How can atheists have morals?

I know it's hard to let go of the beliefs you were indoctrinated with, but Sam Harris solved this years ago.

Attached: btfo.jpg (225x225, 12K)

They can't obviously. Except subjective morals and instincts or whatever, like some people itt pointed out. You can also talk about human nature, but then the leftists start crying like babies.

We don't have morals. When we do kind acts, it's out of kindness, not obligation.

>Despite this, he did not vote to leave in the Brexit referendum, which he deplored.

why is morality dependent on theism?
if humanity wasn't created by a magical transcendental being would morality cease to exist in a burst of similar magic?

I want the world to be a better place, for its own sake, so I try to make it such.

youtube.com/watch?v=uaWA2GbcnJU

This, but 100% unironically.

>Commit what would be described as an immoral act
>Feel emotional pain
>Link emotional pain with immoral act
>Expect bad shit (pain) to happen if you commit immoral act, including other actions you haven't committed but are described as immoral

At the end of the day it's just a less extreme version of religious morality.

>If you do bad shit you will be punished for it (almost always through pain)

Literally different only in scale (can't really beat eternal punishment).

The "inverse" is also true (commit moral act, get rewarded, feel good etc.).

All teenagers are atheist.
Most teenagers grow into adults.
Most Atheist are teenagers.

There is no objective morality without god. I’m an atheist that uses subjective morality, which mostly came from Judeo-Christian values. That being said the emphasis and value placed on any moral system is more fragile and chaotic than most would feel comfortable believing and most of our stability comes from material needs being met. So maybe you could stop focusing on this issue and look at global catastrophe more seriously because I believe Jesus would do so.

With a personal code.
Morality is a part of religion, not religion itself.
Morality can be found anywhere, with or without a deity.

Oh so I guess math is just subjective then? Lmfao this guy.

That plant's gonna die with all that water.

keep telling yourself that, bud.

see you say that but what if someone feels good when they do a bad thing?
even if your premise is true it's clearly not enough of a bad feeling to stop any atrocities

lmao how can christians argue this? there are plenty of christian cunts throughout history who commit crimes

Jesus wouldn't do anything to interfere with the free market, go back to r*ddit

>judeo christian values
idk what those might be, but morality for me more or less boils down to "treat others as you want to be treated". this is the most basic proto-morality and it's sufficient for 99% of real life situations. christfags might have stumbled upon it, but they sure as fuck didn't invent it.

When you're a teenager you think that you'll live forever and therefore can behave however you want. Once you get older and your body starts breaking down, you're forced to face your own mortality, and the consequences of eternity. You are a finite being, and you know that you're subject to the will of Jesus Christ, the uncreated creator and logos. You can choose to be a slave to divine love, or you can wage war in eternal rebellion, under the foot of never ending chastisement.

Not only is morality objective, but it's obvious. There is a purpose to your existence, you can choose whether to obey or perish, but you cannot choose to escape from the will of Jesus Christ which is ultimately the love of God and all who are friends of his.

But where did you learn kindness?

They can because God exists whether they want him to or not.

A very dear friend showed it to me. I guess most people learn it from their parents, but it wasn't the case for me.

You can live without believing in God and not be an unrepentant piece of shit.

There's no particular reason to treat others as you want to be treated. You might say that it will be reciprocal, that if you treat people well, you will be treated well in turn. But this is ultimately beyond your control, and besides in many situations it is quite possible to use and abuse people with no repercussions to yourself at all. The idea that people should necessarily be treated in a certain way entails a belief that they possess some sort of innate dignity deserving of such treatment, which is not justifiable without god. People are ultimately just moving sacks of meat, no different in quality than rats or cockroaches.

But look at the thread OP; the question is can atheists have morals. Not "does every atheist have morals" or "is atheist moral conditioning as strong as theistic moral conditioning".

I even allow for that in my post ("different only in scale").

Yes

Who are you repentant towards if there is no God?

Again, irrelevant. He opposed the referendum because it was elected officials abandoning their duties. Address the conscience, please.

You ask the person you wronged if they forgive you.

Morality needs metaphysical meaning and implications. Else evil is just an acquired taste some plebs don't like.

Why is it wrong to harm others and assert your will over their's? What give's them dignity?

You can be virtuous and a good person without needing religion. According to Aristotle the goal of all of our actions is happiness and the best way we can achieve our happiness is to live a full and well-rounded life. The best way to live a full and well-rounded life is to be a virtuous person. The Golden Mean is how Aristotle explains what exactly is a virtue. What the Golden Mean states is that virtues typically lie between the two extremes of excess and deficiency. For example, courage is a virtue, but in excess it can lead to recklessness or in deficiency it can lead to pusillanimity. According to Aristotle we acquire virtues by practicing them so much that it becomes habit to be virtuous. For instance someone who rejects drinking to excess instinctively would have the virtue of temperance, however, someone who rejects drinking to excess even though they want to very badly will not have the virtue of temperance because the rejection of this has not become habit to them, and they will not yet possess temperance or moderation. In order to possess virtues a person must have knowledge of what is moral and act morally honestly and consistently.

That's not what repent means. Also this is impossible if they refuse to speak to you, are deceased, etc.

>Why is it wrong to harm others and assert your will over their's?
Because they would feel bad, and if they did the same to you, you would feel bad too.
>What give's them dignity?
What gives (You) dignity?

All babies and young children are atheist.
It takes years to beat it out of them.

As for morals, we know they’re subjective. We use ethics instead. Treat others as you would have them treat you, is what it boils down to.

You "repent" by making peace with them. If they won't talk to you or can't because they're dead, you should talk with their families. If the offense was great, you should give some token of reparation, like a gift.

>Because they would feel bad, and if they did the same to you, you would feel bad too.
But if you properly break them there is no way they can do harm to you, and if you are machiavellian enough no one else will either; you are protected by their fear or respect, or maybe even stockholm syndrome.

>All babies and young children are atheist.
>It takes years to beat it out of them.
You said this earlier and you were wrong even then (are you Jewish?). Only autists are natural atheists.

Wrong.

Aristotle believed in God

That has never worked in the long run. Many have tried, but you can't fool everyone. Besides, living like that will make you feel miserable.

Attached: no.jpg (248x326, 27K)

What evidence is there of babies being born religious?

It can work for a lifetime, even a dynasty or mafia.

>Human values
Why do i get the feeling this is just some spooked utilitarian bullshit that is trying to come off as something "objective" when it really isnt?
Basing points off of the sub sciences like sociology and most of psicology doesnt really serve as a good foundation for proving something, imo.

Attached: 1497798683910.jpg (500x358, 25K)

what incentive do you have to be an asshole to those around you? You come across as a sociopath that would be deprived of any morals wether you were religious or not.

morals are derived from indoctrination apart from religion for most people, so the real and more interesting question that should be asked is "how can people not indoctrinated with a system of morality have morals".

there's tons of kids being raised by atheist parents that aren't felons when they become teenagers and tons of adults who were convicted for felonies while they were practicing Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Sikhs, or another religion. Just because you learned your morality through religion doesn't mean that morality has to be tied to religion.

Personal gain, and if you can get away with it, why shouldn't you be an asshole to everyone around you? What if you feel absolutely no guilt or remorse over what you did?

how can Christians have morals if they are only stemmed from their impotent, vengeful fantasies by the threat of punishment?

>Else evil is just an acquired taste some plebs don't like.
>Implying it isnt really
>Implying good and evil exist in an objective realm.

>Treat others as you would have them treat you, is what it boils down to.
Lmao. Only if you have less or equal power to them. Otherwise you might aswell treat them in anyway you want to.

Attached: 1550771320948.jpg (992x880, 157K)

I do lots of things with no objective justification. Who's gonna judge me? You?
But yeah, I've seen empirical evidence that reciprocity isn't guaranteed, and I stop seeing those people whenever possible, which it sometimes isn't. I then proceed to defend myself as needed.
I can also easily differentiate my steak and my friends without appealing to god, tyvm.

Nonsense

You’re free to be an asshole about. That’s the reality of it. But such people ought to be stomped all over

Kids believe in a near-animistic world where monsters lurk in the shadows and parents are infallible.
You can turn people into atheists by turning off a part of their brain.
Kids under the age of 10 believe in God and it takes the full brunt of the western institutionalization to change them. Use the search engine of your preference to find out about these things.

Heck, just try out our anti-God 'arguments' against anything lesser (aka. Everything else, God is the highest value) and see what else you can/"should" live without.

>if you can get away with it, why shouldn't you be an asshole to everyone around you?
No one that does this is can be truly happy.

>What if you feel absolutely no guilt or remorse over what you did?
Then you're an irredeemably horrible person that deserves to be punished and excluded from society.

Christians don't wish for others to be damned, it's simply a fact that most people will lose their souls

Again that's not what repent means. Look it up in a dictionary.

>I do lots of things with no objective justification. Who's gonna judge me? You?
Yeah.
>I can also easily differentiate my steak and my friends without appealing to god, tyvm.
It's just common sense, bro. Like, be a good person. ;)

Repent
>feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin.
How is trying to make amends to the person you wronged a.k.a the source of this feeling of regret, not repenting?

>Then you're an irredeemably horrible person that deserves to be punished and excluded from society.
But without God they could get by without getting what they deserve. Hell is a moral necessity given the existence of evil.

>>You?
>Yeah.
I won't lose sleep over that.
>It's just common sense, bro. Like, be a good person. ;)
Nice meme.

>Christians don't wish for others to be damned

Attached: 1536788070457.jpg (395x414, 13K)

wouldn't becoming a satanist ensure that your soul is saved by the devil?

>Nice meme.
It's the equivalent of what you're saying.
>Morality for me is just the golden rule and I don't need to justify it because it's obvious

The Pope de-canonized the physical fire and brimstone hell in the Bible. Living such a depraved life is it's own hell.

Atheists are just atheists out of rebellion against Christianity. In their rebellion, they've neglected the fact that we are all theists by nature. However, because the Christian church monopolized the concept God, theism is only understood as "belief in the Christian God" now — so don't think I'm saying we're all Christians by nature. We aren't. But we're all theists by nature.

What I consider obvious is the difference between my friends and my steak. One gives the appearance of having qualia and the other does not. Furthermore, my steak can't tell me a joke or console me when I'm sad, so it doesn't make sense to do the same for it.

The moment he admits that there are exceptions to his objective morality and he shifts the goalposts to say that objective morality based on science doesn't need to dictate all controversies is the moment his argument falls apart. If empirical observations can't be used as Boolean logic for everything, since the premise of the exceptions can't be specified within science, objective morality from science is useless.

Kant? More like cunt

That's quite a bold claim and you'll need to elaborate on it. How is atheism rebellion and not just the involuntary acceptance of science? I still remember in 8th grade when I was looking at my own reflection in the mirror and could for the first time make out my skull beneath my flesh. It was when I realized that biology was true.

Is something good because God commands it or does God command it because it is good?

Attached: plato.jpg (700x368, 104K)

They'll tell you that it's both, whatever the hell that means...

show us your tits

>The Pope de-canonized the physical fire and brimstone hell in the Bible
Stop lying.

>How is atheism rebellion and not just the involuntary acceptance of science?
In the West, it's rooted in rebellion, because the Christian church had control over essentially everything at one point, and scientists only started to investigate beyond the desired reaches of the church when the rebellion was already underway from the inside.

>morality IS subjective
and the only way to know God is subjectively. Keep up.

only out of habit

Inborn morals don't need a universal constant to be metaphysically implanted. God as the endpoint is a construct of human paradigms limiting themselves to a perception of a three dimensional space. It is a factor we cannot overcome, and as such should rightfully recognize as a limitation. Or, at least, a current limitation. Until such time that we've shifted beyond this, notions such as 'god' have to be cast aside.

Kids who are told there is a god believe their parents. Without this exposure they stick o their parents, usually their closest caregiving mother, but they have no concept what worship is, much less what a god is. When existential kinds of questions arise and they ask where they came from, wickedly some parents will dodge the sex question and say they came from heaven, so begins indoctrination into grownups cult.

I know!

Thus paving the way for all the gods to be true (again)

>species A evolves to include moral values into their judgement
>species B evolves to be immoral and selfish

>members of species A cooperate and protect its own, while building large social structures
>members of species B murder each other for crumbs, rape each other's wives while being unable to cooperate in any way
Which one do you think has a better shot in the long run?

>Pushes your strawman over

And yet, they do. How quaint.

Attached: 77.png (275x252, 30K)

One's morals are nothing more than a matter of preference with regard to human behavior

It doesn't matter whether either species survives.

Why do religious people need a space ghost to keep them from being a dick.

>morals
Here goes Yea Forums spooking me out in the morning.

WRONG.
It's the other way around, ought implies is.

I'm gonna go blind and naive for this one and say it's psychological and also bilogical, it's kinda like when you ask 'what's your favourite ice cream flavor?' And behind that there's some biopsychological factors and most of the people say 'chocolate' and probably 1 out of every 10000 says 'the one that tastes like feaces' well I just like to imagine it goes somehow like that, most people don't like to kill or lie or betray or whatever for some reasons happening on the average brain, and if they do it, it's because there were reasons to do it, religious people would relate those events thinking they have sinned and the devil or whatever, while the atheist just don't.

I love how everyone takes ‘morals’ to be an absolute, defined thing - and that thing being, essentially Christian morality.

Yes, you can have ‘Christian’ morality without being Christian. In fact, you’ll probably succeed in it more without dogma against gays etc.

But is ‘Christian morality’ even the logical morality to have?

No

Not saying faith in any God means they are real. But the subjective Godrelationship has been the inspiration for all Gods. There is still only one God, the greatest thing which can be thought, but the nature of God remains unresolved.

To answer the OP: most athiests believe in God without realizing. If you are making moral decisions without painstakingly weighing the rational cost-benefit of every possibility, then you have a degree faith.

Lol at thinking Christian morality is natural / biological.
It’s natural to take what you want, to be kind to those you hold dear, and to otherize those you don’t.

you ever heard of a social contract? murder and rape violate the social contract(which says people have a right to not be raped and murdered).

a society would not last long if people did not abide by the same rules. morality is a survival mechanism to keep a species from killing itself.

morality is basically rules of social interaction and they tend to be universal rules. don't rape, don't kill, don't steal.don't harm can be found in all societies, even in secular societies

Attached: [Special Clips] GFRIEND In Taiwan-4qiUIGdTrSU-[08.44.591-08.46.626].webm (1920x1080, 2.01M)

Why shouldn't I be a dick?

the fact that animals don't kill each other in their packs and groups is proof that morality is a universal thing
even animals have morality

The foundation of morality, both regilious and secular, is the same - fear. We behave morally because we are afraid of what happens if we don't. We perpetuate the myth of morality being a virtue because we're afraid of what happens if other decide to stop being moral towards us. We denounce immoral acts because they show us the brutality of life's actual truth, which is a simple power struggle between the strong and the weak. One might observe morality as an evolutionality mechanism devised by the weak to protect themselves. The weak looks at the world and sees that all other men are stronger, faster, and carry a sword. So the weak on the spot, invents a multitude of 'morals' that only benefit the weak. The strong agree to these commandments, because despite their strength, they carry the same fears.

the fact that crocodiles can gather like this and not kill each other proves that morality is objective

Attached: 104562343-RTS1998J.1910x1000.jpg (1910x1000, 376K)

if anything, it proves that morality is just a biological imperative displayed by successful species and not much else.

But they’ll instantly kill a baby if it came crawling up.
What is your point again?

New York just passed a law allowing abortion up to the moment of birth
What is your point again?

a crocodile would think it is fine to kill a human baby as we would think it is fine to eat a cow or a pig or a deer
. crocodiles know not to kill their own.

>state that rejects Christian morality starts killing babies
hmm...

But are babies really human below the age of 2? No long term memory forming pre-age 2ish.

The Senate also rejected a bill that would require doctors to provide medical care to babies that accidentally born during an abortion.
You're messing up your lingo, there. Even a zygote is a human, as that refers to its species. Infanticide supporters make a legal distinction between "person" and "non-person." "Non-person" of course means, "Any humans that we would like to be able to kill with impunity."

Why should we? It’s not like this who believe in God ever follow their own.

>killing is bad!!!!!
>but God putting billions of people into hellfire to suffer till the end of times because they didn't pray to him hard enough is perfectly okay
>based God!

>killing is bad
>god kills the entire planet in noah's flood

god is a hypocrite

christians use the whole the creator is allowed to kill his creation argument. by this logic, parents can kill their kids.

Attached: 1-75141-17_PX3_h-03-.jpg (1000x667, 137K)

I mean I'm just being an edgelord with the age two thing. You understood the semantics from the context I used humans so you don't really have to explain the person vs human designations. I also think you're simplifying what is deemed to be a non-person when referring to the abortion/infanticide. Personhood can be extremely tricky thing to define and you haven't really stated what morality system you abide by or the ethical arguments you would use to support your views of abortion/infanticide. Hell we could even argue a semantic difference between whether or not abortion and infanticide can be deemed to be the same thing. We could go on about that forever though.

>realize other people have lives, thoughts, and feelings as valid as my own
>treat them as I would want to be treated

I seriously worry that people who think you need religion to have morals are actually sociopaths. If believing in god is the only stopping you from stealing and murdering...

>holding god to the standard of humans
yikes!

lol

>God has written his law on our hearts, giving us an innate sense of right and wrong
>according to my sense of right and wrong, inflicting infinite punishment for finite crimes doesn't make sense, and some of the things you claim God punishes, I don't even see as crimes. I'm skeptical that a good God would act this way.
>HEY NOW YOU CAN'T JUDGE GOD BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS, ANYTHING HE DOES IS RIGHT BECAUSE HE SAYS SO

Didnt God create humans in his image? Didnt people like Abraham and Moses often argue and convince God out of murdering shitloads of people by making moral arguments? If God himself is above morality, aren't humans just his slaves? If God is immoral, shouldn't humans also be immoral, to be closer to God?

cringe

Categorical imperative.

ebin retort

Where did they learn kindness? Who was the root of this idea of being kind?

In practice? The same way as everyone else, social conditioning. In theory? Ask almost any non-abrahamoid philosopher. Maybe start with the greeks, who rarely appeal to their gods to give life meaning or ground ethics as a whole. Obviously there is no one theory of ethics that's achieved consensus though.

All of human history disagrees with you.

Interest in a common good - "if i help you, you will be around in the future to help me, implicitly or explicitly." It's part of humans being pack animals, who gather together instinctually. So i would argue that the basis of morals is not in the divine, but in the purely mundane and necessary.

Why do christcucks always try to nab common western morality as their own, even though people learned to cooperate and live peacefully along with each other thousands of years before the birth of Christ? And it's not like the advent of christianity magically made everyone moral, brutality and genocides are alive and well.

Human beings all have morals unless, perhaps, they have lived alone in the wild their entire lives, also in that case an individual would not develop grammatical language nor be able to learn it later as they failed to receive input as a child. Even if you add two people together, some morals will emerge to govern their interactions (and a language will form, probably vastly more complex than any present-day living language in all respects especially phonology). If you mean 'how can atheists conceive of ethics' then that's simple, their ethics do not require a god. Atheism is not nihilism, and true nihilism is incoherent, unattainable, and unsatisfactory, so there's no problem.

>objective morality
cringe and bluepilled