I'm not religious but whenever atheists get asked the question "Where does your morality come from if not from religion" they all start going all over the place, like malfunctioning bots. It's just laughable how trapped they get by a simple question. Then it ultimately comes to "I rationally think that killing someone is bad and that's how I come up with my morals" Ok and Jeffrey Dahmer rationally thought that chopping people was a very moral and just thing to do, how do you tell to Jeffrey "Your subjective morality is bad and mine is good because I said so". Jeffrey would just think "That's just your opinion man"I mean imagine a world where everyone gets their version of what's moral. What a fucked up world indeed. Meanwhile most laws in most civilized countries are actually based on religious laws and not on someone's version of what's moral. Kek
>>18604559>I mean imagine a world where everyone gets their version of what's moral. What a fucked up world indeed.Somebody tell him.
To be fair, most atheists are just butthurt former christians.The real answer is "It's a matter of what is good or bad for your respective society." Murder of your countrymen is bad because it lowers our numbers and fosters low-trust communities. Not great to kill foreigners either, but killing countrymen is inexcusable.Rape is bad because, morals and feelings aside, it's a violation of nature and our current reproductive model is (for the time being) still based upon the idea that the guys that get laid consensually could and would kill the guys that can't and deny them reproduction, and in exchange for not doing that they can just live and work without sex. Raping someone is a violation of the terms of that deal, and ergo bad.One can go on, but that's the actual answer. It's the concept upon which religious morality is based as well, but a bunch of extra steps got added over the centuries.
>>18604559I'm an atheist. Morality is what I think is right and wrong.>I mean imagine a world where everyone gets their version of what's moral. What a fucked up world indeed.Correct, that would be a fucked up world. In fact, it is already the world we live in. The only difference between me and a religious person is that you say "my imaginary friend agrees with me". That's literally it. No other difference.
>>18604622Then why was what Jeffrey Dahmer did wrong if it was simply his rationalized morality that led him to believe that his actions were justified? To me it seems like Dahmer and You have the same baseline for your morality. Who are you to tell Dahmer that what he did was wrong? Doesn't that also grant Dahmer the right to tell you what you think is wrong too? Who gets to determine which subjective morality is incorrect and based on which principles?
>>18604559>Demiurge will give me pleasureNo, Demiurge only gives suffering
>>18604559>>18604608>atheists are just butthurt former christiansIf it was 2000 you might have a point.
>>18604647To Steelman an atheist position I would say our morals could be based on the fact we are rational beings with similar bodies and minds, so whatever causes flourishing for those bodies and minds could be our shared basis for moral actionBut, atheists are retards that want to justify subjectivism do they would never say this, as it would be a soft confirmation of moral realism and would take away their avenue to justify whatever degeneracy they are trying to cover
>>18604559I'm genuinely confused about this post since you aren't a believer yourself. When you say we are getting morals from religion, are you NOT saying that morals objectively come from a God you don't believe in, but instead just come from the man made rules from a man made religion? Because if that is the case that is literally just subjective morals without any qualification. Theists have subjective(and relative) morals regardless but they usually try to run away from that with special pleading, I don't know how you would do that.> how do you tell to Jeffrey "Your subjective morality is bad and mine is good because I said so". Jeffrey would just think "That's just your opinion man"Yeah and he ended up in prison.I really don't understand why theists(and whatever you are) think morality is a math problem you need to solve. If someone behaves in a way you think is immoral(i.e., a way you don't like) you can just stop interacting with them, and if their immorality is breaking the law then the law handles them.>Meanwhile most laws in most civilized countries are actually based on religious laws and not on someone's version of what's moral.This isn't even the main point but this just isn't true.
>>18604559>killing someone is badkilling is okay (morally speaking). It's just that it's illegal in *most* circumstances (unless you're a soldier, an executioner, a black ops, a biblical prophet, etc.).now, whether the law *should* be equivallent with morality, is another Special Olympics discipline. (so called, positive law vs natural law)>Ok and Jeffrey Dahmer rationally thought that chopping people was a very moral"When Remigius, the Inquisitor, was an old man he remembered with sadness how in his youth he had saved children of witches from the flames instead of burning them, as was the rule, and how he had in this way contributed to their eternal damnation. Remigius was an honest man and a humanitarian and yet his beliefs about the world and the fate of man made him act in a way which somebody not aware of his motives will ‘of course’ regard as the very opposite of humanitarianism."
>>18604559>StrawmanOpinion discarded
>>18604559I don't know why people think moral subjectivism (which btw Divine Command theory is a sub-set of) is somehow the only alternative to religion derived morality. Do these niggers not know about Consequentialism? Deontology? Most atheists aren't even subjectivists (or anti-realists).
>>18604559Atheists don't have to do anything while you seethe. Christianity destroyed itself and you only have your religion to blame for attempting a one size fits all over the world and removing meaning from people's lives. Atheism on this scale could only exist in a postchristkek world.
Where does religious moral come from?
>>18604836"Scientists who are not on the New Atheist team have been far more willing to say that religion might be an adaptation (i.e., it might have evolved because it conferred benefits on individuals or groups).Like the New Atheists, their story has two steps, and the first step is the same: a diverse set of cognitive modules and abilities (including the hypersensitive agency detector) evolved as adaptations to solve a variety of problems, but they often misfired, producing beliefs (such as in supernatural agents) that then contributed (as by-products) to the earliest quasi-religious behaviors. These modules were all in place by the time humans began leaving Africa more than 50,000 years ago. As with the New Atheists, this first step was followed by a second step involving cultural (not genetic) evolution. But instead of talking about religions as parasitic memes evolving for their own benefit, Atran and Henrich suggest that religions are sets of cultural innovations that spread to the extent that they make groups more cohesive and cooperative. Atran and Henrich argue that the cultural evolution of religion has been driven largely by competition among groups. Groups that were able to put their by-product gods to some good use had an advantage over groups that failed to do so, and so their ideas (not their genes) spread. Groups with less effective religions didn’t necessarily get wiped out; often they just adopted the more effective variations. So it’s really the *religions* that evolved, not the people or their genes.<...> If the gods evolve (culturally) to condemn selfish and divisive behaviors, they can then be used to promote cooperation and trust within the group. You don’t need a social scientist to tell you that people behave less ethically when they think nobody can see them. <...> For example, people cheat more on a test when the lights are dimmed.They cheat less when there is a cartoonlike image of an eye nearby."
>>18604836>>18604853"The clearest evidence comes from the anthropologist Richard Sosis, who examined the history of two hundred communes founded in the United States in the nineteenth century. <...> For many nineteenth-century communes, the principles were religious; for others they were secular, mostly socialist. Which kind of commune survived longer? Sosis found that the difference was stark: just 6 percent of the secular communes were still functioning twenty years after their founding, compared to 39 percent of the religious communes.What was the secret ingredient that gave the religious communes a longer shelf life? <...> For religious communes, the effect was perfectly linear: the more sacrifice a commune demanded, the longer it lasted. But Sosis was surprised to discover that demands for sacrifice did not help secular communes. Most of them failed within eight years, and there was no correlation between sacrifice and longevity.Why doesn’t sacrifice strengthen secular communes? Sosis argues that rituals, laws, and other constraints work best when they are sacralized. He quotes the anthropologist Roy Rappaport: “To invest social conventions with sanctity is to hide their arbitrariness in a cloak of seeming necessity.” But when secular organizations demand sacrifice, every member has a right to ask for a cost-benefit analysis, and many refuse to do things that don’t make logical sense. In other words, the very ritual practices that *the New Atheists dismiss as costly, inefficient, and irrational turn out to be a solution to one of the hardest problems humans face: cooperation without kinship*. Irrational beliefs can sometimes help the group function more rationally, particularly when those beliefs rest upon the Sanctity foundation. Sacredness binds people together, and then blinds them to the arbitrariness of the practice."
>>18604853>>18604858This LLM yapping doesn't answer the question of where religious moral comes from.
>>18604864From cultural group selection / gene-culture co-evolution
>>18604888In other words, from the exact same place as secular morality, and this entire thread is retarded.
>>18604896>from the exact same place as secular morality>>18604858>just 6 percent of the secular communes were still functioning twenty years after their founding, compared to 39 percent of the religious communes>the very ritual practices that *the New Atheists dismiss as costly, inefficient, and irrational turn out to be a solution to one of the hardest problems humans face: cooperation without kinship*. Irrational beliefs can sometimes help the group function more rationally
>>18604608Yet rape was pretty common in the ancient world
>>18604905Does not refute the point. Try again.
>>18604853>Scientists who are not on the New Atheist team have been far more willing to say that religion might be an adaptation (i.e., it might have evolved because it conferred benefits on individuals or groups).How is an atheistic explanation of religion not atheist? Also, this is some post-modernist slop. As if you should tolerate and approve of any nonsensical shit-eating religion because it being socially beneficial makes it valid.
>>18604753>similar bodies and mindsour biology is capable of all kinds of insanity regularly noted by history and it can all be felt natural or instinctive to do all sorts of evilvirtue ethics / contractualism have both survived criticism better than most in secular ethics. i would start there.mill is a retardkant is a retard that makes you do train track memes
