/lit/ - Literature

>>16469509
>YOUR religious doctrine is the true word
Obviously everyone thinks their religious doctrine is the true word. Otherwise they wouldnt believe it.

>>16469514
Well yeah, but I'm expecting anons here to realize the fault of basing morality on a specific text. Let's pretend that the text of someone's religion is written by some pervert in their room and not god. Could anyone cope with this fact? It is much more likely. God doesn't write.

All religions have mostly the same underlying moral values. It's just slight variations and clarifications that differ them. You can either think those values are true and all religions doing their best to interpret them from one true God, or you can think one religion is really correct and the rest have come really close to getting it right

>>16469553
They don't and you would have to prove that. The abbos and the jews have little in common. Again, one would have to believe there is a medium to interpret God. Visions? Actual spoken word? Hidden underground scrolls?

>>16469509
Dosto fucked up here, everything is already permitted not everything is good.
I don't like the epistles very much but I like that passage a lot. Also it's somehow intuitively logical.

>>16469534
I don’t need to worry about this because my religious doctrine was written by God

>>16469509
>if you agree with this quote
Then you are retarded.

>>16469598
He wrote it? Was god manifested as a human when god did it or did god have to control another human?
>>16469601
Be nice

Morality and thus (moral) laws are at the complete mercy of the acknowledgement that there is a God, thus dogmatically upholding and exalting him, because while the whole logic of the closed system of morality can be flowing flawlessly, the precedence that it requires to be valid presupposes a supreme entity which exists outside space-time and is unaffected by the mechanical laws of the universe. The general agreement in society that a supreme, awesome and incomphrensible being exists then washes away the nihilism that eats at and rots the system of morality in society and thus the bedrock upon which the whole moral system sits on is justified.

>>16469592
Although I think he was speaking more about how people would lose their moral compass since they would perceive everything as permitted and would lose all sense of shame etc., while in a world without God/Godly institutions it would be much easier to go off and debauch yourself.

>>16469601
t. atheist

>>16469607
Moral laws are no different than normal written laws of man. They are only as powerful as they are enforcible. Again, what god?

>>16469601
If you don’t understand what Dosto meant by this, you are a certified midwit and you are welcome to return to wherever you originated from any time, numoid.

>>16469509
>there is no objective morality or that YOUR religious doctrine is the true word
Both of these are correct.

>>16469625
If God exists than murdering someone is objectively wrong. If God does not exist, than murdering someone is not objectively wrong.

>>16469663
massive cope.

>>16469663
War is murder, no?

>>16469534
Religious morality doesn't have to be based completely on a text.

>>16469684
War and murder and different things. Killing and murdering are different things. You can kill outside of war and you can murder in a war as well of course.

>>16469692
What concrete physical thing is it based on then?
>>16469693
>intent
>killing
Seems like murder to me. Do you have a different definition?

>>16469509
Dostoyevsky didn’t even believe in this, right? It was Ivan that said it, not Dosto.

>>16469684
If God exists than what he decrees as morally wrong is objectively morally wrong. I assume your suggesting that God in the Old Testament caused wars and the like? He is literally God you fucking idiot, He can do whatever he wants. Anyway, from what foundation are you criticizing the logical inconsistences of the bible? You cannot criticize the morality of the bible as an atheist as your morality is subjective and relative. Its just your subjective opinion.

>>16469725
Dosto was an Orthodox Christian, so it's likely he believed that as well.

>>16469730
So morality only exists in christianity?

>>16469514
No, most of the LARPers on here don't think that. That's why they're so afraid of saying it: because they don't.

>>16469630
Since you're so well read, then explain it to us. You DO know, right?

...Right?

>>16469738
According to Christian philosophy, yes. In the same way an atheist believes morality only exists outside of theism.

>>16469625
>Moral laws are no different than normal written laws of man. They are only as powerful as they are enforcible.
Their basis for justification hinges upon whether the laws came from an agreed-upon higher power or if it came from man
>Again, what God
A higher power, a one true God, the fashioner of the universe, the omnipotent, all-merciful, all-compassionate supreme ruler of the universe and its laws

>>16469717
The background of intent is important, although it is very tricky.
If you kill in self defense it is justified. If you kill because you wanted to rob someone after that fact you have murdered.

I gave the the two most basic and clear examples, war is this but on a massive scale, but I would say that the brunt of the potential sin of an unjust war falls upon those who conceive it.
A solder in an unjust war who kills an enemy doesn't suffer the same brunt of sin as does his leader who trusted him into that unjust war.

>>16469738
Yes morality is only objective under religion and if it stems (theoretically if your were to genuinely believe God existed) from a divine entity. Otherwise it is subjective and thus everything is permitted (of course society will still punish you, I'm sure you don't take the quote literally anyway). It doesn't matter if in built morality serves an evolutionary purpose such as allowing society to function correctly or something along those lines, it still is subjective and not real.

>>16469601
"God" here refers to some laws. Those laws can stem from traditional doctrines, religious doctrines, the present legal system, the rules your boss at work imposes on you, etc. The characteristic nature of laws is that it imposes limitations on one's actions, and hence the quote by Fyodor.

>>16469509
There is no way to decide whether some doctrines are objective from within the system of its laws, or without the complete picture (which we don't have).

>The only other possibility is that god still exists and you have no idea what he wants or god doesn't give a shit.

Are you fucking retarded?

>>16469509
No, another option would be morality driven by evolution

>>16469509
This quote is pretty fucking obvious to understand. It's just when retards on here use wordplay and semantics to cope with the fact that an atheist world view can never have true objective morality. Without God, and I would think that atheists would have the same view, I really don't understand how you can believe in moral realism without some kind of supreme being that acts as the foundation and cornerstone for all truth and judgement on morality.

I said this in the other thread but if there really is no God you will have to make or assign various axioms to base all other truths off of. And these axioms or principles are the replacement for what God is but it would mean that morality is based off of faith and human constructs, thus making it subjective.

>If there is no God everything is permitted.
But Dostoevsky, everything IS allowed, it's only law and the threat of armies of societies coming to kill you if you don't comply that stop anyone from doing anything illegal.
What a retard. Thanks now I know I don't need to read his works.

>>16469509
This is such a midwit argument. If God always confirmed our moral ideas, then God should be eliminated from our moral ontology by Occam's Razor. If I have an argument of the form;
>Ordinary reason for morality arguing from, my emotions, self-interest, community, or any other rational warrant you can imagine
>God's reason for the same moral precept
>Therefore morality exists
Then I could discard God by Occam's Razor, since identities should not be multiplied unnecessarily, and since God doesn't add to the argument, God should be removed from it.

Obviously the Christian God should not be in our moral ontology whether we are Christians or not. You should take your thoughts on God from scripture rather than your own or Dostoevsky's mental fantasy about 19th century social ethics.

It is quite obvious that God intends not to give us moral rules, but to give us life, and life in abundance (John 10:10). The only reason God gives moral rules is because he wants us to live, and committing crimes can get you and other people killed (Leviticus 25:18 - 19).

So in closing, God's will is your salvation (John 3:16). God created everything for us and for our salvation (see the Apostles' Creed) and He wants to give us eternal life and to have us as friends in whom He can rejoice. He has called us out of nothingness to live with Him. The Christian creed is based on the commonsense idea that life is good and death is bad. There is no life so sick, criminal, broken or otherwise regarded as worthless and dishonorable by men, that is not of infinite value to God. In this God and mankind differ, since we accept assisted suicide, regular suicide, abortion and the death penalty very easily.

Now you can stop making cringe threads about how the end of religion is the end of morality, when in fact religion and morality only have a tangential connection insofar as God is pro-life.

>>16469592
Everything is not permitted. If it were we'd be kissing rn

>>16470513
but laws are based off of morality...

>>16470492
Based Dr. Peterson retroactively BTFOing atheist scum

>>16470539
Occam's Razor is not an argument

>>16470565
Cope

>>16470705
You're right, it's a way of simplifying an argument. That's what logical razors do.

If you have no argument then maybe you should read mine more carefully to see if it actually is what you want to argue against.

>>16469742
Hello, fellow Redditor!
I noticed an issue with your post:

>No, most of the LARPers on here don't think that. That's why they're so afraid of saying it: because they don't.
You can't speak for the denizens of this board, you don't even know any of us, so why try to psychoanalyze? You're not that smart of clairvoyant.

>Since you're so well read, then explain it to us. You DO know, right?

>...Right?

Yeah if there is no God then all evil acts go unpunished therefore everything is permitted. "Permitted" just means unpunished. We are allowed to do evil even when God exists, but evil, unrepented of acts are punished

>God is evil because He punishes you for your sins!
>God is evil because He forgives your sins so easily!

>>16470340
Incorrect by virtue of all moralities being created by evolution, along with all such human behaviors. From an atheistic worldview, evolution created all moralities that humans tend to, but it cannot justify one morality over another because that would require us to place greater importance on one evolved trait over another (my wellbeing is more important than others' versus others' wellbeing is more important, versus both wellbeings are equally important). You could argue that the morality that ensures the most wellbeing and longevity is correct, but the fact that others don't agree shows that one can deviate and once again, your only justification would be that most people (who wield the majority of power) support it, not evolution.

>>16470513
>implying the law, governments, rulers, and armies aren't the ones doing the illegal, evil acts behind the scenes
Who's going to hold them accountable? We, the people? Don't make me laugh

>>16470564
Not sure what this means. The law of gravity is based off morality? Did you mean to say that laws are representations of the self?

>>16470539
Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is more likely to be correct. However, merely invoking the name of Occam's razor (a tool of convenience) doesn't make your position correct. It is fine that you have a motivation to act morally, but what is your motivation not to act immorally? Not everything that is immoral is also illegal, and not all illegal, immoral acts are found out and punished.

>It is quite obvious that God intends not to give us moral rules, but to give us life, and life in abundance (John 10:10). The only reason God gives moral rules is because he wants us to live, and committing crimes can get you and other people killed (Leviticus 25:18 - 19).
Obviously. God's laws are a means bu which we return to eternal life, a Godly, Edenic state. Committing crimes is usually sinful, and leads others astray (stealing from someone might make him feel wrathful). It's not so much about life on earth as it is about eternal life.

You can be moral without God, and it would be a step in the right direction, but it would be like starting a job without finishing it. Each morality has some goal, and not all goals are made equal, and only one is consummate. Christian morality is not so identical to secular morality as you believe, if secular morality tends towards embracing "personal rights" such as the allowance of pornography, masturbation, desired hair length, etcetera (and most of its injunctions are designed to prevent you from harming others, leaving you to do what you will with yourself). Most secular moralities that curtail your "personal rights" are viewed as unsavory and discarded because their justification for this curtailment is unsatisfactory

>>16469590
>The abbos and the jews have little in common
Marriage, honesty, bravery, justice, faithfulness, respect for elders, care for children, kindness, are all valued in almost all races. Obviously sometimes these values conflict - courage and kindness, for instance - and that can be where differences arise, or there can be slight variations such as the number of wives that you're allowed. But fundamentally there are universal principles that could, at least, come from a higher power

>>16470811
You/he said
>it's only law and the threat of armies of societies coming to kill you if you don't comply that stop anyone from doing anything illegal
I meant to say that things are illegal only because we have a certain moral code to make these laws off of.

>>16469509
That's not what it means. It means there is no reckoning. If there is no god then what does it matter if X or Y is morally wrong? I'll just do it anyway and I'll never be held to account for it. The existence of a morality does not obligate me to follow it, and even if it did, I'll still just do whatever I want and it won't matter at all.

>what is religiously inspired genocide
>what is slavery
>what are absolute theocracies
So...this is the intellectual power...of religious thinking...what a sight...what a sight indeed

>>16470875
Australian Aborigines engage in father-daughter incest and mother-son cannibalism frequently. Your definitions of those concepts are not what the ancient Jews thought of them, nor are they what the Australian Aborigines thought of them.

>>16471099
>>what is slavery
>>what are absolute theocracies
There's nothing wrong with either of those per se.

>>16469534
>God doesn't write
Except on stone tablets you mean

>>16471122
In that case, start your own cult where all the other religions are wrong and have been corrupted and your religion is completely okay with slavery and absolute theocracy. I’m pretty sure it will be a stunning success

>>16471132
That already exists and it's called Christianity, which I follow.

>>16471139
Christianity has, historically, rejected both slavery and theocracy.

>>16471075
Even if there is a Reckoning, what does it matter? Unless you do what Islam does and have God brainwash you into submission, you can still just be a stubborn shit after you've been punished for cooming or whatever.

>>16469509
Why would morality come from God and not be an inherent part of reality?

>>16471155
>Christianity has, historically, rejected both slavery and theocracy.
This is a modern development and is not universal.
>Even if there is a Reckoning, what does it matter?
If you feel that eternal torment does not matter that's your prerogative.

>>16471172
>325AD is modern
lol

>>16471191
Next he's gonna do "the middle ages was a static period across its entire duration in every inch of europe because plebbit said so".

>>16471172
>>16471191
>>16471202
Gentlemen, if I am not free to choose my own religion, I am officially a slave.

Did most Christian regimes in history allow freedom of religion?

No, then Christianity is clearly supportive of slavery.

>>16469509
Religions can evolve. It's our job as a society and as a brotherhood to unite and find the closest religious consciousness that will bring us nearer to the Good (God.)

>>16470842
>Occam's razor is that the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct
This is burger-land education; Occam's razor is a formal razor in logic. In Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus he explains it in proposition 3.328 in the following way:
>If a sign is not necessary then it is meaningless.

Therefore if we add God to ethical arguments that were legitimate arguments before adding God, then God is meaningless.

Clearly for God to have any propositional meaning, God must have his own agenda, independent of human morality, and the scriptures consistently say that this agenda is the eternal life of His created creatures (John 3:16).

>Committing crimes is sinful and leads others astray
Yes. But remember St Paul at (1 Corinthians 10:23) "Everything is lawful for me but not everything is profitable." I know you are right but you are confusing freedom in Christ with what is beneficial for a man. Psalm 24:1 "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof." Again there is no law against anything, but if you eat poison knowingly then you commit suicide, which is a sin from which there is no repentance, but suicide is not a crime against society, only against the self. Apply this to every other moral injunction God gives and you will see it follows the same logic. Death is the only thing God condemns, and immoral things are condemned only insofar as they lead to death, because God wants us to have life, even though we are sinners and merit death for our sins.

Even King David merited death, but the prophet Nathan told him that he would not die.

Christians, just like in antiquity, are still retards who are utterly confused by mere words.

>dude without God there's no morality, u must be an ebil nihilist

What do you think morality is? It's a process where an organism categorizes things into desirable vs. undesirable camps. Suddenly, because Darwin, this process isn't possible anymore?

What do you think God means when atheists say "there is no God?" They mean that there is no one who morally governs the entire universe. There is no being, standing outside the universe, with absolute structure, capable of categorizing all things in the universe into desirable vs. undesirable camps, whose selection process is the only one that is correct.

The whole point of adopting Darwin and rejecting God (and by extension Christianity) is to re-arm the human species with the strength that the rest of the animal kingdom already possesses, which Christianity deprived us of.

>>16471248
Christians do not belief in morality.

If a good and humble man, who cares for his family and community ends up in Hell for not believing in Christ, while a pedophiliac and murderer who admits his guilt and accepts Jesus in his heart ends up in Heaven, then you do not posses a system of morality.

>>16471260
>What do you think morality is? It's a process where an organism categorizes things into desirable vs. undesirable camps.
You're retarded.

>>16471114
We're talking about humans, not abbos.

>>16471260
>adopting Darwin
People do not adopt a 19th century biologist, unless they are loony.

>>16471265
You're backwards and don't live in the present. You mangle the shit out of old words and books you read until you talk like a fucking imbecile.

>>16471212
>Slavery is what I subjectively say is slavery
Sounds like poMo; I would think that slavery is being forced to harvest crops and whipped to death if you don't.

If you are the kind of person who would piss and moan about not being able to build a mosque in a Christian country, then I advise you to leave for some Moslem shithole.

>>16471279
They adopt the theories of evolution and natural selection, which is what's meant by that.

>>16471282
>I would think that slavery is being forced to harvest crops and whipped to death if you don't.
If I can not choose my own religion on pains of death, am I then a free man?

Lets say, you are a Christian, I forbid you to worship your own faith and will persecute you if you do, are you then not my slave?

>>16471294
>They adopt the theories of evolution and natural selection, which is what's meant by that.
No its not. Only loonies use the term darwinian, as if the theory of evolution is somehow some central idea behind an ideology, which its not.

>>16471155
>Christianity rejected slavery

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly." Leviticus 25:44-46

“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money." Exodus 21:20-21

"Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust." 1 Peter 2:18

"Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior." Titus 2:9-10

Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone." Exodus 21:1-6

"Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord." Colossians 3:22

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free." Ephesians 6:5-8

"And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more." Luke 12:47-48

>>16471302
"which is what's meant by that" means that's what I meant by that.

>>16471280
I'm not even religious. You're just obviously a moron.

>>16470554
1 Corinthians 10:23
All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.

As for my own clarification see the first reply to the post.

>>16471317
>"which is what's meant by that" means that's what I meant by that.
No its not. Only loonies use the term darwinian, as if the theory of evolution is somehow some central idea behind an ideology, which its not.

>>16471322
No argument, just insults...

>>16469509
Why would the existence or non-existence of a god have an affect on what is permitted or not?

>>16471338
I've tried arguing with people like you before and and it's pointless. Like pouring water into the abyss.
Your stupidity is unfixable.

>>16471337
>No its not.
So I didn't mean what I meant? What the fuck are you arguing right now?

>Only loonies use the term darwinian
Nice pointless ad hominem that doesn't at all address what I'm saying.

>>16471264
You are correct, I have no system of morality; I believe in life as a gift of God and that morality was Eve's bad gift (Genesis 3:6).

All I can say to those who did not choose Christ is that they clearly value something else more highly than life, something which I don't understand at all.

>>16471352
Yeah I'm sure. Snide retards like you never actually put anything up or address arguments, because you can't. No one has yet, and I bet no one in the thread will. You're all chicken shits who hide behind old words.

>>16469509
I hate this fraud, but he's right about this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37RLn28mrLU

>>16471361
I genuinely used to try arguing. But all I got back was "you're saying that [insert something completely unrelated to what I'm saying without any explanation how it's in any way related to what I said]. Here's why you're wrong!". I'm 100% sure you will do the exact same thing if I try to genuinely argue with you. I know your type. You're all the same. Mindless, low IQ drones.
>No one has yet, and I bet no one in the thread will
Not if they're smart. What's the point?

>>16471379
>But all I got back was "you're saying that [insert something completely unrelated to what I'm saying without any explanation how it's in any way related to what I said]. Here's why you're wrong!
Let me explain to you why you experience this phenomenon repeatedly: because you're a backwards asshole who views the world from books written thousands of years ago.

It really isn't worth your time to argue with religious people. If you want to waste your time, when we have wiped them all out, then you can ask them where their God is.

>>16471393
>because you're a backwards asshole who views the world from books written thousands of years ago.
See, I knew you're exactly like the rest of the low IQ drones. I explicitly told you I'm not religious. That obviously means I don't view the world from any book written thousands of years ago.
You're just low IQ. Please leave this board so actually smart people like me can have normal discussions.

>>16471420
You don't have to be "religious" for that to be true, fucking brainlet. I'm sure you refer to Greek/Roman philosophical texts or older theological texts for most of your ideas. It's precisely why you can't manage to understand any of the people you argue with.

>>16471437
>I'm sure you refer to Greek/Roman philosophical texts or older theological texts for most of your ideas
I mostly think for myself.
>It's precisely why you can't manage to understand any of the people you argue with.
Nah I think it's because they're retarded just like you.

>>16469509
I disagree with that quote as plenty of thing are not "permitted" regardless of any God existing, for example paper cutting into steel is not permitted, you cannot do it, and this does not require a God to exist

>>16471362
Religion can be perverted, "like pearls before swine". That doesn't mean it's bad.

Religion contains the moral values of a people, i.e. the agreements we've made about correct and incorrect behaviors. And 9/10 times, following these guidelines is better for you, as an individual, and for the rest of society.

Dostoevsky's point is that, without fear of God, there is no reason to follow moral guidelines. Just like how, without fear of jail, there is no reason to follow the law.

>>16471358
>You are correct, I have no system of morality;
Just like every other Christian.

>>16471362
Life for atheists must be like Warhammer 40k where if you give in to the idea that humanity isn't really cosmically significant without God then you need to be shot. I must admit that it just seems silly to define all life against an uncaring universe and expect anyone to carry this thought down through the centuries.

Abraham's thought however was carried down through the centuries and it is evident why; nobody wants to live in the atheist's burnt-dark narrative conception of the human condition.

>>16471465
>Just like every other Christian
And I rejoice because God is good even though I am not. May you find peace too atheist fren.

>>16471449
>I mostly think for myself.
Is that why you're a raging homo who can't address arguments?

>>16471491
There's no point. You'd accuse me of saying something I didn't say nor imply, say a bunch of retarded unsubstantiated shit and think you've won, no matter how careful, logical and analytical my arguments are. It's always the same story with you people. I've tried too many times. There's just no point.

>>16471296
>I forbid you to worship God and I will kill you if you do, are you then not my slave?
If you persecute me for my faith, then I die happily, and once I am dead I am not your slave, nor will anyone trouble me ever again.

>>16471503
There's no point because I'm right, since I live in the present, think in the present, and I'm not a fag.

>>16471520

>>16471529
Is that you? Fucking faggot.

>>16471472
>waaaaaaaaah reality gives me bad feels waaaaaaaah waaaaaaaah

>>16471536
No, it's you.

>>16471558
Stay deluded, schizo.

Why yes, my religious doctrine is the true word. How could you tell?

>>16470797
I disagree. I think he meant 'permitted' in a more metaphysical sense, like Kant at the core. His point being, if there was no God, everything would happen without anything to moderate or stop it. Essentially rendering us nonexistent. In my opinion this is just a clever way to say there is no God while still being a Mason or whatever (which is just heresay) He just has a much more creative way of expressing such ideas. Though I could definitely see it as relating to punishment; hence, "Crime and Punishment."

>>16470565
Just lmaoing at this fucking pseud. The fact that such a transparent retard became trad zoomers' token intellectual is absolute poetry

>>16470539
Do you believe God exists as a tangible entity? Serious question, because I recognize your "spirit"

>>16471541
>Atheishits are right because our personal views are more fucking bleak than anyone else's

>>16470565
reads kierkegaard begrudgingly and cant ever read another book but the bible again

>>16471598
No, God is outside space and time. In many ways I'm just repeating Kierkegaard too, so there is no reason to insinuate that I'm of the devil. I'd be careful with that too, many people said the same thing of Jesus.

>>16471558
lady in the back looks so ready to rape

>>16471601
Bleakness is a matter of perspective. The belief in an afterlife that requires certain conduct in this life is what's bleak to atheists.

>>16471630
Actually thats what you just did to me. I'm pretty oblivious

>>16471630
Even Nietzsche speaks about the spirit as a real thing

>>16471641
Oh bugger, sorry, I thought because you wrote "spirit" (i.e. lowercase, and in quotations) meaning something negative. My apologies.

>>16471651
Well, the Holy Spirit is a real thing, but intangible. I wouldn't say that it just exists in persons, but goes wherever it pleases like the wind, like John's gospel says

>>16471601
>muh glorious vision

>>16471636
>The belief in an afterlife that requires certain conduct in this life is what is bleak to atheists
I would argue that we don't actually believe this like atheists think we do, see >>16470539 and >>16471248 which I posted to illustrate the point. It's funny since atheists get on our backs too for the assertion that God forgives people too easily for sins and effectively let's them off the hook. I'm not so sure that's true, but I also don't see how it is wrong for God to forgive. Forgiveness I would say is a pure gift like life itself is, and it is a gift we should want as ardently as we want life. God really does provide these things and wants us to be happy.

>>16471224
:).... ;)

>>16471664
?????

>>16471330
No lol

>>16471330
If all things are permitted there would be nothing stopping me from kissing you right now and whether that builds you up or breaks you down has nothing to do with whether it's a good thing or not; or whether it's permissible. The point Dostoevsky made is obvious in the first place, there are obvious scientific reasons we're not kissing right now, but none of them have to do with an all encompassing morality.

>>16471343
This is a good question. Perhaps the very question Dostoevsky expected the reader to ask and ponder.

>>16471358
Lean not into thine own understanding

>>16471463
Can you explain the difference?

>>16471491
Damn, but like imagine admitting you don't think for yourself and still believing you have a valid argument. Whatever you're saying is Quite obviously simply based off your experiences

>>16471664
Lolol

I love to reply to a dead thread repeatedly to where it is obvious all the last replies were from me. Though if anyone else wants to reply after me I won't be upset or anything

>>16469509
is beyond being he does not mean that it does not exist: on the contrary it is the most real thing there is. He means that no predicates can be applied to it: we cannot say that it is this, or it is that. The reason for this is that if any predicate was true of it, then there would have to be a distinction within it corresponding to the
distinction between the subject and the predicate of the true sentence. But that would derogate from the One’s sublime simplicity

Being has a kind of shape of being, but the One has no shape, not even intelligible shape. For since its nature is generative of all things, the One is none of them. It is not of any kind, has no size or quality, is not intellect or soul. It is neither moving nor stationary, and it is in neither place nor time; in Plato’s words it is ‘by itself
alone and uniform’—or rather formless and prior to form as it is prior to motion and rest. For all these are properties of being, making it manifold.
If no predicates can be asserted of the One, it is not surprising if we enmesh ourselves in contradiction when we try to do so. Being, for a Platonist, is the realm of what we can truly know—as against Becoming, which is the object of mere belief. But if the One is beyond being, it is also beyond knowledge. ‘Our awareness of it is not through science or understanding, as with other intelligible objects, but by way of a presence superior to knowledge.’ Such awareness is a mystical vision like the rapture of a lover in the presence of his beloved

Any statement about the One is really a statement about its creatures.

>>16473117
this isn't a challenge btw just stating the facts..

>>16473121
This line of thinking leads to pedophilia so its a good thing I work for epstein

type beat

>>16469509
Belief is naturally exclusive unless you want a new-age LSD hippie type rampant spiritual relativism which leaves morality as out of the picture as does staunch atheism. My belief in my God is objective and it necessarily has to be.

>>16473172
Which morality?

>>16473178
The one I believe in

>>16473172
This is what I want, but only for the end result.

>>16473061
retard

maybe my offspring will get to vote for baron

>>16473182
And which one is that?

>>16473194
i prefer detarded

>>16473190
>but only for the end result
What do you mean by this? There's a few ways I could interpret this, mind elaborating?

>>16473211
If we allow degeneracy to be exposed for what it is, we may no longer have to depend on slavish morality for successful living.

>>16473220
Doesn't not square with faith if you hold the correct one. Truth is brought to light eventually; Accelerationism is pretty much the secular equivalent of "trust in God", and is the wise man's friend nowadays. If everyone stopped being moralizing retards we'd probably see a return of Atlantis within a few centuries.

>>16473241
I agree with all of this, but my conscience tells me i'm not very wise.

>>16473241
is God to you, like, Yahweh/Jesus?

>>16473245
Socialized consience is a plague but a necessary one at that. You should take it seriously as far as you can until it shows itself as leading to antinomies and contradictions. At that point you should feel comfortable staking yourself on non-reliance on ideology

>>16473251
I'm a transcendental empiricist. What does this mean? Figure it out for yourself or get filtered. God is whatever works for me. Example: God is immanent in my cum as I nut, as long as I want the nut. You can infer the rest for yourself.

>>16473271
Ew, that's ugly. Why can't you just believe in yourself then?

>>16473271
Are you just scared other people may really exist?

>>16473046
The difference between moral codes and written laws? I can try.

This is my own autism. I haven't read much about this.

Moral codes are behavioral guidelines that exist regardless of written law. Morals may change slightly over time, but for the most part, they're timeless. For example, even though there is no (current) law against adultery, it's morally wrong for obvious reasons.

Legal codes are written laws that result in some kind of punishment if broken. They're not timeless, they change a lot over time. They're not always the same as moral codes. For example, Kyle Rittenhouse was morally correct in defending himself from a homicidal mob, but may he be found guilty legally.

>>16473300
Same thing in my eyes.
check'd

>>16473314
Unsure where this came from. Whether other people 'exist' or not is a philosophically loaded question, one I can't feasibly answer without assuming things I don't feel like assuming. I enjoy being around people and treating them well, the question of whether they really 'exist' or not isn't relevant to me. I have no reality to deprive them or give them if I don't consider the question of their reality.

Socialized conscience, however, is something altogether different, more closely approximating something like a baby cage for existing in a 'society'. It's not needed if you understand the rationale for having a baby cage, and the dangers of not sleeping in one. The reason I call it a plague is because guilt you inherit from friends, family, whatever can be unfounded in certain situations. The reason I call it necessary is because it also speaks to some important truths you need to know; hence my exhortation that you explore to your heart's content and get to know the bounds well enough that you can do away with socialized guilt entirely eventually.