Hey atheists, prepare to get bfto

Hey atheists, prepare to get bfto.

Are ethics subjective?

If not, where do you get your moral compass and should not other people live by it if its objectively the optimal code of conduct?

If you get it from your own intuition and judgement, does that not render your moral compass as subjective and inherently relativist?

Why shouldn't other people live by their own subjective moral standards? Who are you to judge?

A society cannot exist (for long) if all members of it abide by their own standards of ethical behavior.

Can you see how an atheist (not secular) society cannot exist without a strong central government?

Why have ALL ATHEIST societies QUICKLY devolved into tyrannical slaughterhouses like Revolutionary France and every Communist state?

If an objective ethical code is a necessary prerequisite for a stable society, then as a social species, would it not follow that humans have evolved to be receptive towards spirituality and be inclined to develop religious cultures?

If man is the most receptive to religious experience and exist in the highest state of consciousness, can religiosity and consciousness be related?

If consciousness cannot be decisively understood as entirely materialistic, might not the relationship between religiosity and consciousness suggest an external force?

Is consciousness what allows man to be so inclined towards religious experience? Is it receptive towards something. Can it be a sense that we have yet to recognize as such?

Morality is entirely subjective and derived from the culture. There is no objective morality. Now go back to worshiping your jew on a stick.

Wow so hard to answer. If only i could pray to god to help me out and answer this...

...

Literally cannot answer the next question

Answer it then

So when people completely unaware of a concept arrive to the same conclusions on a subject such as logical dispositions in Greece and India without any actors able to communicate, that automatically means there are no universal truths? Fire burns, that definitely was not derived from culture.

Is it acceptable to murder?

Yes. A culture devolves when there is no religion. That makes it no less true that there is no objective morality. It proves nothing. Only that people are sheep and need a skydaddy to not be fucktards.

>Fire burns, that definitely was not derived from culture.

what a fucking stupid thing to say.

No, it just means that people are similar

Vikings beleived it was. Culture derived.

Therefore compositions of truth can be equivalent and not based upon regional interpretation. Right?

OP

This was meant for

I'm asking you. Is it acceptable to murder?

Wow, do you often commit logical fallacies to distract points?

He didn't say there weren't universal truths you bum, just that there is no objective morality.
> does that not render your moral compass as subjective and inherently relativist?
In the descriptive sense, yes. This is true with or without religion. Religion does not create an objective moral code, merely another subjective one.

user

>logical fallacies.
>muh charts.

fuck off.

No. Some things may be innate. Some cultures may even be similar. Doesn't make them true. Migratory birds in different parts of the world fly to warmer climates for the winter. Does this mean that "flying to warm parts" is TRUE? You have to define TRUE.

Morals come from empathy which is natrual. Its an evolved trait to care for young and live in tribes/groups. Its also cultural and enforced by peer group pressure and laws.

>youtube-comment-section-tier bait
>guaranteed +300 replys
never change

In my culture, no. Unless you are doing it for the state or to defend your life. I'm assuming you mean humans. Killing animals is fine as long as it isn't done cruelly

This rant ignores that an object ethical code can be simply based on evolutionary drivers for pack based organisms.

As a species we are NOT solitary creatures, thus rely on pack health for survival. OBjective morality can be seen as a simple extension of that. It is "natural" to be good and fair to others as the health of the pack is important.

Society maybe social by definition, but not morality. It has evolutionary purpose.

Ball in your court.

>Religion does not create an objective moral code, merely another subjective one.

You believe this because you view the world through a strictly relativist lens.

HOWEVER, in the perspective of people who subscribe to any religion, there exists an objective morality. Even if you believe that morality is subjective does not mean there does not exist an objective code of conduct.

Do you have a moral compass? Why do you not have another individual's specific moral compass? By virtue of you maintaining your moral compass, you must logically believe it is superior to the other individual's.

If you didn't believe you moral compass was superior, then you would either adopt the other individual's moral code or not have any moral compass at all if morality is entirely subjective.

Is your moral compass therefore objective in your opinion?

Would not society prosper more under your code?

>Ball in your court.

Objective mortality would be a universal truth; not affirmations of the consequent.

The lack of objective morality would not imply that other universal truths do not exist.

So murder, according to you, is acceptable so long as it is not done cruelly.

So if I inject a person with a non-painful ubstance while they are unconscious, that would bd considered morally acceptable behavior according to you.

>the state of atheism, everybody

>Do you have a moral compass?
yes
>Why do you not have another individuals specific moral compass?
Because I'm me
There is no objective morality, so none are superior.
>Society, code
It would from my perspective, yes. But even objectively "good" things are a product of my subjectivity.

Do you dumb fuck. Murder is unacceptable in my culture outside of killing for the state or in defense of ones life. Killing animals is acceptable as long as it isn't done cruelly

PS, you are taking a moral high ground on this, which I have stated is entirely subjective so your argument isn't really an argument at all.

>You believe this because you view the world through a strictly relativist lens.
No, I believe this because morality is inherently subjective.
>HOWEVER, in the perspective of people who subscribe to any religion, there exists an objective morality.
No, there doesn't. Morality coming from a god is no less subjective than morality coming from a man.
>Do you have a moral compass?
Yes.
>Why do you not have another individual's specific moral compass?
A variety of factors.
> By virtue of you maintaining your moral compass, you must logically believe it is superior to the other individual's.
With regard to my subjective goal, yes.
>Is your moral compass therefore objective in your opinion?
No. That does not follow.
Here's the issue: the goal or foundation of morality is subjective. We could have the goal of "prosperous society" and develop one morality but someone else could have another goal altogether and develop an entirely different morality.

Which is a fair point, but I don't belueve that runs contrary to any of the questions that I have posited as OP.

My contention was that upon the removal of religion from a society, historically, those societies have either become self-destructive, tyrannical, murderous or all of the above.

I posit that man's proclivity towards religion is actually a prerequisite for established moral behavior conducive to the formation of tribes, unions, complex society and civilization as a whole. These societies were predicated upon an established morality. Socities that are not will cease to exist from either self-destruction or conqeust by a stronger society with an establidhed code of ethics.

How can you say you have a moral compass if all behaior is equally acceptable?

Perhaps I should ask WHY do you have a moral compass then? By virtue of you maintaining it, you believe that there exists some inherent truth to it. Why is that inherent truth only true to you and not others? Are others living less moral lives than you? Is morality therefore objective regardless if anyone is 100% objective?

I actually agree with this...I'm the original arguer. I don't think that proves religion is true, but I didn't say it was entirely bad either. Although I really don't like (((Jesus)))

Because of your post hereThis is also my retort to that

A moral compass would be an object of faith of which an atheist is not supposed to have by the defined parameters of athetism, which you can not objectify faith based materials in atheism, not even atheists, otherwise that would defeat the conditions given they are objects of faith and not infact atheists. So while atheism is the described rejection of an existence of god, so to is it anti-atheist to appear as a diety to oneself, or rely on objects of faith, which would be self defeating to an atheist which is only possible if proof of god exists, of which there are several instances of.

So there exists an objective standard of behavior so long as its with regards to murder.

Thank you for answering the question. Morality is therefore objective. Why and where does it come from?

It seems that what you are actually arguing for is that 'religious proclivities' can be, in at least some ways, necessary for a societies continued survival. Even if true, this says nothing about those religions actually being true.

Not murdering it now considered taking the moral high ground. Jesus fucking Christ. Who am I to judge? Its current year after all.

You're literally a brainlet.

There is no proof of god existing. At least no specific god. Other than that I can level with you.

> from where moral compass?
You mean by moral compass, like should I kill/rape/steal?
It depends on the circumstances. I would kill/steal if it wold benefit me, like solders or politicians do. Do I help random strangers? If I feel like it.
>If you get it from your own intuition and judgement, does that not render your moral compass as subjective and inherently relativist?
What do this big words mean? Teach me if I can get better away with stuff.
>Why shouldn't ... own subjective moral standards? Who are you to judge?
If they prevent my GF from having an abortion or me marring by BF I would object. Why do they judge me?
>A society cannot exist (for long)... own standards of ethical behavior.
Why not? Murders wouldn't necessary go up, it's just messy and stealing reaches an equlibrium at some point anyway
>cannot exist without a strong central government?
Implying religion isn't abstract government
>Why always tyrannical slaughterhouses?
Because war is bloody
>If an objective ethical code is a necessary prerequisite... be receptive towards spirituality and be inclined to develop religious cultures?
Spirituality is just too vague. Some societies killed their children, some suppress women and kill gays for religious reasons.
> can religiosity and consciousness be related?
Men also masturbate more than any animal. No anymal puts things up their asses or sucks dicks, should I make conclusions from that?
>If consciousness cannot be decisively understood as entirely materialistic, might not the relationship between religiosity and consciousness suggest an external force?
Prove beyond doubt that it can't be understood
>Is consciousness what allows man to be so inclined towards religious experience? Is it receptive towards something. Can it be a sense that we have yet to recognize as such?
Weed is awesome but Ihave to wait 14 years till I get high again.

Not even trying to disproof your thesis, just insomnia.

You’re a fucking monster.

Culture. You dumb fuck. And its still subjective.

Aww. That really hurts user.

OP

>Is this nigger serious? Someone tell me if this is a pasta.

If not..

"Are ethics subjective?"
"If not, where do you get your moral compass and should not other people live by it if its objectively the optimal code of conduct?"
"Why shouldn't other people live by their own subjective moral standards? Who are you to judge?"
"A society cannot exist (for long) if all members of it abide by their own standards of ethical behavior."
"Can you see how an atheist (not secular) society cannot exist without a strong central government?"
>Like the one we're living in now? What does this shit have to do with anything?

OP, the rest of this shit is just blithering nonsense. What drugs have you been taking?

My wife is sleeping upstairs and I'm horny. Should I go up there and slam it in her, or just rub one out?

"So murder"
>Wrong, he said the killing of animals. Killing animals holds no weight against the killing of another human being.

"So if I inject a person with a non-painful ubstance while they are unconscious, that would bd considered morally acceptable behavior according to you."
>We do it all the time. It's called capital punishment.

Why do Christians strawman everything they see?

Just because something hurts your feelings doesn't make you right. Go home snowflake

...

Just rub one out bro, shes tired. Find a good fap thread

Of course ethics are subjective. Do animals have ethics? Then it's subjective.

Society forms ethics. What you seem to be confusing are morals and ethics, totally different things. And morals are subjective too. For example in western society we don't tend to behead women for cheating. But that's the law in other countries. That is cut and dry subjective.

I don't judge religious people on the grounds of them being religious. It's when they push it onto others that I get annoyed. But why don't I kill if god isn't telling me not to? It doesn't serve a purpose for me. If you are only holding back murder because you are afraid of god, that says a fucking lot about you. I don't want to kill or steal or cheat or whatever. I don't have to resist it, I simply don't want to.

What is it about me not loving your god that bugs you? I don't ask you to stop believing. I don't bother you at all. Respect that and go kneel before your god of unconditional love (under certain conditions of course).

Its the moral thing to do in this case

Thanks user. Peace!

>Are ethics subjective?
Yes. Competition on a societal level dictates the "objectives" you're so accustomed to.

...

...

>No, there doesn't. Morality coming from a god is no less subjective than morality coming from a man.

But the religious claim that the god maintains absolute authority. Under the presupposition that the god exists as the final arbiter of ethical behavior, morals can be understood as objective, regardless if they are or not and regardless if that god exists.

>With regard to my subjective goal, yes.
Do you believe that goals dictate the development of morals? I'm sorry if ive read that into your comment

...

...

/thread

nah man atheism amsays nothing about ethics or morality, just means "no God"

>But the religious claim that the god maintains absolute authority
That does not make the god's morality objective any more than it would make a human tyrant's morality objective.
>Under the presupposition that the god exists as the final arbiter of ethical behavior, morals can be understood as objective, regardless if they are or not
Someone could 'understand' something to be one way, but that does not make it so. Believing that a god's morality would be objective does not mean that it actually would be. You could similarly believe that vanilla is objectively the best flavor of ice cream, but that does not make it so.
>Do you believe that goals dictate the development of morals?
If your morality is based on any sort of reasoning, yes, you must have some goal or basis that you are working from / towards (e.g. societal prosperity). This goal or basis is ultimately subjective.

>Are Ethics subjective?

Yes. Yes they are. In a culture that promotes cannibalism Hannibal Lecter is a Saint.

How could a religion prove that it is "true" if that religion contends that faith is the only acceptable answer? For example, if by revealing oneself, a deity would violate the condition of faith. Would that deity have to "prove" itself constantly for every man for all eternity? What would consider to be "proof"?

>How could a religion prove that it is "true" if that religion contends that faith is the only acceptable answer?
It could not. It would be impossible to reasonably believe in that religion by definition.

But the purpose of a religion, being the perceived establishment of an objective moral code, would not having an optimal code of conduct be indicative of a form of "truth" regarding the purpose of the religion?

Sorry for the shitty wording

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. A code of conduct could only be optimized to some set of parameters, which would be subjective.

The US isn't an athiest society... It has a secular government but not an imposed atheist one unlike revolutionary France and the ussr.

You're beyond retarded. Fortunately for yourself, we do not live in an atheist society lest you would've been aborted for your mental inhibitions.

If he was all powerful, I think he could, and if he wants continued faith he would need to maintain that proof an prove it for generations to come. It wouldn't even be hard. That deity could shape shift before my eyes, part the seas, make a thunderbolt with a hammer. I'd have to see it. But I would probably believe if it did something like that. Even if it was an extraterrestrial, and not a god at all it would be able to force me to worship it anyway. As far as violating a condition of faith, it think faith is a great cop out. Invented by humans so shore up their argument.

What does it matter. Morality is subjective. Do what pleases you! That is the only standard for life!

user would continue to pivot to culture and refuse to answer if he personally believed that murder was wrong.

Its moreso what pleases your culture.

B-b-but

morality is definitely objective but I'm the only one that's right

Hey, he asked for my point of view.

Yes. I think murder is wrong.

But in order for nature to eliminate cultures with inferior ethical standards, a society must first form with superior moral standards before competition can remove the former.

Objective morals preceed the competitive event. The codes we enjoy may be the result of thousands of years of this process but each individual contribution can about organically.

No. The ethics are still subjective. They would only appear objective to the conquering society.

stop explaining to the fucking idiot children.

So if murder was acceprable behavior according to someone else's culture, should that culture not be scrutized according to your sense of morality? If it's just their culture to murder you, is the morality of their culture equivalent to all others? Should these things not be discusses and debated to find objective standards of morality for the betterment of mankind?

So what of the personal religious experience? What of revelation? Does count as evidence (only to the individual of course but still evidence)?

Why should you care what your culture thinks? Culture is a social construct. Its not a genuine unit. Its the formation of individuals behaving within similar parameters.

Why?

Any culture when faced with a culture that murders its people would either find it within their morality to murder them back, or be eliminated. No objective morality would be derived from such a thing but one culture would dominate the other leaving a lasting morality. That would not make the morality objective.

No. That does not count as evidence. It would have to be able to be observed by multiple people. And myself. Photographic/video. Something that could be verified and repeated.

Because you live in it.

But through the process of competition, would not the end product likely produce a code of conduct more beneficial to society? Could that end product be objectively superior?

Could the processes of competition, not necessarily restricted to conquest, derive a more perfect morality?

Because It harms my culture and my relationship with it.

No. Just subjectively. And the whole thing would be multi factored. If the Nazis or Communist (pick one) had conquered the world would they be morally superior?

Are ethics subjective?
Yes, ethics are subjective.
>does that not render your moral compass as subjective and inherently relativist?
Yes, ethics are subjective.
Why shouldn't other people live by their own subjective moral standards? Who are you to judge?
They do. Their ethics allow them to do things we don't like (example: Rape) and our ethics allow us to do things they don't like (example: put in jail for rape).
>Society can't exist (for long) if all members abide by their own ethics.
Rule of majority. The largest group enforces their beliefs on the smaller ones.
>Can you see how an atheist society cannot exist without strong central government?
Rule of the majority. Blah blah blah.
>All atheist societies devolve into tyranny.
Evil dictators are not unique to atheist societies.
>if an objective ethical code is necessary.
It's not. Ethics are subjective.
>Social species = religion
Nope.
>If man is the most receptive to religious experience.
Citation needed.
>Highest state of consciousness.
Citation needed.
>Religion and consciousness are related?
Are you asking if religion would exist without conscious beings? Because no. It would not.
>Consciousness not understood as materialistic
Remove brain and human stops being conscious. Brain is material. Consciousness is material.
>Consciousness allows for religion?
Yes.
>Consciousness receptive to something?
Lots of things.
>Is consciousness being receptive to things not realized?
It is.

I answered this because I was bored. I'm going to eat lunch now and watch videos. Good bye.

So personal experience is only acceptable if you have a camera on you?

Many other people have personal experiences and could verify that personal experiences happen. If there existed an realm outside of our own, it likely does not manifest in the matter in which we are familiar with. Our senses, as we understand them, are included to detect and measure events affecting matter. Here I posit the question behind the essence of consciousness.

Personal experience occurs through consciousness. If we cannot understand consciousness to be entirely materialistic, could consciousness then be a form of sensory perception? Is that the medium for which non-material forces are detected?

theres a by sam harris on this topic, go read it. its pretty interesting.

That doesnt tell me why I should observe it if ethics are subjective. Why should I care? They could punish me but in the end, I didnt do anything wrong. Besides, there are other societies that say I'm in the right.

if morals are not subjective then why do we no longer adhere to the rules of the bible, even those of us who believe devoutly n it do not follow its teachings to the letter. Are we to assume that large parts of the bible are meant to be open to interpretation?

My moral compass says you should take your pseudo-intellectual nonsense and eat it with a side of dicks.

>implying that the Nazis werent the zenith of ethical behavior
Fucking degenerate
Besides, the communist systems imploded. They demostrated that their social structure was not conducive to stability.