Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › To fool the fools? Religion 2.0.
This topic contains 116 replies, has 18 voices, and was last updated by 
Ohno 3 years, 9 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Is it ethically wrong to deceive if reasoning fails?
Gentlemen, you will agree that truelly intelligent individuals will always (before genetic manipulations) be a minority. Thats just how the human race is. There are the dumb, the mediocre and the smart minority (which would ofcourse be us!).
Maybe some of you know the feeling of those failed discussions where you just realize the other just wont get it and that you are powerless against his lack of common sense, he just isnt able to see the truth. I feel like its mostly ignorance, which is the inability to “try” a view you dont agree with initially. Im at a point where I just prefer to resign an argument after initial testing of my opponet promisses me little hope of conviction (which given my radical views is very rare anyway).
So what does the smart minority do? How do you explain the women or people with low IQ that they should be led and have less rights than smart men? Forget it, they wont get it. But for the sake of us, for the sake of the species and ultimatly for their own sake they should be led. Its like telling a young child that his apple juice is vine so he wont cry and demand the same as what the adults are drinking. It makes him happy, doesnt harm him and everyone is better off after fooling him.Religion. Isnt religion to fool the guilable? Just a tool for the abstract thinking ones to controll those who cant be reasoned with? Imagine that you travel back in time until some prehistoric age. Wouldnt your best plan be to just pretend that you are a wizzard, get 3 hot young chicks and live happily ever after as a feared and respected medicine man? Or would you prefer to share the thoughts of enlightenment and nihilism with them first?
Some thousands of years ago, religion would have been an easy way to tell an uneducated bafoon that its wrong to kill, steal and rape (and all this without the necessity of the kantian imperativo categorico!).
As has been pointed out by modern atheism, morality doesnt require religion and can be tought and explained and even proven by enlightened philosophy. My problem with this is that even now (!) only the rarest of individuals are able to navigate the intertwined, dark paths of philosophy to come to the right conclusions. As stated above, some people are even inherently incapable of this (in my experience at least).To conclude I want to propose the introduction or spread of a modern religion or (more practically feasable) a reformation of an existng religion to provide the necessary sociatal changes in the interest of humanity which would normally be impossible by the way of reasoning. Whats your thoughts?
p.s.: Im new here and thats my first post. Hi everyone! Sorry for the long ass wall of text and bad english (its my 3rd language).
Did you assume everyone here was atheist, or, in your self proclaimed great intelligence, think it would be a good idea to start off by insulting everyone here who practices a religion?
What are my thoughts? I’m an idiot, apparently, but if you wish to fool people into your desired behavior through creating a false religion, I wouldn’t start by telling everyone you’re an atheist.
Ok. Then do it.
As has been pointed out by modern atheism, morality doesnt require religion and can be tought and explained and even proven by enlightened philosophy.
Oh, boy! I love it when atheists say that! Let me explain:
Certainly, it is possible to be moral without religion, but if I may temporarily put on my “atheist outlook”, why should I care about your definition of “morality”? After all, that’s what it is, right? Just because an entire society believes something doesn’t make it right for me. Just because something fits the rest of society and “natural law” doesn’t mean I have no reason to “kill, steal, and rape” as much as I want as long as it benefits me.
Certainly, I may have a conscience that prohibits me from doing those things, but in the end, what does it matter? Whether I choose to be “moral” or “immoral”, each of those values are assigned by none other than myself and the people around me, and both parties are fallible, selfish, and immoral to some degree anyways!In the end, if atheism is true, then all morality is meaningless except for the value that each individual assigns to it. You have no moral authority over anyone, and nobody has moral authority over you. You can no more tell me that rape is wrong than I can tell you abortion is wrong.
Wrong by whose definition? The governments? Society’s? Yours? None of those parties can be trusted!
If you take God and religion out of the equation, morality does not work on a large scale. This has been repeatedly proven.
Just a misogynist virgin hiding away in his mother's basement. Nothing to see here...
My question is, why would you even post a thread like this in Central? Certainly, a thread like this belongs in the philosophy or politics section.
Men age like fine wine. Women age like milk. "One hundred women are not worth a single testicle." -Confucius
Actually, in the “big sky man system”, God gives morality its value. It’s up to everyone else to accept His morality, but even if they don’t they are still subject to the consequences of their actions and the basic rules of their design…
Just a misogynist virgin hiding away in his mother's basement. Nothing to see here...
I disagree. God can and should fully be taken out of the situation. The golden rule is true morality, that can be taken out of Christian context. The problem is elites don’t want to treat people fairly, so they prefer authoritarian mental oppression in the form of organized religion,and the priestly caste that carries their water.
Check my signature. It’s brilliant.Reverting back to my “atheist outlook”:
The Golden Rule may be your morality, but I don’t have to follow it. Your morality is no better than mine, since neither of us are actually capable of really following it, and there is no real reason for me to follow any morality as long as I can get away with whatever I do and it benefits me.
Just a misogynist virgin hiding away in his mother's basement. Nothing to see here...
Anonymous3Religion. Isnt religion to fool the guilable?
I totally like your post.It is an interesting topic. (I am an atheist. Your English isn’t bad at all.) My opinion is, that in real life, ethics is not a big thing. Some people just do anything they can, that is either legal, or easy to get off. Do not trust people too much, it is better to really know them first and be careful. Yes, there are a lot of stupid people. And, as it is well known, the more you know, the better you know about those lots of things that you don’t know. As a scientist, I can honestly say that. So stupid incompetent people do not know they are stupid and incompetent. (There is an example of this among my relatives.) For those people, no or boring typical goals of life, life is just a runaway infinite loop of “being born, school, work, create children, die”, repeat. For me, life is “f~~~ all of this, I am free, cheat at school exams, only care for science, my work is my hobby, and my inventions will be my offsprings”.
So, back to the topic, I think, stupid people are not even worth to care of, if it is possible to ignore them. And, religion is a bunch of lies, and ancient stories. Not relevant in current age. We have laws to keep, and nothing more.Certainly, it is possible to be moral without religion, but if I may temporarily put on my “atheist outlook”, why should I care about your definition of “morality”? After all, that’s what it is, right? Just because an entire society believes something doesn’t make it right for me.
You are presuming that, absent a holy guide book, the only legitimate arbiter of objective right and wrong would be society.
Allow me to present you with a third possibility. You don’t have to do what the book says and you don’t have to do what modern society says, but you do have to do what reality says.
I will define morality as follows: the set of actions which an individual can take regarding themselves that promote a healthy, happy and sustainable life for the individual. Moral acts are those which improve the fundamental quality of your existence and immoral ones are those which undermine or destroy it.
Furthermore, I will define ethics as follows: the set of actions which an individual can take regarding others that promote a healthy, happy and sustainable life for the individual. Note this is not about being nice to others for goodness sakes, it’s about continuing to sustain one’s own life by choosing to treat others in such a manner that they will naturally act to sustain it alongside of you.
Learning how to do this through the working examples of others is fine, but you don’t need guideposts to do it. Reality will be the arbiter. You commit an immoral act such as physically damaging your own body, your body will be damaged and your existence will suffer as a result. You commit an unethical act such as stealing from your neighbors and they will no longer act in support of you when you need them. Simple and effective.
What religion does is start with these base principles but then use our biological drivers as tools to control us. And society tries to do the right thing but often veers off into unethical territory by forcing people to behave in ways that are bad for themselves.
Your one true guide to moral and ethical behavior is RESULTS… i.e. living a calm, quiet, peaceful and sustainable life surrounded by a community that aids and supports you in doing so. If you’re not having that experience, you’re doing something wrong, regardless of what the book or the Internet tells you.
Anonymous7Religion is always the answer. In light of this post I will be converting to Islam, Christianity, and Ill be a mormon.
Because I must respect all religions and be multireligousculturalism!
You are presuming that, absent a holy guide book, the only legitimate arbiter of objective right and wrong would be society.
No, what I am stating as fact is that, seeing as without a God there is no absolute authority, no one has any absolute moral authority. By taking God out of morality, one has no reason to be moral except because he wants to. Anyone can rape, kill, steal, and do horrific things to his fellow man, and as long as he gets away with it, it doesn’t have to matter to him. You can preach all you want about the rights of individuals, but he doesn’t have to care. No one has the authority (in his mind) to tell him what is right and what is wrong.
Allow me to present you with a third possibility. You don’t have to do what the book says and you don’t have to do what modern society says, but you do have to do what reality says.
Reality says that Pascal’s wager is the safest and most logical bet for any mortal to make, but you guys don’t seem to subscribe to that.
I will define morality as follows: the set of actions which an individual can take regarding themselves that promote a healthy, happy and sustainable life for the individual. Moral acts are those which improve the fundamental quality of your existence and immoral ones are those which undermine or destroy it.
You can define morality however you want, but unless there is a common ultimate authority, your version of morality is worth no more than a turd in the toilet to me. I don’t have to listen to you. No one has to listen to anybody. The only reason you believe in morality at this point is because of what society has conditioned you to believe and what your conscience (which I would argue is God-given) tells you to.
Furthermore, I as an individual might choose to harm you and take your money (hypothetically). If I suffer no ramifications from this act (for example, 19th century black slavery in America), then by your definition, the act is moral. But even if you come back at me with “morality should be equally applied”, it doesn’t matter. Because no one has to give a crap about what you say if you don’t have any authority to back it up.
Furthermore, I will define ethics as follows: the set of actions which an individual can take regarding others that promote a healthy, happy and sustainable life for the individual. Note this is not about being nice to others for goodness sakes, it’s about continuing to sustain one’s own life by choosing to treat others in such a manner that they will naturally act to sustain it alongside of you.
Again, you can define whatever you want however you want. Heck, you could all define morality and ethics the EXACT SAME WAY, but it wouldn’t make you right by anyone’s definition but your own. In the end, if atheism is true, then all morality and immorality is on the same footing, because none of it really matters anyways.
Learning how to do this through the working examples of others is fine, but you don’t need guideposts to do it. Reality will be the arbiter. You commit an immoral act such as physically damaging your own body, your body will be damaged and your existence will suffer as a result. You commit an unethical act such as stealing from your neighbors and they will no longer act in support of you when you need them. Simple and effective.
Except in circumstances when your neighbors are just as immoral as you are. If I go to Iraq right now and proclaim myself a muslim and begin burning down churches, stealing Christians’ money, and raping their women, the muslim populace may not particularly condemn me as long as I support them and am on their side. By your logic, this would be a moral action if I didn’t lose the support of those around me.
What religion does is start with these base principles but then use our biological drivers as tools to control us. And society tries to do the right thing but often veers off into unethical territory by forcing people to behave in ways that are bad for themselves.
No. What religion does is satisfy humanity’s (as in humanity as a whole) NEED for a higher power. The truth is that every major successful empire has had some religion or code to back it up, and as the objective morality of a country declines, so does the country. At its worst, religion is a way to facilitate mass morality. At best, it is the way to eternal salvation.
Your one true guide to moral and ethical behavior is RESULTS… i.e. living a calm, quiet, peaceful and sustainable life surrounded by a community that aids and supports you in doing so. If you’re not having that experience, you’re doing something wrong, regardless of what the book or the Internet tells you.
No. That may be YOUR one true guide. It need not be mine for the simple reasons I posted above. I might not want a calm, quiet, peaceful, sustainable life, and if there is no higher power, no one EVER has any right to tell me what to do. What atheists don’t seem to understand is that any religion that claims a higher power will AT WORST tie objectively with atheism in regards to both belief systems’ basic morality, or at best, the religion will win. Atheism cannot objectively win the moral high ground against any monotheistic religion that claims an all-powerful God.
Just a misogynist virgin hiding away in his mother's basement. Nothing to see here...
Ah, but you can no more objectively prove God fake than I can prove Him true.
The question is, do you have the reasoning to see that according to Pascal’s wager, atheism is the most self-destructive choice a human being can make?
I can’t prove to you that God exists, but if He does exist, as I know Him to, then you have reason to be very, very afraid, but I have my bases as well covered as is possible. If, however, He doesn’t exist, I still lived a moral, pleasant life without damaging my conscience too much.
Pascal’s wager certainly doesn’t measure which side is right. It only measures which side is smartest and most capable of reasoning out the most beneficial decision. Two out of two options, I win. One out of two options, you win. I have a 100% chance of coming out on top in this bet. You have only a 50% chance.
Just a misogynist virgin hiding away in his mother's basement. Nothing to see here...
Oh, yes. I’m so controlling, making you face simple facts like your 50% chance of going to Hell when you die. I should just let you be free by never discussing this with you or anybody because I really just want to control you.
Seriously, Survivor. Don’t try to pin this as “me trying to control you” or “religion trying to control you”. It’s not. It’s simple facts. If you are okay with a 50% chance of going to a place so horrible you can’t even imagine it after you die, that is your choice. The fact is, though, that you still have a 50% chance of going to Hell.
I’m not trying to control you, but reality is. Have fun trying to escape, because none of us are going to leave this planet alive.
Just a misogynist virgin hiding away in his mother's basement. Nothing to see here...
Doc your version of morality is just pure selfishness. how luciferian of you. lol.
All behavior is inherently selfish… just some behaviors are short-sighted and self-destructive while others are the product of enlightened self-interest.
What are “mutually beneficial relationships” if not my definition of ethical, self-sustaining interaction with others? Benefit for the self drives the behavior while the inclusion of benefit for the other makes the behavior replicable and sustainable.
We’re arguing for exactly the same thing… you’re just pretty-printing it while I’m talking about the root motivator.
Check that. You don’t have a 50% chance of going to hell when you die. I misspoke. Please forgive me. You DO, however, have a 50% chance of meeting God when you die. Honestly, though, we all belong in Hell. It’s by the grace of God that anyone can be saved. The question is whether you’re ready for when you die.
Just a misogynist virgin hiding away in his mother's basement. Nothing to see here...
Oh, yes. I’m so controlling, making you face simple facts like your 50% chance of going to Hell when you die. I should just let you be free by never discussing this with you or anybody because I really just want to control you.
Seriously, Survivor. Don’t try to pin this as “me trying to control you” or “religion trying to control you”. It’s not. It’s simple facts. If you are okay with a 50% chance of going to a place so horrible you can’t even imagine it after you die, that is your choice. The fact is, though, that you still have a 50% chance of going to Hell.
I’m not trying to control you, but reality is. Have fun trying to escape, because none of us are going to leave this planet alive.
Actually it is more of a 2% chance of going to hell if you consider the rest of the religions into play if you put them on a valid level. God is a unprovable concept for you cannot prove or disprove any god. But there is still a possibility of the flying spaghetti monster to touch you with his nodily appendage which you still ignore. For you cannot prove it to be false either.
Just an east coast asshole who likes to curse, If you get offended by words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, bitch or any racial slurs then you just scroll down.
By taking God out of morality, one has no reason to be moral except because he wants to.
This is why religious people frighten me so much. The only thing keeping you from raping, burning and pillaging is fear of eternal damnation. Should your faith ever slip, well, God help the people who still believe in Him because you’ll go from being a slave to an absolute moral authority to being an amoral heathen without question or apology.
Truly moral and ethical people behave in such a way not because they fear hypothetical consequences in some imaginary afterlife but because they recognize that such behaviors support happy, healthy and sustainable life right now. You say it’s a matter of choice… I say give me people who choose to be good because they recognize the value of it and people who choose to be bad because they’re self-destructive fools and let me (and reality) judge them for it.
Ethics and morality enforced at the point of a gun (or a pitchfork) are false and anyone professing to be moral and ethical as a result of those threats is either self-delusional or completely full of s~~~.
And here, gentlemen, we have a wonderful example of someone speaking nonsense in a religious discussion. Anonymousyam, either an omnipotent God exists or He doesn’t. Even if there is a higher power other than God, you still have to deal with it. Either way, better to be on the safe side. That is the point of Pascal’s wager. The Pastafarianism is a “religion” made by people to mock religion. They can mock it all they want, but they still face the same odds as everyone else. Honestly, I doubt that atheists will be slapping themselves on the back saying, “oh, goodie! We were right about there being no God, and now we simply exist in nothingness eternally!” or something along those lines. I honestly will be rather disappointed, but it is certainly worth the possibility of my God existing, as I believe He does. Once you’ve dealt with Pascal’s wager, then you can begin seeking God. If anyone reaches that point, feel free to message me, and I’ll be happy to discuss seriously.
Just a misogynist virgin hiding away in his mother's basement. Nothing to see here...
No “God” worth His tithes would be fooled by a person pretending to believe. Either God exists or He doesn’t and either you truly believe or you don’t.
Pascal’s Wager is the Pastafarianism of it’s time… bulls~~~ made up to punk the “faithful”.
No “God” worth His tithes would be fooled by a person pretending to believe. Either God exists or He doesn’t and either you truly believe or you don’t.
Pascal’s Wager is the Pastafarianism of it’s time… bulls~~~ made up to punk the “faithful”.
God doesn’t want people to “pretend to believe”, but He does want people to seek Him earnestly. If you really want to know more about God, then I would be happy to discuss my faith with you. Pascal’s wager isn’t “The Pastafarianism of its time”. It simply expresses a sound, logical reason for seeking God.
Why does anything to do with God always have to be a scam with you people? Can someone not have faith in God without being “controlled by the institution of the church”?
God may not be fooled by someone pretending to believe, but He knows when someone is earnestly seeking Him and willing to find Him, whatever that may take.
Just a misogynist virgin hiding away in his mother's basement. Nothing to see here...
BTW, overall, I would say this has been a great discussion. Thank you all for participating.
Just a misogynist virgin hiding away in his mother's basement. Nothing to see here...
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
