Can morality exist without a higher being?

>OBEY
>YAHWEH

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (1280x720, 61K)

Absolutely wrong. This is why it took so lomg for people to become civilized. Most people are savages, read some history.

Morality is the reality of what is good or bad. Subjective reality cannot exist. Therefore subjective morality cannot exist.

>Morality cannot exists without some axioms everybody honors.
Agreement among men with no gods necessary.

>Morality is the reality of what is good or bad.
healthy = morality

>Subjective reality cannot exist.
Therefore your argument cannot exist.

Attached: Nietzsche vs freud god.jpg (500x369, 38K)

How is health inherently moral?

Subjective experience exists and therefore subjective morality based on experience can exist. Depends on how you build your moral landscape

have sex

>you are saying there is no objective morality and that is fine but you cannot accept that objective morality could exist
What is happening is that we are talking about two different sorts of "objective morality" and you are conflating them, which is why you think this invalidates my points. It is the difference between saying that there is no objectively best flavor of ice cream and saying that it is objectively true that my favorite flavor of ice cream is chocolate.

>Subjective reality cannot exist
You misspelled objective.

>How is health inherently moral?
Cause and effect

> moral

adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character.
adj.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior.
adj.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous.

Even "virtue" and "justice" came from war gods that exhibited archetypal traits of health and survival during conflict
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtus_(deity)

Attached: 225px-Tetricus-virtus.png (225x246, 88K)

>It is the difference between saying that there is no objectively best flavor of ice cream and saying that it is objectively true that my favorite flavor of ice cream is chocolate.
sophistry

>How is health inherently moral?
Cause and effect

> moral

adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character.
adj.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior.
adj.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous.

Even "virtue" and "justice" came from war gods that exhibited archetypal traits of health and survival during conflict
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtus_(deity)

Attached: sophist 1.png (600x400, 392K)

user they are inherently incapable of understandig what you say. Is impressive.

By what measure? There is the natural aversion to killing members of your own species, but that isn't morality, instead being instinctual due to killing being less than ideal for survival and propogation of a species. Even then, ape societies will kill others outside of the society during territorial battles. Even within that natural aversion, this makes it subjective due to it being conditional.

>reminder for the lmao realism atheist that doesn't get what making a god means
>realism means objective abstractions, like truth and morality
>I wonder what abstract ideals could be derived from

>user they are inherently incapable of understandig what you say. Is impressive.
>How is health inherently moral?
Cause and effect

> moral

adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character.
adj.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior.
adj.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous.

Even "virtue" and "justice" came from war gods that exhibited archetypal traits of health and survival during conflict
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtus_(deity)

>sophistry
Call it what you will, that's the difference that seems to have you confused.
>Cause and effect
You have to determine what effects are your goals, which is subjective.

top kek

Terry Davis I will never forget you.

Attached: Terry-Davis-Patron-Saint.png (350x350, 225K)

>Nope, it is about identity and categorization, typically used in assessment of whether something is true or not true.
No it is about the inherent truth or falsehood of something. The non-affection of one's actions on another's life is inherently neutral. Neutrality exists in the world. One can be either standing or sitting, no middle. One can either be eating or not eating, no middle. But something can be either good or bad.

Yes, although not an absolute morality. Any morality created by man (or the state) is relative and pretty much worthless.

Morality can exist without a higher being but not without consequences. The faggots trying to disprove God are wasting their time since heaven and hell will still be there. And there is only one way to confirm if hell doesn't exist.

Attached: kys.png (500x250, 145K)

Just to reiterate: objective morality cannot exist, regardless of whether or not there is a god.

>There is the natural aversion to killing members of your own species, but that isn't morality, instead being instinctual due to killing being less than ideal for survival and propogation of a species.

less than ideal for survival and propogation of a species = morality

healthy = morality

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (474x244, 12K)

Yes. Pain and pleasure are fundamental aspects of nature. All ethics flow from this fact, otherwise you wouldn’t need them as no pain can be caused.

You're confusing the concept of human morality with the enforcement of it.
People can behave "morally" and "good" to each other without an authority figure enforcing such things. However, to maintain an entire civilization along a set of principles...actual force is basically required to maintain order out of such a large population.

No morality cannot exist without God, for morality is eternal, non-material and universal, nothing in matter is any of those things, so the only precodntion for something eternal, non-material and universal, is God.

The more interesting question is who God is.

It's certainly not the evil abrahamic "god" who wants to punish eternally, for that moral standard we do not find within our moral standard recieved from God, thus abrahamic ideals is not from God, for they do not correspond with the ideals that inherently is within us.

So what revelation and ideal do correspond with our inherent standard? The Bhagavad-gita, therein the Supeme Lord reveales the most confidential of all knowledge, and one should accept the whole revelation as true, for God speaking it is the precondition for truth.

Debating god's existence in a way that conforms with the world's logic, the same worldly logic that gives us all of the societal ills of today and ignores the true nature of things...why? Why do you adhere to such an EVIL system? People who share our worldview already know the foolishness of worldly knowledge to some degree, we see where it takes the scientists and society and what the result of such "wisdom" is. It's what the world calls "progress". In truth, it's "progressing" from all that is good, all that is true and all that is natural. Ultimately it leads us to nihilism and moral relativism. A world where life has no intrinsic meaning or value and morality essentially does not exist as it is just an opinion. Rationalists are fools, which is obvious if you stick around long enough to witness them spinning their wheels arguing about such gems as the simulation theory or morality when they ultimately don't believe in morals at all.

Attached: jesus 2.jpg (480x720, 60K)

Many people in "our movement" seem to realize the failings of this logic...and it IS logical for people we oppose to come to their conclusions. These people I speak of may also recognize what god/religion actually delivers and argue for it on a practical level. Yet many of these same people then demand that we measure god by this same failed human logic system. As if that is the ultimate measure of truth despite the fact that they already know it often leads people to get things DISASTROUSLY wrong and leads humanity astray, especially as it strays into things that are less observable. As if those who are at the "top" of this worldly logic system are not some dysfunctional people who argue for the very things they despise most! Why do such people defend the system? What is true, if not that which accurately and adequately addresses the human condition? Yet in the face of this obvious FACT, this grave distinction between failed human logic and god's truth, people often pull out some human "logical fallacy" argument probably coined by some jew and use it against god? I'm sorry, I've been there but I can not understand such a thing from people who should know better. I was there very recently and maybe that's why it's really striking to me right now. Drop the ego that makes you think humans know better than god, despite all evidence to the contrary, have an open mind and heart and give god a chance.

The best method to uphold order to date.

Theoretically, you don't need to breathe air to live. You can prepare some fancy scuba gear with fluid oxygen and walk around with it. It just isn't feasible long term.

>less than ideal for survival and propogation of a species = morality
>healthy = morality
exactly
what justifies morality is its implication as a frame to analyze actions, and guide the actors towards group and self-serving goals

>the inherent truth
No such thing. ((( Truth ))) means different things to different people.

are events real ?

When truth does not exist, existence is pointless. With a pointless existence existing is futile.

>Is it possible to believe that anything is true without first presupposing that truth derives from that higher being?

The concept of truth doesn't apply to morality. Morality is always subjective, even if you postulate that it is dictated by some sort of powerful ghost as subject.

Theists admit their morals were written by men, but then they add the fairy tale bit on the end that - despite not having any clue who these men actually were - that they were inspired by gods because this is what evil men told you to believe.

And you fell for it, naturally.

The religious are moral nihilists, they are just dishonest about it.

What utter nonsense. If there is no such thing as truth then the word has no real meaning. You are an idiot. How's the freshman philosophy class at the Jr. College going?

just swap objective for perfect in your mind and continue im the dude u crossthreaded

No.

>inb4 muh reddit spacing summerfags use to larp as us

God if dead and it's the biggest tragedy, this problem has no solution.

Believing morality exists without god or without a genetic factor for empathy is reddit tier.

If you don't believe in god, you have no reason to be good or bad, every other reason you tell yourself is as valid as god and can be dismantled with even less effort, so you do things that benefit you.

But most people can't live in total chaos, and not believing in anything means your life and mind are chaotic, so your mind makes something up that it regards as superior and for which you act as good or bad.

You do realize that this has nothing to do with the Christian faith and their specific transcendental entity, but instead as a whole amongst all religions and all gods, with their actual existence being irrelevant to the argument, right? Or do you think that christianity is special despite almost all societies and civilizations in history deriving rule from higher authority that wasn't christian?

Perfect according to whom?

Psychopathy and mass murder are also natural attributes of humans. Morality is taught through culture, an artificial construction.

haha yay
how on earth can that be true we exist on earth btw
im sorry please lay out an argument or i can respond to this

Rationalism in action. What does "real" even mean boys and how can you say what is real? Ah the wonders of the human intellect and rationality, worshipped like a god by proud atheists while their secular nations circle the drain.

>Why do you adhere to such an EVIL system?
Religions are evil. Rational people understand the inherent immorality of most deity-based religions.

On the one hand, we are rational, moral beings who commit immoral acts. One of those acts was the enslavement of other human beings and the fabrication of the mental weapons used to do it - religion.

Religion forces you to love some entity who you fear, who can presumably smote you where you stand. We are forced to follow blindly his commands. Religion is a prep school crafted by the wealthy and powerful to graduate eternal slaves of formerly moral human beings

Religion tricks you into believing you can't be moral without religion. It cons you into imagining that some reward after death is superior to this one precious life you have on Earth.

On the other hand, the followers must be such pieces of insanely degenerate shit that only the fear of being smote by the creator/destroyer of the universe is enough to get them to behave like civilized human beings for 5 minutes.

>Call it what you will, that's the difference that seems to have you confused.
sophistry

word games
critical theory
DECONSTRUCTIONISM

>You have to determine what effects are your goals, which is subjective.
morality is about living creatures who give symbolic language to meaning which they experience through living
MORALITY = CAUSE AND EFFECT IN REGARDS TO LIVING BEINGS = HEALTHY OR SICKLY.

REAL (interacting with life, thus seeking health/life/power/healthy interaction) OR DELUSIONAL (misinterpreted thought/experience causing sickly outcomes/danger/pain/disconnect). The mind evolved for the body, not the other way around

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (474x660, 48K)

with ur spaceing green text a quote or defining argument

space a new point

dont do this
>do this

i like rainbows

>smug boomer posting
>reality doesn't exist xddd grow up kiddos
you are wasting everyone's time

Subjective morality is inherently a falsehood. Subjectivity has nothing rooted in actuality. It is just as arbitrary to think that you should kill puppies and rape their corpses as it is to think that you should not murder innocents.

>are events real ?
We perceive events.

according to the philisophical defonition of objective
>ill non wiki it
.correct in all possible ways without exception or interpretation

>Debating god's existence
Yahweh
>transcendental entity,
ESCAPISM

>Christian faith
OBEY Rabbi Yeshua

OBEY

YAHWEH

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (474x296, 27K)

What the fuck is your nonsensical drivel even on about? Both of my threads are created to disprove secularism.

You aren't arguing anymore, you're just ranting.

>Ah the wonders of the human intellect and rationality, worshipped like a god by proud atheists while their secular nations circle the drain.
FALSE

If you don't start with God who reveals in the Bhagavad-gita you can't make sense of truth or morality or anything, for without God you have no valid epistemological starting point for the values you use, your metaphysical worldview, your moral worldview etc.

>You aren't arguing anymore, you're just ranting.
sophistry

word games
critical theory
DECONSTRUCTIONISM

>You have to determine what effects are your goals, which is subjective.
morality is about living creatures who give symbolic language to meaning which they experience through living
MORALITY = CAUSE AND EFFECT IN REGARDS TO LIVING BEINGS = HEALTHY OR SICKLY.

REAL (interacting with life, thus seeking health/life/power/healthy interaction) OR DELUSIONAL (misinterpreted thought/experience causing sickly outcomes/danger/pain/disconnect). The mind evolved for the body, not the other way around

>When truth does not exist, existence is pointless.
Your existence is pointless. I have value, purpose and my existence is meaningful.

FFS people.
Morality is the mathematics of surviving in a network of independent entities that have memories.

Not a communal one no. It will always devolve into moral subjectivity without central ideology. Sure morality can exist but it will vary so much from one person to the next that those of higher moral standards are doomed to be buried order external vices

>without exception or interpretation
So if I can interpret it to not be perfect, then it is not objective yes?

Wow user you are very based

>we exist on earth
Agreed.

God is just an abstract archetype for the "strongman tyrannical ruler". Morality only exists if people believe it is enforced this entity - regardless if it's in a concrete or abstract form.

>spends time on pol
> believes in agreement among men

user.!.

When you btfo the smug demoralized slave of critical theory Jews

Attached: hipster sjw npc rage.jpg (221x228, 9K)

>surviving
AND procreating

ok boomer

its objective regardless of interpretation you do not deide if water is wet to our senses water is objectively wet the way we understand it
>in phill objective means what i said earlier

stfu Musk

And yet it happens anyway, and it's not seen as immoral to kill members of your own species outside of your society. In fact, how do you even get people to be willing to die while killing others, when doing so is completely contrary to the supposedly objective former? Are the chimpanzee territorial murders objectively wrong? It's still taboo within their society, but outside it isnt, despite this supposedly being an objective aversion based on species. Would this mean it is objectively wrong for them to do this despite it being a natural phenomenon? Or because it's natural, but runs contrary to the original aversion, it is subjective through being conditional?

No. Otherwise, morality is your opinion versus mine, and there's no intrinsic difference between us that would denote your opinion as better than mine. The only way to establish this is artificially through violence or the threat of violence. However, this is, as stated earlier, artificial, and at the end of the day just you forcing yourself on others. This is essentially Nietzsche's philosophical takeaway: the Ubermensch is supposed to be "God" to others and enforce his morality on others. Though he's a dumbass failure like all fedoras eventually amount to, he was honest in the consequences of a world without God. Without a universal, transcendent standard that is as immovable as the laws of gravity, then morality must be enforced througuh violence. All fedoras should repent

Fuck off with your 2 digit iq

>What does "real" even mean boys and how can you say what is real?
I can only say what is real to me, and I can share that idea with others. Have you never read Descartes?

>Rationalism, worshipped like a god by proud atheists
Are these falsities the only non-arguments you have?

Morals are subjective, thus, my definition of morality most likely differs from yours in some way. Just like religion/spirituality/ etc.

Idk what kind of "God" you're referring to, but again, that falls into the same boat.

Everything is just based on perspective, which is determined by A) your childhood/upbringing B) culture, traditions, and surroundings of where you're from / raised C) your own personal interpretations.

If there was or is a higher power, I doubt he/she/it would give the slightest fuck about what we're doing. I think we're all insignificant wastes of atoms. We're the intelligent life, that enjoys not having intelligence.

Buy Chainlink

Moral understanding and moral reality are two different concepts.

Which was "correct in all possible ways without exception or interpretation". So if I can interpret the higher being's morality to not be correct, then it is not objective.

Which means there is no objective morality, correct? Truth and enforcement being derived from that which does not exist, to serve a people or society for their own benefit and ability to rule over others.

Wait, atheists are better or worse people than christians or even religious people? Perhaps you are coming from a different perspective than most on the board, politically.

Rational means nothing when the basis is human rationality. It's not reliable. "Immoral" is also meaningless when based on the same thing. Religion was created to enslave people? It seems to me that people need no help in that regard. What exactly is it in religion that enslaves people?

Love someone who you fear? God is the creator of all things, should one see see him as he would a human? How could one not fear such a being to some degree? I would say it's more about respect, but you paint it however you wish. We should fear what lies ahead for us if we turn our backs on him, sure.

I don't blindly follow his commands, I see the effects of not doing so. It's the opposite of being bind. I see the wisdom in it.

People can't be moral without god. It's so obvious that it's not worth wasting time on. If you can't see it then that really sucks for you.

Humans are absolutely depraved, you got that part right. Put them in charge and you get what you deserve. We see that in action, but some people are blind. For all their lofty ideas, they are lost and prone to sin.

>Subjectivity has nothing rooted in actuality.
What are you trying to say? In fact, subjectivity is rooted in the actuality of the subject's preference.

>It is just as arbitrary to think that you should kill puppies as it is to think that you should not murder
What is your point? You have given examples for subjective moral values. That doesn't prove the "falsehood" of subjective morality (whatever that is supposed to mean).

>Subjective morality is inherently a falsehood.
Are you trolling or 12?
All morality is subjective. No morality can be objective. If you make this claim, you must be prepared to prove
1) Your gods exist.
2) Your gods care about us
3) Your gods fabricated a ((( morality ))) that includes slavery, pederasty, rape, murder and a litany of other crimes and atrocities.

You shouldn't be ashamed of the evil you gleefully worship, it's a centuries old well rehearsed story for the feeble-minded. You should be ashamed of being so gullible and retarded in the current year.

>Can morality exist
No

Conceptual elements of the human psyche do not "exist".
You ACT ON THEM, and your actions exist, but the ideals themselves are phantoms of human cognition.

Of course, these phantoms are what binds us together; a society without morality disintegrates.

Thinking beings exist forever at the mercy of imaginary forces.

More ontology than teleology. It is a matter of being more than that of purpose for this discussion.

Nope, it is a matter of identity and categorization dum dum.
>Muh fallacy fallacy
We are discussing existence itself, not an aspect, property, life form, etc. of existence.

Decay occurs, survival extends beyond the singular being. Survival is in a sort of punctuated permanence via DNA.
>Reminder something existeing doesn't make it moral
Jesus CONTEXT you insufferable fucks. We're talking about existence itself not a component thereof. Stop being sophists.

Survival is more than the life and death of an individual, death is a natural process of life and survival. We are talking about existence and non-existence, not life and death.

>secularism.
What is that? Another made-up ism crafted by desperate believers?

are you the only thing in the univerese?
are you the higher power
>no
read what i said its not a trick it means what it means irreguardless reguardless is wordplay
its a wordplay point its not a massive game changer with what you say it just means we argue about defonitions im trying to help bro

>its actually okay to fuck kids
There are some things in this world that are universally abhorred. They're called crimes against humanity. Cannibalism and pedophilia are two of them.

Attached: 1557106989883.jpg (645x773, 49K)

Again it's all subjective.

>there is no objective morality
Correct.

>Truth and enforcement being derived from that which does not exist
Man-made morals are the only ones that have ever existed:
List of moral codes written by men
-----------------------------------
Code of Urukagina - scribed by men
Code of Hammurabi - chiseled by men
Egyptian Book of the Dead - written by men
Talmud - written by men
Rig Vedas - written by men
Bible - written by men
Draconian constitution - written by men
Koran - written by men
Corpus Juris Civilis - written by men
Tang Code - written by men

List of moral codes not written by men
--------------------------------------

Don't read my posts then, certainly do not waste time responding.

>rabbi on a stick, kek

Stay with your surface level understanding goy. Be a based atheist, just like all those secular jews. There is nothing jewish about being an atheist at all...

Reading comprehension, do you have it? I was not commenting on your threads but pointing out how retarded things get when one relies on human logic/rationality. TO even discuss truth" in that context is an exercise in futility.

Human morality can be explained rationally.
The existence of a magical man floating around in space who somehow "created everything" is irrelevant.
The existence of such a God would mean that "God" also created immorality. If "God" created everything, psychopaths and other "immoral" people couldn't exist if that possibility hadn't been part of the design to begin with.
If "God" can't control the design, then "God" is incompetent.
If "God" allows suffering then God is malevolent.

>are you the only thing in the univerese?
I don't subscribe to solipsism, no.
>are you the higher power
No, but what does that matter?
>read what i said
I did, and I responded to it.
>t just means we argue about defonitions
I used the definition that you gave.