God

Is belief in God a "noble lie" ? i.e. it's sort of covertly understood to be purely an abstraction that is ultimately beneficial for man to sustain, which it does so not by individuals genuinely believing, but by the collective assumption of individuals that there are those who do truly believe?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Vkyp3KruUgw
potw.org/archive/potw351.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I don't know any people who are christians without believing in it, I seriously have only heard of that from Sup Forums.

it's atheism that is the lie, and there is nothing "noble" about it.

they are "cultural Christians," who feel that one's faith is sort of like one's race, which is to say something one is born into.

The christians Ive talked to who truly believe seem to have an inhuman glazed look in their eyes, like they see through you. Its very bizarre to encounter a true believer. But they are rare, I think most really just hope but, at least subconsciously, intuit that it is a bit of a ruse.

I think that's ridiculous. I'm not going to base my life around the rules of an ancient Judeo-Roman myth because people have done it before me. I can't change my race, I can change my religion and philosophy.

They're a strange crowd generally.

>I think that's ridiculous. I'm not going to base my life around the rules of an ancient Judeo-Roman myth because people have done it before me. I can't change my race, I can change my religion and philosophy.

well, the thing is, we inherently recognize the reality of objective right and wrong. no less a "new atheist" than Dr. Sam Harris even recognizes that. the issue is, to what do we attribute it? theism provides a thoroughly cohesive philosophical framework that explains it - atheism does not, and atheists have been struggling to construct a logical argument justifying the existence of objective morality.

our own sense of that morality informs us that we fail to meet it, without exception. therefore, when it comes to the "following rules" part of your statement, you eally should look into genuine, Biblical Christianity and what it teaches - because it is literally the world's ONLY "anti-religion." whereas religion is a man-made set of rules whereby we might be "good enough" for God, Christianity - REAL Christianity - cedes the point that we could never possibly be "good enough" for a Perfect and Holy God. if God is Perfectly Just - and we reason that He is - then He must punish each and every transgression. if God is Perfectly Forgiving - and again, we reason that He is - He must forgive each and every sin. this seems like an unresolvable conundrum.

the Christian God is the ONLY God that satisfies both of these attributes. indeed, He does punish each and every sin. the difference is, He chose to take the punishment HIMSELF, thereby "balancing the books" in a moral sense - and He forgives absolutely every sin of those who simply trust Him.

the beautiful truth is, there ARE NO RULES in Christianity. sure, there is right and wrong, and one should always strive to do right. but we, as Christians, realize that we are perfectly, eternally forgiven, and therefore our motivation for doing right is different

>well, the thing is, we inherently recognize the reality of objective right and wrong.

Wrong from the first fucking sentence user.

Yes it is. But good luck getting any religitards to admit it. They've had 2,000 years of telling noble untruths to themselves and other people, and by now they're very good at it. Stuffing their head in the sand has actually become a reason for them to get up in the morning.

>Wrong from the first fucking sentence user.

what if someone killed your family?

would you still argue that morality is relative? that right and wrong do not really exist?

i hear people make that claim all the time. they're usually the first people to whine about some injustice, real or perceived.

You just desperately desire the truth to be a lie. Christ Jesus is real and so was the great flood and so is the coming judgement.

Lots of biologists, geologist and astrophysicist are becoming creationists and christian. The closer you observe reality. The more you become terrified of the Living God.

>that right and wrong do not really exist?

That's not what he's saying.

>Yes it is. But good luck getting any religitards to admit it. They've had 2,000 years of telling noble untruths to themselves and other people, and by now they're very good at it. Stuffing their head in the sand has actually become a reason for them to get up in the morning.

you are confabulating a couple of things here:

"religious" people have indeed, historically done evil things, and cloaked them under the "nobility" of their religion.

but this is different from theism. a person can be a theist without either subscribing to a religion, or doing evil under the banner of some religion.

and appealing to the evils of organized religion is by no means an argument against the existence of God. to be sure, the requisite concept of right and wrong that you claim has been violated points back to the very God you deny.

then please elaborate for him.

There is a lot more to morality than that extreme, and yeah I didn't say right and wrong don't exist. I said right and wrong is subjective, morality is very much subjective. Even christcucks like you disagree on what's right or wrong.

>lack of belief is a lie

It should be, among those of us living in reality.

>Lots of biologists, geologist and astrophysicist are becoming creationists and christian
Ohohohohoho. I take it you have sources for these "Lots"?
>The closer you observe reality
The more you realize we don't know as much as we think we do

But then, for some people (I use the word "people" in it's broadest possible meaning) not knowing is such a terrible curse they are willing to MAKE SHIT UP!!!
Calling them scientists is a hell of a stretch, though. Anyone who is paid to teach science, and suddenly decides a talking snake did it 6,000 years ago, should be immediately dismissed from their teaching post.

I can tell you're in a trollish mood but you could easily look these things up yourself if you actually cared. There is plenty of information out there.

Belief in god gives people easy answers to scary questions, so it's a noble lie in that sense: It controls morons who would otherwise not be cut out for civilized society.

We've been working with that worldview for a long time, so a good argument can be made that we should keep it that way for the sake of social stability.

Obviously anyone who actually believes in that nonsense is a moron, though.

Biology, the study of life and how it works is very much devoid of christians. It's really not beyond our understanding user, well maybe yours.

>I said right and wrong is subjective, morality is very much subjective.

is that statement itself objective?

>you are confabulating a couple of things here:
you are full of shit.
If you want to argue for the existence of god, or peoples belief in the existence of god, go ahead.
But if you start that argument with "look how wrong that guy is" (especially when 'confabulating' something I said into whatever you want it to mean, then I'm going to tell you, every single time, that you're full of shit.

The population need not be privy to the nature of God, the world and humanity, it would be beyond comprehension for most, it should be purely an intuitive and emotional thing.

The true believers privy to the complexities of faith, nature, God and humanity are generally not seen in public.

i wouldnt expect a christian to know anything about the burden of proof

>Is belief in God a "noble lie" ? i.e. it's sort of covertly understood to be purely an abstraction that is ultimately beneficial for man to sustain, which it does so not by individuals genuinely believing, but by the collective assumption of individuals that there are those who do truly believe?
Does it matter?

Now it's time for the saturday sabbath.


youtube.com/watch?v=Vkyp3KruUgw

Everyone gather round for afternoon enbrightenment.

absolutely.

if you lack belief in Europe, for example, then you are lying to yourself.

if you have never been to Europe, you have no choice but to believe it exists, even if the evidence for its existence is overwhelmingly persuasive.

>you could easily look these things up yourself if you actually cared
But I don't. I regard all of you as vocal children gabbling nonsense rhymes in the schoolyard.
It's up to you to convince me (with the aid of all those Astrophysicists).
That's how this "arguing" thing works. Not that I'd expect you to understand simple concepts like theory or proof or disputed.

No user, this concept really is not difficult. I am in no way surprised that you're a christian.

not an argument

:)

as an atheist, there still is objective morality. It involves following the natural laws that brought humans to their current point, and allow our species to continue.

the bullshit about everything being subjective are SJW lies that have permeated the west.

"Natural laws" are subjective as well. Plenty of people disagree with those, and no that has not gotten us to our current point. Wars of aggression do not follow the NAP, but they're created empires that are still standing today.

really? the death of a species is objectively bad for the species. anything that leads to a weaker species or its death is also objectively wrong for it.

>Is belief in God a "noble lie" ?
Faith is often portrayed as something beautiful.
It's perhaps best described as a beautiful lie. In the end it's all about impression.

I didn't see anything to argue with except your assumption I was simply wrong...based on a (presumably intended) misunderstanding, or your presumption that my imagined lack of awareness leads precisely to your claim being true (it does not).
I don't argue with tail-chasers or slippery tongued wannabe preachers. It's a waste of time in both cases. One cannot hear, and the other refuses to listen.
Bye!

You two are not talking about objective morality any longer.

Tons of people would disagree with you. Mostly arguing that some people are in the way of progress or prosperity, and that some don't deserve to live or prosper. Either way, your idea has not been the driving force of history. You're wrong through and through. Thanks for playing.

seems to me that you're the one incapable of answering questions. you merely declare some fictitious victory. this is unfortunately all to common for atheists - at least, those atheists who have never reasoned through their position. had you reasoned through your position, you would have an answer to that question.

got to go soon. gotta take the kids out to get a Mother's Day present. that's something that the majority of atheists seem to not know, either - having families.

i try not to sound anything but sincere when i say i feel bad for you guys, generally speaking.

He's saying NAP is objective, I'm saying it isn't. There is no such thing as objective moral codes. They all vary significantly between cultures, nations and individuals.

>this idiot has spread his seed

The future is fucked.

'morality' is a fancy way of dictating our behavior in such a way as is beneficial for our species.

>Tons of people would disagree with you.
This is a logical fallacy. I don't care what other 'experts' think, this is the objective truth.

Every living species is geared towards its existence, otherwise it just dies and nothing happens.

Seemed to me he was talking about natural laws being subjective, hence shifting away from the topic of morality.

>'morality' is a fancy way of dictating our behavior in such a way as is beneficial for our species.
It's a shifty word indeed. Ethics is a better discipline to pursue.

People disagreeing with you makes it objective. "beneficial" depends on what your goal or perspective is. This is all subjective. Really the only things that are objective are measurements.

No, natural laws and morality go hand in hand. Gay marriage is wrong because that behavior is detrimental to the reproduction and evolution of a species.

>Really the only things that are objective are measurements.
But measurements are performed by subjective beings, i.e. us. So how can measurements be objective? There's always a bias.

No he genuinely believes that objective morality exists, and he's basing it off a subjective assessment of what he thinks is best.

Because a ruler is a ruler no matter who is using it.

The universe is a cosmic dream where we live out countless scripted lives.

>No, natural laws and morality go hand in hand.
>Gay marriage is wrong because that behavior is detrimental to the reproduction and evolution of a species.

It does? Lesbians and gays do procreate at times, they just need help with a surrogate.
Anyhow, if you're right, would you really want deviants to procreate?

So the validity of my argument is based in the fact that someone else has an opposing one? You aren't making any sense.

>"beneficial" depends on what your goal or perspective is
you can make up your goals, but all living things have one universal objective goal: to continue to live, and pass down life to their progeny. There is no 'subjectiveness' to that aspect, because any living being who does not make that their goal ceases to exist.

Here's a rule of thumb kid, if it's not a measurement or a statement like "chlorophyll is green" it's almost definitely subjective.

A tool is always a tool yes, but using it and interpreting the results are always subject to slight bias. You can test this out for yourself. Just use a ruler and measure something, ask someone else to do the same and you'll eventually get someone to disagree with your measurements.

Humans are tribal animals and put their group's benefit before the rest of humanity. Some people are humanists like you, but many aren;t. I'm really amazed that you can't wrap your head around this, you don't seem that stupid.

There is a correct way to measure something. If you're measuring the length of a wooden board, there is a right way to do it and many wrong ways to do it. In your scenario either the ruler is not precise enough or one of them has bad eyes. An 11 inch board is an 11 inch board. That's objective, things outside of that type of assessment are almost all subjective.

>Anyhow, if you're right, would you really want deviants to procreate?
No, you're right. With the kinds of leadership though, they will be highly discouraged to or even prohibited.

>Lesbians and gays do procreate at times, they just need help with a surrogate.
That seems like a workaround, but it isn't. They aren't the natural parents of their children. Their behavior in society is also highly detrimental.

>Some people are humanists like you, but many aren;t
That's true. It goes back to how we all look out for our own survival first, which is mostly beneficial, but sometimes allows deviants to slip through the cracks.

>earliest human fossils : 200,000 BC
>earliest written history : 10,000 BC
>time where bycChristianity truly became widespread in world: ~1300 AD, or 700 years ago
>number of religions that came and went: ??

in 500 years we'll have another religion. 2000 years ago people were as convinced of Zeus as you christfags are convinced of his godhood today

Now you've set up a subjective standard according to your own beliefs. Hence, there are no objective measurements.

It can easily be argued that any given group could see humanism as detrimental to their existence and prosperity. This would make it counter to their interests. I can't fucking believe that you still aren't getting this. Morality isn't objective, it's subjective. There is no one right way to think.

I'm not interested in college underclassman tier reductionism. Objectivity is when something can be objectively measured and determined, that's the definition.

>Their behavior in society is also highly detrimental.
This is your opinion, but it doesn't mean it's a fact. Might be a fact, I don't think it is, but we'll see as fags get more numerous and get more and more kids in the future.

This is the biggest heap of shit I've read on this board since >there is literally nothing wrong with being jewish

How did you even do that?

>Objectivity is when something can be objectively measured and determined, that's the definition.
There is no such thing, and until we realise there is no such thing, we cannot start the work to strive for an objective way of measuring anything.

timeline--
bignose pharacees find ancient egypt and try to replicate what they see, they fail

bignose pharacees use up all soil due to ignorance of crop rotation

bignose pharasees cast out halfbreed servants called hebrews, give their leader (mo-zeus) the mission of finding a new fertile land to settle and use servants as troops

mozeus builds an army and several myths through slight of hand trickery

mozeus and his army find fertile land and brutally infiltrate/invade

mozeus establishes a new kingdom and pharacees immediately establish trade and economic dominance there

hey-zeus is born a few generations later in the pharacees dominated land

heyzeus is taught talmudic big nose pharacees inbred supremacist belief structure and slight of hand, same as mozeus

jesus states "gentiles are less than dogs" repeating the ethnic supremacist teachings he was given even though his whore mother was probably raped by gentile romans leading to his halfbreed "bastard jew" birth

heyzeus criticizes the religion and usury banking and is executed

big nose pharacees rape and conspire their way into power in both greece and rome

big nose pharacees ride with Alexander the great establishing his 19 self named cities acriss asia minor

Alexander dies young on a military campaign...

pharasees now use romani travelers and afghan "beni israeli" tribesmen to secure trade routes to china

big nose pharacees halfbreed run the dope trade in china

phasasees establish khazarian empire in asia minor

khazars are recorded to have technology and black slaves

pharasees dominate roman politics and turn christianity into both a state religion and beurocracy

pharacees create new controlled opposition religion for sand nigger areas called islam

pharacees rule the dark ages with the silk road and an iron fist slowly degrading, subverting and subsuming all groups they meet

pharacees assimilate or destroy all enemies, taking elements of each culture and claiming them as their own invention

...

Objective: not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.

Can you please stop being autistic?

And all or most of them are based off of sun myths.

nice bait
That info is fake if you are going to relate Jesus with someone do it with Thor or Quetzaquatl

Not true. Some religions will stick around for a very long time since they are almost completely compatible with life, and propel people by giving them meaning to their lives.

>It can easily be argued that any given group could see humanism as detrimental to their existence and prosperity
Sure. Faggots would certainly see the ceasing of their existence as detrimental
But it is. Humans fit clearly into two groups, male and female. The male fucks the female, the female has kids. This is the only way it works. We may have come up with clever workarounds such as surrogates, but they must all adhere to this fact. As is also pretty evident by now in the west, tolerance towards deviants does not produce a happier society.

meant to also reply to here

Oh wew, and you call me autistic.

Still sounds like unfounded opinions, bro.

For defining a word that you are giving your own definition to? You're a waste of time.

All subjective opinion. Look man I've given you everything you would need to be able to wrap your head around this, and you still fail. You still don't understand the distinction between subjective and objective statements. You are simply not capable of the cognition required.

Where? The rejection of millions of years of existence and becoming tolerant towards sexual deviants seems like hubris.

Being in Sweden, I'm sure you're also aware of some of this apathy or downright rejection of natural standards. But just like here in the States, its fucking up everything, and now a national collapse doesn't seem like such a far-fetched concept after all.

>All subjective opinion. Look man I've given you everything you would need to be able to wrap your head around this, and you still fail. You still don't understand the distinction between subjective and objective statements. You are simply not capable of the cognition required.
To be a part of a discussion, you can't just tell people theirs are invalid. How is our desire to live subjective?

All/most of that was true. I've already seen most of it in religion or mythology class.
pic unrelated.

...

I guess to be more specific, what is wrong about this statement? What is subjective about this? We exist, that is an objective fact. It doesn't seem like a stretch to assume that our objective goal is to continue to exist, whether we are aware of it or not.
>you can make up your goals, but all living things have one universal objective goal: to continue to live, and pass down life to their progeny. There is no 'subjectiveness' to that aspect, because any living being who does not make that their goal ceases to exist.

Were the Moai representations of gods? I thought they were animistic representations of the volcanoes and islands, rather than gods.

Lately whenever i've been on Sup Forums i've had this poem resounding in my head.
potw.org/archive/potw351.html

It's actually pretty relavant to pretty much everything everyone's talking about, in at least one way.

the sun, the son, the morningstar, the lightbringer, the lucifer...

the big nose, khazar, pharasees worship lucifer

their symbol is the nebula star factory with six (sex) magic points

their hidden symbol from ancient times shown in bhuddist temples is the swastika

the swastika represents the black sun

when you merge the nebula (asshole) with the swastika (mouth) the creation cycle is clear... the heartbeat of reality... the great sleeping dragon is a supermassive blackhole in the middle of all

time pours backwards through the eye of the grwat sleeping dragon into pools of nebula star factories below... the multibang theory seems more likely than the big bang due to our view of several nebula star factories

>right and wrong is subjective

No it's not, everything is objective.

If it is subjective then there is no right or wrong, because it would all depend on the observer, moral relativism is one of the worst philosophical ideas that exist.

everything past physical traits is subjective

the sun is hotter than the moon

kikel khazar trAshcaNazi pharasees noses are bigger than gentile shiksa roundfaced PIEfaced noses

its as plain as the nose on your face...

follow the schnoz, zionazis exist and game goyim golems daily

>He forgives absolutely every sin of those who simply trust Him.

If I were a perfectly just, perfectly forgiving god, I would recognize that this particular caveat doesn't actually make any sense. I would forgive everyone regardless of their belief or trust, since I recognize that a human's belief is meaningless. If, for some stupid reason, I did put weight on the 'trust' of humans, then I would make it clear that I exist, and I would simply explain myself to them.

Then, I'd loop back to the same issue I had before: Anyone who doesn't believe after being presented with solid evidence is probably just retarded, and certainly not deserving of hellfire just for being retarded, so I'd still be compelled to forgive everyone regardless of their beliefs.

Its good for the masses to think they are being watched and judged.