Why are so bad at answering the question of morality without God?

Why are so bad at answering the question of morality without God?

Other urls found in this thread:

cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/UPB/Universally_Preferable_Behaviour_UPB_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)
youtube.com/watch?v=Ll9LN79gB3M&t
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Because their answer is psychopathy - morality is what you can get away with.

I think atheists believe morality is subjective and therefore only the results of those morals matter (they disregard that they are basically christian without believing in the existance of god).Thats fine dont believe as long as you do good deeds but they should be more conservative cos they have no moral groundwork of 1000s of year for their new radical morals and thats gonna cause a lot of trouble

Bump

Because morality it's subjective and usually comes down to "what stuff society needs to do to in order to not crumble ".
They usually point out and evolutionary reason or practical reason

I base my morals on what is best for the white race. Which usually means what's best for me to make babies and raise them to be high quality people. I tried church but all the ones I went to were diverse.

Morality comes from man. Your divine morality came from man larping as God.

memetic evolution is the origin of morals

Because you either need to accept that there are objective truths like right and wrong, or become a nihilist. And most atheists don't want to be associated with nihilists.

>Le evolutionary reason
If morality is based on evolution, someone who commits an immoral act is isn't doing something wrong, they're just mentally ill. I can't be held responsible for my actions if I didn't evolve properly.

This is better than the atheist shitlib moral worldview, but how does one determine what is best? How do you know traditional societies are best for whites?
Hat meme

I Can't disagree with those numbers.

But most atheists are nihilists. I've never met a Camus fan who wasn't suicidal, even though Camus was a staunch advocate against it.

If morals come from God, why do people who believe in God have different morals?

>If morality is based on evolution, someone who commits an immoral act is isn't doing something wrong, they're just mentally ill.
It's still an objective damage to society if you kill someone because you heard voices in your head that needs to be taken care of. You don't get a free pass and a coke , because you are real danger to the rest of people.
Also not all people who commit inmoral acts are mentally ill pal, there are pretty sane killers and thiefs in the world

It backs them into a corner with no answer. Saying "there is no moral absolute" just makes their demonic character plain, so they lie. They do what they can get away with. Men of character and conviction (i.e. Christian Men) do what's right when nobody is looking. It's no big deal here in the 1st world, we live in a bubble of abundance, where there are no unfulfilled needs, or wants... If that bubble pops though the wicked show the true nature of their souls.

They don't. Every religion in world pretty much has the same moral system in theory.

hm, so that's why their morals are shit

Because man is flawed and doesn't think about his actions.
But the moral law is imprinted within us, from God.
Think about it, how do you know it's wrong to murder, steal, or fornicate with animals?
Man knows the moral law already, they just don't ask God to help them

Whats wrong with nihilism?

Correct. It's the question that fundamentally proves atheists are taking the same leap of faith that believers do, except with no benefits and no obligations.

Because moral codes can only exist when given an absolute authority derived from some infallible source (God/gods). What do atheists base their morals on, since they don't believe in infallible sources?

Praise the Lord, our God
Praise be to Jesus Christ
Praise to the Holy Spirit
Glory and honour to the Divine Trinity

It's a leap of faith they only take when it benefits them. I have no reason to belief an atheist when he swears an oath to me or that he'll live up to his "secular principles" when they don't benefit him.

Too many people that try to educate others were too stupid to learn right from wrong themselves, so they needed to be indoctrinated to grasp the concept to the point where they think morality only exists because "God."

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Morals are naturalistic mechanisms that arise from groups. It's in the best interest of a group to have some sort of rules to ensure its survival -- this isn't unique to humans; you can see it with various species even down to insects.

When you get to higher morality, some people need some joining force -- like God/religion -- to instill a sense of morality, i.e. there is a watcher making sure you adhere to the morals, or there is a reward for adhering to the morals [Heaven, etc.].

I'm not pro/anti-religion. It helps a lot of people and it can hurt some people.

That's my take.

>how do you know it's wrong to murder, steal, or fornicate with animals?
Because they are bad for the rest of society it creates chaos with in a people, thats why it's wrong you don't need to be a genius or a god to figure out that mindless killing the people around you is bad, that stealing will only create chaos, that fucking animals it's fucking useless also disgusting for all the diaseases you can get

>What's utilitarianism?
>What's objectivist ethics?
>Who's Immanuel Kant?
>What's virtue ethics?

UPB
cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/UPB/Universally_Preferable_Behaviour_UPB_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf

It creats chaos within people because it is sin.
A sinful society is a chaotic one.
Look at the state of the world, how freely people sin, without fear of the consequenses or contrition.
Morals can only come from God my friend

Tell me why murdering you is wrong
>inb4 muh rights
I don't belief in your right where do you they come from anyway
>inb4 human life has inherent value
No it doesn't, I have no reason to believe that
>inb4 it's unreasonable
Not always
>inb4 just don't be an asshole
Go back to r*ddit pleb

Because all of those things are completely unnecessary violations of the well-being of other creatures. I would consider bestiality on the same level as rape since Animals can’t consent

You don’t really need a reason not to be a cunt

See

They don't want to admit the only reason they decided to be atheist is to destroy civilization and either enslave or execute everyone else, but there is no possible atheist moral code that allows them to do anything else, so they have to make up blatant lies until they're victorious.

Insects can't have morality since morality is based on free will. An insect is driven completely by instinct and has no free will. Likewise, a retard doesn't have the ability to reason properly and is thus not held responsible for his actions the same way a fully functioning person is.

If morality is a pre determined evolutionary strategy that we don't have control over, then it would illogical to hold a murder accountable for his actions, the same way it would illogical to hold an insect or a retard accountable for their actions.

>It creats chaos within people because it is sin
Lmao. Let's say it isn't and then chaos stops. For people have no self-interest or a will to live anymore. And they die.

Fucking retard.

This is a fucking dumb comic

No it creates chaos because it's an objective damage and society can't properly funtion if we steal our stuff and kill eachother.
Man is a social being almost all social being have rules that are derived from the group in order to survive, that is morality it's an unwritten law for a better cohesion, that is agreed with in a community. It's the common base for the next stage laws were those rules are now backed by agreement and force

I don't care about consent. I don't care about not being a cunt. That's my subjective opinion. What are you going to do about it?

Why is society good?

I'd agree largely. But they don't like to be associated with nihilists, because nihilist is synonymous with asshole.

You can not just pretend sin doesn't exist friend.
There are consequenses for all our actions

Simple morality like “don’t hurt people” is universal and no need for “god” to be evident.
It the more complicated and long term questions that need a god to enable people to follow.
For instance sex before marriage. In this case what is wrong with it if pregnancy or STD are not involved? Just two people who feel good together after all. Most people can not fathom the long term consequences of this action. Even without the usual issue of pregnancy or STD the human pair bonding begins to breakdown after repeated partners. More so with woman than with men but both begin to suffer the consequences of sex without commitment.
This is where a god comes in. Could an atheist also come to the same conclusion, possibly, but would they be able to have other less intelligent people follow?

...

...

>“don’t hurt people” is universal
This claim is as absurd as claiming that God exists. There is no evidence that "don't hurt people" is an objective good.

So how do you figure out what's right?
Who tells you? Do you mix and match what you believe is right or ascribe to only one philosophy?

> I can't be held responsible for my actions if I didn't evolve properly.
the fuck? thats not how evolution works...
evolutionary reason does quite well to explain morals when you actually look at it. Also, there are lesser animals that exhibit moral behaviour with no understanding of a concept of god.

Morality is an imaginary extension of the laws of physics, which is why they're codified in things called "laws" even though every single one can be broken, unlike the laws of physics. These imaginary extensions alter the behavior of people that believe in them, allowing them to accomplish tasks requiring multiple people and even multiple generations of descendants to work toward the goal before there is any chance of accomplishing it. Without these imaginary extensions we would revert to savagery, and accomplish as little as African and Native American tribes have.

You have more chances of survival with in a group than alone. More goods and services are avaliable with in a group also humans enjoy other humans, we are social beings. A man isolated in an island alone will quickly start to go mad and depressed because the isolation. Going as far as creating imaginary friends. People who are isolated all their lifes then to have lesser inteligence.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)

>absurd as claiming that God exists
The existence of a creator is self-evident.

Is something wrong because God says so or does God say so because it's wrong?
If something is wrong because God says so then it's just his subjective opinion. If he says so because it is inherently wrong then we don't need God to figure it out.

Also, the idea that God provides a solid, consistent foundation for morality is laughable. Not only does God change his mind on what is right and wrong between the old and new-testament, god-believers themseles vehemently disagree about morality even when they all read the same book, almost like all this shit is subjective or something.

So geographically isolated humans like the abo, pigmy, and others that descended into savagery would immediately contradict you.

Moral objectivism > Moral relativism.
Especially for a functional society. To say that you are immoral just because you don't believe in a supreme power doesn't mean you're not attempting to have power over yourself or your actions.
After all despite what you may believe honor is the only thing that remains or is missing after you or I are dead.

>I can't be held responsible for my actions if I didn't evolve properly.
And this is the part where you still hang

>Morals can only come from God my friend

>be crusader
>rape, kill, and pillage

The crusades were a response to centuries of violent Islamic expansion, don't try to play victim Mohammad.

>Not only does God change his mind on what is right and wrong between the old and new-testament, god-believers themseles vehemently disagree about morality even when they all read the same book
This just screams that you've no idea what you're talking about. Single mum raised you huh?

>centuries of violent islamic expansion

No. The Christian pilgrims were fine under the Arabs. Only when the T*rks came there was trouble.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ll9LN79gB3M&t

You can't prove that cheese talked to you and gave you your morals though.
Otherwise christians would only have to prove that trees can burn.

There's some battlefield in France, Italy, and Spain that would tell you no one cares about the pilgrims.

A lot of people have been convinced it isn't there and that conviction in itself is sin, correct? And it brings nothing but egotism, conflict and chaos, is that also correct? This is much easier to understand for those who do not believe in God. ''God says this is bad'' does not suffice and is merely condescending.

>For instance sex before marriage. In this case what is wrong with it if pregnancy or STD are not involved? Just two people who feel good together after all. Most people can not fathom the long term consequences of this action. Even without the usual issue of pregnancy or STD the human pair bonding begins to breakdown after repeated partners. More so with woman than with men but both begin to suffer the consequences of sex without commitment.
This is where a god comes in. Could an atheist also come to the same conclusion, possibly, but would they be able to have other less intelligent people follow?
They were native American tribes who didn't have the concept of sex before marriage as wrong the cibchas or something I don't remember the name right, had a negative view on Virginity in women's, virgin womens were seen as unwanted and useless to the people, they survived a long time before the spaniards came and showed them super war, so their society was stable somehow

>be crusader
>believe in Jewsus
>Jewsus says turn the other cheek

>rape, kill, and pillage

You're shifting goalposts. I didn't deny Islam didn't try to expand into Europe, I denied your notion that the Crusades were due to Islamic expansionism. It started due to Christian pilgrims being blocked from visiting the (((Holy Land))) due to Turks.

I'm atheist but the Christians didn't go far enough in my opinion.

You said it yourself they are isolated,their morals do not change because there's no need.
A tribe on an island it's very different than rome sharing a sea with other civilizations

Well your assumption that they wouldn't push back past their original borders and try to stab the Islamists where it would hurt is weird.
Eye for an eye? Ever hear of that? It was during the Catholic Empire's reign after all, you didn't expect the Romans to get pissed? please

I'm not saying atheists can't be moral people, after all God gave us knowledge of good and evil, the problem is that a materialist or physicalist world view doesn't allow you do justify any action as right or wrong or make any objective value judgements for that matter. It all becomes subjective.

Because atheists have no guide in life other than their own thoughts or those around them, in today’s society’s atheists are guided by cultural Marxist subversion. There is your answer without using god faggot.

>if you kill someone because you heard voices in your head that needs to be taken care of.

But you don't say that the schizoid did something immoral. You can't condemn a man for doing something he had no control over.

I really have no idea what you are rambling about.

You said the Crusades were due to Islamic expansion
I denied it and I claimed it was due pilgrims being blocked into the (((Holy Land))).
What the Muslims did outside of that is irrelevant for the question.
Most crusades were in the Holy Land anyway. The reconquista wasn't a crusade. The any other crusade I can think of is that in Baltics. But hey, that's Papism for you.

The isolation shows morality is not evolutionary.

But we do separate them from society because they are dangerous. We don't simply allow them to continue murdering at will.

>Implying all atheists are purely materialist.
You must be new here.
All I know in regard to your statement is that alot of the morality in monotheism, itself being a copy of other cultural values, is mostly objective as it creates a healthy functional society, because it makes sense.
>don't steal
>don't kill
>don't lie
>don't be a dirty nigger kike
Seems to make sense.

>God -- a being which by definition must be perfect
>Subjective opinion
You go to one of those trade schools don't you?

>The atheist is a fat pig and his arguments are puerile non-arguments
Can't make this shit up.

The majority of atheists were raised Christian and whether they admit it or not are aware of sin and the laws of God. God has already given them the knowledge, they just want to continue their delusion that God doesn't exist and that themselves are the moral authority so that they don't have to feel bad for their shitty life choices.

>I think atheists believe morality is subjective
>morality is what god subjectively likes.

>I denied it and I claimed it was due pilgrims being blocked into the (((Holy Land))).

All atheists are materialist. Unless you belief some wacky German idealism stuff, which is hard to square without a god.
Because we have the presupposition that life has inherent value, and that protecting life is the moral thing to do.

An atheist can believe this, but he has no way of justifying it.

You adopted the morality of your host nation, put on a costume, and tried to blend in with what you think you can get away with. You are a shape shifter---a Jew.

By protecting other people's lives they will presumably protect mine as well. Reciprocal altruism perfectly explains morality without a god.

He is still a danger to the rest, its morally correct to isolate him or take care of him to stop him to hurt people

Most atheists--claiming to motivated only by logic and reason--believe in an abstract notion of "the progress of humanity". But if every living on earth is just a stew of genes that randomly interact with each other and the environment, then humanity does not exist and species don't exist--they are arbitrary constructs. And, if all species are only currents in the gene pool, then there is no reason to assume humans are special, or that mankind can "take charge of it's future". This is faith. In modern times "genetic engineering" would be the closest thing to the Christian idea "eternal life" I can think of, and it's hard to find an atheist without some faith in this new heaven.

No, there's still a morality in a isolated group. Theres always rules to follow when to or more people get together. How the fuck there's no morality?

they still had morals though so I guess that actually contradicts your point then?

You only belief that life has inherent value because it benefits you. In other words, pure self interest. What when the benefit of killing is greater to you than not killing?

if it was, wouldn't everyone believe in god. and the same one at that.

Buddhist
No conflict with my atheism, I just believe in Jewish sky fairies. I do believe in reincarnation.
So might I ask would you rather be surrounded by people pretending to be faithful or people who actually are faithful? I'm not going to try and convince any theist of anything regarding such things, I find it odd they do, knowing full well I have different unprovable beliefs.

> I just [Don't] believe in Jewish sky fairies

God gave knowledge of good and evil. Even atheists can be moral, even though they can't justify it.

You just replied that they cant justify it, to a conversation thread talking exactly about how we can.

BUDDHISTS STILL BELIEVE IN THE TRANSCENDENT

>I think
You should stop.

>Even atheists can be moral, even though they can't justify it.
I can. To prevent social decay and chaotic anarchy.

Theres are good justification in this thread for morality without God, the fact that you dont care to read them doesn't mean there's no justification

Justification is only necessary when there is someone to answer to. If we achieve the same understanding through different means then why do you need to justify anything?

Not a divine being tho nigger, get that monotheistic stick out of your ass.
It's like confronting a animistic earth hippy why they haven't found christ when he's talking to spirit guides and shit. These are totally different languages to you apparently.

>then there is no reason to assume humans are special
This idea is everywhere among atheists. Discussions on the universe someone is guaranteed to point out how insignificant humanity is in comparison to the alien life we "know" is out there, pointing out to them that zero evidence exists for this and it rattles their faith to anger. They are vehemently opposed to the scientific method when you challenge their new religion with facts and who them the flaws in theory and gaps evidence. They want to believe we are nothing.