How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
What checks?

Might be my bad but you sound an awful lot like the old member that went by "Nevercompromise".

The Q thing cemented it for me, but I could be wrong.

What was the sense in engaging in the war in the 1st place?

Could it have been that Pearl Harbor was a false flag, and the point was to be narcissistic and drop 2 atomic bombs on people that were not christian?

Not a false flag.
But it was allowed to happen when we knew it was coming.
And I would have to say the fire bombing of Dresden was more aggregious

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
And I would have to say the fire bombing of Dresden was more aggregious

So the "America is great because America is good" according to Alexis De Toqueville carried out not just 2 but 3, probably more, heinous killings.

I'm not even sure what you are arguing for at this point.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
And I would have to say the fire bombing of Dresden was more aggregious

So the "America is great because America is good" according to Alexis De Toqueville carried out not just 2 but 3, probably more, heinous killings.

I'm not even sure what you are arguing for at this point.

We had criminals that lied and took us into wars we never should have entered.
The same criminals did the work for the bankers as CEO of USA INC.
Not the American people you dolt.
It was odious and immoral.
Same with Iraq.
Same with the complete and total idiocy in Ukraine.
We are not, should be not and hopefully with a true leader, will not be the world's cop any longer.
Now that the FED is dead kumbaya mf, kumbaya.
Fight your own banker wars.
Without fiat who is going to finance them?

I am arguing for peace.
How do you miss that?
You are arguing for division.
But you are toothless.
Who cares?
Do you have a dog in the fight?

Nooooo
You are just a hater.
It's in your every post

Random thought.

People don't need a godform to compulsively run into a burning wreck at a stranger's cries.

There's no recognition of what God dictates. It's totally instinctual. At least for social mammals.

I think the order is reversed. Empathy and compassion don't come from God, they are reflections of natural tendencies and instincts, and are a response to a lack thereof. The indifference of luck.

Laws and morals seemed to be all respect things when the first ones were chiseled.

Which were these:

Code of Ur-Nammu (2100 BCE)

•If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
•If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver.
•If a slave marries a slave, and that slave is set free, he does not leave the household.
•If a slave marries a native [i.e. free] person, he/she is to hand the firstborn son over to his owner.
•If a man violates the right of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male.
•If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free.
•If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin female slave of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver.
•If a man divorces his first-time wife, he shall pay (her) one mina of silver.
•If it is a (former) widow whom he divorces, he shall pay (her) half a mina of silver.
•If the man had slept with the widow without there having been any marriage contract, he need not pay any silver.
•If a man is accused of sorcery [translation disputed], he must undergo ordeal by water; if he is proven innocent, his accuser must pay 3 shekels.
•If a man accused the wife of a man of adultery, and the river ordeal proved her innocent, then the man who had accused her must pay one-third of a mina of silver.
•If a prospective son-in-law enters the house of his prospective father-in-law, but his father-in-law later gives his daughter to another man, the father-in-law shall return to the rejected son-in-law twofold the amount of bridal presents he had brought.
•If [text destroyed], he shall weigh and deliver to him 2 shekels of silver.
•If a slave escapes from the city limits, and someone returns him, the owner shall pay two shekels to the one who returned him.
•If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out half a mina of silver.
•If a man has cut off another man's foot, he is to pay ten shekels.
•If a man, in the course of a scuffle, smashed the limb of another man with a club, he shall pay one mina of silver.
•If someone severed the nose of another man with a copper knife, he must pay two-thirds of a mina of silver.
•If a man knocks out a tooth of another man, he shall pay two shekels of silver.
•[text destroyed] If he does not have a slave, he is to pay 10 shekels of silver.
•If he does not have silver, he is to give another thing that belongs to him.
•If a man's slave-woman, comparing herself to her mistress, speaks insolently to her, her mouth shall be scoured with 1 quart of salt.
•If a slave woman strikes someone acting with the authority of her mistress [text destroyed]
•If a man appeared as a witness, and was shown to be a perjurer, he must pay fifteen shekels of silver.
•If a man appears as a witness, but withdraws his oath, he must make payment, to the extent of the value in litigation of the case.
•If a man stealthily cultivates the field of another man and he raises a complaint, this is however to be rejected, and this man will lose his expenses.
•If a man flooded the field of a man with water, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field.
•If a man had let an arable field to a(nother) man for cultivation, but he did not cultivate it, turning it into wasteland, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field.

What a beautiful history of patriarch it is.

But you can see it's mostly property, slavery, and sex partner based. The first "morals/laws" written. That refines itself in subsequent codes, and becomes less, well, slave-minded over time.

But before it was The Code of Ur-Nammu, it was the unspoken rules of "family honor" or "tribal honor" which are old as hominid family groups. I'm sure if a male of a rival clan took a mate from another, and it was unwelcomed, they were probably hunted down for their alpha-male transgression.

Everything goes "left" in terms of how free it is for everyone.

Just sometimes takes 4000 goddamn years and counting for social norms to change. And some places are still back in Babylon with slave and bride auctions.

But murder will always be on that list... unless it's for service, in self-defense, or for retribution.

Finally, I think the written dogmas are a byproduct of civilization itself, and based on the rudimentary honor codes still present at the cradle of it.

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
Not the American people you dolt.

Unfortunately, the quote you posted by De Toqueville didn't say "the american people" it said "America" and even you are arguing against it at this point, so what are you even arguing about?

originally posted by: Degradation33
Random thought.

People don't need a godform to compulsively run into a burning wreck at a stranger's cries.

There's no recognition of what God dictates. It's totally instinctual. At least for social mammals.

I think the order is reversed. Empathy and compassion don't come from God, they are reflections of natural tendency that in response to a lack thereof. The indifference of luck.

Laws and morals seem to be all respect things when the first were recorded.

Which were these:

Code of Ur-Nammu (2100 BCE)

•If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
•If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver.
•If a slave marries a slave, and that slave is set free, he does not leave the household.
•If a slave marries a native [i.e. free] person, he/she is to hand the firstborn son over to his owner.
•If a man violates the right of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male.
•If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free.
•If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin female slave of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver.
•If a man divorces his first-time wife, he shall pay (her) one mina of silver.
•If it is a (former) widow whom he divorces, he shall pay (her) half a mina of silver.
•If the man had slept with the widow without there having been any marriage contract, he need not pay any silver.
•If a man is accused of sorcery [translation disputed], he must undergo ordeal by water; if he is proven innocent, his accuser must pay 3 shekels.
•If a man accused the wife of a man of adultery, and the river ordeal proved her innocent, then the man who had accused her must pay one-third of a mina of silver.
•If a prospective son-in-law enters the house of his prospective father-in-law, but his father-in-law later gives his daughter to another man, the father-in-law shall return to the rejected son-in-law twofold the amount of bridal presents he had brought.
•If [text destroyed], he shall weigh and deliver to him 2 shekels of silver.
•If a slave escapes from the city limits, and someone returns him, the owner shall pay two shekels to the one who returned him.
•If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out half a mina of silver.
•If a man has cut off another man's foot, he is to pay ten shekels.
•If a man, in the course of a scuffle, smashed the limb of another man with a club, he shall pay one mina of silver.
•If someone severed the nose of another man with a copper knife, he must pay two-thirds of a mina of silver.
•If a man knocks out a tooth of another man, he shall pay two shekels of silver.
•[text destroyed] If he does not have a slave, he is to pay 10 shekels of silver.
•If he does not have silver, he is to give another thing that belongs to him.
•If a man's slave-woman, comparing herself to her mistress, speaks insolently to her, her mouth shall be scoured with 1 quart of salt.
•If a slave woman strikes someone acting with the authority of her mistress [text destroyed]
•If a man appeared as a witness, and was shown to be a perjurer, he must pay fifteen shekels of silver.
•If a man appears as a witness, but withdraws his oath, he must make payment, to the extent of the value in litigation of the case.
•If a man stealthily cultivates the field of another man and he raises a complaint, this is however to be rejected, and this man will lose his expenses.
•If a man flooded the field of a man with water, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field.
•If a man had let an arable field to a(nother) man for cultivation, but he did not cultivate it, turning it into wasteland, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field.

What a beautiful history of patriarch it is.

But you can see it's mostly tribal and territorial based. The first "morals/laws" written. That refines itself in subsequent codes, and becomes less, well, slave-minded over time.

But before it was The Code of Ur-Nammu, it was the unspoken rules of "family honor" or "tribal honor" which are old as hominid family groups. I'm sure if a rival clan took a mate from another, they were probably always hunted down for their alpha-male transgression.

Everything goes "left" in terms of how free it is for everyone.

Just sometimes takes 4000 goddamn years and counting for social norms to change. And some places are still back in Babylon with slave and bride auctions.

But murder will always be on that list... unless it's for service, in self-defense, or for retribution.

Finally, I think the written dogmas are a byproduct of civilization itself, and based on the rudimentary honor codes still present at the cradle of it.

Nammu/Naamah/Ashera/Athena
She is still worshipped and glorified to this day who is famous for turning men from worship of the Almighty towards herself.
She is the one who sought to bring the predeluvian world back from the sea.
The sumerian laws are derived from Cain, who she is only 4 generations away from in his lineage.
www.ancient-origins.net...

Interesting she became a god.
Now we see how.
I am not sure that was the example you were after.
But it is a great example for the source for where morals come from.
Lucky for us the Most High is way more merciful.
No man could ever keep the law.
We are all guilty.
The law only brings death, but the Spirit brings life.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
Not the American people you dolt.

Unfortunately, the quote you posted by De Toqueville didn't say "the american people" it said "America" and even you are arguing against it at this point, so what are you even arguing about?

Lol
Do a google

I am arguing for restoration.
Peace, accountability.

You are only confused because you cannot figure out where to take this.
You have no understanding of American History.
You are not even aware of DeToqueville.
Lol
You think he is referencing central America?
South America?
How confused are you?
Cannot pick a fight or cause trouble because you do not know much more than 30 second soundbites here and there to be able to navigate through the topic from googling.
You just don't understand what is being discussed because it is history, not conjecture

a reply to: Degradation33
Are you kidding me, that is 29 commandments. I can hardly comply with 10.

I guess I'm just going to hell.

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
Do a google

Why? You posted the quote. It says what it says.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
Not the American people you dolt.

Unfortunately, the quote you posted by De Toqueville didn't say "the american people" it said "America" and even you are arguing against it at this point, so what are you even arguing about?

You are posting in a very confused manner.
If you quote DeToqueville.
Recognize you are talking about the early 1800's.
So if you talk about an event in the 20th century, of course DeToqueville wasn't talking about the events from ww2.
And you are the one who brought up Japan and my reference to Dresden.
My answer was our leaders in ww2 lied to us, the American people.
Your quip was, DeToqueville wasn't talking about the American people in ww2, but America.

How can anyone track that kind of logic?
Of course DeToqueville never addressed the happenings of ww2.
He was dead for a century at that point

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: Degradation33
Random thought.

People don't need a godform to compulsively run into a burning wreck at a stranger's cries.

There's no recognition of what God dictates. It's totally instinctual. At least for social mammals.

I think the order is reversed. Empathy and compassion don't come from God, they are reflections of natural tendency that in response to a lack thereof. The indifference of luck.

Laws and morals seem to be all respect things when the first were recorded.

Which were these:

Code of Ur-Nammu (2100 BCE)

•If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
•If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver.
•If a slave marries a slave, and that slave is set free, he does not leave the household.
•If a slave marries a native [i.e. free] person, he/she is to hand the firstborn son over to his owner.
•If a man violates the right of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male.
•If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free.
•If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin female slave of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver.
•If a man divorces his first-time wife, he shall pay (her) one mina of silver.
•If it is a (former) widow whom he divorces, he shall pay (her) half a mina of silver.
•If the man had slept with the widow without there having been any marriage contract, he need not pay any silver.
•If a man is accused of sorcery [translation disputed], he must undergo ordeal by water; if he is proven innocent, his accuser must pay 3 shekels.
•If a man accused the wife of a man of adultery, and the river ordeal proved her innocent, then the man who had accused her must pay one-third of a mina of silver.
•If a prospective son-in-law enters the house of his prospective father-in-law, but his father-in-law later gives his daughter to another man, the father-in-law shall return to the rejected son-in-law twofold the amount of bridal presents he had brought.
•If [text destroyed], he shall weigh and deliver to him 2 shekels of silver.
•If a slave escapes from the city limits, and someone returns him, the owner shall pay two shekels to the one who returned him.
•If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out half a mina of silver.
•If a man has cut off another man's foot, he is to pay ten shekels.
•If a man, in the course of a scuffle, smashed the limb of another man with a club, he shall pay one mina of silver.
•If someone severed the nose of another man with a copper knife, he must pay two-thirds of a mina of silver.
•If a man knocks out a tooth of another man, he shall pay two shekels of silver.
•[text destroyed] If he does not have a slave, he is to pay 10 shekels of silver.
•If he does not have silver, he is to give another thing that belongs to him.
•If a man's slave-woman, comparing herself to her mistress, speaks insolently to her, her mouth shall be scoured with 1 quart of salt.
•If a slave woman strikes someone acting with the authority of her mistress [text destroyed]
•If a man appeared as a witness, and was shown to be a perjurer, he must pay fifteen shekels of silver.
•If a man appears as a witness, but withdraws his oath, he must make payment, to the extent of the value in litigation of the case.
•If a man stealthily cultivates the field of another man and he raises a complaint, this is however to be rejected, and this man will lose his expenses.
•If a man flooded the field of a man with water, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field.
•If a man had let an arable field to a(nother) man for cultivation, but he did not cultivate it, turning it into wasteland, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field.

What a beautiful history of patriarch it is.

But you can see it's mostly tribal and territorial based. The first "morals/laws" written. That refines itself in subsequent codes, and becomes less, well, slave-minded over time.

But before it was The Code of Ur-Nammu, it was the unspoken rules of "family honor" or "tribal honor" which are old as hominid family groups. I'm sure if a rival clan took a mate from another, they were probably always hunted down for their alpha-male transgression.

Everything goes "left" in terms of how free it is for everyone.

Just sometimes takes 4000 goddamn years and counting for social norms to change. And some places are still back in Babylon with slave and bride auctions.

But murder will always be on that list... unless it's for service, in self-defense, or for retribution.

Finally, I think the written dogmas are a byproduct of civilization itself, and based on the rudimentary honor codes still present at the cradle of it.

Nammu/Naamah/Ashera/Athena
She is still worshipped and glorified to this day who is famous for turning men from worship of the Almighty towards herself.
She is the one who sought to bring the predeluvian world back from the sea.
The sumerian laws are derived from Cain, who she is only 4 generations away from in his lineage.
www.ancient-origins.net...

Interesting she became a god.
Now we see how.
I am not sure that was the example you were after.
But it is a great example for the source for where morals come from.
Lucky for us the Most High is way more merciful.
No man could ever keep the law.
We are all guilty.
The law only brings death, but the Spirit brings life.

Ur-Nammu was a king. Nammu was a deity.

A goddess wouldn't come up with that.

Well, the thing about Cain is, he really didn't exist until the story of Genesis was written in The Post-Exilic period. Genesis was composed after almost ALL the minor prophets had been written about. There is simply no Babylonian, Assyrian, or Kingdom Era evidence to support The Torah existed before 539 BCE, with the exception of Deuteronomy.

Like Nimrod isn't chiseled into The Sumerian Kings List, but Sargon is, as King Ur-Zababa of Kish. Made the list for actually founding Akkad (Accad).

I feel the biblical characters, especially immortal roaming zombie child of Adam (or any oral narrative about them), aren't really relevant to morality until at least 1,100 years AFTER King Ur-Nammu's version. The historicity isn't really there.

Yes, I'm arguing Cain never existed in 3900 BCE, like many of the characters in The Torah.

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
If you quote DeToqueville.

I didn't, you did.

Recognize you are talking about the early 1800's.
So if you talk about an event in the 20th century, of course DeToqueville wasn't talking about the events from ww2.

Derp, that was my point.

And you are the one who brought up Japan and my reference to Dresden.

I brought up Japan, you added the sprinkles with Dresden.

My answer was our leaders in ww2 lied to us, the American people.
Your quip was, DeToqueville wasn't talking about the American people in ww2, but America.

How can anyone track that kind of logic?
Of course DeToqueville never addressed the happenings of ww2.
He was dead for a century at that point

Double derp, that was the point, why would you, living in the 21st century quote someone saying great things about America in the early 1800's, knowing damn well that america got a lot of blood on its hands since then?

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

The first, about loving God, isn't a moral thing, that's gonna have to go into a separate category.
A similar thing would be how the North Koreans are supposed to love the Dear Leader. It's basically a pledge of allegiance to God above all else. But, the "above all else" is where things can potentially become morally sticky. At least, if one is actually pledged to a spiritual entity.

Now, after the catholic church started making the rules, that allegiance to God became allegiance to the Church, and then to the State by proxy, and ones fellow citizen. Hence, why today we have people going on about "God and country".

Patriotism mixed with religion isn't unique to the West, we see it very much on display in Muslim countries.

As far as charity, this is also not unique to the West. Although it might get called "socialism" when a government gets involved...

Not sure what you mean about the children?

As far as De Torquevillie, he must have not seen anything going on outside of, or as a result of these pulpits that he thought were so great.

Still don't see any special morals that can only be found in the West, although, I suppose it's possible that the belief itself in having "special morals" is mental construct that perhaps only exists in the West.

In other words, the West will have "special morals", as long as people believe it does....

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: HKMarrow

Yes indeed. And the same fun flavors of things can happen in the name of God or religion, as history, and the Bible, clearly show. Inquisition, anyone? Witch trails? How about the KKK... I'll leave the mass murder and human trafficking in the Bible out of this response, that horse has been beaten quite to death already.

I'm talking about extreme levels quickly. Old Pol Pot killed more people in a few years than 500 years of the Christian crusades. The other examples you have are bad but not at massive levels seen in events with zero religion.

What... surely you jest. There has been, and is, and will continue to be, plenty of religious violence. Are you suggesting that genocide only exists outside of religion? Because if we have to, we can pick that Bible back up... but we probably don't need to do that, now do we?

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

Moral behavior's where around LONG before religion was even thought of. Sure when say "Jesus" wrote his little novel and called it "The Bible" all the weak minded people who could not cope with life and what it had to offer, over whelmed them, he wrote about these good people but half way through figured he needed a twist on the story and created evil people too. This made the "Fiction" novel more interesting.

Atheists are probably more morale than religious people because Atheist think, plan out situations, brainstorm solutions to problems, they dont just follow what a fiction novel says.

How many times has RELIGION not been the main cause to wars, slaughters, evil unthinkable killings? More than I can count I would say.

Because religious people need to turn to this fiction novel for security and comfort, this really scares me. If they are not mentally strong enough to be kind to others without that book like any regular atheist is, what happens if they accidently loose there little book? And why is the bible mostly BLACK in color? I would think like a blue or green or something would be more appropriate but most bibles are BLACK. "Darkness, Hate, Evil" all bear black in color.
Blue, beautiful oceans, Green, mother nature and life!

Nuff said, dump your fiction novella and start using your brain!

a reply to: watchitburn

All I can think about is the George Carlin set and how absolutely foolish he makes your comment sound.

"I have a problem with the Ten Commandments. Here it is: Why are there ten? We don't need that many. I think the list of commandments was deliberately and artificially inflated to get it up to ten. It's clearly a padded list.

Here's how it happened: About five thousand years ago, a bunch of reli­gious and political hustlers got together to figure out how they could control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so these guys announced that God— God personally—had given one of them a list of Ten Commandments that he wanted everyone to follow. They claimed the whole thing took place on a mountaintop, when no one else was around.

But let me ask you something: When these guys were sittin' around the tent makin' all this up, why did they pick ten? Why ten? Why not nine, or eleven? I'll tell you why. Because ten sounds important. Ten sounds official. They knew if they tried eleven, people wouldn't take them seriously. People would say, "What're you kiddin' me? The Eleven Commandments? Get the # outta here!"

But ten! Ten sounds important. Ten is the basis for the decimal system; it's a decade. It's a psychologically satisfying number: the top ten; the ten most wanted; the ten best-dressed. So deciding on Ten Commandments was clearly a marketing decision. And it's obviously a bull# list. In truth, it's a politic; document, artificially inflated to sell better."

So, trying to keep this on topic of where morality is derived from for atheists and other like-minded sane people...

How do you religious folk, who claim to derive your ethics and morals from religious texts (in this thread, predominantly the Bible) deal with the fixed and unchanging nature of religion versus society and culture(s) which, are always changing, always evolving?

What was socially unacceptable only 10 years ago could now be a norm, and vice versa. How do you marry up your ancient texts, which do not allow for change, do not allow for questioning or evidence-producing contrary positions, adjust your morals to compensate? Or do you?

What if 10 years from now, due to advancements in technology, medicine, biology and understanding of the human condition, catagorically state we do not have 'souls' or anything that exists after the physical, so our use of fetal stem cells advances to where we harvest them on a regular basis on order to help cure otherwise incurable diseases or conditions?

Will you adjust your morals to what society now deems socially acceptable and morally correct? Or will you cower behind your dusty, ancient books which base their existence on the complete and utter lack of understanding of reality?

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

There is no historical or scholarly evidence to support the claim that Sumerian laws are derived from Cain.

The Sumerians, are one of the earliest known civilisations

Cain, on the other hand, is a biblical figure mentioned in the Book of Genesis.

The Sumerian civilisation dates back to around 4500 BCE, and it reached its peak during the third millennium BCE.

The earliest biblical events, according to religious texts, are generally believed to have occurred several centuries later.

Your timeline is simply all over the place and your mental gymnastics are priceless, to say the least.