Is it possible to get moral values without God?

Of course not.

File: FireUpTheOvens.jpg (132KB, 840x474px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 840x474px

Let's ask democrats...

Nope, looks like you can't have morals without God.

>>131349272
is that a crescent moon in a red flag tattoo on that broad?

>>131348633
Bump

Short answer: No.

Long answer: No because "god" is the personification and embodiment of the ideal human being with perfect morality, and all other forms of morality are simply appeals to his authority.

Sorry if that sounds a bit too new-age. I'm a secular atheist who fully supports religion. My peers hate me lol.

>>131348633
Yes, but set out methods are unreliable.

Its better to teach them of god, christ, and the bible. And give them religious freedom after.

File: 4chan.jpg (24KB, 350x550px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 350x550px

>>131348633
Yes, you can have the concept of good and evil without believing in a deity.

>>131349986
I feel a huge difference between one atheist that just minds his own business, and a second kind that pretty much just spergs out when they see an athlete thanking God in public, for example. I've seen plenty of communists exhibiting this rabid anti-religious behavior, a will to extirpate religion from others if you will. Those militant atheists are something else entirely, they're in fact dogmatic materialists/secularists.

They're far beyond just not believing in God, they want to actively shut down and public manifestation of any religion, they want some kind of atheist State business going on, where public religious manifestations, like wearing a cross necklace in public to be banned. This is also what goes on in communist China, Cuba or North Korea. You can get jailed in commie China if you're smuggling a Bible.

>>131350497
where do you get it from then? genes?

File: Kant.jpg (19KB, 220x278px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 220x278px

>>131348633

Yes; but you'd need to study ethical philosophy and actually understand it.

>>131348633
is that statue topless?
is there moar

>>131348633
>what is natural law

yes u can retard, i dont do nice things because god told me, i do it cuz i cant how retarded is that question?

File: as above, so below.jpg (121KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1000x750px

>>131349986
pretty accurate.

But you're an atheist who believes in god (as described), which is retarded.
Atheists should just rebrand themselves as pantheists or similar, they'd be 100x more tolerable.

If you haven't already, I recommend taking a bunch of acid. Anyone who wants to talk about religion should have a true religious experience first, and acid is the most reliable way of inducing one.

>>131348633
No. Look at the French for example

>>131348633
Fuck your Jewish demon god
You talk about your morals and your god, then go fap to dick rate threads on /b/
Bunch of fucking losers

Go get married and have a family, stop LARPing

>>131352301
but from where did you get the idea that doing X is wrong? Maybe you have been affected by something like Christian morality without even knowing it

The laws of modern nation states are also influenced by things such as the Ten Commandments

>>131348671
Fpbp

Even if you don't believe in God; acting as if God exists is the best for you and those around you.

>>131352448
Well, I'm not particularly interested in the spiritual aspect of religion, because I do not personally believe in the concept of an afterlife as a place that you go after you die.

Religion is a useful tool for propagating beneficial social memes.

>>131352448
Try mescaline it's better. Just go to Home Depot and by some San Pedros, 2 feet is good. Trim off any brown stuff and spine it. I cube mine then, food processor than into a pot with water. Simmer for hours and strain, collecting the liquid. Repeat this 2 more times. Reduce total liquid, add lemon and honey. Drink and get experianced

>>131352448

Not acid. Take a psychoactive plant to see what they saw

>>131351897
And from where did this philosophy draw it's roots, hmm?

>>131351799
Yes. Some animals are hyper aggressive and will attack humans, they'll kill their mates routinely, cannibalize/kill the weakest of their litter, violently rape the opposite sex of their species and sometimes even other species entirely. Some other animals are naturally noble and tame, they aren't normally aggressive, they only attack things in defense of themselves and their group. This isn't because horses read the bible and chimps don't, it's just their genetic instincts informing their apparent "morals"

>>131348633
Yes.
Unless you're a nigger

>>131353040
Animals are driven by instinct, you can't apply notions of morality to them. Animals can't really steal for example, they don't have a conscience.

>>131352448
>>131353001
you know a funny thing, indulging in drug usages was commonplace in pagan rituals, also satanic worship, claiming you could achieve a higher conscience via hallucinations and shit, maybe become as gods

Many atheists hide the fact they're into occult worship by claiming they're above this king of thing by being atheists.

>>131348633
Morals cannot exist in an absolute state, there is no such thing as a universal taboo, only what a culture deems 'permissible' and 'not permissible'

Even taking into account for a non-deist being (god) that would instruct Mankind on what is 'permissible', would not create a moral system (defined as a particular system of values and principles of conduct), as a 'god' would not hold any universal rules.

Each moral choice should be done on a case by case basis, one could argue that it's permissible to kill in one circumstance, and deem it forbidden in another.

Since there are an infinite set of circumstances that change infinitely, no universal moral system can remain stable.

Besides, morality as a whole is completely subjective, whether you're religious or not, the individual will still have different interpretations of the 'rules'.

That's not to say you can have/enforce a moral system, just that your moral system will always fall short of reality.

>>131353584
Are all cultures equally valuable in your worldview?

>>131348633
No.

>>131348633
>Be a Christian
>Post Pagan classical art of a Pagan Goddess
Dumb subhuman monkey

File: muslim-strategy.jpg (1MB, 1500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x2500px

>>131353782

>>131348633
obviously
>>131353165
sure they do. youtube "animals stealing" and you'll see tons of evidence of it.
animals are much cleverer than humans give them credit for
some birds can solve simple puzzles
some octopuses have a reasoning high enough to get crabs out of a shut jar.

and of course, there's us.

>>131353165
>Animals can't really steal for example, they don't have a conscience.
That's bullshit, have you even seen chimps at a zoo? Orangutans have the natural instinct to share their food, they always break what they are given in half and return half to whoever gave them the food. Chimps don't have this instinct, they are naturally selfish and will prefer to fight over food and try to steal food from other chimps. It doesn't matter if the animals themselves have no concept of morality, their instincts still produce behaviors that we can classify as moral or immoral and the bible has absolutely nothing to do with their behaviors.

The same rule applies to humans, different groups have different instincts that manifest as either moral or immoral behavior. Yes humans are smart enough to comprehend the notion of morality but that doesn't change our instincts. If the bible was such a surefire way of instilling morals in someone then why is it that every single violent nigger in america who ends up in the news for doing barbaric chimp-like shit b goin 2 church n shieeet, gettin they lyf on trak?

>>131348633
Yes.

“If you govern the people legalistically and control them by punishment, they will avoid crime, but have no personal sense of shame. If you govern them by means of virtue and control them with propriety, they will gain their own sense of shame, and thus correct themselves.” - Confucius

If you believe in hellfire, and you're afraid of hell, and you're told to love god, then you're learning to be moral only at the benefit of the self.

It's like trade. You consciously give something to get something better in return; you're consciously trained to put your benefit above others.

Now, if this were a loved family member, you wouldn't trade them; you would give something to them generously, and not consciously expect something in return. The recipient, meanwhile knows it's bad manners to not give something in return, so he's consumed by inner shame and guilt if he shows he is ungrateful.

What kind of god tells me he's going to punish me unless I love him. Wouldn't it make sense for a moral god to give me his love, not expect anything in return, and genuinely not get pissed that I don't give anything?

He's like a dead beat father who leaves your mother, leaving her to fend for herself to feed you and your brothers and sisters. You're expected to love him, even though he showers you with pain, sickness, and misery. To make things worse, he even tests people's faith by making them even more miserable.

He gave me a life worth not living. I'm unhappy. I don't choose to be unhappy; it's predetermined in my brain. I want to lead a moral life, and I have a good idea what real morals are; they are NOT what you get in a book or a law. Laws absolve the need for people to be moral; because with law and soldiers, obedience is the only thing expected.

>>131353896
David Wood has explained this in light of islamic sources with plenty of citations, how Mohammed carefully planned the subjugation of other religious groups, it's a great video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERou_Q5l9Gw

>>131353398
>claiming you could achieve a higher conscience via hallucinations and shit, maybe become as gods
hmmm who was the first person to ever say this?

>>131353933
Animals don't subscribe to the notion of ownership, they lack a conscience, the very notion of property is alien to a brain of an animal, they just see food, and if they can get it without harming themselves, as in "I can easily get this kill from those predators smaller than me".

>>131354040
Sharing food can be seen as strengthening their own numbers, they need strong groups in wildlife, as there's strength in numbers, especially to fight against other chimp troops. Predators like a leopard would also make quick work of a weakened chimpanzee troop. So it's not exactly altruism, it's a refined way of self preservation for animals that need social circles to survive, hunt cooperatively and so on.

>>131354192
The snake (Satan) in Genesis.

File: muhammad-stickman.jpg (24KB, 600x428px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 600x428px

>>131354124
cool. also, fuck muhammad.

Christian threads are some of the most pathetic and funniest things on this website
Yes goy just pay the church and the magic sky man will solve everything, lmao

>>131354683
you don't have to go to church or pay anyone to be a Christian

>>131354826
Just suck baby dicks and pray to a bleeding jew nailed to a cross? IM IN

>>131348633
Probably not in the long run desu senpai

File: index.jpg (7KB, 257x196px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 257x196px

>morals

>>131348633
No shit sherlock.

>>131354522
wrong again. you don't need notions, definitions and terminology to understand the concept of ownership.
obviously animals don't have complicated languages like humans, but the emotions, actions and reactions are all the same with "stealing" and even "murder"

monkeys, lions, etc. have repeatedly shown that they do "understand" stealing and that what having food stolen sucks.

but anyway, you can argue the same with humans. humans have much higher levels of reasoning, but the end result is the same as animals
we want to survive. that's it.

the only difference between humans and animals is that we have sophisticated language
language complex enough to come up with terms like "ownership". but in the end, ownership and "stealing" exists in the animal kingdom.

the feelings in reference to stealing exist outside of humans.

>>131354881
i assume you're referring to circumcision. you don't have to be circumcised or circumcise anyone to be a Christian either. you do have to pray to a once bleeding jew nailed to a cross though.

>>131354522
>it's a refined way of self preservation for animals that need social circles to survive, hunt cooperatively and so on.
Yeah, that's my point, that is morality in general and that is how it applies to humans too. Different groups have our different survival strategies, and just like chimps vs orangutans our different strategies can be interpreted as either more or less ethical.

>>131353782
What process do you use to determine?
Honest question, I'm curious

File: chimp-with-ak.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>131355710

>>131348633

FACT: God doesn't exist.

FACT: People have morals. (Though some have to cling to fairy tales to be moral.)

>>131354522
Oh by the way, orangutans like to feed other animals too, not just other orangutans.

https://youtu.be/3ComVemZhwY

>>131355144
What animal feelings? Animals don't exactly have any thoughts when it comes to getting food from other animals, or the whole concept of property, thus you see bears invading homes, alligators basking near your home and shit like that.

A dog will always take the food it finds around unless you educate it, ie you exert control over the dog so it doesn't behave like a little piece of shit, so you teach it where to pee/shit, not to take food from your table, to avoid jumping on visits.

Dogs are pretty good to learn how animals as a whole work, you need to reprehend them right at the moment they do something you don't want them to do, or else it doesn't work, for example.

>>131355710
Humans, unlike animals, can do things that go against their own survival instincts to save their fellow kin, something an animal wouldn't do, taking a bullet for someone else or to starve rather than to steal food/money. Comparing humans to animals when it comes to notions of morality doesn't really go far.

>>131348633
are those flower pasties on that statues nips?

>>131355945
>FACT: God doesn't exist.
I'm afraid you're going to have to prove this claim.

Yes and even if you're a retarded moral nihilist you do make value judgements. Only a mapping of all possible thought, intent, and actions onto the whole spectrum of human emotion instead of the discrete categories of virtuous and sinful. Moral systems are just a way of making these value judgements objective, which is prerequisite for any civilization. Emotions are more high-resolution but not communicable and extremely subjective. Nihilists are just suggesting we return to living like animals, guided by pure instinct.

You can construct a logically consistent moral system even starting with our ethical instincts. It's pretty fucking standard and is why beauty is often considered a virtue. Moral systems not only make ethics objective, they also provide a sufficiently low-resolution abstraction of it to be practically useful and easily communicable.
>>131353165
Animals are driven by instinct, yes, but this also includes an ethical instinct. They do not endlessly indulge. It's been observed in rats that when they play by wrestling the dominant rat will let the smaller once win quite often, despite clearly enjoying victory over losing. Even fucking rats have some sense of a proper way to act which supersedes mindless indulgence. They do have a conscience, just not consciousness. They have ethics in their instincts, they don't have ethical systems because they're not thinking creatures.

Any moral system is objective, that's the entire point. The problem is it's not universal, the choice of moral system is pretty damn arbitrary. Which is why an omniscient being that sees all and judges all by the same consistent standard is so damn important. Even a nihilist, has he any sense, will see the need for and objectivity of moral systems. He'll just have difficulty justifying the choice of any one of them, and that's where God enters the picture.

File: AYN RAND v RAWLS.jpg (233KB, 694x567px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 694x567px

Of course. The classical world had morality without God or gods. But Ayn Rand is probably the most famous advocate of secular ethics.

>>131348633
>Is it possible to get moral values without God?
the bible you mean?

you don't get your values from a piece of paper, you get them form your family so yes.

>>131355843
lol that video never gets old
almost looks like the chimp's thinking "i totally fucking owned them"
while he was raising the ak
>>131355974
another valuable point: animals have emotions too.
it's not really "instinctive", either.
people who have pets understand this
dogs, cats, birds, etc. get annoyed, confused, happy, etc. just like humans
i have 2 birds and they always show emotions
>>131356119
that's because "homes" aren't in nature. they don't know what those things are. and they don't really give a shit either.
again, they have feelings. go watch some youtube videos about hyenas stealing food from lions or something
animals have emotions and understand concepts like "stealing" and loss- even when their relatives die.
I don't know how many more times i have to say it. if you're a pet owner, you would know that it's not pure instinct. there is some intellect there.

>>131356468
and where did your family get them from?

>>131348633
Yes, through empathy. I want to believe empathy is intrinsic/genetic, but it can be destroyed through bad upbringings, experiences and culture. I also believe that, if empathy is genetic, some races are more predisposed to it than others. Whites seem to have high levels of empathy while asians (Chinese in particular) don't understand the concept very well which manifests in a society that's high in corruption, low in trust and governed more being shamed by others than by personal guilt.

See: http://www.academia.edu/3620724/Chinese_Lack_of_Empathy_in_Development

>>131356558
from their life experiences?

>implying that modern Christians follow the moral code set forth in the bible.

you guys never even read the bible if you think Christians get their morals from that book.

>>131356605
Explain criminals and psychopaths, then, do you really think human beings are inherently good? You think it's some kind of genetic shit, like we take Ted Bundy's son, give him to the most righteous family around for adoption, and he'll still be a psycho when he grows up?

>>131356640
so they did a murder and a theft here and there, and then decided what was good from the bad? You're just saying "I got them from someone else", without addressing the question of from where exactly is the primary source of it.

>>131348633
Yes, of course. Most religious people have terrible morals because of God. There has been no force in this world that has caused more suffering and torment then those acting under God.

>>131356119
>can do things that go against their own survival instincts to save their fellow kin, something an animal wouldn't do
Complete and utter fucking bullshit once again. You don't spend much time studying the natural world apparently, this is actually extremely common. Cats will try fighting bears to save their kittens, mice will try fighting cats to save their litter, small birds will try attacking humans to save their nests, a wildebeest bull might try goring a lioness to save the herd. Sometimes domesticated animals will even throw themselves in the line of danger to save a completely different species, their owners. The more you look at it, the more "moral" behavior appears to be a perfectly normal thing among animals.

>>131354522
>Sharing food can be seen as strengthening their own numbers, they need strong groups in wildlife, as there's strength in numbers, especially to fight against other chimp troops. Predators like a leopard would also make quick work of a weakened chimpanzee troop. So it's not exactly altruism, it's a refined way of self preservation for animals that need social circles to survive, hunt cooperatively and so on.
How smart do you think they are? Do you think they painstakingly reasoned that out, chose to codify it into a set of values which they then teach to their entire species, establish an undetectable radio station that teaches it even to members of their species they've had to previous contact with?

It's much, much more likely that they just happen to have some form of ethical instinct. So much so it's even plausible.

>>131356986
Communists in the 20th century proved you wrong, easily over 100 million dead thanks to its organized atheism.

>>131356534
the chimp simultaneously ironically and unironically pwnt them. this is why that video will never go away.

>>131356851
Yeah, it's possible. Empathy like anything else is a manifestation of genetics, brain structure, psychology and environment. Some people might be more or less predisposed to it. Some people obviously lack it entirely (serial killers, murderers, rapists, con artists, criminals of all sorts that prey on others).

Society can't function without a basic level of cooperation. Cooperation requires trust between individuals to complete tasks, whether it's building a house or the infrastructure of a city. People without empathy are more likely to abuse the trust of others and fail to cooperate and create advanced, successful societies. You could point out the Chinese and say they're successful despite showing poor levels of empathy, but again their society is more based on the perception of shame rather than personal guilt. A Chinese dude will lie, cheat and steal to get ahead as long as no one finds out. If someone finds out, they'll shame him and he'll stop, but he doesn't stop because he feels PERSONAL guilt. Obviously this also applies to individual whites and individuals of other races that have a deficit in empathy.

>>131357071
Black plague killed that many back when that was about a quarter of the Earth's population.

>>131357003
Of course the mom of kittens will defend its young, she spent a lot of energy and effort raising the next generation, again it's not exactly altruism at all. It's just the instinct of perpetuating the species. Some species don't have it because they just breed like fucking mad and it's a quantity over quality as seen in fish, some like mammals and birds have parental effort to ensure the young animals won't get picked apart.

>>131356534
Totally agree, that is a very important factor and the more intelligent an animal is, the more nuanced its feelings/emotions are. If you spend a lot of time with animals you'd have to be blind to not notice their individuality, their emotions and dare I say "Personality"

Not really. You need something/someone above man, or else, if every man is "equal", who;s to really say what is what?

File: 1464849951203.jpg (85KB, 433x417px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 433x417px

>>131357354
>comparing a disease to communist dictators who went out of their way to use starvation as a weapon, and ended up doing massive genocides so they could stay in power

>>131356119
I drove out to take a swim in a little woodland lake early morning last week. Drove past a small group of cranes, two big ones and two smaller. On the way back they were walking on the road. They got off the road when I started getting close, all but one of them. One of the big ones started running down the road, flapping his wings but not taking off, pretending he was injured. Lead me on a goose-chase. Only when I was some 100m past the rest of them did he get off the road and run into the woods, to safety.

Get it through your skull, animals are not entirely self-serving nor indulgent. They have ethical instincts just like you.

>>131357566
>hurr durr
>check privilege
>that's racist

>>131357566
If you blame atheism for communism you can blame Christians for murdering all the demonic kitty's. And that's just one example of when religious nuts nearly killed everyone. We have Crusades, jihad, sacrificing children, witch hunts. The Church has gone out off it's way to starve citizens to stay in power for as long as its existed. You're going to need something better than "b-b-but there are bad atheists too".

Yes, but you must have a mind of your own. You must come to atheism ether through lack of contact with religion or through YOUR rationality. If you disbelieve because of nihilism, or another's words. You are doomed to be nihilistic and amoral.
I came to it through rationality and stayed moral and ethical, my friend was raised without religion, but with firm moral and ethical beliefs instilled (stealing is wrong, killing is wrong, etc) and we both are moral and ethical. Though he would prefer only the term ethical, he never was raised Christian and so has a bit of dislike for religious vocabulary.
I think the problem today with atheists, especially in America, is that they do it as a rebellion against the society. I wish to do so as well, but it is to create a better society, not to tear it down.

>>131357315
exactly. animals and humans have some level of understanding when it comes to morality
but obviously humans' understanding is much deeper and more complex because our brains are bigger and more complicated
>>131357412
then humans are the same according to all that
i don't even know why we keep arguing. you seem to be agreeing but it's like you don't want to link morals with animals, only humans. kind of a waste of time at this point, and everyone's replying to everyone else, so i'm just gonna leave right now
>>131357474
yeah, animals for sure have personalities.
might be simple personalities, but it's still there.

>>131357315
>Society can't function without a basic level of cooperation.
a person with ill intentions could argue a single murder here or there, so he could grab all the victim's money, is not exactly a big issue in the grand scheme of things

You could also argue the chinese's problem of empathy came at the tail end of decades of communism, a series of ruthless dictators who tried as hard as possible to extirpate traditional values from the people. The famines Mao created caused deep wounds in the chinese people, when they meet up, one of the common things said to this day between the chinese is "have you eaten today?", this is a cultural scar of how bad things were.

>>131356851
the primary source are the instincts the species we evolved from had.

>>131357412
>Of course the mom of kittens will defend its young, she spent a lot of energy and effort raising the next generation
So the cat can rationalize how much time and effort it spent into raising its young and get angry over the prospect of wasted effort but it can't feel genuinely protective and selfless when its litter faces imminent danger. Okay pal.

>>131348633
people are going to autistically screech at this but here goes:

morality is not concerned with utility as an end. in other words no you can't get morality without religion because all non religious people say what is best based on utility.

there are non religious ways to think of morality that aren't based on utility: like Kant, something along the lines of duty... but everyone knows that is impossible to define which is why religion was the best method to describe this duty/best way to be.

>>131357412
>it's JUST the instinct
Have you ever felt that something is just wrong? That it's disgusting, not proper, it should not exist or be done? Or that it's right, beautiful, something to strive for?
What the fuck do you think that is?

>>131357924
Wait a minute, are we blaming Islamic Jihad on Christians too? Also yes, you blame everything on religious people, even diseases so why wouldn't I blame 100million+ killed on atheism when perpetrated by openly atheist leaders?

Atheism has no grounds for the value of human life, it's logical to go from "without God, there's no inherent value to human life" to "those are enemies of the State, let's purge all of them". Atheists with their moral relativism create a warped wicked moral code of their own, and proceed to murder in the name of their new moral code, it's the humane thing to do to kill all those people, you see.

>>131357929
i think this is interesting. have you ever found in religion an ethical argument that you failed to consider on your own?

>>131348633
Without God, you are doomed to fail.

>>131358201
what you're talking about is socialization.

File: muhammad.png (22KB, 400x380px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x380px

>what did muhammad say to the crusader?
stand back or i'll jizya

>>131358045
It makes sense the cat will protect its young, when a finding a mate, gestation and all that was a lot of effort. Then the kittens are vulnerable, more than a baby snake for example. I guess that gets us to the egg or the chicken coming first situation, so there's that.

>>131348633
Not for a country.

>>131358045
>a person with ill intentions could argue a single murder here or there, so he could grab all the victim's money, is not exactly a big issue in the grand scheme of things

Yes, and this is true in reality, but if every individual had a psychological makeup like this, devoid of empathy and guilt, society as we know it would cease to function. That's why for every one douchebag there are hundreds of normal, well adjusted people.

I don't know enough about Chinese history to speculate if that's the cause of their lack of empathy, I can only observe the present. Their penchant for extreme forms of animal torture seems unrelated to a history of famine. They will literally skin cats and dogs alive, then submerge them (still alive) in boiling water. They deliberately avoid killing them first and minimizing suffering. A history of famine doesn't necessitate this level of cruelty. Only a complete lack of empathy, disregard or failure to compute the suffering of another living creature causes this behaviour. There is no guilt there. They don't lose any sleep over it.

File: 1496165513473.jpg (85KB, 521x522px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 521x522px

>>131352448
Acid drops your IQ through the floor and then through the bedrock. Shrooms is what you want to do if you are trying to learn things. I'm doing acid tomorrow and I can't wait to get dumb

>>131356676
This. How many offerings did you burn this week, how many people did you stone, and how many camels for your daughter?

>>131357986
(replied to the wrong person my bad)
>a person with ill intentions could argue a single murder here or there, so he could grab all the victim's money, is not exactly a big issue in the grand scheme of things

Yes, and this is true in reality, but if every individual had a psychological makeup like this, devoid of empathy and guilt, society as we know it would cease to function. That's why for every one douchebag there are hundreds of normal, well adjusted people.

I don't know enough about Chinese history to speculate if that's the cause of their lack of empathy, I can only observe the present. Their penchant for extreme forms of animal torture seems unrelated to a history of famine. They will literally skin cats and dogs alive, then submerge them (still alive) in boiling water. They deliberately avoid killing them first and minimizing suffering. A history of famine doesn't necessitate this level of cruelty. Only a complete lack of empathy, disregard or failure to compute the suffering of another living creature causes this behaviour. There is no guilt there. They don't lose any sleep over it.

>>131358204
You're going in circles. I'm not blaming Christians for jihad, I'm blaming people who believe in God. And you do realise Christians caused the black plague, right? What I'm saying is even if you blame 100+ million dead on atheist communism, this still laughably little compared to how many people have been killed in the name of God.

>Atheism has no grounds for the value for the human life
I'm atheist and I have a deep love for people. I have philosophical values. You're thinking of nihilists. Sure, some atheists are retarded, that doesn't mean you CANNOT have values and be and be atheist. Some Catholics rape children, doesn't mean all religious people are pedophiles, only most.

>>131358468
how many people did marx and mao kill?

>>131348633
No. The term lacks definition in absence of god.

>>131348633
>Is it possible to get moral values without God?

Yes, but most people are too stupid to UNDERSTAND morality and ethics... and WHY they are a good idea.

Hence, faith-based authoritarian morality.

Making a civilization.

>>131358204
As an Atheist who doesn't want to kill anyone and doesn't support the notion of

>"those are enemies of the State, let's purge all of them"

I find that your argument is a big strawman, of course I don't speak for all atheists, but please, give me some examples of Atheists doing that on the basis of

>"without God, there's no inherent value to human life"

And not on some political struggle or power gain.

I find it very illogical how you came up with that idea

>>131351897
Lol no. Kant was a retard.

>>131358327
No, it's fucking instinct. It's generally accepted that mistreating children is bad, but not because of socialization or any exclusively human attributes or behavior, it's just in our instincts to be protective of our young, just like most animals. It's our natural reaction to be protective towards children, and then we attach moral rationalizations to it after the fact.

>>131358826
>>131358865
>shit tier spacing
go back to plebbit.

>>131358450
The chinese have seen unimaginable cruelty first hand, and over a long period of time under cruel rulers, it can rub off on people. It's easy to be a very nice person in a society filled with pious people, or how easy it is to be a peaceful monk isolated from the chaos of society and conflict with all kinds of shit out there.

If you were in a society where cheating is commonplace, taking advantage of others at everything, and being honest was seen as goofy or as stupid, you'd be pressured into also becoming like them too, for example.

There's still cruelty going on in China today. The Falun Gong people can say a lot about what the communists in China do to people who openly criticize them, like locking someone up and harvesting their organs.

>>131358826
>Hence, faith-based authoritarian morality.

Unfortunately, since those receiving moral lessons are too stupid to work it out themselves, or in some cases, even understand the concepts....

The possibility of the "Hierarchy" of moral truth is susceptible to corruption.

It's easier to bribe a few, than it is to bribe EVERYONE.

Especially when they are trying to steal from EVERYBODY.

>>131348633
How do you have moral values WITH God? The only argument religionfags have for morality is "if you are immoral you will go to hell. " By the same logic the prospect of going to jail is an argument for morality.

>>131358705
>You're thinking of nihilists.
Lack of god implies metaethical nihilism. You're just too stupid or cowardly to understand that.

>>131348633
No; atheism ultimately leads to degeneracy in every form.

>>131358990
>>shit tier spacing

So, this is a new shill tactic, is it?

Insulting line spacing?

You gonna insult me for having a tripcode now, Hillary?

That IS you, isn't it CTR Crew?

Is our government currently funding your dumb asses in order to counter anything that you call "Russian Propaganda"?

>>131358204
Unfeeling like you're attributing the Communist Kill Count to Atheism, which is ridiculous, there are literally million of other reasons why regime's like Stalin's and Maos were so damn bad, and it was because of "muh athiest imorality"

It was purely political reasons that they committed those acts, even religious regime's have done the same while subscribing to their "Christian morality"

>>131358865
From religion you get shit like "all human life is valuable". When you break that concept with moral relativism, also cultural relativism, you leave morals as a whole open to be changed at your leisure. You think when communists force people to dig mass graves and then proceed to shot them to the back of their collective heads, the executioner is thinking how evil he is? No. He thinks he's doing the right thing, in a warped sense of justice. It's a revolutionary morality.

That's where you can get when you think morality is just a nice little guinea pig anyone can experiment with.

>>131358757
How is this an argument? Point me to the passages in your holy book where you get your morals from, and then explain why you cherry pick only them. If you answer is"because society", then you don't use holy books for morality.

>>131359005
God defines the telos of existence, and what is "moral" along with it. In absence of that absolute tells, "moral" lacks definition.

>>131359215
tl;dr

>>131358990
>initiate damage control


"Buh your spacing"


Lurk more fag

>>131359244
In the Bible, the is a whole when to kill your kids tutorial, have you fucking read that book at all?

>>131359249
because atheism trends towards utilitarian ethics, which is what marx and mao were into when they killed all those people. i'm making an evidence based rebuttal to your point.

Reciprocity and empathy. Even chimps can do it.

File: hqdefault (1).jpg (20KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x360px

>>131359317
>telling me to lurk

>>131349538
roachflag

>>131356290
>>>131355945
>>FACT: God doesn't exist.
>I'm afraid you're going to have to prove this claim.

No, I'm afraid you'll have to prove the opposite.

Also FFS, did ppl forget about 19th century philosophy alltogether?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master–slave_morality

>>131359005
human-law is fallible, God's law is not

there are plenty of people who got away with heinous crimes even in the most developed countries, never heard of the Black Dahlia murderer? The Zodiac Killer? How about this entire youtube channel for murder mysteries
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs3iFCPtX0gzkKxCrobO4ig/videos
it's all about unsolved murders and shit. The possibility of getting away with crimes sure entices those with a broken moral compass.

That's not to say that anyone who believes in God is automatically a saint that won't do anything wrong ever. But if you think man made laws, and a good justice system can prevent some crimes, don't you think a perfect Judge can also serve as a deterrent to moral failings?

>>131359249
further, my point is utility is worse than the religious basis of ethics which is more like duty or rightness.

utilitarianism is based on bad science.

>>131359244
>From religion you get shit like "all human life is valuable".

Jesus Christ I've never read a statement so wrong
Wtf, do you even history

Name one, JUST ONE, religious doctrine that doesn't contain some sort of degradation of human value, even Buddhism cites that Man can be of less worth than an ant,

>>131348633
Yes. But when your entire society is built on the concept of God, you destabilize the whole thing if you try to replace it.

>>131359525
Christianity is about the dignity of man. it's point is to make people think twice about damage to another human.

>>131355843
FRESH

>>131359523
Still waiting on the Bible passages and the excuse for not killing kids on god's mandate.

File: 1497854015704.jpg (41KB, 387x365px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 387x365px

>>131359459
What you fail to realize is that if you don't reply to this post your mother dies in her sleep tonight.

You can't out cheeki a true Aussie mate

>>131359239
The atheistic nature of it meant it had less brakes for all kinds of wicked shit. Yes plenty of people who were believers in a deity commited bad shit, however when your initial proposition is that there's no God, your morality has no absolutes, and you can easily proceed to experiment with morality and society as a whole.

Without the transcendental aspect to morality, a ruthless dictator can abuse his power to those extremes where experimentation with humans is okay, murdering countless others is also okay, because who is to say doing so is wrong?

In many ways, with moral relativism, the State takes the place of God.

File: read-all-comments.jpg (44KB, 550x385px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 550x385px

>>131359623
that's been around as a gif for at least 3 yrs. probably much longer. that's the first hi-res webm of it i've seen though...just got it a couple days ago.

>>131359715
your mom would have said hello, but i've trained her not to speak with her mouth full

>>131359588
Not a huge fan of the god of Christianity.
>I'll automatically send everyone to hell
>I'll send my son to earth to die horribly
>Now if you accept him as your ticket to heaven I won't send you to hell
??????????

>>131359694
>>131359355
Can you provide a source this kid killing shit you talk about?

Since there is no god, the answer is necessarily yes.

>>131358346
When a cat is fighting a bear to protect its litter you actually think the cat is thinking to itself "fuck this bear I worked hard on this litter" No retard, the cat isn't "thinking" about anything as complex as that, they're just feeling the overpowering instinct to heroically protect its litter no matter what danger is threatening them the exact fucking same way a human would. If a human parent sees its child threatened, there is no moral deliberation going on in the humans head, the human simply feels an overwhelming urge to destroy the threat to the child.

When we see this behavior in humans, theists call it morality informed by the divine, when theists see it happen in animals? Oh it's just their survival instinct, they're just consciously rationalizing all the work they put into raising the litter and getting angry over the prospect of wasted effort. What nonsense.

>>131354522
>>131353165
>>131356119
>Huemongrel in charge of appreciating nature

>>131359588
Except when God killed all the children in the World in a flood?

Or when he ordered Moses to kill children and rape daughters

Or when Abraham was forced to give his son up as a sacrifice (even if he didn't go through it)

Or when Jesus said “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons
" (Mat 21)

I'm not denying that Jesus's central teaching was awesome and totally cool, but even Christianity isn't above devaluing life

>>131348633
>can there be absolute right/wrong without a supernatural being

>>131360339
you're a faggot

God=morality. Look at the left, there morals shift decade to decade.

20 years ago we should have legal gay marriage, 1 years ago gender is a spectrum, 5 years later o come on it's okay to have sex with kids.

You can't disprove that people who don't not believe in God shift there morals yearly.

>>131360156
They don't call it motherly instinct for nothing. Of course a mother cat with a limited litter of like 5~ kittens would defend them. Animals do realize things like risk and reward, sometimes it's not worth trying to kill the porcupine if I'm gonna get quills all over my body. Sometimes it may be, depending on the hunger.

Getting offspring is an enormous effort and energy spent, of course an animal will protect its young like that, especially mammals with offspring that is defenseless and sometimes even blind at birth. Then the offspring of mammals also need to learn how to do shit.

Also yes humans also do have instincts, but they're capable of going beyond instincts, as seen with shit like charity, helping a person you don't even know. Perhaps someone who will never even know that you helped him/her. You don't have altruism in animals.

>>131359856
>Without the transcendental aspect to morality, a ruthless dictator can abuse his power to those extremes where experimentation with humans is okay, murdering countless others is also okay, because who is to say doing so is wrong?

How many rulers have committed atrocities in 'God's name' does that make it right?

Because a God ordered you to kill and enslave innocents does that make it morally just?

It works both ways

>>131359485
gr8 b8 m8

File: 741268e3400c11cdcb67831f53953a176d18c000880e640e48590d8fa7953d95.jpg (19KB, 152x356px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 152x356px

>>131360447
And?

>>131348633
Hard to say. Are self imposed realities more reasonable than being held accountable by an almighty judge?
Something that i think has to be assumed with religious morality is an after life. As would moral convictions imposed by a god mean anything if we never were judged on them. I dont think this reality directly reflects a gods judgement. It is simply a field for actions to take place.

File: trump_go-back.gif (348KB, 350x233px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 350x233px

>>131360751
aaaand
>pic related
your favorite goat is getting lonely

>>131359485
yea he has to prove it, I never claimed God exists in our conversation, while he's stating God does not exist. What is he basing his affirmation on?

What's the matter, can't prove the nonexistence of God?

>>131348633
Moral values with god are worthless.
If you take out eternal punishment out of equation, then it is really nothing to fear, and you can't do anything.

If you do not believe in any diety, then you answer only before yourself, and if you have moral values, they are actually genuine and not imposed by fear.

I have moral values simply because I'm a human being, so I know what it means to suffer. I'm not an autist, so I understand how my actions affect others. Even a child can figure this out.

>>131360661
>but they're capable of going beyond instincts, as seen with shit like charity
I showed you an example of an orangutan feeding chimps at a zoo, you called that pure survival instinct back then, but now if humans engage in charity, it's divine? Fuck off, you're being inconsistent as fuck.

>>131348633
>Is it possible to get moral values without God?

No, because the very concept of prescriptive right and wrong actions makes no logical sense outside of a higher intelligence who placed those concepts into the hearts and minds of men.

If there is no god, there is no morality, for nature doesn't care what you do or don't do, as nature isn't sentient. All you have are social norms, feelings or other purposeless bullshit without god. None of that is prescriptive though. In fact rape might be preferrable from a naturalist standpoint. Why not support it? Why prescribe that rape is absolutely wrong?

Atheists can't answer this, if they can even understand it. It's even more ironic as they think the problem of evil is some sort of checkmate. The problem of evil is more a problem for them, because they can't even define what evil is.

>>131360902
hmm you know that you cant prove that something doesnt exist, right?

>>131361057
>Christian reporting in
saying 'logical' doesn't make what you say logicial

>>131350497
>look at this prosperous societies funded under atheist beliefs:

>>131360676
You don't judge a religion for the people who might do something that goes against it. Have you never heard of King David who had a man killed so he could fuck his wife? That was openly condemned in the Bible, yet David is regarded as quite the religious man.

You judge a religion based on WHAT IT TEACHES. This is exactly what journalists/politicians do with Islam, they argue the religion is great because there are good muslims, without going to the sources to back their claim that it is "a religion of peace".

So let's discuss which passages you have a issue with. Yeah religious people have done bad things, even in the Bible it's written the sons of Jacob did a mistake by killing the guys who raped their sister, that's why his first born lost the rights of primogeniture to Judah. What was his name again, Reuben?

>>131360656
And Christians still fuck kids en masse.
Sweet stability.

You can't have a comprehensive view of the world without a spiritual force/eternal truth

You can't be atheist and redpilled, it's a huge oxymoron

>>131361100
Of course you can. You can prove you're not 9 feet tall, you can prove you don't have 3 noses, you can prove you were not born in Somalia with a document, and so on

>>131361166
like if ever has been exist a complete atheist societe, dipshit

>>131361016
Orangutans show patterns of learned behavior for things that don't even make sense
here's one washing clothes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFACrIx5SZ0

>>131361331
>but what if life is all just an illusion maaaan? what if it's all a simulation??? the matrix maaaaaaaan.
>muh subjective realities!!

>>131361432
10/10 overall for this thread OP. great links.

>>131361166
Name a single theocratic christian state alive today that isn't the Vatican. Get with the times mate, Christian morality is obsolete. Secularism created the European empires of the enlightenment until moralists decided that European domination is evil.

>>131359276
>tl;dr

and yet you responded....

what did he mean by this?

>>131361432
Except they share food in the wild too, so it's in their natural instincts to be charitable. Go on, name another attribute that you think is exclusive to human morality and I'll easily show you examples of animal instincts meeting our moral standards.

>>131353584
>fancy arguments for relativistic and subjective morals

Your arguments (and worldview) is invalid. If everything is subjective, you can't even define terms. Neither can you even implement justice. You can't define it. If I think murder is ok, who are you to say otherwise? You just said it's subjective because people have different opinions.

This is why we have absolutes. Because truth exists in our world. Logic isn't relative. Logic isn't subjective or open to interpretation. Neither is math. These are absolute truths. And just because something is complicated doesn't make it relative or circumstantial.

But everyone has been brainwashed into embracing relativistic morality so they'll accept whatever unnatural, twisted evil (((they))) want to inflict on a given society. It's so bad people can't even recognize right and wrong anymore. Bunch of godless, braindead heathens going with the flow.

File: illinois-nazisgif.gif (1MB, 300x155px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x155px

>>131361830
pic related

>>131361969
plebbit

>>131361830
not really a good angle to take, one could easily argue that the secularism that is going on in the world is exactly what is undermining society

>>131362026
Would a random orangutan also take a bullet for a stranger orangutan?

Homeless guy dies to save some woman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXTLR2KOOD4

>>131359485
>the general consensus for thousands of years throughout every culture is that some form of deity exists
>no exceptions

Burden of proof is all on you, faggot. Either "God" exists and worshiping it in any form is virtuous , or either the belief in "God" in itself is more beneficial to society than atheism.

>>131362316
What is right is not always popular
What is popular is not always right

The burden on proof is on the individual making the positive assertion, in this case that God exists.

>>131362147
not an argument

>>131362118
Liberals think incest is okay if there's no possibility of pregnancy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx457T7iWMA

It's funny because it's an argument a religious man once used long ago for someone thinking about leaving religion. One day your son wants to fuck his sister, no preggers involved, why exactly would it be wrong?

>>131361331
What? Before denie something before you have to prove something before no the other way. You are mixing probabillty with possibility...

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/
LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence

>>131350497
Good will simply be created through objectivism and utility then. The means will always be just if the desired solution is accomplished. Murder is right until some force stops you from murdering. someone can murder you unless you can stop them. The only reason we have society is because no being has an absolute power over everybody else. Non deity morality can only be moral relativism. No absolute statments can be made.

Absolute morality from god can be determined because of the same reason. He supposedly has all power therefore can subject all others unto his morality.

The solution to that is to make an all powerful state. Which in a sense acts as god. Having complete control to subject its citizens to its morality. In essence the difference will be an appeal to government as the authority for morality or an appeal to God as the authority for morality.

At least thats how I see it. So a question would be is it wise to remove complete moral authority away from the government and have part of it be developed in religion?

>>131362527
>le shitpost
i wasn't even trying

>>131362600
I didn't say God exists because you cannot disprove His existence, though.

The argument about not being able to prove or disprove God leads to one conclusion: we don't know any better. If you're taking a side on the matter, you need to back it up, though. I never said I can prove God's existence, however that guys seems pretty sure God doesn't exist, so of course I'm asking him to elaborate why. That isn't being used as a proof of God's existence, but rather how he came to that conclusion.

>>131362118
>You can't define it.
Not absolutely, but we can try, so we do, and this explains the massive disparity between moral perspectives in different nations around the world.

If a Christian sense of morality is truly universal to humans then how the fuck are there so many nations and individuals with so many different outlooks on morality? I can tell you, it's because race and ethnicity is real, our genetics give us our instincts and our instincts inform our moral codes. With so many different genetic groups with different instincts there's bound to be different ideas about morality and so there is.

>>131362118
Actually logic is relative, 1+1 ≠ 2 in certain circumstances


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach–Tarski_paradox

And if we do have absolutes, can you please name one?

>>131361230
>You judge a religion based on WHAT IT TEACHES.

So why do you judge communism on its affects and not what it teaches, communism is very good in theory, it's complete equality between all, yet it's horrible in practice

I would choose to judge any ideology, religious or otherwise on its merits in practice,
In which case Christianity and Communism are both pretty damn horrible.

>>131361144

First off, learn how to fucking spell. Secondly, learn how to make a fucking point, as I have no idea what your objection is. You're basically saying I'm not logical, without explaining why. How am I supposed to respond to that? Okie doke?

A fucking 4 year old can explain themselves better. Pearls to swine, I don't know why I bother posting in these threads. Too many fucking morons and leafs who can't actually carry a debate around here beyond a "nuh-huh!"

>>131349986
That only works with Christian theology right? Like the greek Gods had some problems and werent ideal they were flawed but were still somehow divine. For example zues cheated on hera and she would get jealous and stuff and some times take revenge on the woman

File: 1498416602980.jpg (22KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x480px

>>131362147
Here, have a meme

>>131362147
>plebbit

So, you accuse others of what you do, to distract from the fact that you are doing it, Eh CTR?

File: karl-marx-22they-must-perish-in-the-revolutionary-holocaust22.jpg (106KB, 640x512px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 640x512px

>>131363076
>communism is good in theory
that's what commies want you to believe

File: Bash-babies-against-rock.jpg (353KB, 625x625px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 625x625px

>>131363219
Sure if you want to nitpick every single aspect, you'll find horrible things in any ideology, name me one ideology which hasn't said horrible things.

>>131363065
So do you think if we take a native indian baby, from a tribe that kills defective babies, is into abortion herbs, that kills one of the identical twins, and give it for adoption to a radtrad catholic home, parents who believe abortion at conception is murder, do you think his genetic instincts, when he grows up will kick in and he'll say all this abortion is murder talk is bullshit?

Do you believe that much in genetic determinism?

>>131362188
You might as well ask "Would an orangutan try to become a surgeon to save the lives of other orangutans?" No because it's completely outside their intellectual capacity in the first place, you moron. A more fair question to ask would be "Would an orangutan try to help another orangutan in danger, possibly endangering itself?" Yes, just as most animals would to protect their own kind.

>>131362508
and the arguments for God's existence has already been argued for 4000 years from every possible angle conceivable: scientific, philosophical, biological, psychological, religious... I won't tell you to pick up a book, but the arguments have well been presented.

What is right is not always popular, sure. However, what is universal is always right. Remember, when we once believed in a heliocentric universe? That was what science offered up to that period. Well it took a tiny minority to come up with the scientific facts to discredit the world view. Therefore, when going against a general consensus, whether right or wrong, the burden of proof surely lies on the
minority.

Here's my take: if the concept of God was truly for naught, then scientifically speaking the notion would had been wiped from our minds by evolution. Our ancestors who devoted their time praying and undergoing rituals which would have otherwise logically been spent on survival and food gathering/hunting would had long ago been extinguished, as they would be disadvantaged compared to atheistic societies.

>>131362916
>If you're taking a side on the matter, you need to back it up
I dont know man, one can expect to see, feel, measure radiation, energy or whatever of his infinite presence even in the tiny part of the universe that we have explored and yet nothing

>>131351799
>where do you get it from then?

Not being retarded?

I never needed anyone to tell me hurting people and stealing was wrong.

>>131348633
Yes.

>>131363628
Ah, so you were like raised by yourself in the jungle, and got morals from your genes or something.

File: nietzsche5-mature-w.jpg (71KB, 500x672px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 500x672px

>>131359485

>tiny ears
>fake looking facial hair

Nietzsche was really a woman.

>>131363757
I'm sorry you're too retarded to intrinsically understand that it is wrong to harm other people, but a lot of us actually aren't.

>>131363515
>"Would an orangutan try to help another orangutan in danger, possibly endangering itself?" Yes, just as most animals would to protect their own kind.
Absolutely bullshit, we're comparing a man who gave his life to save a total stranger, we're not talking about a mom defending her baby which she spent a good time and energy raising it since carrying it in the womb. We're not talking about a chimp defending his own troop either.

>>131363439
Not to that extent no but I'm quite sure that the Indian would at least grow up to have reservations (lel) about the idea or might just become indifferent towards it, not as passionate about it, especially if the Indian learns of how his own people do things. That would bring another powerful, almost universal instinct into play, the desire to be with your own people/kind.

>>131363065
>If a Christian sense of morality is truly universal to humans then how the fuck are there so many nations and individuals with so many different outlooks on morality?

Because not every society is christian.

Your argument is basically "if 10 people have 10 different opinions then they must all be equally valid". This is the idiocy of relativism. Because if you claimed any of these people to be wrong, that would be absolutism, wouldn't it?

>>131363757
i have to say that is from observation and personal experience.

>>131363938
So are all those people in prisons of the US what, genetically defective?

>>131363610
desu, there is a very specific set of circumstances that lead me to believe that the universe has no "god", but its just my personal opinion

for me the Problem of Evil is the nail in the coffin

an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god would not make a world of evil for us

even if it was for "our free will" it still wouldn't exist, he is omnipotent, he could create a evil free world and still preserve our free will, because he's omnipotent and can do anything

and even if by some measure he didn't want to, why would he make the world so naturally horrible in the first place, sure humans can start wars and commit genocides

but tornados? hurricanes?, Malaria?, Tsunamis? famine and pestilence?
God really like to kill innocents

>>131348633

obviously yes

you can be just self-righteous

>>131363610
Why would the concept of god even exist? why would we evolve in such a way that we would need to develop story and make shit up? Why would our
Ancestors be susceptible to others telling them this story if it was made up? fear? Why us deluding ourselves more important than facing an unfavorable reality? Maybe the god isnt a delusion ?

>>131363088
yup, i don't have spellcheck.

if there were no god, then ultimate joy (not being heaven) would be earthly pleasure. logical beings that value truth are at least capable of valuing the beauty of others' perception of truth.
>no i'm going to try to define truth here.
to reward those who promote 'the truth' and thus those who follow the golden rule, is to promote one's own joy and that of those who do so in kind. that said, i believe in God. I'm just saying that the notion of God is not necessary in order to determine right and wrong.

>>131363952
>"Would an orangutan try to help another orangutan in danger, possibly endangering itself?" Yes, just as most animals would to protect their own kind.
>Absolutely bullshit
https://youtu.be/jlR3UVU_nHQ

>>131348633
Sure, you can have morals, but you won't have justification for them. Without an objective authority, what you're left with are merely preferences.

File: Virgin.jpg (1MB, 3138x2300px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3138x2300px

>>131363132
It works since Greek thought since Plato and Aristotle believed a telos was required as the creation of which all forms are derived.
This implies a perfect God essentially, but not a Christian one necessarily, since they didn't believe God interfered in the world in any way.

>>131364057
if you need some guy in the sky to tell you what's right and wrong, I feel sorry for you buddy.

I would say its an ability that comes from higher brain function as a whole rather than "genes"

there is a clear distinction between humans, dolphins and monkeys being able to understand morality than there is bacteria doing so

File: chinese truck.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>131353896
I live in this shithole and 'state-run ethenic clensing lmao xdxdxdxdx' does not seem to happen here unforunately.

>>131364108
You are forgetting a trait. He is also just. Therefore to be just he has to judge and to judge mean that there has to be more than one outcome. That is why the wicked are allowed to be wicked

>>131364231
and with thousands of objective authorities, it may as well be preference anyway

>>131363076
>Actually logic is relative, 1+1 ≠ 2 in certain circumstances
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach–Tarski_paradox
>And if we do have absolutes, can you please name one?

Logic isn't relative.

And holy shit you can't think of any absolute truths? Have you ever thought about how we define something? We describe its properties. And those properties can't be subjective or relative else you couldn't define them.

Pick an object. Describe its qualities. Those are absolute truths. Things are, and they are not. They cannot be both, like a square circle, unless you embrace retarded subjectivism and willingly accept contradictions.

>>131363610
I appreciate your thoughtful response.

>what is universal is always right
>the burden of proof surely lies on the
minority
I say that the burden of proof is on the individual making the positive assertion because we learn about the world through our fives senses and reason, and any positive assertion without proof is outside that learning system. I could just as easily say, "there are green men on Mars and purple men on Jupiter, and you can't prove me wrong so I must be right."

>they would be disadvantaged compared to atheistic societies
I don't know much about early societies but I imagine that their religious practices took only a small part of their time, especially if they had a religious class like druids or priests. In more modern history, rules kept this religious class around to bolster their power.

>>131364322
There are issues with the notion of mankind being inherently good or naturally moral. It's pretty obvious that's a false notion, or else we wouldn't need laws, after all everyone is automatically good because brain chemicals and such, right?

You need to explain all the theft and murder going on in the world if you think the human brain generates morality or whatever the fuck is your source for moral values.

>>131353014

logic and common sense

>>131364108
See, you're wrong to equate suffering with evil. We're born into this world in pain of the mother and the child, and we escape this world in pain. Thus carries on the cycle of life. Another problem with your logic; 1) I do not speak of the Semitic God so get that idea out of your head, and 2) how could humanity appreciate what is truly 'good' until he has truly suffered from 'evil'? How could you appreciate exuberance unless you are constantly familiarizing yourself with an extreme suffering? Would the joys of the world matter if we did not suffer?

>>131364181

>>131351799
logic and common sense

>>131364403
hes omniscient, he knew the outcome even before he made them, God is responsible for murderers and paedophiles because he made them that way and he knew he made them that way.

he was the one to make everything, and he knew how everything would turn out, God is responsible for every evil

also, if god is perfectly Just then he cant be also perfectly Merciful

Mercy is the suspension of justice

so a perfectly Just god would have no room for mercy

>>131356418

imagine a world in which everyone follows Rand's teaching

..... beatuiful!

>>131364225
That's a pretty cool video I'll admit, but how can I know those dogs weren't in the same pack?
That homeless dude getting shot trying to save the woman could have just ignored the ordeal that was going on and life would go on, in our society where a death is just a number. A dog's pack is quite important to the survival of all.

>>131364322
The west must be a civilisation of mental midgets then as this new atheist utopia considers killing babies morally acceptable

Yes, it is entirely possible.
I am moral perfection compared to my religious peers.
Christians are fucking hypocrites. They don't mind stealing, lying and living double standards but they go full moralfag when you mention their god in a swear.

>>131364327
t. ahkmed

File: ted bundy.jpg (144KB, 634x856px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 634x856px

>>131364622
Ted Bundy thought it was pretty logical to kill some women here and there, it made him feel good and he was quite proficient about it. Even the judge praised him as a smart man when he took the stand to defend himself, he didn't have a lawyer.

>>131364542
sometimes stealing can be done for good,
you can murder someone to save a life. circumstances arise where two moral agent's objectives oppose one another.

>>131364449

actually logic is relative, e.g. All Geese are Swans or the Banach Tarski paradox

>Pick an object. Describe its qualities. Those are absolute truths. Things are, and they are not. They cannot be both, like a square circle, unless you embrace retarded subjectivism and willingly accept contradictions.

you have never heard of quantum mechanics have you, objects can have ,contradictory properties (like electron spin)

also how do you do that to a moral situation

>>131364587
hes omnipotent, if he wanted us to feel the ultimate joy then he would just do it

and if he wanted everyone to understand the importance of suffering he would simply make us understand it without subjecting it too us.

that still doesn't excuse the thousands of children who die each day to sickness, what have they learned? there lived for less then a day and somehow they were supposed to grasp the importance of life after experience it for about 19 hours?

>>131364015
>Because not every society is christian.
Doesn't matter, God invented morality right? He made us all, we should have the same sense of divinely inspired morality built into us all, how could any other sense of morality possibly exist if all morality stems from the Christian God as Christians love to claim it does? We should all have a gut feeling that having sex out of wedlock or skipping church on a Sunday is morally wrong but we obviously don't because Christianity is incorrect and people's morals are informed by their genes and instincts, not by the Christian God.

File: what the fuck.webm (2MB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 853x480px

>>131364827
I hope all of you ''DEUS VULT LOOL I AM SOOO EDGY XDXDXD'' larpers actually get out of your basements and try to stop Jamal from taking over your lands

>>131348633
Yes

>>131364687
only nigger babies though

>these fucking morons think their concept of right/wrong is independent of society.

Don't even argue with them.

>>131363938
>I'm sorry you're too retarded to intrinsically understand that it is wrong to harm other people, but a lot of us actually aren't.

>intrinsically

Some of you might want to learn the difference between descriptive and prescriptive. And take a basic philosophy course beyond "shitposting 101".

"I am what I am and you're retarded if you're not" is not an argument.

>I'm sorry you're too retarded to intrinsically understand that it is good to harm other people

See how dumb of an argument this is? And under the naturalist worldview, we could have evolved to believe harm is good instead of bad, because morality doesn't exist outside of a higher intelligence assigning value to actions.

Nature doesn't do that. Nature is random.

>>131364648
I dont agree thay he made them that way
Beings have potential. they can develop in numerous ways. god knows what ways they can and even likely to develop and allows that to come to pass. If it was not possible for us to change then the aforementioned free will doesnt actually exist. The mercy versus justice problem is solved through christ. Christ takes upon him the the justice of god and extends mercy to those who renounce their misdeeds and tries to correct them. In other words christ offers unlimited second chances if a person is truly willing to change their nature and do what they can to correct it. if they are not willing then they are subject to the justice of god. God also knows that yes we are not capable of instantly changing. That is why christs sacrifice is eternal and extends through all time. If you maintain faith and believe that he can continue to give you another chance to be better then you are saved.

>>131364687
and god doesn't?

“go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (1 Samuel 15:3-4)

>>131365432
Why are you quoting the old testament to me?

>>131365219
>virgin
>projecting

File: americans.jpg (425KB, 1980x1036px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 1980x1036px

>>131365557
Why did you drop your edgy meme flag there John.

>>131365406
>In other words christ offers unlimited second chances if a person is truly willing to change their nature and do what they can to correct it.

then God has no justice, if a pedo can rape and kill 6 trillion babies and be sent to heaven at the end because he accepted Christ then he has no justice

>god knows what ways they can and even likely to develop and allows that to come to pass

no, he simply knows the outcome of all events, hes omniscient, theres no chance in it, you cant flip a coin in front of god and claim he wont know the out come, likewise when he created someone he knew what would happen in full detail.

otherwise we wouldn't be omniscient

>>131364679
>but how can I know those dogs weren't in the same pack?
Doesn't matter, nations are just large packs of humans. The homeless man and that woman are in the same pack. Same nationality, probably same race and language, probably similar moral/political ideals to each-other. If a man from Afghanistan was in that woman's position do you think the homeless man would be equally eager to save him? I doubt it.

>>131365497
because God ordered the killing of kids

unless you only follow the New Testament, in that case:

Matthew 15:4


“For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”

>>131365916
Well done on taking a quote out of context I'm sure you impressed a few atheists that have never read the bible with that

File: bacon-star-wars-walker.jpg (86KB, 548x547px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 548x547px

>>131365724
Why do you fuck goats?

>>131365033
I didn't mean self defense, of course, I meant homicides.

>>131365792
Not really, in our society you don't need to save a random stranger's life at all. There still will be food at the market. Now a pack of dogs, their wolf instincts will kick in, that primal need of needing each other to hunt together and survive kicks in.

>If a man from Afghanistan was in that woman's position
I think if it was an afghan woman was, yes.

>>131364577
You must prove common sense and logic can come about from nothing but the self in order to be correct

>>131365724
Kind of looks like most shit skins over 45 that I have meet.

>>131366114
Now who's being a moral relativist?
>Well ACKSHUALLY there's an extremely specific circumstance where killing children is OK.
Top kek

>>131365216
>We should all have a gut feeling that having sex out of wedlock or skipping church on a Sunday is morally wrong but we obviously don't because Christianity is incorrect and people's morals are informed by their genes and instincts, not by the Christian God.

>based on my ignorance of Christianity, Christianity doesn't have an answer for this, which means Christianity is wrong

I love when atheists do this. A fundamental theme of christianity is that people are sinful and flawed. God's justice for this is death. His mercy was taking human form and dieing for us (jesus). And I personally believe the reason humans exist is so god can use us in different ways to express all his qualities (mercy, justice, etc.) In the same way you might adopt a dog to express your love. The dog is an object in that sense.

Anyway, if morals are informed by genes and instincts, does that justify someone raping another person if they're genetically predisposed? Does that make it ok?

This is dindu logic right here.

>>131366279
That's not what Jesus is saying though you mental midget he's pointing out the Jews hypocrisy

>>131366319
Or the Jew's are pointing out that Jesus is breaking Sacred law

>>131366318
if morals are informed by genes and instincts, does that justify someone raping another person if they're genetically predisposed? Does that make it ok?

How does that make it any better when god commands it?

>>131348633
Morality must be enforced by a higher authority.
The Soviet union tried to use the State as replacement for God with mixed results.

But, an individual will always care about the individual when a choice has to be made.

Self sacrifice only happens when the beneficiary is very important to the individual.


Conclusion:
To have morality we either need God, or we have to make one.

>>131365916
What kind of Christians are you people? Following the jewish law in the old testament is forbidden as the jews belong to the synagogue of Satan.

>>131366484
Yes and in response he's pointing out there hypocrisy that's the whole point of the verse

File: 1422106864862.jpg (376KB, 800x1066px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 800x1066px

>>131366149
I am not a muslim so it does not offend me. Keep trying with that meme flag, edgelord.

>>131366181
>Now a pack of dogs, their wolf instincts will kick in, that primal need of needing each other
And humans are completely absent of these sort of instincts? You don't think the homeless man did it for reasons even he probably couldn't explain?

He didn't sit there and deliberate "hmm should I save her should I not save her what's the moral thing to do??" He probably just had an overwhelming urge to save a female of his own race and creed, he felt it in his fucking guts that it was the right thing to do, that's instinct. If it was a foreign female, he would have felt less of that instinct, if it was a foreign male it's reasonable to suggest that he might not have bothered at all. These are instinctive behaviors, not informed by a divine sense of morality.

>>131366614
"Mixed results", like killing 60 million Christians in their GULAGs or due to forced starvations while having jews run the country.
How "moral"

>>131366688
anime is degenerate. kys

>>131359891
People have to be retarded if they think the clip with the chimp is real. It's a promo for some movie.

Yes, I don't believe in god and I do not kill or hurt people because I realize that suffering is something I do not like so I do not wish to impose that horrible feeling on someone else. In addition I do not wish to end up in jail or prison.

And if you say these are "self serving" so is your religion. I could easily say you only act nice and moral to look favorable in the eyes of your god, something which is self serving

You do not need some invisible man to know not to hurt people, in fact plenty of people are able to arrive at this conclusion themselves

>>131366871
>You do not need some invisible man to know not to hurt people
So why do the majority of atheists support abortion?

File: muhammad pbuh.jpg (307KB, 1190x1174px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1190x1174px

>>131366835
Then why are you posting on a anime image board?

>>131366910
I don't know why do so many christians masturbate and destroy life at rates that would embarrass abortion clinics.

Also in general, abortion makes sense if the birth of the baby's birth provides a threat to the mother. And to take it in a bit more of a philosphical direction, if that baby is not even wanted or was the result of rape or something, I'd say it IS the moral thing to abort it and not subject it to a life of suffering and neglect. The christian thing to do would be to force it into life right? How morally flawed.

>>131366910
Because they value their personal convenience more than the right of a baby to survive.

>>131365741
>then God has no justice, if a pedo can rape and kill 6 trillion babies and be sent to heaven at the end because he accepted Christ then he has no justice

The justice for all sins was bore on the cross. And the fact that no transgression is too big for god's mercy speaks highly to his mercy. If there were certain things God wouldn't forgive you would claim he wasn't truly merciful.

The aspect of "choice" is a separate debate. But I personally believe god elects who will believe and be saved and who won't.

By the way there's nothing more pathetic than an atheist who quote mines the Bible in a religious debate.

>>131348633
Of course

I'd like to see a logical reason why not.

>>131366717
Yes humans do have animal instincts, but go beyond that. I thought it was more of "I'll save this female human being" I don't think it has anything to do with nationality, it was a female in peril that he saw. It's something else than dogs looking after their own pack, who might be hostile to foreign dogs.

>>131363423
Communism isn't a philosophy... it's theft.

>>131366868
>dat camera angle
i didn't say it was real

>>131366928
go back to /b/

Another bait thread, sage this shit.

>>131367069
see
>>131367059
also lmao, its right to survive? Did it ask to be born in the first place? Points like these are laughable.

>>131348633
>Is it possible to get moral values without God?

You don't.

>>131367059
How many pregnancies risk the life of a mother nowadays, though?
>not wanted
So killing the baby is fine if you don't want to take any responsibility at all. How "moral"

Also many religions condemn masturbation, a guy in the Bible was literally killed because he pulled out, but of course sperm alone doesn't make a baby which makes the comparison dumb.

>>131367072
I respect your opinion even if I think it's wrong

But if God can allow any crime to go unpunished if the person simply repents then what's the point of his mercy?
He will send murders to heaven yet Condem unbaptised babies to hell

He seems like a dick

And I don't really see where you are coming from with your "choice" part, please elaborate

>>131367401

>How many pregnancies risk the life of a mother nowadays, though?

so when someone doesn't address an idea and instead says "yeah but how common is that?" they have conceded that point. You are indirectly acknowledging you cannot refute that point and instead are choosing to focus on the... frequency at which it happens? As if that somehow makes it invalid?


Also I could easily turn this around and say "woah subjecting a child to a life of neglect and hardship because your god says force everything into life despite if the parent in question was raped and is not even financially stable to provide for the child?


I thought it was about the potential for life? Semen has an incredible potential for life, but I can play your game too, a fertilized egg alone doesn't make a baby, do you know what a miscarriage is?

>>131367109
its an ideology

>>131348633
To get? Yes, like you can make up your own moral codes based on what you want. However it will be flawed, and I believe God put a flawless moral code within us that we can either follow or ignore.

>>131367520
Depends on which religion you are basing your notion of god on, in Judaism and Islam god will not forgive wrongs committed against other people unless the wronged individual forgives the perpetrator, likewise different Christian sects have different interpretations of forgiveness.

>>131367401
so just because its uncommon, means we shouldn't prescribe a moral overview of it?

>>131367859
seems pretty incoherent to me

>>131359264
But why should someone be an "objectively good person" in the first place? The only reason religious people give for being moral is self interest, which is no more a reason in a philosophical sense than avoiding earthly punishment.

>>131367401
>he's against abortion
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/babies-with-down-syndrome-deserve-love-not-eradication
Meanwhile Iceland has eradicated downs syndrome from its gene-pool thanks to abortions.

So subjecting generations of people to the misery and tragedy of giving birth to diseased and deformed children to uphold your Christian sense of morality is worth it? How """""moral""""""

>>131367726
>>131367861
The thing with life-threatening pregnancies is that people tend to blow that out of proportion as it's some everyday thing, when you know all those abortions Planned Parenthood is doing have fuck all to do with saving the lives of the murderer-moms. Then we gotta start killing babies because they might suffer, holy fuck what a disgrace let's kill them instead.

Suffering is part of life, who are you to tell who should live and who shouldn't according to some retarded standard? With that reasoning one could go offing homeless people sleeping on the streets, because they're suffering and there are hardships, it's better to set them on fire or something. Or maybe to make room in the hospitals, people with cancer in advanced stages should just get a very nice, human cyanide pill. This is already happening anyway with the strong push for euthanasia everywhere.

You're also taking a miscarriage for granted, you're arguing always taking the freak occurrences as a constant.

>>131367803
>its an ideology

of theft.

>>131348633

>Is it possible to get moral values without God?

Yes, but God exists all the same.

>>131367520
>send unbaptized babies to hell
Where are you getting that from? Baptism won't save anyone alone, and I think God will show grace on babies.

And yes if you murder (which includes hating another) then you have sinned. The good news is Jesus will cover your sins if you put your faith in him.

>>131367937
why? people seldom agree on anything.

>>131368076
one could argue that rich have stolen from the poor first

>>131348633
>Is it possible to get moral values without fairy tales written by ancient people who did not even know how rain worked?
makes me think

>>131361830
Christianity doesn't need more theocracies than the Vatican, unless you're talking about Prince-bishops or monk-run establishments, in which case mount athos is exactly that

>>131368023
Misery is part of human life, do you think you're here for comfort and all fine and dandy? Also lol at "eradicating" down syndrome, that shit is not a congenital disease, you know, there are multiple factors involved. It just means they're adopted full blown eugenics.

Next they're going to boast about how they have no more terminal patients, or maybe sick people overall, Iceland, the region of the peace (of the cemetery).

it's like that joke that everyone was happy in the USSR because the sad people have been killed

>>131368036
what seems more logical

scenario 1:

forcing a family to take care of a brain dead child for the rest of their lives which has no brain activity and no coherence of anything and is for all intensive purposes a coma ridden vegetable, while simultaneous living with the constant reminder that the mother died giving birth to this child

scenario 2:
the Mother lived and birthed another 3 children who became wonderful members of society because she aborted her first mutated child

Everyone that said no is a litteral retards who needs an imaginary example to be good because they cant know how by themselves apparently?

>>131368036
>people tend to blow it out of proportion
I never even stated a "proportion". My argument is that if it happens even once, it is a valid reason to abort a baby. The sidestepping you are doing on this argument really shows how you can't address it.


setting someone on fire is not comparable to completely snuffing them out before they're neurons and memories are fully formed. You picked one of the most hyperbolic, drawn out, and painful methods of death to be compared to abortion. Once you are an adult is very difficult to support the killing of you by other people without your consent, however I completely believe in legal euthanization if you have lost the will to live. I don't care if it is "part of life" that is a weak argument. Choosing is also part of life and if someone chooses not to be alive anymore, it is completely their choice. They never asked to be here so it is perfectly understandable if they wish to leave. Babies do not choose however because they do have the capacity to choose such a thing so it must be chosen for them, much like how you basically choose every other aspect of a baby's life against their will.

And I never said these occurrences were constant, it is just to expose the hypocrisy in the way you are arguing. You say that "semen doesn't make a baby" so I said "a fertilized egg doesn't make a baby". You know roughly 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage right?

>>131368408
>Misery is part of human life, do you think you're here for comfort and all fine and dandy?

and wouldn't that be nice? shouldn't we strive for that?

>>131348633
With God, or without it is not possible to avoid Hume's Guillotine.

>>131368531
Everyone who said yes either worships the state or believes in fairy tales
Without God, the world would run in a 'might is right' model because why the fuck not? No consequences, no problems right?

>>131368036
Why would your god who wants life to be brought into this world even make miscarriages a possibility? Are you going to say something like "god works in mysterious ways"? I cannot argue with someone who says such things as it is impossible to argue with someone who can retreat behind a socially accepted impossible to prove entity that has fail safes for every argument like "we cannot possibly understand god's will". How is anyone supposed to engage in that?

Makes me want to just act like a baby and say "well I have my own god and his will is much clearer and more understandable, he speaks to me at night and you can't prove he doesn't". How can you engage with this?

>>131348633
Of course. You dont need to be an idiot. Its called decency and common sense. Just cause life is meaningless doesnt mean i have to be a dick to everyone

>>131368505
It is impossible to argue with someone like him because he does not see the world in a pragmatic way, he only sees text and jargon that tells him how to think. He has been brainwashed into believing that any killing of a human being before it starts it's life is 100% wrong in every single regard and there are no situations in which the parents couldn't have taken more respectability or some other insane simplification of the world.


ironic how a belief in god in this regard can actually lead to MORE suffering not less, and these zealots refuse to see it because their book tells them how to think. I know thats all very fedora but godfuckingdamn thats the way it is.

File: 1498243776435.jpg (44KB, 641x491px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 641x491px

>>131368408
>Next they're going to boast about how they have no more terminal patients, or maybe sick people overall
Oh wow how terrible. Only a fucking christcuck could twist this into something negative, jesus fucking christ.

Also I hate to go down this rabbit hole, but determinism simply blows the fuck out of most religions, and determinism is 100% correct. There are ZERO arguments for an existence of free will, something that is necessary for many religions to work.

>>131368650
>no consequences
have you ever actually punched someone?
or committed a crime?

there are very real consequences for your earthly actions

>>131368898
This.

>>131348633
What are you asking here? As a society, or as a person? Both? Are you implying the answer is always the same? This question leaves too much attached to not be a slide thread.

>>131368408
ironic how a thread about how you need god to have morals devolves into a christcuck telling everyone that misery is unavoidable to don't try to avoid it in pragmatic ways. This is a prime example of religion morally CORRUPTING you instead of helping

>>131368505
as I said those cases where the mother's life is at risk are exceptions, and with modern medicine a whole lot can be done to prevent any issues for the mom or the baby

>>131368643
Sheltering people from pain leads to bigger pains in the future, and learning from pain and suffering builds character.

Semen alone NEVER makes a baby, whereas a fertilized egg does make a baby. How are they the same thing at all? One requires sexual contact and the other doesn't, also Christianity already condemns masturbation in case you haven't checked.

>>131368888
I hope you never end up needing help from someone else, because or else you'd probably kill yourself unless you're a big fucking hypocrite, which is probably the case.

>>131369012
like i would read that long a text from a favella nigger
topkek

>>131368650
t. a literal retard

>>131368906
And? It would be a horrid place nonetheless, why live? Off yourself and you'll get the same result with even the grandest of historical figures, or keep living and become a degenerate hedonist or a nihilist, who doesn't need to care about anything than carnal pleasure, or even a warlord if you're powerful enough and force everyone below you to be your slave, it will be mad max tier shit

>>131369000
Your sterile pain-free world is a hippie utopia, just an impossibility. You could accept the reality that EVERYONE will have to deal with suffering, pain. Everyone will lose their loved ones at one point, will experience rejection, will get sick at one point and so on. That's just life.

>>131369102
T. A leaf

>>131369137
this is no reason to believe in magical invisible pink unicorns, though

>>131368906
False, plenty of brutal killers haven't been caught yet. You think the justice system anywhere is perfect? How's the OJ Simpson case going?

>>131369012
ah so you admit you can abort a baby if the mother's life is at risk. So you are essentially saying you can abort a baby to avoid suffering? So why not extend this to an unwanted baby as well?

goddamn only a christcuck could argue that suffering and pain are necessary. Do you see the way you are living? You live with a computer and the internet. I mean sure you live in brazil but you most likely aren't living like a tribesman, why? Because the world sees fit to reduce suffering as much as it can and increase the standard of living because most people understand that suffering and pain do not HAVE to be part of our lives. If pain and suffering build character so much, why not throw away your possessions, go to the forest, and put bullet ants all over your dick?

And what does your last point mean at all? If that guy needs help i'm sure he can get it from a person that doesn't believe in an invisible sky-daddy. Even without god people understand not to impose suffering on one another, where as you believe in god and seem to be advocating for suffering and pain. This thread has certainly taken and interesting turn.

>>131348633
There is no universal morals, there are people and tribes that consider it moral to rape children or to engage in incest.
What you perceive as moral is based on a set of religious beliefs that you have likely rejected a long time ago.
It's called Christianity.
I'm sure that there are Atheists in Muslim countries asking themselves the same question.
Can there be morals without Islam. If you press them enough you'll find that their morals are pretty close to the morals of certain schools of Islam (like Sunni, Shiite and so on)

This would lead to the inevitable conclusion that the more you progress towards Atheism, the more you will do away with any morals.
Everything becomes relative, there's no right and no wrong in the end stadium.
Why? Because Atheism rejects unquestionable dogmas, which really is the basis of morals. You cannot question morals that are deeply held by a society.
There's no difference if you said "god wants us to do X" and saying "it is moral to do X", except for the higher authority (one even higher than our government) telling us so.

And to be honest, we clearly can see the West progressing to exactly that end.

>>131369220
and you think gods better? what id OJ Simpsons simply decides to repent at the end, then he gets to go to heaven,

>>131369361
repenting for murder ain't that easy, you can give money that you stole back, now you can't give back a life that you've taken

>>131348633
>Is it possible to get moral values without God?
possible but not likely, as self-governance lacks 100% accountability.

God knows everything.

>>131369137
>just an impossibility

so is your invisible sky-daddy who grants wishes.

Why not move towards a life without suffering? How can you say "you will get sick thats just life, deal with it and embrace the pain" instead of having scientists and researchers move towards solutions to AVOID getting sick and experiencing pain? You know in medevil europe, people like you probably would have said "there's a big possibility that you might just get disentary and die face down in the fields in cow shit, thats just life! That suffering is completely necessary and it is a fantasy to think people will ever not die face down in the fields in cow shit" Aren't you glad that isn't a possibility for you or many people in the first world?

>>131349272
Holy shit @ 4th from the right's clown feet XD

>>131369299
Christianity does not teach us to die for causes that would have been preventable.
If you read the bible you'll find that it teaches the exact opposite, it is even a grave sin to knowingly die for no good cause.