𝑬𝑵𝑫𝑰𝑵𝑮 𝑻𝑯𝑬 𝑴𝑶𝑹𝑨𝑳𝑰𝑻𝒀 𝑫𝑬𝑩𝑨𝑻𝑬 𝑰𝑵 𝑶𝑭𝑭𝑻𝑶𝑷𝑰𝑪

[notsocommonthumb]

This is a good video

you r not a real human being if you genuinely sat down and watched this robot talk for 20 minutes

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

The whole idea of a morality is that is not relative because morals don't add anything to the subject: saying A is good or bad doesn't change A. Morality has to be a type of imperative, some sort of law but as humans have freedom we don't have to follow every law because we can deal with the consequences of ignoring morals, which sometimes ends up killing us.

For example abortion cannot be "good" in USA and "bad" in Kenya, the action must be moral or inmoral no matter what. The whole discussion about ethics ends up in a debate, the reason for this debate are human values. If we have values then we should treat every being as a subject of morality, otherwise we would not be moral (like animals). As for who creates the moral law, I would say it's "the agreement" between humans.

We have to study what type of being this agreement is that makes us to live together. My answer is that this agreement are feelings like empathy but empathy is not about "to feel" but respect the contract between both (me and the other) I treat the other as and end. If I choose to share my food with someone I don't do it so he shares something with me in return, it's free. This debunks the idea of that everything we do is to get something in return, we don't have to act this way but we can act this way.

So morality is about letting others do whatever they want with me? No Nietzsche, morality is about letting others know what my principles are and if they agree then we can work on something. As Adam Smith says morals start with the feeling of sympathy, this kind of feeling is necessary to not disrupt the other. For example why is not inmoral to fight each other? Is not inmoral when we agree on it, when we decide to have a boxing match in certain terms. So morality is not in actions itself? No, they don't lie on certain actions like sleeping, having sex or talking. So what do you think about the libertarian morality? Abortion is bad because we end the life of the other without asking his/her permission, not just because we kill.

@ey88 destroyed, @enchanted_elixir

This can be easily resolved if you believe in god as the necessary precondition for knowledge and thefore ethics

All of this Gaytheistic mental gymnastics when the answer is staring you in your face

There is no good or bad, there is only chaos. Entropy, the ignition that propels elements in all directions infinitely. As far as morality? It is a human construct rooted in empathy, or the ability to feel what others feel. When I see an alcoholic bum begging for change on the street I give him a dollar so that he can get his beer. Why? Because I myself have suffered the existential horror of alcoholism and it imbued me with compassion. This is the basis of morality. Treat others as you would want to be treated

the only intellectually honest GAYtheiest

Actually due to your honesty ina call you an Atheist instead because I’m sick and tired of Gaytheists who want to borrow from theistic frameworks to prop their beliefs. Respect to you for being honest we need more atheists like you

 

[varoo]

It exists in a higher dimension all beings are connected to.

Would you agree with my statements or nah. I would agree with what you said, some atheists may argue: cuz it doesn’t exist in the natural perceptible reality it’s imagination. but I think that argumentation asserts that naturalism is total absolution which is a claim if true means we shouldn’t exist.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

This is a good video

I won’t watch any video from that faghot until he debates Jay dyer and gets rkt. He won’t do this because he knows he’ll get destroyed

Guy got bullied by a Protestant called Frank Turek in a debate imagine taking this idiot seriously

 

[ey88]

I won’t watch any video from that faghot until he debates Jay dyer and gets rkt. He won’t do this because he knows he’ll get destroyed

Guy got bullied by a Protestant called Frank Turek in a debate imagine taking this idiot seriously

I have no idea who that guy even is, I just googled a video and posted it

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

I have no idea who that guy even is, I just googled a video and posted it

The bane of all Gaytheists

They have the man they call into his show to debunk him only for him to show how inconsistent illogical and redicukous atheism is.

The best part is he shows how illogical it is and that it is entirely subjective and they have no basis for proof even the scientific method presupposes the existence of things such as identity over time which it itself cannot justify.
Gaytheists are essentially fucked

 

[enchanted_elixir]

Would you agree with my statements or nah. would agree with what you said, some atheists may argue: cuz it doesn’t exist in the natural perceptible reality it’s imagination. but I think that argumentation asserts that naturalism is total absolution which is a claim if true means we shouldn’t exist.

I would

 

[greycel]

There is no good or bad, there is only chaos. Entropy, the ignition that propels elements in all directions infinitely. As far as morality? It is a human construct rooted in empathy, or the ability to feel what others feel. When I see an alcoholic bum begging for change on the street I give him a dollar so that he can get his beer. Why? Because I myself have suffered the existential horror of alcoholism and it imbued me with compassion. This is the basis of morality. Treat others as you would want to be treated

Do you believe in nothing beyond humanity?
No existence of soul/ God etc?

Weird tbh, considering we do believe in the idea of a consciousness

In any case, if you don't believe in it, you can't expect everyone else to limit themselves to just their humanity. As they believe there is more to them than their biological entity -> biological function -> biological purpose
and the moral playground you have developed (both innate and conscious) to operate for your biological purpose

So this argument cannot work

 

[Klasik616]

This can be easily resolved if you believe in god as the necessary precondition for knowledge and thefore ethics

All of this Gaytheistic mental gymnastics when the answer is staring you in your face

the only intellectually honest GAYtheiest

Actually due to your honesty ina call you an Atheist instead because I’m sick and tired of Gaytheists who want to borrow from theistic frameworks to prop their beliefs. Respect to you for being honest we need more atheists like you

None of my arguments were theological or ontological, I subscribe to the morals of Smith and Hume which are based on human feelings and emotions and not concepts. If you failed to understand this, I cannot debate with you. I never mentioned God or an objective morality that's above humans, morality is human not animal and not angelic. Kant which was an atheist tried to support an objective morality using only imperatives, I don't believe in him cus that makes morals to be some kind of principles ahead of humans which is stupid. Morals are in our world. If you're going with christianism I bet you can't prove the necessity of morals cus you will have to prove many other things first. This approach I'm doing is different from the leftist morality and classic utilitarianism.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

None of my arguments were theological or ontological, I subscribe to the morals of Smith and Hume which are based on human feelings and emotions and not concepts. If you failed to understand this, I cannot debate with you. I never mentioned God or an objective morality that's above humans, morality is human not animal and not angelic.

No you don’t be everything I said is entirely philosophical in nature stop crying because you’re now realising how ridiculous your beliefs are

Unlike you David Hume is an intellectually consistent atheist he deserves upmost respect for he openly admits that there is no reason for anything and everything is meaningless and he cannot justify anything “it is what it is and just is”

Your stupid comment about morality runs contrary to what the great Hume believes so why are you sitting there lying and acting as if your beliefs conform to Hume who would be the first Gaythiest to tell you that “There is no morality and that it cannot be justified as there is no truth and its is subjective thefore meaningless”

Read up on the so called philosophers you claim to folllow you’ll realise how different their views are from yours, David would never make such a thread on something he ultimately deems inconsequential and unjustifiable

 

[greycel]

None of my arguments were theological or ontological, I subscribe to the morals of Smith and Hume which are based on human feelings and emotions and not concepts. If you failed to understand this, I cannot debate with you. I never mentioned God or an objective morality that's above humans, morality is human not animal and not angelic. Kant which was an atheist tried to support an objective morality using only imperatives, I don't believe in him cus that makes morals to be some kind of principles ahead of humans which is stupid. Morals are in our world. If you're going with christianism I bet you can't prove the necessity of morals cus you will have to prove many other things first. This approach I'm doing is different from the leftist morality and classic utilitarianism.

Intuitively, surely you can tell everything only matters through a scope of objectivity. I mentioned it a bit here:

I'm genuinely getting close to roping

Its not even because of blackpill or my appearance or genes or anything just what is the point of my being alive i have no purpose nothing to live for nothing to work towards no goals nothing and im 16 and already thinking like this im gonna go to school go to uni get a job and just wageslave my...

looksmax.org

 

[Klasik616]

No you don’t be everything I said is entirely philosophical in nature stop crying because you’re now realising how ridiculous your beliefs are

Unlike you David Hume is an intellectually consistent atheist he deserves upmost respect for he openly admits that there is no reason for anything and everything is meaningless and he cannot justify anything “it is what it is and just is”

Your stupid comment about morality runs contrary to what the great Hume believes so why are you sitting there lying and acting as if your beliefs conform to Hume who would be the first Gaythiest to tell you that “There is no morality and that it cannot be justified as there is no truth and its is subjective thefore meaningless”

Read up on the so called philosophers you claim to folllow you’ll realise how different their views are from yours, David would never make such a thread on something he ultimately deems inconsequential and unjustifiable

That doesn't deny the fact morals aren't about concepts in our mind, we don't need reasons to act this way or another. The feeling of sympathy is above the good and bad, doesn't matter how you judge what other do, what they do matters because they agree on it as simple as that. There's no reasons behind it. So a person who is not cappable to feel doesn't have morals, he/she doesn't act based on impulses like sadness, anger, happiness, love, hate, pride... Because being moral is not about doing what's supposed to be "the good" which doesn't exist.

But based on your system, the distinction between good or bad is probably the same as being moral or inmoral. I deny that such things exist, the reason women think abortion is moral is because they have agreed that abortion is better for women (by infinite reasons it doesn't matter) they are just moved on by emotions, the utilitarian use of morals (wether his benefits me and others or not) is rational but at the same time, absurd because people aren't moved by calculations but needs. These needs are from the body and not rational at all. Women need to be *free* from the baby, so that's why they choose to abort.

People act by impulses and not thoughts. The notion that morals come from a God is the most unrealistic thing I have ever read. If you couldnt feel shit you wouldnt think wether what you're doing is good or bad.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

That doesn't deny the fact morals aren't about concepts in our mind, we don't need reasons to act this way or another. The feeling of sympathy is above the good and bad, doesn't matter how you judge what other do, what they do matters because they agree on it as simple as that. There's no reasons behind it. So a person who is not cappable to feel doesn't have morals, he/she doesn't act based on impulses like sadness, anger, happiness, love, hate, pride... Because being moral is not about doing what's supposed to be "the good" which doesn't exist.

But based on your system, the distinction between good or bad is probably the same as being moral or inmoral. I deny that such things exist, the reason women think abortion is moral is because they have agreed that abortion is better for women (by infinite reasons it doesn't matter) they are just moved on by emotions, the utilitarian use of morals (wether his benefits me and others or not) is rational but at the same time, absurd because people aren't moved by calculations but needs. These needs are from the body and not rational at all. Women need to be *free* from the baby, so that's why they choose to abort.

People act by impulses and not thoughts. The notion that morals come from a God is the most unrealistic thing I have ever read. If you couldnt feel shit you wouldnt think wether what you're doing is good or bad.

Then if there’s no god then morality is subjective and therefore meaningless because it tells you nothing of truth or falsehood it’s a human convention to you and nothing more. I mean dude do all humans share the same moral ethical compass ? Nope well then it’s subjective so if I find it merciful to slaughter an muderer whilst others don’t well guess what under your stupid belief system NEITHER OF US SRE WRONG OR RIGHT.

Ethnics thefore cannot be grounded in human beings nor materialism for it transcends that. David Hume understood this hence why he admitted he has no justification for it and that it ultimately means nothing.

If you want to argue for Morals then you’re arguing for God . Otherwise your literally just speaking white noise and wasting others time like wtf should anybody believe what you said is the case why OUGHT I to go based off my own preconceived notions of empathy when if I was born in another culture or time my views would be different, an Viking saw no issue with killing. An jihadi sees no issue with killing non believers. You under your stupid redicukous worldview cannot tell either they they are wrong

You then make sweeping generalisations about sbortion… which only further proves my point and destroys yours. Not all women support abortion my mother doesn’t, which proves yet again it’s all SUBJECTIVE in your stupid paradigm.

This is the point I’m making. I’m not saying your conclusion isn’t correct I’m saying your justification for it is incorrect and logically inconsistent which is pointed out by Rene Descartes and David Hume who you somehow try to appeal to despise David Hume being the very people to debunk your bullshit if he saw it irl

Until you can provide an justification for the immaterial universal invariant entity that is ethics, truth and metaphysics I’ll continue to say your beliefs are valid and stupid

 

[Klasik616]

Then if there’s no god then morality is subjective and therefore meaningless because it tells you nothing of truth or falsehood it’s a human convention to you and nothing more. I mean dude do all humans share the same moral ethical compass ? Nope well then it’s subjective so if I find it merciful to slaughter an muderer whilst others don’t well guess what under your stupid belief system NEITHER OF US SRE WRONG OR RIGHT.

Ethnics thefore cannot be grounded in human beings nor materialism for it transcends that. David Hume understood this hence why he admitted he has no justification for it and that it ultimately means nothing.

If you want to argue for Morals then you’re arguing for God . Otherwise your literally just speaking white noise and wasting others time like wtf should anybody believe what you said is the case why OUGHT I to go based off my own preconceived notions of empathy when if I was born in another culture or time my views would be different, an Viking saw no issue with killing. An jihadi sees no issue with killing non believers. You under your stupid redicukous worldview cannot tell either they they are wrong

You then make sweeping generalisations about sbortion… which only further proves my point and destroys yours. Not all women support abortion my mother doesn’t, which proves yet again it’s all SUBJECTIVE in your stupid paradigm.

This is the point I’m making. I’m not saying your conclusion isn’t correct I’m saying your justification for it is incorrect and logically inconsistent which is pointed out by Rene Descartes and David Hume who you somehow try to appeal to despise David Hume being the very people to debunk your bullshit if he saw it irl

Until you can provide an justification for the immaterial universal invariant entity that is ethics, truth and metaphysics I’ll continue to say your beliefs are valid and stupid

I'm based ethics on behavior which is only produced by our body and therefore is a psychophysical reaction to the environment which humans have called "emotions or feelings" and made multiple distinctions like those who Descartes and Spinoza did. This doesn't change the fact the base of morals are feelings and the base of feelings is the body which occurs in the limbic system. And yea call that subjective but is a more realistic and scientific approach to why people behave in a certain way or another. For example, answer me why you think killing is bad. There is no correct answer, you think is bad because you feel anger if someone kills somebody you love is that simple. Now explain why you need to make an ontological argument to prove ethics. If somehow you proved me rationally why killing is bad I could make a different answer. So I win...

 

[varoo]

I'm based ethics on behavior which is only produced by our body and therefore is a psychophysical reaction to the environment which humans have called "emotions or feelings" and made multiple distinctions like those who Descartes and Spinoza did. This doesn't change the fact the base of morals are feelings and the base of feelings is the body which occurs in the limbic system. And yea call that subjective but is a more realistic and scientific approach to why people behave in a certain way or another. For example, answer me why you think killing is bad. There is no correct answer, you think is bad because you feel anger if someone kills somebody you love is that simple. Now explain why you need to make an ontological argument to prove ethics. If somehow you proved me rationally why killing is bad I could make a different answer. So I win...

The issue we run into is that morals supersede reasoning. They are ingrained in our souls. While a person may be able to twists certain structures of morality (like debating abortion) that does not mean that it does not exist. We know it exists. Your right we act on impulses, but why? There’s no reason to succeed or be just except for the ingrained knowledge that it is that way.

To try to dissect it in a naturalistic way without recognizing what I’ve brought up will lead to thinking we just act off of biological impulses and not supernatural. but naturalistic explanation cannot explain purpose, it’s a derivative of the supernatural.