OBJECTIVE MORALITY DOESN'T EXIST

To be inscribed on by God's prophet.

The commandments are like the Quran: they are God's word.

>the concept of objective morality exists
>if you reject the concept, you are in some way a slave to it (true)
>by rejecting the concept you prove the existence of the thing it refers to (false)

God doesn't real.
Naturalism is all there is.
Supernatural? more like superfiction
Morals imply all 3 concepts I refuted above so they are impossible

>There are plenty of atheists who absurdly demand that objective morality exists though.
Yeah that doesn't make sense, huh?

So God exists.

If subjective morality exists, then objective morality, the inverse, cannot exist without God. But if God doesn't exist, then objective morality cannot exist.

Your proposition was that atheists can demand that objective morality exists. You asserted it was absurd.

Indeed it was, this is an example of a reductio ad absurdum, God has to exist by the very principle that Objective morality does. God existing does not prevent subjective morality from existing either way, so yeah. There.

people think objective morality exists =/= it actually exists
same for the belief that morality is subjective =/= necessitate that it actually is

>reads cs lewis once

Morality can be subjective. I'll be honest, it doesn't sound like you even read my post correctly.

Why are atheistfags this stupid always?

Prove it exists

Your posts are incomprehensible. The way you are writing makes it seem as if you are saying "because some atheists hold a belief we can both recognise as absurd, God exists."

I also think your use of the phrase "reductio ad absurdum" is meaningless and adds to the confusion. You are agreeing with him and stating something *is* indeeed absurd, not that he is making a poor argument by reducing an opposing belief to its most "absurd" components for rhetorical effect.

You take it for granted that objective morality exists (because of all that?)... so then God exists, by necessity.

When you say that God doesn't prevent subjective morality, do you mean the state of acting upon a subjective opinion of morality, or that you can really have something *moral* that departs from God's own moral prescriptions?

does it need to? even if it's only a construct to make people not kill and rape eachother at the drop of a hat, as long as it does that then fuck its objectivity

The magic of the spell only works if people believe its objectivity. The moral lessons embedded in religion lose their flavour when disassociated from sincere belief.

i'd objective my morality right into that wide open moist mouth and exist it all the way down to the back of her throat if you know what i'm saying here

Oh but it does

We're talking about the mind of a randomly selected individual right? Just about his processes? Yes, for him 'subjective' morality could exist even if God did. But he would be deviating from the defined moral code. Depending on how much, he could be punished in the afterlife for this. But it all depends on judgment.

Now here's where it gets funny because for Objective morality to exist in this person's mind, it must mean that God is real, otherwise who could have dogmatically asserted this moral code that isn't God? Surely no person. Therefore Objective morality exists because it does, and God by extension has been proven. If God didn't exist, all we would know is subjective morality, and it probably wouldn't even be called subjective anymore because of that reason.

"Objective" morality is a theory about certain moral codes, or hypothetical moral codes that we have. It is impossible for us to distinguish "objective" from "subjective" morality in terms of some essential substance. We just have different inherited or rationalised beliefs about different types of moral thought.

There are quite a few different moralities that claim to be objective. In this sense objective morality is rather subjective. Following your reasoning, this would mean that objective morality in fact does not exist - since apparently if an objective morality we are able to easily distinguish it from subjective morality.

Morality exists through feelings of remorse, guilt, resentment, which don't make sense without a sub-conscious attribution of responsibility and agency to yourself and others. You can argue against objective morality all you want, unless you're a psychopath you'll still feel all of those undesirable feelings, therefore morality will be in practice real to you and other non-malfunctioning individuals.

>There are quite a few different moralities that claim to be objective
Name them.

Consider the different religions of the world, each with their divinely received laws or their "natural laws" of the heart. The Abrahamic faiths all cite different objective commandments to the same God. According to each of these religious philosophies, God has prescribed certain "oughts" for how man should live - yet they are all distinct in content from religion to religion.

I doubt many religious philosophers would take up your line of argumentation user, for it seems untenable.

Our physiological response to different actions is influenced by the moral system we exist in though, and our recognition of different values as more or less important.

Many philosophers are atheist. This is why they wouldn't want to. They know they would have met a dead end now.

Let me ask you this: if all of the moralities you've just named are religions, what is the overall theme of them? Do they worship several gods or just one usually? And if it is because of God that these objective moralities are determined do they share any characteristics? The moralities, I mean? Do they share similar beliefs? Do they admonish others when they kill.

Lets do a checklist

1) Tells others not to kill because of religion
The Bible. Check
The Quran. Check

Tells people not to do evil
The Bible. Check
The Quran. Check
The Tao te Ching. Check
The Dhammapada Check
The Republic. Check

Only mentions one God
The Bible. Check
The Quran. Check
The Tao te Ching. Check

Tells you to give to the poor
The Bible. Check
The Quran. Check
The Dhammapada. Check

Tells you that the Good is a force that overcomes evil after evil lays down its tricks first
The Bible. Check
The Quran. Check
The Tao te Ching. Check
The Republic. Check
The Dhammapada. Check

Now let me ask you a question, doesn't it strike you as odd that all across the world people worship different Gods. And yet most of their religions are monotheistic. And doesn't it strike you as odd how all of them are so similar. Could it be... could it be that they might be the same God?

If god exists, everything is moral.

Your English is poetic.

Not true. Just because everything exists because of God, doesn't mean that everything that exists loves God.

lit is an atheistic board

>confirmation bias
nice argument there

The Tao≠God.

Bullshit, and translations literally refer to it as 'God'. They will continuously refer to God in a connection with the King.

Wrong. There is literally a thread with a priest telling people to confess.

Just because you say something doesn't make it true.

Cherry picking. There's pagan religions, a variety of them, Jainism, Buddhism, not to mention the mishmash that the hindus believe in.

Morality is not limited to religion. Chimpanzees are highly moral. They know to follow rules and hierarchies as well as to go to war with other groups of chimps in order to defend territory. What we call "morality" is just the recording of the general rules to which helps group survival. These rules are not eternal and depends very much on the current environment. There is only evolution whether in matters of truth or morality. The problem that atheists have in finding a theory for objective morality is that they won't look at other examples besides human beings. They won't look at chimps or how multicellularity works. How individuals cells work together so that the overall organisms can survive. All questions about morality can be mapped 1:1 to questions about multicellularity.

You are misinformed, try not to be so obnoxious

>completely ignores the fact that five religions share very specific qualities and have a God that shares these qualities

Yes, I'm sure it's all just random coincidence like the Big Bang, right? Whew, sure are smart lad.

what if God doesn't care about morals? why is there so much violence in the natural world then?

I am literally in possession of a translation of the Tao Te Ching that refers to God.

Try getting a non-subpar translation, do you want a recommendation?

>define god
>All is one.
What is a pattern? The human brain is a pattern recognition machine. It exists to find patterns. What people attribute to god is actually about patterns. If anything it is patterns that should be worship not "god." We are all patternists.

How about the simple fact that the God referred to in the Tao te Ching is extremely similar to a first-mover in the Neoplatonic conception of the universe. Or the Abrahamic god?

He is quiescent, overflowing like a river.

Also

>says I'm not saying the truth
I say I am
>backpedals

Way to show your true colors

You're being very truthful in your ignorance, that doesn't count for much. Try studying a little before you make unsubstantiated claims in the future.

>The human brain is a pattern recognition machine.
>The human brain is a ... machine
No. Stop. You won't kill my soul, determinist.

>If anything it is patterns that should be worship not "god."

This is like last night when someone was trying to worship the Sun. I don't think you know what worship is. You don't worship physical things because of their material significance. This is just sad.

You worship immaterial things because of their material significance. Like God. Or many of his manifestations of immaterial things, like love, or destiny.

*kills ur mum*
"i take it u have no further questions"

Hey you are the one who made a false claim. You said I wasn't telling the truth about people interpreting the Tao te Ching as God. As if I hadn't read the Tao te Ching. I quoted the Tao right there, by rote memorization. That's how much I read it.

This is why objective morality needs to exist, yes. Someone might kill your mother because of utilitarianism, or something because of how many utils it gives the murderer as opposed to how many disutils it would give you, as someone who loves her.

>some translator translates 'Tao' as 'God'
>WOW it god :)

what translation do you own? If anything I can Suggest the Charles Muller translation of the Tao te Ching for to to read in addition to the one that you have. Mullera translation is more congruent to the original chinese text

Yes? It is a force that moves things in this realm. It effects desires, has a will. It's God for all intents and purposes. Please prove me otherwise.

so does Satan..

Are you saying the Tao is more likely to be Satan than God?

No, I'm saying the attributes you listed are hardly distinct to God. Obviously the concept of the Tao shares something in common with the Christian concept of God or the Greek Logos, but you do a disservice to your own understanding of each if you take it for granted that they all MUST refer to the same thing - that they all have a real correlate in Existence, and that they are thus all reflections of one being. The problem here is you under-emphasise the importance of their differences. What is the Christian God without the Trinity? You must compare and contrast these concepts as concepts, not blindly submit to the idea that all of them are in fact referential to some existent thing.

>What is the Christian God without the Trinity?
The same God as Yahweh and Allah and the Tao.

I don't see your point. The differences are slim. There seems to me to be a modus operandi with the different religions. It appears that God has characteristics, and a personality based on this as well. He has preferences, and is very giving.

>patterns
>physical
What a fucking brainlet. Let me guess, you don't know anything about mathematics. Go learn how to do some proofs before you talk like a little fag pretending to know anything about philosophy without any knowledge about fundamental logic.

Fair enough. You believe that patterns should be worshiped because of what then? I said in that very post that you should worship only immaterial beings who cause material change.

You are worshiping a property of reality, no a way that things are described. You haven't even given a specific pattern to worship, you just said patterns in general. This discussion is hardly coherent. What am I supposed to be worshiping in mathematics? The Harmonic Ratio? Geometric means?

These patterns do work their way into things like politics and exponential graphs, among other things, but I believe their significance to be divine. And you worship it for less reason than I do, then. I believe reality to be designed, thus these patterns appear because this system was designed and we were designed by God as well.

Wow, you guys dont even realize how bad this post is. Im at a loss for words. How can any of you, who read and responded to this post, call yourself an intellectual? I hope you are just shitposting and just glossed over, because really: this is embarrassing.

>God
>he

Almost. It might exist, but I basically with your latter assertion. This is the only real answer to morality and God: he probably does exist, but--as of now--there is no way to know his morality.

What? Do you even read your own posts?

>Mapped 1:1
Mathematician detected

Wrong, more than one of them does.

Not trying to be a definitionfag but please define "God" and explain why you believe it to be some omnipotent and omniscient being.

God's morality is subjective too. Its just the subject of most prominence.

wrong, property exists and people act to protect it

This is as silly as asshurting laws don't exist, nations don't exist, or money. Generally agreed upon ideas exist like it or not. If your name is Bob, 'Bob' exists, perhaps unfortunately.

Even by lit standards, this thread is pathetic. Of course objective morality doesn't exist, and the existence of the Christian God wouldn't change a damn thing, since the Bible shows him constantly passing judgements by whim and breaking his own orders at will. All morality is pragmatic, local, and contingent, despite some general obvious commonplace ones often cropping up: i.e. let's make it socially unacceptable to do shit that tends to make people start fights in our tribe). Pretending this amounts to some universal code is so fucking stupid it's hardly worth discussing.

>Of course objective morality doesn't exist
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?
Accept or lean toward: moral realism 57 / 102 (55.9%)
Accept or lean toward: moral anti-realism 27 / 102 (26.5%)
Other 18 / 102 (17.6%)

philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target faculty&areas0=28&areas_max=1&grain=coarse

It exists, then it doesn't exist. Human culture changes like the tides, then disappears. The universe is a tapestry of infinite existence and non-existence.

Thats not how objective works

Your counter-argument is a survey? Ironic and appropriate, since people mistake popularity for objectivity. Name me a single action that is always immoral no matter the circumstances. Name a single action that has been considered immoral by all cultures and societies in history. You can't, of course: the idea is absurd. You have to resort to crap like "most societies frown on X." That's not objective morality, any more than having a certain number of people worshipping deity X is an argument for its existence.

How does any of this follow?
see and If you believe in god, and you believe his morality is the "right" morality, then it stands to reason that people who knowingly or not disobey it are in the "wrong".

But what makes God moral besides the fact that he's god? Is genocide of sodomites moral? Is killing people who don't take Sunday off moral? How do you quantify these things? And even if a god did exist who is to say that it created the concept of morality? What about amoral gods like the Greek/Roman Pantheon?

>moving forward a collective religion that is monotheistic is embarrassing

No. What's embarrassing is foolishly believing in Atheism.

I don't believe in it, but there's a decent amount of evidence that a rudimentary objective morality exists.

The way human psychology / neurology is structure allows for broad paradigms: killing an innocent is wrong, raping humans is wrong, etc. The problem is that these structures are so broad and pliable that, as history shows, its still easy to disassociate yourself from an act via dehumanizing the subject and thus circumvent any kind of ethical scruples. I think all humans have the idea "don't kill, don't steal, etc" in their brain, but we're also smart enough to be able to justify our own transgressions or to reframe stealing of another person's possession as merely taking back something that we are owed.

He definitely created the concept of God as you know him. Him and no one else.

It is through his signs that the Daoists praise God.

It is through his message that the Ten Commandments were written.

And it is through him that many battles were won for the Jews and then the Muslims.

I am talking of the same God here. There is only one. He is worldwide, and does not differ with geographical location. Certain thinkers are more correct than others when it comes to this God. He is moral, because he is the Platonic Good that we all strive for. He is in us all, and so his sayings, actions, and manifestations in reality are wise and good.

1) There are hundreds if not thousands of religions

2) They may tell people not to kill, but they're framing of exceptions is different. Everyone is familiar with Jihadism or forced conversion which exists in the Quaran and not the Bible.

3) Tell people to not do evil sure. But how do they then define evil? Each one varies. Some like The Republic would define storytelling (lies) to be a form of misleading / evil, but in other contexts its perfectly permissible.

4) LE ONLY ONE GOD a minority of religions.

Also consider that you're talking about derivative texts. I mean, you're fucking talking about The Quaran and Bible as if they're different texts. WOW they both believe in monotheism (probably because they literally believe in the same Hebrew god)

no, could you care to elaborate?

But so does the Tao te Ching.

Buddhism technically has you worshiping God too, he is just never mentioned directly. And Buddha is a prophet the same way that Jesus or Socrates was.

Pretty sure that most of those religions will tell you their one God is not the same one as that of the others.

are you retarded?

I don't care. The Muslims don't care, that's the best part.

Are you?

Face it, religions aren't that different, bub.

did we not talk about this yesterday

For once Jordan Peterson's work is relevant. Think of the Heroes' Journey paradigm cross-culturally.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_deities
>Creator deity
>Culture hero
>Death deity (chthonic)
>Life-death-rebirth deity
>Love goddess
>Mother goddess
>Political deity (such as a king or emperor)
>Sky deity (celestial)
>Solar deity
>Trickster deity
>Water deity

All of these gods existed not because polytheism is true, but because the way that humanity interacts with and interprets reality is the same by virtue of ALL being humans. ALL humans had reverence for nature and fear of nature: thus the powerful emotions manifested in story-telling traditions that personified them. All humans experienced water, fire, wind, etc and so almost all polytheistic religions have gods which control these elements among other things.

The reason that monotheistic religions have the same kinds of characteristics cross culturally is because humans cross-culturally share fundamental features: they interpret their environment similarly, and so on. And, in many cases, each is being influenced by a single religion in the past which has lent many of its qualities to its successor.

Look at the similarities in the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah's Arc for instance: both have powerful gods, an enlightened "prophet" so to speak, saving animals, an arc, and flood, and so on. But, the Epic of Gilgamesh actually pre-dates the old testament by something like 1000+ years.

Well. That's enough of my time wasted now. Good luck overcoming your biases

Why don't you fucking prove it, cucklord?

You're so close, but instead of embracing the similarities as being evidence of one God, you are saying the similarities are because people are biologically and neurologically similar.

If you said they were spiritually similar, this would prove that their souls were intertwined by something, proving a wholly immaterial being exists that does this on a macro level. Just as he exists, he would be the manifestation of our connected spirits. Clearly this element that connects us is something that resolves itself into everything.

Get the fuck out of this thread and ARGUABLY this entire board until you have studied actual philosophy.

That's precisely the problem my dude. My "leap of faith" is predicated on empirically studied fact: that humans, cross-culturally, share a variety of the same thoughts, stories, emotions, etc, because of their shared biology.

Your 'leap of faith' is that if there are similarities between people cross-culturally it must be god.

Occam's Razor would point towards me being right here. Its more likely that human creations being similar is the product of identifiable natural phenomenon, than being the product of unverifiable supernatural phenomenon.

You can believe it if you want. I don't care, but you should understand that your position is not nearly as convincing as you may think.

I think we've reached the point where mods need to start seriously upholding global rule 6. I don't even have words for how stupid this post is.

Not an argument. How about you contribute constructively to the discussion at hand instead of sperging out?

The only thing that would make God moral is that he is God. He would be the highest authority; you cannot ask what makes him moral because there is no authority which he needs to conform to except his own.

The Greek Gods still required humans to live by some sort of moral code, and punished or rewarded them based on said code. Take Tantalus for example.

>OBJECTIVE OPINIONS GUSSIED UP AS SUBLIME TRUTHS AREN'T ACTUALLY OBJECTIVE BECAUSE THEY ARE OPINIONS

well if that's what you're still arguing about I have a hot new idea called agriculture we should try out

That's pretty much what I thought. But then attributing morality to authority seems pretty shallow when you consider the volume of ethical philosophy that's more nuanced.

Assertive gobbledygook
.

It's like none of the contrarian catholics here are aware of the sorry state of divine command theory.
faculty.georgetown.edu/koonsj/papers/Euthyphro.pdf
philosophy.acadiau.ca/tl_files/sites/philosophy/resources/documents/Maitzen_DCM.pdf

>This kills the thread.

I've found that realizing morality is derived from authority is one of the most nuanced points I've come to over the years. It explains why humans are so susceptible to things like the Stanford Prison experiment or the Milgram Experiment.