Untitled

It's only wrong to murder someone within one's social-genetic group or someone outside of one's group without a good reason. Killing people outside the group for good, personal or group enhancing reasons is perfectly natural. Killing people to bring an unreciprocated advantage to another group is unnatural, self-defeating, and wrong. This is why going to war for Israel is wrong but conquering other lands is right. There are many gods, and most of them would probably appreciate this show of power.

Spend more $$$ on Israel goy

Normal doesn't make something good.

And if it's not good, then there's something wrong with it. Women are turned on not by the act of murder itself, but what it says about the man who murders. Big difference.

We have the death penalty in my country. Would the law permit something that was bad?

probably same reason they have built in morals

BASED conservatives
Do they have a video on JQ by any chance?

hell yea dude

Of course!
youtube.com/watch?v=tXy4NXbuE-k
youtube.com/watch?v=dxE_UUrbMNA
youtube.com/watch?v=tN1MkAGuVyY
youtube.com/watch?v=76NytvQAIs0
youtube.com/watch?v=12KJa4a0d64

Dennis Prager is a Jew who supports Jewish interests.

>Dennis Prager, a Jew and cofounder of Prager University, says hatred of Jews is unique. “I wish Jew hatred and Israel hatred were just another bigotry. It isn’t,” he said. “All Jew hatred is exterminationist hatred. That’s the difference. … In every generation, someone rises to annihilate us.” .

Wtf, I want to give all my money to Israel and enlist in the US Marines now.

if you kill your enemy, they win.

>Would the law permit something that was bad?
Yes. Laws rarely abide by good an bad.

True. I would argue that murder is good though.

>Placing morality solely on God kill your only son.....psyche

Murder is wrong in a secular world because we recognise the preciousness of a finite mortal experience.

With the acceptance that there is no afterlife, a person values what little time they have to exist greater than a person who believes an eternal bliss awaits them after they die. Each moment experienced in life is a finite commodity which cannot be replenished, thus time spent conscious is the most valuable thing to a human.

As we are empathic creatures, we understand that the limited living time available to other human beings is also as valuable to them as ours is to us. Consequently, to deprive other humans of their naturally available lifespan via the act of murder is to destroy every precious moment of consciousness stretching before the victim for possibly decades to come. Furthermore, it provides no benefit to the murderer - it is an unjustifiable destruction of the most precious commodity in the universe.

shut up atheist doo doo head

So why reproduce at all?

Attached: 1554994183056.jpg (1024x478, 145K)

>we recognise the preciousness of a finite mortal experience
Why?

There is no murder, wrong isn’t God

>it is okay to kill religious people
wew lad

Does not make it wrong; the implication you're making is living is "good" and therefore it would be bad to take away living; but you first have to establish why living is a moral "good" before you can draw these other conclusions

That's great for him; but not for the overwhelming majority of dumb ape-humans who have no self control inhabiting this planet

that's a societal problem, but an instinct one.

>the overwhelming majority want to rape and murder other people
we're hitting levels of projection that shouldn't be possible

I think the solution up to this point has been religion, whether or not it's true. I should wonder what they intend to replace it with and why they would bother replacing it at all

I feel like you're intentionally misrepresenting my argument in order to feel better about your world view. I'm saying the majority of peons are only socialized to be moral due to religion; the natural state of humans is to work in order to better their family group (tribe) and to work to harm those outside of their family group. This involves rape and murder.

Why do babies have built-in gag reflex?

>people would do it
check
>encourage it
check
>normal part of life
check

So that I don't choke them with my cock

So do religious people not murder only because they're afraid of the consequences in the afterlife?

There are modes of social control other than religion. Look at China, or Western Europe. You’re being obtuse

Kek

well, I think the distinction can be made like this: there's constantly this discussion about clothes and consent and "the female body is so distracting to men" that sometimes they can't control themselves. But this never seems to be a problem for lesbians. So if it's all about instinct, then what's the difference between a man and a lesbian, if both want to fuck women?

If religion was enough to keep people ah, "on the straight and narrow" as it were, then why is there such a large discrepancy in behavior?

There were literally no laws against murder before Jesus.

holy shit

Some of the greatest artists have a little killing here and there. Killing revitalizes the soul. As long as you kill men.

Generalizations are strictly for the birds.

Based and knowledgepilled.

why not women?

women exist to be bred

That'd be like killing a little dog or a baby. The kind of killing that revitalizes the souls is when you kill your equals or some greater beast like a lion or a gorilla. Killing lesser creatures damages your soul.

you got a kek out of me

see

Implying you can ever get to the universal position above cultural conditioning which determine your attitude towards murder.

A total homosexual. Come out of the closet already.

But jihad

In most cases murder is wrong with or without God. To murder someone is a dangerous risk since you will likely be punished. But in that rare case where you are certain you will not be caught, then only the existence of an afterlife can dissuade you from sinning

Shouldn't have condemned God to die on the cross

It’s hilarious how ancient the jews tricks are, they descend from a nomadic tribe that immigrated into ancient sumer and took over a city, then from that city waged war to take over the whole of sumeria

The only thing that keeps millions of Christians from turning into killing machines is God? Scary.

The small-brained avarage Joe needs someone to tell him what is bad and what is good. If there's nothing for him to follow, he falls in despair because he realises that anything is allowed. However, if only he were to endure the despair, he would come to conclusion that even if there's no objective morality he can act with care for his fellow humans because he isn't a savage animal.

>only post with even a little bit of thought put into it in a sea of shitposts
>all the replies are shitposts

Yea Forums is pathetic and dead.
you don't even have to agree with his viewpoint to see this

I mean yeah sure, by the old definition of wrong.
Things can be wrong in a non-theological, non-objective sense but it just means something different than what people have understood "wrong" to mean for the last few thousand years.

>guys killing is bad because people don't wanna get killed, and you should care about that because it's good to be nice, i solved ethics

You're right, we should be marveling at his incredible insight

Wow someone should send this to the cartel. Inspiring

lmao which cartel?

But is the opposite not true as well? If there is God, then everything is permitted?

What?

I commit exactly the amount of murders I have a desire to commit, and that number is 0.
Theists are psychopaths.

imagine not murdering hobos for your own amusement
poor taste

I'm taking the bait here but you're missing the point. It's not just long-beard-old-white-dude God that atheism rejects, but empirically-inaccessible transcendent objects generally, and the way most people think about ethics, as something objective and somehow cosmically important, falls into this category as well.

People think you can pull out God and God-type meta-ethical foundations and just keep the structure and principles of ethics intact, but that's idiotic and empty and secular moral realism is dogshit. You can get compelling reasons (categorical or hypothetical) to do or not do certain types of things from other sources, but most people's reason for rejecting things that they consider wrong (even in their own minds) comes down to "I don't believe in God, but I believe in real mind-independent ethics which is functionally identical to God".

What a blubbering retard.

Imagine typing out this gobbledygook and thinking it's a rational argument for believing in magic deities.

It’s funny seeing atheists squirm defending why they think morality is real

but they're Christian lol

They don't. Morality is linked to rationality.

Is this actually a quote from him? Can someone get the source?

it’s from the Brothers Karamazov you fucking pleb

If there is no God, then everything is permitted because system of morals is diving, etc, etc, and so on, and so on.

However, is it not also true that if there IS a God, then everything is permitted if it is done in His name? For example, we have crusades, etc.

Attached: zizek.png (440x440, 322K)

>missing the point so hard you miss the point of the "you're missing the point" post

>God doesn't real so no God-backed moral realism
>feels bad man, I'm gonna get rid of the bible guy who says I can't fap but keep the transcendent moral justification part of him
>i'll just rename it "ethics" and pretend it's not the same type of thing as God was so I still get to lol at theists

Remeber people - aborted fetuses go straight to heaven. Why take the chance by letting them live?

nah someone else said in a novel he wrote

No because only things that are moral (i.e., condoned by God/ethics) are permitted. Things are either moral or immoral, and there is an objectively correct answer as to which any particular action is, even if it's hard to determine sometimes.

>because we recognise the preciousness of a finite mortal experience.

>eats bacon

>believing in reducing harm to your fellow humans is the same as believing in an all-powerful being who doesn't want you touching your pee-pee
k

The post is thoughtless

The only scholarly way a religious person has of deciphering what is permitted by God is to read the holy books of whatever religion that may be. However, the holy books are written by people, not by God. Therefore hypothetically, these people could write anything they want in these books, and then officially, anything is permitted by God.

>implying a pig recognises the preciousness of a finite mortal experience

animals and niggers exist purely in the present, it's permissible to kill them as they aren't being deprived of any future if they're completely unaware of it.

I would say eating meat and many other things involving animals are immoral if morality is objective.

And why should I care about my fellow humans? Other than that it might at some point be roundaboutly convenient for me?

That's not the point. If there ACTUALLY is a God, then there's an objective truth about the matter independent of what people record in holy books or say about the topic.

who do people cope so hard at the fact that there is indeed no objective morality.

heres everything you need to know about morality my friends

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master–slave_morality

Do you think bears have a concept of the future since they hibernate in the future?

Do you think dogs have a concept of their owner eventually returning from work at a particular time of day, every day?

I think they do experience these thoughts, and I would put forward that they probably experience a conception of time and the future similar to our own.

Kinda this desu

it actually is on the same level

your diagnosis is right and Sam harris is a chief offender of this

>believe in real mind-independent ethics
>something objective and somehow cosmically important
I don't know if people really claim that though. I think most people are aware that ethics are cultural and not universal. There's no reason this precludes their ability to claim moral superiority and justify imposing their culture on others though.

What's the difference anyways between claiming some moral axioms on humanistic grounds and believing in God. Where did the former come from? How are they justified?
Well where did God come from? How is he justified when there is no evidence and we rely on faith.

It's the same shit, both cases you hold the axiom to be self-evident

>literally can't comprehend empathy
christfags confirmed for sociopaths

So how could we ever discover what God wants us to do then? personal revelation? like the kind that motivates schizo serial killers?

He was a devout Christian and a reactionary user.

Believing in reducing harm to fellow humans is not enough. Having that as main or sole principle makes Raskolnikov's murder in Crime and Punishment ethical. It makes things like leaving suicide victims to die ethical, as Netherlands is demonstrating.

I bet there is a pathetic semi philosophical debate going on here about themes that have been greatly explored by people who are far more intellectual and intelligent than the simpletons in this thread, with their derivative and short-sighted arguments, could ever aspire to be

Animals have a capacity for learned behaviour, which may create the illusion of future-thinking; however, these are influenced by the past and not anticipatory of the future.

In terms of acts such as a bear hibernating, it is merely a reaction to seasonal stimulus. A bear eats, mates and hibernates in much the same way that a tree grows leaves in spring according to the rising temperature, not due to any thought.

The difference in mankind is observed as soon as we began to perform sacrifices. A bear bulks up for winter, a squirrel stores nuts, but a man willingly discards a portion of his food store to the 'gods' in return for a bountiful spring, displaying the capacity for abstract thinking needed to comprehend the future.

Welcome to the last few millennia of theological moral philosophy, you've got some catching up to do. The problem isn't all that different for secular moral realism (the idea that morality exists and is objective, we just need to figure out what it says) either.

>but a man willingly discards a portion of his food store to the 'gods' in return for a bountiful spring

Well damn in that case abstract thinking makes humans fucking retarded

Not a christfag, just an internally consistent atheist.
Let's say I understand the concept of empathy perfectly, but deny that it's something intrinsically morally valuable (because calling certain things "intrinsically morally valuable" is ACTUALLY christfag talk). It's a good idea to be considerate of insofar as it helps you get what you want sometimes, but that doesn't reach the level of "morality", just normative egoism.

no u

But I mean yeah, what's the point of actually reading philosophy texts if not so you can argue with strangers on 4chin?
is one of mine for example, mainly comes out of Sartre (Existentialism is a Humanism)

Depends on who's being murdered.

It's actually brilliant and proves the point. The real benefit of ritual sacrifice isn't gaining divine favor, but reinforcing social bonds and norms. Psychological consistency and balance principles mean that once people do something dumb, cruel, or inconvenient for a cause, it actually reinforces their belief in that cause to avoid cognitive dissonance.
>Hmm, I just threw away some of my food for gods I've never seen. Either I and literally everyone else I know are retarded, OR the gods are real and giving food to them makes them happier.
>Hmm, I just shot a bunch of civilians because my commander told me to on the basis that they were political enemies. Either I, my comrades, my commanding officer, HIS commanding officers, and our country's entire world view, are horrifically immoral and broken and I'm a war criminal, OR our cause must really be just and we're on the right side of history in the end.
>Hmm, my religion says I can't drink alcohol or fap and I have to pray literally 5 times a day. Either it's dumb and fake and I'm retarded for missing out on like the two fun things to do, OR it's actually the one true religion and I'm gonna be rewarded eventually.

Having people sacrifice something valuable for a cause is actually a genius way to cement loyalty to it because people are psychologically wired to retroactively justify the dumb shit they just did.

No, it's not, read it again, nowhere to be found. It's an atributed phrase made know by Sartre.

It's not a quote, not even exactly what was say in TBK, is a paraphrase made by Sartre in Existentialims is an Humanism.

Stop with the missinforming propaganda!

lesbians have no testosteroe
lesbians arent stronger than women
and most importantly lesbians are not real

Attached: 6ad736a3c143978d049bca52b5cea338.jpg (240x240, 14K)

We can experience love by living.

I'm tired and thought the other post said this.

Sorry, meant to say *joy*.

What about establishing if taking something away from someone is or is not wrong?

What about marvelling about the OP?

>Some of the greatest artists
Whom?

Why should I care for another’s joy?
What if I haven’t experienced joy in life? Do I have the right to kill then?

>Morality is linked to rationality
But highly rational people tend to be very amoral whereas the emotionally inclined tend on the contrary to be guided by revealed or self-evident moral truths

Attached: chess master stroke.png (427x576, 310K)

You can justify why you're upholding a certain belief over others, or why you are choosing to adhere to a certain type of morality, such as religion, social morality, or pure rationality (which can be amoral). But in all cases, you are still justifying a belief, you need rationality and emotionality. That's what makes a human a human, and not an animal that is guided based on instinct and not rationality. What is good for an animal is anything that keeps them alive and what is bad is what kills or is harmful to them.

why do devout christians in sicily, mexico, colombia and other such places commit so much murder when god sets up these rules that you shouldn't do that?

You can function without emotions and survive on life support without any rationality. Definitionally you're just dehumanizing people you don't like.

A fully functioning person is capable of rationalizing as well as feeling a certain emotion. You would need both of them to determine what is right or wrong. If you're missing one, then there's no way to determine what is moral or immoral. You're not held responsible for your actions. That's what I'm saying.

They're not less human. They're just less responsible for their actions than a person who is fully functional.

If you think that you need to be a famous intellectual with a following in order to be relevant in philosophy then you need to re-evaluate yourself.

The beauty of philosophy is that everyone can argue a point and they can all be valid, regardless of status, education, or occupation.

Haha I think Zizek would have quite a few words for this guy heehe

So the sins of the father are to be the sins of the son?

I dont agree with the whole video. But I do agree that without religion keeping us in check. Without fear of an Eternal punishment for bad behavior, we would still be in the stone age murdering and raping each other.

Serious Christian ethicists acknowledge that murder would be wrong even if God were not real. Something is not good merely because God says it, rather God says it because it is good, at least situationally.

Ergo, murder is wrong because it is a violation of the sanctity of life without just cause. God would never command a murder--he may command something that APPEARS to be murder to a mortal, but because he is the embodiment of Love, Truth, and Virtue, he would not order a cruelty of any sort that did not serve some fundamental purpose for the furthering of those values.

This is all very convenient of course because it means that as a Christian you can simply deny that God ever did anything wrong, but the principle itself is sound, and it means that you can simply apply Stoic ethics, which are derived from reason alone, and still be Christian.

John C. Wright gave a very good spiel about this in some podcast he was on, and it was the first time I ever found myself agreeing with a Catholic. If God is real, and if he represents absolute good, then all one need do to conform to His will would be to act in accordance with the natural moral reason of which all (sane) humans are capable.

Attached: rockwell_portrait1.jpg (288x355, 45K)

Is functioning all it takes to be human?

When we started society. Society wouldn't work if people could murder whoever they wanted without consequence.

They do not recognize what implanted morals in them

The solution has been consumerism (porn, movies, video games, etc.) for the last century.

>With the acceptance that there is no afterlife, a person values what little time they have to exist greater than a person who believes an eternal bliss awaits them after they die.

This statement is incorrect for Buddhism. We value our time because human birth where you can practice the Dhamma is incredibly rare.

No! No! No! All right wingers are dumb and stupid and retarded old white men like penis prager!!! FUICK FUCK FUCK FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Attached: trannies.jpg (1024x510, 131K)

Caravaggio, for example.

This, theres no objetive or subjetive perspective, only discourse and it's process

yep we all know youre totally smarter than one of the greatest writers of all time, don't worry kid

There were definitely hundreds of thousands of years of forced empathy to survive in the brutal conditions of the hunter gatherer lifestyle, but it’s society that allows and even requires murder.

They do encourage it, and we call those people leftists.

I kek'd

Please stand and place your hand over your heart for our national anthem

m.youtube.com/watch?v=U06jlgpMtQs

The n-word

Attached: npzd3avaq9y21.jpg (1080x1002, 43K)

>~$5.4 million yearly income
Is this the real life infinite money cheat? Just throw a wig on and talk about how le cringe and stupid alt-righters are while talking down to everyone? Sign me up if so

Attached: 7B14763C-89CB-4AD5-BCEE-76B86469F38C.jpg (431x425, 27K)

and other lies told....

God spoke through the ecumenical councils. TRADITION!

If there is no god then there is no universal moral but some cultural moral may exist
It's quite ironic because the morality of atheist is based on secularised christian beliefs

That number is not real m8.

>I only refrain from doing bad things because I am afraid of the angry sky fathers punishment after death

So you're a psychopath who is also a coward?

Murder violates the NAP.

Prove it.

I have considered "coming out" as an ex-alt-righter and trying to start an "intellectual" leftist YouTuber career.
I have baited on /pol/ and other boards as an SJW, it really can't be much harder then that.

I also don't think the earning is real, I would guess 10.000 patreons at an average of 5 Dollars, plus YouTube advertising and such, after the cuts probably 500.000 per year.

why would the existence of god make murder wrong?
No people just decided it was wrong because at some point they realized killing each other all the time wasn't really getting us anywhere
It's like when you start playing a game for the first time and for a little bit you just mess around testing it's limits but then eventually you realize that's boring and start playing by the rules

It's not objectively wrong, it's morally wrong

Imagine being so immoral that you need a god to keep you in line

this is why we have usury jackass.

When you remove all gods from the picture you can dialectically eliminate the concept of morality entirely. Morality is only dialectically proven when there is a god in the equation.

> implying the crusades were not justified

Imagine claiming morals are subjective and then getting mad when people have different morals than you.

What defines morality?

> d-doing whats g-good

What defines what is good.

> What you t-think is good

I think killing all people with down syndrome to stop a disease from spreading is good.

> That's racist!
> t. the atheist

I've also met people who believe its the governments job to decide what is good and moral. I'm not going to pin this on all atheist but, this can just be refuted with:

Do you want Trump deciding what's good/bad?

load nazi_germany.exe
load ussr.exe

> heh, if you don't claim to have an objective morality then you can't pose an argument that murder is bad

are you christfags just LARPing or do you honestly believe that morals come from god?

Attached: 1547570055821.png (395x474, 25K)

Don't forget the lighting and overstylized videos

Anglo-Saxon England was christianised in 514 if I recall correctly and it kept the institution of legal murder alive until the Norman conquest in 1066. Murder was legal but the perpetrator had "buy spear or bear it" meaning that he either compensated the damages to the family etc. or had to face potential revenge plot. There were some legal limitations preventing honour killing spiral, but murder was legal for 500 years in CHRISTIAN country. Also estimated murder rates didn't drop until 17th century so it's not like it mattered a lot. Now of course, Prager isn't part of the Anglo-Saxon stock so in his mind, if we'd made murder legal everyone would kill each other as that's what his tribe would be doing but that doesn't mean everyone is David Prager.

> a christian does bad thing thus christianity is bad

really nigger?

Explain where else morals would come from

Stop confusing heritable biological traits with morality

You make them up yourself. Read Kant nigger

That's not my point. Murder should be legal and it is perfectly fine with it as long as that kind of law rules over population you can expect to hold some values like decency, honour or martial valour. Once you give it to word-by-word, neurotic inbred schizoids such as David Prager's tribe it obviously will lead to nothing but most perverted and brutal blood sacrifices performed out of spite and masked by lawyers' newspeak.

So as such, people like Prager will forever be against it, as we all measure the world from our subjective perspective. In some European countries, this kind of people will say that giving the population the right to arm themselves would lead to people shooting each other in petty squabbles, that is not because the people at large would do it - but because the people who raise concern over it would. It becomes obvious once you realise that in plenty of these countries blackpowder firearms are perfectly legal and regulated about as heavily as alcohol(that is you need license to sell it and to be 18 to buy it) and yet nobody shoots each other over petty squabbles. So how in the hell is imaginations of these people running into this idiotic directions?

They hate their neighbours, people who disagree with them and believe that if such thing happens they should be killed. They in general think out-group should be killed and once the only thing they fear is that the victims will hire word-by-word, neurotic inbred schizoids of a lawyers who will smell the money in the whole affair. As their particular in-group murdering people out of spite, would be bad press, they thus support the state interference in the fundamental right of indo-european man - the right to kill - just to keep their perverted instincts and thus public bay at bay.

You better keep paying for those cops, you better pay for some fucking protection. You better lay down at the feet of your master and beg him to keep you alive. You better let him do whatever he wants as long as he keeps your weak heart beating to the tune of his drum.

Do you happen to be of semitic ancestry?

What

>gee that looks fucking retarded
oh ok, fuck kikes i guess

What an absolutely retarded argument in favour of murder.

Attached: Capture.png (229x239, 22K)

>read stirner once

Attached: 1462475769367.jpg (500x377, 136K)

The only thing more boomer than this is railing against smartphones

Yes. The reason people don't kill is the fear of punishment and evolution

>I think killing all people with down syndrome to stop a disease from spreading is good.
This is more agreeable than stoning gays

>larp
nice buzzword
fuck off

>Normal doesn't make something good.
>good
I asked this once in Nietzsche thread, I'll slightly adjust it to fit in here:

You do realise that Latin word "bonus/duonus/duenos" (good) is etymologically related to "bellum" (war) and "duellum" (duel)?
Furthermore, modern linguistics derive them from Indo-European *dew- (“to injure, destroy, burn”),
Also, Slavic "дoбpo" (good) is cognate of Armenian "darbin" (warsmith).
So, with that information, let me ask you again: what the fuck does "good" mean?
And why your opinion on murder should matter here at all?

>(estimate)
Also, with 7,5k Patrons it would require an average of $60 per Patron, so this whole estimation is extremely delusional. 10-30k is probably closer to the truth.

Based etymology bro.

But on the other hand words can change meaning surely.

What about niggers?

and keep our military in the middle East for security
(paid for by bp)

Kill all you want, you'll still be incorrect whether a god exists or not.

The ultimate truism is that is unknown.

im not sure but ancient greek word good ᾰ̓γᾰθός also means brave,im also reminded of iliad when menelaus thinks of taking a prisoner and agamemnon addresses him as good menelaus and says no prisoners not even the child in the womb will be spared

also in beowulf the men run from the dragon and that's a bad thing,what in the language of beowulf is the words used to describe this and so have a more solid link to english

Do god follow some kind of moral himself? I mean if needed to go super philosophy, can god do anything he desire regardless of the consequences? Just because he created the universe? Even then why should I prey for him anyway for giving me life. I have no memory that I agreed to be born and, and till proven otherwise I owe him nothing.

>Do god follow some kind of moral himself?
God IS morality.

> can god do anything he desire regardless of the consequences?
God doesn't "desire". I can see what you're aiming at but the question is off. God isn't a man in a cloak sitting around you know, he doesn't think "yeah, I'm gonna have a wank now".

> Even then why should I prey for him anyway for giving me life.
Well, first of all, you don't prey for him. You won't have to pray either. People pray, or at least rational people, pray as a form of meditation to get in contact with the highest conceivable good, ie God.

Oh cool then, now how do you justify the fact that many italian scientists were executed by the Church then? They are considered a murder nowadays you know? Stupid retarded low IQ sand nigger faggotry.

If you actually think divine command theory wasn't blown the fuck out 2500 years ago or that moral realism has anything to do with classical theism then you need to get your ass back to school. Platonism concerning abstract objects had a long tradition before a kike was nailed to a stick.

>no self control
implies that I don't want to do it for some reason but still give in to the urge that I have. If it isn't bad or immoral or I simply don't care about anything regarding ethics and other gay shit why would I supposedly have no self control when I decide to rape, murder or both in either chronology (unrelated to any legal consequences)

Then it would not be "murder" but either justifiable homicide or simply homicide.

Does it mean that everything was permitted before Christianity?

This

The only correct answer.

Based and traditionpilled

>God IS morality.
God is a dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex in your brain?

We are basically hosts to an alien parasite in our heads, that affects our behaviour.

Why would I even give a fuck about god?
Because muh hell?
Might be that he made me but why would I listen to him?
>Here son, have some free will
>Here's a list of things you aren't allowed to do
Would be a clean debate if the situation was like this but it's not.
>be human
>have obviously some tribal instincts because evolutionary psychology
>Some people say that I have to listen to what the bible says because muh god
>Some other people say different things about the same bible god
>In other parts of the world they don't even know the bible god and have different values
>Some people say I'm just brain juice and my experience is an illusion
>Ethics seems a bit like a formal proof system, so there must be axioms, right? Maybe? Maybe not? If so what are the axioms?
>more doubts are more maybes
>die
>go to hell because god thought that everything should have been obvious
>other guy who is a complete asshole goes to heaven because he was afraid of hell and randomly picked the correct moral system and that apparently made him a better person than me
I think we should drop the whole god idea. It really doesn't make any sense. And calling that something that caused existence god doesn't make it god.

See All moral judgments require divine authority as a context. If there is no god at all, then there is no context from which a moral judgment can be dialectically proven. Moral judgments aren't provable then.

The way around this is to essentially deify the self.

>Reductionism Hur Hur I'm smartypants

Why would god provide context?
>It's immoral
Why?
>God says so
--
>Don't do that
Why?
>State says it's illegal
I don't see much difference here except God being the higher instance.

>State says it's illegal
State is just playing god in this scenario. The state is serving the role of divine authority that is needed to provide the context from which a moral judgment can be passed dialectically. There's no moral judgment where there isn't a divine authority providing its context.

If you abdicate your morality for the sake of holy ordainment, for example, if Abraham slew Isaac instead of staying his hand, then you would in fact be committing a reverse-abdication (retroactively undoing the ontic power of god) of the holy ordainment for the sake of your own morality (what you think god knows). You must stay your mind in the bindings of ignorance, in the austere cabin of decency, far from the decadent courts of mysticism and profane wisdom. Otherwise, you end up asserting that things are moral on the commandment of God, and not by the sacrifice of Jesus, thereby revoking millenia of scripture and invoking immortal torment. So they say, of course; I'm not here as God to tell you where you are or where you're going.

Attached: vertseegh.jpg (208x242, 4K)

How is this literature?

...but not helpful.

>The only scholarly way a religious person has of deciphering what is permitted by God is to read the holy books of whatever religion that may be.
Nah. Try prayer and me

Did Sartre actually ever explore or establish new ideas? What you said and other things I heard about him make me thing that he only regurgitated texts 100 years older than his work. Maybe he really just LARPed as intellectual to compensate for his hideous physical apperance

>implying natural impulses are moral
Spare me.

>natural=good
you should be gassed

animals can be trained to give up their food for future rewards.
>muh learned behavior
it's learned in humans too. (which it has to be because the causal relationships don't actually exist so sacrificing your food is retarded). the main difference is that it's taught from some faggot who was either manipulating the others or did a poor job understanding his world. and there are animals that teach each other too so that isn't even a distinction apart from some dickhead priest starting the chain of teaching based on imagined nonsense. humanity starting cargo cults isn't something to be proud of and i even believe other animals do that too

>animals are unthinking automatons that can't fathom how the things they're doing will affect the future
crows display original thought by creating tools when given new substances like wire

sociopaths function in the sense people actually use the word. your warping of its usage is an attempt to emotionally appeal using the connotation of words instead of making a cogent point.

They don't. What the fuck are you even talking about? They're weak little amoral retards up until their genetics and environment start formalizing their identities.

I'm inclined to agree with these but does this mean that feral persons are amoral? Pre-moral? How would contemporary, Western moralists judge a feral person who commits a crime? As a defective animal to be put down, a thinking being capable of judgement and thus appropriate punishment or an extreme exception to the prevented universalism of socialization? Asking genuinely, not rhetorically.

True

Murder isn't inherently "wrong" but we agree that it is because there's no rules that dictate who does and doesn't have the right to take the life of another living creature. It's more conducive to overall happiness and well-being if we all agree that no man has jurisdiction over the life of another man. Only those who break this agreement through their own will forfeit their ability to participate. You're allowed to murder anything and anyone you want, just don't be surprised when eventually it happens to you. This reason alone is enough to condemn murder, simply to save yourself from an untimely death if anything.

I agree and I'm also an atheist. For a long while I believed that you could derive morality without god, but I no longer believe this to be true.

Well, Jews are the Master Race after all, better than all others which hate them because of jealousy of their superiority. So go fight Iran and Syria for Israel. No amount of American wealth is enough, no number of American dead is too great, to give to our Masters.

Even with religion you guys do dumb shit

He was a very good writer indeed, but on the topic of religion he was also intellectually dishonest.

Attached: Dostoevsky christ.png (662x215, 58K)

the vast majority of depictions of God have him directly commanding murder in many circumstances sooooooo

hahah no wonder Yea Forums loves that guy so much. what a hack

living people are more profitable to tax

t. derives his morality from secular Christianity

>Not being amoral and believing in a god

Attached: 582bbd7ed5bb692eff6e1e4e739d70cdc1d5a758eb310ce8d6913c369a74f8bf.jpg (225x225, 10K)

>Christians can only shitpost and have no real argument against this
Very good post

Dostoevsky never said that tho

Not only that but it also proves that murder of children is a virtue in christianity. Psychopath who breaks into a hospital and murders as many babies as he can is a saint in christianity because he sacrifices himself and denies those babies the chance to experience mysery, saves their soul from sin and lets them get straight to eternal bliss in heaven

It's possible however to be moral and not believe in a god is irrational - as long as you are bound by empathy you hold Gold within your heart at least from an instinctively unconscious perspective of wholeness.

kids tend to have abilities to consider something right or wrong like light and shadow
while grown ups tend to lose their faith because they found nihilism or someshit

jihad was done for God's sake, much like crusade

>doesn't kill his parents
check
>still alive
check
>society still exists
check

*right

>Yeah, well what about the crusades?

Attached: 1554264360557.jpg (1080x1053, 104K)

>if you live a life in accordance with your cultural and evolutionary norms for "good" then you believe in muh god ;^)