Atheist

>atheist
>morals

Pick one, and ONLY one.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/UQVAs3r3mUQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>

...

kill your self... this bait is so dried up and old, I dont know how many times Ive seen it

im not even annoyed by its content, just the fact that its still here

Atheist,obviously.Morals are subjective.You can't even bait properly,you gook

*yawn*

and you still bit faggot

Just to prove that how refutable the b8 is

>bait
>cancer

Pick one, and ONLY one.

Tell me OP, why do you make this thread like every 10 minutes 24/7?
Do you get some sorry of sexualized pleasure from it or something?
Are is your life just that sad that you try to bait people with the most unoriginal shit

Fuck you christfag you desert God wouldn't tell me what to do even if he existed. I suggest you read a little book called "The God Delusion," it'll open your mind, something you're in dire need of.

>Implying this bait that has been going around for more than a year on Cred Forums isn't cancer

If you need the threat of eternal damnation to have morals, than you are a piece of shit person and I'm glad you are under mind-control. Just don't speak in public of vote, please.

Those 2 have literally nothing to do with each another. Totally different subjects. So I am happy to choose one, but please explain what the choice is about.

OP is right. Morality without a transcendental figure to answer the normative question (what ought to be done?) makes no sense at all. Prove him wrong.

You seem upset. For someone with such an open mind you're reacting quite violently. Perhaps you should take a deeper look at yourself.

Daily reminder to all atheists not to be sheep.

would you randomly kill people or steal things if you were an atheist?

>cucks require a sky daddy to tell them to behave

>atheist
>morals

Pick two, or none.

You can't be good enough if you believe in shit.

strong claim. "what ought to be done?" is highly subjective. Before you can even begin to claim a transcendental being that lays an absolute morality on us, you have to proof that morality is absolute.

Every single person needs something to tell them to behave. All moral questions boil down to what norms you ascribe to. If it's man-made, them you might as well subscribe to any norm at all. Morality stops making sense.

>Before you can even begin to claim a transcendental being that lays an absolute morality on us, you have to proof that morality is absolute.
I don't, since the opposite (relativism) is nonsensical. If there is no absolute morality, then there's no morality.

Atheist, because morality is for infants.

No, since most atheists, in fact, ascribe to judeo-christian morality.

>If there is no absolute morality, then there's no morality.

Morality doesn't really exist, so yeah.

THE SAME FUCKING BAIT BULLSHIT THREAD EVERYDAY

Fuckin your ass raw is my choice. Have ya find God while I'm balls deep in your poopchute

That is not proving. That is just stating that relativism is nonsensical which goes against everyday experience. You need to do better than that.

What you are saying is like "if a water molecule isn't wet, than water cannot be wet."

youtu.be/UQVAs3r3mUQ

This scene goes through my mind every time I see that pic. Idk why.

Actually it does exist. It is an emergent property, it exists because life exists. Just like wetness is an emergent property. It only exists because water exists.