Is it objectively possible to have morals without religion?

Is it objectively possible to have morals without religion?

I hope this is a joke, of course you can don't let the religious zealots tell you your an evil piece of shit for not believing in their magical all knowing fairy.

MOrals came before religion so

religion is objectively immoral

Is it objectively possible to not shitpost on Sup Forums?

is it objectively possible to have morals with religion?

Without religion morals are based on nothing, so no.

it is possible. Just really improbable.

HAHAHAHAHAH

No because people end up chasing material pleasures instead rather than upholding civilization.

Sure, write yours down and declare them as objective because they're on an object (piece of paper).

It's no different than arbitrarily choosing a religion.

Yea if you stop thinking about stupid shit and trust your feels.

The lines between religion and morality are blurry. They may not be separate things at all. Read Fowler's "Stages of Faith" for more information.

You'll notiec that what people feel is right and wrong has a lot to do with their religious beliefs -- even atheists tend to have strikingly similar moralities which are based on materialistic, humanistic principles despite the fact that they have "no religion" and are "free thinkers." I guess it turns out that what you believe in is the basis for what you feel is right and wrong whodathunkit

Can psychopaths be religious?

(((You)))

Religions are meant to help you find the right way but it's mostly practised by retards
Proof: you

it's possible but religion is a tool for the masses, most people will not reach spiritual enlightenment in this life because they are too preoccupied with the physical world

my parent's could have taken me to church but i'm a filthy heathen and now have to find my own spirituality on the left hand path

feelsbadman

what kind of question is this even

Of course. Our race is our religion, you go against the religion, you go against your race, you're going against yourself.

The only racial religions are ethnic tribal religions.

>Animals exhibit morality.
>Even sane people without religion find awe in doing moral good
>Religious people do immoral things, most religions explicitly demand immorality.
Still, religion can help low minds have moral incentives.

>Needing religion to know what is right and what is wrong

yes

What is secular humanism

No

Yes, if you believe empathy is selected for biologically. Do Unto Others is a pretty basic concept that doesn't require religion to grasp. I'd argue it's more or less innate in most humans. Without empathy there'd be no civilization because there'd be no cooperation. Morality is just conceptualizing basic innate behaviours.

no because we need the goddamn magic grandpa to tell us that we are going to hell for being faggots

My morals are strong, and I've been atheist and now agnostic (by layman definitions). Sweden is a very atheist country, but our altruism and morals are very high compared to many, which is part of the reason why we are ultimately cucking ourselves...

>american education

the refugee emblem?

Well considering morals are entirely objective unless quantified yes. If you're expecting 'western' (Christian) morals then no, not without the influence of religion would certain thing could be logically re announced (like homosexuality and cannabalism).

Why do you hate sandniggers?

You can have morals without religion but your morals either come from a religion or you just arbitrarily make them up.

what about the golden rule? seems pretty universal.

Yeah it's called not being a piece of shit. It's not for everyone, but if you need religion to get there you're still a piece of shit.

Well considering morals are entirely objective unless quantified yes. If you're expecting 'western' (Christian) morals then no, not without the influence of religion would certain thing could be logically re announced (like homosexuality and cannabalism).

The ones directly from the region yes, but honestly the ones separated by a generation or two are all right in my experience (working with them) as long as they're not trying to get back to their retarded 'roots'.

Morals = I know better than anyone

Without religion that is like just your opinion

Yes, if you're upper-middle class and white.

No, and why we should care?

This thread

Of course it is dipshit. You can have moral standards without believing in some bullshit.

fpbp

Only people who haven't experienced the trolley problem think religion and morality are related.

It's not about believing in the daddy, it's about acting like the moral principles guides you to.

Think about it, wouldn't world be a better place if everyone acted like Jesus did?

What standard are they based on?

Read Nietzsche

Multi track drifting

Yes. But there's only one way it's possible.

It's called ethnic nationalism.

Only when you embrace your genetic identity can you have objective morality.

Only an idiot thinks that "because that's what people want" is a foundation for morality.

Personal experience. Logical cause and effect. Self-interest. You do bad shit and people will end up hating you.

No, without religion people can just pick and choose their morals, and since human beings are greedy and selfish by nature these "morals" can be thrown out the window if it helps the person. "I'm against stealing. Oh shit, I can make a million dollars... well, I'm against stealing besides this time."

Atheists are dangerous. A person with no moral compass is dangerous and untrustworthy. That's why no one would vote for an openly atheist president. It's a character deficit. Even the label implies deficit: atheist. A-THEIST. They're defined by what they lack.

jew mathematics

No because atheism is in itself a form of immorality.

Impiety is a sin.

Group altruism is inherent and instinctual.

Religion is altruistic, but it is nowhere close to the altruistic tendencies of a shared evolutionary identity.

Morals are just personal standards so yes, as long as you aren't a schizo and you have your own moral code then of course you can have morals without religion.

The moral code of a gangster is going to be different than the moral code of a priest but they still have them.

If you mean social norms and laws then yes, certain things are clearly negative to society (murder etc) so they can be enforced.

However, if you wanted to impose social norms that aren't really logical because it doesn't really matter (bestiality for example because animals don't matter) then no, you need religion as justification.

Said Sally has she had her fourth abortion.

You are the epitome of the word "faggot"

Fear of God has held people accountable for their morality throughout history. It is only now in our modern shithole of a society, where there exists no conception of divine punishment, that all forms of degeneracy from transgenderism to furries have sprung up.

Nietzsche puts it correctly in Thus Spoke Zarathustra: "God is dead," and with him, all morality. Nihlism plagues modern society.

No, human histories shown time and time again unpon humanity left to thier own devices fall into degeneracy which leads to mass murder.

People will make up whatever they wish to uphld their own vanity, all it takes is the bending of moral ethics in their favor.

Atheists lack souls, vanity is their fuel, vanity and death.

Yes, rule of nature
Might is right

Their religion is a cancerous pest.

Mate, I believe that its impossible to be an atheist.
Let me explain.
If you dont believe in anything, you have no motivation and you die.
You must have at least some motivation and this allready can be considered a belief.

Abortion is against the well being of a shared genetic identity, unless it's acted upon due to rape, disability, or harm of the mother, whos capacity to bear more children may be hindered or destroyed.

Plus, women wanting to kill their children is due to a society that no longer has standards such as the nuclear family. Instead, it focuses on hypersexuality and pleasure. Narcissism.

Fear of god is not morality. If without the fear of god, people would be immoral then they aren't moral - they are pretending and will break their "morals" if they can get away with it.

So moral standards vary from person to person?

Yes, but without religion there is very little to make someone abide by those morals. Compare the threat of eternal damnation to a possibly comfy few years in prison.

Don't they?

Yes. It's called empathy.
>murder is bad.
>why?
> do you want it to happen to you?

Kek

Yes for an overwhelming amount of people

There are exceptions like this mentally ill fuck with inept parents

This leaf gets it

Yes, even Christianity says this.

Why wouldn't person have both? If one is true to itself (this means knowing your feefees and still keeping a rational mind) and acts accordingly, the result is usually good. To have touch with your feelings truely, you need to kill the ego. There are various ways of doing it, some people can't do it at all. The most important thing is not fucking with yourself and not give any importance to authority.

Because they very rarely line up outside of tribal society.

Yes

Is it objectively possible to have morals with religion?

Probably so. But, are there any universal morals?

Yes, do unto others you would want done to you

Is it subjectively possible to be religion?

Nope. That's just wishful-thinking.

Because they're destructive to one another.

Christianity preaches values that go against ethnic nationalism, such as loving everyone as equals including your enemies. This is inherently destructive to the evolutionary reality of man.

Yes that is what usually happens. What people need is the reincarnation of "Jesus", a charismatic person who teaches like he lives, uniting people together. We of course still need closed borders and such important things, but it is not objective truth that people need to have the same ethinicity, while I also agree it's the best option.

>they aren't moral if they aren't moral without motivation to be moral
But that's wrong you fucking retard.
Being moral means doing moral actions, if you don't commit moral actions you aren't moral, reasons don't matter in terms of objective morality.
A good action is good independent of its intent.
And good people are determined by good actions.
On your definition no one is moral because all moral actions can be relegated to selfishness by way of one wanting to feel good about themselves.
You're a moron.
Of course. People without religion are moral all the time.
But they aren't rationally moral.
The only way to justify rational morality, as Kantian morality, is to have God. An absolute which vindicates Reason and Morality and thus one can be rationally moral. I know of no alternative to this rule.
Actually no.
There has been no objective moral system founded upon anything other than religion.
There is no evidence men said "it is advantageous we do not hit each other." But there is evidence all across the world men said "we must not hit each other in the holy place."
>implying arbitrary isn't itself arbitrary
Reddit pls
Yes.
They can also be moral too.
Imagine a psychopath goes about killing only bad guys. Is he moral? Are his actions moral?
Can he rationally with better judgment overcome his basic self and reach a new moral height? Or do you strip the intelligent of their agency?

All of these Sophists trying to make the world for them instead of making themselves fit the world.

Your ancestors are ashamed you do not follow your mind, heart, and soul but instead the eyes which deceive the stomach which desires and the body which lusts.

Mostly no, I think. In the pre-Christian past men believed that their good was contained by the good of their country and that therefore the good of the country was better for them than their own private goods, and even better than each man's life. This belief was based on the potential immortality of a human community, and of a man's line of descendents. The idea is that happiness consists in having the good, and having it in a durable way, and happiness of the point of any moral system worth anything. That's Aristotle's position anyway, seems right to me. Now however, since the science of thermodynamics has established irrefutably that the tale of life in this universe will end, man no longer has any hope for immortality in the way once believed possible. Therefore any human attainment of the good will end, and therefore happiness of a lasting sort is not attainable. Since it was that good that the only working system of natural morals aimed at, I think the answer to your question is 'no.'

If you are weak minded than yes

>happiness is the point of any moral system worth anything
No.
Aristotle's position was that morality opens up happiness as an activity, but happiness wasn't the end state nor was it the end goal of Aristotle.
In his politics he states the end goal is the continuity of the state for the sake of the state. Not happiness.
>irrefutably
Dogma

There's nothing which proves that the principles by which we exist shall end, nothing which proves that particle jumps will stop and that subsequent energy transfers are not possible.

No no, you have not understood the point of the politics. The good of the state is the ultimate point, but the good of the state consists in the happiness of the citizens. That's how common goods work, the common good is the good OF the multitude, but not good For the multitude as such, because then it would be good for none of the members of the multitude and they have no reason to pursue it. Rather the good OF the state is good FOR the citizen.

As for the thermodynamics stuff, isn't it clear that the only way to bring a system to a lower state of entropy is by increasing the entropy of another system?

>Being so autistic you desperately spam links to your thread in other threads

Go back to facebook or whatever shit, cancerous place you come from.

Religious people, as in people who read a specific book and think it's 100% correct and the only correct one are usually extreme normies and facebook users , they shouldn't represent the type of people who believe in a higher element in or above our universe