"If gods existed, the only moral thing would be to oppose them"

[Emphyrio]

where does morality come from?

It seems to me that some comes from the particular environments we sentients find ourselves in, such as the entropy of the universe, or the methods of reproduction our species utilizes.
And some is deeper effects mediated by our (possibly unique) full sentience. As in we can philosophize.
This system is not perfect. It can lead to bugs in the process. Such as the ones that convince radical leftists that their patent evil is just and good.

OK... your answer is confusing. Do you believe that there is a metaphysical, intrinsic morality of any kind, or is it only subjective human social relationships with no metaphysical component?

I am trying to understand the basis of your assertion that "it would be moral to oppose god"

[Anon]

I'm not a nomad, I become rooted in plenty ways to the place where I live

I have a drinking game where I take a shot whenever a commie on the internet doesn't want to move to China OR a rightoid doesn't want to move to a based islamic theocracy/Russia, and because of you I am now an alcoholic, I hope you're happy,

-Humbaba

That's a weak ad hominem argument, but alright.

[jcd]

OR a rightoid doesn't want to move to a based islamic theocracy/Russia, and because of you I am now an alcoholic, I hope you're happy,

1. Russia is hostile to American citizens and I would be putting myself in danger by living there.
2. USA has strong freedom of speech guarantees not available elsewhere that are sadly being eroded. This is coinciding with the de-Christianization of America, so make your own conclusions.

This is cope, millions of people move to countries all over the world every year. I guess those islamic theocracies are not so based after all.

Your freedumb of speech is not worth shit, Alex Jones still has to pay 6 gorillion dollars. A piece of paper guarantees you nothing and if you believe otherwise you are a victim of propaganda.

[Rand]

If this is true, why do moral laws become more flexibilized and relativized the more people reject religion?

That's easy.
Religions are true memes. A meme evolves to protect its environmental host from other memes. This seems to always leads to religions (supernatural or secular) having strictures that MUST be followed.
Modern woke leftism has ALL the hallmarks of religion absent a supernatural being, for example. It does police the members' thoughts memetically.

Without strictures, and with humans generally being selfish and short sighted, the absence of organized religions of any sort naturally lead to moral flexibility in most people to allow them the maximum latitude of action with the minimum of guilt.

A few of us build our own codes. But it's difficult and I suspect the majority of people could never do it.
Basically for the same reason why the old hebrew texts have ridiculous religious laws such as milk and meat being forbidden to be consumed together.
I am assuming because dummies kept getting sick and the clerical leaders decided to use the bully pulpit of divine command to put a stop to the idiocy in a way they the retards would follow without complaint or evaluation.

The one prohibition about mixed cloth, however, leaves me deeply perplexed.
Some mad clerical crank with a textile axe to grind? Crafstmen's guild conflicts? Mistranslation or early copying error?
The only thing I can be certain of is that such trivial nonsense would never have come from a sane cosmic being. So I do not assume it did, despite the text's statements that it did.

[rusty_shackleford]

OR a rightoid doesn't want to move to a based islamic theocracy/Russia, and because of you I am now an alcoholic, I hope you're happy,

1. Russia is hostile to American citizens and I would be putting myself in danger by living there.
2. USA has strong freedom of speech guarantees not available elsewhere that are sadly being eroded. This is coinciding with the de-Christianization of America, so make your own conclusions.

This is cope, millions of people move to countries all over the world every year. I guess those islamic theocracies are not so based after all.

Your freedumb of speech is not worth shit, Alex Jones still has to pay 6 gorillion dollars. A piece of paper guarantees you nothing and if you believe otherwise you are a victim of propaganda.

I already answered this:

From an outsider's perspective, Islamic values seem far above what the masses degenerate into without any cohesive belief system.

Good news then, you can move to any islamic country of your choice to fully enjoy their benefits. Niger looks like a great choice for a NIGGER like you

I'd rather live in Afghanistan than San Francisco.

[jcd]

I'm not a nomad, I become rooted in plenty ways to the place where I live

I have a drinking game where I take a shot whenever a commie on the internet doesn't want to move to China OR a rightoid doesn't want to move to a based islamic theocracy/Russia, and because of you I am now an alcoholic, I hope you're happy,

-Humbaba

That's a weak ad hominem argument, but alright.

Let me tell you the real reason: you're not going to move because you're an internet larper and you value comfort, safety, and not having to shit in a hole in the ground more than le based christian values. At least have the honesty to admit this.

I already answered this:

So why haven't you moved yet?

[Rand]

I'm not a nomad, I become rooted in plenty ways to the place where I live

I have a drinking game where I take a shot whenever a commie on the internet doesn't want to move to China OR a rightoid doesn't want to move to a based islamic theocracy/Russia, and because of you I am now an alcoholic, I hope you're happy,

-Humbaba

Why is this post of yours signed by Humbaba

[rusty_shackleford]

So why haven't you moved yet?

Because I don't live in San Francisco. To the best of my knowledge, most of the people where I live are God-fearing folk.

---

What's the reason you don't move to one of those western yuropeon atheist countries? Afraid of being culturally enriched?

[Anon]

I have a drinking game where I take a shot whenever a commie on the internet doesn't want to move to China OR a rightoid doesn't want to move to a based islamic theocracy/Russia, and because of you I am now an alcoholic, I hope you're happy,

-Humbaba

That's a weak ad hominem argument, but alright.

Let me tell you the real reason: you're not going to move because you're an internet larper and you value comfort, safety, and not having to shit in a hole in the ground more than le based christian values. At least have the honesty to admit this.

I already answered this:

So why haven't you moved yet?

I suppose you're a person devoid of morals, that's why you don't believe in concepts such as developing roots to the place you already live, for various reasons (family, culture, attachment, comfort is only a factor in all of these). That's why you think that moving out of your place is an effortless thing to be done and if I don't want to I'm nothing beyond an "internet larper"

Btw I mentioned infrastructure in a previous post as being another deciding factor. You'd know that if you weren't an illiterate monkey.

As for safety, Saudi Arabia and Iran are safer countries than the US and some european countries. Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/homicide-rate-unodc. If it was the deciding factor I'd have moved out to them.

[jcd]

I suppose you're a person devoid of morals, that's why you don't believe in concepts such as developing roots to the place you already live, for various reasons (family, culture, attachment, comfort is only a factor in all of these). That's why you think that moving out of your place is an effortless thing to be done and if I don't want to I'm nothing beyond an "internet larper"

Btw I mentioned infrastructure in a previous post as being another deciding factor. You'd know that if you weren't an illiterate monkey.

How many kids do you have?

[Rand]

where does morality come from?

It seems to me that some comes from the particular environments we sentients find ourselves in, such as the entropy of the universe, or the methods of reproduction our species utilizes.
And some is deeper effects mediated by our (possibly unique) full sentience. As in we can philosophize.
This system is not perfect. It can lead to bugs in the process. Such as the ones that convince radical leftists that their patent evil is just and good.

OK... your answer is confusing. Do you believe that there is a metaphysical, intrinsic morality of any kind, or is it only subjective human social relationships with no metaphysical component?

I am trying to understand the basis of your assertion that "it would be moral to oppose god"

By most moral codes, including mine (which I use as my prime basis, of course), I find (the text stating) the actions of, and directives to followers of, the hebrew god YHWH to be abhorrent, including genocide and such.
If your moral code is against these actions, then the actions of YHWH cannot be moral, no matter what he states to be the case.
It is akin to the statement: "this statement is a lie" in which there is reciprocal mutual exclusivity.

It is not lost on me that YHWH's various commandments and directives to his followers are not set out as morality at all, simply commandments.
If I recall properly, YHWH simply states that doing what pleases him is "good" (as currently translated), and what offends him is a bad idea.
This is not morality as I see it, simply a powerful tyrant.

[Anon]

I suppose you're a person devoid of morals, that's why you don't believe in concepts such as developing roots to the place you already live, for various reasons (family, culture, attachment, comfort is only a factor in all of these). That's why you think that moving out of your place is an effortless thing to be done and if I don't want to I'm nothing beyond an "internet larper"

Btw I mentioned infrastructure in a previous post as being another deciding factor. You'd know that if you weren't an illiterate monkey.

How many kids do you have?

Irrelevant. I'll skip.

[jcd]

I suppose you're a person devoid of morals, that's why you don't believe in concepts such as developing roots to the place you already live, for various reasons (family, culture, attachment, comfort is only a factor in all of these). That's why you think that moving out of your place is an effortless thing to be done and if I don't want to I'm nothing beyond an "internet larper"

Btw I mentioned infrastructure in a previous post as being another deciding factor. You'd know that if you weren't an illiterate monkey.

How many kids do you have?

Irrelevant. I'll skip.

Is that "infrastructure" your dad's salary, and "family" your mom cleaning your room and cooking for you so you can play videogames and jerk off all day? Aww mommy's boy not old enough to move out yet

[Anon]

If this is true, why do moral laws become more flexibilized and relativized the more people reject religion?

That's easy.
Religions are true memes. A meme evolves to protect its environmental host from other memes. This seems to always leads to religions (supernatural or secular) having strictures that MUST be followed.
Modern woke leftism has ALL the hallmarks of religion absent a supernatural being, for example. It does police the members' thoughts memetically.

Without strictures, and with humans generally being selfish and short sighted, the absence of organized religions of any sort naturally lead to moral flexibility in most of them to allow them the maximum latitude of action with the minimum of guilt.

A few of us build our own codes. But it's difficult and I suspect the majority of people could never do it.
Basically the same reason why the old hebrew texts have ridiculous religious laws such as milk and meat being forbidden (I am assuming because dummies kept getting sick and the clerical leaders decided to use the bully pulpit of divine command to put a stop to the idiocy in a way they the retards would follow without complaint or evaluation.)

Hard disagree on woke leftism being comparable to a religion, as wokeism has a chaotic nature, where each day there's a new alphabet that'll demand all the other alphabet to bow to them and ultimately create division and cultural war among them and the whole society.

Religion is the opposite of that, religion is all about order, and that's done by conceptualizing moral laws.

Building your own code is obviously not enough. If each people could build their own code life in society would never function, as people individually are inherently very different from each other.

So you recognize religion is a necessity, even if you don't agree with it.

It or having a strict State imposing laws like China, where you get separated from society because of the slightest deviance. But that also doesn't work well, because the second people know the State is absent they become savages again. Only religion can guarantee people to become good and moral even when they are alone.

[Anon]

How many kids do you have?

Irrelevant. I'll skip.

Is that "infrastructure" your dad's salary, and "family" your mom cleaning your room and cooking for you so you can play videogames and jerk off all day? Aww mommy's boy not old enough to move out yet

You can guess whatever you want, it's obviously meaningless to me.

[jcd]

You can guess whatever you want, it's obviously meaningless to me.

why won't women go for the rooted (living with mom, unemployed) conservative. something is wrong with society

[Anon]

You can guess whatever you want, it's obviously meaningless to me.

why won't women go for the rooted (living with mom, unemployed) conservative. something is wrong with society

You're probably a woman or a troon then, that's why you're seeking my attention so much

[Emphyrio]

By most moral codes, including mine, which I use as my prime basis, of course, I find (the text stating) the actions and directives to followers of the hebrew god YHWH to be abhorrent, including genocide and such.
If your moral code is against these actions, then the actions of YHWH cannot be moral, no matter what he states to be the case.
It is akin to the statement: "this statement is a lie" in which there is reciprocal mutual exclusivity.

It is not lost on me that YHWH's various commandments and directives to his followers are not set out as morality at all, simply commandments.
If I recall properly, YHWH simply states that doing what pleases him is "good" (as currently translated), and what offends him is a bad idea.
This is not morality as I see it, simply a powerful tyrant.

I agree with "YHWH simply states that doing what pleases him is "good" (as currently translated), and what offends him is a bad idea.", as I explained in the OP.

It does not sound like you believe in a metaphysical morality, only the rightness of your own conscience. What difference is there between a god arbitrarily deciding what is good and bad, and you yourself arbitrarily deciding what is good and bad? I say that the difference is that a god is infinitely more powerful than a human is, and as surely as the "entropy of the universe", his power alone gives him the right (you could say, divine right) to rule.

When you say, "If gods existed, the only moral thing would be to oppose them", you are stipulating 1. a god exists, and 2. that god is a lot more powerful than you are. Now, given these stipulations, do you think there is any benefit to yourself, or to anyone, in your "opposing" god? Do you think that god will change his mind and see the rightness of your arguments? Do you think that you'll hurt god's feelings, and therefore give him a some small measure of punishment for his misdeeds?

[Vergil]

jcd is like old MacDonald and there's a lot of retarded nigger cattle willingly living on his farm itt
Ee i ee i o

[Element]

Also, the idea of a higher power is much more logical than just shrugging your shoulders and saying everything came from nothing.

I admit I do not know what events occurred prior to the initial events of the current universe, if any. But I cannot discount that there may be prior ones that led to the event.
Assuming that there is some sort of universal time beyond that found so tightly bound to our universe, which cannot yet be known at all using evidence or reason.

The potential for existence preceded existence. Proclaiming that there was 'nothing' before the universe is just playing word games.

[Rand]

you yourself arbitrarily deciding what is good and bad? I say that the difference is that a god is infinitely more powerful than a human is, and as surely as the "entropy of the universe", his power alone gives him the right (you could say, divine right) to rule.

1: My assessments are not arbitrary, as I've stated elsewhere. They are guided by physical law at base and the complex laddered expressions of those physical laws in our lives as sentients.
2: I don't believe might makes right.
I also don't believe any of your gods exist, which, to me, makes the godly laws simply pronouncements of madmen or power-hungry assholes, usually combinations of both.
This is amply reflected in many religions with the alternate madness, pointlessness, evil, and desire for control of other people clearly evident in the strictures and dogma that is contained within them.

[Emphyrio]

1: My assessments are not arbitrary, as I've stated elsewhere. They are guided by physical law at base and the complex laddered expressions of those physical laws in our lives as sentients.
2: I don't believe might makes right.

How do you reconcile your point 1 with your point 2?

[Rand]

1: My assessments are not arbitrary, as I've stated elsewhere. They are guided by physical law at base and the complex laddered expressions of those physical laws in our lives as sentients.
2: I don't believe might makes right.

How do you reconcile your point 1 with your point 2?

I legit don't understand. There is no overlap between them. You'll have to explain where you've gone wrong and I'll try to point it out.

[Rand]

If you live anywhere in the western Europe or even more explicitly, in the USA, you already live in an atheist society.

This doesn't fit the common, correct definition of atheist.
Most of the citizens would be lapsed theists or agnostics at most.

[Emphyrio]

1: My assessments are not arbitrary, as I've stated elsewhere. They are guided by physical law at base and the complex laddered expressions of those physical laws in our lives as sentients.
2: I don't believe might makes right.

How do you reconcile your point 1 with your point 2?

I legit don't understand. There is no overlap between them. You'll have to explain where you've gone wrong and I'll try to point it out.

"Might makes right" is a very obvious and self-evident physical law.

[jcd]

"Might makes right" is a very obvious and self-evident physical law.

I could easily overpower and rape you, therefore my argument is correct.

-Humbaba

[Nammu Archag]

Yahweh is a really gross and Jewish-sounding name

[ArcaneLurker]

Technically, it's YHWH because the Jews aren't even sure of the correct vowel pronunciations.

[Nammu Archag]

Technically, it's YHWH because the Jews aren't even sure of the correct vowel pronunciations.

Even worst

[Rand]

"Might makes right" is a very obvious and self-evident physical law.

It most certainly is not. It's rationalization of the abuse of power for personal satisfaction.
I'm truly, really shocked I have to explain this, as it's plainly obvious to me and I cannot see how you can't see that.