Anybody else disturbed by atheist normies' moral nihilism? For some reason when a normie discovers that there is no God he immediately rejects moral and societal norms of Christianity and starts engaging in ungodly leftist cultism and decadence. The thought horrifies me, people really lack any inner moral integrity.
>atheists: you need to be scared of hell to do the right thing? I’m good without God
>immediately start castrating children the second they get cultural power
>For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
so why is it okay for some guy in 20 AD to willingly submit to having his dick chopped off so that he can't overthrow a monarchy, but not okay for some person born with a penis to undergo a surgery so that their body is more in line with what their soul is telling them they are?
>so why is it okay for some guy in 20 AD to willingly submit to having his dick chopped off so that he can't overthrow a monarchy, but not okay for some person to decide a child was born with the wrong soul and castrate them and separate them from their parents if they complain?
Where would Kant fall on the political scale? Or would he like transcend it completely
Was Kant a Christian? is that why he kept blabbering on about the transcendental because he somehow intuited the leftist hellscape and didn't wanna end up there?
Kant was 100% part of the liberal tradition
no he wasn't
leftist atheists are the biggest moral fanatics there are
They don't have morals in the sense OP is saying. It is just about power.
They absolutely do. "It's all about power" is a meme, you can apply it to everything.
Yes, because when you stand on nothing and believe all morality is just expressions of personal preference, emotion, you are left with only getting really emotional to make your case.
Or you try to justify things in "pragmatic" terms which now means you need science to say certain things to make your morality work. Hence the histrionics over racial differences. If it could be suggested empirically that using race as a selection criteria was pragmatic, they have no ground for arguing against it, because they do not believe in the inherit dignity of the human person.
They also end up in the cruelly ironic place where they want people in power to be paragons of moral virtue, tearing them down for small sleights (e.g. canceling over decades old Halloween costumes) but at the same time deny any objective good and claim that the Good is simply defined by power politics and social movements such that it changes over time.
They fail to realize that in abolishing man's telos and natural law they have chopped through the trunk of the tree of morality and the virtues. They also tend to accept the absurd positivist standard of objectivity as a "view from nowhere," and then deny morality when it cannot be uncovered in this flawed lens.
It leads them into incoherent and at times despicable behavior.
T. Christian Leftist
No, their morals aren't from within, but informed by social and mainstream media. Which also happens to be a rebellion of everything that is Christian or perceived as "right-wing". They are literally the moronic population from Orwell's 1984, which is funny as the society of 1984 was based on Communism (which leftist Americans who have never been abroad, except for a carnival cruise of weekend in Mexico, love so much; people flee from Communist countries to America have a different view).
?t=383
>"Durr Ukraine (nazi capital of 21st century Europe) good because CNN say so"
>"Palestine (Muslims; being gay is a crime punishable by death) good."
>"Not poisoning and castrating people is transphobic (no such fricking thing, as transgenderism is just dysphoria)."
>"People who don't take this vaccine deserve to get fired, arrested, and not receive hospital care"
Even boomers know this (this idiot btfo Hitchens in a debate btw): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hr4JauIXWo
There is no reason to be against people owning guns in their homes so long as they have a permit. There is no reason to support abortion except under the most extreme cases (incest, SA, high probability of death during delivery). There is no logical reason to support ILLEGAL immigration and pretend being against ILLEGAL immigration is the same as being against all immigration. There is no reason to fricking be against Voter IDs.
Their "beliefs" have no logic behind them. These people cry about capitalism on apps that only exist because they are owned/run by billionaires; assuming they work (kek) their place of employment was likely created or is owned by a millionaire. They wear clothes made by people in sweatshops (don't most of us) while talking about human rights.
All self-proclaimed socialists in a Capitalist society are Champagne socialist.
Leftist is about gaining power, but instead of putting in the grind, they use emotional manipulation.
Not really no. Most people live their lives pretty much the same way whether they currently believe in god or don't.
I know you think this relates to the conversation but it doesn't.
It's funny though so shut up.
>has to contend with ... the fact they've never been attracted to a cis person
Is being cis and straight actually counter culture among those circles now?
More or less, yeah.
I think in one of those libsoftiktok videos, there was one example of a primary school teacher asking students about their identities and implying that "being cis-straight" is boring and unoriginal.
There are people who really do have gender dysphoria and who honestly believe they have the wrong gender. But there are also many others who are mostly doing performative stuff to try to sound original and modern.
>There are people who really do have gender dysphoria and who honestly believe they have the wrong gender. But there are also many others who are mostly doing performative stuff to try to sound original and modern.
I get all that but this is where my materialism comes in. A lot of the ideal conservative heterosexual couplings with strictly defined gender roles makes perfect sense in a largely agricultural society with a church in the center of every village, but doesn't make a lick of empirical or theoretical sense in a modern, highly urbanized, industrialized society. Even our entertainment in terms of video games allow people to play around with whatever gender they want to be. If you're walking around New York City and see guys who look like, there's a solid chance they'll be gay -- those guys are more likely to be the peak athletic bros unless you're an actual athlete who plays sports for a living. It's funny too that the adherents of queer theory now would write them out of the picture because they're not "interesting" anymore, like there's a weird queer thing now but it's... like... not even gay. It's... something else. But it's quite amazing that a distinct gay make culture has just proceeded to do its own thing without regard for what anybody thinks.
>A lot of the ideal conservative heterosexual couplings with strictly defined gender roles makes perfect sense in a largely agricultural society with a church in the center of every village, but doesn't make a lick of empirical or theoretical sense in a modern, highly urbanized, industrialized society.
Holy pseud. Do you know you're projecting/regurgitating or are you entirely unselfaware?
They always made sense. The homosexual brigade of Thebes absolutely slaughtered the Spartan elite despite being outnumbered by a solid margin, a horde of gymnastics/wrestling bro bears protecting the twinks.
Not really, I hang out with a lot of self-identified “queer” people and they’re all way too autistic to care about anything besides board games and trains. Fashion is the furthest thing from their minds. They do frick like rabbits tho.
>I hang out with a lot of self-identified “queer” people
This is less about living your life a certain way and more about accepting certain cultural norms.
Socrates be like we should all convert to Christianity just in case the Romans decide to come centuries later
Socrates was not an atheist. His Philosophy depended on the Divine existing.
Heh, what has divine got to do with morals. There are people suffering for centuries and they'll keep on suffering regardless. Divine is to busy patting himself on the back for being born divine and making sure he/she stays "divine"
>Heh, what has divine got to do with morals.
You should read Plato before trying to comment on his morality
We know they killed him for corruption of the youth and we know plato didn't give a shit about the gods of his era but believed in the gods of the formic realm (aka ideals, not entities)
Socrates and Plato believed in the Divine and in the immortality of the soul. Their morality had this as its basis.
They have a theological philosophy
So in your POV the god itself doesn't matter, only that people believe in a god?
good, cry harder homosexual
Would Stirner approve of troonyism?
I guess it goes against one's self to torture over his body. the unique doesn't have a gender
Was this homie even real or was he a character created by Engels?
He shitted himself into existence
Just because you dislike their morality doesn't mean they're moral nihilists. For ezample, the same normie atheists who praise sexual freedom will say that rape is evil because... reasons. The entire progressive movement should already have killed this notion that we live in a nihilistic amoral secular society.
I think I've fricked up my phrasing there. What I meant was that their views exhibit inconsistency, are a subject to frequent and seemingly wild changes, and lack integrity without God.
"Atheist morality" is a meme due to a lack of God. Without God, there is no guiding principle.
If you look at Platonism, Stoicism, etc they depended on the divine.
Muh god is such a cope for moral gays it makes me want to commit idolatry
I need this super powerful all knowing being to exist to spy on everyone so I can keep on preaching his/her goodness
You don't understood my post.
Without God, there is no strong basis for morality.
How much does God pay you to be his/her shill or do you inhabit superior virtue and do it out of the goodness of your heart?
You lack inner moral integrity and are an automaton of flesh only capable of good under strict enforcement. I.e. you're the problem described in the OP.
I don't think you understood my point. It is not about punishment. It is about the basis for morality. Atheism doesn't have it.
That's how you end up with the current chaos we have.
Morality appeared in this world without a God though, so there is a natural basis for it.
How would you know?
How do you know God hasn't enlightened the intellect of Socrates and those of other cultures to understand morality up to a point? And notice that Socratic morality is theological in nature.
There's no "God," it's an antiquated concept. Whatever exists, exists biologically due to evolution.
>antiquated concept
Lol, come on.
You are not this shallow, are you?
If you think your brain is capable of grasping an absolute like "God," then you are either uninformed on how your brain works, or you're a narcissist.
Absolutely! I don't disagree with you! I'm with you on this one
/thread
Why did you quote those posts? No one was saying anything about the nature of God.They were answering to
The reason why "God" is an antiquated concept is because of what we understand about the brain and biology now.
Are you Neil DeGrasse Tyson?
I'm a Scottish-German-Polish white guy, but thanks for the ad hom.
It is not even an Ad Hominem (I didn't try to disprove you) and I don't care about your family history.
But you have no idea about the state of science or what it can say about the supernatural.
Due to certain practical problems, neuroscience has tons of limitations. For example, we don't even know why antidepressants work. Much less dealing with subjects that are above science.
You have no organ for "objective truth" or absolutes, so there's no point in persisting further with this.
You have no means of proving the objective truth of materialism.
Correct, but I wasn't asserting it as objective truth, but as a more evolutionarily advanced one.
You have no objective way of establishing that.
Correct, and I'm not trying to.
By "asserting" it you are.
What I am asserting is an evolutionary concept, not an objective one.
If there's no objective way to establish your assertion your aren't saying anything. Bayesian analysis doesn't work like that and the bias in such an assumption automatically negates the idea you're providing a Fermi solution.
To assert something objective, you would need an organ that can process such information. Care to point to this organ?
>To assert something objective, you would need an organ that can process such information.
Not that anon. Explain your point.
The point is that you argue from an untenable position. Dialectic can make any position seem convincing — that is, until the underlying conviction is exposed and dismantled.
Speak in English, not gibberish.
He's an undergrad experimenting with Marxism. Anything he says relating to scientific knowledge can be dismissed.
That's an assertion you forward as objective and therefore it's self-defeating.
It is not asserted as objective.
If there's no objective way to establish your assertion your aren't saying anything. Bayesian analysis doesn't work like that and the bias in such an assumption automatically negates the idea you're providing a Fermi solution.
I am saying something, just not what you want to hear.
You're saying nothing by your own admission. You haven't justified the Bayesian analysis to which you're pretending and the inherent bias of your statements betrays the fact you can't offer a meaningful Fermi solution.
Can you point to an organ capable of objective knowledge?
If there's no objective way to establish your assertion your aren't saying anything. Bayesian analysis doesn't work like that and the bias in such an assumption automatically negates the idea you're providing a Fermi solution.
So, you can't?
I reject your hypothesis because: if there's no objective way to establish your assertion your aren't saying anything. Bayesian analysis doesn't work like that and the bias in such an assumption automatically negates the idea you're providing a Fermi solution.
P.S. the hidden bias you're unaware of in your assertion is that one must accept your materialist position in order to refute it. However, due to the fact your assertion is self-defeating all you can do is attempt to redirect onus onto others. This creates a loop where you'll shift the burden of your argument while betraying the fact you can't speak of it in any context save for an empty assertion.
You can reject it all you want, but by asserting the alternative, you are claiming a position of universality that your biology doesn't warrant.
>No you
This is what I meant by deflecting the burden and shifting onus. Thanks for playing.
Sorry, but I am not the one asserting anything objective. You are.
You're asserting one must adopt a materialist position in order to refute your (non-)argument. Hence why you haven't been conscious of the fact you're deflecting the burden of your argument and misplacing the onus onto others.
I'm not asserting one must adopt anything. Nonetheless, your position is untenable. It's up to you whether you continue to embrace it despite that or adopt something else. As for my position, I only assert that all knowledge is of the same nature as the biology it is processed by and stored in.
Not that anon. You were asserting people should abandon belief in God due to neurology.
>I'm not asserting one must adopt anything.
You're asserting materialism by making the claim one must point to a physical organ by which an individual can come to objective beliefs.
> I only assert that all knowledge is of the same nature as the biology it is processed by and stored in.
See?
Again, this is why you're unconscious of the fact you're shifting the burden of your beliefs onto others and deflecting away from the fact the onus is on you to justify your parameters. This means you're not a very thoughtful Marxist materialist (you'll use the term but you're not even aware of the "dialectic" in which you're engaging). Further, you have no scientific understanding to justify the claim you're asserting as demonstrated by your poverty of knowledge when it comes to the conceptual framework you're aping.
>You're asserting -ism
Please don't pin such baggage onto my posts. Address what I write and nothing besides this.
>one must point to a physical organ by which an individual can come to objective beliefs.
Rather, one must demonstrate or explain how one's biology is capable of harboring objective, universal, or absolute knowledge, to assert that it is.
>you're shifting the burden of your beliefs onto others
It is not my responsibility to demonstrate or explain your position, it is yours.
>Please don't pin such baggage onto my posts.
I'm not. You yourself did via the assertion that one must adopt a materialist position in order to refute your assertion. You weren't conscious of this because you're not very good at dialectics. This is why you're stuck in a loop of deflecting the burden of your beliefs onto others and shift the onus for them away from justification. The shakiness of your platform is betrayed by your personal insecurity.
>Rather, one must demonstrate or explain how one's biology is capable of harboring objective, universal, or absolute knowledge, to assert that it is.
No. One can make a transcendental argument that we simply have limited access. The basis of the Abrahamic religions is accepting such humility and being prepared for failure due to the inherent limitations of being human. Such limitation is an objective truth no matter how much you want it to be a postulate.
>It is not my responsibility to demonstrate or explain your position, it is yours.
No, anon. The fact is you appeal to complexity and give a Fermi solution without an understanding of the Bayesian structure you're pretending towards. You then obfuscate the fact you're making an assertion that by its own logic cannot be objective. This is why you're stuck in a loop and don't understand when others have pointed out the fault in your logic.
What is the basis for considering the body as having "limited access" to knowledge of a nature which said body isn't?
You're once again deflecting the onus of your beliefs onto me instead of justifying them yourself. The reason I'm writing this again before engaging your slide is that the unfounded assertion you're making is that everything is material; as such you'll reframe everything according to this without even realizing you're being disingenuous. This is why Marxist materialism was used as an examplar of something that is unfalsifiable by Popper. You assert that others must adopt your framework in order to refute it when this simply isn't the case; it can be rejected (especially since its logic is self-refuting anyway).
So, you'll want to argue that all understanding is just brain states and in the end it's all we have access to in order to understand the world. However, the external world I'm interacting with isn't simply a manifestation of my brain state or else I could cause whatever I wanted to materialize (I also have the benefit of interacting with other minds that will deny hallucinations). You can then retreat to solipsism but the fact is I can accept limitations on my understanding without framing them as materialistic (i.e. your assertion doesnt have a monopoly on the concept of human limitations be they physical or otherwise). There's also arguments toward the idea that something like colour doesn't exist and it's just the way one's brain interprets light waves but we still have a concept of color even if it isn't a fundemental aspect of physical reality (whatever is meant by "fundemental aspect"). Basically, by your own logic you have no means by which to objectively compare one brain state to another so you can't make a Bayesian style argument or pretend toward a Fermi solution that defines consciousness as material.
So anon, if you want to argue there is no objective foundation to human knowledge outside of materialism that's one thing but you can't take it to be self evident and then pretend you're engaging in a dialectic. That's just dumb.
The brain
What about it makes it capable?
You didn't answer my post.
Neurology and biology can't make God an antiquated concept. They can't deal with the supernatural. Claiming they can shows an ignorance of science (and the state of neurology in particular).
I answered it, just not in a way that you like.
You didn't.
I did.
No, you didn't. You went full DeGrasse Tyson trying to claim neuroscience makes believing in God antiquated. When you don't even know the state of Neuroscience.
Fedoras will bring science into their arguments without even having basic knowledge of calculus.
I did, and there is nothing left to say besides what I already said.
You didn't.
Yes, we got what you were saying. It's you who did not get what I was saying.
What a pointless and out of place reply to my post.
All things are received in the manner of the receiver. The problem you are referring to, how the finite can know the infinite, isn't something you need modern science to understand. It's been a going issue in philosophy from the very begining. However, there are also many good answers to this, see Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas.
No organ in the body is a receiver, and philosophy will end this century (its ending began in the 19th).
They'd be wise to abandon a concept that no longer makes sense, but they don't need to, of course.
The human body is incapable of receiving knowledge?
And how exactly do you know that this is true? Through which organ do you know this Anon?
It does not receive, but manufacture, a process which is observable.
The eliminitivist does not need to worry about self-refutation. They have already pointed out how science demonstrates our cognitive blind spots and how it is that we are subject to cognitive illusion. Truth is just a sense activated by neurons firing.
>They'd be wise to abandon a concept that no longer makes sense, but they don't need to, of course.
Well, why do you think it doesn't make sense? Where is your truth organ that says this?
>why do you think it doesn't make sense?
Given what we have observed in nature over millennia of survey and analysis, it no longer makes sense to not consider humans as animals, and to consider any knowledge possessed by animals as being objective, universal, or absolute.
What truth organ do you have to say this?
The brain, except I don't consider "truth" as objective, universal, or absolute, but as evolutionary / biological — in other words, a brain which still struggles to reach these conclusions is less evolved.
You obviously have a lot of faith, so you must have a lot of faith in mathematics since science doesn't work without it. But mathematics certainly seems to involve some organ or another discovering truths about infinites, infinitesimals, what absolutely follows giving y starting axioms, etc.
Nothing about mathematics is objective, universal, or absolute.
I see, so under the axioms of Euclidean geometry sometimes a triangle's angles can sum to more than two right angles?
You seem to be operating under some confused definition of "objective" here at the very least.
But surely we can trust mathematics to get us correct or correct enough answers since otherwise you couldn't believe in science. Yet then it seems we can be "correct enough," about infinite things, and so perhaps we can be correct enough about God.
All knowledge only helps us better understand ourselves.
You didn't answer his question
I did.
I never asserted that my position is "self-evident." I asserted that it is evolutionary.
I never asserted that my position is "objective truth." I asserted that it is evolutionary.
You argue from an untenable position — that your body is capable of harboring objective, universal, or absolute truth. Dialectic, again, can make any position sound convincing, and this is all you have given me.
You have tons of hidden assumptions of what you consider to be an objective truth, but you are trying to hide it on relativism.
Including your silly "evolutionary" claims. Let's go inside your silly ideology on its own terms. Why would it be better to be more evolutionary evolved? Why would your claims be more evolutionary evolved than others?
I don't consider my position to be objective, universal, or absolute, and I've stated this many times and even explained how so. This is akin to an ad hom at this point.
>Why would your claims be more evolutionary evolved than others?
My position takes more recent observations into consideration.
Is a man who calls himself a woman, a woman?
Depends on your definition, but not according to mine, no.
Why not? Doesn't it go against your own evolutionary idea? The International Psychology Associations say that transgender women are women.
And might I say, this new definition of woman is younger than the older one.
I'm
* Than the other one
Younger than the older one is repetitive
The "new definition" of woman isn't based on more recent observations, and my definition of a woman (an adult biological female) isn't scrutinized by such observations.
Yes, it is. We have new theories about what is a woman, we have new information on what makes a man thinks he is a woman and we have the new phenomenon of many young people claiming they are non-binary and many other genders we haven't seen before.
Which recent observations have scrutinized my definition?
Many new people arguing to have been born in a different gender and the position of psychologists on them.
I also don't believe in their claims. But on your terms, shouldn't you believe in the new theories?
>But on your terms, shouldn't you believe in the new theories?
No, because they're not based on recent observations. Psychology is largely a continuation of other antiquated concepts like "metaphysics," hence why it's often referred to as pseudo-science.
>Psychology is largely a continuation of other antiquated concepts like "metaphysics," hence why it's often referred to as pseudo-science.
I'm not going to entertain the rest of your post as its meaningless and your theory is fairly weak and contradictory.
But that said: Psychology, for all its problems, is very empirical.
Freud and Jung were only partially empirical. They pumped a lot of metaphysical bullshit into their theories and very very influential figures in the field. Modern troony shit is the result of this.
Freud and Jung are more or less "literal whos" in Academic Psychology. Similar to Marx in Economics. I don't think Psychology is in a good state, but you have a very inaccurate view of Psychology.
Bullshit, Freud and Jung are still referred to all the time, and the role they played has had a lasting effect on psychology. They're largely the reason why psychology is often referred to as pseudo-science.
But this isn't the end of the argument. Trannies (not including the ones who make attempts to biologically change themselves into women) define women in a metaphysical sense, not a biological sense, hence why they refer to the female "gender" as opposed to the female "sex." They dislocate gender from sex like the metaphysician dislocates words from experience until his sentences refer to nothing with an experiential or biological basis.
the sex-gender distinction goes back to beauvoir, preceding the conception of trans people by decades. it’s also an increasingly outmoded concept in queer theory circles, with butler criticizing the idea of strictly defined biological sex as far back as the 90s. if you’re going to make a high-iq philosophical attack on trans people, do some fricking reading first you moron.
Excuse me for not being as interested in reading about trannies as much as you are. Regardless, anyone can see the rabbit hole from a mile away. These people do not define their terms from a biological standpoint, and the ones that do actually do try to biologically change themselves into women.
Lol. Considering the shit he's citing is less academic investigation and more the development of language for indoctrination you could have just wrote "women don't have penises" and referred him to Kindergarten Cop.
You have no idea about Psychology Academia.
Freud and Jung are not studied. They are far more interested in empirical questions.
The first thing they tell you in Psych100 is Freud is controversial but not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. His theories are still relevant in clinical psychology and his influence is spread throughout pretty much every subdiscipline (for better and worse).
Go open any journal of psychology. You won't find Freudian psychology there. You will mostly find empirical studies.
Even in clinical psychology, CBT is far more widely used than Freudian psychoanalysis.
>Go open any journal of psychology. You won't find Freudian psychology there. You will mostly find empirical studies.
Which can't be replicated.
>Even in clinical psychology, CBT is far more widely used than Freudian psychoanalysis
The lineage of CBT can be traced to psychoanalysis and it's currently being replaced with a paradigm dependant on psychopharmaceuticals (i.e. patient centered therapy by way of Rogers has been diminished).
Freud isn't a "literal who" in academic psychology, moron. That's like saying Newton is a literal who in physics because theorists no longer subscribe to Newtonianism. You're dumb.
How is Freud in any way similar to Newton? If anything he is more similar to Marx.
And CBT's lineage comes from the Stoics, if anything.
>How is Freud in any way similar to Newton?
They both set up paradigms to the extent their influence is still felt even if those operating within them are unaware.
>And CBT's lineage comes from the Stoics, if anything.
Ah, so you know nothing about the history of psychology and are talking out of your ass. Figures. You probably don't even know what caused the move in psychology away from mental events to observable behavior that can be quantified (i.e. Skinner).
Here is what Albert Ellis himself has to say:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-10996-009
>Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) is the first of the modern cognitive behavior therapies (CBTs) and was developed from 1953 to 1955, after I had abandoned the practice of psychoanalysis, which I had been doing since 1947. I was therefore a neo-Freudian—and more of a neo-Adlerian—who followed the procedures of Karen Horney, Erich Fromm, and other analytic revisionists. I also used the humanistic-existentialist teachings of my training analyst, Dr. Richard Hulbeck. I decided in 1953 to stop calling myself an analyst and became much more active-directive and behavioral than I had previously been. During my teens, I devoured Asian, Greek, and Roman philosophy, especially that of Confucius, Lao-Tsu, Siddharta Gautama Buddha, Socrates, Epicurus, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, and started formulating my own rational principles. Unfortunately, my psychoanalytic training and practice sidetracked me somewhat. So when I largely abandoned psychoanalysis for more cognitive-behavioral methods, I reread considerable philosophy and came up with REBT, which combines behaviorism with philosophy.
>you're correct that I don't have a grasp on the history of psychology so here's an appeal to authority that doesn't prove what I think it does
Lol
>Freud and Jung are more or less "literal whos" in Academic Psychology.
No they're not. Freud initially wanted to ground his theories in materialism but recognized the technology didn't exist for him to do so. I'd have to look up the exact theory but Freud's concept of how the brain stores memory/experience remains one of the foundational heuristics of psychology/neuroscience (his relationship to "psychoanalysis" just overshadows else).
Is it not tiresome constantly lying to yourself?
>I never asserted that my position is "self-evident." I asserted that it is evolutionary.
Hence me bringing up Bayesianism and Fermi solutions (because, as the other anon alluded, you have an obvious bias toward (pop)Scientism).
So, we've established you don't have any knowledge to lend to the conversation at hand, will use the idea of "dialectic" without truely understand the nature of such a method, and can't address your own misgivings (e.g. objectivity organ) no matter how many times and in however many ways they're pointed out to you. When something is too complicated you cope by unconsciously falling back on a cheap skepticism you're not even willing to elaborate on (likely due to unconscious intellectual insecurities).
I think we're done here.
>your own misgivings (e.g. objectivity organ)
Where's the "misgiving" here?
>no matter how many times and in however many ways they're pointed out to you. (
Hence me bringing up Bayesianism and Fermi solutions (because, as the other anon alluded, you have an obvious bias toward (pop)Scientism).
So, we've established you don't have any knowledge to lend to the conversation at hand, will use the idea of "dialectic" without truely understand the nature of such a method, and can't address your own misgivings (e.g. objectivity organ) no matter how many times and in however many ways they're pointed out to you. When something is too complicated you cope by unconsciously falling back on a cheap skepticism you're not even willing to elaborate on (likely due to unconscious intellectual insecurities).
I think we're done here.)
Unless you actually have something to add we're done here.
What truth organ do you have to claim there is no objective truth and which view is more or less evolutionary evolved?
I already answered this.
You are just asserting a bunch of pseudo-intellectual trash with weak links to evolutionary biology as if it were the objective truth, while claiming there is no objective truth.
>as if it were the objective truth
No, this is just your projection, since your ability to comprehend me is very poor.
You are arguing with the hidden assumption that your trash theory is the objective truth and can be used to judge other claims to truth.
You are just not being courageous enough to openly express your assumptions, but trying to hide it with a relativist trick when called up on it.
Not acceptable. We need god to cure the sick plant
Dogma of the non-entity, everyone. Get your eye-full.
Think of it like this. A machine which has been instructed to do a task would have no incentive to fault unless it was corrupted by external forces. It can't conjure up its own corruption because it's not in its interest. Morality is like a foreign concept to it which itself can naturally corrupt (for God only knows what reasons)
Moral behavior is neural social conditioning. That's all. It doesn't require the existence of a god, although it perhaps creates a belief in a god, but all belief is just neural conditioning as well.
>For ezample, the same normie atheists who praise sexual freedom will say that rape is evil because...
It tramples on other people's sexual freedom
Those people were sick in the head to begin with. Christianity is to blame for having preserved their shitty genes into the modern age.
We need a definitive god to clear out all of the misunderstandings his/her followers have had (be it a lack on their cognitive part of being planted their by evil/malicious sources to subvert) on their journey towards him/her
Which has to be morally consistent according to the divine christian tradition of course
It's all according to the Script. Christ is coming soon.
Christians are only good because they don't want to be punished in the fictional afterlife, you are better off learning ethics from the pre Christian philosophers, morality does not require a belief in some incorporeal being.
>Christians are only good because they don't want to be punished in the fictional afterlife,
That's false.
>you are better off learning ethics from the pre Christian philosophers, morality does not require a belief in some incorporeal being.
The Greek philosophers did have a theological view of morality.
>That's false.
How is it? they are literally doing it for selfish reasons as not to get punished in the afterlife
>The Greek philosophers did have a theological view of morality
That depends entirely on which ones you are referring to, the Stoics thought the whole cosmos was some kind of rational force(logos) but they didn't really think it was some incorporeal being, as everything was material. They also held the view that we have natural preconceptions to be good but that it gets corrupted.
>How is it? they are literally doing it for selfish reasons as not to get punished in the afterlife
Fear of punishment is not why you have to follow God's will.
>That depends entirely on which ones you are referring to, the Stoics thought the whole cosmos was some kind of rational force(logos) but they didn't really think it was some incorporeal being, as everything was material. They also held the view that we have natural preconceptions to be good but that it gets corrupted.
The Stoic philosophy was very theological in nature. Virtue, for the Stoics is to conform yourself to Divine Will. The Sage would be someone with knowledge of divine and human matters who follow the Divine Will "consistently"
>Virtue, for the Stoics is to conform yourself to Divine Will.
everybody laugh at this homie, he read the stoics in translation
You are just trying to avoid recognizing you were wrong.
christian anglo translators mangle all kinds of words to imply that a belief system is just christianity wearing a hat. they did it to the chinese “mandate of heaven,” to confucius’ “rituals,” to the greek “logos,” to plato’s “realm of the forms,” and so on and so on. it’s the equivalent of an arab assuming everyone who mentions anything even resembling divinity is talking about allah, or an atheist dismissing all religions as fundamentally the same. by participating in this willful ignorance, you’re watering down your own faith.
So, when the Stoics are making hymns to Zeus and talking about Divine Providence, they actually mean Richard Dawkins and science ®?
Yes. When people accidentally refer to fake causes instead of real ones they might still say worthwhile things, they just have the real causes mixed up. The real causes are always matter.
You were arguing the Stoics didn't have a theological view of the world and that the impression they had is due to English translators.
So, when the Stoics are making hymns to Zeus and talking about Divine Providence, what are they talking about? In the Divine? Or in something else?
obviously not. the point is much more basic. to the greeks, there is no one divine will; there are many gods with contradictory wills. to act in accordance with logos is simply not to resist your nature, or your position in the universe. a hymn to zeus isn’t an act of submission to a monotheistic god who decrees right and wrong; it’s a pledge of allegiance to the most powerful god among many, remarkable not for his virtue but for his strength. keep in mind that this is the same zeus who regularly transforms into animals and rapes women while in animal form. the virtue isn’t in following zeus’ ethics, but in knowing better than to resist him, just as one knows better than to resist any other force of nature.
You didn't read Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus and you don't know what the Stoics thought about the nature of the world and the nature of the gods.
ah, yes, a hymn. surely translators would communicate the ideas in a hymn without relating it to the monotheistic hymns of their times. surely the christian conception of virtue would never cloud a reading of the greek conception of virtue. surely.
sarcasm aside, treating a non-philosopher as your primary source for understanding stoicism is silly. that would be like listening to christian rock to understand theology.
>sarcasm aside, treating a non-philosopher as your primary source for understanding stoicism is silly.
Hahahahahaha
>Cleanthes
>Non-philosopher
I'm
My post was unnecessarily aggressive. Sorry.
But you are very wrong. Your posts show you have almost zero knowledge of Stoicism.
>ah, yes, a hymn. surely translators would communicate the ideas in a hymn without relating it to the monotheistic hymns of their times. surely the christian conception of virtue would never cloud a reading of the greek conception of virtue. surely.
There is no possible way of translating the Stoics where they didn't have a religious view of their philosophy. This can be seen in Pagan commentaries on Stoic philosophy, for instance.
Also, Modern Stoics are mostly atheistic. They don't disagree that Ancient Stoicism was religious in nature. They just "throw away" that part and try to get the therapeutical one. In my opinion, it doesn't make sense. But anyway, they don't deny that Ancient Stoics were religious.
>sarcasm aside, treating a non-philosopher as your primary source for understanding stoicism is silly. that would be like listening to christian rock to understand theology.
What I'm going to say is very basic knowledge.
Cleanthes was one of the most important Stoic philosophers.
He was a direct student of the founder of Stoicism. The 2nd Head of the Stoic school. The master of the most influential Stoic philosopher. The man who coined the Stoic motto of "Living in accordance with Nature".
All predicted by Nietzsche but christlarpers insist rolling back to nihilistic utopian egalitarianism with Christlike characteristics will somehow prevent this
>Christcucks still can't debate atheists without strawman.
Morality is the sum of all value-judgments of a particular group with a cohesive, unified view of the world. You can't not have morality because everybody has views that they hold to be ideal or at least better than others, and everybody also has views about people and groups besides themselves and their ingroup.
Modern sentiments in general disturb me quite frequently. As far as I can tell, there’s never been a civilization that abandoned virtue to the degree that ours has.
>As far as I can tell, there’s never been a civilization that abandoned virtue to the degree that ours has.
There's probably a reference point in Ancient Greek history (albeit recorded in their myth/history hybrid). Maybe also the Hittites? I don't have enough background knowledge here but other anons probably do.
No, I’ve looked. There are analogues but only in relation and not degree. The late Roman Republic was lacking in moral virtue by Roman standards but not to the degree you could say our civilization lacks moral virtue by Western standards. That’s the enormous irony. The pre-Christian pagans are ironically better Christians than we are.
Failure to live up to societal values is probably something that goes mostly unrecorded. Just look at how neurotic things like "White Fragility" and "Anti-racist Baby" come across if you hesitate drinking the Kool-Aid (they even rewrote the former into a younger learners version to indoctrinate at the grade school level).
If the person biologically resembles an adult human female, then that person is a woman. It doesn't matter whether that person was a biological female at birth or not.
Are you suggesting yet again that I'm asserting my position as something I'm not? Because if so, then yes, we're done here; our conversation is beginning to feel like animal abuse, anyway.
So, we've established you don't have any knowledge to lend to the conversation at hand, will use the idea of "dialectic" without understanding the nature of such a method, and can't address your own misgivings (e.g. objectivity organ) no matter how many times and in however many ways they're pointed out to you. When something is too complicated you cope by unconsciously falling back on a cheap skepticism you're not even willing to elaborate on (likely due to subconscious intellectual insecurities).
Done.
You're too stupid for this conversation.
>no you
No you.
>Anybody else disturbed by atheist normies' moral nihilism?
Not really. Most people do not nor have ever developed their own morals. For most of human canon people outsource their morality to the group consensus, they do not think 'is this moral' they think at conscious and unconscious levels 'what will everyone else say or do if I consider this moral'. It is why people get taken in by trends, propaganda, and dumb pop-political movements. This is, to some degree, a smart thing to do. If you are surrounded by 99 people who say something is black, when it is in fact white, it is not necessarily a good idea to fight that battle.
Unironcly i think the only people that can maintain their moral fiber as atheists are autists. Normies simply can't
I’m an atheist and I have strong morals. What now? If you need to be told the difference between right and wrong and you don’t instinctively intuit it, you weren’t a moral person to begin with
I'm disturbed by the fact that they have never truly had a re-consideration of all values. You might say "But what about the m-m,uh lefties". No, a true. Harsh. consideration of all your values. That's the problem. These people don't go through with it rigorously and most of them just have this vague rejection of whatever their parents liked. This sign of weakness goes both ways. Rejecting your parents in the pure act of rejection is moronic. Following them in the pure act of following them is moronic. Truly re-consider everything.
Most people won't do it because it would break them.
Also OP you know most people just vaguely follow along a set of strings of a social moral system right? Whether its christianity or something else... Most people don't usually think about these kinds of things and just go through the systems and the motions life provides them
I think people inherit their morals from their civilization to a huge degree. In that sense, they don’t arrive at morals philosophically, but only attempt to defend them philosophically. If the status quo is one that affirms moral nihilism, that is what many people will accept as moral and they will only take any interest in philosophy in so far as philosophy it is useful for defending that status quo and if it’s not useful, they won’t engage with it or introspect at all.
> discovers there is no God
Not even possible pseud. They delude themselves, just like they delude themselves in regard to morals.
>leftism
What ? Are you mentally moronic? Were you dropped on your head in infancy????
Chuds aren't conservatives.
Christianity is decadent and nihilistic too. But yes, that is a normal response.
Very few people are able to life a moral life without some religion, to do that requires gigantic amounts of wisdom, Courage and empathy.
Thats why most people if they lose their faith switch to another faith. Nihilism and wokeness for example turn to an alternate religion for them.
Existentialism is a sort of religion too. Unfortunately, it leads to dogmatically pushing bad philosophy of science. There really is not good empirical support for reductionism but it is assumed to be true until decisively proven otherwise? Why? Have we had a whole ton of successful reductions? Nope. Even basic quantum phenomena show emergence and chemistry hasn't been reduced after 100+ years and vast leaps in computational power.
But the existentialist needs something like reductionism to be true so that the world is absurd, meaningless, and valueless. They can't have the possibility of a natural grounding of value, and you see this even coming up in the EES debate in biology. Despite all the evidence, evolution has to remain absolutely mindless and about only genes, and so you get dogmatic enforcement from on high and handwringing about teleology somehow coming back.
But this stuff is basically the substitute for religion for many in the academy, and so the problem is similar to when research challenged the foundations of Christianity.
Since Camus and Sartre's day the positivist vision of truth as objectivity has been BTFO, while relationality and context has been shown to be essential to the concept of information (which in turn is huge across the sciences), leading to their asking for "inherit, objective, in-itself meaning," looking like a strawman. Basically, it finds no meaning and value in the world based on a broken definition of what "objective" would mean. Now objectivity tends to be grounded in intersubjectivity, because the positivist view led to incoherence.
>Freud, the pioneer of psychology, is a literal who in psychology
Lol. He’s probably the only one most people know
In Academic Psychology, he is.
So you’re telling me academic psychologists don’t know Freud? Lulz
Here is an article about Freud not being taught
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/weekinreview/25cohen.html
>For some reason when a normie discovers that there is no God he immediately rejects moral and societal norms
this doesn't happen. in fact, when you look at a list of countries ranked by "certainty in the existence in god" you tend to find the safest, highest quality of life, most stable countries have the lowest rates of belief, and the higher the "certainty" rate is, the more of a shit hole that country is. you seem to be inventing things in your head to be afraid of.
East Germany, famous for having happy people with a high quality of life.
It's a meaningless correlation. There are tons of outliers and regional outliers as well. It has more to do with the Protestant to atheist pipeline than wealth levels. When people say religions is "virtually dead" in Europe they ignore a good deal of Europe.
I don't think this correlation implies what you think it implies. Wealth affects religiousness, not the other way around.
normies that don't worship god worship the state and follow the civic religion, they worship Black folk and homosexuals. atheists are more ardent libtards than any other demographic, even more than israelites, gays, black women etc
Fedora tippers won't admit that even though their movement fell apart because of "her penis" bullshit.
>they worship Black folk
meanwhile, Black folk are the only ones who still worship abrahamic god.
90% of nu-Christians immediately adopt bigoted constructs against other people right away so no, none of that worries me.
> he immediately rejects moral and societal norms of Christianity
You mean the ones that were put there by society in the first place?
I can't understand this perspective that people are somehow born with morality and belief in god as if they were reading the bible in the womb and then they "discover" something else.
What you are disturbed by is the natural default state of a human being which seems unhealthy and counterproductive to say the least.
belief in gods is pretty much universal.
>when a normie discovers that there is no God
>rejects moral and societal norms of Christianity and starts engaging in ungodly leftist cultism
leftism IS Christianity, you dimwit.
Because Hegel was continuing the tradition of Eriugena, Meister Eckhart, Nicholas of Cusa and Jacob Boehme.
Because semi-Actualization of the Absolute, i.e. merging with God, i.e. universalism, i.e. elimination of all the differences, i.e. apocalypticism.