God, country, family. All of these are necessary components to create and sustain a successful and thriving society. Take away one, and the whole thing crumbles.
Atheism plays a large role 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 absolutism, 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 absolutism. I've had this debate before, and they usually resort to: "It's in our biology. A product of evolution that is innate in all humans. Empathy." The problem with this argument is that it begets the question: Whose "biology" are we talking about? 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.
Why can't atheists understand this?
>>73735434
Bump
>>73735434
Prove that atheism is incompatible with moral absolutism.
>>73736646
Did you even read the post?
>>73735434
t. Muhammad
Subhan Allah my brother. /pol/ must embrace Islam just like true Swedes do.
>>73736772
I have. I'm not being facetious. If you post a serious argument I will reply with the appropriate amount of respect. This line
>I expect some people to challenge the notion that atheism is incompatible with moral absolutism
Reeks of begging the question.
>>73735434
> not believing in god means advocating LGBTQ shit
nice strawman, mate
>>73736860
>If you post a serious argument
There is no absolute moral authority.
>>73736974
Except that's not what I said. I used it as an example of how you can morally rationalize anything with moral relativism.
>>73737173
I don't believe in god, but I am nationalist and against faggotry. What now?
>>73737079
>There is no absolute moral authority.
You're assuming that moral authority can only come from God. I can argue that you don't need an absolute moral authority in order to be a good person and that people can be compelled to act selflessly in various ways, but my own particular morality is besides the point.
There's theoretically infinite amount of years for atheists much smarter than me to come up with all sorts of moral frameworks, and if you want to make the claim that they're unable to come up with any good ones you have to show why.
>>73735434
As long as an Atheist acknowledges the value of Christian values they're on the right path. Atheism and left wing are partly linked since being conservative is made out to be bad by public indoctrination. Make loving your country a thing again and militant/leftist ties to atheism subside a bit.
>>73735434
Okay faggot, it's time to get blown the fuck out.
The Church of Sweden has Lesbian bishops in it who remove crosses from Churches so Muslims can worship in them. They are way bigger cucks than the average atheist. That bishop obviously isn't an atheist, so your argument is crap.
Blown the fuck out.
/thread
>>73737253
Muh anecdotes. Just because you disagree with the mainstream on a few points it doesn't mean that's the case with everything. Besides, we're talking about the majority of atheists here. Are niggers beneficial to society just because a few niggers are good? No.
Ask yourself this question, cuck. Did you go to church last Sunday? If not, then you're part of the problem.
>>73737481
> muh Christian values
For the most part they already existed in the same way before Christianity.
>>73737690
I think you confuse atheists with anti-theists.
>>73737318
>I can argue that you don't need an absolute moral authority in order to be a good person and that people can be compelled to act selflessly in various ways
Who decides what "good" is? Who said that selflessness is good? This is what you need an absolute moral authority for.
>come up with all sorts of moral framework
And that's what I'm trying to say. Moral relativism. It's not logical.
>>73735434
Like the dark ages right?
>>73737253
There are 100 cucks for every one person like you.
It doesn't matter what intellectuals think, religion is required to prevent the masses from succumbing to mass degeneracy.
>>73737523
>The Church of Sweden has Lesbian bishops in it who remove crosses from Churches so Muslims can worship in them.
First of all, she was denied. So no, you're wrong. Check the facts before you start posting BS.
Also, how is this even an argument?
>>73737523
>catholics
They haven't even read the bible.
>>73737878
National/tribal consciousness can do the same thing.
>>73737854
Ah the dark ages argument. I like that one.
>>73735434
>God
God is necessary when dealing with dumb evil people that need to be scared of an imaginary person to function properly
Also that stuff about morals shows you are trolling
>>73737790
No I'm pretty sure I'm talking about atheists in general.
Lets face it, the world is going to shit for a mulitude of reasons. Athiesm and lgbt are indicators of a collapsing society, regardless just do what you feel is right. Unless your a sociopath or and ignorant fuck stick its not that hard to do. /thread
>>73735434
This is true
>>73738133
So the vast majority of the population, glad we agree.
>>73738287
I do agree yes
>>73738211
Now that parade is some stupid shit.
> Vancouver
Oh yeah, makes sense.
>>73738133
Max Stirner called this out on other atheist
Consider the claim moral realists are making. They generally claim there are invisible properties in the world not detectable by our usual tools of science, properties of an entirely different sort than the usual “is” facts of science.
These are mysterious “ought” facts, and there is great disagreement about what they are or how we know them.
Now that is a strong claim.
An extraordinary claim, we might say. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right?
So what is the atheist’s extraordinary evidence for this claim? Usually, it’s something like this:
“I experience a world of moral facts. I feel very strongly that rape is objectively wrong, and charity is objectively right.”
“Almost everybody believes in moral facts. It’s just obvious. Until you can prove there aren’t any, I’m justified in believing what people have always believed: that some things are really right or wrong.”
Do those arguments look familiar? They should.
Atheists are skeptical of these arguments when given for the existence of God, but they are credulous and gullible toward these arguments when you replace the word ‘God’ with another mysterious thing called ‘moral facts.’
This was brought up by Max Stirner during a debate with Marx and other atheist
>>73738133
>God is necessary when dealing with dumb evil people that need to be scared of an imaginary person to function properly
Evil people? Who decides what's evil? You? What if someone else has a different opinion of what constitutes as evil? What's your basis? Theists have God, an objective, absolute moral authority. Sure, there may be conflicting ideas and opinions within a religion itself, but they still have that absolute moral authority (i.e. a basis).
>>73735434
Your days are numbered faggot.
>>73737690
>we're talking about the majority of atheists here
I think we're talking about your own biased view of the "atheist stereotype".
>>73737852
>Who decides what "good" is? Who said that selflessness is good? This is what you need an absolute moral authority for.
That's besides the point. You can come up with an answer for what good is without an absolute moral authority. You're asking me for my own particular morality, I can answer those questions but I don't feel like having to defend my own moral framework because I'm not a representative for all of "atheism" and I don't want to be.
>And that's what I'm trying to say. Moral relativism. It's not logical.
I don't think you understand what moral relativism is. If you have a moral framework of any sort it means you're automatically not a moral relativist, because you believe your morality is the one true one and it's incompatible with everyone else's.
Approaching the value of Christianity from a moral perspective is bound to fail OP. You should argue the historicity of the Bible, the lie of evolution, the reality of the biblical flood, and the signs in Revelation starting to come true.
Nothing short of the fear of God will get through this generations foreheads made of brass.
http://pastebin.com/xMQ9wAwW
>>73738342
Could you use less fluff in your text please
My morals come from my biology, but yes there are psychopaths that don't have the part of the brain that deals with empathy
What is the point you are trying to make?
>>73738067
lol you expect me to read all that shit?
>>73736646
>jewish atheist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkVC1gZInxQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0LhabQJ_-w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NQOnjswuFI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/the-jewish-thinker/.premium-1.669381
http://www.shj.org/
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/secular-humanistic-judaism-rejecting-god/
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/must-a-jew-believe-in-god/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/23/atheist-jews-judaism-without-god_n_978418.html
http://thehumanist.com/magazine/september-october-2014/humanist-living/jewish-atheists-and-koufax-jews
https://secularpolicyinstitute.net/numbers-the-rise-of-jewish-atheists/
>>73738444
The future is going to be a great disappointment to you if you continue believing the great deception.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9_o7NGTkJc
>>73738453
>That's besides the point.
What the fuck do you mean "that's besides the point"? Moral ABSOLUTISM. You obviously need some kind of absolute source from where you attain these absolute morals.
>You can come up with an answer for what good is without an absolute moral authority
Fire away.
>You're asking me for my own particular moralit
Oh so it's your "personal" morality? Like moral relativism? Not absolutism?
>If you have a moral framework of any sort it means you're automatically not a moral relativist
No? That's not even remotely what it means.
>>73737969
>First of all, she was denied.
What do you mean she was "denied?" She's a fucking Bishop in the Church of Sweden and she's gay married to another dyke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Brunne
>Also, how is this even an argument?
It proves that God isn't a necessary and/or sufficient condition of not being a massive fucking cuck.
>>73738007
The Church of Sweden is Protestant so I'm not sure why you posted this.
>>73738589
>My morals come from my biology
I think you forgot to read the OP.
>"It's in our biology. A product of evolution that is innate in all humans. Empathy." The problem with this argument is that it begets the question: Whose "biology" are we talking about? 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.
>>73738589
Could you try to refute Max Stirner?
Remember he was atheist but considered morals spooks
You didn't refute anything he said
>>73738430
When you get into the "definition of words" bullshit you become like the SJW that try to redefine racism as power + oppression or whatever
I would define evil people as people who like hurting other, hurt others without reason, or hurt others without regard
>>73737481
>WE WUZ A CHRISTIAN NATION N SHEEIT
>>73735434
>For the greater good, we must have a religious society
Mudshit Sven
>>73738342
max "the atheist autist" stirner. see: the eye test, see: how language functions.
>but what exactly is a chair!?
>you can't prove it, ha! i'm sorry that isn't verifiable! >hehehehe
>>73738593
That's up to you. Your dark ages argument is nothing but historical illiteracy.
>>73738791
>What do you mean she was "denied?"
She was turned down. She wasn't allowed to remove the cross. She made a suggestion, not a decision.
>It proves that God isn't a necessary and/or sufficient condition of not being a massive fucking cuck.
You obviously didn't get the memo of this thread. It's not about whether or not you are moral or not. It's about having a basis for absolute morals (i.e. the only logical kind of morality because it isn't contradictory).
>>73738867
>A argument of stone fallacy
Not an argument
Did Max Stirner piss you off just like he did with Marxs and Engels?
You didn't refute anything
>>73735434
I can take this argument and put it between two different religions. Religion, by itself, is not an argument. Especially since the watered-down common-denomination entertainment-type bullshit you see today is NOT the type of religion that was used prevalent in the past.
And with that religion gone we've done fine so far. And you still haven't proven this crap version is any good, either.
>>73738812
Yeah you didnt read what i said
I said MY biology, then said there are people who cant feel empathy because they have different biology
But just because psychopaths exist without morals doesn't mean my morals aren't "real morals"
And how are religions morals more real than my biological ones
I swear anyone who has this argument has autism or something and doesn't know what empathy is
Goest thou then to the lands of the Christians, for their cuckoldry is without bounds, They will take you in without question and provide for thy every need. They will take you up into the chambers of their wives and daughters. a let you lie with them, and raise thy children as their own - Book of KANGZ
>>73738828
>WE WUZ A ATHEIST NATION N SHEEIT
>>73738826
>I would define evil people as people who like hurting other, hurt others without reason, or hurt others without regard
Yeah, that's your perception of what evil is. Doesn't mean it's someone elses. That's where moral relativism kicks in. You can't both be right. Either something is evil or not. That or evil doesn't exist at all.
>>73735434
You seem to be confused. Let me help you. There are no moral absolutes. Anyone who tells you differently is lying. There are only, and will only ever be, socially accepted morality.
It doesn't matter if you pretend that your particular version was handed down to Moses on the mountain, or revealed to Joseph Smith on golden plates. It still only holds sway because a majority of the populace buy into it.
If you want to convince me that there is a supernatural, absolute moral authority, then show me him/her/it, not the notion of him/her/it mediated through the person of a prophet/swami/seer/drug-addict.
>>73738812
Just because OP says it doesn't make it a good argument. All of what he said in that paragraph can easily be placed between two religious groups, with the entirety of their differing opinions... and strife.
>>73739101
The European council for human rights has condemned this as religious discrimination: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/russian-court-bans-moscow-branch-church-of-scientology
Atheist on trial for these comments
>“If I say that the collection of Jewish fairytales entitled the Bible is complete bullshit, that is that. At least for me,” Krasnov wrote, adding later “there is no God!”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/03/russian-atheist-faces-year-in-jail-for-denying-existence-of-god-during-webchat
Church seeks to take over internet: https://www.rt.com/politics/321064-holy-wi-fi-russian-church/
Protestants are banned from proselytizing and referred to openly as "heretics": http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/europe/23iht-church.4.12274801.html?_r=0
Judge rules Russian Church can pay debts with prayer: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/02/14/russian-orthodox-church-diocese-settles-debt-payments-with-prayer/
Banned freedom of gay expression, fires teacher for supporting gay marriage: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/russia-gay-law-teachers_n_6994274.html
State and Church sign agreement to restrict abortion: http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2015/07/russia-church-and-state-sign-agreement-to-prevent-abortion/#.Vt0TBPkrJmM
Russia contemplating switching to an "Orthodox" system of finance that would drop out of the IMF and ban interest on moneylending: http://www.globalresearch.ca/interest-free-banking-russia-debates-unorthodox-orthodox-financial-alternative/5495331
On the bright side, it isn't holding back their scientific progress like atheist generally think religion does: "Zoom to Mars in 6 weeks with new Russian nuclear-fission engine": https://www.rt.com/news/334416-russia-space-nuclear-engine/
Orthodox Church is True Church
Now this is the part where you will cry about discrimination when just you called them cucks
>>73739034
>I can take this argument and put it between two different religions.
Except you can't. It's not about whose right. It's about having a basis for your morality. You can't say "pedophilia is wrong" just because you feel like it. Theists have an objective, absolute moral authority. Atheists do not. The question about which theistic religion is right is an entire different question.
>>73738589
He said those things in the 1800's
We now know there is a part of the brain that deals with empathy, not invisible ought as he says
The more empathetic races evolved to be more empathetic by surviving harsher climate so those who worked together and cared for each other survived
Niggers have less empathy because they survived not by caring for each other by going in a different evolutionary direction and fucking a lot, having like 15 kids
>>73739424
meant for>>73738814
>>73738758
>You obviously need some kind of absolute source from where you attain these absolute morals.
How come?
>Fire away.
I mostly prescribe to Buddhist morality, which defines good based on karmic effect of your action and intent on your mind.
>Oh so it's your "personal" morality? Like moral relativism? Not absolutism?
It's my own personal thoughts, which I believe to be better Jake's personal thoughts, being able to understand the concept of multiple points of view is not the same as moral relativism.
>No? That's not even remotely what it means.
A moral framework is a belief system that allows you to answer ethical and moral questions. A person with a complete moral framework is able to answer all moral questions and dilemmas and knows how to act morally in all situations. By definition, if you have a moral framework, you have all the answers and you believe them to be the only correct ones. By all means reject established philosophical terminology, though.
>>73739298
>You can't say "pedophilia is wrong" just because you feel like it. Theists have an objective, absolute moral authority
Umm... could you point to the moral authority in your particular faith which proscribes pedophilia?
>>73739016
>She was turned down. She wasn't allowed to remove the cross. She made a suggestion, not a decision.
So what? The mere fact that she would ask to do that means she is a massive fucking cuck, which is my point, and she's also a Magic Sky Fairy worshiping Christfag.
>You obviously didn't get the memo of this thread. It's not about whether or not you are moral or not. It's about having a basis for absolute morals (i.e. the only logical kind of morality because it isn't contradictory).
You said the LGBT movement was the product of moral relativism, and she's a fucking gay married dyke.
>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).
She's everything you hate about "moral relativism" and she's also a bishop in your state Church. So much for it being atheism's fault, Muhammad.
>>73739068
>I said MY biology
So your biology is better than someone elses? more evolved? What about 100 000 years from now? What if your descendants think the opposite of what you do? Are you wrong then? Then those morals can't be absolute, and it proves the argument posted in the OP.
>then said there are people who cant feel empathy because they have different biology
They can't feel empathy, or just not your definition of empathy?
>And how are religions morals more real than my biological ones
Because they are not subject to change. Yours are, since you "evolve". Read the argument in the OP as well. I explain it in the end of it.
Cant I hold the same moral values as a christian without believing in an actual god?
i like Christianity but I just cant convince myself its real
>>73738758
>You obviously need some kind of absolute source from where you attain these absolute morals.
Not even theists have an "absolute source," just their own or someone else's interpretation of their particular sacred texts.
>>73739298
>Except you can't.
Except I can. Except there are HISTORICAL examples of it.
>It's about having a basis for your morality. You can't say, "pedophilia is wrong" just because you feel like it.
But that's exactly what religion does?
>Theists have an objective, absolute moral authority.
No. They do not. They have a collected subjective version, which is (worse) based on multiple differing interpretations. There isn't a single theist that can claim to heard the word of God directly. There is no objectivity in it. This is a complete misconception, both on your part and theirs'.
> Atheists do not.
The burden of morality isn't even upon atheism. Theists have tried to force themselves UPON morality but they are not necessarily a source of it.
>The question about which theistic religion is right is an entire different question.
The entire point was to show you that you can't even agree which is right, and that by itself is proof there is no objectivity. Take into account religion has changed its mind multiple times about morality itself and you have a damned position.
>>73739183
>There are no moral absolutes.
In theism there is. You know, because the whole absolute moral authority and all (i.e. God)?
> Anyone who tells you differently is lying. There are only, and will only ever be, socially accepted morality.
Yes, that would be the case with atheism. That's what this thread is about.
>If you want to convince me that there is a supernatural, absolute moral authority, then show me him/her/it, not the notion of him/her/it mediated through the person of a prophet/swami/seer/drug-addict.
You still don't understand. It's not about whether my version is right or wrong, it's about having a basis for it.
>>73739424
Are you atheists really autistic? If your "morals" and "empathy" are subject to change (i.e. evolution), they aren't absolute.
>>73739657
>You still don't understand. It's not about whether my version is right or wrong, it's about having a basis for it.
Then it's relative, not absolute.
>>73739657
>>There are no moral absolutes.
>In theism there is.
Name one.
>You know, because the whole absolute moral authority and all (i.e. God)?
No one has experienced the word of God. Nor can any claim to. There is no objectivity.
In fact, I doubt there are any priests that would even bother to agree with you because they know this position isn't really defensible. Frankly, I'd think they'd look down on you, too, for taking such a simplistic and fallacious approach to it.
>>73739540
no they literally cant feel empathy
They hurt someone and feel nothing
Whats even the point of your pointless stance? Some crazy people feel good when they kill so we should just let them kill because who are we to judge what is right?
>>73739739
>Are you atheists really autistic? If your "morals" and "empathy" are subject to change (i.e. evolution), they aren't absolute.
This has been the case of religion since the beginning.
>>73739657
In what sense are God given moral precepts absolute? I'm not sure what you mean anymore.
>>73739497
>How come?
Because otherwise it's just a matter of opinion? Are apples tasty just because you think so? What if someone doesn't like apples? That's relativism. It's not objective.
>I mostly prescribe to Buddhist morality, which defines good based on karmic effect of your action and intent on your mind.
So something is good if it has a benefit outcome? Beneficial for whom? If I lie in a job interview, and I get it, that benefits me. So was lying moral then?
>It's my own personal thoughts
Great, so it's relativism. Glad we got that sorted out. Unless of course, you're an absolute moral authority who decide what's right and wrong for everyone? Then it would be absolutism.
>By definition, if you have a moral framework, you have all the answers and you believe them to be the only correct ones.
That's where the irrational conclusion kicks in. Why are your ones correct? Theists believe theirs are because they have an absolute moral authority that said they are. An objective God. You said your own ones are subjective. How can they then be absolute?
>>73739510
>Umm... could you point to the moral authority in your particular faith which proscribes pedophilia?
Irrelevant. Like I've said plenty of times before. This is not a thread about what IS right and wrong. This is about the basis for those standpoints.
>>73735434
why does a society have to be succesful and thriving?
>>73740001
>I'm going to compare the natural sciences and the supernatural!
All evidence for God has been man made. The natural conclusion here is God is a man made phenomenon. If this was a science experiment this is the eventual and most likely hypothesis to be proven. That's the vital part of your equivalence here you completely brushed over.
>>73735434
Morals don't need to be taught by the bible
>>73740070
Is it immoral to kill non-combatants in war? Many would say it is. Yet many also defend the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for the "greater good." Your idea of absolute moral laws is horseshit.
>>73739614
>Not even theists have an "absolute source,"
Except they do. That would be God.
> just their own or someone else's interpretation of their particular sacred texts.
No, these are different intepretation of what God's word is. It doesn't matter what they are, or if we know what they are, they are still absolute.
>>73740140
So you're saying that, according to your moral authority, kiddy-fiddling is just fine?
And you wonder why I'm an atheist.
Christianity also needs an earthly hierarchy and authority found in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and is lacking in Protestant ism.
>>73740140
>This is not a thread about what IS right and wrong. This is about the basis for those standpoints.
You can't have one without the other. Ever. If you try to argue the basis of right and wrong then you must evaluate what is right and wrong.
Advocating a position that is, "wrong," is to also advocate that it can change... and that ultimately it's subjective anyway.
Honestly why waste your time posting if you're going to reverse everything you just said?
>>73740283
>Except they do. That would be God.
None of them have experienced God.
>No, these are different intepretation of what God's word is. It doesn't matter what they are, or if we know what they are, they are still absolute.
These things don't even rationally follow. You're either a delusional zealot or, more likely, trolling.
>>73738593
its better to yell muh darkages muh christfag scientist god killed if they did not belief in god
>>73740194
You offered no rebuttal and used an question begging epithet as your response something you accuse the religious of doing but you yourself are guilty off
Looks like Max stumped you just like he did Marx and Engels
>>73739620
>But that's exactly what religion does?
No, religion says it's the case because of what the absolute moral authority (i.e. God) says. Atheists have no such authority. What's so hard to understand? It becomes a matter of opinion rather than being the result of an objective mind (God).
>No. They do not.
Yes they do. God.
>They have a collected subjective version
There are just conflicting ideas about what exactly these morals are. The basis is still there.
>There isn't a single theist that can claim to heard the word of God directly.
Irrelevant. Basis is still there.
>There is no objectivity in it.
Yes there is. God is objective.
>The burden of morality isn't even upon atheism.
It isn't? If an atheist tells me that rape is wrong, he sure as hell have to prove why.
>The entire point was to show you that you can't even agree which is right, and that by itself is proof there is no objectivity.
Are you stupid on purpose? So if two scientists disagree with scientic evidence, since it can be interpreted in several ways, that means the evidence itself isn't objective? It's the interpretation which is subjective, not the original source.
>>73740634
*of*
>>73735434
Atheism is NOT incompatible with moral absolutism. Moral absolutism is just a simple way to say axiomatic moralism, that is the existence of a set of fundamental axioms from which moral behavior is deduced. Now, all axiomatic systems are incomplete (if you don't understand why, go read godel for all I care) and incompletable, but you can make them ever more refined and complete, if need and effort be.
What atheism is incompatible with is the regular grounding of moral axioms, God. Its existence allows for these axioms not to be postulated per se, like Euclid's or Peano's, but instead be justified with a higher level meta-language that is inaccessible but objectively right. Removing God from morality removes that grounding, but it doesn't make the axioms any applicable. Euclidean geometry needn't a God to be a thing, it just needs axioms and someone to crank out theorems on reality.
Now, Euclidean geometry isn't exactly what we have in reality, but change the 5th axiom and you get to a more accurate description of the physical universe (relativity and non-euclidean geometry). Notice how you don't have a god in any of this
When you apply these concepts to axiomatic morality, you get a series of laws (inherent from that fundamental truth) that are as valid as a mathematical theorem or a law derived from constitution.
Well then what should morality try to do, you may ask? The answer is simple. Like a relativity in physics describes a more or less working model for reality (under certain bounds) , absolute morality is but set of axioms that seek to achieve a stable (and usually prosperous) society. Some other values do come associated with that stability under many moral systems, like scientific progress under western thought, but that is a way to achieve the desired prosperity.
It follows thus, that regardless of a god, a system of fundamental laws that produces a stable and prosperous society is inherently an absolute moral system. (1/2?)
>>73740047
>In what sense are God given moral precepts absolute?
God is an absolute moral authority. That's how.
>>73739239
Go not though to the lands of the slav, for where there is nothing, nothing can be gained. The men standeth not, but instead squat at all times, and the women can be had for a potato. They do not extend forth the gibs, but asketh them from you, and plumbing is the whole of their endeavors.
>>73740669
>the result of an objective mind (God)
But it's not. It's the result of stories humans tell each other about countless gods and goddesses throughout human history. Are you pretending to be retarded?
I continue to find myself under the atheist flag, but I am more "moral" than many "Christians" that I know. I wish that Christianity made sense, but I don't understand where I could fit into it.
I love Kierkegaard, he's currently my favorite philosopher. He was definitely the guy who reinforced my "Christian" morals. Unfortunately, anyone who agrees with Kierkegaard in the current day will probably identify as an atheist. Not entirely of course, but in order to accept his views you really also have to accept moral relativism.
There doesn't seem to be a solid answer that anyone has posed yet when you believe in the morals of Judaism (Yeah christcucks, you are just bastardized jews) but deny the divinity of Christ. I will never believe that anyone on Earth (that's including Jesus, Mohammad, the Buddha, etc) has any more divine connection than I do, and Christianity goes against that, claiming there was really some fag named Jesus Christ and he did all these miracles and bullshit. I believe in physics, chemistry, and science, not magic. I also cannot because of that choose Christ over any other "messiah." Where can I go?
Nietzsche covered a bit of this (Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a better holy book than the bible IMO) and other existentialists bring it up, but there has not been a good answer to this in my opinion. That is why I default to Kierkegaard because he admits that it's just blind faith and that seems to work. But how can we eliminate the dogma associated with these shitty ancient religions?
I believe the Christian morals, but not the Christian narrative. Do I have to force myself to believe some stupid fairy tales in order to not have some level of cognitive dissonance? That doesn't seem like a proper solution, and it only creates another logical problem for me (believing lies).
This is sorta a question outside the scope of /pol/ and it's hard to get what I'm meaning to ask in under 2000 characters, but hopefully someone gets what I'm trying to say.
>>73740284
>So you're saying that, according to your moral authority, kiddy-fiddling is just fine?
Are you saying it isn't? How come? Because your emotions said so? Little atheist, didn't you know that reason supersedes emotion? Don't be irrational now Mr. Fedora tipper.
>>73740070
>Because otherwise it's just a matter of opinion?
Having a moral framework that isn't "a matter of opinion" doesn't require an absolute moral authority, it only requires absolute definitions. If I decide that I have a moral precept "1. Murder is wrong" that is an absolute moral precept. Please at least read the wikipedia article on moral relativism.
>Great, so it's relativism. Glad we got that sorted out. Unless of course, you're an absolute moral authority who decide what's right and wrong for everyone? Then it would be absolutism.
Are you pretending to be retarded? If I think "I'm God and everything I do is good because it's my will" that's still my own personal thought, because I think it personally, that doesn't make it any less absolute.
>Why are your ones correct?
Literally infinite possible reasons. Why is it that you think people are unable to come up with some sort of belief system that absolutely defines good and evil without believing in God?
>>73735434
>Atheism plays a large role in the destruction of western civilization
Doubtful, since it's one of the things that actually made the western world as powerful as it is now.
>>73739571
If that's not a rethorical question, look up deontology and especially Kantian ethics.
The moral framework of Christianity falls under the "divine command theory", which is a subset of deontology. Following absolute rules that come from God.
Kantian ethics is very similar in practice to Christian morals, except without the necessity of the rules coming from God. There are absolute rules that you must follow such as "do not lie". It's not a flawless moral framework, but there are no flawless moral frameworks.
>>73740669
>No, religion says it's the case because of what the absolute moral authority (i.e. God) says. Atheists have no such authority. What's so hard to understand? It becomes a matter of opinion rather than being the result of an objective mind (God).
Except they don't? They're not even sure they worship the same authority, let alone experienced it.
>Atheists don't have an authority!
Nor do they need one. Their stance is purely about the existence of God. There is no inclusion about morality in a statement about atheism. They make separate statements about morality. The reason you're confused about this being a requirement is because religion has often forced itself upon the issue of morality to hijack it and you've take it as the defacto position. It's not.
>Yes they do. God.
No, they do not, again. It's not an absolute moral authority if you can't directly experience it.
>There are just conflicting ideas about what exactly these morals are. The basis is still there.
The basis is not there. You can't experience it. And those conflicting ideas are the very basis of subjectivity and NOT objectivity.
>Irrelevant. Basis is still there.
It's 100% relevant if you can't actually recieve objective morality from its source. This is trolling now. Stopped reading.
The moral absolutism argument is literally retarded.
First of all, if you'd bother to read your Bible, which I'm sure you haven't, you'd notice that a lot of Jesus's apostles and Jesus himself is kind of an asshole by Biblical standards, as well as a hypocrite.
The Bible is so disgusting a book that even if you wanted to make some objective morality argument, you can't make a a good one referencing the Bible.
Atheists get their "moral compass" from an understanding of society and the world, and how tangible actions and consequences relate. The whole, "What's to prevent atheists from raping everyone" or "pedophilia will eventually prevail" are fucking ignorant, because it straw-mans the position and assume that these sorts of things are fine in society, which is not what is observed in any society.
Also, you can argue about morality and absolute certainty and gay shit like Solipsism or whatever all day long, but you still haven't demonstrated to a reasonable to degree that God exists, which is reason enough on it's own to not believe in it.
>>73740743
Can you elaborate on what you mean by absolute moral authority?
>>73740945
see
>>73740194
>>73740634
Also you used a, "Fallacy fallacy," for... well... a non-existent fallacy to prove yourself right. Worse, you ignored the rational argument provided therein.
>All evidence for God being real is man made.
>Therefore, God is a man made phenomenon.
>>73740740
>absolute morality is but set of axioms that seek to achieve a stable (and usually prosperous) society.
You can have a stable society with and without slavery. With and without death sentence. With and without incest. With and without homosexuality. With and without plenty of other things. So how you decide whether or not these are wrong? Mr copy+paste.
>>73741132
see>>73740634 again
You uses Tu quoque and argument of stone fallacy
You haven't provided any sources or facts for your claims
Also you used a, "Fallacy fallacy," for... well... a non-existent fallacy to prove yourself right. Worse, you ignored the rational argument provided therein
pot calling the kettle black: the post
What was actually rational about your rhetorical opinion?
>>73741384
>agnosticism incompatible with atheism
Is this your first week on the internet? Do you even know where the term agnosticism comes from?
>>73740830
>children are the future of society.
>damaged children will likely lead to a damaged society
>protection of children is a societal good
So, again I ask, can you provide a scriptural justification for your own position?
>>73741526
He's comparing agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism. Are you this stupid?
Reminder, god likes to play hide and seek, to pretend that he is not god, then discover that he is god, then forget allover again,
but being god, god has nobody to play the game with except himself
black and white is the same One being playing games
cops and robbers are the same One being playing games
moral absolutists and moral relativists are the same One being playing games
being and non-being are the same One .... playing games
Faith and Reason are the same One being playing games
Science and religion are the same One being playing games
atheists and theists are the same One being playing games
people who are serious and people who are not serious are the same One being playing games, playing at serious, playing at not serious
You are IT, why so serious?
>>73741526
>He feel for the agnostic atheist meme
http://atheismplus.com/
How can one have doubts about his lack of belief?
>>73741185
This post undermines OP all by itself. Morality provided by religion has no bearing societal stability.
>>73741384
>You uses Tu quoque and argument of stone fallacy
I did neither.
>You haven't provided any sources or facts!
Neither have you? This disproves nothing.
>What was actually rational about your rhetorical opinion?
>If its rhetorical its necessarily wrong!
You mean circular. And it wasn't. It was the very definition of a logical argument. A premise, a conclusion, which was rational and naturally follows. The premise was not restated as the conclusion, as you're implying here, but rather has its own independent truth value.
And I already responded to your little back link.
I seriously can't believe you lack the IQ to argu--
>religion
Never mind.
>That one was an insult. Feel free too call THAT one out, though, but I'd argue you fucking deserve it at this point.
>>73741627
He has no idea what agnostic or gnostic atheism means because fell for the "agnostic = fence sitter" meme.
>>73740231
only in america
>>73741623
>damaged children will likely lead to a damaged society
Who said that it's hurtful? Do you have any hard science to back it up? Mr. Neckbeard.
>So, again I ask, can you provide a scriptural justification for your own position?
I'll say it again, because apparently you didn't understand it the first 10 times I said it. This is thread is not about whether something is wrong or not. It's about the basis supporting your idea of what is and isn't.
>>73741384
This is not the correct definition of atheism. Atheism simply means that you do not believe in god.
Where the pic is wrong is that atheism does NOT mean that "You do NOT doubt, you do NOT question". If those two lines were removed it would be more correct.
>>73735434
atheist will choose being edgy and 'smart' over morals and discipline every day.
>>73741733
Actually, the notion that gnostic/agnostic are measures of belief applicable to both theism and atheism is the meme.
I should have thought you would know this.
>>73741733
You're idolizing labels, morality can only be absolute when it comes from an absolute authority.
>>73741678
Agnosticism doesn't mean doubt, it means ability to know.
Gnosis is the greek word for knowledge. Agnosis means inability to know.
You can be agnostic atheist if you lack a belief in God, and also you believe it's not possible to know if there is or if there isn't a God.
You can be a gnostic atheist if you lack a belief in God and you also believe it's possible to know whether there is or there is no God.
You can be a theist while thinking it's impossible to know whether or not God exists.
You can be a theist while thinking it's possible to know that God exists.
>inb4 you reject these ancient terms and suggest your own modern definitions
>>73741627
See man, I told you he doesn't know shit about the term.
>>73741908
Considering he threw out three buzzword fallacies in one post and gave nothing of substance? I think my last response to him will be my last. At this point he's either stuck in a debator's high and simply can't accept he doesn't know how to defend his point or he's trolling.
>>73741681
>Morality provided by religion has no bearing societal stability.
Guess that's why Europe and the US were all thriving society until atheism took over. Just a coincidence I guess. Also just a coincidence that religion is about moral absolutism whereas atheism is about moral relativism. Mighty fine coincidences, everywhere.
>>73742078
>thriving
Yeah, probably why we went through a Great Depression? Slavery? Several wars? Civil war? World wars?
>>73741681
>I did neither.
you pretty much said take my word for it
>Neither have you? This disproves nothing.
Tu quoque and Question deflection
Not an argument
>You mean circular. And it wasn't. It was the very definition of a logical argument. A premise, a conclusion, which was rational and naturally follows. The premise was not restated as the conclusion, as you're implying here, but rather has its own independent truth value.
How is your question begging epithet bulverism prove you right?
And I already responded to your little back link.
>I seriously can't believe you lack the IQ to argu--
>How dare you call me out on my bullshit
>you must have a low Iq to not share my thought process
>religion
>You believe in something I belittle you must be stupid
>appeal to radical fallacy
>grasping at straws
>Never mind.
>clearly I have made you look like a fool for having a different thought process
>That one was an insult. Feel free too call THAT one out, though, but I'd argue you fucking deserve it at this point.
>My autistic false dilemma proves my superior intellect don't expect me to provide you sources or facts to back up my argument
wew
>>73742162
Great depression was due to religion was it? Why didn't we have one back in 1200? 1300? 1400? 1500? Is slavery wrong? Why? It's good for a society, free labor. Several wars? War is bad for a society? I think most people would wager that war is good because it boosts the economy and plenty of other things.
>>73742060
see pic related
>I don't care what the dictionary says
>My feelings define the meaning of words
>>73742031
It's really sad. If you were merely ignorant of this established convention you might've changed your mind when you realized you got it wrong. There's no shame in falling for this meme, given how the term agnostic has been so bastardized, but to learn the truth and call it a meme is truly an insult to those who came before you and coined those terms.
>>73741185
>Mr copy+paste.
Just written it all myself to be honest. Taken some ideas and concepts from readings, but it's all me. With that out of the way.
>You can have a stable society with and without slavery.
Not exactly. As long as the technological level increases over time (which is bound to happen as a consequence prosperity) forced labor becomes increasingly aware of their status or inefficient compared to more educated analogues. The only ways to contain this are to either smother technological growth (terrible idea) or to double down on the repression. Either solution creates problems that will go on a positive feedback loop if the society is destabilized. They are thus not stable societies but rather meta-stable.
>With and without death sentence.
This would take longer than a single post, but no. A death sentence is needed on edge cases. Other than that, it is not an axiomatic necessity.
> With and without incest.
Widespread incest lowers genetic fitness, thus destabilizing society on the long term.
>With and without homosexuality.
Partial agreement. Male homosexuality has negligible effect on the birth rates, unlike the female variant for example, but yes many stable societies can exist with varying levels homosexuality. It is thus not an axiomatic issue but rather one that can be derived from them
>With and without plenty of other things. So how you decide whether or not these are wrong?
Again, you analyse their effects on society and try to extract stable axioms
>>73741878
>Who said that it's hurtful? Do you have any hard science to back it up?
Really don't be that stupid. If you can't understand why it might be harmful, you could look it up on google. And if you're unwilling, or unable to do that, then I don't think there's much help for you.
>It's about the basis supporting your idea of what is and isn't
And unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, the basis supporting your own idea of what is right and wrong included paedophilia in the right column. That's not something I would brag about.
>>73742330
>All bad things are from atheism and all good things are from religion! muh war is good! muh slavery is moral!
kek
Of course you'd say that. You're definitely trolling.
>>73742208
>*appeal to ridicule fallacy*
>>73742501
>answering your own posts when people get tired of your trolling
Pathetic.
>>73742362
>my meme picture has more authority than decades of convention
Alright this is just damage control. I think you know you fucked up and got called out for it so I'm just going to stop replying but please, if you're being serious don't actually spread this misinformation in the future. All 4 philosophical positions I describe actually exist and these are the terms for them. In the next thread, just pretend you knew the truth all along and nobody will be able to tell the difference since we're all anonymous here.
>>73742630
>you called me out on my bullshit
>you must be trolling
If you look I corrected a typo to my post
but continue on with your false dilemma and rhetorical opinions
>>73742386
>an insult to those who came before you and coined those terms
You're so right. I can't believe I was so wrong.
Just, as a particular favour to a defeated foe, could you be so kind as to name them. You know:
>those who came before you and coined those terms
Thanks.
>>73742407
>Not exactly. As long as the technological level increases over time (which is bound to happen as a consequence prosperity) forced labor becomes increasingly aware of their status or inefficient compared to more educated analogues.
So? They are controlled, if they resist they will just be put down. Easily contained (especially with niggers). You don't need slaves to be happy in order for it to be beneficial to society as a whole.
>This would take longer than a single post, but no. A death sentence is needed on edge cases.
Scandinavian countries thrived without death sentences. So no.
>Widespread incest lowers genetic fitness, thus destabilizing society on the long term.
Incest doesn't have to be reproductional. There is protection and incest (in case of unwanted pregnancy). So no.
>Partial agreement. Male homosexuality has negligible effect on the birth rates, unlike the female variant for example, but yes many stable societies can exist with varying levels homosexuality. It is thus not an axiomatic issue but rather one that can be derived from them
So is homosexuality right or wrong? How do we conclude whether it is? Since your definition of "good" was if it made a society thrive.
>>73742362
>>73742715
The parallel lines picture supports the correct definition of the terms, in the sense that one can be anywhere on the gnostic/agnostic line, and anywhere on the theist/atheist line, and they do not influence each other (don't intersect).
>>73742715
>my autism says that picture is a meme
Do you even know what a meme is?
>Alright this is just damage control. I think you know you fucked up and got called out for it so I'm just going to stop replying but please, if you're being serious don't actually spread this misinformation in the future. All 4 philosophical positions I describe actually exist and these are the terms for them. In the next thread, just pretend you knew the truth all along and nobody will be able to tell the difference since we're all anonymous here.
>Muh argument of stone fallacy
>muh false dilemma
>muh rhetorical opinions
I like how anyone that questions you and your opinions is a troll
>>73742848
Oh that might be the way to read the picture but then it contradicts his words.
>>73742913
Too many memes in one post sir.
>>73742923
>You prove me wrong
>But he said things
>So you're wrong
Sad
morals who decides them ?. We are in the age where is it legal to sex change children
>>73743031
Can you prove they are meme?
Lets see some proof for those claims
Not question dodging, avoiding or deflection pls
>>73743076
Are you ok?
>>73743180
You should ask yourself that
You seem upset
>>73743031
/pol/ has turned super fucking weird lately.
>People defending gays.
>Reddit reposts.
>Unironic SJW Liberal ideals.
>White nationalists lusting for Asians.
>Jews being nonmanipulative and rational.
>>73735434
You find moral absolutist atheists and relativist christians. You don't need a certain cosmological world view to have a certain ethical one.
>>73740945
I don't think that this really answers my question though. I agree that using the word "God" instead on "universe" or anything like that makes me understand Christianity, but it still doesn't make Christianity an imperative. That seems to be an argument more for Unitarianism or Universalism (even deism) , both of which are filled with fag lovers and moral relativists.
I think that the closest that anyone has come to a USEFUL religion would be Universalism, Unitarianism, Gnosticism, or Deism. Christianity is too ridden with dogma to be of use, as is Gnosticism in reality, but at least that encourages you to look outside the scripture.
Every Christian denomination that I have learned about defaults to the Bible. A bible is just hand picked stories that align with what the writers were trying to convey. In reality Christianity seems MORE relativist than Atheism. Atheists at least believe in one rule (that is the order of the Universe).
Instead, Christians rely on stories written by a human being, and then further selected by humans to be compiled into a book. Seeing that the Catholic church took many writings that seemed to be the "inspired word of God" and burnt or otherwise destroyed them, I think that Christianity in its current state is fucked. That's where gnosticism comes in, but it really has the same problem, just with less appeal to authority.
If there were someone who looked at all texts throughout history and chose the ones that seemed "right" and compiled them without regard to the culture that spawned them or what agenda the writers where attempting, that might make for a valid "religion."
Ultimately though I think religion itself is deeply flawed as it puts too much emphasis on dogma and some arbitrary hierarchy (trust the priest, he knows better than you) that it neglects what it means to know God.
>>73743376
Fine. Atheism is incompatible with moral universalism.
>>73743585
>Only God is a source of moral objectivity!
>>73736860
Ignlre this guy, he is just a loud and emotional Israeli. Israeli people are horrible
T. Authentic Jew
>>73743242
It's a influx of newfags, redditors especially from r/4chan and r/atheism and shills (but they have been here for years)
The mainstream media named /pol/ and all of a sudden the catalog goes to shit
>>73743589
>>73743445
>>73743402
>>73743315
>>73743254
Turns out good scientists are not necessarily good philosophers.
>>73743242
It's almost like /pol/ isn't one person or something.
>>73743685
>Authentic Jew
So you're one of those niggers who yells religious conspiracy theories at people on the sidewalk?
>>73742803
>So? They are controlled, if they resist they will just be put down. Easily contained (especially with niggers). You don't need slaves to be happy in order for it to be beneficial to society as a whole.
They are controllable until they aren't. Just like Muslim ghettos in Europe they provide a hotspot of malcontent that can further destabilize the society in times of crisis . Furthermore, unhappy slaves are unproductive. Unhappy workers are less efficient than happy ones and so are uneducated ones. It is thus extremely detrimental to keep slaves after a certain technological stage. And yes, technology is the main changer of axioms, just like mass and speed force you to change from Newtonian to relativistic physics.
>Scandinavian countries thrived without death sentences. So no.
By edge cases you must read some war crimes, crimes against humanity and the such. Other than that agreed. Depends on the set of axioms.
>Incest doesn't have to be reproductional. There is protection and incest (in case of unwanted pregnancy). So no.
If it is not reproductional, it boils down to the axioms you set, again
>So is homosexuality right or wrong? How do we conclude whether it is? Since your definition of "good" was if it made a society thrive.
You need to formulate a set of basic moral axioms that can be encoded and then developed into a larger set of more specific societal rules. Those, like a constitution must be semi-written in stone, but allowed to change under the most extreme of circumstances
Now, Which sets are those? Well, there are many valid sets of axioms, but some propel stability and prosperity much more than others. Thus, we can deny cultural relativism to a fair degree and assert some sets of axioms ARE better than others. Which are the best? Probably some taken from the core of western society, since those produced the most successful societies in history, but they themselves are a product of many thinkers...
>>73743824
>all of a sudden /pol/ likes jews, hates racist and supports Hillary and Sanders while telling itself how it got BTFO out because some anon said "explain "x" /pol/ protip: u can't
Hmmmm
>>73741878
>>73742430
>>73742386
>>73742787
It's funny that, when you ask a moral absolutist for an absolute answer to a straightforward question, they have a tendency to ignore it.
Or perhaps it's not funny at all.
>>73743585
What makes you say that? I have no idea why you'd say that.
>>73743585
Why can't someone potentially be atheist and have moral beliefs that they believe should apply universally? If I have a belief such as "you shouldn't murder" then naturally I'll believe it applies universally to everyone. You might ask me "but how will they justify applying it to everyone" but I don't know, I don't prescribe to some sort of moral universalism, but why is it inherently impossible?
>>73737722
Yeah, in Judaism, which is what Christianity is based off of.
>>73738067
I just read this and found it very interesting, looking up more. Thanks fambulance
>>73744246
I don't think moral universalism has any kind of religious underpinning at all. It's just something we need so we can do ethical reasoning at the most basic level.
I think OP is struggling.
>>73743823
but yet a lot of atheist rely on this because it is the current year
Lets take this guy great scientist did not belief in a personal god because the idea of hell and heaven was childish,
>>73744246
>>73744668
>>73740740
Just wrote on this. Could retype, but you can see my point
>>73744713
He was some sort of pantheist though wasn't he?
>>73743435
I think a lot this boils down to semantics after reading more of the thread. Atheists, start using the word god instead of universe, and people won't be able to tell you apart from the Christians. In fact most people will probably think you're a religious fundie when you talk like that. Very few of my morals have changed over the past few years (sexually I have become very conservative, but that is really out of personal protection than anything else), but some people think I'm crazy now because when I used to go off about "philosophy" people now hear me going off about "religion."
There's not a real difference here. Religion is just when people get together and write a book on practical philosophy and say that everyone MUST follow what is written. If we took Thus Spoke Zarathustra and said that it was the only truth, then ostracized people who did not adhere to it, that would be a religion. Alone, Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a purely philosophical work though. See what I'm getting at? Maybe it's time us conservative Atheists band together and come to some compromise in our values, write a book, and claim it as our scripture?
>>73744924
Yeah, fuck definitions. Let's just change them all.
>>73744887
all the terms i think he quoted that we could call him agnostic
>>73745021
I don't see how that post is applicable to what you quoted. Atheism doesn't contain a whole lot of precepts, it's just a lack of belief in a deity, I don't see what's so tricky about it that makes it inherently impossible to reconcile with some form or another of moral universalism.
>>73745222
He definitely believed there was some sort of higher organization because of the whole "god doesn't play with dice" mentality but he would be pissed if some group or another tried to "claim" him to their side since he hated dogma.
I've found atheism to go well with stoicism.
>>73740449
>killed alive
how the fuck else are you supposed to do it
>>73745290
Morals change with cultures
What's considered wrong and horrible in the West would be considered normal in other areas of the world and vice versa
Like rape in India
Or honor killing in the middle east
Atheism is dogmatic
If you really want to learn you should be agnostic
>inb4 agnostic atheist
I already showed that was bullshit
Where in the bible does it speak of Quantum Field Theory, Kinematic, and Ohm's Law? Where in the bible does it say that in the year 2016, zeal fanboyism will be justified under the umbrella of 'religion'? All religions are based off of Fictional works. I assure you that there are people who think real life is Harry Potter. I myself think real life is 1984, and the religious are Big Brother, telling me what I can and cannot think, in the same way that religious people constantly spout "moral barometer memes", saying that I would rape people if it weren't for god telling me what to do.
Dear Shitlord,
God doesn't tell me anything. He died in the fire of Nero for fucks sake.
If you're willing to antagonize the evils of Islamism and the refugee crisis, and you're strong in the sense of anti-semitism and DA JOOS memes, it would only be hypocrisy if you were not allowed to apply the same idea to Christianity.
Hypocrisy is tyranny. Justice is zeal. The collection is the enemy. Statistics are for 52!
>>73737878
>religion is required to prevent the masses from succumbing to mass degeneracy
Closeted degenerate is still a degenerate.
Why do you want them to hide?
>>73745614
Do you reject that a-theism means lack of theism?
Do you reject that a-gnosticism means lack of knowability?
If you answered yes to any of these questions you are a hack fraud that doesn't deserve any more (You)'s.
>>73745614
Isn't it kind of over-simplistic to imply that atheism is a homogenous culture? There are sub-cultures of people who identify by their atheism, but if we're talking about atheism as in the lack of belief, I think it might be ore nebulous than you give it credit for.
>>73745848
Lol I got your point, I'm just goofin
>>73745842
So tell me, where is God?
>>73745842
Do you believe that one can have a doubt in their lack of belief?
>atheism=agnosticism
a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Dictionaries are your friend
Agnosticism is mutually exclusive from atheism.
>Agnostic doesn't have anything to do with or describe anything about belief
>I don't care what the dictionary says I'm using my own definition
>autism
"Agnostic atheist" is just a new atheist attempt to hide behind agnosticism weak wordplay.
To believe something is to accept it as true or valid. In order to do this, you must have knowledge of it. Thus, belief always requires knowledge.
New atheists are really trying to hide behind agnosticism. There's an atheism site, atheism.org that literally says "you can't trust dictionaries to define atheism".
>>73745875
>Isn't it kind of over-simplistic to imply that atheism is a homogenous culture?
True, I know some conservative atheist/agnostic that hate atheism plus, new atheism and sjw's and vice versa
>>73746110
Reminder that agnostics and atheists are hateful people who lack faith.
>homeless man asks for money to buy food
>agnostic "how do I know you're not gonna spend it on drugs? I can't"
>atheist "are you religious? All religious people are stupid and deserve to be executed"
>religious person "here you go"
>>73746110
>Do you believe that one can have a doubt in their lack of belief?
Yes, but that has nothing to do with agnosticism or atheism. You can have doubt about any philosophical position. You can doubt socialism.
The dictionariy you quoted is wrong. atheism.org sounds cringy and I'm not going there. It doesn't help that the word agnostic has been twisted to mean uncertain by retards that find it convenient. I have seen people identify as global warming-agnostic and other -gnostic combinations. The etymology and actual definition of the greek words is the purest definition. Gnosticism is knowability, don't fuck with established definitions for your own convenience.
Once again.
>Do you reject that a-gnosticism means lack of knowability?
Then you are retarded.
>>73745810
Where in the bible does it speak of Quantum Field Theory, Kinematic, and Ohm's Law?
Whoaaaa little monsters the bible did not tell anything about that ,there is no god
>>73744924
It is interesting that while atheism promotes questioning, and thinking for yourself, a stable and happy society might be more easily achievable through religion. Due to the limits of human nature, average people are not able to always make correct judgements on their own. It could be more beneficial to have a religion that tells them what to think, so that they make correct actions more often.
Therefore an atheist might say that we need a religion for a better society.
I like this meme picture because it doesn't make any theoretical arguments about religion or atheism. Instead it places them in a purely practical context, and the answers are interesting.
So to answer the question
>Maybe it's time us conservative Atheists band together and come to some compromise in our values, write a book, and claim it as our scripture?
Yeah maybe, but it requires a funny level of delusion for it to work.
>>73746487
I'm an atheist and I give cash to homeless people irrespective of whatever faith they might be.
Obvious point, just a reminder that you're full os shit.
>>73746110
>To believe something is to accept it as true or valid. In order to do this, you must have knowledge of it. Thus, belief always requires knowledge.
Are you sure you're a christian? Do you know what faith is?
>>73735434
Culture chooses its values with or without god. Religion is still the people's values because people wrote it. You don't need religion for parents to properly educate their children what works and is accepted in their society. Hell will no longer be feared but there are plenty of other punishments to be made to control people.
>religion offers perfect moral absolutism!
lol no
>>73745095
Well then tell me what the difference between God and the universe(or multiverse, if you're one of those) is. Is god not the greatest this that humanity can fathom? That which when you try and grasp the concept of it it's overwhelming, the thing that is so great that nothing can be greater? Isn't that exactly what we use the word universe to describe? The one single thing that contains the rest? The greatest thing that our tiny minds can even begin to fathom?
Furthermore, define religion outside of philosophy. Without the values, ethics, and morality of religion (all of which are parts of philosophy), religion is a culture based around a book. That is pretty much philosophy, but philosophy doesn't necessarily have adherents to make it into a culture.
I'm not trying to change any definitions, I'm simply stating that our definitions rely on dogma that isn't there for all of us. To me the line that separates religion and philosophy is just how many people agree with the book verbatim.
>>73747119
>Well then tell me what the difference between God and the universe(or multiverse, if you're one of those) is.
How about fucking sentience for one? Or those fabled fucking qualities always used by the Cosmological argument?
>Define religion outside of philosophy!
>How do categories work?
>I'm not trying to change definitions!
Yet, here we are.
>2016
>caring about the future of society
>>73746670
So you don't know what you don't believe?
That's a weird outlook to have
>The dictionary you quoted is wrong
How is a dictionary wrong?
Provide the dictionary where you got your definitions from
Here is mine http://www.dictionary.com/
>agnostic has been twisted to mean uncertain
Agnostic means to not know
un·cer·tain
ˌənˈsərtn
adjective
not able to be relied on; not known or definite.
"an uncertain future"
synonyms: unknown, debatable, open to question, in doubt, undetermined, unsure, in the balance, up in the air;
(of a person) not completely confident or sure of something.
"I was uncertain how to proceed"
synonyms: unsure, doubtful, dubious, undecided, irresolute, hesitant, blowing hot and cold, vacillating, vague, unclear, ambivalent
>I have seen people identify as global warming-agnostic and other -gnostic combinations.
Provide links to these then becuse they sound retarded
>Gnosticism is knowability
I never claimed otherwise
>don't fuck with established definitions for your own convenience.
don't project onto me
>Do you reject that a-gnosticism means lack of
knowability?
I gave you the definition
here have it again
agnosticism
[ag-nos-tuh-siz-uh m]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.
2.
an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.
>Then you are retarded.
You're the one that doubts his lack of belief
Sounds very retarded to me
>>73746869
Why are you avoiding the question and attempting question deflection
You also replied to my post twice?
Why would this be?
>>73735434
You can't say "inb4" and think it excuses you from the fallacy.
also..
>what is the Social Contract?
>>73746866
Sand niggers are dumb as shit and now kill people because they think they are the better thing in evolution and start up natural selection
christfags have been doing well for 1600 years . Christfag button is the only logical choice
>>73746866
I agree with you.
I remember hearing some Jewish theologian say that atheism has its role in forcing people to adapt religion to a changing world. As in he was an atheist until her discovered "God" in a new context that previously was unexplored (or at least not preached to him).
The problem is in an increasingly global society Judaism is increasingly insignificant. Where do we bring our religion now? I guess when I think about it that's why Christianity has such great appeal, but it will never be even close to a permanent solution.
Your post really just reminds me why eugenics/dysgenics seems so great. If we could kill all the people who cannot function in society without the crutch of religion, then it seems we would be free of this problem.
Atheism is the first step towards the natural end point of modernism, nihilism.
An atheist who unironically thinks he can justify morality with the same tools he used to butcher God is a fool at best.
>>73746866
>It is interesting that while atheism promotes questioning, and thinking for yourself
lol no
That would be agnostic
>>73747624
>So you don't know what you don't believe?
It's not that you doubt your lack of belief, you can lack a belief but then read something that might cause you to suspect there is a god, so you have doubt as to whether or not there is one. Strictly speaking it might not be accurate to say you're doubting a lack of a belief but it's doubt all the same so I have no problem with it.
>How is a dictionary wrong?
I did say that the meaning of the word has been twisted by modern usage, so the dictionary is right to inform the reader that some people do use the misuse.
I'll also post the dictionry.com definition of agnostic.
>noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3.
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:
Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.
1 and 2 support the actual intended usage of the word in philosophical discussions, purely meaning unknowability while 3 is the retard version.
>Provide links to these then becuse they sound retarded
Just google I'm sure you'll find some retard blogger.
>I never claimed otherwise
Then why did you say a-gnosticism is lack of knowability? Am I imagining things?
This whole discussion is pointless semantics. You're attempting to deny me words but the 4 combinations of gnostic theistic agnostic and atheistic are all valid coherent, philosophical positions that real living people believe. I don't know what is it with you, do you want people to have difficulty describing those positions? Are you bitter over the fact that not all atheists are retarded fedoras?
>>73747715
Can you repeat the question?
>>73738453
>I don't think you understand what moral relativism is. If you have a moral framework of any sort it means you're automatically not a moral relativist, because you believe your morality is the one true one and it's incompatible with everyone else's.
And yet you talk about your "own" morality. You talk of different codes of morality.
>>73748533
Are you for real? I can believe that my opinion is the absolute truth and the only correct one while still having the self awareness to describe it as an opinion.
>>73747356
Haha, you don't believe that the universe is sentient? I guess that's where we disagree. I see the universe and what you think of as God as one in the same. I think that is the way most atheists (especially those on /pol/) see it.
I don't mean to offend you, as you seem pretty butthurt here. To me the universe is just a large "consciousness" that is beyond what any one of us individual actors (humans with souls). It is the basis for existence, it existed before what we think of as space existed, it will never cease to exist (even though it may change forms), it has a will of its own, and it is more powerful than anything else. It "knows" everything that happens. Really it is analogous to my best understanding of what God is, and I was "taught" about god from various highly religious people, including my parents.
I see your view as pretty pessimistic, instead of viewing the universe as that beautiful thing above all else, you just resign it to a machine that follows some mathematical set of laws. While I think that physics does follow mathematical laws, Godel makes a good point about the failure of mathematics here. No matter what, we cannot understand the universe itself. that is (again, to my understanding) what the whole "Christian Mystery" is.
Instead of seeing the thing in front of you every day as the glory and majesty of it all, you think that there is something that is somehow separate, and different, the sacred/divine. I argue that the sacred and mundane are psychological constructs. Think of it like the universe is the interpretation of the holy spirit. Every molecule and every black hole are words straight from god's mouth. The sum of all these things (infinite and beyond human's grasp) is what makes god. It is also the definition of the universe.
>>73748638
To quote you- I don't think you understand what moral relativism is.
>>73748770
I got news for you, anon. You're not an atheist.
>>73748796
To quote me, go google "moral relativism" you fucking noob.
>>73748638
>absolute truth
>opinion
You're doing some real bullshit mental gymnastics to avoid calling yourself a moral relativist.
Sorry, kike. You are what you are.
>>73735434
atheist morality: let's logically discuss what code of conduct we should ascribe to for the maximum benefit for our society
religious morality: whatever I'm told god wants me to do, I'd literally kill my own children if I thought god wanted me to
>>73749072
Does having a theory of mind make someone a moral relativist? If I believe that murder is absolutely wrong, should I be confused when someone else has different ideas about murder?
>>73747450
CURRENT
>>73749114
>religious morality: whatever I'm told god wants me to do, I'd literally kill my own children if I thought god wanted me to
except the fact is, that would never happen unless you're schizophrenic, in which case religion is irrelevant.
atheist morality: logically you should only behave hedonistically and selfishly, because muh science and muh darwinian evolution.
>>73748770
Well what am I then? An agnostic? I wouldn't say that I know what exactly I believe. Am I a christian? I deny the divinity of Christ, so that doesn't work. Maybe I'm a Deist or a Gnostic, even a liberal Jew? But those groups are told many times that they are in fact atheists.
I would love to know what creed I belong to, but it seems that I don't have one, that is why I call myself an atheist. None of these "Gods" that people talk about seem to float my boat, there is no religion which I find myself adhering to. That's what makes me think I'm an atheist, I have no temple to take refuge in.
>>73735434
>I can't be moral without an imaginary friend!
OK
>>73749345
Anyone, obviously including atheists, can understand that survival includes fitting into and adopting the values of your culture/society.
>>73749303
>2016
>basing your opinions on a comedians catch phrase
>not just listening to your dick
>>73749568
Great values we have these days, too, thanks to atheism
>>73748889
>>73749413
I meant to reply to you, not my comment, sorry.
>>73749345
>except the fact is, that would never happen unless you're schizophrenic, in which case religion is irrelevant.
so you admit it's not real lmao (bible is full of god telling you to genocide an entire other town if they harbor one unebeliever and all sorts of nasty shit)
and yeah it does happen, every fucking day, just look at the middle east and africa, people take their religion at face value and really do genocide each other for being the wrong sect
note how these places are all low IQ populations, since you have to be under at least 85 IQ to think its real
>atheist morality: logically you should only behave hedonistically and selfishly, because muh science and muh darwinian evolution.
except too much hedonism is demonstrably bad for the individual and tribe so against both those things, but even so that's still better than religion since hedonism doesnt include hurting others for the vast majority of people
>>73749623
Atheism is not a political movement.
>>73749413
you're confused
just like me
>>73749623
Atheists are not rejecting good values just because they're atheist. Am I misinformed here?
>>73749680
>so you admit it's not real
no, I'm saying there's no reason to think it would happen again.
>and yeah it does happen, every fucking day, just look at the middle east and africa
Niggers and muslims. no shit, welcome to /pol/
and I never said I think it's real. I consider myself a cultural Christian, and I think Christian morality is superior.
Atheism means egalitarianism and hedonism, the two things that are destroying our civilization.
>>73749780
Wanna start a new religion then?
>>73749680
>so you admit it's not real lmao
god asked isaac to kill his son and then stops it , why would god ask any of us to kill our children?
>>73750123
Sure
i'm pretty much a cultural Christian. Homosexuality is wrong, gluttony is wrong, the man is lord over the woman, etc
honestly, if you look at "Christ" in an abstract enough way, I don't see why christianity can't work in one's mind.
>>73737716
Did you?
>>73750162
Well he was "testing his faith." I don't buy into Christianity, buy Kierkegaard makes a very good argument in favor of both God and Isaac in this particular context. I forget which work he addresses this in, but it's part of his Christian Hero narrative, which is kinda hard to dispute the more you read about. In this day and age though it's hard to maintain the Christian part though.
>>73737716
I did and I assure you I am part of the problem
>>73737790
Its anti christian stupid.
When was the last time an atheist went after a Muslim or Jew?
>>73749745
But it is ,your goverment is atheist and acts that way.. Babies get aborted because there is no god and science says its just some cells
>>73750585
Science also says adults are "just some cells."
Science also says that a fetus is a living human.
>>73750585
If a society decided free murder of living humans was ok then it would be ok. The majority+government chooses what makes most sense and free murder obviously doesn't work for pretty much all societies. Abortion does make enough sense for the majority of people to say that it's ok. That's really all that matters. If abortion ends up ruining society then it would eventually be curved again and that's just fine.
>>73748484
>It's not that you doubt your lack of belief, you can lack a belief but then read something that might cause you to suspect there is a god, so you have doubt as to whether or not there is one. Strictly speaking it might not be accurate to say you're doubting a lack of a belief but it's doubt all the same so I have no problem with it.
It's a basic yes or no question
I'll take your rant as a yes
>I did say that the meaning of the word has been twisted by modern usage, so the dictionary is right to inform the reader that some people do use the misuse.
Can you prove this?
Lets see those sources to back up your claims
>I'll also post the dictionry.com definition of agnostic.
>1.a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
>2.a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
>3.a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:
You just proved yourself wrong
Thanks for agreeing with me
>Just google I'm sure you'll find some retard blogger.
You get your definitions of words from some retarded blogger?
That explains alot
>Then why did you say a-gnosticism is lack of knowability?
Because that's the definiton of it
Are you saying agnosticism is knowability?
>Am I imagining things?
That would be your doubt in your lack of belief
>Can you repeat the question?
Sure, can you prove anything you claim without using a question begging epithet as your source?
Let's see the sources for your claims
>>73740158
And this is why Estonia is crap.
>>73751044
yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_infanticide_in_China
As a result of female infanticide and sex-selective abortion combined, there are an estimated 30–40 million more men than women in China today.[28] This female deficit is expected to generate a wide range of adverse social, political, and economic consequences
http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm
>>73750318
The problem I have with Christianity is that it probably won't convert many Muslims. Islam has the upper hand in this as a Christian can simply add another set of texts to their scripture, and then you have Islam. The opposite is a lot harder to do. I'm not saying that I'd prefer working off of Islam, just that it seems we would have a distinct disadvantage.
There is also the problem of what you mean by Christianity. I for one have read equal amounts of the King James Bible and the Nag Hammadi scriptures. The Gnostic texts seem more in line (at least this translation) with our worldview than does the KJV. I don't really know much about Catholicism, but they are the ones who tried to destroy the Gnostic movement, I can only assume their interpretation is even more detrimental to society (seeing how so many Popes have acted).
>>73751566
Def something to keep in mind but I'm not sure this is a problem in most nations that allow abortion.
>>73751961
the one child policy only was for china, but it is insane people thought it was oke to kill girls because boys where worth more, so far for human morals in china
