Why is not believing in "god" considered "degenerate by you guys?
What is wrong with the idea that morality needs to be tied with divine consequences?
If the only thing making a person good is the expectation of reward after death, that person is a shitty person.
What makes organized religion appealing?
You guys have to know that god isn't real right?
How does any of it really make sense?
>Occam's razor: the simplest answer is typically the correct one.
Other urls found in this thread:
conservapedia.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
You're drinking the hip STEM koolaid, user. Declaring the possibility of God an impossibility is itself irrational.
Religious people dont necessarily do good for divine reward; truly religious people do good for the sake of doing good.
The fake that you are opposing atheism to organized religion only betrays your naive framing of the God question.
Also, by the end of season one of Tru Detective Rus was coming to entertain the possibility of God.
Last, if God doesn't exist all things are permitted. I know its cliche but its true.
>Declaring the possibility of God an impossibility is itself irrational
Luckily atheism doesnt say this.
>if God doesn't exist all things are permitted
Elaborate
It’s not. Atheistic materialism is dead. All hail the age of esoteric techno sorcery!
God doesn't exist, but god does. I found him in the wild. Pic is him in his natural habitat.
Because superstition is very important. If you aren't superstitious you are super evil.
>Last, if God doesn't exist all things are permitted.
You've got it wrong. If the Christian god is real and the teaching he has supposedly laid out are correct none of your actions. You could be the most horrible person constantly doing only the most despicable things and it's a-okay, just ask Jesus to forgive you and you'll be fine.
God has been histories most efficient parasite trick. How can you leech from a man? Convince you are the voice of the divine and require his resources. Having a spiritual identity above the individual is disgusting and slave like. But alas sheep and parasites will always be there to drag the individualist back into the dirt.
>If you aren't superstitious you are super evil.
...why?
It's a crutch.
All institutions devolve into corruption and groupthink if left alone long enough.
All arguments for the existence of a higher power are comprised of diverting burden of truth to those who want to disprove it and "begging the question".
It's mostly LARPers and redditers
>theists make a claim
>you ask for more information on their assertions
>"1 post by this ID" until /thread
Why bother posting here if you cant back your nonsense up? I never understood it.
Declaring the possibility of God an impossibility is the definition of atheism. If you do not rule out his possibility, you are not truly an atheist.
Choosing to do good cannot ultimately be predicated on a condition (humanistic maxims, pragmatic approaches, etc) - these justifications are tentative and will fail if subjected to logic. There will always be a further :"why" when justifying goodness. Therefore, doing good has to be without why, an unconditional recognition in what is good. To whom or for whom are you doing good--other persons. Religion is just taking the unconditional a step further, to the BIG other: God.
Ok so I believe that when people die they release DMT and have a profound experience that can be positive or negative that lasts for eternity. I think the consciousness lies on the same dimension where time lives. The dimension where there is no beginning or end and you cant see or touch it but it affects your life at every second. These organized religions especially protestants have the way of living right. They want you to live your best life free of the demons that burden the subconcious. They want to clear your subconcious of these demons because on DMT you are sent to the depths of mind and your feelings and thoughts before going in become your existence for what seems like an eternity. It can be a personalized heaven or hell only reflecting what is going on in your mind at the time. I think that good people can still reach "heaven" without knowing christ but I do think there is a God that also stays in the same dimension of time and consciousness and he is everything all the way down to the molecules. This whole world interconnects and the ability to think and reason is Gods gift to you, when people say we are created in gods image i do not think its physical attributes I believe it is the mind
Mystery is important. A horizon of impossibility is important. Superstition is a misnomer
>back your nonsense
What do you want to know, copernicus? You just come here and post because you want others to affirm your unstable beliefs - think for yourself
Yeah I don't get that. I was raised athiest and always super rational, but I still feel like a piece of shit if I do something bad or selfish.
>Declaring the possibility of God an impossibility is the definition of atheism
Again, no it is not. Lack of belief due to insufficient evidence for the claim. Burden of proof rests on people making the claim, atheists do not have a burden of proof for this reason. Do we have evidence to suggest there is no god? No. Do you have evidence to suggest a god exists? Im interested.
Very interesting point of view, makes me hope for it to be true.
>you guys KNOW God isn't real right?
>It's the simplest answer because I say so
>I can't explain why things are degenerate or anything but
>simple
>no explanation
>simple
>no explanation
Maybe kys, OP.
That’s not what a true Judeo-Christian morality is founded upon. It’s not about what happens to you after death. It’s recognizing that a seemingly omnipotent being outside our universe created us and set forth objective standards to govern everything, including morality. We seek to emulate Him because by nature, true love and understanding of God would lead you to do your best in that regard, heaven, hell, reincarnation, or obliteration. Once you see the telos behind everything, you have no intellectually honest choice but to try and align with it.
>evidence
>claim
>burden of proof
Dude, you are asking the wrong questions
You entire framing of the question betrays your own inability to approach the question of God.
God is not proved. He's recognized. Just like you recognize another person is subject among objects in the world. Can you prove other person's conscious experience is real and vivid as yours? No, you cant. You believe in them.
Better yet, you have faith that Others exist.
>Why is not believing in "god" considered "degenerate by you guys?
>What is wrong with the idea that morality needs to be tied with divine consequences?
Because what those consequences are, and what is considered "Degenerate" is wholely up the the interpretations of a power hierarchy made up of fallible human beings, and as history has shown time and time again, ANY power structure or hierarchy is susceptible to infiltration and subversion.
Plenty of examples in history of "State Authorized" religions being turned into pseudo-propaganda mills for political interests, undermining the original message of the more "Spiritual" aspects of the religion.
That's why.
All things are permitted, though. If you were the only man on earth and no one could stop you from performing a certain act, there would be nothing inherently immoral about your actions. Morality only arises within the context of civilization, with the intent to bind people together for the purpose of furthering said civilization beyond the lifespan of its inhabitants.
>christianity isint actually about what the bible say
>you need to read through the lines so that way it can be about what ever we make it be about to fit our narrative
Yep, that's the fundamental difference between muslims and christians, while the former focus almost entirely on the afterlife and end up doing atrocities for it, christians tend to focus on the present and do extreme acts of charity
>What do you want to know, copernicus?
Evidence for a god claim
>You just come here and post because you want others to affirm your unstable beliefs - think for yourself
I dont have beliefs, thats the point. Im willing to hear people out.
The bible almost never talks about the afterlife and the few times it mentions it it's to make a point about present "heaven" or "hell".
You've been fed too much marxist dantesc view of christianity.
by metric do you derive univeral morality then? by evolution and muh science alone? do you not realize that is also just a form of faith, because you blindly trust science?
not to mention the fact that God is also responsible of science if he had created everything, so don't give me that "science and religion is incompatible" bullshit because Isaac Newton was obsessed with the Bible, Gregor Mendel was a literal monk, and poster child Charles Darwin never denied the possibility of God either
too bad being religious does not give you morality
believe whatever you want, nobody cares. But, by and large, a society that believes in God is better and more moral than a society that doesn't. Religion shouldn't be forced or required by a state, but it should also be promoted due to its ancillary benefits (and I'm talking about westernized Christianity here).
Religion is the opiate of the masses, I believe that's true. That opiate is necessary and soothing and, all around, a positive. You can have your debates on whether or not God actually exists, but if people are getting their lives in order, are happy and hopeful, and not degenerate, then religion has a positive place as well.
Atheism subtracts but it adds nothing. It doesn't purport to have its own "value system" to replace religion. It only seeks to cut religion down and that's why it's degenerate. There is no realistic replacement for religion yet discovered by man, and we may never come up with something as powerful to fill that void.
I was making a statement in regards to what atheism is to clear up confusion. It doesnt make a god claim.
>God is not proved. He's recognized
I dont know how you recognize him, but ok
>Just like you recognize another person is subject among objects in the world
Except i can know certain people exist, considering i know people.
>Can you prove other person's conscious experience is real and vivid as yours? No, you cant
But we can test it with others and come to a conclusion if an event occurred as we experienced it. If there is some other metaphysical claim, then we cant measure it but from what we have in reality. Im not saying you didnt, but its still just another unverifiable thing that occurred that you somehow attributed to the god claim.
>What is wrong with the idea that morality needs to be tied with divine consequences?
So your atheism has almost no intellectual and practical consequences, correct? Because you can be an atheist and still think that the entire catholic teaching is correct
>a society that believes in God is better and more moral than a society that doesn't
there's nothing to support this
>Occam's razor: the simplest answer is typically the correct one.
1. Something came from nothing and organized itself into the universe (complete with complex life) without cause or rational explanation.
2. A timeless, self existent being created the universe as an act of will.
Occam's razor indeed. You dumbass.
Not believing a god is fine.
Most athiests i've come across don't treat it as a belief, however. Those kinds of people that i've come across have always said that "There is no god", when they would have no way of knowing. Being agnostic is fine. Believing things is fine too, as long as you aren't being brainwashed by religion, but what's not good is thinking that you know the secrets of the universe and apparently know for a fact that there is no god.
Becuase you'll end up working for the synagogue of satan.
>Yes he does exist ,but I dont think many are ready to know yet. But soon.
>A timeless, self existent being created the universe as an act of will is less complicated than the big bang
lol
Oh look another Commie thread.
morality is not "given" no, because religious people can and do still regularly sin. What religion does is at least set a standard by which morality is based on to ideally act to.
like I said, by what metric does an atheist judge morality by? murder, rape, theivery, and assault is ok because certain people think it's ok? do not be edgy and say you are ok with those things either, because it is universal among all human cultures empirically that such things are bad
Religion is thinking beyond the self and to see the biggest picture that we can barely comprehend as mortals. The real opposite of religion has never been atheism, because atheists can and do still value morals even if they do not acknowledge or understand it's source. No, the real opposite is solipsism; thinking the world revolves around individuals instead of the entity that made him (creator, God, etc.)
Just know this you are the judger of thy self. Hope you didn't do some bad things you'll regret it i guarantee it.
>like I said, by what metric does an atheist judge morality by?
by natural reason I suppose
Pagans like Socrates didn't know the christian God, but they came to similar christian conclusions
>Atheism subtracts but it adds nothing
It adds the ability to believe in what you want without some unverifiable thing telling you otherwise, regardless if it actually is moral or not. I do wish people would be more interested in reading like philosophy or just getting smarter overall, though.
>There is no realistic replacement for religion yet discovered by man
Think for yourself and be informed, perhaps.
Because if you were actually about "free thinking" you would have realized it's a nation and culture killing belief that tolerates and condones the worst behavior in people, you one post motherfucker.
religion isn't the sole standard setter for morality, you can still have morality within a society because you've all agreed on standards of behavior that must be maintained within your society. You're trying to attribute things that religion can bring about exclusively to religion, but religion isn't the only source of morality.
>It adds the ability to believe in what you want without some unverifiable thing telling you otherwise
But believing in what you want is irrational. How is atheism's believing in what you want different from christian's believing in God? From your pov both are nonsense
The evidence from the last several centuries points to a divine being. Stop believing (((science))) and study actual science.
t. agnostic, former atheist
Meant decades, not centuries.
Because im not told to believe 'x' or else bad things happen, if there is good evidence to suggest a stance on a topic then you can dive into information and properly form a conclusion on information. This is different from "finding" a god, we have no way to measure a metaphysical being. A subjective argument on a stance and whether or not a god exists arent really in the same realm. Im not saying you cant, im only here asking for evidence for a god claim.
Fedora tipper
Isn’t that Atheists in general?
Fedora tipper
Look at the Soviet Union retard, look how awful it was.
>An explosion that happened billions of years ago somehow disproves the existence of god.
>Most athiests i've come across don't treat it as a belief, however. Those kinds of people that i've come across have always said that "There is no god"
Then you arent talking about atheists if theyre saying there is no god.
>resorts to fedora meme asap
We get it, you are upset. But why be here if you dont have an argument and arent willing to have a discussion?
>Because im not told to believe 'x' or else bad things happen, if there is good evidence to suggest a stance on a topic then you can dive into information and properly form a conclusion on information
Can you give any example where that's the case
Are you familiar with thomism or scholasticism? Because this is generally catholic rationalism
So you believe there is a god?
Where what is the case?
Its too bad that atheism doesnt increase your IQ.
ok toothpaste enjoy your muslim caliphate because there were no more christians left to unite and fight them off you're country is little morrocco with penis statues everywhere and you see nothing wrong because christianity is old and stupid and god is dead
I'll put it differently - do you think it's possible to be an atheist yet support the teaching of the catholic church?
You could, im not sure why though. Aside from the god belief? Maybe, i dont know their stances on things.
You're correct about the definition of atheism, but there are people who would prefer to consider themselves agnostic for a variety of reasons.
Burden of proof does not fall on him desu
>Maybe, i dont know their stances on things
I'm not surprised. This is one of the most basic folly that people generally make. They associate the rational with irreligious. The truth is that even if you reject God, you still can come to the same conclusions that the CC teaches, through "secular" philosophy
Doing good with the aim of reward is next to sin in all but outcome.
>The truth is that even if you reject God, you still can come to the same conclusions that the CC teaches, through "secular" philosophy
On non-religious topics, sure. Why is this an issue?
Sure, but if they are what the definition of atheism describes people, then they are technically atheists.
>sure
Ah fine, in the previous post you wrote that you're not sure and "maybe"
Infinitely less complicated than the "big bang". Apparently you don't understand how the big bang is supposed to have worked, nor do you really understand Occam's razor. You certainly don't understand the nature of God.
Why do atheists think being atheists makes them smart? It's like being tall automatically means you can play basketball.
>Why do atheists think being atheists makes them smart?
because everybody cares for reputation and prestige, and it's often the case that people of high social position are irreligious
Oh, yeah because i dont know what they believe in. I couldnt honestly tell you yes or no without that information, but im sure theres things where i could agree with them on something.
Yeah. Some sort of God. You?
>for some people they're only good because of a religion
>therefore as an atheist it is my duty to debunk this religion
Even if God isn't real, that still doesn't mean most atheists aren't subversive trash
I wonder what the bell curve would look like for atheists. The fedora meme is accurate to some percent of atheists, unfortunately.
So you arent agnostic? Im confused. But i couldnt tell you if a god exists or not, i just havent really seen evidence to suggest one exists.
Then its based on them as people. Atheism makes no other claim but a lack of belief due to insufficient evidence in a god/gods.
So you can be a "holy" atheist
So if christians and atheists didn't declare themselves openly as such, then the difference between them wouldn't exist at all
No, actually it doesn't. This is an atheist dodge. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a bullshit dodge.
Claims require reasonable evidence. To say there is no God, and meaning it in a definitive way, a priori, means that the one making the statement needs to provide the evidence.
Humans can't see atoms without machines. But, we all believe atoms exist. I have personally never seen one. But I know there is some reasonable degree of evidence. No one making the absolute claim that "there is no God" is doing so a posteriori. This is a stupid claim since no human we know of has explored every square inch of the known universe, nor have they been outside the known universe to check and see if there is in fact a God there - or not.
The best anyone can say is "I do not know if there is a God" or "I have not seen enough evidence to believe that there is a God". Once a person makes the claim, "There is no God" then they had damn well better be able to back that claim up with real evidence. The last thing they need to do is spout some nonsense about who owes the "proof" - nonsense made up by - atheists.
Atheism is a worthless label.
The very act of labeling yourself an atheist is different than being an atheist.
no, this is silly.
religion says: "there is a god"
atheism says: "there is no proof that god exists, so i do not believe in it"
then religion says: "you have to provide evidence that god does not exist"
if something does not exist how would you possibly provide evidence that it does not exist? this is what bertrand russell's teapot example was about.
I believe in a higher power but I doubt it is exactly as major religions interpret it to be. I don't think the supreme creator would really insist on having us build churches or shrines or whatever and sing its praises. Our actions wouldn't interest the creator much even if it was watching as a consciousness. We're really puny in the grand scheme of things.
Yeah, im agnostic. Well DNA really seems to be doing a number on evolutionism, its pointing more every day towards a creator. I mean there are just so many holes in evolutionism which is unfortunately taught as science. Life coming from non-life. It's ridiculous and impossible.
>The best anyone can say is "I do not know if there is a God" or "I have not seen enough evidence to believe that there is a God". Once a person makes the claim, "There is no God" then they had damn well better be able to back that claim up with real evidence. The last thing they need to do is spout some nonsense about who owes the "proof" - nonsense made up by - atheists.
this is exactly correct. what a lot of religious people mistake is that generally atheists do not make a positive assertion that there is not a god, they just doubt the assertion that there is a god. there is a fundamental difference between those two things.
"i don't believe in gods" and "i believe there are no gods" are not the same thing.
>muh teapot
Atheists who invoke the Teapot often have no qualm justifying their morals with "it's just the right thing to do" or "I don't need a book to know what is wrong".
Without God, there can be no morality.
Take rape in atheism for an example. There is no moral basis against it.
conservapedia.com
The vast majority if "Atheists" in the west are just Christian protestants who don't believe in the bible but have maintained most of the morals the bible preaches.
>DNA really seems to be doing a number on evolutionism, its pointing more every day towards a creator. I mean there are just so many holes in evolutionism which is unfortunately taught as science.
it really isn't, though. the more we study DNA and the more we study biology the more we see things that hint that it wasn't all put here, in the state it is now, by design.
see: chromosomal differences in humans and great apes
>Life coming from non-life. It's ridiculous and impossible
I think we haven't quite pinned down the definition of life yet. Are viruses "living"? I think I read an article that argued proteins are living. It's all completely over my head.
>Without God, there can be no morality
So you can't be a good person if you don't believe in a god? What if one was brought up to be good and kind and a decent human being without dogmatic belief? Are they immoral without realizing it? Is their morality incomplete?
>Without God, there can be no morality.
>Take rape in atheism for an example. There is no moral basis against it.
"don't do what you are told not to do in this ancient book or you will be punished [by torment in hell]" is not any kind of morality. if you are only doing things or not doing things out of fear, it's not morality.
And yet again the atheist reveals himself as a brainlet, that justifies his morals through "it's just not the right thing to do because I feel that way".
better than "it's just not the right thing to do because magic sky daddy said it's not the right thing to do"
>he thinks you can prove things are random
You know this a fallacy right?
As far as morality is concerned, I think the most moral person is someone who consistently does the right thing without being aware of the goodness of his actions.
When you get rid of one system of belief you have to have something to replace it with.
Why don't you read your response again?
Is it a justification for your morals?
Why exactly is it better?
You can't even explain why you believe in the morals that you believe in, yet you think you're superior to someone who's justification is an ancient book?
Atheist brainlets are too dumb to contemplate what morality should be. They simply think that after being born and raised in western culture they have arrived at the "correct" set of morals that mimic Christian culture, but do not need to be justified through the Bible because they're simply the "correct" morals.
I think atheists have a larger tendency to lean left, though. I dont personally, but im fine with people as long as they can think for themselves and be rational thinkers. I used to play basketball with hardcore christians at a private school, i couldnt pretend they were bad people.
>So you can be a "holy" atheist
I dont think ive been drafted yet, maybe ive been prayed for enough to be drafted. I suppose we will see.
>Atheism is a worthless label.
But defined very clearly. As much as id rather not be lumped in with fedoras, id be lying to say im not.
>if something does not exist how would you possibly provide evidence that it does not exist?
There is no real, living elephant in your top left dresser drawer. Now, go open your top left dresser door.
>you have to have something to replace it with
What if someone doesn't believe in anything to begin with - not out of choice, but by ignorance? Say the person was raised as a blank slate insofar as religion is concerned. They do good things that they think are good, and say by coincidence that what they believe is good is in fact moral. Admittedly this is a dangerous idea but I'm toying with concepts here.
>They simply think that after being born and raised in western culture they have arrived at the "correct" set of morals that mimic Christian culture, but do not need to be justified through the Bible because they're simply the "correct" morals.
And yet their morality is unlike the Christian morality of only 200 years before. So is it really the atheists who are without basis, or are Christians also followers of changing moral fashion?
Atheism makes no claims, only a lack of belief in a god claim due to insufficient evidence. But to assert we have to have a god for morality to exist is silly and not provable. You can think for yourself regardless, so why not?