Can atheists have a moral compass?

>What's the point of doing anything
Yes.

Greater common sense n understanding of everything

Yes, my moral compass is the book of Leviticus

morality is subjective, but generally it's based on selfishness, we prevent others from doing harm because it could potentially be done to ourselves

Attached: 1504608500-daenerys.jpg (480x480, 35K)

The real question is whether religious people can.

That's not an answer.

They can because there is a book of laws that might be from God, that tells them what is right and wrong. Atheists have no moral compass other than their own emotions.

I have a moral compass that was originally based on my family and culture but I've rewritten it and justified it based on some core principles, principles I've derived from various arguments and observations of the world around me, as well as historical empiricism.
I try to hold myself to a higher standard than I hold others.
I'm atheist.
So yes, atheists can have moral compasses.

Of course, I just don't really have a word for mine. But most of what I grew up being taught as a Christian has some foundation in social and biological behaviors.

Of course not. Only a man of faith, be it islam, jew, or christian, can truly have morals.
Without guidelines written by other people how will you know which animal meat is ok to eat on which day?

so we shouldn't have morals simply becaose some people were hypocrites?

they can. most of them are relativist

Sure, if they are white...

>I try to hold myself to a higher standard than I hold others.
This too. You're the only person you can truly control and that you know the most about, so there's a much more pressing need to continuously try to not be a fuckup than to keep others from being fuckups.

if morality is subjective can any action be considered to be wrong...or right?
if someone rapes your sister you don't say morality is subjective do you?

>i'm only a good boy when my imaginary dad is watching me

You sound black user

Attached: 1559255267394.png (360x594, 250K)

Of course.
I was not raised a religious man and yet I managed to develop my own set of principals to live by - through which I generally do not wish harm upon other people.
But it is worth mentioning I have since learned more about Christianity and the tale of Jesus and found that there is much that I agree with - so perhaps I'm not your typical "anti-religious atheist".

Nope, they shid and fart poopoo peepee the most on this board

>Having morals
>believing there are no morals
What does that even mean?

>They can because there is a book of laws that might be from God, that tells them what is right and wrong.
They have lots of books from lots of gods. How do they know which book to follow?

I could say a lot about this, but I think the short answer is "In general, no." Essentially, I think that there are a few atheists out there who have the capacity to articulate their moral axioms and the discipline to abide by them. But, in the larger scheme, I don't think that society could function like that. Too many retards who just need to be told what's good and bad and who lack the discipline to follow through, so they need shame and social pressure as a substitute.

I'm areligious at this point and I've been trying to solve this problem for myself recently.

Attached: 1548186531470.jpg (736x815, 38K)

An objectively stronger one than any theist since the code is grounded in the material reality.

Morality is a human concept. Sin and righteousness are religious concepts. What is moral can be sinful.

can you have morals without a moral law giver?

It's not that hard, example:
A-I'd like to rape Megan Fox
B-I wouldn't like my girlfriend/wife/mother/sister to be raped
even though I like A I don't like B ergo rape is bad

>curn yuf morels lawnmower

Attached: 1534644798905.gif (500x382, 167K)

Read the book of Numbers and answer your own question.

>there is no objective morality without a third party.
Why do you need objective morality? As long as you are consistent subjective morality does just fine. You can make the argument that given that gods aren't real they aren't actually a real third party so even theistic morality is subjective.

free will and morals are not material you got jewed if you think so.
When someone rapes a woman. Judge doesn't go back to lab and check whether he was morally right or wrong.

nice argument

no

everyone has a natural born moral compass. you're telling me that religious people didn't know that murder was bad until they read it in an old book? give me a break. the only thing the book does is control people who don't care. but now we have a new book for that, the book of law.

so raping people is ok as long as it doesn't have to do with your family members?

stop being a faggot and answer the question please.

>if morality is subjective can any action be considered to be wrong...or right?
Only within the context of that subjective system. The question shouldn't be how can you be moral with a subjective system, but rather what do you do when you have incompatible subjective systems coming into conflict?

Atheists get their morality from society at large, that's why so many atheists think it's cool to get ass fucked or kill unborn kids or put people in cages if they don't pay for niggers to kill and maim and rape people.

not being theist doesn't equal having no moral values
same as having being theist doesnt equal having a moral compass

I wouldn't like to get raped either

Wow, total failure at reading comprehension.
Impressive.

So rape is bad because you, a human being, FEELS that it's bad? How can we trust human beings to just FEEL what is right and wrong?

If I paint N, S, E, W clockwise on a piece of round paper then I have a compass... that is useless as a compass.

It's the same with atheists.

>for those who're dense, or tired, or just missed it: when printed clockwise a compass reads N, E, S, W.

Yes, but I am not one. Thanks for the question.

No raping is wrong because you are physically hurting someone. Not because some abstract concept thinks so.

mortally doesn't begin and end with "killing your mother" there are many things involved in it
>the book of law
that law says that abortion is ok. If you are going to follow what the law says and not morals you are being controlled. (very ironically you are the guy who doesn't want to be controlled by religion but yet you are ok with the law)
if the law says I can fuck your mom anytime I want does it make it moral?

Yes, as morality is subjective even amongst Christians, it proves that religion can't be a proper moral compass as moral North is never stable but changes with the times.

so what is it faggots is rape wrong or right?

No. The lawgiver needs to exist, though, correct?

morals exist and predate religion, christcuck

This.
>What's the point of doing anything if it doesn't work?
I'm laying siege to a castle.
I have the sappers dig a hole and plant explosives at the bottom.
Then I set off the explosives-- they explode and make a huge hole in the ground.
But unless I directed the sappers properly (i.e. to dig UNDER THE WALLS and not just in a random direction...) then the fact that the plan worked is irrelevant.

Function is not enough. Execution isn't enough.
It must be the right function. It must have the right purpose.

Determining the right purpose is precisely the point of morality.

If at this point you claim, as is common among utilitarians, that YOUR purpose (i.e. "whatever you want") is the right purpose then you're just admitting to be a psychopathic selfish narcissistic piece of shit. In which case I applaud you sarcastically: way to take the moral high ground.

Sorry, I am just not that interested in getting all autistic about this kind of thing. Morality is more of a large scale issue so there's not much point in getting in the weeds on a personal level. All of these abstractions are just meaningless in the face of the powers of selection. The cultures who succeed are the ones who inherit the earth. Whatever they decide to be right is what's right. If there's no people, there's no morality.

I'm atheist and I believe my moral compass stands up well compared to most people.

but animals rape/kill/eat each other and no one hold them accountable
why should we humans?

the question should be do the religious?
it's the religious that think everyone should read the bible so they learn values.
and if you've read the bible you might wonder what morals it's teaching.
it's like reading husler to learn about fidelity

Parties by definition can not confer objectivity.

i never said anything related to Christianity dear Shekelstein I don't even know why are you mentioning it?

where does it say you have to be able to justify your morality, and to whom
the law is the only thing you need to justify your actions to
after that everything within it is fair game and it's just whether your peer group / social circle agrees with your choices or judges them

It's better than trusting some space wizard from the bronze age

You wouldn't exist without it ask your Caveman ancestors when answer a mating call

>so what is it faggots is rape wrong or right?
I want to rape someone so that's acceptable right? My moral code should say that's fine!
But wait... Do I want someone that I know and love to be raped? No I don't so maybe someone else doesn't want the person I want to rape to be raped... I guess my moral system shouldn't allow rape.

>we will kill children if it helps to diminish an unsustainable booming population

Attached: 1546433835134.png (1020x1020, 773K)

We're genetically hard-coded to abide by natural rules. Through culture and religion, morality has been defined as well as solidified, with governments even being created to enforce it and to defend people following it.
Nowadays, society is regressing, morality is actively being chastised by media, and we're no longer protected by our government.
Some atheists are morally sound, but a higher ratio of theists also represent the majority of morally tuned people

Attached: 1557190657368.png (1002x978, 1.47M)

Only people without a bipolar sky jew watching over them have internalized morality. Rednecks like you don't have any, so you delegate it to your imaginary boss.

my man!

>non-atheists actually believe they have a monopoly on morality
>also admitting they'd be savages without their beliefs/fears

Sure. Do what's best for everyone and don't be a dick.

Let's assume that the book was written by bronze age humans. Why do you believe that your HUMAN MORALITY is superior to their HUMAN MORALITY?
At least with the book, there is a chance that it might be from God.

Did you define what you meant by N, E, S and W?
A compass that reads NSEW is fine so long as everyone knows what you mean and all your cartography is internally consistent.

You can just leave it at
> There is no objective morality

Even if there is some supreme supernatural being, any morality dictated by that being is still subjective.

What is a savage? And who gets to decide?

my morality is better than yours haha, brb while i watch porn till my dick goes numb and unironically idolize satan as 'the original rebel' even though i dont believe in any of that nonsense

>What is a savage? And who gets to decide?
Someone without morals is a savage.
People that have morals get to decide.

If there is a GOD that made us all, how is an atheist different than an hindu or a christian. All of them believe in different things and therefore cannot all believe in the one and same GOD.
Does this mean they are all mislead?
Or that only one is right?
In that case, how can we say who knows the true way of GOD?

Who says it's not the atheists...

Attached: parking ND.jpg (1125x1109, 396K)

>savage

>admitting they would be immoral without their beliefs/fears

>What is a savage?
Someone who violates the morals of their peers egregiously.
>And who gets to decide?
Their peers.

> guy with 4 partially cannabilized drifters decomposing in the crawl space under his home

What, you think my definition of function is luck? Are you dumb? It must be sustainable over generations. What do you think I am, a democrat?

>you're just admitting to be a psychopathic selfish narcissistic piece of shit.
If it helps society be better, I'm totally ok with being the martyr. I will sacrifice my reputation and time and effort to benefit you. I'll be the hero we need.

Where do people get their morals from? From their own thoughts, feelings and opinions?

I think people are born with morality or they're not.
you can teach psychopaths a moral code but it won't matter

Do you understand what a metaphor is?
Do you know what "analogy" means?
You do know. But you chose to be dense instead.

But even if I play along with your little game the scenario that you gave illustrates exactly what's wrong with moral relativity (which is the only thing atheists can have and still be consistent with their atheism).
You said
>so long as everyone knows what you mean and all your cartography is internally consistent.
Well, yes. That's precisely the point of having an objective moral standard.
So you tried to play smart-ass and instead simply underscored my point.

>Sorry, I am just not that interested in getting all autistic about this kind of thing.

then how can you know what's right or wrong if you don't have an honest dialogue?

>Morality is more of a large scale issue so there's not much point in getting in the weeds on a personal level.

so it all based on personal preference and not on absolute truth? no wonder we have so much drugs/rape/suicide/gay marriage in our culture.

>All of these abstractions are just meaningless in the face of the powers of selection. The cultures who succeed are the ones who inherit the earth.

So might makes right? Majority makes right?
If you are weak and are minority then your argument is invalid.

>Whatever they decide to be right is what's right.
Wrong
What if those people decide that fucking kids is ok does it make it ok?

>If there's no people, there's no morality.

You making it sound like people create their own-selves? it's not the laws of nature that fuses the man in the womb but some dude does it.

Not to enrage you bud, but I'd rather trust my senses than the ones from people that treated headaches with leeches and voodoo

There've been plenty of christian murderers, you know. Having a moral compass and actually adhering to it are different things.
I've never killed anyone, though, and don't particularly want or plan to.
I wonder if the fact that that's where you went straight to indicates anything about you?

More of an ethical perspective, but if things don't function then more people die.

I think it's a common trait for most people
like ears you either have them or you don't

No, only jobs and meaningful lives.

Atheists have no morals. Morals are like God, there is no objective proof of what is or isn’t “moral”. To be consistent, atheists have to reject morality for the same reason they reject God. Accordingly, atheists will quickly drop any moral they have if another fedora faggot makes them feel stupid for having it.

>What if those people decide that fucking kids is ok does it make it ok?
Rome, and also a lot of "holy people"

You denied killing those drifters but you didn’t deny cannibalizing them, I noticed

Yeah, it's called intuition, you fucking moron.

>I'm atheist and I believe
mmmh