How can an atheist be moral without believing in a form of cosmic justice?

God is a superintelligent AI. If you believe that there will be a technological singularity, then you must conclude that God exists.

youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

Attached: singularity scale of intelligence.jpg (736x233, 41K)

Why is it wrong to kick a puppy?

Because life is a non-consensual phenomenon in which living beings put more living beings in a situation of potential suffering, and increasing that suffering, especially for free, is something I would hate other things to do to me.

As such it's pretty normal for me not to do it to other things. It seems logical that if I don't kick the puppy there's less chance the puppy's mother will come to bite me and so on, but even if there is no threat I don't have a good reason to induce suffering on it.

If what I'm saying seems surprising to you just be aware that there are multiple irrational animals that were able to come to the same conclusion and hold some kind of societal rule where there are "right" and "wrong" things, and usually attacking others for no reason is in the "wrong".

I believe these things irrespective of god, and irrespective if a god would justify me kicking the puppy in a giving situation.

How can a theist be moral while believing in a form of cosmic justice? No really, I mean how can you possibly call yourself a moral idealist when you're really just an instrumental materialist who thinks "oh it's all okay, there is no real question of doubt or prefix of personal contemplation to any of this, it is all resolved for me by the instrument of God." Providential (not merely provisional/natural) justice must, almost tautologically, be acosmic and separate from the Spinozist-realist forms of "natural law" as justice at the very least.

That's a really good question. The naive answer would be that they are all psychopaths, but they can't all be. I think some just don't take the time to really ponder where their morality comes from, and if they did, they'd realize it's not from some intellectual knowledge of the doctrines of some religion, but from primitive and much deeper instincts.

Humans have natural moral tendencies and religion is the one adapting to it, not the other way around.

Following a set of rules because you want to avoid punishment is not morals. If you truly believe you would do all the wrong things, had god not been there to punish you, you are an amoral brain dead piece of shit.

Consideration for the deep-time societal impacts of his misdeeds, especially as relates to offspring, can take the place of eternal divine punishment. Thus only the childless or stupid atheist is a degenerate in the manner you suggest.

Theistic morality involves random musings of anachronistic figures from 2000 years prior. An atheist is free from such influences.

A theist has no reason to believe stoning homosexuals is immoral, as this has been laid out for them pretty clearly in their canon. Atheists can use their brains for 5 seconds to understand that is not acceptable.

BZZZZZZ

Attached: 58EC7512-BF9E-4273-854D-048525A6CF63.gif (600x447, 2.79M)

>atheists are free from the tyranny of the church's sacred dogmas
>therefore they quickly accept my sacred dogmas
Look, I'm a lala homo fruitcake myself but it's just not as simple as "old bad new good".

Where did I claim not stoning homosexuals is moral because it's "new"?

So most of them?

Explain why your god made me short

Attached: Screenshot_20190624-152815~2.png (1080x1252, 187K)

It's implied by how obvious you think that moral judgement is. It's actually not, and is deeply dependent on any number of contextual factors. No moral judgement should be obvious if you really have disposed of dogma.

Athiests who make a spectacle out of their belief are odd to me

I wish.

t. Atheist

In terms of human survival, working as a group has a history of higher success than going alone. Morality an agreed upon set of rules to minimize infighting and maximize individual effectiveness. This makes the group stronger and more unified as a whole, which is good for a variety of hopefully obvious reasons.

Mfw I'm tall, blond, have a good degree, was a cute kid. I should donate sperm, with their stupid requirements they'll never realise how terribly autistic I am.

From what I understand there is a pretty in-depth review of family health history and your own psychological state. You can probably slip by if you're a good actor. Then you can make money jacking off

What if, and I know this may be a little scary, but what if god, and religions, and dogmas are just an extension of this same reasoning, and are a set of rules and tales people came up with because of a set of "contextual factors"?

The first time someone came up with morals there was no previous religion or dogma to draw from unless you posit that there was a divine being saying what was right and wrong literally to people who then wrote it down. I'm sure you're ok with that possibility, but I'm not. I think even the morals of religions and dogma were created by humans much in the same way they are by atheists. As rules to try and minimize individual and collective infighting and suffering,