"If gods existed, the only moral thing would be to oppose them"

[Emphyrio]

"Might makes right" is a very obvious and self-evident physical law.

It most certainly is not. It's rationalization of the abuse of power for personal satisfaction.
I'm truly, really shocked I have to explain this, as it's plainly obvious to me and I cannot see how you can't see that.

It's plainly obvious to me now that you haven't put nearly as much thought into your moral system as you pretended. Otherwise you would be able to name which books have informed your thinking, which "physical laws" you're referring to and how you resolve the is/ought problem. You've also conceded your that statement "if the gods existed, the only moral thing would be to oppose them" was unserious, because you're incapable of humoring an argument where gods exist a priori.

[ArcaneLurker]

Aren't pantheons usually chaotic and Gods/ Goddesses are in conflict with one another?
And the whole point about having a religion like Hinduism is you can worship whichever you want, because all the millions of deities are the aspects of one amalgamated 'God' concept.

[Rand]

It's plainly obvious to me now that you haven't put nearly as much thought into your moral system as you pretended. Otherwise you would be able to name which books have informed your thinking, which "physical laws" you're referring to and how you resolve the is/ought problem. You've also conceded your that statement "if the gods existed, the only moral thing would be to oppose them" was unserious, because you're incapable of humoring an argument where gods exist a priori.

You're the one with the fixed preconceptions that cannot be examined.
Throw stones from your glass house with your blindfold off for once.

[Red7]

@Rand

Oh, I'm MUCH worse than that. I read most of the various gods' books and not only am I glad they don't exist, because they're utterly monstrous, but if they did exist, the only moral thing to do would be to oppose them.

If not from gods, then where does your "morality" derive? I take the view that all morality is downstream from power. God decides what is moral because God is all-powerful. God is not subject to the same moral laws we are because God is sovereign. Moral behavior is obedience and submission to God. How can you "oppose" all-powerful gods? It's foolish. Whether the gods are evil or good is irrelevant (but if they're good, or at least not malicious, we're fortunate).

morality derived from religion based doctrines is just that dogma with no scientific base.
if its not derived from science its probably weapon/tool of host that demands authority; as non hostile entity wouldnt want to sabotage u in most cases
but then again just term "hostile" implies notions of purpose, sentience/energy input and so on which authority may wish not to allow, ergo atheism as successor to old cults

because its non derivative, anyone who controls narrative can rewrite and introduce new moral codes, with enough low iq they dont even need to be coherent, just add some mumbo jumbo and add some rituals to cover it up with complexity, kind alike they do with banking/money religion

now, the issue with science is, to derive morality from it u need to have fundamental understanding of cosmos.
this is why all productive sience was either suppressed or sabotaged by jews and anti science trash like darwinian evolution or multivere theories were intrudced to confuse retarded goyim further.

[Red7]

Aren't pantheons usually chaotic and Gods/ Goddesses are in conflict with one another?
And the whole point about having a religion like Hinduism is you can worship whichever you want, because all the millions of deities are the aspects of one amalgamated 'God' concept.

u mean aliens wage(d) wars wich each other, and no matter which one u pick u are probably fucked

[Red7]

posite, Christianity stops the masses from becoming savages. We can infer this from how fast things have fallen once Christianity was discarded.
Atheism is similar to lolbertarianism in that the adherents lack the ability to understand that just because they can function outside of society's rules(or moral framework) does not mean everyone can, or that most would be better off without them. Atheism, and lolbertarianism, are therefore extremely selfish ideologies.

This is actually disregarding validity of religion altogether and merely about overall good.

atheism is pure religion; incoherent, retarded, absurd, lacking substance
and most importantly, designed and promoted by jews

btw u think being a kuk is better than being savage? and if it is, the for who?

[DemoGraph]

If not from gods, then where does your "morality" derive?

This question is pretty much the premise of "Karamazov brothers".
It has at least two answers: "from the universe" (i.e. empiricism) and from the man (i.e. humanism; or platonic rationalism if you will).

[Rand]

atheism is pure religion; incoherent, retarded, absurd

Improved accuracy by changing semicolon to colon and adding a word:
saying "atheism is pure religion: incoherent, retarded, absurd"

Either you have been misled by strawmanning theist apologists, or you're just ignorant and a little stupid if you say things like that and mean it.

Again, atheism is NOT a worldview.
You will find atheists believing an infinitely wide range of mutually exclusive things with only ONE exception: they do not find the evidence or arguments for any god convincing.

Super simple to understand. Like what a woman is. Yet an ideologically dogmatic group cannot seem to get it.
I swear the "right" is as bad on this topic as the current left is on sex/gender...

[OnTilt]

atheism is pure religion; incoherent, retarded, absurd

Improved accuracy by changing semicolon to colon and adding a word:
saying "atheism is pure religion: incoherent, retarded, absurd"

Either you have been misled by strawmanning theist apologists, or you're just ignorant and a little stupid if you say things like that and mean it.

Again, atheism is NOT a worldview.
You will find atheists believing an infinitely wide range of mutually exclusive things with only ONE exception: they do not find the evidence or arguments for any god convincing.

Super simple to understand. Like what a woman is. Yet an ideologically dogmatic group cannot seem to get it.
I swear the "right" is as bad on this topic as the current left is on sex/gender...

While I won't necessarily argue that atheism is a worldview in and of itself, there's nothing more fundamental to one's worldview than the question of life's purpose. Wherever you place the source of that purpose is where you'll find your god. Everyone has a god. If you're not worshipping the God then you've put something in His place, whether you realize it or not. Could be The Science™, could be an ideology, or more likely its just yourself.

[Acrux]

I swear the "right" is as bad on this topic as the current left is on sex/gender...

Atheists can't truly be on the right, at least as it has been defined in the modern Western world. What values is an athiest trying to "conserve"? Christian values? Then that's high hypocracy. What are they left with then? Liberalism? Is that worth conserving? The Enlightenment? Well, that's only going to lead directly to Liberalism. The old Western traditions of, say, Greece or Rome or the North? Those are all directly built on pagan ideas which should be just as anathema to athiests.

So, I think that many thoughtful people on the right - those who aren't just being reactionary to hearing the word 'athiest' - have looked at that position and decided it's just not tenable long-term.

Now, it may be that things are so far out of whack in the world that anyone, including athiests, would say I don't want to move in that direction (especially in someplace like Canada where it's accelerating). But that's not necessarily a right/left issue in and of itself.

[Rand]

I swear the "right" is as bad on this topic as the current left is on sex/gender...

Atheists can't truly be on the right, at least as it has been defined in the modern Western world. What values is an athiest trying to "conserve"? Christian values? Then that's high hypocracy. What are they left with then? Liberalism? Is that worth conserving? The Enlightenment? Well, that's only going to lead directly to Liberalism. The old Western traditions of, say, Greece or Rome or the North? Those are all directly built on pagan ideas which should be just as anathema to athiests.

So, I think that many thoughtful people on the right - those who aren't just being reactionary to hearing the word 'athiest' - have looked at that position and decided it's just not tenable long-term.

Now, it may be that things are so far out of whack in the world that anyone, including athiests, would say I don't want to move in that direction (especially in someplace like Canada where it's accelerating). But that's not necessarily a right/left issue in and of itself.

No. Sorry, you misunderstood.
I mean the religious right has exactly the same sort of cognitive disorder re: "what is atheism" as the alphabet leftist pseudoreligion has cultivated towards "what is woman".
I've see absolutely terrible "definitions" of atheism from theist apologists, such as a theist believing that we actually believe in their god, but are just rebelling, or the one I discussed that says atheism is a religion/worldview, among others.
Both are terribly wrong and only serve to illustrate the inability of the theist to legitimately consider opinions in conflict with their own.

At base, the only thing common to all atheists is that we are unconvinced by the evidence or reasoning presented by ANY and ALL religions re: gods.
Some atheists actually believe in the supernatural, oddly enough. Although I expect most don't. There is no other common body of thought other than the above sentence.
Yes, some atheists, like myself, actually go a step further and have become convinced that there probably ARE no gods, but there are plenty of atheists that are not as certain and simply remain unconvinced of either proposition.
It's a subtle difference, but a real one.

[Rand]

there's nothing more fundamental to one's worldview than the question of life's purpose

You are somehow missing the point.
While you see your religion as a centerpoint for that, atheists, as non-participants in ANY religion, do not.
As such, you will find a very wide and individually idiosyncratic range of attitudes and even full blown beliefs on that philosophical subject.
There is really no one common view on it. There may be a small minority view that is the largest set, but is very much smaller than the whole population.

If you're not worshipping the God then you've put something in His place, whether you realize it or not. Could be The Science™, could be an ideology, or more likely its just yourself.

This is projection and a lack of insight.
Again, in the absence of religion, many do not have any concrete views on this. Of course, many people will cling to dogmatic beliefs as well. There is no commonality of thought among atheists on this.
For example, I don't worship anything. It's simply not in my nature.
Take science. I like it and find it interesting, but I see the flaws in the methods and the flaws as a result of the all too human practitioners. It's a tool, but should not be a worldview. Aside from asking reasonable questions and requiring good evidence for beliefs, perhaps. But we all fail on that last part from time to time.

[OnTilt]

Well, I think rather you are somehow missing my point.

While you see your religion as a centerpoint for that, atheists, as non-participants in ANY religion, do not.
As such, you will find a very wide and individually idiosyncratic range of attitudes and even full blown beliefs on that philosophical subject.
There is really no one common view on it. There may be a small minority view that is the largest set, but is very much smaller than the whole population.

Yes, I am aware that atheists do not see my religion, or any religion, as the center point of life's purpose. They do not know God, so they must invent their own. Of course they are going to have wildly different views, they're free to invent whatever they want.

This is projection and a lack of insight.
Again, in the absence of religion, many do not have any concrete views on this. Of course, many people will cling to dogmatic beliefs as well. There is no commonality of thought among atheists on this.

Again, I was never suggesting that there was commonality of thought among atheist on the topic. I'm suggesting that they're all the same in that they have fashioned their own gods.

For example, I don't worship anything. It's simply not in my nature.

Well you're wrong, as its an innate part of human nature.

Take science. I like it and find it interesting, but I see the flaws in the methods and the flaws as a result of the all too human practitioners. It's a tool, but should not be a worldview. Aside from asking reasonable questions and requiring good evidence for beliefs, perhaps. But we all fail on that last part from time to time.

So what is your worldview? Because I bet if you looked at it hard enough you'll for your 'god' at the bottom of it.

[Rand]

They do not know God, so they must invent their own.

No, that's YOUR thing.
Start by assuming that people that tell you they think differently than you actually do think differently than you.
You will reach more correct conclusions and obtain greater understanding than trying to reformat their thoughts into your worldview structure, which pretty much necessitates distortion and omission in order to get them to fit.

For example, I don't worship anything. It's simply not in my nature.

Well you're wrong, as its an innate part of human nature.

No, you're wrong.
You are ignoring what I tell you about what I think and making assumptions based upon the desire to fit other people's thoughts into your thought schema.
Who is more likely to be correct?

[vofono7491]

If not from gods, then where does your "morality" derive?

This question is pretty much the premise of "Karamazov brothers".
It has at least two answers: "from the universe" (i.e. empiricism) and from the man (i.e. humanism; or platonic rationalism if you will).

Smerdyakov did nothing wrong.


More on-topic, I'd posit that a morality that comes from man is necessarily from God because moral man is at odds with the natural way of things.

[TKVNC]

Yes, some atheists, like myself, actually go a step further and have become convinced that there probably ARE no gods, but there are plenty of atheists that are not as certain and simply remain unconvinced of either proposition.
It's a subtle difference, but a real one.

So you're not an atheist, you're at best, agnostic, and at worst, a, may God forgive me for saying this word, a Redditor.

You may not realise it, but you have a Golden Calf in the place of God. Your sophistry does not hide it, and no amount of denial will make it true. I would say this is abundantly clear in how you say you are 'convinced' there are 'probably' no gods.

You have such little conviction that you are 'convinced' by a possibility.

Disappointing, but not surprising.

[somerandomdude]

The one thing I've noticed about atheists and agnostics, is they all make a hobby, job or political ideology their religion. It could range in gayness from being a "super fan" for some sports team, to being a willing goy servant/corporate slave, to militantly proselytizing wokeism. That void they're left with after turning away from Christ, they fill it with selfish mendacity.

[Rand]

Yes, some atheists, like myself, actually go a step further and have become convinced that there probably ARE no gods, but there are plenty of atheists that are not as certain and simply remain unconvinced of either proposition.
It's a subtle difference, but a real one.

So you're not an atheist, you're at best, agnostic, and at worst, a, may God forgive me for saying this word, a Redditor.

You may not realise it, but you have a Golden Calf in the place of God. Your sophistry does not hide it, and no amount of denial will make it true. I would say this is abundantly clear in how you say you are 'convinced' there are 'probably' no gods.

You have such little conviction that you are 'convinced' by a possibility.

Disappointing, but not surprising.

You are tiresome both in your intent to misconstrue factual first-person statements as well as to relentlessly refuse to consider that your religious schema does not reside in others and so we do not conform to it at all.

[TKVNC]

You are tiresome both in your intent to misconstrue factual first-person statements as well as to relentlessly refuse to consider that your religious schema does not reside in others and so we do not conform to it at all.

That was single-handedly the MOST euphoric comment I have ever read in my entire life. And I've seen some bad ones.

Not only is your sentence actually nonsense...

You said you were an atheist, then immediately stated that you didn't fit into the definition of atheist. That is not me miscontruing (a deeply euphoric word) anything, it's basic paraphrasing;

But then the second part - "relentlessly refuse to consider that your religious schema [does] not reside in others and so we do not conform to it at all".

Where do I begin explaining how autistic this sounds? Nevertheless - I am not refusing to consider anything. Schema is not the word I would use there, personally, and it just betrays an attempt at seeming more intelligent than you are (surprisingly common with 'atheists') - It's got nothing to do with it residing in you, it's a statement of fact - to be an atheist you must not believe in God, you cannot 'not conform' to that, or you are not an atheist.

All that said - your lack of conviction means you likely (under all your pretentiousness) still fear God (as you should), so you don't even stick to your word and say outright: 'I do not believe God exists'.

Instead you say 'I'm convinced that there probably ARE no gods' - neatly falling into the category of an agnostic.

[Rand]

You are tiresome both in your intent to misconstrue factual first-person statements as well as to relentlessly refuse to consider that your religious schema does not reside in others and so we do not conform to it at all.

That was single-handedly the MOST euphoric comment I have ever read in my entire life. And I've seen some bad ones.

Not only is your sentence actually nonsense...

You said you were an atheist, then immediately stated that you didn't fit into the definition of atheist. That is not me miscontruing (a deeply euphoric word) anything, it's basic paraphrasing;

But then the second part - "relentlessly refuse to consider that your religious schema [does] not reside in others and so we do not conform to it at all".

Where do I begin explaining how autistic this sounds? Nevertheless - I am not refusing to consider anything. Schema is not the word I would use there, personally, and it just betrays an attempt at seeming more intelligent than you are (surprisingly common with 'atheists') - It's got nothing to do with it residing in you, it's a statement of fact - to be an atheist you must not believe in God, you cannot 'not conform' to that, or you are not an atheist.

All that said - your lack of conviction means you likely (under all your pretentiousness) still fear God (as you should), so you don't even stick to your word and say outright: 'I do not believe God exists'.

Instead you say 'I'm convinced that there probably ARE no gods' - neatly falling into the category of an agnostic.

Let me be clear: I now think you are a complete idiot and I don't care what you have to say. You are a poor, confused thinker with delusions of intellectualism and all your thoughts appear to be self-involved dogma.
There is no point in reading what you type, so I have stopped. Enjoy your "victory" you have bored me out of this with your nonsense.

[Anon]

atheism is pure religion; incoherent, retarded, absurd

Improved accuracy by changing semicolon to colon and adding a word:
saying "atheism is pure religion: incoherent, retarded, absurd"

Either you have been misled by strawmanning theist apologists, or you're just ignorant and a little stupid if you say things like that and mean it.

Again, atheism is NOT a worldview.
You will find atheists believing an infinitely wide range of mutually exclusive things with only ONE exception: they do not find the evidence or arguments for any god convincing.

Super simple to understand. Like what a woman is. Yet an ideologically dogmatic group cannot seem to get it.
I swear the "right" is as bad on this topic as the current left is on sex/gender...

While I won't necessarily argue that atheism is a worldview in and of itself, there's nothing more fundamental to one's worldview than the question of life's purpose. Wherever you place the source of that purpose is where you'll find your god. Everyone has a god. If you're not worshipping the God then you've put something in His place, whether you realize it or not. Could be The Science™, could be an ideology, or more likely its just yourself.

I disagree in that one, God is an entity and an idea in itself and represents something that's absolutely irreplaceable. Atheists didn't replace God with anything, they are just empty in whatever God would fulfill.

If not from gods, then where does your "morality" derive?

This question is pretty much the premise of "Karamazov brothers".
It has at least two answers: "from the universe" (i.e. empiricism) and from the man (i.e. humanism; or platonic rationalism if you will).

Neither of these make sense btw, or are nearly as perfect as christian morality. "Natural morality" (morality derived from humanity in state of nature) is what we see in tribal pagan societies, and let's agree nobody wants to live in them...

[TKVNC]

Let me be clear: I now think you are a complete idiot and I don't care what you have to say. You are a poor, confused thinker with delusions of intellectualism and all your thoughts appear to be self-involved dogma.
There is no point in reading what you type, so I have stopped. Enjoy your "victory" you have bored me out of this with your nonsense.

Fie, whatever will I do, now that your subjective opinion of me has been damaged?

There is only one person present who has delusions, I will state simply that it is not me. Perhaps that's why you did not try and answer my response, but simply moved to dismissal; again exposing your conviction.

It has never been about 'victory', I'm not here to win anything. It's never too late to turn to the Lord.

[Nammu Archag]

"Natural morality" (morality derived from humanity in state of nature) is what we see in tribal pagan societies, and let's agree nobody wants to live in them...

I disagree, I would much prefer to be a frilingi in some random village ie a "tribal pagan society" during antiquity

[DemoGraph]

If not from gods, then where does your "morality" derive?

This question is pretty much the premise of "Karamazov brothers".
It has at least two answers: "from the universe" (i.e. empiricism) and from the man (i.e. humanism; or platonic rationalism if you will).

Neither of these make sense btw, or are nearly as perfect as christian morality. "Natural morality" (morality derived from humanity in state of nature) is what we see in tribal pagan societies, and let's agree nobody wants to live in them...

You're not addressing my statements. You're making your own. I don't mind.