How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: Bilbous72
Morality has nothing to do with religion, hell you only have to look at the amount of priests who do unspeakable things to minors to know that morality is down to the individual and not their faith or lack of faith. We learn the principles of good and bad at a young age, not from a book but from parents and role models.

So with the epidemic of fatherless households we are doomed.
A boy child raised by a single mother is 20 times more likely to go to prison vs. a single father raising the child.
We are doomed.
God hates religion btw.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

You should realise that suggesting a boy child raised by a single mother is 20 times more likely to go to prison vs a single father raising the child could be considered to be rather sexist, and a stereotype, never mind and an oversimplification at best.

It's important to approach statistics such as yours with extreme caution, because they can be influenced by various factors, and correlation does not always imply causation.

I imagine there are plenty of single mothers out there who have raised their sons to become men without them turning to crime that have done just fine in life.

Where is it you are acquiring these supposed ""statistics"" may i ask?

And don't you imagine there are other important factors including the likes of socio-economic status, access to education, community environment, and individual characteristics that are essential to consider when interpreting these alleged ""statistics""?

a reply to: cooperton

Chill bro I know that we as children of the Creator have vast input in what we want to create here on earth. There is much more permissibility in Christ than is popularly believed.

Cool as a cucumber and sound as a pound on my end.

The belly all nice and full as well so its all good.

My new years resolution is to dial back the fun times a little bit temporarily lol. I think you all would be surprised to meet me in person.

My new year's resolution is to find alternative accommodation before we are served with eviction, i hope im pleasantly surprised on that score but not holding my breath.

That sounds delicious

It was not half bad buddy, 9 out of 10, i think beef olives are my new favorite for a spell.

ATS is also my go-to activity when my mrs is on screen time

21 years into a relationship im on one screen she's in the living room with the TV.

We cannot watch the same content, i just can't do all the Love Island/Big Brother/I'm a Celebrity #@. LoL

a reply to: cooperton

A church that is not living according to Christ would technically not be Christian.

By whose interpretation?

The Gospel of John? There's a lot of unspoken history through literary reference in the New Testament. This is why most is dated between 55 and 150 CE.

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

There is an argument he meant it more generally. Like EVERYONE'S father is God.

To be honest, it isn't until the New Testament goes full-on with the immaculately concieved demigod thing that it becomes front and center, but the theological academic view is the neither him nor his deciples considered himself God.

And by the time of the composition of John a bit of telephone exaggeration had occured, like all folklore does..

Domitian is also VASTLY OVERLOOKED BY (MODERN)CHRISTIANS.

His title was "My lord and My God".

At the same time John was being finalized to say Jesus is Lord. Revelation was also being composed, about The Antichrist, The Roman Emperor Domitian. It was intended to appeal to the average person and demonize Rome.

So one could argue EMPHASIZING and redefining what Jesus' Ministry meant in 8:58 into a LITERAL DEMIGOD, along with much of the crucial parts of the NT to reinforce this point, have NOT done what Jesus actually said, instead adding their own Anti-Rome inflection to possibly counter the emporer's godhood claim.

Revelation was so accurate to Rome they can date its composition to 95-96 CE... right before he died. The death of their antichrist.

So when we are to interpret Jesus' words or God's words, some may not buy the narrative is, well, gospel.

People have historically corrupted the establishments that they are perpetuating. 

Like Christian Scientists? Pray away the cancer?

First amendment has them covered. Morally? There's some debate as to which extent you should obey, "God heals".

Refine it to "God heels through doctors" and now it's following the letter of the once written law.

Honest question from that, Do you think gods heals through medical science?

Is it blasphemous to just assume God meant it heals people through the innovations and discoveries that are not explicitly spelled out in scripture?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

You should realise that suggesting a boy child raised by a single mother is 20 times more likely to go to prison vs a single father raising the child could be considered to be rather sexist, and a stereotype, never mind and an oversimplification at best.

It's important to approach statistics such as yours with extreme caution, because they can be influenced by various factors, and correlation does not always imply causation.

I imagine there are plenty of single mothers out there who have raised their sons to become men without them turning to crime that have done just fine in life.

Where is it you are acquiring these supposed ""statistics"" may i ask?

And don't you imagine there are other important factors including the likes of socio-economic status, access to education, community environment, and individual characteristics that are essential to consider when interpreting these alleged ""statistics""?

I am simply implying that statistically fathers are essential to raising boys into men.
And I am not sure why that has to be explained in statistics.
It is common sense.
And of course there are outliers.
I never said all boys raised by single mothers go to prison.
I said statistics show boys are 20 times more likely to go to prison vs. being raised by single fathers.
And it is true.

Children brought up in single mother homes are:14 times more likely to commit rape, 20 times more likely to end up in prison, 32 times more likely to run away from home.

originally posted by: neoholographicpart2
a reply to: andy06shake

If good and evil are just human constructs then you have to agree with what I'm saying.

In atheism there is no morality. Everyone's subjective morality is equally true and equally good. This leads to modal collapse and lawlessness.

A person can say sexual assault is what's moral to me. I'm a man and I have urges so there's no need to control those urges. In atheism, his subjective morality is equally true and equally good compared to anyone elses subjective morality.

This is why the Bible calls the antichrist the lawless one. When you think you're a soulless animal then you have no moral law.

Are you actually telling someone they HAVE to agree with you?

originally posted by: andy06shake

My new year's resolution is to find alternative accommodation before we are served with eviction, i hope im pleasantly surprised on that score but not holding my breath.

Sorry to hear that. I always wondered since it's a relatively small island

It was not half bad buddy, 9 out of 10, i think beef olives are my new favorite for a spell.

I gotta give that a go, tapenade style?

21 years into a relationship im on one screen she's in the living room with the TV.

I think that's pretty much everyone at this point lol

We cannot watch the same content, i just can't do all the Love Island/Big Brother/I'm a Celebrity #@. LoL

Just sat through 5 episodes of 1000 lb twin sisters or something like that, they do a good job at sucking you in if you watch one

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton

"A church that is not living according to Christ would technically not be Christian."

By whose interpretation?

Let me clarify what I meant, just because a church is Christian does not mean they are espousing Christ's philosophy. Christ's philosophy remains unblemished, even if people do harm in its name.

There is an argument he meant it more generally. Like EVERYONE'S father is God.

I am praying for a scenario where the malicious people get like a 5 minute glimpse of fire, and then a "JK you're in" sort of moment. God wants everyone to be saved, yet I guess our free will allows some to reject His embrace. It's also said that Satan has children, so maybe some people are born to play with fire.

To be honest, it isn't until the New Testament goes full-on with the immaculately concieved demigod thing that it becomes front and center, but the theological academic view is the neither him nor his deciples considered himself God.

Correct, He is the firstborn Son of God, He specifically said only God is good (discluding even himself from being "good"). But He became one with the Father to bridge the gap for us to also inherit our birthright. He is also Yahweh ben Yahweh though, "God, son of God". Because, after all, a child grows up to become like their parent

So one could argue EMPHASIZING and redefining what Jesus' Ministry meant in 8:58 into a LITERAL DEMIGOD, along with much of the crucial parts of the NT to reinforce this point, have NOT done what Jesus actually said, instead adding their own Anti-Rome inflection to possibly counter the emporer's godhood claim.

Yeah it is clear that a child of God is inferring that we are young developing gods. I imagine our inheritance is our own limitless conscious interface where we also get to create new conscious souls.

Like Christian Scientists? Pray away the cancer?

Not as bad as scientist scientists. They literally sprayed DDT on the American public in the streets and thought it was a good idea. "Trust the science" of every given age quickly becomes the laughing stock of the following century.

Honest question from that, Do you think gods heals through medical science?

This reminds me of this passage, where God is essentially saying He is in each and every person, and how you treat others is how you treat Him. I do believe doctors and pretty much everyone is an arbiter of divine flow, "as above so below". This goes more to the point I made prior, we are all "God, son of God". We are lesser in the sense that we were begotten rather than unbegotten (i.e. created rather than always-existent), and we are also Jesus's younger brothers / sisters. It's sweet to think about.

If there's better news I am open for it, because I know God's promise is beyond the greatest depths of what we could imagine.

originally posted by: Gouldielockstitch

originally posted by: neoholographicpart2
a reply to: andy06shake

If good and evil are just human constructs then you have to agree with what I'm saying.

In atheism there is no morality. Everyone's subjective morality is equally true and equally good. This leads to modal collapse and lawlessness.

A person can say sexual assault is what's moral to me. I'm a man and I have urges so there's no need to control those urges. In atheism, his subjective morality is equally true and equally good compared to anyone elses subjective morality.

This is why the Bible calls the antichrist the lawless one. When you think you're a soulless animal then you have no moral law.

Are you actually telling someone they HAVE to agree with you?

Yes, if they say good and evil are human constructs. This means no behavior is inherently good or evil and there's no moral law.

This leads to modal collapse because it's necessarily true that all subjective morality is equally good. Atheism is devoid of logic because there's no moral law. Atheism = lawlessness.

originally posted by: neoholographicpart2

Atheism = lawlessness.

No it doesn't.

But self-righteous god believers will take law into their own hands against those who disagree with their belief.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: neoholographicpart2

Atheism = lawlessness.

No it doesn't.

But self-righteous god believers will take law into their own hands against those who disagree with their belief.

Yes it does.
But self-righteous atheists will take law into their own hands and prosecute all those that disagree with their political party.

Why has it always got to be the Christian God? You know there are societies in the world which aren’t majority Christian and most people in them don’t go around committing heinous deviant crimes. Those who do tend to be punished for it often more severely than they would in a First World Christian country. Some of them are even majority Atheist, or Atheist by state mandate! Oooh scary!

People didn’t go around being completely evil and amoral for no reason before Christianity was a thing. That’s just stupid. Civilisation would be impossible. Recorded human history predates Christianity by thousands of years.

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

You don't seem to understand that atheists don't acknowledge that their value system of right and wrong comes from societal acceptance. Ergo, you'll get a lot of responses to this claiming that this or that is good or bad based on some ridiculous metric they have placed value on for a reason they don't understand.

Morals can only come from a creator. If you'd like to understand why, ask what the point of morals are? Once you understand the point of morals, you'll be on your way to understanding why any morals made by men will collapse while morals made by God are indestructible.

a reply to: Ohanka

Is this a full throated post in support of the state as god (aka the ccp, kim jong un, maduro, castro, etc.)?

originally posted by: Fairlite
Is this a full throated post in support of the state as god (aka the ccp, kim jong un, maduro, castro, etc.)?

Seemed to me more like a "most people follow the law of the land", (aka: the constitution in a constitutional republic).

If you follow the law of the land does that mean you are refuting your god?

a reply to: Fairlite

No i'm asking why it is always the Christian God in these rambling threads that is the supreme source of morality.

The hell did people do before Christianity was a thing? What about when it was just some small terrorist cult known mostly for starting fires? What about the rest of the world outside of the post-Constantine Roman Empire?

Christianity sprang up around, being charitable, 50-100 AD or so. It became the dominant religion in Europe in the 3rd Century AD and would begin to be "exported" to the rest of the world in the 15th century. It had some following in North Africa prior to this but that doesn't count. I could give a brief history of Islam as well but for whatever reason the people who make this argument seem to reject that the God of Jesus and the God of Muhammad are in fact the same guy.

Now in the 21st Century although Christianity has a presence practically everywhere it is not the majority in a good portion of the world, and many places it is are better described as secular than Christian.

Gobekli Tepe dates from about 10,000 BC so organised human civilisation is at least as old as that if not older.

I cannot help but notice that the world, in general, is not an anarchic lawless hellhole where people run around raping, pillaging and looting with not a care in the world except the indulgence of their own deviant desires. Nor was it prior to the 3rd Century AD (though Europe certainly was, Crisis of the Third Century and all that).

So if the Christian God is the source of moral law, then where did people get morality prior to the advent of Christianity, and from where do the majority of the world's population who are not adherents to Christianity get their morality?

So humans in general are not very nice. There is a reason we are the Apex predator and it isn't because we are slow and weak.

Read my footnote to get an idea of who we are...

So let's talk about morality...

Religious vs non-religious comes down to one basic fundamental and that is religious morality tends to be based on fundamentals over a long period, and non-religious can be whatever is the flavor of the month. We are not born with morality so we learn it and looking at human history there has been a tremendously wide range of it and typically it hasn't been good.

Religion has given us a baseline that if we stray off the path we can correct at some point back on the path no matter how far off we are. With non-religion what compass do we have to correct, Kant? Who here has read a single line from Kant? So it comes down to what we read "religiously" pardon the pun...People read the bible daily, memorizing it like their soul depends on it. Another pun... BUT, that is what makes it so strong and enduring over 1000s of years.

Typically with non-religion we drift and keep drifting until we reach an apex of pure evil and then we only correct because there is no other choice but annihilation.

I'm actually not religious but I can see how religion can push people in a direction that typically is not possible. Sometimes it is good and sometimes it is bad, but there is always a baseline of morals we can drift back to.

If we look at the truly evil events in the world they have been non-religious no matter how bad religion ever became.

originally posted by: Ohanka
No i'm asking why it is always the Christian God in these rambling threads that is the supreme source of morality.

What other form of morality do you suggest?

The hell did people do before Christianity was a thing?

You know the typical, kill everyone else, maybe eat them...If you went back in time what do you think humans would do if you walked up to them?

Gobekli Tepe dates from about 10,000 BC so organised human civilisation is at least as old as that if not older.

What was the morality back then? What was the morality of the Greek or Romans?

I cannot help but notice that the world, in general, is not an anarchic lawless hellhole where people run around raping, pillaging and looting with not a care in the world except the indulgence of their own deviant desires. Nor was it prior to the 3rd Century AD (though Europe certainly was, Crisis of the Third Century and all that).

How is that not human history in a nut shell?

So if the Christian God is the source of moral law, then where did people get morality prior to the advent of Christianity, and from where do the majority of the world's population who are not adherents to Christianity get their morality?

They didn't have it outside of their pack mentality. We also seem to do well under the rape, pillage, and plunder rule too.

I think the question is when did we create the value for life in general?

originally posted by: Ohanka
Why has it always got to be the Christian God?

It doesn't need to be... BUT, it needs to be long-standing fundamentals that have worked and motivation to learn and follow them. To burn in hell forever is a pretty good motivation not to do evil, I would say...lol

originally posted by: Xtrozero
If we look at the truly evil events in the world they have been non-religious no matter how bad religion ever became.

I don't know, the holocaust was mainly a religious thing.

Even when communists killed religious people just for being religious, that is a religious thing.

I will say that those would be examples of atheists being religious about their atheism but it isn't like atheism has a requirement to want to kill others because they go to church.