Why are Atheists like this??

[Anonymous No.21053212]

Average “secularist” atheist Liberal;
>Religion can’t be used to govern society as religion is fundimentally made up bullshit
>there is no objective basis for any of the moral tenets of religion
Literally anyone with an IQ above room temperature:
>okay, so what is the justification for your ethical code being objectively correct??
>>How do you know anything you believe to be bad IS objectively bad???
>>>And if your morality is ultimately unjustified and contrived as well
>>>>how then (by your own standard) is it any different from religion??
Average “secularist” atheist Liberal;
>…..
>>>F-FASCIST CHUD!!!
Every.
Fucking.
Time.

[Anonymous No.21053228]

>>21053212
They have no answer to this question, their best answer is attempting to turn it around on you. I once made a thread where I was asking the same question, and I just outright said “pretend Christian morality doesn’t exist, pretend it never existed” and still their only response was “but Christianity is bad.”
They have no answer to this question.

[Anonymous No.21053238]

>>21053212
That's pretty much the gaping flaw in atheist thought. They demand epistemic certainty but it comes at the cost of completely relativising ethics and pretty much anything that can't be empirically verified. The of course that flaw turns back on the atheist because while they believe their epistemology is solid they can't ever justify why anyone has a ethical duty to actually care what the truth is at all.

This is why you need to consider a worldview in it's entirety and not just say "Huh prove it then" over and over

[Anonymous No.21053243]

>>21053212
Nice strawman

[Anonymous No.21053244]

>>21053212
What are some books about OP sucking cocks to express his refusal to read and discuss books?

[Anonymous No.21053251]

>>21053212
Yes, atheist "thinkers" are dumb. So are you. Take this trash to /his/.

[Anonymous No.21053254]

>>21053212
Atheists are gay and they know it. I never met an atheist that wasn't a sociopath. Not to say a religious person can't be one but for that to be the case every single time is something else. Just childish contrarianism. No wonder it was big on le 4chin back in the day.

[Anonymous No.21053256]

>>21053238
This
Though I find frankly it’s more explicitly damming once you consider their inevitable unjustified social views (opposition to “racism”, opposition to “homophobia” opposition to “sexism” ect)
All utterly and completely unjustified
All built on EXPLICITLY and self consciously contrived tenets such as
>”human rights”
All AT least as
>”Made up”
As religion supposedly is, only explicitly and openly instead of possibly
>>21053243
In what way is it a strawman anon??
If I failed to address/represent any aspect of your view let me know and I shall

[Anonymous No.21053270]

"Atheist" isn't a synonim for "secular humanist". Read Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.21053272]

>>21053256
How smooth can a brain be that you think that the entirety of hundreds of years of secular ethics being portrayed as >F-fascist chud is anything but a strawman

[Anonymous No.21053277]

>>21053212
Why are you interacting with new atheists? They're have been attempts to justify objective morality outside of religion, but no new atheist gives a shit about moral philosophy it's all just political posturing. Of course, there are the "new religious" types too (as I like to call them) who, in the case of Christianity, for an example, haven't even read the Old testament, but I digress.

None of these motherfuckers are serious, authority entities of any flavor is there morality, that's it.

[Anonymous No.21053278]

>>21053256
>In what way is it a strawman anon??
NTA but really all you're doing is turning atheist critiques against atheists themselves, which is effective, yes. But what about positive content? You haven't told us how you determine what is objectively correct either. Your post can basically be summed up as "atheists are not immune to their own critiques". It's not intellectually enriching at all.

[Anonymous No.21053306]

>>21053278
>Your post can basically be summed up as "atheists are not immune to their own critiques". It's not intellectually enriching at all.
Well apart from the atheists themselves who have never considered approaching their own worldview with the same level of skepticism they apply to theism.

[Anonymous No.21053312]

>>21053306
Maybe, but that's a very low bar. If your post can be summarised in about half a dozen words, it's not really engaging for me.

[Anonymous No.21053329]

>>21053270
It’s a synonym for “cock smoking queermo”

[Anonymous No.21053343]

>>21053212
OK, I'll still be an atheist though.

[Anonymous No.21053366]

>>21053243
Hitchen's debate with William Lane Craig was an hour long version of OPs post.
Though Craig was gentleman enough not to rub his nose in it

[Anonymous No.21053374]

>>21053366
Craig is ok but he doesn't put atheists feet to the fire like he should. In a lot of ways Craig is still working within the atheists framework and trying to "prove" God with inductive logic that the atheist should presumably accept, but obviously won't. Much better to disregard the atheists framework from the get go and point out that a worldview that ends in the absurd must be dismissed out of hand. Atheism doesn't get off the starting line and shouldn't be given so much leniency that the atheist is allowed to maintain their mistaken presuppositions while trying to provide a logical proof for God within that paradigm.

[Anonymous No.21053404]

>>21053212
I think one of the reasons these people get attention is that it is widely (albeit not explicitly) accepted that things cannot be proven by reason. In other words, you cannot come up with an argument that is clear and leading to truth. Current climate doesn't support Socratic dialogue at all, and so no matter what you present, these people are gonna retort with "you have no proof", meaning you cannot empirically show God's existence, existence of natural human law, or objective morals.
I don't find fault with them being atheists. I find fault with them not using proper methods of inquiry.
I also try to approach any sort of inquiry as if I didn't have access to anything else but my body. I don't therefore care for what a microscope or satellite shows, I only care for that which I can discern with my senses and reason. With that said, I'm mostly inclined to being a Platonist.

[Anonymous No.21053521]

>>21053212
It’s actually more retarded than that OP. Whilst atheists might disagree or not believe in the source of your mortality they can not from a logical standpoint disagree that you are making an argument from objectivity. Atheists aren’t even making arguments from objectivity, it’s all pointless and useless subjectivity.

[Anonymous No.21053522]

>>21053212
The word “objective” doesn’t mean what you think it means, retarded Reddit christcuck

[Anonymous No.21053557]

>>21053212
Why do I need to religion to guide my ethics when empathy answers these questions?
Basic morality and ethics is just societal empathy

[Anonymous No.21053564]

The moral tenants of religion... Such as genital mutilation

[Anonymous No.21053575]

>>21053404
A platonist is probably even more deluded. A christcuck at least recognises the resurrection of the body and an earthly kingdom after the second coming. While the platonist remains trapped in a fictional realm in the clouds.

[Anonymous No.21053579]

Well the criticism of religious morality is a bit strange, I mean it's certainly true from the atheistic perspective but I'm not sure what this is attack is supposed to be doing unless it's an attempt at a reversal of the theist position
I am a theist and hence I think the basis for morality comes from God but obviously if you take the atheistic perspective then you must concede that there is no objective basis for morality and that's ok!
I've never felt that the morality is objective or real, people who say 'well what makes me murdering you bad' never made me feel concerned, what made me realise that morality is real and has an objective basis is when I realised that God exists

[Anonymous No.21053584]

>>21053212
Didn't read. Secularism is still foundation of civilization, and it is empirically proven by observing reverse correlation of church's power to engage in obscurantism and development of culture and science.

Moreover, secularism currently suffers crisis because of certain religions teachings managing to slip though its filter by skinwalking as something other than religion, and problems with braindead /pol/tards blame on secularism are mostly caused by those.

[Anonymous No.21053585]

>>21053575
Ok, based on what do you make this assertion?

[Anonymous No.21053594]

>>21053212
Why are you pretending atheists are like this? It really speaks to a low intelligence and lacking self esteem.
Happens every fucking time.

[Anonymous No.21053595]

>>21053585
Based on their degree of worldliness or life affirmation. Christianity is more materialist than people believe.

[Anonymous No.21053598]

>>21053212
>>21053256
Is nothing but lazy strawmanning atheism really the state of theism these days?

[Anonymous No.21053615]

>>21053575
You have never read Plato.

[Anonymous No.21053619]

>>21053212
Nothing new. Now, ask a murican liberal where did they get the idea that religion and state should be kept fully separate and only secular ideas should be implemented by the government. I'm an atheist myself, but some people just don't think (unlike me).

[Anonymous No.21053622]

>>21053584
>All the atheist marxist academics pushing trannies are cryptochristians!
Cope. Godlessness causes schizophrenia in a population.

[Anonymous No.21053627]

>>21053584
what is a fact is that an empirical proof is an oxymoron created by atheist rationalists desperate to be passing as empiricists. reminder that empiricists are never rationalist and don't carry any experiment.

[Anonymous No.21053635]

>>21053212
Your big buddy in the sky who demands foreskins is dead. I don't need dogmatic speculations to be "objectively correct" in order to function and, as far as I can tell given your presumed, non-demonstrable beliefs, neither do you.

[Anonymous No.21053641]

>>21053622
Gender affirmation surgery is the new holy stigmata. It's the same root.

[Anonymous No.21053658]

>>21053622
Marxism is exactly an example of religion that skinwalks as secular ideology despite having its own dogma with infallible holy scriptures and practice to set up inquisition that mindbreaks and kills infidels when in position of power. Believes in supernatural shit as well, look at their predictions of how humans will magically transform in something else that behaves by completely different laws when Marx's teaching is fulfilled. Marxism is not the only one though. Checkered floor dwelling fauna that pretend to be secular public servants while also being big ass degree clergy worshiping some weird medieval shit likely has much more influence than marxists for example.

Secular society wouldn't have ostracized and humiliated James Watson, who was only saved from physical lynching by secularism still having some power. This shit was exact relapse into burning astronomers alive for sharing observations that contradict abrahamic "cosmology".

[Anonymous No.21053661]

>>21053212
>Average “secularist” atheist Liberal;
>>…..
>>F-FASCIST CHUD!!!
This fictional debate you just lined out has never happened anywhere and just because you keep writing down these retarded takes in your daily "I'm so sad about the world" diary it doesn't make it one bit /lit/ related you fucking retard.
>but it's real in my head
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.21053671]

>>21053277
From Wikipedia:

>In its narrower versions, legalism may endorse the notion that the pre-existing body of authoritative legal materials already contains a uniquely pre-determined right answer to any legal problem that may arise.

[Anonymous No.21053723]

>>21053270
It pretty much is nowadays....

[Anonymous No.21053736]

Non-Dionysian religions have been debunked my friends

[Anonymous No.21053769]

>it's all subjective opinion, but unlike you I don't try to impose it on people
>noooooo you can't build an ethnostate, that's evil!
>morality is just a result of evolution, that's why killing people is wrong
>no you can't apply the same logic to rape or abortion

[Anonymous No.21053778]

>>21053228
> pretend Christian morality doesn’t exist, pretend it never existed
Wtf is christian morality? anything of any value in it was just stolen from romans/Greeks ect

[Anonymous No.21053787]

>>21053769
We don't want you to murder people because we have empathy and murder lowers trust in community. It's not complicated.

Why do christcucks try to justify school shooters and rape to begin with?

[Anonymous No.21053817]

>>21053787
>hurr durr, you pointing out inconsistencies in atheist 'morality' is you supporting said things
typical response

[Anonymous No.21053837]

>>21053817
There's no inconsistencies just strawmen

[Anonymous No.21053843]

>>21053212
Lol the retarded britbong forgot to take hus meds again

[Anonymous No.21053848]

>>21053787
>I want things to exist because I like them!
The apex of atheism intellectual debate

[Anonymous No.21053861]

>I want God to exist because I like them!

[Anonymous No.21054019]

>>21053848
Honesty I like this one better than
>I want things to exist because semite deity Yahweh (formerly Baal) likes them!
I think I'd rather stick with former one.

[Anonymous No.21054020]

>>21053228
>Christian morality
Begging the question

[Anonymous No.21054022]

>>21053658
>Marxism is exactly an example of religion that skinwalks as secular ideology despite having its own dogma with infallible holy scriptures and practice to set up inquisition that mindbreaks and kills infidels when in position of power.
Hahahaha lmao. Bet you think you're really smart

[Anonymous No.21054035]

>Why are Atheists like this??

autism

[Anonymous No.21054074]

All morality is subjective.

[Anonymous No.21054129]

>>21054019
>this is better because I like it more!
I mean I know that's the extent of your thought but you may as well keep it to yourself because it's intellectually worthless. You're just describing how animals act but we already know.

[Anonymous No.21054243]

very high effort OP from our christian community

[Anonymous No.21054445]

Most Christtards are atheists too, just in their actions.

In fact, most Christians in history were atheists in their actions, unless you count revolutionary types like Jan van Leyden, who actually did literally believe in the Bible and acted accordingly, with an acted out belief in an oncoming apocalypse, the abolishment of money and property, and a full blown religious army that was supposed to fight the final battle between good and evil, turning Münster into basically a late medieval version of Raqqa

[Anonymous No.21054493]

I believe it’s because secular humanists are not atheists at all, they’re Christians that followed the logic of “Puritanization” to its conclusion; only religion that can be grasped and touched is true religion. Therefore religion is the positive social effects of Christian charity and concern for individual souls only, the bible becomes a form of mystical nonsense much like exorcism and transubstantiation, the ethical content of the New Testament was the only real aspect of Christianity because you can see and touch it. Historically this is the real origin of social justice, just look up any liberal or progressive reformer or political theorist and you will very often find a Calvinist background, especially for Americans

[Anonymous No.21054547]

>>21054129
Well, let's see yours.

[Anonymous No.21054557]

>>21053212
>Average “secularist” atheist Liberal
*Average Christian “secularist” neoliberal.

[Anonymous No.21054569]

>>21054445
It's the exact opposite. Atheists are Christians.

[Anonymous No.21054853]

>>21053212
>okay, so what is the justification for your ethical code being objectively correct??

There's no justification for any of my ethical codes being correct so I'll invent an imaginary skydaddy and pretend that I get my "objective" morals from him. Infact I'll let some ancient jews do the "imagining skypop" part for me and then follow moral codes written down by them as if they come from the said skypapa.

>How do you know anything you believe to be bad IS objectively bad???

I know that because the jewish old man in the sky told me so. How do I know what he said? Well some jews could talk to him or something and wrote it down. And I 100% trust their judgement.

[Anonymous No.21055030]

>>21053212
>>Religion can’t be used to govern society as religion is fundimentally made up bullshit
>>there is no objective basis for any of the moral tenets of religion
There is and there isnt an objective basis to the moral codes of a religion. The objective basis would be the empirical examination of what ethical systems share, and from that determining what aspects of morality are, for lack of a better term, hard wired into us.
Yet it is non-objective in so far as it does not depend on anything external to ourselves. I have no issue with religious narratives being used to govern depending on how one defines "religious narrative". I take issue with particular religious narratives when they happen to get in the way of my self interest, happiness, or individual freedom. E.g religious conservatives pass a law making pre-marital sex illegal. I wouldn't support that for no deeper reason than that I like sex and being generally free to choose it for myself.
>Literally anyone with an IQ above room temperature:
>>okay, so what is the justification for your ethical code being objectively correct??
I dont have a coherent ethical code. It's just whatever happens to please me at a given moment.
>>>How do you know anything you believe to be bad IS objectively bad???
I don't know.
>>>>And if your morality is ultimately unjustified and contrived as well
Yes it is contrived. I believe in my "morality", liberal individualism, because I enjoy my freedom & do not want an institution as powerful as the government legislating morality. Of course you could accuse me of hypocrisy by saying that liberal individualism is also a morality, and one backed by force. Sure it is I concede, I just happen to prefer that morality because it grants me the most degree of freedom and so it is in my self interest. If you like a bunch of retards telling you what you can and can't do like a child, I have no arguments, I just don't like that.
>>>>>how then (by your own standard) is it any different from religion??
Depends entirely on how we define religion. If you define religions as anything that contains moral claims, i.e claims about how the world should be, then you have defined religion so broadly as to make it meaningless. Everyone has moral beliefs simply by virtue of being a thinking, feeling creature.

[Anonymous No.21055052]

>>21053306
>Well apart from the atheists themselves who have never considered approaching their own worldview with the same level of skepticism they apply to theism.
Haven't they? Isn't that pretty much every postmodern philosopher?

[Anonymous No.21055059]

>>21053212
They’re not.

[Anonymous No.21055180]

>>21053228
Their answer is denial. They just deny that their secular humanism is the same fucking shit as following religious morals or some sort of orthodoxy that transcends material conditions. Why do you think all these modern atheists hate Nietzsche so much? People like Steven Pinker endlessly whine about him because he completely BTFO them and proved they were just spiritual Christians. Hitchens doesn’t deserve to be called an intellectual. A proficient rhetorician maybe but certainly not an original thinker who truly challenged religion. He was a boring libshit and died of cancer alone and unloved.

[Anonymous No.21055201]

>>21055030
So your answer is that your perspectives on life are totally meaningless and arbitrary but you will conform to the moral dictations of authority just because it’s convenient. At least you’re being honest, most atheists wouldn’t admit this. But it doesn’t make you any less of a spineless pussy

[Anonymous No.21055205]

fey

[Anonymous No.21055390]

>>21055030
Woah an honest post from a liberal. Don’t see that much these days. I think your notion of hardwired/perennial morality possibly existing is going to be too reactionary in the future though. Liberal individualism wants to emancipate people from their bodies and biology next, actually it’s already there

[Anonymous No.21055397]

downlink

[Anonymous No.21055403]

>>21055390
>liberal
Isn't perennialism usually right-leaning?

[Anonymous No.21055407]

motley materiality

[Anonymous No.21055517]

>>21053212
Ok I'll bite it.
>okay, so what is the justification for your ethical code being objectively correct??
We as citizens decided (even if by proxy) that these rules are the best we could come up for longevity of our society. Objectivity doesn't mean anything here, if you don't want to follow our rules or live here you'll be punished, so just skip town, go play on your lalaland with your make believe rules.
>How do you know anything you believe to be bad IS objectively bad???
Same as above
>And if your morality is ultimately unjustified and contrived as well
It is justified by the decision of our society to follow these rules. It doesn't matter if you subjectively think they're unjust, I don't care, and neither does the society. If the people feel the rules are unjust, rebel and remake society.
>how then (by your own standard) is it any different from religion??
It isn't, but religion tries to justify its rules by metaphysical fantasy, with no bearing to reality, while the government made up by society has no such made up justification. It just is as it is because the people decided that they'd live that way, and thats why its better than to be ruled by religion, because it is transparent, people can verify that they aren't being lied to, and that they have the possibility to revolt against an unjust system.

[Anonymous No.21055527]

>>21053622
I'm not schizophrenic I think

[Anonymous No.21055574]

>>21055403
Yeah in the sense that it elucidates some eternal primordial traditional truth. There’s definitely a liberalish interpretation of it though, because it’s saying that no single religious creed has a monopoly on correct doctrine or that every creed has to be studied to get the whole picture etc

[Anonymous No.21055580]

skijoring kawali

after dark

pentagonal

[Anonymous No.21055667]

>>21055201
>So your answer is that your perspectives on life are totally meaningless and arbitrary
I hold my own beliefs based on what I feel will benefit me and the people around me, and to me my positions contain meaning, though they don't in any transcendent sense.
All positions are the result of random contingent circumstances, temperamental quirks. I am a hypocrite just like everyone, full of inconsistencies and self deception regarding my own motivations.
>but you will conform to the moral dictations of authority just because it’s convenient.
Yes and you conform to the dictates of religious authorities also because it's convenient. Perhaps you are some enlightened aloof mystic, but many of the religious are so simply because it's socially convenient. If the people around you, your community and family are of a religion it's advantageous to also be of the same religion.
There are certain contexts where being irreligious is convenient/socially advantageous and others were it is not.
If I'm in an extremely religious area being openly atheist would put me at a disadvantage. But in a city or college the reverse is true.
If you wanted to become an authority within the republican party in the U.S you pretty much have to be a Christian evangelical.
I advocate for whatever benefits me or what I feel like in the moment.
I'm also unclear why you're making a virtue out of rebelling against authority. Assuming you are a Christian (idk maybe you are of some other religion)
isn't the whole point of your religion to submit to the authority of God, or the pope if you are catholic.
In any case every person regardless of ideology submits to some authority figures when it's socially convenient. Tell me how would you talk to a police officer that pulled you over? Easy to talk big on the internet.