Why do religitards say that you can't have morals if you aren't religious?

Aztec "religion" dried up very fast because people found out Christianity was way better to live with, even if some Conquistadores did quite a lot of shit around.

Strawman. Checkmate

And without religion, since that Aztec would be empathetic, he wouldn't kill his friend. Religion poisons everything.

google for 'strawman', edgy kiddo, before writing edgy words to feel you're the edgier edgiest edgy of the school

Because if there is no religion that imposes an absolute, unquestionable moral, then the concept of moralities starts changing, because people start playing the "who said that x is wrong and y is right? Isn't morality subjective?" That's why most famous atheist were degenerates and casually, all were Jews and belonged to freemasonry (Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Trotsky), and this idea of saying everything is subjective leads to an extreme deformation of what is wrong and what is right. That's why nowadays being in a straight, not interracial relationship is seen as bad, and pedophilia is gradually becoming more and more normalized, same as sex changes, female privileges, immigrants commiting crimes in Europe... As I said, the only way to prevent this from happening is by imposing an unquestionable moral, through religion.

Religions regulate a society.
Christianity transformed Vandals in builders of churches.
African religions, apparently, never did somewhat comparable.

Nice argument kid. Mom is going to take your keyboards for such words
Missing the point, but i did not expected to understand it from you since you atheiapes often are less inteligent and educated. Empathy is a feeling. Not objective moral guide. It can guide you wrong and you later realise it was wrong. Atheism is truly a marxist brainless plague of shit

I'm a genius. I work at IBM. Your philosophy degree is useless. Any programmer is more clever than you.

>freemasonry

Every time someone says "freemasonry", the exact applicable term should be "modernism" - that is, believing that truth and falsehood have equal rights. The first implication is you choose your "truth" following your whims.

I've got two Ph.D (computer science, theology)

Like being a coder makes you a genius.
I was a coder too, before I moved on to mechanical engineering, then a masters in physics. How does it feel to know you're below mechanical engineers.
Kek

I build compilers. That's harder than anything they teach ME grad students. You can't write an optimizing compiler. Everyone that works on your compiler is a liberal atheist.

Ok mr. Compiler Builder, why are you trying to talk about theology and morals?

>any programmer is more clever than you
Have you even worked with programmers? Autism =/= cleverness

ITT: math spergs claim to have an unassailable position in philosophy

Attached: 1538197916061.jpg (500x386, 57K)

look where you’re at and what you’re trying to do

You can have morals without religions, but those are going to be very shallow and shitty morals.

well said. thanks for posting this user and being the first to post in this thread. really does help

wholesome

Profound thread

You don’t seem all that sharp yourself honestly. Sounds like this is something somebody told you and it made you feel superior to those who followed something that can be easily refuted without first identifying the essential virtue of faith.

If you can't be a nice person without some stupid lines in a stupid book telling you to be a nice person, you are a shitty person. At least atheists are authentic.

Define a "nice" person.

Because they don't have morals, they have religion.

A slight moral compass makes allies,OP.

Attached: tony-hawk-carves-a-new-niche-hero.jpg (2000x1334, 156K)

emphasis on something somebody TOLD you. Today it would seem that you’re the one that can’t think for yourself as the Christian religion is being vehemently dismantled in western society. You’re blindly following the Satanic/militant atheist dismantlers

To try to feel better than non religious people.

Religion exists because once upon a time at the dawn of syntactic grammar, the first liar met the first idiot, and the liar realized he would never again have to do an honest day's work.

you’ll understand in a few years. who? the underage/young user reading this

Easy. Someone who doesn't hurt someone else either physically or mentally.

Basically

It’s ironic that the biggest proponents for this line of thinking are liberal types when the direct goal of this line of thinking was to give rise to someone who would inherently replace the system of God. eg Hitler collaborating with Heidegger and Nietzche propagating nazi ideology. Their assumption that God doesn’t exist is where they failed.

Well okay. Would a nice person lie to others? Steal from others?

Nope

Free food?

>projecting

Brb mcdonalds

Most atheists i’ve met are liars. They don’t know how to treat others and be honest with others because they lie to themselves

Not if it hurts people. For example, if the Nazis come to your house and ask about the Jews hiding in your basement, you should turn the Jews over instead of lying, because Jews existing is a thing that hurts people.

>i came up with this idea
>im thinking for myself
>wake up. be awakened like me
its a neverending rabbit hole in most cases and can’t be applied as a truth to any functional society as a whole

Youre retarded if thats what you got from what i said. No where in my post did i even imply that im smarter or superior than anyone else lmao. Im just stating the truth, or what i perceive to be the truth at least.
You cant find a single secular society that isnt a haven for degenerates.

sounds pretty relativistic to me. i agree but yknow. ya just shouldnt lie

>oh no i cant think for myself let me type up as many words as i can without saying anything so i still believe im smart

You should only lie to enemies. Lying is a form of violence, and it should only be used for good.

Because part of religion is the illusion of being more enlightened than the common man. Its about being awestruck by something larger than your comprehension. Thats why the Vatican has 100ft ceilings, to make you feel small.

Everything is relative. Might makes right.
We can wish it didn't - but we'd need might to make it be so. With our might. So...

the statement you make is a poor representation of the principle being utilised: if you believe truth is realizable, then the realm of spirit is operable, and allows a school of judgement that is premised on free choice, attached with consequences that are understandable: this amounts to an economy of purpose which is 'lively', and makes negotiation vital to the technique of living 'correctly'. veering away from this type of metaphysical system, is nihilism, which can also be translated by some, as denying the spirit of truth, or being an atheist,
although many religions actually carry out similar cop outs and are manifest slave moralities, as abject as believing you are conditioned by your incurable skepticism, rather than merely recognising that this capacity is the nexus and crucible of free choice: which calls to some, heard of the spirit of God, to discern the truth, and not be imprinted by a security of symbolic conventions or group-think to camouflage the atrophy of the soul and death of free choice. if you are not a believer in such a way, you are unaccountable and therefore dangerous according to the idolatry of some false authority: ie. the premise of your question, is it even capable of revising your own viewpoint, is it a real question, is it merely a bar faith action of searching for confirmation bias... etc. what spirit are you emulating? a true and living one?

edit: bar= bad

I ordered the fried chicken, not the word salad.

The argument is that without a belief that there is punishment for behavior that harms another (even when a government body is unable to punish) an individual will not inhibit themselves from harming another if it brings them a gain in some regard. It is a pretty good argument that usually can only be defeated by trying to change the argument like OP did to one of knowing morality instead of being moral.

For most religions, the argument is that believing in the religion means there is no punishment for behavior that harms another, because god says it's good.

>literally makes fun of himself in his own greentext
kys faggot

Your point was
>There's only one case where your objection can be refuted
But there is not. The Catholic church is not
>explicitly created to not to go astray with interpretations
because like all churches it is based on interpretation of the same text as the other churches. There is no evidence that any actual
>full blown "Revelation"
occurred.

I don’t think everything is relative. That mindset is what creates problems in the first place. I don’t believe in a utopia but if we did have a guiding morality easily found in the Bible we wouldn’t have to worry about whether or not what we were doing was right or not. It would be something like might makes right, but it wouldn’t be our relative might it would be the objective total might of God.

That's what 90% of greentexts do faggot

Because people that work on compilers are obviously curious and interested in esoteric random crap. It's not just compilers, it's anything. Like arguing with trolls on b.

this

God doesn't say it's good. God offers forgiveness because man is flawed. If you believe in that stuff.

Stories have morals. Humans live by a code of ethics. A subtle nuance to be sure, but a concept you should grasp before asking silly questions on a kampuchean water buffalo herding website

i was mocking you, kid. you’re slow. give it up. Give it up to God.

God says it's good. He says to hurt people in particular ways, and that it's good to do so. He says it doesn't hurt them, or that it's justified in some way convenient to him. Before designing a flaming torture dungeon for them.

No human knows for sure whats right or wrong. We only know about these two concepts.
If we would truely know whats right and whats wrong then we wouldn't have most of the philosophic discussions.

>getting super chills reading all this
>power goes out
Gods not dead fellas

first world btw lol

Everyone lies. So there are no nice people are there?

Attached: MasterOfSarcasm.jpg (1600x1067, 1.18M)

You're retarded, or your religion is.

Both you and your religion is.

I'm agnostic. And I also know a little bit about theologies. Not just snake-handling Pentecostal morons who believe in the lake of fire.

Found the liar

yep

Hate the game, not the player. I hate that stupid saying but it's absolutely true.

I have an spiritual side; northern Paganism is what really drew me in. I'm not overt about it, I don't bring it up in conversations (unless the conversation warrants it) and I don't try to convert or change people; my spiritual path is chosen by me, for me and me alone. A LOT of religious and spiritual people are the same way.

That part never gets talked about though. It's always more a matter of, "I think religion is stupid, therefor everyone who practices a religion is stupid." That's a very blanketed viewpoint and honestly, if that's how you think, you need to gain a better understanding of others and the world around you. Empathy can go a long, long way in that regard and no, that isn't something that only religion or spirituality teaches.

Of course, this is Yea Forums so I'm just gonna call you a bitch and move on.

> I'm agnostic.
An agnostic is someone who doesn't even have the excuse of religion for being so retarded they can't tell on their own there's no god.
I mean holy hell, it's one thing to be brainwashed that Kim Jong Un is a god because you never had a chance growing up to learn otherwise and all dissenting information is censored. That makes you unfortunate, not retarded. But to see them doing the brainwashing from the outside and then still not know if he's god or not?
Agnostics are worse than either atheists or religious.

>An agnostic is someone who doesn't even have the excuse of religion for being so retarded they can't tell on their own there's no god.
Can you prove there's no life after death? No? Then fuck off.

>It's always more a matter of, "I think religion is stupid, therefor everyone who practices a religion is stupid." That's a very blanketed viewpoint and honestly, if that's how you think, you need to gain a better understanding of others and the world around you.
Never said that. I said I'm agnostic. Be on your way, Pagan.

Yes, and so can you, but neither of us have to, because we both already know there isn't, which is why religion had to lie about it. You can tell just by looking.

To discover spiritual water, you need to dig a deep well using the tools of one of the religions. You have to pursue one into its deepest mysteries in order to discover true morality. There are no mysteries to atheism, just cold facts. Cold facts are useless when it comes to deciding whether or not it's a good idea to commit atrocities like japanese human experimentation, the holocaust, the cambodian genocide, or the gulag prison system.

Attached: 1541190221645.jpg (900x630, 247K)

ThAt wAsn'T ReAl aTHeiSm

Attached: 54434260_2354787021407873_1679341494160326656_n.jpg (750x768, 62K)

> holocaust
> blaming atheism for catholic creationists purging the killers of their prophet

not an argument.

Hitler was a Catholic, Germans were Christian. And the holocaust never happened.

Okay. I don’t really lie. I did when I was a kid, but I genuinely can’t remember the last time I’ve lied. Also God forgives sins because humans are not perfect.

Theres no facts in theology, except for some historical basics. I don't know if there is some order within the chaos, and neither do you. People who speak in absolutes are the bigger fools than the people who consider there are simply things we don't understand. I've taken a lot of psychedelics, so I'm willing to have an open mind about the cosmos. I don't care much for the organized religions, they've done a lot of bad shit. But saying "You Know For A Fact" is always a bad practice.

Only the last thing you said have a ammount of truth in it

I can provide evidence that thought processes cease after death. I can also provide evidence that without thoughts you are incapable of expressing identity, therefore 'you' as an person exist in your thoughts. I can therefore infer that given the evidenc eon hand, when you die there will no longer be a 'you' to continue existing, so no life after death.

Can you provide the slightest bit of evidence that the opposite is true?

>If yes
You are lying or deluded. No such evidence exists and people have been trying to find it for centuries.

>'If' no
Then the logical conclusion is that there is no life after death. Anything else is wishful thinking.

Genuine question to the religious.

From whence does your knowledge of God come?

from the official theachings of the only official Church out there.

also, while on dogmas it requires firm believing, everything other demands reasoning as well.

Whence does the Church's knowledge of God come?

God personally founded the Church.
He proved to be God with many miracles. Yet, even if you didn't knew about them, and even if you didn't follow prophecies announcing Him, His teachings are unsurpassed.

No, you can't moron. Althrought you are in such pathetic state due to constant brainwashing that you wish that thing you don't want was true.