Define good and evil without relativism

Define good and evil without relativism.

Attached: La_tenture_de_lApocalypse_(Angers).jpg (2153x1615, 1.9M)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

evil wants the universe to go back to being nothing, good wants to prevent that

Some of Jesus' most controversial teachings were about the resurrection. I think that the destruction of the universe completely fits within the realm of good if you consider that there are prophesies that it will be replaced by a second Paradise.
What if there was no universe? Would there still be capacity for good and evil in a purely abstract sense?

i didn't say anything about jesus. and if there isn't anything to begin with then there's no need for a discussion either.

goodness is compliance with God's law (faith and morals defined by the Catholic church). evil is the will directed away from the good

>Catholic
"Woman," Jesus replied, "believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.
John 4:21
The Vatican has no more importance than a guy taking LSD for the first time.

Nobody worships the pope and the Holy See has a primacy of jurisdiction. This is beside the point anyway

>primacy of jurisdiction
>we waz first!!!
"Woman," Jesus replied, "believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.
John 4:21

People who do things I like are good.
People who do things I don't like are bad.
Simple.

Evil bad, good good

Good are the things that if everyone did it, the world is a better place by objective measure.
Bad are the things that if everyone did it, the world is a worse place to live by objective measure.

Impossible to define without bible

>Objective measure
Please explain.

this is your brain on Protestantism

That's OK, the Bible is full of facts.

Whatever. Everyone knows what C*tholicism does to your butthole.

The word you're looking for is subjectivism.

All morality is subjective. But we can begin with one goal, well-being. After that, all choices are objective in relation to that goal. Easy peasy.

Good and evil are just human concepts and everything is just nature running it's course. We can't accept the truth that there is no great forces and life just is the way it is. Chaos and order are one and we just try to separate it.

>all morality is subjective

Attached: 1517429337730.png (645x729, 74K)

it is though. Nothing is inherently good, nor evil.

Seems legit

Everything just "is"

this
morality is a spook created by people in order to get other people to behave how they want.

Attached: stirner.jpg (613x771, 49K)

Morality is furthering the self interest of others, insofar as they don't violate the self interest of other parties. Ideally, everyone is supporting each other unconditionally. Immorality is prioritizing the self over others.

If good is conducive to life, and bad is detrimental, the terms are pretty objective and clear cut.

Setting fire to your house is bad. Your family will die.

Building a house for your family is good. They will live.

Nothing relative to it.

Right, and once we apply the subjective goal of well-being, we can judge the morality of actions objectively, based on their impact on well-being.

Who decides that life is "good" Who's life? We have made more species die out than ever before. Building a house is a pretty destructive act. Why should humans and their living be a good thing? That's the subjective part.

You're just skipping a step. I agree with you that those things that you listed are all objectively good, but only after you assert the subjective goal of well-being.

Hes not wrong you know its all realative to the eye of the beholder

ever heard of Natural Law? we can come to objective standards of good and evil if we ground our worldview in theology. the view you're espousing is called moral nihilism not "subjectivism"

is the statement "its all relative to the eye of the beholder" also relative?

If everyone helped everyone else when they needed it, the quality of life for all concerned would be better in every measurable way. In terms of carrying capacity, robustness, stability, length of life, etc. All would be objectively better.

Likewise, if everyone did evil to everyone else, the quality of life is objectively worse. However you cared to measure it.

Yes. Look at wars and ill pick a specific one. Look at the jews and Palestinians

We can only judge things based on what the Bible tells us.

Nonono. I'm saying that nothing, just by existing is right or wrong. I subscribe to the idea that morality is derived from the logical conclusion that minimizing harm, and maximizing well-being will lead to the best outcomes. Once that is accepted, any action's morality can be judged objectively right or wrong in relation to that position.

so you just refuted yourself

This is false

Biodiversity verses smashing your individual consciousness against the firmament.
Or me getting a production team verses me not getting a production team.

But it's my life. Why the fuck would I put others over me? Cuz the bible says so? So fucking brainwashed

How so?

U can't measure this without the bible

I assume that we have to start with the assumption that life, and enabling it to continue is the goal. If we die, we aren't around to debate the issue. So, let's define life as good.

And we have to focus on our life, our family, our tribe, our species, and our environment, in about that order for the same reasons.

If we worship death, we aren't here. If we worship life, we should do our best to enable it in that priority order for exactly the same reasons.

Jordan peterson says otherwise.

With and without

Good or bad for what?

Taking evil as a way of saying pure badness

Ur wrong

Maybe u should fix your anxiety about death

You literally just proved my point.
"We have to start with the assumption that life..."
That assumption is the SUBJECTIVE part, the part that we decide on.
Every action after that is judged in relation to that assumption, and they are related OBJECTIVELY to that.

Therefore the only subjective portion of morality, is deciding on the goal or primary measure. After that, morality is objective in relation to to that goal and/or measure.

We are agreeing on all of this, I think you're just failing to realize that the initial assumptions about life and success is still subjective.

I just did. The Bible is unnecessary to find value in living and enabling life. It's not a bad blueprint to follow, it's got a lot of things figured out. But it's not required.

If you want to get snippy, you could argue the Bible is an excellent reason to find ways to shorten your life so you can get to heaven all the sooner.

so you subscribe to utilitarianism. and i understand what you're saying that is still a moral nihilist take. i'm saying in a world where God exists and we are made in his image we can definitely say something is wrong in itself, not because of later rationalization

Nou
If you don't provide evidence for your claim, I'll treat it like anything else.
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Have u ever had a thought of your own in your entire life?
There is no value in living. We are here a short time and nothing we do matters

REEEEEEE CHOMO
NOT MY POPE NOT MY POPE

Attached: 1558677907752.gif (1000x1000, 208K)

Actually, it's secular humanism and utilitarianism both yeah. What I'm saying is that your god is unnecessary, there are more hurdles and hopes to jump through to get to your conclusion anyway. Occam and all that.

I don't see the need for us to be able to say things are inherently good or bad, what purpose does that serve when we are fully capable of coming to moral conclusions on our own?

Guys, OP is a major faggot here. As always, but let me explain why this time.

He did not define these terms (clearly) and led us all down a linguistic shithole. Does he mean morality? Does he assume there are boolean-value objective truths? Does he mean spiritually? Is he asking for specific examples?

OP needs to take a philosophy course

OP is a faggot

/thread

if the statement "its all relative to the eye of the beholder" is also relative, than its not absolutely true at all places and all times and you concede that truth can be absolute

My theory:

Morality is a judgement of the individual. Each individual must set their own standards of good and evil. Individuals should be judged by their own moral code. In other words, people must live up to their own standards. If a person believes everyone should help the needy, but never helps anyone, he is a hypocrite, and guilty by his own standards. If a man who walks around in a bath robe and boxers, and does nothing but drink and go bowling, believes that all should be left alone to do as they please, he cannot be deemed immoral for being lazy - he cannot only be immoral for not leaving others to do as they please.

How does this theory sound? I don't live by it, just something I've been pondering.

Attached: pp,550x550.u1.jpg (413x550, 41K)

If we decide that the word 'good' means 'that which enables life' by definition, the problem is solved.

We are only arguing over life as the goal. Which is fair. You can have a goal of pursuing death, or pushing others towards it. This is the definition of evil.

Good is that which increases the total amount pleasure felt by all sentient creatures or reduces the total suffering. Evil is vice versa.

Change my mind, faggots.

Attached: b62ae1a6c18078df8a68366060c111f7.jpg (398x534, 34K)

No my man, we aren't arguing over that, we agree on that. All I'm saying is that our decision on what "good" is, is subjective. That's it. After that, everything that follows is objective.

Most of us don't have our own standards. Every thought we have has been passed down thru generations.

Then eat a bullet you coward. The rest of us have shit to do, and you are in the fucking way.

I have plenty of meaning, Even if this is all there is. It's not easy, it's not supposed to be, god damn if it's not important.

I was thinking about this the other day, strange seeing it here.

Anyway, best definition I could come up with is "good" merely means pro-social behavior. If what you're doing strengthens or benefits the social community, it is a good thing.

Attached: SpyPhoto_20190521_124830160.jpg (1920x1080, 1.22M)

evil does things that will benefit themselves at the expense of others.

good dose not intentionally harm others, and will to to prevent hard to others at the expense of themselves.

That's ends justify the means. Which is not good.

I feel "good" only when I'm "evil". But this is wrong cuz society based on the Bible says so

I'm not sure what you mean by hurdles and hopes or by "Occam and all that" And i totally reject the idea that we are capable of coming to moral conclusions on our own. No society operated on that hyper-individualistic mentality. There must be a universal and absolute moral code that binds all peoples and the only way to come to that is with theological presuppositions. So yes God is necessary

Can't handle the truth?

Fair enough. You could flip the definition of good or evil based on your goal, but either way, the concepts exist, and they aren't relative.

By that logic, is it evil to give treatment to those with terminal illnessess? And would it not be good to take them all off life support and kill them instantly, by your logic? After all, keeping them alive does increase the amount of suffering felt by sentient beings. I don't think your theory is stupid, but it is dangerous. It sounds like something a communist would say (and we know the amount of deaths and murders that caused in the 20th century).

this would lead to a chaotic and degenerate society. just think it through for a minute. not to mention its relativistic because each person determines their own "truth"

evil: working against people with the intention of doing wrong with no justified hatred against said victims nor any good outcome of it

That's what we call begging the question. What's not good about it?

Attached: begging the question.png (253x159, 62K)

Good is created by the weak to to control the strong.

Hurting people is evil and

helping people is good and

helping people to hurt people is whatever

Hurting people who hurt people is whatever

Hurting people who help people is the most evil

Helping people who help to hurt people is a little evil

Helping people who help people is ok

Helping to help hurt people who help people is fine if they hurt people who help people

Black people are bad

>By that logic, is it evil to give treatment to those with terminal illnessess? And would it not be good to take them all off life support and kill them instantly, by your logic?
It would depend on the circumstances, but I think for most cases I would say let the die, but first let them try whatever drugs they want.

>Money is the root of all evil.
Let's start here

Mayhaps you have slandered me with the ad hominem what ho

Occam as in Occam's razor, which says that the simplest explanation is most often correct.
In this case, it's far simpler to come to the assume there are no inherent moral absolutes, than that there are because of some magic sky daddy, and all the further assumptions involved with that.
Utilitarianism is hyper-individualistic since WHEN?
Provide anything to back up the claim that there "must be a universal and absolute moral code that binds all peoples."
Please, I'm waiting for you to explain what that is in any way, shape, or form, necessary.
Since you're rejecting the claim that humans are not capable of coming to moral conclusions, how did you determine that?

Exactly, it's just our choice in determining which is good, and which is evil that's subjective.

No, if I just call you an idiot that's an ad hominem. You're tempting me, though.

Land creatures are evil, sea creatures are good, dolphins are colonists

Not possible.

That's also wrong. You have to say I'm wrong because I'm an idiot.

Calling me an idiot is just an insult

Woosh

Lol

OK, you're an idiot. You may also be wrong because you're an idiot.

Attached: 20180903233412_1r.jpg (450x565, 29K)

No u

You're terrible at this and that's not even why you're wrong

(((Juden Peterstein))) is controlled opposition.

Oh yeah? Get a load of this, faggot: poopoopeepoopoopoopoopoo poopeepoopoopoopoopeepee poopeepeepoopeepeepeepee poopeepeepoopeepeepeepoo poopeepeepoopoopeepeepee poopeepeepeepoopoopeepoo poopeepeepoopoopoopoopee poopeepeepeepoopeepoopoo poopeepeepeepoopeepoopee poopeepeepoopeepeepoopoo poopeepeepoopoopoopoopee poopeepeepeepoopeepoopoo poopeepeepoopeepoopoopee poopeepeepoopeepeepeepee poopeepeepoopeepeepeepoo poopeepeepeepoopoopeepee poopoopeepoopoopoopoopoo poopeepeepoopeepeepeepee poopeepeepoopeepeepeepoo poopoopeepoopoopoopoopoo poopeepeepoopoopoopeepee poopeepeepeepoopoopeepoo poopeepeepoopoopoopoopee poopeepeepoopoopoopeepee poopeepeepoopeepoopeepee poopeepeepoopeepoopoopee poopeepeepoopeepeepeepoo poopeepeepoopoopeepeepee poopoopeepoopoopoopoopoo poopeepeepoopeepeepoopee poopeepeepeepeepoopoopee poopoopeepoopoopoopoopoo poopeepeepoopeepoopoopoo poopeepeepoopeepoopoopee poopeepeepoopoopeepeepee poopeepeepoopeepoopoopoo poopeepeepoopeepeepoopoo poopeepeepeepeepoopoopee poopoopeepoopoopoopoopoo poopeepeepeepoopoopeepee poopeepeepoopeepeepeepee poopeepeepeepoopoopoopoo poopeepeepoopeepoopoopoo poopeepeepoopeepoopoopee poopeepeepeepoopoopeepee poopeepeepeepoopeepoopoo poopeepeepoopeepoopoopee poopeepeepoopoopoopeepee poopeepeepoopoopoopoopee poopeepeepeepoopeepoopoo poopeepeepoopoopeepoopee poopeepeepoopoopeepoopoo poopoopeepoopoopoopoopoo poopeepeepoopoopoopeepee poopeepeepoopeepeepeepee poopeepeepoopoopeepoopoo poopeepeepoopoopeepoopee poopoopeepoopeepeepeepoo poopoopeepoopoopoopoopoo

Good is what can be iterated successfully
Evil is what interferes with that

Why? My Bible says (((the love of money))) is the root of all evil, not money.

Is OP trying to get us to question objectivity?

The most effective way to find an objective thing that people can do is science with 3rd party verification. The only individual thing you can know for certain is that you exist.

Read moar philosophy faggots.

This thread is shit.

OP is a master troll

Hes owned you twice, idiot.
t. Outside 3rd party
Also an insult is an ad hominem. It's the literal definition of an ad hominem you absolute fucking mong. It doesnt have to be you're wrong because you're an idiot. That would just be a true goddamn statement of fact.

You can't barrage a thread I literally just entered and expect that to affect me

I feel bad for the guy you were talking to

I find this a very simple question.

“Good” is whatever you desire to support and like in some way because of your beliefs.

“Evil” is something you want to hinder and dislike due to your beliefs.

Beyond that, their definition isn’t set, and has always been relative.

You could believe murdering a man to save a dog is good or evil, for instance.

But we all know you aren’t here for a serious answer. You simply want to watch people on the internet fly into a blind rage, spread Christian ideals, and laugh your ass off.

he said without relativism dipshit

Nah that's just how retards win arguments

You can say a bunch of logical shit, then call a goy an idiot

That is not an ad hominem you fucking melon

The term “good and evil” is a human construct

Once you've figured out solipsism you're at the point where reading more philosophy will just make you dumber. Seriously, if you're reading Descartes's Meditations stop after Chapter 2.

He who snoops about others' business discovers things that don't please him. Go back to r/philosophy.

By studying anthropology and psychology. Humans don't forge moral positions on every subject matter like everyone is a big brained philosopher. There has always been universal moral "code" traditionally grounded in theology (now grounded in secular humanism since the enlightenment which has been a disaster and led to post-modernism). There is a need for tradition to pass on to generations to bestow wisdom and absolute truth to keep the civilization afloat.

I didn't say utilitarianism was hyper-individualistic. It is however a much scrutinized moral system with problems. Here's one for instance: which scenario is more moral? very few people who are experiencing extreme levels of happiness and well-being or a lot of people experiencing moderate levels of well-being and are just content? p.s. avoid fedora terms like "sky daddy"

and the jackass who told you that was an altruistic messiah who wanted you to know the truth? By your logic even nihilism or anti-moralism is just a construct made for someone to get to you to behave like a jackass

see

You're an idiot
This is an ad hominem
You are wrong because you are an idiot
This is just fact

That wasn't me

Is it compliant with God's law because it is good or is it good because it is compliant with God's law?

Any further attempt to educate you is just feeding trolls, go be genuine for a few hours

Just remember when your entire family gets murdered you cant trial the criminal because it "has always been relative" and the man with the axe decided it was a desire he needed to support

he followed up his fallacists fallacy with an ad hominem himself as well as begging the question

>I cant debate because I am an idiot
>I dont understand ad hominem
>I-I'm leaving

I'm not trolling if I were I'd just be angrily calling you an idiot over and over or mixing in a few different insults. Instead I am stating out right that you are both wrong and an idiot.

Wikipedia is liberal nonsense and none of you will recognize it but I can't force you to learn philosophy in a class

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Spend 8 seconds skimming the first sentence this and come back, if you need a more right-leaning site I'll get one because liberals don't have a monopoly on truth

the latter. God is omni-benevolent

This entire thread is philosophical

Reading this thread is a lot like reading philosophy, it is the viewpoint and wisdom others. Albeit, this is shit-tier philosophy.

What makes you say that reading philosophy will make one dumber beyond a certain point? Won't reading other people's views give me more insight and expand my own thought? Does not the aquisition of new information make me the opposite of dumber in and of itself?

I will always assume bad faith and trolling on Yea Forums but God damn you're all a bunch of retards

I was under the impression that God himself is goodness

Wikipedia doesnt seem to help you be less of an idiot, idiot.

what do you mean, this is the best kind of philosophy because its possible that some will change their minds whereas the more civil discussion is made completely out of people who are unwilling to move from their positions.

I recognize that you read the article and appreciate your growth

that depends if you believe in absolute divine simplicity or an essence/energies distinction. but all christian denominations (as far as I'm aware) would agree good is infinitely good

Also, with regard to morality, God, and the Bible:

The idea is that since God is the all-knowing, He is the only being that can judge morality.

Source: I read it from the Bible myself. Quit following other people and read it your own damn self you faggots.

*God is infinitely good

Why

A more compatible definition would be that Good is a chrisitian construct wherein God or Godliness is Good.

Because this is a troll thread for idiots.

Plenty of old men have thought about life for millennia. You should read The Republic by Plato. Or listen to the audio book at librivox

Physical world is evil, other stuff is good

Join my death cult

I have in addition to the Crito and Apology

Because God is a perfect super-being. The Bible provides many testimonies of God’s goodness, including Jesus’ own, when He asserted that no one is truly good except God Himself (Mark 10:18).

We didn’t invent morality we just adhere to it and approach but never reach either the infinite good or bad absolutes on either side of the inherent morality spectrum

He sounds great I could really use his help atm

Hm, I suppose we need to define our goals here.

I'm more interested in education for its own sake. I'm not interested in pursuading people.

Therefore, I judge this thread to be bad.

If, however, your goal is to enlighten people, or even just witness a change of heart, then threads like these would be judged to be good

Good is that what serves its defined function as dictated by the ultimate moral authority of the creator and Evil is the perversion of something created to operate outside of its intended function as dictated by the ultimate moral authority of the creator. This is the only definition of good and evil, all others are not objective and instead just a matter of opinion of created beings.

pray and go to church. God helps who helps himself

Well I try to do the whole enlightenment through persuasion but it only really works with people on the the fence.
Funnily enough, Plato's system itself is built on the lie that there are Golden people and that there are bronze people. This could explain the skepticism people have towards morality

Is that another Bible quote or just a truth

Except nihilism and anti-moralism is the logical conclusion to God not existing.

Well John Stuart Mill was a hedonist who tried to improve on Epicurus' philosophy so hyper-individualistic is pretty close. Any attempts at creating a social moral was really only tacked on to his philosophy

You're not wrong. What are you trying to say then? That the moral discussion is actually an apologetic one or are you assuming that there is no God?

Truth based on scripture.

based

Attached: 79a.png (700x800, 13K)

cuckoldry

There is no God because there is no evidence for God therefore a person saying "you can't do X because it's immoral" is either someone trying to get you to behave the way they want or they've been influenced by someone who wants them to behave the way they want.

Well evidence itself is just testimony. At the end of the day every worldview has to come to terms with the fact that everything relies on some assumptions and testimony

How am I supposed to go about believing in God when I wasn't raised to

Cuckoldry is good, we are the evil ones

>there is no evidence for G-

Looks like aristotle, plotinus, augustine, aquinas and leibniz disagree

see above

Attached: Feser.jpg (333x499, 34K)

sigh
*unzips*

No testimony is one form of evidence. It is not physical evidence.

Good is what I want
Evil is what I don’t want

physical evidence is the testimony of the senses. Decartes struggles to find a reason on why the senses should be trusted at all and I doubt you can

But you want loli

Distrust your senses and walk into traffic.

Attached: 1504120691794.jpg (729x720, 103K)

I trust my senses because I believe in a God who does not allow us to be easily decieved by our own senses, you trust your senses because your senses tell you to which is just illogical

Only Americans think in binary

I trust my senses because people using their senses and comparing their experience with their peers is the best and only method for people to experience the universe.

start with looking at how ridiculous Earth got after a bunch of apes banged a bunch of rocks together and made friends with some animals while eating others.

then consider if there wasn't a creator to this lunacy, then maybe it at least makes an observer laugh.

then glance at ancient history through the lens of human history, especially the "burning everything with newly discovered fire" and realize that like it or not, holy books and scripts are some of the only writings to go off of for certain blocks of history.

Oh, and don't forget, once upon a time humans ate wooly mammoth while trying not to freeze to death or get eaten by the mighty smilodon.

Not to mention, most large animals were simply just considered to be monsters.

then the case for a transdimensional God, when all the forces of nature seem to be related on one lucky rock that will be eaten its closest, radiation launching star eventually and sucked into a black hole, doesn't seem so strange.

Sent from my iPhone.

Well why is it the best method? How do you know you are in a real world and not the matrix? Because the other programs told you?

It is the best method because we physiologically cannot experience the universe any other way. We do not know whether the world is a computer simulation but there is no way to find out so we're stuck using occam's razor to conclude that we're not.

then you've come to an agnosticism at best. Occam's razor is not the maxim the universe was founded on.

No, we're not in a simulation because there is no evidence. There is no God because there is no evidence.

If you're right it's useless and if you're wrong you're wasting your time

Good and evil are terms derived from religious dogmas to discern what is for and against the will of God.

This has actually been done by a few people. Nietzsche and Miller are probably the best, though I think Miller's qualitative hedonism makes the most sense. Nietzsche's idea of "duty" sounds nice, but it isn't always obvious how you got the duty in the first place.

>Define good and evil without relativism.
in a real sense, good and evil don't exist without relativism.

Welcome to Earth. there's not much to do here so we waste time with fire we can carry in our pockets, water on tap, thunder trapped in glass and stone, and by burying light so we can talk to each other. It kinda sucks here, and then you just kinda promptly die.

Make the best out of it?

Good and Evil dont exist

I thought your comment was actually very good. OP however, had an obvious Christian agenda from the get.

We're not living in a simulation because coming to the conclusion we're living in a simulation would be part of the simulation and this self defeating.

God has been proven demonstrably through logical argumentation and presuppositional techniques of non-theistic worldviews. You can easily find these arguments made by philosophers and theologians on the internet.

Elaborate.

god? Which one?

sure, there's plenty of infallible evidence but you won't post any to be scrutinised.

good = evil. They are the same thing, a value assignet to an action by a person or society, thereby it is dependent on them to see what is what. But on a pure theoretical level they are absolutely the same, there is no difference.

"Proven" is strong, because solipsism is still just as possible. Also, there's no reason having the simulation realize that it's simulated has to be contrary to the goals of the simulator. Then we just move one level up when talking about the origins of the universe.
Either way, none of the "proofs" for God (the most convincing of which is probably the origin of information argument) say ANYTHING about what this God is actually like.

That's not what that verse fucking means you pleb.

Good and evil are merely constructs of "society", moral and ethical enforcement by a wider community who have tacit agreement on the acceptable and unacceptable.

Just opt out of it, I have no choice as I have an antisocial personality disorder.
Fuck everyone that isn't me.

Attached: meh.jpg (535x755, 43K)

You wanna fuck?

>Fuck everyone that isn't me.

Now this sounds like Yea Forums!

This is 100% the character I'm playing next time this thread comes around

based

;)

Something can be produced.
It is produced by itself, something or another.
Not by nothing, because nothing causes nothing.
Not by itself, because an effect never causes itself.
Therefore, by another A.
If A is first then we have reached the conclusion.
If A is not first, then we return to 2).
From 3) and 4), we produce another- B. The ascending series is either infinite or finite.
An infinite series is not possible.
Therefore, God exists.

This is just one of many. You can go out and dig for yourselves.

Solipsism is self-refuting, and destructive to the possibility of knowledge whatsoever

sure, but, I'm a straight white male who is cool with gay people but mad that the alphabet soup crowd stole all the rainbows and made them gay.

You can't use one example in support of your opinion, there is plenty more philosophers and scientists that will tear every one of your fatuous "proofs" to shreds.

Y'all fucking see but don't perceive.

Read moar, you faggots

ITT "muuhhh Bible" accept it, there is no good, there is no good, there is no evil. Everything just is and everything beyond that was made by humans to manipulate other humans. Just go out at night, look at the stars and realize you are nearly nothing. Just a conglomeration of atoms standing on a rock, slowly spinning into nothingness

What produced God? Not nothing because nothing causes nothing.
Not by God because an effect never causes itself.
Therefore by another A.

The most likely cause is that the options you have thought of is not extensive and there is an explanation that has yet to have been discovered.

What of my conciousness? Or concepts in my perception?

Is not mathematics proof of something beyond the atoms? Light? My brain that can think logically?

More fun to fuck if you hate yourself for doing it

Nice one

Naw, rather be celibate but, we could just be friends and you can buy me stuff but never touch.

Edit l: the search for **objective** criteria

Edit: and **is the** search for a false worldly authority/orthodoxy

Egoism is evil and charity good

>brainlet
Get thee behind me Satan!

Pilate was not in Rome when NERO decided to have Peter killed. They blamed the fire in Rome on the Early Christians.

My relatives are evil.
My beer is good.

good and evil are language used to describe behavior based on culture, religion, etc.

if evil were a real thing we could just eliminate all evil babies before they grow up and do "evil" things...

Attached: baby bayonette.jpg (500x367, 28K)

nice roll!
check em'

Attached: dice nipple.jpg (1600x1200, 523K)