I'm so sick of soys referring to WHORES as "sex workers." There is nothing respectable about it.

[RobertGarnicasAPedo]

It's that George Carlin "soft language" stuff. They think if they change the name of what they do, it somehow makes it more "respectable." Hey, "worker" makes it sound legitimate.

It's not.

They're not "sex workers." They're WHORES. They're PROSTITUTES. I guess they include porn stars as "sex workers?" Still whores. They are having sex for money.

Women who sell sex for money should be ashamed of what they do.

It's dirty. It's disgusting.

It's a sin in every Abrahamic religion.

And for the atheists out there: There aren't objective ethics in your paradigm. You don't get an "ought" from an "is." So nothing is good or bad, including anything incels say or do.

All of your "harm" crap also doesn't work because it's not part of sense experience. "Harm" is a universal, not a particular. It's only an idea, and ideas need something in the material world to instantiate them to be part of sense experience.

In summary, women should stop behaving like whores.

 

[Stupid Clown]

Based high IQcel. I agree completely it's fucking disgusting and does not deserve to be respected AT ALL.

 

[Doomer Guy]

Based.

 

[Namtriz912]

They are harlots, carpet munchers, cum-dumps, cum-dumpsters, just property to be used and reused again like a sponge.

 

[FUCK FAGGOT LINK]

they are literally toys i hate it more when one of those whores actually thinks their opinion matters on literally anything. just shut your fucking mouth if you are a prostitute

 

[cvh1991]

It's that George Carlin "soft language" stuff. They think if they change the name of what they do, it somehow makes it more "respectable." Hey, "worker" makes it sound legitimate.

It's not.

They're not "sex workers." They're WHORES. They're PROSTITUTES. I guess they include porn stars as "sex workers?" Still whores. They are having sex for money.

Women who sell sex for money should be ashamed of what they do.

It's dirty. It's disgusting.

It's a sin in every Abrahamic religion.

And for the atheists out there: There aren't objective ethics in your paradigm. You don't get an "ought" from an "is." So nothing is good or bad, including anything incels say or do.

All of your "harm" crap also doesn't work because it's not part of sense experience. "Harm" is a universal, not a particular. It's only an idea, and ideas need something in the material world to instantiate them to be part of sense experience.

In summary, women should stop behaving like whores.

Not disagreeing with your general point but atheists usually believe ethics/right and wrong exist but are derived from mutual self interest and the starting point that suffering is undesirable.

What I mean by “mutual self interest” is that — for example — suppose you and I are neighbors. Neither of us wants the other to come over, rape our family, steal all of our stuff, etc. So what do we do? The whole group of neighbors comes together to form rules with consequences so people actually follow them and by doing so we’ve now created ethical standards. Assuming everyone follows them we’re all better off.

People like Sam Harris have TED talks exploring the whole atheist view on morality. Sadly in the modern day Sam’s become a pro censorship soybot but much of his older work remains quite good seems to me. Frankly even if god does exist that’s not a very good way to determine ethics because it’s basically suggesting whoever has the most power decides unilaterally what is right and wrong — one can justify the most heinous behaviors imaginable so long as “god told me it was OK”. I used to be a Christian but even then I had a hard time wrapping my head around the whole “infinite suffering and punishment in hell for finite crimes” schtick.

Let me put it to you another way. Suppose we go to a deserted island where the people there don’t eat eggs. We ask them why and they say it’s because their village chieftain said it was wrong and they trust his judgment. OK so we go talk to the chieftain. He can reply in two ways. 1) there was a pragmatic reason for the ban — eg maybe there was egg disease or something in the past. This means it’s not really because he said it was wrong there was was another pragmatic root unrelated to the chieftain and this is no different to how non-religious people hash out their morality. On the other hand 2) he might say “oh I just fucking hate eggs”. In which case it’s just his subjective opinion which is no different to yours or mine only difference is the power to bend others to your will. Of course the chieftain in this scenario is god while the villagers are the Christians or what have you.

Frankly the theist moral argument is a fallacy and always has been though I don’t deny making a society believe in god can be useful for getting people to follow rules they otherwise wouldn’t.

 

[BornToLose]

Whores gonna whore.

 

[ResidentHell]

Frankly even if god does exist that’s not a very good way to determine ethics because it’s basically suggesting whoever has the most power decides unilaterally what is right and wrong — one can justify the most heinous behaviors imaginable so long as “god told me it was OK”. I used to be a Christian but even then I had a hard time wrapping my head around the whole “infinite suffering and punishment in hell for finite crimes” schtick.

Let me put it to you another way. Suppose we go to a deserted island where the people there don’t eat eggs. We ask them why and they say it’s because their village chieftain said it was wrong and they trust his judgment. OK so we go talk to the chieftain. He can reply in two ways. 1) there was a pragmatic reason for the ban — eg maybe there was egg disease or something in the past. This means it’s not really because he said it was wrong there was was another pragmatic root unrelated to the chieftain and this is no different to how non-religious people hash out their morality. On the other hand 2) he might say “oh I just fucking hate eggs”. In which case it’s just his subjective opinion which is no different to yours or mine only difference is the power to bend others to your will. Of course the chieftain in this scenario is god while the villagers are the Christians or what have you.

Frankly the theist moral argument is a fallacy and always has been though I don’t deny making a society believe in god can be useful for getting people to follow rules they otherwise wouldn’t.

Well explained . It's fallacious to appeal to a standard of morality that is rationalized by mere divinity. Because it would be fair to conclude the "divine source" of any moral standard can operate on a subjective when there's nothing else that has enough power or influence to stop / prevent the "divine source" from operating with subjective intent

A subjective standard to morality is an unfair standard, regardless of whether its based on divinity, atheism or any other belief system

 

[RobertGarnicasAPedo]

Not disagreeing with your general point but atheists usually believe ethics/right and wrong exist but are derived from mutual self interest and the starting point that suffering is undesirable.

What I mean by “mutual self interest” is that — for example — suppose you and I are neighbors. Neither of us wants the other to come over, rape our family, steal all of our stuff, etc. So what do we do? The whole group of neighbors comes together to form rules with consequences so people actually follow them and by doing so we’ve now created ethical standards. Assuming everyone follows them we’re all better off.

People like Sam Harris have TED talks exploring the whole atheist view on morality. Sadly in the modern day Sam’s become a pro censorship soybot but much of his older work remains quite good seems to me. Frankly even if god does exist that’s not a very good way to determine ethics because it’s basically suggesting whoever has the most power decides unilaterally what is right and wrong — one can justify the most heinous behaviors imaginable so long as “god told me it was OK”. I used to be a Christian but even then I had a hard time wrapping my head around the whole “infinite suffering and punishment in hell for finite crimes” schtick.

Let me put it to you another way. Suppose we go to a deserted island where the people there don’t eat eggs. We ask them why and they say it’s because their village chieftain said it was wrong and they trust his judgment. OK so we go talk to the chieftain. He can reply in two ways. 1) there was a pragmatic reason for the ban — eg maybe there was egg disease or something in the past. This means it’s not really because he said it was wrong there was was another pragmatic root unrelated to the chieftain and this is no different to how non-religious people hash out their morality. On the other hand 2) he might say “oh I just fucking hate eggs”. In which case it’s just his subjective opinion which is no different to yours or mine only difference is the power to bend others to your will. Of course the chieftain in this scenario is god while the villagers are the Christians or what have you.

Frankly the theist moral argument is a fallacy and always has been though I don’t deny making a society believe in god can be useful for getting people to follow rules they otherwise wouldn’t.

You're still assuming your intuitions about good and bad are justified.

The reason morality works in theism is it would be derived from a divine being of knowledge. Absent that divine being of knowledge, your thoughts about everything, including morality, would be determined by the unknowing (the laws of physics). You would therefore have no reason to believe they're true.

 

[sneed (not chuck)]

sex workers are RACIST

 

[cvh1991]

You're still assuming your intuitions about good and bad are justified.

The reason morality works in theism is it would be derived from a divine being of knowledge. Absent that divine being of knowledge, your thoughts about everything, including morality, would be determined by the unknowing (the laws of physics). You would therefore have no reason to believe they're true.

No, I’m not. Nothing to do with “intuition” either. At the end of the day humans act in their own self interest which is why we do everything that we do. It’s programmatic on some level. You seem to be suggesting that since god(s) knows all his rules will be perfect. But 1) god clearly changed his mind about some things going through the Old Testament and the New Testament as one example for Christianity and 2) this would fall into the “there’s a pragmatic reason underpinning X rule” which again is exactly how non religious people form their ethical standards over time.

At a high level removed from human programming, yeah it’s all nihilism and nothing matters, there are no “oughts” etc etc. You could blow my head off a shotgun and it’s only “wrong” to me because it goes against my interests. But being what we are people almost universally desire the same outcome for many things — this is why I provided those examples in my prior comment. If you blew my head off and were caught you would be severely punished by other humans as a deterrent to others — because it is in the best self interest of the collective to do so. That’s really all it is if you want to be “objective” about it. Yes, “most people” will share intuitions/disgust or what have you for specific behaviors, but it’s a subjective whim or a programmatic whim as you suggest.

Adding god(s) to the equation changes nothing at all about this or how it plays out. All you’ve done is shift a person’s whim to god’s whim and god’s whim is no better. This is easy to demonstrate — suppose Zeus decides one day when a particular spartan fails to give him an offering that the Spartans as a whole now piss him off, so he zaps them with lightning and casts them into the depths of hades to suffer for all eternity. Was that “right” morally speaking? Why is Zeus’s whim more valuable than yours or mine? It’s not, the difference is power and the capacity to bend others to your will.

Suppose Zeus’s reality unfolds and suddenly he becomes aware that there is another god that made him and his pantheon. Suddenly what he just determined to be just and right is bunk then. If it’s gods whim or man’s whim a whim doesn’t solve the nihilism of the high level moral problem. You still have the same exact problem of why “whim” counts as objective morality, it really doesn’t.

The most objective way to discern morality is to center it on a community’s cumulative self interest as per those examples I provided before. Not everyone will agree and there are holes that will need to be patched as time marches forward since whichever people hold power will bend the rules to their favor, but it’s the best you can do if you want to talk about how people “ought” to behave. They “ought” to behave in a given fashion because it leads to a more positive outcome for them than if they didn’t. If it doesn’t then they likely won’t follow those rules unless forced to. God or not it’s either whim which is meaningless to anyone else or there’s a pragmatic reason underpinning it which is the way ethics come to be simple as.

Imagine a scenario where there is no god but one wealthy and powerful dictator — he declares one day that if you’re male or over 40 you’ll be hanged. Since he holds all the power is his “whim” now just and right? Nah. Same goes for god(s). You’re absolutely right about soft language and whores though.

 

[RobertGarnicasAPedo]

No, I’m not. Nothing to do with “intuition” either. At the end of the day humans act in their own self interest which is why we do everything that we do. It’s programmatic on some level. You seem to be suggesting that since god(s) knows all his rules will be perfect. But 1) god clearly changed his mind about some things going through the Old Testament and the New Testament as one example for Christianity and 2) this would fall into the “there’s a pragmatic reason underpinning X rule” which again is exactly how non religious people form their ethical standards over time.

At a high level removed from human programming, yeah it’s all nihilism and nothing matters, there are no “oughts” etc etc. You could blow my head off a shotgun and it’s only “wrong” to me because it goes against my interests. But being what we are people almost universally desire the same outcome for many things — this is why I provided those examples in my prior comment. If you blew my head off and were caught you would be severely punished by other humans as a deterrent to others — because it is in the best self interest of the collective to do so. That’s really all it is if you want to be “objective” about it. Yes, “most people” will share intuitions/disgust or what have you for specific behaviors, but it’s a subjective whim or a programmatic whim as you suggest.

Adding god(s) to the equation changes nothing at all about this or how it plays out. All you’ve done is shift a person’s whim to god’s whim and god’s whim is no better. This is easy to demonstrate — suppose Zeus decides one day when a particular spartan fails to give him an offering that the Spartans as a whole now piss him off, so he zaps them with lightning and casts them into the depths of hades to suffer for all eternity. Was that “right” morally speaking? Why is Zeus’s whim more valuable than yours or mine? It’s not, the difference is power and the capacity to bend others to your will.

Suppose Zeus’s reality unfolds and suddenly he becomes aware that there is another god that made him and his pantheon. Suddenly what he just determined to be just and right is bunk then. If it’s gods whim or man’s whim a whim doesn’t solve the nihilism of the high level moral problem. You still have the same exact problem of why “whim” counts as objective morality, it really doesn’t.

The most objective way to discern morality is to center it on a community’s cumulative self interest as per those examples I provided before. Not everyone will agree and there are holes that will need to be patched as time marches forward since whichever people hold power will bend the rules to their favor, but it’s the best you can do if you want to talk about how people “ought” to behave. They “ought” to behave in a given fashion because it leads to a more positive outcome for them than if they didn’t. If it doesn’t then they likely won’t follow those rules unless forced to. God or not it’s either whim which is meaningless to anyone else or there’s a pragmatic reason underpinning it which is the way ethics come to be simple as.

Imagine a scenario where there is no god but one wealthy and powerful dictator — he declares one day that if you’re male or over 40 you’ll be hanged. Since he holds all the power is his “whim” now just and right? Nah. Same goes for god(s). You’re absolutely right about soft language and whores though.

If you're an atheist, you believe that all of those thoughts you just described were required by the laws of physics. Your "thoughts" would be nothing more than the matter that is your brain chemicals being acted on by the laws of physics. There would be no free will, and therefore you have no reason to believe any of your thoughts, since the unknowing laws of physics are making you believe as you do. Some refer to this as "determinism," while others take issue with that based on supposed "quantum uncertainty." That's not really important, though, because either way, there's no free will and therefore, no reason to believe any of your thoughts.

In order to have justified knowledge claims, including those about morality, you need a supernatural being of knowledge.

 

[AsiaCel]

At least prosititues are honest about their services they're selling.

 

[cvh1991]

If you're an atheist, you believe that all of those thoughts you just described were required by the laws of physics. Your "thoughts" would be nothing more than the matter that is your brain chemicals being acted on by the laws of physics. There would be no free will, and therefore you have no reason to believe any of your thoughts, since the unknowing laws of physics are making you believe as you do. Some refer to this as "determinism," while others take issue with that based on supposed "quantum uncertainty." That's not really important, though, because either way, there's no free will and therefore, no reason to believe any of your thoughts.

In order to have justified knowledge claims, including those about morality, you need a supernatural being of knowledge.

I never claimed free will exists. To even talk about free will we have to define what exactly is meant by the term from square one. What are you using that term to mean specifically?

Some groups simply define it as our attempts to get what we want though I don’t think “most people” see it like that. I don’t personally believe in the soul and I’d agree that the logical conclusion to that is you wind up with actions being some combination of deterministic or perhaps there’s some random factors involved too as you suggest (e.g. Physics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle — you don’t know where the electron is going to be, etc). That doesn’t change our systems of punishment or the way people behave though — humans are what we are, we’re not separate from nature we are part of it.

Also, sorry but what are you about? Suppose Free will doesn’t exist — in no way does that mean or suggest that nobody can believe anything. I exist and perceive things with my senses — I believe this table next to me is here for that reason. I can prove that it exists to others by showing it to them and so on. Now, whether or not people can “choose” what they believe is true is a whole other subject and that’s a good question (probably not). But saying you need god to exist to even believe anything is real is total bunk nonsense mate. Can we be absolutely certain about anything? Of course not — maybe we’re all in a simulation or whatever. But to suggest that god(s) is a necessity for belief in anything is non sequitur.

Look man, I used to be deeply religious. I wanted to be a missionary at one point in my life and I went through Christian schools and had all the people I know through church basically — I know about virtually every religious apologetic argument there is (e.g. argument from complexity, moral argument, first cause argument, watchmaker fallacy, etc etc) and I also know why they’re bunk as cursory google search will show you. I was devastated for years when I deconverted (heaven not existing and having to deal with death sucks) and it took me years to deconvert for that matter but it’s not actually real man. The vast and overwhelming majority of the world accept the prevailing position of their community when it comes to god. It’s literally just how you were raised is what 99.9% people believe. If you or I were born in some bum fuck African jungle we’d believe in the great JuJu under the mountain or whatever. Even we assume god exists, there really is no valid answer to questions like “Epicurus Trilemma” though apologists have tried for ages and failed miserably. If it makes you happy, more power to you though.

 

[RobertGarnicasAPedo]

I never claimed free will exists. To even talk about free will we have to define what exactly is meant by the term from square one. What are you using that term to mean specifically?

Some groups simply define it as our attempts to get what we want though I don’t think “most people” see it like that. I don’t personally believe in the soul and I’d agree that the logical conclusion to that is you wind up with actions being some combination of deterministic or perhaps there’s some random factors involved too as you suggest (e.g. Physics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle — you don’t know where the electron is going to be, etc). That doesn’t change our systems of punishment or the way people behave though — humans are what we are, we’re not separate from nature we are part of it.

Also, sorry but what are you about? Suppose Free will doesn’t exist — in no way does that mean or suggest that nobody can believe anything. I exist and perceive things with my senses — I believe this table next to me is here for that reason. I can prove that it exists to others by showing it to them and so on. Now, whether or not people can “choose” what they believe is true is a whole other subject and that’s a good question. But saying you need god to exist to even believe anything is real is total bunk nonsense mate. Can we be absolutely certain about anything? Of course not — maybe we’re all in a simulation or whatever.

Free will: A conscious being has the ability to consciously choose between options.

You're clearly not understanding what I'm saying.

Your beliefs can not be justified in an epistemic sense. None of them. Including everything you've been arguing. If you presuppose logic, you have to logically conclude that you have no reason to believe anything, absent revelation from a supernatural being of knowledge.

Under naturalism/physicalism, you were required by the laws of physics to believe that you perceive things with your senses, and that sense experience makes something more likely to be real. But you didn't reason your way into believing the aforementioned. You were forced to believe that.

The rain doesn't decide to rain.

And why would the laws of physics know whether or not something is true? Why would they care? Why would they make the chemicals in your brain reach correct conclusions?

You wind up unable to justify any knowledge claims at all. Even the statement, "I don't know anything," is a knowledge claim.

Your alternative is to throw out logic. But then you'll be incoherent. Even having a debate assumes logic.

 

[cvh1991]

Why do you think your beliefs are justified epistemologically then? At the end of day it’s about what group has the better evidence and arguments to support their claim.

Physics existing does NOT tell you that god(s) exists. Physics existing tells you that physics exists. To say it does is just a non sequitur argument full stop.

If you want to go down this rabbit hole no beliefs can be justified including your own and nothing can be known if you question our senses and reality from square one. There’s an infinity of possibilities if we say that evidence and requiring proof of claims don’t matter or mean anything. At that point all bets are off including what you think you know about god.

 

[RobertGarnicasAPedo]

Why do you think your beliefs are justified epistemologically then? At the end of day it’s about what group has the better evidence and arguments to support their claim.

Physics existing does NOT tell you that god(s) exists. Physics existing tells you that physics exists. To say it does is just a non sequitur argument full stop.

If you want to go down this rabbit hole no beliefs can be justified including your own and nothing can be known if you question our senses and reality from square one. There’s an infinity of possibilities if we say that evidence and requiring proof of claims don’t matter or mean anything. At that point all bets are off including what you think you know about god.

The idea behind the Transcendental Argument for God is that the only way to solve all of these philosophical problems is presupposing God. It's a puzzle that doesn't seem to work any other way. Atheism leaves you stuck in reductio ad absurdum.

 

[darkdungeon]

It's that George Carlin "soft language" stuff. They think if they change the name of what they do, it somehow makes it more "respectable." Hey, "worker" makes it sound legitimate.

It's not.

They're not "sex workers." They're WHORES. They're PROSTITUTES. I guess they include porn stars as "sex workers?" Still whores. They are having sex for money.

Women who sell sex for money should be ashamed of what they do.

It's dirty. It's disgusting.

It's a sin in every Abrahamic religion.

And for the atheists out there: There aren't objective ethics in your paradigm. You don't get an "ought" from an "is." So nothing is good or bad, including anything incels say or do.

All of your "harm" crap also doesn't work because it's not part of sense experience. "Harm" is a universal, not a particular. It's only an idea, and ideas need something in the material world to instantiate them to be part of sense experience.

In summary, women should stop behaving like whores.

Just stick to doxxing denialcels and stop stating the obvious

 

[RobertGarnicasAPedo]

Just stick to doxxing denialcels and stop stating the obvious

What is it with you obnoxious disphits trying to tell me what to write? Fuck off.

 

[Feminism Sucks!]

It's an insult to actual workers to call whores "sex workers". I'm a NEET, and even I realize this.

 

[BornToLose]

It's an insult to actual workers to call whores "sex workers". I'm a NEET, and even I realize this.

Jfl.

 

[Saint Betrayed]

Don't mind it it's just newspeak