Atheist fags:

Except that some animals do display what we would call "Morals." Also the foundation what morals are built on (empathy and sympathy) are already present in humans and have been for a long time, longer than any religion has existed even. The fact that the aforementioned qualities are required for a healthy baby proves that you don't need to submit yourself to a religion to be good.

At an absolute level, it doesn't matter. If you want a stable society, it does. People evolved to value a stable society. Therefore, people value not murdering and raping.

This is how values work.

It’s not nice to do.
Normal and reasonable people don’t need to read an ancient book written by delusional jews in order to know what’s right and wrong.

The reason why there isn't widespread murder rape and thieving in non religious or different religious societies

Antisocial activity breaks down society

Because it's bad?
Fucking christfag thinks he's got morals to himself again.

It's also hardwired to bash queers heads in
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29334020/

I guess, because they go against the group's survival.
Imagine if we were to talk about this shit with nowadays dialect.

I'd like to do her shit

Attached: brend.png (880x583, 780K)

If atheists could reason, they wouldn't be atheists.
Pic related.

Attached: image.jpg (1583x2048, 415K)

Which is why our morals have totally stayed the exact same throughout history. Moron

Why are all christcucks pedophile rapists?

Except that's bullshit.

Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Insights From Non-human Primates:
frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2018.00017/full

A marmoset is MORE likely to feed another's children if no one else is watching, so it doesn't even get rewarded by better social standing, but does it anyways cuz it knows no one else is there to take up the responsibility.

>A Jew thousands of years ago wrote that his fictional character thinks we are retards for not believing he exists.

K

Is it 2008 again?

>Except that some animals do display what we would call "Morals
Rofl no, no they dont. Of course its momentarily beneficial to not kill a group member but eventually it shines through that theyre all just souless amoral animals who will eat their own offspring if its more beneficial vs not.... but i guess that is moral to an atheist huh? Haha in fact not long ago richard dawkins said we should lose the stigma behind eating human flesh. So maybe savage animals are moral in atheists eyes i guess.

Your shitty bait threads are as incoherent as your logic 1/10 for trying.

Attached: the future.jpg (460x347, 23K)

It would be unreasonable to murder and rape someone because you take the risk of getting caught. Don't do it and you can't get caught. Humans evolved as social animals and we display empathy instinctively. As a result, people tend to not like it when you rape and murder someone they have sentimental ties with. Being aware of that fact is why women are attracted to strong men, because they will protect them. That's why women evolved being attracted to strong men. Personally, I wouldn't rape or kill someone, I don't have it in me to do that. I don't want to do it because I have a sense of what's right and what's wrong base on how I was raised. We all do. The reality is that you don't follow your life based on a book of fables, you regularly disobey it and cherrypick what you believe to be the right thing. That's not your book telling you the right thing, that's your own inherent sense of morality telling you what the right thing is.

Animals do have a sense of mortality that is guided by evolution. Our only goal is to survive and make more of us. We only live in group because it gives us an advantage, but in order to live as a group we developed these morals so it would work. Animals living in groups follow this as well. Elephants will line up for hours allowing a child to be born while protecting the vulnerable mother. Animals can be cruel, but so are we even God calls himself cruel.

Society can't exist if everyone in it is killing, raping, and pillaging each other. Humans, being a social species, are thus generally predisposed to avoid and be repulsed by antisocial behaviours like murder, theft, and rape.

>proof plz

You're looking at it. Empirical evidence. This system of belief seems to work. As these moralities rise and fall, so will our opinion of their efficacy. Sagebait saged.

You know what you piece of shit? My Christian white God is up in the clouds right now cooking up a few lightning bolts for you. Its Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

You sound like a belligerent child. He's right, nature abounds in systems of morality. They've observed it in everything from bacteria to chimps. They're little more than evolutionarily advantageous systems of behavior. Hyena babies often eat each other. Because it works. Some penguins are monogamous. Because it works. Until it doesn't, and they either adapt or die. Read a book you ignorant slut.

because society laws exist

At least atheists aren't obliged to love and forgive murderers, rapists and thieves.

Atheists are braindead. The only reason people don't kill each other is because it's illegal. Humans are not moral and need some kind of authority to impose morals on them.

Women are becoming more and more slutty. This would not be allowed in a fundamentalist Christian country.

Attached: DvggGFTWwAAYYW5.jpg (689x1200, 185K)

>Animals do have a sense of mortality that is guided by evolution
No, they dont. They have self serving behavioral patterns which coinidentally overlap with what humans call morals and you pretend theyre the same thing.

This is the most hilarious thing about athiests lack of understanding of morals. Animals mimicking moral behaviors are not morals themselves. Those same animals would violate their so called "morals" in the blink of an eye if it was more beneficial to do so. That is not even close to being moral, thats just doing whatever self serving couse of action is optimal for you or your genes. If the situation presented itself where it was **fundamentally better** for them or their genes to murder a family an atheist is forced to say that murder is moral just like it would be for an animal. You must resort to contradictory nonsense to claim otherwise.

altruism in-group helps increase our genetic survival and chance of progeny. altruism is a method of the selfish gene, and thus well-warranted. out-groups don't matter however, which is why genocide isn't exactly bad for the in-group, it can even be good for the in-group. and that's why hitler did nothing wrong when he ordered the construction of the holocoaster.

And again here we have another atheist admitting that morality to them is nothing more than psychotic pragmatism. Go decapitate an infant while worshiping molech you sick fuck... if its better for you, society and your offspring then its a moral action right? RIGHT? No way for you to respond to that.

>there is no such thing as ethical philosophy

eh, some morals are relative, some objective. survival is the spring of morality, nigger

It's hardwired so different in every one so not everyones moral judgement is sound so an external moral codex emerges where group belonging based on morals can be dictated, or breeding quotas decided from. If the codex and genome exist in equilibrium we are in a (subjectively of course) good place.

>"We have a book written by sheepfuckers millennia ago."
>"Therefore we are the only ones capable of morals because we fear the punishment of the great dude in the sky"
If you need the fear of the great dude in the sky to keep you from murdering, you need mental health care.

Watcha doin Rabbi?

>some objective
Atheists cannot have objective morals within their construct of morality. Objective morals are philosophical absolute truths and those dont exist in the giant cosmic acident they call reality. Its all subjective. Theyll arbitrarily say some of their "morals" are objective but theres no valid reason to do so. Their only explanation for any being objective is that "it is because it is."

We are never going to colonize the stars if we let niggers or sandniggers roam around, committing
>murder, rape and theft
Badum-tss.

Attached: 1511976549077.png (1175x661, 995K)

Thats not logic, op asked for logic..., its statistics which can easily give false positives and survivorship bias. Plenty of successful ancient mesopotamian societies barely gave two shits if you murdered, raped or stole something from someone of far lower social stature but of course through time those societies fell due to any number of morally unrelated reasons. Youre basically cherry picking and saying thats why its morally wrong to murder.

>me-and-the-dawgs.jpg

>begging the question