I love Christ and try to follow His word as best I can, but i also believe someone can lead a morally sound existence without staunch religious beliefs.
But why hasnt any atheist or humanist or agnostic ever created even an attempt at a guide to righteous living? Have they and I'm just not aware? I always hear people say , "you dont have to be religious to be morally grounded," then the conversation ends before they tell me what constitutes moral behavior. I think nonreligious and religious people would get along much easier if there were some concrete middle ground of what is right and wrong.
You are just unaware
And
Modern liberals are Christians, they just don't know it
>>75209914
So is there a book or essay i can read written by an avowed atheist about what is right and wrong? Id like to read it. I'm not trying to argue im trying to learn.
>>75209486
there is no middle ground
you believe in fairies and nonsense
youre literally retarded
>>75210150
But any intelligent person knows that actions define someone most accurately and not their favorite television shows and authors.
I understand youre just trying to be inflammatory but its this mentality that drives groups apart who ought not to necessarily be at odds.
>>75209486
I'm sure school, picture books, and 90s cartoons taught you many morals,
some of which happen to also be present in the Bible
Children are told examples of right and wrong in the form of fiction, and obtain a sense of morality from them. It just so happens that some stories are believed to be true; those stories become mythology and religion.
>>75211313
But hey arnold doesnt have leagues of philosophers and metaphysicians explaining why morals exist and why they should be followed. Which is why most children turn into drug abusing sodomites as soon as they are out of their parents sight. My point is that simply stating that some things are bad and some are good is way different than pondering and explaining why and how our existence should work that way.
Most modern irreligious children receieve about 8 years of wholesome moral or morally neutral media followed by a lifetime of edgy and muh gray area programming.
Moral relativism is a weak stance, and objective morality requires a source. We as Christians know that God made his will known through the Bible, the humanist for a long time now has tried to figure things out on philosophical "reason".
>>75209486
There is no objective morality without religion. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves (or thinks everyone is born naturally with Christian morality, which is obviously false).
>>75209486
Mein Kampf, desu senpai.
>>75214210
This makes complete logical sense to me. But if this is true, why are there so many atheists and agnostic atheists who will fight tooth-and-nail over the idea that they can be perfectly moral and righteous without any religion? I'd rather them just be honest and say that they have no real morals and choose to follow the law because things like fines and jail time are well designed mechanisms of deterrence.
>>75210531
condemnation and ridicule are essentially in dispelling religion
youre literally cursed with religion. indoctrinated to believe in myths and lies. there isnt any arguments or discussions to be had
if there is, lets hear it
>>75214753
But thats not the discussion we are having. I could admit to being brainwashed and hypnotized but it doesnt change the fact that western morals come primarily from Christianity and that the secular and atheist school of thought has not produced any great work on why or how someone should be anything but a greedy and lustful animal.
Again, I understand perfectly the logic and reason that is behind moral relativism, my question is concerning those who claim they lead a righteous life devoid of Christian or any religious teachings.
