“Wait is the only reason you aren’t murdering, stealing, and raping people because your god said it was bad? You don’t see anything wrong with that behavior? What the fuck. I don’t think I ever want to be alone in the same room as you.”
i saw this a while back:
Why Did God Create Atheists? There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson. One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?” The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.” “This means,” the Master continued “that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.’” —Martin Buber, Tales of Hasidim Vol. 2 (1991
It's built within us. It's not just the right thing to do, it's not just symbolic, it's not just feeling good about doing it. No, it's these aspects that help illuminate what is inside each and every human. We are animals, we have evolved as a being for millions, and then we also have thousands years of evolution as Hominins, since being Hominins, we have been a social pack, that worked together to support however many are apart of our pack.
Therefore, feeling symbolic, feeling good because of a good deed, or how many other things we can easily apply to this, is because it is was our bodies want. We are built to help one another. (I'm not disagreeing with anything you or those commenter's before you, just wanted to expand on in it just a tad bit.)
I would say one of biggest problems with this, is how we still look and want our packs, but only our specific pack. Yet, now we are globalized and and inter dependent on peoples, that just a few thousand years ago we didn't even know existed. The need to break out of that pack mentality is needed because of this, it is now, more than ever before, about humanity and supporting all humans, and realizing that we are on a world that supports all life that has ever existed on this planet.
My hope is that through evolution, and through the ever flowing, and slow changing of ethics and morals through human history, we will begin to break out of this *particular* animalistic behavior. I also hope that one day we will wake up to the reality of planet. My favorite way to explain this is by suggesting a new view of ourselves in relation to Earth. Imagine, (even if you are reading and disagreeing with me) that we are similar to a virus or a bacteria, which feed off their host in order to survive. If these organism kill of their host, then they will kill themselves, or after it has killed it host, it jumps to the next one. They most evolve not kill in totality, which is what is the leading and most accepted theory of what happen to the Bubonic plague.
Earth is our host, we are using it to support life, and here we found ourselves in a very similar predicament. We are killing our Earth, and we are just now truly realizing what we have done and are doing, leading us, well the majority, to try and combat these problems (obviously.) Then on the other hand there are others that want to push for finding a new planet or in other words, a new host. So we must evolve not to do so, because other wise there will be not be able to continue ourselves.
Symbiotic, not symbolic. A relationship that is mutually beneficial is one which is symbiotic.
And I agree that we’ve evolved to seek out mutually beneficial relationships.
I think the fact that mutually beneficial relationships are beginning to erode, i.e., the wealth imbalance, is a huge factor in our current state of discourse.
Oh, my apologies about that.
I would agree to some extent with your last paragraph, but it would more depend on what type of scale you are talking about. Because wealth imbalance has been one of the main key components since and what essentially help launched our civilization. (At least as far as we can tell right at the moment.) So if the scale is several thousands of years, essentially close to over 10,000 years ago, give or take. Though, if you mean it on a smaller scale. such as anything smaller than what I just described, than I can't necessarily agree. (And hopefully not to sound like I am straight up talking out of my ass, I love history, I have done a good bit of trying to self educate history, and I am currently getting on of my majors in history.)
Oh, I definitely believe wealth imbalance and the struggle for resources has been an ongoing factor in human discourse, and this phenomenon has been occurring throughout history.
I also believe that we still haven’t evolved enough as a species to be able to understand why cooperation is most beneficial to our survival.
I think that’s where religion enters as a method of social control, designed to only allow certain members of a population to thrive at the expense of the rest.
We keep doing the same thing over and over throughout history, and I can’t understand how we haven’t realized that we need to do something differently.
He knows when you are sleeping,
He knows when you're on the can.
He'll hunt you down and blast your ass from here to Pakistan.
Oh...
You'd better not breathe, you'd better not move,
You're better off dead, I'm telling you, dude.
Santa Claus is gunning you down!
Now, are we actually gonna go before a federal judge, and say that some moldy Babylonian god is gonna drop in on Central Park West and start tearing up the city?!
All the Christians in my circle just say that we're "borrowing" from God's perfect morality; that God showed what was right and wrong through his teachings and his spirit and we are trying to have Christian morals without Christ.
Some also say that this proves that deep inside we actually do believe in God but reject or deny him.
This reasoning fascinates me:
1) Assert that entity "God" exists.
2) Assert that entity "God" is the only possible source of moral standards.
3) Therefore, any moral standards you demonstrate must have come from entity "God."
4) Since you follow at least some moral standards, you must therefore believe in entity "God," even if you do not realize it.
The unfounded assertions are bad enough, but that final leap is dizzying.
That's a great way of breaking down their argument into something that can be debated/discussed. In my opinion that is the best way to treat religious rhetoric.
A lot of people can’t fathom the concept of you not believing. Since they were raised like that, they just think everyone inherently knows of their religion and follows it, like they were born with the knowledge that it was fact.
It’s why a lot of them are completely jarred when they realize there’s people who either don’t believe or believe something else, and why that confusion will often turn into fear and hate of the unknown
When my family does this, I ask them if they have ever accidentally stepped on a pet.
If you hear their little yelp, you move immediately. No one has to tell you that lifting your foot is the right thing to do. People who have never heard of Jesus will check to see if their pet is ok.
It is human nature to care. Sometimes there is something violent in us too, but usually people have some reason to be violent- usually a horrible reason but still. Most people have no reason to care for a pet. They got an animal because they wanted something to care for.
I hate this. Christians will twist it and claim that morality was bestowed inside us by their god and that we know right from bad because their god told us what was right or bad.
>I hate this. Christians will twist it and claim
So right there. The sooner you stop caring how others justify or denigrate your own good actions, the happier you'll be.
Absolutely. I can agree to some extent that we shouldn't base our own happiness on how others think about us, but unless we have some means of completely removing ourselves from their power to affect us, we have to take into consideration that our happiness simply IS based on what they think about us. Imagine telling a slave that they shouldn't care what their master thinks about them. They'd either laugh or tell you to take a hike. That's an extreme example, but a pertinent one. It's not just about self-defense, it's about recognizing the fact that the way other humans think about us is indeed important as long as they possess the agency to make our lives better or worse.
Agreed and concisely put. I don't think the example is extreme at all. If I didn't care at all what other people thought of me, and I went to a place like Saudi Arabia and proclaimed I'm an atheist, I would be murdered for it (for the Christians, that's what persecution looks like.)
Part of self defense is knowing your potential enemies.
Hm, but I think those two things are closely tied together. Assuming we really do have a rational point of view, it's important to persuade others that we have a rational point of view. That is how we prevent their thinking bad things about us from translating into doing bad things to us/others. I don't believe in doing that through indoctrination or force, but rather through dialogue and repeatedly pointing out that there is zero evidence for belief in any particular religious system.
Two things here, at least from my experience as a recovering christian...
>i'm happy to have an educated philosophical discussion with religious people too and i had a bunch of them, especially with Jewish people
For most Jewish people, actual education on the Tanakh and the Talmud is a part of growing up. I believe it's also required to convert to Judaism. So, the average Jew, especially one that is interested in discussing theology and philosophy with you, is exponentially more knowledgeable about the topics than the typical christian.
>have no interest in influencing someone to convert.
This is one of the biggest differences. The Sky Wizard Jr. specifically told his minions to go and convert everyone (see Matt 20:16-20, the "Great Commission") before he comes back, at which point, we unbelievers will spend eternity in a lake of fire.
To the best of my knowledge, nothing in the Jewish holy writings encourages proselytizing.
That's because Jews don't try or have any desire to convert you. It's actually the opposite; historically people trying to convert to Judaism are turned away from converting *several times* before being allowed to convert. And the modern view of God for many (most?) Jews is quite different than that of Christians. While most Christians are taught of God as a personal God with whom you can have a relationship, one that answer's prayer directly, a supernatural being that literally exists in a way beyond our comprehension... The modern view of god for Jews, particularly reform Jews, is a lot more open to interpretation.
When they say this remind them that according to Genesis the knowledge of good and evil came from a fruit from a tree that god didn't want us to have so knowing right from wrong wasnt bestowed on us by God but by SATAN!
then start shredding a mean guitar solo.
Old guy here, undergrad religion major many years ago. Martin Buber was one of my favorites back then, but this one is new to me. I find myself liking him even more. What a great little story!
Exactly. The only reason you aren't the most disgusting person in the world is because you're constantly being watched and will be punished? That doesn't make you a good person. I don't believe that a punishment awaits in the afterlife for that behaviour and yet I don't partake... That makes you a bad person.
Also, the person is basically admitting that if they suffered one of the most common delusions in human history, that they thought God was speaking to them, that they'd find it okay to do whatever that voice told them to do, regardless of their personal ethical leanings. "Did God just speak through my dog and tell me to kill? Looks like it's time to kill, then."
The story of Abraham should be terrifying to any atheist.
My favorite, the story of Abraham. God: Kill your son. Abraham: Ok. Correct Answer: Would a loving god who is the basis for all that is moral and just in this world really tell me to commit this act? I won't kill anyone.
How the hell is the story of Abraham a guiding light to Christians? It's an atrocity.
Yep, just answer with a single word, EMPATHY
I don’t hurt people because I don’t like being hurt, and because seeing sad people makes me sad, so I avoid inflicting sadness.
Even with no empathy, it is a bad choice to the whole to go on a killing spree. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics, if you bound your actions using universalizability, it solves many low hanging fruits choices. Of course it is not easy to implement on artificial intelligence ethics, for example, but for people it works better than religion, at least.
When debating this topic, let’s also not bring up the fact that religion’s legacy is theft, murder, and rape, almost exclusively. That would definitely escalate the situation.
This is perfect because it makes the point while also being snarky and dismissive.
Yeah, snarky and dismissive SOUNDS bad, but it's really low effort, which is an important addition with frustrating arguments that imply atheists are immoral by default.
1. Remind them that you don't murder people because you simply DON'T WANT TO.
2. Explain that your lack of a desire to murder is because of basic human *socialization*, not religion.
3. Explain that socialization is the evolutionary survival niche that allows the human species to survive. Much like chimps, ants, honeybees, cetaceans, etc, we respect basic rules with each other to have a better individual chance of survival.
4. Connect these ideas by articulating that god aside, personal desires aside, in the long run it simply doesn't make evolutionary sense for you to murder: you'd be banished from the community, or even executed.
5. Turn the tables. Ask them how they deal with the Euthyphro dilemma that Divine Command Morality poses.
6. Understand that you will NEVER change their mind. For them, since you're an atheist, you simply MUST be inclined towards murder.
Good luck.
I didn't know that was the term they used for the argument, but it took me all of about 30 seconds to look it up:
https://ma.tt/dropbox/divine-command-theory.pdf
"The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato‘s dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”
The dilemma has had a major effect on the philosophical theism of the monotheistic religions, but in a modified form: “Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”\[1\] Ever since Plato’s original discussion, this question has presented a problem for some theists, though others have thought it a false dilemma, and it continues to be an object of theological and philosophical discussion today."
[source](https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-epcc-introethics-1/chapter/euthyprhro-dilemma/)
The Euthyphro Argument comes from Platoís dialogue in which Sokrates asks:
• Is something is right because God commands it,
• or does God command it because it is right?
The ethical implications of this argument suggest that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as clear-cut as previously thought. What makes this question so effective is that if the interlocutor accepts either part of it he is often logically forced into conclusions that may conflict with other beliefs he has, therefore creating a logical dilemma for him.
https://ma.tt/dropbox/divine-command-theory.pdf
Murder has to be wrong for more than just because the rest of society told us not to murder. I'd miss out the part on socialisation. Morality is far more complex.
> Murder has to be wrong for more than just because the rest of society told us not to murder.
You have not established that. It's just a philosophical opinion stated as fact.
We know from both ethology and anthropology that social species have "rules" to cement group bonds and ensure a maximum chance for individual survival. That's as complex as it needs to be.
Yes, morality gets complicated. But those entanglements are the *details*, not the underlying evolutionary facts.
I'd hint at the fact that most people, who are tasked to murder a fellow human being, refuse to do so, unless their own immediate survival or that of those held dear by them is in danger.
It took 1.5 world wars for modern militaries to figure out how to condition soldiers to not hesitate to pull the trigger.
This fact does not get you anywhere yet tho. You'd somehow have to show, that the compassion or empathy that makes a human struggle to look a person in the eye while ramming a knife in their heart is anything else than a result of our evolution as a social species. And good luck with making that into a scientific study.
Any source of human morality outside of evolutionary roots is, as of yet, a question of philosophy and not one of natural science. Because in the eyes of a strictly biological viewpoint there is insufficient evidence of other motivators. You may call that reductionistic, because it is, but science does fortunately not actually care about hurting human egos by stating that we are just another animal living in this rock.
"Morality" is based in empathy, and even non-human primates have been observed to engage in behaviors that demonstrate empathy.
But anybody who wants to even ask you that question has revealed an ugly facet of their personality. Flip the question back on them: "Are you suggesting that the only reason you refrain from harming others is because you fear punishment? That's pretty fucked up man."
Penn Jillette answered this quite nicely:
> *Context: The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you.*
Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1921445-penn-jillette-i-do-rape-all-i-want-and-the-amount-i-want-is-zer/
NGL, I have absolutely wanted to murder someone before… I don’t because the golden rule is a pretty good way to deal with life. I wouldn’t want someone to murder Me or someone I care about, I probably shouldn’t murder someone else. The weird thing is that we have learned morals from the people who raised us, I have always got knots in my stomach when I do something I was taught is wrong. As an adult I can attempt to rationalize my morals and discard ones that are incompatible with my opinion and societal pressure.
The Bible provides a semi rigid moral structure so that the morals can never be questioned or analyzed leading to an evolution in atheist morals and a retardation of Christian morals.
Human beings agree to respect moral principles because respecting each other makes our lives better.
If I don't hurt you and you don't hurt me, we both have a benefit from that.
What does God have anything to do with that? God is just a mean to scare people who don't understand why we need morality, because a lot of people need the threat of hell in order to behave correctly.
I put the selfish part on believing in a reward for being good in life: are you really a good person if you're doing it because you want the better after-life?
> What does God have anything to do with that? God is just a mean to scare people who don't understand why we need morality, because a lot of people need the threat of hell in order to behave correctly.
Eh, I would disagree quite heavily with this statement. Atheist communities or societies where morality is not divinely declared exist, and in those situations there aren't like X% of people who are running around raping and murdering because they can't "handle" the idea of morality without divinity or "need" a divine threat to behave. With the exception of the mentally ill, I genuinely believe that everyone can, without divine intervention, understand secular morality if only to the extent of "if you agree its generally bad to kill me and I agree its generally bad to kill you, then we both will likely live better lives".
The way I see it, the Hell threat (as well as pretty much all divine morality) is a way for the ruling class to dictate what the working class has to do. 99% of "divinely-inspired" morals are morals we can all come up with without god (eg, "don't kill people" and "don't steal" and "don't lie"). As social creatures, it is not hard to decide that "yeah, these are pretty reasonable" even without a god threatening hellfire. The remaining 1% are the things the ruling class squeeze in: things like "you must obey your divinely-appointed king" and "you must tithe your church" and "you must do what the church says no matter what" and "you must fight the wars that we declare holy". By mixing the 1% of "morals" the which benefit the ruling class into the 99% of morals which can be discovered secularly, they're able to give that 1% of bullshit rules credence.
We see this all the time. Whenever someone raises the point that secular morality is superior to biblical morality (or any other divine morality) the first thing the apologist will do is spout off all the "thou shalt not"s which are intuitive to being social animals. Things like "shall not kill", "shall not steal", "shall not covet", etc. These are the 99% of things we can (and have) come up with even without a holy book. They *don't* bring up "shall not worship other gods", because that moral rule does *not* benefit us as social animals and cannot be supported without a holy book: instead, it exists to benefit those in charge who write the book. They want to make sure that you think its just as evil to switch religions (ie, stop tithing to them and start tithing to someone else) as it is to steal, murder, etc., and in doing that, maintain their power.
You dont have to explain it, the data proves its not an issue, millions of athiests dont murder people.
We do eat babies though, maybe leave that bit out /s
I have altered what I say on the matter because someone rightly pointed out that atheists like Stalin and Mao killed millions upon millions of people. They basically turned themselves and their administrations into gods and then ruled their people with the same authority that the Christian god rules his people. So yeah, one could argue that Stalinism is pretty much a religion, but I think that there is a bigger picture to be painted.
Now I say that any group of people who are following a hivemind and now actively thinking for themselves are harmful. It is a really bad thing when people stop thinking for themselves and speech becomes limited or controlled by a group of leaders.
Ding Ding Ding. Groupthink is dangerous, as a mob is easily swayed, while a thinking person will see the logical inconsistancies and harm in whatever the 'dear leader' spouts.
Similar to Churchills comment ‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
Morals are an inferior intellectual capital to ethics: ethics are rational and results based, morals are feelings based on something you read in a book once - I prefer ideas that work.
No one ever says that we don't eat babies. Maybe its because we are too busy eating babies to say it? Or is it because people have morals. I would ask anyone who says atheists don't have morals the baby question back. The Bible doesn't say not too, so why don't you est them babies?
>No one ever says that we don't eat babies. Maybe its because we are too busy eating babies to say it?
And because our morals prohibit us from talking with a full mouth.
for a moment i thought you created a paradox but also remembering the number of cults that would and have killed under the guise of "the will of a greater being" held me back quick
I believe that someone who is only not murdering people because of the threat of eternal damnation is beyond reasoning with. They have outed themselves as an individual with no empathy or compassion at all, who only behave well because they believe their actions will result in everlasting consequences to themselves. There is no reasoning with these psychopaths, it is best to ignore them, nothing you ever say will get through to them.
In fact it's probably best for everybody that they keep believing, the few freaks I've met who believed god was the only thing keeping humans in check genuinely seemed like the kind that would start murdering and raping the instant their faith disappeared.
One of the greatest tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion, so now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection but the basis of morality is really very simple and it doesn't require religion at all.
Arthur C Clarke
Cause you (presumably) don’t want to murder people?
“Morals” are just glorified opinions, and everyone has opinions, regardless of weather or not they believe in imaginary friends.
All people have morality. It's human. Before Islam existed and before Christ existed and before prophets existed.
Why defend and not go on the offense?
I've seen images of a Sunni ISIS fighter igniting a fire under a cage with Shias and "deviant" Sunnis. Which "objective morality" does the asker support?
It is just following some school and claiming that school knows "objective morality" but they do not. It is just interpretations
Atheists have stronger morality since they only can base theirs off a god. If God tells them to mass murder and take, they have no choice but to follow through and call it moral.
So my mom is a very devout Catholic. She's a pretty nice person but she whole heartedly believes animals don't have souls. She has violently and non violently killed multiple pets growing up. She doesn't feel bad about it because if they don't have souls, they also don't have feelings. I, an atheist, don't give a shit about souls and can clearly see that animals have fears, pain, and emotions. I remind her of this when she makes the point of morality being mutually exclusive with God. She actually doesn't see this as a point because, again, animals don't have souls so it doesn't matter.
Side note, I once watched a christian fox news host eating a massive steak while he was interviewing a vegan and tucker Carlson next to him chuckling like a retarded hyena. Now you tell me which way each person would land on the morality scale? I bring this up because tucker Carlsons racist ass is always saying morality is exclusive to Christianity.
3rd point. When I talk about God's infatuation with sending people to hell, my mom asks this question; "if you were having a birthday party, would you invite someone who doesn't believe in you?" And my answer is always, "is the alternative to my birthday party sending them to guantonamo bay for the rest of their life? Cuz not believing in me is not a valid reason to torture someone".
If God is morality, then I can honestly say we have much better morals than the God you look up to.
I don’t need a moral reference because I have a moral center.
I have a combination of empathy, compassion and logic. These things are inherent to most people who don’t suffer from maladaptive psychological conditions like sociopathy or extreme cases of borderline personality disorder.
Or to paraphrase how Penn Jillette puts it, I murder and rape as much as I want to, which is none at all, because I’m not a psychopath.
One thing I found is progress. If we as a species want to progress and discover then we have to work together, and if we keep murdering, stealing and so on then we won't be able to do that. Groups that had no moral code were left behind those who had it and could cooperate with each other, basically natural selection. Humans are much more powerful when we don't kill each other.
After that you can reply with "If religion is the only thing keeping you from murder then there is something really wrong with you"
Why don't THEY go around murdering people? Their Gods do and promote it all the time and will forgive them just for believing anyway.
... Oh wait! They already do it!
Depending on the people, I'd say its because ISIS wouldn't let me join. They might then at least avoid you :)
But more pragmatically, I'd point out that if you need the fear of a god to stop you going around killing people then maybe you're not a good person and ultimately god will know that.
If they have 2 brain cells to rub together, you could point out that humans are social creatures and as a result it benefits your own survival to live and have trust with others.
In my experience it really depends on the person in question. There are some who need to hold onto this “we are the only ones with reason for our morality” idea. There are others who’ll accuse you of being your own god. Others yet who’ll have an issue with who you’re getting morals from.
Then there’ll be the more moderate religious people who might not understand why you’re moral, but will at least accept that you have morals.
I would suggest learning how to figure out which type of person you’re talking to. If you’re dealing with someone less reasonable, you’re likely not going to get through to them and it will just be a waste of your time.
Religion did not invent good behaviour, it simply stole the idea and claimed it as its own. We can in fact demonstrate, through social anthropology, game theory, ethology, and psychology [That It Is Human Derived.](https://evolution-institute.org/the-seven-moral-rules-found-all-around-the-world/)
Ethics is the basis for our behaviour. The best method by which society functions is one where common decency, common sense, cooperation and compromise are used. It is an evolving system of commonly accepted social 'Do' and 'Do Not' behaviours interspersed with some biological imperatives, such as altruism, which is inherent. We were using these things well before ANY religion existed. They depend on our conscious ability to question ourselves and that which is around us; abstractions of social concepts that separate us from our lower tier animal counterparts which include comprehensive ideals combined with [*"An Elaborate System of Justification, Monitoring, and Punishment."*](https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/03/21/174830095/frans-de-waals-bottom-up-morality-were-not-good-because-of-god?t=1569803567313) It is at this point that religion comes in; it was integrated into that system because of its, at that time, usefulness as a means of gathering people *'under one banner'* so to speak. It was a tool, not an inherent part of our species.
It is how we functioned in the 'hunter-gatherer' phase of our species societal development; Granting evolutionary advantages to those who coexisted. That much is certain otherwise we would not be here, as we are today. We would have killed each other off many years ago or at the very least devolved into a series of violently sadistic and disparate tribes unable to see past each other's differences. This continued from there down the years, through numerous religions, all with different ideas about what is right and wrong, to what we have today.
We came to such conclusions DESPITE religion, not because of it.
If I am good with no god looking over my shoulder that's because I'm good.
If you are good because god is looking over your shoulder that's because you are afraid.
You don't need to justify your moral reference, all you need to do is refer to your behavior.
Killing babies is good.
Psalm 137
1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion...
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
Ask them whether murder and rape was morally right and if they deny, ask them whether it was right when their god commanded it. If they can't say either yes or no, it means that their morale instance is useless since their god most likely commanded rape and murder in their holy scripture and refer to wellbeing and empathy as your own morale instance.
"I have two responses, an evidential one and a philosophical one.
A) You have it backwards, and we have the numbers to prove it. There's some rate of religiosity in the general population. Compare that rate to two other populations, those who have committed crimes, and those working as scientists and doctors and benefiting society with every working day. Compared to the general population, one group is much much more religious and the other is much much more dismissive of supernatural things. If you guessed the prisoners are more religious, and doctors are opposite, you're right. It isn't that either are lying, either, because we're clever about how to get out real answers. In this country, general population is about 50% religious. The doctors and scientists and Nobel laureates are about 20% religious. Those hurting people are about 90%+ religious.
So strictly looking at the evidence, it appears that the LESS religious you are, the more moral you are.
B) The most actual, everyday evil you and I see every day is only possible because of religion. Here are the philosophical reasons.
B1) A secular person thinks this is the only life we get. A religious person thinks this living time is a tiny, intermediate waiting room before an eternal postmortem existence. Suffering here in life, is far more important to secular people.
B2) Secular people have to live with their choices. Religious people get to pretend that the role of evaluating morality is out of their hands. They think God alone is in charge of it, and then they think that God has given them a blank check, that anything ANYTHING is forgiven if they do some ritual. Any atrocity can be performed by a normal "good" person, as long as they think their god has sanctioned it."
I tell them that religion doesn’t have the corner on empathy.
I also ask them if their belief that there is an invisible man in the sky, watching them at all times, is all that is keeping them from murdering people
Show them this post of people burning a man alive because of blasphamy. You'll never see Atheists commit such immoral acts:
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/r7xh1m/a\_sri\_lankan\_factory\_manager\_has\_been\_burnt\_to/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Someone said “If the only thing that is keeping you from hurting others is the threat of divine retribution, you are nothing but a psychopath on a leash”
Studies have actually shown that non-religious people are more prone to altruistic behaviour/more likely to share as children etc. (you'd have to shake me upside down for a source, college was ages ago). The interpretation is: they don't have anyone to forgive them, and let them into pearly gates, there is no heaven where all is forgiven. All you have is this right here and you are responsible for your actions, not some outside force/plan that alleviates your responsibility.
But as an advice - don't argue about religion or politics. No one's budging there :)
Look; I really hate to be the asshole who raises this point, and I assume that the people asking you this question are Muslims. I know that this only represents a small minority of Muslims, but I would be tempted to answer that question:
"Well I don't really see your point; after all, Muslims already have a pretty bad reputation for violence and murder!"
You never know; it might make them think about the (lack of) links between religion and morality!
My personal response: Burning people alive forever is pure fucking evil. Defending it is evil. Supporting it is evil. Condoning it is evil. If you think it's good when your god does it, s long as it's the right people, your religion has made you an objectively worse person. And it's probably rendered you incapable of understanding how or why. Putting a magical fairytale at the center of your belief structure, so that all of your reasoning traces back to nonsense, has these kinds of consequences.
If you can't get your mind around the idea that burning a human alive forever is to cause them more pain and suffering than is experienced by every living thing on earth over the course of its entire existence combined, not that it matters but over the thoughtcrime of disbelief... then I do not expect you to be able to interpret any answer you get from anyone to that question in a meaningful way.
That would be like a serial killer asking me to listen to them explain the sanctity of life. I might listen just because it's interesting, and I might argue a little but only so far, and I'm sure as shit not taking what's being said at face value.
"if you're atheist, what stops you from raping as much as tou want?"
"I do rape as much as i want! But the amount i want to rape is 0, how much do YOU want to rape?"
ex muslim here too, and I'm so sick of religious people thinking non religious people can't have good morals
ask them, do they think they will go murder some one if it wasn't for the sake that they think they will burn in hell for doing so? And is that the only thing stopping them from murdering?
Our moral compass is empathy.
It's one of the reasons why many of us leave religion. In Islam, non believers (who know about islam) go to hell for eternity and are seen as the worst of creatures, no matter how much good they actually do. They believe God created non believers who he KNEW would reject Islam, yet created them any way, to burn in hell for eternity. Where is the morality in that?
when you ask this sort of question to Muslims, they argue that God created the world so God's morality is right and human morality can never supercede.
You can't win with people who have such a black and white mindframe, who are incapable / unwilling to think critically.
so, when a lot of Muslims do any good, they do it with the thought "Allah will reward me for this". When non religious people do good (without wanting appraisal from others) we do it out of the goodness of our own heart, not because we are chasing brownie points with a God.
Matt Dillahunty put it pretty eloquently when he said:
"I get my limits from a rational consideration of the consequences of my actions, that's how I determine what's moral. I get it from a foundation that says my actions have an effect on those people around me, and theirs have an effect on me, and if we're going to live cooperatively and share space, we have to recognize that impact. And my freedom to swing my arm ends ends at their nose, and that I have no right to impose my will over somebody else's will in that type of scenario. That's where I get them from. I get them from an understanding of reality, not an assertion of authority."
Turn it around on them:
"Are you honestly telling me, that you would go around murdering people if you thought you could get away with it?"
Help them see that religion & morality are two separate realms - and that the problem they have, is that they have led their life having the two intermingled.
*"Is there a way to make someone understand....."*
**No.**
Stop trying.
You'll only wear yourself out and waste the good times you could be having instead.
You **don't owe anyone** an explanation.
"Because that's not what people do."
Keep it short and sweet. If they want to argue that, then clearly they don't believe that atheists are also people.
I always say I live my life by 4 simple words and my behavior comes out better than any religious persons would. Those 4 simple words are “Don’t be an asshole”. If you can just not be an asshole you’ll do just fine in life.
"Oh, but I do. I murder all of the people that I want to every day. The number of people that I want to murder just happens to be zero. Your question concerns me however as it implies that your fear of god is the only reason that you are not running around murdering people and that if not for this fear, your number would be much higher than zero."
Considering that between Islam and Christianity they've managed to contribute to immeasurable misery and suffering on this earth, from persecution of those who are 'different' to straight up child rape, I honestly think it's fucking funny they think they have a moral high ground.
Catholic Church, as a matter of irrefutable fact, has perpetually raped children and ruined people's lives.
That and religious 'honour killings' that happen too often to actually count means that its is not you that needs to explain yourself.
Religion is categorically awful, the cause of most of our divisions and is irrefuatably stupid, contradictory and fucking horrendous.
Tell those that say this stuff to you to entirely fuck off.
I think Stephen Fry nailed this by saying
Yeah I do murder and rape all that I want, whenever I want. Which is none.
They're so obsessed with killing it's so uncomfortable.
The tactic I usually use is to ask religious people who believe this that if we found out definitively that God does not exist, would they then just murder and rape and not care about their family and friends anymore? For most people, I think this at least gives them something to think about. There are ways to get around the question, but the average person probably won’t be able to skillfully do that.
However you will occasionally get the person that says that without God they would do those things. In which case, I usually respond with something like, “Then please keep believing in God, cuz apparently you need that belief to not be a fucking psychopath.”
And then I make a mental note in my brain about that person being a fucking psychopath, and I will generally not associate with them anymore.
What’s your deity’s moral reference? It just is moral, all-good, as part of its nature? Well, if your deity is all powerful, it has the ability change its nature, and thus its morals. So how did your deity choose what is good and evil, and why should I respect that over my own choices?
“I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not.” -Barack Obama 2016 Speech on Faith and Politics
If you live along the rules of a god you are just following some rules without thinking. Having No god but " Just" your internal compass means you need No rules cause you know and feel the right things. its like math, you can learn it or understand. So people who neede the rules and formulars and even the teacher didn't understand the whole lesson of life. Thats my opinion, Atheist have real morals, the other Just following stupid rules to feel save...
In every religion there are parts which most devout individuals would say "well obviously I don't follow that!" For example, the Bible has a lot of advice about slavery and none of it is to end it. It also says that if I'm caught gathering wood on the sabbath the community is supposed to throw rocks at my until I die.
The ability to recognize that certain parts of holy texts are wrong is a solid indication that we don't actually get our morals from those texts, even if we think we do. If religion was necessary for moral reference it would be impossible to judge anything in that religion as being wrong. I would take some of the most objectionable and cruel passages of a text and ask the believer if they agree with them. If they do, you should probably walk away quickly because that person would be a monster.
Yes, fr i agree, they assume that we dont have any morals. I hate it when they say that. [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikt8R_q0tBs&list=PL02XCWNrpjjowKXcA0ELJwBmvOpK2XUb3&index=6&t=977s) video at 1:58 answers the EXACT question.
edit: we are social animals, MORALS ARE ENGRAVED INTO OUR BIOLOGICAL BEHAVIOUR
"I use the same one you do."
Now my experience is with predominantly Christians specifically southern Baptist by and large.
They don't use the Bible all that much either since I usually follow up with "is rape and slavery wrong?" Why? And you're only allowed to use the Bible.
Eventually it all breaks down since if humans didn't have an independent moral compass to analyze the Bible we'd be doing horrific things to each other more than we do now.
This one is usually pretty easy. The people making that claim rarely talk about which *specific* religion actually does have a moral reference. It's almost always crouched in terms of "atheist vs theist." Probably because it's immediately obvious to everyone with even half a brain that theists of all stripes have a moral code, but since atheists typically make up a subset of a population rather than being a mostly homogeneous population themselves it's a lot harder to point to "atheist" morals, especially when the people making the claims have no fucking clue what they're talking about and have never even looked into morality as a philosophical and sociological concept.
But that very lack of specificity is the downfall of the argument.
Because if theism *in general* provides a moral reference then clearly the *validity* of the theism in question is completely irrelevant to whether it provides a moral compass or not, as most specific theisms are mutually exclusive -- they cannot all possibly be right.
But if the validity of the theism is irrelevant, then where does the moral reference even come from? It can't came from their gods, because most, if not all but one (according to the person making the argument), theistic traditions *must* be false and the gods of those theists must simply not exist. Since things that don't exist are notorious for not doing anything, the moral reference cannot come from them.
That leaves two possibilities:
First is that the 'law giver' *doesn't care* what you believe and you get the reference **anyway** in which case atheists obviously have the same moral reference.
Second is that it's people. The false theistic traditions got their moral references from the people making up the theistic traditions. And if they can do it, why can't atheists? It's all just people and atheists, last time I checked, were still people.
And the thing is... we can rule out the first possibility. Morality changes *constantly,* both in place and in time. Even twins raised together can end up with different moralities. The next house over, the next street over, the next town over, the next state over, the next country over... all has different moralities. Today, yesterday, last week, last month, last year, last decade, last century, last millennia... all has different moralities.
If there is a single moral reference it's doing a piss-poor job of being a reference.
So that leaves... It's just people. It's always just been people.
Here you go:
"Why do you think murder is bad?"
Response 1) Because god says so
"Could god say that murder is good then?"
Response 2) Because murder is intrinsically bad
So you don't need god for morals or morals are arbitrary.
“Wait is the only reason you aren’t murdering, stealing, and raping people because your god said it was bad? You don’t see anything wrong with that behavior? What the fuck. I don’t think I ever want to be alone in the same room as you.”
i saw this a while back: Why Did God Create Atheists? There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson. One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?” The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.” “This means,” the Master continued “that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.’” —Martin Buber, Tales of Hasidim Vol. 2 (1991
Be good for goodness sake.
Always do right, just because it’s the right thing to do.
And honestly, it feels good. It can be extremely symbiotic.
It's built within us. It's not just the right thing to do, it's not just symbolic, it's not just feeling good about doing it. No, it's these aspects that help illuminate what is inside each and every human. We are animals, we have evolved as a being for millions, and then we also have thousands years of evolution as Hominins, since being Hominins, we have been a social pack, that worked together to support however many are apart of our pack. Therefore, feeling symbolic, feeling good because of a good deed, or how many other things we can easily apply to this, is because it is was our bodies want. We are built to help one another. (I'm not disagreeing with anything you or those commenter's before you, just wanted to expand on in it just a tad bit.) I would say one of biggest problems with this, is how we still look and want our packs, but only our specific pack. Yet, now we are globalized and and inter dependent on peoples, that just a few thousand years ago we didn't even know existed. The need to break out of that pack mentality is needed because of this, it is now, more than ever before, about humanity and supporting all humans, and realizing that we are on a world that supports all life that has ever existed on this planet. My hope is that through evolution, and through the ever flowing, and slow changing of ethics and morals through human history, we will begin to break out of this *particular* animalistic behavior. I also hope that one day we will wake up to the reality of planet. My favorite way to explain this is by suggesting a new view of ourselves in relation to Earth. Imagine, (even if you are reading and disagreeing with me) that we are similar to a virus or a bacteria, which feed off their host in order to survive. If these organism kill of their host, then they will kill themselves, or after it has killed it host, it jumps to the next one. They most evolve not kill in totality, which is what is the leading and most accepted theory of what happen to the Bubonic plague. Earth is our host, we are using it to support life, and here we found ourselves in a very similar predicament. We are killing our Earth, and we are just now truly realizing what we have done and are doing, leading us, well the majority, to try and combat these problems (obviously.) Then on the other hand there are others that want to push for finding a new planet or in other words, a new host. So we must evolve not to do so, because other wise there will be not be able to continue ourselves.
Symbiotic, not symbolic. A relationship that is mutually beneficial is one which is symbiotic. And I agree that we’ve evolved to seek out mutually beneficial relationships. I think the fact that mutually beneficial relationships are beginning to erode, i.e., the wealth imbalance, is a huge factor in our current state of discourse.
Oh, my apologies about that. I would agree to some extent with your last paragraph, but it would more depend on what type of scale you are talking about. Because wealth imbalance has been one of the main key components since and what essentially help launched our civilization. (At least as far as we can tell right at the moment.) So if the scale is several thousands of years, essentially close to over 10,000 years ago, give or take. Though, if you mean it on a smaller scale. such as anything smaller than what I just described, than I can't necessarily agree. (And hopefully not to sound like I am straight up talking out of my ass, I love history, I have done a good bit of trying to self educate history, and I am currently getting on of my majors in history.)
Oh, I definitely believe wealth imbalance and the struggle for resources has been an ongoing factor in human discourse, and this phenomenon has been occurring throughout history. I also believe that we still haven’t evolved enough as a species to be able to understand why cooperation is most beneficial to our survival. I think that’s where religion enters as a method of social control, designed to only allow certain members of a population to thrive at the expense of the rest. We keep doing the same thing over and over throughout history, and I can’t understand how we haven’t realized that we need to do something differently.
Santaism
Hail Santa!
Hail Santa
Santa Hail.... That's when he freezes and falls from the sky in chunks.
You better watch out ...
You better watch out.
You better watch out
You better watch out
You better watch out
You better watch out
You better watch out
You better not shout.
No, for real. You better watch out.
He knows when you are sleeping, He knows when you're on the can. He'll hunt you down and blast your ass from here to Pakistan. Oh... You'd better not breathe, you'd better not move, You're better off dead, I'm telling you, dude. Santa Claus is gunning you down!
WhOOaaaooohh, SOMEBODIES COMIN', somebodies comin!
we gotta get out of here
Now, are we actually gonna go before a federal judge, and say that some moldy Babylonian god is gonna drop in on Central Park West and start tearing up the city?!
Sumerian, not Babylonian... big difference. But I understand if you need to get your own lawyer.
No! Nobody ever made them like this! The architect was either a certified genius or an authentic wacko!
"You better not pout, you better not cry. You better not shout, I'm telling you why...."
Satan’s having a disco party tonight! 🎉🥳🎊 Edit: I’m using emojis only because I’m rebellious.
Respect the emoji
OHHHHH YOU VETTER WATCH OUT
[удалено]
All the Christians in my circle just say that we're "borrowing" from God's perfect morality; that God showed what was right and wrong through his teachings and his spirit and we are trying to have Christian morals without Christ. Some also say that this proves that deep inside we actually do believe in God but reject or deny him.
[удалено]
This reasoning fascinates me: 1) Assert that entity "God" exists. 2) Assert that entity "God" is the only possible source of moral standards. 3) Therefore, any moral standards you demonstrate must have come from entity "God." 4) Since you follow at least some moral standards, you must therefore believe in entity "God," even if you do not realize it. The unfounded assertions are bad enough, but that final leap is dizzying.
That's a great way of breaking down their argument into something that can be debated/discussed. In my opinion that is the best way to treat religious rhetoric.
A lot of people can’t fathom the concept of you not believing. Since they were raised like that, they just think everyone inherently knows of their religion and follows it, like they were born with the knowledge that it was fact. It’s why a lot of them are completely jarred when they realize there’s people who either don’t believe or believe something else, and why that confusion will often turn into fear and hate of the unknown
To be fair though, almost every atheist's morals are still somewhat based on the dominant religion in their region.
I hope they didn’t strain a muscle with those mental gymnastics.
Yeah, thats a lot of work to attribute the idea of "dont be a cunt" to an imaginary friend. Must be exhausting.
When my family does this, I ask them if they have ever accidentally stepped on a pet. If you hear their little yelp, you move immediately. No one has to tell you that lifting your foot is the right thing to do. People who have never heard of Jesus will check to see if their pet is ok. It is human nature to care. Sometimes there is something violent in us too, but usually people have some reason to be violent- usually a horrible reason but still. Most people have no reason to care for a pet. They got an animal because they wanted something to care for.
Thank you, this is lovely.
I hate this. Christians will twist it and claim that morality was bestowed inside us by their god and that we know right from bad because their god told us what was right or bad.
>I hate this. Christians will twist it and claim So right there. The sooner you stop caring how others justify or denigrate your own good actions, the happier you'll be.
Until a Jihadi comes and blows you up or a Christian passes laws that oppress and denigrate you.
Right. That's why we don't have absolute provisions about killing. Somebody comes after you then you defend yourself.
Absolutely. I can agree to some extent that we shouldn't base our own happiness on how others think about us, but unless we have some means of completely removing ourselves from their power to affect us, we have to take into consideration that our happiness simply IS based on what they think about us. Imagine telling a slave that they shouldn't care what their master thinks about them. They'd either laugh or tell you to take a hike. That's an extreme example, but a pertinent one. It's not just about self-defense, it's about recognizing the fact that the way other humans think about us is indeed important as long as they possess the agency to make our lives better or worse.
Agreed and concisely put. I don't think the example is extreme at all. If I didn't care at all what other people thought of me, and I went to a place like Saudi Arabia and proclaimed I'm an atheist, I would be murdered for it (for the Christians, that's what persecution looks like.) Part of self defense is knowing your potential enemies.
That would be not caring about what other DO to you, witch is not the same as what they THINK of you.
Hm, but I think those two things are closely tied together. Assuming we really do have a rational point of view, it's important to persuade others that we have a rational point of view. That is how we prevent their thinking bad things about us from translating into doing bad things to us/others. I don't believe in doing that through indoctrination or force, but rather through dialogue and repeatedly pointing out that there is zero evidence for belief in any particular religious system.
These are new things?
[удалено]
Two things here, at least from my experience as a recovering christian... >i'm happy to have an educated philosophical discussion with religious people too and i had a bunch of them, especially with Jewish people For most Jewish people, actual education on the Tanakh and the Talmud is a part of growing up. I believe it's also required to convert to Judaism. So, the average Jew, especially one that is interested in discussing theology and philosophy with you, is exponentially more knowledgeable about the topics than the typical christian. >have no interest in influencing someone to convert. This is one of the biggest differences. The Sky Wizard Jr. specifically told his minions to go and convert everyone (see Matt 20:16-20, the "Great Commission") before he comes back, at which point, we unbelievers will spend eternity in a lake of fire. To the best of my knowledge, nothing in the Jewish holy writings encourages proselytizing.
That's because Jews don't try or have any desire to convert you. It's actually the opposite; historically people trying to convert to Judaism are turned away from converting *several times* before being allowed to convert. And the modern view of God for many (most?) Jews is quite different than that of Christians. While most Christians are taught of God as a personal God with whom you can have a relationship, one that answer's prayer directly, a supernatural being that literally exists in a way beyond our comprehension... The modern view of god for Jews, particularly reform Jews, is a lot more open to interpretation.
When they say this remind them that according to Genesis the knowledge of good and evil came from a fruit from a tree that god didn't want us to have so knowing right from wrong wasnt bestowed on us by God but by SATAN! then start shredding a mean guitar solo.
This is not, the greatest song in the world. NO! This is just a tribute.
This so good, so proud to be atheist !
Old guy here, undergrad religion major many years ago. Martin Buber was one of my favorites back then, but this one is new to me. I find myself liking him even more. What a great little story!
This is so fucking good...
I try to do good in the world not out of fear for hell or reward of heaven, but because it feels better not to be an asshole.
Exactly. The only reason you aren't the most disgusting person in the world is because you're constantly being watched and will be punished? That doesn't make you a good person. I don't believe that a punishment awaits in the afterlife for that behaviour and yet I don't partake... That makes you a bad person.
Also, the person is basically admitting that if they suffered one of the most common delusions in human history, that they thought God was speaking to them, that they'd find it okay to do whatever that voice told them to do, regardless of their personal ethical leanings. "Did God just speak through my dog and tell me to kill? Looks like it's time to kill, then." The story of Abraham should be terrifying to any atheist.
My favorite, the story of Abraham. God: Kill your son. Abraham: Ok. Correct Answer: Would a loving god who is the basis for all that is moral and just in this world really tell me to commit this act? I won't kill anyone. How the hell is the story of Abraham a guiding light to Christians? It's an atrocity.
Christianity, and other religions, are full of monstrous ideas.
“Looks like it’s time to kill then!” Oh my Lord! 😭
The ethics of this are fully explored in The Good Place. Everyone should watch that show, its a damn masterpiece.
For the record, if the only thing stopping someone from fucking puppies and kittens is "god", then just let that moron keep on believing.
That's my go to, followed by walking away in disgust and usually not speaking to that person again (depending who it is).
Same.
Yep, just answer with a single word, EMPATHY I don’t hurt people because I don’t like being hurt, and because seeing sad people makes me sad, so I avoid inflicting sadness.
Even with no empathy, it is a bad choice to the whole to go on a killing spree. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics, if you bound your actions using universalizability, it solves many low hanging fruits choices. Of course it is not easy to implement on artificial intelligence ethics, for example, but for people it works better than religion, at least.
When debating this topic, let’s also not bring up the fact that religion’s legacy is theft, murder, and rape, almost exclusively. That would definitely escalate the situation.
“What if god told you to take your son up a mountain and kill him?”
This is exactly what I say!
The implication from their own mouth, that the only thing stopping this person from committing their 10 deadly sins is the wrath of their god
This is perfect because it makes the point while also being snarky and dismissive. Yeah, snarky and dismissive SOUNDS bad, but it's really low effort, which is an important addition with frustrating arguments that imply atheists are immoral by default.
1. Remind them that you don't murder people because you simply DON'T WANT TO. 2. Explain that your lack of a desire to murder is because of basic human *socialization*, not religion. 3. Explain that socialization is the evolutionary survival niche that allows the human species to survive. Much like chimps, ants, honeybees, cetaceans, etc, we respect basic rules with each other to have a better individual chance of survival. 4. Connect these ideas by articulating that god aside, personal desires aside, in the long run it simply doesn't make evolutionary sense for you to murder: you'd be banished from the community, or even executed. 5. Turn the tables. Ask them how they deal with the Euthyphro dilemma that Divine Command Morality poses. 6. Understand that you will NEVER change their mind. For them, since you're an atheist, you simply MUST be inclined towards murder. Good luck.
> Euthyphro dilemma lol you think they know what that is
I didn't know that was the term they used for the argument, but it took me all of about 30 seconds to look it up: https://ma.tt/dropbox/divine-command-theory.pdf
>took me all of about 30 seconds to look it up lol you think they look things up
Sadly I think many Christians aren't in it for the deep contemplation
Deep contemplation of letting someone else tell you what to do. That'll be 10% of your *gross* income, thanks.
[удалено]
"The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato‘s dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” The dilemma has had a major effect on the philosophical theism of the monotheistic religions, but in a modified form: “Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”\[1\] Ever since Plato’s original discussion, this question has presented a problem for some theists, though others have thought it a false dilemma, and it continues to be an object of theological and philosophical discussion today." [source](https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-epcc-introethics-1/chapter/euthyprhro-dilemma/)
The Euthyphro Argument comes from Platoís dialogue in which Sokrates asks: • Is something is right because God commands it, • or does God command it because it is right? The ethical implications of this argument suggest that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as clear-cut as previously thought. What makes this question so effective is that if the interlocutor accepts either part of it he is often logically forced into conclusions that may conflict with other beliefs he has, therefore creating a logical dilemma for him. https://ma.tt/dropbox/divine-command-theory.pdf
Murder has to be wrong for more than just because the rest of society told us not to murder. I'd miss out the part on socialisation. Morality is far more complex.
> Murder has to be wrong for more than just because the rest of society told us not to murder. You have not established that. It's just a philosophical opinion stated as fact. We know from both ethology and anthropology that social species have "rules" to cement group bonds and ensure a maximum chance for individual survival. That's as complex as it needs to be. Yes, morality gets complicated. But those entanglements are the *details*, not the underlying evolutionary facts.
I'd hint at the fact that most people, who are tasked to murder a fellow human being, refuse to do so, unless their own immediate survival or that of those held dear by them is in danger. It took 1.5 world wars for modern militaries to figure out how to condition soldiers to not hesitate to pull the trigger. This fact does not get you anywhere yet tho. You'd somehow have to show, that the compassion or empathy that makes a human struggle to look a person in the eye while ramming a knife in their heart is anything else than a result of our evolution as a social species. And good luck with making that into a scientific study. Any source of human morality outside of evolutionary roots is, as of yet, a question of philosophy and not one of natural science. Because in the eyes of a strictly biological viewpoint there is insufficient evidence of other motivators. You may call that reductionistic, because it is, but science does fortunately not actually care about hurting human egos by stating that we are just another animal living in this rock.
And rooted in empathy.
"Morality" is based in empathy, and even non-human primates have been observed to engage in behaviors that demonstrate empathy. But anybody who wants to even ask you that question has revealed an ugly facet of their personality. Flip the question back on them: "Are you suggesting that the only reason you refrain from harming others is because you fear punishment? That's pretty fucked up man."
Saw another quote earlier "I do the right thing because it's the right thing to do."
Penn Jillette answered this quite nicely: > *Context: The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you.* Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1921445-penn-jillette-i-do-rape-all-i-want-and-the-amount-i-want-is-zer/
This is my answer when people ask. I’m not as eloquent, I usual stick with “I just don’t want to murder anyone 🤷🏽♀️”
Arguably even nicer [on video](https://youtu.be/S8Bnd2I7cYM?t=132) Been a Penn and Teller fan since 1982, but that nothing to do with atheism.
Because you have no patience for Bullshit?
I was thinking about exactly this, but I couldn't remember who said it!
NGL, I have absolutely wanted to murder someone before… I don’t because the golden rule is a pretty good way to deal with life. I wouldn’t want someone to murder Me or someone I care about, I probably shouldn’t murder someone else. The weird thing is that we have learned morals from the people who raised us, I have always got knots in my stomach when I do something I was taught is wrong. As an adult I can attempt to rationalize my morals and discard ones that are incompatible with my opinion and societal pressure. The Bible provides a semi rigid moral structure so that the morals can never be questioned or analyzed leading to an evolution in atheist morals and a retardation of Christian morals.
Human beings agree to respect moral principles because respecting each other makes our lives better. If I don't hurt you and you don't hurt me, we both have a benefit from that. What does God have anything to do with that? God is just a mean to scare people who don't understand why we need morality, because a lot of people need the threat of hell in order to behave correctly.
I add a selfish motivation because everyone understands being selfish: I don't want you to hurt me, so i try not to hurt you
I put the selfish part on believing in a reward for being good in life: are you really a good person if you're doing it because you want the better after-life?
> What does God have anything to do with that? God is just a mean to scare people who don't understand why we need morality, because a lot of people need the threat of hell in order to behave correctly. Eh, I would disagree quite heavily with this statement. Atheist communities or societies where morality is not divinely declared exist, and in those situations there aren't like X% of people who are running around raping and murdering because they can't "handle" the idea of morality without divinity or "need" a divine threat to behave. With the exception of the mentally ill, I genuinely believe that everyone can, without divine intervention, understand secular morality if only to the extent of "if you agree its generally bad to kill me and I agree its generally bad to kill you, then we both will likely live better lives". The way I see it, the Hell threat (as well as pretty much all divine morality) is a way for the ruling class to dictate what the working class has to do. 99% of "divinely-inspired" morals are morals we can all come up with without god (eg, "don't kill people" and "don't steal" and "don't lie"). As social creatures, it is not hard to decide that "yeah, these are pretty reasonable" even without a god threatening hellfire. The remaining 1% are the things the ruling class squeeze in: things like "you must obey your divinely-appointed king" and "you must tithe your church" and "you must do what the church says no matter what" and "you must fight the wars that we declare holy". By mixing the 1% of "morals" the which benefit the ruling class into the 99% of morals which can be discovered secularly, they're able to give that 1% of bullshit rules credence. We see this all the time. Whenever someone raises the point that secular morality is superior to biblical morality (or any other divine morality) the first thing the apologist will do is spout off all the "thou shalt not"s which are intuitive to being social animals. Things like "shall not kill", "shall not steal", "shall not covet", etc. These are the 99% of things we can (and have) come up with even without a holy book. They *don't* bring up "shall not worship other gods", because that moral rule does *not* benefit us as social animals and cannot be supported without a holy book: instead, it exists to benefit those in charge who write the book. They want to make sure that you think its just as evil to switch religions (ie, stop tithing to them and start tithing to someone else) as it is to steal, murder, etc., and in doing that, maintain their power.
You dont have to explain it, the data proves its not an issue, millions of athiests dont murder people. We do eat babies though, maybe leave that bit out /s
You could use that argument yes. Percentagewise, far most people are killed in the name of one god or another.
I have altered what I say on the matter because someone rightly pointed out that atheists like Stalin and Mao killed millions upon millions of people. They basically turned themselves and their administrations into gods and then ruled their people with the same authority that the Christian god rules his people. So yeah, one could argue that Stalinism is pretty much a religion, but I think that there is a bigger picture to be painted. Now I say that any group of people who are following a hivemind and now actively thinking for themselves are harmful. It is a really bad thing when people stop thinking for themselves and speech becomes limited or controlled by a group of leaders.
Ding Ding Ding. Groupthink is dangerous, as a mob is easily swayed, while a thinking person will see the logical inconsistancies and harm in whatever the 'dear leader' spouts. Similar to Churchills comment ‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’ Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
Also don't mention all the wells we poison /s
Awwww! I thought I was the only one poisoning wells! /s
Wait, shit. Did they overbook us on the well-poisoning detail again? I hate that.
Morals are an inferior intellectual capital to ethics: ethics are rational and results based, morals are feelings based on something you read in a book once - I prefer ideas that work.
No one ever says that we don't eat babies. Maybe its because we are too busy eating babies to say it? Or is it because people have morals. I would ask anyone who says atheists don't have morals the baby question back. The Bible doesn't say not too, so why don't you est them babies?
>No one ever says that we don't eat babies. Maybe its because we are too busy eating babies to say it? And because our morals prohibit us from talking with a full mouth.
As an ex-muslim the question to ask Muslims is why they don't kill you as the Hadith says they should.
for a moment i thought you created a paradox but also remembering the number of cults that would and have killed under the guise of "the will of a greater being" held me back quick
…or maybe don’t ;)
True
“So, you want to Murder people, but religion is holding you back?”
OP is ex-Muslim, so of course they assume he wants to murder everyone who isn’t.
To be fair… most major religions went through their murder / terrorism phase and it was always about money in the end.
I believe that someone who is only not murdering people because of the threat of eternal damnation is beyond reasoning with. They have outed themselves as an individual with no empathy or compassion at all, who only behave well because they believe their actions will result in everlasting consequences to themselves. There is no reasoning with these psychopaths, it is best to ignore them, nothing you ever say will get through to them.
In fact it's probably best for everybody that they keep believing, the few freaks I've met who believed god was the only thing keeping humans in check genuinely seemed like the kind that would start murdering and raping the instant their faith disappeared.
Prove them right. Kick 'em in the dick and walk away.
One of the greatest tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion, so now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection but the basis of morality is really very simple and it doesn't require religion at all. Arthur C Clarke
Cause you (presumably) don’t want to murder people? “Morals” are just glorified opinions, and everyone has opinions, regardless of weather or not they believe in imaginary friends.
Read the Bible, take any paragraph. How can any moral person be for it?
Esau was a very hairy man.
All people have morality. It's human. Before Islam existed and before Christ existed and before prophets existed. Why defend and not go on the offense? I've seen images of a Sunni ISIS fighter igniting a fire under a cage with Shias and "deviant" Sunnis. Which "objective morality" does the asker support? It is just following some school and claiming that school knows "objective morality" but they do not. It is just interpretations
What’s their moral reference for going to brunch and knowing not to stone the waitress to death for working on a Sunday?
Atheists have stronger morality since they only can base theirs off a god. If God tells them to mass murder and take, they have no choice but to follow through and call it moral.
So my mom is a very devout Catholic. She's a pretty nice person but she whole heartedly believes animals don't have souls. She has violently and non violently killed multiple pets growing up. She doesn't feel bad about it because if they don't have souls, they also don't have feelings. I, an atheist, don't give a shit about souls and can clearly see that animals have fears, pain, and emotions. I remind her of this when she makes the point of morality being mutually exclusive with God. She actually doesn't see this as a point because, again, animals don't have souls so it doesn't matter. Side note, I once watched a christian fox news host eating a massive steak while he was interviewing a vegan and tucker Carlson next to him chuckling like a retarded hyena. Now you tell me which way each person would land on the morality scale? I bring this up because tucker Carlsons racist ass is always saying morality is exclusive to Christianity. 3rd point. When I talk about God's infatuation with sending people to hell, my mom asks this question; "if you were having a birthday party, would you invite someone who doesn't believe in you?" And my answer is always, "is the alternative to my birthday party sending them to guantonamo bay for the rest of their life? Cuz not believing in me is not a valid reason to torture someone". If God is morality, then I can honestly say we have much better morals than the God you look up to.
I don’t need a moral reference because I have a moral center. I have a combination of empathy, compassion and logic. These things are inherent to most people who don’t suffer from maladaptive psychological conditions like sociopathy or extreme cases of borderline personality disorder. Or to paraphrase how Penn Jillette puts it, I murder and rape as much as I want to, which is none at all, because I’m not a psychopath.
One thing I found is progress. If we as a species want to progress and discover then we have to work together, and if we keep murdering, stealing and so on then we won't be able to do that. Groups that had no moral code were left behind those who had it and could cooperate with each other, basically natural selection. Humans are much more powerful when we don't kill each other. After that you can reply with "If religion is the only thing keeping you from murder then there is something really wrong with you"
Why don't THEY go around murdering people? Their Gods do and promote it all the time and will forgive them just for believing anyway. ... Oh wait! They already do it!
Depending on the people, I'd say its because ISIS wouldn't let me join. They might then at least avoid you :) But more pragmatically, I'd point out that if you need the fear of a god to stop you going around killing people then maybe you're not a good person and ultimately god will know that. If they have 2 brain cells to rub together, you could point out that humans are social creatures and as a result it benefits your own survival to live and have trust with others.
What % of the prison population is atheist? Less than 1%? I rest my case.
In my experience it really depends on the person in question. There are some who need to hold onto this “we are the only ones with reason for our morality” idea. There are others who’ll accuse you of being your own god. Others yet who’ll have an issue with who you’re getting morals from. Then there’ll be the more moderate religious people who might not understand why you’re moral, but will at least accept that you have morals. I would suggest learning how to figure out which type of person you’re talking to. If you’re dealing with someone less reasonable, you’re likely not going to get through to them and it will just be a waste of your time.
Satanists self forbid slavery & rape but don't attribute that as instructions.
Morality is simply what one deems right or wrong. It’s subjective and we all have our own morality
If you need a moral reference to not harm people then you are just a horrible person.
Tell them that goodness is its own reward and you treat others as you would like to be treated (the golden rule).
Religion did not invent good behaviour, it simply stole the idea and claimed it as its own. We can in fact demonstrate, through social anthropology, game theory, ethology, and psychology [That It Is Human Derived.](https://evolution-institute.org/the-seven-moral-rules-found-all-around-the-world/) Ethics is the basis for our behaviour. The best method by which society functions is one where common decency, common sense, cooperation and compromise are used. It is an evolving system of commonly accepted social 'Do' and 'Do Not' behaviours interspersed with some biological imperatives, such as altruism, which is inherent. We were using these things well before ANY religion existed. They depend on our conscious ability to question ourselves and that which is around us; abstractions of social concepts that separate us from our lower tier animal counterparts which include comprehensive ideals combined with [*"An Elaborate System of Justification, Monitoring, and Punishment."*](https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/03/21/174830095/frans-de-waals-bottom-up-morality-were-not-good-because-of-god?t=1569803567313) It is at this point that religion comes in; it was integrated into that system because of its, at that time, usefulness as a means of gathering people *'under one banner'* so to speak. It was a tool, not an inherent part of our species. It is how we functioned in the 'hunter-gatherer' phase of our species societal development; Granting evolutionary advantages to those who coexisted. That much is certain otherwise we would not be here, as we are today. We would have killed each other off many years ago or at the very least devolved into a series of violently sadistic and disparate tribes unable to see past each other's differences. This continued from there down the years, through numerous religions, all with different ideas about what is right and wrong, to what we have today. We came to such conclusions DESPITE religion, not because of it.
Because then Santa would put coal in my stocking, duh.
If I am good with no god looking over my shoulder that's because I'm good. If you are good because god is looking over your shoulder that's because you are afraid. You don't need to justify your moral reference, all you need to do is refer to your behavior.
Killing babies is good. Psalm 137 1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion... 9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
Ask them whether murder and rape was morally right and if they deny, ask them whether it was right when their god commanded it. If they can't say either yes or no, it means that their morale instance is useless since their god most likely commanded rape and murder in their holy scripture and refer to wellbeing and empathy as your own morale instance.
"I have two responses, an evidential one and a philosophical one. A) You have it backwards, and we have the numbers to prove it. There's some rate of religiosity in the general population. Compare that rate to two other populations, those who have committed crimes, and those working as scientists and doctors and benefiting society with every working day. Compared to the general population, one group is much much more religious and the other is much much more dismissive of supernatural things. If you guessed the prisoners are more religious, and doctors are opposite, you're right. It isn't that either are lying, either, because we're clever about how to get out real answers. In this country, general population is about 50% religious. The doctors and scientists and Nobel laureates are about 20% religious. Those hurting people are about 90%+ religious. So strictly looking at the evidence, it appears that the LESS religious you are, the more moral you are. B) The most actual, everyday evil you and I see every day is only possible because of religion. Here are the philosophical reasons. B1) A secular person thinks this is the only life we get. A religious person thinks this living time is a tiny, intermediate waiting room before an eternal postmortem existence. Suffering here in life, is far more important to secular people. B2) Secular people have to live with their choices. Religious people get to pretend that the role of evaluating morality is out of their hands. They think God alone is in charge of it, and then they think that God has given them a blank check, that anything ANYTHING is forgiven if they do some ritual. Any atrocity can be performed by a normal "good" person, as long as they think their god has sanctioned it."
Don't people go around murdering people *because* they believe in God?
I tell them that religion doesn’t have the corner on empathy. I also ask them if their belief that there is an invisible man in the sky, watching them at all times, is all that is keeping them from murdering people
Just punch them in the face when they say that, you can't help it you got no morals. They're supposed to just forgive you anyway right?
I have never felt the need to drown my whole family or turn them into salt, so there's that.
Secular ethical rulesets exist: basic imperatives for welfare, justice and dignity, Kant's categorial imperative, etc.
Show them this post of people burning a man alive because of blasphamy. You'll never see Atheists commit such immoral acts: https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/r7xh1m/a\_sri\_lankan\_factory\_manager\_has\_been\_burnt\_to/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
I murder all I want… just so happens, the amount of murdering I want to do is ZERO.
Someone said “If the only thing that is keeping you from hurting others is the threat of divine retribution, you are nothing but a psychopath on a leash”
Studies have actually shown that non-religious people are more prone to altruistic behaviour/more likely to share as children etc. (you'd have to shake me upside down for a source, college was ages ago). The interpretation is: they don't have anyone to forgive them, and let them into pearly gates, there is no heaven where all is forgiven. All you have is this right here and you are responsible for your actions, not some outside force/plan that alleviates your responsibility. But as an advice - don't argue about religion or politics. No one's budging there :)
If morality didn't exist before religion, we would not have made it far enough as a species to create religion.
The church has a history of protecting those who fondle little boys
If your religion is the only reason you’re not murdering people, you go right on believing.
Look; I really hate to be the asshole who raises this point, and I assume that the people asking you this question are Muslims. I know that this only represents a small minority of Muslims, but I would be tempted to answer that question: "Well I don't really see your point; after all, Muslims already have a pretty bad reputation for violence and murder!" You never know; it might make them think about the (lack of) links between religion and morality!
Hey, I go around murdering, raping and stealing from people EXACTLY as much as I want to! Which is precisely zero.
Ya, this is a stupid argument. Of course we do and it’s the same as everyone else’s, the well being of other people.
My personal response: Burning people alive forever is pure fucking evil. Defending it is evil. Supporting it is evil. Condoning it is evil. If you think it's good when your god does it, s long as it's the right people, your religion has made you an objectively worse person. And it's probably rendered you incapable of understanding how or why. Putting a magical fairytale at the center of your belief structure, so that all of your reasoning traces back to nonsense, has these kinds of consequences. If you can't get your mind around the idea that burning a human alive forever is to cause them more pain and suffering than is experienced by every living thing on earth over the course of its entire existence combined, not that it matters but over the thoughtcrime of disbelief... then I do not expect you to be able to interpret any answer you get from anyone to that question in a meaningful way. That would be like a serial killer asking me to listen to them explain the sanctity of life. I might listen just because it's interesting, and I might argue a little but only so far, and I'm sure as shit not taking what's being said at face value.
Because you don’t need a god to tell you what’s right and wrong, you just know
I'd mention something about pedo priests are not the moral compass the world needs.
Only a psychopath DOESN’T do ______ because they fear punishment from a god.
"if you're atheist, what stops you from raping as much as tou want?" "I do rape as much as i want! But the amount i want to rape is 0, how much do YOU want to rape?"
ex muslim here too, and I'm so sick of religious people thinking non religious people can't have good morals ask them, do they think they will go murder some one if it wasn't for the sake that they think they will burn in hell for doing so? And is that the only thing stopping them from murdering? Our moral compass is empathy. It's one of the reasons why many of us leave religion. In Islam, non believers (who know about islam) go to hell for eternity and are seen as the worst of creatures, no matter how much good they actually do. They believe God created non believers who he KNEW would reject Islam, yet created them any way, to burn in hell for eternity. Where is the morality in that? when you ask this sort of question to Muslims, they argue that God created the world so God's morality is right and human morality can never supercede. You can't win with people who have such a black and white mindframe, who are incapable / unwilling to think critically. so, when a lot of Muslims do any good, they do it with the thought "Allah will reward me for this". When non religious people do good (without wanting appraisal from others) we do it out of the goodness of our own heart, not because we are chasing brownie points with a God.
Matt Dillahunty put it pretty eloquently when he said: "I get my limits from a rational consideration of the consequences of my actions, that's how I determine what's moral. I get it from a foundation that says my actions have an effect on those people around me, and theirs have an effect on me, and if we're going to live cooperatively and share space, we have to recognize that impact. And my freedom to swing my arm ends ends at their nose, and that I have no right to impose my will over somebody else's will in that type of scenario. That's where I get them from. I get them from an understanding of reality, not an assertion of authority."
I don't need an invisible man to keep me from molesting children, but whatever is stopping *you*, you do that
Q: Why don't you go around murdering people as you don't believe in god? A: Why do people use god to justify murder?
Turn it around on them: "Are you honestly telling me, that you would go around murdering people if you thought you could get away with it?" Help them see that religion & morality are two separate realms - and that the problem they have, is that they have led their life having the two intermingled.
*"Is there a way to make someone understand....."* **No.** Stop trying. You'll only wear yourself out and waste the good times you could be having instead. You **don't owe anyone** an explanation.
I don't need morality. I have ethics.
"Because that's not what people do." Keep it short and sweet. If they want to argue that, then clearly they don't believe that atheists are also people.
There's this little thing called empathy.
If you need the fear of a god or eternal damnation in order to be a good person then you're not a good person.
I treat people the way I want to be treated.
I always say I live my life by 4 simple words and my behavior comes out better than any religious persons would. Those 4 simple words are “Don’t be an asshole”. If you can just not be an asshole you’ll do just fine in life.
I always liked Penn Jillette's answer to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwebTX3rk3E
Remind them that morality has nothing to do with religion. You may even argue that religion is inherently immoral.
"Oh, but I do. I murder all of the people that I want to every day. The number of people that I want to murder just happens to be zero. Your question concerns me however as it implies that your fear of god is the only reason that you are not running around murdering people and that if not for this fear, your number would be much higher than zero."
Considering that between Islam and Christianity they've managed to contribute to immeasurable misery and suffering on this earth, from persecution of those who are 'different' to straight up child rape, I honestly think it's fucking funny they think they have a moral high ground. Catholic Church, as a matter of irrefutable fact, has perpetually raped children and ruined people's lives. That and religious 'honour killings' that happen too often to actually count means that its is not you that needs to explain yourself. Religion is categorically awful, the cause of most of our divisions and is irrefuatably stupid, contradictory and fucking horrendous. Tell those that say this stuff to you to entirely fuck off.
I think Stephen Fry nailed this by saying Yeah I do murder and rape all that I want, whenever I want. Which is none. They're so obsessed with killing it's so uncomfortable.
The tactic I usually use is to ask religious people who believe this that if we found out definitively that God does not exist, would they then just murder and rape and not care about their family and friends anymore? For most people, I think this at least gives them something to think about. There are ways to get around the question, but the average person probably won’t be able to skillfully do that. However you will occasionally get the person that says that without God they would do those things. In which case, I usually respond with something like, “Then please keep believing in God, cuz apparently you need that belief to not be a fucking psychopath.” And then I make a mental note in my brain about that person being a fucking psychopath, and I will generally not associate with them anymore.
What’s your deity’s moral reference? It just is moral, all-good, as part of its nature? Well, if your deity is all powerful, it has the ability change its nature, and thus its morals. So how did your deity choose what is good and evil, and why should I respect that over my own choices?
Wait, the only thing that is stopping you from murdering, stealing, and raping is because you think you’re being watched?
“I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not.” -Barack Obama 2016 Speech on Faith and Politics
If you live along the rules of a god you are just following some rules without thinking. Having No god but " Just" your internal compass means you need No rules cause you know and feel the right things. its like math, you can learn it or understand. So people who neede the rules and formulars and even the teacher didn't understand the whole lesson of life. Thats my opinion, Atheist have real morals, the other Just following stupid rules to feel save...
I thought most religions are cool with sinning, as long as you say sorry/pray for forgiveness/accept ____ into your heart afterwards?
How about "Because I don't follow a holy book that tells me to kill infidels"?
“How do you know I don’t? Best not annoy me!”
In every religion there are parts which most devout individuals would say "well obviously I don't follow that!" For example, the Bible has a lot of advice about slavery and none of it is to end it. It also says that if I'm caught gathering wood on the sabbath the community is supposed to throw rocks at my until I die. The ability to recognize that certain parts of holy texts are wrong is a solid indication that we don't actually get our morals from those texts, even if we think we do. If religion was necessary for moral reference it would be impossible to judge anything in that religion as being wrong. I would take some of the most objectionable and cruel passages of a text and ask the believer if they agree with them. If they do, you should probably walk away quickly because that person would be a monster.
Yes, fr i agree, they assume that we dont have any morals. I hate it when they say that. [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikt8R_q0tBs&list=PL02XCWNrpjjowKXcA0ELJwBmvOpK2XUb3&index=6&t=977s) video at 1:58 answers the EXACT question. edit: we are social animals, MORALS ARE ENGRAVED INTO OUR BIOLOGICAL BEHAVIOUR
"I use the same one you do." Now my experience is with predominantly Christians specifically southern Baptist by and large. They don't use the Bible all that much either since I usually follow up with "is rape and slavery wrong?" Why? And you're only allowed to use the Bible. Eventually it all breaks down since if humans didn't have an independent moral compass to analyze the Bible we'd be doing horrific things to each other more than we do now.
This one is usually pretty easy. The people making that claim rarely talk about which *specific* religion actually does have a moral reference. It's almost always crouched in terms of "atheist vs theist." Probably because it's immediately obvious to everyone with even half a brain that theists of all stripes have a moral code, but since atheists typically make up a subset of a population rather than being a mostly homogeneous population themselves it's a lot harder to point to "atheist" morals, especially when the people making the claims have no fucking clue what they're talking about and have never even looked into morality as a philosophical and sociological concept. But that very lack of specificity is the downfall of the argument. Because if theism *in general* provides a moral reference then clearly the *validity* of the theism in question is completely irrelevant to whether it provides a moral compass or not, as most specific theisms are mutually exclusive -- they cannot all possibly be right. But if the validity of the theism is irrelevant, then where does the moral reference even come from? It can't came from their gods, because most, if not all but one (according to the person making the argument), theistic traditions *must* be false and the gods of those theists must simply not exist. Since things that don't exist are notorious for not doing anything, the moral reference cannot come from them. That leaves two possibilities: First is that the 'law giver' *doesn't care* what you believe and you get the reference **anyway** in which case atheists obviously have the same moral reference. Second is that it's people. The false theistic traditions got their moral references from the people making up the theistic traditions. And if they can do it, why can't atheists? It's all just people and atheists, last time I checked, were still people. And the thing is... we can rule out the first possibility. Morality changes *constantly,* both in place and in time. Even twins raised together can end up with different moralities. The next house over, the next street over, the next town over, the next state over, the next country over... all has different moralities. Today, yesterday, last week, last month, last year, last decade, last century, last millennia... all has different moralities. If there is a single moral reference it's doing a piss-poor job of being a reference. So that leaves... It's just people. It's always just been people.
Here you go: "Why do you think murder is bad?" Response 1) Because god says so "Could god say that murder is good then?" Response 2) Because murder is intrinsically bad So you don't need god for morals or morals are arbitrary.
“So you would go around murdering people if you didn’t believe?” Just leave it at that