"I dont need religion to help form morals, I'm an atheist and I dont run around killing people"

Why doesn't someone with Down Syndrome deserve to live?

Perfect.

>either moral nihilists or believe in some crude for of utilitarianism.

And the worst part is, they believe they are superior to those of other eras.

It hasn't lived in any sense that matters until it gains sapience. There is no "someone" at the point of abortion.

because we should be striving to remove trisomy-21 from the genepool.

>implying utilitarianism isn't better than "arbitrary rules because muh autisms" of deontology or "evil thoughts are equal to actual evil" of virtue ethics.

Moral nihilism is superior to all though.

Oh, it's just a /pol/tard who believes in eugenics.

You're misunderstanding the issue, it's not really about abortion. The question is why is it immoral to not abort some with Down Syndrome?

>The question is why is it immoral to not abort some with Down Syndrome?

Oh. I suppose it depends what kind of ethics you subscribe to and the question of whether an existence with Down Syndrome would be worse than no existence at all. Do people with Down Syndrome suffer any more than the average person?

Who cares if they suffer; they're disgusting and subhuman and worthless to society.

>Do people with Down Syndrome suffer any more than the average person?
From what I've heard, and the little that I've seen, not really.

No, moral nihilism is incoherent. It claims that there are no values, when in fact everyone implicitly, often unconsciously, holds some values. At the very least anyone who exists values their own existence, since they haven't killed themselves.

Also, for instance, why believe in moral nihilism? It must be because you believe truth is valuable. Why else would you believe it?

So therefore I would argue that if there are some things that are valued universally by human beings, then those things are genuinely universally valuable.

>I don't need feudalism to help form a coherent state, I'm an atheist and I don't run around owning serfs
He says as he lives in a country whose state was shaped by feudalism.

Yeah. I don't know much about Down Syndrome myself, but I I see people with it getting around and living pretty normal lives fairly frequently. I don't think it would be immoral to bring a person with Down Syndrome into the world, unless you subscribe to a deontological system with specified otherwise (say, intentionally bringing someone with a handicap into the world is wrong) or a Virtue ethics system and were doing it for shitty reason (say you think it might prevent your kid from exceeding you because you're insecure or something).

Yeah just recently I made sure to give up all of my wealth because blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. I'm so glad the rest of my fellow non-capitalist Americans feel the same way and we now live in an egalitarian utopia.

He's not wrong though.
All downies and other retards should be aborted.
Healthy children could be had in their place.

>valued universally by human beings, then those things are genuinely universally valuable.
Valued by all human beings is not the same as universally valuable, any more than something valued by all dolphins is universally valuable. Universal means universal, and when you start limiting it to specific groups you're talking pragmatics not universality.

Or you could just have both

>It's okay to kill kids as long as they are cognitively deficient

This is a bad idea if you're worried about over population.

>kid
>implying something that can't think is human

>You aren't human when you are asleep

>Implying killing something that you know for a fact will be a thinking human being is different from killing a thinking human being

Would you be okay with killing someone who was unconscious on life support if you knew that he would be okay in a few months?

I don't think aborting those who will have mental problems with be significant enough to prevent eventual overpopulation.

>It claims that there are no values, when in fact everyone implicitly, often unconsciously, holds some values.

You have a meme-level understanding of nihilism. It just claims that there are no objective, externally valid values. You can still hold values in a morally nihilistic framework.

Pretty much all western atheists will recognize that Christianity has a great moral background, but there's no link between appreciating the message and fundamentally receiving the theistic dogma.

Well you walk a mile one step at a time.

>Pretty much all western atheists will recognize that Christianity has a great moral background

You pulled that one right out of your ass.

Not him, but it's a pretty common sentiment. The idea of "Jesus' message was good, but a lot of the Bible is rubbish."

>implying that has literally anything at all to do with being human and your utterly pathetic delusional excuses don't instantly prove how hollow and morally bankrupt your beliefs are

if you had even one ounce of conviction in your feeble mind you would have at least said something like "weak/deformed/ill humans should give way to healthy humans."

but you didn't say it. because you were scared.
not scared of anything to do with whoever you're talking to, but scared of the real conclusions of your own beliefs, so you twist them to make them unrecognizable to you.

That's not what he said though. He said "Christianity". Christianity is a lot more than Jesus.

Why have a deformed child if you can afford it?

Well yeah, you get extra-Biblical ideas such as hell or purgatory, or the Hebrew Bible of debatable relevance to the faith. But Jesus is definitely the core of Christianity.

because downs syndrome does not prevent life satisfaction to the extent where there would simply be no point living.

"Jesus was a great guy but _____" is a standard atheist line

Right, Christianity is basically Roman paganism with a Jewish flavor

No, it's Paul.

It absolutely does. Not a single person with Downs Syndrome has ever led a normal life.

Is a normal life the only life worth living?

>extra-Biblical

You literally just said

>The idea of "Jesus' message was good, but a lot of the Bible is rubbish."

So no, it's not "extra-Biblical". And just because Jesus is the supposed "core" of Christianity doesn't mean that everything surrounding it isn't objected to. And even Jesus' life is frequently objected to, namely the supernatural elements of his life.

If we were to take Jesus' teachings and only Jesus' teachings, without anything supernatural, you'd have something like the Jeffersonian Bible, which is a small small fraction of the actual Bible. And frankly the message it lays out is nearly unrecognizable to modern Christianity.

If I know that I am implicitly valuing my existence by existing, and I know therefore that everyone else also values their existence, don't I then have a duty to respect that value by not committing murder and such? It seems like as long as something is a universally shared value, then each person has a duty to act with a respect towards it, whether or not the value is strictly universal in the sense that it exists independent of the existence of human beings.

Values can be valid and worthy of respect and also be contingent on the existence of conscious minds

>morals

You have the reading comprehension and critical thought of a downsie, coincidentally enough.

"normal" is the most worthlessly ambiguous and arbitrary descriptor you could possibly give something. the undeniable fact of reality that you are impotent to refute is that countless downsies have lived lives that they were glad to have, and that is more than enough reason to let them be, even disregarding the fact that many if not most downsies can work and take after themselves.

of all the possible ailments of humanity, you choose downsies as your mark for your little eugenics fantasy? it just goes to show that your opinions have no basis in any sort of compassion, or even logic, but are borne out of pure disdain for those you think you have anything over.

It spares the world a disappointment, a shame and a burden

When trying to justify their views
Atheists: "oh shit better actually use rationality and empiricism to determine which actions have a positive effect on self and others"
Religiontards: "because muh book said it!!"

It's actually religion which allows people to act immorally since it gives them easy justification

>I know therefore that everyone else also values their existence

People commit suicide all the time.

>don't I then have a duty to respect that value by not committing murder and such?

You're trying to derive an ought from an is. Just because people value their existence does not mean you have to respect that. Empathy is not an objective moral value.

>It seems like as long as something is a universally shared value, then each person has a duty to act with a respect towards it, whether or not the value is strictly universal in the sense that it exists independent of the existence of human beings.

Valuing your own existence isn't a universally shared value. People commit suicide regularly, and people also throw away their lives in pursuit of things that aren't their own lives.

>Values can be valid and worthy of respect and also be contingent on the existence of conscious minds

Even if they were held by all conscious minds, they still wouldn't have a universal (cosmological) existence, they'd still only be the product of thinking minds, which makes them subjective.

>People commit suicide all the time.

Exactly. The only way to truly not value your own existence is to commit suicide. Therefore everyone who is alive implicitly values their existence.

>You're trying to derive an ought from an is. Just because people value their existence does not mean you have to respect that. Empathy is not an objective moral value.

I think you can derive an ought from an is. If something IS objectively valuable, then by definition you ought to treat it as such.

>Valuing your own existence isn't a universally shared value. People commit suicide regularly, and people also throw away their lives in pursuit of things that aren't their own

Just because people act contrary to their implicit values doesn't refute anything I said. That's why I say "implicit". People often act against what they truly value. In fact, immorality is in essence when one acts in contradiction with universally shared values, like freedom for example.

>Even if they were held by all conscious minds, they still wouldn't have a universal (cosmological) existence, they'd still only be the product of thinking minds, which makes them subjective.

I see it like all abstract ideas. The number 4 only exists if there also exists minds able to conceive of numbers, but that doesn't make the number 4 relative. If you think 4 plus 4 is ten, you are objectively mistaken, given what the concept of 4 is. Also with value, if I know that I implicitly value my life and freedom and believe they ought to be respected by others, then I also know that I have an obligation to respect the life and freedom of all others, since it's not just my life and freedom that I value, but the concepts of life and freedom themselves.

Trith

And especially
Im not afraid to say that genetic filth, which likely includes you, should be wiped from the land upon which i inhabit, not because i fear or hate you or your ilk but because i love myself and the blood and ideals which have preserved me.

Your empathy is shallow and only a projection of your desire for survival at any costs without regards to quality.

"Quality" for you is a life of quantity, more lifespan, more food, more votes, more dildos that prevent us from appreciating life at its fullest and sheltering us like eternal children.

No consequences besides those established by the perfect abstraction, effectively subordinating all other men into surrogate females.

Go ahead, call me edgy, call me edgy for loving life as it IS and not the artifice which you think it should be.

Unlike you my ideals are not directly tied with my self preservation, but from a desire of a more honest relationship with the world.

muslim here
im not running around killing people
but there are muslims who are running around killing people
how do you explain that

> I am so cool. denying word of god and going to hell! XD

>Asks to be called edgy
>Calls him edgy

Are Christcucks this easy to manipulate?

Morality is shaped through fellowship.

It's a form of communication like language or territory.
When you were just a baby, did you learn your native language? Most people would say yes, but that's not true. Nobody learns their native language... They conform to it.
Likewise, when you were a baby, you never "learned" morality; frankly, I don't think any of us would have understood it at the time anyway; we didn't learn morality, we conformed to it. How was I supposed to know that theft was wrong? If I didn't know the value of the dollar, I could have justified theft in a logical way. I didn't have to know what theft was, and I didn't have to know the consequences of theft, to know that theft was bad.

I'm not an atheist; I believe in God, but a more natural god. I don't believe that the rules written in a book that is a few thousand years old has any relevance to morality, because they don't know my community, they don't my experiences, thus no law or religious law could ever be "objective" in any sense at all.

InYourFaceNewYorker @InYourFaceNYer
@RichardDawkins @AidanMcCourt I honestly don't know what I'd do if my young child had Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma.

Richard Dawkins
@RichardDawkins
@InYourFaceNYer Euthanize it and try again. It would be immoral to keep it in the world if you have the choice.

94 retweets 50 favourites
9:53 AM - 20 Aug 2034

Honestly, they are going to live your caliber of life. They will be a noname 99%er that says they were at least "happy" on their deathbed, and not being a teacher at a uni does not make you noteworthy.

That would be stupid though.

>Honestly, they are going to live your caliber of life.

Don't insult me.

They wont, my caliber is one of age and responsibility, their happiness comes from sheltering and pure hedonism.

Just because a retard gets the same sense of fulfillment from sticking playdoh up his nose as a mountain climber does from reaching the top doesn't make them the same.

>You have a meme-level understanding of nihilism. It just claims that there are no objective, externally valid values. You can still hold values in a morally nihilistic framework.

Eh no. Nihilism means nothing has intrinsic value.

If you say you are a nihilist and you value *anything* at all, you're not being a nihilist.

>The only way to truly not value your own existence is to commit suicide.

That's not what you said.

>Therefore everyone who is alive implicitly values their existence.

Until they don't.

>If something IS objectively valuable, then by definition you ought to treat it as such.

Why?

>Just because people act contrary to their implicit values doesn't refute anything I said.

Yes it does. It demonstrates that not everyone values their life.

>People often act against what they truly value.

Who is to say what they truly value?

>In fact, immorality is in essence when one acts in contradiction with universally shared values, like freedom for example.

People often happily surrender freedom for other things. You haven't demonstrated any universal values yet.

>The number 4 only exists if there also exists minds able to conceive of numbers, but that doesn't make the number 4 relative.

It does however mean that the number 4 doesn't have an objective existence.

>Also with value, if I know that I implicitly value my life and freedom and believe they ought to be respected by others, then I also know that I have an obligation to respect the life and freedom of all others, since it's not just my life and freedom that I value, but the concepts of life and freedom themselves.

Alternate theory: you value your life and freedom (and expect others to do likewise) because it benefits you to do so, and feel you have an obligation to do so with others because being part of a society that didn't feel it necessary to value these things is being part of a society that's less likely to value your own life and freedom.

>Nihilism means nothing has intrinsic value.

Actually, nihilism is about rejecting the external, objective (IE inherent, or intrinsic) value of a variety of concepts, it comes in a bunch of different forms. This doesn't overrule subjective value.

>If you say you are a nihilist and you value *anything* at all, you're not being a nihilist.

Hot opinion. Which authority on philosophy did you get that from?

>Actually, nihilism is about rejecting the external, objective (IE inherent, or intrinsic) value of a variety of concepts, it comes in a bunch of different forms. This doesn't overrule subjective value.

But this is ridiculous, because "objective value" doesn't exist and has never existed.

Every single value is subjective by definition, because it needs a being able to value something in order for it to exist.

Nihilists are essentially people who expand the scope of their hyper-rationality to subjects where it has *no* say; Nietzsche pointed this out by the way, it wasn't me.

>But this is ridiculous, because "objective value" doesn't exist and has never existed.

Plenty of philosophers disagree.

>Every single value is subjective by definition, because it needs a being able to value something in order for it to exist.

Go tell Plato and Aristotle.

>Nihilists are essentially people who expand the scope of their hyper-rationality to subjects where it has *no* say; Nietzsche pointed this out by the way, it wasn't me.

Nietzsche was a nihilist (no, really). Because he asserted there wasn't inherent, objective moral or existential truth to the universe; he proposed creating new values to get around this, and hated nihilists, but that fundamental fact remains.

>Nietzsche was a nihilist (no, really).

No, he absolutely was not. He was trying to "solve" nihilism by positing the Superman, because he felt(and he was right), that the conflict between Christianity and science would destroy people's ability to believe in the metaphysics of Christianity.

Which it did, hence the statement "God is dead, and we have killed him."

Nietzsche wanted the Superman to be a cure to the nihilism he believed was going to envelop Western Europe. Unfortunately he died before he finished his work.

>No, he absolutely was not. He was trying to "solve" nihilism by positing the Superman, because he felt(and he was right), that the conflict between Christianity and science would destroy people's ability to believe in the metaphysics of Christianity.

But he none the less did not believe there was an inherent existential meaning or moral truth to the universe: this makes him a nihilist by definition.

>Nietzsche wanted the Superman to be a cure to the nihilism he believed was going to envelop Western Europe. Unfortunately he died before he finished his work.

That doesn't change that central premise. A self-hating nihilist is still a nihilist.

You don't seem to understand that there is a difference between the universe *actually* being a barren wasteland with no meaning, and *believing* that the universe is a barren wasteland with no meaning.