Have people in your country moved beyond antiqued ideas such as God and good and evil?

>Finnish Intellectuals

I have but I
I have not read nietzsche

>And there is no God.
Wrong and irrational pilled.

>without god there is no morality
arab intellectuals

It's actually the fault of the Brits again so please apologize

Attached: The_Sacred_Mushroom_and_the_Cross_cover.jpg (198x300, 24.74K)

I'll have to disagree with you, sudanbro. Chinks and japs seem just fine with their morality, and their concept of god is very weak compared to westerners.

If something is good just because God said so, this is not good per se, thus, there is no objective morality
If one wants to hold that there is morality, this morality exists with or without God

Ah, baby's first philosopher.

They had Shinto and Buddhism, retard

Nietzsche is relatively modern

The god of the river wont punish you for killing someone

And Shinto and Buddhism don’t have a God, retard

No it’s because certain drugs can give you brief enlightenment.

Good an evil are a biological structure, not a social one and are very closely linked with empathy. People who can't see the difference between good and evil are psycopaths/sociopaths. If you lack the capacity to feel, to empathize you are just a very smart insect.
>what about God
Now that is something that does not exist.

>If one wants to hold that there is morality, this morality exists with or without God
This is not the common definition or the understanding of morality.
You seem to define it in such a way that indeed there is no such thing as morality, but such a definition is bad for this very reason.

>Good an evil are a biological structure
No they are a discursive structure
Good and evil make absolutely no sense till one is able to ask himself a question equivalent to "what should I do?"

Im consequentialist, good is whatever produces best results for me and my nation

That's because they are anti philosophical insectoids who believe in tradition instead. The Japanese at least, and the chinks are not doing so well at all, just check the rekt threads on gif.

No, they are a biological structure linked to empathy. You can have a sense for good and evil only if you are able to empathize. You don't even have to form the thought.

What are you on about?
If something is defined as good or bad just because God said so, that means that there is no intrinsic value to them and that He could totally have chosen to say that what is considered as good is bad and vice versa.
So if we want to hold that something good has any objective and intrinsic value, we have to admit that it is true disregarding whatever God said about it

>People who can't see the difference between good and evil are psycopaths/sociopaths
Lol, so good and evil are dictated by muh feels according to you. And if you don't feel like being good, you have no reason to be.

As long as the thought of it has not occurred, this is neither good nor bad, this is just the way an animal behave
For something to be defined as good or evil, we have to form rationnal thoughts about our actions

>If something is defined as good or bad just because God said so, that means that there is no intrinsic value to them and that He could totally have chosen to say that what is considered as good is bad and vice versa.
But the nature of God is unchanging and good and evil don't change with time. And even if they did, it is still a source for morality, rather than saying the concept is nonensical.
>So if we want to hold that something good has any objective and intrinsic value, we have to admit that it is true disregarding whatever God said about it
Why? And there can be no universal source for morality outside of God.

Yeah yeah, we know you anglos are not particularly ambitious regarding intellectual work

If you don't feel it you're a psychopath/sociopath. Our ability to empathize, to ''feel the pain of others as our own'' is what makes us human. It is what makes us act ''good''.

>If you don't feel it you're a psychopath/sociopath.
Duh. Is that supposed to be an argument or shame me into agreeing with you?
>Our ability to empathize, to ''feel the pain of others as our own'' is what makes us human
That is literally wrong. Psychopaths are just as human.
>It is what makes us act ''good''.
So I can do whatever i feel like.

dumb Belgian
>Shinto
They have numerous gods and godesses in pantheon. Japanese Emperor is descended from the sun god Amaterasu according to their myths
>Buddhism
They have Deities inherited from Hinduism. And Buddha has a certain qualifications of a deity in their system, especially in Mahayana

>But the nature of God is unchanging and good and evil don't change with time
This is not the problem
Something objectively good needs to be so independently of what God says
So, in a monotheistic perspective, if we want to assert that there is objective morality, we have to admit that something is not good just because said to do so but that God said to do so because it is good.

You said it champ, they have gods, they don't have God

Good and evil will exist even if we did not have the word for them. There is no need to rationalize something to know that it is bad. Do you know how empathy works and how is has helped our species survive and has formed our society?
When you see someone burn himself, see his face convulse and hear him scream in pain you will feel unease even without being yourself burned. You will know that whatever hurt that someone will hurt you too. So normal people would avoid hurting others since they will be able to empathize with their pain and hurting someone else will be as hurting yourself. That is how the most basic sense of good and evil forms and it is biological. We evolved into since empathy also helps us learn faster and communicate better.

>Our ability to empathize, to ''feel the pain of others as our own'' is what makes us human. It is what makes us act ''good''.
One more time, maybe, but this is not what defines good and bad
As Kant would say, acting morally just because you feel like it isn't acting morally

I am really glad the years of Catholic dicksucking of Habsburgs have pretty much killed religion here and we don't have to listen to this drivel about primal nature and so on.

As I said, Kant is a dumbass

Yes, next step is moving beyond White as an ethnicity. Light skinned Americans will be forced to choose a European linguistic group and stick to it, by force if necessary

>When you see someone burn himself, see his face convulse and hear him scream in pain you will feel unease even without being yourself burned. You will know that whatever hurt that someone will hurt you too
Yes, this is what defines my behaviour as an animal, but this is not what defines good as a concept

>Psychopaths are just as human.
No they aren't. Psychopaths have abnormal brain chemistry. Sociopaths are ''normal'' but nobody who leads a normal life is one, sociopaths are usually the products of extreme abuse.

A) He said "a" God, implying that those religions were atheistic, which is wrong
B) In that system there are still entities or forces that represent the etalon of morality. In Buddhism, there is Dharma and Karma.

>without god there is no morality
then why isnt god and his cultists moral?
youtube.com/watch?v=ovWs8JQN7FE

Attached: 1584295477577.jpg (1196x960, 511.35K)

Nice name calling you got there

>namecalling
Tell me, silly frog, why should I listen to what Kant has to say about morality?

>Something objectively good needs to be so independently of what God says
No. Why would that be the case?
>we have to admit that something is not good just because said to do so but that God said to do so because it is good
Are you trying to say that if God is good that implies that good preceds God?

Because he's right

Sadly not. As Christianity declines, Islam expands to fill the gap.

Says who and on what basis?

Point is, animals doesn't have good or bad. Only God can provide this knowledge. But what is God, no proofs of that or something else.

I am talking about the purest definition of good and evil. One that existed before speech or writing. And if you think that good and evil are not a result of our evolution as a species, what you call it our animal side than you are a fool. Definitions by philosophers are pointless since this is something that will exist with or without them. It is in our nature.

>Psychopaths have abnormal brain chemistry.
They are abnormal humans in some ways, many of them functional members of society, and some even moral people. But I am also abnormal is some other ways, by that understanding no one is human, because no one is normal in all ways.
So god is immoral because he is homophobic?
Why is it immoral to be homophobic?

>If something is good just because God said so, this is not good per se, thus, there is no objective morality
Except that we are talking about the unchanging constant here.
If anything, what you have said is a degraded simplistic and pagan vision of "God" that is subject to higher forces.

>Are you trying to say that if God is good that implies that good preceds God?
Of course, otherwise any qualification of Him being good would be void and meaningless as if something is good because He said so, He could have done and said exactly the opposite of what He did and that would still be "good"

no, there are many people that think life is like muh capeshit with good and evil

>So god is
no, god doesnt exist, only you psychos exist, so better make a question "so am i immoral because IM homophobic" and yes you are immoral, clearly you dont know morals

God isnt "good" though, he is "the Goodness"

>"God" that is subject to higher forces
That doesn't have a proofs.

Says rationnal thinking on the basis of reading what he wrote
That's a basis you should try someday

Proofs?

I'm rational and saying Kant is a dumbass

But you lack the basis of reading what he wrote, so your rational capacity is without object

Ah maybe you're onto something there but then, what should our general definition of God be?

Are you a clinical psychopath? Are you a sociopath? If yes, i can fully understand your trouble with understanding good and evil.

I have the gist of Kant and that's more than enough. Anyway, talking about rationality where values are clearly at the forefront of any argument is itself irrational.

Good thoughts, unlimited love and self sacrifice?

The scriptures, foundations and strength of which is the Resurrection of Christ, which is only logical to be factual evidence, because no apostle would be ready for being flayed alive for stating the obvious falsehood and saying lies about objective events (becuase many others died for their subjective opinions, but because they believed it to be true.)
On a more theoretical level, there's five ways of Aquinas, but I dislike Scholasticism.

Why all German philosophers are such trash tier insufferable edgelords?

Oh, if you're a Kantian then I might be wasting my time talking to you.
Doesn't Kant assume morality exists, and extrapolating from the lay man's use of the word tries to figure out what it is? The answer he finds (the categorical imperative) being not only not convincing but void of meaning, because you can stretch it, or make it as particular, as to justify any kind of act.
> He could have done and said exactly the opposite of what He did and that would still be "good"
So? If you take that understanding of good there is no good. But if you take that understanding of it then the word becomes meaningless, and since the purpose of words is to facilitate communication, to define a word as meaningless is not a good definition. That's the whole point, God is the only possible standard for universal morality, He's not just some guy, as said before, his nature is unchanging.

low iq response.
>clearly you dont know morals
The tell me why is it immoral to be homophobic?

Precisely Kant tried to establish a moral system on the sole use of reason, disregarding societal values, as, as we can witness it everyday, they can differ greatly from societies and time period

>The scriptures, foundations
Reptiloids propaganda to make profit from stupid humans?

>Oh, if you're a Kantian then I might be wasting my time talking to you
I am not

>low iq response.
so not an argument
>The tell me why is it immoral to be homophobic?
golden rule

>reason
>moral system
You gotta pick one and only one