Atheist

>He can only have morals that somebody else has forced him to have on threat of the maximum possible punishment ever.
Sounds like you're the only one with the problems here m8.

>morals

What's a pecksniff? I don't come here as often as I used to

>Theist
>Ethics

Choose one

Not getting enough (You)s on Cred Forums these days?

Okay, here (You) go:

(You)

cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/UPB/Universally_Preferable_Behaviour_UPB_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf

...

That is a new one to me to, but i would guess it means you are a cockhuffer and you need to settle down dickwhiffer

>I'm moral because I was born moral

Atheist then.

I'd rather not have morals seeing as what that's done to Europe. debauchery ahoo!

t. new Cred Forums "christian"

>christian
>believes in a make believe story for children
pick 2

Atheists can have morals but their morals will not have any foundation and their morals will crumble at the first sign of trouble.

>enjoy the ban
>don't enjoy the ban

pick one

No, the childlike empress guy has been doing this for a few years.

This is the most retarded thing I've ever seen. I want to tip my fedora so goddamn hard right now.

To all the "moral atheists" out there, why don't you just become Christians? It's not about belief, just humble yourself before God and help out western civilization at the same time. If you're wrong, nothing other than you lived a pretty upstanding life, and if you're right you will inherit the kingdom of God it's a pretty good deal for any good moral person

>you
>morals
>me
>morals

heh

Explain why bestiality has been illegal for so long, its not a commandment from god, but secular legal decision driven by atheist people who can actually feel empathy for animals since they don't feel there is a divine command to dominate and control the animals while theist people can't decide if it good or bad to eat meat of friday?

>needing a stone-age book to tell you explicitly not to kill people
>second part the son of god comes to tell us esplicitly to love your brother and turn the other cheek
>still kill people anyway and justify it

are you suggesting that morality doesn't exist unless you have a religious book?

Moral Relativism doesn't equal Moral Nihilism

>muh can only be moral when you're afraid of old man in the sky

>Why don't you just become something you aren't?
Well that question kinda answers itself, I am not convinced that any current God claims I have been exposed to have produced sufficient evidence to justify supporting them. I'm not going to pretend simply for the sake of other people's feelings, and if God exists and he is your God, and he knows my heart than simply calling myself Christian and humbling myself before something I don't truly believe in probably wouldn't be sufficient.

I'll live my life as well as I can and I'll continue to wait for a convincing God claim or a sign or revelation which many people say is how they came to believe in whichever God they believe in.

aryan-myth-and-metahistory.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/esus-celto-aryan-prototype-for-jesus-of.html

>nihilist
>morals
Choose one

ftfy

Anything is better then abrahamic morals.
I welcome our atheistic brethren who bow to no Gods!

One of the problems atheists have is the unbelievers' assertion that it is possible to determine what is right and what is wrong without God. They have a fundamental inability to concede that to be effectively absolute a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter.

On this misunderstanding is a supposed conundrum about whether there is any good deed that could be done only by a religious person, and not done by a Godless one. Like all such questions, this contains another question: what is good, and who is to decide what is good?

Left to himself, Man can in a matter of minutes justify the incineration of populated cities; the deportation, slaughter, disease and starvation of inconvenient people and the mass murder of the unborn.

I have heard people who believe themselves to be good, defend all these things, and convince themselves as well as others. Quite often the same people will condemn similar actions by different countries, often with great vigour.

For a moral code to be effective, it must be attributed to, and vested in, a non-human source. It must be beyond the power of humanity to change it to suit itself.

Its most powerful expression is summed up in the words 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends'.

The huge differences which can be observed between Christian societies and all others, even in the twilit afterglow of Christianity, originate in this specific injunction.

Why don't you become a Muslim, then?

>Be Religious
>Fear Hell
>"I am superior to an atheist"

Be Athiest
Fear Imprisonment
"I'm not better than most people"

Oh hey, it's this guy.
I thought you died or something.

You just need to look at the definition of IQ to understand why religion was invented. By definition, half the population has a sub 100 IQ and are retarded, 100-115 is a large chunk of intelligent automatons, and 115+ is the actual free-thinking minority.

When the bulk of the population is basically retarded or just intelligent enough to parse what they are taught, religion makes sense as a control structure.

An atheist may or may not be a moral person, just as a religious person may or may not be a moral person, however, the atheist's foundation for morality is almost always poor. He cannot explain why certain morals are important or others aren't as important, or why certain traits are valued. He can't explain any of it within the framework of his worldview and so he has to constantly borrow from religion to reason about it.

If he refuses to acknowledge an objective morality altogether, the atheist sets himself in an even weaker position, easily able to fall prey to the philosophical bankruptcy of nihilism.

>You just need to look at the definition of IQ to understand why religion was invented. By definition, half the population has a sub 100 IQ and are retarded, 100-115 is a large chunk of intelligent automatons, and 115+ is the actual free-thinking minority.

>When the bulk of the population is basically retarded or just intelligent enough to parse what they are taught, religion makes sense as a control structure.

>M'lady

Actually, bestiality is one of the original 12 commandments that Moses brought from Mt Sinai. No man shall lay with a beast.

You can have both. Relativism can't be a hard concept for religious people considering how frequently they justify and rationalize sinning.

>Implying I think morals exist

Worship the Anglican pedophile syndicate more, that's a good goy. What a scam. Judaism is the one true religion.

where's your argument?

Is pedophilia the other?
Then what about Slavery or suicide?

Athiests have morals you bigot

>cuckoldry and mutilating baby's is helping

Atheist here. Morality is determined by reason. The rules of Christianity make sense because they prevent the spread of disease and help one transcend the beast-like inherent to mankind.

most atheists do not believe morality is objective

in fact, I don't even think it's possible to justify the existence of objective morality without God.

For being enlightened by your (((intelligence))), you (((atheists))) sure do get baited easily

Atheism is a literal cancer that enables basically any kind of 'degeneracy' you can think of. Simply because morality is relative under atheism, and as long as you give people the freedom to do what they want, they will indulge in their more basic passions and destroy themselves in doing so.

Sexual promiscuity, gluttony, laziness, anti-familial attitudes, etc. There's a reason, for example, why most modern women today are absolute garbage, and it's because there aren't any religious incentives to fit a traditional female role in society.

It's a suicidal ideology, and it's no wonder that kikes are pushing for it all over the world.

...

Suicide falls under murder and slavery was not mentioned. However slavery is not necessarily evil. Just depends on how well you treat your slaves. You could make a pretty good case that all niggers in America would do better to be slaves.

>atheists have morals hurr

It is impossible for an atheist to have morals. One of the problems atheists have is the unbelievers' assertion that it is possible to determine what is right and what is wrong without God. They have a fundamental inability to concede that to be effectively absolute a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter.

On this misunderstanding is a supposed conundrum about whether there is any good deed that could be done only by a religious person, and not done by a Godless one. Like all such questions, this contains another question: what is good, and who is to decide what is good?

Left to himself, Man can in a matter of minutes justify the incineration of populated cities; the deportation, slaughter, disease and starvation of inconvenient people and the mass murder of the unborn.

I have heard people who believe themselves to be good, defend all these things, and convince themselves as well as others. Quite often the same people will condemn similar actions by different countries, often with great vigour.

For a moral code to be effective, it must be attributed to, and vested in, a non-human source. It must be beyond the power of humanity to change it to suit itself.

Its most powerful expression is summed up in the words 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends'.

The huge differences which can be observed between Christian societies and all others, even in the twilit afterglow of Christianity, originate in this specific injunction.

Severely flawed reasoning.

Believing in a God doesn't actually give your morality any objective basis. Your morality will still be based on your subjective comprehension of that God, and therefore will still remain subjective. Any and all human interaction with reality is subjective to human understanding. Morality is no exception. It doesn't magically become objective just because you believe it comes from an objective source, for the same reason believing that you can fly will not magically cause you to sprout wings.

This isn't just pontification either. This can be proven in practice. Ask 10 different pastors of the exact same denomination a difficult ethical question and you will get 10 different answers.

Morality is has been and will continue to be a concept that requires in depth philosophical knowledge and intellectual honesty to truly master. Religion is not a shortcut. Either achieve enlightenment and join the ubersmench or gtfo.

this entire thread is atheists giving arguments and christians replying with fedora joke

the christians have turned this board into reddit, the very thing they despise. good job

>Believing in a God doesn't actually give your morality any objective basis. Your morality will still be based on your subjective comprehension of that God, and therefore will still remain subjective. Any and all human interaction with reality is subjective to human understanding. Morality is no exception. It doesn't magically become objective just because you believe it comes from an objective source, for the same reason believing that you can fly will not magically cause you to sprout wings.

>This isn't just pontification either. This can be proven in practice. Ask 10 different pastors of the exact same denomination a difficult ethical question and you will get 10 different answers.

>Morality is has been and will continue to be a concept that requires in depth philosophical knowledge and intellectual honesty to truly master. Religion is not a shortcut. Either achieve enlightenment and join the ubersmench or gtfo.

Oops.... *beast-like nature*

Morals are born through empathy, an evolutionary trait founding in Primates as they formed complex social groups.

Although most modern morals are conceived through debate and discussion.

Are there actually atheists here that believe in an objective morality?

Hot damn, keep slaying them bongistan
>he fell for the subjectivism meme

>It doesn't magically become objective just because you believe it comes from an objective source, for the same reason believing that you can fly will not magically cause you to sprout wings.

That's the most retarded attempt at an analogy I've seen all day.

>you need a book to tell you that it is wrong to harm another person or living being

I will seriously never understand this logic
while christianity was incredibly important in preserving european values back in the day there is literally no reason for a thinking human being to be bound by that sort of thing nowadays

Ohh and forgot about pedophilia. Pedophilia is perfectly find and natural. But God did mention, I dont recall where, that harming a child would put you in a pretty bad standing with him.

>They have a fundamental inability to concede that to be effectively absolute a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter.

It doesn't take a cosmic super being to grasp how things like stealing, rape, or murder could be wrong. Even godless heathen bush dwellers and niggers managed to figure it out to some degree.

>Left to himself, Man can in a matter of minutes justify the incineration of populated cities; the deportation, slaughter, disease and starvation of inconvenient people and the mass murder of the unborn. I have heard people who believe themselves to be good, defend all these things, and convince themselves as well as others. Quite often the same people will condemn similar actions by different countries, often with great vigour.

Two words: "Deus vult".

>For a moral code to be effective, it must be attributed to, and vested in, a non-human source. It must be beyond the power of humanity to change it to suit itself.

Like I just suggested, even devoutly religious people stretch and bend religiously prescribed moral doctrines to suit themselves. It's a common phenomenon in humans. The idea that we require supernatural guidance is ridiculous. Humanity managed to figure out particle physics and integrated circuits just fine, but we NEED god(s) to establish basic morality?

>bible
>stupid

illiterate degenerate confirmed

>Choose one
atheist it is then

>Earth
>Flat

being a Cred Forums-christian is better than being an atheist

You're right.

Where did you get the notion that our ancestors thought the earth was flat?

Prove its not.

>Your morality will still be based on your subjective comprehension of that God, and therefore will still remain subjective.

Severely flawed reasoning.

You're falsely equating human fallibility of understanding objective morality to objective morality not existing altogether.

Your kind of reasoning is exactly what leads modern journalists to not even try to be impartial.

>He thinks the written book we read now is the same book written eons ago.
>There is no chance someone changed the words to fit their purpose.
>None.
This guy.

You got BTFO and have nothing to say.

It's basic shit. Brain in a vat. This is 1+1=2 levels of simplicity first day of philosophy class stuff.

Except it's true. Just because you are too stupid to understand it doesn't make it a bad analogy.

>One of the problems atheists have is the unbelievers' assertion that it is possible to determine what is right and what is wrong without God. They have a fundamental inability to concede that to be effectively absolute a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter.

What needlessly hurts someone is immoral
Something that hurts no one cannot be immoral

Western atheistic societies generally agree with that logic, but are hypocritical about it
For exemple, consensual protected incest (hurts no one) is viewed as worse than adultery (hurts someone) or abortion (kills someone).

pedophilia probably wasnt a concept back then as people legitimately lived by the rule of 'if there's grass on the field play ball'

How could someone who took the time to post have such a shitty counter argument? You're making religious people look retarded. I'm severely disappointed in you, and any respect that I may have had for you or your position is gone.

that kike literally posts the same copypasta he made in every single atheist thread, sometimes twice in a row like in this thread, and when people argue with him he just quotes their entire post with a fedora pic

For a moral code to be effective, it must be attributed to, and vested in, a non-human source. It must be beyond the power of humanity to change it to suit itself.
[citation needed]

Just because some atheists are moral subjectivists doesn't mean all are, your anecdotal arguments notwithstanding.

> Christian niggers
> Morals

choose one

...

Isaiah 40:22: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

I've been in a plane and looked out the window

Because what he wrote isn't actually well thought out or even his own argument. It's psuedointellectual CARM crap they teach plebs in christian university apologetics.

He doesn't have a counterargument because he doesn't actually have any idea wtf he is talking about.

what do you think about neuroethics?

serious question.

You can still follow Christianity without being sincerely and completely sure of what God is. I do believe that God is completely rational, and our lives, emotions, existence, all things good and destructive is evidence that there is a greater "source" to all things. Think of religion as being humble, you're unperfect, unsure, and confused but you still humble yourself before God

how can you even begin to argue for the basis of an objective morality from a materialistic worldview?

>this book is the only thing that prevents me from raping and killing
Pathetic.

do you honestly think morality never existed before christianity

OP is a degenerate socialist Greek, I can smell him from across the Atlantic. Atheists have morals because they are brought up in Christianized society, so not for long. And Christians go to church on Sundays, there isn't any other kind really

>Atheist
>Morals

>Suicide falls under murder
The commandment says no such thing, catholics use the catechism to outlaw euthanasia and suicide, but the book of kings explicitly says what murder is, even makes exceptions for war and punishment, but doesn't mention suicide or euthanasia at all.

What about incest?

Depends if you equate morality with instinctive behaviour as a product of evolution. Humans are social animals so we do have natural reasons as to why er have empathy for others. There were immediate repercussions for people who murdered without reason, theft, etc... Thousands of years ago because it was detrimental to the close quarters living and lifestyle. Pretty obvious.

Like this.

"What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code.

The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?

Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?"

"A moral code is a system of teleological measurement which grades the choices and actions open to man, according to the degree to which they achieve or frustrate the code’s standard of value. The standard is the end, to which man’s actions are the means.

A moral code is a set of abstract principles; to practice it, an individual must translate it into the appropriate concretes—he must choose the particular goals and values which he is to pursue. This requires that he define his particular hierarchy of values, in the order of their importance, and that he act accordingly."

"Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life."

what kind of question is that?

that's like asking "do you think God existed before Christianity did"?

it's a nonsensical question

morality has always existed since before man existed

thanks for the explanation

>Something that hurts no one cannot be immoral

The argument can be made for seemingly harmless activities leading to progressive relaxing of moral standards and increase in social degeneracy. A guy by the name of CommonFilth (unsurprisingly a devout Christian) on youtube talks a lot about this. His position is that tolerance of homosexuality and things like incest has lead to distraction from the worship of God, and the popularity of all the sexual degeneracy that is documented on the internet.

I'm an atheist, and while I can initially agree with the idea that things that don't harm others can be tolerated, I can't really find fault in CF's logic.

> the atheist's foundation for morality is almost always poor. He cannot explain why certain morals are important or others aren't as important, or why certain traits are valued. He can't explain any of it within the framework of his worldview and so he has to constantly borrow from religion to reason about it.

Bull fucking shit. I don't need to borrow from religion to explain my morality. If my reasons for declaring something moral or immoral happen to match up with a religious doctrine, I'd chalk it up to coincidence rather than borrowing. I'd ask you to try me, but I'm going to bed.

The Japanese and pre-Christian Koreans are a pretty decent example though.

>base your morals on a thousand year old book that is suppose to dictate morals for all mankind until the end of the world.
>realize most modern moral dilemmas weren't even concepts then and your moral code has no way to provide direct guidance

What is a morality without a man to practice it?

What exactly do you think morality is?

>i can only act in a moral and ethical way because of the fear of torture and pain for all eternity

It's astounding to me that religionfags actually believe this. I happen to believe in some form of higher power, most likely a coder who put forth the variables that our simulation uses to render itsself. However, I do not believe in man made interpretations of what 'God' is. Religion is a construct of humanity. Humans are pretty fucking stupid.

I see a need and I satisfy that need, its what I do, I am a nice guy, no thanks necessary.

i choose both, but atheist morals are fluid and situational depending on what philosophy they're following before they finally end on "might makes right"

if they weren't born with strong pro-social instincts they're just going to be heartless in their own special way

and if you're wrong you reincarnate as a turk for not following the lost true god, keksimus maximus

>pascal's wager
>not invalid because of the presence of multiple belief systems

Zoophiles have never been gross because of the poor animals. It's about zoonotic diseases, introducing erroneous behaviour into animals (like dominance issues in male dogs), and not reproducing with other humans like a functioning society requires.

The original punishment for animalfuckers was to first kill the animal. It was never about the animal's well being. Ever.

Having little empathy for the nonhuman was most likely the original human type. And it would definitely serve you well if you only cared about some animals, not all, since they are food and competition for food in one.

There's nothing objective about that though that just explains how the concept of morals came about. It's not like its a universal truth it relies entirely on the basis that human suffering is wrong. If I were to meet an alien who said there was nothing wrong with human suffering and I maintained that there was who is right? If however I were to meet an alien who said that the speed of light was half of our c I can show that he is demonstrably wrong.

>
You're falsely equating human fallibility of understanding objective morality to objective morality not existing altogether.

Nope. You didn't understand what I wrote.

I'm not actually denying the existence of objective morality altogether. My point is that simple belief in God does not solve the René Descartes paradox, since the experience a person has of said God would still take place within the confines of said paradox.

Objective morality could very well exist, or maybe it doesn't. Whether it exists or not is totally irrelevant to the issue, which is whether or not a human can obtain it.

The reality is thinking it is possible to reach divine levels of ethical reasoning simply by believing in the divine ironically shows total ignorance of morality. It's pleb level philosophy for the unascended.

Your moral code is not objective, therefore it is.

Something that is morally wrong causes pain in others, something that is not morally wrong does not cause pain in others.

How do some religious people think this concept is impossible for atheists to undersatnd

the atheist only needs to say "because i feel it is right". disgust and joy are stronger in humans than tickled intellectual pickles.

without acknowledging the beast you will breed an army of moral weaklings. acknowledge the essentialtiy of the animal is the path towards breeding a more social species.

nobody ever declined to murder because they did a thorough evaluation of the economic consequences or consulted kantian ethics. they did it because the act simply disgusted them.

it is prudent to remove those who are not inherently disgusted by acts that are, on average, disadvantageous, or at least separate them into their own class should those acts be advantageous in a few situations.

>modern moral dilemmas

oh you mean like the result of jews fucking us over? yeah ok kid

You just cherry pick the "bad" morals from the atheists and make it seem like they can't have "good" morals. Moral relativity and it's flexibility is much more important for the survival of a group than morals that cannot change.

For example lets say one group sees it as a moral absolute to have a official funeral and burial for the dead. Another group doesn't have such customs and is more flexible. Then hits the black plague. Which community do you think will survive? The ones which hold a bunch of ceremonies for the dead or the one which is willing to burn the corpses and even kill the infected ones?

I can also bring up world populaation. Do you think it would increase or decrease if all humans were altruistic in the sense Jesus wanted us to be? If wars were never fought and drug companies prioritized human health over profit as an absolute choice. Theres a limit to how many humans the Earth can support. Do you really want to attempt to reach that point?

A chicken could argue that that there's something wrong with chicken suffering and many humans would disagree. Chicken morality does not apply to non chickens and human morality does not apply to non-humans. Irreconcilable enemies do not reason together, they fight. If your aliens were better off coexisting with humans, we could make the case for mutual existence. If not, then we can't. Pretty simple.

>lambast Athiests as having no morality
>insecure about it they try to be what they perceive as moral persons
>import refugees
>demand an increase in gibs
>embrace utilitarian totalitarianism

Yeah, nice work christcucks.

God doesn't actually torture anyone for eternity, people choose death because they've been corrupted. Hell is separation from the light of God, it's essentially the void, complete annihilation.

Bringing pain to any being that can feel pain is morally wrong. Something being morally wrong means it causes pain to someone/thing.

morality is also relative under faith. but instead of lone wolves saying it's fine to be a brony, you have entire brony civilizations worshipping the chaos steed and surgically altering their rulers to look like horses.

Yes exactly by people exploiting all the holes the commandments because they aren't a very comprehensive moral code.

Except incest that one is because you and the jews can't stop fucking your own cousins.

How can that possibly be objective then? If I were about to be sacrificed by a human however if I could objectively prove that my sacrifice is wrong I would be set free what could I argue? How do I prove that it is objectively true that human suffering is wrong?

>Hell is just non existence

Nice catechism fanfic, but the bible is clear and doesn't need to be all feel good, according to it, the devil is real, hell is real, and the wicked will be punished.

>morally wrong
pic related

Doctors cause a shit ton of pain, are they immoral? You may want to revisit your definitions.

I guess so, but right and wrong seems quite infantile with regards to evolution. Its obviously just the mechanism that has led our species this far, if you believe that's wrong then fine. We're more than likely here by mistake of nature, just like a virus. Purpose is up to the invidual. Being asocial can lead to severe mental illness and can produce people who no longer have empathy, we can't really judge modern human behaviours in this time. We haven't adapted to living isolated. Its an interesting topic anyway.

you beat the shit out of anyone that agrees

t. human race for the past 10,000 years

Well according to some doctors religion is mentally ill. You trust doctors don't you?

psychiatrictimes.com/articles/religion-spirituality-and-mental-health

Are you actually trying to argue that human sacrifice provides real benefits? Are you secretly an Aztec?

>To all the "moral atheists" out there, why don't you just become Christians?

In addition to not believing in God, I left Christianity there are parts of the dogma I don't agree with, and I'd rather be an atheist than one of the self-righteous assfuck who claims to be highly moral but picks and chooses which of his God's laws he wants to follow when it suits him. I hate grocery store Christians more than anything.

>It's not about belief, just humble yourself before God and help out western civilization at the same time.

How the fuck do you expect me to humble myself before a being I don't believe exists? How would professing a disingenuous belief in God help western civilization anymore than the way I'm living my life right now?

>If you're wrong, nothing other than you lived a pretty upstanding life, and if you're right you will inherit the kingdom of God it's a pretty good deal for any good moral person

If God actually does exist and is as omniscient as He's supposed to be, he would know if I didn't mean it when I claimed to believe in Him, and not let me into Heaven. Do you think I can fool Him? Whose fucking side are you on? Besides, even if He did let me into heaven under those circumstances, I wouldn't feel like I've earned it.

If He exists, I'd rather be denied entry into paradise for my refusal to believe, than to be let in on shaky pretenses.

Prove benefit = moral

one word- Altruism.

Most animals have some form of it

an innate- dont fuck with me and i wont fuck with you

Please give an example of a situation where murder is the *BEST* option out of every other possible action that doesn't involve quetzalcoatl

Yes he essentially does. Because he created us, he has inflicted the torture upon us. Then theres the people who never hear of Jesus, God or christianity and died of old age. If they go to Hell, God has created humans whom he's given no choice but to end up tortured in Hell. Even Jesus said that nobody can enter Heaven except through him. How can these humans enter Heaven if they have never even heard of Jesus?

This is usually where christcucks start to apply their mental gymnastics, but in the end what they say is just their interpretation of the Bible, among thousands of interpretations. Thus there is no absolute truth or answer to the fate of those people who never heard of Jesus.

God sent bears to kill a bunch of kids who made fun of a balding man

Huh really makes you think

>oh you mean like the result of jews fucking us over?

Jews? You mean those people who are supposedly Chosen by God Himself?

>Atheism is a literal cancer that enables basically any kind of 'degeneracy' you can think of. Simply because morality is relative under atheism, and as long as you give people the freedom to do what they want, they will indulge in their more basic passions and destroy themselves in doing so.
>There's a reason, for example, why most modern women today are absolute garbage, and it's because there aren't any religious incentives to fit a traditional female role in society.

Something I've noticed a lot recently are people with tattoos saying "Only God can judge me". Typically on skanky women. These people are basically so enamored with sinning and dedicated to willfully disobeying the rules of their religion that they've written a rebuttal directly on their skin to excuse their bad behavior.

Atheism's inherent moral relativism may allow for degeneracy to take place, but no more so than any religious framework. Just because a religion has an absolute moral doctrine doesn't mean that people aren't going to interpret it in relativistic ways, and disregard direct scriptural guidance or commandments when it suits them.

Some of the biggest skanks I've ever met have been seemingly devout Catholics. I know Catholic men who unabashedly cheat on their wives because "divorce is a sin".

yeah. dont fuck with God. he likes bald people

>Atheist not understanding the burden of proof

Its literally neither immoral or moral in any conceivable situation because there's no such thing as morality. If you mean best as in preferable for me it would be when the benefits outweigh the costs.

When you commit suicide you are in fact murdering someone, even if it is your self.

Ohh and incest is also against the commandments as is fucking your mother-in-law.

You mean
> not being christian
> being christian
?

Oddly enough

>Ohh and incest is also against the commandments

Which commandment? Adultery? Does adultery as it was defined then cover incest?

>no such thing as morality
And here I though we were having a real discussion. Got me good. 9/10 bait.

The commandment that says incest is wrong. Its literally a commandment against incest. Read the bible.

Fucking your mother in law = cucking your father
IMO it's thousands time more immoral than say, fucking your biological mother if she's divorced from your father

Prove there is an objective morality

>Religious
>Intelligent

Choose one

Name the verse and I'll read it faggot.

>I can only stop myself from raping and killing people cause an invisible sky man who watches me constantly is telling me not to

really makes you think

By what definition of murder and what is the definition of murder in the biblical context it was written?

Reality is objective
Morality tells you how to live in the aforementioned objective reality.
Humans have common traits that constrain appropriate and inappropriate conduct based on those common traits.

I'm not going to Phi101 you, if you honestly believe morality is subjective you deserve the life you're living.

More importantly, fucking your mother-in-law would be cucking your wife.

Every culture has morals, but there is no absolute right set of morals unless you consider morals to be right because they were written by jews thousands of years ago, atheists have morals they just aren't justified by a god, you say don't kill because god, I say don't kill because it's a dick thing to do and I don't wanna be killed, the problem with morals being enforced by a god is they change over time, jews Christians and Muslims all have their morals from the same book the Old Testament, they just add stipulations and interpretations later to fit their needs

>Reality is objective

Yes

>Morality tells you how to live in the aforementioned objective reality.

Yes but not objectively.

>Humans have common traits that constrain appropriate and inappropriate conduct based on those common traits.

Yes but there's no objectivity in that its just socially conventional.

Prove to me starting from first principles that it's wrong to murder someone.

Deuteronomy 27:14 is where they start. Oddly enough, I downloaded the bible on to my phone one day because I wanted to check out the original commandments. Didnt know where they were so I just clicked a spot that I thought would be close. Flipped a few pages and there they were.

>Morality tells you how to live in the aforementioned objective reality.

>Yes but not objectively.

If you don't accept the premises you're not going to accept the argument. The rules of survival in this world are not arbitrary or subjective. Wishing does not make anything true.

...

Fuck this jewish invention, everyone who believes in this jewish cuck sect is the same as your cuck lord christ.

Christianity is a blight upon Europe.

Oh yeah, confused with stepmother

>The Levites shall recite to all the people of Israel in a loud voice

Leviticus 26:27-29New International Version (NIV)

27 “‘If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, 28 then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. 29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.

This image makes me mad.

I'm not surprises the autists here can't comprehend morality, they're evolutionary waste. If you have an issue with objective morality there's something wrong with you. HUMANS ARE SOCIAL ANIMALS, therefore they have empathy. Use your fucking brain. There are instances where people would exclude a harmful individual from society so they don't harm or spread their genes via rape. Read a fucking book.

Reality is not objective. It's subjective. Even is most humans see reality in one way, it doesn't mean thats what reality is. Objectivity is just a buzzword humans came up with to give a label to the way they experience "reality".

>Objectivity is just a buzzword humans came up with to give a label to the way they experience "reality".
No, it means it can be collectively experience in a similar way.

The concept of morals has existed before religion ever existed, and I say this as someone who has religious beliefs.

...

Which is why atheists have committed the worst cases of mass murder in history. Tell someone not to fuck their sisters they immediately want proof that they shouldn't.

If I make a pot and then set it on the very edge of a table where it is guaranteed to fall off and shatter, is it the pot's fault that it fell off an shattered or is it mine for placing it there? If the broble is true and God is omnipotent and omniscient, he created us knowing from not only the moment of our creation but for as long as he existed that some number of us would fall and be damned to suffering in Hell. By creating humans at all and placing them in an environment in which the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was available, and Lilith/The Serpent/Satan was allowed to encourage us to eat of it, he automatically damned every single person who ever went to hell. This is an inescapable, inevitable result of God supposedly knowing everything, if he knows everything he must have known what the result of creating mankind would be.

I will not say whether or not that makes God reprehensible, I merely argue that he must have known what the results of his actions would be.

But what about all those successful, flourishing societies that don't outlaw indiscriminate murder? Oh.. wait.

Perception is subjective, reality is objective. This is why we invented rulers and thermometers and Geiger counters you actual idiot.

But the premises completely determine your outcome. We could meet aliens of a completely different culture and in our objective sciences we would both come to the same conclusions regardless of the fact that we likely both started from differing postulates of mathematics etc. If they were to study us there's no objective conclusion that could be made that our suffering is morally wrong. Independent of a human perspective you can't establish an objective morality.

>The rules of survival in this world are not arbitrary or subjective

This again rests on the idea that human suffering is bad.

God killed an awful lot of people, just saying. If murder's not something you're into, might want to pick a different role model.

Moral equilibrium is an evolved system which not because of any God, but a social necessity, a system of coexistence. People will attach moral codes with whatever they think is essential to enforce. In the absence of God, they might attach it with highest authority.

Atheist still are a part of the society, even if they don't believe in God, they are well aware of what's right and wrong. God is irrelevant.

By all means, indulge in your masochism. The sane humans, however, shall not be joining you.

God gets to kill people. The lord givith and taketh away.

How do atheists respond to this?

What interest do I have in that? An objective morality not existing doesn't mean I can't have a preference for how I act.

>By all means indulge in all flavours of ice cream. The sane humans, however, will eat chocolate

Reality is what humans perceive is to be, thus it's subjective. Yes, "reality" from the perspective of a thermometer is more objective than how humans perceive it.

>he needs some magic skydaddy to tell him how to behave

Behavior is inherited not learned. Other primates don't go around killing their tribemates.

>talking about morals
>have a designed shitting street

>Morals

>It's another atheist misunderstands what is meant by moral law episode

>Believing in a God doesn't actually give your morality any objective basis. Your morality will still be based on your subjective comprehension of that God, and therefore will still remain subjective. Any and all human interaction with reality is subjective to human understanding. Morality is no exception. It doesn't magically become objective just because you believe it comes from an objective source, for the same reason believing that you can fly will not magically cause you to sprout wings.
Yes, but you still can't empirically disprove that a supreme being exists.

pretty much this tbqfh desu sempai

I refuse to acknowledge a delusion, however "good" it may be. I can live an upstanding life without any imaginary gods telling me what to do.
Human behavior evolved over millennia and we've got a pretty good idea of what's right and what's wrong and what works best for society. It's all in the memes. And not the internet variety.

If god is both omniscient and omnipotent when he looks at what will happen tomorrow is he able to change that? If so how is he omniscient?

>none have a rational explanation of the objectivity of moral rules

False, either an intentional strawman or 0 effort in research.
Start here.
iep.utm.edu/objectiv/#H4

>empirically disprove

There's just no reasoning with christfags. Using logic on them is like explaining calculus to ants.

Brainlet detected.

I'm not arguing that subjective morality invalidates preferences because I'm not arguing that morality is subjective.

>Yes but there's no objectivity in that its just socially conventional.

You can't democratically alter reality. Reality is not decided, it is observed. Valid rules of conduct are derived from observation, not democracy, imagination, or randomness.

I have no idea what you were trying to convey with the ice cream comment.

If you're going to call something a strawman you should first learn what that means.

Morality is shaped by biology, thus certain generalities will inevitably make themselves obvious as all social groups who do not follow these guidelines will have died out or are vastly outcompeted by social groups which do follow those guidelines. Stuff like "don't hoard all the food you fucking fatass" or "Don't run around killing other members of your social group". As social groups grow more and more complex and laws are made, these broad proto-morals evolve into more complex moral frameworks and agreed upon legal codes which vary to some greater or lesser degree between isolated social groups.

It is certainly true that morality is not simply a completely arbitrary social construction, however it is also not an objective law imposed by a magical lawgiver. It is a highly beneficial behavior which has been passed down ever since the first group of humans who did it outperformed all other groups who failed to do the same.
The onus of proof is upon the one who makes the claim, if you claim that a supreme deity exists then it is up to you to prove so.

Alright derive without making any assumptions that murder is wrong

Pretend no atheists espouse objective morality (the strawman)
Proceed to attack moral relativism
Act like you've decisively defeated atheism.

Pretty sure I got it right fampai.

you're ridiculous. every religious person has different ideas what is right regarding drugs, gay marriage and a plethora of smaller things. this is the case because religious people look at their religious teachings and compare them to their own internal morality. they accept what they agree with and reject what they disagree with. the notion that your morality is superior because you got it from god is ridiculous - you didn't.

>derive
>no premises
Are you sure you know how formal arguments work?

That is not a strawman in any way

>It is a highly beneficial behavior which has been passed down ever since the first group of humans who did it outperformed all other groups who failed to do the same.

You call it a law but here you say it's just a matter of taste and opinion.

If you have to take premises why should I accept it?

I can prove to myself that in some sense I exist because by mere virtue of that thought it means I have to exist.

I can prove that things can be certain because the statement 'Nothing is certain' is self-contradictory

Neither of those require any premises to prove objectively so I don't see why I have to grant you any premises

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then refuting that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

Ok.

Who exactly is that picture strawmanning? It's not a response to an argument.

It's neither. If there were an objective best morality it would be absolutely dominant, yet here we are continuously fighting amongst one-another about which one is the best. Similarly if anybody's idea of morality were workable we'd see all kinds of bizarre and inconsistent moral codes, yet what we actually see is a diverse set of moral codes which all share certain generalities and people who didn't catch on to that were outcompeted by people who did such that the people who did catch on are the only ones left in substantial numbers.

This. You are not born knowing right from wrong, you are taught it, and the person that taught you it most likely has/had followed a religion at some point in their life.

Atheists literally cannot come back from this one

>I do believe that God is completely rational, and our lives, emotions, existence, all things good and destructive is evidence that there is a greater "source" to all things.

If there exists a god, he is most likely indifferent.

Our emotions are just a very inconvinient mutation in my opinion, which makes everything in life unnecessarely more difficult than it already is.
Exactly, what's so good about our overly complex emotions? They just ruin anything and hold many people back of achieving great things and finally make something out of themselves. They serve us nothing good.

Just because you hide your premises doesn't mean they're not there.

>I can prove to myself that in some sense I exist because by mere virtue of that thought it means I have to exist.
Premises: My thoughts are trustworthy, Thoughts are something only existing things have, my sense of self is valid and not illusory or the product of some entity other than myself.

>I can prove that things can be certain because the statement 'Nothing is certain' is self-contradictory
Premises: The law of non-contradiction is valid, the law of identity is valid, reason is objective (things derived from reason do not only apply to you, but to others)

Every single proposition beyond pointing and grunting (ostensive demonstration) is based on premises.

Or, you know, the persons teaching morality were in turn taught by other persons. Religion is not at all a necessary ingredient.
Organized religion is nothing but a form of control over the masses, carefully constructed to reject any form of logical reasoning against it in order to perpetuate itself indefinitely.
And it works, as apparently only a handful of people are intelligent enough to break through the conditioning and see it for what it is. And that are brave enough to openly reject it, because in many cultures you will be shunned by society for doing so.

Gravity is some sort of higher power.
It's almost everywhere and you can't escape it, you can't block it off like radiation or light, you can't prevent its influence on you.

pic unrelated.

>religion
>white people
pick one

Im not even religious, but something about people beating off to pornography of Nuns, or whatever the similar religious position of Muslim and Jewish women pisses me off. Applies to any "religion porn" really.

nobody absorbs lessons that don't agree with their own observations. Philosophy predates all current religions. Religion is a weak substitute for philosophy.

There is no "black and white", "Good or Evil" and there is no justice.
I dont need GOD to implant fear of "wrong deeds" inside me.
I dont need to participate in your game of beliefs.
I will always, like a true scientist, agnostic will doubt in anything. Cause "beliefs" - are chains which holds me, smoke which blocks my vision.

haha how can i recover from this argument?!?!

If God is real, then God inheres in the comprehensive reality syntax, and this syntax inheres in matter.

>The onus of proof is upon the one who makes the claim, if you claim that a supreme deity exists then it is up to you to prove so.
I didn't say I was trying to prove it nigga. The reverse can be applied also. Can a denial of God be disproved by empirical or rational means, the short answer is yes.

Is it because they can have a shower after jerking off that won't electrocute them?

>christians
>'boy are you lucky! If there wasnt a magical sky fairy promising eternal suffering for hurt you, I would be pillaging and killing every day of the week'

Great 'morals' christfag. A system totally designed about selfishness. Go on, tell us how you have to be rewarded to be nice to other people.

>Implying I don't take cold showers.

Fuck anyone that uses those death trap showers.

>My thoughts are trustworthy

My thoughts don't tell me I exist the argument is that by mere virtue of thought I exist

>Thoughts are something only existing things have

Something has to exist if it thinks by definition of existence

>my sense of self is valid and not illusory or the product of some entity other than myself

That entity is then indistinguishable from myself

>The law of non-contradiction is valid, the law of identity is valid

Its logically reasoned out, independent of humans.

I'm starting to think you might have a point with this though. Any reading you could point me to that makes a logical argument for this?

I won't speak for other Atheists but as far as I'm concerned I don't deny God, I just reject bad arguments for God. It is possible that some kind of God exists, but so far the claims for the existence of people's specific Gods haven't been particularly convincing.

That doesn't answer the point. How can a self-contradictory being exist.

The primary originator for the idea of objective reality is Aristotle. The best modernization of the principles I've found is Rand. If there's a particular concept you'd like to flesh out, I'd recommend this
aynrandlexicon.com/
If you'd like to discuss the topics further, feel free to post a throwaway email and we can chat off-board.

Who the hell is that kid?

Not an atheist...
But morals aren't dictated by some "god".

These people, for example:
Many people have the same vague arguments. "Morality is the golden rule". "Morality is reason and logic" "Morality is objective" "Morality is this and that".

It's very very simple to understand. If you don't believe in evolution, then fine, I won't argue on evolution.

Morality is a communication. That's what it is. It's not some vague spiritual concept or a "reasoned" argument. Morality is just a form of communication. When you see someone, your brain makes a decision about them instantly, decisions based on values (Which is another form of communication), values such as likeness, empathy, territory, etc. We contrast their values to our own and make subconscious decisions like "Should I feel bad if I kill this other being?" or "Should I befriend this being?"

When people believe in an almighty god that they get their morals from, it's NO different than getting your views of language from a dictionary or getting your property rights from the state. These things are relative. There is no objective language, no objective morality, and no objective territory. They are communications JUST like it is in nature..

>fear of eternal damnation and judgement from a fantasy being driving his actions
>moral

Kek.

I've never met a self described atheist that wasn't a pants shitting autist.

Well... I mean.... have you tried?

why should someone follow the golden rule if they can get away with not following it?

Social needs, better quality of life via division of labor, passing your genes.
Take your pick.

>Choose one
Atheist Morals

>why don't you just become Christians?
Christianity is immoral

If God exists, there is morality. If there is morality, atheists can be moral. If God exists, atheists can be moral.

>One of the problems atheists have is the unbelievers' assertion that it is possible to determine what is right and what is wrong without God.

And yet millions of people were able to long before your gods even existed. If you try to make the hilarious claim that the Israelites had no clue it was wrong to lie, cheat,steal, kill before the decalogue at Mt Sinai, we'd all know you're lying.

> what is good, and who is to decide what is good?
Men invent morals
Men invent gods to enforce their morals
Perfectly logical.

>Left to himself, Man can in a matter of minutes justify the incineration of populated cities; the deportation, slaughter, disease and starvation of inconvenient people
That sounds like a goods day's work for any absurdity-believing religion.

Non-believers would need a valid reason to commit your level of atrocities, a much higher bar.

>and the mass murder of the unborn.
Unborn teenagers or unborn senior citizens?

>For a moral code to be effective, it must be attributed to, and vested in, a non-human source.
False. Hammurabi's Code. Next?

>that a man lay down his life for his friends'.
His life? Your story says he was only "dead" for what, 3 days? That's like not even really sick.

>No man shall lay with a beast.
Apparently it was a huge problem.

Where is the abortion commandment?

"Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"
Psalms 137-9

>in fact, I don't even think it's possible to justify the existence of objective morality without God.
>I don't even think
Your gods are supernatural fabrications and delusions. Logic only exists for the natural realm.

>Christians
>people who behave themselves well not because they're good people, but because they think the boogeyman is watching
Pick both.

>Morals
what?

>You are not born knowing right from wrong, you are taught it,
No one knows anything about religion until the lies start pouring in.

Many atheists come from families that have been victimized by religion in some way.

>If God exists, there is morality.
Baal is a god.
Molech is a god.
Yea! Now there is so much more morality!
/sarc

>i need a religion, because im too retarded to see the difference between whats wrong and right

>Atheist
>Morals
>Choose one

Not killing people just because they don't believe in your fairy tale books.

Atheism.

they're not mutually exclusive

>the world has turned to absolute shit since the west became mainly atheist.
when did that happen ?

>Atheists can have morals but their morals will not have any foundation and their morals will crumble at the first sign of trouble.

what does this even mean? like someone is going to suddenly forget that they're not supposed to steal?

What's stopping an atheist from killing people who do believe in fairy tale books or in general?

After all there is no higher power to govern so you can do whatever you want because there's just no meaning.

If you say:
>uhh..uh I don't do it because it's wrong and a shitty thing to do.

Wrong according to who?

or the utilitarian:

>It's wrong because it is not in the best interest of an orderly society

please do note that society is just a spook.

Pretty sure the dont murder clause already covers murder.

It means when the glorious leader comes and says, "We dont like those nationalists, we are going to murder all 40 million of them so the rest of you 260 million will be happy little globalist sheep" an Atheists will be like "Yeah, that sounds reasonable".

>What's stopping an atheist from killing people who do believe in fairy tale books or in general?
You should probably be asking your self why it is that religious worshipers put atheists to death, and never the other way around.

Pretty sure its just islam that puts religious people to death. And Islam puts everyone to death including other mudslimes. And if you want examples of atheism putting religious people to death you need to look no further than almost every communist nation ever.

>Pretty sure the dont murder clause already covers murder
The fetus isn't its own living being until it is born.

Abortion wasn't even considered a sin the bible and it's never been considered murder before the radical extremists started recently trying to move the goalposts.

Hey, what would you guys say if I told you that all of your religions are all based on ancient extraterrestrial visitor cargo cults, and were subverted and/or changed for political purposes to keep the "Clergy" of those religions in power?

>What's stopping an atheist from killing people who do believe in fairy tale books or in general?

Their morals.

>And if you want examples of atheism putting religious people to death you need to look no further than almost every communist nation ever.
Let's examine them. Stalin was an Orthodox seminary student. He was a religious man of the same faith as the people he killed. But the Russian church coronates the czars and Stalin didn't want the political threat. So Stalin did NOT kill the clergy based on what they believed - he used atheism as a tool to remove a political threat.

Buddhists don't worship gods like weak-minded Middle Easterners and Americans. Like most of China, Mao was a Taoist who attended Confucius college. He didn't kill anyone in the name of atheism.

Exactly this? Why should the default be the Christian idea of God?

>if they weren't born with strong pro-social instincts they're just going to be heartless in their own special way

Just like Christians can be heartless because of their instincts to conform.

This is an interesting take on everything. The idea that religion motivates whole societies to a certain way, leading to success if their hivemind happens upon practical ideas, but otherwise leaves them to be wiped out or assimilated if they end up backwards. That's why religious societies tend to be so strong, the successful ones are naturally selected and the failures you barely hear about.

>1 post by this id

Christians have justified murder over the centuries many multiple times
So fuck off

Mao was an atheist right?

Yeah I'll go with morals every time.

Are morals good because God ordains them, or does God ordain them because they are good?

>theist
>logic
choose one

Wasn't Stalin an atheist too? All this logic seems to kill a lot of people.

>morals
>implying there is good or evil

There's no such thing as an Atheist. Just 14 year old's who want to get back at their parents for dragging them to church.

thesun.co.uk/living/1853651/having-sex-makes-men-more-likely-to-believe-in-god/

Did you know that men who have sex are more religious? It's almost like most atheists are just angry virgin neckbeards.

>a man who practices (((Marxism)))
>an atheist
Pick one. Because there is no practical difference between a secular totalitarian state and a rigid theocracy, the two are one in the same, and that makes Marxism a de facto religion. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. It's no coincidence that both Marxism and Christianity both center on a Skype guru, either.

>christians are hypocrites
you don't say

Wasn't Leopold II of Belgium a christian too too? All these morals seems to kill a lot of people.

Also, communism is even more retarded than most religions.

>Isrealites were Jewish
Why am I talking to someone who knows nothing?

>self-described

Well, duh.

More that religious men are more likely to find a greater purpose in a relationship and a family, while atheists are more likely to be MGTOWs.

Hmm the numbers are nearly identical! Don't worry though, I know how close-minded you atheists tend to be so if stuff doesn't fit your narrative, you'll twist said stuff until it does.

I'm out, enough triggering atheists with simple truths.

>God Bless you misguided people

why would I believe Christianity over Islam or Judaism
how can you possibly know which one is correct
what about all the other religions make a god claim

...

>Wasn't Stalin an atheist too?
>There's no such thing as an Atheist. Just 14 year old's who want to get back at their parents for dragging them to church.

Theists: Stalin is a 14-year old who wants to get back at his parents.

Seriously, you can't make this shit up.

>that makes Marxism a de facto religion.
Look, we get it. We all know religion is the most shit thing on the planet, and the worst insult you can ever hurl at anything is to call it a religion. But Marxism is an ideology. It already has a taxonomy and classification.

Irrational belieber have a hilarous habit of falling for nonsense and making up their own new nonsense to fall for. For example, they can't prove "god is real", so they fabricate the false equivalency - "nothing is real".

Just from a logical perspective, even is they are successful, they are like the winners of the special Olympics:
(1) "God is real"
(2) "Nothing is real"
(3) Therefore "God is nothing"

>you atheists tend to be so if stuff doesn't fit your narrative, you'll twist said stuff until it does.

Prove Mao killed only because of or in the name of his non-belief.

This is where the crazy-claim theists get spanked again. Buddhists don't worship gods like weak-minded Middle Easterners and Americans. Like most of China, Mao was a Taoist who attended Confucius college. He didn't kill anyone in the name of atheism.

>OP has never read Euthyphro

Get fucked, you massive fucking idiot.

Sauce me up my man, gotta rub this one out

Its more likely to be immoral atheist than immoral theist.

Source ?

Theists believe in God that may punish them for everything wrong they did, or reward them for everything good. Atheists doesn't believe in reward/punishment and God in general.

>It's ok when God does it.
>objective morality

Riiiiiight. What about the indiscriminate slaughter and sinning done in the name of God?

I've got an interesting line of thought that parallels that: The supposed difference between humanity and angels is that humans were granted free will. I'm actually not sure if Scripture directly supports this, but I've heard it argued several times both by clergy and in pop culture. If angels were created without the capacity for free will, how did they rebel?

>God gave us morals
>but we change them as we please and still count themselves as religious people
Only Muslims got it right but for some reason Americans are triggered by Muslims beyond measure, really makes you think...

>"None of them have an explanation for the objectivity of morals"

I believe that morals are relative.

>"the one thing that is so obvious about moral rules is that they are objective"

Name one thing that's absolutely wrong under any circumstance.

>guilt isn't the result of taste or opinion but comes from knowing we broke a law

I disagree, and counter that guilt is the result of empathy. We feel bad because we consider how our actions have harmed others, or in some cases we're worried about getting caught and subject to shame.

>If you have an issue with objective morality there's something wrong with you
>objective morality
No such thing. Christian "objective morality" bends to the society pressure as everything else. Book is the same but its interpretation changed in many things to the opposite. Compare 13th century Europe with modern day:
>no human rights
>slavery
>burning heretics
>legal torture
>Monarchy is objectively only one true government type everything other is agsint God's will
>beating wifes
So what Christian morality was objective again? 13th century version or 21st century? Pro tip: you can't pick both.

underrated post

Considering that you can't prove that one does, attributing humanity's entire capacity for morality seems kinda premature don't you think? Maybe finish one candy bar before you start the next one?

Agreed. As I've said earlier. Humans have been around long enough that we managed to develop shit like particle physics, the internal combustion engine and the integrated circuit. Not to mention cultural developments like art, music, and philosophy. If we as a race could come up with all that, is it not possible that we could have figured out morality on our own? I say not only that it is, but that it's more likely than an omnipotent superbeing instilling the ideas into us.

Japan.

We established some 200 posts ago that shitty ad hominem arguments like this just make religious people look like jackasses. Come back when you have an argument.

How the hell is this thread still up? OP puts a reaction picture and doesn't even put a proper sentence at all and this is still going...

Was this bait?

>1 post by this ID (OP)
>thread about atheists,God,morals...
>was this bait?
Gee dunno f4m

>Judgement is a form of communication

hmm testing something out

Actually it's hard to disagree with this. Just need to look at the comment section of an unmoderated news site to see how bad it is.

...

I agree.

...so you got tired of shitposting on /b so you figured you'd move over here?

go fuck yourself...your still a shitposter and will always be a shitposter

Due to re-written history of historical events & as allways maintaining the flow of reality all religions are constantly changed some dont recive the update as allways. All way of a human view. Your experiences are vital. There is no end of days. - only the real questions please.

The more antimatter you pull in the more work to revolve around this.

Bond 1

Responsible pulled the trigger to your heads.

When ICANN needs to activate off its reason this all will be gone.

Wouldn't be all seeing if he didn't watch you on the toilet and if you don't believe in hell then his existence is irrelevant to morality.

CERN - is not the one to be held responsible. I am. I am of you.

kek unenlightened cucks thinking you have to be an atheist to recognize how morality and divine belief aren't exclusive.

I'm not an atheist. Just someone who bothers to actually understand the universe enough to see how deeply flawed trying to say atheists can't be moral is.

All human understanding is subjective to your reality. The Descartes dream paradox proved this a long time ago. Belief in a higher power does not circumvent this paradox in any way shape or form. If atheists cannot be moral, than theists cannot be moral either.

Saying nonbelievers can't have an ethical code without god is like saying you can't get out of bed in the morning without first acknowledging that we live in the matrix. It's a retarded argument that is based on a pleb level understanding of human perception. This shit is literally babbies first philosophy lesson. If you can't comprehend it you have abbo-tier intellect.

how can atheists be real if god ain't

checku meito fgtz

I totally agree that for a moral code to be absolute, it needs to be out of humanity's reach. It is by definition so.
So where is this god given code, and where is the proof that it was from God?
that's right, there is no absolute moral code.

see: philosophy

also
>1 post by this ID