you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (72 children)

How has lucfer made the world better?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (71 children)

Lucifer roughly translates as "morning star", "shining one", or the "bringer of light". It predates Christianity and refers astronomically to Venus, the brightest star in the sky.

Christians personify and refer to Lucifer as the devil, the fallen star from heaven. It is said that evil only exists in the world because of the free will brought upon by Lucifer.

Christians tend to think everything is evil, so I'd argue that free will has made the world better in many ways.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (51 children)

It is said that evil only exists in the world because of the free will brought upon by Lucifer.

That is said by Luciferians because thier propaganda proclaims that God does not give man free will. The Christian version says that the tree of knowledge gave Adam and Eve knowledge of good and evil. That made them responsible for thier evil deeds. It gave them desires that are evil.

A young child that does not know better and takes whatever they can is not a kleptomaniac. In the same way Adam ans Eve were not capable of evil before they could understand it.

Another interpretation of the apple tree is that it represents sex. It gave them "carnal knowledge" which just means the ability to have sex and procreate. And God kicked them out of eden because of that.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (47 children)

In the same way Adam ans Eve were not capable of evil before they could understand it.

This stems from the same argument that people did not know stealing and murder was bad until the ten commandments were brought to them. It's largely nonsense to any common sense reader.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (46 children)

Those two arguments are very different. One speaks to a fundamental, magical change in the nature of humanity and consciousness. The other makes no claim that humanity was profoundly changed, it simply purports that being told something is the only way in which it can be realized. You are conflating them to make the first guilty by association with the absurdity of the latter.

Frankly the commandments argument is far more similar to the luciferian argument that morality is subjective. The argument goes like this: If two men disagree on what is moral which of them is right? In most cases there is no objective way to decide. Because of this there is no objective morality it is just a bunch of opinions, all of which are equally valid. So if I think murder is morally good that opinion negates your opinion that it is not. Therfore without an authority figure to dictate what is right and wrong nothing can truly be right or wrong, it's all just opinions. The commandments are that decision from the ultimate authority, and in that way they make murder wrong.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

It is a fantasy to imagine humans created perfect only to be corrupted, and later requiring a divine authority to dictate what is deemed as good and evil in an attempt to resolve this issue.

I am of the opinion that yes, morality is subjective. To believe otherwise is to ignore the varied cultures which have developed independently of eachother which hold very different standards of what is deemed morally acceptable. Philosophy has sought the answers to morality far longer than through religion and will do so long after these ancient texts die out.

That is one of those religious bullshits someone made up to manipulate people.

I relate the two because they are equally absurd, and both are the type of made up bullshit designed to inspire primitive minds and manipulate a community.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

It is a fantasy

So is luciferianism. The church of Satan. Every religion. Every non religious speculation of everything unprovable. Everything others say is proven but you can't verify yourself.

It's not a good argument to push one fantasy with the claim that the other fantasy is a fantasy.

and later requiring a divine authority to dictate what is deemed as good and evil in an attempt to resolve this issue.

Strawman argument. This was not how any religion presents thier argument. You invented this twisted retelling of the premise to resemble the original but be fundamentally flawed. Do better.

God is there from the beginning, and the argument for a God has zero to do with man, morality, the apple, judgement, or any of it. God is not created to resolve any issue with man's imperfection.

I am of the opinion that yes, morality is subjective.

A subjective morality means there is no right or wrong. Who are you to tell anyone else, be it a murderer or child rapist or dictator, that what they are doing is wrong? After all that is just your opinion and thier opinion says it's OK so long as they can justify it to themselves.

To believe otherwise is to ignore the varied cultures

No it's not. They are wrong. That is a belief intrinsic to your ideology. I don't think all cultures are equally good or equally moral.

Philosophy has sought the answers to morality far longer than through religion

And what is the philosophical answer? Because you already said morality is subjective and that is no different than saying it doesn't exist.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

So is luciferianism. The church of Satan. Every religion. Every non religious speculation of everything unprovable.

I agree, as an atheist, all these things are fiction to me.

It's not a good argument to push one fantasy with the claim that the other fantasy is a fantasy.

Now we're getting somewhere.

God is not created to resolve any issue with man's imperfection.

God was not created for resolution, but I did not suggest such. But the intervention of god was intended to resolve.

After all that is just your opinion and thier opinion says it's OK so long as they can justify it to themselves.

This is generally how civilization has evolved, we collectively come to an agreed moral code within our individual communities.

They are wrong.

They may beg to differ, buddy.

That is a belief intrinsic to your ideology.

I try to avoid alignment with any specific ideology. I joined this conversation for fun and some vague interest in the contradictory nature of religious and mythological history.

And what is the philosophical answer?

Where would you like to begin? The religious argument seems set on moral absolutism, whereas I might prefer a more relativistic approach. Nietzsche proposed that morality is connected to the individual culture. This is perhaps a better reflection of reality than that which religion attempts to push onto a culture.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Nietzsche proposed that morality is connected to the individual culture.

I think Gauthier proposed an interesting framework of morality based on Natural Law and Game Theory (Prisoner's Dilemma). This theory shows that mutual agreement/consent and the Tit-for-Tat strategy result in optimal social outcomes, and form the basis of common morality.

I.E. We see in all cultures that theft and murder are considered immoral, and this relates to game theory and natural law. In a small community in the absence of laws, people will tend to form this agreement naturally, as it is benefits the everyone to not have to vigilantly watch for thefts. Even if one person out of a community of 10 were to use his strength to take what he wanted, natural law dictates the other 9 ought to form an agreement to work together as a stronger group to put down the strong individual, and thus even the bully agrees out of self interest, and the optimal condition is achieved by adhering to these agreed upon codes of conduct, and punishing those that fail to practice the optimal strategy and harm the group as well as themselves

In case you are interested in more than my ad hoc explanation that likely does not do these ideas justice, this is the work I refer to. I am a fan of Nietzsche, but admit I am partial to this theory, which is actually quite similar to Kaczynski's writing on morality. No hard feelings if this isn't your bag, I just share because its something I found interesting, and I hold your taste in high esteem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#David_Gauthier's_Morals_By_Agreement_(1986)

David Gauthier's Morals By Agreement (1986) Main article: Contractarian ethics David Gauthier "neo-Hobbesian" theory argues that cooperation between two independent and self-interested parties is indeed possible, especially when it comes to understanding morality and politics.[23] Gauthier notably points out the advantages of cooperation between two parties when it comes to the challenge of the prisoner's dilemma. He proposes that, if two parties were to stick to the original agreed-upon arrangement and morals outlined by the contract, they would both experience an optimal result.[23][24] In his model for the social contract, factors including trust, rationality, and self-interest keep each party honest and dissuade them from breaking the rules.[23][24]

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In case you are interested in more than my ad hoc explanation that likely does not do these ideas justice, this is the work I refer to. I am a fan of Nietzsche, but admit I am partial to this theory, which is actually quite similar to Kaczynski's writing on morality. No hard feelings if this isn't your bag, I just share because its something I found interesting, and I hold your taste in high esteem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#David_Gauthier's_Morals_By_Agreement_(1986)

Thanks for this, I recall hearing of Gauthier's work discussed, perhaps this is in part where I'm picking this up from. I'll look into this further as it does interest me 👍

I'm currently reading John Locke who also wrote of natural law and the social contract, going on to say that human nature of reason and tolerance is not enough to maintain order so we created a civil society to deal with such things. Locke's work has fascinated me as what could be seen as a foundation of many areas of modern politics and influencing the American constitution. Importantly, defining the separation of the church and the state.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is generally how civilization has evolved, we collectively come to an agreed moral code within our individual communities.

This is generally how religion evolves. It is the multi generational moral framework that has stood the test of time and been analyzed and crafted by the wisdom of the ages. Therfore it is the best moral framework. God as an author is there so everyone doesn't feel they have the right to modify it according to thier whims.

Meanwhile we exist in a society controlled by elite pedophiles who only relatively recently secured power and are using that power to subvert that moral framework because they want to be allowed to rape children, hoard all the wealth and power, subjugate everyone, have young children sexualised and performing sexual acts on camera, chemically castrate young boys so they can have eunuch sex toys like the Romans had.

To that end they have brainwashed fools into rejecting the religious, and believing that morality is meaningless.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They may beg to differ, buddy.

Thier shit society proves they are wrong.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I try to avoid alignment with any specific ideology.

That's good, but you still have an ideology even if it is unique to you. Everyone does.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Nietzsche proposed that morality is connected to the individual culture. This is perhaps a better reflection of reality than that which religion attempts to push onto a culture.

Religions ARE cultural constructs.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They can either be of divine origin or cultural constructs, which do you want it to be?

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

So you want collectivism and tyranny of the majority. Mob rule is not a good idea.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I think you misunderstand, it is not mob rule that I would support, this has not backing of historical evolution of a legal process. We currently live in a society where law is decided as a collective, but through experience and understanding we come to what we believe is the best conclusion through ongoing case law or by jury, not by divine authority, to have developed localised legal systems that define what is right and.what is wrong.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How is morality not objective? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that harming someone is wrong.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Is it wrong to harm someone in order to stop them from harming others?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out the simple things, but all morality is so complicated not even a genius could get it all right on thier own. The best moral code so far is the religious one.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is it wrong to harm someone in order to stop them from harming others?

Try not to, but if you must then choose the lesser of the two evils. The problem with people is they usually want to brutally torture them just for kicks.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out the simple things, but all morality is so complicated not even a genius could get it all right on thier own.

I'd say choosing the least of all the evils is a fairly evident solution.

The best moral code so far is the religious one.

There is no "the religious moral code". Religions are just as bad at determining what their religion prescribes, and even within the same one they can't agree, let alone across different ones.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

There doesn't need to be an authority figure. That's a lie the church made up to control people, of course appointing itself as that authority figure.

Morality is so simple, but most people have too much pride to admit that the standard is something they haven't even come close to.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

There doesn't need to be an authority figure.

There does because without one morality is subjective and therfore it does not really exist. I keep saying this but I don't think you are understanding it.

If no moral framework can be said to be better than any other than none of them have any validity.

A moral framework that has supremacy over others can't be altered willy nilly, or it would simply become a tool of the bourgeoisie to control the proletariat. Even though you can make the argument that they can corrupt anything over time, a religion based morality with widely disseminated teachings can't easily be altered.

If the religious teachings make the moral code alterable by men then that all falls apart and the bourgeoisie have instant access to control it. That is very bad for everyone.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Okay now you're literally using communist terminology, so idk if it's even worth trying to convince you. But I will say it's pretty obvious that harming someone is wrong, period. All the other superficial "morals" are religious inventions by humans. They're wrong and based solely on whether or not "I don't like it".

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

They're wrong and based solely on whether or not "I don't like it".

Bullshit. You simply don't agree with thier moral judgement so you slander thier decisions with these claims.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Personal preferences are not moral judgements. Evil people try to pass them off as such but this is not the case.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

A moral code needs to be far more robust that that platitude. If a murderer is going around killing people do I have the moral right to kill them even though I would not want them to kill me?

What about other moral questions. If homosexuality destroys societies should it not be considered immoral? I don't want society destroyed. I also don't want people to restrict my sexual desires. There is far more to this than you seem to have considered.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

If a murderer is going around killing people do I have the moral right to kill them even though I would not want them to kill me?

If you must, choose the lesser of the two evils. It's pretty straightforward.

What about other moral questions. If homosexuality destroys societies should it not be considered immoral?

Those aren't moral questions, they are literally "I don't like X therefore X should not be allowed". This is reddit levels of powertripping.

I don't want society destroyed.

Then you are brainwashed by it.

I also don't want people to restrict my sexual desires.

Then it's wrong for them to do so. Unless you're going to rape or something, which I hope I didn't need to specify.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Those aren't moral questions, they are literally "I don't like X therefore X should not be allowed". This is reddit levels of powertripping.

Wrong. YOU are twisting the homosexual question into that because you personally like homosexuality and can't accept that it has negative externalities.

Other people consider it immoral to give into homosexual desires and thier moral judgment is just as valid as yours, right?

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

No, because those are falsely called morals. It's really "I don't like it". I know this because I used to be that way myself.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The tree of knowledge is clearly the law. Look how Romans 3:20 puts it:

Because in (the) law all flesh will not be made right in his eyes; for through the law is full knowledge of wrong.

Paul may not have realized it, but the parallels are clear. The tree of knowledge makes you guilty. The law also makes you guilty. The tree of knowledge kills you. The law also kills you. The tree of knowledge gives knowledge of wrong. The law also gives knowledge of wrong.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Like I already said: the tree of knowledge makes you guilty because you knew better and did it anyway. A child that takes things is not a thief because they don't have the brain development to know better. Stealing is wrong even if the child doesn't understand, and it's the parents responsibility and right to prevent the child from stealing.

Your analogy is reaching. I don't think it's a logical similarity.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How can you know better without having that knowledge? They were given a warning but didn't understand its consequences.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is not free will. This is a mind torture slavery prison reincarnation matrix where it takes an unbelievable amount of strength to overcome the flesh.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Lucifer roughly translates as "morning star",

That is one of those religious bullshits someone made up to manipulate people. Lucfer is the name of an angel that rebelled against God and was banished from heaven. Giving his name additional meanings so you can make claims about him based on those additional meanings is bullshit.

Venus is called the morning star because in the early morning the light washes out all the stars and only Venus is still visible. It appears to bring out the sun. Venus is the light bringer.

One plausible explanation for how Lucifer became associated with Venus goes like this: the Natives in America used to worship a God that they appeased by offerings of pain and suffering. They would brutally torture captives, especially settlers they captured, in order to please this God. The settlers categorized this as luciferian worship, probably because they seen similar things from pegans in Europe. One of the settlers told the Natives that Venus was Lucifer and they should pray to that instead of torturing people.

I personally find that story dubious, as I find most religious stories dubious. But the validity of the story is irrelevant. What matters is that it could have happened like this, or in a simmilar way. Because, frankly, this makes a lot more sense than anything as to why lucifer is associated with a planet.

At the end of the day these kinds of "this name means that" is ultimately a centuries old game of telephone. Trying to extract meaning from the minutia of the resulting gibberish is foolish.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That is one of those religious bullshits someone made up to manipulate people.

Yes, most religion can be summed up this way. Much like the nonsense story of the birth of Jebus, it is an astronomical story, not a story of a boy. The three kings following the north star are the three stars on Orion's belt, they appear to follow the north star in the sky. Jebus was born of the young woman under the constellation Virgo. The sun 'dies' for three days in December before being 'reborn'. It is all the personification of the world around us.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

"Morning star" is actually the correct one. "Lucifer" was a misinterpretation by some translators.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Highly doubt it. Lucifer is a fallen angel and stars are up in the heavens. It's a contradiction to call Venus a fallen angel.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Lucifer was invented by translators. You won't find him in the Bible except in the Latin Vulgate and KJV.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Tell that to the church of Satan.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The church of satan is just a mockery of Christianity

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No, it's also normalizing the idea that morality is subjective.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What does that have to do with Bible translations?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I'd argue that free will has made the world better in many ways.

Is free will not the origin of all evil?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If you had no free will but had a choice, would you take it even if it had the potential for evil?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"No free will" is very broad and can be twisted to mean anything. Just to be clear, in this context it simply means not having the ability to do evil. I would choose not to have the ability to do evil and the guaranteed entry into heaven. I would choose to have unempeechable trust from everyone.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I would choose against evil too. However that won't always get you trust or praise from others, in fact it's more likely to get you crucified. There's also no such thing as "heaven", though you could call exodus from the matrix heaven. And you do have another guaranteed ticket out available for you. As long as you don't fall for the deceptions, which could fool you in either case.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What about times where inaction would be evil, and that by committing a small sin is for the greater good? To steal a loaf of bread for a starving family is a sin.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What if you were forced to do evil?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know. I guess the context matters. I don't think simply being forced is a valid excuse, but if you can't physically resist then you can't be responsible.