So without God, morality is insufficient. Why be moral and just when all is finite and material, there is often great benefit to being immoral and unjust, and it ultimately doesnt matter because there is no ultimate? Because it's good? Circular reasoning. Because it feels good? Immortality and injustice can feel good too.
Honestly, those of us who don't believe in God have no good rebuttals to this. We can only affirm the statement. I imagine Nietzsche would say "Yes" while the rest of us squirm in discomfort. Being a "good person" is not enough, was never enough, and never will be enough, and you know it.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
but i do not like squirming in discomfort
No matter the path one takes, if one is sincere with oneself and is guided with genuine interest and desire to do good, one inevitably ends up with God. Some will pretend they don't need Him and end up having the delusion of making up their own morals because they think too highly of themselves. This facade does not tend to last long before a pitfall.
A theory of transfinite purpose/valuation/good does not necessarily imply God, certainly not as a personage or a thing with finitely describable characteristics
Being a good person is sufficient it’s just a matter of the faith perverting what’s good and what’s bad with a religion of nihilism.
so what is good?
Nihilism is reality. Humans have created through their inherently selfish desires a self imposed responsibility to manifest the best possible social ordering system to restrict those desires to better reward behaviors that prolong the species and curtail behaviors which harm the species. What that looks like varies wildly, but it sure as hell isn't clinging to a prototype system from before mass communication. We've lost the plot because mass communication has made the whingeing of the individual much much louder than the whisperings of the collective.
In the future this will be a dead discussion. We will utilize technology which even now we already possess to control from birth to death the flow of stimulus an individual encounters. Humans are purely reactive creatures and incapable of creation. Every sight, sound, sensory input will be intentioned. A clockmaker world where everyone is guided to the right place at the right time of their own volition because of the fidelity of the signals and the hopeless ignorance of the vessel to comprehend such complexities.
Feel like talking to someone? It's because of the stimulus you were fed which inspired that thought. When you walk outside with that intention you run into someone else bearing that same intention and your meeting was scheduled without either of you ever being made aware. Nonstop synchronicity generation. Feel like being a sperg monkey and disrupting the order? All the content individuals will be guided away from your presence and you will encounter only other fellow shit flinging morons while you all collectively sperg out impotently.
take your autism pills, pls
according to your logic, why should one trust said technology when it is liable to the selfish desires and/or views of its creator?
You don't understand what I'm saying. The individual's opinions in a clockmaker world are irrelevant because they are all intentionally manufactured. Reactive vessels are fated to be leashed and collared by the much more vital and living symbols. Vessels are just actors giving varying degrees of shit performances of pure symbols. The future is where the image comes to life. The internal opinions of an individual are pointless. It can generate whatever nonsense it wants as it is lead by the nose by living symbols.
i think i get it but living symbols? are you a materialist or a jungian? make up your mind.
but what if it is more beneficial for the creator to create a world of madness and misery through the power of unbridled hedonism? technology was once used to lift people up but now it's just used to push them down.
For a direct answer: the orchestration will create nonstop synchronicities for the individuals who participate. Those who participate will live lives full of meaning. Those who reject the system will encounter only madness and misery.
May the fairest and most prosperous stimulus find you from the Great and Omnipotent AI, brother. Let It be your guide.
>Feel like being a sperg monkey and disrupting the order? All the content individuals will be guided away from your presence and you will encounter only other fellow shit flinging morons while you all collectively sperg out impotently.
I liked your post until this part. We all know that spergs wouldn't be allowed to fling shit with other morons, because it might disrupt that 'beautiful intentional' world others exist in.
A lot of adverbs can be attached to 'sperging out', but 'impotently' is not one of them.
Yes, back in the golden age, when people were more sane and reasonable, they invented gods for this reason. Without a supernatural, impartial judge of morality, all morality is relative and basically what you have is might is right, law of the jungle etc. Up until very recent times even kings and shit like that had some restraint, because everyone agreed they could be held accountable according to such supernatural, impartial principles. Kant did sort of an effort to reform this shit and cram christcuck morality into atheism, but failed spectacularly since his categorical imperative isn't even logically consistent with itself.
Now, anything goes and no one has any real arguments against it or any real moral foundation to do anything about it. The aristocracy is raping babies? Oh, well, that's awful, life goes on. Now they're pushing experimental drugs on the peasants? Man, that sucks, oh well, shame on them I guess, someone should do something about that. We're just barely a century into the materialist dystopia and we're already at manmade horrors beyond your comprehension stage. Imagine how horrible it's going to become.
This is the future you chose when you discarded the tens of thousands of years old established foundation for civilization. Oh well. At least you degenerate materialists got a brief blip of hedonism before the real terrors begin.
Trust is extremely important for our own happiness. Giving gratitude and receiving gratitude provides such a warmth that can't easily be replaced with materialism. You see this in the eyes. It's as human as it gets. If you really want to dominate then breed a bunch of women in the 3rd world
Therefor God - and your soul - must exist. Its not hard to understand.
>it ultimately doesnt matter because there is no ultimate
Make one.
The best are simply better at something, be better at more.
>So without God, morality is insufficient.
Who cares. That stuff only exist in the realm of logic, but humans can and will go against it. You can write essay on why it's just to kill granny with an axe, but still get tortured after.
The question of why you should be moral is just an illegitimate one. You're essentially asking, "Why should I do what I should do?" The question answers itself. So, once you concede that something is the moral thing to do, you've already conceded that you have a reason to do it, or else you just haven't understood the concept of morality.
>You should because...you just should, okay?!
Not very compelling
If you care about being rational, you should find it compelling.
>It's rational because...it just is, okay?!
And why should you care? C'mon, try harder.
Well if someone doesn't care about being rational, it's obviously not going to be possible to reason with that person. I'm not sure what point you think you're making.
So you don't know.
I mean, I just gave you my answer.
The question is why the conventionally moral things are the *truly* moral things, or just moral things by definition, as you say. "Why should I do what people tell me I should do?", and you won't argue yourself out of this social structure of morality itself, because it's about human relations.
>The question is why the conventionally moral things are the *truly* moral things
In that case, for any action, if that action is truly moral, the fact of its being moral will just have an explanation in normative ethics. So, it will be moral because it fulfills a duty, because it's virtuous, or because it maximises utility, etc.
If your conscience isn't pointing you in the objectively right direction, that's a skill issue and you're dysgenic. Try having a soul, nerd.
Your "conscience" is a set of socially conditioned responses and instinctive pangs of guilt and shame, like dogs have when they couldn't stop themselves from digging through trash and then look away from the owner.
You're a sentimentalist homosexual
actually he's a Sensitive Young Man, unlike (You).
I like to hurt people, so that's moral in my opinion.
How can any half-intelligent person believe "everything is permitted" when society and nature have checks and balances in place? Like if you do something dangerous, you get hurt or die. If you make an enemy of the wrong person, your life is ruined.
People don't just get away with things, they still get sick, they still fail, they are still subject to fortune. And to the extent they do get away with anything, it's 9/10s wealth and status, and 1/10 good luck, it has nothing whatsoever to do with how much society at large believes in the israeli-flavoured Demiurge.
>How can any half-intelligent person believe "everything is permitted" when society and nature have checks and balances in place?
Why should you care? None of those work perfectly. YOLO, you die and that's it.
I've gotten away with lots of shit.
Do normgroids really have to be scared of God to not act like torturous chimpanzees?
It's insane how much of a brainlet he was. If God doesn't exist, atheists have no basis for their moral principles. It's really that simple. The least intelligent view you could hold is that God doesn't exist. To the intelligent man, very few things are actually permitted.
it's a figure of speech, midwit. he was against industralism, which while pushed by intelligent men led to many immoralities.
Read the book, dog.