ATHEISTS ARE DEGENERATE

Atheists, by what standard do you condemn any action?
If all existance occured out of chaos, randomly, for no reason, then how can you call something right, wrong, good or bad?
There would literally be no reason for you to care or call something evil or bad or not good.
All have is your opinion no standard.

>If all existance occured out of chaos, randomly, for no reason, then how can you call something right, wrong, good or bad?

Events don't have to be non-random to be categorized according to our desires.

Morality is certainly subjective, but that fact isn't a warrant to behave like a shithead. We are able to agree upon behavior sets that will either enable us to collectively thrive or perish.

With growing evidence, though, I am leaning more and more towards reality being non-random--but still not non-random according to religious dogma.

Aren't you superstitious people bored from this argument. Why don't you think about something else?

There is equivalently no reason for anything to be good if a god does exist.

no no there is no such thing as a shithead only random chaos. if there is no God, how can you say you can even trust your perceptions or senses. perhaps they are wrong and are still in flux. the point is there must be a standard that is permanent and eternal before you call anyone bad or a shithead. by what standard are you calling me a shit head?

nice non answer

and?

Why ask us? If you believe God is real... why don't you ask xer?

I just want all atheists to never have confidence in themselves. seeing an atheist walk around comparing all experience to themselves and calling the world good or bad is naturally sickening.

So? Who cares what you want?

>Atheists, by what standard do you condemn any action?

Harm

lots of people. but you are agreeing with me then. I AM NOT THE STANDARD. stop being you and change to my way of thinking - which is the correct way of thinking.

define harm? what harms one can benefit another. this is really stage one thinking dude.

And what?
That's it.

The implication is that your OP is irrelevant to anything.

This is a non-sequitur

When you claim that our perceptions are slippery without God, which perceptions are you talking about? Our sense of taste, smell, touch, sight, and hearing?

With or without God, those perceptions are stable enough for us to have been able to collect data and make accurate predictions based upon them.

God does not have to exist for objectivity to exist. If God did not exist, then the statement "God does not exist," would be objectively true, so objectivity would still exist without a divinity.

Generally though, what appears to be chaos is order on a higher level.

Did you proofread before you post? You really should next time.

if a permanent and enternal standard outside of time and space which creates all creation calls something good - its good. what dont you understand?

>outside time and space
So you can't prove it exists?

>its good!
Unless that force is, you know, evil.

you collect data when high too and your perceptions do not match the ones when you are not high.
ever see an eyewitness testimony next to a video. its almost always off.
perception is not objective.
if there is no God you literally have no reason to trust them.

define evil? if it calls it evil or good its evil or good. it must be the creator to qualify. this is reality.

>it must be the creator to qualify. this is reality.
Why?

We're the ones who use the words. We decide what they mean.

Well, here are your problems, in a list, even.

1.) You have to prove there's a God. (You can't.)

2.) You have to prove this God is objectively good. (You can't.)

3.) You have to prove this God is omnipotent/omniscient so it can't be wrong about what is good or evil. (You can't.)

4.) You have to prove this God is worthy of worship, even with these facts, because it might not be worthy or wish to be worshiped. (You can't.)

I mean... I COULD be wrong that you can't prove these points. But to win this internet argument you just have to prove it.

That creature is all powerful and all knowing. God is also omnipresent. When i hit you in the face it's actually god hitting himself in the face. Everything that happens is god's will.

check out forms
oooo this reminds me of a friend who got his PHD from an Ivy on language being incapable of defining anything. he did a paper with WORDS talking about how LANGUAGE cannot define anything. do you see the disconnect.
John 1:1 In the beginging was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.
This was already thought out a long time ago man. all you have to do is look it up. God, in fact SPOKE the world into existence. think about that concept even if you dont believe it. its brilliant.

Fuck Trump and Fuck White People. Islam will reunite the divided people by any means necessary as the one true religion Inshallah.

why do I have to prove anything to be "right" there is no God remember?
AGAIN
by what standard do you condemn any action??

>Bible mentions how women were made for man
>How women don't have authority over man
>How women should remain quiet when asked
>How women should honor and serve their husbands

Yet atheists still choose to ignore the obvious. It's true, atheists are virgin degenerate autists.

Throw yourself in front of a car and find out yourself.

Honestly, if I need to define harm, you might be dangerously retarded

>Make a positive claim.
>Want people to change their minds to the "correct" way of thinking, but wants them to join their cult without actual proof.
>Can't put up, won't shut up.

Typical.

Islam is a failure false religion that cannot create anything - only destroy prosperity. AT BEST all it can do is become a parasite to prosperity. its a lot like leftism.

With an evergrowing secularised world, Islam is needed more than ever. We will invade cleanse the west of it's degeneracy and revert back to traditional values. You spineless Americucks welcome us with open arms, don't expect (((Trump))) to fix that.

a non answer. why is "harm" your standard. and again, what you call harm is not harm to all people or all situations. harm is not a universal objective concept. sometimes "harm" is necessary for good (good according to the God's word)

You're making a false equivalency.

If we were not able to gather objective data according to our senses, then our ability to make accurate predictions would be impossible.

Such is not the case, though. We objectively know that, if you drink an 8 ounce glass of pure liquid ricin--in under 60 seconds--you will objectively die.

Objective facts are real, and they are gathered from our perception.

That is not to say that "perception is reality," which is a manipulative concept used to dismiss objectivity (it is sophistry).

When someone claims "perception is reality," they ever define *which* perception or perceptions they are talking about. As an example, let's say that "visual perception is reality." This is misleading, because it implies that anything outside of our visual perception does not exist.

For instance, if I run a red light and don't see the car coming at my passenger side door, then the car doesn't exist and it wouldn't be possible for said car to t-bone be into oblivion. We can gather that reality exists and acts upon us outside of our visual perception, so the saying "perception is reality" cannot be applied to visual perception.

We can apply the same reasoning to all human perceptions. If it is possible for you to be wrong and later corrected, then your perceptions are not the basis for reality--reality is separate from our perceptions and objectively measurable.

Knowing this we are able to correct it my gathering data from lots of variables. We ate able to make accurate predictions according to what we perceive in reality.

Your claim that none of that would be possible without the existence of God is a non-sequitur.

kys christfag

then follow your own advice. why should I listen to you? you are finite in every aspect of your existence. BY WHAT STANDARD?

Good does not exist without evil

Reaction does not exist without action

Existence does not randomly happen without a force/being called "God" that begins in

Good/evil are stronger forces than positive/negative charges in nature

no one needs islam. its a failure and always will be. the world would literally be better without it.

Morality is a spook

dude how can you call your perceptions objective if you do not have a fixed point?
I want to tell you that I was once an atheist like yourself - there is a clever answer to what I am asking but you havent gotten it

The atheist cannot separate himself from the only thing he knows a true. Therefore cannot give no value to material things. They are just like the Jews.

You're right. Instead of one arbitrary rule let's have ten. Then write a whole book of contradictions about it.

I don't give a shit if you listen to me or not. I'm not even trying to change your mind.

>Good does not exist without evil
You quantified and tested every instance of good, then, for the presence of evil? Of course you didn't.

>Reaction does not exist without action
Unless you're arguing with theists. They tend to think uncased causes happen all the time.

>Existence does not randomly happen without a force/being called "God" that begins in
Like I was saying about uncased causes...

>Good/evil are stronger forces than positive/negative charges in nature
Empty statement.

>no one needs islam

Then why is it the world's fastest growing religion? Why is it celebrated everywhere? It is inevitable that Islam will conquer the west. We have claimed Europe and will claim you too, while your leaders welcome us in with open arms.

This is why they don't breed unlike christians who have a big population growth. Within a generation atheists will be gone and christendom will rule again.

>what you call harm is not harm to all people or all situations.
>harm is not a universal objective concept.

Any injury sustained against the biological capabilities of an organism to continue functioning--qua the capabilities of said organism--is harmful to the organism.

That is universally true, regardless of your sophist arguments otherwise.

the bible never contradicts itself. you are just being lazy, shallow and dishonest in your thinking. a moment's checking can answer any question you may have about the bible.
you still cannot answer my question and all you are doing is deflecting.
by what standard do you condemn any action?
by what standard do you call me insults?
by what standard do you call my statement empty?
its a rhetorical and natural fact:
if there is no God - you have no standard.
you are just flailing in the dark.

amen
also atheist is shrinking in pop

Our physical perceptions are the fixed point from which we derive all knowledge.

so what?
so I am the standard here? if I am "harmed" then that is what is "bad"? I didn't know that I was the standard here.

>No, see, this New Testament overrides the Old Testament. The Old Testament is just for historical record. Pay no attention to that goy. It was real in my mind.

so? how can we know they are objectively true. you just defined self-definition of reality. that called SUBJECTIVISM.

>obeying vague contradictory laws from an old desert fantasy book under penalty of eternal torture makes me moral!
religioncucks are figuratively too stupid to even have a conversation with. The law and the golden rule is how most people condemn actions, its that simple

>so what?
>so I am the standard here? if I am "harmed" then that is what is "bad"? I didn't know that I was the standard here.

You are committing a non-sequitur again. My definition of harm doesn't logically follow the claim that any single individual organism is "the standard."

It is, in fact, a shared trait amongst all biological organisms.

They don't even follow those laws.

>so? how can we know they are objectively true. you just defined self-definition of reality. that called SUBJECTIVISM.

No. This is not correct. The tools are subjective (touch, scent, taste, sight, hearing) according to the nature of the organism. The knowledge gleaned through data collected from them is objective.

For instance, and ET race of organisms--that we will hypothesize have sensory organs completely unlike our own--would arrive at all of the same scientific conclusions regarding the nature of the universe.

A = A regardless of what tool is used to glean this simple truth.

Kek is strong in this thread. Keep on atheist bros.

>Obeying laws made by men under the penalty of imprisonment for life makes me moral.
The golden rule was created by religion.
Tell me one reason why the Golden Rule matters if you have no faith.
Also tell me one reason why being Atheist is superior to being Christian.

>implying I was talking about laws passed by legislature
>and not in the bible

I was talking to the swede on that one.
Also alot of people who call themselves Christian don't know what they believe to the prohibition of it being thought in school and due to crappy parents not teaching it to them.

I don't think every action is objectively good or bad.

If an action benefits other people, I call it good. If an action harms other people, I call it bad. If an action's consequences are mixed, I judge it by the net. If an action doesn't benefit or harm other people, I call it none of your fucking business.

So there is no reason why the Golden Rule matters with no faith.
And also no reason why being atheist is better then being Christian.

I still remember my first atheistic experience: God appeared out of nowhere, manifesting himself thru miracles, mystical estate of mind and demonic forces manifesting also strongly.
In one single day I was already being too wrong for just one person and life.
It's what depending on five senses bring, being wrong, as there could be things you do not have senses to perceive.

you only have five nerfed senses

They can't. Fedroatheists always proving time immemorial that they are incompetent losers. They worship Nietzsche but don't even understand him.

ooooo its that simple. so what? where do those "rules" come from? name it or stop believing what you are lazily believing.

so what? you said "harm" is the standard. what does that mean? physical harm or death is what we should go by - why? by what standard is this the ultimate standard that all should go by?

you are saying that I am the standard by my subjective senses. that is not true. I am finite and cannot be the standard. when I go all standards go? a consensus is the standard? why?

>Atheists, by what standard do you condemn any action?
My own.

You're being dishonest, God is eternal, eternity cannot have a cause for being eternal, the universe is bloody known not to be eternal.

>Atheists, by what standard do you condemn any action?
On general principle. Generally accepted forms of morality. And the fact that,unlike the religious, we don't have to be bribed to "be good", like a child.
How bad do you feel knowing that you're so savage, that humanity had to create sky spooks in order for you to behave?
Like simple children. And you fucked that system up,too.

>the universe is bloody known not to be eternal.

Look up the big bounce theory. You are factually incorrect.

>only god can determine what is right and wrong/ good or bad for human beings

>human beings can do that to? haha no! good and bad are holy concepts, your position on it is only your opinion xD

OP is underage