Wouldn't agnosticism, spiritual or otherwise, achieve the same moral destinations as atheism?
Atheism >there is no god >that means nothing matters and we can do what we want with impunity!
spiritual Agnosticism >there is a god but we cannot comprehend him at the moment >since he gave us no instructions for us to comprehend and because he obviously doesn't care right now, we can do what we want with impunity and not be held responsible!
agnosticism >because he just don't know, how are we going to be punished based on principles we have no capacity to attain? We can do whatever we want!
Regardless of the particularities between agnosticism and atheism, they both lead to the same ultimate nihilistic moral conclusions unless you steep yourself in "humanistic" value systems that ultimately cannot be legitimized without invoking a divine reason.
>>agnosticism >>because he just don't know because "we" just don't know.
Blake Taylor
>without invoking a divine reason Care to first explain why for some reason you believe the church and institutes around the church have a monopoly on what it means to be a good person?
What view do you hold of people before Christ? I really pity you.
Ryan Cruz
>Divine reasoning requires you to also believe in a divinely ordained institution. wew.
Adrian Cruz
>being a good person requires divine intervention
Brayden Peterson
it requires a base moral presuppositions. For the theist the supposition of God is sufficient for all viewpoints, for the atheist or agnostic they must make multiple suppositions. Its just easy, desu.
James Torres
Well not necessarily an intervention, but more of an authority. If I kill one hundred people in an Atheist/Agnostic society there is absolutely no way people can prove that I did anything wrong other than "It's just bad." Again, no steeping in humanistic philosophies or Hellenic legal systems will ever provide an absolute bedrock moral system by which we may interpret actions on the physical plane.
Julian Sanders
Well, one believes in a God, the other doesn't. You're trying to sell hair dye to a bald guy right now.
Ryder Edwards
Deontology matters
Nathan Rivera
>that means nothing matters and we can do what we want with impunity How does this follow? Just because there's no god, doesn't mean there aren't consequences. Go punch a dude, see how far does your impunity go.
Jaxon Russell
>Go punch a dude, see how far does your impunity go What if I get an army of dudes to punch that dude and then get that same army fitted out with weapons, kill any ethnic group that I despise, kill anyone whom disagrees or dislikes me, and ensure that I live a life of complete luxury for the rest of my days until I die? Nothing bad ever happened to me in that situation but I committing an innumerable amount of evil without experiencing ANY consequences in the slightest, unless you're saying such a scenario is impossible (protip, it isn't.) then an agnostic/atheist can never prove what I did is wrong, because all that I did resulted in my well-being.
Ian Kelly
are you american by some chance?
Easton Gomez
The point is not proving what you did is wrong, the point is proving that it has consequences. The day you die is very likely gonna be the day someone kills you. Either for revenge or to take your place. I'd call that a detrimental consequence of your actions.
>(protip, it isn't.) one example pls
Caleb Reed
Then you'll get killed by your second in command to seize your place, proving that your actions have consequences
Jackson Hall
>one example pls Almost every single Roman Emperor who did not die a violent death (Augustus, Tiberius, etc.) Almost every single Chinese Emperor Ashoka the Great Alexander the Great Narmer Ramesses II
>The point is not proving what you did is wrong, the point is proving that it has consequences. So then that is not a fucking argument. The discussion here is about proving wrongness, not about proving consequences.
None of those people went around murdering anyone they disliked, you fool.
>The discussion here is about proving wrongness, not about proving consequences. You mentioned acting with impunity. I refuted that. Don't go adding irrelevant bullshit in the mix. The moment you mentioned consequences you already threw morals out of the window anyway.
Landon Hill
Oh, also forgot to mention Stalin, Hirohito, and Mao.
Jackson Bailey
>None of those people went around murdering anyone they disliked >A detailed list of Tiberisus's barbarities would take a long time to compile; shall I content myself with a few samples. Not a day, however holy, passed without an execution; he even desecrated New Year's Day. Many of his victims were accused and punished with their children, and some actually by their children, and the relatives forbidden from going into mourning. An informer's word was always believed. Every crime became a capital one, even the utterance of a few careless words. Tiberius denied those who escaped with a prison sentence not only the solace of reading books, but this privilege of talking to their fellow-prisoners. Some of the accused, on being warned to appear in court, felt sure that the verdict would be 'guilty' and severed an artery; yet Tiberius's men bandaged their wounds and hurried them, half dead, to prison. Others obeyed their summon and then drank poison in full view of the Senate. The bodies of all executed persons were flung on the Stairs of Mourning and dragged to the Tiber with hooks as many as twenty a day, including women and children. Tradition forbade the strangling on virgins; so, when little girls has been condemned to die in this way, the executioner began by violating them. Tiberius used to punish with life those who wished to die. He regarded death as a comparatively light affliction, and on hearing that a man named Carnalus had forestalled his execution by suicide, exclaimed 'Carnalus has got away!'
This guy died peacefully in his villa in Capua.
Benjamin Sullivan
>peacefully Top kek, he lived his last decade in constant paranoid fear, alienated from any other human being. Moved to Capri specifically so as to live in the safest environment possible and avoid assassinations. If you call that well-being user, I pity your life.
Alexander Johnson
>they both lead to the same ultimate nihilistic moral conclusions unless you steep yourself in "humanistic" value systems that ultimately cannot be legitimized without invoking a divine reason.
