Question for atheists

Orthobro here, not trying to convert you or anything but I do have a question.

How exactly does someone go from atheism to secular humanism? From the perspective of hard scientific materialism, there's no proof that morality exists whatsoever so I always find it jarring when atheists will make obviously stupid arguments like "Oh if you need a God to act moral then you're a bad person!" (despite there being no valid definition of what "bad" is).

I've found it curious because even when I was an atheist, I knew there was no atheist reason to believe in morality. And Christians aren't the only people to make this observation. Smarter atheists, like J.L. Mackie have reached this conclusion from an atheist standpoint as well. Ultimately, when Christians say that atheists have no reason ot be moral, Mackie's Error Theory is what they're relying on to make that argument, whether they realize it or not.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    its not like all atheists believe in secular humanism. but looking from the perspective of those kinds of atheists, it just makes life easier to conform to societal standards of morality since you feel good about yourself and you...you know.. dont go to jail.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What? You don't have to believe in any morality to understand the repercussions of your actions fren, that's something even animals can understand easily.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > Implying that all wrongdoings have Earthly repercussions

        I don't see how my favorite color is false. It is literally my favorite color. What does no color really being greater have to do with it? You're essentially saying I do not have a favorite color, which is objectively false.

        It's purple BTW :^p

        I'm saying that your belief that purple is a greater color than all others is false, in the same way you believe my faith is false.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Sure, but that doesn't mean the concept of my favorite color doesn't exist. I think you understand now :^)

          Just as morality is subjective so too is my favorite color. No moral system has to be greater than another to say that moral systems (morality) exists just like my favorite color doesn't have to be greater for the concept of favorite colors to exist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Sure, but that doesn't mean the concept of my favorite color doesn't exist. I think you understand now
            Yeah, but your value judgement is still false.

            > Just as morality is subjective so too is my favorite color. No moral system has to be greater than another to say that moral systems (morality) exists
            I mean, yeah, people obviously do make value judgements on human behavior. But from a materialist perspective, those value judgements are all incorrect, just as you believing one color is greater than all the others is incorrect. (This isn't solely a Christian observation btw, this is the exact observation that J.L. Mackie made in his "Error Theory", which is essentially just the atheistic argument for moralit not existing)

            Ok. I understand now. Now allow me to elaborate.
            >Everyone who steals habitually gets caught eventually.
            >So stealing is not moral.
            >And even if you yourself never get caught stealing, and you somehow escape all odds of probability, habitual theft leads to all products in a store going behind lock and key and self checkout aisles being shut down, thus making your life harder

            Got it

            So if I live in San Francisco, where punishments for thefts under $900 are extremely lax, I can just steal as many $500 PS5s as I want and it's A-OK because I'll never really be brought ot justice

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Okay I'll leave with this, something hopefully for you to munch on. In the materialist perspective there is no correct or incorrect, there just is. Humans can have value judgements for any rhyme or reason. It's simply what they value. What that means is their behavior will act in accordance with these values (generally, if they can).

            For the materialist it makes no sense to think of subjective thoughts as correct or incorrect, they just are. At least my view as a materialist (my views are more complicated than materialism but it's not worth discussing that now).

            Maybe this is hard to understand for someone with an absolutist mindset but that's how it is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Maybe this is hard to understand for someone with an absolutist mindset but that's how it is.
            Yeah, tbh I might just have a hard time grasping it due to diagnosed autism kek

            See ya later, God bless

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There are atheistic account of moral realism. Something like Platonism or Moral Intuitionism.
    You can also just mean a bad person by your standards or the standards of your culture. Divine Command Theory isn't even a form of moral realism.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > Something like Platonism or Moral Intuitionism.
      Curious as to how that works

      > You can also just mean a bad person by your standards
      "Bad to you" doesn't equal "bad" though, and it can never equal "bad" under hard materialism. I'm just curious as to why humanist atheists accept the idea that morality exists whatsoever a priori, given morality would have to be something that exists independent of us but still influences our actions (which is essentially the religious view of morality)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Curious as to how that works
        The simplest view is that moral truths are just abstract objects that really exist in a mind independent way. Why do moral truths need a special kind of ontological basis, that other truths don't seem to need? Is 2 + 2 = 4 just because God says so, or is it at least conceivable that it would also be true in a world without God? And if 2 + 2 = 4 can be a true statement, why can't "torturing people for fun is bad" also be a true statement?
        >"Bad to you" doesn't equal "bad" though, and it can never equal "bad" under hard materialism.
        It's unclear what moral language actually means, there is some research being done in experimental philosophy. Maybe morality just means "pro social behaviour" and not "stance independent, non reducible truth". Also maybe moral statements are just indexed. I can say "this ice cream is tasty" but I don't think that it's objectively tasty, I implicitly index that statement to myself.
        But of course you are right that a moral anti-realist can't condemn anything in a moral realist sense but that's clear, just like an atheist can't logically say that God will punish his enemies.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > And if 2 + 2 = 4 can be a true statement, why can't "torturing people for fun is bad" also be a true statement?
          You're just falling back on Christian notions of morality with this argument, given Christians use similar argumentation in defense of God.

          > Maybe morality just means "pro social behaviour" and not "stance independent, non reducible truth".
          The real question is how you get from "this behavior is prosocial" to "this behavior is morally good"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You're just falling back on Christian notions of morality with this argument, given Christians use similar argumentation in defense of God.
            It doesn't necessarily result in the same moral system. You could read Mike Huemer, he's an atheist moral realist.
            His view is that we always build our knowledge on axioms that seem self evident. You might use logic for example, but how do you justify the use of logic without using logic? You either have an infinite regress, or you just accept some self evident axioms. Why do we think that trees exist? Because we see them and that gives us justification in believing they exist, until someone presents a good counter argument. Some moral statements seem as self evident to him as the statement that classical logic is true, statements like "torturing people for fun is bad".
            >The real question is how you get from "this behavior is prosocial" to "this behavior is morally good"
            Maybe that's just what morally good behaviour means to most people. But I don't think you can get from descriptive claims to the kind of moral realism that you probably have in mind.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Some moral statements seem as self evident to him as the statement that classical logic is true, statements like "torturing people for fun is bad".
            I definitely understand the view that some logical truths are self-evident, such as a statement like "1=1". I don't see how you can extend this to morality though, short of falling back on the hard-wired morality that's just written into the brains of most humans (and as we've established, we can't cleanly make the jump from that to moral realism)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why isn't God any good as a self evident axiom then?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Some philosophers do say that they have a very strong intellectual intuition that God exists, and they do use it as at least some justification for the belief.
            Huemer himself thinks that some counter arguments are good, he thinks omniscience is logically incoherent for example, he also thinks the problem of evil makes sense.
            I don't know how we can distinguish between completely self evident facts, claims where our intuition at least gives us some justification and cases where our intuitions don't count but I wouldn't completely throw the idea out, because some things really seem self evident.
            I'm also not sold on moral intuitionism but people always just assume that God is the only possible basis for morality, I wish people would at least explore other views, they don't have to agree.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > Because if I can just steal without getting caught for my own personal gain, why NOT do it in that case?
          I was about to say lmao

          Now you're entering Error Theory's "Argument from Queerness". Essentially, in order for morality to actually exist, it needs to be completely independent of human perception, but it still needs to be able to influence us and we need some way to be able to discover moral laws (like in the Rothbardian natural law sense)

          The problem with secular morality is that despite the praise that atheists give to hard materialism, there's absolutely no scientific evidence that morality exists. Of course, Christians can fall back on abstract intuition, because while there's no "scientific" evidence that God exists, there's also no scientific evidence that 2 + 2 = 4, but it's still objectively and indisputably true. I haven't really seen any atheists argue from this perspective though, given most seem to believe that anything not immediately scientific is incorrect (though they won't honestly extend this logic to morality)

          >he thinks 2+2=4 is an objective truth
          Numbers are just symbols, man.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >And if 2 + 2 = 4 can be a true statement, why can't "torturing people for fun is bad" also be a true statement?
          disagreement about morality is much more common which implies a lack of mind-independent referent. for example there are quite a few people out threre who think torturing people for fun is fine, and i don't even mean psycopaths who want to do it randomly, i mean people who think it's okay to torture "bad" people for catharsis ("fun")

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Materialism is just motion of bodies. "Bad" is defined by that which a self moving body avoids, and "good" that which a self moving body approaches

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Divine Command Theory isn't even a form of moral realism.
      i think it is. it says there are moral facts, which are dictated by god, no?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Read Euthyphro. Are they facts because God says so or does God say do because they are facts?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          if God is Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent would this not make God = Fact itself? How could fact be independent from God?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a Christian but I think there's a secular argument to be made for moralism, specifically in the social aspect. Meaning, if you do mean thing, people will probably shun you for being mean and in the long term hurt your chances of living peacefully in society. It can also be viewed as net positive/net negative type of thing, where if the fruits of your actions are creating net negatives to yourself and people around you, then you can surmise that said act is bad purely in how it affects you and other people.

    However, this doesn't solve the problem of selfishness. Because if I can just steal without getting caught for my own personal gain, why NOT do it in that case? It's a net positive for me and probably not a net negative to the other person if what you stole wasn't that noticeable. If I can cheat on my spouse without either parties getting caught, what's the atheist argument against that? This is something I've never heard a good argument for, usually atheists just go back to
    >because it's just bad, okay??

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Same anon, but just to add to this: for most seculars this mostly isn't true in practice. Because if you ask an atheist leftie if promiscous sex is bad, they'll probably say no, unironically. Without taking into account the net negatives that compound when women are getting ran through left and right. So this might be a decent argument for morals as an atheist but you see time and time again how most don't actually think that way

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Without taking into account the net negatives that compound when women are getting ran through left and right.
        Why are you assuming utilitarianism is true? Also you can be a moral realist and still come to wrong conclusions because you get the descriptive facts wrong. People who think promiscuity isn't bad usually think that it causes more pleasure than pain, they might be wrong about this but this doesn't mean they don't apply some standard (in this case the standard is utilitarian)

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >People who think promiscuity isn't bad usually think that it causes more pleasure than pain
          fair enough.

          > Because if I can just steal without getting caught for my own personal gain, why NOT do it in that case?
          I was about to say lmao

          Now you're entering Error Theory's "Argument from Queerness". Essentially, in order for morality to actually exist, it needs to be completely independent of human perception, but it still needs to be able to influence us and we need some way to be able to discover moral laws (like in the Rothbardian natural law sense)

          The problem with secular morality is that despite the praise that atheists give to hard materialism, there's absolutely no scientific evidence that morality exists. Of course, Christians can fall back on abstract intuition, because while there's no "scientific" evidence that God exists, there's also no scientific evidence that 2 + 2 = 4, but it's still objectively and indisputably true. I haven't really seen any atheists argue from this perspective though, given most seem to believe that anything not immediately scientific is incorrect (though they won't honestly extend this logic to morality)

          >there's also no scientific evidence that 2 + 2 = 4, but it's still objectively and indisputably true
          That's super interesting. You seem to know your shit, man. Any book recs for this type of discussion?

          >I haven't really seen any atheists argue from this perspective though
          I haven't, either.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That's super interesting. You seem to know your shit, man. Any book recs for this type of discussion?
            Try the Principia Mathematica.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > Because if I can just steal without getting caught for my own personal gain, why NOT do it in that case?
      I was about to say lmao

      Now you're entering Error Theory's "Argument from Queerness". Essentially, in order for morality to actually exist, it needs to be completely independent of human perception, but it still needs to be able to influence us and we need some way to be able to discover moral laws (like in the Rothbardian natural law sense)

      The problem with secular morality is that despite the praise that atheists give to hard materialism, there's absolutely no scientific evidence that morality exists. Of course, Christians can fall back on abstract intuition, because while there's no "scientific" evidence that God exists, there's also no scientific evidence that 2 + 2 = 4, but it's still objectively and indisputably true. I haven't really seen any atheists argue from this perspective though, given most seem to believe that anything not immediately scientific is incorrect (though they won't honestly extend this logic to morality)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >there's also no scientific evidence that 2 + 2 = 4
        Sure there is. One can empirically observe bodies and abstract from the impressions of them the concept of quantity. That's scientific.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Moral systems are ultimately just value systems generalized to account for society wide effects.

    Personally I think the golden rule is a good starting point for secular moral thinking. It makes intuitive sense and results in very similar, or at least mostly compatible, moral system to judeo-Christian values

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > Personally I think the golden rule is a good starting point for secular moral thinking. It makes intuitive sense and results in very similar, or at least mostly compatible, moral system to judeo-Christian values
      Yeah, but you still have to prove that the golden rule is correct and independent of the human mind in order to argue that it exists as a legitimate moral law.

      Also
      > Judeo-Christian values
      See image

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Who said anything about legitimate moral laws? Again, moral systems are just society wide value systems.
        From a secular moral relativist view there is no need for it to be a moral law, simply a convenient value to hold.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Well, why hold them if they're not correct? Beyond just "idk man I feel like it bro"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We're coming at this from completely different frameworks. From a moral relativist view there is no "correct" moral system. Besides, if there were a "correct" moral system how would you even know?

            That's just rationalised machiavellian psychopathy.

            No? Literally morals are just values we hold for society, and we generally pick them based on our own values or beliefs. Hence why Muslims, Christians, Hindus, etc. can all believe they are moral yet have different values and morals.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I believe that our moral sense is universal and absolute, but that it can draw different conclusions about the particulars as we as finite beings each only having limited access to the world through our perspectives and anything transcendent.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If this were the case then no one would do bad. There's a chasm between pacifism and thinking stoning to death for adultery is permitted. This is beyond just particulars, this is a difference between killing is never permitted and killing being okay in certain contexts. If we all have universal and absolute moral sense, then how can we have such different beliefs on something as clear and basic as are we right to kill?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >then how can we have such different beliefs on something as clear and basic as are we right to kill?
            I think it comes down to justice. Humans also seem to have an innate intuition of what justice is, so if it's justified to kill (e.g. in self-defense or to punish a heinous crime) there's an argument to be made that bridges that chasm between pacifism and the death penalty. I don't know if justice counts as morality, per say, but it's definitely related

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Hence why Muslims, Christians, Hindus, etc. can all believe they are moral yet have different values and morals.
            On certain exceptions. For the most part most people, no matter religion, society or whatever, believe some core tenants are true. E.g. don't kill, rape, steal, etc.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Beyond just "idk man I feel like it bro"

            That IS exactly what matters. If something makes me feel better or makes others feel better, than that's good. It doesn't matter how you dress it up, that is essentially what really matters in its entirety, and seeking out 'objective moral laws' would only be good if they aim at making people feel better. This is why seeking out 'objectively independent' morality is secondary, the feeling of individuals are primary and what is REALLY GOOD, placing the idea of a moral law above that and not getting why people's feelings are just what matter on a basic level misses the point entirety. I don't need a prophet or scientist to tell me this.

            "Doing what you feel like" is only negative is done unwisely, and in such a way that ultimately causes more harm than good.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's stupid. You're taking "making others feel better is good bro" a priori with no reason behind it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >"Doing what you feel like" is only negative is done unwisely, and in such a way that ultimately causes more harm than good.
            When is it even done wisely? Secular society has proved people aren't wise and will inevitably devolve into vice and selfishness. That's not even disputable. Atheists criticize Christians for believing in fairy tales but then genuinely believe that it's possible to practice moderation wisely en masse via securalism. Fricking lol

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's just rationalised machiavellian psychopathy.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I CAN'T FIND IT! HELP ME!

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Well fear of consequences are a pretty big motivator for people to act good but really, most people are inherently good it's just that their conditions lead them to sometimes do bad or morally grey things
    By inherently good I mean people are motivated to act in a way that society approves of but I also thing that people instinctively know to do good because of their sense of empathy

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you're not hard-wired for religion, you're still a part of your social construction. Tarzan may have been raised by apes, but the rest of us are raised by our village. Only psychopaths can escape it.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know because I'm not a secular humanist, but I beleive (the real) morals are intrinsic to human beings. By the time religion came along we were already living together in settlements, a thing which requires moral behavior. If we were savage predator monkeys by nature we would never have passed the preconditions necessary to make settlements and create religions.
    Now this natural morality is a pretty stripped down version of any religious morality, but everyone just sort of knows it unless they're serial killers
    >don't kill members of your group or hurt them without cause
    >respect property rights
    >keep your word
    >don't be disgusting around others
    >don't create disharmony in the group
    Etc.
    Humans live very well when we follow something akin to this natural morality and we go astray when the dominant social morality strays too far from this core.
    You intuitively know the difference. Really immoral things trigger your conscience, shit you were brainwashed into thinking is immoral triggers something more akin to "fear of being observed"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Alright, you may be able to prove that humans naturally believe in moral laws, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily real. A lot of atheists hold that religion is something that humans are at some level hard-wired to believe in, but they generally just seem to believe that's a product of evolution and don't necessarily believe in it themselves.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I mean if you can conjure up one of those atheists I could have an interesting discussion with them on the topic.
        I do beleive in a soul BTW, so I'm not a materialist atheist. I would agree with the thesis that there's a "spirituality shaped hole" inside people that will be filled be something.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Then the question becomes why we are naturally programmed to believe in something that is supposedly not true?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          you mean like superstitions? side effect of abstract thought and being prone to logical fallacies

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Because it's selected for, or at least was
          Same reason most people are not sexually attracted to their sibings and parents

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I have a question for believers: you say that absolute moral can only exist with God, but what if I know that God exists and claim that what he says is good ain't actually good?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > but what if I know that God exists and claim that what he says is good ain't actually good?
      The whole "God is evil" argument is something I've seen from atheists even ever since I was an atheist myself. On what grounds would you claim that His moral law is incorrect?

      > From a moral relativist view there is no "correct" moral system. Besides, if there were a "correct" moral system how would you even know?
      So you can admit that under your view, morality doesn't exist. Right?

      Right...?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Funny you come to a literature board and fail to have basic reading comprehension. In my view moral systems are society wide value systems, which do exist. That's what I would call morality.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >on what grounds you claim his moral law is incorrect
        The benefit of the doubt benefits the atheists. You can't prove it is incorrect, but you can't prove it is correct neither.
        Ok, if I was sure that God exists of course I'd follow him, but I suspect that the society nowadays would not, or at least only a minority would. And indeed, as I showed, the existence of God doesn't implies absolute morality.
        >so in your view morality doesn't exists
        I don't know, maybe. What do you think based on what I've said?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > You can't prove it is incorrect, but you can't prove it is correct neither
          Yes I can

          Let's take the moral stance that it is immoral to be an atheist. Assuming belief in God, we can find that this "moral law" fits all the requirements of an absolute moral law:
          - It exists independently of human perception (because regardless of whether you believe it's correct, God still applies it in His judgement)
          - It affects all humans despite being independent of them (the fact that one cannot escape Hellfire without Christ certainly does affect human behavior)

          I'm kind of underexplaining Christian morality here but you can surely understand that God's opinion of morality affects everyone and everything because God is omnipotent (I'm aware I'm falling back on simple fear and punishment but I can give you a more in-depth explanation of Christian moral philosophy if you like)

          > I don't know, maybe. What do you think based on what I've said?
          Yes, because if morality doesn't exist outside of the human mind then it doesn't exist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This assumes not only a belief in God, but in specifically the Christian God. To a Muslim you are as much an infidel as they are to you. How do you reconcile this?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're the one that said morality is still "subjective" (non-existant) under the Christian worldview, I'm just explaining why that's not correct.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's not what I said? The Christian worldview may hold that morals are absolute, but that doesn't make it true. Again, how do you reconcile this with the Muslim view? They also hold that their morals are absolute and true. Whose morals are correct and how do you know? And can you prove it to us?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Alright, so you're saying that morality isn't absolute because not everyone knows morality perfectly (and I will admit that applies to most Christians including myself). I think I understand what you're saying now (though you worded it weirdly initially)

            The idea that morality is false just because people disagree about it is just as stupid as saying that the Earth isn't round because flat Earthers exist.

            > Whose morals are correct and how do you know? And can you prove it to us?
            As pointed out in

            >Curious as to how that works
            The simplest view is that moral truths are just abstract objects that really exist in a mind independent way. Why do moral truths need a special kind of ontological basis, that other truths don't seem to need? Is 2 + 2 = 4 just because God says so, or is it at least conceivable that it would also be true in a world without God? And if 2 + 2 = 4 can be a true statement, why can't "torturing people for fun is bad" also be a true statement?
            >"Bad to you" doesn't equal "bad" though, and it can never equal "bad" under hard materialism.
            It's unclear what moral language actually means, there is some research being done in experimental philosophy. Maybe morality just means "pro social behaviour" and not "stance independent, non reducible truth". Also maybe moral statements are just indexed. I can say "this ice cream is tasty" but I don't think that it's objectively tasty, I implicitly index that statement to myself.
            But of course you are right that a moral anti-realist can't condemn anything in a moral realist sense but that's clear, just like an atheist can't logically say that God will punish his enemies.

            ,

            > Because if I can just steal without getting caught for my own personal gain, why NOT do it in that case?
            I was about to say lmao

            Now you're entering Error Theory's "Argument from Queerness". Essentially, in order for morality to actually exist, it needs to be completely independent of human perception, but it still needs to be able to influence us and we need some way to be able to discover moral laws (like in the Rothbardian natural law sense)

            The problem with secular morality is that despite the praise that atheists give to hard materialism, there's absolutely no scientific evidence that morality exists. Of course, Christians can fall back on abstract intuition, because while there's no "scientific" evidence that God exists, there's also no scientific evidence that 2 + 2 = 4, but it's still objectively and indisputably true. I haven't really seen any atheists argue from this perspective though, given most seem to believe that anything not immediately scientific is incorrect (though they won't honestly extend this logic to morality)

            , and

            >You're just falling back on Christian notions of morality with this argument, given Christians use similar argumentation in defense of God.
            It doesn't necessarily result in the same moral system. You could read Mike Huemer, he's an atheist moral realist.
            His view is that we always build our knowledge on axioms that seem self evident. You might use logic for example, but how do you justify the use of logic without using logic? You either have an infinite regress, or you just accept some self evident axioms. Why do we think that trees exist? Because we see them and that gives us justification in believing they exist, until someone presents a good counter argument. Some moral statements seem as self evident to him as the statement that classical logic is true, statements like "torturing people for fun is bad".
            >The real question is how you get from "this behavior is prosocial" to "this behavior is morally good"
            Maybe that's just what morally good behaviour means to most people. But I don't think you can get from descriptive claims to the kind of moral realism that you probably have in mind.

            , we can fall back on abstract intuition in order to prove one side right and another wrong (we can get into that discussion though we'd be outside of the scope of discussing ethics)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Were you dropped on your head as a child? I'm serious I don't know if I'm not being clear or if you're just dense as hell. Morality is a set of societal values. These values will differ based on the values of the people that make up that society, the culture, the history, etc.(what I think) You are the one that believes there is an absolute morality and that people just don't know it perfectly (not what I think).

            The problem with the idea of absolute morality is that there are competing moral systems, how do you know which is correct? In your round earth example, we can point to experiments and conditions that we all agree on to show whether it is one thing or the other (material reality is the same for all observers). We could feasibly go into space and see with our own eyes what is the truth. However, what is the equivalent method for morals?

            If it is morally wrong to not be Christian in the Christian moral system and it is morally wrong to not be Muslim in the Muslim moral system, which is correct? What can we look at, point to, or measure to determine which is correct? This is the ultimate issue with moral absolutism, there is no method to determine whether a moral value is more correct than others.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Part of this is, like many things in philosophy, a pseudo-problem created by language. You are just arguing about 2 different things and using the same word. He thinks that morality just means stance independent, non-reducible moral facts and you are talking about morality as a social phenomenon.
            How do we know which use of the language is more correct? We could go by majority use but that's an empirical question.
            Morality as a social phenomenon obviously exists, stance independent, non-reducible morality probably doesn't.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes obviously. But that's the point of argument. Simply I'm interested to see where this goes. Moral absolutism is effectively an indefendible position, but I'm interested to see what they can come up with.
            (plus being a douche is fun sometimes)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            To be extra extra clear I mean there is no way to compare how some moral values are more correct than others INDEPENDENT of either moral system. It can only ever be done within a given moral system. So competing systems will have different results in a comparison.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, because if morality doesn't exist outside of the human mind then it doesn't exist.
            So democracy or communism don't exist?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > So democracy or communism don't exist?
            Not any more than unicorns do (though atheists aren't exactly honest about this given they refuse to criticize the "fairytale of morality" so to speak)

            Were you dropped on your head as a child? I'm serious I don't know if I'm not being clear or if you're just dense as hell. Morality is a set of societal values. These values will differ based on the values of the people that make up that society, the culture, the history, etc.(what I think) You are the one that believes there is an absolute morality and that people just don't know it perfectly (not what I think).

            The problem with the idea of absolute morality is that there are competing moral systems, how do you know which is correct? In your round earth example, we can point to experiments and conditions that we all agree on to show whether it is one thing or the other (material reality is the same for all observers). We could feasibly go into space and see with our own eyes what is the truth. However, what is the equivalent method for morals?

            If it is morally wrong to not be Christian in the Christian moral system and it is morally wrong to not be Muslim in the Muslim moral system, which is correct? What can we look at, point to, or measure to determine which is correct? This is the ultimate issue with moral absolutism, there is no method to determine whether a moral value is more correct than others.

            > Morality is a set of societal values. These values will differ based on the values of the people that make up that society, the culture, the history, etc.(what I think) You are the one that believes there is an absolute morality and that people just don't know it perfectly (not what I think).
            You've been repeating this throughout the whole thread, and it's pretty clear that we have very different definitions of morality, but what I'm saying in this thread isn't that there is absolute morality (even though I do believe that to be the case, that's not what I made this thread to discuss in specific). I'm saying that morality doesn't exist within a hardline scientific materialist worldview, so secular ethics is inherently dishonest.

            > The problem with the idea of absolute morality is that there are competing moral systems, how do you know which is correct? In your round earth example, we can point to experiments and conditions that we all agree on to show whether it is one thing or the other (material reality is the same for all observers). We could feasibly go into space and see with our own eyes what is the truth. However, what is the equivalent method for morals?
            The equivalent method for morals is abstract intuition, as it is with mathematics (well, if you buy into the Cartesian/rationalist arguments that some Christians try to use to prove God). If we can rationally deduce morality independent of humans, then we can prove absolute morality exists. We can discuss that framework if you like though it goes far beyond the scope of talking about morality.

            Part of this is, like many things in philosophy, a pseudo-problem created by language. You are just arguing about 2 different things and using the same word. He thinks that morality just means stance independent, non-reducible moral facts and you are talking about morality as a social phenomenon.
            How do we know which use of the language is more correct? We could go by majority use but that's an empirical question.
            Morality as a social phenomenon obviously exists, stance independent, non-reducible morality probably doesn't.

            Thank you

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This whole thread has been you arguing for moral absolutism. Clearly we have different definitions of what morality means. My point being yours cannot hold true, and by the very abstract intuition and deduction you so hold dear.

            I fail to see how secular ethics is dishonest if we take my definition. There is no dishonesty, as it is directly based on values (or perhaps even values we wish to hold). It is only dishonest if the hardline materialist claims to have absolute morals.

            And finally again, please reconcile the Christian Muslim moral system difference. How do we determine which is correct? You won't answer because you don't have an answer.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > And finally again, please reconcile the Christian Muslim moral system difference. How do we determine which is correct? You won't answer because you don't have an answer.
            I thought I told you, abstract intuition and deduction can be used to determine that Islamic morality is false. If you like, we can discuss the existence of God but that's not what you're directly disputing at the moment.

            > My point being yours cannot hold true, and by the very abstract intuition and deduction you so hold dear.
            What are you trying to argue here? If your argument is "God is false", then just say that so and we can switch the discussion topic from moral absolutism to the existence of God.

            > I fail to see how secular ethics is dishonest if we take my definition. There is no dishonesty, as it is directly based on values (or perhaps even values we wish to hold). It is only dishonest if the hardline materialist claims to have absolute morals.
            The problem is that secular humanists generally don't take your definition, if they did then they wouldn't say it's "heckin wrong and immoral" if you were to rape children or murder people for fun.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Kek and just like that, fedora anon just absolutely dissappears. Like clockwork

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > You won't answer because you don't have an answer.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'm an atheist who was raised by self-described secular humanists who subscribed to the newsletter and even took me to a conference with those people, and while I haven't thought that deeply about it, I think it's possible to accept that the moral values at its center are more or less derived from Christianity while still believing that Christianity is and always was man-made. I like Feuerbach for his account of God as a projection of perfected human qualities. People can love each other, and if they love each other a lot, then they create new people. Human beings are creative creatures, but people come to believe God created them rather than the other way around. In other words, all morality is ultimately created by people, including religious morality.

        God doesn't exist other than as an imaginary projection of human beings, like a Tyler Durden character.

        >The whole "God is evil" argument is something I've seen from atheists even ever since I was an atheist myself.
        Yeah I see that a lot too but I don't find that argument convincing.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >God doesn't exist other than as an imaginary projection of human beings, like a Tyler Durden character.
          Is this an assertion or a hypothetical? If God doesn't exist then you would have to make an argument for why materialism would be the end-all be-all of the universe

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Atheism doesn't even imply materialism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you're "spiritual but not religious", I'm sorry but you're beyond my help

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            🙁

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Then you would be wrong. You are just a puny little human. God knows far better than we do.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No Abdullah, he doesn't. And he has given zero proof for that.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You are not omniscient. God is omniscient.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No he isn't. He made countless errors in his own holy books.
            And how do you know I am not omniscient?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And how do you know I am not omniscient?
            Well, what did I eat on Breakfast today and yesterday?
            Could you please write the first 4 paragraphs of the 3rd book of Chrysippus'
            "Of formed State, or Habit, of Mind,"?
            What is the Stoic view on casual sex?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Telling you would be a violation of your free will.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Well, what did I eat on Breakfast today and yesterday?
            >Could you please write the first 4 paragraphs of the 3rd book of Chrysippus'
            >"Of formed State, or Habit, of Mind,"?
            >What is the Stoic view on casual sex?
            Has allah already answered those?
            Until then I will be as fair as to nor spoil it. Until then me and allah have the same score for omniscience.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The question here is if you are omniscient, not about God's omniscience.
            I have an easy question for you, which doesn't take omniscience: tell me what I think of your intellectual honesty.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      My dear Euthyphro, is something pious because the gods love it, or is something loved by the gods because it is pious?

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because if you arent a moral person your life will be hard.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Oh

      I guess that stealing is a moral act then, as long as I'm good enough at it to not get caught

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You're going to have to explain the mental gymnastics of what you just said to me.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Alright

          > If you aren't a moral person, your life will be hard (your words)
          > It's technically possible to steal and get away with it
          > In that case, acting immorally won't make your life harder
          > Therefore, using your framework, we can say that stealing is moral as long as you don't get caught

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ok. I understand now. Now allow me to elaborate.
            >Everyone who steals habitually gets caught eventually.
            >So stealing is not moral.
            >And even if you yourself never get caught stealing, and you somehow escape all odds of probability, habitual theft leads to all products in a store going behind lock and key and self checkout aisles being shut down, thus making your life harder

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >non-answer
    >non-answer
    >non-answer

    If you think morality comes from God and God only in the Christian form then there's no discussion to be had. If one disagrees with this definition you consider that they have no morality. This is moronic but think what you want.

    If a group of people valued raping children then they would not think it's wrong obviously. Most people think it's wrong though, and not just because God says so. One can easily find a secular argument (such as thru the golden rule).

    Finally, you claim that we should switch the topic from moral absolutism to God's existence, but that's only because of your own moronic definition of morality. We don't have to discuss God's existence, we can discuss different moral systems without reference to Him at all, at least in my view :^p

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > If you think morality comes from God and God only in the Christian form then there's no discussion to be had.
      What I'm saying is that assuming hard materialism, morality doesn't exist. Obviously if Islam were true then its moral truths would hold true as well (though I don't believe in Islam)

      > If one disagrees with this definition you consider that they have no morality. This is moronic but think what you want.
      I'm not saying that individual atheists are devoid of morality. Atheists are capable of morally good deeds, but they can justify their belief in morality only by appeal to emotion and authority.

      > If a group of people valued raping children then they would not think it's wrong obviously. Most people think it's wrong though, and not just because God says so. One can easily find a secular argument (such as thru the golden rule).
      Incorrect. The majority of people may believe that raping children is wrong, and the majority of people may even derive that moral truth without believing in God. good luck actually proving that raping children is wrong (or even that the golden rule is good) without God though.

      > but that's only because of your own moronic definition of morality
      I mean, what worth is there in discussing your definition of morality? Like you said, it's subjective (non-existent). Plus, you still treat subjective "morality" as if it's objective by making prescriptive judgements about peoples' behavior based on it. If your definition of morality truly was just based on the beliefs of humans, then it would come with no value judgements (like believing that raping children is wrong)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Subjectivity is not nonexistence. If you cannot understand this then there's no point in proceeding.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > I believe that unicorns and elves exist!
          > Oh, false you say? I say it's true to me, subjectively!
          "Subjectively true" is just a polite way to say "false"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I believe that God and angels exist!
            >Oh, false you say? I say it's true to me, through faith!

            Unironically your argument :^p

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Good one, atheist. But the truth still holds that subjective = false

            Unless you disprove that, you won't be able to prove that morality can exist completely unmoored from any objective reality

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I have a favorite color. My favorite color is subjective. Is the concept of "my favorite color" false, or nonexistent?

            The us is a country, which is simply a concept that exists in people's heads. A group of people, the un, can decide to recognize countries or not. Does the us not exist? It seems to be able to mobilize people, move markets, kill, give benefit, and even talk to people (thru government officials). Frankly I think the us exists, and exists as a country, even if it is subjective (there are some people and groups who do not recognize it as a legitimate country) (you can replace this with any other social construct)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > I have a favorite color. My favorite color is subjective. Is the concept of "my favorite color" false, or nonexistent?
            I mean, your value judgement on your favorite color is false given no color is really greater than another

            > The us is a country, which is simply a concept that exists in people's heads. A group of people, the un, can decide to recognize countries or not. Does the us not exist? It seems to be able to mobilize people, move markets, kill, give benefit, and even talk to people (thru government officials). Frankly I think the us exists, and exists as a country, even if it is subjective (there are some people and groups who do not recognize it as a legitimate country) (you can replace this with any other social construct)
            I mean, you could say that it's an objective fact that a group we would call the "U.S. Govenment" exists and enforces laws around a certain landmass, so in a sense it does objectively exist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know if there's a better term. But are you not aware of what a spook is?
            Law, countries, religion don't exist until humans take those ideas/thoughts and action them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't see how my favorite color is false. It is literally my favorite color. What does no color really being greater have to do with it? You're essentially saying I do not have a favorite color, which is objectively false.

            It's purple BTW :^p

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The inertia of historical context, i.e. the situation between people right now where anyone has to live everyday. Right away your post is derailed when you say "there's no proof morality exists" that's just going to stop anyone right in their tracks from following your train of thought. Imagine saying that out loud, nobody is gonna bounce it back at you in a constructive way.
    Practical answer is people are given certain options as to how to think and what to believe, and as we are right now, a moral system without Biblical faith makes enough sense to enough people.

    It's easier to not explain than it is for you to try to explain why morality doesnt make sense, cause it makes you sound like the atheist wacko you project. Keep in mind: Imagine you are standing on GRASS speaking to a group of LCD people from your community including family and loved ones. Now make it not sound deranged.
    Literally nobody is going through their day to day entertaining that line of inquiry, at most it's people like us who read complicated shit positing the question as a fascinating thought exercise - we knowing what that means.

    To be blunt it's a stupid question and makes me think you're exerting way too much effort to bait a discussion.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The basis is the universal desire for the personal good. I know I desire things, and feel good when they are achieved. Others have desires and feel good when those desires are fulfilled. Out of the mutual engagement and synergistic fulfillment of mutually compatible desires arises a sublime camaraderie which, itself, transcends the mere form of the desires in question and constitutes the highest mode of being in unity with virtue, the character of which can be discovered through honesty, goodness, truth, and beauty. A rational and dispassionate examination of the human condition will lead to this conclusion, unless the individual human subject be such an unfortunate soul as we call "sociopath" or "psychopath". These unfortunate beings degrade the project of the dignity of the human soul and must be dealt with accordingly, guided by justice. In short, Aristotelian virtues can be discovered in the manifest world of human experience, thus, the wise man pursues them and with a cheerful disposition and a light heart. He encourages and brightens all those around him until the light of the human soul shines to it's brightest hue, and the angelic thrum of the human spirit reaches that highest, exalted pitch. To know this is to answer your question. All of this arises from purely material precepts.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >From the perspective of hard scientific materialism, there's no proof that morality exists
    If there were morality set by a divine being or in human naturet it skipped a few people considering the Comanches, WW2 Japanese, aboriginals, Europe in 1620 etc all acted without morality regardless of faith.
    > stupid arguments like "Oh if you need a God to act moral then you're a bad person!"
    What's worse is that with God you can act be bad people.
    >despite there being no valid definition of what "bad" is
    If there were no "bad" then there'd be no way of having a system based on right and wrong.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > If there were morality set by a divine being or in human naturet it skipped a few people considering the Comanches, WW2 Japanese, aboriginals, Europe in 1620 etc all acted without morality regardless of faith.
      I mean, yeah. People act immorally all the time, even today, no matter the faith (or lack thereof). No one's denying that.

      > What's worse is that with God you can act be bad people.
      Yes, Christianity itself admits this in the fact that humans are naturally sinful (and I myself will readily admit that I'm a sinner enslaved, and I don't know any Christian that would deny this)

      > If there were no "bad" then there'd be no way of having a system based on right and wrong.
      I'm speaking from within the context of hard materialism. There is a valid definition of "bad" within Christianity

      I don't know if there's a better term. But are you not aware of what a spook is?
      Law, countries, religion don't exist until humans take those ideas/thoughts and action them.

      > But are you not aware of what a spook is?
      Kek, I know a little bit about Stirner

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I mean, yeah. People act immorally all the time, even today, no matter the faith (or lack thereof). No one's denying that.
        So how could there be a divinely inspired morality if it's evident that so many fail to possess its awareness?
        >There is a valid definition of "bad" within Christianity
        How could there be if Christian leaders and followers routinely did bad actions. How could a divine law be considered effectively if the very followers and teachers can't enforce it?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        In hard materialism, there is still the emergent quality of consciousness which simply has a material basis. Thus, there is the phenomena within consciousness which exists as good or bad. It is not interpreted or judged to be good or bad, the experience exists with the quality of good or bad intrinsically in them. Therefore, anything worthy of the name of morality must center on maximizing these good experiences and diminishing the bad. If anything, it is religious "morality" which increasingly borrows from material morality, which is the only actual standard reasonable people will accept.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >How exactly does someone go from atheism to secular humanism

    One doesn't have to.

    >From the perspective of hard scientific materialism, there's no proof that morality exists
    >despite there being no valid definition of what "bad

    Incorrect

    >I knew there was no atheist reason to believe in morality

    Incorrect

    >when Christians say that atheists have no reason ot be moral,

    Funnily enough, so don't christians. Cuz their sins are forgiven

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Which side of Euthyphro's Dilemma do you take? If we assume that God desires/wills X because X is inherently Good, then X can be Good independent of God's existence, from which it follows that morality can in principle exist in a God-independent sense.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      From a Catholic point of view, the Good is to get closer to God. So, you can't really have a morality independent of God.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Are you trying to invoke Divine Simplicity here?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No. Not that I disagree with it.

          But what I'm saying is that from a Catholic point if view it doesn't make sense to speak of a good independent of God.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >How exactly does someone go from atheism to secular humanism?
    We had a great Kant thread about this a few days ago.
    Morality cannot be reduced any further into smaller things. Like logic or I would say beauty.
    It's a structure of our thinking. Once you talk to people who have a feeling for morality you can walk them through the whole metaphysics of ethics thing to show that being moral entaols following the Sittengesetz.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Please crop your images

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Personally, I find that anthropological group dynamics trend toward a type of "morality". I think this probably has an evolutionary background, from humans adapting to small tribe social structures over a million years or so.

    Kropotkin does a pretty good job of summing it up.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >From the perspective of hard scientific materialism, there's no proof that morality exists whatsoever
    The problem is that morality isn't a scientific question. As an atheist you have to seperate rational and emotional reason.
    Rational is scientific materialism and it is good at figuring out how the world works and making predictions.
    Morality is not something that can be rationalized and belongs to emotional reasoning. Empathy is an emotion that can lead you to the golden rule for example. Also we luckily live in a world where being a cruel dickhead isn't necessarily always the rational thing to do, which is probably why we are empathetic in the first place because it was evolutionarily beneficial.

    Tldr;
    Man does not live by reason alone.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Also we luckily live in a world where being a cruel dickhead isn't necessarily always the rational thing to do,

      This "luckily' is partly why I'm religious.

      The world could've had a different set of rules, but we somehow live in one where good triumph over evil.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If the only thing keeping you from acting like an butthole is fear of divine punishment then you are an butthole

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Astute observation, I am an butthole. Why is that bad exactly? I'm rather fond of my nature.

      Also LMAOing at all the athiests ITT just going on and on about how morality is subjective and it doesn't need to be objective to follow it. Yes, true. Many people follow subjective morality because it pleases them, but what if it doesn't? What argument can you provide to the autistic sperglord to be moral when no one is looking without invoking God?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Your main point isn't that morality is objective but just that there is a punishment.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          We aren't arguing about what is moral, we're asking why an athiest would follow moral principles. Did you read the OP or just see a cross and get angry? The athiest subjective morality spiel has no explanation for the sperglord who doesn't feel very empathetic when they see suffering children, or the sadist who likes torturing puppies, or any other manner of defective freaks our society must deal with. They are intelligent enough to know the morals of those around them and ignore them. Without God how do you propose to make them moral, even when it provides no material or direct emotional benefit to them? Can you make such an argument with a concept of subjective morality?

          Then by your own account you are an butthole and a bad Christian. Shameless and non-contrite, you are like filth covered rags

          I wouldn't call myself a good Christian, but I'm not sure anyone should call themselves one. I also don't think of myself as very buttholey, but my heathen acquaintances think I am just because I affirm God's word. I'm sure you'd think I'm an butthole too, and for the sake of discussion I figured it would be easier for me to assume the identity of one.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They are intelligent enough to know the morals of those around them and ignore them. Without God how do you propose to make them moral, even when it provides no material or direct emotional benefit to them?

            How do you make such people moral with God?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            God will send them to hell if they don't. Simplified, but the essence of it. It's the same as 'you go to le prison if you kill people' except he also can see inside your head.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            if someone rapes and murders due to mental illness, do they go to hell?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >do to mental ilness
            That's very broad and vague. If they're aware of their sin and don't repent, yes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            so, sin is subjective. very cool

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In what manner? That they aren't aware of it?
            This is why I was a little displeased with your use of mental illness. If a man is incapable of comprehending the nature of his sin then he can't really repent, can he? Your awareness of sin, especially since we have been given a handbook, means you must repent of it when you are guilty. There is an objective moral truth regardless of a man's personal awareness of it, at least when we suppose the reality of the Christian God. God punishes those who know and don't repent. When you hand a sperglord a bible, he now has incentive to act in a moral manner regardless of how it feels to do so. The hypothetical moron rapist can't even comprehend morality, so bringing him into the conversation seems to be about as relevant as asking if a rock could sin.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            it's irrelevant if you refuse to consider the implications. like, the grey area of mental illness. and nature vs. nurture.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So then it seems irrelevant whether you invoke God or not. We expect people to behave morally due to a combination of innate empathy, enlightened self interest, and social pressure. For those who refuse, we have coercive measures to dole out negative consequences for bad behavior. All of that seems to make sense whether you derive your morals from 'God said so' or 'human beings made these rules'.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I suppose my main point is that the coercive ability of human society is not a sufficent reason for anyone actually thinking about these things. Even imprisonment, torture, and death could not convince some people to act morally. God provides the ultimate punishment for an immoral person and a standard of morals to judge by. Remember, the question OP asked is why would a person be compelled to be moral without God. Pehaps I am a bit sociopathic myself, but I see no reason not to lie, cheat, or steal from people who can't bring consequences to bear against me and I don't feel a fondness for. I would actually really appreciate a reason instead of just hearing 'cause it makes the cattle feel good' over and over again. I already knew that's why most people do it, but why, if I were an athiest, should I do it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Even imprisonment, torture, and death could not convince some people to act morally. God provides the ultimate punishment for an immoral person and a standard of morals to judge by

            If imprisonment, torture, and death can't convince someone to change their behavior, how is telling them 'God will torture you' going to make any difference?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It promises something worse than all the other things, and importantly, for eternity. The secondary issue you've conviently glossed over is that it doesn't just work for people who aren't scared of torture. I again must bring my own experience up; I have incentive to be moral even when it doesn't bring me benefit. If I was an athiest I would have no incentive. Can you tell me why I should be moral when there is no immediate benefit or punishment regardless of behaivor? Why should a man be moral if it doesn't please him and he isn't concerned about the consequences? Again, I would love a real answer largely for the reason you pointed out, fire and brimstone only goes so far. I would love to be able to reason this out myself. We've gotten this far in the thread and the discussion has just devolved into nonsense.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Can you tell me why I should be moral when there is no immediate benefit or punishment regardless of behaivor?

            Because there is immediate benefit or punishment. If you go out killing and robbing people, there will be consequences. If the immediate threat of punishment in the here and now doesn't deter you, why would the vague threat of a possible afterlife make a difference?

            What sort of immoral acts are you imagining that have no consequences? Like, why shouldn't I shoplift this candybar if the cashier isn't paying attention? Even for this sort of thing, a self-interested argument can be made. Your behavior influences the world, so what kind of world do you want to live in? One where you must constantly be on your guard and can trust no one, or a world where people treat each other with kindness?

            If no one is watching, sure you can dump trash on the ground and not get in trouble. But now you are turning your neighborhood into a garbage dump. Is that where you want to live?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            People already steal the candy bar. In case you haven't noticed, everything is behind plexiglass now. Everyone is an adulterer, people lie habitually, we live in an insane hyperbureaucracy, and the majority believe in 'whatever makes them feel good'. Me taking the candy bar or littering has as much impact as who I vote in the presidential election. And I would be caught if I murdered someone, but many people can get away with murder. Obviously the enforcement of this 'morality' breaks down rapidly. What incentive do I have to not take the candy bar? I don't care about a nebulous 'le society... GETS WORSE,' society gets worse from my perspective just because I get older and things change.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The world is shit, so it's ok if I make it a little shittier

            I think the tradeoff between a free candy bar and increasing the general shittiness of the world I have to live in isn't worth it.

            >I don't care about a nebulous 'le society... GETS WORSE,'
            Clearly you do, since half of your post is complaining about exactly that. It's more about the tradeoff between immediate short term gain and the long term consequences of everyone acting that way.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There seems to be a disconnect; everyone is not me. I am little people. I have essentially no impact on the way the wind blows. In the meantime, I can get a free candy bar. What would do good is if a convincing reason could be provided to the sheeple populace to ensure they are, I dunno, moral.
            If I don't take the candybar, someone else will. As long as that is the case, I'm an idiot for buying it. In this case I guess I am the big idiot because I believe in God and don't steal. You're the even fricking bigger idiot because you pay for the candybar to stoke your pseudo-intellectual ego, as is the entirety of the secular humanist movement.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            we've actually evolved to not (all) be Black folk. empathy isn't some abstract nonsense, it's practical.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are part of everyone. Your actions influence the world you live in and the people around you. Would you rather live in a neighborhood where no one has to lock their door, or one where they have to keep candy bars behind plexiglass because you can't stop being a shitheel?

            The effects are not immediate and obvious, but everyone's actions shape the world they live in. If you can't accept that, then sure, let's try fairy tales about fire and brimstone.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are you fricking moronic? I already have to lock my car door and the shit is already behind plexiglass! Do your eyes work? The thing behind them? My neighbor hates me and I hate him. When I look through the lens that God has provided me I can see the beauty even in the primitive savage, but without it he nothing. I do not care about his wellbeing. A pure desire for the world will fix nothing, because he has 30 kids with different mothers and the average secular-humanist has no kids out of economic considerstions. This doesn't work, it won't work, and it hasn't worked. An appeal to his empaty does nothing. What has worked among such people has been those 'fairy tales'. I'm asking, begging, pleading. Without resorting to vague feelings of empathy why should I be moral? Why do you keep dancing around this? I've asked the damn question over and over again.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            empathy is the answer, actually.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Without resorting to vague feelings of empathy why should I be moral? Why do you keep dancing around this? I've asked the damn question over and over again.

            Are you fricking moronic? I keep telling you. Because your actions have the power to make the world you live in better or worse.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No they don't. Maybe they could one day, but in my current circumstances they can not in any measurable manner. At least not in any way that offsets the free candy bar.

            empathy is the answer, actually.

            The current environment that secular humanity is creating selects sociopaths in the game of survival. Empathy in the current stage holds a man back. More specifically it does when the only driving force in your life is your own personal pleasure, which is the only reason you'd pick empathy as you reason for being moral.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >No they don't.
            You are wrong.

            You are shitting in your own water supply and complaining about how your drink tastes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In case you didn't notice, my hypothetical athiest self stole the candy bar. I, in reality, have not. I believe in God and his instruction that such things will poison my soul.
            My entire point is that intellectually, there is no reason to be moral. As a Christian I have already surrendered part of my desire to the intellectual reality of God's will. I can certainly surrender my empathy to pursuit of another cause if I evaluate it to be greater. You could too.

            yes, sociopaths are an unavoidable check on everything we'd otherwise want out of society. but we aren't 'surviving'; our needs our met. and when that isn't the case, religion is not protecting anyone from anything. society takes care of itself in that regard too, when possible.
            i jumped in late, but i can't tell what you're trying to work out.
            why be good without religion? because the empathetic majority have their boot on your fricking throat. it's win-win for most, regardless of whether or not you can think beyond what you see.

            The majority are schizophrenic. Sometimes empathetic, sometimes not. The majority is not one person. The man in power and the man in squalor live as sociopaths. The empathetic majority's boot seems to miss their kneck. I am only called to live morally so much as can be policed. How many people do you think lie on their resume? About sexual history to partners? How many people do you think are deadbeat on debt? How many people pirate media? How many executives pursue methods that cause the ordinary to suffer? How many politicians take lobbyist money as their sole decider on policy? The boot does not extend to these people, so they do not act moral.

            if you think we've outgrown the evolutionary benefit of empathy, then i'll leave it to you to prove as much.

            From an evolutionary perspective there is benefit to morality. Society will surely collapse without it. I'll probably die before that happens though, so why do I care about humanity after I die. Seems like a spook.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The majority is not one person.
            this is why we have laws, not religion. and there are laws in even the most zealous regions on earth, and the same people breaking them.
            just because you're mindfricked by a fantasy doesn't mean it holds any weight. empathy came before christianity, and it will remain after christianity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            and our society that entails, if that wasn't clear.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What's your point? We're arguing about why an athiest should be moral. Lying on your resume gets you an advantage and is such a minor thing it triggers very few people's sense of empathy, especially not the hordes of H-1B workers applying for jobs. I think that such a thing is immoral, but it isn't illegal (I'm assuming, I've never heard of anyone prosecuted for it.) Empathy didn't seem to stop my very progressive relative who cares about poor immigrants lying on her resume in any measure. So why should an athiest refrain from doing this immoral act? If you knew you wouldn't get caught, why care?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            NTA and this is a completely different direction
            >why care?
            Well, why care even if you will get caught? What makes positive valence more moral than negative valence?
            Suppose God Himself came to you and told you, as you're sliding the candybar into your coat, that Christianity is nonsense, adultery and murder are OK, he really only cares about shoplifting. If you steal a candybar, that is the only immoral thing, and regardless of penance He will burn you in Hell forever woth all the other candybar-shoplifters. Suppose you know all this to be unassailably true. The question remains, why not steal it? It's immoral, because God disapproves of it. But in order for that to affect your decision, you have to adopt that morality as your own.
            The real answer of course is that you would prefer to pay for the candybar than to burn in Hell forever. But this is a subjective value judgment; the same sort of decision as whether you'd prefer whole wheat or rye. And just as it is absurd to say that ordering rye are incorrect, it is absurd to say that it is incorrect to shoplift in this situation. Value judgments as a class do not possess "correctness", the ability to be correct or incorrect
            Of course, if you are trying to be healthy, perhaps, then whole wheat may be the correct option for that goal. But notice that this correctness isn't a feature of the value judgment itself; it's a feature of the relationship between the value judgment and the goal. And note also that the goal is subject to the same sort of lack-of-correctness as the value judgment itself; this is because choosing among goals is itself a value judgment.

            >My entire point is that intellectually, there is no reason to be moral. As a Christian I have already surrendered part of my desire to the intellectual reality of God's will. I can certainly surrender my empathy to pursuit of another cause if I evaluate it to be greater. You could too.

            My entire point is that there is a reason to be moral regardless of God. I want to live in a world where people are kind to each other, so I am kind to others. I want to live in a neighborhood that isn't covered in trash, so I do not litter and make an effort to pick up trash when I see it.

            Taking one of your examples:
            >I want to live in a neighborhood that isn't covered in trash, so I do not litter
            Sometimes those things are connected. But many times they are only as connected as
            >I want the crops to grow, so I perform a rain dance
            In many cases your own actions have a negligible impact on your own experience
            Suppose you are traveling in a foreign city. You litter. When you leave, you never come back. What impact does this have on you? It doesn't, it only impacts people like you, who are (importantly) not you.

            Kek and just like that, fedora anon just absolutely dissappears. Like clockwork

            He clearly continues in

            >non-answer
            >non-answer
            >non-answer

            If you think morality comes from God and God only in the Christian form then there's no discussion to be had. If one disagrees with this definition you consider that they have no morality. This is moronic but think what you want.

            If a group of people valued raping children then they would not think it's wrong obviously. Most people think it's wrong though, and not just because God says so. One can easily find a secular argument (such as thru the golden rule).

            Finally, you claim that we should switch the topic from moral absolutism to God's existence, but that's only because of your own moronic definition of morality. We don't have to discuss God's existence, we can discuss different moral systems without reference to Him at all, at least in my view :^p

            , just without directly replying

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Suppose you are traveling in a foreign city. You litter. When you leave, you never come back. What impact does this have on you?
            People from the foreign city may litter in yours. The Earth as a whole is a singular connected environment. The air you breathe is the same that the burning litter piles in India pollute. Was your litter in that foreign pile?

            Just because (You) don't see the connection doesn't mean it doesn't exist, like you imply with the rain dance.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I have essentially claimed that there is no reason to be moral (in an objective sense) when doing so goes against self interest. Your response to this is, essentially, that morality and self-interest are the same because every immoral action is actually against self-interest.
            I think it's trivial to come up with such a situation. You can always make some just-so argument about how actually immoral actions are worse for the actor, suggesting that the immoral actor is only acting thus because they are somehow mistaken about the implications. But in many of these situations, if you told them about this allegedly unforeseen "penalty", the actor would respond "Yeah, I know that, I just don't care enough about it not to do the bad thing", clearly showing that they are not mistaken, they just are making a different value judgment than you.
            >Bank robbers that don't get caught
            Surely whatever losses trickle down through inflation are outweighed by the enormous financial gain. And I doubt they store their money in banks, either
            >Sociopathic child molesters that aren't exposed until after death
            I could go on. But notice how you had to create some link between the trash and my world. What if the country doesn't burn the litter? What if no one from there travels here in my lifetime? Does littering suddenly become moral if your tenuous just-world backfires stop working?

            tl;dr objective morality isn't the same thing as self-interest, because self-interest is subjective

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I think it's trivial to come up with such a situation.
            a situation where morality goes against self-interest

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What if the country doesn't burn the litter?
            I was thinking about the probably accidental flammation of India's largest trash pile, but this is besides the point you're making, true.

            >I have essentially claimed that there is no reason to be moral (in an objective sense) when doing so goes against self interest
            Do you consider moral to be tied to God? Would you allow a definition of morality that isn't sourced from God?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Would you allow a definition of morality that isn't sourced from God?
            Personally I'm a nihilist, I wouldn't allow one sourced from God either, not without abandoning objective reality
            Which is the same result I think

            In case you didn't notice, my hypothetical athiest self stole the candy bar. I, in reality, have not. I believe in God and his instruction that such things will poison my soul.
            My entire point is that intellectually, there is no reason to be moral. As a Christian I have already surrendered part of my desire to the intellectual reality of God's will. I can certainly surrender my empathy to pursuit of another cause if I evaluate it to be greater. You could too.
            [...]
            The majority are schizophrenic. Sometimes empathetic, sometimes not. The majority is not one person. The man in power and the man in squalor live as sociopaths. The empathetic majority's boot seems to miss their kneck. I am only called to live morally so much as can be policed. How many people do you think lie on their resume? About sexual history to partners? How many people do you think are deadbeat on debt? How many people pirate media? How many executives pursue methods that cause the ordinary to suffer? How many politicians take lobbyist money as their sole decider on policy? The boot does not extend to these people, so they do not act moral.
            [...]
            From an evolutionary perspective there is benefit to morality. Society will surely collapse without it. I'll probably die before that happens though, so why do I care about humanity after I die. Seems like a spook.

            is getting at when he says
            >Intellectually, there is no reason to be moral
            He just takes this as reason to stop being intellectual, I as disproof of objective morality
            Basically you have to take a some statement of faith (probably theodicy) as an axiom rather than those axioms that give rise to objective reality, because those axioms lead to Euthyphro and Moore, which show that any morality derives not from objective reality but from an additional subjective definition of the Good

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Euthyphro and Moore
            *Euthyphro and Hume

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >My entire point is that intellectually, there is no reason to be moral. As a Christian I have already surrendered part of my desire to the intellectual reality of God's will. I can certainly surrender my empathy to pursuit of another cause if I evaluate it to be greater. You could too.

            My entire point is that there is a reason to be moral regardless of God. I want to live in a world where people are kind to each other, so I am kind to others. I want to live in a neighborhood that isn't covered in trash, so I do not litter and make an effort to pick up trash when I see it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            yes, sociopaths are an unavoidable check on everything we'd otherwise want out of society. but we aren't 'surviving'; our needs our met. and when that isn't the case, religion is not protecting anyone from anything. society takes care of itself in that regard too, when possible.
            i jumped in late, but i can't tell what you're trying to work out.
            why be good without religion? because the empathetic majority have their boot on your fricking throat. it's win-win for most, regardless of whether or not you can think beyond what you see.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >My neighbor hates me and I hate him. When I look through the lens that God has provided me I can see the beauty even in the primitive savage, but without it he nothing. I do not care about his wellbeing
            Either you have become disillusioned with humanity and become self destructively jaded, or you lack the capacity for empathy, a much more dismal fate since it dooms you to eternal loneliness, never able to connect in the full human way to another person. Or perhaps it is merely a lack of circumspection. Certainly, there are despicable people, but how do such people come to be? Of course, either genetic predisposition, of which they have no control over, or their upbringing, which was likely devoid of positive role models which has led to a lack of foundation or direction, again something that is beyond the power of such a person to choose. Thus, through nothing but the dispassionate consideration of such a person, we can see in him only tragedy, the desperate misfortune of the human condition. Now we must come to the question, "how should we deal with our fellow man, and especially those among us who are difficult to deal with?" The answer is clearly along the lines of Aristotelian virtues which can be discovered through the careful reasoned examination of the dynamics of human interaction. Out of mutual engagement and synergistic fulfillment of mutually compatible desires arises a sublime camaraderie which, itself, transcends the mere form of the desires in question and constitutes the highest mode of being in unity with virtue, the character of which can be discovered through honesty, goodness, truth, and beauty. Thus, the wise man encourages and brightens all those around him until the light of the human soul shines to it's brightest hue, and the angelic thrum of the human spirit reaches that highest, exalted pitch. For one who is jaded, he will surely scoff, but verily I impart unto you, it is better to give than to receive, for only through selflessness do you experience the heights of self worth as to make the most avaricious miser blush to contemplate. Such magnificent ease of mind and soul will be yours if you find the path of virtue, so that no mere argument need be produced to wholeheartedly convince you of the justness and excellence of such a path. Turn away from the defensive prompts of the selfish ego, transcend immediate, shortsighted concerns of the flesh with it's preoccupation with fight or flight, with groups, tribes, with friends and enemies. Eschew these limitations and embrace the universal self of which you partake only a tiny fraction. Embrace the morality which is manifest in your own mind, your own soul, in all the world around you which you deeply know and feel and must repress with all your might just to deny. The wounds of the past may harden your heart against the path, but be not afraid, treasures beyond measure are awaiting you in those exalted halls of the virtuous. Hark, can you but glimpse the gleam?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            i think we've finally found the most based person in this thread

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Then by your own account you are an butthole and a bad Christian. Shameless and non-contrite, you are like filth covered rags

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      And assuming hard atheist materialism, an butthole is... what exactly?

      (And that's only the most obvious flaw in your statement)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Aristotelian virtues can be discovered by reason arising in the material universe. In fact, the nonsense in the Bible passes through this secular type of morality and the bits that don't pass get "interpreted" as "metaphorical" because, deep down, everyone knows morality is a reasoned process, not divine fiat.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Please explain your reason as to why murder is wrong then

          > inb4 feels bad man
          What if I don't care?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Even religions who claim objective morality comes from divine command acknowledge that people are free to say "I don't care", it just means you are an immoral person. Also, you concede as much because you intrinsically desire to avoid such things (death for example) yet you ask why visiting death on another person is wrong. In short, you already know what is immoral, you already know it can be justified on reasonable grounds, you just want to be an immoral contrarian.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Am moron, that flew over my head

            Where's the part where you tell me why murder is wrong (assuming materialism)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Where's the part where you tell me why murder is wrong (assuming materialism)

            NTA but murder is not wrong. Atleast not always anyway. Killing your enemies in battle is often glorified. So is executing criminals.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You not want be kill. So bad to be kill. Bad for other to be kill. Kill bad.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But I don't suffer when others are killed. Try not to lean on "because it's bad man"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but when you suffer, you recognize it is bad. You are instantly and fully aware of the attribute of "bad" in suffering. If you acknowledge that other people exist, reason dictates that the "bad" attribute exists in their suffering too. Now, you can choose to selfishly heap suffering on others to avoid suffering yourself, but you will know the whole time that you are being immoral.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I mean, if you buy into solipssism it's not like you can prove other people aren't philosophical zombies. Either way, that doesn't actually lend any validity to value judgements on our actions in a way that's independent of humans

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The fact that you have a subjective experience, yet the contents of that subjective experience arise with certain characteristics baked into it (suffering is manifestly bad) goes to show that there exists an objective criteria in reality which is "bad". Just as any other sense data presents itself to you, "bad" (in the form of suffering) also presents itself to you. If you accept that objective things exist from whence your sense data arises, then you must acknowledge there is a "bad" category of objective phenomena from whence your sense data of "bad" arises. To break it down further, your sense of sight exists as a subjective field of view which you consciously access when you pay attention to your sight. From this subjective sense data, we create a model of light beams and physical things which constitute objective reality apart from our subjective field of view, and which our field of view gathers the data which is then presented in our subjective experience. We must conclude that, likewise, when we suffer it is our subjective sense of an objective external reality of suffering. Just as our eyes convert these light beams to vision, our nervous system converts objectively harmful/suffering signals into the subjective pain/unpleasantness we experience. If you accept that an objective reality exists outside of us, you must accept that our subjective sense arises from it, and nothing in our subjective sensation can exist apart from some objective underpinning. Just as we are beings of sight who see an objective reality of light through a subjective filter, we are beings of morality who see an objective reality of good and bad through a subjective filter.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Very interesting perspective. How come there is no moralometer, no instrument that can measure underlying objective facts, like there are cameras for light and microphones for sound? Or in other words, how do you address Moore's open question argument?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I suspect the answer arises in the form of consciousness (although I concede this amounts to a cop out since it essentially thrusts the question into a mystery we have yet to unravel).

            Interesting perspective

            Of our own subjective experiences though, isn't only part of it based on objective reality? Our sight, hearing, sense of smell, etc. are all clearly our experience of the objective world, but moral value judgements don't happen there. Moral value judgements happen when we're talking to ourselves in our head. It doesn't happen in the parts of our minds that are actually moored to objective reality

            >Moral value judgements happen when we're talking to ourselves in our head
            I think this is where I disagree. For example (and forgive me if I tread too near to Sam Harris, surely a sin), when your hand touches a hot stove, your muscles actually retract your hand before the signals even get to your brain, so your very muscles themselves are primed to make a "judgement" that an act needs to be reversed immediately. Furthermore, when the pain arrives to your senses, no judgement is needed to apprehend it is undesirable. Such pain exists in-and-of-itself as a signal of what is to be considered "bad". All "moral judgements" operate along the lines of reducing such "bad" outcomes for yourself or in aggregate for a group. Anything which does not answer this call is not really a question of moral, in other words, the quality of "badness" in pain is always taken for granted as the basis for a moral case, since it constitutes the very fabric of the dimension under judgement. Again, when we are suffering, we do not make a judgement that we would rather not be suffering, it is an overpowering attribute of existing within that experience that we apprehend it as negative. Now, justifications can be made for why it serves a greater good to endure this experience, but it will never take away the fact that such an experience carries a fundamental negative attribute.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Interesting perspective

            Of our own subjective experiences though, isn't only part of it based on objective reality? Our sight, hearing, sense of smell, etc. are all clearly our experience of the objective world, but moral value judgements don't happen there. Moral value judgements happen when we're talking to ourselves in our head. It doesn't happen in the parts of our minds that are actually moored to objective reality

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your experience of sense data is also a process that occurs in your head. The basis of all knowledge begins with the mind addressing itself, ergo the same process by which we justify empirical experience is the same process which justifies moral facts

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            My views are similar, but I would say suffering doesn't (only) point to external bad things, suffering is bad in itself and pleasure good in itself. Like if you have phantom limb pain, in a way it is giving you false information by making you feel like there's damage in a limb that isn't there at all, but it isn't telling you about some fake badness; badness is inherent in the pain itself, regardless of its cause.

            To put it another way, in order to trust our sense of sight we need to assume that what we're seeing is "really there" in some sense, but we don't have to make an analogous assumption to trust that the intrinsic character of a sensation is good or bad.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I guess I question where the exact line is between subjective and objective. If you experience a subjective sensation, what is happening is your consciousness (we can address this as an objective entity in the universe) undergoing a manifest phenomenon which is occurring in objective reality. Even the most bizarre and detached delusions are still a person's mind experiencing some kind of event. Thus, every subjective experience is merely a fraction of what exists in the objective universe, viewed from "inside" a construct, you might say. The fact that certain criteria, such as "badness" or "goodness" is universally recognized sheds all the light in the world on the fact that each subjective consciousness is experiencing some fundamental under girding facet of reality, the objective criteria which makes up the scale of pleasure/pain or desirable/undesirable or good/bad. Thus, people can make subjective assessments along these lines, but the ultimate reality is an objective one.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Bad actions lead to suffering, good actions decrease suffering, simple as

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I personally believe that acts that are commonly viewed as immoral by religions (IE. Killing, Adultery, Stealing) are simply uneconomical to do long term, that's why the people who designed religions included them there, to prevent idiots in partaking in destructive behavior.

    If most atheists weren't also heavily left leaning they would probably pay more attention to Ayn Rand who reached similar conclusions if i understand her ramblings correctly.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes caring for the sick the disabled, opposing the death penalty, abortion, and euthanasia of the elderly is all rooted in economical gain…

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Caring for the sick and disabled.
        That's called the healthcare industry.
        >Opposing the death penalty.
        I don't think that the church, at least the Christian one, opposed it much. Hell they even partook in it!
        >Abortion
        That's one of the things I disagree on with religion, that's one of the issues where the philosophical side takes a backseat so the superstitious side can reek havoc.
        >euthanasia of the elderly
        That's a very broad statement, should we kill every person on their 75th birthday? No! Should we euthanise people when they don't even remember who they are? Yeah, i would want that for myself.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Mother Teresa setting up hospice care for untouchables in Calcutta was not the healthcare industry, and that’s an extreme example but look into the Catholic Church history and there support of universal healthcare. It’s not an economical argument.

          Catholic Church is also pretty heavily opposed to death penalty. Not sure what evangelical in the USA think about it

          Your response to euthanasia makes no sense in the context of economics I don’t know what point you’re making here.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Lots of Evangelicals are pro death penalty. I believe the position is that death is a punishement God has granted the civil authority to adminster justice. Not that anon or trying to argue anything.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It’s not an economical argument.
            If it evolved then the evolved intuition that she was appealing to without thinking rationally can be framed as rooted in economics. It is still about power over the world even if that seems counterintuitive.

            >Globalism actively encourages this so any local system that's globally interconnected like we now think of as normal will definitely be destroyed over time.
            there's a countervailing force, in that information is also globalized. 100 years ago, you wouldn't know if a newcomer to your town had a criminal record, especially not if he was a foreign national. today, anyone's police records, work history, family relationships, political views, etc. are all available online. there's an inviting-in for people who will profit the host country, and a shutting-out for people who don't.

            If this was true which it isn't this would give third world criminal individuals an even greater incentive to exploit the first world and a slight edge due to their systems not recording anything they did. Third world governments might even feel incentivized to encourage it and not record crimes.
            In practice the biggest criminals are the most respected, the disease is labelled the cure. Your precious records say the mobsters are the best of us and any country would be lucky to be completely dismantled by them like Ukraine, Iraq, Iran, Serbia, Germany, Japan, Vietnam etc. They can also use excuses like democracy to destroy a country and then pretend they had nothing to do with it.
            Free flow of information is a good thing but Christians and scientists were doing that before globalism. We don't need open borders for information to flow, there's no excuse or appeal that can justify globalism, it's pure greed with no positive aspects.

            God, the Creator of all things, determines all things. Only God's declaration is ultimate truth.
            >b-b-but thats just divine command!!!
            So what?

            You have to add the theological grounding for the statement to stop it from floating, the main meat of the intended meaning the statement was supposed to convey is left out. It works within a context where the authority of God is well established which it isn't anywhere anymore thanks to communist subversion and American fundamentalists.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You have to add the theological grounding for the statement to stop it from floating,
            No I don't. God is the grounding of all reality. If everything is contingent on God, and God is the only self existent, then God is the ground, and therefore the claim isn't floating. All reality proceeds from God, and that includes moral truths.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >therefore the claim isn't floating
            It was, you added the grounding / context now but an atheist still doesn't accept it so the appeal doesn't connect.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't matter if an atheist doesn't accept it. The claim is coherent and grounded. God is literally the ontological grounding of reality, therefore divine command is absolute

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Mother Teresa setting up hospice care for untouchables in Calcutta was not the healthcare industry, and that's an extreme example but look into the Catholic Church history and there support of universal healthcare. It's not an economical argument.
            Profit doesn't have to be monetary or even material in nature, it can be purely emotional, which is how people doing charity profit. You wouldn't say that the Red Cross isn't a part of the healthcare industry and neither should you deny that to Mother Theresa or any other catholic venture into medicine.
            >Catholic Church is also pretty heavily opposed to death penalty. Not sure what evangelical in the USA think about it
            They are now, historically it wasn't the case. Breaking out of Christianity for a moment Islam certainly allows for it.
            >Your response to euthanasia makes no sense in the context of economics I don't know what point you're making here.
            I'll word it differently then. What is the point of using ever scarcer resources on sustaining an empty husk of a person. Also to

            If you couldn't remember yourself then you can make no claim about what you want for yourself.

            ,
            Those people can get so bad with dementia, Alzheimer's or Huntingtons that they are basically reduced to animals. Similarly to animals they don't know why they are in pain, all they know is that they are suffering and you cannot reason with that. I personally find it absurd that people can even allow the husks of their loved ones to suffer like that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Profit doesn't have to be monetary or even material in nature, it can be purely emotional, which is how people doing charity profit
            Ok well then everything is economic?
            Or... we can ask why some people, particularly the religious, feel a need to help others for not monetary gain. Because they believe that god calls them to do it, and that it is morally right. The fact that less religious people donate less time and money to charity suggests that people aren't just biologically charitable. It's not a question of it's "uneconomical in the long term"

            >They are now, historically it wasn't the case. Breaking out of Christianity for a moment Islam certainly allows for it.
            fair enough, and I don't know much about islam. Regardless, Catholics have historically be pretty progressive on this issue.

            >What is the point of using ever scarcer resources on sustaining an empty husk of a person
            That;s my point. It isn't "economically valuable." If morality is just a question of doing things that are economical in the long run, it would make sense to euthanise people that aren't working. So religious people being opposed to all forms of euthanasia, is certainly not a question of economics.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If you couldn't remember yourself then you can make no claim about what you want for yourself.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How did you go from secular humanist to eastern Orthodox?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I was never a secular humanist. I was just a hard atheist and came to faith in Jesus Christ

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Not realizing the universal self of Brahman and moving towards enlightenment
        NGMI

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          But I am doing that right now as I disregard it. Nirvana is samsara as time is an illusion. You fricking idiot.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >"I recognize the universal self in everything"
            >"Also you're an idiot"
            Don't you mean we are idiots, idiot?

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Murder is bad.
    This is a floating claim with no logical reasoning. It can only be used axiomatically like declaring that x=y.
    >Murder is bad because God says so
    Also floating in mid air unless we clarify reasons for caring about what God says.
    >Murder is bad because it leads to negative consequences for the murderer
    Logically coherent statement grounded in a conditional goal. If you don't want negative consequences don't murder.
    This kind of practical moral sense and sense of what we call fairness is present in animals, even simple ones like birds and insects. It's an evolved adaptation to physical reality.
    The childish idea of God punishing you in an afterlife for murder isn't Biblical. If you murder that just reflects your vast distance from perfection and you're already suffering for that.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      God, the Creator of all things, determines all things. Only God's declaration is ultimate truth.
      >b-b-but thats just divine command!!!
      So what?

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    there's a lot of different secular takes on ethics. i'm sympathetic to two: kant's categorical imperative, and the evolutionary explanation for the development of morality.

    in kant's view (which i'm simplifying somewhat since he introduces lots of fine distinctions), in order to act rationally, you must act in such a way that if everyone acted on the same grounds as you, your action would still be rational. he shows that this entails always treating other people as "ends in themselves," rather than as a means to an end.

    on the evolutionary view, morality is important insofar as it perpetuates humanity. by sharing a moral code, we can more effectively collaborate with other members of our tribe. this is a kind of infrastructure, which helps us win wars and manage friction within our ranks.

    in both cases, morality is grounded in what is useful, rather than what is "good."

    the problem i'm sure you'll point out is that it's even more useful to the individual to act immorally (regardless of the particular moral code in quesion) so long as every other individual acts morally. this is why society goes on to codify morality as law, and to introduce penalties for lawbreaking. it's also why there are informal social consequences for acting immorally. when i went through my "frick the rules" phase, i found out that nobody wants to associate with amoral people, regardless of their own, specific idea of morality.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >it's even more useful to the individual to act immorally (regardless of the particular moral code in quesion) so long as every other individual acts morally
      In animals with shorter lifespans we can observe the effects over many generations. In established systems the number of "criminals" who exploit it fluctuates between a range like 1-10%. So when only 1% are exploiting, being a criminal is a great strategy, as the number rises you get less out of it and the cost becomes greater like through the lowered trust and reciprocal grooming causing parasite outbreaks.
      As a criminal there's only one trick that reliably works across all species, travelling around exploiting working systems in a way that the costs never reach you. When the system no longer operates partly thanks to your exploits you just move on to exploit another one.
      Globalism actively encourages this so any local system that's globally interconnected like we now think of as normal will definitely be destroyed over time.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Globalism actively encourages this so any local system that's globally interconnected like we now think of as normal will definitely be destroyed over time.
        there's a countervailing force, in that information is also globalized. 100 years ago, you wouldn't know if a newcomer to your town had a criminal record, especially not if he was a foreign national. today, anyone's police records, work history, family relationships, political views, etc. are all available online. there's an inviting-in for people who will profit the host country, and a shutting-out for people who don't.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >less than 20 years old
    This doesn't make Christianity look good lol

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      1 Tim. 4:12
      Let no one despise your youth, but be a pattern to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    faith is a construct, being decent is instinct.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yea we just went from centuries of slavery to “all men are created equal we hold these truths to be self evident” by accident.

      Christianity had nothing to do with that ?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        broader social change

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          driven by...?
          >Christianity

          >It’s not an economical argument.
          If it evolved then the evolved intuition that she was appealing to without thinking rationally can be framed as rooted in economics. It is still about power over the world even if that seems counterintuitive.
          [...]
          If this was true which it isn't this would give third world criminal individuals an even greater incentive to exploit the first world and a slight edge due to their systems not recording anything they did. Third world governments might even feel incentivized to encourage it and not record crimes.
          In practice the biggest criminals are the most respected, the disease is labelled the cure. Your precious records say the mobsters are the best of us and any country would be lucky to be completely dismantled by them like Ukraine, Iraq, Iran, Serbia, Germany, Japan, Vietnam etc. They can also use excuses like democracy to destroy a country and then pretend they had nothing to do with it.
          Free flow of information is a good thing but Christians and scientists were doing that before globalism. We don't need open borders for information to flow, there's no excuse or appeal that can justify globalism, it's pure greed with no positive aspects.
          [...]
          You have to add the theological grounding for the statement to stop it from floating, the main meat of the intended meaning the statement was supposed to convey is left out. It works within a context where the authority of God is well established which it isn't anywhere anymore thanks to communist subversion and American fundamentalists.

          >If it evolved then the evolved intuition that she was appealing to without thinking rationally can be framed as rooted in economics. It is still about power over the world even if that seems counterintuitive.
          here's your (you) this is a childish response. It's not counterintuitive, its just stupid. Am I posting this to gain power over you, and thus my response is rooted in economics? Is the economics in the room with you right now?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >driven by
            to what extent? the fact that they were christians and made these changes? sure. i assume most of the abolitionists were. but christians had slaves for over a thousand years. society changed christianity. literally reformed.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the fact that they were christians and made these changes?
            No the fact that the teachings in the gospels influenced these men to see humans as equals. To see that god them inalienable rights, and that human life was to be respected.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            they waited over a thousand years to be influenced by these changes because?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            by these teachings*

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Am I posting this to gain power over you
            You can rationally justify your actions or act based on evolved instinct like an animal. Evolved instinct is always rooted in the goal of exerting power over the world.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You can rationally justify your actions or act based on evolved instinct like an animal. Evolved instinct is always rooted in the goal of exerting power over the world.
            ok well then there is no convincing you. It's all instinct but it's also all economic incentives.
            It seems childishly reductionist but whatever do you brah.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is a form of illiteracy. The original post talked about murder being "uneconomic in the long run". I clarified what that means if instincts evolved. The claim is conditional, there's an "if".

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >eats women the same as men

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hey can i exit heaven if it's possible?

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Ok well then everything is economic?
    >Or... we can ask why some people, particularly the religious, feel a need to help others for not monetary gain. Because they believe that god calls them to do it, and that it is morally right. The fact that less religious people donate less time and money to charity suggests that people aren't just biologically charitable. It's not a question of it's "uneconomical in the long term"
    Economics is the study of human action, so therefore everything that's a result of human action falls under the purview of economics. I for one do charity work because helping people makes me happy. People aren't naturally charitable of course, if that was the case we wouldn't have made it out of caves. But some smart people thousands of years ago realized that charity is necessary so they went out and said 'do charity or else you will not go to heaven'. But those times have long gone away and now enough smart people have done the intellectual heavy lifting to justify things like charity without needing to lie. We don't need religion anymore we have economics.
    >That;s my point. It isn't "economically valuable." If morality is just a question of doing things that are economical in the long run, it would make sense to euthanise people that aren't working. So religious people being opposed to all forms of euthanasia, is certainly not a question of economics.
    One would think that a conservative (which i presume you are) would recognise more than anyone the value of keeping elders around. They come in handy, this being true even among animals (namely killer whales, look it up). By your weird strawman's logic we should also euthanise all infants because they don't work either.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >One would think that a conservative (which i presume you are) would recognise more than anyone the value of keeping elders around. They come in handy, this being true even among animals (namely killer whales, look it up). By your weird strawman's logic we should also euthanise all infants because they don't work either.

      Im precisely arguing that we shouldnt euthanise people, and that although keeping old people alive isn't economically valuable, it's morally wrong, and we shouldnt even bring economics into the discussion.

      >By your weird strawman's logic we should also euthanise all infants because they don't work either.
      c'mon...

      >But those times have long gone away and now enough smart people have done the intellectual heavy lifting to justify things like charity without needing to lie
      charity and volunterring is down, and its directly correlated with decline in religious participation.

      Also, I would by no means consider myself a conservative. Though euthanasia is morally wrong, imo, I'd prefer that we create the condiitions in society that make these choices unthinkable, as opposed to simply legislating against them. Same with abortion. I think conservative economic policy directly contributes to making these choices more "rational"

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Im precisely arguing that we shouldnt euthanise people, and that although keeping old people alive isn't economically valuable, it's morally wrong, and we shouldnt even bring economics into the discussion.
    >Im precisely arguing that we shouldnt euthanise people, and that although keeping old people alive isn't economically valuable, it's morally wrong, and we shouldnt even bring economics into the discussion.
    And I'm arguing that we shouldn't because they are still useful.
    >c'mon...
    That's what you get for strawmanning my argument. From my point of view similarly to how an infant will one day become an adult and contribute to society, keeping grandpa around is also useful because one day he might spend doing absolutely nothing but the other day you have someone to take care of your kid. I for one spent most of my early years under the care of my grandmother because my parents were too busy with their lives.
    >charity and volunterring is down, and its directly correlated with decline in religious participation.
    Because people currently worship the state instead of actually helping each other. Being an atheist i talked to many other atheists and I've heard people saying that charity is pointless because it's a drop in a bucket and we need "systemic change" (socialism). I chalk it up to people being stupid and short sighted, this will get ironed down in time.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >And I'm arguing that we shouldn't because they are still useful.
      Even if they weren't. Even if an old person had no children, and required around the clock care, I don't think euthaniasia is morally right and no other catholic would either. It's a moral question that I don't think can be boiled down to "it's economic in the long run." Thats not a question of feeling superior for helping, or getting a positive emotional response. It's a question of life being sacred.

      >Because people currently worship the state instead of actually helping each other. Being an atheist i talked to many other atheists and I've heard people saying that charity is pointless because it's a drop in a bucket and we need "systemic change" (socialism). I chalk it up to people being stupid and short sighted, this will get ironed down in time.
      I disagree. Most of my friends are atheists, or "spiritual but non-religious" and the moral standard is really individualistic.

      "Let everyone do what they want and no one can tell me what to do. I owe nothing to anyone. My own happiness and my own freedom reigns supreme." would be a pretty standard belief system, if I surveyed alot of the people I know.

      An anology i heard about religion, morality and society that I found really pertinent, is that just as a we can cut flowers and put them in water, and they will look beautiful for days or weeks, eventually they will die with out the roots, so to can a society cut ties with religion and be moral. However, eventually, there needs to be something to nourish that morality, or it will wilt just as the flowers do.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Even if they weren't. Even if an old person had no children, and required around the clock care, I don't think euthaniasia is morally right and no other catholic would either. It's a moral question that I don't think can be boiled down to "it's economic in the long run." Thats not a question of feeling superior for helping, or getting a positive emotional response. It's a question of life being sacred.
        I'm going to assume that by 'life' you mean human life, unless you want to educate me on the rights of tapeworms. But even without that how does it matter that something is sacred? From my perspective that adjective is completely meaningless.

        >An anology i heard about religion, morality and society that I found really pertinent, is that just as a we can cut flowers and put them in water, and they will look beautiful for days or weeks, eventually they will die with out the roots, so to can a society cut ties with religion and be moral. However, eventually, there needs to be something to nourish that morality, or it will wilt just as the flowers do.

        Then I will give you a different analogy. The flower of society wasn't cut the conditions it was growing on changed drastically over the past decades. Now the flower will either adapt to its new circumstances, by doing that it will be changed forever and might barely resemble its former self or it will wither away and a new one will take its place.

        We're currently withering, which is signified by all the self destructive behaviour we both witnessed. Be it your hedonistic friends or my leftist atheist encounters. This isn't the first time a society fell apart because it faced new challenges it's belief system couldn't handle nor will it be the last. The last time this happened was thirty years ago when the Soviet Union fell.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I'm going to assume that by 'life' you mean human life, unless you want to educate me on the rights of tapeworms
          yes, because we possess a deep and complex interiority that animals dont have. We don't just act on instict and fear (tbh im open to the idea that some animals do act on things other than instict and fear, but i dont know enough to debate)

          >But even without that how does it matter that something is sacred?
          if you don't believe in god or a creator than it will sound stupid. But I believe that god creates life, and cosnciousness, and as such we don't have the right to decide when we put an end to it. At the same time, that doesn't mean we should cling to life artificially either.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >yes, because we possess a deep and complex interiority that animals dont have. We don't just act on instict and fear (tbh im open to the idea that some animals do act on things other than instict and fear, but i dont know enough to debate)
            Well this is a point of contention and intense study in zoology because in recent years we've discovered that some animals are way smarter than we initially thought. For instance an Arabian prince taught an orangutan how to drive a car. But as of current understanding only we possess the ability of abstract thought and the creation of culture.
            >f you don't believe in god or a creator than it will sound stupid. But I believe that god creates life, and cosnciousness, and as such we don't have the right to decide when we put an end to it. At the same time, that doesn't mean we should cling to life artificially either.
            Alright, but where is the line between 'care' and clinging to life? Previously you said that:
            >Even if they weren't. Even if an old person had no children, and required around the clock care, I don't think euthaniasia is morally right.
            Euthanasia in this case might mean just pulling the plug on the life support instead of a chemical injection or whatever. And in that case is it morally right to let that person suffer a slow death as their body slowly shuts down while it is immoral to give that same person a painless death?

            I had this whole analogy planned out but it seems that you have a paradox in your moral code.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Pulling the plug isn’t euthanasia. Euthanasia is actively inducing death.

            If someone has round the clock care to clean them, feed them, that’s different than being on artificial life support.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >

            >yes, because we possess a deep and complex interiority that animals dont have. We don't just act on instict and fear (tbh im open to the idea that some animals do act on things other than instict and fear, but i dont know enough to debate)


            Well this is a point of contention and intense study in zoology because in recent years we've discovered that some animals are way smarter than we initially thought. For instance an Arabian prince taught an orangutan how to drive a car. But as of current understanding only we possess the ability of abstract thought and the creation of culture.
            >f you don't believe in god or a creator than it will sound stupid. But I believe that god creates life, and cosnciousness, and as such we don't have the right to decide when we put an end to it. At the same time, that doesn't mean we should cling to life artificially either.
            Alright, but where is the line between 'care' and clinging to life? Previously you said that:
            >Even if they weren't. Even if an old person had no children, and required around the clock care, I don't think euthaniasia is morally right.
            Euthanasia in this case might mean just pulling the plug on the life support instead of a chemical injection or whatever. And in that case is it morally right to let that person suffer a slow death as their body slowly shuts down while it is immoral to give that same person a painless death?

            I had this whole analogy planned out but it seems that you have a paradox in your moral code.
            >Pulling the plug isn't euthanasia. Euthanasia is actively inducing death.

            >person alive
            >pull plug
            >person dead
            >this isn't actively inducing death

            I am confused.

            >If someone has round the clock care to clean them, feed them, that's different than being on artificial life support.
            How so? So if a patient has late stage Huntington's disease it is morally wrong to mercy kill him but if it's someone who is mentally of sound mind and conscious but is trapped in an iron lung ( because he can't breathe then he's 'clinging to life' and should get the plug pulled on him?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Is someone taking insulin for their diabetes clinging to life? No, obviously not. Use you’re head.

            Regardless, i live in Canada, trust me if the debate was moved to the extremes of people in immense suffering I’d be happy. Perfectly healthy old people are opting for euthanasia out of fear of being a burden. I work with q the omen who doesn’t w end of life volunteer work, and the stories she relays to me are upsetting to say the least.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A women who does* I’m phone posting, apologies

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not having read the thread I will chime in that secular humanism is itself a religion, or maybe an ideology is a better fitting term but it seems to miss the key detail that so-called atheists do believe in some sort of goodness or badness does exist even in a vacuum

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if you think we've outgrown the evolutionary benefit of empathy, then i'll leave it to you to prove as much.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    God talks to me everyday eventually I started listening and finally I started talking back now we have endless conversations full of surprises. Faith is a wonderful thing really. The only thing to fear is God but even that isn't really fear because bro always has my back

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There is no objective morality, or at the very least we cannot observe it if it exists. Any atheist worth listening to will tell you this. All morality we have access to is inherently subjective, filtered through our own intuitions and judgements about the world. Despite this, many atheists subscribe to morality, which seems strange. Why would someone decide to be moral without an obligation to do so?
    The simplest answers for why to subscribe to a particular moral system are, as many mention, social. There are arguments to be made about utilitarian moral systems, but the typical answer is just the golden rule of "do unto others as you would want others to do to you". Some people may argue vaguely from the notion of "There is already so much bad in the world. Why should I add more if I can help it?"
    Saying you can't argue things are good and bad without an objective standard of what is good and bad is a nonargument. People assert things as bad to them. Disagreements about what is and isn't bad is the foundation of moral argumentation and is entirely subjective, because to convince people you have to appeal directly to their own personal sensibilities.
    Religion provides an easy means of getting a lot of people to subscribe to a particular set of morals, but that doesn't mean they're any less subject to human judgement. A frequent appeal made to people of a certain faith regarding a moral issue may make reference to a specific piece of scripture or a religious principle, but that is centered on their belief in that God rather than any other actual reasoning. It's the same process, atheists just view themselves as the person reviewing and arbitrating the moral decision making instead of turning to what they believe a deity says.
    I'm not claiming that atheist morality makes any more sense in that. I'm just saying that it's actually a very similar process--your moral claims are supported by your faith in your particular God, but others with a differing belief will not be swayed by your arguments. Atheists are accountable only to themselves and members of the society around them, so their personal moral intuitions and desire to do good and the potential for consequences surrounding bad deeds are the reasons they act in accordance with certain morality. They often feel superior for this reason, because they do not have actual obligations watching over them at all times, yet decide to act good anyway.
    In reality, there is no objective distinctions of good and evil besides what is socially agreed upon. There are generally principles which can be appealed to, but the main reason most people refer to them as virtuous or villainous is simply moral intuitions, though there are often utilitarian ways of arguing them as well.
    Under a Christian perspective, morality as an atheist makes no sense, but given how many atheists act virtuously, it's clear that there are other factors. It's just not God, which might seem silly, but it does work.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      We have eyes to see, but seeing is merely subjective. Thus, is there no corresponding reality which affords our vision and object to espy? Thus, is our moral sense not a subjective feeling which corresponds to a similar reality externally? To deny the objectivity of morality is to posit solipsism, for as soon as you allow for an objective reality outside of oneself, there will be objective morals which govern the mutual interaction between agents. Ah, but you mention "obligation". Even those who seek to add objective weight to morality by inventing a deity behind it allow that, despite an objective standard, people have no true obligation to follow it. At worst, they will invent some imagined punishment, but since we have no access to verifying this reality, it cannot really be called an obligation, much less so since many groups claim their deity have a distinct objective morality of their own which is incompatible with the others. Thus, to pick any is to make a subjective choice and fail the obligation of any other supposed morality-giver. Thus, the reasonable man must eschew all such assertions and seek only that morality which corresponds to manifest experience of those agents who experience consciousness. Any moral code worth the name of "objectivity" must relate to fostering positive experiences and diminishing undesirable ones. This is the one and only objective moral standard.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You don't need to believe in hard scientific materialism to be an atheist, you can object to the existence of gods on purely logical grounds.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I may not believe in God, but I believe in a functional society. It's how humanity has achieved everything thus far, and a set of well defined rules is the way to that.

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Atheist doesn't mean without religion. This why atheists love going to forms of platonism, Buddhism, humanism, Marxism, etc, etc. Mainly they are just looking to avoid Christian style worship because of the amount of internal conflict it poses for them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ironically Platonism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc took God as an absolute and objective reality being based in God. Atheists just ignore these parts, however.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Atheists generally are morons who can’t understand Kant or the moral argument

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >bro I’m totally a chad bro I’m not just some geeky kid posting shitty memes on twitter/reddit/IQfy I’m literally a gigachad bro see this meme that’s me bro

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There are chads here, it's just not everybody. And they're not here frequently.

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think an atheist would probably say that morals don't need a "proof" or "source" to exist, they just need to have utility in the face of common goals dictated by nature. And that any proof that requires faith is no proof at all anyway.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Whence the criterion "absolute" for falling under the category "existing" ? Just because morals are historically relative under a materialist theory of ideology doesn't mean they "don't exist" and "shouldn't be heeded" - moreover, it explains why even those his publicly disavow morals nevertheless behave in conformity with them.

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What is the Christian response to Euthyphro?
    If things are immoral because God says so, they're just proclamations enforced at the barrel of a gun. He's the strongest guy so we accept that his moral assertions are true or else he inflicts literal infinite suffering upon us.
    If moral truths exist independent of God's proclamations, then in fact no, you don't need God to act morally.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Christian gets around it quite cleverly by stating that God is goodness/piousness/truth/happiness/etc. in of itself, and pursuing goodness/etc. is the same as pursuing God.

      Not pursuing God is then the same as cutting yourself off from those things and thus brings eternal suffering through your own actions.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        OP here, this is actually closer to Ortho Christian morality than divine command theory (which seems to be more prevalent in Protestant America, which is what I assume most atheists mean when they say "Christian")

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not really, if you read Boethius you'll see he makes that exact same claim. You should read more theology.

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >orthobro here
    got it 14 year old larper.

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I've not heard of this before so from wikipedia:
    >secular humanism
    >a philosophy, belief system, or life stance that embraces human reason, logic, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making

    >How exactly does someone go from atheism to secular humanism?
    Perhaps the definition is overly broad but it seems like every atheist would have to be a secular humanist

    >despite there being no valid definition of what "bad" is
    Even within Christianity there is no valid definition of what "bad" is. There are 100s of denominations that all interpret the bible differently. Increasing in scope to belief in the Abrahamic God, there is an even less coherent meaning of "bad".

    > no atheist reason to believe in morality
    I think you mean to say "there is no sociopathic reason to believe in morality". If you care about other people or living beings in general then there is a reason to consider what actions would be right or wrong by them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > I think you mean to say "there is no sociopathic reason to believe in morality".
      So basically, there's no argument except "feels bad man"

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I am an agnostic atheist. My moral beliefs come from my heart. What things have influenced my heart-- society, religion and its history, philosophy, etc --I cannot even hope to measure in full. But I know I ache when I see others suffer and I rage at systemic injustice. I know I am selfish and I know I want to do more "good" and be "better".
    If a person came to me claiming proofs of an objective description of morality and moral facts, and it contradicted what I feel in my heart, how could I possibly reject my own heart?

  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    atheists practice the same civic duties and roles as you moron. the foundation of the nation state is secular, rule of law, inalienable rights for all and protection from abuse (presumption of innocence).

    >How exactly does someone go from

    they don't go from anything to anything else, they have a public life and a private life, religion plays no role in public life and privately nobody cares what others believe.

    >perspective of hard scientific materialism, there's no proof

    ? science is a method of discovering new information, collecting it, using the discoveries to make further specialized adaptations to a technological corpus typically through the patent system. proof is a mathematical concept built around circular definitions, axioms, lemmas and argumentation. mathematics is a separate method for using creative problem solving to develop techniques that scientists, engineers and anyone else can freely use to do their respective work.

    >always find it jarring when
    >no valid definition of what "bad"

    the definition is implied, they are talking about public bad, antisocial activities, poor choices, essentially moving against the civic good as defined by the greek philosophers, breaking the laws, overthrowing the state, infringing on the rights of others.

    some of them reserve judgement on private good and private bad, others extend the state and civic life into the private sphere, it's a spectrum of thought.

    >when I was an atheist
    no offense intended but a person's intelligence is independent of their religious inclinations. lots of dumbasses who are ignorant of their avowed positions say and do regrettable things in the public sphere. to pretend that atheism is indefensible because you have not encountered an educated position is to say something like this:

    >the chinese civilization for its entire history doesn't exist, they haven't been atheist for 4000 years
    >the ancient greeks and romans had nothing to say about building and running a society, educating children or the meaning of life
    >the natural state of man is to remain ignorant and not uncover the truth using whatever means he can bring to bear

    is that what you basically believe or?

    the entire corpus of christian thinking is built on aristotle, plato and socrates from which they derived scholasticism, transcendentals and the greater good concept of the noble lie.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > science is a method of discovering new information, collecting it, using the discoveries to make further specialized adaptations to a technological corpus typically through the patent system. proof is a mathematical concept built around circular definitions, axioms, lemmas and argumentation. mathematics is a separate method for using creative problem solving to develop techniques that scientists, engineers and anyone else can freely use to do their respective work.
      I knew here that you were trolling (you definitely knew what I mean)

  48. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >No proof of morality
    Acceptable and unacceptable behavior from a group member is present in social animals from bees to humans.
    Morality is little more than following hard coded group think which is why it varies depending on the group.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Of course, you don't know that. There is nothing that necessitates the male lion should constantly try to kill every male cup that is not his within a give mile radius nor that one should tolerate people they don't like that you can point at "in nature". Hell, we don't even know what tolerance even fricking is. A lot of these illusions you have drop the moment you actually dtart asking yourself ehat murder even is. Or what good and bad are

  49. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I've found it curious because even when I was an atheist, I knew there was no atheist reason to believe in morality.
    Well, there is, if you approach morality from a biological perspective. Morality has existence as a particular configuration of genetics, neural structure, and overall physiological state — a person is conditioned, physically, into acting what is considered "moral."

    "Secular humanism" is just a new religion, or a way to defer one's personal accountability onto something else. This is what the human animal, when overcome by fear, tends to do: it forms tribes, an "us against them," and forces a group-think onto the tribe, like a security blanket. Humanists are among the "neo-Christians" walking around today.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >if we redefine morality in this completely arbitrary and unorthodox way then we can have a biological basis for morality.
      It's funny because you are not even a biologist. Also, Nietzsche already did something similar and mainly to discredit morality as simply being a made-up, arbitrary tool for weaklings to delude the strong from oppressing them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >if we redefine morality
        Yes, exactly. It has to be redefined in the absence of God, otherwise nothing makes sense. Nietzsche did that by changing morality from a function of truth to a function of power. We get "secular humanism" and other rubbish because people cling to definitions which no longer make sense for them.

        The israelites and Christians did it before Nietzsche, by the way. They redefined concepts which they inherited from the Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans to suit their own perspectives. Everyone does it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >They redefined concepts which they inherited from the Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans to suit their own perspectives
          I'm not so sure. I don't think Nietzsche was in any way close tp being correct when he tried to describe how these ancient people "really" saw the world.

          I also don't think this redefinition makes any sense

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Ah, I see you've read MacIntyre

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >defer one's personal accountability onto something else.
      He says while espousing biological determinism.

  50. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I find it funny how so many atheists plead for practicality when I've seen and heard many people, particle physicists even, advocate for traditional religion on the same exact grounds

  51. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >IQfy atheists will literally eat shit rather than talk about deontological morality or JS Mills-style utilitarianism.

    It's like you guys just haven't read anything other than Nietzsche

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Both moronic, as are all atheistic pseudomoralities. Mill implied the only reason people don't prefer opera to getting sloshed is they haven't experienced opera. Lmao

  52. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >moral facts exist (facts about what we SHOULD and SHOULD'T do)
    Why SHOULD I care?

    This is just utterly bizarre to me. How it's supposed to work.
    Like, suppose all I want to do is hurt other people for fun. Why shouldn't I do it?
    I'd be somehow "wrong" for acting in a way that is consistent with my goals and desires.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      People with agency can choose their desires and goals on a rational basis. Unlike you, I am not compelled to want anything.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ok, lol
        so you just choose what you want, rationally-like
        great
        so do I
        I choose to hurt other people for fun, that's what I wanna do

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's always funny to see people out themselves as having no agency. But I guess it's not like you had a choice to, lmao

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No argument?

  53. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Humans live in a society > pro-social behavior is good, antisocial behavior is bad. Yes, it's arbitrary. Just as arbitrary as, even if we agree that you need God to have morality, the idea that your specific brand of israeli fairytales describes what that objective morality is in reality.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Assuming living in a society is good
      >inb4 we need society to survive
      Assuming survival is good

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Unfortunately, there is no stronger argument for religion than this midwit assault. Religions exist in meme-tiers in such a belief and they outlast other systems and integrate the most pro-social behaviors, and pro-group behaviors as well.
      At the same token, there is no such thing as pro-social behavior as there are endless value judgements concealed under the guise of positive/negative.
      I would expect to see your comment on youtube.

  54. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I’m an agnostic atheist (basically I believe that you can’t definitively prove whether God is real or not, but I lean more towards the side that God isn’t real) and I believe in Christian morality because I hate homosexuals, Black folk, israelites and trannies.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I believe that you can’t definitively prove whether God is real or no
      God is unfalsifiable, yeah

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don't think so. If you could show something, or anything, is self causing or self existent, then you could falsify God

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          And how are you going to do that? Empiricism, reason alone?
          Literally anything we could possibly observe or think is compatible with God

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'll put on a lab coat, look through a microscope, scribble some notes, crunch the numbers, swirl a test tube and walla, no God.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, but seriously
            Do you want to retract the statement about God being falsifiable?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No. I don't see why it should be impossible to scientifically demonstrate a self caused particle.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >scientifically demonstrate a self caused particle
            You cannot be serious
            How would that falsify God?

            Besides, this hinges on some weird assumptions
            1. That there in fact are such particles
            2. That we can come to know about them

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, assuming there are such particles and that we can come to know them we can demonstrate that there is no need to have God as a necessary being underlying creation. That means God is falsifiable.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >to scientifically demonstrate a self caused particle
            God just caused them to appear that way, though.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Christian morality does no proclaim hatred towards anyone.

  55. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If I'm being charitable; most people have an empathetic/sympathetic, pro-social and well-intentioned side of their personality. An atheist who says things like this is saying, these are elements of my personality, I don't need the fear of a cosmic judge to tap into these elements and sustain that posture toward others.
    Where I think this is incredibly naive, is that while its true; every person also contains an inherently dark, selfish, socio/psychopathic and antisocial component of their personality as well. An atheists conception of reality hits two snags because of this; one, they give themselves too much credit, ignoring that given enough situational or environmental pressure, they would absolutely embody their worst characteristics without a thought (and sometimes even without much real pressure, just a bad day might bring it out), and two, they bring an unsustainable model of guilt into human reality. Meaning, God, or whatever, is not just a cosmic judge, also a cosmic redeemer. If the day of failure ever hits an atheist, he has no way to forgive himself. Logically, when he sees others behaving poorly, he has to assume that they are "bad people," or dehumanize them completely and assume that men are just animals.
    It all leads to a situation where the goodness in the hearts of these people makes them cling to the moralistic, sentimental aspects of now abandoned religion, but without any connection with the Absolute, they lack the justification for forgiveness, for understanding, or for logically justifying the value of being "good."

  56. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Epicureanism. Morality is ultimately based on pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *