Morality without God, is it possible?

if God doesn't exist, is everything permitted? Has secularism been a force for good in our times?

Other urls found in this thread:

discord.gg/BK9kpMN
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

the only laws that govern men are the laws of nature

...

Yes, the only way to do good things is if you think an imaginary man told you to.

...

Is morality good because God ordains it or does God ordain it because it is good?

I know at least one imbecile will attempt to have his cake and eat it, too.

Which laws of nature, only the strongest prevails?

I'd love to know where your notion of morality comes from then. Is it genetics?

...

>14
>pedo
Nigga, please. Pedo is under 12, more under 10.

Implying the Revolution didn't do a Genocide.

morality is a social construct

You know very well everything is not permitted. If you take away a traditional set of morals, a new set of morals will be created. Now whether this set of morals is good for long-term survival or not is uncertain, but look at progressive moralists that demand we import third-worlders to atone for the alleged sins of our race.

This argument is old. If you need a god to tell you to be a good person with the threat of the fate of your afterlife hanging over you like the sword of Damocles...Then the sword should fall and rid us of your immoral presence.

>I need religion to prevent myself from cannibalizing children and stealing from the elderly
Having one's own moral code is possible without religion you know. Even if it is just abiding by guidelines set in place to have a functioning society.

>if God doesn't exist, is everything permitted?
No since laws and governments exist and even if they did not violate the NAP and someone will likely kill you for it (like rape their child).

Everything is not permitted because doing X action involves imprisonment or death for.
>Has secularism been a force for good in our times?
Some ways yes some ways no. In the yes department it has expanded science and allowed religious freedom but no is that there seems to be a loss of identity that goes along with it.

This is the thought process of a progressive moralist. They attack the dogmatism of a belief in god yet lack the critical thinking capability to realize their very own morals are also based on faith. They seem to believe that their definition of "good things" is the absolute true definition.

Only relative morality. IE you have to decide ahead of time what you are trying to achieve with the morals you set in place, and weather or not that those morals effectively do that and how you handle exceptions also characterizes your morality. True morality is a bit like ucleadian shapes. it and gender are a spectrum because the ideals it proports cannot exist in the granular, dirty and gray environment we call earth. Take for example christian morality; if we take every word in the bible at face value it is incomprehensibly contradicted. In very many sects you have people, human beings, excercising a right to excommunicate followers from the church and therefore damn them to hell. This is not gods morality. it's judgement in the hands of humans even if we posit that god exists and it is the god of the bible.

If we allow ourselves to understand that, it becomes impreitive to understand that no force legally can enforce their "superior" morality on others. The state doesn't do this for example. The state has a relative morality, which is decided upon by the people in the context of their constitutions. The constitutions are themselves a moral system that depict what the institution is for and what kind of existance its officials should be providing. that doesn't make it immune to corruption either, but it shows that allowing an institution to claim absolute moral authority is a bad idea

As for secularism. once you understand how religions and their complicated backwards moralities work and yet see their similarities. along with the way religion popped up in russia during and after its soviet period, it becomes very very obvious that the sins of any religious book are not the source of all evil as dawkins put it. but rather their blood stained regressiveness is a product of human desire. We want to believe we are better than others, slay outsiders, be saved and worship hero,s and have enemies we can condemn. We want to possess absolute moral tyranny.

...

...

Can a government make flexible morals, or are they an absolute thing set on stone, are morals transcendental?

So I ask you, where does your moral code come from. Can I alter what is immoral or not for my own convenience?

I could argue it's much better to have nothingness than to be judged for my moral failings after I die by a God who watches me all day and knows everything I do and even think. Without God I can do whatever I want as long as society doesn't catch me, then I die and I never paid for shit. Ever heard of the Zodiac killer? He got away with multiple murders.

Human justice system is not perfect and people get away with crimes, even deeply barbaric ones like serial child killing and torture-rape of kids.

...

...

...

>Morality without God, is it possible?
Yes but it may not be constant.

No, it isn't.

Of course it is. Why do you think our masters hate religion so much? If there's no God, they can do whatever they damn well please---starting with gorging on all the "pizza" they want without fear of consequences in this world or the next.

The only faith they tolerate when they have a choice is Islam, which is far more useful as an opiate of the people than Christianity or Judaism ever has been.

without God, the only transcendental value is the future
the issue is that Secular societies don't even produce people who care about the future and so atheism then becomes collective suicide

You're an idiot. The point is that there are no "good things" without some universal telos, which would be god or defined by God.

>Has secularism been a force for good in our times?
Every single piece of evidence says yes but Sup Forums is full e-christian edge lords so you gonna get meme'd on kid.

If there is no God, making his commands irrelevant to men, who has the authority to say what "a good person" is? The government? Isn't that the same? "if you need the government to tell how how to be a good person you are immoral" isn't the same?

>Human justice system is not perfect
I make no claim that it was or is perfect but the fact remains kill someone and you go to prison, Do X criminal action and get Y criminal sentence.
>even deeply barbaric ones like serial child killing and torture-rape of kids.
In Brazil that happens in the west no as that would be another Ted Bundy like situation.

If you argue a God then why would God permit the raping and killing of small children and let them die instead of being future bringers of the gospel?

When a small kid dies at the hand of a child rapist the kid might be have been a preacher for God or been a dedicated Christian but God permitted his death allowing him to die.

That isn't morality. What you are talking about iss an interconnected system of threats and individual judgment of risk-reward within the context of that system of threats. That is not what is meant by "morality."

>fat autistic neckbeard
>muh social darwinism

>the only transcendental value is the future
That is neither transcendental nor is it a value.

Which god? And how would you answer Plato's Euthyphro problem: is it moral just because god says so or is god merely enforcing a moral code that already exists? To say the former is an appeal to authority- a fallacy. The latter means god doesn't make the rules.

Here is an example of why theft is wrong, logically: to say theft is right is to posit the idea of property rights as both true and untrue at the same time. The thief's right to property is respected at the cost of violating that same principle of another. Given that theft is not a consensual act, it would require one to resist the moral code of "theft is moral" for it to manifest in the first place making it a self-detonating rule.

Morality is a Darwinian social construct

>What you are talking about iss an interconnected system of threats and individual judgment of risk-reward within the context of that system of threats
It is wrong because the benefit is little the risk is too great to make a action profitable. Even then religious morality is god's subjective opinion and his enforcement of it is the stick of hell fire.

the solution to the world is that there is only one single way to get to heaven, and no other path gets there.

this easily leads to nihilism when you look at it from the perspective of searching for a needle in a haystack, a needle that you'll never find.

No niggers, no jews, no muslims, no chinks, no japs, no gooks. If you're white, you have a chance. If you freely associate with those who aren't, you've probably forgotten the only way.

god is just an amalgamation of stories about those who have successfully risen to the top of the dominance hierarchy, roughly speaking

the idea of god can change from culture to culture because different cultures have had different personalities rise to the top of their dominance hierarchy

>is it moral just because god says so or is god merely enforcing a moral code that already exists?
This is not really a well formed question. Nothing could preexist god, by definition.

If your justice system isn't perfect, and let's face it not one is, there's a chance a very careful/smart murderer can get away with it. Only the constitution isn't enough to deter wicked people from doing evil deeds. If you could get away with theft, if you could be totally sure you could steal U$100,000 and get away with it, 100% guaranteed, would you do it?

Where do your morals come from? Are human beings naturally inherently good? Do you agree with Rousseau and the whole "noble savage" shit?

>If you argue a God then why would God permit the raping and killing of small children and let them die instead of being future bringers of the gospel?

What, is it written in the Bible that if God exists we'll live in paradise and everyone will be a saint and it will all be roses? Point be to the passage.

A good person is a good person, OP. Whether that person believes in a higher power or not ends up being irrelevant.

So you're saying god did create morality as it cannot precede him?

>you exit the train
>manga folded under your left arm, your vape clutched in your fist in front of your mouth by your right hand
>in the distance, a scream
>you trot along, holding your fedora as to not let it prematurely tip
>you spot a woman on the ground and her attacker on top in full mount, wrestling her for her purse
>it's your time
>"STOP!" you yell
>a white male peers back at you, rage written across his face
>he gets off his victim and sprints to you, fists clutched in an aggressive manner
>before you're beaten unconscious, you can see the damsel has escaped
>you've done the world right and no god told you to

It is not, but not for the reasons you think.

what made him to be a good person, is it genetic? Are human beings inherently good?

you could also murder the dude and still be in the right.

As I see it, people cannot be truly evil while also believing in God.

However, this does not mean that morality cannot exist without god.
The only thing which changed in secularism is the chance for ''evil'' to enter into the hearts of man.

>To say the former is an appeal to authority- a fallacy.
And appeal to authority is not a fallacy. And God "preexists" logic anyway, so fallacies would not apply (unless you are saying logic is absolute, in which case it would itself be God).

>to say theft is right is to posit the idea of property rights as both true and untrue at the same time.
You are begging the question here. You presume a moral framework (that some action can be "right" and presumably that an action is binary between either "right" or "not right"). You you are presuming what you attempt to show, that morality is possible without God.

B ump

>It is wrong because the benefit is little the risk is too great to make a action profitable
You are just utilizing a more abstracted moral system here, that an action being "profitable" makes it right.

Either created it or is it. Or some other possibility that is not conceivable.

...

Without religion, people follow their leaders.
With religion, people follow their leaders.
Generally speaking, people follow their leaders.

whether you think of Jesus as God or just a philosopher, the Bible is still one of the most important books ever written, and i think people can be perfectly moral by following "love yourself and your neighbor" since it takes work everyday. i think the golden rule is basis for all western social compacts and traditional justice. if you reject natural law and natural rights, then you reject the social compact. so a jew or muslim can be perfectly "moral" in the eyes of their peers, however put that person in a western society and they become evil because their beliefs undermine the social compact. as an atheist, I see love as the universal good. if you don't agree with my (Christian) idea of love, you are evil.

It is possible but highly unlikely

Morality without which god?

Which leaders do murderers, torturers, kidnappers and rapists follow?

martial law is very unethical user, are you even liberal

>morality without god is possible

Literally all the weak secular infidel women vacuum babies from their wombs

>morality without god, is it possible?
>brazil
>literally has a giant statue of jesus christ looking down at the most amoral, degenerate city in the world

Cringed hard at your neckbeard

>there's a chance a very careful/smart murderer can get away with it
Yes but he will be on the run internationally for his crimes for the rest of his existence for them. He will be forsaken from his family and driven off and forced to work under the bus in a foriegn nation under a new name for the rest of his life.
>Only the constitution isn't enough to deter wicked people from doing evil deeds
The constitution is only set up for the government and the rights of the civilian and i am strictly talking about the American one.
> if you could be totally sure you could steal U$100,000 and get away with it, 100% guaranteed, would you do it?
No since id be on the run forever even if i could get away with it. Id have to leave the country for it if i got away with it.
>Where do your morals come from?
Morals come from evolution since the species must work together to survive and people would rather live in a safe society then a dangerous one (while ghettos have all the white people leave). Simply put it without morals we would have died out long ago and the simpliest of morals come down to your tribe (aka you don't steal from the tribe, you do not rape the tribes wive's, you do not kill your own tribesmen).
>Are human beings naturally inherently good
Humans are just humans it not good or evil rather just human behavior that is either beneficial and not beneficial to us.
> Do you agree with Rousseau and the whole "noble savage" shit?
I don't know whoever he is but the ideal of a noble savage goes down to defending the tribe. He may be great for the tribe even being the definition of a savage.
> if God exists we'll live in paradise and everyone will be a saint and it will all be roses?
Which God exactly? there are thousands of which could exist.

Only in small societies where everyone is well educated in philosophy. Speaking from a purely practical perspective, any large society would need a solid, irreplaceable religion in order to maintain a strong moral backing over hundreds of years. If religion isn't common among a large population then the normies will have nothing but their own retarded brains to worship and guide their decisions.

Don't know. Maybe it's an instinct in the same way a person can be bad, maybe it's divine, or maybe good people just are. I just always hope there's at least one good person in this world.

God is the First Cause, Creator of everything that there is.

I'll ask the same question for you, where does your moral code come from, and are human beings inherently good?

No, Judeo-Christian morality is what allows a country to become 1st world. If a nation adopts Judeo-Christian morality then society can function without moral issues with the only issues left being how we can technologically, economically, and politically advance.

empathy and a desire for peace are present in a good deal of people, religion doesn't instill those

there's all kinds of people within any given belief system, faith doesn't make all followers moral and lack thereof doesn't make a person immoral

Everything is permitted but you have to live with the consequences.

Explain South America.

Yes. You can define morality by what is good for you and what is good for your in group. Extrapolate that out over your ethnic group and you have the foundation of a nation.

>Can I alter what is immoral or not for my own convenience?
If you do so then when others do the same you'd consider it good and moral. If not then you are a hypocrite or even a sociopath. My moral code comes from what I believe are fundamental laws which society should abide by in order to function and prosper.

>You are just utilizing a more abstracted moral system here, that an action being "profitable" makes it right.
Risk vs reward if the action is too risky with little reward it is bad, if the action has no risk but lots of reward it is good.

For example beating the shit out of your manager or teacher is bad, why? well the risk is you get fired and arrested or even expelled if you are a student, the benefit is you kicked the shit out of your manager or teacher.

Another example is if you help a coworker do his job or help him (lets say he wants a trash bad so you give him a trash bad or do another small task) the risk is very small and the reward is bonds with the coworker and other favors in the future (like if you need any help). Helping the coworker is a good or beneficial action to take.

discord.gg/BK9kpMN

> Hate whitey
> Have premarital sex
> Get AIDS
> Judeo-Chrisitan morality
I don't think so.

>states fact
>WAAAHHHHH YOU'RE (ad hominem)
Leftist """""""intellectuals"""""""

Rational morality is the true redpill. Christian morality"look the other way" shit is blupilled. We must only be kind to people who think like us and be ruthless to the common self centered egotistical normie.

So just like blue eyes and skin color and such, good people will probably have good kids if they marry another good person, and wicked people marrying other wicked people will generate wicked kids.

So all those people in prisons worldwide are genetic defects of sorts? If we gassed all the evil people of the world, all murderers rapists and so on and their kids, then we'd be in a society with only good people?

that explains all the christians who do terrible things, those morals don't keep society going, they keep people complacent to being controlled but its human nature to progress

There's literally nothing irrational about killing every person that you can get away with killing and stealing as much from them as you can. You can't build a civilization on that mentality.

Being a Christian doesn't mean having Judeo-Christian morality. Most Christians haven't even read the Bible.

You need a big brother to tell you what good is? Fucking nigger with out moral compass.

no, the prison systems are unjust and the laws are flawed

that's a problem with society and government, not genetics or people

Failed leaders.

I don't understand.

It is. "An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true." It's like all the people who cite Bill Nye as having a certain position they trust despite him having no credible argument on things such as climate change. And no logic, isn't God, because the definition being used here is a sentient all powerful being, not a system of evaluating truths. As for the right/not right, read it as true/not true as you would in propositional logic:

If theft (t) then the idea of property rights is being asserted (p) and contradicted (~p) at the same time.

t --> (p & ~p)

Which is a contradiction in terms and cannot be held as a rational belief by anyone with the capacity for reason.

they know enough to repeat some of the beliefs and say they live by those or desire to

and many believers do read the bible and take it seriously as well,

aside from that it's just about creating complacency

and if you don't think most people have those morals then they don't uphold society

Those are two unrelated questions.
One can not be moral without a moral center, god can be defined as a moral center.
You can not be fashionable (secular) and have a moral center because to be fashionable means changing with the wind. You need something which is itself good and from there you can establish a base for a moral structure.

What if the psychopath doesn't give two fucks about anyone but himself?

I meant if you could get away with it, as you could be certain the justice system would NEVER get you, you wouldn't be even a suspect of theft, would you still do it?

You could argue that from evolution, survival of the fittest, that my own survival comes before all others, and therefore I can cheat as long as I get away with it. It is applying evolutionary morals to day to day life.

I was talking about the God of the Bible of course, where is it written that if He exists, we'll be living in paradise? Cain still killed Abel in the Bible, it's not written "and God prevented murder from happening because that's how stuff works here".

I dont know OP tell me how you feel after stabbing a kid for no reason.

One of those being kin selection. I'm a godless degenerate and for the most part the only people I value are blood relatives. Everyone else can die in a fire.

The presence of humans acting out relative morality does not preclude the possibility of objective morality existing. Human morality, like human evolution, is fundamentally practical in nature. The moralities that work are adopted, the ones that do not are discarded. There are moralities that go back far enough to be considered universal human moralities, and those are Truth.

I really don't think so, but it's possible. One would think children would follow suite with their parents, but I think we all understand that to quite often not be the case. I think at the end of the day, maybe it kind of random. Maybe someone gets "triggered" for lack of a better word, where an event(s) is the sole cause that make them from there on instinctually align themselves to good or bad. It's all just personal speculation though, no real proof of anything.

Not true. If the group of people who run over an entire nation have Judeo-Christian morality then the country will be 1st world. Most citizens don't need it if the government is still going to impose Judeo-Christian morality via. law enforcement.
Hence why pedophilia, murder, theft, etc. is illegal and is persecuted by law enforcement.

>Is it genetic? Are human beings inherently good?

Not really. Humans are an imperfect species. Our frontal lobes are too small and our adrenal glands are too large. We do know right from wrong, though. Some of us choose to do what's right, while others stray down violent or kleptomaniacal paths knowing good and well what they do is wrong. You think Dahmer and Bundy didn't know taking the lives of their victims was an immoral act?

social contract

Pro-life antitheist here. Don't believe in god and hate religion, but still believe abortion is immoral and murder.

the government doesn't actually have judeo christian morality, politicians lie, cheat, steal, use gods name in vain, kill massive amounts of people, do all kinds of horrible things for personal gain

they just hide behind the guise of that morality

also people accept that guise because they're indoctrinated into it enough to think if someone says they have those beliefs they're somehow good

making them complacent and trusting