/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14515542]

>he doesn’t derive his morals from God and God alone

[Anonymous No.14515548]

How does one derive one's morals from God alone?

[Anonymous No.14515558]

>>14515548
Read your bible and do what it say

[Anonymous No.14515560]

>>14515558
Then you are deriving your morals from a book that claims to be from God, not from God alone.

[Anonymous No.14515562]

>he doesn’t derive his morals from God and God alone
Cringe
>adheres to God's morals yet avatarfags as a sociopath ubermensch
Mega cringe

[Anonymous No.14515563]

>he needs a skydaddy to make decisions

[Anonymous No.14515568]

>>14515548
How does nature decide what lives and dies?

[Anonymous No.14515570]

I do that, and I'm an atheist. :^)

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14515577]

>>14515542
We derive them from our parents, mother’s predominantly.
Stupid Christian animu posters

[Anonymous No.14515581]

>>14515560
http://www.bible-codes.org/Names-Bible-Prophecy-Code.htm

https://jewsforjesus.org/answers/top-40-most-helpful-messianic-prophecies/

There’s reason to believe it’s from God

[Anonymous No.14515607]

>>14515562
in this case it’s just a reaction image. He’s not the usual Johanposter. I am.

[Anonymous No.14515624]

>>14515607
Can you disprove morality again, please?

[Anonymous No.14515724]

>>14515624
I never disproved morality or attempted to. I only tried to show that without God, morality is not universal, nor permanent, nor known by humans. This is because morality, or what’s right or wrong, is dependent on subjective experience. The path that leads to the most preferable experience, or sum of experiences, should be pursued, and is therefore the moral path. If it is not the moral path, then why be moral if that is less preferable? What God is doing is simply prescribing us rules so that we may benefit by following them, because he knows what is good for us, materially and spiritually. There is no Euthyphro dilemma because what is good depends on consequences. The only way God could change the moral laws he prescribes is by changing the structure of this world such that the consequences of an action are changed. For example, perhaps God could make it so that murder is good for the soul, and therefore moral. But until that change is made, it wouldn’t be moral. The assumption here is that God is honest in telling us what is moral and what isn’t. If God simply told us that it was suddenly ok to murder without actually changing the consequences, then God would be lying to us. But again, there is no dilemma.

Morality cannot be totally known to humans, so that we must use faith. However, with the promise of a good afterlife, as well as the improved experience of life for believers (there are many studies that confirm this, and many atheists themselves can attest to their own misery without God), it makes sense to seek God as the foundation of morality, or your actions and beliefs in general.

There are some who try to base their morality on certain axioms such as “we should try to maximize universal happiness” etc. but all of these “axioms” are instead principles derived from their single axiom of trying to improve their experience. They think it is best to make others happy, and that makes them happy, so they want to do it. There is no rational basis for morality because humans are irrational at our core. I cannot explain why I enjoy a thing, or why I should or should not pursue something that I enjoy. I will simply take use of this predicament and use reason to assist my irrational needs. Moral systems that are totally based on reason fail because they do not address this side of humans. Without emotions, desires, subjective experience, there would be no reason to do anything at all, and therefore no such thing as morality.

[Anonymous No.14515754]

>>14515724
Some theists try to use moral arguments for the existence of God, or try to claim that atheists have no basis for their morals. But these arguments are weak. Since morality is based on improving your experience, and atheists can improve or worsen their experience through certain actions, then they still have a sense of morality. But as I said, their morality is not fixed nor universal nor completely known to them. While murder may be wrong most of the time, who says it is wrong all the time? Why shouldn’t the wealthy elite traffic children and murder if they can get away with it? Or why shouldn’t you steal the wallet that someone left behind, if there is no one around to see? If you can get away with it, then you can justify anything. But the atheist say such things as “but I have empathy!” But the implication here is that without such emotions as fear or empathy, then the act would be justified. The theist simply has a stronger sense of fear since he knows that God is always watching. And this is why it is true that atheist systems of morality are weaker, though it should never be said that atheists can’t have morality at all.

[Anonymous No.14515780]

>>14515548
the Qur'an and the Sunnah

[Anonymous No.14516293]

>>14515624
what is this from