Any political solution that is not based on Biblical principles and Christian moral philosophy will ultimately fail.
A society without God is a society in decay.
Religious freedom and the freedom of speech symptoms of that decay. The Founding Fathers should have established Christianity as the official religion and permitted the various denominations of Protestants and Catholics to live in peace.
Other urls found in this thread:
"Failure" is part of the cycle.
I suppose.
But it seems unlikely that our Republic will continue to survive 100 years into the future the way things are going.
Compare that to the European Christian monarchies that lasted for much much longer
Some of our core American beliefs are fundamentally unChristian in nature
The only reason why the Republic lasted this long (will the laws being as they are) is that the majority of people living here were devout Christians.
Now we still have the same laws but the people are really not Christian at all...and watch who quickly we begin the death spiral
...
witnessed and also interesting
Wow, people truly are waking up to their enslavement of sin.
It's quite the phenomenon that to every moral issue there's a Bible verse that can fix it. It's also quite the phenomenon when we ignore the Biblical solution, the problem progresses.
You're 100% correct Op and I wish you a great life.
Monarchism coupled with integralism and distributism is objetively superior
How?
>The only reason why the Republic lasted this long (will the laws being as they are) is that the majority of people living here were devout Christians.
>Now we still have the same laws but the people are really not Christian at all...and watch who quickly we begin the death spiral
Words of truth if I've ever read them...
Islam > Christianity.
Atheism > Islam.
Lots of assertions there and not a single logical argument
Even economically speaking
Usury is the root of a great evil within our current system
...
Who needs logic when I get to burn you at the stake for being a fucking commie
Either you are with Jesus or you need to get the fuck out of the way
Religion - objective truth.
Atheism - subjective opinion.
So just be definition any non religious system is objectively inferior than religion.
It avoids the excesses of capitalism while condemning socialism, posits the nation state and its preservation as a moral good, and enforces traditional social values via close cooperation with the Church. The fact that it is a monarchy protects the country from left wing parties gaining control during elections and fucking everything up.
>Who needs logic when I get to burn you at the stake for being a fucking commie
You Pope is against such. Fail.
Who says you get to burn at the stake?
Who says he is a commie?
What are you going to do if I do not "get the fuck out of the way"
Are you actually going to use force, the real reason laws were followed back in the day, or are you going to continue typing on an anime forum?
>Religion-objective truth
False. There are false religions out there, there fore religion is not an objective truth.
So your "definition" proves nothing.
>objective
I guess that's why there are multitudes of faiths that all are based on the same book, but with major differences between each other. Or why pretty much every follower of a religion will have differences in its interpretation.
>truth
[proof needed]
Daily reminder that the Nazis failed because they abandoned Jesus.
All such movements will fail and never prosper
Christian fascism or Christian monarchism is the final redpill. Even a truly Christian Republic is superior.
Christ is the key
It doesn't really matter if you don't believe me because you are wrong if you disagree and God will prove us right
God with us
DEUS VULT
>False. There are false religions out there, there fore religion is not an objective truth.
No religion postulates that they are false and wrong. It is thing atheists do. False by their own definition.
Of course not. The religions instead postulate that the other religion is false and wrong. No religion believes they themselves are false and wrong. That would be bad for expanding your ideology.
So it is not false just by the atheist's definition, but by the definition of all other competing religions.
Interesting viewpoint and I can see the working wonders. Just to clarify, however, would the Christian Bible be the moral law of the land in this monarchy?
DUES VULT!
>False. There are false religions out there
they all still have an ontic referent to ground truth in, regardless of whether or not it actually exists
atheism < shit
>I guess that's why there are multitudes of faiths
objective in this context isn't talking about universality, it means ontologically, these the truth value of moral claims would exist regardless of whether or not anyone knows or can articulate what they are
A society without faith in the divine is a society in decay. Enforcement of a religious ideology isn't really needed especially when we don't have sufficiant evidence to prove what is the true one. Deism would be the best way to keep a fonctionning society
This, brownshirts were notorious for killing priests, and Hitler preferred Islam over Christianity. Himmler and others were also literal LARPers.
A classic example of this is the Rexist movement in Belgium
Started out as a Catholic social revolutionary movement
Leon Degrelle sold out and Rex bit the dust
Sad that they end up murdering priests and innocents, just goes to show you how wrong you can end up when you abandon God
Doublepost, damn. Yes, the Bible would be the law of the land, but obviously the NT, since it superseded the Old Testament. However, since Integralism focuses on national and historical identity, traditionally Catholic countries would also depend on the Magisterium of the Church for moral guidance.
The Catholic Church needs to abandon Vatican II and get back to its Latin uncucked roots
>they all still have an ontic referent to ground truth in
>They have one shred of truth in it, therefore they are alright. Damn the various differences between them.
This is of course assuming you aren't just lying about the entire thing, or have been misinformed.
None of this proves atheism < shit, though. It seems like you only wanted to put in your own insults just to make my own opinions seem less important. Either that or you are hoping I get angry and start making myself look illogical. Either way, it won't work that easily.
>This is of course assuming you aren't just lying about the entire thing, or have been misinformed.
duh
>None of this proves atheism < shit
look at its fruits
there are three types of cultures in relation to the absolute, here are the two relevant ones:
religion:
theonomous culture:
>law of God is supposedly so embedded into our hearts that we all emotively or otherwise think in the same categories
>objective moral truth values and duties and rights exist
>example: Natural Law, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights'
atheism:
autonomous culture:
>each person dictates their own moral prerogatives
>moral relativism, subjectivism, no ontic referent
>everyone is equally right
this is where we are now.
it's why we have 47 genders and canadians legally have sex with dogs.
how do you conserve traditions and values when everyone's retarded ideas have to be viewed as equally correct, and why should anyone care, about anything?
>hen we don't have sufficiant evidence to prove what is the true one.
Bu you do. God literally came on earth to speak with you and reveal your wonders. What another proofs do you want? With your approach you can deny everything until you have free will.
Then I would be in full support for such a monarchy of integralism and distributism.
Agree with you, Vatican II is a mistake. It's sad that only traditionalist Catholics continue the legacy of the pre-conciliar Church, which was the best weapon against modern degeneracy. Here's hoping that Burke or someone like him becomes the next Pope.
Can anyone explain what corporatism is to me?
Is it basically like an updated version of the guild system?
>moralist crusaders
No. What you need is a society that serves the state and the state serves the people vis a vie the Roman Republic ideology. Not some bible thumping moralist nanny government worried about which hole you can fuck.
>The state serves the people
And what is the people?
You are basically just serving a bunch of fucking retards.
The entire organism of the state should be looking upwards to immaterial, untouchable principles...Christianity does that.
Turning "the people" into a God is a mistake
Christianity turned away from God and change their stance on morals ten times per day. Compare 11th century Christianity with 21th Century. Changing can't be truth.
If you haven't already, you should read up on Chesterton, Belloc, and Maurras. They're quite brilliant.
It's essentially dividing people up based on their history and interests. You wouldn't have Hillary telling coal workers to abandon their traditional livelihoods in exchange for working in a solar power plant, and each sector of the population would be well represented as long as they did not go against the nation, its morals, and its religion.
It also avoids centralisation and homogenisation which protects an agricultural or rural way of life, and drives back the cosmopolitanism found in cities.
>>each person dictates their own moral prerogatives
Only a half truth. Atheism merely means a lack of a belief in a supernatural higher power. Since most religions have mentions of morality and moral codes in them as part of an attempt to keep civilization moral, this does mean a no absolute morality from divine beings.
However, from the study of what is good for society and the most efficient method of how people should act, we come to an objectively correct morality without the need for religions.
>>moral relativism, subjectivism, no ontic referent
Since this relates to the first point I made in this post, I shall redirect you to it. Again, you are only half right. Of course, this is another way of saying you are half wrong.
>>everyone is equally right
Now we come to the part which is incorrect. Not everyone is equally right according to Atheism. If you are talking only about morals, then there is only the correct system gathered by observation of what is good for society and what works for society. To provide a historical example, we have the argument of capitalism vs communism. Communism when implemented had failed, whereas capitalism had succeed. While one could point to the problems with capitalism as evidence of it's failure, this is not the case.
First of all, no system is perfect or if it is, it hasn't been discovered yet. Should a system that works better than capitalism have showed up, it should rightly replace it. Unless one had already showed up, in which case it should have already replaced it.
Secondly, relating to the earlier point I made about the perfect system not being created or showing up yet, capitalism was still the one with the least flaws or provided the best life for the citizens (at least when compared to communism). This inherently makes it correct.
(cont.)
I think its fair of you to say that modern 21st century Christianity is gay and retarded
But Im not sure how much Christianity really changed before that time period
Ideas get developed and clarified over time
But like everything, humans get weaker and weaker it seems as life gets easier. Early Christians had balls of steel
I mean look at Louis IX of France...he basically went on record saying he'd rather die than commit a mortal sin. Who can say that today?
>Christianity turned away from God and change their stance on morals ten times per day
user, please
islam is facing the same problems with secularism as we are
Yeah I agree. Pic is h0t btw.
Compare the French Revolution, and it's attempt to secularize the rights of man to the American Revolution and our recognition that our rights come from something beyond ourselves.
It can't be helped, Christianity is a cucked religion that had to go and protect (and still protects) the Jews. Now our entire civilization is collapsing.
traditionally no, Christianity has always been opposed to Judaism
But like we've been saying 21st century Christianity is run by retarded liberal faggots
>But that makes it subjective.
Not truly. You yourself have mentioned every religion having a ground of truth in it. While it's application to religion is questionable at best (it may instead be applying to morals. In which case it could easily be adapted to a secular form by learning why it works) it could be applied to these economic systems and work. Capitalism had a greater ground of truth in it, so therefore it was the one which worked in the battle between communism and capitalism.
If you are wondering where this mentioning of economic systems is going, it is to the following. We can just as easily apply this system to the morality of society. Perhaps we already have, but have failed to implement it well enough. This does not mean Christianity or religion is inherently superior to Atheism, but rather that we have already figured out the morality best grounded in objective truth and used a subjectively correct religion to spread it. The problem with Atheism you mentioned is more the fault of liberal politics than it is a lack of a belief in a supernatural higher power, but that discussion is for another time.
Too bad you redefine rights on the fly according to whims of PEOPLE.
>Only a half truth. Atheism merely means a lack of a belief in a supernatural higher power.
and what logically follows from that? (pic related)
>However, from the study of what is good for society and the most efficient method of how people should act, we come to an objectively correct morality
that's wrong since there are no moral facts, and you're trying to redefine "morality" into meaning "that which benefits society" rather than "right and wrong"
there are a lot of things that would benefit society that most people would find abominable.
>Now we come to the part which is incorrect. Not everyone is equally right according to Atheism.
they are equally right (equally 0) because there are no objective moral facts for them to be in line with
A political solution based ON Christian principles will ultimately fail. Christianity is a cuck religion, promotes slave morality, opposes racism, and makes its adherents slaves to the kikes.
>This thread is going a little too well for my taste...
I feel like we have to establish this every 5 seconds but you are confusing modern retarded Christianity with traditional Christianity
There is nothing in the Bible that says ethnic nations cannot exist. In fact they clearly do in the Bible.
What Jesus wants is for all nations to be Christian.
Jesus isn't asking you to open up your borders and turn into this one world mulatto government.
Keep your culture (as long as it meshes with the teachings of Jesus) but the races and nations can still remain separate
Everyone already knows that Protestants are jew slaves and the current liberal pope is really an embarrassment
>Not truly. You yourself have mentioned every religion having a ground of truth in it.
yes, truth (ALL truths, moral, scientific, etc) has to be filtered through subjective minds to be known and articulated, but i'm talking about ontology rather than than epistemology.
how we know, what we know, whether or not we know has no bearing on what actually exists.
>The problem with Atheism you mentioned is more the fault of liberal politics
liberalism and atheism go hand in hand, since there are no real objective moral standards or duties, everyone is liberated to do as they please, so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others, the only thing that actually matters is instant self-gratification, pleasure seeking, since we're all just meat robots who could at any moment die an lose our ability to experience it forever
Thank God for Protestant work ethic.
...
>and what logically follows from that?
That depends on the individual. While morality has an objective truth there are people who will obviously think otherwise. This is not a problem purely with Atheism, as there have been Christians who cherry pick which parts of the Bible are correct and which ones are not. Granted they may be criticizing the morality in it, but if it has no objective truth their criticism is incorrect.
>that's wrong since there are no moral facts
This is wrong because their are moral facts. They are what benefits society and what leads to a healthy, productive society with little to no crime. After all, crime benefits the individual over society to an extent that affects other people in a negative manner.
>there are a lot of things that would benefit society that most people would find abominable.
Is it benefiting society or is it only benefiting a few people. Society is nothing but a large group of people living and working together for a common goal (the benefit of all in a society.) One could say excecutions of the inoccent are morally incorrect yet benefitial to society because there are more resources to go around. However this actually doesn't benefit society as much as you would think on account of the loss of a person who could help society and the overall minimal increase in overall resources (on another note, the gain and the loss are fairly equal, if not leading to a net decrease in productivity.) Conversly the individuals reducing their overall counsumption of resources willingly will result in a much higher net growth.
>they are equally right (equally 0) because there are no objective moral facts for them to be in line with
I already proved this wrong. It seems your entire argument hinges on the assumption that without a religion humans cannot find an objective morality.
Why are most militant atheist posters always from the most cucked countries on earth?
You think there is any coincidence between these liberal values and the hordes of muslims God is sending in to punish them?
Most Christians who suck Israel off ignore Matthew 27:24–25, which literally states that Jews are forever cursed by bearing the responsibility of Jesus' death.
Also this, many critics of Christianity just spout arguments cafeteria Christians and liberation theologists have made without ever checking that those people were either ostracised by theologians or considered anathema.
taylor swift has never promoted christkikery you stinking jew-worshipping scumbag
>Atheism merely means a lack of a belief in a supernatural higher power.
>what logically follows from that?
>That depends on the individual
no, what logically follows from something does not depend on the individual
truth is objective, immutable
>While morality has an objective truth there are people who will obviously think otherwise.
atheists, naturalists, materialists, (You)
>but if it has no objective truth their criticism is incorrect.
it wouldn't be right or wrong, incorrect or correct
it's like "i like pepsi" or "i personally do not feel i have enough evidence to warrant belief in a deity" these statements can't be falsified
>I already proved this wrong
i must have missed that
> It seems your entire argument hinges on the assumption that without a religion humans cannot find an objective morality.
no, it's
"If there is no single moral authority [i.e. no God] we have to in some sense 'create' values for ourselves ... [and] that means that moral claims are not true or false... you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error"
>yes, truth (ALL truths, moral, scientific, etc) has to be filtered through subjective minds to be known and articulated
And when these subjective minds together, in almost unanimous agreement decide something is better for society (again, the people) than that is a pretty good indicator it is objectively correct. In the rare case of this not being the case, a simple test of how society functions under this "morality" would tell us whether it is or not. You seem to think one mind determines everything or that humans are flawed creatures. The former is false and while the latter is true, it is not so to the extent you are showing.
>liberalism and atheism go hand in hand
This argument again?
You assume that there is no objective morality without religion. An assumption which I have shown simply isn't the case. Indeed, this assumption of yours seems to be the keystone to your beliefs on the issue. This also applies to your claim of hedonism being all that matters (a hedonistic society will not be able to survive for long, therefore it is not good for society. A society without future plans will crumble eventually, therefore it is not good for society. A society that consumes all of it's resources in an instant will become fat and unproductive and not have any for the future, therefore it is not good for society.)
>founding fathers establish a nation who's government, according to the constitution, is secular and free of the religious bullshit.
>stupid republicans and Christians try to fuck up the country by turning it into a theocracy.
there is not enough scorn and contempt in the world for this bullshit.
Completely agreed with OP. Those that disagree lack wisdom.
I've also had the same exact thought when it came to the founding fathers and wishing they established a Christian state. This countries gradual loss of Christianity is in direct correlation with its decline.
Yes good goyim the country needs to be free so we can run it for you and eliminate the white race...good good, now run along to walmart and buy a new TV...make sure you use your credit card
good good
The romans had Gods they looked up to as well. The second king of Rome after the founder Romulus was Numa Pompilius a highly religious, monk like man.
What made Rome special was how much of an honor culture it was, and how they cherished their history and their former citizens glorious deeds. The concept of Apotheosis is central in this. The goal is to aspire towards the perfection of virtue that the Gods represent. As well as to admire those men who lived up to those virtues, becoming Godlike themselves.
My suggestion for the west would be to have citizen police. All men should be required to serve in this civic police force and patrol the streets for a year doing public service, and enforcing the peace. This strict enforcement of the law would make people feel more safe in public, and increase the sense of unity in the nation, not to mention the culture of a rule of law. On top of this we should create high honors to those men and women who went above and beyond their civic duty. Those rare few who were awarded these honors would be given seats of honor at the regular public festivals that are thrown in honor of public achievements such as winning a war or completing a border wall.
All we need is a Julius Caesar to move us back on the right track.
>wishing they established a Christian state
is this the bullshit the right wing is pushing? lmfao stupid ignorant shitheads
“National Socialist and Christian conceptions are incompatible. The Christian churches are build upon men’s ignorance; by contrast [National Socialism] rests upon scientific foundations. When we [National Socialists] speak of belief in God, we do not mean, like the naïve Christians and their spiritual exploiters, a man-like being sitting around somewhere in the universe. The force governed by natural law by which all these countless planets move in the universe, we call omnipotence or God. The assertion that this universal force can trouble itself about the destiny of each individual being, every smallest earthly bacillus, can be influenced by so-called prayers or other surprising things, depends upon a requisite dose of naivety or else upon shameless professional self-interest.”
–Martin Bormann
What made the Romans different from the rest of the world is that they were extremely religious and extremely traditional
The pagan Gods are dead but Christ is with us
I don't disagree with you that there were a lot of terrific things that the Romans did that could be adopted
But my point is that...a political movement just centered on "the people" is really based on nothing at all.
Every educated academic understands that "the people" are no more than pure rabble
The state must be based off of traditional and religious principles...and in the West that means Christ
A lot of Bible bashers don't understand that The Bible supports putting up walls and protecting your people, and not letting a perverse and problematic people to mix with your own people lest they take up the vile practices of others.
These lessons have been lost. The Bible is an even more valuable resource for knowledge than most people will ever understand.
Says the Nazi who watched everything they worked on so hard to create for over a decade get completely ass raped by slavs the so called subhumans
The Nazis failed because they abandoned God
Hitler failed because he lacked a Christian spirit
>objectively correct.
you're using objectively here different than how i've meant it, and no, a virtual consensus doesn't confer truth value, nor would a universal one
>You assume that there is no objective morality without religion.
not really an assumption, it's a deduction
"If there is no single moral authority [i.e. no God] we have to in some sense 'create' values for ourselves ... [and] that means that moral claims are not true or false... you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error"
>this [deduction] seems to be the keystone to your beliefs
yes
>a hedonistic society will not be able to survive for long, therefore it is not good for society.
why ought anyone give a shit about what benefits society?
what's good for society isn't always good for the individual, and you do not exist as a society, you exist as an individual
oftentimes one can yield better results for oneself by fucking the group they're part of over, pic related
we're talking about two different things, by morals i mean "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong" and you're talking about "actions which benefit society"
Hitler failed because he lacked a Christian spirit
You can't be serious
Fun fact: according to Christianity US should be part of British crown. No wander founding fathers came up with secular Constitution...
Goes on to show you can't be a national socialist and a proper Christian at the same time. I'd rather follow eternal truths.
>no, what logically follows from something does not depend on the individual
You said yourself in a previous post that the information gained from observation has to be processed from subjective minds. Now you are saying otherwise; that Atheism only leads to one path. I'm sorry to say, but you cannot have it both ways.
>atheists, naturalists, materialists, (You)
Not an argument.
>I must gave missed that.
Indeed you have. I don't blame you, it is a lot of reading. Definitely more that the average American gets.
>"If there is no single moral authority [i.e. no God] we have to in some sense 'create' values for ourselves ... [and] that means that moral claims are not true or false...
Are you saying truth and evidence are not good moral authorities? Again, we are not creating moral values for ourselves, we are discovering the one objective truth and testing it.
>you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error"
Actually I can. In fact, I shall do something akin to that.
Your entire argument relies on factual errors. You say I do not believe there is one moral authority, when that is not the case. You the individual processes information subjectively, then claim an entire group of individuals does so in the incorrect way.
Honestly, I'm starting to think the only reason you are arguing with me to such an extent is because I'm providing a method of objective morality that isn't from a "divine" source.
Hitler abandoned God and God abandoned the Nazis
The Nazi worldview is also completely retarded. For a Nazi a human being is no better than just a thoroughbred horse. Soulless
we don't need you anyway, shit Peruvian
>The Nazi worldview is also completely retarded. For a Nazi a human being is no better than just a thoroughbred horse. Soulless
that would be the jewish view, you know, your 'chosens'
Are Negroes human beings?
>2017
>"I'm redpilled"
>still worshipping a jew
nice meme
In terms of being a conqueror Hitler was also retarded.
The Nazis were greeted as liberators and they basically shat all over the Russians (who had suffered tremendously under Communism)
Hitler could have put Russian Christians in charge of conquered lands and worked to improve their lives and consolidate their gains. Hearts and minds. He could have turned himself into a benevolent czar.
Too bad the Nazi racial ideology was fundamentally flawed. Nice job getting millions of whites killed.
State religion was exactly what the founding fathers fought against you fucking idiot
Yes but it doesn't mean I have to live around them or want to kill them
they worship a literal jew and will make up hundreds of excuse to justify it.
some suffer cognitive dissonance and have to invent that he was in reality an Aryan. Jewsus comes in all forms. Hippie jewsus, rasta jewsus, liberal jewsus, conservative jewsus.. it suits all times and peoples
Boo hoo
The founding fathers were a collection of free masons
Not enshrining Christianity into the constitution was the biggest blunder of all time
...
While I agree that religion plays an important part in a political movement, I don't think Christianity is comparable with the kind of state we want.
Christianity does not focus on honor, or duty, and only flirts with the idea of self sacrifice for the universal good. I would prefer we create a new religion like what the Nazis were doing. This new religion should be infused with science so that it is comparable with our modern understandings, removing the allure of nihilistic atheism.
But the only reason Hitler invaded USSR instead of allying with them was his ideology. If it was not his plan (ie eradication of subhumans for living space) what even purpose to attack USSR? if he wanted top be good with Russians it means no war at all.
they fled Europe precisely because of your bullshit
Christianity is a jew-controlled religion, it says that jews are the chosen ones.
So keep being a jew-loving faggot all you want, shill.
the USSR was planning on roflstomping Europe since the 20s, and were sending commie revolutionaries all over Europe to agitate the masses
If Hitler was smart he should have just invaded with these guidelines
1. I come in peace if you are a Russian Christian
2. I will restore your religious freedom
3. I will restore your rights to farm as a free man
4. I am here to kill Communists
5. Turn in your local Communist to my SS and I will give you a cookie
War over
Hitler then could have put a Russian pawn on the throne...or whatever and just ran the show...gradual takeover and Germanization
>Yes
But why did your founding fathers and Church think otherwise? (at least they denied them "inalienable for humans right ")
>You said yourself in a previous post that the information gained from observation has to be processed from subjective minds.
yes.
>Now you are saying otherwise;
no.
again:
"how we know, what we know, whether or not we know has no bearing on what actually exists." -- me, 2017 AD
>Are you saying truth and evidence are not good moral authorities?
i'm saying through your worldview, the truth value of moral claims cannot exist.
>Again, we are not creating moral values for ourselves
you are, because you're applying value in regards to what one "ought" or "ought not" do to "that which benefits society"
>You say I do not believe there is one moral authority, when that is not the case.
who is this moral author you believe in, atheist?
>you're using objectively here different than how i've meant it.
So either you are using an incorrect definition of objective or you're moving the goal post. If it benefits society at large (again, so you don't get confused, the people) then it is moral.
>a virtual consensus doesn't confer truth value, nor would a universal one
My points still hold true. If many agree on the basis of morality, it is a good indicator. If it is actually bad, it's implementation will show how bad it actually is.
>Not really an assumption, it's a deduction.
One falsely deduced, it would seem.
>yes
Hence why you defend it with such zeal and passion. If this belief of yours is actually wrong (which it is) then your entire worldview will come crumbling down. And you just cannot have that, can you?
>why ought anyone give a shit about what benefits society.
Many things, actually. One of these is basic human decency. The guilt of killing or destroying property that isn't yours is too much for the average man. Not to mention, in more moral societies, people care a lot more for each other.
Another thing is how a society can accomplish a lot more cooperating together than an individual can alone. For instance, if two people have to paint a house, both working together will do it far quickly that both working individually.
Of course there are still people who don't do this despite the problems it would cause to society. In these cases we have punishments for them. Prisons, fines, etc.
(cont.)
Christian moral philosophy is cheap rip off pagan philosophy
Kek, Christianity really doesn't say that. Only some evangelicals spout the muh chosen race line. It's generally agreed that Christians are the chosen people since the Jews gave their status when they rejected Jesus. Look up supersessionism.
Look at the degeneracy secularism has brought upon the modern world. Saying that all religions are equal under the law is a great mistake, since it undermines and ignores national heritage and tradition.