[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 45 KB, 850x400, quote-if-there-is-no-god-everything-is-permitted-fyodor-dostoevsky-8-7-0782.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13331992 No.13331992 [Reply] [Original]

.

>> No.13332035

Brainlet, also sage

>> No.13332040

>religious people are only not committing horrendous acts because they think a sky fairy will punish them if they do

>> No.13332086

euthyphro dilemma owns this retarded sentiment

>> No.13332665

>>13332040
>sky fairy
easiest way to spot an absolute midwit

>> No.13332687

Isn't that great?

>> No.13332694

Quite the contrary: If there is no God, everything is prohibited. Only through such an authority can make come to an understanding of The Normative.

>> No.13333046

>>13332694
Everything is prohibited, seems about right.

>> No.13333051
File: 115 KB, 479x720, 1561065110834.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13333051

>>13332040
>sky fairy

>> No.13333065

The Argument Against Atheistic Meaning and Significance[1]
1. If atheism is true, then there is no God and there is no immortality.
2. If there is no God and there is no immortality, then life lacks adequate meaning and significance.
-------------------------------------------------------
3. Therefore, if atheism is true, then life lacks adequate meaning and significance.

The Argument Against Atheistic Moral Motivation[2]
1. If there is no God, then one’s ultimate destiny is unrelated to one’s behavior.
2. If one’s ultimate destiny is unrelated to one’s behavior, then one has no good reason to be moral.
---------------------------------------------------
3. Therefore, if there is no God, then one has no good reason to be moral.

The Argument Against Atheistic Morality[3]
1. If there is no God, then moral values are just expressions of personal taste or the product of evolution and conditioning.
2. If moral values are just expressions of personal taste or the product of evolution and conditioning, then objective moral values do not exist.
--------------------------------------------------------
3. Therefore, if there is no God, then objective moral values do not exist.

The Argument Against Atheistic Purpose[4]
1. If there is no God, then our lives (and the universe) will end and we’re an accident of nature.
2. If our lives (and the universe) will end and we’re an accident of nature, then life has no ultimate purpose.
----------------------------------
3. Therefore, if there is no God, then life has no ultimate purpose.

>> No.13333092

I like Zizek's inversion of this dictum. If there is a god everything is permitted. People will justify any atrocity in the name of God.

>> No.13333151

I kind of agree. People will act the way they want if there is no consequence in the afterlife. Morally speaking of course.

>> No.13333190

Imagine actually thinking you need to be religious in order to be moral.

>> No.13333194

>>13333190
Imagine thinking society would function without laws

>> No.13333199

>again
kys

>> No.13333200

>>13333194
>implying there are actually laws
You can go right now and kill someone jogging through a ravine and nothing will happen to you

>> No.13333210

>>13333200
>jogging through a ravine
Who the fuck does that?

>> No.13333213

>>13333190
The problem with this line of thinking is that religion provides moral grounding unlike what is happening now. Morals are too subjective even if people agree on the premise of most of them. They only thing keeping people in line are the laws and social pressure. Religion is like the law for morals.

>> No.13333220

>>13333194
The justice systems of the western world are all secular. Separation of church and state was a pretty big deal, remember?

>> No.13333361

>>13333190
Without religion you will inevitably succumb to moral relativism.

>> No.13334180

>>13331992
guy was a cuck

>> No.13334217

Dostoevsky may be right, but the spirit of his criticism is completely wrong. The meaning of tradition religion is not, has never been, and will never be mere morality. Morality is a means to an end and derives its authority and ultimate purpose from the metaphysical order. Reducing the totality of a religious tradition down to some bourgeois societal rule book is nearly admitting atheism, for legalism is just one short step away.

>> No.13334230

>>13332040
This bothers me when religious people make this argument. Do they honestly believe humans lack a moral compass? Do they think atheists all lack values? Even if moral guidelines were relative and flexible, it would be no more flexible than our syntax structure of language. It's tough to describe, but it's definitely there

>> No.13334232

>>13333190
Says the person who thinks morality is a common virtue, because you live in a society with morality established by religion. Morality and virtue are not natural to our species.

>> No.13334688

>>13332040
It's not about punishment or reward, it's about a true source of good, my fedora friend.

>> No.13334696

>>13332086
For a child

>> No.13334700
File: 1.61 MB, 1080x1350, 1560638570514.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13334700

>>13334688
To clarify, the question isn't WHY should you do something, it's WHAT should you do. For example, should I have these kinds of images of teenage girls saved on my computer? Probably not. Am I a godless wastrel who doesn't care about his or the world's degeneration? Emphatically so, pic related.

>> No.13334715

>>13334696

That's funny, because former fedoras turned hardcore traditionalists are peak childish. Just look at their pathetic responses in this thread

>> No.13334753

>>13333065

This has got to be some of the most stupid examples of 'logic' ever used by a human being, congratulations. You've proved exactly nothing, and merely stated what you believe to be true, instead of demonstrating that it actually is true.

My best guess is that you're a former atheist that was shamed into becoming a typical /pol/ack style traditionalist, which is hilarious on its own, considering the modernist assumptions you people make.

Anyway, you people were cringe, are cringe and forever will be cringe. Your religious convictions will never change that, as you've demonstrated in this post. Now go and respond to this post with some picture of a fedora, like the predictable retard you are. Do it, and then pretend it will mask your own insecurities. We both know that's what it's really for anyway

>> No.13334782

>>13334230
where do these values come from?

>> No.13334869

>>13334782
They are buried in our psychology, our subconscious. That part of the argument is very simple. The human body automates many processes we are not fully aware of but which are a part of our biology.

>> No.13334913

>>13333092
Now do humanity.

>> No.13334923

>>13334869
Is that how hunter gatherers lived? Virtuous?

>> No.13334960

>>13334923
The new science seems to suggest that pre state living was prefferrable to state living, and there was significant resistance to state rule. Other than 1491 I'm not sure which books go into this specifically, it's more something anecdotal I've heard and have yet to fully look into, but it seems plausible that man in the past was able to live in a semi organized and psychologically healthy way without strict code.

>> No.13334967

>>13334869
This is just Quakerism gussied up in pseudoscientific jargon. How would you measure values? How would you falsify these automated, invisible processes? Even if they did exist, what reason would you have for believing they are universal? There’s certainly no empirical evidence for a universal code of morals.

>> No.13334994

>>13334960
What are you talking about? I asked specifically about the hunter gatherers, how would you know what they lived like and their morals? I want to understand where this assertion that morality is biologically coded to all human comes from, because it is very ’not obvious’ to me that this would be the case

>> No.13335020

>>13334967
>There's no evidence for a universal code of morals
Look at anthropology. Yes there's variations, but it's all clearly within limits. Why do people become tramautized at the sight of death? Because humans are by their very nature averse to it, etc. You asked how I would measure values, that's a nonsensical question. What unit would you use? If you actually want an argument, better articulated than what I could probably give you, check out Kants Metaphysics of Morals.
>>13334994
Hunter gatherers, pre state society, same thing different words. I haven't gone through all the evidence beyond a very surface level look at the results, but it looks as though Hobbes view that Hunter gatherer societies were terrible is false. The idea that morality is biologically coded is self evident when you consider the idea that all of human interactions are somehow an extension of biology. If you believe that religion is the second or cause of moral sentiments, then you must ask why separate religions with no contact were able to come up with similar moral codes. I think you have a limited view of what biology entails, because it's really a simple viewpoint on philosophy.

>> No.13335040

>>13331992
It would be more accurate to say
>If there is no society, everything is permitted

>> No.13335064

>>13335020
Humans are killing machines. We are the most violent, rapacious species to ever walk the Earth. Averse to death? We’re the Aztecs, who practiced human sacrifice on a truly massive scale, averse to death? The Mongols? How about Communists? Nazis? The KKK? For an advanced lesson in savagery, how about liberalism? Can you honestly describe any of these as “averse to death?”

>> No.13335067

>>13332040
Something being permitted doesn't mean they will do it. With no god there is no punishment for wrong doing. If there is no repercussion for an action would that not mean it it permitted?

>> No.13335915

>>13331992
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpL6SBOMxvE

>> No.13336041

>>13334700
https://vocaroo.com/i/s00ZjHzRPJ2K

>> No.13336124

>>13334753
Maybe I'm a brainlet, but I thought his arguments were pretty good. Why do you say their not?

>> No.13336142

>>13332086
How so?

>> No.13336148

>>13335064
You are picking the worst examples in human history, but there is still evidence of good.
Fewer than one quarter of soldiers in ww2 shot to kill. That numbers gone up, but so has PTSD, as if the more soldiers kill, the more their own brain punishes them. This indicates very clearly that, although humans can be incentivized to do amoral and immoral things on a grand scale, typically they experience anguish to the point where it's debilitating. If you wish to understand these tragedies specifically, it's better to look at the political factors at play, rather than abstracting it to human nature, because that doesn't always lead to a useful conclusion

>> No.13336181

Atheists are just the dumbest fucking retards. He’s saying morals WOULD NOT EXIST without God, not saying you need God to follow them.

>> No.13336220

>>13336181
Morals exist. God may exist or may not exist. Therefore the existence of morality is not dependent on God.

>> No.13336252

>>13336220
Not the guy you're talking to, but
>Morals exist
Are you saying objective morality exists or subjective morality? If the former, you then have to point to an expression of the objective morality (religious people say this is God) because no human encapsulates an objective morality. If the latter, then the system is morality necessarily allows immoral (subjective morality being unable to judge the subjective morality of other, less moral systems, thereby allowing immorality and being immoral itself).

>> No.13336268

>>13331992
there is a god and everything is permitted.

the fuck kind of a retarded observation is that? Glad he's dead.

>> No.13336750

>>13336268
It was an observation of a character in his book. Dosto wasn't saying that this is what he thought

>> No.13336845

>>13336252
you almost make sense. try reading an introductory book on meta-ethics, you'll benefit from it

>> No.13336859
File: 41 KB, 736x233, singularity scale of intelligence.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13336859

>>13331992
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

>> No.13336876
File: 13 KB, 308x308, reddit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13336876

>>13336845
>look up meta-ethics
>doesn't support the idea of one true morality but is studying why people think in moral terms
Piss off on back to your "free"mason lodge.

>> No.13336890

>Dawkinsu ackbar! *beheads you*
Fucking atheist extremists