Official Church of Satan Website - churchofsatan.com

submitted by satan666 from churchofsatan.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 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 -  (4 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 -  (3 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.

[–]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.