How can atheists have morals?

I'm guessing You have no fucking argument little atheist brainlet.

Spook is a boring way of approaching human software.
Metaphysics is necessary because of our current mechanical knowledge and understanding of computation.

Morals are a spook. There's only power and dominance. Everyone knows this. If you don't believe me and believe that morals are absolute, just look at how many times the absolute of 'Thou shalt not kill' is broken in the Bible. Joshua kills, Stephen let's himself be killed and Samson kills himself along with others. Muhammed kills scores of people for merely disobeying his version of tawhid, not even tawhid itself. The Christian emperors of Rome killed scores of pagans for believing in the wrong gods.

Morals all depend on circumstance, and how much someone gains from using any moral rule. If man gains, man obeys, if he doesn't gain, he'll break his absolute morals every single time

>a boring
Not to mention inferior. It's only good for removing things from 'relevant existence'; which could only be a spook itself. It's utterly self-defeating like all nihilism.

>There's only power and dominance.
How's it like, not having a player operating your ape machine, installing better software and stuff+

There's no point arguing earnestly with christcucks. If you believe in any kind of objective morality you are a moron.

>if i break the law it does not exist

>If you believe in any kind of objective morality you are a moron.
If you believe one shouldn't be a moron, or that moronism is objectively worse than its alternatives, I have news for you...

By creating my own set of morals.

Attached: 9D748DCD-C2A0-4200-95C0-5528C8AC393E.png (461x493, 238K)

...

this

As was mentioned before, learn a language before you start debating with it

We clearly don't. Just look at us working on Sabbath, having divorces and not banning women from leadership positions. Pure evil.

You need an upgrade.

Whether it is better to be a moron or not is not a moral question. Moron.

>working on Sabbath
Yeah, those days of rest were clear oppression!

>THeres only power and dominance.
God makes me stronger than you. Display your anus in the offering position.

>Whether it is better to be a moron or not is not a moral question.
It is, though. It's only barely a utility notion, but it is chiefly and in principle a question of morality.

Apparently not, since there was no punishment for either Joshua, or Theodosius, or Muhammed. In fact, they were put on a pedestal for breaking their own 'absolute' morals

You unironically listed 3 objectively evil things that ruined our society.

Says who?

>since there was no punishment for either Joshua
Except being fuvking crucified you fucking retard?

>There's only power and dominance. Everyone knows this.
Everybody with an active user-interface knows this isn't the case.

Good and Person are subjective.

>Joshua
This is the guy who came to lead Hebrews after Moses died. He wasn't crucified.
Relativistic =/= subjective

fist of you are misunderstanding divine judgement from human judgement

Mohammed was possessed by demons according to their own hadiths, though.

Oh ok you meant the actual Joshua. I've heard atheists call Jesus Joshua as to "normalize" His name and implying he was just any retard.

Conscience. No matter how much of a sceptic people claim to be they still act as if material reality exists and the laws of logic hold true. Conscience is a sense that tells us what is moral or not just how our ears let us hear and our eyes let us see.

Pretty sure you can take an extra day off each week and still be richer than a farmer in the OT days.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Joshua from the Old Testament, idiot

Then why do they all act like it? So far, I haven't heard of a single Christian on here who gave away all his belongings to the poor and started surviving only on the Word of God. When this is mentioned, they come up with all kinds of exceptions on why they don't have to follow this specific rule right here right now. It's almost as if rules like this are completely dependent on circumstance or something. Yet the sole aspect which never changes is gain. If man can't gain from a moral rule, he doesn't follow it, no matter how absolute it is

There are plenty of people who silence theirs, as a consequence of their actions or surroundings. Politics, war, sexual deviancy...

you can kill people and still their stuff and be richer than a farmer in the OT what your point

As there are people who lose their hearing from being loud noises or men who go blind from starring into the sun. Committing evil numbs one conscience overtime until one is morally blind.

My point is that you consider murder no worse than breaking the Sabbath. And you just proved it.

*As there are people who lose their hearing from being around loud noises and men who go blind from starring into the sun. Committing evil numbs one's conscience until one is morally blind.

no my point is you have to basis to tell me what is worse than something else

>Then why do they all act like it?
Act like what? Aesthetics is a very real thing, not inherently about dominance and power. Dominance and power are just the carrot/whip/stick game, or one of them. A necessary one to a degree, yet are people 'obese' even on those.
>So far, I haven't heard of a single Christian on here who gave away all his belongings to the poor
This was only an order to a rich jew who held money to a regard where it was a competitor to God. In fact, the rich jew did not give his money to the poor. Not only that, but the poor woman giving away some of her money to the poor was seen as a greater sacrifice. It's all about sacrifice and God's dominion.
>I haven't heard
Try seeking them out.
>and started surviving only on the Word of God.
Try monasteries.
>When this is mentioned, they come up with all kinds of exceptions on why they don't have to follow this specific rule
What specific rule? The one you invented?
>It's almost as if rules like this are completely dependent on circumstance or something.
Yes? There is a hierarchy to things.
>Yet the sole aspect which never changes is gain.
Yes, being crucified and killed is a net gain.
>If man can't gain from a moral rule, he doesn't follow it, no matter how absolute it is
Wrong. Plenty of Christians are being killed all over the Globe for their faith.

And what happens in a time of lawlessness, after a destabilizing event? In that case it very well may be in everyone's best interests to kill and pillage and rape. Without religion (and fear of hell), law is the sole thin layer of armour protecting humanity against itself.
I get that smart people here want to be atheists, but I believe it's best that the thoughtless masses eat up the dogmatic ideas of the church.
And for the record, no I'm not a Christcuck. I'm a subscriber to the only true belief system: Agnostism

>Old Testament

Attached: 1568673315630.gif (498x319, 414K)

>I'm a subscriber to the only true belief system: Agnostism
Self is a relation to relation to itself; consequently one can relate to the Universal Source of all everything.

Some kind of morals, yes.
But usually, it is shitty ones, like "an act is OK if others are not directly harmed by it".

>And what happens in a time of lawlessness, after a destabilizing event?
An ethnic war or a civil war occurs and religion will emerge once again in various forms, having its own Cambrian revolution.

>This was only an order to a rich jew who held money to a regard where it was a competitor to God. In fact, the rich jew did not give his money to the poor. Not only that, but the poor woman giving away some of her money to the poor was seen as a greater sacrifice. It's all about sacrifice and God's dominion.

And like clockwork, you posted an exception to a moral rule given by the moral example the entire world is supposed to follow. And why? Because you don't gain from this moral rule, showing the real motivation behind 'absolute' morality. Instead, when you don't stand to gain from it, suddenly the context and the circumstance of this moral act become important, and like magic, you suddenly don't have to follow the 'absolute' moral code you subscribe to others

>you posted an exception to a moral rule
The moral rule is to not have competitors to God.

Okay then, was Theodosius a Christian or not?

>Cumbrain revolution

Take a vacation.

Like the worldly power of the church?

>Old Testament

Attached: 1567809925688.jpg (836x786, 148K)

If it comes to that, obviously. Just as Judah and all jews can and must be purged, so too must any idols that emerge too high. Be it atheism, humanism, egoism...
Any but God.

Though this purging, as per commanded, is to be done chiefly in ones own life; God handles the greater scale events.

>and all jews can and must be purged

Attached: 1568116357913.png (465x312, 55K)

>an act is OK if others are not directly harmed by it
This is correct though.

Don't you NPC me. Otto Weininger was right.

That's just aesthetic then.

Unwelcomed ugliness is harmful to all perceivers. Ban all pride parades.

we should ban your face then.

My face is handsome and my jawline is gorgeous according to women.

your mum and grandma don't count, satan.

Insults are harmful, user.

So then why does Christianity seek world power? Why does it insist on spreading its word into every area of our lives? Why doesn't it turn away from the world completely, focusing only on God, and waiting for the End Times? Why isn't every single Christian on the planet a celibate monk? Again, this is very easy to answer, because they don't gain anything from that. Their entire game is build around dominance and power. Why did they destroy the paganism that preceded it? Because of power. Why does it hate other religions? Again, it wants to dominate. Why does it construct revenge fantasies for those who disobey it? Once again, power and dominance. Power, dominance, management and control are the core values of Christianity, not any of its theological tenets. If this was the case, Christians would leave the entire world behind, and wait for God to intervene. They wouldn't intervene themselves, after all, they have the backing of the creator of everything, and yet they feel the need to intervene in his perfect plan? O ye of little faith

Those are poor morals, since they don't help people to improve themselves.
According to this kind of moral, there is nothing wrong with watching so much porn that you become a Coomer.

>So then why does Christianity seek world power? Why does it insist on spreading its word into every area of our lives?
Not him. However you must remember God doesn't need you, you need God. And Christianity forces its morals among a collective to enforce the protection of that collective.

You seem to have read the summary of a random nietzsche's book but haven't understood a single thing.
No, humans are not the computational homoeconomicus machine you're imagining. For the most part humans are not utilitarian calculators, common sense and habitus exist and have much more power over peoples lives than rational calculus.

Nah, it's real women who take interest in me. All my exes have initiated the approach on me. All of them.
Shame I had such idealistic notions of women back then, expecting all kinds of things simply not there.

>However you must remember God doesn't need you, you need God.

He seems awfully absent for something I despately need. If I have to choose between food and water, and God, I'd pick food and water, as would most Christians

>So then why does Christianity seek world power?
It's not like God would strip mankind of its ability to organize, and it is definitely not an evil act to seek power. The use of power and the nature of power - those dictate whether something is evil or not.

I would in fact, consider most protestant sects evil according to this.

>He seems awfully absent for something I desp[er]ately need.
Step 1 done. Infinite more await.

Then why do they act as such? Why, when having to choose between God and gain, do they invariably choose gain? It's painfully apparent, even from theology itself. If theists weren't bothered at all by gain, they wouldn't have constructed a system in which their obedience would be rewarded. Being in the presence of God would suffice. Yet they insist on eternal life, almost as if the very real existential threat of death greatly influences their theology

>It's not like God would strip mankind of its ability to organize, and it is definitely not an evil act to seek power.

It's not evil to seek power over a fallen world that is about be judged any second from now? Seems like a rather void pursuit

I'm wearing linen AND wool. What an immoral athiest I am.

I was an atheist until the age of 29. Now that I believe in God do I suddenly have morals?

I give to the homeless a bit more generously than before but otherwise I haven’t changed much.

>It's not evil to seek power over a fallen world
Organizational power is chiefly power of the group, not over other groups - that's just a bonus and a likely desire-trap.
>that is about be judged any second from now?
It's judged every second.

Are you unironically stupid?

lmao god doesn't exist
WUBBALUBBADUBDUB

fpbp
Atheists have preferences. No morals. They are all about the fruit but discard the tree.

>Organizational power is chiefly power of the group, not over other groups

So the persecution of the pagans of Rome was a mistake then?

>Being in the presence of God would suffice
It does for many.
Religious systems of belief aren't the only symbolic universe existing in the world, they coexist with many others. Religion is obviously informed by the other things it exists with as what it does is mostly traslate them to it's own "code". Translation is ofcourse a dynamic of power, the most powerful actor translates elements of less powerful ones.

>Atheists have preferences

As does everyone else on the planet

Way to miss the point on purpose retard.

>nooo, humans can't kill each other, muh humanityyy!!!

Attached: 1568660749966.jpg (567x649, 47K)

Your take on the persecution by pagans?

Same thing the Christians were doing. They were seeking power

Still being a disgusting reductionist?
Violent response follows violence. This is how it has always been.

How is it even possible to be this retarded.

Pride is the anti-God state, Lucie

>Pride
Thankfulness is not pride.

They can't

The French Revolution proved that even the most civilised, Godly people instantly revert to shameless beasts who butcher their neighbours and proudly perform orgies outside of churches as soon as they've abandoned God. Anything is permissible

Nobody?

This isn’t a hypothetical, I am genuinely curious how those who believe “atheists have no morals” will answer this question.

Likewise does a moral and upstanding Christian who becomes an atheist immediately lose their morals?

Your morality was arbitrary. Now it has the backing of 'reality as it should be', before it was an empty category, or a taboo and subconscious factor.

Why are Christians so pretentious? Is it the beginning of the delusions of grandeur I have read so much about while studying schizophrenia? It would explain how they could believe in the Bible

Yes and the Bible makes this clear with the story of the good Samaritan.

Atheists are stereotypically autistic, religious folk are stereotypically schizophrenic. Both stereotypes are true.

Atheists have the arrogance to warm themselves by the dying embers of Christian civilisation and refuse to add more fuel because they're absolutely sure it will never go out and they'll be left in the cold.

>he'll break his absolute morals every single time
I think your argument was strong until this last line, I'd say most times instead.

>I think this thing is wrong... because... it’s wrong
>I think this thing is wrong... because... a deity that I have never seen or heard supposedly thinks it’s wrong
Not that much difference desu
They’re both copes but one is slightly more complex
Neither has any tangible basis

Yes.

I want to express my appreciation for the atheists/agnostics in this thread for having the courage to debate the unwinnable christcucks. If not a god, an user is grateful for your attempt.

>Not that much difference desu
It is very different the moment you encounter distinct opinions and takes on reality. An atheist has no obligations towards their morality's integrity, and they get to have their SS tradeboat Morality of Theseus.
There is no slave morality, there is but slavery and morality.

You just have to insult your opposition.
>unwinnable
Consider siding with truth for once, and you'll win.

>another morality thread and no one has yet posted the fact that morality is ultimately based on self-benefit, hence morality is just as real for atheists as for theists.
The difference is that theistic morality is universal, consistent, and known by humans. An atheist can forge his own morality in any given situation because he has no omniscient God or promise of an afterlife to give him a clear guide on how to benefit himself.

Bible says the essense of the Almighty is within everyone and imies within everything.

So even if one rejects the idea of the Almighty, the essence within them will grant morality, unless they fight that as well

how can vegans eat meat?
how can no-fappers fap?

atheists can be hypocrites, that's how they can have morals.

and btw, just because an atheist think he is acting moral, doesn’t mean he is

My morality hasn’t changed in any great degree since I started believing in God and reading the bible. Yes I do think in terms of sinfulness now, I also pray regularly, but in terms of my everyday interactions with people, my social and political beliefs, my concepts of right and wrong and my feelings of compassion towards others, nothing has changed.

This thread is nonsense.

>>unwinnable
Because theists are good at mental gymnastic and bending reason to their faith, and can always pull the god is beyond reason and perception argument

Hypocrites to what you retard? Does an atheist suddenly start believing God when they want to do good? Are you retarded, do you not know what that word means, or are you pulling sentences out your ass in an a shallow attempt to sound deep?

SeeMost people have no idea what morality is

You thought blasphemy was immoral before you were a theist?

>Hypocrites to what you retard? Does an atheist suddenly start believing God when they want to do good? Are you retarded,
Wow easy there big guy.
The hypocrisy comes in when the atheist is pushed to say life is meaningless, God doesn't exist, nothing ultimately matters and there is no purpose to human life and death is just oblivion...but then turns around and argues for objective/universal moral injunctions (it's always wrong to rape, murder, torture, enslave others, etc)

>Because theists are good at mental gymnastic
Yeah, it just can't be that you're wrong about something, no way.

Besides, what kind of a fat slob coined the term 'mental gymnastics'? Mental fortitude, cultivation, grace, skill and flexibility all mixed to an artform that exceeds human expectations - that should only have good connotations! It takes lower class envy and resentment to hate it as the default stance.

>and bending reason to their faith
Reason bends for all causes it is aimed at. It can even help with science.
> and can always pull the god is beyond reason and perception argument
Your ilk always pulls the argument argument. God is as obvious as the existence of colors or the self, yet you go denying God because your stance is unfalsifiable within the strict software/parameter limit you hide behind.

>My morality hasn’t changed in any great degree since I started believing in God and reading the bible.
That is to be expected, you probably avoided touching the boundaries of morality as it is a taboo and this was likely used by your protectors to keep you from unnecessary harm. Considering you've found faith, they've been very active.

Morality is a concept that will forever inspire debate. Just because I do not happen to agree with your particular point of view does not mean “I have no idea what morality is”.

It depends what you mean. Vulgar discussion of God and blind insults towards anyone of faith I have always found pathetic and short-sighted.

If you mean phrases like “God damn it” then yes that makes me somewhat uncomfortable where it wouldn’t have previously, and I have to hold my tongue more often than before. I wouldn’t say that this makes me morally superior in any sense though.

>God is as obvious as the existence of colors or the self
How is it obvious? It's obvious for you. The very fact that some poeole don't believe in it makes it not obvious.

>wakes up in a clearly designed, ordered universe that is intelligible and quite predictable
>surrounded by of other beings able to communicate meaning and purpose who all share some innate sense of right and wrong and have access to abstract unchanging truths like mathematics and logic
>OH YA THIS IS ALL JUST A COINCIDENCE AND PROBABLY RANDOMNESS OR SOMETHING
come on mate, you didn't make yourself

It's the only card christians and other theists have. There is no actual evidence for god so they pretend he's self-evident and non-theists are just denying the obvious. It's extremely lazy thinking, as to be expected from people who genuinely believe the crap in the bible.

>There is no actual evidence for god
There is plenty. Causality itself implies God.

Take psilocybin shrooms and free yourself from media-induced drunkenness.

Just because something is ultimately meaningless it doesn’t mean it is without value.

>Just because something is ultimately meaningless it doesn’t mean it is without value.
It means it's objectively without value.
Any value you perceive is just an apparent-value relative to your preferences, subjective shit.

What matters most is objective/ultimate meaning. Without that, everyone becomes their own arbiter of truth, like transexuals.

And how couls I abolish the idea that the God experience is just the product of a chemical acting on my brain areas? If anything it would make me even more skeptic.

>clearly designed, ordered universe
most christcucks here seem to hate space and the people who study it
>that is intelligible and quite predictable
a stable universe would not necessarily mean a created one, same way as a stable planet in a stable system capable of supporting life would not mean a created one, the very existence of countless lifeless worlds never to be discovered implies creation through blind chance? And, why waste all that space?
>surrounded by of other beings able to communicate meaning and purpose who all share some innate sense of right and wrong
humans share a biological base, reciprocation and empathy are useful to humans and other primates
>OH YA THIS IS ALL JUST A COINCIDENCE AND PROBABLY RANDOMNESS OR SOMETHING
lazy strawman, both chaos and order play a part in a stable universe

>And how couls I abolish the idea that the God experience is just the product of a chemical acting on my brain areas?
By experiencing it. Note that if God-delusion is a real element, a real factor and a real force generated by {greater reality} then naturally God is a prerequisite for the delusion's existence as well. There can be no hunger without food.

What caused God?
>inb4 God is eternal
Okay, so why can't existence itself be eternal? You have no fucking idea how the universe came to be. The question itself probably doesn't make sense.

Why would God be a prerequisite? Doesn't the fact that we tend to imbue conceptions of God with human values and traits tell you anything?

Objective meaning is an oxymoron, meaning is inherently subjective. Even if a god came down to earth and told us what the meaning of life is, I could just disagree with it.

Or maybe humans are so complex that attribute all Sort of explanations to the experiences or perceptions they have, which often leads to false beliefs?

>objective meaning is an oxymoron
No it's not, otherwise we couldn't build rockets or do math.

huh? I'm talking about meaning as in purpose, retard. Obviously math has objective rules.

God is Truth. Truth exists necessarily. How could Truth not exist?

Attached: 1509035149951.jpg (1200x900, 203K)

>Why would God be a prerequisite?
It's the God-delusion is the greatest possible human experience, surpassing all others, then by default whatever caused it is God.
>Doesn't the fact that we tend to imbue conceptions of God with human values and traits tell you anything?
How would you communicate with an AI? You would have to use its limits and work from there. Whilst the AI would definitely define you through itself and its limits, it might still come to right conclusions despite major mechanical 'naivete'.

>false belief
That's one. Falsehood and such as just notions we use to change the hierarchical position of various real aspects. Falsehood itself exists only as a category of use.

Objective purposes also exist. The purpose of man's life is to commune with God.
He is the origin and destination.

>We clearly don't. Just look at us working on Sabbath, having divorces and not banning women from leadership positions. Pure evil.

Attached: 1568589849777.jpg (664x1203, 176K)

>God is a prerequisite for the delusion's existence as well.
Clearly any schizophrenic who holds a delusion of grandeur or persecution has an existing prerequisite for it that isn't just faulty thinking

>What caused God?
>inb4 God is eternal
God is eternal. You don't get to choose what the presuppositions of others are.
>Okay, so why can't existence itself be eternal?
The Universe isn't, that's the problem. It's not that it can't theoretically be, it's that it isn't. Everything in the Universe is imperfect. This imperfection will devour the Universe, even if it's a loop structure relying on previous, more perfect, and future, less perfect variants.

Those delusions always use real objects and elements. Such as fear, malice, target selection etc.
So what elements does God-delusion use, what does it combine? The Universe, man, all existence and beyond, the transcendent and cosmic justice and flow? Heh...

Easily. Morals are just formalized/codified behavioural social strategies that have evolved with us as highly social animals. Moral behaviour is an expression of our nature and requires no divine provenance.

This is part of the common misconception about nihlists... WTF how do nihilists not neck themselves immediately since nothing has any meaning? The answer -- which hopefully you can predict -- is that it is in our nature to assign value and meaning to things. A nihilist simply recognizes that values do not precede valuing agents, but it does not logically follow from here that one must consequently forsake their nature.

>Morals are just
>x is just y
Reductionism is just retarded.

>generalizing

Attached: 1568614436698.png (405x405, 204K)

whatever you say pal

>WTF how do nihilists not neck themselves immediately since nothing has any meaning?
Nihilism is a temporary state. It either kills its host or the host changes entire value structures. Nihilism might even be a protection spell, keeping those undergoing severe change from damaging themselves.

>implying a delusion's size determines it's truthfulness
>implying the god delusion isn't based in fear
>implying wishing the people you don't like to burn in hell isn't based in malice

>Teenager brain doesn't understand that he embodies a modified Christian ethics and in the absence of God all is subjective.

Attached: Consider.png (406x793, 157K)

False analogy. I defined a term, I didn't just equate one undefined term with another.

You don't understand philosophical nihilism. You're perhaps confusing it with anomie.

morality is prior to god, dumbfuck, regardless of what you call the 'ethic', it was prevalent before people put the word 'god' to it. You embody useful group co-operation mechanics, and you need to call it god to justify it to yourself.

>implying a delusion's size determines it's truthfulness
The underlying elements do. If those elements are more than capable of restructuring entire human lives - in a fashion that makes them not only capable, but more so than they were before, of living their own lives and forming societies, shaping art, becoming profound and upper class...
Religious change, the God-experience, is a very real phenomenon, one of the strongest that we know from collateral alone.
It's like denying physical collision.

>You don't understand philosophical nihilism.
But I do. It's a strong belief or conviction that nothing is of any value, no change is meaningful and neither is any being - or not being.
>anomie
They are clearly related. Anomie is the way out; just feed the nihilism-void all your values and welcome the new ones.

>morality is prior to god
Not for long if it's up to humans. Humans are so horrible they'd sell their morality for real estate.

Incorrect, it is simply the recognition that values are not universals nor can they precede valuing agents. It does not preclude one from valuing or finding meaning since it is is one's nature to do so. Universality is not required (nor possible).

>isolationists posit themselves as nihilists
But why?

>my coping mechanism is very capable therefore it's true
evidence of human behavior is not evidence of something external to it

>>my coping mechanism is very capable therefore it's true
Humans see mirages of water when they are in a desert. Where are humans when they see God?

>evidence of human behavior is not evidence of something external to it
Interaction with external aspects is all we do. Other people are an external to all people.

>Where are humans when they see God?
In a country with a deistic concept of god? Not in China I would guess.

their only moral is egoism and selfishness
but so do the majority of religious people

What do humans see when they see God? What are the elements they combine, and why is the result powerful and full of creative potential?

What do humans see when they reach nirvana?

they just follow mostly the same moral systems they learned from theists but pretend its their own idea.

Boring and unfalsifiable take. No matter what the scenario is you could think up some retarded rationalization for how it was in someone's benefit to act in a certain way. Good for acting smug on the internet but as a practical way to analyze behavior or to motivate discussion, not so much.

"Good" and "Evil" are simply abstract categories human beings have made up, they are not dicoverable characteristics in behaviour or people, because of that these categories can be filled up with anything depending on a person/people or a cultures values. Different peoples and cultures have all categorized different behavious in whichever ways they saw fit, some philosphers have argued that this classification has been done on the basis of a behaviours ulitity/ collective interest or whataver. What is important is that the fundemental nature of good and evil is that of abstract manmade categories, just like "justice", "fairness", "equality" etc. Atheists or not anyone can fill these categories with whataver they want, although i would concede that some behaviour has been considered good for so long that it would be difficult for most to do so, as it would mean going against the historical/social and even genetic (as some would claim) trend. The whole point is that morality has never had antyhing to do with "objectivity" or "truth", the debate has always been about who fills up the categories, god or man.

...

I think you meant to say,
they Kant

oh yeah, those theist morals
>but muh human fallibility
fuck off religitards

Attached: pri_48929886.jpg (644x419, 57K)

>"Good" and "Evil" are simply abstract categories human beings have made up,
kek

>, they are not dicoverable characteristics in behaviour or people
Causality is just a category humans made up, it's not discoverable in your toe or in the corner of a table you bump into.

Attached: g.png (420x420, 227K)

>believes the official 9/11 story

Attached: 1537062060143.jpg (1024x768, 139K)

Presumably something very real.

Could you elaborate on this?

Its exactly as you say, causality is infact an abstract term used to describe a relationship between events. Thats not even something im making up, lots of philosophers have argued this point. If you want to prove me wrong point exactly at causality and show me in what part of the table or my toe it is , as that would be a remarkable discovery. All you know is that the sensation of pain is felt when ur toe hits the table hard. As to the relationship between the two thats something you know nothing about.

Heh, yes the categorical imperative is the closest they will get.

What was God's moral justification for creating an insect who's sole purpose in life is to eat the eyes of living children from the inside out?

They create them the same way they did religion, or do you think since literally forever your specific religion of theism existed?

This thread is dead. See

it's just a prank bro, lighten up

Not him but religious people aren't always acting moral when they can simply just ask for forgiveness later. Morals really come from empathy and cooperation. It just happens. You die if you don't work together and then empathy is seemingly a human instinct for that very reason, as is affection. Everyone gives each other presents long before christianity made christmas and they did it due to human instincts. Religious people attack ironically for the sake of their religion was his subtle point.

in other words morality comes from self-benefit but humans are flawed so they don’t act perfectly moral

So religious people never ever forget their own morality, right?

>page one but go to my thread :D

How about no. This one is older and still bumping.

Religious people, like all people, are imperfect moral agents. Are you trying to make an argument?

this thread is filled with misconceptions and improper discussion. Everyone is off track and there are more insults than arguments

I just don’t see why you single out atheists for being able to forge their own morality, when many, if not most, religious people do the same in spite of their beief in an omniscient God

Of course theists have to forge their own morality in some situations, especially in those situations in which Biblical morals don’t really apply. All decisions are moral decisions. Theists forget what’s most beneficial, but what of it? They are flawed.

whos more moral, someone who would rape their daughter in the absent of God or those who wouldn't despite the fact?

what is a good person tho ?

>religious people aren't always acting moral when they can simply just ask for forgiveness later
Not every religious person is a christian, retard

> Retards in these threads claming atheist just "make their own moral values" in the absence of god.
> Implying atheists dont just take conventional societys values and adopt them as their own.
> Implying western liberal values arent just christian values mixed with liberalism and progressiveness.

Yikes

europe was a peaceful garden before christianity.

No, you'll do it by following the moral law within you.

Someone who would rape their daughter in the presence of God

Morality is acting according to rules created by a mind. This doesn't require god, merely a well developed neo-cortex.

Attached: 1567998752155.png (1364x764, 1.95M)

What an inconsequential definition.

Oh ok.
Marquis de Sade also had a developed neo-cortex.

Inqonsequential means accepted.
He had.

Not really, as far as navigating social societies there are many alternative reasons why a being might exhibit self-control. Psychopaths are often excellent at it. Morality isn't just behavior, it requires certain thoughts and emotions aswell.

Why pretend that any religion isn't forgiving? Not forgiving enough and people refuse the religion. It needs a fine line and you're too stupid to accept that. Like with Buddhas, they just seek essentially redemption to even out the karma from the past. Same fucking thing, different entire religion. it needs a pragmatism of conservatism but also aside from scare tactics positivity. That positivity leads to people getting away with bad karma.

Show me a religion without forgiveness and we'll have a laugh at how uncommon it is. If not uncommon I'm betting the place is a shithole no matter what morals they cherish. Like the Middle East for example. Dogshit. You're better off with zero religion.

Yes it does. If you cooperate conscientiously then you're fine. A king manipulates people with mind games and schizophrenics do too and that makes religion. Mass hysteria becoming too much of a thing creates religion too. To calm a child down you make up a fairy story. Why not just make sure the monster's not real? Hysteria being enabled is why. All you had to do was be smart and use your instincts too and you don't need religion but people are dogshit.

And never ever grow up in this awful world. Because even without a monster you're going to die and that scares people. Why behave if you're going to die? WHAT happens? If you suffer too much you'll act evil and that's why we need strong bonds with our peers. Massive amounts of people getting fucked by society creates a giant pool of psychopaths that get manipulated as religious soldiers to balance out the madness of overpopulation past small village scenarios. Then here we are actually smart for the first time with the idiot logic still around. Makes me want to walk into a nursery and slam all the babies against the walls because no one uses common sense. It's killing me. I drink because I'm surrounded by people on a different wavelength than me, the alcohol driving me mad, killing me literally, because primitive hysterics banned other substances and I get disrespected for not catering to chrsitfaggot ethics.

>more insults than arguments
Welcome to Yea Forums. Don't try to fix it, you'll only make things worse. That's just the way the mob crumbles.

>that get
I agree upside down Satan.

They are muh humanists

/thread

Just because human beings are tempted by gain and tend to choose it over altruism does not mean anything and does not conflict with the Bible. Were tempted by sex but we dont have public orgies because it would be decadent to society. God is ethic and ethic is discipline, obviously were not naturally predisposed towards doing the "right thing" or there would be no reason whatsoever to worship a transcendent idol.

youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo