>>13952397

>>13952365

I never understood this line of thinking. It is entirely possible to be moral and to not believe in god. Yes, blah blah blah different cultures different notions of what is good moral relativism yaddah yaddah, but at it's core, what is moral is that which does not actively work towards the degeneration of either body or spirit. Pleasure as an end in itself is wrong, because it deteriorates your body and cheapens your thinking. So is violence. So is making others suffer.

Once you let go of that little asshole in you who eggs you on to ruin shit because it'll feel good, you don't need religion to tell you what is good or not. At this point, whether it was god-given or self-evident really does not matter, for all that matters is that it is.

>>13952433

What is darkness? A lack of light.

What is evil? A lack of good.

What is immorality? A lack of morals.

The entire trick (((they))) did was convince everyone that everyone has their own set of morals. Shit doesn't work that way. You're either moral or you're not. I gave you my definition of what I define as moral: that which does not deteriorate neither the body nor the soul. 100% in line with the teachings of the Bible, as well as being 100% to the core without even mentioning God.

>>13952478

Why did it have to be given? Why didn't it emerge as a natural corollary to us simply existing? Why can't morals be part of ourselves simply as a generations-old mechanism to not destroy ourselves and live happy, fulfilling lives?

You are thinking in terms of "lack of belief in God immediately makes one immoral", whereas belief, in itself, is a function of someone's free will. I will take in a heartbeat someone who is genuinely good and moral while also not believing in God over someone who believes, but does not live according to the teachings of the Bible, because your belief doesn't matter as much as your actions do.

>>13952523

look, you're leading me into the statement that morals are absolute, which is a straight road to you going AHA, SO SOMEONE MUST HAVE GIVEN THEM TO US SO GOD EXISTS, and I simply do not agree with the statement that they had to have been given to us. So I will not partake in your rhetorical binary choice, because life is much more complicated than that. Consider (((them))). Proven without a doubt that it is possible to be immoral, hence free will, hence no limitations in terms of self-definition.

Why is it so hard to understand that morality is a system, and systems can be self-emergent? This entire thing is about learning to discern the moral from the fake.

But you're already preparing the rhetorical device of "value", through accusing me of moral relativism and allowing "different systems of morality". Nope. My definition is the strictest in terms of compatibility with moral teachings as well as being entirely not based in anything beyond ourselves, whereas free will guarantees we are able to pick whether to be moral or not.

tl;dr imo morals are absolute, but self-emergent.

>>13952593

>what is right and what is wrong

I mean, are we unable to see the effects our actions are having on us and everything around us? Are we unable to use our reasoning to judge, by ourselves, whether the actions we are undertaking are designed with life and love in mind?

I can see that you're trying to shift my argument into "morality by consensus", but that also doesn't work, because this implies that we're just going with what everyone feels is right. Nope. We can observe the effects of our choices, we can note whether we thrive or wane under conditions and events. The problem is not that "everyone has a definition and no one will ever agree to just one" - the problem is that way too many people conflate morality with how things affect them specifically, not how things affect those around them and, from a lack of a better word, society at large. A murderer may cry that he has his own definition of morality where killing others is ok, but his definition is wrong by virtue of destroying life and love. To go with a more out there example, buddhists consider their morality to be the best ever, whereas the truth is they practice receding from life and remaining passive - both things that are not in support of life or love. Islam doesn't work either, as it's much more of a political doctrine than a morality system, and holy shit can we ever see that. Catholicism doesn't work, because it is focused on the support of an organization and its inner workings and not on the support of life or love. I could go on, but do you see my point here? All these disparate "moral systems" as they get called by the leftists are wrong and immoral in one way or another. To be moral you don't need guidelines, you just have to know what you are - and you are life and love personified. Don't ruin that.

>>13952708

And I offer a third way: morality by way of understanding who we are and what love and life is.

Ain't that hard.

>>13952728

You're missing my point, too. Life and love are universal qualities, consistent between every living being we have had the chance to witness so far, and yes, that includes animals, and doubly yes, that includes animals who opted for immoral ways to further their own species (looking at you, ducks). This is because animals do everything in support of Life, but do not possess an understanding of Love. Love is something inherent to us, humans, men, people, however you wish to call us, because to truly love you need to be human. Yet we cannot subsist on love alone - we also have to participate in life. The role of Love and Life in us together makes us who we are - and it is both of them who helped morality emerge within us. To put it in a different way, morality is an equilibrium between both love and life - we continue and further life, with love helping us pick the correct ways to do that. Go forth and multiply and all that.

>>13952771

Fair enough. All I am really saying is that I do not believe it is impossible to be moral without a belief in god, and the important bit: no matter if he actually exists or not. I believe that with an honest, truthful understanding of ourselves, we are able to reach the place where morality-through–god is occupying. Understanding here meaning not the ol' "hurr durr science" bullshit, but honest spiritual self-reflection about what is harmful to ourselves and the world around us. Reflecting on ourselves, our actions, their effect and consequences, and learning from that to not make the same mistakes while moving ever forward - I believe that, in the end, that is what life is all about. And from everything I know about the classic faith in god, that is kinda the point.

>>13952813

I think it is best to leave it as a difference in opinion. Great talk otherwise, thank you for maintaining a cool head and reasoned arguments all the way through, it is difficult nowadays to find a good companion for talks like these.

On that note, let this meeting of some spergs on an imageboard give us both a wider perspetive on thinking and reasoning despite opposing views.

But, you know, no homo.