Atheism and the downfall of western civilization

Atheism is the most destructive tendril of cultural marxism besides feminism when it comes to destroying cultures. It is one of the root causes for the degeneracy and overall moral degredation we see today in western civilization.

It all stems from the fact that atheism is incompatible with moral universalism (i.e. objective morality), 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.


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

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11172054
archive.is/rMWrG
renegadetribune.com/all-christians-are-cucks/
reasonablefaith.org/sam-harris-on-objective-moral-values-and-duties
youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

tldr
It would be better if we had sunk those third worlder ships and let them drown.
Christianity 0, Atheism 1
Checkmate.

>le cultural marxism conspiruhsee maymay

>better
What do you mean? Your preference? Next Allahu Akbar can stop you from preferring anything.

All I have to say is atheism doesn't have a pope that kissed and washed a bunch of Muslim feet.

Neither does orthodox christianity
NUFF SAID

The point still stands even without marxism. It still leads to moral degredation.
Catholicism =//= Christianity

Not really, but more akin to people wanting to free themselves from duty.

Atheist has no obligations to be moral. He will never have. He has an interest in being moral. Looking at it this way, it is obvious why atheism is pushed as "the neutral path".

I don't argue with Christians anymore. Seems too much like friendly fire. But don't mistake that for agreement with your lazy non-sequiturs.

bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11172054
Atheists: 1
Christians: 0

> rushed to help him and each other. None of them could swim. All six drowned.
Can't make this shit up. Niggers are so retarded.

...

>Selflessness is inconsistent with atheistic Darwinism

Bullshit.

Humans evolved altruism because they are a social species. All functioning, well-adjusted human beings are wired to want to save the drowning man, and even take on varying degrees of risk to do so. He may be a poor swimmer but he may also be good at other things that benefit the tribe. On a macroscopic scale, helping each other has invariably improved our chances of survival and replication.

The selfish did not live long in the wild, and they certainly didn't attract mates.

I look forward to dying

It's exactly like you say, but backwards. It is moral universalism which prevents us from drawing and quartering the unmentionable controllers who flood our communities with degenerate programming through infotainment media.

>Humans evolved altruism because they are a social species. All functioning, well-adjusted human beings are wired to want to save the drowning man, and even take on varying degrees of risk to do so.
That's resorting to "muh feels" and not rational thinking. Aren't you people always complaining about liberals and SJW's doing just that?

When there is no inherent value to life beyond what value you personally assign to it, and there is no life beyond this fleeting life, then logically your own life becomes priceless and should be preserved above everything else at all costs. A rational atheist would not jump in.

Anyway, like I said. Not 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.

>Anyway, like I said. Not all atheists are amoral
Of course not. They just have no obligation to be moral, just an interest in seeming like a moral person.

Agreed. This is why they often find no problem lying to friends, family, on their CV or in a job interview (etc.). As long as the atheist can safely get away with an immoral action, he is likely to commit said action. Or well, if he's rational that is (and it benefits him).

>That's resorting to "muh feels" and not rational thinking.

Did you just ignore the logic that followed directly after the section you quoted? Here, let me quote the part that explains why, and it has nothing to do with "muh feels."

>He may be a poor swimmer but he may also be good at other things that benefit the tribe. On a macroscopic scale, helping each other has invariably improved our chances of survival and replication.

What part of that are you having difficulty understanding? There is a measurable benefit to selflessness in a social species. That is why many species which have no concept of religion display the same trait.

Have you confused amoral and immoral?

Given your flag English might not be your first language. But they are radically different ideas.

Also I'd rather be friends with people that acted moral because they wanted to rather than out of fear of punishment.

nah atheism is a byproduct of the times, not the source of the current zeitgeist
it's for many people babby's first logical conclusion after the education they have received, which is a fundamentally a materialistic black hole which ultimately leads to the next station, nihilism, that has only to be slowly uncovered step by step, starting with the rotting carcass of christianity since it's one of the easiest things to thrown into the garbage with said basal material worldview(muh science, muh reason, you know the kind)

most atheists though in my experience(I've been on atheist forums for years and interacted with hundreds of them) don't really take the big step further towards the rejection of other values that instead they somehow still cling to, often very clumsily, like morality(which is usually just a secular version of christianity) and so on

Mate, you think like a sociopath. There is something fundamentally wrong with you.

I'm truly glad you're religious.

>What part of that are you having difficulty understanding? There is a measurable benefit to selflessness in a social species. That is why many species which have no concept of religion display the same trait.
There are other people that could help, and if not, no one would notice if this person didn't help. So I ask you again. Why should he help? Why should he risk his own life? Because it improves our chances of survival and replication? Why should this atheist care? He'll be dead long before that has any noticeable effect.

Your argument is null.

No. I chose amoral for a reason. I know English might not be your first language, seeing as you're probably from Mexico, so I don't blame you.

>Mate, you think like a sociopath.
Facts don't care about feelings. People do, more and less. Depends on the mood, the justifications, excuses...

Atheists are not atheist because of their sociopathic urges, but their human urges.

>Mate, you think like a sociopath.
Elaborate.
>There is something fundamentally wrong with you.
You're right.

Who were the atheists of ancient Rome?

Hedonists and Epicureans.

no m8, your argument is null. You save them because they are a fellow human. It is instinctive. Simple as that. Animals exhibit altruism. Ausposter is right, you think like a psychopath. Morality has existed in philosophical thought long before Christianity existed. If you have no morals without believing in a reward/punishment, the problem is you.

>It is instinctive. Simple as that.
You follow your instincts because..? Besides, there is also an instinct to lie or to abuse. Why not follow them?

>be Sup Forums
>be Christian
>see non white/non male/non trump/non neckbeard drowning
>think "good, they're unfit for life. The gene pool is better off without them"
>post muh Christianity is for the moral thread in Sup Forums

Christfags are the majority of the most selfish and spoiled brats I've met

Listen, all moral systems are dependent upon certain axioms and "just-so" valuations. Adding a God does nothing to prevent that.

If you say we need a God for morality because He provides an absolute morality, I would like to know how?

Because he threatens punishment and reward? Does that not presume that happiness is desirable, and unhappiness is undesirable? And if such is presumed, why throw in the God at all? Is it not sufficient then, that acting nobly produces happiness?

Not that I follow a morality of happiness, I'm merely pointing out the absurdity in presuming a deity has anything to do with morality whatsoever.
Pic is retarded, you save the other person because if you were drowning you'd want someone to save you. Moron.

What said. Why do you follow some instincts but reject others? You argue as if instincts can't be rejected or controlled.

>Morality has existed in philosophical thought long before Christianity existed.
As a philosophical thought, yes. Atheism is incompatible with moral universalism (i.e. objective morality) and I think you'll have a hard time finding an "ancient" philosophers who argued the opposite.

>Pic is retarded, you save the other person because if you were drowning you'd want someone to save you. Moron.
So just because you saved this person it means someone else will save you? Irrational thinking.

>Listen, all moral systems are dependent upon certain axioms and "just-so" valuations.
Then why care about moral systems? All of humanity is aware of good and evil- the relation, however, is similar to our understanding of truth. Limited, subverted, pavlovized. Sure.
However, there is more to it than simply following a pattern.

That's not an argument to follow Christianity. Morality cannot hold up a belief in God if belief in God holds up that morality.

Fucking noob

Honestly so long as you aren't a Muslim you're okay in my book.

>If you say we need a God for morality because He provides an absolute morality, I would like to know how?
He is the morality. Outside of the limitations of our existence. Same as truth. If truth would be limited to the data bytes we call quarks/atoms/molecules/objects... It would be worth nothing.

However, we know of the Platonic, we have inside information; we have access to a multitude of divine attributes.

God provides a basis for morality because He provides a basis for justice.

I have great respect for the Pope. I like the Pope. I actually like him.
-Donald Trump

What did he mean by this?

didnt read the OP , but this image makes no sense

My argument isn't that atheism allows for moral objectivity/universalism, my argument is that monotheism doesn't.

All value systems are ultimately hierarchical and axiomatic. They all rest on the premise certain things are desired by the particular moral agent.

You start by defining some thing as the Good-In-Itself, then work backwards to create elegant and flowery philosophies, of which the earth is full.

Adding a God to this model does nothing for it. What does it mean for a morality to be objective? There are four possibilities I know of.

1. A morality being objective means it is universally known of. If this is the case, there is no objective morality. If there was, ethics as a field would not exist.

2. A morality being objective means it is based upon a state of affairs, such as some facet of Nature. If this is the case, there are dozens of objective moralities. A Stoic, a Virtue Ethicist, and a Darwinist can all claim to be following Nature, and be right. You cannot derive an ought from an is without reference to the desires of an agent.

3. A morality being objective means merely that it is consistent. If this is the case, there are dozens of objective moralities.

4. A morality being objective means that the morality is universally enforced. This is the only model in which adding a God improves the argument, but it does so purely through realpolitik and the same 'might makes right' thinking that theists deride! Its a moral system where what is "right" is defined arbitrarily by the Divine, and then enforced with omnipotence.

The concept of objective morality is poorly defined and absurd, and all the metaethical problems that effect atheists also effect theists. The question of whether a God exists, or not, has absolutely nothing to do with morality.

this pic should have that giant spider lurking ominously in the background

>You start by defining some thing as the Good-In-Itself
The platonic ideal of Good; ultimated in God: source of everything.

Monotheism would behave according to your statements if God would be "a thing" in the world. When we move to the ideas or concepts themselves, we find out that He isn't data...

>1. A morality being objective means it is universally known of. If this is the case, there is no objective morality. If there was, ethics as a field would not exist.
Nonsense. You assume that we'd all be equally good in noticing it; and I'd go as far to say that we should have the same statements made for beauty and truth as well. Not everybody can see the obvious.

It has.
archive.is/rMWrG

>mfw it is literally impossible to even define an objective morality without religion
>mfw when admitting that morality is subjective the only natural conclusion you can reach from a philosophical perspective is brain dead nihilism

Because I instinctively know that lying and abusing is a detriment to not only myself, but to other human beings. I have empathy. If you believe that morality doesn't have flexibility relative to a culture, then you don't have enough experience with the human race. For example, in Thailand, it is considered a moral wrong to talk bad about the king or government. Or to show the bottom of your feet to people. They would consider a pope washing their feet to be morally wrong because it would force them to expose their feet disrespectfully. In America it is considered by most morally wrong to not be able to criticize your government. We see it as morally wrong to eat dog, but not so in Korea and Vietnam. Sorry but Christianity is just one philosophy of many many in the world. THere is overlap on many of the moral structures though that are thought up by philosophers which points to an instinct (or universalism) towards certain altruistic actions that humans take.

The problem is you view christianity as objective morality that must be imprinted on all lest they become amoral. But it is subjective in that many of the morals are different than in other philosophies. The reason that humans come up with some parallel morals is because they are human.


And you sound like a psychopath because you imply that if you weren't christian, then you'd be wholly self serving and not give a shit about others whatsoever.

Don't speak to me about Plato or Aristotle, I used to be a Thomist.

Adding a 'platonic ideal' does nothing for the argument. All moral systems rest ultimately on the idea that the moral agent, the particular man himself, cares about what you're selling. If he doesn't, no argument you have can convince him.

If you say "Do thus, and you shall obtain the truth", your words mean nothing to be me if I value not truth.

If you say "Do thus, and you shall obtain flourishing as I define it", your words are wasted if I view eudaimonia with scorn.

The idea of objective morality is nonsensical.

You start by saying "You ought to do this, for X is Good, which is to say desirable"

And I say "What is it mean for a thing to be desirable? Does it mean it is universally desired?"

At which point you must counter "No, it means it ought to be desired"

And at once we are right back where we started, with me saying "Why ought I desire it?" and you saying "Because its Good"

Or to put that whole circular reasoning to rest, all moral systems start by defining what is Good, arbitrarily.

Even if your 'Platonic Ideal' existed, it would not change things at all. It would just serve as the metaphysical grounding by which you made your argument "X ought to be desired"

What does it mean*

>Hedonists and Epicurean

They didn't believe in Zeus, correct?

Do you believe in Zeus?

t. atheist

>leftypol can barely come up with their own memes

>tips fedora
>unsheaths katana
>"m' lady"

Don't worry, some day you'll grow up Peter Pan

>What does it mean for a morality to be objective?

"Moral realism [or objective morality] is the theory that moral judgments enjoy a special sort of objectivity: such judgments, when true, are so independently of what any human being, anywhere, in any circumstance whatever, thinks of them."

--Atheist intellectual Russ Shafer-Landau
'Moral Realism: A defence' p.2

>Adding a God to this model does nothing for it.
it provides the very foundation, without the concept of God there's nothing to ground morality in objectively.

"The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns their ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, they are purely ephemeral."
--Atheist intellectual Paul Kurtz

>God provides a basis for morality because He provides a basis for justice.

Like killing an entire generation of first born children to change the mind of an intransigent Pharaoh?

Hey kids, come get your "justice"!

do NOT tell me there is a christian Finfag making us look bad over here, please tell me it aint so.

Now let's say a muslim man was drowning.
Christcucks BTFO.

What does it mean for a moral judgment to be objective? That is what I am asking.

Does it mean the moral rule or value or universally known of?

Does it mean its universally enforced?

Does it mean its consistent with itself?

Does it mean its based on some brute fact? If so, how does it overcome the IS-OUGHT problem?

And how does adding a monotheistic God help make any such statement more or less valid?

>oh no, don't make us look bad
Yeah, looking bad is the worst. It is almost as bad as being bad.

>that strawman image
lmao

Conquer his country and stop the bloodshed. Nobody would drown any more.

The objective morality is to strive for survival, this stems from survival instinct (a desire if you will). Highering your odds of survival can only be achieved through effort, which implies you have more and more faith in God, there is no other way.

>Christians jump in to save them.
Is that an analogy for letting migrants into Europe? How's that working out for you?

*Teleports to this thread*

If god is so great, how come he is dead?
Atheists: 1
Christfags: 0

*sheaths katana and tips fedora*

>The objective morality is to strive for survival
No it isn't. If it was, we'd be replicator machines. All of life would end up becoming an advanced reflex.

>Christian sees man drowning
>does not interfer with the drowning because he believes it is gods plan for him to drown.
>if he does save him he does it to gain rewards in heaven.

>Atheist sees man drowning
>Atheist knows there is not an afterlife for the man drowning therefore runs in and saves him
>still does not expect rewards from a god in the afterlife.

...

Dude, we look bad enough already with all the finnish memes and alcoholism.

Im open to a discussion tho, im a little late to the party, so lets start over, why do you believe in a god?

life's a bitch.

a muslim (or a jew for that matter) are all sons of abraham. far better than an atheist by any metric. piety above pride.

>Perfect Storm.
And a hero is born!

>without believing in FAKE BULLSHIT society will collapse!

good

That is an axiom. You are not proving that, you are defining Good as "Survival"

Which is really my whole point. All moral 'truths' are actually just-so axioms defined into existence.

If someone else said "No, the objective morality is the greatest pleasure for the greatest number"

And another said "No, the objective morality is to do one's duty no matter what"

And another said "No, the morality is to strike for greatness!"

We could be here all day, and get nowhere, because all you philosophers would do is point out contradictions in each other's ideals, without ever reaching the heart of the matter, which is that fundamentally you fools do not want the same things and never will.

>we'd be replicator machines
What do you mean by that?
We do reproduct. I am not talking about species survival, but individuals.

oh noes, its the Finpocalypse, everyone grab your memes and run for the hills.

Just like God is defined into reality and all religions can't even decide on what is objectively good? Shit, different sects of the SAME religion can't even agree.

If a Muslim was drowning I'd just keep my foot on his neck until he was dead, that one is too easy.

Do you think Hitler is a lefty? He said the same thing about Capitalism. He rejected Marxism and Capitalism, both kike constructs.

>why do you believe in a god?
I don't believe in "a god".
I believe that God exists. For reasons only us equipped with 'a priori' knowledge can understand.

I believe in God because the alternative would have me denounce truth, justice, beauty and everything good. The 'alternative' is madness, where truth doesn't have any meaning as it is simply another shape of data...

When truth doesn't matter, no statement does. No action or belief does. Ever wondered why you atheists fight over this? I mean, there is nothing to gain... Not only that, but there are no principles that ought to be followed.

They can't agree because the concept of The Good is self-referential.

The Good means "That which ought to be desired"

And if you say to it "Why ought I desire it?"

They say "Because it is Good"

Each people, each person, defines what is Good. This is reality, whether there is a God, or there isn't.

>we'd be replicator machines.
we are, every part of us is refined by evolution to make us better at reproducing AND to make sure our children grow up to also reproduce.
We might not be perfect, no we certainly are not perfect, if we were the product of creation we would be.

>implying atheists wouldn't save a drowning man
Just because your news outlet of choice doesn't note the religion (or lack thereof) of the people doing the rescuing doesn't mean that shit doesn't happen, faggot.

There's many reasons why modern religion needs to be pushed into the 'mythology' category, and this is one of those many reasons.

>Woman is drowning
>She's a *witch*
>We're drowning her on purpose
>"muh bibles"

Yea! Christian morals are saved!

>I am not talking about species survival, but individuals.
Survive next millenia. See where that leads you. Oh wait...

The concept of good is determined by people's usage of the word "good", the generalization of this usage leads to "good" being equivalent of "helps to survive".

>implying an atheist can't save him on the grounds that he might extract a useful favor in future
>implying an atheist can't save him on the moral ground that as human beans they should help each other
>implying an atheist can't save him on the moral ground that the other guy might've done the same in a role reversal

Reminder that one does not need to be religious to be moral. Then again if it's a rapefugee drowning I'd help them out with a few bullets

tl;dr, OP is a faggot

renegadetribune.com/all-christians-are-cucks/

>Does it mean the moral rule or value or universally known of?
no, it's an ontological thing, not epistemological
"true independently of what any being thinks of them"

>Does it mean its universally enforced?
not necessarily, the moral values of actions don't necessarily have to have any consequences associated with them in order for them to be considered good or evil.

>Does it mean its consistent with itself?
not sure what this even means.


>Does it mean its based on some brute fact? If so, how does it overcome the IS-OUGHT problem?
>And how does adding a monotheistic God help make any such statement more or less valid?
long answers to these here:
reasonablefaith.org/sam-harris-on-objective-moral-values-and-duties

>fundamentally you fools do not want the same things and never will
You don't think people could ever agree on something like "all humans are capable of suffering, excessive suffering is arbitrarily bad, therefore moral good is done by reducing or preventing great suffering"

?

I mean sure, everyone will split hairs about what it means in a practical sense... but "practical philosophy" is basically an oxymoron anyway

Well, I guess religion doesn't have objective morality then.

Chirstian here, an atheist would save the man for the same reason I would, because we have empathy for our fellow human being, which is the reason why our species has survived for so long. Whether or not we agree on if God is the reason for that doesn't matter.

You're seeking a universal reality under a particular one. You shouldn't do that.

There is no concept of good. There are concepts [plural] of good, many of which have little to nothing to do with your particular ideals.

>i need an ancient text written by desert jews to tell me life has value

I thought us atheists were the awful amoral monsters?

>we are, every part of us is refined by evolution to make us better at reproducing AND to make sure our children grow up to also reproduce.
We are not on autopilot, so no. Obviously we have those functions, but we have so much more.
Why care about beauty of the landscape? Or art?

>We might not be perfect, no we certainly are not perfect, if we were the product of creation we would be.
Really? Why?

>see a migrant drowning
Nope. You're right. I wouldn't.

I don't get your point. How this implies doing good is not highering your own odds of survival? Yes, you might not be alive in a millenia, but trying to do so is still good.

>I thought us atheists were the awful amoral monsters?
youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

There might be infinite concepts of good, generalization is still useful.

If morality is simply the etiquette of survival, it becomes meaningless.

Don't link me your patronizing nonsense, I use to be the most devout person you'll ever meet. I could dance theological circles around you.

You're saying its "true independent of what people think about it" doesn't answer my question. I'm asking, what does it mean to say something is bad, or evil.

What do these words MEAN. And I'm saying when you did down deep enough, you realize these concepts are nonsensical and contradictory in the way you're using them.

No I don't. Any attempt to find some hard universal ground for ethics that EVERYONE will agree on, even in its most basic form, has failed.

Even a statement as simple and naive as "Suffering is bad" will find its detractors.

>if we were the product of creation we would be
Where are you getting this idea from?