Do athiests have ANY morals at all?
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Do athiests have ANY morals at all?
no i dont
i have some.
packed away in a box in the attic, or the garage. I forget.
More than theists who think they have to be good to get rewarded.
>>768282525
is that a tranny?
>>768282525
That's a stupid question, morality has nothing to do with believing in a higher power.
>>768283063
Well it is linked. But i dont believe in god and i dont want to brake the law or cause harm. Morels are given to you as a kid. And if your paernts teach you morals with a relion then thats fine
>>768282525
>Do athiests have ANY morals at all?
Don't know. What are ATHIESTS?
>>768282525
we like to declare war with a reason better than "deus vult"
>>768283318
Virgins with little dicks and high hostility
>>768283429
So ... male feminists? Then they really have no morals.
>>768282525
That woman has a very round head.
>>768282525
Christianity is not synonymous with morality. Hence all the child fucking the Catholics turn a blind eye to.
Does it really take a myrhological figure of unending power and ceaseless observaional strength to stop you from killing/rape/commiting crimes against someone else? Then fuck off and kys if you need that.
>>768282525
cough, bait, cough.
How is religion a necessaty for moral behavior?
>>768283676
Read the bible.
>>768282525
Morals don't come from religion.
>>768283902
Read the bible.
I'm utilitarian. Do what benefits the future of humanity the most.
>>768283926
I have. There are no morals to be found in it.
>>768283950
Read the bible.
>>768283964
Must have read the worn one.
>>768283862
That is no answer to the question. Why do i have to believe in religion/god in order to not go crazy? BTW people of all religions go nuts all the time, so...
>>768283985
Someone didn't read the bible...
>>768283985
Just read the good book
>>768282525
>athiests
>>768282525
How is everyone stupid enough to take this flimsy bait?
>>768284059
>Sounds like an atheist to me
>>768282525
lol, morals vs alleged belief in the Iron Age demonology of angels, demons, god & satan.
real deep thinker there, lol.
-------
ps: what's w/ the babe?
she looks sooo beseeching.
.
>>768283862
ayuh.
become aware of the atrocities committed in the name of god
how the name of god was used to justify rape, murder, genocide, intolerance, moral turpitude, child abuse, torture, &c.
any real atheist has read at least the bible, if not the kuran as well, and has at least a lay understanding of most religious systems.
otherwise you're just a faggot. an uneducated one at that.
>>768284222
Read the bible.
>>768284338
silly faggot, read my post.
then go suck some nigger dick so I don't have to keep listening to your faggot shit.
>>768283926
I have, it like other similar texts(e.g. the Muslim holy book) promotes murdering innocent people for their sexuality and tells people to worship a most likely nonexistent god that, in the case that they do exist, is worse than Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin combine.
>>768282525
More morals than religious people! We're not cunts who sin, ask for forgiveness, then sin again. Degenerates the lot of you!
>>768284186
>what's w/ the babe?
Watch "The Neverending Story".
>she looks sooo beseeching
Yes, that's practically her whole character, other than being somewhat cute.
>>768282525
I'm as moral as the next Muslim who'd blow himself up to kill people and please God.
Except that I don't blow myself up.
>>768282525
Wtf is the OP’s obsession with this girl?
>>768284568
He's religious, so he's obviously a pedo. And that girl's prime material for that fetish.
>>768284621
There is nothing wrong with being religious, same nothing wrong with being a atheist. Agnostic here
>>768282525
Bump
>>768284621
Read the bible.
>>768284435
Read the bible
>>768282525
nope
atheism is also a religion
>>768284741
If you're agnoistic, you're probably also an atheist. Believers don't go around saying "I don't know".
And no, being agnostic is not a third option. It's a claim on knowledge, not believe.
So you're either a theist or not a theist (= an athetist), there's really no middle ground.
>>768284874
you first
>>768282525
Morals and ethics grew out of us being a social species that survived on cooperation.
The fact that you need some supernatural being looking over your shoulder to not do bad things say more about you than it does about atheists.
>>768284874
I have. Lots and lots of (violent) pediophilia there, most of it not only condoned, but motivated by the Jewish god. (And that stuff's not even the worst in the Bible.)
Oh, and, by the way, stop trolling.
>>768284908
just like not believing in astrology is a form of astrology
>>768282525
No, we have ethics. You should seriously consider taking a critical thinking or debate class, because your game is weak...
>>768285020
Thats what i'm talking about. Atheists go arround and push their bullshit into people's who want to live peacefully face
>>768285123
>Read the bible
>>768285051
Read the good book
>>768282525
Bumpity
>>768284908
No. Atheism is not a religion and i think that calling atheism a religion can be offensive for some religious people. Atheism is a dangerous cult. They have own leaders, own symbol, even own church
Ye
>>768285196
Nope, atheist are usually on the defense and only attack when they are attacked. There's not even much to talk about between atheists. All they (we) share is non-believing in a certain class of things.
Sure, you can joke about particularly stupid believes or belive systems, but that's about it.
Atheists don't care what you or you neighbour believe privately.
They start to care when those believes systematically invade society and disrupt it's peace and prosperity (like scientific advancement and stable politics).
>>768285123
Ordered, rewarded or ignored by the Abrahamic "God" according to the Bible and the Talmud:
Rape? Check.
Incest? Check.
Polygamy? Check.
Pedophilia? Check.
Genocide? Check.
Murder, murder and more murder? Check, check and check.
I point these out because they're contradictory to other parts of that fun book of myths and fables, "The Bible".
>>768285617
You didn't read the right bible, m8.
>>768285939
Which bible is the real one and do you by any chance speak/read ancient aramaic?
>>768286110
Yes and yes, m8.
>>768285263
>They have own leaders, own symbol, even own church
I know I'll regret asking, but:
I think I can guess who you'd consider atheist "leaders" (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dillahunty).
But please, point me to that one atheist "symbol" I'm supposed to worship. Feel free to post it, this is a picture board after all. And no, logos from conferences or Youtube channels don't count (as there are many and none is accepted as more than that).
And also, please tell me about that atheist church. Because I seem to have failed to register to it. Also, I never went to one of their ecesiastic meetups. Maybe I should try that some time.
>>768286205
Cool, so you actually have a chance of reading the original scrolls, instead of what various kings and emperors have decided on.
You didn't answer my question on which version of the bible is the right one though.
Personally I think the transcendentalism of the Judas gospel is a rather interesting take on the abrahamic religions.
>>768286376
I'm not the theist anon you were talking to, but there is that fish with legs symbol that could arguably be called an atheist symbol.
Whether it constitutes a religious symbol is up to debate though, since it is a reference to evolution that doesn't exactly require faith given the amount of proof we have.
>>768286642
You mean this one?
That counts as a parody on the Christian "Ichthys" at most.
As such it's the antithesis of a religious symbol and ridicules the notion of one.
Furthermore, many atheists are not even aware of it. I only came across it (in a context not even directly related to atheism) about two years ago.
>>768286977
>You mean this one?
Yeah that's the one.
>That counts as a parody on the Christian "Ichthys" at most.
Yeah I know, but I was trying to follow the premise the other anon was proposing.
>As such it's the antithesis of a religious symbol and ridicules the notion of one.
Yeah, that is why I like it, it's funny.
>Furthermore, many atheists are not even aware of it. I only came across it (in a context not even directly related to atheism) about two years ago.
I encountered it longer ago than that, I saw it stuck to a car and looked it up.
>>768282525
Yes. Better than yours. As well as higher intelligence.
>>768288073
I'm an atheist myself and I've met some pretty immoral and unintelligent atheists.
The label of atheist is on par with label of left handed, it doesn't imply any specific level of morality or intelligence.
>>768288073
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand
>>768282525
>Do athiests have ANY morals at all?
Do people of faith have to be told?
>>768282995
Underrated post
>>768283063
higher power...
like a ghost in the sky?
lol
>>768282995
>>768288904
No. There's no reason to hate on an actress that did a good job portraying an iconic character, just because nowadays she's being abused by religious zealots (like so many other children, I might add).
>>768283461
eww, delete mommy dearest
.
>>768283978
mine are worn bc i read em so much...
inbetween drugs, sex & r n r, i mean..
shucks.. boy'l b boys
>>768284052
donill wont sexually assault her,
she doesnt look enuf like Ivanka
>>768284059
unlike u, eh?
>>768284547
ok, ty.
------
somewhat cute? who's super cute then?
--------
>>768282525
no, we just obey rules we haven't found out how to break with a 100% chance of not getting caught. we often say that we have morals, but it's just a smokescreen.
>>768289977
Who are you to talk on my behalf anon?
Atheist usually have lower morals than others, a Christian would believe to d ok the right thing for an afterlife, but an atheist sees it as hes going to die either way, so why do the right thing when nothing good will come out of it? This is not all atheists, some will do the right thing just because of their character, but it's a common stereotype atheist have low morals.
no they don’t op
>>768290406
>but it's a common stereotype atheist have low morals.
Really? The stereotype I know is the other way around. Weird.
>>768290406
No, what you're describing as "moral behavior" is not moral at all. Ethics only are valid if they are refelxive in their purpose - which means you act ethically just to act ethically.
If you need some outside motivation to act a certain way, you're not moral at all, but just a greedy bigot. This is why everyone basing their so called "morals" on the prospect of a reward in afterlife, on evading punishment or on "Karma" is at their core a bad person. And where bible literalist are usually shooting themselves in the foot when they use this argument.
Christians and atheists can be moral, if they act morally for the right reason (ethics).
But some (very few) believers only seem to be moral when they're actually evil monsters bargaining with their respective gods.
Atheists pretty much never have that way out, so they more often than not act according to their character.
>>768282525
Morals are the way people who’s emotions are stronger than their reason temper themselves. They’re a form of faith.
My reason is stronger than my emotions, so I don’t need morals.
Good place to start for morals is 10 commandments
>>768291028
>Morals are the way people who’s emotions are stronger than their reason temper themselves.
Try reading Kant: Ethics and Aesthetics are actually where your reason (Vernunft) really comes into play, because your intellicence (Verstand) can't grasp them. Neither (Ethics nor Aesthetics) should ever be loaded with emotions; lest they become unreasonable and very very faulty.
By the way, you're probably acting accordingly and just have your nomenclature confused. So: Good news, you're a moral person without realizing it.
>>768290211
see what i mean?
>>768282525
I'm an atheist and I'm here to answer your question.
We do. We've just set them aside until we've completed our goal of murdering every Christian adult, raping every Christian child and eating every Christian baby. Once that is done, we will return to being moral people, by which I mean irrationally hating gays, women, non-Christians (so everyone except whatever kids survived the raping) and our own sexuality. Because that's morality.
>>768291870
Don't forget that we'll continue fucking those christian kids, because that's morality too according to christians.
>>768291214
Okay, by the numbers:
1. Not a moral.
2. Not a moral.
3. Not a moral.
4. Not a moral.
5. Moral.
6. Moral so long as we make allowances for necessity.
7. Moral so long as we don't include "All sex outside of a marriage between one man and one woman" in our definition of "adultery".
8. Moral except in extenuating circumstances.
9. Moral, but there needs to be common sense exceptions.
10. Not a moral, but probably good advice.
>>768291214
Just in case that post of yours is not irony:
>1 ... no other gods before me.
No. Not a sensible moral rule. This is just a religious axiom, nothing we can act upon. And it says a lot about the character of that so called "god".
>2 ... make unto thee any graven image.
Why not? There's nothing immoral about art. Even the Catholic Church agreed way back in the Renaissance.
>3 ... not take the name [...] God in vain.
Hell, what's so immoral about that. Cheesus! That's just godawful.
>4 ... Remember the sabath
Nice advice to take one day off per week. But thatonly affects the person him-/herself. No ethics here.
>5 ... Honor thy father and mother
Why not just honor everyone as good as you can? That's what my morals thell me. I'd say that's better.
>6 ... not kill
Agreed. This one's alrgiht!
>7 ... not commit adultery
Agreed. Another one!
>8 ... not steal.
Agreed. That makes it three!
>9 ... not bear false witness
Agreed. I think we're on a run!
>10 ... not covet [...] any thing that is thy neighbour's
Wait ... what? Not covet? Thought crimes? Since when can we influence how we think? That doesn't work. Won't work, ever. Also, morality is about action, not thought. That one's an "epic fail".
So, that makes it 4 and a half commandments, right. And I don't think the suffice.
>>768291491
Kant argues for an a priori principal of morality, but fails to prove it. Morals don’t ‘exist’ a priori. His whole effort seems like a failure to replace god and religion with a sort of moral philosophy.
I don’t take action based on good/bad or right/wrong. I take the most effective action. I don’t need morals to do this. But I do need an understanding of how others employ morals..
Do you ever have your own thoughts? Or are you always looking for a book to tell you what’s what? Why do you need to put your belief in someone or something?
You’re too much of a follower.
>>768292840
>Kant argues for an a priori principal of morality
First and foremost, Kant argues for the possibility of aprioric synthethic knowledge. Proving that is no problem (Hint: Mathematics) and the underlying principle is what he calls Verstand. He then goes on to deduct Categories from the so called Verstandesformen (formal prinicples of/for intelligence). Because the Verstand is not capable of reflecting upon itself (reflecting as in the Carthesian "Cogito"), he introduced another name for this higher function of the mind: the Vernunft (reason). That one comes into play everytime we need an agent to reflect on his own "mental capacities". That's why it's the basis for morals. Those morals are, in the end, a priori, not because they are supposed to take the place of a god or even religion (religion does play a part in Kant's political philosophy, by the way, and he dows not consider it entirely useless), but because they can only come from the "subject" itself, not from the intelligible actuality ("Anschauung") it's confronted with. That's pretty evident, because for the latter to be the case, the would need to be subject-independent properties of occurences, events or objects, which would mean everyone is forced by their intellect to come to the same moral conclusions as everyone else on the same things. That's not the case. Thus: Ethics are a priori.
>Do you ever have your own thoughts? Or are you always looking for a book to tell you what’s what? Why do you need to put your belief in someone or something?
Making up one's own rules for one's moral actions (within some common sense framework) is exactly what Kant suggests. That's what makes him such a good foundation for your own thoughts on the subject of Ethics.
I do disagree with him on some points, by the way, but going into detail on that would be too big an endeavour.
>>768282525
>Do athiests [sic] have ANY morals at all?
Yes. Unlike religious people who have to be told how to act in case they go on a rampage.
>>768282525
Why are morals important again?
>>768282525
>Neverending Shitpost
>>768293874
My point is that in order for morals to arise within the subject a priori there must first exist an untempered emotional/irrational component within that subject. Without such unchecked emotion/irrationality vernunft would not act as the basis for, nor create morality since there would be no need. There would be nothing there for morality to address.
I hope he helps you find whatever it is you’re after, but I find his worldview to be enslaving, not liberating. It takes the mind prisoner, rather than freeing it.
As-salamu Alaikum
