everything is only "permitted" when God is the authority who permits or forbids you to do things. Sorry chud but we follow the social contract these days.
>we follow the social contract these days.
How's that working out?
https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1693362825765224528
https://twitter.com/JebraFaushay/status/1693425803269177752
https://twitter.com/brixwe/status/1692183848992280972
you participate in society so yes you did, and even if you didn't, the state will still not permit you to do anything you want. you would have to get enough people to overthrow the state, but then you would just be signing the contract with the new state you create.
Apparently that isn't actually something he said.
Social contract is a bunk notion because it lacks basically all of the concepts of contracts. In truth behavior is regulated through coercion.
and who coerces us? everyone else does, and we like that we can coerce others.
>the state will still not permit you to do anything you want
Of course it won't, but that's no reason to assume what the state says is a moral command. There is no social contract, only what you are capable of taking for yourself, and what you aren't capable of taking for yourself. There is simply no reason to care about what the state permits or doesn't permit, apart from what you can't get away with. But it's impossible to escape God. You won't get away with anything. Better yet, God actually establishes objective moral principles that are intrinsically good, so you wouldn't want to harm other people for your own benefit if your will and understanding is aligned with God's. All the state does is try to maximize wealth in one form or another.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>There is simply no reason to care about what the state permits or doesn't permit, apart from what you can't get away with
it's literally the same case with god, except you can't get away with anything.
9 months ago
Anonymous
No, not at all. Read the last two sentences in my post. The state cannot be responsible for objective moral principles that are intrinsically good.
Okay and do you have imagine you have a social contract with a state guided by ethical principles? If so, which principles and where do they come from? Obviously, we don’t keep chattel slaves even though that would arguably be efficient so why don’t we do that?
Slavery was practiced by Christians for hundreds and hundreds of years. If we at some point decided it was wrong, it was by something other than the bible. Those ethics come from somewhere else.
But that’s been easily refuted many times. All they do is point out that public “self-interest” aligns with cultural “self-interest”. As true individuals my self-interest need not align with yours. Neither Locke nor Hobbes nor even Rousseau ever address this. They just justified in secular terms what was already normative and justified by the church.
I don't get this argument. If Christians think that people are fundamentally immoral and need to follow a set of rules in order to be good, they are actual psycopaths. Most Christians don't argue for that though, they say that there is some innate aspect of our consciousness that can inform what is bad and what is good. The atheist is perfectly happy to grant this, but claims it is something instinctually gained and entirely physiological. There are plenty of things innate to man that can be explained biologically, the instinct to suckle, the complex motions required to breath, the various emotions common to all men; why is empathy towards kin somehow exempt? A fully developed moral system is obviously not innate to man, look at how various primitive cultures treat human life and property outside of a kin-group, or how they value the life of animals and children and the sick. Nor is it difficult to see how a moral system evolves out of some base instincts, Aristotle points out that it is in man's nature to want to systemize and reduce to principles his experience. The preponderance of moral issues with no clear resolution is proof that our moral systems are ad hoc rather than implicit in the fabric of the universe. In short, if you accept a physiological basis for morality the atheist morality can't be denied.
>If Christians think that people are fundamentally immoral and need to follow a set of rules in order to be good, they are actual psycopaths.
This is the basis of literally every penal code ever. So only psychopaths want to ban murder, rape, and robbery, and then enforce those bans harshly enough to actually deter that kind of behavior? Are you sure you want to go down this road?
Penal codes are a relatively new concept. Look at early agricultural communities or hunter-gatherer groups. Humans can live in harmony with each other. Honor played a large role in regulating behaviour, but certainly not to the extent of murder and rape. If anything you prove my point, empathy can only extend so far. It was only to regulate behaviour of people outside of a kin group that law came into being. Once you realize that you feel empathy towards any stranger that you meet, you come logically to the conclusion that you would treat all or most people well if you knew them. It is from the disparity between your intellectual intuitions and localized moral intuitions that the moral framework arises.
Penal codes are a relatively new concept. Look at early agricultural communities or hunter-gatherer groups. Humans can live in harmony with each other. Honor played a large role in regulating behaviour, but certainly not to the extent of murder and rape. If anything you prove my point, empathy can only extend so far. It was only to regulate behaviour of people outside of a kin group that law came into being. Once you realize that you feel empathy towards any stranger that you meet, you come logically to the conclusion that you would treat all or most people well if you knew them. It is from the disparity between your intellectual intuitions and localized moral intuitions that the moral framework arises.
Your stance is also just moronic. If people need to follow a set of rules to be good, how can you decide which set of rules is the goodest? Does it come down to intuition? Is it a physiological one? Or is it an invisible moralizing cricket talking to you? Empirically the secular humanists I know are far kinder and generous than the baptists I know, but the converse could be true for someone else. I glossed over that argument because the other one merits more attention.
Penal codes are a relatively new concept. Look at early agricultural communities or hunter-gatherer groups. Humans can live in harmony with each other. Honor played a large role in regulating behaviour, but certainly not to the extent of murder and rape. If anything you prove my point, empathy can only extend so far. It was only to regulate behaviour of people outside of a kin group that law came into being. Once you realize that you feel empathy towards any stranger that you meet, you come logically to the conclusion that you would treat all or most people well if you knew them. It is from the disparity between your intellectual intuitions and localized moral intuitions that the moral framework arises.
A penal code is an index of penalties for specific actions, not for moral or ethical guidelines however the two may overlap.
>penal codes are moronic because I hate God
Man this is a step beyond Reddit.
9 months ago
Anonymous
There is nothing wrong with penal codes, they are necessary for there to be order in a society. But that is due to the limits of empathy, there has historically been ways of living that did not require law at all. Penal codes are useful pragmatically (which is why more sophisticated and equitable penal codes continue to develop), not good in virtue of their divine providence.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Okay so you acknowledge the need for the potential for retribution in order for morality to be taken seriously by men on Earth. Now you know why a God able and willing to take disciplinary action against mankind is necessary for mankind to not go off the deep end.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Which is entirely besides the point. The topic at hand is the possibility of morals and what that would look like without god.
>If Christians think that people are fundamentally immoral
Christians think man is only fundamentally immoral post-Edenic Fall. It's not that man cannot be intrinsically good, it's that it's impossible given the conditions we are subjected to after the Fall. We are saddled with infinite sin until we seek salvation in Christ, who redeems us. If atheists argue that empathy is something simply biological and instinctual, then it would have to be something fundamentally egotistical at some level, which means the atheist would have to agree with the Christian that all earthly (= instinctual) motives are sinful (if the atheist even believes that there is such a thing as morality). If the atheist does not believe in morality, then what basis is there to assert that there is an innate aspect of our "consciousness" which informs what is "good and bad"? What is "good and bad"? It's just made up by the atheist, it doesn't actually exist.
An atheist doesn't attribute bad nor good to egoism. Every man must act in his own interest in order to stay alive and must act in his own interest against the interest of others. If you care about others, you must moderate your ego but not to the expense of your life. Sin is not something atheists care about.
>What aspect of our consciousness informs good and bad
I have already given a naturalistic account of the development of morals. You are welcome to critique it.
bruh lets take the atheistic stance. we were designed by evolution, do you think part of that was to make us morally good? Yeah we were incentivized to act good sometimes but that shan't be conflated with actually being morally good and desiring to do that which is morally good. at the end of the day we're still animals whose main focus is to pass on our genes, from a purely materialist point of view atleast. god is still real though so cry more atheist homosexual anyway more news at 11.
If you genuinely wanted to humor the atheist's stance, you would have to clarify what is moral good. You are approaching it from a Christian perspective and are getting confused when atheists don't hold your suppositions. There is no hardcoded-into-the-universe moral good.
If you believe that other people undergo more or less the same experiences you do and if you care about other people then you have a nascent moral intuition. I've already given a naturalistic account of how a moral system can arise from this. It is purely descriptive, there is no "moral good" required.
The point is not to refute that proposed situation, which happens to describe a reality. The point is to take full advantage of that reality. Most sociopaths and politicians manage to do this, while autistic atheists who have been cucked with some moral sensibility get locked into a a nerd fight about god and morality where that doesn't count for anything. They are thereby neutralized while the sociopaths keep on winning until they don't, which is the whole real moral nature of our amoral reality.
By ignoring his non-sequitur
Also he implies that he's a terrible person and only the fear of punishment keeps him from eating children and killing grandmas with a bat
Fricking moronic. Take a brief glance at history. When has faith in God every stayed the pious' hands from rape, slaughter, and every other abominable act under the sun?
>When has faith in God every stayed the pious' hands from rape, slaughter, and every other abominable act under the sun?
It sure seems like it when we look at the hundreds of millions of deaths and atrocities committed under atheist communist regimes, looks to be far worse.
There's nothing to refute, it's just dumb. We are social animals and feel bad when we hurt others.
Even monkeys have an innate sense of fairness and get mad when you distribute bananas unfairly.
We live in a much more complex society than monkeys do, and it shapes our psyche in profound ways.
Good and evil, ethical and unethical, virtuous and vicious: all are artificial human values, all creations of our minds. There is no justification to support any of these values that isn't based on artificial constructs. This is why so many legal philosophies try to find some supreme and initial norm, some immutable norm, from which all other norms descend. This is where things like God, natural law, concepts like 'right to life, liberty, and property,' etc., come into play.
But the truth is that anything can be considered legislation. You can create laws that support a country or nation like Nazi Germany or The New Order in Indonesia, and you won't see the sky darken with shame or the sun dry up and wither to avoid witnessing what is happening. Electromagnetism and gravity won't become nauseated. There is no morality other than the synthetic morality created by our species.
As of today, there is no evidence of the existence of a personal God (beyond faith-based evidence), so you could say, yes, everything is permitted, everything can become law, because there is no supreme and unquestionable moral authority that supports our legal systems. Even the twisting and churning of our guts caused by witnessing the agony of others, even this empathetic response, ultimately isn't evidence that what causes visceral disgust should be considered a moral law: there is no logical construction that can sustain itself from the level of 'this is how it is' to the level of 'if this is how it is, then it must be seen in this or that way.'
To be truthful, even human actions we consider monstrous and cruel aren't, according to determinism, the 'offender's fault,' since, due to all the infinite causes and consequences that have piled up on the shoulders of that offender, their fate was already sealed when the universe was born. This means our concepts of 'guilty' are also fictions because no one truly has a choice to act in any way other than the way they will act.
With all that said, there is no doubt about the importance of our fictions, the importance of our social contract, the importance of our laws, the importance of our concepts of ethics and human dignity. Without these inventions, our civilization would be doomed to barbarism. These fictions are some of the most important technologies our species has ever created.
So, regarding Dostoevsky's phrase: yes, everything is permitted because there is no evidence that any personal Deity from which our moral laws emanate exists. However, our species was intelligent enough to organize itself in a way that creates fictions to fill the dangerous void left by the absence of eternal and unshakeable moral, legal, and ethical values.
There is nothing new in Dostoevsky's statement. It's a concept that philosophers and jurists have debated for a long time.
For anyone interested in legal issues in a world where there are no absolute values derived from a God or Natural Law, I suggest reading the works of Hans Kelsen.
Since God exists necessarily, you could add anything to the consequential part of that conditional and it would be true: "If there is no God, pigs fly", or "If there is no God, nothing is permitted", etc, are all equally true.
And that’s the point. The point is not that everything really is permitted. The point is that approaching life, and this includes the structuring of political and social life, as if God doesn’t exist is absurd. He’s basically saying “look, you don’t really believe there isn’t a God because if you did, you would permit anything, which would obviously be a disaster, but it’s a moot point because you don’t and you don’t because deep down you know God exists and so you should stop plying this game where you try to live as if he doesn’t exist but not really”
But everything indeed is permitted. So maybe we can use the reverse argument so say that God doesn't exist. If God thought fornication was bad he would've made it impossible for humans to fornicate
True. But the point remains that ut isn't contingent on God.
[...]
Always count on atheists to demonstrate for you why they are amoral degenerates. No need to even argue with them to show it.
Keep on believing that bad people will burn in hell
9 months ago
Anonymous
They do
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Keep on believing that bad people will burn in hell
All people are bad people, you dumb heathen
9 months ago
Anonymous
Yes. Everything is permitted
True. But the point remains that ut isn't contingent on God.
[...]
Keep on believing that bad people will burn in hell
Everything is permitted and you should act on it as long as you're not harming yourself. What harms and does not harm the self is the question and different for everyone.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Everything is permitted and you should
If everything is permitted then there is no "should"
9 months ago
Anonymous
Why not? You have free will.
9 months ago
Anonymous
"Should" means that I have some obligation to do something. If everything is permitted then it means breaking any and all obligations is permitted, so any "should" you make up is meaningless nonsense.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Everything is permitted, but you have to find your own advantage.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Why? Is that some rational dictate imposed by natural law on my faculty of reasoning?
9 months ago
Anonymous
Reason is not the end all be all.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I'm just asking why I have to seek my own advantage man. Is it a arational psychological drive?
9 months ago
Anonymous
Yes. Though you can always castrate yourself.
You are moronic and don't understand the implications of anything you've said.
It's better to do it but then you would be capable of action and by your own explanation you are not
9 months ago
Anonymous
>It's better
According to what? I can choose or not choose to do anything, based on anything or nothing at all. >you would be capable of action
Who said anything about capability? You're completely lost.
9 months ago
Anonymous
You can choose to die.
9 months ago
Anonymous
You have no idea what this conversation is even about. Not wasting my time anymore, atheist moron.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Oh I see. Your slave master doesn't exist, but you already know deep down. That's why you have no faith.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I took a look at your responses and you're an omega midwit even for an athiest
have a nice day
9 months ago
Anonymous
>have a nice day
How does this shit square with your homosexual religious and moral beliefs tho?
9 months ago
Anonymous
im not Christian I just think you're a moronic pseud with embarassing replies, pls rope
9 months ago
Anonymous
I don't have to "find" or "do" anything, homosexual.
9 months ago
Anonymous
You can have a nice day.
9 months ago
Anonymous
You are moronic and don't understand the implications of anything you've said.
No, it’s not. You have laws, do you not? There are social norms? You rebuke others when they transgress against you in some way. The fact that we have taboos, whether they are merely cultural, traditional, or legal is still evidence of the fact that everything is not permitted. And if you suspect that all of these only exist because of some historical power dynamic, the onus would be on you to prove that because when I go into public I certainly don’t expect that people there will have power over me nor I power over them but when they do something I dislike, I’m offended.
Permission, ethical normativity, pretty obviously cultural, but culture is necessarily religious. We live our whole lives as if we at least somewhat believe in God and we know that because we literally don’t permit everything. The irony of Western culture is that we so obviously believe in God but are so desperate not to that we rebel, and invent fantasies that cause disorder in how we live. The mandate of the West is rebellion, not detachment. So we should either stop pretending we don’t believe in God and stop rebelling against him when we clearly do believe in him or we should really live our lives as if we don’t believe, which none of us have ever done.
I think it’s because the Catholic Church was infiltrated by the CIA and hollowed out while the mainstream narrative they pushed with Operation Gladio turned people away from the clergy so the only people who wanted to become priests were maladjusted gays that wanted to sing and touch kids.
It's a consequence of enforced clerical celibacy playing out in the modern world. It isn't the old world anymore where a family might have many children and send one off to be a priest, which was an honorable career. Today you have fewer children, becoming a priest is an individual vocational choice, and it's an easy "way out" for homosexuals who don't want to abandon their Catholic family, social, and cultural sphere. They don't have any pressure to marry a woman and aren't going to be looked at strangely for remaining "single". They also get to play around with robes and lacy things. Thus the priesthood ends up in being to some degree a homosexual club. As long as you keep enforcing celibacy this will keep happening.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I don’t think that’s it.
9 months ago
Anonymous
It is. Read this, it's an example of what actually goes on in Catholic seminaries.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/gay-catholic-inside-the-seminary-closet/
9 months ago
Anonymous
I have no doubt that celibacy doesn’t help. I just don’t think that’s the main driver of priests molesting kids. I think the wrong sort of people are going into the priesthood. Celibacy only makes that more likely, but it doesn’t cause it.
It's a consequence of enforced clerical celibacy playing out in the modern world. It isn't the old world anymore where a family might have many children and send one off to be a priest, which was an honorable career. Today you have fewer children, becoming a priest is an individual vocational choice, and it's an easy "way out" for homosexuals who don't want to abandon their Catholic family, social, and cultural sphere. They don't have any pressure to marry a woman and aren't going to be looked at strangely for remaining "single". They also get to play around with robes and lacy things. Thus the priesthood ends up in being to some degree a homosexual club. As long as you keep enforcing celibacy this will keep happening.
Kant, or any of the hundreds of comprehensive secular ethical systems in the world, but Kantianism is the big one, and the one that mostly succeeded in Europe as religiosity started gradually receding.
Only people completely ignorant of the entire history of philosophy will earnestly defend the idea that God is necessary for morality, and unless the notion is presented with a very compelling critique of the major branches of secular ethics, it should be ignored, as it is most likely being delivered by a 105 IQ moron from the bible belt with zero interest in rigorous thought or philosophy and 100% interest in boring and ineffectual proselytizing.
When has God actually prevented any bad things from happening in this world? Everything is already permitted, Christianity just promises revenge in the next life.
Because they can't accept death. The slave refuses to live and subordinates. Indians bathe in cow shit, the Chinese worship filial piety, the European worships a dead israelite.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Accepting death is pathetic tbqh
9 months ago
Anonymous
you are the worst sort of nihilist
9 months ago
Anonymous
He's a slave.
9 months ago
Anonymous
He's a slave.
>having to pretend to accept something you don’t want so you aren’t le slave
The final and ultimate cuck. The only way someone who doesn’t believe in the afterlife could nobly accept death is that they either have enough looks, money, etc. to reasonably experience everything life can offer. Anyone else, which is 99.9999% of people, have every reason to hate death.
9 months ago
Anonymous
to pretend to accept something you don’t want so you aren’t le slave
aren't you pretending something you made up is real? it's cucked to live a real life? get the frick out of here
9 months ago
Anonymous
>wants to conceptualize the good life >only two things that spring clearly enough to mind to articulate is looks and money
Unironically sad, and profoundly so.
9 months ago
Anonymous
That's a good catch, it really is slave morality and ressentiment driving the "conversions" here
It would be impossible to tell how much God (or at least the idea of him) has prevented evil, though I’m fairly confident the idea of God has prevented quite a lot
everything is only "permitted" when God is the authority who permits or forbids you to do things. Sorry chud but we follow the social contract these days.
>we follow the social contract these days.
How's that working out?
https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1693362825765224528
https://twitter.com/JebraFaushay/status/1693425803269177752
https://twitter.com/brixwe/status/1692183848992280972
Cope and postulate you superhuman cisoon
>twitter links
I could not give less of a shit
Let me tl;dw for you: Big cities are shit because people do whatever the frick they want. There's your contract.
>there has literally never been immorality within Christendom
Apparently that isn't actually something he said.
Social contract is a bunk notion because it lacks basically all of the concepts of contracts. In truth behavior is regulated through coercion.
Have you read TBK?
>Have you read TBK?
Yes that is my point. People always confuse characters saying things in books for the author actually believing it.
This is often a valid argument but in this case the line simply doesn't appear in the text.
Yes, many times. That line is not in it. Sartre attributed it to Dostoyevsky and I guess everyone has just taken his word for it.
Wow! A real life moron!
I never signed it.
you participate in society so yes you did, and even if you didn't, the state will still not permit you to do anything you want. you would have to get enough people to overthrow the state, but then you would just be signing the contract with the new state you create.
and who coerces us? everyone else does, and we like that we can coerce others.
>you participate in society
I resent such accusations.
do you grow your own food or buy it at the supermarket?
Narrow worldview, you forget the three options of olde: pilfering, pillaging, and plundering
moron, not even Rousseau thought about the social contract like that. Why do idiot moderns take the theory so seriously? It’s just an analogy.
>the state will still not permit you to do anything you want
Of course it won't, but that's no reason to assume what the state says is a moral command. There is no social contract, only what you are capable of taking for yourself, and what you aren't capable of taking for yourself. There is simply no reason to care about what the state permits or doesn't permit, apart from what you can't get away with. But it's impossible to escape God. You won't get away with anything. Better yet, God actually establishes objective moral principles that are intrinsically good, so you wouldn't want to harm other people for your own benefit if your will and understanding is aligned with God's. All the state does is try to maximize wealth in one form or another.
>There is simply no reason to care about what the state permits or doesn't permit, apart from what you can't get away with
it's literally the same case with god, except you can't get away with anything.
No, not at all. Read the last two sentences in my post. The state cannot be responsible for objective moral principles that are intrinsically good.
Read Euthaphro
>the state will still not permit you to do anything you want
I can evade the states authority, no one can evade God's.
>we follow the social contract
>we follow
>we
>follow
What is the social contract? Who is "we"? And is it really followed by these "we"?
Okay and do you have imagine you have a social contract with a state guided by ethical principles? If so, which principles and where do they come from? Obviously, we don’t keep chattel slaves even though that would arguably be efficient so why don’t we do that?
Slavery was practiced by Christians for hundreds and hundreds of years. If we at some point decided it was wrong, it was by something other than the bible. Those ethics come from somewhere else.
Slavery isn't wrong in itself.
It’s grossly inaccurate to pretend Christians just endorsed and practices slavery until they decided to ban it.
Read Locke and Hobbes. The principles come from self interest.
But that’s been easily refuted many times. All they do is point out that public “self-interest” aligns with cultural “self-interest”. As true individuals my self-interest need not align with yours. Neither Locke nor Hobbes nor even Rousseau ever address this. They just justified in secular terms what was already normative and justified by the church.
Biggest moron cuck.
It’s not like God stopped any of the more wicked crimes in the past. This isn’t even a good quote.
This is something that needs an argument. Why should anyone think that if there is no God, everything is permitted?
You can't refute that which is factual.
I think someone would have to explain first how it makes any sense at all.
You don't. Even Kant agreed.
Ivan was literally right, there is no metaphysical or empirical grounding for anything normative. It's all just psychological manipulation mang
One of the most Reddit quotes ever
>Reddit
>Christian or Gnostic in any way
You're trying too hard
They literally have a Christian sub. IQfy doesn't.
I don't get this argument. If Christians think that people are fundamentally immoral and need to follow a set of rules in order to be good, they are actual psycopaths. Most Christians don't argue for that though, they say that there is some innate aspect of our consciousness that can inform what is bad and what is good. The atheist is perfectly happy to grant this, but claims it is something instinctually gained and entirely physiological. There are plenty of things innate to man that can be explained biologically, the instinct to suckle, the complex motions required to breath, the various emotions common to all men; why is empathy towards kin somehow exempt? A fully developed moral system is obviously not innate to man, look at how various primitive cultures treat human life and property outside of a kin-group, or how they value the life of animals and children and the sick. Nor is it difficult to see how a moral system evolves out of some base instincts, Aristotle points out that it is in man's nature to want to systemize and reduce to principles his experience. The preponderance of moral issues with no clear resolution is proof that our moral systems are ad hoc rather than implicit in the fabric of the universe. In short, if you accept a physiological basis for morality the atheist morality can't be denied.
>If Christians think that people are fundamentally immoral and need to follow a set of rules in order to be good, they are actual psycopaths.
This is the basis of literally every penal code ever. So only psychopaths want to ban murder, rape, and robbery, and then enforce those bans harshly enough to actually deter that kind of behavior? Are you sure you want to go down this road?
A penal code is an index of penalties for specific actions, not for moral or ethical guidelines however the two may overlap.
Penal codes are a relatively new concept. Look at early agricultural communities or hunter-gatherer groups. Humans can live in harmony with each other. Honor played a large role in regulating behaviour, but certainly not to the extent of murder and rape. If anything you prove my point, empathy can only extend so far. It was only to regulate behaviour of people outside of a kin group that law came into being. Once you realize that you feel empathy towards any stranger that you meet, you come logically to the conclusion that you would treat all or most people well if you knew them. It is from the disparity between your intellectual intuitions and localized moral intuitions that the moral framework arises.
Your stance is also just moronic. If people need to follow a set of rules to be good, how can you decide which set of rules is the goodest? Does it come down to intuition? Is it a physiological one? Or is it an invisible moralizing cricket talking to you? Empirically the secular humanists I know are far kinder and generous than the baptists I know, but the converse could be true for someone else. I glossed over that argument because the other one merits more attention.
>penal codes are moronic because I hate God
Man this is a step beyond Reddit.
There is nothing wrong with penal codes, they are necessary for there to be order in a society. But that is due to the limits of empathy, there has historically been ways of living that did not require law at all. Penal codes are useful pragmatically (which is why more sophisticated and equitable penal codes continue to develop), not good in virtue of their divine providence.
Okay so you acknowledge the need for the potential for retribution in order for morality to be taken seriously by men on Earth. Now you know why a God able and willing to take disciplinary action against mankind is necessary for mankind to not go off the deep end.
Which is entirely besides the point. The topic at hand is the possibility of morals and what that would look like without god.
>If Christians think that people are fundamentally immoral
Christians think man is only fundamentally immoral post-Edenic Fall. It's not that man cannot be intrinsically good, it's that it's impossible given the conditions we are subjected to after the Fall. We are saddled with infinite sin until we seek salvation in Christ, who redeems us. If atheists argue that empathy is something simply biological and instinctual, then it would have to be something fundamentally egotistical at some level, which means the atheist would have to agree with the Christian that all earthly (= instinctual) motives are sinful (if the atheist even believes that there is such a thing as morality). If the atheist does not believe in morality, then what basis is there to assert that there is an innate aspect of our "consciousness" which informs what is "good and bad"? What is "good and bad"? It's just made up by the atheist, it doesn't actually exist.
An atheist doesn't attribute bad nor good to egoism. Every man must act in his own interest in order to stay alive and must act in his own interest against the interest of others. If you care about others, you must moderate your ego but not to the expense of your life. Sin is not something atheists care about.
>What aspect of our consciousness informs good and bad
I have already given a naturalistic account of the development of morals. You are welcome to critique it.
bruh lets take the atheistic stance. we were designed by evolution, do you think part of that was to make us morally good? Yeah we were incentivized to act good sometimes but that shan't be conflated with actually being morally good and desiring to do that which is morally good. at the end of the day we're still animals whose main focus is to pass on our genes, from a purely materialist point of view atleast. god is still real though so cry more atheist homosexual anyway more news at 11.
If you genuinely wanted to humor the atheist's stance, you would have to clarify what is moral good. You are approaching it from a Christian perspective and are getting confused when atheists don't hold your suppositions. There is no hardcoded-into-the-universe moral good.
If you believe that other people undergo more or less the same experiences you do and if you care about other people then you have a nascent moral intuition. I've already given a naturalistic account of how a moral system can arise from this. It is purely descriptive, there is no "moral good" required.
>we were designed by evolution
That is not how evolution works.
Most people's understanding of evolution is just as a more impersonal God.
Because this conclusion hurts my feefees
unironically b***h!
The point is not to refute that proposed situation, which happens to describe a reality. The point is to take full advantage of that reality. Most sociopaths and politicians manage to do this, while autistic atheists who have been cucked with some moral sensibility get locked into a a nerd fight about god and morality where that doesn't count for anything. They are thereby neutralized while the sociopaths keep on winning until they don't, which is the whole real moral nature of our amoral reality.
Correct
>while autistic atheists and christcucks (who are heads and tails of the same coin)* who have been cucked with some moral sensibility
What a ridiculous notion.
I mean simply put morality comes from God. There is no athiest "morality" system
Everything is permitted, but only for the strong. For the weak, everything is forbidden.
By ignoring his non-sequitur
Also he implies that he's a terrible person and only the fear of punishment keeps him from eating children and killing grandmas with a bat
Fricking moronic. Take a brief glance at history. When has faith in God every stayed the pious' hands from rape, slaughter, and every other abominable act under the sun?
>When has faith in God every stayed the pious' hands from rape, slaughter, and every other abominable act under the sun?
It sure seems like it when we look at the hundreds of millions of deaths and atrocities committed under atheist communist regimes, looks to be far worse.
>muh six hundred gorillion
Why do our morals need to be grounded. Nagarjuna wrote in verse.
Honor/Association-based morals are the only reasonable ones. Anything else is insanity.
Easy.
If there is God, everything is permitted. But that doesn't mean that you don't reap what you sow. Balance is one of the attributes of this universe.
There's nothing to refute, it's just dumb. We are social animals and feel bad when we hurt others.
Even monkeys have an innate sense of fairness and get mad when you distribute bananas unfairly.
We live in a much more complex society than monkeys do, and it shapes our psyche in profound ways.
Everything is permitted. That why the government has to put laws in place. Fricking moron.
Good and evil, ethical and unethical, virtuous and vicious: all are artificial human values, all creations of our minds. There is no justification to support any of these values that isn't based on artificial constructs. This is why so many legal philosophies try to find some supreme and initial norm, some immutable norm, from which all other norms descend. This is where things like God, natural law, concepts like 'right to life, liberty, and property,' etc., come into play.
But the truth is that anything can be considered legislation. You can create laws that support a country or nation like Nazi Germany or The New Order in Indonesia, and you won't see the sky darken with shame or the sun dry up and wither to avoid witnessing what is happening. Electromagnetism and gravity won't become nauseated. There is no morality other than the synthetic morality created by our species.
As of today, there is no evidence of the existence of a personal God (beyond faith-based evidence), so you could say, yes, everything is permitted, everything can become law, because there is no supreme and unquestionable moral authority that supports our legal systems. Even the twisting and churning of our guts caused by witnessing the agony of others, even this empathetic response, ultimately isn't evidence that what causes visceral disgust should be considered a moral law: there is no logical construction that can sustain itself from the level of 'this is how it is' to the level of 'if this is how it is, then it must be seen in this or that way.'
To be truthful, even human actions we consider monstrous and cruel aren't, according to determinism, the 'offender's fault,' since, due to all the infinite causes and consequences that have piled up on the shoulders of that offender, their fate was already sealed when the universe was born. This means our concepts of 'guilty' are also fictions because no one truly has a choice to act in any way other than the way they will act.
With all that said, there is no doubt about the importance of our fictions, the importance of our social contract, the importance of our laws, the importance of our concepts of ethics and human dignity. Without these inventions, our civilization would be doomed to barbarism. These fictions are some of the most important technologies our species has ever created.
So, regarding Dostoevsky's phrase: yes, everything is permitted because there is no evidence that any personal Deity from which our moral laws emanate exists. However, our species was intelligent enough to organize itself in a way that creates fictions to fill the dangerous void left by the absence of eternal and unshakeable moral, legal, and ethical values.
There is nothing new in Dostoevsky's statement. It's a concept that philosophers and jurists have debated for a long time.
For anyone interested in legal issues in a world where there are no absolute values derived from a God or Natural Law, I suggest reading the works of Hans Kelsen.
Since God exists necessarily, you could add anything to the consequential part of that conditional and it would be true: "If there is no God, pigs fly", or "If there is no God, nothing is permitted", etc, are all equally true.
And that’s the point. The point is not that everything really is permitted. The point is that approaching life, and this includes the structuring of political and social life, as if God doesn’t exist is absurd. He’s basically saying “look, you don’t really believe there isn’t a God because if you did, you would permit anything, which would obviously be a disaster, but it’s a moot point because you don’t and you don’t because deep down you know God exists and so you should stop plying this game where you try to live as if he doesn’t exist but not really”
Flying pigs isn't contrary to God's nature, but evil is.
But everything indeed is permitted. So maybe we can use the reverse argument so say that God doesn't exist. If God thought fornication was bad he would've made it impossible for humans to fornicate
God clearly does not think fornication is bad.
Yes. Everything is permitted
Doesn't mean you should act on it.
True. But the point remains that ut isn't contingent on God.
Keep on believing that bad people will burn in hell
They do
>Keep on believing that bad people will burn in hell
All people are bad people, you dumb heathen
Everything is permitted and you should act on it as long as you're not harming yourself. What harms and does not harm the self is the question and different for everyone.
>Everything is permitted and you should
If everything is permitted then there is no "should"
Why not? You have free will.
"Should" means that I have some obligation to do something. If everything is permitted then it means breaking any and all obligations is permitted, so any "should" you make up is meaningless nonsense.
Everything is permitted, but you have to find your own advantage.
Why? Is that some rational dictate imposed by natural law on my faculty of reasoning?
Reason is not the end all be all.
I'm just asking why I have to seek my own advantage man. Is it a arational psychological drive?
Yes. Though you can always castrate yourself.
It's better to do it but then you would be capable of action and by your own explanation you are not
>It's better
According to what? I can choose or not choose to do anything, based on anything or nothing at all.
>you would be capable of action
Who said anything about capability? You're completely lost.
You can choose to die.
You have no idea what this conversation is even about. Not wasting my time anymore, atheist moron.
Oh I see. Your slave master doesn't exist, but you already know deep down. That's why you have no faith.
I took a look at your responses and you're an omega midwit even for an athiest
have a nice day
>have a nice day
How does this shit square with your homosexual religious and moral beliefs tho?
im not Christian I just think you're a moronic pseud with embarassing replies, pls rope
I don't have to "find" or "do" anything, homosexual.
You can have a nice day.
You are moronic and don't understand the implications of anything you've said.
Always count on atheists to demonstrate for you why they are amoral degenerates. No need to even argue with them to show it.
Ha I get this I get this so much its not funny anymore
No, it’s not. You have laws, do you not? There are social norms? You rebuke others when they transgress against you in some way. The fact that we have taboos, whether they are merely cultural, traditional, or legal is still evidence of the fact that everything is not permitted. And if you suspect that all of these only exist because of some historical power dynamic, the onus would be on you to prove that because when I go into public I certainly don’t expect that people there will have power over me nor I power over them but when they do something I dislike, I’m offended.
Permission, ethical normativity, pretty obviously cultural, but culture is necessarily religious. We live our whole lives as if we at least somewhat believe in God and we know that because we literally don’t permit everything. The irony of Western culture is that we so obviously believe in God but are so desperate not to that we rebel, and invent fantasies that cause disorder in how we live. The mandate of the West is rebellion, not detachment. So we should either stop pretending we don’t believe in God and stop rebelling against him when we clearly do believe in him or we should really live our lives as if we don’t believe, which none of us have ever done.
If god does exist, is everything not "permitted"? You can technically go around committing crimes, you know.
You could, but you’d be called to answer for them eventually. So no, they wouldn’t be permitted.
You cant unfortunately
God exists, and he has moral rules that we are all meant to follow. The Christians are wrong about those rules, though.
No their not its a just a different perspective
>anal sex good
>0.02 ₽ have been deposited into your account
You can't. It's not permitted
For atheists the only "moral" standard is secular law.
Why do you think so many priests are rapists? Because God doesn't exist and everything's allowed.
Something being "allowed" or "not allowed" in this conversation does not refer to capability to perform an action.
I think it’s because the Catholic Church was infiltrated by the CIA and hollowed out while the mainstream narrative they pushed with Operation Gladio turned people away from the clergy so the only people who wanted to become priests were maladjusted gays that wanted to sing and touch kids.
It's a consequence of enforced clerical celibacy playing out in the modern world. It isn't the old world anymore where a family might have many children and send one off to be a priest, which was an honorable career. Today you have fewer children, becoming a priest is an individual vocational choice, and it's an easy "way out" for homosexuals who don't want to abandon their Catholic family, social, and cultural sphere. They don't have any pressure to marry a woman and aren't going to be looked at strangely for remaining "single". They also get to play around with robes and lacy things. Thus the priesthood ends up in being to some degree a homosexual club. As long as you keep enforcing celibacy this will keep happening.
I don’t think that’s it.
It is. Read this, it's an example of what actually goes on in Catholic seminaries.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/gay-catholic-inside-the-seminary-closet/
I have no doubt that celibacy doesn’t help. I just don’t think that’s the main driver of priests molesting kids. I think the wrong sort of people are going into the priesthood. Celibacy only makes that more likely, but it doesn’t cause it.
Priests have always been rapists.
Also why liberals conflate the law with the origin of power and sometimes power itself. Hard to not see this playing out in modern America.
You have to be a theist/slave-moralizer to believe this, i.e. not yet worthy of the death of god
Define "God"
The Boss
Capitalism or something ig
Kant, or any of the hundreds of comprehensive secular ethical systems in the world, but Kantianism is the big one, and the one that mostly succeeded in Europe as religiosity started gradually receding.
Only people completely ignorant of the entire history of philosophy will earnestly defend the idea that God is necessary for morality, and unless the notion is presented with a very compelling critique of the major branches of secular ethics, it should be ignored, as it is most likely being delivered by a 105 IQ moron from the bible belt with zero interest in rigorous thought or philosophy and 100% interest in boring and ineffectual proselytizing.
>>If there's no God, everything is permitted
>how do we refute this?
By first waiting for it to be proven.
Just change God to "imaginary lava" and you have retained the meaning.
Free Will permits everything with God observing.
When has God actually prevented any bad things from happening in this world? Everything is already permitted, Christianity just promises revenge in the next life.
It's so sad that people believe that shit. It's like that movie idiocracy where everyone drinks the kool aid/gatorade. Fricking marketing.
>it's le idiocracy to disbelieve in my dogmatic sloganeering
the resurrection is what slaves crave
Because they can't accept death. The slave refuses to live and subordinates. Indians bathe in cow shit, the Chinese worship filial piety, the European worships a dead israelite.
Accepting death is pathetic tbqh
you are the worst sort of nihilist
He's a slave.
>having to pretend to accept something you don’t want so you aren’t le slave
The final and ultimate cuck. The only way someone who doesn’t believe in the afterlife could nobly accept death is that they either have enough looks, money, etc. to reasonably experience everything life can offer. Anyone else, which is 99.9999% of people, have every reason to hate death.
to pretend to accept something you don’t want so you aren’t le slave
aren't you pretending something you made up is real? it's cucked to live a real life? get the frick out of here
>wants to conceptualize the good life
>only two things that spring clearly enough to mind to articulate is looks and money
Unironically sad, and profoundly so.
That's a good catch, it really is slave morality and ressentiment driving the "conversions" here
It would be impossible to tell how much God (or at least the idea of him) has prevented evil, though I’m fairly confident the idea of God has prevented quite a lot
I think it's a self-evident tautology that everything that is possible is permitted to happen.
It has always been the reverse.