. The essence of God is one, yet is perceived as a multiplicity of attributes through our intellect.

>>18501654
This counter-argument is valid though.

>>18502033
Refuted by Nietzsche

>>18501650
Objective morality does not exist, get over it

>>18501650
Well even without God there might be (that there is no god is the only judement atheists are making,also you still have agnostics) and even if your recognize that moraliy is subjective, you could as well act as if your own morality was the objective one, in fact anything else doesn't make sense.

>>18501678
it could be possible through any metaphisical model with a proposition on the subjectivity of morality, god isn't need, in fact the only proposition in your system could be "morality is objective".

>>18501650
it's in their nature.

>>18501861
Genesis 6:6

>>18501655
it. would be ok if athesit had this attitude but they don't they have all Christian morals without thechrist its so stupid at leas thave a coherent ideology

>>18502099
>Understanding moral law is one thing, but you need love (which is not in his theory) to practice it.
I don't kill people even if I hate them

>>18501716
Of course not, subjective morality doesn't mean no morality, in fact socially there is going to be norms from which most won't deviate (and those who will will be called crazy or evil).There will be minors variations, but they will be just that, minor variations.
Over the course of time and places the norm will vary and come to change greatly, evetually being unrecognisable (which is why most can't agree with the moralty of let's say,the ancient testament unless they are grommed for that).
If someone is too far from your own morality (they think killing baby is a good deed for exemple and you don't) then you call them evil,and you act exactly like if morality was objective and everyone else does, because they are still moral deviants in the eyes of society (and you can't coexist with them too, i guess).
So no one will kill me on the spot because my morality is a product of it's time (your own morality cant' be anything other than absolute,which is what you are trying to claim through god) and the majority of those that could kill me in this fashion or act to stop or prevent it are the same.
Plus i can claim than humanity is fundemantally good (as long as i am morally in the norm and humanity is limited to my surrounding both temporally and spatially)

>>18501655
this, why is this supposed to be a big own?

>>18501650
What's the objective standard then?

>>18501740
>perspective
this makes it subjective, anon. objective morality(or beauty) would mean it is an observable, measurable property of the universe.

>>18501752
But you see, the categorical imperative necessitates a belief in god, or a higher being who is ultimately responsible for the character of the natural world. Kant argued that a moral agent must “postulate” the existence of God as a rational presupposition of the moral life. Without that, the categorical imperative falls apart.

>>18501650
You claim it's impossible, yet never give a reason why not. This is because it's actually possible, not just possible but true.
There is no god.
Morality is objective.
Accept the truth.

>>18502132
No it wasn't

>>18502099
Is it? It makes sense like rationally, anon. Consider game theory. It just works.

>>18502132
Somewhat, but it works.

>>18502400
CI does have its flaws, but I still think it is pretty solid. Specially compared to other alternatives.

>>18502408
As in it is probably the closest you can get to something truly universal and objective.

Objective morality comes from me, actually. Whatever I think is good is objectively good, and whatever I think is bad is objectively bad. Therefore, you can have objective morality without god.

>>18502444
>Objective morality comes from me, actually.
Prove it.

>There is no god.
>Morality is objective.
>Accept the truth.

>>18502451
Prove you actually exist and I haven't hallucinated you.

>>18502464
Tell me where you live and I'll prove.

>>18502461
Whats that got to do with anything I said?

>>18502470
That's not proof. Even if you showed up at my doorstep and punched me in the dick you still couldn't meaningfully prove that you are not some figment of my imagination.

>>18501650
Atheists believe in the god of majority, it's objective in a way, if you view reality as an ever emerging evolutionary consensus.

>>18502461
Japan doesn't believe in God and you incels adore them, and religiosity doesn't protect against progressivism.

>>18502485
>is a vocal simpleton
>knows nothing about Japan
Checks out.

>>18502461
>objective morality is hating people
what did he mean by this

>I do not want bad things happen to me so I will not do bad things to others
>I want to do bad things to others but God will punish me so I will not do so

>>18502508
The good despises evil.
>hurr durr morality is when there's no such as right and wrong
>i'm not a subjectivist retard gone mad btw

>>18502485
Amusing how just larping as a typical liberal 'type' reveals how deeply prejudiced and hypocritical they are. It's not an offshoot of Judaism so it isn't real religion, right?

>>18502492
A third are full on atheists and Shintoism is hardly like monotheism.

>>18502482
Im an atheist and what you said is retarded. I believe in objective morality.

>>18502519
>The good despises evil.
Not true btw

>>18502519
Shintoism is closer to animism, it in no way has an omni-X godhead that doles out punishment and reward.

>>18502541
You will learn truth in hell.

>>18502542
>>18502524
>idiot still understands nothing about Japan beyond desperate pop-factoids
>thinks they're allowed an 'opinion'
>moves the goalposts to a strawman just in case anyway
You aren't just wrong, you're irrelevant.

>>18502543
There's something sick and perverse about gloating about any being receiving infinite torture.

>>18502546
It's not gloating, it's a simple statement of fact. Many people refuse to learn except by the lash, like the many useful idiots who helped ushered in the very communist regime that lined them up against walls and shot them. They were probably staunch socialists right up until the bullet entered their skulls.

>>18502547
Are you claiming a full third of the population being convinced atheists has no effect? That's much higher than America, and you're also claiming a causal link between atheism and progressivism.

>>18502540
You can claim to believe whatever you want, that doesn't mean you aren't in some kind of irrational loop of cognitive dissonance.

>>18502478
You dont know what Im gonna do. It will be proof Ill promise.

>>18502559
Oh but many of you do gloat, I've seen it. They get off on it somehow. Sick and degenerate.

>>18502574
How am I being irrational? Where is the contradiction?

>>18502572
It's hilarious how much your diction resembles that of the average /r/atheism post
claim? claim! causal link! claim!!?

lmao shut the fuck up

>>18502543
>You will learn truth in hell.
They teach Christianity in Hell? Whoa... really makes you think...

>>18502583
If you were smart enough to understand you would. Arguably you're even more dogmatic than the average theist since your ideology isn't actually based on anything tangible.

>>18502577
I have decided you cannot prove it, so you objectively can't.

>>18502585
So you have no proof at all?
>reddit
Oh, my feelings hurt now. Next you'll post the picture of the hat and I'll be done for!

>>18502592
Smart enough to understand what?
You have no argument. This is just silliness.

>>18502596
Proof?! Claim?! Causal claim proof link!?!?!?
lmao

>>18502592
wtf G*D is tangible now?

>>18502602
>lmao who needs proofs, just believe in made up nonsense bruh
Amazing

>>18502602
>haha, I am totally impervious to facts and arguments. Checkmate

>>18502485
And Japan is completely degenerate and infertile

>>18501854
I mean, this anon has a point.

>>18502622
Profligate over breeding is bad for the environment. Conservatives don't give a shit and are happy to rob their own grandchildren.

>>18501991
Are you saying humans have an engrained sense of morality?

>>18502630
I'm pretty sure Japan isn't having children because they care about the environment

>>18502622
t. dumb fuck who hasn't been to Japan but likes talking shit

>>18502668
well maybe I should take back the degenerate part, but they are infertile.

>>18502658
It's a natural process, you get to a certain point of material comfort, education etc and you have less kids. You're just concerned this will lead to mass immigration, but that could be fixed by not having an economic system tethered to infinite growth.

>>18502680
Anyone having more than 2 children in the modern world is barbaric. Current global TFR is 2.5 and Japan's is 1.4, which is totally fine.

>>18502018
>>3)God is the only immutable being that exists (Argument from Motion)
I mean, what about logic? Logic is immutable. Can't we derive our morality from just pura logic?

>>18502695
>but that could be fixed by not having an economic system tethered to infinite growth.
More like not having a philosophy that sets economic and material prosperity as the final end

>>18502719
I'm all for the spiritual exaltation of mankind once material basics are met such that there aren't children still starving to death, I just don't see why Abrahamic monotheism is at all necessary for that.

>>18502713
I think most Thomists would argue that God is logic itself.

>>18502789
See>>18502221

>>18502825
elaborate

>>18502840
>"And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
Regret and grief are human feelings.
An omnipotent, all knowing, perfect being cannot feel "regret" (=feeling bad about making a mistake) because it is not possible for Him to make mistakes in the first place. He should have known before hand that creating man was a bad idea, and he wouldn't have made us. So if "regretted" making man, He is either not all knowing, not perfect, or not omnipotent, or a combination of all three --->also not "Logic itself".

>>18502869
You realize that theologians considered this 1000-1500 years ago right? Thomists believe that predicates cannot be applied univocally, the same meaning, to God and creatures. Instead, there is only anaglocial predication. Words applied to God have a different meaning when applied to creatures.

>>18502873
see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analogy-medieval/

>>18502875
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analogy-medieval/
That's a lot of words for such a cope
>Words applied to God have a different meaning when applied to creatures.
This also means that the Bible is meaningless, did they address this?

>>18501789
VERY Christian, though

>>18502882
I don't see how the analogy of being makes the Bible meaningless. In fact it supports it. The idea that God cannot be properly explained through our finite knowledge but can be drawn near by words which describe him in an analogical sense show how all things do in fact fall short of the glory of God.

>God has a sense of regret like our idea of regret but this does not mean that he is univocally like our idea of regret

>God is the good that we know but is not univocally our idea of good which is known through our finite intellect

>>18501697
isnt it the motto of philosophy? to ask questions

>>18501650
Maybe lies make them upset.

Why is it so inconceivable that similar people who see the world through similar eyes, share aesthetic preferences?

Have you seen humans? Two legs, two arms, a head. They got a bunch of stuff in common with each other.
They also have similar minds.
If you want to argue that our morals and aesthetics are shaped by society, rather than being wholly from nature, I won't object.
But those societies does at some point arise from nature. Similar societies and culture.

So don't be a fucking retard and act like people picked and chose all their morals and preferences on a whim.
Neither is a God needed to make these "objective", but they can indeed still spring from a source; us.(Humans)

>>18501740
Wow people here really are underage pseuds

>Objective morality

Prophylactically refuted by the absurdity of Christians, or anyone, being unable to know the exacts of these morals. Or rather the utter inability to demonstrate so.


You can have people, from the same church even!, argue over a moral issue, with both of them believing themselves to be in the right.
Morals are objective, right? How do they go about showing that /theirs/ is the morals than in fact objectively exist, endorsed by God and all.
They of course, cannot.

So they exist,, but we can't know them(?),,, can't verify them,, no fact checking in the case of conflict,,, kinda just have to go with our very own SUBJECTIVE take on them....
Please explain how this is functionally different from objective morals not existing, I mean their usefulness remaining the same (useless) in either case of existence or non-existence

>>18503107
No one gives a shit you blathering ESL autist, stop typing like a schizo teenage girl.

>>18503107
Moral disagreement does not refute moral realism.

>>18501721
Nothing can be measured in a vacuum. Perspectives do not change that fact.

>>18503122
>Nothing can be measured in a vacuum.
The lack of air can be measured in a vacuum because there’s none of it or such a minute amount as to be irrelevant to the processes occurring within it.

N

>>18503122
>Nothing can be measured in a vacuum.
Yeah, but that's why the Christian God is an empty concept, not atheist perspectivism.

>>18503121
Okay, but how do you go about knowing what is moral?
Could another person go about it in the same manner and end up with another answer?

I don't see how both could be right, given that objective morals exist independently of either person.
How would anyone, with the exception of God, know which was right?

>>18501650
Picture: since everything has been permitted, it stands to reason that the gods worshiped by all the world’s religions aren’t real

Text: strawman. Ethics/morality are human inventions for better social cohesion, same as religion.

Go read something

>>18501811
>Doesn’t matter what you want. My subjective morality says I can kill you regardless. In fact, my subjective morality says I am morally obligated to kill you, and maybe your family as well.

I just want to point out, that cases such as you describe, does indeed occur, even if infrequently to extremes.
Does this disprove objective morality? People doing bad things, but believing themselves to be in the right. It's a reality.

glub glub
glubber glub glub lub
lub a dub dub
yum

Christcucks are at it again i see.

>>18503193
when I said "bad things", I was talking from my subjective PoV, btw
thankfully it's shared with most people on a bunch of issues, or so I believe

>>18503185
Butterfly, you are a constant proof of God. Just admit this to yourself. :3

>Morals exist!
uhhhh, can you show them to me?
> *gets increasingly mad, but remains unable to show these supposed morals*
oh, so it's like that God-thing..

>>18503158
How do you go about knowing what is logical?

>>18503237
I don't know. How do you?
Please answer my 1st question.

>>18501650
because you're clearly not there to have a conversation with them, and are already presupposing the authoritative position on the matter by virtue of your belief in God, and your belief that He is the only one allowed to say anything about it.

>>18503248
You don't need to know what is "good" to argue that moral realism is true, similar to how you don't need to know what is logical while also upholding the belief that there are immutable laws of logic.

For instance, if 3 billion people believed that 1+1=3 this does not mean that math is subjective nor does it mean that 1+1= 3, 1+1=2 whether or not humans exist or say so. Now are morals easily identifiable? No I don't think so but I think there are certain principles which we can abide. These principles get more ambiguous the more specific an event is. Like it is known by intuition that murder is wrong the same way it is know by intuition that the principle of non contradiction is true. Yet it is hard to decide whether or not it IS murder to kill an innocent to save millions since this is a more specific case and farther divorced away from the principle itself (murder is not good).

>>18503281
>are morals easily identifiable?
I don't think they are "identifiable" at all, I don't think you can pin them down (much as if they didn't exist as such)

I don't know why you bring up the example of logic, to equate it with morals
I don't believe that large-scale opinion can change 1+1 to equal 3.
However, being a moral relativist, I do believe 3 billion people changing their mind on a moral issue, would indeed change their morals..

>>18503228
Say her name

>>18503360
Whose name? :3

>>18503354
I was giving the comparison of logic because a moral realist would say that morals exist outside of human opinion. Just as the laws of logic do. Disagreement on logic does not entail that logic changes. Moral realists would say this is also true for morals.

>>18503360
>>18503364
https://voca.ro/1h6J28iNwVJd :3

>>18501650
>Why do atheists get so mad when you tell them it’s impossible to have objective morality without God?
because on one hand they want to make objective moral claims about certain issues and also critique the revealed God of the bible, but on the other hand they know objective morality requires an absolute, personal law giver like God.

>>18503364
The goddess’ name. But no. Never mind now. You’ve lost. Now please shut up

>>18501678
This
>>18502177


Also beauty is everywhere in the absence of god

>>18503417
Awe, you're cute. :3

Just realize it's coming. You are going to meet me in real life.

>>18503410
One absolutely does not need to believe in God, in order to believe in objective morality.

>>18501650
we don't. since since it's not possible with or without

>>18503446
you could ''believe'' in objective morality, but you wouldn't be able to justify how you know it and what it's grounded in that makes it objective.

>>18503472
Buddhists would disagree.

>>18503479
>X disagrees
That's not an argument.
Also buddhist morality isn't objective, it's relative and pragmatic, they don't believe intrinsic value exists in any phenomena.

>>18503500
>some* Buddhists, whatever
People, existing, and holding the very views I describe isn't an argument for such a thing being possible?

>>18503543
do you understand the difference between holding a view and being able to justify it objectively?

It's okay for women to dress like sluts in a park but it's not if I jerk off to them because they arouse me? Give me a break, just look away.

>>18503472
How do theists justify knowing it?

>>18503567
1st of all, are forgetting that Christians are simply holding this view? There are in fact no actual existent morals you can physically grab at to show me.
I do not believe anyone is capable of "justifying their their views objectively" no matter the views or people holding them


>justify it objectively
Well, I don't think the objective part is important, as long as you *can* justify it
Do you believe billions of Buddhists across time are all unable to "justify" their views?
Assuming that moral realism is compatible with Buddism, (I don't believe this is a bold claim) <-- I'm not married to this example, btw. If my understanding of Buddhism is so lacking, I'm sure I could dig up some more obscure example of a nontheistic religion also holding moral realist views

>>18503677
Through entirely objective means

>>18503677
I believe they derive it based on revelation and nature using logic to make a coherent and consistent world view.

>>18503696
>revelation

>>18501650
There are accounts of objective morality that are compatible with atheist. Read Erik Weilenberg for Christ’s sake.

>>18503696
>coherent and consistent

>>18503707
>>18503713
Do you mind addressing this? Isn't that what theists do and argue?

>>18503687
>I do not believe anyone is capable of "justifying their their views objectively" no matter the views or people holding them
how do you justify this claim objectively?
if you can't then it's ad hoc and I don't have to accept it, and if you can then you refute yourself because it's a self-contradiction.
you don't believe in making actual arguments because this position eats itself and your claims against objective justification.

>>18503677
because objective morality presupposes certain conditions are in place that can only be accounted for by God, and the Christian worldview provides the most coherent way to justify morals which we come to know by intellect/reason in conformity to divine scriptural revelation.

>>18503725
I'm pretty sure the majority of theists hold their views due to custom and tradition

>>18501650
Fairy tales aren't objective, sorry.

>>18503742
Oh, in that way. Well, I agree, but that is through a different kind of revelation, like their priests, just like a professor teaches about math and logic. Doesn't take away the fact that there are bad priests...

>eating shellfish is an abomination
>oh wait, scratch that, that was only to keep Jews in check
So objective.

>>18501650
Werther or not there is a god is meaningless, since it's interpretation is always that of a human and therefore always subjective. It's like claiming you know the noumena

>>18501650
Objective morality is possible within any metaphysical system that allows for objective morality. No gods required at all.

>>18503736
>how do you justify this claim objectively?
I don't. That's my point. We are not arguing objective things.
What kind of bullshit logic is this, I'm not allowed to argue against something, unless I prove the the position I'm attacking true?

Maybe I was being unclear. Or am misunderstanding you.
What I mean, is that I believe, there are other ways to justify believes than through objectivity, such as through reason.
I believe one indeed can have sufficient reason for justifying these kind of believes. This reason, would not be an objective thing. But rather internal and subjective.

>>18503798
This is famously refuted.

>>18503809
Nice buzzword, kid. Come back when you've read the Greeks.

>>18503780
Objective doesn't mean immutable, retard
When God birthed Jesus, he resculpted some old morals.

>>18503812
Greeks? They're infamously refuted.

>>18503809
Can you link me this famous refutation, or paraphrase it?
I feel left out the loop

>>18503824
I'm not here to spoon-feed people with the basics... Finish elementary school and come back.

>>18503817
God's nature is timeless, to be objective they would be too, changing them by fiat is just making them part of God's subjectivity.

>>18503830
This is what blind faith without reason looks like, everyone.

>>18503808
>I don't. That's my point. We are not arguing objective things.
>What kind of bullshit logic is this,
If you can't justify your argument objectively don't expect us to take it seriously and just believe it because you say so, because you have some subjective hidden intuition. You're literally making universal claims about objectivity you can't justify objectively.

>I'm not allowed to argue against something, unless I prove the the position I'm attacking true?
You can't argue against a position's objective truth by denying the possibility of objective truth, you're contradicting yourself.

>I believe one indeed can have sufficient reason for justifying these kind of believes. This reason, would not be an objective thing. But rather internal and subjective.
You made a universal claim that it's not possible for people to justify propositions objectively, and now you're appealing to some vague ''internal subjective'' reasoning? I don't think you understand what you're doing here. You can't argue against a position's objective truth by denying the possibility of objective truth, you're contradicting yourself.

>>18501650
UPB

>>18503834
Says the one who has faith in an obvious troll.

>>18503841
I have faith in the ability of men to improve, anon. I'm sorry you're so cynical. But I believe in you too.

>>18503831
I don't believe, Christians believe, that God is a subject

>>18503840
http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/UPB/Universally_Preferable_Behaviour_UPB_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf

>>18503808
cringe

>>18503838
You're talking to a relativist who doesn't understand the implications of his position.

Relativism reduces every element of absoluteness to relativity while making a completely illogical exception in favor of this reduction itself. Fundamentally it consists in propounding the claim that there is no truth as if this were truth or in declaring it to be absolutely true that there is nothing but the relatively true; one might just as well say that there is no language or write that there is no writing.

The axiom of relativism is that “one can never escape from human subjectivity”; if this is the case, the statement itself possesses no objective value, but falls under its own verdict.
It is abundantly evident that man can escape subjectivity, for otherwise he would not be man; and the proof of this possibility is that we are able to conceive of both the subjective and the surpassing of the subjective. This subjectivity would not even be conceivable for a man who was totally enclosed in his subjectivity; an animal lives its subjectivity but does not conceive it, for unlike man it does not possess the gift of objectivity.

>>18503847
Yeah I know, what I'm saying is if they're mutable they're arbitrary, which would seem to demote God from the ground of objectivity.

>>18503028
Yes but not childlike retarded questions like yours

>>18503844
Thank you, anon. My posts were made in jest. I hope your faith in the Lord is so strong as well, for He is Good and Righteous.

>>18501697
>but why?
>but why?
>but why?

>>18503868
I believe in you, but not in your lord.

Reminder that Nietzsche is the only relativist who ever made sense >>18501857

Relativity simply does not make sense without the Ubermensch figure and the will to power.

>>18503838
I don't have any issues with "objective truth", unless you want to push some some absurd skeptic angle
But you are retarded if you want me to present objective justification, for positions where I believe such a justification to be impossible

>If you can't justify your argument objectively
What do you mean by this? How does one present an argument AGAINST the objective existence of morals, objectively? What are you asking of me?
You are full of shit. You are asking for something unreasonable.

When I made "a vague appeal" to reason. I meant nothing beyond acknowledging that I believe it's possible to know things. You know? Through reason. Rather than just the things we can see and touch.

>>18503838
>You can't argue against a position's objective truth by denying the possibility of objective truth, you're contradicting yourself.
>christianfags understanding of a contradiction
I wonder why people even bother arguing

>>18501650
>>18503840
Based on the following premises:

1. We both exist.
2. The senses have the capacity for accuracy.
3. Language has the capacity for meaning.
4. Correction requires universal preferences.
5. An objective methodology exists for separating truth from falsehood.
6. Truth is better than falsehood.
7. Peaceful debating is the best way to resolve disputes.
8. Individuals are responsible for their actions.

Continued...

>>18503852
>the statement itself possesses no objective value
powerful observation

>>18503960
I present to you the twelve principles that compose the framework of Universally preferable behavior -- or, if you want to, a secular theory of morality. If you want to find out whether a moral principle is true, all you have to do is apply them to the moral principle and you'll know right away:

1. Reality is objective and consistent.
2. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality.
3. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.”
4. Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.”
5. Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.”
6. “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating.
7. Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.
8. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).
9. Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification.
10. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.”
11. As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence.
12. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.

>>18503960
Ouch, your premise fails at point one

>>18503977
Using them, you can verify that the most obvious moral principles are, in fact, obviously true:

>Initiating aggression (use of force) is wrong.
>Stealing is wrong.
>Rape is wrong.
>Murder is wrong.
>Fraud is wrong.
>Lying is wrong.

>>18503981
If I choose to debate with you, then I necessarily must accept that we both exist. If believe that I exist, but you do not, then debating makes no sense, and would be the action of a madman. If I were to start arguing with my reflection in a mirror, I should be sedated, not debated.

>>18503899
> what do you want of me?!
We were discussing how to ground objective morality. You then made the claim that: ''no one is capable of "justifying their views objectively" no matter the views or people holding them"

This is a gigantic universal claim about truth itself and our ability to justify propositions. A gigantic universal claim you admit you can't justify. What warrant do you have, what ground do you have to make such a claim? Your own personal subjectivism?

This is the tenet of relativism. The problem is it's self-refuting. People are pointing this out to you but you don't grasp it.
You're elevating relativism to an objective universal truth. We're not talking about morality at this point, we're talking about the inherent contradiction of saying objective justifications aren't possible ever, for anything, for anyone.

You didn't provide a justification for this, in fact you're saying it's not possible and you can't provide it. So why should we believe you? This is simply ad hoc and baseless, so we don't have to accept it. I'm not asking if that statement is simply ''true-for-you-subjectively'', I don't care about your subjective beliefs, I want to know if that statement is actually objectively true, if it describes the state of man in this world, objectively and truly.

>>18503984
How about victimless crimes?

>>18503993
Example?

>>18503991
>We were discussing how to ground objective morality. You then made the claim that: ''no one is capable of "justifying their views objectively" no matter the views or people holding them"
Okay, I'm very sorry you and that other guy went on tangent about this.
That was poorly worded. It should have clarified I was talking about the views of the topic we were currently discussing, not all views.

>>18504003
Pirating a game of which I already own a physical copy.

>>18503953
By denying the possibility of objective justification you deny the possibility of an objective refutation of a position. In fact you deny the whole purpose of rational argumentation. And so you aren't even making an argument just an ad hoc fallacy.

>>18504013
Copies of digital media are not finite. They can be copied to infinity thus they are not an object of theft (removal from one place to another).

Also break down that digital mediam to its foundation it is code which is language with is ideas. You cannot own ideas.

>>18501650
>Why do atheists get so mad when you tell them it’s impossible to have objective morality without God?
They're not mad at you, just bored/frustrated.

>morals exists
how can we know them?
how can we know that we know them?
in the case of them not existing, would this differ?

>>18504017
Denying the possibility of an objective refutation is exactly the point you brainlet

>>18504081
Objective morality being functionally indistinguishable from subjective morality doesn't hurt it's position

>>18504086
>Denying the possibility of an objective refutation is exactly the point
If that statement is true then it eats itself -- it is itself unjustifiable -- and we don't have to accept it.
If that statement is false then it's also wrong.
In both cases we are right to disregard that type of argument.

>>18504125
dimwits don't understand if they offer an argument without justification we can throw it out without justification as well

>>18504128
yep literally ad hoc fallacy, or relativism taken as an absolute truth lmao

>>18502005
One of the biggest faggot dumb fucks ive seen on this board recently.

>>18502633
No, environment creates it

>>18501678
ok and?

>>18501716
spooked

>>18504144

Or maybe you just reformulate the idea because you didn't express yourself correctly the first time.

Just referring to the definition in the screenshot.

>>18501650
>get so mad
No one actually cares
>objective morality
No one actually cares
Try going outside sometime
Your cult gatherings don't count

>>18501650
Because they aren't "atheists". Atheism is just another head of Prebysterianism. Atheists are all incredibly preachy, dogmatic, and often times even harsher than the most orthodox of various religious adherents. Real atheists were men like Leonid Brezhnev, not these whining hyper-moralist Protestant schoolmarms LARPing as "atheists".

>>18505087
>Real atheists were men like Leonid Brezhnev

Senile?

>>18501815
> Orthodox """""""Christians""""""""" are atheists you fucking fedora.

>>18505090
Partly, but also purely opportunistic and calculating. You could say Stalin was as well. Epstein is another example of someone I would consider an atheist.

>>18501855
Our collective self-interest. It's in mine not to die, it's in theirs not to go to prison. Doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong, civilization organises incentives so people behave in a way that maximises collective self-interest.

>>18501650
I think that it is impossible to have objective morality without the belief in good and evil. I am an atheist but I believe strongly in the existence of good and evil in the world. I believe there is a good reason we feel strongly about morality, and so it's no wonder the nihilistic fags of the world are super depressed and have so many other fake mental illnesses. People who don't believe in morals are intellectual children who just want to do what they want without consequence.

>>18501836
Beauty is mathematics. Human minds release feel good chemicals when they experience complex symmetries, things done well, and environments advantagous to our survival. It's only objective in the sense that with sufficient information you could, perhaps say, calculate that "70% people would rate this cathedral as an 8.5 or above on a 1-10 beauty scale".

>>18505064
"no one cares hurr" retard. Apparently you care so much about this issue that you got mad and proved OPs point. Good job retard.

>>18505155
Deserts and tundras are not advantageous to our survival and yet they're still beautiful. Also:
>Things done well
What does this even mean?

>>18501855
I'm saying I'd prefer people not kill me but understand they're capable of doing so and there isn't anything objectively wrong about it. Wanting to continue existing doesn't imply I believe it is immoral for people to cease my existence.

>>18501789
>I get my morality from the laws of my religion
Ultimate slave mindset

>>18501716
>otherwise you’re basically conceding it would be ok for others to kill you on the spot.
define ok.
I wouldn't like it. And I think man should strive to cooperate with each other. I wouldn't think it would be ok for ME to kill someone, according to my own personal morals which I don't need God to believe in.

>>18505206
There's a couple of aspects to it. One, human ancestors evolved around deserts in sub-saharan Africa, so they are in fact associated with natural settings that we can thrive in. Also, deserts and tundras offer survival advantages of reduced competition, safety from many threatening species of animals, and unobstructed views of ones surroundings.

'Things done well' is a darwinian theory of beauty. This guy will explain it better than me.
https://www.ted.com/talks/denis_dutton_a_darwinian_theory_of_beauty/transcript

>>18505301
>Human ancestors evolved around deserts in sub-saharan Africa
Kind of misleading since the Sahara became arid after 2000 B.C. We know that from 7000 B.C. to 3000 B.C. it was comparatively a grassland, for instance. And anyway, would anyone look around him in the middle of the Sahara or the Gobi desert and think: "Oh, I'm sure there's a lovely savannah nearby"?
>Reduced competition
>Safety from many threatening species of animals
>Unobstructed view of one's surroundings
These are the same evolutionary advantages offered by the peak of the Everest. There are no predators because there is nothing to predate on.
Extreme biotopes whose disadvantages greatly outweigh their possible merits are still beautiful. Another example: extremely poisonous animals with bright colours are beautiful.

>>18501681
Doesn't your book prohibit killing?

>>18501650
>>/his/

>>18505569
No. The word translated "Kill" in "Thou shalt not kill", means both "kill" and "murder". The commandment is essentially "Thou shalt not kill unjustly".

>>18501650
Because it's bollocks? Being a christian doesnt make you good, just self opinionated and delusional.

>>18505989
Okay, but other people within your religion takes a broad interpretation to it, viewing it as an all-out ban on killing.
Morals being derived from one objective being, obviously they are wrong and immoral.
Or do you allow for what is not moral for some people, may be moral for others?

Yeah there’s definitely an Eros and a Thanatos

>>18505569
An interesting trivia is that THE most important commandments given by God to humans (which are - supposedly - binding all of us irrespective of any personal creed) and which, in fact, make us humans and not animals are: Do not eat animals alive and do punish murderers with death. God said that to Noah after the flood when he promised that he will note wipe living creatures from Earth again (conditional on the above?). It's Genesis 9 (and personally I am agnostic)

>>18501655
And objective Morality exists, therefore God exists.

>>18506003
Anglo wants to play?

>>18502986
>I don't see how the analogy of being makes the Bible meaningless. In fact it supports it.
>In fact it supports it
except it doesn't
> The idea that God cannot be properly explained through our finite knowledge but can be drawn near by words which describe him in an analogical sense
>can be drawn near by words which describe him in an analogical sense
That's not what the Bible claims to be. The Bible does not claim to be "an analogy", it claims to be the Truth. An analogy is not the Truth, isn't this obvious?

>>18506264
When describing God I think it would be analogical since we cannot know God fully on this earth. We cannot even see him in his full essence. (Exodus 33:20)

>An analogy is not the Truth
Truth can be revealed through analogy can it not? What do you think all the parables are for? But more specifically, we are talking about words which describe God so I don't think you understood what I mean by analogical predication.

>>18501650
that dostoyevsky quote is always misinterpreted lmao
In crime and punishment, rudya writes that (or thinks it, I forget) when he's in his delirious state of rationalizing murder, at which point he is not representing the christian worldview (which only comes about during the epilogue). Rudya uses that idea, while not believing in God, to rationalize that everything is permitted. However, the point dostoyevsky is making is that everything is already permitted, even with God. The quote's significance by the end of the book is that that particular thought, is wrong. If God is defined by human definitions of morality, then you may find God lacking
>rudya uses that quote to justify murder in a godless era
>moral-centered theists use it as an argument for objective morality, completely missing the point that God doesn't obey or work through the lens of objective morality

>>18506234
Theists, I kneel

>>18501833
You are actually retarded. Your relationship is different with your sister and your wife. To be indifferent when other men flirt with your wife is not confidence but the lack of testosterone and cowardice. You are a coward.

>>18506291
>we cannot know God fully on this earth.
True
But then (x3) what's even the point of the Bible?
"Hey people, It is Me, the One Who Is. I just made this book to explain Myself to (you). You are literally unable to understand it anyway, because I expressedly made you to be like this. But I made this book regardless. And, if you don't follow exactly what this book says (which may or may not be accurate in the first place), you will go to Hell forever"

It doesn't make sense in the slightest.

>>18501655
If God wasn't real we would adapt perfectly without Him but we don't seem to.

"Why" truly is the Achilles' heel of religion. Observe this christcuck >>18501697
making fun of it as a form of insecurity.

>>18506523
Truth is revealed to our finite minds yet is not fully understood until we are united with God. We know God is the truth but we don't know fully what that means, only partially.

You're claim that the bible doesn't matter because of analogical predication does not follow.

> You are literally unable to understand it anyway
We understand the teaching and guidance God gives us but we do not fully understand God Himself. You do understand negative theology don't you anon? This is not about law that God gives us, since that law is directly revealed so that we can understand it through our finite intellects, but knowledge of God Himself is not fully able to be understood on this earth. This isn't a hard concept to understand and it makes full sense if God is divine and transcendent, that is, infinite (we humans cannot fully understand infinity but we do know the concept of it).

Feeling guilty for harming somebody or gratitude towards somebody who helps you could be a component of biology. It's not objective, no, but the effect virtually is.

> uses God and objective morality in the same sentence
you're been brainwashed by Kant

> it is impossible for God to utter "everything is permitted"
what sort of God do you worship?!?!

Nigger.

>>18506608
>This is not about law that God gives us, since that law is directly revealed so that we can understand it through our finite intellects
>stone your wife if she's not virgin! Also do not eat shrimps!
>Wait, on second thought shrimps are quite good. Also do no stone your wife, dude.

>>18506706
Galatians 3:24-25

>>18506706
Just read this. Done talking to you. You can disagree but at this point you are just misrepresenting what I've been saying.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1013.htm#article5

>>18506749
>https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1013.htm#article5
Not a single rational argument. Only sophisticated blabbery written a posteriori. I'm impermeable to such arguments; Tom, of course, quotes the Bible to make his points. But barely anything in the Bible makes sense in the first place.

Shall remind you that "And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth" is (according to Christians) literally the LORD's Word? But then Tom comes and say "N-no, He literally said He regretted it, but it's not the same regret we experience in our lives! God was just LARPing when he felt the grief into His Heart, it's not like he was actually grieving" - Can you even see how stupid this sounds to a normal person?
To cope with all the inconsistencies in the Bible, people like him just came up with more nonsense, and people like (You) consider this the peak of religious thought. It's disheartening, really.

>>18506736
Matthew 5:18
See? We can go on forever.

>>18506833
>I can totally understand an infinite being with my finite intellect bro

>>18506844
You know that passage before proves my point right

>>18506866
Wasn't I the one "misrepresenting" what you were saying? Now you're playing the same game too, I see.
There's hardly any reason to postulate the existence of an omnipotent G*D who even cares about what you eat or who you fuck. Remember what's the FIRST thing He told Adam and Eve? "Have sex, rule over animals".

>>18506884
Hmmm, no it doesn't? But of course, the Bible is that strange book where epistles written by Paul are on par with G*D's Word, Jesus speeches, prophecies and legendary historical accounts of wars.

>>18506381
This is completely wrong. It's not even Crime and punishment, it's The brothers Karamazov.

>>18506866
Then how are you supposed to arrive at any morals, if God is indecipherable?

>>18501811
> My subjective morality says I can kill you.
My subjective morality says I can kill you regardless god exist or not. I don't give a shit about words of some sky daddy.