/lit/ - Literature

The same way religious people do, by not being a dick

>>15603979
Naturally selected values that have ran across many generations I think

>>15603979
Being told by God what to do is not moral. Might makes right is wrong

>>15603979
We read the Greeks. Philosophy is our religion, the white man's religion.

>>15603979
What book are you quoting? If it's the bible, please specify a particular quote or even better a pre-modern commentator

>>15603979
By having not being a midwit nigger that needs religion to keep him in line.

>>15603979
Morality is a biological strategy securing advantages (money, power, sex) for social groups. Dumb atheists join a non-religious moral group, less dumb atheists build there own moral system based on their previous experiences with social groups in the past.

>>15603998
None of the "notable" Greeks were atheists dumbass.

>>15604004
>less dumb atheists build there own moral system based on their previous experiences with social groups in the past.
How did previous social groups develop their morals?

>>15603979
It’s just empathy bro, which is not the same thing as morals.

A moral community does not owe its existence exclusively to religion.

>>15604028
By mixing together moral notions from those that came before them with their own experiences

>>15603979
It is just called being decent human being

>>15603979
By simply doing that which is kind.To do good works without any promised reward is the height of morality.

Theists on the other hand do good works, but there is always an ambiguity whether they do it out of true benevolence or simply do it for the self-interest of their 'eternal soul' and some mercenary perceived momentary cost vs. delayed benefit (heaven).

Of course, some atheists have no morals, the same as how some believers also have no morals.

>>15604028
morals regulate the behavior of the individual within the group. it's an evolutionary adaption.

>>15604054
define kind. define good works.

Morals are meaningless

>>15604054
Idiot.

>>15604028
Based on what was beneficial to them in a sense they it granted them power or advantages procreation. Take the ruling class on Ancient Greece. For them it was beneficial to own slaves, so it became morally okay. Pretty Darwinian way to see the world, but I personally prefer this way then believing that some entitiy tells humans what’s okay to do and what not.

>>15604064
Kind - Of a benevolent nature, some would say loving. Treated often as sacrificing self-interest for the greater good of someone else. Of course, to act kindly does not necessarily have to include a form of self-sacrifice.

Good works - That which benefits not just the self; good works are typically acts of kindness on a wider and more continual or frequent scale (although, this again, is sometimes not necessarily the case, good works can be 'one offs'). Good works can vary from a positive impact on an individual scale all the way to a positive impact on the global scale.

>>15604070

>>15604065
The disintegration of the common moral community is a large reason for the absolute state of the US.

>>15604096
cringe

>>15604112
>absolute state of the US
Strongest and most prosperous country to ever exist in human history.

By using reason and thinking.

>>15604119
yeah like 50 years ago at the latest, now its on the verge of balkanization.

>>15604118
I'm sorry my posts seems to have triggered you so much. It's really quite a pity that you can't string together a decent rebuttal, having to rely on base insults.

Maybe my post hit a little too close to home?

>>15603979
Lol my brother is becoming an atheist. I think he's slowly getting the atheism Induced depression. He's become so autistic and has started believing in the harm principle. He was talking to my religious mother the other day about religion and all of a sudden he started changing over her "MATT DILLAHUNTY, MATT DILLAHUNTY MATT DILLAHUNTY". Fuck it was funny.

>>15604112
Which is really dumb

>>15604132
still cringe, why do you talk like that ew

>>15604137
In what way?

They don't. Morality is concerned with right and wrong but in an atheistic universe there is no right and wrong. We're just molecules bouncing around so there is no basis for them to say that something is truly good or truly evil. You must be able to define what goodness is in order to say something is good, but the definition requires a transcendent or supernatural standard of good. If the transcendent or supernatural exists in any way then atheism is false.

>>15604139
Baiting retard

>>15604152
I feel pretty confident in saying that basic morality precedes religion.

>>15604152
Lol atheists just elevate the group to the level of God. Utilitarianism should really be called group command theory.

>>15604145
Nothing should rely on morals

>>15604139
I'm not talking, I'm typing.

Now, are you finished fishing for (you)s? Or are you instead trying to elicit some form of angry response from me so you feel somehow vindicated for disagreeing with me?

>>15604159
What do you mean by religion? If you're talking about organized group worship then yes, obviously. People have always had a conception of a transcendent or supernatural good which is the basis of morality. You don't have to be religious to be moral but you can't be an ahteist.

Morality is for cucks.

>>15604169
I mean religious even in the sense of the earliest nature gods. Morals are concerned with governing the behaviour of the individuals of the group. This does not require religion, though you are right in saying that two becomes linked later in the development of our ancestors. Morals are pluralistic in that there are other moral worlds out there than what we currently subscribe to here in the West.

>>15604167
You take an optimistic view of the strategic reasoning skills of the average human then.

>>15604188
Nope

>>15604162
I think this sort of thing collapses into relativism which is a denial of objective morality.

>>15604181
You're just redefining morality into something else. We're talking about the existence of objective good and evil and that is something that cannot exist without a transcendent standard of goodness. When we say that atheists have no basis for morality when mean they cannot claim an objective good and evil without something supernatural which would undermine their atheism. We're not saying that can't form groups, impose their will, or have preferences in behavior.

>>15604197
>objective good and evil
You understand that objective here is contrasted with subjective? Like human being have moral preferences that are subjective to themselves. How is God's preference any less subjective than a person's? Anyone's morality can be "objective" if you just accept it but that is exactly what is being objected to with accusations of being subjective

>>15604213
Subjectivism or relativism is the denial that there is an objective good and evil so why do you oppose the statement that atheism has no basis for their morality? This is what I don't understand from most modern atheists, it's like they're concerned with the optics of openly denying morality than anything else.

>>15604197
I'm afraid that it may be you who is acribing some meaning to the world "morals" that isn't there in its basic definition. I called morals pluralistic, because what is "good" and "evil" can and does vary historically and geographically. This is not a collapse into useless relativism, which you rightly critize, but rather a statemt of fact. Morals deal with describing what is right behavior of the individual in the eyes of the group. It's an adaption to bind the selfish homo economicus to the group, which results in greater overall gain for all.

>>15604228
The same argument applies to you why didn't you answer the question about God being just as subjective as us? Atheism has no basis for objective morality but neither does religion.

>>15604229
I've defined morality to be the concern of right and wrong because that's what I mean when I say morality. When I say atheists have no basis for morality I mean they have no intellectual basis for saying there is an objective right and wrong. You can redefine morality to mean something else in order to say "atheists have morals" but that doesn't get the conversation anywhere. It just becomes a rhetorical game at that point. I despise internet atheists because this happens every time.

>>15604241
It really doesn't matter. The only way an objective good COULD exist is if there's a supernatural standard of good. You want to argue the particulars of this standard but that's beside the point.

>>15604262
>objective good COULD exist is if there's a supernatural standard of good

The only people who agree to this are Christcucks. What do I care if something is natural or supernatural from a moral standpoint? You can't get an ought from an is, whether that "is" is supernatural or not doesn't matter

>>15604262
Ah, I think I finally understand you. You are arguing from the idea that there is any such thing as "objective" morals, in your case delivered by supernatural beings. I was speaking from a scientific view on how morals developed in early man. Hard to reconcile our discussion then, as I do not believe how we happen to think about good and evil here in the West in this small window of human history can ever be said to be any sort of objective.

>>15604269
All religious or spiritual people would agree with it but who cares? This isn't a popularity contest. This matters if you want to claim that there is an objective good and evil. What the hell are you talking about the is-ought distinction for? That is so random, you people are fucking dumb.

>>15604298
>This matters if you want to claim that there is an objective good and evil
>What the hell are you talking about the is-ought distinction for?
You're shitting me right? You're saying the is-ought distinction has no bearing on the existence of objective morality?

>>15604023
>Plato

>>15604314
No, it doesn't. Hume in the context of the is-ought distinction is arguing that you can't derive value from fact. He's not saying there is no objective morality with this you daft bastard.

>>15604331
So objective morality isn't a fact? Is that what you're saying?

>>15604340
Yeah, whatever dude.

>>15604331
And let me just point out that Hume was a notorious atheist. He most definitely did think his argument applied to God

>>15604331
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.

>>15604354
Yes I'm aware of who he is. He didn't recognize objective morality because he didn't think there was a transcendent or supernatural good, so he's actually in agreement with me.

>>15603986
>The same way religious people do, by not being a dick
UPVOTE!!

>>15604361
Rofl read this that I just posted >>15604360

>, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not

>>15604360
>>15604364
You are irredeemably stupid.

>>15604324
He believed in a demiurge you fucking pseud

>>15604364
>>15604360
Who is prescribing oughts in the question of whether an objective good exists? This is totally irrelevant.

>>15604382
Someone prescribing oughts is not objective morality that is the whole point of this. If you think that you have to have some entity human or God to dictate morality you don't believe in objective morality

>>15604324
>Plato
>an atheist
Shut up retard, he believed in God, it just wasn’t the retarded personal God of the desert cults

>>15604405
You're not even understanding what's being asked of you. We're on different wavelengths, we can't even communicate. Go have fun doing whatever it is you do and don't eat too much dirt.

>>15603979
They don't. It's all for show. They ape christian morality and bend it whatever way suits them at the time, often to such a degree that they might as well not have any rules at all.

>>15604411
You're the one who thought is/ought doesn't matter for objective morality. Pure retard take

>>15604023
How do you know? It's not like they would admit they were atheists when admiting to being one was treated with death penalty. Many of them were actually closet atheists, especially Epicurus who was fairly significant unless you are a normie

>>15604566

'atheism' really is just lack of belief in a metaphysical principle(s) that gives authority to the realm we live in. your idea that atheism is purely the lack of belief in a personal god shows how ignorant all of you are

>>15604412
Do you think Christian morality is unique to Christians? Don't murder or steal wow never thought of before Jesus. Christianity is a story made up to justify the common morality of the time

>>15604573
That's what atheism is, midwit. Now fuck off and let the big boys discuss in peace.

>>15604573
Metaphysics is made up just like religion. And what does "gives authority to the realm we live in" even mean? Gibberish

>>15604594

you just said epicurus was likely an atheist for not believing in a personal god and then you call someone else a midwit? lol


>>15604596


>And what does "gives authority to the realm we live in" even mean? Gibberish

what is taken in by the senses can have a logical and rational order. amazing how stupid some of you are

>>15604617
So what does authority have to do with that?

>>15603979
Quite simple. If you pretty knows what's bad for you then you pretty much know what's bad for others. Sometimes you just need to have a critical mind of yourself without the need of an asian book from 2000 years ago
Also, philosophy is a way too

>>15604624

authority being the 'rules' of existence are coming 'down' from somewhere, such as the constraints of what can be in a given mathematical set are limited by the rules that preceded it

>>15604617
Yes, he was a crypto-atheist. There's no reason to keep believing in a god if you came to the conclusion they don't need to exist for things to happen. He only said god's exist because otherwise he would be exiled or persecuted. How do I know this? I have been studying him for over a decade so it's like I knew the man personally. As for you, it's probably your first time hearing about him, isn't it? Fucking midwit lol, when you said atheism is more than just not believing in a god already gave you away.

>>15603979
read. a. book

Oh, look. It's this thread again
Atheists don't have a big imaginary sky wizard who tells a man in a big hat to torture, kill, and burn others if they don't believe in him, not to go thousands of miles to butcher, and loot, and pillage people minding their own business
So they can just chill and live normal, decent lives, see?

>>15604646
Yeah the rules that precede it but those rules don't have to come from some authority. You're just trying to sneak in God and then hiding behind the logical and rational order as cover. "Authority" can not exist without a logical and rational order it is gibberish to talk about God creating logic.

>>15603979
Might makes right.

t. atheist

>>15604112
>implying it isn’t totally linked to multiracialism, changing demographics and forced integration

>>15604654
define normal and decent

>>15604112
I wonder what group was behind literally every major victory in "church-state" separation.

>>15604668
No

>>15604649

you probably need another 10 years if you want to learn something, yikes. your modern definition of atheism and the actual meaning of atheism will never be compatible


>>15604656

you keep using the word gibberish so that just confirms my belief that atheists typically don't read anything outside of pop sci critiques of christianity

>>15604686
You didn't even know what the is/ought distinction was about. You clearly don't have any philosophical training at all

>>15603979
by being closeted theists

>>15604693

this confused me for a second, but i'm not the same guy that you've been trying to dunk on for the entire thread. another mistake

>>15604721
The guy talking about the supernatural standard of good is not the guy talking about metaphysical authority. Could of fooled me. Regardless the same arguments apply

>>15604686
Atheism comes from θεός (atheos for you, midwit). That literally means "not gods", nothing more. Stop pretending you are smart by giving meaning to something which isn't there with your midwit gibberish

>>15603998
Does the whole europe read them? No. Only a handful of people including you, so this does not apply to everyone.

>>15604168
cringe

>>15603979
My parents loaded a syringe full of morals and shot it up my butt every weekend, that's how.

>>15604363
Le based and le redpilled, put me in the screencap

>>15604685
This response is the main issue religious people have with atheists. They dont have an answer for morality.
And as we can see right now in society, they end up goal less in life and act like scum towards anyone that disagrees with them.

>>15603990
Those naturally selected values you speak of would usually be taught through Christianity tho.

>>15604586
Why can't I steal something if no one notices?

>>15604774
Socrates explained this over two millennia ago

>>15604769
> They dont have an answer for morality.

Friendly reminder that up until a few centuries ago, the religious answer to disagreement was burning people alive. In fact, there are plenty of places in the world where this is still the case

>>15604774
The moral rule is not to steal. Christianity along with the many other religions with invisible sky cops makes up a practical reason not to steal because of fear of punishment. But neither the moral rule or the imaginary reason to follow it are unique to Christianity

>>15603979
Atheists take for granted their belief systems and do not question their origins, what is humanism if not a secularized version of Christianity?

>>15604640
How does this make sense to you? Why should I follow the golden rule of ethics? Why can't I just act as I want and expect others to treat me as I want?

>>15604769
So what is religion's answer for morality? God says so and might makes right is not an answer

>>15604788
Some countries are behind, sure. But where the atheists are they are the ones pushing the same kind of intolerance

>>15604796
Why should I do what God says? Fear of hell? But that is not a moral reason just a practical one

>>15604435
God is not an entity dictating morality, it is not merely some sort of supernatural Emperor. God is the abstract being-in-itself of morality, God itself is what reveals itself to us, and this is what we call morality; a being-with God. Accepting morality is not a matter of prescribing oughts, it is the decision to align oneself with the innate order of the world. Someone prescribing an ought is by their very being not-God prescribing a subjective morality, God cannot be subjective because it is Everything.

>>15604800
>God says so and might makes right is not an answer
Why is it not an answer?

>>15604795

exactly. this entire thread is just expression of 'atheists' lashing out at their parents for dragging them to church

>>15604804
>they are the ones pushing the same kind of intolerance
What kind of intolerance?

>>15604784
Yes. He did. However, I do not think the whole atheist community gives a fuck and even read him

>>15604808
So the God of the Bible is not true. The Ten Commandments are clearly, wait for it, commands. And this just runs smack into the is-ought distinction. The "is" is the innate order of the world. What does that have to do with what I ought to do? Natural law is made up

>>15604814
Or it’s an expression of religionists lashing out at skeptics for dragging them out of the dark ages

>>15604789
I do not understand you.
>The moral rule is not to steal
Where does this rule come from?

>>15604810
Because that's not objective morality. If it was atheists can just say the laws of the country you live in are objective morality

>>15604800
what religion are you quoting here?
They all push different ways of being good

>>15604835
>Where does this rule come from?
It has been made up in multiple different cultures over human history. It is not unique to Christianity

>>15604806
That is one way of putting it, but I think that you should't steal because Jesus didn't. Thats all.
If you want to be like him (he conquered death btw) then don't steal

>>15604838
I don't care what the specific way of being good is I care what the justification for that specific way being objective is. No religion has a rational claim to objective morality Euthyphro and is-ought showed that

>>15604825
The argument was not whether the Bible has any right to claim moral authenticity, the argument was whether objective morality can exist in a purely material atheistic world. If you accept what I said, then morality cannot coincide with atheism.

>>15604818
both the nazi and communists of the 20th century were atheists

>>15604841
mmm, some cultures allow to steal from your enemies and kill them. Disproval of that in Christianity is kinda unique

>>15603979
by having a moral code they follow? same as religion. besides, being taught a specific morality doesn't make one actually believe or practice it. kind of a retarded bait question tbqhanon

>>15604844
And this is fine but the existence of objective morality is frequently used to prop up the existence of God. You've given up on the claim for objective morality from God and so the argument for the existence of God is weakened. Jesus was probably a real person but he didn't conquer death it's just a story

>>15604769
>This response is the main issue religious people have with atheists
Fuck off
The exact point was, that all your moronic "moral" people, have been busy doing absolutely anything you would consider amoral or evil, for as long as there has been any kind of religion at all
Get your fucking stick out of your ass, and get a brain

>>15604856
Nope. Both were idealists. Radical idealists (unlike chistianity)

>you can only have morals if you believing in some asian god and in a specific asian man

>>15604853
I do accept what you said objective morality doesn't exist but religion and God don't help either. That has been what I've been saying for multiple posts

>>15603979
>you cant have common sense on what's right and wrong unless you listen to some higher diety

>>15604861
Deut 20:14
Only the women and the little children and the domestic animals and all that shall be in the city, all of its spoil you may loot for yourselves, and you may enjoy the spoil of your enemies that Yahweh you God has given to you.

You don't even know what you're trying to defend

>>15604850
Is objective morality necessary for you to be moral?

>>15604875
>thinking your socially constructed norms have any sort of validity

>>15604864
Oh. Sorry, I don't actually care about objective morality - I'm here just to state my claim and practice my english

>>15604881
>Thinking your arbitrary norms based on made up sky faeries has any sort of validity at all

>>15604864
Btw, I don't really think a logical argument for existence of god is possible. Agnosticism makes more sense for me.

>>15604872
In that case, you have a fundamental difference in opinion with the religious posters, which one cannot argue one's way out of. I believe that religiosity/atheism is an irrational dichotomy which can't really be argued one way or the other, only felt by the individual. So I'll leave you alone, considering we follow the same thread along from different spools, so to speak.

>>15604870
being idealistic isn't the same as being religious, they were idealistic atheists

>>15604879
Clearly not I would say their are plenty of moral people in the world but I would also say there is no such thing as objective morality. So those people are moral in spite of a lack of the existence of objective morality.

>>15604897
Yea. Sorry. I didn't read the whole line of messages and thought we are arguing against each other.

>>15604895
I have a fundamental difference from them but it's because they are wrong about objective morality. Even the same arguments they use against atheists to say they have no basis for objective morality can easily be turned against them. Socrates with Euthyphro and Hume with the is-ought distinction famously showed the problems with claiming you can get objective morality from religion or God

>>15604897
Wait. I am dumb. I was corrent in my attack on you. Ok nvm

>>15603979
shame and guilt are taught regardless. but atheist can cure themselves out of degeneracy called morality.

>>15603979
They usually borrow the moral code of the dominant religion in their community.

>>15604914
I will have to admit that you are dumb.

Unfortunately you aren't correct tho.

Atheism inevitably leads to immoral bad behavior

>>15604919
what behavior do you see then? Have you tried going to the CHAZ?

>>15604982
Raz Simone is saying he is God's prophet

>>15603979
In my experience, atheist morality is not noticeably different than Christian morality. The only difference is the story they tell themselves about their behavior.

>>15604991
Exactly this

>>15604987
It's not his movement, hes just taking charge of the rioters because they're fucking clueless

>>15604991
Christians are donating many times more to charities, they also have old traditions of helping people in need

>>15603979
Read Durkheim. Theistic religions are really just a particular breed of self-contained moral/philosophical systems. Those systems solve the problems of purpose and existence by creating something which is set apart and sacred. This allows for ontological fixing of morals so people don't have to evaluate what's right at every instance but can just "do". Atheists think they're not religious but they still are. Instead of having God as the set-apart and sacred they just pick something else, like the environment, or science, or themselves, or multiculturalism, or Marx, so on and so on. It is incredibly difficult for humans to live without fixed moral systems and they generally won't if they don't have to. If you're not worshiping a god, it's a safe assumption that you're worshiping something else.

>>15605015
Never read Durkheim but that part about

> Those systems solve the problems of purpose and existence by creating something which is set apart and sacred. This allows for ontological fixing of morals so people don't have to evaluate what's right at every instance but can just "do"

is straight out of Dawkins and Dennett

>>15604769
>They dont have an answer for morality.
There are multiple meta-ethical theories out there to pick from. You only embarrass yourself by equating your half assed fedora opponents with the whole of philosophy.

>>15605007
true charity is to teach a man to fish, and give tools, not to give a fish, not to promote dependency and ignorance. christian charity promotes misery.

>>15605023
That's because Dawkins is a pseud and probably took it from Durkheim's "Forms".

>>15605015
>if you have beliefs you are religious
the ultimate cope. just change the definitions to win the argument.

>>15604971
>Atheism inevitably leads to immoral bad behavior
proof?

>>15605015
ON POINT

>>15603979
they don't, really, what they have is habits ingrained on them in childhood which are based on the religious scruples of their grandparents. That is why they can decide that adultery or homosexuality isn't a sin anymore... Of course, paedophilia and bestiality are also soon to be discarded, and then murdering babies (abortion "rights") and eventually we get here.

>>15605040
charity giving out fishing sticks. BOOM.

you ignore that a lot of their charities are setting up villages or getting people to school. The way forward to being independent is education and setting things up.

It's not like they only donate water and food

>>15605056
And where did their grandparents get their morality from? It wasn't habits ingrained in them in childhood was it?

>>15605053
his way of proving it is to assert that moral, epistemic, and existential nihilism is true
he does this by using all of the nihilist arguments unironically while believing that only the existence of god prevents them from being true (for reasons)
if you accuse him of simply being a nihilist and give arguments against nihilism he will deny his own nihilism while unironically denying all of the anti nihilist arguments because he genuinely believes them all to be false
>he is then surprised if/when he loses his faith he sinks into nihilism
>h-how did this happen? i was a christian!

a tale as old as time

>>15605046
>You're just changing the argument
Fucking midwits get off my board.
Read a paper of environmental conservation and replace all references to animal species with "forest spirits" and references to Earth, the environment, etc. with "Gaia". Environmental conservation is religious veneration to a T. The fact that you're referring to an amorphous metaphysical representation of the forest and not an amorphous metaphysical representation of justice does not magically make it not religion.

>>15603998
Philosophy is a global religion. Also it should be a central part of one's holistic education. If you're not actively engaging with the development of your world-model, you're damning yourself to being limited to your given world-model.

>>15604096
is adding millions of dependent africans to your nation's population an example of a "good work"?

>>15605088
>if you translate an argument into a logical form, then apply the same logical form to different terms, it means you've made the same argument
absolutely brain dead

>>15604982
I see love and controlled folly.

>>15603979
They do under certain circumstances, if they are Buddhist.
http://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogspot.com/2019/05/on-atheist-morals-of-buddhism.html

The point of atheism in the West, though, is to break down moral laws that the individual finds restrictive and unpleasant, especially those regarding sexuality. If a man is sexually drawn to raping children, for example, in todays post-relgious west he can join groups like NAMBLA and write articles in Salon (I have read two of them there) trying to pitch Paedophilia and child rape as acceptable. since there is no God and thus no absolute morality, all a person has to do is listen to the "experts" they prefer and will soon find someone to reassure them their perversions are "normal" and that small children can "consent" and that raping them does no REAL harm, since even if they grow up with a wish to mutilate their bodies there can be no definition of what mental health is anymore. Little wonder that the West is crumbling!

I think that only a small percentage of people are able to accept atheism and retain a self-generated, socially-integrated morality. 90%+ of people need a big nobodaddy on the sky to keep them from becoming anti-social to a point where society is damaged.

>>15603979
>>15604769
>>15604971
I'm going to use Joe Rogan's argument against this because it is the most simple. The Bible was written by people. Fine, you say that they were inspired by God's paternal light of goodness or whatever. But human hands and minds created the "morality of the bible." If one group of humans who believe in a "God" can create an organized system of morality. What is stopping humans who don't believe in God from doing the same thing. Would it not be possible for the bible to be an non-religious text of morality that gets upheld by tradition in culture? The same way Christian morality is upheld?

>>15605134
reminders. children are atheists, kittens are atheists. even God Himself is an atheist.

>>15604856
Nazis were christians you inbred cocksucker, stop spreading your false information to support your shitty argument. It's recorded history how Hitler lamented that the Nazis were christian instead of muslims, because muslims were and still are far more brutal and aggressive through their religion, and this far more suited for his war and genocide plans

>>15605015
I'm an atheist and highly agree. Take this video from Carl Sagan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLigBYhdUDs
It is a profoundly religious message. He describes two Gods: Cosmos and "the will to know and explore," a spirit of human conscious intention. There is a moral claim: "I believe our future depends powerfully on how well we understand this cosmos."

>>15605066
Certainly, but those habits were created and sustained by a religious tradition that codified and integrated into the society rules of behaviour that were evolutionarily positive for that society and the individuals living in it: Order, family loyalty, conformity, ethnocentrism, and a work ethic: societies with these and other values will prosper. This is easily observable even today, check this out:

https://youtu.be/kpBLQeROwN4

>>15605178
Atheism doesn't exist in a vacuum, it has a context, both historical and individual as the reasons for people labeling themselves such. It's a mostly useless category that arbitrarily lumps atheistic belief systems together as a non-other-thing.

>>15605206
So the final justification of morality is whether a society that practices it thrives. The modern US is the strongest and most prosperous nation to ever exist and significantly more so than the US of the past that was more religious. 2020 America would roll over the Great Awakening America without even noticing a bump

>>15605110
>If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, behaves like a duck, meets all criteria for being evaluated as a duck, you're a fucking retard for assuming it's a duck

>>15604769
>Those naturally selected values you speak of would usually be taught through Christianity tho.
How is that relevant? I'm not against most of the values taught through Christianity, it's just that most of them are proven to come from natural selection.

>>15603979
By not being actual atheists, but still believing in Christian altruism (treat others like you want to be treated) like Christians believe in their theology, but without the theology. No heaven or hell are needed to keep their dogma in place. Alternatively, you'd find a believer in the utilitarian religion who somehow cares about a balance of pain and pleasure, accustomed to the idea of some God keeping score.

Personally, I'm an egoist. The reason I act morally is that I care more about the fruits of my actions than my pleasure experiencing them, since I tend to reduce pain and pleasure to biological stimuli (a coping mechanism perhaps). I assign more value to the seemingly persistent than the certainly fleeting. My will extends beyond my experience, and therefore beyond death. Any consequences of my pain and pleasure cease upon death, but the changes I make to the external world seem permanent. If they aren't, I still have nothing to lose by acting as if they are, as neither is my life.

Maybe I see the world as my property and want it to be arranged one way rather than another, like one arranges a garden according to his aesthetic preferences. Maybe I identify with the world itself and see it as part of my body, or my body as part of a larger machine my sense of self-interest extends to. I don't think there is any objective basis on which to establish the identity of separate objects outside of human experience. The way we tend to divide the entirety of everything into separate things seems based on a model that only came to be because it happened to let us live long enough to procreate enough to keep the meme going. When said model leaves no purpose, there is no reason for me not to adjust it. And so, I chose to be God.

I think this is as close as you can get to true moral atheism, though I'd sooner call myself a pantheist.

Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.

https://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Religion%20December%201g_snd.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21052.pdf

Daily reminder the overwhelming majority of leading scientists are atheists

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33

Daily reminder most philosophers are atheists

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Daily reminder religious people are less intelligent according to dozens of studies.

http://diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Relation_Between_Intelligence_and_Religiosity__A_Meta-Analysis_and_Some_Proposed_Explanations.pdf

Daily reminder religious people are less educated

https://www.economist.com/news/international/21623712-how-education-makes-people-less-religiousand-less-superstitious-too-falling-away

Religious people are literally a lesser breed of human

Jonathan Haidt said in one of his works that "he didn't believe in God, but that every man has a God shaped hole in his heart". Paraphrasing here.

>>15605948
for what it's worth religious people are also reported to be happier than non-religious. modern society is plagued by anomie, though that doesn't mean the solution is a return to blind faith.

>>15603979
We inherit them from our respective cultures just like everyone else.

>>15603979
You don't, you just behave in the manner most accomodating to progress.

>>15603986
Why not? There is no reason to not be a dick, especially when there are no repercussions.

>>15603990
Why should we follow the arbitrary developments of a random series of mutations over time? I "evolved" to reproduce, but I don't have to. I "evolved" to use my legs, but I sit on my ass all day, much to my detriment. Why should I choose to follow morality when there are no repercussions, assuming I even care about those repercussions?

>>15604004
And non-dumb atheists profit off of others to make their brief, miserable, monkey-on-a-rock existence more bearable. What's the most you get? Is Darwin going to slap a "#1 moralist" or "self-made moralist" ribbon on your chest once you die?

>>15604038
You think? You know, monkeys can use tools, not just humans. Atheists follow in suit with their half-baked, emotion-based moralities (as if such a vagarous thing can act as the basis for anything, and as if morality needs to be in line with our evolution-given "human nature").

>>15604060
Why do we need to follow them?

>>15604104
Notice the lack of the same animosity towards pedophile babysitters, Cub Scout leaders, teachers, and more. I guess those guys' pedo rings are less important because they aren't ideological opponents.

>>15604082
You personally prefer

>>15604119
Every Rome must fall

>>15604159
Morality without religion is like putting an unbaked cake in the oven without eating it because you lack belief in the cake's existence. Morality without religion is just a parrot imitating human speech, you're doing things due to social pressure and influence, not because the things you are doing have any basis or worth.

>>15604213
God's morality is a prescription, not an opinion. You not wanting to follow his "morality" is like telling a doctor, "yeah, well that's just your opinion!" and going off to fester to death. Bravo, you showed the doctor that it was just his opinion. This is not a matter of arbitrarily delineating what is good and bad based on opinion (although atheists consider their morality to be objective, and not opinion-based), but rather, as was said, a prescription

>>15604229
If this crude definition of morality is true, then it is no problem because it shows that there is a biological impulse for moral behavior, so pursuing God's "morality" isn't going against your nature. If anything, sinning is going against your nature; that is, your divine nature, the only one that matters because it is everlasting

>>15604241
What even is objective morality, if God of all entities is not a foundation?

>>15604269
If you can't get an ought from an is, then atheist morality falls flat on its ass, like a toddler learning to walk. Why should I follow the "is" of nature, of evolution, of benefiting the group? I have evolved to feel pleasure and associate it with good. Why should I follow this "is?"

>>15604405
Because objective morality is a sham. If an omniscient being can't tell me what's good, how the hell can I?

>>15604640
If you believe there is a monolithic consensus on what is bad for you versus what is bad for others, then you are fooling yourself.

>a critical mind of your own without the need of an Asian book from 2000 years ago
And yet here I am, putting my supposedly missing "critical mind" to the test to defend that same "2000 year old Asian book." How backwards and Bronze Age of me

>>15604650
>2000 year old Asian books can't justify morality, but 100 year old philosophy books can
It's just an exercise in self-delusion and linguistic confusion to obscure the problem of morality and leave everything open to discussion and skepticism despite acting as if your base assumptions aren't under attack or arbitrarily selected.

>>15604657
Might makes shite. Unclasp your nose and smell the shite

>>15604784
Refresh our memory with what he said, then

>>15604788
As opposed to the more humane, atheistic answer of shutting them up in dungeons and beating the religion out of them, while forcing their priests to consecrate feces. Don't you know that there will always be people who misunderstand the teachings? That they are a product of their times more than their faith, considering that the same atrocities have been committed under many different religions and areligions, there's nothing specific about one except the misinterpretations it spawns.

>>15604789
Instead, you become your own invisible sky cop. For no reason or gain. Fantastic. "The moral rule is not to steal." What if I am starving and no one will be significantly affected by the theft? If you agree with that breach of the invisible moral-rule-sky-cop, then you're just subscribing to utilitarianism (a very original belief).

>>15604800
Notice the propensity for evasion among atheists.

>we can't explain it, but can you?

>>15604806
Don't atheists believe that all morality is practical? That I follow a morality to benefit my society or species? Why else would I follow a morality if not for the consequences (that, mind you, I bring upon my own head, not God).

>>15604841
It has, pay attention now, "been made up." So why should we follow it? Ad populums and bandwagons as far as the eye can see

>>15604850
Euthyphro's dilemma is absurd.
>it is loved by God because it is good, therefore I should follow the objective morality that God loves, even though I believe that what God loves is just his "opinion"
And then that "objective morality" is not separated from God because it alone won't send you to Heaven or Hell, which are eternal and therefore all-important. Imagine if God didn't exist and you followed an "objective morality" that did exist. What gives?

Or if it is good because God loves it, therefore it's also God's opinion. However, it's not an opinion but rather a prescription. You may disagree with the prescription, but who better to prescribe than a doctor, and who are you, a layman at very best, to question?

>>15603979
Morality is a mammal thing, anon. Chimps have morals, even your housecat does. It has nothing to do with religion or culture. You're thinking about this in high level terms, but your morality comes from a much deeper level of your being.

>>15604796
>Why can't I just act as I want and expect others to treat me as I want?
Try it with your conscious mind and see how the rest of your being disagrees.

>>15606520

>Implying birds don't have morals

Bigot

>>15606520
how does my cat have morals she always fucks up my shit

>>15603979
Yeah? You really just have to call something "morals" and it is. All that's really debated is if they're the correct ones.

The basic morality from the lowly ant to the human being is mutually-beneficial egoism. You'll hear it repackaged as The Golden Rule, or similar things.

I would call it a natural morality since it seems to always emerge with groups.

More complex morality is whatever the culture decides best fits.

Pain is real. A utilitarian system of minimizing pain and maximizing desirable states of existing will always be vastly superior to proposed and entirely unproven "objective" standards. But christcucks continue to have bits of their baby boys' penis clipped off because god said so, so what can you expect from religious morality?

>>15603979
No one is really an atheist. When people write "atheist" on forms like that, they just mean "not any of the others." Most atheists are egotheists or pantheists.

>>15606669
>I can't comprehend a mode of thinking that isn't similar to my indoctrinated ideology
embarrassing, anon

>>15606683
Show me an atheist who isn't just an egotheist or a pantheist.

>>15604769
More like Christianity was inspired by those naturally selected values. A successful tribe, nation, or empire doesn't happen when everyone believes Ayn Rand bullshit.

>>15606714
You're literally projecting divinity onto people who explicitly reject the concept of divinity. Absolutely embarrassing

>>15606755
So you can't lol. If you believe in a reality at all you believe in some kind of divinity, like nature. A true atheist would be a non-being like the quantum universe itself.

>>15606658
Why don't you just lobotomize yourself and have some scientist-priest hook your body up to a pleasure machine? Prove to me that Utilitarianism is vastly superior, especially when there are so many differing explanations of pleasure and suffering. Why is anti-natalism and efilism wrong, under Utilitarianism? Enough talk about circumcision, better get that vasectomy.

Furthermore, it seems possible to derive an "ought" from an "is," as Utilitarianism has done. Pleasure feels good, pain feels bad (according to my inner wiring, even though some are born without the ability to feel physical pain and I can just circumvent mental anguish by submerging myself into eternal cryosleep or some other such comatic, mindless state). Either way, the shortest way to a Utilitarian utopia (and not its transhumanist, pie in the sky aspirations) is mass-brain death and eternal pleasure machines, watched over by a select unlucky few or self-repairing robots. Or we could just grow masses of tumescent flesh in giant vats that experience constant pleasure, seeing as we should be able to do so.

>>15606782
>If you believe in a reality at all you believe in some kind of divinity
No

>>15603979
okay, back to the basics. morality is social construct. morality is set of rules. human morality exists only in realm of words, and is hypocrisy. humans are animals, as any animal, the only difference they talk, talk too much, hallucinate. they say it is bad to kill animals, yet they eat meat, they just outsourced killing to someone else and pay him money. they say war is bad yet they do wars, pay taxes to do wars, invent and produce weapons. they say idolatry is bad, yet porn is the biggest drive of internet. russians think they are most spiritual, yet "anal" is the most searched keyword on pornhub from russian users. humans are animals, they just make themselves blind not to see it, and it is morality which makes them blind and weak. morality is cause of suffering. morality is psy weapon people use against each other. atheists are just more honest.

>>15605162
>If one group of humans who believe in a "God" can create an organized system of morality. What is stopping humans who don't believe in God from doing the same thing.
Revelation and faith

>>15606791
>Not factoring risk into your utilitarian calculations
If you actually bother to look into utilitarianism even slightly you'll know that the incorporation of traditional maxims are entirely commensurate with it. We can't know the future exactly, so better to proceed with caution as not to bring about a catastrophe. I suspect the only real objection to "pleasure machines" would be some kind of cheapening of the experience of life (suspicious, as if you are seeking to maximize some other desirable characteristic of life) or to avoid some undesirable end state (same suspicion).

>>15606793
Get some self-awareness. We operate off of a priori assumptions in order to function in the world.

>>15606849
Yes, and you can operate on non-divine presuppositions

>>15606856
Maybe you need to read up on what divinity is.

>>15606867
Maybe you need to refrain from redefining it to mean "the basis for literally any belief system ever"

>>15606815
>people are weak therefore morals don't exist
Invincible logic. Do you have a patreon I can contribute to? I imagine that you are a prime hypocrite as well, or else you'd transgress these arbitrary social constructs every day and not just a select few, like being polite or petty theft.

> they say it is bad to kill animals, yet they eat meat, they just outsourced killing to someone else and pay him money
Who does?

>they say war is bad yet they do wars
Who is "they?" Wars are not inherently bad, either

>invent and produce weapons
Many thanks to science, which is a jealous god that can only do good. We all ought to donate our bodies to science after we die and stop subscribing to ancient ideas and primitive fancies, right? Let's experiment on fetuses and live humans while we're at it. For science!

>they say idolatry is bad, yet porn is the biggest drive of internet
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is also ludicrous to imply that porn is the greatest drive of the internet, show me stats

> russians think they are most spiritual, yet "anal" is the most searched keyword on pornhub from russian users
You think it would have been okay if it were vanilla porn? Also, how many people in Russia frequent Pornhub and porn sites? A majority? A minority? Matthew 7:3. Then again, you probably subscribe to Saul Alinsky's fourth rule for radicals- "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." An easy thing to do, harder yet to make yourself live up to your own book of rules or lack thereof.

>humans are animals, they just make themselves blind not to see it
If we possess the capacity to make ourselves blind, are we really just animals? This is almost a vegan-tier exhortation against speciesism. We are animals, but we are not just animals, and we are not the same as rats or donkeys (in terms of moral status). Anyone who holds to that belief falls prey to incoherent moral positions.

>morality is psy weapon people use against each other
That explains why atheists feel so pressured to create "moral" counterparts against Christianity. If they were really honest, they'd do what they will and not what other people's perceptions of them demand.

>>15606889
I haven't redefined it. You've just narrowed it down to certain theological connotations. Something is still "God" to you, a transcendent power, if you operate in the world.

>>15606846
So utilitarianism is one large suspension of caution? One has to act, you can't merely cringe back from every outcome due to a fear of possible or impossible catastrophes. This is why we're making all-powerful AIs, right? To think for us? What if we don't like what we hear?

>>15606912
>Something is still "God" to you, a transcendent power, if you operate in the world.
That's entirely a theistic projection and it is false. I'm sure it sounded good the first time someone told it to you so you smugly utter it whenever you can but it is just as cringey as a fedora wearer comparing god to a spaghetti monster

>>15606923
Again, get some self-awareness.

>>15606920
You can factor in risk to an equation without it causing complete inaction. Just a hint, when discussing or debating with someone, try and actually understand their position so you don't come off as an absolute fool when you respond

>>15606908
morality exists same way as psychological disorders exist. morality is disorder.

>>15603979
Altruistic feelings eventuate religion not the other way round. Morality comes from religion, but it has all sorts of other motivations beyond altruism (which is really self-interest in the group's survival bolstered by gooey feelings).

>>15606929
You are just full of projection, aren't you?

>>15606949
Projection is a meaningless term that can be applied to any argument you're losing. Not one for abstraction, are you?

>>15606953
You're the one insisting you know what other people REALLY believe even when it's directly opposed to what they are stating. You wouldn't be able to win an argument with a pigeon, and with the level of intellect you have displayed so far, I wouldn't be surprised if you have tried

>>15606969
>what other people REALLY believe
No, I'm just saying that they believe. If they believe, they operate off the assumption of some kind of existing divinity, even if that divinity is truth, nature, reality, and so on.

>I act good because I afraid the punishment of God and in his absence, I would be a total monster
>atheizts are evilll >:(

haha *farts*

>>15606996
You are expanding the definition of god to include concepts not related to god. You know the definition of "divine" is that which relates to god, right? You need to consider the idea that other people do not need to subscribe to your specific beliefs about the fundamentals of the universe

>>15607063
I'm an egotheist relativist, so my definition of God is: that transcendent power which reflects the relative self. God is unique to each perspective and reflects that perspective's belief in the self. I believe this has always been what God has been for all theists historically but with most people not understanding it about themselves. What the Jew sees as God, or the Christian, or the Muslim, is a reflection of the Jewish collective consciousness, the Christian collective consciousness, the Muslim collective consciousness, and so on. One God for each collective consciousness, and one God for each individual consciousness in the world.

>How do atheists have morals
Individuals act according to their own values, desires, and judgements which result from their genetics or psychology. Morality is subjective not objective.

The difference in values and desires between people results in conflict. To prevent such conflict, societies develop laws and social contracts. Ethical systems, ideologies, and religions can also mediate conflict by emphasizing group values and interests. But those are spooks which emphasize group interests over your own.

>>15603998
>the white man's religion
thats been Christianity for 2000 years fag

>>15606255

>why should we follow the arbitrary developments of a random series of mutations over time?

That's what we all do. All of our desires and interests are a result of evolution. Yes, they're meaningless and arbitrary. We can embrace our humanity or we can reject it. I'm not sure if it's even possible to reject it though. You can commit suicide but wouldn't that just be a reaction of failing to find meaning in the arbitrary universe, a result of the human desire for meaning. You can make fun of this whole predicament through irony I guess.

>>15607242

>>15607000
>Christian
>Humbly admits humanity is far from perfection and needs guidance
>Is an integral part of a broader community when he goes to church as well as being the patriarch of a household, uses the ancient guidance of the Bible as motivation to stay away from dopamine addictions allowing him a freer will, finds meaning and happiness not only in the full of confidence of his everlasting life after his virtuous and altruistic time on earth but from the loving social relations of the church community and his family.

>Atheist
>Acts superior saying he doesn’t need a higher authority telling him what to do to act good
>In reality lives an atomized lifestyle with little meaning mostly motivated by what will give him dopamine. Measurably in studies feels dramatically less happy.

>>15607343
>my side GOOD
>other side BAD

>>15607370
Yes

>>15607343
>Measurably in studies feels dramatically less happy.
Define "dramatically" and cite these studies. Remember that "not religious" or "not participating in religious activities" is not the same as atheist. Post at least 5 studies.

>>15607388
Yeah, no

>>15607415
Do your own hw Google is your friend. It’s your happiness and everlasting soul on the line not mine.
>>15607416
Yes

>>15607343
>>Humbly admits humanity is far from perfection and needs guidance
>this "guidance" coincidentally also entirely agrees with the christian moral and political views, gives the christian authority over non-christians, and justifies social systems that benefit the christian
How convenient!

>>15607442
>dude trust me
Mega cope

>>15607442
Declaration is not argumentation. I know that’s hard for cultists like you, but you’re just going have to accept it

>>15607445
Yes. The whole point of a religion is your guidance is better then the other people’s guidance. Different guidances (religions) may give you different things but the ultimate values and lessons of your guidance are the best. If you genuinely believed in your guidance you would be retarded to not add pressures to make others that do not already believe in your guidance come to believe in it.

>>15607456
This post is literal cope not meme cope since you have not googled it.
>>15607460
Ironic since this was as well a declaration.

>>15607517
>If you genuinely believed in your guidance you would be retarded to not add pressures to make others that do not already believe in your guidance come to believe in it.
Or you’d let your ideas stand on their own merit, like a non-retard

>>15607530
It really isn’t. Don’t pretend to be smart when you’re not

>>15607530
>since you have not googled it.
I have
These studies are about religious activities being correlated with well-being, which isn't synonymous with atheists being "dramatically" less happy, as most people who don't participate in religious activities are still theists. These studies largely have to do with the social aspect of religion, and the correlations are still fairly mild in civilized nations, certainly not "dramatic".

>>15607548
Except being objective and honest about it your ideas don’t. Everything you believe in now has been thought of to a much fuller and more complete extent by millions of others much more intelligent and capable then you. To live an actually happy life full of meaning and merit you have to accept your inadequacies and accept amalgated guidance systems that have been honed over thousands of years (religion).

This is with the exception if you are some kind of genius or prodigy in which case you should either add to to create your own guidance though this is made up of at most .1% of humanity which you are not.

>>15607565
This as well is a declaration and not an argument lmao.

>>15607517
Ah yes, and all of this conveniently furthers your own interests and gives you superiority over others, even though there's no sound intellectual justification for your worldview, just your own flawed conviction. Truly the sign of a "humble" individual.

>>15607655
The justification is that it’s successful with the human psychology over thousands of years.

>>15607629
No, that’s good advice for nitwits like you

>>15607673
Really another declaration? Don’t you think this is getting old?

>>15607680
>I know what you are but what am I

So this is the great power of Christian philosophy.

>>15607670
That seems like an incredibly broad and vague statement, given that a lot of different belief systems perdure to this day.

>>15607694
Your the one that began the semantics argument, literally all of your posts including this one is a declaration, of you don’t like it how about stop posting declarations.

>>15607703
Those belief systems were unsuccessful against the current belief systems, therefore they were evolutionarily not as well adjusted to the human psychology of the current belief systems.

>>15607712
To be fair, anon. His declarations are in the pragmatic domain not semantic.

>>15607728
Can you read? What, do you think the whole world is christian or something?

>>15607754
Of course not, however it is by population the most successful religion, however it is in competition with others such as Islam and atheism.

>>15607765
>Of course not, however it is by population the most successful religion
Is that seriously your criteria for belief systems? Should we consider Islam intellectually sound because it's the fastest growing religion (and will match Christianity in a few decades) then?. And by mid century most christians will live in irrelevant places like sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America anyways.

>>15607819
Yes despite me disagreeing with it, it unironically is. This is why it will take over the west if atheism continues to rise in the west.

Christianity growing very fast in China, there’s already a large population there. I could see a situation in a couple centuries where China is doing crusades to free the holy land of Rome from the Muslim European states.

>>15607880
>I could see a situation in a couple centuries where China is doing crusades to free the holy land of Rome from the Muslim European states.
That’s called being delusional

>>15607880
>Christianity growing very fast in China
This is a meme that has been spouted for decades, and has never materialized in any significant proportion of the population being christian. The predictions made by Fenggang Yang, a raging shill for Christianity, about China becoming Christian by 2030 are hilariously wrong and have been strongly criticized.

>>15607898
It’s called being realistic. The average person can’t live by there own morals, and want something greater anyway. If Christianity leaves a religious vacuum in the west something I’m an take it’s place. Since I don’t suspect atheism will form an official church, and I don’t think Varg will become a historically important prophet spreading Odinism across Europe and America, the most likely candidate would then be Islam. Now I’m not saying that will happen since Christianity could rebound from decline but if you actually studied it history it can move incredibly fast. Islam went from Mecca to Southern France in only a couple centuries originally and that was without the internet. To say a Muslim Europe is impossible is an ignorant refusal of what is historically possible.

>>15607943
44 million people are Christian, you may scoff at that saying China is a population of billions but you forget that China is going to go through rapid population decline in the coming decades down to only a few hundred million while people easily convert to Christianity and the Christian population outbreeds everyone else.

I’m not saying 2030 Christian China but 2100 Christian China is very possible.

>>15608004
*rapidly not easily

>>15608004
Your forecast is not consistent with actual data.
Anyone claiming China will become Christian is simply talking out of his ass

>>15607978
>if you actually studied it history it can move incredibly fast.
Which you apparently haven’t done, since both Christianity and Islam are examples of cultural movements that absolutely no one ever saw coming, something your flawless vision of the future doesn’t account for

>>15608053
.3 percent of a billion is 3 million people

>>15608061
Obviously shit will happen that I can’t predict, I even say this is just stuff that is realistically possible not that it will necessarily happen, what kind of argument even is that lmao.

>>15603979
we dont, we just pretend to have them, like some alien wearing a flesh suit waiting to catch you sleeping so we can anally rape you to death

>>15608096
Yeah, and 3 million people out of a billion is 0.3 percent.

>>15608119
Regardless even according to your forecast that’s millions of people converting.

>>15608108
And the word realistic is completely meaningless when it comes to static descriptions of a dynamic world

>>15603979

The golden rule and relative symmetry of all subjects (everyone else has memory too, anyone can be killed) require it. Dawkins (I think) is the one who phrases it in evolutionary terms. True btw, every religion is just window dressing on top of the prior existing animal reality, which manifests itself strictly downstream in psychology and social customs (law, religion).

>>15608127
Yeah, and it's fucking nothing in the grand scheme of things.

>>15608132
Will a dog grow to be 1 mile tall and destroy human civilization? No that is impossible.

Will nuclear war occurr in the next 100 years and wipe out human civilization? Not necessarily but it could feasibly occur.

Will America continue to be a trashy place and churn out trashy culture for spoiled slut white girls to post on the Instagram in the coming years? Almost certainly yes.

Since we can segregate between things that are impossible, things that are unlikely but could potentially happen, and things that will most assuredly occur the concept of “what is realistic” is valid in predicting future history.

>>15608160
Possibly it’s nothing, possibly islets something, possibly forecast is underplaying numbers.

Hi I just came here and it seems like there are a lot of posts to read. I'm too lazy to go through them all. Looks like a lot of theses/antitheses going on. Can someone synthesize the discussion so far for me?

>>15608138
golden rule is for faggots.

>>15608257
here is happening same shit as happened yesterday and will happen tomorrow, deaf and blind people argue who is more blind, yell at each other, try to find whos mom was better teacher.

>>15608291

Only if you're powerful/evil enough to make others do your bidding (The Clintons, drug lords, etc), but such an existence still has obviously miserable aspects along with the fringe benefits. And you can still be killed at any moment, there isn't a meaningful ontological gulf between the plebs and the powerful-both are yet human. Now if biological immortality gets rolling...

>>15608346
blah blah. faggots only want to eat, fuck, defecate, not to work, not to study, and get only good marks in the school of life. and when teacher or guru gives them bad mark, rightfully calls them stupid faggots they are offended and cuck about golden rule, respect wamen, tell me I am good and smart and beautiful. that's why people don't learn, golden rule says they already know everything.

This thread was moved to >>>/his/8863619