If you don't believe in God you have no objective framework to derive morals from which instantly makes you susceptible...

Yeah because it is known that religious people have always been accepting, tolerant and enlightened.

This also implies that a mooslim stoning his wife to death is "less susceptible to evil" than an atheist.

Suck my cock lobsterboy

Attached: DcoSGTDW0AI_mp1.jpg (900x1200, 269K)

Simply being born killed the most people in history

Those weren't dark years, that's just propaganda created by new age left gommies in higher education that hate God and reee out at specifically only at Christianity at any given opportunity.

>religious people have always been accepting, tolerant and enlightened.
What about the muslim you mentioned?

You're an idiot. The Church stifled medical and scientific progress and supported Galen's teachings, which supported Hippocrates' theory of the four humours - I.e. If you have a cold, you should eat a chilli. Persons such as Vesalius would have published their works much earlier if the Church didn't stifle them.

Also,
>Galileo

He was being sarcastic you goober

I was being sarcastic, m8.

Organo

I realized it 10 seconds after I posted it and hoped no one would notice.
Sorry, I'm a dumdum.

If you believe you derive morals from an "objective framework" then it makes you much more susceptible to evil. All you have to do is convince yourself that what you're doing is morally sound within that framework, and anything you do will be acceptable, even righteous, no matter how evil it actually is.
>Atheism(communism) killed the most people in history.
Lel. Even if we assume atheism and Communism go hand in hand (they do not) much, MUCH more people were killed (or sanctioned to be killed) for a religion. Some economic philosophy devloped in the 1850's wouldn't even come close to killing as many people as religion has.

Attached: 1502436842433.png (640x640, 234K)

>he thinks it was religion that stifled those
>not the normie consensus prevalent at the time
religion was just a front for normie consensus back then

You fucking brainlets need to get off my board right now. Stop trying to shill your jew religion to us.

>posting Jordan "what do you mean by believe" Peterson
>posting Jordan "what do you mean by God" Peterson

the dude is "Christianity for thee, but not for me"
he's doesn't believe in anything, he just realises it's an effective method for instilling morals in low IQ mouthbreathers

It's funny to see all the retarded traditional christians worship this Kierkegaard tier atheist in denial. If they actually understood his arguments they'd see that he has nothing in common with them.

Haha no prob user. We're all fwens here.

>rules created by all-powerful all-knowing all-present eternal immortal Creator
>rules thought up by creature(s)
Hmm yeah really hard to think which one is more objective. Yes humans have been given access to some of the objective layer so we can and do find some objective truths, but the main issue is, how do you account for those objective truths? Where do inanimate laws of thought that transcend the physical come from or exist?

God is still the most and only logical hypothesis to account for objective truths. You can come up with random shit like there's a whole other "eternal"/"transcendental" dimension, but it'd be pure guessing, whereas we have documented history involving religions like Christianity.

And don't even think of going the "there is no supernatural" route. The world isn't just material. Material inanimate objects don't just randomly contain and generate objective truths, laws of thought, like laws of logic. What, they're just magical little fairy tales that are nothing but a product of the electrochemical processes of our brain? No brain is the same, and if brains are just material objects, then whatever thoughts they produce aren't objective anyways. If you go the materialism route you're just subverting logic, objective and argumentation/thought itself.

And then you got your other arguments to weigh like believing fine-tuning and not whatever fraction defined by literally hundreds of powers of ten that the world just came to being on its own, that life came into being, that over 10 gorillion gorillion years, we've had a continuously successively-complex accumulation of gene mutations that somehow at every SINGLE step of the way formed a viable functioning engine for life and reproduction.

Fine don't just assume every other hypothesis is wrong, but right now honestly a Creator God is still the best hypothesis. Everyone should be a deist at least, and if they were honest they'd be attending churches, in an attempt to "gain more data."

Attached: christchangun.png (1000x1000, 345K)

How about you learn the meaning of "objective" you dumb fucking brainlet. Lmao. Imagine writing all that nonsense just because you don't know the meaning of a word.

The taiping rebellion (christianity) killed potentially as much as communism, in the span of 15 years.

>you need theism for moral realism
This view is rejected by virtually all ethicists, and divine command theory is a laughing stock.
Bait harder you fucking brainlet.

Sorry, but your specific brand of sky daddy probably doesn't exist. There is no objective morality, but that doesn't automatically mean that everyone's evil. How do you reconcile differences in the moral systems of different religions? Stop telling yourself a lie just to make yourself feel better, brainlet.

>upper middle class discusses religion
>nothing but sophistry and hairsplitting completely divorced from reality
nothing new

Attached: 1521116157520.jpg (403x403, 53K)

Yes but there's no garauntee that it's right. Which makes it easily subject to falling apart. There's no integrity to adhere to. You can switch your beliefs as soon as they don't serve you, even if they hurt others.

>arguing over semantics so you can avoid actually arguing my points
Smh you should probably just go check out Hume's skepticism of induction first so you can better understand what I'm getting at. Or if you are familiar with that, tell me the answer to his skepticism.

Please learn to read. I didn't say you needed to inherently believe Christianity only. I said it was well-documented so you can say its one of the chief hypothesis of life, so everyone who is logically honest would be a student of it (not saying you necessarily have to believe). Again, everyone should at least be some kind of deist. Having a Creator best accounts for so many facets of life. Yes you can also believe/conjure up whatever else (and you should, the only true brainlets are those who can't even think enough to actually at least think SOMETHING up, there's already enough philosophical debate out there).

>lower middle class discusses religion
>yo I feel God exist yo. Ye boi, but something bad happen to me once, so God, if you out there God, why you do this to me. God giveth and he taketh away. Word yo. Word.

You live a delirium where abstract concepts like laws are more real than physical objects. You're a lunatic.

>lower class subhuman thinks his opinion could ever possibly have any weight to it
lol

in a lot of religion people are meant to do good in a selfless way, so that they can enter paradise. In practice, lots of people just do "good" because they're afraid they won't go to paradise otherwise. isn't that messed up ? are you really doing good or are you buying a ticket for the afterlife ?

>literally presents the god of the gaps argument and expects to be taken seriously

Fug off with that shit tier bullshit argument

the lower classes doesn't have time for bullshit discussions. They live live the best they can, using the hand life gave them. Then some upper-middle class shiteater comes and tries to reconfigure their entire life because a certain inflection of one of the definitions of religion fit the best with what he was surrounded with all his life. He'll cover this up by ideologising it like a champ.

Stop listening to this faggot on jewtube, and start reading some proper philosphy -
Heidegger, nietzche, hagel, zizek.
Peterson is a scam.

objective framework to derive morals from only matters if you need your morals to agree with others... and in my opinion once they're objective they're no longer morals they're rules/laws. i suppose laws are important to make us less susceptible to evil sure, but god is never a necessary part of that at all. all god actually adds to morality is a little concession prize at the end that may or may not exist. in fact it is the preposition of god and the constant knowledge that a reward for moralistic behavior may not come that undermines morals as rules to live by. it doesn't encourage people to live morally for the sake of morality and so people end up being immoral. the abrahamic religions need to specifically include forgiveness and reward just so they don't lose all their followers constantly lapsing in morality. get rid of god and bring about atheism and we can finally actually begin to be moral people.

The lower classes live like animals, never reaching the true potential of humans.

proposition**

It's not the moral compass that I hate, it's the group dynamic that instills a sense of infallibility in otherwise questionable decisions. You can still really easily be a genuinely evil person under the cloak of theism regardless of its actual teachings, which is pretty spotty on a lot of subjects a lot of the time.

>proper philosophy
I thought he was a psychologist

But aren't you the lunatic? How are you so certain about the nature of abstract concepts? Did you create them? You should know better than think "just because we don't see it, nothing's there." How can you be so certain when all your knowledge is gained inductively? You gather a bit of knowledge, and then make sweeping generalizations. We all do. That's how all humans think. You don't know the true nature of abstract concepts. We can guess, hypothesize, whatever. But it's all in the realm of probability no? Are not both possible? So the question now is "which makes more sense?" That is how we're going to find objectivity in our largely-inductive way of thinking.

If we're dealing with just the subject of "what is the nature of abstract concepts" on its own, fine it can be either natural or supernatural, or some combination if you also want to consider. They're all viable. Of our guesses none is "100% true no one can say otherwise." I mean, how can you even empirically study a abstract concept? I'm not saying to just come up with some whacko guesses either. I'm advocating for a supernatural nature of abstract concepts inside a philosophical theory for all of life, because the supernatural part is a key aspect of the theory and not just a guess for a single problem.

Fine for just the nature of "abstract concepts" you can also hold on to your theory of pure physical, which then makes us assume there's some "abstract concept particles" floating in the air or within our cells or something and that's why we have access to such "objects". That's a viable hypothesis for this particular subject. But again, why I argue against it because I don't see very consistent all-encompassing theories of life with a purely physical metaphysic.

Personally I don't adhere to it but yes, it's one viable hypothesis. It is possible and more importantly it's a logical hypothesis. You may have issue with it but at least it's something rather than nothing.

This is precisely one of my main criticisms of organized religion. Couldn't have said it better myself.

(I'm the second person) I'd rather have nothing at all than peddle a completely incorrect answer.

>scam
Please show anything fraudulent he has done

What are you responding to? You speak to yourself, like all upper-middle class solipsists. Stop interfering with working-class life of adults keeping the shit-machine running.

'abstract' is by definition divorced from reality.

If you believe in god you have a system to base your sin on and an easy scapegoat to place your actions upon.

Y'all niggas are posying in a spook thread.

Attached: max-stirner-620x350.jpg (620x350, 87K)

Killing people isn't necessarily a bad thing. Need to crack a few eggs to make an omelette. Humans are overpopulated anyway. The greater good is more important than a few human lives.

Attached: 01E47079-706E-41B6-933C-6FA40FADBC52.jpg (394x374, 55K)

Evil is subjective you cant define it based on religious principles that you follow that you think are good.

Exactly what an blood thirsty mass murdering communist would say. They would stab an old lady to death and then proclaim 'evil and bad is subjective lol'

So religion is sort of like a blue pill to keep people from behaving like degenerates?

Objective vs. Subjective moral framework, user. Which is more corruptable?

Everyone follows rules, idiot. You aren't in prison so I take it you're some child who's too scared to break daddy Trump's laws.

Nice bait lol

Assuming that by saying truths you mean morals no human has the abillity to have the objective truths as there are none, they differ betwen us as some think that killing an animal is "bad" bcs killing in bad kek and others think it is "good" food lol. We have evolved in such a way not to kill each other bcs we needed each other to survive, it is an "objective" truth bcs it is needed to our survival, it is needed to our fucking and making babies to secure our species. The other truths differ bcs they are not as impactful for the survival of the species as it us with the truth of not killing each other. Bcs of their impact it is not taught to children by their parents as the other morals are. There are psyhopaths that do not follow these morals and kill without hesitation and by your logic all atheists should be them as they do not have the truths from god but they are not.
>...at every SINGLE step of the way formed a viable functioning engine for life and reproduction.
We are not perfect tho, weve got incels that refuse not to be a virgin which is a mistake for us species to have them. The other flaw of our is our thinking that we are superior in every way to any other animal, we are superior generaly to any animal but we need most of them to our survival except mosquitos, fuckem. An animal that we need for us to live, eat and reproduce are the bees but we do not care about them except for specific individuals. Im not denying the existance of God nor am I believing in one or a specific one, it doesnt have to be your religion to be true and it doesnt need to be that any religion inst true at all, it is impossible to say so, so we can only theorise and not come to any conclusion.

Attached: unknown-5.png (193x166, 6K)

why shouldn't i be evil though

But God says we should kill all niggers.

>No he doesn't!

How do you know that?

>I have this book over here!

I have a book where God says kill all niggers, though.

Postulating the existence of a deity doesn't get us one micrometer closer to having an "objective framework" because unless that deity appears and speaks to each one of us individually, all we have to go by to determine what that deity wants is what other men *claim* he wants.

And those claims boil down to "something some asshole wrote down somewhere once".

I have no respect for anything any of you assholes write down. Why would I respect what some semi-literate hebe wrote down centuries ago?

Yeah it's sure working for the mudslimes

>likes nietzsche
>has morals
he's either lying or retarded
he's a doctor, so he's lying intentionally

God is not an objective framework. Religious morality changes drastically based on who is running the churches and what political enemies they face. You can blindly follow an authority to get your morals, but it isn't objective and it is still "susceptible to evil"

Attached: VyuTg7ImpVAqWoOrz4QFem6SR3Dvbf5TB3RjjaHn7ow.jpg (847x768, 149K)

wait? seriously? communism killed the most people? Didn't happen LOL!

you don't necessarily need god. you need either god or philosophy. preferably both but at least one otherwise your life will be meaningless.

>tfw no one is forcing you to be a good guy so you have to do it yourself

Attached: BC08395B-CFBF-4ED2-95BB-FECCE1DD1108.png (261x192, 71K)

A free market system suits us the best at the moment but if you had a communist system ran by a supercomputer it probably wouldn't be that bad in the end, but keep in mind a computer wouldn't give a shit about starving the population either if it meant improvement in the long run. Obviously not a lot of people would stand for that.

>If you don't believe in God you have no objective framework to derive morals from
*obstructs your path*

Attached: immanuel-kant.jpg (640x480, 81K)

>christianity
>objective
lmao next time you're gonna tell me you are better than atheists you entitled fuck