>use christianity as the source of moral
>science proves christianity wrong
>everybody thinks "if christianity is wrong with regards to facts, why won't it be wrong with regards to moral"
>degeneracy
If we had secular moral from the beginning we would be perfectly fine. Trying to bring back christianity to save society is triple-retarded. You are just making your moral fabric wet 1-ply paper thin"
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
twitter.com
>If we had secular moral from the beginning we would be perfectly fine
Secular morality is impossible you stupid faggot, because without a preternatural force to make it so, it is impossible for an objective good and an objective bad to exist, this leads to 'relative' morality, which long term is everyone just does whatever the fuck they want and rationalizes why it is ok to do that.
More like perfectly Fin, if it doesn't work now how the fuck would it work in a more primordial setting without welfare and social services funding the degenerate social lifestyles of secular morals today?
Science proves christianity correct
youtube.com
>>science proves christianity wrong
Bold claim there
Christcuckery is a joke
>secular morality is impossible
Universally Preferable Behavior, now get wrecked you stupid cunt.
There us a dozen religions based on the bible all with different a moraliy. There is no objective morality. I bet you couldn't even graduate grade school.
Subjective morality works perfectly fine in homogeneous societies. There is no need for a deity arbiter that is actually the mouthpiece of bad actors.
Spirituality should not be conflated with modern religion. Modern religion is a quasi-political structure. It acts as a 5th column in societies.
Hellenic religion, for example, was not superimposed in morality enforcement. The gods erred and the humans that read of the gods ordeals and escapades could make educated decisions on the grounds of morality.
Ergo, morality in ancient greece and rome was not enforced solely via religion, but primarily via philosophy, policy, kin and group selection bias, evolutionary morality.
Your entire premise is thusly moot.
it's only a joke when the "Christians" trying to establish heaven here and now, tower of babel shit and all
Saying one isn't sure of what the actual objective morality is, is different that saying objective morality doesn't exist. Without the possibility of Objective morality, everything turns to shit. Secular morality precludes objective morality.
Is that you Moly? You are the only person who even talks about your dumb voodoo.
Let's be real though, these parades are all funded be jews and various NGOs and think tanks. They are not organic and they are not spontaneous.
Not to take away from your assertion, but the distinction should be made.
>There is no objective morality
ergo, to be an effective leader your own behavior is completely irrelevant... it's all relative
The greatest rocket scientist that ever lived was an Evangelical Christian who was a Creationist, believed evolution is a lie, and he believed the Bible is the literal Word of God and that science and religion are not incompatible but two different windows to look at the same thing.
We arguably haven't made any meaningful scientific advances since he died.
>no true christian argument
right no cue
Bagans do that shit too. Atheists especially
>memeflag
>distorting a post to push a narrative
Right on cue.
ever heard of tribalism?
>most popular philosophy show on the planet
>You are the only person who even talks about your dumb voodoo
Wrong and not an argument.
>The gods erred and the humans that read of the gods ordeals and escapades could make educated decisions on the grounds of morality.
The gods making mistakes doesn't preclude the existence of objective morality. In fact it supports the concept of Objective morality, because even an all powerful God, could do bad thus incorporated in that belief is the assumption that an Objective morality was already there by which even the Gods were bound.
So your arguing for something you can't define and have no idea what it is. How retarded.
>>Secular morality precludes objective morality.
Prove it.
>everyone just does whatever the fuck they want and rationalizes why it is ok to do that.
This is natural human behavior with regards to everything, not just morality. And it won’t change without consequences for actions.
>Ergo, morality in ancient greece and rome was not enforced solely via religion, but primarily via philosophy, policy, kin and group selection bias, evolutionary morality.
I will agree that there are multiple ways a society can enforce rules of morality and don't claim that it can only be done by the Church or by religion. All I'm saying is that without religion there can be no Objective morality.
>Your entire premise is thusly moot.
No, see above.
>Universally Preferable Behavior
But why should I give a shit about that? So what if others don't want to be stolen from, if I can benefit from stealing from others I have no inherent reason to give a shit about them.
Low quality bait, science can't even prove it's own objective worth let alone it's own method or numbers, all being abstractions. Science cannot disprove anything philosophical as it's presuppositions are a subset.
You are approaching it from a dogmatic theistic viewpoint, which will always envelop you in quantifiers and ristrict you.
The hellenic gods were representations and facets of man. They are the ultimate zenith of the human experience with regards to everything. They were not omnibenevolent and according to Epicurus trilemma, no god can be axiomatically omnibenevolent.
>All I'm saying is that without religion there can be no Objective morality
user, it;s called an axiom and every belief systems starts with it. Then the preferred behavior is rewarded by the group (i.e. virtues), meanwhile counterproductive behavior (i.e. sins) are punished.
However, in the end of the day... do you support Arsenal or Bayer Munich?
Traditional Catholicism is the way brothers. We're cleaning up our Church and saving the European people! Join us!
>if I can benefit from stealing from others I have no inherent reason to give a shit about them.
You mean that how will UPB stop people from choosing to do evil if they want? The same way religion does it: if it doesn't convince then it cannot stop you. At that point all it does is to give the ones you are stealing from some peace of mind when they shoot you in the face for stealing from them. Morality is not an unbreakable law of the universe like gravity, with or without religion.
>All I'm saying is that without religion there can be no Objective morality.
That sentence is dissonant. Religion is finite in scope and influense. That would make objective, ecumenical morality conditional. That is a reductio ad absurdum.
Supplant to that, that religions morph and transform overtime, to allign with social norms and mores, and you can readily see that there is no way religions could ever be arbiters of objective morality.
Something has to be infinite, omnipresent and constant to be an objective ideal. Religion is not that.
>It's another "there's no morality without muh god" poster
Riddle me this, why don't pack animals rip each other apart to the point of extinction? Is it because they've naturally evolved to work as a pack because it increases chance of survival, and if they fuck with the pack, they fuck with their own survival - or is it because they're devoutly religious from which they derive their morals? So tired of Christcucks thinking that they invented "don't kill people bro".
>Prove it.
Ultimately morality boils down to certain actions are good and right, thus they should be done and certain actions are bad or wrong thus they should not be done. The problem arises when one seeks to define good and right, and bad and wrong. Ultimately EVERY single explanation at the end of their chain of logic rests upon the same statement. "Because I said so." Now the I changes from case to case, and sometimes it is reformulated into, "Because it just is, everyone agrees." But those types of statements all are invalid and fail to justify that statement in EVERY case, but one. When the person or being who makes that statement is an all powerful being who has the ability to make reality. Thus in order for their to be an Objective morality, it ultimately requires the existence of God.
god = first cause see
>However, in the end of the day... do you support Arsenal or Bayer Munich?
Soccer is fags user.
Exactly, it's evolutionary biology and it's called kin and group selection. That is the most pure and distilled form of ecumenical morality.
We should always take this as a starting point. Kin and group. Morality developes into more complex and nuanced axioms out of that datapoint. Family and kinsmen. People that share your genetic material. That's the singularity of morality.
Whose god? Some gods say murder is not moral others encourage it. Pick you god and you pick your morals. Therefore no objective morals.
>Riddle me this, why don't pack animals rip each other apart to the point of extinction?
>Thinks because a person makes an argument about Objective morality, that they must be arguing morality controls every single action by every single being.
user, where did I make a statement that morality controls peoples actions let alone animals actions? Saying there exists an objective manner in which one should conduct themselves doesn't mean they will or will not conduct themselves in that manner, and it doesn't prevent someone who doesn't believe in that objective standard or morality from acting in that way.
Correct. The Church is not the source of moral truths. God is the source of morality, the Church is nothing more than men who think they know what that truth is, however close or far they may be in their beliefs.
>Whose god?
A person not knowing who is the all powerful being who made objective morality, and thus what the objective morality is, doesn't preclude the objective morality from existing. One of life's problems that all people face is trying to figure out what that Objective morality is.
Science is pretty much inline with Christianity though. Big bang? Litterally just "universe began". Everything else is a tossup until recorded history.
>God
Then how do I communicate with god so he can tell me about his objective morality
It doesn't mean it comes from a god. You've given no other answer than "because god"
I saw this guy in Monty python the other day not that I expect you to reply to me op
everything in the bible has been completely blown out of the water by science. From camels, to the arc, to jesus's entire existence.
ok, go for a different sports analogy, the point of tribalism and having to chose a side still stands
The Holy Spirit, the church, fellow Christians, the Bible, reason and obedience, etc.
Where the fuck else would it come from. Man does nothing to enforce morality on his own. If one feels remorse for something he did behind closed doors with no negative consequences, what is there to be afraid of except God? And yet a healthy sane man would feel fear. That's not social pressure. That's God.
I'm saying in order for Objective morality to exist, it can only come from God. Because it is impossible to prove that Objective morality can exist without God. If God is an all powerful being who's word and thought literally makes reality, then it would be within his power to create Objective morality. Every case where someone tries to provide an Atheistic basis for Objective morality fails, because eventually in the chain of logic it rests upon a statement similar to, "Because I said, so." or "Because it just is."
Science sure taught those silly Christians camels are just a fairytale.
Is this implying there isnt an actual afterlife
Or there is no objective morality. I solved your problem.
Read the bible. God changes his mind all the time. Therefore no objective morality.
All historians agree Jesus existed
I agree that different groups of people have different ideas about what is moral and what isn't. In fact different people within the same group frequently have different ideas regarding morality. All I'm saying is that in order for an "Objective" morality to exist it must come from God. Now I also argue that ultimately in order for any morality to exist, it must be based on the belief that there is an Objective morality. Otherwise taken to it's logical conclusion there is no moral basis for any action, only something that approaches an enlightened self-interest idea where people aught to do nice things because it is ultimately better for them in the end, materially.
>science proves christianity wrong
Say what now?
Can you prove whether infinite regress is possible? If not, there is an initial construct that existed for infinity
Actually, there are few to no serious historians, myself included, who would deny that the man known as Jesus Christ existed. We have more evidence of Christ walking the earth than Alexander the Great.
I agree, secular morality = social darwinism. Much better than kike on a stick telling us to love foreigners.
>Or there is no objective morality. I solved your problem.
Yes I agree. Without the existence of God there can be no Objective morality.
>thusly
shut up you heretical faggot, Greek worshipped almost anything and everything like literal subhuman retards. No wonder your civilization collapsed.
Best post.
The arc? No. Camels? What? Jesus existance?? Que?
>lectured by a literal african
t. atheists are pic related
Even with God there is no objective morality. If there was ,he would have made it known without a shadow of a doubt. But every religious fundamental sect changes its rules overtime.
the problem is people are too stupid to understand why traditions work well so they need to be told god said them you have to do it this way or suffer plague and pestilence
and the smart people convinced them thats all myth, so now the retards worship materialism and carnal pleasure
and the problem isnt even totally that they dont understand. even if they do, they innately dont give a fuck. no one fucking cares that lots of men will give up on society when they see women being so shitty. no one cares about men. men arent victims, they're the ones who should be in control in nature, and we havent lost this psychological trait we evolved, and probably never would. its unnatural to even see anything about women as a problem because they are weak. in nature, they dont have any power like they have now, so naturally we dont blame them for anything. we cant ever get rid of feminism without civilization being destroyed, as far as i can tell
You mean that how will UPB stop people from choosing to do evil if they want?
No, that is not what I mean. I am not asking how you will stop me, I am asking why I should subscribe to your claim that violating the golden rule is wrong. That is what UPB boils down to after all, that I ought to treat others as I would be treated.
I don't think it is possible to do so without appealing to some higher standard. And so you don't resort to self interest or other goals that are themselves subjective, I ask you this: what is the ultimate purpose exists that UPB is a consequence of? Every 'should' or 'ought' comes with a underlying reason after all. I ought to go to sleep so I will not be sleepy tomorrow, for example. But not being sleepy is no ultimate reason, as that reason is in turn serving a greater purpose: I will function better tomorrow if well rested. But that is no ultimate reason either as that improved function is worthless without a task to put it to. Yet even this upcoming task is no universal purpose, as it serves another still and so forth. The regression will go until some underlying principle is reached. You claim that UPB is the underlying principle, but can you explain how it holds such a status without suborning it to other principles in the process? I don't think you can.
>If there was ,he would have made it known without a shadow of a doubt.
I don't see why this is necessarily true. Perhaps it actually conflicts with ultimate objective morality. Perhaps ultimately the most moral weigh a person can behave is to figure out what is the objective morality with only a little guidance, so that they can apply it most easily and most efficiently in most cases. Maybe God wanted people to also live successful lives and not just moral ones and creating a nearly infinite list of proper behaviors to consult before any action is taken place would paralyze man and prevent him from ultimately properly living his life.
oh no no no no
>Or there is no objective morality. I solved your problem.
If morality doesn't exist why are you engaging in a conversation about what is true and what isn't? Is truth better than lies? You're already acting as though objective morality exists.
>God changes his mind all the time.
If God says to make a left, go straight for five minutes, then turn right, he's not changing his mind about the destination. Every supposed contradiction in the Bible involves different reactions to different situations that could only be interpreted as contradictory because of atheist nagging.
There's only one question that needs to be asked - did some infinite being with intent create the universe?
Bible, and everything else off the table. Not relevant yet. What is the explanation for a perfectly ordered world to exist within a universe that, according to the laws of physics, have a singular beginning?
Everything else aside, there's no other explanation than God. Any other assertions are simply off the mark, overly complex and unprovable.
You'll notice that aetheists typically go for Bible what they view as contradictory verses instead of the basic propositions - because the low hanging fruit and nuanced poetic language, etc are easier to attack than the primary argument
>science proves christianity wrong
Why would you implement a set of rules with maximum punishment without telling anyone about it? Doesn't seem very moral.
>the Bible
>morality
I agree, religion is extremely useful to convey proper moral teaching to the masses.
The problem is that if you don't have a group of redpilled elders guiding the thing, it can run away with itself into madness. Like right now Christians are being totally misled and used for the purposes of others.
You really do need some kind of intellectual establishment alongside the faith
>Science proves Christianity wrong
You don't have enough brain matter to use the internet. Kindly unplug the machine and report for duty at your local amazon warehouse.
That's exactly what it's saying.
Not exactly - the fact that people tend who have a base knowledge of morality implies it's been engrained into us. People will, despite the negative implications, conduct themselves in a way that is materialisticly harmful in order to properly align themselves with a "higher purpose"
well for what it is worth I think God has given guidance on fundamental rules of morality (see ten commandments) and also has given us the capability to figure out what is moral in other circumstances, we after all do have our senses, our powers of perception, our empathy, our reasoning and cognition abilities. Again the idea of Objective morality existing doesn't mean that all men or even any one man will know what is objectively moral in all circumstances.
Giving directions is not the same as telling someone to murder their child then at the last minute saying" jk just testing you".
And if you could read you would see that I'm arguing that there is no objective morality. Get some reading comprehension.
>>science proves christianity wrong
Source on that?
the men that give up are low-tier men anyway. they are better off going extinct. we have held back sexual selection for far too long. bringing it back is necessary to bring humanity to the next level.
It's about as possible as god existing.
Both are based on belief in their existence without proof. Your objective good is no more objective that a secular fundamental good. The only difference is who is defining it.
Okay, so some hints at the rules, but eternal punishment if break the rules. Nice
>telling someone to murder their child then at the last minute saying" jk just testing you"
Would this be objectively morally wrong?
>evolution applied to humans justifies every single conservative principle
>christians reject evolution
talk about shooting yourself in the foot
>Doesn't seem very moral
You are missing the point. As the ultimate being, who made everything including the rules of conduct... he doesn't have to care about your opinion. Pick at whatever you dislike all you want, it means nothing. It's his reality, it's his rules. You don't have to understand rules for that to be true.
Remorse is not the same as being afraid
It proves objective morals can't come from God if he can say it's okay to murder one moment then say it's bad the next.
see, faggots like this, literally everything wrong with society, arguing against tradition and society itself because "muh dick", because he doesnt understand genetics and thinks sexual selection will make humans get good traits, because he feels like he has no choice but to double down on the very individualist mindset rotting civilization from the inside out, because he's been so beaten down by individualism, he doesnt know what to do except embrace it and become another selfish piece of shit
>science proves christianity wrong
How does science prove Christianity wrong?
>If we had secular moral from the beginning we would be perfectly fine.
Max Stirner called this out on Marx and Engels. Why would you reject one metaphysical concept only to turn around and be gullible towards another?
What you're advocating is basically Schopenhauer's doctrine, which Nietzsche criticized and refers to as Western Buddhism. Schopenhauer even admits he was influenced by Buddhism. Nietzsche isn't much better considering his philosophy is basically Taoism.
All modern western atheistic and skeptical philosophy is just eastern religions repackaged for a western audience.
>but eternal punishment if break the rules
This doesn't sound like Christianity nor most other major religions. Most major religions, but Christianity especially have an assumption that man is imperfect, and that man will sin and will make lots of mistakes. Most of it is trying to minimize that and figuring out how to make good when you do make a mistake. From the Crucifixion story from the Bible when Jesus was dying on the cross he also said that one of the other men dying who was a robber and murderer would also get into heaven that day.
>How does science prove Christianity wrong?
>"dont sin or you will go to hell and/or you will have swarms of locust and plague kill you all"
thats not how things work and everyone knows it
it makes tradition itself look stupid by being associated with it
>memeflaggot
>quoting molymeme in any philosophical issue ever
This must be bait. I don't mind molymene's other videos, but no one who's ever heard him debate philosophy can actually think his "arguments" are sound. He ALWAYS resorts to smuckling and interrupting his opponents before eventually shut them off from the call. His books have already been rebutted as well.
You mean without God.
It takes a thing external to a system to regulate the system.
Godel theorem of incompleteness is about that among other things.
Oh BTW Godel logically demonstrate the necessity of God.
Not that many before him haven't done the same thing, but since I was talking about him.
Oh, another thing statistically evolution is impossible in our universe.
Good day.
>Your objective good is no more objective that a secular fundamental good. The only difference is who is defining it.
It's an important difference. Christians claim God is a person and he defines what is morally good because he is wise enough and good enough to define it correctly, unlike humans. Which is why we read the Bible and pray for insight beyond our own thoughts and feelings so that we can hopefully get some better idea of what good is. Atheists define goodness based on their own reasoning or the reasoning of other humans, which is never going to work.
>muh questionable analogy and question begging epithet
Not seeing how your post proved Science disproved Christianity.
>You mean without God.
Yes, you are correct.