/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20859175]

How do atheists get their morality?
I never hear this question answered, the only response I ever see is “wow so you would be raping and killing people if you didn’t believe in hell? That’s messed up”
So like, thought experiment. Imagine no religion. No religions exist on earth. All people are atheist, there are no and never were any Christians or Muslims or Pagans or anything. One man says to another “what you did is immoral.” What would he be talking about? What criteria would he judge that on?

[Anonymous No.20859187]

>>20859175
there is no morality. penn is reddit but his answer ironically gets at the heart of the matter. people just do what they want, and it happens that they want to live in a functioning society and that they have empathy. just because there is no objective morality doesn't mean you have no reason to do or not do anything.

[Anonymous No.20859189]

>>20859175
Of course there's no one answer to this; you can't lump every single person who doesn't believe in a god into one moral group. Why not try reading some atheist philosophers who focus on ethics?

[Anonymous No.20859190]

>>20859175
from the pope

[Anonymous No.20859315]

I don't like being murdered, so I don't murder

Wow, that was hard

[Anonymous No.20859318]

>>20859175
Eugenics

[Anonymous No.20859351]

>>20859175
I do whatever benefits myself the greatest. This isn't hard.

[Anonymous No.20859357]

>>20859175
They don't, they're SJWs.

[Anonymous No.20859366]

>>20859315
Why should your preferences apply to others?
Nobody likes being murdered, but murdering is fine
Why treat others as thou would be treated? Any reason?

[Anonymous No.20859369]

It would probably go down to how a certain action affected the community at large.

For instance

You killed someone for no reason, we’re now down one innocent guy who was serving the community, therefore what you did was bad.

[Anonymous No.20859371]

>>20859366
You talk like a teenager.

[Anonymous No.20859372]

>>20859175
What kinda stupid question is that - humanity, in the micro and macro, comes to realise that there is greater benefit to the individual through co-operation and order and bases its morality off of that - morals have always been prescriptive and born out of the needs of individual groupings and societies, religion is just some retarded attempt to make them universal

[Anonymous No.20859383]

Secular Humanism is Christianity in disguise

[Anonymous No.20859426]

>>20859175
>How do atheists get their morality?
They don't.

[Anonymous No.20859435]

>>20859175
It's all a cope.

[Anonymous No.20859455]

>>20859371
>more question evading

[Anonymous No.20859457]

>>20859175
So how much does Penn rape?

[Anonymous No.20859489]

>>20859455
If you don't realize that the crux of the issue is to do with ingroup/outgroup then you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.20859511]

>>20859372
You think like a bourgeois marxist (not that marx himself is as reductionist towards morality as you are) secular humanist bugman.

[Anonymous No.20859512]

>>20859175
i gett mine from a mixture or empathy and nurture
i was taught some things are bad so i dont do them and there are some things i wouldn't like if someone did to me so i dont do then to others

[Anonymous No.20859515]

>>20859366
>Why treat others as thou would be treated? Any reason?
stop talking like a retard.
It's empathy, but that's only applies to normal non-sociopathic people and you're obvisously a sperg so yeah read the bible and follow it for morality, that's the only way you will not end up interned.

[Anonymous No.20859526]

>>20859175
>What criteria would he judge that on?
whatever offends the community or its leaders enough to ostracize, expel, execute, or imprison a member; morality being the whim of a volcano demon is even more arbitrary than it being the whim of men

[Anonymous No.20859541]

>>20859187
No. They want to rape more but they're afraid of the consequences.
It is only the threat of pain and displeasure that stops them.

[Anonymous No.20859549]

>>20859541
>It is only the threat of pain and displeasure that stops them.
God does the same thing for theists—threatening eternal punishment

[Anonymous No.20859556]

>>20859515
You didn't really refute his thinking. You're justifying morality via emotion, which is extremely flimsy.

[Anonymous No.20859570]

>>20859175
You say you are making up a thought experiment, but you must know there are countries where agnostics and atheists are the majority. While our politicians are retarded here in Estonia, there really aren't many anarchists, rapists or murderers. Some people choose to follow the bible, others choose to follow different philosophies. You act like these are fundamentally different and that religious people are born with an innate morality given by god. Most people just ape after their parents and follow social norms.

[Anonymous No.20859594]

>>20859511
What a smart reply. You sound like someone who can't adequately defend their own position

[Anonymous No.20859617]

>>20859366
Even if you’re a nihilist who doesn’t believe there are any set of moral ideas guiding the universe, it’s to your benefit to treat others empathetically. Society as a whole benefits when people respect one another so you’re just messing up your own living conditions when you act selfishly.
You’re also going to save yourself a lot of misery, as David Foster Wallace explains here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI

[Anonymous No.20859632]

>>20859556
as opposite to a fantasy book, which is not flimsy?

[Anonymous No.20859634]

Religion cucks make no sense to me. I don't need a book written by old men to not know to rape and kill. Morality is completely subjective and made up, I could make up any parameters to not do things I deem bad. Again these religious texts were just written by other men.

[Anonymous No.20859648]

>>20859556
Christianity was the main religion for decades, didn't impeach people to do immoral things.
In fact, the christians are the authors of some of the most immorals actions in history in the name of their god.

[Anonymous No.20859674]

>>20859175
>How do atheists get their morality?
Literally the golden rule aka common sense, it's that simple

[Anonymous No.20859690]

>>20859366
You can boil it down to game theory. If I'm caught acting immorally then society will punish or shun me. If I catch others acting immorally I'll do the same to them. This is a basically stable system that's not in most people's interest to overthrow.
We do have an innate sense of morality but it came after the equilibrium. It's easier to follow the rules if they come instinctively.
Religion codifies existing rules and intuitions, maybe invents some new ones. But it's not the ultimate origin of morality.

[Anonymous No.20859693]

>>20859175
I base it on what gets me what I want. You know, just like every Jew, Christian, or Muslim, except minus the mental gymnastics and delusions of grandeur.

[Anonymous No.20859705]

>>20859541
I truly believe most people wouldn't wanna rape, even if there were no consequences for it.

[Anonymous No.20859714]

>>20859556
Not him but treating all people myself included according to some universal standard (for example the law) has positive consequences for a system such as society. If I do not treat myself to the same standard as others then in turn every one of those individuals that comprise this group of people could go by the same logic and in turn the universal standard wouldn't survive.
What follows is it becomes difficult for me as an individual to reap the benefits that society brings to the table if this society doesn't exist. So an egoist for example could go through this reasoning to substantiate "I won't do things to others which I don't want to be done to me"
(Any mistakes made in this post can be attributed to me being an ESL)

[Anonymous No.20859752]

>>20859175
>How do atheists get their morality?
I live in a society.

[Anonymous No.20859784]

>>20859705
Most men want to and do rape but it's called sex. Pressuring your date or your wife or girlfriend to have sex when they aren't in the mood. You don't have to jump on a stranger and rip her clothes off on the spot like a wild beast to be a rapist.
Think about marital rape, before it was illegal huge swathes of sexual activity all of the civilized world could retroactively be categorized as nonconsensual.

[Anonymous No.20859801]

>>20859784
There is no such thing as marital rape.

[Anonymous No.20859804]

>where do people get morality from?
from tradition
/thread

[Anonymous No.20859855]

>>20859801
No, but you can go to prison for it.

[Anonymous No.20859865]

>>20859515
>>20859549
>>20859632
>>20859634
>>20859648
It's funny how the OP outright says "I never hear this question answered, the only response I ever see is “wow so you would be raping and killing people if you didn’t believe in hell? That’s messed up”" and then these atheists immediately respond by not answering the question and saying "wow so you would be raping and killing people if you didn’t believe in hell? That’s messed up."
Listen anons, in this thread, Christianity doesn't exist. It never has existed either, nor has any other religion or spirituality of any kind whatsoever. They don't exist, they never existed.
I am a space alien who has no knowledge on human custom or culture. You have no knowledge whatsoever of my peoples customs/culture either, you don't know my belief system or how I would answer this question.
Where do you get your morality from? What defines what's moral and immoral?

[Anonymous No.20859870]

>>20859865
Eugenics

[Anonymous No.20859871]

>>20859865
>Where do you get your morality from? What defines what's moral and immoral?
The Bible.

[Anonymous No.20859893]

>>20859865
This has already been answered. The grouping or society determines it depending on its needs. Morality is functional

[Anonymous No.20859906]

>>20859784
because your wife is an object that you own and cannot consent? or because getting married in the first place was consenting to all of your sexual desires in the future?

[Anonymous No.20859966]

>>20859175
>How do atheists get their morality
society, the same place religious people get it from. as human societies expanded, they accumulated moral 'rules', from intrinsic stuff like 'don't murder people' to more specific things. a lot of them ended up putting these rules down in their holy books, but the basic idea is the same.
groups of people agree on certain rules (some codified, some not) that should be followed to keep societies running smoothly. there are various punishments as an incentive for following them (prison, upsetting social harmony or going to hell in religions). that's it really

[Anonymous No.20859967]

>>20859594
I didn't assert any position, but your position of utilitarianism being the standards every society abides by is indefensible and goes against any anthropological historical account in human history.

[Anonymous No.20859977]

>>20859966
You sound stupid. Read more books besides Harry Potter before you post here again.

[Anonymous No.20859990]

>>20859977
what was wrong with my post

[Anonymous No.20860012]

>>20859990
see >>20859967

Fuck you and your myopic Anglo-isms.

[Anonymous No.20860021]

>>20859175
Atheists mostly do not believe in a metaphysical basis for morality. As other anons pointed out its relative, functional and born from whatever serves society.

If I was stranded on a beach with a half naked hot woman then the only thing stopping me from raping her is my own (very much learned) conscience. No God can stop me and no Hell can punish me.

[Anonymous No.20860027]

>>20859426
>>20859865
>>20859871
t. Going to hell for wearing a mixed fabric shirt

[Anonymous No.20860028]

>>20859784
true, even masturbation to imagination is rape, i haven't masturbated since i realized this, too disgusting

[Anonymous No.20860037]

>>20859634
>I don't need a book written by old men to not know to rape and kill.
You'll say this while being born in a first world country where you receive "education" out the ass.

[Anonymous No.20860048]

>>20860012
nothing in that posts suggests i think utilitarianism is the main force though. of course logic and reasoning play somewhat of a a part in the creation of social standards and morality but they're still created by people and not robots. it's a long, gradual and almost unconscious process that leads to plenty of rules that are lacking in obvious 'utility' but made sense to people at the time

[Anonymous No.20860054]

>>20859175
If there was no religion on earth ever then society would be just like how animals are in the wild, whoever is stronger gets to decide whatever. Without religion there is no reason for society to ever come together or for you to form a conscience in the first place. Empathy isn't powerful enough to combat in group versus out group without religion. The only reason atheists are able to talk about having morals without religion is because religion already did the heavy work in creating a baseline of morals for people to follow.

[Anonymous No.20860069]

>>20859383
How so?

[Anonymous No.20860075]

>>20860054
Religion is useful to primitive people to keep them in line but we as a society are way past the point of needing religion for anything

[Anonymous No.20860081]

>>20860054
>whoever is stronger gets to decide whatever
that happens in a religious world too, such as ours

[Anonymous No.20860086]

>>20860048
utilitarianism is a disgusting cope
>yea man we need as much liberty as possi-(actually just as much as the state will allow, based on some artificial boundaries I'm about to make up right now, this will certainly not backfire in ~200 years)
>whats that? you wanted to make someone elses life harder for your own benefit? thats a big nono
>happiness in the greatest number after all
I used to think utilitarianism was some sort of individualist pragmatism but its really just a calling sign for humanist faggots with a boner for utopianism.

[Anonymous No.20860089]

>>20860081
yah so imagine how much worse it would be in a non-religious world

[Anonymous No.20860093]

>>20859175
>How do atheists get their morality?
morality is an artificial construct on behavior. societies have existed and thrived without any sense of personal moral responsibility for actions.

the fear people have of getting rid of morality is just that, a fear.

[Anonymous No.20860104]

>>20860093
>societies have existed and thrived without any sense of personal moral responsibility for actions.
Where's your source in all 6,000 years of society?

[Anonymous No.20860112]

>>20860089
highly speculative

[Anonymous No.20860116]

>>20860112
its already getting pretty shit now, just look at how divided republicans and democrats are in congress.

[Anonymous No.20860119]

>>20859175
Since we have no moral, we steal it from people who have it.
We are then filled with regrets, having to live the rest of our lives in the knowledge of the sin we have just committed.
Unless we stole it from a muslim of course...

[Anonymous No.20860209]

>>20859175
And how do Christians? "Le book told me so, so it good" or "God says it's good so 'good"
. Lmao. Doesn't seem like much of a criteria for morality either.

[Anonymous No.20860215]

>>20860104
ancient china, for one. if you did something bad, it wasn't a moral indictment of YOU, as a result of individual will. responsibility fell on your family and it was as though your entire bloodline was tainted instead.

personal moral responsibility for oneself is an invention. it's not innate.

[Anonymous No.20860230]

>>20860054
>empathy isn't powerful enough to combat in group versus out group without religion
>implying religious people aren't the first to seethe about ingroup vs outgroup autism
What world you livin in bud

[Anonymous No.20860276]

>>20860027
Jesus is in the Bible. Jesus says we only have to follow the important laws. To determine what the important laws are and how to follow them, we look to priests. Priests come up with their own interpretation or appeal to other interpreters, like Aquinas or Irenaeus. Jews have the same thing with rabbis and midrash. Muslims have imams and hadiths. Hindus and Buddhists have gurus and sutras. The average person doesn't have to think for themselves, and the average clergyman doesn't experience revelation. The essence of it all is living a tradition within an ever-changing, modern world. Atheists are stupid because they don't establish an authority. They don't even consider themselves authorities. They submit themselves to amorphous "science".

[Anonymous No.20860299]

>>20860276
atheism is just the rejection of theism, it has nothing to do with "submitting themselves to amorphous science," although "submitting themselves to [an] amorphous science" would be a great way to describe theists actually since they've no intention of proving their claims but proceed to describe some entity or reality that is called "God" anyway, very much an "amorphous science" something like psychology or psychoanalysis actually in that regard

[Anonymous No.20860336]

>>20860209
>>20859865

[Anonymous No.20860354]

>>20860276
>we look to priests
L O L
O
L

[Anonymous No.20860369]

>>20860336
Okay, and? Still doesn't answer the question. You Christians always bring up this stuff about morality, but fail to ever substantiate how your foundation for morality is any less arbitrary than all the secular copes. I'm just pointing out how hypocritical it is to act like the problem of finding a foundation for morality is unique to Atheists. Doesn't seem like Christian societies were any more moral, and all of the different Christian denominations all have differing moral and social norms. So again how is this a problem unique to Atheists?

[Anonymous No.20860383]

>How do atheists get their morality?
atheists can do anything
kill, rape, suicide. it's all on the table
it's like a super power

[Anonymous No.20860393]

>>20860230
????????
If you mean they seethe against other religions than of course they do, but without it they would seethe against every other village instead.

[Anonymous No.20860395]

>>20860369
Actually sweatie, Christians don't kill or rape >>20860383
They're perfect

[Pneumaticque No.20860432]

>>20859175
This is answered by Pneumatics.

Here's a coherent History of Everything (including Metaphysics and, yes, morality):
>>20860035

[Pneumaticque No.20860436]

>>20860432
(although Pneumatics is a pantheist worldview and an irreligious rejection of atheism)

[Anonymous No.20860454]

>>20860369
>>20860336

[Anonymous No.20860500]

>>20859175
>How do atheists get their morality?
If theists believe God decides what is good by some external criteria of goodness, then atheists can refer to that external criteria too. God doesn't need to be in the picture at all.

If theists believe God arbitrarily determines what is good just because he says it's good, then atheists can just pick some other authority figure and have them arbitrarily say what is good. Again, God doesn't need to be in the picture at all.

Ultimately, the response to "How do atheists get their morality?" is quite simply "How do theists get theirs?"

[Anonymous No.20860544]

>>20860454
Bro: Eugenics. Do you faggots think I'm joking or trolling when I posted this twice, or you just don't get it unless I explain?
Morality is what keeps you, your family, your community, and your race alive and healthy on a generational timeframe. It is an entirely practical consideration.

[Anonymous No.20860547]

>>20860500
>then atheists can just pick some other authority figure and have them arbitrarily say what is good.
I was going to say, from a consequentialist POV, that if you disobey God (assuming it's the Christian God), you risk spending the rest of your existence in hell. But then I suppose an atheist could say that if you disobey X (X = government or whatever), you risk spending the rest of your existence in prison.

Wow, no wonder nobody with an IQ over 100 takes Christfags seriously anymore.

[Anonymous No.20860554]

>>20860075
Imagine thinking this unironically

[Pneumaticque No.20860555]

>>20860035
>>20860035
>>20860035
>>20860035
>>20860035

[Anonymous No.20860557]

>>20860276
>To determine what the important laws are and how to follow them, we look to priests.
Indeed we do, fellow diddler.

[Pneumaticque No.20860559]

>>20860557
we don't look to priests, we look to History:
>>20860035

[Anonymous No.20860682]

>>20860500
God is inherently good

[Anonymous No.20861127]

>>20859175
the most common athestic morality is just a secularised christian morality. replace the god with society.
then there are athests who actually recognise this issue and try to devise an actual secular morality, such as ayn rand and her objectivist philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20861153]

>>20859175
Morality = Game theory.
Look into simple experiments like the iterated prisoner's dilemma, and you will see what I mean.

[Anonymous No.20861168]

>>20859865
Morality is what the weak invent because they fear the strong

[Anonymous No.20861206]

>>20861127
And Christian morality is just Zarathustrian morality with the labels scratched off, what's your point?

[Anonymous No.20861214]

>>20861206
the point is many atheists, or rather, MOST people have their morality not due to studying the topic, but rather subconsciously integrates all the different philosophical ideas they encounter in their life.
they may hold different, contradicting moral ideas, because their philosophical ideas are contradictory.

[Anonymous No.20861236]

>>20859315
So it's okay to do something if you want it done to yourself. E.g. A suicidal person is justified to murder, a rape victim fetish is justified to rape, etc.

[Anonymous No.20861311]

>>20860432
Bro you're that schizophrenic anon why shits walls of text in every thread?

[Anonymous No.20861312]

>>20861153
>he doesn't know the difference between descriptive ethics and normative ethics
Too many midwits on this board

[Pneumaticque No.20861315]

>>20861311
if I'm schizophrenic, point out 1 incongruence with reality. should be easy

[Pneumaticque No.20861318]

>>20861312
pneumatics literally solves this. it bridges the is-ought problem, noumena and phenomena, and descriptive/normative ethics. Pneumaticism is an active description. It's the philosophy of rational action.

[Anonymous No.20861325]

>>20861318
There's nothing to be "solved" when it comes to descriptive and normative ethics. They don't have to be the same. But sure, I'll go over your blogpost thread, you insufferable shill.

[Anonymous No.20861334]

There's no need to fall back on the Kantian maxim or any other desperate moralistic plea if you aren't talking to people who are fundamentally evil and/or criminal. "Just be a good person.". This doesn't stand up to scrutiny, I know, so let me provide an additional layer: try to become the type of person who would not want to poke holes in this advice.

[Anonymous No.20861337]

>>20861334
Very cool, Ben, but why?

[Pneumaticque No.20861338]

>>20861325
>There's nothing to be "solved" when it comes to descriptive and normative ethics.
And I pose instead that the distinction between phenomena and noumena is harder than the hard problem of consciousness, and a lack of solution for this problem is the reason why modernity sucks so much. But go off, pretend to be happy

[Anonymous No.20861342]

>>20861337
Goodness is good in itself. Now go forth and be a good person.

[Anonymous No.20861344]

>>20861338
>pretend to be happy
What this shows is that your own drive is happiness, not mine. I couldn't care less about trying to be happy: it's a mere fleeting emotion.
>modernity sucks so much
Modernity is in decay, but that doesn't mean that your conception of reality is the penultimate justification for this.

[Anonymous No.20861347]

>>20861342
Very cool, Ben, but how?

[Pneumaticque No.20861348]

>>20861344
>What this shows is that your own drive is happiness, not mine.
My happiness derives from transcendence. My drive is transcendence. What is yours?

To be the Perfect Consumer.

[Anonymous No.20861350]

>>20861347
By becoming the type of person who would not want to poke holes in this advice.

[Anonymous No.20861354]

>>20861350
Very cool, Ben, but why?

[Pneumaticque No.20861355]

>>20861350
great answer ;)

[Anonymous No.20861360]

>>20861348
>To be the Perfect Consumer.
Why do you assume this? Completely baseless.

[Anonymous No.20861361]

>>20861354
I've already answered this question. Good luck.

[Pneumaticque No.20861364]

>>20861360
>Why do you assume this?
It shows in demographic trends.

[Anonymous No.20861365]

>>20861361
Yeah, you went in a circle and essentially just feel smart for regurgitating an Aurelius' quote. But yeah, good luck to you too.

[Anonymous No.20861367]

>>20859617
>it’s to your benefit to treat others empathetically
It's objectively beneficial? You're describing objective morality.

[Pneumaticque No.20861368]

>>20861364
(and sociological trends)
>>20861365
and you feel smart even though you haven't even progressed beyond Plato's teacher. you haven't even read the Republic but pretend to know Aurelius. why would you do that?

[Anonymous No.20861369]

>>20861364
No, why do you assume it about me specifically. Given your lack of reading comprehension so far, I really doubt that you've figured it all out.

[Anonymous No.20861370]

>>20861365
Thanks, friend. I wish you the best.

[Anonymous No.20861372]

>>20861348
You people say that. But the drive objectively (by that I mean if someone analysed you, biologically)is just to separate yourself and achieve a greater shelter from the world.

[Anonymous No.20861373]

>>20861368
>you haven't even read the Republic but pretend to know Aurelius
What makes you think that I haven't read it?

[Pneumaticque No.20861376]

>>20861367
It is objectively beneficial. This was obvious already to the Ancients. You are embarrassing. Start with the Greeks or start with the pneumatics here:
>>20860035

>>20861369
Just statistical probability. There is a 99% chance you're an Imperfect Consumer conditioned to be the Perfect Consumer. Welcome to globohomo, the Desert of the Real

[Pneumaticque No.20861379]

>>20861372
I already analyzed everything and you won't school me.
>>20860035
already explains everything. even Life and Consciousness and the objective metaphysical imperative of modern humanity. forgetfulness of the bigger picture will lead to a catastrophe.

[Anonymous No.20861382]

>>20861376
>Just statistical probability.
So you superimpose statistical probability despite of the information you have so far obtained throughout the conversation, e.g. me evidently opposing the decay of modernity. This is pretty silly. If we went by statistics, assuming a person opposes modernity, it's likely that they are part of exactly that group of people that also doesn't enjoy consumerism.

[Anonymous No.20861386]

>>20861376
>It is objectively beneficial.
Then there are universal laws that dictate how humans should act. Like the Greeks figured out there is one God who rules over all. Not just local gods and local customs.

[Pneumaticque No.20861388]

>>20861382
By opposing modernity, you're an Imperfect Consumer.
But what are your actions?
How do you distinguish yourself from the Perfect Consumer through your actions?

You will judge them by their fruit.

[Anonymous No.20861393]

>>20861388
What is an imperfect consumer? Not everyone has read your manifesto. Start by setting up some definitions.

[Anonymous No.20861396]

>>20861376
>Just statistical probability
Yet again you don't think, you defer to preconceived ideas before even starting.

[Pneumaticque No.20861397]

>>20861386
There is only either atheism or pantheism. The ultimate redpill is that this distinction doesn't matter, and I subjectively choose pantheism because I found an objective code of reality. Anti-entropy. And I found a metaphysical cosmogony of (and for) Humanity that fulfills me on a deeply "spiritual" (metaphysical) level. It is at that point that the distinction stops making sense.

[Anonymous No.20861404]

>>20859175
You wont get answer to this question. Most atheists are extremely anti-intellectual when it comes to drawing necessary conclusions about morality which stem from their worldview. If you are genuinely interested read stirner and hume.

[Anonymous No.20861405]

>>20861397
>there's only atheism or pantheism
>the ultimate redpill is that this distinction doesn't matter
>subjectively choose ... because objective code of reality
>fulfills me on a deeply "metaphysical" level
Yeah, you're clearly full of shit and a coping midwit. So much for having overcome the ought-is problem. Lmao, what a fucking joke lol

[Pneumaticque No.20861407]

>>20861393
>What is an imperfect consumer?
Psychics and pneumatics are actual "imperfect consumers." Psychics are just inactive pneumatics, people who know the Truth on an instinctual level and will keep to the Truth no matter what, but who either do not know the whole Truth or don't have the energy to pursuit transformation of material reality in accordance with the Truth (which was Plato's, and Hegel's, and my dream)

Hylics, matter-dwelling beings, are Perfect Consumers. Even if in their head they might think not, it is in their actions that they reveal their hylic form.

I should depart from gnostic terminology as I reject gnosticism (as I reject all religion) but... parts of the gnostic mythos are just too convenient!

[Anonymous No.20861408]

>>20861397
The ultimate redpill for you is you're retarded. You are not part of any discussion.

[Anonymous No.20861412]

>>20861334
No.

[Anonymous No.20861413]

>>20859187
You have to go back

I would love to hear an atheist try to explain where human value derives from if we aren't made in the image of God. If we truly are sacks of worthless flesh with a brain floating through infinite nothingness on a rock that we are on through pure chance then why can't I blow your brains out? What is morally wrong about killing something without worth?

[Pneumaticque No.20861414]

>>20861405
>>subjectively choose ... because objective code of reality
the code of reality is objective (life is a capital-a Algorithm, Algorithms are anti-entropic systems, it's all elaborated in the thread)

my subjective choice is Life. that's all. perhaps it's predetermined (muh determinism). do i care? i sure as hell don't want myself or my species to die out prematurely and simply consider myself a mystic to have gone beyond material programming.

cheers

[Anonymous No.20861415]

>>20861412
Yes.

[Pneumaticque No.20861418]

>>20861408
have you ever uttered a single novel thought in your life? i have. have you?

think about this question deeply for a moment

[Anonymous No.20861419]

>>20861415
Nope.

[Anonymous No.20861421]

>>20859369
>innocent
>bad

Those sure sound like moral positions you're taking there buddy

[Anonymous No.20861428]

>>20861407
Okay, so essentially everyone except those who view life exactly as you do and act upon exactly those beliefs are imperfect consumers. What a loaded terminology. Sure then, I'm an imperfect consumer, but I'm not a consumerist, nor do I try to pursue happiness as a goal, nor do I think that I hold the "Truth" that you hold on an instinctual level. Essentially, you're just conflating everything with such useless terminology.

[Anonymous No.20861429]

>>20859634
>Morality is completely subjective and made up, I could make up any parameters to not do things I deem bad.

Yeah, but you don't because you inherently know it's wrong, you aren't an ubermench

[Anonymous No.20861430]

>>20861419
Yes, and let it be known that my answer is and always will be "Yes", in perpetuity. I believe in you, and your ability to find goodness. It is my sincere belief that people only pretend that they are incapable of recognizing goodness.
Have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.20861435]

>>20859175
>How do atheists get their morality?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection#Multilevel_selection_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectionism
tl;dr - you'd have to have 3-digit IQ to comprehend the answer.


Turner S.P. - Understanding the Tacit (2013):

"The “learning” done here has a series of properties that fit the list of “nots” with which I began. The connectionist net learns not by being programmed, except with a basic learning rule, but by experience and experience produced by activity, such as the activity of identifying tumors and predicting the course of disease. It is holistic in that it is the whole net and the weightings of the myriad connections that make up the net that are modified by experience. There is no part that is fixed and unchanging. Change is continuous because learning is continuous"

"It not only appears to be essentially unintelligible, it literally is unintelligible, in the sense that the units and processes by which it operates **cannot be transformed into or stated as rules or principles**, the kinds of explicit things that can be said to be intelligible. It is never fixed, although it becomes quite stable, so that new experiences do not dislodge what is learned."

[Anonymous No.20861438]

>>20861414
>gone beyond material
>biggest scare is that there's not enough consumers
I do hope you mature one day.

[Pneumaticque No.20861440]

>>20861428
>Okay, so essentially everyone except those who view life exactly as you do and act upon exactly those beliefs are imperfect consumers.
Not really. It comes down to something called perennial wisdom, which is inside of us, and in the most banal form stems from the instinct of self-preservation, which is simply Life's anti-entropy conceptualized.

I think that ALL (more or less) mentally healthy hylics can have their perennial wisdom unlocked, thus, and it cannot be unlocked only if the hylic is deeply mentally ill (for example, if the hylic is a true-trans, i.e. brain-maps a hole where there is a protuberance, or the opposite)

[Pneumaticque No.20861442]

>>20861438
the biggest scare is that there's not enough wise consumers.
that there's not enough consumers is not the biggest scare, simply the cause of the Cataclysm which we all will have to go through if we don't wisen up beforehand. the cut-off point is diffuse but I place it around 2045 before shit is either already solved or inevitable.

[Pneumaticque No.20861446]

As a note, gnostics (psychics/pneumatics) cannot be deeply mentally ill. That is one condition. I listed several other conditions in earlier manifestos detailing the doctrine.

[Anonymous No.20861449]

>>20861430
Thats the thing. I genuinely dont recognize good. I do things that people would consider despicable and feel no remorse. I really dont care about life or happiness of anyone else. Quite opposite, often times when I see someone happy it makes me want to make them suffer. So I dont think I will be a "good person" whatever that means. I really see no reason to.

[Anonymous No.20861452]

>>20859175
>One man says to another “what you did is immoral.” What would he be talking about?
That you are disrupting established routines and activating the "taboo-disgust-fear-of-disease-receptor" of your brain?

"Do not use the Bible as toilet paper! That's sacrilege, you fucking filth!" == "Do not shit in the sink! That's disgusting!"

[Anonymous No.20861459]

>>20859175
We get it from evolution, dummy

[Anonymous No.20861477]

>>20861418
>i have
You have not. You think you do because you're a delusional retard. I have read way too much of your inane horseshit and given you the benefit of the doubt way too much.
>think about this question deeply for a moment
You think about it. Wouldn't you be able to test if how novel and useful your ideas are? You should be able to go to some new territory nobody else knew about and discover things you predicted right? I have in fact done this many times and you have not. I can show you things. You can't show me anything.

[Pneumaticque No.20861484]

>>20861449
You might have ASPD, or autism.

What's more probable on 4chan?

[Anonymous No.20861487]

>>20859175
>How do atheists get their morality?
From christian concepts, but they're slowly letting that go in favor of left wing political alignment arguments, and arbitrary tribal policies.

[Pneumaticque No.20861492]

>>20861477
you have discovered the same thing as this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXD9HnrNrvk
you have not discovered Life. perhaps you simply don't have it. perhaps you have severe autism or ASPD. as i said, deeply mentally ill hylics are unchangable, likewise, people without empathy will not respond well to pneumatics

[Anonymous No.20861498]

>>20859175
>Imagine no religion.
Define 'religion'.

[Anonymous No.20861504]

>>20859175
Kant already fixes this, but you wouldn't know since you never read anyway

[Anonymous No.20861506]

>>20861492
I told you how you can actually measure if you're not retarded and you just get even more incoherent and seething. Isn't that a clue? You don't even want to know if you're wrong, all you care about is maintaining the delusion and feeding your all dominating ego which you claim to have transcended.

[Anonymous No.20861519]

>>20861504
>Kant already fixes this
Pull a Kant on Kant, and ask him how does he know that he is not a dogmatist 2.0? What are the precautions that he's still not blinkered by neglect? And of what worth would be his shit, if he is?

[Anonymous No.20861523]

>>20861440
Yes, but anyone who rejects perennial wisdom or even the notion that it's within us, by your standards is thus a hylic, which ultimately means the same as what you just rejected with "not really".

[Pneumaticque No.20861533]

>>20861506
>I told you how you can actually measure if you're not retarded
i don't want to prove to the world that i'm not retarded, i think you're projecting here. i'll leave it at that.
>>20861523
depends. there's the conscious and the subconscious. someone can reject the notion of perennial wisdom consciously but subconsciously still have it. pneumatics is cognizant of psychoanalysis because to understand the code of reality, ultimately, you have to get to the depths of the human (and the animal, in general) psyche

[Anonymous No.20861539]

>>20861519
Not this anon, but he points out what arguments are missing on the dogmatists' side; you have to point out which are missing on his. I'm curious.

[Anonymous No.20861543]

>>20861533
>someone can reject the notion of perennial wisdom consciously but subconsciously still have it
This seems like a convenient way to dismiss any disagreement. Essentially, you devalue any conclusions the other person may propose consciously by saying that there still is a sleeping "truth" deep within his subconsciousness, without actually ever demonstrating it either. It seems axiomatic and reminds me of those popular online personality tests.

[Anonymous No.20861547]

>>20861533
>i don't want to prove to the world
To yourself. If you're reasonable you want tools that help you know when you're on the right track and when you aren't. Currently you're not really on any track, you just spew random shit and think that's great for some reason despite everyone telling you you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.20861556]

>>20861539
>you have to point out which are missing on his
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/the-metacritique-of-reason/
"In other words, both the Intentionalist and the Eliminativist agree on the centrality of neglect in at least this one regard. The transcendental (whatever it amounts to) is not something that metacognition can readily intuit—so much so that humans engaged in thousands of years of ‘philosophical reflection’ without the least notion that it even existed. The primary difference is that the Intentionalist thinks they *can overcome neglect via intuition and intellection*, that theoretical metacognition (philosophical reflection), once alerted to the existence of the transcendental, suddenly somehow possesses the resources to accurately describe its structure and function. The Eliminativist, on the other hand, asks, ‘What resources?’ Lay them out! Convince me! And more corrosively still, ‘How do you know you’re not still blinkered by neglect?’ Show me the precautions!"

"The fact is, short of this accounting of metacognitive resources and precautions, the Intentionalist has no way of knowing whether or not they’re simply a ‘Stage-Two Dogmatist,’ whether their ‘clarity,’ like the specious clarity of the Dogmatist, isn’t simply the product of neglect—a kind of metacognitive illusion in effect. For the Eliminativist, the transcendental (whatever its guise) is a metacognitive artifact. For them, the obvious problems the Intentionalist faces—the supernaturalism of their posits, the underdetermination of their theories, the lack of decisive practical applications—are all symptomatic of inquiry gone wrong. Moreover, they find it difficult to understand why the Intentionalist would persist in the face of such problems given only a misplaced faith in their metacognitive intuitions—especially when the sciences of the brain are in the process of discovering the *actual* constitutive activity responsible! You want to know what’s *really* going on ‘implicitly,’ ask a cognitive neuroscientist. We’re just toying with our heuristics out of school otherwise."


https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/the-ptolemaic-restoration-object-oriented-whatevery-and-kants-copernican-revolution/
"If it is the case that the sciences more or less monopolize theoretical cognition, then the most *reasonable* way for reason to critique reason is *via the sciences*. The problem confronting Kant, however, was nothing less than the problem confronting all inquiries into cognition until very recently: the technical and theoretical intractability of the brain. So Kant was forced to rely on theoretical reason absent the methodologies of natural science. In other words, he was forced to conceive critique as more *philosophy*, and this presumably, is why his project ultimately failed."

[Anonymous No.20861557]

>>20861533
>i don't want to prove to the world
Notice how your mind jumps to this right away. Pure ego, it's all you care about, it really doesn't occur to you that it might be a good idea to care about if the shit you spew has some truth to it or not.

[Pneumaticque No.20861689]

>>20861543
it's not axiomatic. i operate on dialectic. i invite you to the Pneumatic thread and you can easily have at any singular thesis uttered in the over 4,000 word long extremely dense work

it's the most condensed work of knowledge ever written, perhaps
>>20861547
i dont have to prove anything to myself either boyo. im what my trip says. its as simple as that
>you just spew random shit
my shit just escapes your midwittery. that's all
>>20861557
it doesn't jump to that, my pneumatolysis (pneumatological psychoanalysis) of your person jumped to that :)

[Anonymous No.20861705]

>>20859175
I was an atheist for a large chunk as a teen and most of my twenties. It's not a concept that hard to grasp for anyone other than christcucks for some reason.

It's called the Golden Rule dipshit, do unto others as you would have done unto you. If it makes me angry, sad miserable or causes me pain then I would strive to not do it to others.

There you go, dipshit. I see a video of some inhuman cocksucker skinning someone's pet dog alive and it gives me that deep, reprehensible pit in my stomach with that sinking feeling as I lose further faith in my fellow man, then you can bet your ASS I will never repeat the same act, no matter how much I might hate the owner of said dog.

Get it, idiot? We don't need to have this thread anymore. One does NOT need a belief in a higher power to avoid being a complete scummy piece of trash shit human.

[Anonymous No.20861722]

>>20861705
>If it makes me feel bad then it's bad.
>What do you mean it doesn't make you feel bad? I guess you're just inhuman. No, I will not elaborate.
This reminds me of a joke about Nils Bohr. *sniffs*

[Anonymous No.20861741]

>>20861722
>Bible is full of some of the most reprehensible acts
>God is constantly genocidal in it
>I get my morals from teh bibble

No you fucking don't

[Anonymous No.20861751]

>Catholic church has been one of the most corrupt institutions throughout history
>Muh morals

Shut the fuck up choir boy fucker.

[Anonymous No.20861776]

>>20861741
Take your meds, I can't see any of that in my post.
>reprehensible
By what standard?

[Anonymous No.20861782]

>>20861705
>It's called the Golden Rule dipshit, do unto others as you would have done unto you.
Debunked by Nietzsche.

"Against John Stuart Mill.—I abhor the man's vulgarity when he says: "What is right for one man is right for another"; "Do not to others that which you would not that they should do unto you". Such principles would fain establish the whole of human traffic *upon mutual services*, so that every action would appear to be a cash payment for something done to us. The hypothesis here is ignoble to the last degree: it is taken for granted that there is some sort of equivalence in value between my actions and thine; the most personal value Of an action is simply cancelled in this manner (that part of an action which has no equivalent and which cannot be remunerated). "Reciprocity" is a piece of egregious vulgarity; the mere fact that what I do cannot and may not be done by another, that there is *no such thing as equivalence* (except in those very *select circles* where one actually has one's equal, inter pares), that in a really profound sense a man never requites because he is something *unique* in himself and can only do *unique* things,—this fundamental conviction contains the cause of *aristocratic aloofness from the mob*, because the latter believes in equality, and consequently in the feasibility of equivalence and "reciprocity.""

[Anonymous No.20861790]

>>20861782
>blah, blah, blah Neatcheese said...

Fuck you midwit, Neatcheese is the single most overmemed philosopher in all of history.

You niggers need to shut the fuck up about that syphilitic incel moron

[Anonymous No.20861793]

>>20861790
>Golden Rule
>do unto others as you would have done unto you
Lo, and behold:
"Altruism is le good" => "egoism is le bad" => "my ego is not worth shit, my life is not worth shit" => "any life is not worth shit" => "it is perfectly permissible to sacrifice others"

Logic, motherfucker, do you use it?

[Anonymous No.20861809]

>>20861793
>quotes le ebin incel posterboy ubermensch Neatcheese
Shut up retard, you've already lost by outing yourself by quoting le ebin mustache man

[Anonymous No.20861811]

I used to think you could be an atheist and a good person, but now it's obvious to me that they just LARP morals when it's convenient.

[Anonymous No.20861812]

>>20861793
stop posting

[Anonymous No.20861815]

>>20861809
>Thinks that "le good" and "le bad" are Nietzsche's quotes
My condolences, up to this moment I did not realize I am speaking with a mentally retarded individual.

[Anonymous No.20861821]

>>20859967
Whoever responded to you isn't me, but you're definitely wrong in your assertion. Morality is practical and develops as soon as humans form social circles beyond themselves - having internal morality is a way of enforcing rules that work towards the whole without having to police or punish. It absolutely does not go against anthropology and in fact the whole field is moving towards this view. I doubt you have much knowledge in this field

[Anonymous No.20861829]

>>20861413
>why can't I blow your brains out? What is morally wrong about killing something without worth?
key word without worth. thou shalt not murder; murder implies cold blood with no scripturally justified reasoning.

[Anonymous No.20861839]

>>20859175
Same as Christians, from convention and something perhaps innate. Think of Mencius's argument about how people will automatically try to save a child they see about to fall in a well, even if it's a stranger... though oddly enough this doesn't apply to the Chinese (source: liveleak) .

[Anonymous No.20861848]

>>20861776
Humanity
>inb4 my semite superman is above that
I dont care

[Anonymous No.20861857]

>>20859175
>How do atheists get their morality?
do you believe the moment we became conscious, the rules of "morality" sudden started applying to us? did these rules not exist prior to us?

[Anonymous No.20861881]

>>20859175
>what you did was harmful to another person
>so what?
>if you do things like that people do not like that and might lynch mob you
>you can't do that!
>why not?
see it works both ways you doofus

[Anonymous No.20861902]

>>20861848
>Humanity
You might wanna be a bit more precise than that, seeing as I'm human and I don't really give a shit.
>inb4 you just heckin' have to

[Anonymous No.20861909]

>>20859175
Pleasure = good, suffering = bad, simple as

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BYUlKSY4wk&list=PL_HJ0tBxcTkZq-_b-P2xkKFhPkn85-_H9

[Anonymous No.20862058]

>>20861751
>an institution run by man has corruption

[Anonymous No.20862063]

>>20861829
Nigga that didn't answer my question

[Anonymous No.20862071]

>>20861413
No one has answered this question, kek

[Anonymous No.20862188]

>>20859634
You inadvertantly just described the problem: without an unquestionable dogma to back it up, morality is inevitably treated as being subjective and arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.20862192]

>>20861909
whose pleasure and whose suffering?

[Anonymous No.20862198]

>>20859366
No reason why it should it shouldn’t it’s relative after all. But I want it to become I want it to. I’m evil or good because I want to that’s the only answer you need really

[Anonymous No.20862225]

the bonobo and the atheist by frans de waal covers this exact topic

[Anonymous No.20862230]

>>20859366
Why not murder others because your fairy tale book said so if you’re not sure whether your eyes are real?

[Anonymous No.20862388]

>>20859175
>He who is not able, by the exercise of his reason to define the idea of the good, separating it from all other objects, and piercing, as in a battle, through every kind of argument; endeavouring to confute, not according to opinion, but according to essence, and proceeding through all these dialetical energies, with an unshaken reason: he who cannot accomplish this, would you not say that he neither knows the good itself, nor any thing which is properly denominated good? And would you not assert that such a one, when he apprehends any certain image of reality, apprehends it rather through the medium of opinion than of science;
>plato
the answer to your question lies in a different context.
How much of a homogeneous society are you interracting with?
Homogeneous on the side of economy, because that is the only thing that changes your opinion of others. A bourgie wont be able to live in a community of proles.
See USSR, they were homogeneous, and they prospered as one.
A Greek man, every day confronted with the utmost various ideas of what is moral and what is not, will always be a Greek man: the examples of Gorgias were harmonious to those of Socrates, even if they were not of the same school of thought.
They were compact, andd that is the reason as to why they had an internal law to follow.
A good person was the same of each of them.
So, to answer your question, they get their morality from the group of people they try to emulate. An alcoholic will think that drinking from a small cup and then smell a piece of bread is what is good, while a Christian will think that drinking is bad, to the point were drinking is completely bad, for the Mennonites, for example.
This is because there is no good or bad, but it is more what is done by the group of people i wanna be part of to dictate what you think is bad or good.
People in here wanna emulate Andrew Tate so they say "marital rape doesnt exist", and they will also claim they are christians, because Tate claims to be one. They will never read the Bible, nor the theologitians, so they will what is religiously good. But they are Christian: they believe in Jesus, after all.
>>20859966
religion comes from worshipping ancestors (cfr. Nikolaj Fedorov), not legislation.
jews always boasted as their religion was based on a Law given by God.
What law did the Greeks get from their Gods? What law did the Scandinavians get from their Gods?
None, they did discuss a lot about what is good and what is not. Hedonism, platonism, etc. originated from the greeks.

[Anonymous No.20862395]

>>20862388
>they will what is religiously good.
they will never know what is religiously good.

[Anonymous No.20862409]

>>20861689
>i dont have to prove anything to myself either
You don't see any value in finding out if you're spewing useless drivel or saying something useful?
Why not? Why don't you care about the truth or anything but jerking off?

[Anonymous No.20862424]

>>20861214
The point is that christcucks are infinitely more guilty of that than atheists

[Anonymous No.20862435]

>>20861373
He’s a retard projecting on you. There’s a reason why he’s shilling on 4chan instead of working his business or researching in a university.

[Anonymous No.20862436]

>>20859175
What is religion?

[Anonymous No.20862461]

>>20859175
If theists get their morality from their religion/faith/whatever higher power, then why are wars done in god's name?

[Anonymous No.20862483]

>>20862461
Because sometimes war is justified.

[Anonymous No.20862492]

>>20862483
If theism can justify murder, then why can't atheism?

[Anonymous No.20862497]

>>20862492
War isn't murder.

[Anonymous No.20862504]

>>20859175
National-Socialism.

[Anonymous No.20862513]

>>20861909
Pleasure is evil. Nothing neuters a man more. According to you everyone should be striving towards a heroin habit or suicide.

[Anonymous No.20862526]

>>20862497
It's murder by another name.

[Anonymous No.20862547]

>>20862526
Violence in defense of what you love is one of the greatest virtues. Christianity proclaims you will be rewarded in heaven for suffering here and to turn the other cheek.

[Anonymous No.20862567]

>>20862547
I don't really understand you, because your first sentence conflicts with your second sentence. If Christianity proclaims that you should turn the other cheek, then why would you say violence in defense is a virtue?

But more to the point: Why do you assume that wars done in god's name are always defensive. A lot of them are invasion.

[Anonymous No.20862570]

What is it called when you aren't religious but aren't an atheist too? My views on the whole thing are kinda reddit but not in an obnoxious way.
Le science and evolution and shit is all cool and good, however I don't believe that the universe we live in with the laws of physics that it has, let alone our planet, could be randomly formed. There's no reason existence itself is the way it is, there is no reason why objects have mass, there's no reason why gravity works the way it does, there's no reason why there's gold and iron and all of these cool things on earth that we use to make tech, tell me how the fuck a random universe would facilitate the laws of physics and the readily available resources needed to be staring at your screen right now.
Tldr the universe is a fucking alien/god sandbox

[Anonymous No.20862581]

>>20861413
>then why can't I blow your brains out? What is morally wrong about killing something without worth?
Go ahead. Just be aware that you've deprived me of what could be the only life I have and made it clear to society at large that you have no qualms with arbitrarily removing people you don't like.

[Anonymous No.20862593]

>>20862567
I should be clear, i am not a Christian, i loathe most of the underpinnings of it. From the jewish tradition of Scapegoating in Christ to the idea that infants are born in to sin. I thought the Sunwheel made that clear, my bad, nor am i pagan though.

>>20862570
Lost. Find a world-concept or you will suffer.

[Anonymous No.20862605]

>>20862593
>I thought the Sunwheel made that clear
I see. I have no idea what that symbol is. And even if I did, I would have probably been distracted by the headline and asian women. That was a strange thing to post regardless.

Well in anycase, you didn't answer my question. You say some wars are justified. But then I say that many wars are not. How do you respond? Are you here to actually have a discussion about the origins of morality. Or are you here to spread your natsoc propaganda?

[Anonymous No.20862616]

>>20862605
I can do both. National-Socialism can offer a guide to morality. The First Principles of it, that which informs all other considerations and forms moral judements, is that Blood (your people) and Soil (your land) are of paramount importance and need be strengthened and improved on. If morality serves no end purpose, what use can it have?

[Anonymous No.20862627]

>>20862616
ok, so you dodge my question entirely. I knew I shouldn't have come into this thread.

[Anonymous No.20862640]

>>20859175
>I never hear this question answered
Read Kant (no cheating, all three critiques) and stop participating in uninformed midwit internet discussions, especially on gaytheists vs tradcath larpers.

[Anonymous No.20862657]

>>20862627
>You say some wars are justified. But then I say that many wars are not. How do you respond?

I thought that was clear, evidently it was not. Conflict that strengthens a people is desirable. This is the same logic that subjects a child to difficulty just outside their comfort zone, this produces the best growth potential.

War should be made to defend your people and land. Be it now or decades in the future. If a war made now can secure a stronger future at the expense of others, I think a moral argument can be made for it. Do i think i would agree with it? Probably not, no.

[Anonymous No.20862671]

>>20862657
Should add, i don't agree with outright because the recent happenings in Russia/Ukraine has shown that war persecuted against global homogenization will utterly destroy a land and people.

[Anonymous No.20862680]

>>20862671
>no more brother wars
>entire history of development predicated on so called "brother wars", even pre le jooz
why are /pol/yps like this?

[Anonymous No.20862689]

>>20862680
Because right now, any conflict in Europe serves only to damage Europe and it's native people. Blacks, browns, asians and more rarely serve in Western militaries.

[Anonymous No.20862703]

>>20859541
Projection.

Just because you want to rape people doesn’t mean everyone else does

[Anonymous No.20862704]

>>20862689
are you under some delusion that if every jew and shade of brown/yellow you disliked died off today, there'd be some magical kumbaya-ing? is this what /pol/cels unironically think?

[Anonymous No.20862717]

>>20862704
Not at all, but societal conditions would improve on every metric. Utopia is that which can not be.

[Anonymous No.20862735]

This is how.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution

[Anonymous No.20862740]

>>20862704
>First they came for the jews, but i said nothing because i was not a jew
>Then they came for the blacks, but i said nothing because i was not a black
>Then they came for the browns, but i said nothing because i was not a brown
>Then they stopped coming for people and things improved.

[Anonymous No.20862756]

>>20861236
Well, you would consider someone who is suicidal or a rapist to be mentally ill to some extent wouldn't you? You don't base laws in a society on mentally ill people's thought you base it on rational thought

[Anonymous No.20862808]

>>20862581
What makes it particularly arbitrary? Is there any way to remove people without being arbitrary?

[Anonymous No.20862815]

>>20862756
Because we deem them to be Ill by our (christian) standards of morality. >>20861236

[Anonymous No.20862846]

>>20862188
>without an unquestionable dogma to back it up, morality is inevitably treated as being subjective and arbitrary.
But it's not unquestionable. If these religious dogmas were unquestionable, there wouldn't be this thread. Also this has been discussed ad nauseaum, basically the euthyprho dilemma: if moral rules depend on some set of reasons or criterion external to God, then God isnt necessary. If instead morality depends purely on God's will then it is arbitrary.
The existence of God or a religion being true, wouldn't necessarily make morality less arbitrary.
Lets assume Christianity is true. If so then saying God's name in vain is immoral. For no better reason than that it happens to offend him. The supposedly omnipotent deity also happens to be deeply vain and insecure about his name being used badly. So it is is somehow wrong to hurt a deity who is by definition incapable of being hurt. This is just one example of a moral rule from religion that's fundamentally abitrary and rests on no firmer basis than the fear of punishment or desire for a future reward. Christian morality in practice rests upon carrot and stick more than any supposed transcendent principle.
Furthermore if Christianity is true, there's this all seeing deity who observes every single act and thought we have and tallies them into the column sin or not-sin according to some inexplicable principle, or for some reason according to the laws/rules created by some randos in the desert. Now if you get enough good boy points by being a good slave you get entrance to the good place. If not, tough luck. Christianity when you really think about it is extremely fatalistic and almost nihilistic.
And according to some denominations, e.g. Calvinists, it's even more fatalistic: our final destination is providentially determined and inescapable. A select few will gain entrance and the rest will burn for eternity.
Why if you're a Christian do you follow God's will and how do you know it's his will and not just your pastors? Gods will must be followed just because he is God. Which when you think about it is the reasoning of a tyrannical despot.

[Anonymous No.20862882]

>>20859175
>How do atheists get their morality?
Reddit.

[Anonymous No.20862896]

>>20861413
You absolutely can but why would you? Besides all of the potential repercussions, for most people barring psychopaths killing simply isn't enjoyable.
And belief in an objective morality, has never historically stopped people from killing each other.
Usually they just still kill people and just say God's on their side anyway.

[Anonymous No.20862996]

>>20861413
>What is morally wrong about killing something without worth?
Nothing retard, I already answered this. Every man will follow the law written on his heart.

[Anonymous No.20863035]

you're on /lit/ but you ask a question where there's been numerous if not thousands of academics or even layman authors who have thoroughly explained why non religious people can have morality

tl;dr morality is a social construct that has always existed long before humans had organized religion because we are a collectivist organism where when individuals act in the best interest of the group to ensure survival

[Anonymous No.20863044]

>>20861413
God is made in our image, not us in his. If we truly are made in the image of a divine creator, fuck me was it a rough draft.

We have a nerve pathway that goes all the way from the base of your skull, all the way down to roughly your pelvis, then all the way back up, jusy to deliver to the nerve ending less than a handful of inches from where it began.

And even if we were created by a divine being, why would that make what they say moral?

[Anonymous No.20863046]

>>20859175
>How do atheists get their morality?
Is morality necessary? As opposed to ethics?

[Anonymous No.20863050]

>>20859541
>No. They want to rape more but they're afraid of the consequences.
The consequence they're scared of is making other people feel bad. They don't stop to think about the consequences beyond that. This is well-tested and shown through hundreds of studies to this point, as well as the history of con artists and politicians abusing empathy to get one over on people. Just that alone should make it painfully fucking obvious that most people are naturally empathetic to their fellow man.
Lack of natural empathy is the cultural issue, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.20863054]

>>20859175
Same way abrahamcucks do from tradition/culture. That's how everyone gets "morals".

[Anonymous No.20863065]

>every group of people on earth independently invent a virtually identical set of morality
>this happens regardless of religiosity, time in history, or geographic circumstances
I'd still like to know how any modern religion is responsible for this.

[Anonymous No.20863071]

>>20859175
Nurture, just like everyone else.

[Anonymous No.20863095]

>>20859175
They literally just inherit whatever the dominant ethics are in their society, most of which ironically comes from Christianity. Why do you think 21st century atheists hate Nietzsche so much? He demonstrated that their morality is the same shit as all the religious people they hate

[Anonymous No.20863104]

>>20863095
Correct, Nietzsche called the humanists basically godless Christians.

[Anonymous No.20863220]

>>20863095
>They literally just inherit whatever the dominant ethics are in their society, most of which ironically comes from Christianity.

And even more ironically, the exact same thing is true for Christianity.

Or did you seriously think that the stuff in the Bible isn't based on something itself?

[Anonymous No.20863222]

>>20861705
>scummy piece of trash shit human
According to who or what?
>But I don't like when you stab my dog
So? I don't like it either but I might feel like stabbing yours. My subjective experience of reality is that of the stabber, why should I care if the stabbee feels bad about it?
>But you wouldn't like someone stabbing your dog.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with my desire to stab yours. I don't care what if you feel bad about it, you are not me.

[Anonymous No.20863245]

>>20863222
>My subjective experience of reality is that of the stabber, why should I care if the stabbee feels bad about it?
Because that is one of the fastest routes to become a "stabbee" yourself. It's logic a toddler can grasp, you throw a hotwheel at your brother because it makes you laugh, but you know you're risking any number of retaliations against yourself.

[sage No.20863256]

>>20859541
the consequence is retribution by others, not by an omniscient being after you die

[Anonymous No.20863280]

>>20863256
So why not rape and pillage opposing tribes?

[Anonymous No.20863282]

>>20863245
>You shouldn't stab someone because you might get stabbed
That's not morality, that's just self preservation. It doesn't account for times when a "bad" (no such thing as bad for you but let's suppose that "bad" means an action that is generally disliked by society) action will be without punishment (stabbing someone in a dark alley and fleeing) or even granting me power or a monetary gain (corruption, stealing from family members or (legally) scamming my friends). If your whole moral system is "maximize your pleasure" it will surely lead to everyone committing disliked actions when they're not in a position that will harm them directly.

[Anonymous No.20863286]

>>20863220
its based on the words of god

[Anonymous No.20863296]

It's internalised religion. They just take it as a given that "being a good person" is self explanatory, when it's really not. The idea that you make yourself strong, and dominate the world around you comes much more naturally.

[Anonymous No.20863301]

>>20863282
It also suggests that that which draws the ire of others is necessarily bad or evil, and that any given justice system is defacto moral, because evil is that which draws bad consequences.

[Anonymous No.20863303]

>>20863282
>That's not morality, that's just self preservation.
So close, yet so far.

[Anonymous No.20863321]

>>20863303
So call it egoism instead of morality, fucking nigger cattle.

[Anonymous No.20863329]

>>20863296
>herd animals dont have biological underpinnings for beneficial behavior.

We need to enforce some sort of eugenics program. People are just too stupid and need to be left in their own shittip of a life.

[Anonymous No.20863338]

>>20863245
Sounds like a you problem, every thought about getting better at stabbing?

[Anonymous No.20863340]

What I do like about religion is it puts so much responsibility on the individual. You aren't just doing your bit to uphold a functioning machine of society. You can't just do a bit of sin on the side, as long as it's not "serious" and you pay your taxes, and no one dies. You have to actually try to be a good person, inside and out, and all the time, because God knows.

[Anonymous No.20863348]

>>20863329
In some contexts, rape and murder are beneficial behaviour, which is why people are drawn by their instincts to do them so much.

[Anonymous No.20863355]

>>20863348
>rape
That's why ducks have corkscrew-shaped penises, btw.

[Anonymous No.20863363]

We have the same discussions a billion times. Atheists are unwilling to see reason, so it never gets anywhere.

[Anonymous No.20863369]

>>20863348
Yeah, before we civilized ourselves rape was the means to procreate, still is in the rest of the animal world. Murder too has it's place. But, and i need to stress this because you are so fucking stupid, they are a rarity and seldom the most common forms of interaction.

This is why Africans can now never develope a lasting civilization, they have regressed so far that they lack even animal levels of socialization.

[Anonymous No.20863376]

>>20863363
>believes woman was made from males rib
>why won't people see reason?

[Anonymous No.20863381]

>>20863369
>they are a rarity and seldom the most common forms of interaction.
Probably because the after effects of religion live rent free in everyone's heads. The idea that you just allow other groups of people to come and enter your territory does not come naturally to the human animal.

[Anonymous No.20863392]

>>20859371
He's absolutely right and you're evading the question like a scared little pussy bitch

[Anonymous No.20863407]

>>20863381
>The idea that you just allow other groups of people to come and enter your territory does not come naturally to the human animal.
nobody wants to discuss how we are animals because it has always sounded edgy, but that's just it and it isn't that deep. we have instincts that tell us if certain behaviours are acceptable, such as the one that prevents any normal well-adjusted person from flirting with their mother

[Anonymous No.20863411]

>>20863376
I am not a jew. They are largely the ones pushing the atheism psyop.

[Anonymous No.20863425]

>>20863407
That's the thing though. What we know is beneficial to us on an instinctual level, doesn't always line up with what is "moral". The function of religion is pretty much to mitigate all of those dirty animal impulses that make us want to do things that feel right, but aren't "morally right".
And you can't just say, it's instinctual to cooperate and be kind to your neighbour, because it's not, or it only is up to a point. You look after your family, and your community, because they look after you, but why care about people from the other side of the world, who mostly just seem to want to take your resources? Why not kill them and be done with it?

[Anonymous No.20863490]

>>20859175
Culture. In the absence of religion, arbitrary morality takes it's place. You can see it in the way SJWs treat their beliefs just like church ladies of old even though they are worshipping no god.

[Anonymous No.20863501]

>>20859315
But you would presumably like to be rich. A godless society enables sociopaths to lie, cheat and steal for their own benefit. If you had the opportunity to become a millionaire by defrauding crypto investors and it was guaranteed you would never face consequences, would you do it?

[Anonymous No.20863522]

>>20863490
I think there's something very predatory about SJWs. It's all about saying the right things to manoeuvre themselves socially through society, and there's also often a heavy self serving element to it all. The core instinct of the SJW often seems to be righteous indignation at people who have more things than they have, because they want to have those things for themselves.
You don't have that self reflective element that religion has, where the world may be full of evil people, but you are evil too, and you're actually supposed to try to better yourself.
Then again, religions will attract those same people when they're dominant within a culture, because social climbers are going to do what they're going to do, to break off a piece of the power structure for themselves.

[Anonymous No.20863627]

>>20859175
>he thinks “morality“ is the result of logical reasoning and not plain rationalised instincts
this is what the wrong kind of philosophy will do to a nigga

[Anonymous No.20863765]

>>20862996
>Every man will follow the law written on his heart.

WHO WROTE IT THERE YOU RETARD?!

[Anonymous No.20863773]

>>20862896
I'm not talking about enjoyment im talking about why it would be morally wrong, keep up. Let's say it is enjoyable for someone, why is that morally wrong if we have no inherent worth?

[Anonymous No.20863778]

>>20862581
>Go ahead. Just be aware that you've deprived me of what could be the only life I have and made it clear to society at large that you have no qualms with arbitrarily removing people you don't like.

Again, why is that morally wrong if we have no inherent worth? No one has answered this

[Anonymous No.20863782]

>>20863044
>i don't understand an aspect of reality
>therefore God can't possibly exist

Kys

[Anonymous No.20863802]

>>20859175
>How do atheists get their morality?
I don't know
Maybe partly from parents (both genetic and upbringing), part from emotional feedback and environment.
One thing that I understood very quickly as a kid is that racism is a lie, nations are mostly a myth, etc. My parents are from two neighbouring countries, both come from a border region which has historical/linguistical/etc links to the other side of the border, and I think this really made see things from a different light compared to others who have lived in the same town for generations.

[Anonymous No.20863816]

>>20863765
evolution and society, retard

[Anonymous No.20863819]

>>20863802
>racism is bad because I'm mixed race
That's not morality. That's looking out for your own interests.

[Anonymous No.20863878]

>>20859175
From Plato and Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.20863893]

>>20863773
I don't understand what you are asking. It is morally wrong because we find it to be wrong. Most people have an innate sense that murder is wrong. For the small number of sociopaths that enjoy it, it's not wrong otherwise they wouldn't do it to begin with.
Now your turn can you explain why the existence of a God makes murder wrong?

[Anonymous No.20863900]

>>20863778
I also don't know why you keep harping about inherent worth. Theres only the worth which comes from one's own experiences and living. Theres no intrinsic worth to any life.

[Anonymous No.20863910]

>>20859175
Even a dumb animal like a dog can understand that if it starts shit it gets hit, you're less than that if you cannot comprehend how a society can function without some fairy tales.

Think about it real hard, you're less intelligent than a dog. How amazing is that? You should be studied.

[Anonymous No.20863930]

>>20863910
How is that morality, and not just fear?

[Anonymous No.20863977]

>>20859175
Having any sort of moral conscience beyond the normal "it's immoral because it's illegal" is a literal sign of Aspergers. This thread reeks of Asperguer kids when they reach 15/16 and start obssessing over morality and philosophy

[Anonymous No.20863985]

>>20863977
Saying "[arbitrary thing] is a sign of aspergers" is a sign of autism, anon.

[Anonymous No.20863986]

>>20863977
Honestly, you're probably right, because I'm one of those people. I agonised over what was "correct" for the longest time, before I realised it probably doesn't matter very much.

[Anonymous No.20863999]

>>20863985
I wasnt an aspie, but behaved closely to one in my mid teens, as i became more sociable and friendly i just dropped those mental masturbations like>>20863986

[Anonymous No.20864000]

>>20859175
Did you ever notice that animals behave in certain ways within their own species? Did you ever notice that different animals behave differently from each other? Why is that?

[Anonymous No.20864003]

>>20859175
Survival.

[Anonymous No.20864016]

>>20863816
Society, based on Christian ethics, create the best civilisations in history

Evolution is a power dynamic, the strong survive, that wouldn't give moral value to humans

[Anonymous No.20864025]

>>20863900
>Theres no intrinsic worth to any life.

So if I was say, the head of a political party and those meat bags with no inherent worth were getting in my way, what exactly would be morally wrong with that? It is not morally wrong to kill something with no inherent worth

[Anonymous No.20864030]

>>20864025
>inherent worth were getting in my way, what exactly would be wrong with killing them and what would be morally wrong with that?

Fixed my typo

[Anonymous No.20864160]

>>20864025
Nice evasion of my question. I will reiterate: how does the existence of a God necessarily entail that murder is wrong?
To answer your question, most people have an innate sense that it just is wrong to kill without reason. Even when people do kill eachother usually theres some pretext that the other group or nation is somehow a threat. I.e there's some rationale given as to why it's necessary. Or even in genocides it first becomes necessary to dehumanize the other group. I don't know why people view murder as wrong we just do as beings with the capacity for empathy. As for your hypothetical if we lived in a world where everyone was a psychopath, it goes without saying that there would be nothing wrong with it. If there was a large group of psychopaths running around it would be wrong to me simply because I would rather live a peaceful life than one where I have to worry about being killed constantly.

[Anonymous No.20864168]

>>20863819
>>racism is bad because I'm mixed race
I'm not mixed race. That's just projecting on your part. In fact, I was the kid with the lightest skin, everybody teased me for that. >inb4 "it was the niggers teasing you"
There were virtually no blacks in my country when I was a kid. Basically every single kid in my school was 100% white, just like me. There was like one half-egyptian girl with down syndrome, and one colombian on 300 pupils.

[Anonymous No.20864176]

>>20864168
Fine, xenophobia, which is easily conflated with racism.

[Anonymous No.20864186]

>>20864160
As for the point about innate worth. Just because there isn't a divine law written in the stars saying "this life has worth" doesn't mean lives have no value. They have relative value. My mom's life has worth *to* me because I care for her.

[Anonymous No.20864187]

I'm mixed race and racism is good. How can you ever know the properties of things that are different if you pretend they are the same? Non-racists have no intellectual curiosity.

[Anonymous No.20864194]

>>20864160
>how does the existence of a God necessarily entail that murder is wrong?

Because we are created in the image of God, if you harm me you harm the creator of the universe and all existence.

If God doesn't exist, you killed a bag of meat, why does it matter if a meat bag dies?

>Even when people do kill eachother usually theres some pretext that the other group or nation is somehow a threat. I.e there's some rationale given as to why it's necessary.

BUT WHY IS THAT MORALLY WRONG IF WE HAVE NO WORTH?!? IF I WANT POWER I WILL SIMPLY CREATE A REASON, BUT WHY IS THAT WRONG?!

[Anonymous No.20864197]

>>20863819
Ah, on a side note
here's my grandpa Wehrpass

[Anonymous No.20864293]

>>20864176
>xenophobia
meaningless word
racists watch american movies, they jerk off to japanese porn, listen to jamaican music, wear chinese shoes, whatever.
About xenophobia: one interesting thing to notice is that at least three times people from Eastern Europe asked me "are you from Romania/Albania/Russia?" - I have zero blood from that area, and yet people from that exact area guess that I might be related to them. Really makes you think about "xenophobia"

[Anonymous No.20864308]

>>20864194
>if you harm me you harm the creator of the universe and all existence.
Sounds like you are a pantheist. Anyways if I harm all of existence, then it is the same as harming no one. That would mean I am really at worst only harming myself. In which case there's nothing really wrong with it.
>If God doesn't exist, you killed a bag of meat, why does it matter if a meat bag dies?
If God exists, you didn't kill that person you only helped deliver that person to a life of eternal joy. Sounds like Christianity if anything is more pro murder.
Anyways I already addressed this. People don't have intrinsic value but relative value. If no one existed there would be no value to life. Since the value of life comes from our experience and enjoyment of it not any abstract principle. People's lives have value to me. It matters to me if a meat bag dies because particular meat bags have value to me. Like my mom or family. People outside of my immediate circle of people I care about matter because I can understand and sympathize with them.
If there were a group of people that had no recognizable human characteristics, but were still intelligent, would people find it wrong to kill them?

[Anonymous No.20864335]

>>20859175
On a gut level, I'm not comfortable either with the idea that nothing is really inherently right or wrong, not even rape or murder. But on an intellectual level I'm not entirely sure what it would even mean to say something is objectively moral or immoral.

[Anonymous No.20864366]

>>20863893
It would make murder wrong because in religion all morality comes from God and God says murder is no bueno.

>For the small number of sociopaths that enjoy it, it's not wrong otherwise they wouldn't do it to begin with.

We as a society should probably not encourage sociopaths to follow their instincts. You don't see a problem because you're neurotypical, but for people who have screws loose "should I or should I not wreck Timmy's life because I am bored?" is a serious question.

[Anonymous No.20864372]

>>20861413
>I would love to hear an atheist try to explain where human value derives from if we aren't made in the image of God
Evolution

[Anonymous No.20864388]

>>20864372
Evolution doesn't give humanity objective value. From the atheist point of view we're inconsequential space dust doomed to go extinct one day.

[Anonymous No.20864420]

>>20864388
Maybe there's no such thing as objective value? Every consider that? Of course not.

[Anonymous No.20864426]

>>20864420
I did, and ruined several people's lives in the process.

[Anonymous No.20864427]

>>20864388
And where is the problem with that?

[Anonymous No.20864433]

>>20859175
>How do atheists get their morality?
Moral intuition and moral reasoning.
>What would he be talking about?
He would be talking about morality.
>What criteria would he judge that on?
Depends on what his normative theory is.

[Anonymous No.20864439]

>>20864366
>It would make murder wrong because in religion all morality comes from God and God says murder is no bueno
It wrong cause big man in sky say so.

[Anonymous No.20864488]

>>20864426
Congratulations, you played yourself.

[Anonymous No.20864489]

>>20859175
Pain is bad. Suffering is bad. Inflicting suffering gratuitously is morally wrong. We can extend those principles to our treatment of non-humans (once we have thrown out anthropocentric religious morality).

[Anonymous No.20864498]

>>20861421

‘Innocent’ is easily defined without a really old fantasy novel to help you. An innocent person is a person who’s voluntary never actively hurt anybody.

A bad person is a person that either used to or actively hurts others.