Kinda like this: [link]
Some of them are, but they represent us the same way stupid fucks like Pat Robertson represent Christianity-- badly.
Nihilism: The belief that nothing has any inherent meaning besides what can be observed and rationalized.
Example - A rainbow doesn't mean anything other than the fact that light is being refracted.
Hedonism: The belief that the most important thing in life is the pleasure/happiness of yourself and your fellow humans. That you should live your life in service to the overall benefit of yourself and others. Anything that hurts you or others is bad.
Ergo, I take my morals from my sense of logic. If it makes me happy and doesn't hurt anybody, then it's good. If it's hurts me or anyone else directly, then it's bad. This means that I hold many of the same morals as the majority of sensible religious people. The only things I disagree with, morally speaking, are so called "morals" which are harmful to people who haven't done anything to harm anyone else. I don't see anything wrong with sexual orientation, atheism, or other ethnic groups. I myself happen to be a gay atheist. I know for a fact that sexuality is not a choice as I've never been attracted to a woman in my entire life, and I can't accept the existence of an omnipotent being whose apparent "love" for humanity is matched only by his hypocrisy, hatred, immaturity, and xenophobia. Not to mention that God, assuming he did exist, would be guilty of four of the Seven Deadly Sins.
But my beliefs aren't bound to any religion
So good stamp!
basically, without a set in stone moral standard, there is no moral standard.
False Dichotomy (twice!) - you failed to entertain the possibility that a person who does not follow your definition of a set-in-stone moral code could base their morals on something other than personal preference, i.e. a synthesis of logic, understanding of biology, civics, cost-benefit analysis, and most importantly, empathy.
Straw Man Fallacy - Your misrepresentation of us agnostics/atheists as selfish hedonists is generally wrong, insulting, and speaks volumes about your inability (or perhaps refusal) to even attempt to understand alternative points of view.
Causal Fallacy - you misunderstand how empathy informs morality. It's not enough to just do or not do unto others as you would have others do or not do to you. You also have to be cognizant of others' needs and circumstances so you can understand when, how, and why you need to not do certain things to others than you might personally enjoy, or do things for others that you would never dream of asking for for yourself.
Begging the Question - Your attempt to prove that there is no moral standard without a rigid code presupposes that premise in the proof. It's a kind of circular logic.
Appeal to Consequence/Closure - You heavily imply that we need a rigid moral standard because the alternative (see false dichotomy) is amorality, uncertainty, and chaos, which presumably nobody wants. The universe has no concern for anyone's aversion to unpleasant consequences or their desire for certainty.
Moralistic Fallacy - Basically you're conflating uncertainty and inconvenience with wrongness, not to mention you're confusing personal preference with universal values. A fluid conception of right and wrong (what you might derisively term "moral relativism") is not inherently a sign that someone is evil at heart. For instance, a rehabilitative prison system achieves better long-term results for society in terms of cost, crime rates, and recidivism rates than a punitive system like ours, even though the latter might be more emotionally or morally satisfying. Likewise, being able to adjust for mitigating circumstances and the values of other cultures that may be dissonant with your own are critical skills for maintaining civility in a globalized society. That doesn't mean you have to tolerate it when it's considered morally acceptable in another culture to, say, murder a rape victim to cleanse her family's honor. You have to think critically and consider everything in context to distinguish necessary evils from unconscionable human suffering and act appropriately. Yes, it's tough, it's inconvenient, the results are messy, and uncertainty abounds. You'll probably fuck up a lot whenever you have to deal with things more nuanced than knowing not to deceive, rob, hurt, or kill others except in defense of self or lived ones. But adhering to rigid codes without thinking is how we end up with rules that defy all empathy and common sense in the first place, or how we get stuck with rules that no longer make sense for the environment in which we live.
By the way, a couple questions to consider going forward: By what standard is God good? Because he created the concept? How do you know? (You may at this point want to read about the Council of Nicaea en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Co…) Better yet, given the sheer number of faiths in existence and the number that have come and gone over humanity's history, what are the odds that any of them is correct, especially in full? (Before you appeal to the popularity of Christianity, www.rt.com/news/246381-islam-d…)
Well, there are many ways to come to the very logical, very natural conclusion that you shouldn't be a dick to people. History, for example, has endless examples of why war and selfishness don't work. We can learn from our past mistakes. In humans, there are also biological, ingrained responses that we towards others' emotions (empathy) that we have evolved over time. It's one of the main reasons we have survived so successfully as a species. We don't like seeing others suffer, and helping other people has been proven to release feel-good chemicals in your brain. Hate is destructive and anger takes a toll on your lifespan. We're simply set up to care and love one another. All animals long for community and friendship, and we are not exempt from this. It just makes sense for us to not do undue harm unto others, no religion is necessary to come to that conclusion.
Let me also put it this way:
Millions of religions sprung up over the course of human history at different times and places. Each one had its own unique beliefs and moral code and grew/die out completely cut off from most others. With so many different viewpoints and moral codes in different time periods, how can someone say "It's my SPECIFIC RELIGION that is keeping me on a moral path" when no two religions align perfectly? Religion is a man-made concept and reflects man's need and desires, namely our desire for community, compassion, and order (as well as an explanation for the unknown, but that's another argument entirely).
Also, it's not religion that's keeping us from murdering, stealing, and so on, it's the law. You cannot claim that we get our laws from religion, either, because what about Communism China? They have near-identical "morals" as the U.S.A. does (regarding murder, stealing, and the like), but doesn't have a Christian population like we largely do here.
If I am strongly against murder, stealing, adultery, hatefulness, etc. would you say I am an immoral person just because I'm not basing my ethical beliefs on a god?
Consider the following moral judgments (which, for the record, seem to be obviously true imo):
1. It is wrong to drive people from their homes or to kill them because you want their land.
2. It is wrong to enslave people.
3. It is wrong to rape someone.
4. Anyone who witnesses genocide, or enslavement, or torture, is morally required to try to stop it.
To say that morality depends on the existence of God is to say that none of these specific moral judgments is true unless God exists. That seems to me to be a remarkable claim. If God turned out not to exist — then slavery would be O.K.? There’d be nothing wrong with torture? The pain of another human being would mean nothing?
If you believe that all these things - our desire to help instead of hinder one another, murder is wrong, etc. - exist specifically because God exists, then I suppose I couldn't argue with you. We'd agree on all the same things, but where you say God is responsible, I say that these things arise through simply natural means, no God needed. No one can prove that God does or doesn't exist, so that's a much trickier issue. If that is the case, I'll just agree to disagree. As long as someone treats others with respect, that is what matters to me (doesn't matter what their religious belief is). (:
I'm a spiritual creature but not Christian or anything but by far morality shows whether we are rational and civilized and to what degree ^.^
For me, personally, I believe in moral value as a human being and wish people would discover if they have morals or not and for what reasons of their own.
So yeah, morals are something created of experience, learned lessons and values that are initiated for those whom value it.
He wanted the create the perfect human race, have the fittest survive and the weak die, allowed scientific experiments on live humans to have the world as it was going towards, a world where evolution was heading. He was just speeding up the process.
Well, what happened there was they had relative morality. The law says its okay, then it's okay. The Jews aren't human anymore, so you can legally rob them, beat them and even kill them and it wouldn't be considered murder. It was even in service of mankind.
It's even happening now. Abortions, adultery, idolatry are all fine right now because it's not against the law. The world is already going to a downward spiral and it's only going to get worse.
I pray for everybody's safety and turning to Jesus when that day comes because the world is going to pass away but your souls are eternal.
but distract. Unfortunately for you, people have used said hot button distractions so often that they are worthless now. In other words,
your opening statement about Hitler has nothing to do with anything.
This next statement is simple to refute, the law does NOT decide morality, YES it has a factor in group morality but it CANNOT define your
own subjective morality UNLESS you allow it to do so. For the record, not every nazi officer felt Hitlers actions were morally just, they were
just following orders in fear of being executed themselves. Hell, many former nazi's ended up showing both remorse and regret for their
actions later on in life, some even suffering from PTSD.
Nothing but blatant, pointless, useless fear mongering. Please cut that out, NOTHING bad is going to happen just because same sex marriage was legalized, NOTHING. Seriously, didn't the "rapture" fiascoes teach you anything? Various Christians predicted the coming of the so called rapture on 1844, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1978, 1994, and 2011, and guess what happened on each of these predicted years? Thats right ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
After seven FAILED attempts to predict the end of the world you think you people would've learned that fear mongering does NOTHING but make you look paranoid. Now, you could easily turn around and say that "oh well look what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah!" and that would be true, of those two cities actually existed. Unfortunately, archaeologists have found next to no evidence of either city ever having existed in the locations the bible stated they would be. I'm fairly certain that if there were these two ancient citys that were destroyed in a cataclysm that they would have left some sort of evidence behind, ruins, pottery, utencils, ANYTHING. But no, neither Sodom nor Gomorrah has left any such evidence of their existence.
Sheesh, the supposed 2012 doomsday frightened me more than your so-called raptures, at least that doomsday date had scientific/archaeological evidence attributed to it, even if nothing happened.
Either way, religion and evolution can both be used for evil. Christianity and science does a lot of good, though.
And wow, that's quite the wall of text you got there... and nonsensical, off topic ramblings at that.
... I guess it'd be safe to say you're either a troll or underage.
You want a conversation? Fine, lose attitude and we'll see.
If not, I really don't mind. You won't learn anything if you don't want to listen.
Good day and God bless.
He didn't act the part nor respected the original covenant of God with the Jews. Hitler's Nazi Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, has said "The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian".
And yes, Charles Darwin did hold that view, but even so others did not and used it to their advantage to commit horrendous acts, like caging natives and performing live experiments on Jews with the end intent on ending their life.
I suppose it's like using religion to control people, but Hitler's followers couldn't care less for their Fuhrer's Christian belief, and instead followed up on his evolutionist view. They were all lost and confused, scared and hateful.
It all started when Adam and Eve first sinned, suffering and evil was introduced into the world and we were separated from God. We're all sinners, sinning against an eternal God, the price also being an eternal punishment.
The Jews routinely sacrificed unblemished lambs to cover their sins; then God sent the most perfect human being, Jesus Christ, to take away our sins once and for all.
It's sad to see someone like Hitler not accept Jesus and instead went on to kill God's chosen people and encouraged an entire nation to hate them and go on to cause the world's largest genocide.
ZACHOR! Remember and don't have amnesia. Learn from history and so we can avoid making the same mistakes.
i don't mean to be offensive but i'm against stupidity. even my own, at times.
The correct way is to influence human culture so that they on their own evolve towards what you desire them to be.
Evolution can't be forced, only nudged.
Also, when this world pass away - I'll simply move to a new universe that is only a couple of billions of years old.
God didn't create this universe, he simply moved in at some point. Maybe to escape the heat-death of his own universe.
And i don't wanna bow down to a deity, i'd rather go through hell if necessary, to become one myself.
Besides that, I very much doubt that you are eligible to go to Hell, anyway.
I don't really know why I'm commenting here anyway. This stamp doesn't apply to me, and I'm leaving now. Good bye!
I'm not stupid enough to actually hang out in such a place.
Also, i'm not gonna take the escalators, i prefer the stairs - They seem much safer.
You want a world without God? You're gonna get it.
still needs a lot of work, though.
or that our suffering proves God doesn't exist?