Secular moeals

they get their morality from Rick and Morty

>>136945281

spinoza - ethics

the first half is still good on the metaphysical stuff. spinoza's god is Einstein's god. (a form of atheism).

>>136945281
the myth of sisyphus possibly

>>136945281
No. Atheists need a strong police state to prevent them from chimping out and acting like degenerates. Believe me, I'm an atheist. If I believed my actions would have consequences in the afterlife, I would be a much better person.

>>136945281
They can't, because they don't have free will

>>136945281
People need SOMETHING to follow, if you take away the bible they'll look for something else, even if they won't admit it. And of all the things to end up following, the bible is not a bad choice.

>>136945281
OP is clearly a faggot. It's called Enlightenment Era Values. That's where I get my morals. John Locke, Voltaire, etc.

I am one and I do
Prove me wrong

>>136945281
Atheist Marxist SJWs have no morals. They do whatever the fuck they want and they throw western society into the hellfire.

>>136945768
>women need something to follow
ftfy

File: IMG_6670.jpg (155KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1024x768px

Meditation and the Golden Rule. Check out dem Vipassana boyz

>>136945281
The precursors of human morality are seen in the sociology of precursor species, morals are a product of our evolution and are easily explained by evolutionary sociology.

Hope that helps OP.

>>136945281
>Can atheists have morals?
Not really.
Humanity is too weak for such a concept.
You'll lie, cheat, and steal if you're pressured enough by circumstances and if you think you'll get away with it.
It's through belief in God that you can truly make those hard decisions.

And even then, you'll still stumble along the way.

But no, humanity is not moral enough without God.

>>136945904
No. You just call your personal opinions "morality".

Do you support open homosexuality?

Do you support abortion in any way?

Do you believe your purpose in life is to raise children to become moral adults?

>>136945281
Yes it's called philosophy you faggot

Even Kant argued for morals from a secular perspective even though he believed in God

>>136946109
>hard decisions
>not being a lying criminal piece of shit

Man, how weak a man must be not to be able to have his own inner laws and ideals.

>>136945768
>need something to follow
Literal slave. You are strong enough to create your own set of ideals, without following the ideals written by dead men.

>>136945686
>What is Singapore

>>136945849

the voltairian (though he was a deist) and spinozan virtue is TOLERANCE.

>>136946397
Why is lying wrong?

Who decided what is and isn't "criminal"?

>>136946257
>do you support abortion in any way

Babe, the Bible itself tells that man (Adam) became a living being only at first breath. A fetus is not a human until it reaches the moment to sustain it's vital functions.

>muh evul homosexuality
Sure, open homosexuality might be yuck, but there were more inspiring and great men who were homosexuals than religious zealots. Frederick the Great for instance, or Da Vinci

>>136945281
They can but they have no real foundation for them. They can change. They are bound by culture and time. They can change easily.

This isn't good for morality. Look at leftists and the Chinese.

Are morals good because God ordains them, or does God ordain them because they are good?

I expect some queer to try to have his cake and eat it, too.

>>136946571
Man have. Laws exist so you can't hurt others or their property, and vice versa.

Lying is disgusting. Overfequent lying is a clear indicator of inferiority or mental illness.

>>136946397
>hard decisions
>not being a lying criminal piece of shit
>Man, how weak a man must be not to be able to have his own inner laws and ideals.
You're just full of shit, and you'll crack at the first sign of trouble.

>>136946257
>You just call your personal opinions "morality".
True.
>Do you support open homosexuality?
No
>Do you support abortion in any way?
Yes
>Do you believe your purpose in life is to raise children to become moral adults?
No

>>136946582
>but there were more inspiring and great men who were homosexuals than religious zealots.

I know nothing about history: the post

>>136946682
Morals are good because people that don't murder and aren't gay have greater mating opportunities, natural selection at work. Morals and religion are both products of evolution.

>>136945281

normal people don't need a book to tell us how not to be assholes

>>136946354
>muh pure logic a priori transcendent arguments only
>*does a 360º*
>PS: God and souls exist just because
Every rationalist cuckllosopher.

>>136946760
Homosexuals and/or bisexuals through history: Alexander, Hadrian, Trajan, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Frederick, Turning,
...

What, think any of your caliphs was more relevant than them, Abdul?

>>136945281
Atheists can't have moral. That is why they have killed over a 100 million humans since the French revolution.

>>136946990
What are you, some Christian Commie hybrid?

freemasons murdered captain morgan and bill cooper

>>136945281
Sure. I'm an atheist and I'm moral.

>>136946735
So you are basing your definition of morality by following the ideals written by dead men.

>>136946582
Thank you for proving that the godless have no morality.

File: goenka.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>136945963
Vipassana makes the motive for morality extremely obvious. You learn to see for yourself that all of your actions have consequences and that immoral behavior immediately leads to suffering. Too bad most people are way too deep in denial to even start looking at themselves and reality honestly.

File: PEpe181.png (766KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

766KB, 2000x2000px

So far all the atheists have only declared themselves moral, without proving their morality.
First we must.
>1. Define morality
>2. Prove it's universal without appealing to god.

>>136947065
Atheists don't have morals and degenerate to a life of convenience eventually. Just get over it, you cuck, and go live in atheist China where people literally shit in the streets because it's more convenient and they don't give a fuck.

You street shitting fedora lord.

>>136947582
Moral behaviour grant greater mating opportunities and increased survival of the species. Morals prove natural selection.

There's nothing else to it.

File: Pepe18.png (193KB, 559x558px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 559x558px

>>136947811
>Moral behaviour grant greater mating opportunities and increased survival of the species.
What if I murder all other potential mating partners?
Then I would be the only one to reproduce
Now ask yourself
>Does this make murder immoral
>Or is murder moral and your morality is shit.

>>136947979
If you murder all potential mating partners you destroy the genetic diversity of the species, your inbred retard children will die.

There is no point in trying to define exactly what morality means, not murdering, not being gay, not lying etc all help the species survive.

>>136947353
Goenkz! *metta bump*

>>136947811
>muh dik

>>136947979
What if your genetically fucked and you just destroyed the species?

Even if you didn't, you just genetically bottle-necked the entire species. One flu virus that you happened to be susceptible to, and there goes the entire species.

>>136945649

gotta pretend sisyphus happy tho

File: 1491331756985.jpg (120KB, 674x672px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 674x672px

>>136945281
>christcucks would be chimping out raping and killing everyone if their skygod didnt tell them not to

lmao fucking degenerates

File: Pepe197.png (167KB, 799x687px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 799x687px

>>136948125
>If you murder all potential mating partners you destroy the genetic diversity of the species, your inbred retard children will die.
Too abstract a concept.
I reproduced.
Also, there's plenty of genetic diversity within siblings, especially if I reproduced with multiple different women.
>>136948125
>There is no point in trying to define exactly what morality means
Stopped reading right there Canuck, you've failed.

File: 4L_DcTPfDtZ.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>136945281
>morality didn't exist before Judaism

No, atheists are generally degenerates.

>>136945281
of course not, every single atheist is a pathological psychopath
they would kill you, chop off your dick and stick it in your beheaded corpse if laws weren't there to prevent them
and then they would do the same to each other because they have no morals to keep them from doing that

it is a very well known fact that all murderers are atheists and they can easily manipulate you into believing otherwise since they're all psychopathic
it is also well known that all gommies are atheists, stalin was atheist, pol pot was atheist and they killed people because of a lack of morals

therefore gommies = atheists = murderers = psychopaths = subhuman
they need to be exterminated and their blood offered to the blood god. also, skulls for the skull throne

File: 4L_xBI0ZUTG.jpg (163KB, 818x503px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 818x503px

>>136948316
It's always Americans who believe this inane shit. I wonder (((why)))

>>136945419
kek, so, "be a total sociopath."

They still have little gods, whether they realize it or not. The infantile ability of humans to actually perceive the universe around them makes SCIENCE!!!! a laughable excercise in futility. You can't overcome your humanity.

>>136945281
Secular morals derive from Christain morals, however since they lack the Christain faith their morals now have no foundation and have become arbitrary and weak
That's why they allow for things like fag marriage, they know what marriage is but do not comprehend it

>>136945281
Can christians have morals? If your entire life is motivated by a fear of hell or a desire to go to heaven then are you really a moral person? How can a Christian call themselves moral when everything they do has a selfish ulterior motive?

>>136948378
Hemophilia had a huge impact on several Royal families doing exactly what you described. Their genetic lines have largely been destroyed.

From a scientific perspective there are only successful sociological traits and unsuccessful traits. Labelling them as moral and immoral is silly. There is no failure in that.

>>136948720
What does the motivation matter if the means and ends are pure? What a stupid thing to think.

>>136948639
>jews invented morality
Oh look! Another retarded burger!

>>136948447
People weren't atheists before judaism

>>136948897
Why do you need God to have morals? the morals come from a set of guidelines from the religion, not God.

Simply believing in God doesn't do shit for a person unless he attaches heaven, hell and all the other religious bullshit.

Why would you believe in God so that you can have morals, just believe in Morals, nothing about believing in would cause you to believe in morals.

File: IMG_1500.jpg (71KB, 657x642px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 657x642px

>>136948720
>How can a Christian call themselves moral when everything they do has a selfish ulterior motive
Wew
The morals of Christianity coincidentally help create a stable and healthy society
>Monogamy
Self explanatory, while at the same time being non Degenerate it also creates stable relationships and virtually eliminates the chances of contracting a Venetian disease
>property
Don't steal my shit, I won't steal yours. You have just as much a right to property as I do to mine
>murder
No need to be autistic and kill someone over a scuffed shoe

I can go on, but the point remains that Christain morals are generally beneficial to society, aside from that while there is a fear of hell present there is also a love an adoration for god and his kingdom present

>>136948145
The think I can't figure out is: how can anyone seriously practice vipassana and also be a leftist? Confusing as hell. It's all about directly observing objective reality, you'd think all meditators would be red-pilled af, but so many cling on to warped ideas like egalitarianism.

>>136948639
>DA JOOZ DID IT
Code of Hammurabi faggot

>>136949121
>Why would you believe in God so that you can have morals, just believe in Morals, nothing about believing in would cause you to believe in morals.
Ok nigga, tell us where morals would come from without God and the Christain faith, and what those morals would look like as well as the society they produce?

>>136949159
Christianity's benefit to society was not the matter being discussed. The topic at hand was morality so I won't be taking your bait.

>>136945281
No, atheists can not have Morality. It is logically contradicting for an atheist to claim any moral claim is true.

>>136945506
Spinoza based it on christianity largely and took many assumptions from christianity that did not exist in pre-christian Europe. For example that everyone have moral value and that good morality is to serve other people like a slave.

>>136945849
So you just get morals from christianity with an extra step.

>>136946480
Tolerance is not really a virtue though. Tolerance functions like a peace agreement, not a virtue.

>>136945904
You can't have morality. One proof of this is because no moral claim makes sense for an atheist. One basic argument is as follows:

1. Moral claims apply regardless of your desires

(when we condemn a criminal, do we change our minds if we learn it was in his self-interest to commit it?)

2. If we morally ought to do something, we have a reason to do it.

(If we ask "why am I morally required to vote?", we couldn't take seriously someone who had no other response than "well you simply *musn't*!)

3. So, if we morally ought to do something, we have to have a reason to do it that applies regardless of our desires.

4. Such reasons don't make sense for atheists.

It's impossible to have a reason that is valid if it also does not appeal to the desires of those that are reasoned. "Run fast because then you will get 1 kg of gold" only is a valid reason if 1 kg of gold is something that the person wants.

Religions (Muslim, buddhist, hindu, taoist, christian, jewish+++) always have ways of dealing with it. But atheism do not

5. Therefore, moral claims make no sense for atheists.

>>136946354
>Even Kant argued for morals from a secular perspective

He argued like this: "The bible is true, what secular reason can I give to argue that the biblical morality is true" he based it on the bible and assumed a lot of christian stuff like the idea that other people have moral value without real evidence.

File: IMG_1505.jpg (53KB, 587x314px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 587x314px

>>136949179
>western morals are derived directly from a 4500 year old set of codes written by a dune coon

File: Hmmm7.jpg (23KB, 402x431px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 402x431px

>>136948720
>>136948720
Actually made me think.

Chimpanzees show a very similar set of morals to us humans, yet can't read. Explain that christcucks.

>>136949332
>Ok nigga, tell us where morals would come from without God and the Christain faith, and what those morals would look like as well as the society they produce?
Do you honestly think God wrote the Bible? It was a bunch of fucking autists who wrote it down and thought it was a good idea and attached God and Jesus to it, these morals have been written down throughout history(see: Code of Hammurabi), in those cases you didn't need God, just a King or some greater power. God isn't necessary a power to enforce it in peoples minds and laws(moral guidelines/commandments) are necessary

>>136949121
It's not that atheists are bad people, but they insist on a mechanistic universe in which no free choice exists. Since all choice is denied, moral choice is also denied and you can't have morality without moral choice.

>>136949449
>Epic of Gilgamesh
A lot of religions when you look at them from a secular historical perspective are a mish mash of much older stories put together, even Islam has aspects of zoroastrianism, tengrism, arab paganism, christiainity and judaism

File: IMG_1512.jpg (93KB, 656x760px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 656x760px

>>136949367
I did answer your original question if you took the time to read it.
While there is a fear of hell present there is also a love and adoration for a God and his kingdom. There is a desire to live in a just and moral society as outlined by God here on earth, I don't see that as a "selfish and ulterior motive" like you seem to, rabbi Bagelberg

>>136949613
>All atheists are the same
Fucking retarded americans in every thread.
Lemme guess Catholics and Protestants are also the same.

File: 5-19-17-1-1.jpg (48KB, 300x313px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 300x313px

>>136945849
>Enlightenment

>>136949782
Are you dim? It has nothing to do with them being the same. You're philosophically compelled to that position when you deny metaphysics.

>>136945281

You can read the bible under the interpretation that 'God' is human consciousness. You get basically the same moral system. Honestly the best life lessons are in there.

The real problem is being moral when you abandon western culture. Its hard to see it until its pointed out but alot of the stuff we get that seems like bullshit is actually teaching us how to live a full life an get along together.

>>136949688
>A lot of religions when you look at them from a secular historical perspective are a mish mash of much older stories put together, even Islam has aspects of zoroastrianism, tengrism, arab paganism, christiainity and judaism
Wow I almost never hear THIS argument from fedora cunts.
Ever hear of Convergence theory bucko?
>>136949562
>did God write the Bible
As a Catholic I believe the Bible was compiled by the Church under the guise of the Holy Spirit
>God isn't necessary a power to enforce it in peoples minds and laws(moral guidelines/commandments) are necessary
No you cunt, God is what the morals are DERIVED from, I'm arguing that God is the source of the morals which I am speaking of

>>136946397
>Man, how weak a man must be not to be able to have his own inner laws and ideals.

Moral relativists like you makes no sense. If things are only morally good or bad depending on "inner laws and ideals" then stealing is only wrong for people who would not steal anyway. Murder and rape is only wrong for people who would not murder and steal. The whole concept of morality is meaningless with your logic.

>>136946682
Morals are good because God ordains them.

>>136946735
>Man have. Laws exist so you can't hurt others or their property, and vice versa.

So if the government made a law that negroes have to fuck your wife (which MIGHT happen) to spread genetic material then they are doing something morally good?

>>136946791
>Morals are good because people that don't murder and aren't gay have greater mating opportunities

Not all societies where murder and homosexuality is seen as morally flawed. In pre-christian Europe both were seen as morally neutral.

>>136946929
Well, all atheists do, because there is not a single one who is not an asshole.

>>136947093
You are not moral, you don't have any basis for morality.

>>136947353
> You learn to see for yourself that all of your actions have consequences and that immoral behavior immediately leads to suffering.

Yeah, suffering of other people maybe. But only if you view the suffering of other people as morally relevant. Pagans generally did not. If you lived in pre-christian europe and made some farmer suffer like cutting off their arm then it would be seen in society like when someone breaks a tree branch. It's not exactly immoral.

>>136947811
>Moral behaviour grant greater mating opportunities and increased survival of the species. Morals prove natural selection.

So it's more moral to flee than to fight for your land? Or it's more moral to let other people fight for you while you cower and hide? Sounds like shit morality.

>>136950053
>No you cunt, God is what the morals are DERIVED from, I'm arguing that God is the source of the morals which I am speaking of
And how do you possibly derive morals just from the mere existence of a God? Which God and how is that jump made

ATTENTION ALL ATHEISTS ITT:
>The Jewish Question: In order to break all power of resistance of the Romanian people, the Jews will apply a truly unique and diabolical plan:
>1. They will try to break the spiritual ties of the Romanian to heaven, and to earth. To break our ties with heaven they will engage in widespread dissemination of atheistic theories in order to separate the Romanian people or at least some of the leaders from God; separating them from God and their dead they can destroy them, not by sword but by severing the roots of their spiritual life.
>To break our ties binding us to the land, the material source of a nation's existence, they will attack nationalism, labelling it "outmoded," and everything related to the idea of fatherland and soil, in order to cut the love thread tying the Romanian people to their furrow.
>2. In order to succeed in this, they will endeavour to get control of the press.
>3. They will take advantage of every opportunity to sow discord in the Romanian camp, spreading misunderstandings, quarrels, and if possible to split it into factions fighting each other.
>4. Will seek to gain control of most of the means of livelihood of the Romanians.
>5. They will systematically urge Romanians on to licentiousness, destroying their families and their moral fiber.
>6. They will poison and daze them with all kinds of drinks and other poisons.

>>136950279
Western morals have a basis in Christianity, Christian Morals cone directly from Fod in the form of the Ten Commandments and the written word of Christ in the New Testament

>>136950501
>Anyone wishing to conquer and destroy a people could do it by using this system: Breaking its ties with heaven and land, introducing fratricidal quarrels and fights, promoting immorality and licentiousness, by material ruin, physical poisoning, drunkenness, All these destroy a nation more than being blasted by thousands of cannon or bombed by thousands of airplanes.
>The Jews use these plans like poison gas in a war, to be used against the enemy, not their own people. They propagate atheism for Romanians but they themselves are not atheistic, as they fanatically hold to respecting their most minute religious precepts. They want to detach Romanians from their love for the land, but they grab land. They rise up against the national idea, but they remain chauvinistically loyal to their own nation.
THANKS FOR READING NOW OFF YOURSELVES

>>136948125
>There is no point in trying to define exactly what morality means

Because you can't know and don't know as an atheist because atheists can not be moral.

>>136948316
Atheists cut off their dick, have gay sex, have sex before marriage++++ because they don't have any moral dicipline to follow. Christcucks would also become degenerate like atheists if they also did not have morality.

>>136948870
The so called "secular morals" are not at all similar to morality from pre-christian Europe. Because secular morality is based on christian morality and take a lot of things for granted that comes from christianity (like the idea that other people in general have moral value or that being nice towards other people is morally good. these two things did not exist in the same form in pre-christian morality)

>>136950549
what do jews have against us? :(

>>136950517
>Christian Morals come directly from God in the form of the Ten Commandments and the written word of Christ in the New Testament
>I believe the Bible was compiled by the Church under the guise of the Holy Spirit
You seem confused

>>136949159
>Venetian disease.

Those damn Italians. Spreading disease all the time.

>>136950146
>Not all societies where murder and homosexuality is seen as morally flawed. In pre-christian Europe both were seen as morally neutral.

That's just natural selection at work, murder being wrong became the predominant mindset because it was successful.

>So it's more moral to flee than to fight for your land? Or it's more moral to let other people fight for you while you cower and hide? Sounds like shit morality.

Whether it's shit or not to you isn't relevant. There are successful traits and unsuccessful traits and nothing more.

File: IMG_1014.jpg (44KB, 662x569px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 662x569px

>>136950775
It really isn't that hard to follow matey
>Christ's word recorded by the apostles
>apostle's recordings collected and compiled into what is known as the New Testament later

>>136950146
Is there a reward or punishment for morally relevant behaviors?

>>136950878
Kek, meant venerial

Atheists and theists are both pissing into the wind, because very few people are listening to us or even thinking about self-evident axiomatic truths.

I am really high and drunk right now, as befits a hedonistic degenerate atheist, but all beliefs begin from axioms. We should examine the axioms of the "international community" and the "modern world" very carefully lest they be other than we think.

>>136945281
>i need a book to tell me what's right and wrong
never have i seen such a bluepilled individual

>>136945281
no. richard dawkins was asked a couple days ago where he got his and he had no answer at all. he has christian morals that he thinks he used logic to get to

File: abLzlz9[1].gif (2MB, 578x642px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 578x642px

>>136950938
>Christ's word recorded by the apostles
Oh you actually believe Christ was special, fuck me

>>136949403
>>136950146
>>136950627
>breivik shitposting from his cell again

>>136945281
NAP

File: Pepe273.jpg (465KB, 1431x880px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 1431x880px

Do morals exist > What is the point of morality > Can you have morals with or without god

File: IMG_1477.jpg (85KB, 647x891px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 647x891px

>>136951178
I don't believe that's an argument

>>136949171
Eh, I think a lot of leftish ideals are good, but implementation is impossible without surrendering ego. You can make rightie ideals work just by ego-driven self-interest tho.

The Vipassana boom will help the whole spectrum a great deal

>>136945281
Theoretically, you can.
But in practice, atheism has led to moral nihilism.

>>136951231
Morality involves more than how you deal with other people. It deal with how you become a better person. That's why being a slut is wrong.

>>136949403

spinoza predated nietszsche in critiquing christianity and judaism (even more so in his actual published work which followed ethics, theological political treatise, though ethics was not published in his lifetime. TPT was really a preface to ethics to the dutch nobles and elites, to take down christianity, minus the undisguised polemical rhetoric that would come later of german philosophers.

"slave" is an interpretation. this is why 'ethics' and spinozan scholars pretty much did not exist until 1990. academia has been ignoring spinoza, save for the dutch.

by virtue i mean the greek arete (excellence of any kind or moral virtue), and therefore excellence of this particular kind, and not the christian classical virtues, which was neo-platonic, nor even necessarily the Nicomachean ones.

>>136950888
>That's just natural selection at work, murder being wrong became the predominant mindset because it was successful.

No, christianity took over in Europe.

>Being a coward and not fight to protect your people is good moral behavior.

But it's not good moral behavior. With your logic adultery is also good moral behavor, robbing people might be good moral behavior and so on.

>>136951003
>Is there a reward or punishment for morally relevant behaviors?

After death maybe. During life, not necessarily. An atheist might murder a child if he gets $5 for it and if he gets the $5 then he might view it as a net gain with no downside. But if he does not get $5 and if he don't enjoy murdering the child then he would just view it as neither a reward or punishment.

>>136951211
Subhanallah. I am muslim.

>>136951285
>Do morals exist
Yes

> What is the point of morality
To make you a better and happier person.

>>136951655

btw, i'm a lefty that voted for Hillary, because Trump is unvirtuous.

>>136951795
btw, i'm an australian faggot who voted no, because Trump is irrelevant and this is Straya you fucking libshit

>>136951795
Do you really think that liberals will tell people to live a virtuous life, if in power?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sex-is-garbage_us_59765b0de4b0940189700bf1

>>136951752
And why did Christianity take over? It wasn't purely by the sword.

Adultery is not successful because you are leaving offspring without parents, robbing people is not successful for the species because you reducing the survivability of a another human.

>>136952200
Archived it
https://unvis.it/huffingtonpost.com/entry/sex-is-garbage_us_59765b0de4b0940189700bf1

>>136945281
Atheism is the only moral way of life, since I'm good and do the right thing for me and my fellow human beings because I decide to do so, not because a "god" tells me to do it or else I will get burn in hell.

>>136950501
You're absolutely right, let's skin five year old girls until Hitler literally mobilises against us for being too hardcore

t. Romania

>>136951163
Fellow bongs in this thread are making me proud.
Non-cucked Americans: do something about your christcuck retards.

>>136952560
And how is this atheism thing working for you?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090612/Now-Britain-leading-world--promiscuity.html

File: IMG_1466.jpg (82KB, 662x1069px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 662x1069px

>>136952560
Your rejection of Christian morals will only lead to further degradation in your country until sharia eventually takes hold
Have fun

>>136949159
>christianity invented property

you do realize christians lived in communes and private property was a thing long before the guy took a walk with the cross, right?

>>136953078
Christianity has greatly shaped the western concept of property, yes

>>136952856
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090612/Now-Britain-leading-world--promiscuity.html

why are you so possessive about people, or attached to your own particular way of doing things? if you find someone, such as a i have, to commit to monogamy, good for you. but why the fuck should you care how many times others fuck and who they fuck? the fuck? it's not your business, and especially since you can't reason this out, means you're no arbiter of what's "good" for society.

>>136952978
It also led to weakness

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/839383/bbc-today-radio-4-asian-grooming-gangs-newcastle-john-humphrys-crown-conviction-lib-dem

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3238409/Judge-backs-harsher-sentence-given-paedophile-abused-Asian-girls-shame-suffer.html


This is atheist Britain.

>>136945281
Can religious subhumans have morals without fearing something out of this world?

Doesn't Nicomachean Ethics make a good case for virtue without making any reference to God?

>>136953354
You mentioned the virtues. Being promiscuous is not virtuous. And encouraging people to be promiscuous, like you liberal degenerates are doing is not either.

>>136953354

that's subjective. according to the ancients, it's now how many you fuck, but how you are ruled by sex. the ancient greeks are known for their orgies and even had sex cults. king solomon had hundreds of concubines. his father, david, murdered for sex with one girl.

it is only likely, but not certain, that promiscuity is an indication of the archetype of the person, that is, someone overly concerned with pursuing sex, which is inferior to those that seek money, honor, or wisdom. aristotle would equate this to a matter of continence (self-control) and the mean of virtue. still his base argument, which the christian writers appropriated, is based on a type of accepted, but subjective "common knowledge."

>>136954330
You talk about the virtues of the Greeks but you didn't fucking read about them.

>that's subjective. according to the ancients, it's now how many you fuck, but how you are ruled by sex.

Ethics - ethos - habits.
If you fuck many people, you are a pleasure seeker and you are ruled by sex. The Greeks judged someone as a philosopher by their acts, not by their discourses.

> the ancient greeks are known for their orgies
Not the philosophers who wrote about virtue.

>it is only likely, but not certain, that promiscuity is an indication of the archetype of the person,
It is not. Promiscuity was considered a vice.

>that is, someone overly concerned with pursuing sex, which is inferior to those that seek money, honor, or wisdom.
The Greeks also thought that seeking money and honor was inferior.

>>136952219
>And why did Christianity take over? It wasn't purely by the sword.

It was also with the sword.

>Adultery is not successful because you are leaving offspring without parents

Offspring without parents still grow up and make children of their own.

>robbing people is not successful for the species because you reducing the survivability of a another human.

So? Robbing people and murdering people have provided basis for huge expansion in the amount of humans. If europeans had not slaughtered and robbed 15 million american indians then there would not be several hundred million there today.

So your claim contradicts the facts.

>>136952410
>Atheism is the only moral way of life, since I'm good and do the right thing for me and my fellow human beings because I decide to do so

Atheists have no idea what is good or the right thing to do. Because that is whatever you guys decide you want to do. "I should murder this child, he looks like he might grow up to be a shitty person" or "I should make that woman cheat on her husband, it does not hurt anyone as long as she does not get caught, it only makes everyone involved happy so it's morally good and the right thing to do".

>>136953354
evidence that atheists lack morality.

>>136952978
What "Christian morals" are being rejected?

>>136954835
The majority of Christian conversions were not hy the sword. Yes offspring with parents do often survive, but were looking at a population of billions. On a whole children without parents are less successful.

Europeans had already thrived as a culture and been very successful, native americans did not reach the same success and their small population being swallowed up by the larger more successful population is very natural.

>>136953362
>asian
every single fucking time

>>136955092
Don't murder unborn children, for one thing.

Of course. We just don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster being the source of them. We recognize that morals are ultimately subjective, but that most humans are endowed with a sense to not do things that bring harm to another person. If you don't do bad things because you fear there is some all-seeing presence watching you do them, instead of because it does not feel good to do bad things, you are mentally ill. You can give my thanks to your God for preventing you from doing evil.

>>136945419
this is actually true, most atheists simply absorb their morals from popular culture like Rick and Morty

Atheists just aren't smart enough to be conscious of this

>>136955690
Where in the beeble does it say not to kill UNBORN children? All I could find were messages that said not to kill children in general and that's a moral that is found in other literature even in eastern works.

>>136955231
>The majority of Christian conversions were not hy the sword.

Yeah, mostly it was by the implication. Christians killed the local pagan leaders and all the local pagans without any leadership just voluntarily converted.

>Yes offspring with parents do often survive, but were looking at a population of billions.

The people with the most children and storngest genetics were murderers and rapists like Ghengis Khan who raped at least one different woman per day. So rape (especially violent rape) is according to empirical evidence probably the most moral thing people can do.

>On a whole children without parents are less successful.

Decendents of Ghengis Khan is now the COS of Google, Berkshire Hathaway Insurance, MasterCard, Adobe Systems, PepsiCo and Microsoft. So what you are saying contradicts the evidence.

>>136956059
>this is actually true, most atheists simply absorb their morals from popular culture like Rick and Morty
> (((reddit spacing)))
>Atheists just aren't smart enough to be conscious of this

Some atheists ARE smart enough to be conscious of this. Atheist Philosophers like J.L.Mackie and Richard Joyce know that atheism does not provide morality (and it is actually logically impossible for atheists to believe morality exists in any meaningful sense) and that atheists usually take their values from local religions and traditions based on those religions.

>>136956201
>even in eastern works.

No eastern work says it is particularly morally wrong to kill children. Neither hinduism, buddhism, shinto or whatever. Buddhists have a rule not to kill, but the rules of Buddhism apply to the monks. Laypeople are supposed to do things that buddhism consider morally wrong like having sex, eating tasty food or kill their children if they feel like it. Only religion I can think of that outrightly forbid it is Jainism (and religions based on Islam like Sihkism) and jainism is a very very tiny group of people.

Religious individuals need a god and eternal punishment to prevent them from raping, stealing and murdering. Imagine what these psychopaths would do if they lost their belief in their god.

They get their morals from experience and stuff they absorb.

I honestly don't believe the average person is capable of leading a peaceful life without religion of some sort to lay out some basic fundamentals.

>>136945281
Kant
>their highest virtue without the presence of a higher being is the Categorical Imperative
>Kant got BTFO'd by Constant over the "murderer at your door" dilemma
>Trudeau literally making the same argument with "If you kill your enemy, you let him win"

>>136945649
If you extrapolate Camus' logic of "creating meaning" far enough, it basically comes to an impasse at Pascal's Wager. If everything is inherently meaningless without a higher order, and we reserve the right to create our own "meaning", then isn't it logically in your best interest to believe in a God for the sake of happiness over veracity?

>>136958587
>reddit spacing
>echo meme in 2017
it was atheist tier

did not read the rest of you post

File: 1495577233637s.jpg (2KB, 106x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 106x125px

>>136955778
Humans are an aggressive, violent, and territorial species by nature.
Bringing harm to other people is intrinsic to our being.
If you feel bad about doing the very thing that has secured our species' existence and enabled its advancements, you are a genetic failure.
The notion that we should sympathize with and wish to protect everyone purely on the basis that "they're human too" is a con to make our societies weak, and easily controlled, by proliferating people like you who in a society following natural law wouldn't have survived into adulthood.

>>136959265
Well... I agreed with you, but pointed out two examples of atheists who actually are smart enough to agree with you too.

>>136959531
That is the most secular morality I have ever seen.

>>136960143
>which is why it's patently amoral

File: atlas.jpg (201KB, 1039x1500px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1039x1500px

>>136945281

christians don't follow the morals of their own book either, they pick and choose. they're the same.

File: 1496195869503.png (325KB, 574x813px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 574x813px

>>136960143
>>136960292
Why? Are the preachings of the cuck kike on the cross the only morality you know?

>>136945281
Yes.
Most atheists are subjectivists.
They generally believe morality is a direct result of individuals environmental circumstances and thus can change as the circumstances change.
To sum the majority of atheists mirality up.
"It's a reaction to stimuli."
Their are other schools of thought
Like the axiological schools..
A famous one is communism wich axiologically declares egalitarianism to be the fundamental objective source kf morality.
Of course the axiom can be applied to a number of principals and things.
An example would be if an atheist axiomatically declared the welfare of the nuclear family to be the objective source of all morality and goodness.

Then theres the tiny minority of nihilists in the classical neizchian sense who believe that the greatest, proven by attrition among men, should be the ones to declare morality according to their own vision thus leading to a better world for all.

Some of them simply don't care and do what everyone else does.
These are just the most prominent base philosophies but there's a lot of different variations.

>>136946109
You're subhuman if that's what you honestly perceive as humanity.

>>136961589
Yes, but he's right.

>>136945281
You don't need an imaginary dad in the sky to come to the conclusion that killing each other is wrong.

>>136962313
Tell us how you came to that conclusion then.
And don't be vague.

>>136949403
>No, atheists can not have Morality. It is logically contradicting for an atheist to claim any moral claim is true.

Brilliance. Religitards, everyone.

>>136945281
Morals are inborn and self-evident. You're a faggot animal tool if you don't understand this, and you will be controlled.
That must really suck.

>>136962432
Well from a purely pragmatic view. Other humans are generally more helpful to me being comfortable when they're alive.
If i can convince them to depend on me then, I to can depend on them making it easier for the two of us to accomplish whatever we might have indeavored to do alone.
For example.
If I needed to build a house and so did person B then we could buil one together in half the time and we would both have a dwelling.
If I took the cooperative further, then we would continue on to building another house thus each of us would be housed and infinitely more comfirtable than before.
In addition to this a natural level of trust becomes established so that in the long term if anything were to ever threaten my house, I know that I can count on B for support. The same goes fir B since that dude helped me have a roif over my head when I didn't have one, it's only batural that I would attempt to protect his home since he is as much am asset to me as I am to him.

Of course this is from the perspective of pure selfishness which doesnt even begin to some up the totality of human interactions.

>>136945281
The only possible atheist morality would be a utilitarian model aimed at having as many children as possible.

>>136963469
Nope.

>>136962257
No, he's not.
He's conflating hedonism with human nature.
Emmediate reactive instinct is not the core of human nature but an evolutionary left over.
Humans are defined ultimately by their sapience and their most fundamental definition as a living things.
And that is where their morality ultimately comes from.

File: 1472152390912.jpg (32KB, 560x560px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 560x560px

>>136945281
Christfags need a book to tell them murdering is bad.

File: 1498263101750.jpg (24KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x400px

>ITT: christcucks projecting their sociopathy onto others

>>136962313
>le magic sky wizard
Well elocuted my good gentlesir! *classily tips fedora*

>>136963386
That explains the material benefits of not killing people, and it only covers the people that are explicitly more useful to you alive.

>>136963886
There's no such thing as evolutionary left over. Evolution is continuous, there are no states.

Saying our morality comes from our sapience is. Morality is absolute. Are you a materialist?

>>136945506
> a form of atheism
pantheism is not atheism

>>136945281
>mfw atheists say they don't need a holy book to have morals, and then proceed to adhere to Judeo-Christian values without realizing it.

>>136945849
John Locke was CLEARLY concerned with GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS you fucking moron.

It's fine to be religious if it helps you in a positive way. But if you need religion and laws to tell you that killing isn't right, then that's fucking pathetic.

>>136963994
>>136964964
Well?
Are any of you fags gonna say what tells you that killing is morally wrong?

>>136964964
if nothing matters, why shouldn't you be able to kill? Is it maybe, the sanctity of human life? Why would a human life be sacred, then? You're applying religious sentiment without meaning to, or you're going to make up an excuse for your flawed reasoning.

>>136945281
>morals
You're retarded if you need Jaysus Chroist threatening you with eternal damnation to be a good boy.

>book
Why?

>>136965114
Same thing that did until your precious book was written? Definitely not a bunch of goat fuckers from 2000 years ago.

>>136959225
>for the sake of happiness
So you mean deluding yourself like fat tumblr whales telling themselves that they are not fat, but plus size instead?

>>136965329
>your precious book
I'm not a christian
Now answer the question, bitch.

>>136965291
You too, answer the question>>136965114

Yes, they can have, but a ethical society demand that will dont have conflicting morals, thats one of the causes for western society falling apart. Fuck multiculturalism and diversity.

>>136964611
>That explains the material benefits of not killing people

Considering I was speaking from a purely pragmatic viewpoint, indeed.

>it only covers the people that are explicitly more useful to you alive.

Not quite. The percieved potential of a benefit is often enough to keep one behaving amiably towards most humans.

But an addition to this would be the risks entailed and the lack of reward.
What will I get by simply killing someone who is not a threat to me?
Diseased meat? Their emmediate possesions?
Is that worth the risk? After all what if
this person protected by a partner relationship? What if he isn't but any witnesses to this emmediately begin to see me as a threat because I'm a lunatic?
What if he could've helped me but now he's dead?
She probably offered killer blow jobs but I guess I'll never know unless I stick my dick in a corpse.
It's just not the same anon.

>There's no such thing as evolutionary left over.

Yes, there is.

>Evolution is continuous.

Only so long as there's a state if agitation in the environment. Otherwise it begins reaching a state of equilibrium.

>There are no states.

Yes their are, relative to the definition of life.

>Saying our morality comes from our sapience is.

Is what?

>Morality is absolute.

Morality is objective and absolute from the perspective if all living things, yes.
But that's my atheist fedora opinion.

>Are you a materialist?

No but I'm familiar with them.
A lot of communists in atheism.

>>136965114
It's not morally wrong, tbqh. It's just about what would come out of it and how it would benefit you and others.
You would like it very much to kill Jews, niggers, spics, and whatever group your autistic, socially retarded mind could come up with.
Telling yourself that "b-but murder is wrong cuz Jeezys" is like telling your kid that the presents under the christmass tree were placed by Santa.

>>136965114
I did.

>>136965114
Do you need a book to write your first post? It's not that hard of a concept.

>>136952560
>Fellow bongs in this thread are making me proud.
I'm cringing. It really is summer. Fuck off back to your sixth form politics club already, you fedora tipping little wanks.

>>136966182
>indeed
Indeed not. You forgot to explain how those material benefits relate back to morality. If it's just through virtue of them being beneficial, then your morality is backwards. Killing others is in the long-term far more materially beneficial.

>Not quite.
Yes quite. There is no perceived potential of a benefit for keeping most humans alive. Only the ones that have a use to you, as in your example; being able to help you build a house.

You're not explaining anything to do with morality, you're explaining the functions of human interaction.

>>There's no such thing as evolutionary left over.
>Yes, there is.
No, there isn't. There are no "previous states" for something to be left over from.
>relative to the definition of life
Life is immaterial, evolution is change in the material.

>Is what?
Fill in the blank, I guess. Illogical? Absurd? Ridiculous?
It is the materialist stance though, which is why I asked if you were one.

It should be noted that no normal human being actually goes through any particular calculative process, religious or not, when it cones to extreme behaviours like killing.

Generally this is innate. Likely a result of humans evolving in such a way that the more social individuals won out over the more psychopathic ones.
It would also explain why different subspevies of human act drastically different than others; killing, stealing is okay under different circumstances etc.

>>136945281
i can't believe there's actually a thread for this

how far 4chan has fallen...

>>136945281
If god created man, and the bible, and gave his list of rules to a select few that follow his word, then no

If man invented god, and the bible, and the morals in the bible. Then sure

>>136966258
>It's just about what would come out of it and how it would benefit you and others.
Well? What tells you about all that? About what benefits are right and what benefits are wrong.

>>136966280
You haven't yet.

>>136966589
If it's not a hard concept you should be able to answer. So answer.