/atheism/ - Atheism

When I was an atheist, I took to a school of philosophy called logical positivism which believed that right and wrong didn't exist. You can't put them under a microscope, you can't study them the way you can light or radiation.

There is simply no objective reality to these things and any study of what we call ethics should be under social sciences, because that is all they were, social conventions.

It think your position is the most logically consistent position an atheist could take - as the existentialists said, without god there can be no logical basis for morality. Since God is dead, we must deny any objective truth to morality as well.

Now I didn't turn into a monster for social reasons, like I didn't want to go to jail or be shunned, but that was all there was.

I now think maybe Darwinian evolution (combined with game theory) can perhaps allow for atheist ethics (as in selflessness and ethics can be argued to give our species a survival advantage and have an objective reality for humans based on our genetic code, sort of an argument that we are set up for ethics the way we are for grammatically structured language)

It would be a difficult one to make because science is not yet advanced enough for any such kind of proof to even be attempted, but it's an interesting notion. Maybe people can expand on it ITT to try and create some form of objectively based atheist ethical system.

>There is no God to boss me around and spank me
There is still objective reality and if you live by the philosophy of "doing as I please, period" reality will spank you hard. Just ask any recovering alcoholic or gambling addict.

>>5472
>There is still objective reality and if you live by the philosophy of "doing as I please, period" reality will spank you hard. Just ask any recovering alcoholic or gambling addict.

Objective reality spanks at random regardless of whether you are naughty or nice.

You must be Statuefag, because he was arguing the same thing in another thread. Most atheists do not buy this type of thinking. Atheistic Nihilist is a myth. Most atheists are existentialists.

>>5470
>as in selflessness and ethics can be argued to give our species a survival advantage

So what? I will not be around to see what happens to our "species" after I die. They can all fucking burn to death for all I care.

>>5474
No, this is my first time on this board.

And yes, I am a genuine atheistic nihilist. I have not lied to you.

>>5476
Okay. Fair enough. Why are you a nihilist?

>>5477
Because I have a brain. Nihilism is the stance that there is no objective meaning to life. That statement is obviously true, so I am therefore a nihilist.

>>5474
>So what? I will not be around to see what happens to our "species" after I die. They can all fucking burn to death for all I care.

well I'm not saying you do have to care, I was just looking at it logically as in - is there such a thing as right and wrong in an objective sense

My opinion on your position is I think you are being logically consistent based on the science available and what we know. If there is no god, it is ridiculous to claim that right and wrong exist as anything other than social conventions which every individual should break when they can accept the consequences of breaking them

>>5479
Right and wrong would not exist even if God WAS real. His opinion on morality would not be fundamentally any different than that of a human. Any improvement in quality of life that would come from adhering to his opinion over a man's would be irrelevant.

>>5478
And existentialism is the stance that you can give subjective meaning to your personal life.

>>5480

I hope you stick around this board, that is a probably the most interesting argument I heard on this board.

I think that would indeed topple every single ethical system proposed by every religion, including the 10 commandants and all the Christian rules. . . except for one.

1. love god with all your heart
2. love your neighbor as yourself
3. assume #1 and # 2 are the same thing ( what you do to others and yourself you are also doing to god)

So now you are not acting the basis of opinions on morality but on the basis of love, you do things for people because you love them. This way, we get to get around the logical objections to any moral system.

>>5481
Existential derived morality - lol - how would that even work? On what basis?

The only one who even tried was Satre and he failed miserably - him and Kierkegard but the later just said be Christian

https://philosophynow.org/issues/47/Is_an_Existentialist_Ethics_Possible

>>5481
Yes, "subjective" being the key word. Seems like a waste of time.

>>5482
>you do things for people because you love them.

And sometimes I do things to people because I hate them.

>>5485
>>5485
This doesn't seem logical

The point you raised was is an objective morality possible if god exists? Does the mere existence of God and God's commandments somehow make ethics possible.

And my answer is yes if the ethics is based on love - you act out of love of God which makes you love your neighbor

I am certain you hate people and act out of hate sometimes, but I do not understand how that is relevant to the question of whether right and wrong can exist in any meaningful sense.

>>5486
>The point you raised was is an objective morality possible if god exists?

I did no such thing

I don't really get what you are saying.

>>5488
as I understood it

>>5480

>Right and wrong would not exist even if God WAS real. His opinion on morality would not be fundamentally any different than that of a human.

was saying

is an objective morality possible if god exists?

as in how does the mere existence of God make morality possible - after all there is no objective reason God's opinion on ethics is worth more weight than mans (I believe is what you are saying)

My answer is that the existence of God allows us to be logically consistent when we substitute love for rules in our ethics. Out of love for God we act towards love for his creations

>>5489

I was just saying that God's opinion would be just as arbitrary as anyone else's, that's all.

>My answer is that the existence of God allows us to be logically consistent when we substitute love for rules in our ethics. Out of love for God we act towards love for his creations

That sounds like nonsense to me. I'm not following.

>>5491
well

so let's say nachos to use an example

if God said it would be immoral to eat nachos , it would be an opinion and that opinion would be of no more worth than any other opinion

however if we loved God and didn't eat nachos out of love of God, that would get around your objection of "God's will is arbitrary" because we are not following God's will we are doing what he wants because we love God

now still the rule doesn't give us meaningful moral guidance (unless you think morality goes only as far as eating nachos)

So if we believe god is a god of love, and God wants us to love others, and we act with love for others out of love of God, - now through God we have created a moral system - and your arbitrary objection no longer applies - because opinions and rules can be arbitrary, but it is illogical to call love arbitrary.
does that make sense?

>>5470
>as the existentialists said, without god there can be no logical basis for morality.

What existentialist says this. I think you meant to say no logical basis for "objective" morality.

>>5493

no I mean to say no logical basis for morality

read the article

the link will block it but if you type it into google search and go in through google it will let you in

https://philosophynow.org/issues/47/Is_an_Existentialist_Ethics_Possible

subjective morality is not a concept I've seen in philosophy, I can't understand what the grounding for such a concept could be and I am certain not a single existentialist advocated it.

No you are not the only one, but you should stop thinking that way. There is no god to spank me, but I still help people because I have empathy. And with empathy I can see how I would feel if I were in the other person's shoes. Do you like being beaten up? Think about how bad it is for you to be beaten up, then think about other people. Don't do bad things as you wouldn't like bad things done to yourself. This is morality, and it doesn't need some evil god to tell you what to do, you can help people from your kindness. This is where religion fails, where people need to be told what to do to be good, that's just sick. You should help people because you want to see a member of your species survive, like yourself, not because some ancient book says so.

And you know what? Even if there was a god, if he is that selfish and angry I wouldn't want to listen to him. I don't want to be a slave, I want what's best for self aware beings.

>>5494
All morality is subjective. There is no such thing as good and evil. These are subjective concepts in and of themselves.

>>5496
96b112 seems more like statuefag.

>When I was an atheist

>My answer is that the existence of God allows us to be logically consistent when we substitute love for rules in our ethics. Out of love for God we act towards love for his creations

I'm convinced at this point.

>>5501
>that is an interesting opinion, I am not certain how that related to existentialism

There is no objective meaning to life, and if you believe there is, you must be religious. The only meaning life has is the meaning we give it.
And it's a beautiful thing. Our lives have the potential to become whatever we wish it to become.

>>5508
Who does that sound like (pic related)- atheist or not, the only way to get any kind of ethics is to look to Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Try again. Oh wait, mate! I already did!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Rule

>>5519
>>5508
>>5501

You forgot the little fact that rabbi Hillel and Confucius already came up with the Golden Rule centuries before Jesus was even born, so no

>>5529

I didn't present any source.

Anyway, here you go:

That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it." - Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a

Like I said, this guy lived decades before Jesus was even born. The rule Jesus preached wasn't new at all, at best slight tweak on something that by then had already existed for decades, and at worst a complete ripoff

Also, the Old Testament has a version of it:

"You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD." —Leviticus 19:18

You might want to pay particular attention to the second sentence, it looks very familiar. Again, written down before Jesus was even born.

Then there's the version of Confucius, which was written down some 500 years before Jesus was born:

Zi gong (a disciple of Confucius) asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?"
The Master replied: "How about 'shu' [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?" –Confucius, Analects XV.24

Finally, practically every mayor religion has a version of the Golden Rule. To say that the Golden Rule was a Christian invention is completely retarded and only shows that you don't even know your own religion

>>5508
>Who does that sound like (pic related)- atheist or not, the only way to get any kind of ethics is to look to Jesus.
spotted the statuefag, don't reply to 96b112 if you don't want to waste your time

>>5466
>religion called morality.
Well said.

>>5489
Your philosophy isn't making a lick of sense to me. How does the existence of God affect whether you can be consistent in your alleged substituting of love for rules in your ethics? What would his existence have to do with loving his creations?

>>5492
I think I sort of understand, except I don't care about love either. To me, love is just yet another fake electric signal in our brains coercing our behavior. People say they love eachother, but that feeling wears off just like a high.

Everything you feel is fucking fake. We are just machines, perhaps meant to imitate something else, just as robots may imitate us.

>>5495
>but I still help people because I have empathy.

Some people do not have empathy.

> Do you like being beaten up? Think about how bad it is for you to be beaten up, then think about other people. Don't do bad things as you wouldn't like bad things done to yourself.

That's silly. Doing unto others precisely what you must not allow them to do unto you is the foundation of biological life. Take hunting, for example. You must kill so that you can eat and survive. The "golden rule" is bullshit.

>You should help people because you want to see a member of your species survive

I don't care. I have no desire to see my species survive, and I will not even be around to see whether it does or not anyway. If my life is to be extinguished like a flame and there is nothing I can do about it, then I hope the rest of the universe suffers the same fate. In fact, I wish I could witness the extinction of all living things before I die, but I doubt that will be a possible.

>>5563
>Some people do not have empathy.
So? Because some people don't have empathy, all people have no empathy? This is like saying that if some people don't drive cars because they are unable too, none must drive cars. Not my fault that some people don't have empathy, if they do horrible things to another person they are bad for people with empathy.

>That's silly. Doing unto others precisely what you must not allow them to do unto you is the foundation of biological life. Take hunting, for example. You must kill so that you can eat and survive. The "golden rule" is bullshit.
You cannot compare a plant, or a fish to a human. When every species is equal then maybe you will be right. People already eat every other moving being, but humans should not eat each other because they should be able to know how another human feels when being eaten.

>I don't care. I have no desire to see my species survive, and I will not even be around to see whether it does or not anyway
I fully agree with this, I also don't care about the species surviving because it's not my duty to care for it, and when I'll be dead it won't even matter to me. But, while I am alive I do want to be around good people and not people who want to bash my head with a metal bar. And a way to be around good people is to be good towards them, and they will most likely be good towards you. It's win win. If everyone started to act like savages, you would have to watch your step every time to not get killed.

> If my life is to be extinguished like a flame and there is nothing I can do about it, then I hope the rest of the universe suffers the same fate.
Now this is where you sound edgy. Okay, so if your life is gone, then why must you wish that everyone else dies? That is just anger at humanity. And if it's anger because of what humans did, it means they must have misbehaved according to your morals. If you really didn't have morals as you say, you would be indifferent if everyone would die, you wouldn't wish for it.

> In fact, I wish I could witness the extinction of all living things before I die, but I doubt that will be a possible.
See above. If you want to wish to view the extinction of all living things, they must have angered you in a way. If they have angered you in a way then it means that according to your morals humans didn't behave as expected and you wish them to die. That's quite contradictory to say from a person who has no morals for himself. If humans have done something bad, you defined something good and those are your morals. Or else you would be indifferent to their extinction and not wish for them to die. A person without any morals wouldn't necessarily want humans to live or to die, they would be indifferent. However you claim that you wish to see everyone die, you are a hypocrite.

>>5573
>Because some people don't have empathy, all people have no empathy?

I did not say that.

>You cannot compare a plant, or a fish to a human.

Yes I can. The only fundamental difference is neurological complexity.

> but humans should not eat each other because they should be able to know how another human feels when being eaten.

That is your philosophy. Some may disagree with you, namely me.

>And a way to be around good people is to be good towards them, and they will most likely be good towards you. It's win win.

That has not been my experience.

>Now this is where you sound edgy. Okay, so if your life is gone, then why must you wish that everyone else dies? That is just anger at humanity. And if it's anger because of what humans did, it means they must have misbehaved according to your morals. If you really didn't have morals as you say, you would be indifferent if everyone would die, you wouldn't wish for it.

> If you want to wish to view the extinction of all living things, they must have angered you in a way.

You're misunderstanding me. I have no hostility towards humanity in particular.

>>5578
>I did not say that.
You didn't understand my analogy, read again.

>Yes I can. The only fundamental difference is neurological complexity.
Again, by that phrase I mean that a fish, a plant and a human is not the same. And plants, fish and humans are quite different. We share a lot of DNA, but we are still quite different.

>That is your philosophy. Some may disagree with you, namely me.
That philosophy I have explained why you should accept it, the reasons for why I think some morals are needed. But fine, ignore my whole post smart ass.

>That has not been my experience.
You think that with this short witty statements you will convince me that I am wrong? Fucking explain yourself.

>You're misunderstanding me. I have no hostility towards humanity in particular.
Nah, I completely understand you. The problem here is that you make short witty statements to disregard a post with arguments and you don't even give reasons on why you disagree with me. The best thing I got so far from you is "nah you are wrong", "I don't think so" and "That has not been my experience".

Well try harder next time, with such "arguments" as responses you'll have to find someone else to disagree with you as I will not respond to you anymore since you are incapable of providing reasons for why you think the way you think.

>>5593
>You didn't understand my analogy, read again.

Your analogy does not apply to anything I stated or meant.

>Again, by that phrase I mean that a fish, a plant and a human is not the same. And plants, fish and humans are quite different. We share a lot of DNA, but we are still quite different.

Yes, and people are also different from eachother. The differences between people, and between species, are not important to me. Anything you are inspired to believe based on those differences is merely your own philosophy.

>You think that with this short witty statements you will convince me that I am wrong? Fucking explain yourself.

My behavior towards others tends to have little bearing on their behavior towards me. That has been my observation.

>Nah, I completely understand you. The problem here is that you make short witty statements to disregard a post with arguments and you don't even give reasons on why you disagree with me. The best thing I got so far from you is "nah you are wrong", "I don't think so" and "That has not been my experience".

Well try harder next time, with such "arguments" as responses you'll have to find someone else to disagree with you as I will not respond to you anymore since you are incapable of providing reasons for why you think the way you think.

You just need to ask the right questions. I try not to say more than is needed; I find that that yields the best responses from others and prevents discussions from becoming needlessly convoluted. Furthermore, most of your "arguments" were against your own assumptions, not anything I said.

>>5533

That is in interesting point but I disagree with your analysis. I think this is similar to the whole zeitgeist thing where they claim Jesus is Mitra and Rama or something along those lines based on superficial similarities.

The quotes you are talking about is not a part of confusianist philosophy or Hille's philosophy, they are anecdote about the person.

The story goes that a gentile asked Hillel to tell him about the Torah while standing on one foot. He said - don't do to others what is hateful to you, that is the Torah the rest is explaination.

Now this actually formed no part of his teachings, because Hillel was more of a Rabbinical legal scholar. It would be ridiculous to think that if we were Jews the godlen rule would have been passed down through us thorugh Hillel. Because the golden rule was really just an antedocte, and it wasn't a part of his philosophy, it was just something he said to shame a gentile, and he still advocated stoning women for adultry and all the crazy stuff we see in old testament style Judaism (as in not really golden rule ish)

Also he died in 10 AD so he didn't live long before Jesus as you suggest, and considering his entry into the torah would have been later, it is unlikely that Jesus read about him or was just repeating him.

Same with Confusianism, it's just an antedocte of something Confusious was alleged to say, (but probably didn't) and it makes not part of Confucian philosophy which is actually all about following hirearchy and doing one's duty and conforming (all that stuff that makes Asian culture unbearable).

We can see that it is riduclous to say that Confisanism or Hillel would have brough about the golden rule because it's ridiculous to talk about Confician love or empathy, the Japanese or the Koreans aren't really known for that, no are the Torah Jews, they don't really have that concept.

It's is ridiculous to think that had it not been for Jesus we would have gotten the golden rule imported through the Japanese or the Jews - who incidently don't follow it.

It really is a formulation of Jesus, and when you look at the way Jesus put it (have empathy, don't take revenge) this is very far from confusian or Judaic thought.

>>5560

> What would his existence have to do with loving his creations?

formula is clarified here

>>5482>>5533

>>5597
There is nothing profound about the "golden rule". I'm sure thousands of hairy cult leaders have taught similar ideas throughout history, and I've yet to learn about a culture that did not value altruism on some level.

Nothing Jesus taught was in any way original. He was like the Dalai Lama: just full of charasmatic shit, and the masses just ate it up.

>>5599
>>5599

I don't deal in vague standards like the golden rule, if you had forgotten the significance of the godlen rule was that it was the only meaningful ethical statement that any atheist in this thread was able to put forth,

see >>5495

and so the point was that it was significant that the only way for an atheist to get a meaningful statement of ethics was to turn to Jesus

That was the point of this discussion .

>>5603
>I don't deal in vague standards like the golden rule,

sorry it's been a long day, that should say

I don't deal in vague standards like 'profound'

>>5603
>and so the point was that it was significant that the only way for an atheist to get a meaningful statement of ethics was to turn to Jesus

>That was the point of this discussion .

Was it really? Because I have not been attempting to do any such thing.

>>5614
I'm pretty sure only a christfag would say shit like that.

>>5614
>Was it really? Because I have not been attempting to do any such thing.

No you are correct, the point is not relevant for you, it was relevant for the other atheists in this thread who wished to derive a moral system.

You seem to have no such wish. I am afraid I have nothing to offer you other than I do not think this a good way to life, I believe that you will nihilism empty and unsatisfying in the end, so I believe for your own sake, you should seek something more, as the other atheists in this thread are doing. I may disagree with them, but I must commend them for understanding what a bleak and unworthy philosophy nihilism is and rejecting it.

You, I will admit are being logically consistent, however, I do not believe you are serving yourself well with this nihilism.

>>5616
> I may disagree with them, but I must commend them for understanding what a bleak and unworthy philosophy nihilism is and rejecting it.

>You, I will admit are being logically consistent, however, I do not believe you are serving yourself well with this nihilism.

To reject truth is the easy way out. I prefer truth to happiness. I have not been able to enjoy anything for years, and cannot feel any emotions other than rage, hatred, and boredom, but not only can I not do anything about it, I also wouldn't even if I could. I feel "right". It's impossible to explain.

>>5620
>We have one, it's called being a decent person. If you need a god to be a decent person, you're not a decent person.

Circular reasoning. You are a decent person for adhering to a moral system, and you adhere to a moral system by being a decent person?

>>5623
No, it's not circular reasoning. I do not adhere to a moral system by being a decent person. I adhere to a moral system based on logical observation of my circumstances.

>>5629
He's a christfag, he thinks morals are what god says is moral.

>>5631
That makes no sense.

>>5495
You might find this interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUsGDVOCLVQ

>>5637
>Like you don't need skywizards for morality, you don't need morality to be a decent person. Decent is how you go about conducting yourself according to moral standards or by being satisfactory to who could even be yourself.

If I was somehow alienated from society, i would still abide by my moral rules, because I have a principle of rights. I believe it's wrong to murder someone, because I don't own their life. The moment I am attacked however, I will defend my life, as my life is worth more than a stranger who mistakenly thinks that he owns my life.

I do not think rape is wrong as I don't see it as a negative force, as such, I would not care if I was raped. This does not mean I will go out and rape someone, as I understand that even though I don't think it has any objective effect, it has an emotional one, and I do not own someones emotions. Thus I have no right to do to someone what they do not want me to do to them.

Even the Satanic rules state this, and Satanists do not worship Satan or Yahweh.

I believe morality is hard-wired in the brain, and I believe that a functionning civilization is not possible without it. I believe that morality is some kind of very powerful ethical code that we follow and put at the top of ourselves, but that is still very flexible. Powerful in the sense that we follow it, even in trivial matters, and I believe that this is the case because being moral just on bare reason would be hard to exercise for those trivial matters. I think it is the case that moral exists because applying them even on trivial matters can have an effect if done "en masse", for exemple, not being excessively mean to someone when you play a videogame, or not introducing someone to weed. Or not bullying a nerd to suicide.
Perhaps that is why niggers are immoral and they have never built any real civilization

My idea may sound stupid. If it is the case… sorry, my english be a bit shitty. Difficulties communicating very well the concepts and such

>>5647
Why would you want society to be successful if it alienated you? Wouldn't you rather want to subvert it? I don't get this "I care about others but not myself" attitude. You care for others because it's something you care about so you do care about what you want in other words yourself.

Others only matter to me because I get something from them, same with you though you care about their self-interests so it's different in that regard. The way I see it is others come and go but your existence to which your care for others is tied to is tied to your survival. It's not because the stranger thinks he owns your life why your life is worth more to you rather your life is where worth for all the things around you stem from. Worth is an extrinsic quality, we need to assign it. All these things and people around us get their worth from us, so it's funny to think you can be worth less than the things you assign worth to. Their worth depends on you. So my issues is with not understanding that the root of this care is the self, you care for others because it's what you want to do and that's fine. The problem is the contradiction where some think they're putting others above themselves.

Anyway, the principle of rights makes sense for achieving societal goals. In order for society to function a certain way you need rules and enforcement when parts of the population doesn't necessarily behave in the desired way. We wouldn't need laws against murder if no one felt like killing. There may be the option of selecting for or developing heritable behavioral traits that are desirable but lets not open that can of worms.

But for rights in general including property rights, you don't need a right to do something, only by human law but we know you can do things despite laws. And you don't need to own something in order to be able to influence it. Again only by law and something being human law doesn't make it so. The physical world allows things beyond human imposed restrictions, the only things we cannot exceed these physical limitations.

The reason I don't murder people is because I never feel like it. Murder isn't inherently wrong, killing evolved for predation and as an effective means of eliminating competition. If killing wasn't beneficial we wouldn't see all these species that are so effective at it. Likewise altruism also evolved but that doesn't make one more right than the other, depending on the application and desired outcome one will give better results. That said a random human society where murder isn't against the law wouldn't be safe, going back to principle of rights. So for my safety I think we should have it as law that murder is illegal but I wouldn't go as far as to say murder is wrong in of itself.

Now are you sure you wouldn't care if you were raped? What about infectious disease? The reason rape should be illegal is well I wouldn't want to be raped, both because I expect it to be unpleasant and the risk of infection, so I wouldn't want to be in a society where it was legal.

>>5668
>>5668
I phrased that badly.

The point I was trying to get at is that unless you benefit from someone there is no point in caring about them. This doesn't mean you cannot care about people. I have friends I care about, including their self-interests, because I benefit from their friendship. If their friendship didn't offer anything for me I'd have no reason to be their friend. I'd be in a relationship where I give and they just take. So non-friends are not worth my consideration for their self-interests.

>>5667
>Why would you want society to be successful if it alienated you?

I don't care about what happens to society. I am a decent person for me, not for anyone else.

>Wouldn't you rather want to subvert it?

It depends on why? If I did something stupid like committed a heinous crime, I could see why they alienated me. Revenge accomplishes nothing most of the time.

> "I care about others but not myself" attitude.

I don't care about others before I care for myself. Altruism doesn't exist.

>You care for others because it's something you care about so you do care about what you want in other words yourself.

I never said I didn't. Just because I perform altruistic acts doesn't mean that I'm a self-denying altruist. As I said, altruism doesn't exist.

>Others only matter to me because I get something from them

Not necessarily, I became a doctor because helping people makes me feel good, I make them happy, I make them not die, and in that process, I reach my goal which is to make myself happy.

>It's not because the stranger thinks he owns your life why your life is worth more to you rather your life is where worth for all the things around you stem from.

I never denied this, I think you are correct, but you're incorrect in assuming that just because I care for others, that I deny myself.

>The problem is the contradiction where some think they're putting others above themselves.

I'll just assume you aren't talking about me.

>In order for society to function a certain way you need rules and enforcement when parts of the population doesn't necessarily behave in the desired way. We wouldn't need laws against murder if no one felt like killing.

True, but I do it for myself, not society.

>But for rights in general including property rights, you don't need a right to do something, only by human law but we know you can do things despite laws. And you don't need to own something in order to be able to influence it.

Let me clarify, I didn't mean influencing someone's life, if someone doesn't want to be influenced, they wouldn't ever leave their house, but influence and control is quite different.

>The physical world allows things beyond human imposed restrictions, the only things we cannot exceed these physical limitations.

True, but just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.

>Likewise altruism also evolved

And like any evolutionary adaptation, it evolved to benefit the survival of the individual, not the society.

>Now are you sure you wouldn't care if you were raped?

I'm quite sure, unless a person used some degree of violence or gave me an STD, but that's a different matter. Rape to me is nothing, someone does something to me that most people derive pleasure from, it doesn't bother me. I might not like their appearance or their behavior, but that's different.

>What about infectious disease?

You mean STDs? Well, that would technically be assault with a deadly weapon. Kek.

>The reason rape should be illegal is well I wouldn't want to be raped

And I agree that it should be illegal, but I'm a minority. Or am I? Did you know that the number one sexual fantasy of women is a rape fantasy? I guess that's why Fifty Shades of Rape is so popular.

>both because I expect it to be unpleasant and the risk of infection

I do not expect it to be unpleasant unless the rapist uses some degree of violence. And risk of infection happens in normal relationships as well. One of my friends married a woman who had Herpes, and he wasn't aware, and neither was she. He never got infected though. But that's quite a different matter. A restaurant could accidentally serve you some beef that contains prions and infects you with CJD. This is why Manslaughter is separate from Murder, because all that defines a crime and an accident is intention. Still, that doesn't change the fact that it's bad.

>>5668
Your problem is nihilism. Why haven't you subscribed to the only school of Ontology that makes any sense: Existentialism.

You see, an Existentialist believes that life doesn't have any objective meaning, because there is no such thing as objective meaning. So we give our lives subjective meaning. Any form of meaning you ever thought was objective is actually what you perceived as objective, when it was in fact, subjective. In the grand scheme of things, my life has no meaning but the meaning I give it. I live life to be happy, and saving people's lives is one of the things that makes me happy, another is porn, porn makes me happy as well.

Your life is meaningless, but that's because you haven't subscribed any meaning to it yet.

Life can become whatever you want it to become, and that wouldn't be possible if there was objective meaning.

>>5682
I think we agree on a lot. And much respect on you becoming a doctor, what's your specialization?

>I'll just assume you aren't talking about me.
I was just talking in general.

>I don't care about others before I care for myself.
Ok then I just wanted to be sure.

>Altruism doesn't exist.
When you say this you mean colloquial definition, not reciprocal and kin altruism? Altruism as doing something at a cost for you for another does happen.

>True, but just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.
Likewise just because you can doesn't mean you shouldn't.

>And like any evolutionary adaptation, it evolved to benefit the survival of the individual, not the society.
It evolved because it benefited the survival of the genes. Look at kin altruism, it doesn't benefit the actor but it benefits those who the actor does it for. Now who they do it for shares some of their genes so their genes survive even though they sacrificed themselves or something of themselves.

But this says nothing about the question what's more important personally genes or individual existence? Personally my existence.

>Did you know that the number one sexual fantasy of women is a rape fantasy?
Doesn't surprise me.

>>5685
Isn't it possible to be happy without meaning? Happiness seems to be more about concentrations of neurotransmitters and hormones than anything.

>>5696
And brain structure.

>>5696
>I think we agree on a lot. And much respect on you becoming a doctor, what's your specialization?

Thank you, Psychiatry.

>I was just talking in general.

Ahh, okay then.

>When you say this you mean colloquial definition, not reciprocal and kin altruism? Altruism as doing something at a cost for you for another does happen.

Well, not necessarily. There could be a lot of reasons that someone helps another person at some cost to themselves. Such as someone you love, or someone who is in a position of authority.

>not reciprocal and kin altruism?

Technically, these aren't pure altruism.

>It evolved because it benefited the survival of the genes. Look at kin altruism, it doesn't benefit the actor but it benefits those who the actor does it for.

And technically that benefits the person themselves, just like Hypersexuality. People don't impregnate a bunch of women because they want to ensure the preservation of their genes, they do it because it's pleasurable.

>But this says nothing about the question what's more important personally genes or individual existence? Personally my existence.

I would tend to agree with you.

>Isn't it possible to be happy without meaning?

Yes, but it is uncommon. Again, it depends of how you define meaning.

>Happiness seems to be more about concentrations of neurotransmitters and hormones than anything.

And they still make you happy, regardless of what causes them. To some people, those neurotransmitters activate when they harm themselves. Cutters experience a rush of endorphins and cortisol, which is similar when people risk their lives doing something like sky-diving, or acting like a hero.
That person who jumps in front of a car to rescue a person could be doing it unintentionally to get high. But I don't know, it's just a hypothesis.

>>5700
>Psychiatry.
Nice and here I am talking about neurotransmitters etc. Though I'm no stranger to biology, majoring in BioEngg and all. Would like to attempt developing tissue engineering to extend my life, probably wont happen but at least I can say I tried.

>There could be a lot of reasons that someone helps another person at some cost to themselves.
That's still altruism in the sociobiological sense. The problem is the colloquial definition being nuts.

al·tru·ism
ˈaltrooˌizəm/
noun: altruism

>the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
Makes me go u wot m8?
>behavior of an animal that benefits another at its own expense.
Actually happens.

>People don't impregnate a bunch of women because they want to ensure the preservation of their genes, they do it because it's pleasurable.
True but that pleasure response in doing that behavior evolved because those who don't find sex pleasurable won't pass on their genes as well as those who do.

>Again, it depends of how you define meaning.
You really think so? I've done substances where I forgot what meaning even is but I was still physiologically happy.

>And they still make you happy, regardless of what causes them. To some people, those neurotransmitters activate when they harm themselves. Cutters experience a rush of endorphins and cortisol, which is similar when people risk their lives doing something like sky-diving, or acting like a hero.
That person who jumps in front of a car to rescue a person could be doing it unintentionally to get high. But I don't know, it's just a hypothesis.
Good points.

I have to run to class though, I'll be back idk when.

>>5703
>That's still altruism in the sociobiological sense.

It likely is, I'm using Wikipedia's definition.

>Actually happens.

True, but the motives are what define it.

>True but that pleasure response in doing that behavior evolved because those who don't find sex pleasurable won't pass on their genes as well as those who do.

That's so, but there usually isn't a conscious concern over such matters.

>I've done substances where I forgot what meaning even is but I was still physiologically happy.

Could it be that happiness is your meaning?

>I have to run to class though, I'll be back idk when.

Okay.

>>5637
You are right, one does not need morality to be the dictionary definition of decent.

>>5728
You misunderstood what he was saying, that's true, but theists are the same. Because there is no objective morality. As much as you'd like to say there is, there isn't.

>>5730
>You misunderstood what he was saying, that's true, but theists are the same. Because there is no objective morality. As much as you'd like to say there is, there isn't.

What do you mean. I have been saying all along that there is no such thing as objective morality.

>>5667
>Why would you want society to be successful if it alienated you? Wouldn't you rather want to subvert it? I don't get this "I care about others but not myself" attitude.

I am deeply fascinated by this philosophical division between mankind, namely between those who care more about the individual versus those who care more about the collective.

I am of the former camp.

>>5737
Watch out with that edge, bro.

>>5733
i'm not angry! i'm not sad! how dare you presume to know what i feel! i don't even feel emotion….it's like just woke up from a daydream and saw how torn up everything is inside and outside.

even if you can attach meaning to things, there is no objective morality so it's a waste of time and we're just balloons floating in space everyday….yeah, that's pretty deep man. but still, no matter how much i express things i don't expect anyone to understand what i mean, no one ever does. it's not like anyone can get just how pointless the existence of the universe is without actually being me….so all i can say is i'm so sorry, oh so sorry……because all of you are going to live your lives in a dream. i merely wish you could see things a bit more like me, and free your mind……..but i guess that won't ever happen……….? yeah, i'm right as usual….

>>5746
>>>/christian/
For people who feel no emotion.

>>5746
Well I for one am angry and sad. I suppose I was speaking more about myself than anyone else.

>>5811
Ahahaha!

You took me seriously?

>>5811
It's alright, there's plenty of other boards dedicated to religions for you to join. Ever thought of being a muslim or a hindu?

You tried so hard and got so far but in the end it doesn't really matter.

>>5811
edgy