ITT: the dumbest atheist arguments

Here's a retarded one:
>I don't need God to tell me it's immoral to [x], whereas you're being moral just because you fear Hell

Attached: cuckins.jpg (222x364, 7K)

It's right though. It's at least a better argument than posting "le dawkins cuck" meme and thinking you're intelligent.

It is an argument that holds up, no? If you only do good out of fear of being punished for not doing good, then you do good out of fear and sheer self-preservation. Concerning 'I don't need x for y'. The romans didn't need jew god.

The argument sucks because they use it to answer the question "Do morals exist without God?"
They think the question means "What's stopping you from murder?", whereas it actually means "On what grounds are moral things moral without God (or something similar to God)?"

Pedantic much? Logical conclusion is that they believe that morals don't come from God.

But 'do morals come from god' is easily answered with 'no, morals ALWAYS come from whatever societies agree upon to be moral'. And if those societies are religious and/or the enforcers of those morals consider themselves to be representative of whatever name they slapped on that common consensus, then yes you may say that morals come from god. Hebrew morals come from hebrew god, roman values come from roman gods, confucian values come from Confucius, and so on.

The question in itself is retarded because no distinction at all is made between different conceptions of GOD/Source/Life. Instead it's all just 'does bearded skyman real'.

yeah Yea Forums isn't your atheist bashing retreat. don't turn this into /r/atheists for religious people.

This is a completely legitimate point. I like that radical Calvinists contend one should live a moral life out of duty rather than in hope of avoiding hell, with respect to the fact that they believe it's predestined anyways regardless of what you do.

It's very obvious that theistic morality is better.
>Secular morality is made by humans and is only as good as the humsn that thought them up. Given the diversity of moral opinions, it's certakn that the majority of them are wrong. An all knowing god would know the correct answer to all moral question and be the ultimate standard on morality.
>Theistic morality is practical as it ensures that you will go to heaven if you follow it. You could follow secular morality through great pains, but unlike in theistic morality, it's uncertain if you get any reward for your moral behavior.
>Moral realism itself is uncertain in a secular context, but a god could easily create a universe were moral facts are truth apt.

They must. If we just decide what is moral then it's relative and doesn't mean anything.

>morals are evolutionary
So they're based entirely on what's expedient for human survival? So, in other words, these aren't morals at all and could change at any given moment?

No that is only from the dogmatists perspective from the perspective of the person practicing faith God is a connection with higher knowledge and a higher being. God is also goodness itself. Dogma can muddy the picture and cause people to lose connection with God.

>implying you could derive morals from the god
morals are strictly human, and thus relative to a context of time and geography, climat, etc, etc

Are you going to argue why, or just leave it there like every other retard who thinks he's finally worked it out?

You can't be good without knowing what is good

Reminder that no one has ever made a convincing argument for the existence of morals without God.
If you're an atheist at least be consistent and proclaim moral nihilism like J.L. Mackie, not this shit in the vein of "there's no God but I'm still moral cuz momma told me Imma good boy"

You do know what is good. Actually goodness itself is God and can't be explained through rules and dogma. You can only connect with goodness through spirituality.

Try reading it again slowly, user. He's pointing out that local deities are employed as justification for whatever rules the governing class think will make society run smoothest. Morals, like laws and social norms, are contingent and negotiated, and change year by year, village by village. Pretending they're "God's will" is just a more efficient form of enforcement. Foucault's "pastoral power" and the habit of obedience, you know.

That's not consistent, it's idiocy. Morals have nothing to do with "gods" at all, so pointing that out is a quick process, and has nothing to do with nihilism. Morality is part of our half-assed way of figuring out what behaviour makes society run smoothly in our area. Objective morality is a hilarious concept, but that's about it.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. Do you really think you're smart for saying that bad things can be done in the name of God? You're conflating morality as it manifests in society, and ideal morality.

>Actually goodness itself is God and can't be explained through rules and dogma

But rules and dogmas are used to explain God's goodness.

>your idea of morals is really dumb, my idea of morals which basically have no grounding and can shift at any time as long as the shift is convenient for the 'society running smoothly' is far superior!!
lol, the only smooth thing here is your brain, user

I just said objective morality is bullshit, so I'm not conflating anything (and "ideal morality" is not a standard term I know: do you mean divine morality? Objective? Teleological?). I'm just noting what seems to be too complex for many folks: that tribes decide rules and morals, and it's an entirely human process.

Pastoral power is entirely irrelevant to this discussion you pseud

Nobody disputes that tribes decide the rules and morals, you bozo. The question is: how are these rules and morals decided upon? And don't pretend you don't know what an ideal is, lol.

Its basically
>im a cuck to god
Or
>im a cuck to my society

Are you insane? This entire thread is about pastoral power as an extension of disciplinary power, and an alternative perspective to sovereign power. Fear of hell/divine retribution and church constructs create the ideal submissive subject: self-policing, unable to escape guilt for trangressions even if others don't find out, quick to criticize other citizens. It turns every subject into an enforcer of "moral" behaviour, both in themselves and each other. Pastoral power is the reason organized religions exist.

You have a terrible misunderstanding of Foucault if that's really what you got from him

There are many studies addressing that question, but the basic logic of most common moral codes is transparent. Which moral are you having trouble seeing the utility of? Which one requires some divine source to make sense?

>expedient for human survival
>could change at any given moment?
that's not what evolutionary means, idiot child

All of them. How can you ever truly justify any ethics system that doesn't rest on an infallible axiom? Every system of ethics sits upon a foundational premise which can be undermined in argument, the only system which doesn't have this is are teleological religious systems of morality.

HURR DURR ATHEIST GOD TOLD ME TO CUT THE TIP OF MY PENIS OFF, I DON'T LIKE IT BUT GOD SAID IT SO I HAVE TO DO IT BECAUSE IF I DON'T MY ENTIRE REASON FOR LIVING WILL DISAPPEAR, I'M TOTALLY NOT BASING MY ENTIRE LIFE ON MY EMOTIONS

Perhaps, but I really don't have the energy to get into his stages of pastoral power and the matrix of individualization for the sake of these tired shitposts. Power of a pastoral type, which over centuries —for more than a millennium— had been linked to a defined religious institution, suddenly spread out into the whole social body; it found support in a multitude of institutions. And, instead of a pastoral power and a political power, more or less linked to each other, more or less rival, there was an individualizing “tactic” which characterized a series of powers: those of the family, medicine, psychiatry, education, and employers.

No they are used to contain evil. Good beings do not need rules to guide them.

Yes it does, retard. Hobbesian ethics are entirely contingent on the material conditions that the participants find themselves in. If it suddenly becomes beneficial to society to start inbreeding, does that suddenly make it moral?

Well, because I'm not silly enough to think infallible axioms exist, or that imperfect codes have no purpose. That's like asking "why bother living if you're going to die? Why make a work of art if it's not eternal? Why have sex if it's not perfect? Why have a law if not everyone obeys it" and so on: idiocy that rejects anything real or flawed.

I'm just fucking around user, I've agreed with you this whole time. Yours is a good reading of Foucault.

A good argument would be the amount of projecting and insecurity that went into making this post.

Infallible axioms do exist when they are divinely mandated; 'God says so' being the best example. Imperfect codes don't have a purpose when you're sitting them next to a perfect code. It's like choosing to cycle around on a bike when you've just been gifted a brand new Aston Martin.

You got me, user. I'd better go get work done: these debates have no end--so here's my ex's end instead, from long ago.

Attached: rn98I39.jpg (480x760, 84K)

>whatever societies agree upon to be moral
Here you can see where user presupposes that all societies are indeed pirate ships

depends on what we mean by god here, I'd say god is unreachable, there's no translation of the divine to the mundane. So there's not such a thing as the 'word' of god.

Christcuck sophistry. If atheists can be moral without god then it proves god is not necessary for morality which is more than enough for the atheist.

There is no reason to push morality into a bunch of abstractions when it has been shown to have a conventional reality.

Nice, have a good day.

Sounds like you're projecting

Christopher Hitchens is dead, Dawkins has been cancelled and will die soon, why do we even have to talk about this anymore? It's become so tired.

swirling thunderbolts of pure roar
hissing through blazing wild storming clouds,
pouring out of the drooling mouth of a fallen angel both ––
whose comet crash destroys the earth's orbit forever
time spread materially in blackened space, screaming murder:
verbrandt de xenobieten van de valse god keizer belzebaal

is it tho