Atheism is degenerate

Atheism plays a large role (perhaps one of the biggest) in the destruction of western civilization. It is one of the root causes for the degeneracy and overall moral decline we see today.

It all stems from the fact that atheism is incompatible with moral universalism, which makes it possible to morally rationalize any action (i.e. moral relativism), as can be seen with the LGBTQ movement. This acronym is constantly evolving (currently at LGBTQQIP2SAA if I'm not mistaken), and I believe it's just a matter of time before pedophilia and bestiality are integrated as well (in-before muh slippery slope).

I expect some people to challenge the notion that atheism is incompatible with moral universalism. I've had this debate before, and they usually resort to: "Empathy is in our biology. It's a product of evolution that is innate in all humans." The problem with this argument is that it begets the question: Whose "biology" are we talking about? Not everyone are empathetic about the same things. People seem to have different concepts of what is wrong and what isn't. Who is right? What society? Not to mention that it's irrational and quite frankly intellectually dishonest to assume that there is an ultimate standard of right and wrong that supersedes mere fanciful "ideas" about what is right and wrong at a given time in our ethical evolution (from an atheistic perspective).

I'm not saying that all atheists are amoral, but that has more to do with the intellectual cowardice, hypocrisy and inconsistent logic of atheists than it does with the moral strength of atheism. Morality is impossible without a foundation of transcendental truth. Atheism denies that such a concept is even possible. Logically then there is no reason for an individual to respect the concept of collective morality.


Atheists proclaim to be intellectually superior and have an aptitude for logical and critical thinking, yet they fail to understand something so simple. It just boggles my mind.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/ca2pMYsU0Ac?t=84
independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bestiality-legal-canada-supreme-court-a7073196.html
plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-ethics/
anyforums.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

obnoxious bible belt evangelicals (i.e. reformed alcoholics/drug addicts) and catholic pedophiles killed christianity, and why the fuck would anyone who they chased away want to try another abrahamic religion?

whatever, you're going to post your bullshit, allahuackbar, you probably are unemployed and bored and thats why you post this retarded shit

>Not believing in a magic sky wizard is degenerate
Nice try Mohammad.

Atheism killed the west

Amen

SWEDEN NO!

But really this is a very well summary of problem with our post-modern societies. Nihilism, hedonism are the only things that matter.

This is why i really want to go back to religion.

>Thinks Atheism is Nihilism
Top kek

Feel free to refute the OP.
Good lads.

youtu.be/ca2pMYsU0Ac?t=84

a religious person has no right to talk about logical inconsistency

and what the lgbwhatever faggots are doing is no worse then what the church would do if they were in charge

I do not trust a person who is 100% dependent on their faith to make logical choices because they will put whatever their beliefs are over any sort of physical evidence

for example, not allowing the usage of contraceptives in aids ridden countries because they think that some of the most disposable cells in the human body are sacred

I agree, praise be to allah right?

>matter of time before pedophilia and bestiality
Uh canada ?

independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bestiality-legal-canada-supreme-court-a7073196.html

the slippery slope is real

>a religious person has no right to talk about logical inconsistency
How so?
>and what the lgbwhatever faggots are doing is no worse then what the church would do if they were in charge
Protestantism and catholicism are degenerate as well (seeing as they are jewish variations of christianity), but that's beside the point. The topic at hand is that atheism is degenerate (and way more degenerate than protestantism and catholicism). Follow the Bible and you're golden.
>I do not trust a person who is 100% dependent on their faith to make logical choices because they will put whatever their beliefs are over any sort of physical evidence
Evidence is not proof. Just because something is supported by evidence it doesn't necessarily make it true.
So being opposed to atheism means that you're a muslim?

It is, if you have a swedish flag.

Not statistically speaking, seeing as there are more christians than muslims in Sweden.

>Protestantism and catholicism are degenerate as well (seeing as they are jewish variations of christianity), but that's beside the point. The topic at hand is that atheism is degenerate (and way more degenerate than protestantism and catholicism). Follow the Bible and you're golden

yeah no, the bible changes every few decades to coincide with the ruling class
back in the day the bible said that niggers were descendants from Cain, that intelligent women were witches, that priests should be given more political rights etc. because that was the norm back then

I fully expect that in 20 years homosex will no longer be a sin while something against racism will be added in the 10 comandments, because thats how this shit works, it is not the holy word it is the word of the ones who rule you made to appear as the voice of god

>Just because something is supported by evidence it doesn't necessarily make it true
just because something is supported by a book or an old man in warcraft cosplay doesn't necessarily make it true

>yeah no, the bible changes every few decades to coincide with the ruling class
That's why modern versions are often rejected, hence why people tend to follow the KJV.
>back in the day the bible said that niggers were descendants from Cain, that intelligent women were witches, that priests should be given more political rights etc. because that was the norm back then
That has more to do with faulty interpretation than it does with the consistency of the biblical message. This is what I was referring to earlier when I mentioned protestantism and catholicism. Both have have deluded, distorted and perverted Christianity to the point where it no longer bears any resemblance to the word of God. They have turned it into a doctrine of racial equality, integration, and mongrelization which they call “Christian”. However, like I said. This is beside the point. The topic at hand is atheism, not christianity. Try to not derail the thread.
>I fully expect that in 20 years homosex will no longer be a sin while something against racism will be added in the 10 comandments, because thats how this shit works, it is not the holy word it is the word of the ones who rule you made to appear as the voice of god
Except it doesn't work like that and you know it. You are mistaking "wannabe-purists" with actual christians. The Bible is clear on it's stance about homosexuality, and that will never change.
>just because something is supported by a book or an old man in warcraft cosplay doesn't necessarily make it true
That's why religious people have faith. You atheists can't even admit that science is a system based on faith as well (e.g. the presuppositions that science is built on). Arrogance.

Do you still find this funny, svennyboi?

>It all stems from the fact that atheism is incompatible with moral universalism
What are ideologies?

>What are ideologies?
What's your point?
>Do you still find this funny, svennyboi?
Do I find what funny?

>back in the day the bible said that niggers were descendants from Cain, that intelligent women were witches

Neither of this were offical teaching of any major christian church.

>not being braindead
>degenerate

huh, really makes you think...

>What's your point?
Atheism and moral universalism are not mutually exclusive as you suggest. All you need for moral universalism is just the believe that your principles are good and others should follow the, you don't need any supernatural beings. Ideologies are example of that.

>Do I find what funny?
using the same copypasta every week

>It all stems from the fact that atheism is incompatible with moral universalism, which makes it possible to morally rationalize any action (i.e. moral relativism),
>implying religion is not moral relativism)
Why can't i buy slaves anymore? Church was ok with that back then why Church is not ok with slavery anymore? i thought they supposed to be unmovable foundation of morals instead they jump left and right with current agendas (at least Islam is based i can buy slaves as Muslim)

>Not everyone are empathetic about the same things.
Yes they are, human empathy is very basic. Helping anything your brain considers part of your group makes you feel good while watching them suffer or die makes you feel miserable. Modern society is much too complex for such basic instincts so different cultures found different ways to manipulate it and use it to their advantage.

Religions are an easy example of this, most fit in and followers consider the rest of society part of their group. Others devote a lot of effort to training followers to only consider other believers part of their group, they display little to no empathy for outsiders.

>You atheists can't even admit that science is a system based on faith as well (e.g. the presuppositions that science is built on). Arrogance.

Because it isn't
For a scientist to use the old knowledge as a basis he has to first understand it, to know how it works and why it is true (or most likely the truth like in atomic theory)
Everything that is disproved is cast aside

Are there exceptions within the scientific community that are blinded by their arrogance, well i don't know, are there pedophile rings in the religious community?

>Atheism and moral universalism are not mutually exclusive as you suggest.
Except they are. Refute this:

>I've had this debate before, and they usually resort to: "Empathy is in our biology. It's a product of evolution that is innate in all humans." The problem with this argument is that it begets the question: Whose "biology" are we talking about? Not everyone are empathetic about the same things. People seem to have different concepts of what is wrong and what isn't. Who is right? What society? Not to mention that it's irrational and quite frankly intellectually dishonest to assume that there is an ultimate standard of right and wrong that supersedes mere fanciful "ideas" about what is right and wrong at a given time in our ethical evolution (from an atheistic perspective).

>using the same copypasta every week
Using it as a red-pill.

>Morality is impossible without a foundation of transcendental truth. Atheism denies that such a concept is even possible. Logically then there is no reason for an individual to respect the concept of collective morality.
Read about game theory and morals.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-ethics/

>Why can't i buy slaves anymore? Church was ok with that back then why Church is not ok with slavery anymore? i thought they supposed to be unmovable foundation of morals instead they jump left and right with current agendas (at least Islam is based i can buy slaves as Muslim)
See

Except humans really aren't empathetic about the same things. There are always exceptions. What then? Should we resort to argumentum ad populum and just assume the majority is correct?

the world isn't empathic by design
humans are since it was useful in our evolution
how do we know that the "true" bible you are selling is not just another fake one
what if god does love fags?

You're describing Nihilism not Atheism you dumbass.

The worst part of atheism is that it's true.

>the world isn't empathic by design
>humans are since it was useful in our evolution
Is that your rebuttal?
>how do we know that the "true" bible you are selling is not just another fake one
You don't. But theism can support moral universalism (due to the absolute moral authority), and atheism can't.

>Refute this:

They ain't nuffin to refute, because there is no argument why should the concept of universal morality require belief in supernatural beings.

>You're describing Nihilism not Atheism you dumbass.
Atheists can still believe in moral relativism, but that's really an inconsistent and illogical way to look at things. Some countries believe the death sentence is immoral, others don't. Who is right? Both? That's a contradiction (hence illogical). Who's the absolute moral authority?

>Is that your rebuttal?
what more do you want, i didn't say anything wrong
>But theism can support moral universalism (due to the absolute moral authority)
it can't because they are unable to prove the existance of that moral authority (bible doesn't count, unless you want to tell me that Eru iluvitar and Sauron real)

>They ain't nuffin to refute, because there is no argument
If you're just going to behave like that (since there's an obvious argument in the OP) then I'm done replying to you.

Religion disagrees about same things all the time.

>Atheism plays a large role (perhaps one of the biggest) in the destruction of western civilization.

Religion has by far played the largest role in the destruction of western and Eastern civilization.

Zealots kill each other to please their gods. Rational people need a good reason to kill.

Checkmate!

>Who's the absolute moral authority?
no one
not everything has a yes or no answer

>what more do you want, i didn't say anything wrong
You didn't even refute it. Whose biology should we adhere to? Not everyone agree when it comes to right and wrong, so the biology is obviously different.
>it can't because they are unable to prove the existance of that moral authority
You don't have to prove the existence of this absolute moral authority for it to be theoretically plausible.

>Except humans really aren't empathetic about the same things. There are always exceptions. What then? Should we resort to argumentum ad populum and just assume the majority is correct?
They're all empathetic about the same thing, you can just easily subvert it via conditioning. It's like food, different cultures like different food, your brain is conditioned to like whatever is eaten locally as you grow up. But the base instinct is the same, humans like eating when hungry.

>morality

>Religion disagrees about same things all the time.
There's still an absolute moral authority. The confusion is just about WHAT his laws are.

>Religion has by far played the largest role in the destruction of western and Eastern civilization.
Western civilization was built upon a christian foundation, so don't even try.

>You don't have to prove the existence of this absolute moral authority for it to be theoretically plausible.
there doesn't always have to be one correct answer (biology or otherwise) for people to follow it
if it is proven that there is one that is superior to all then it is logical to cast away others, tradition be damned

>no one
Great, so moral universalism is not possible, only relativism.

If by church you mean catholic church, know that slavery was never fully justified by catholic theology. Notice that morality can change becouse economy or society can change. Slave were treated often better than nowadays low-paid workers.

But it is thought.

When you hear in interesting scientific fact about the universe or something that you cannot measure yourself, You believe it to be a fact because you believe the people who discovered, tested and verified are correct in their assumptions and take it at face value.

Sure, there are somethings which you can prove for yourself, but other then that faith is required when accepting such information at value, unless you can confirm for yourself that this is the case.

OP is 100% correct

atheism promotes degeneracy.

Well done my property, my job here is done. I will no longer have to attain power over you.

>They're all empathetic about the same thing, you can just easily subvert it via conditioning. It's like food, different cultures like different food, your brain is conditioned to like whatever is eaten locally as you grow up.
Alright, let's get back to your initial statement then. One country (group of people) think it's moral to genocide the population of another country (since this will benefit them). The other country think that's immoral. Who is right?

so what
you can check everyting for yourself, if you put enough effort in
but no matter how hard i try i will never be able to prove that god exists
thats why science should always have a higher authority

>Sharing the same ideas and philosophy as most high-IQ members of society
>"degenerate"

Atheism is a faith that many have turned into a religion.

>there doesn't always have to be one correct answer (biology or otherwise) for people to follow it
There is nothing to suggest that atheism is compatible with moral universalism. Nothing. It all points to the opposite.
>if it is proven that there is one that is superior to all then it is logical to cast away others, tradition be damned
The most logical approach for western civilization is to genocide all the slavs and other non-whites. Since that's the most logical option I guess it's the most moral one. Do you agree?

> atheism is incompatible with moral universalism

That is retarded.

Moral relativism is a question of morality, not theism.

The source of your universal tenets is irrelevant and just because yours came from a particular book doesn't mean that it can special treatment.

>Morality is impossible without a foundation of transcendental truth. Atheism denies that such a concept is even possible.

Oh I see, you just don't see the difference between epistemology and theology.

What you are basically saying is

>Mathematics is impossible without a foundation of transcendental truth
>Atheism denies that a concept of a priori knowledge

Kill yourself.

Put that head in sand if you want, but you didnt wrote and argument why would universal morals require god, you just wrote a ""rebbutal"" against one specific argument. Communism for example is a set of universal morals and yet they have no need for supernatural.

See what?
>my interpretation of Bible is right yours is not?
You would go to burn at the stake trying to tell this to old Catholics that where not
>doctrine of racial equality, integration, and mongrelization which they call “Christian”
And them you reject. Did you see that you have liberally now place in religion? Your reject one yourself and you are heretic for others.

>Because it isn't
It is. Hence epistemological solipsism. Our entire perception of reality (primarily science) could be nothing but mere illusion that is being perpetuated by an invisible force. Scientists assume that materialism is an actual thing. This is a presupposition. A leap of faith.

>literaly a CULT of Feminism
>literaly a SJW CULT

blaming atheism.... not Atheism+

>There is nothing to suggest that atheism is compatible with moral universalism
don't know about universalism
but is still has a higher moral ground then any religion

>so what
What do you mean? That was the entire point of this thread.

Faith is believing something with no evidence.
Believing a person who spends their life trying to prove things with logic is not. Its simply accepting that other people know more than you.

Implying religious people make decisions based on logic

My spaghetti monster your fucking dumb

Atheism now equals Islam.
They denounce faith and then sought out a new one.

irrelevant to the current discussion

weren't you mouthing off about atheism beign more degenerate then religion
that religion has a moral high grou
because that ain't true

There was an argument but I'm not surprised you didn't see it because you probably stuck your head in the sand yourself. Make a rebuttal.

I wonder how many of you guys who post stirner memes all the time actually read him. He keeps babbling about "me" but he never explained what "me" means. How can I say is there any action made really by myself, not by spooks.

Really? Because it's socialist and atheistic regimes like Maoist China and the USSR which devolved the church from society in a large degree was much more destructive then their capitalist/christian counterparts, China utterly destroyed their ancient culture and killed millions of its own citizens in rejecting Chinese traditionalism, religion and culture. China only really recovered and rallied back after Mao's death and Xiaoping's reforms in China, including cultural and religious.

ground*
fug

>See what?
The post obviously.
>You would go to burn at the stake trying to tell this to old Catholics that where not
Then so be it. What's your point?
>Your reject one yourself and you are heretic for others.
Yes.

>Faith is believing something with no evidence.
There's a difference between evidence and proof. There is plenty of evidence that supports theism. I guess theism isn't faith-based then? According to your own reasoning?

>irrelevant to the current discussion
Not really, since you said atheism wasn't faith-based.

because it tried to completely remove instead of seperate
people should be allowed to believe all the bullshit they want but they shouldn't try to impose that bullshit on others

the system that you put in place to run the goverment should try to be as objective as possible with absolute objectivity beign unreachable
>Then so be it. What's your point?
that that system objectively sucks and is degenerate

>weren't you mouthing off about atheism beign more degenerate then religion
Because it is, since it can't support moral universalism,which consequently leads to the SJW movement you see today.

>There is plenty of evidence that supports theism
such as
>inb4 bible

>Atheism plays a large role (perhaps one of the biggest) in the destruction of western civilization

I am an atheist and I agree with this. The masses need to be kept in check with religion. The failure of Christianity has lead to the Failure of Western Society. I would much rather live in a Christian country than an atheistic country.

>that that system objectively sucks and is degenerate
You're not him so how can you give an answer to what his point was?

>inb4 bible
What's wrong with the Bible? It's evidence.

>since it can't support moral universalism
well neither can religion

but atheism can offer replacements that strive for moral universalism but simply cannot reach it
which is why it is superior IMO

it isn't perfect, but then what is

Nihilism is the natural conclusion of atheism. He doesn't think nihilism is atheism. I think you knew that and you're just lying though

in a 1000 years this will be evidence that spiderman is real

occams razor is a beautiful thing

>well neither can religion
Religion can, because of the absolute moral authority (i.e. God).
>but atheism can offer replacements that strive for moral universalism but simply cannot reach it
Because it's logically inconsistent. Why should I follow your arbitrary laws? If I'm an atheist I'm on this Earth for me. Social darwinism.

You posted this exact same thread like a week ago. Fuck off

Seems that you don't know the difference between evidence and proof. Not even science has any proof, just an abundance of evidence.

>You posted this exact same thread like a week ago.
Yes, what's your point? Some people might have missed it (and there are always new people coming to Sup Forums).

>There is plenty of evidence that supports theism
Kek
Your moral universalism doesn't seem all that universal when even people believing in the same god as you would burn you at a stake for being a heretic.

i wrote a book about niggers being kingz and shizz
ISSE EVIDANCE NOW

>Your moral universalism doesn't seem all that universal when even people believing in the same god as you would burn you at a stake for being a heretic.
Theism is theoretically plausible with moral universalism. Atheism isn't.

>because of the absolute moral authority
which it cannot prove and is itself often arbitrary

as for the typical "if I won't burn in hell then why shouldn't i go around murdering people" argument
well we have laws in place to punish such behavior
it has more evidence then religion, occams razor suggests it is more likely to be correct then religion
making it superior

Athiesm means no religion, it isn't a group or anything like that.

Learn about something before you go spewing off about it.

religion keeps killing people today

None of what you said about the bible is true. People interpret it to mean these different weird things, they don't change the bible to say those things. If you actually think people will change the bible to accept homosexuality then you're absolutely delusional. Even fake, moderate, liberal Christians would see the blasphemy and true Christians would lose their mind

My fedora is going to make an appearance..if you'd please.

I simply don't have that part of the brain - if you can call it that. I look up in the sky and see clouds, stars and on rare occasions other planets. Secondly, original sin? I'm guilty of murder by being born or whatever the fuck it is? Go fuck yourself. I take the same stance on white privelege. By being born I'm guilty of oppressing others. Again, fuck off.

I'm of good moral character through my parentals' teachings. And **I** don't need religion.

However, do I think religion is desperately needed in a time like this? Absolutely. White women especially are becoming out of control with their attitudes and anti-western perspectives. They're gullible and susceptible to programming more than any other group in my opinion. Academia is on the way to becoming a joke. Instead of adhering to a behavior code administered through the church and community they are absorbing propaganda and popular media that plainly just normalizes vulgar and degenerate behavior. Do I enjoy watching, for example, some hoes shaking their asses around on screen? Sure. But I don't go to clubs and I don't engage in hook up culture.

There IS a standard of what is right and wrong. Not killing other people is a pretty easy concept to digest. Basically the 10 commandments are easily conferred upon young minds. Other than that, if you don't like gays or abortion or whatever - don't look, don't read about it, etc.

I don't know what else to write.. but I really think that women are the biggest outliers in this whole equation. To give you credence to your side, Islam is doing fine and dandy with its society (in their fucked up sense of morality).

>Mfw I respond to bait instead of letting it go

Morals are a social construct. While yes, we seem to have some innate knowledge of empathy, how we respond is purely learned.

Like religion.

No one is born instinctively knowing of religion. We are born seeking meaning between events. It helps us understand our world so we may survive.

Religion is not degenerate, however the reasoning OP put behind stating Atheism is are false.

Lets discuss this, as it's the main argument from what I gather.

>
I'm not saying that all atheists are amoral, but that has more to do with the intellectual cowardice, hypocrisy and inconsistent logic of atheists than it does with the moral strength of atheism. Morality is impossible without a foundation of transcendental truth. Atheism denies that such a concept is even possible. Logically then there is no reason for an individual to respect the concept of collective morality.

I raise you society. Society is the reason individuals who are atheist are able to find collective morality. These views will constantly be challenged, as society itself changes.

>but user, mah religion is more steadfast
No it isn't. Over the course of every religion, views change. Religion, while a faith system, operates just as a society does. Take marriage. Originally there was nothing wrong with marrying a 14 year old. However our society evolved to believe that this is morally incorrect, and religion reflects that as well.

Society is actually the cause of group morality, not religion, however religion is a society, or at least functions in such a way for many people. I can see where everyone is coming from, because it's a lot easier to find common ground inside of a smaller group. May I offer that globalism is what you're truly having a problem with?

>religion keeps killing people today

But I'm a Christian and I don't kill. We're told not to

>Religion is the status quo
>Sup Forums hates it and chases out all the chsristifags

>Atheism becomes popular as the less intelligent die off.
>Sup Forums proudly defends religion and chases off anyone who isn't a cultist with fedora memes

Could you guys stop trying so hard to be different?

>Theism is theoretically plausible with moral universalism
it can never be proven making its plausability next to none
>true Christians
you mean the catholics? orthodox? protestant? the mid east cults?

I agree.

It takes some cognitive dissonance to convince yourself and accept that there's a man in the sky and a man* at the earth's core.