Exactly you just proved it. Morality without God isn’t real, it’s a personal or social preference. You follow it because it feels good, not because it must be followed. That’s the very definition of coping, borrowing the structure of right and wrong while denying its true foundation.
because it doesn't feel good to me. my genetics inform me that acting in that way is disgusting, and also my genetic inform me through my understand of 2nd and 3rd order consequences, that allowing psychopaths to roam freely and do as they please is not way to run society, as eventually i might end up the victim of the psycopath. it doesn't contradict the concept of moral nihilism
morality and god are both social constructs
Yet again you just admitted you’re borrowing society’s rules and consequences to guide your behavior. That’s the problem you act as if right and wrong exist, while claiming morality is purely genetic. You can’t have it both ways. True moral nihilism means there’s no obligation at all, yet you still rely on structures outside yourself to justify your actions. That’s coping using the appearance of morality while denying its foundation.
Yes but the ubermensch does not know what based is
Sure, people create social rules and concepts of God but that doesn’t erase the truth behind them. Just because humans recognize or formalize something doesn’t mean it’s invented out of nothing. Morality as a social construct still points to an underlying reality humans respond to harm, fairness, and order because these reflect real consequences. Calling God or morality ‘social constructs’ doesn’t explain why every society independently recognizes similar principles that universality hints at something deeper than mere invention.
But right or wrong is not found in the world, if God exists what do he has to say about our human civilization? How do we determine if killing animals is right or wrong if most humans are eating them. To put moral standards as humans we need conventions, remember when uneducated people could not vote? Now they can and we are still selecting the wrong corrupted leaders. Morals are reduced to standards, your voice is the main force. Sometimes violence is necessary. When you affirm what's right and wrong exists, you are submitting everyone to your standards.
Yes but the ubermensch does not know what based is
mirin post
Then read something else
i don't care if right or wrong exist, i just care about what feels good to me and also what maximizes my and my group of genetic cohort's surival. you should only care about yourself and people who are like you(who share your genes)
Exactly belief in God isn’t the problem it’s the human corruption of it. That actually strengthens the point morality and meaning aren’t invalidated because religion is flawed, they just get distorted when humans meddle. Recognizing God without following every altered rule shows discernment, not weakness. The core truth exists independent of human error and that’s what most atheists or critics overlook.
i believe in god but not morality i am the opposite of a soytheist
So your argument is that morals are just conventions, yet you act as if right and wrong actually matter. You complain about corrupted leaders and voting, but that already presumes an objective standard of justice and harm. If morality is purely human, then violence, deception, or exploitation aren’t ‘wrong’ they’re just popular or unpopular choices. Claiming otherwise is exactly what I mean by coping: borrowing the authority of right and wrong while denying its true foundation.
So your morals exist only to feel good and protect your genetic cohort? That’s exactly the point without God, morality is reduced to self-interest and tribalism. You act as if it matters universally, yet it’s just biology dictating preference. That’s coping pretending your instincts are moral law, while borrowing the very sense of right and wrong you claim doesn’t exist.
Lowest IQ, huh? Funny calling out a thread without addressing a single point is the hallmark of someone too afraid to engage with reality. Critique ideas,not cowardice.That’s how debates are won not by throwing insults from the sidelines.
what's wrong with that? you think a tiger cares if it's right or wrong to kill a deer. these concepts are not real things that exist. they are cognitive aberrations born out of self awareness.
Exactly you admit morality is just what feels good and protects your tribe. But that’s the point: you act like right and wrong exist universally while admitting it’s all biology and social conditioning. Pretending instincts are moral law doesn’t make them binding it’s coping, plain and simple. If morality is just a cognitive aberration, then your ‘framework’ has no more claim to truth than mine yet humans instinctively recognize fairness, harm, and justice beyond mere survival. That universality hints at something greater than genes or post hoc rationalizations
The concepts of justice and law were man made, everything is. We have a law codes since Babilonia, we have concepts of justice since the Greeks or Vedic era. These concepts are actually philosophy not religion, those are discussed in philosophy debates. Anything else is use of power and freedom, this is what I believe. If you need to believe in God you need an autority to manage your life, like a dad saying what you need to accomplish, therefore not using your actual reason to decide if what "God" says should be followed or not. Obviously not all morals are based on reason some are based on feelings as well, this speaks about more the nature of humans.
You say your morals are nothing but genes and ‘what feels good,’ and you wear that like a banner. Fine if survival instincts are all you’re selling, then admit the full logic cruelty, deception, and tribal violence are morally permissible whenever they ‘feel’ advantageous. Tell me then what stops you from praising a man who murders for his tribe? Only the very moral intuition you pretend is mere biology, you act like your framework is neutral. It isn’t it’s raw self interest dressed up in pseudo science,while you smugly reduce morality to genetics, every functioning human society throughout history developed rules against wanton harm, not because genes commanded it in the moment, but because wiser men learned,that order beats chaos. You cling to the convenience of moral nihilism until it bites you then you beg for the very norms you denied,if your position is honest, live it declare that the strong may do as they please and watch civilization devour you. If you value survival, then adopt the practices that preserve people beyond your cohort restraint, justice, fidelity and stop pretending these are mere whims. Your so called ‘genetic code’ offers no authority, no binding duty, and no answer when tyranny rises. That contradiction is your defeat. You’ve built your argument on quicksand I brought the siege engines. Decide stand by your theory in full, or accept the moral architecture that actually keeps us alive.
yes, might is right. every law of the universe whether physical, chemical, or biology comports with this notion. i am for committing atrocities on black people for what they're doing, what they have been doing, and what they will do on account of their genetic regression to the mean:
So now you say justice and law are just man-made philosophy, yet you still act as if they matter, as if societies ought to follow them,that’s the contradiction if morality and law are optional inventions, why lament abuses of power or celebrate fairness? Civilization itself answers the question societies that ignored these principles collapsed, those that honored them endured. You pretend to observe reality neutrally, but you’re already borrowing moral authority every time you judge or reason about human flourishing. Denying objective morality while relying on its effects is exactly what I mean by coping.
So now you reduce justice, law, and morality to inventions, yet you still argue as if they matter universally. You claim God is just a parental authority we don’t need, yet your reasoning itself borrows the very principles you deny are binding fairness, restraint, survival of society. You point to feelings as part of human nature, but feelings alone cannot explain why civilizations that ignored restraint collapsed while those that honored it endured. You have built a tower of argument on sand: denying objective morality while leaning on its fruits. The phalanx of history tramples every system that treats right and wrong as optional. Recognize it, or watch your reasoning fall like a city without walls.
You stand here and call for atrocities as if you wear courage on your sleeve. That is not courage it is barbarism dressed as pseudo‑science. Your logic collapses into two thingsraw hatred and a fantasy of domination,might makes right’ is a mantra of tyrants and the ruin of empires. History does not celebrate those who murder for imagined purity it buries them and their regimes under the weight of justice and human condemnation.You appeal to ‘genes’ as though that explains morality it doesn’t it explains nothing and justifies less. If you truly believe in survival, study history: regimes that practiced racial slaughter destroyed themselves, leaving only blood, ruin, and retribution. Civilization survives by restraint, rule of law, and mutual trust not by satisfying petty cruelty or imagined genetic grudges, Genes explain biology, not morality. Using ‘genetics’ to justify murder is monstrous and scientifically bankrupt. That’s not philosophy that’s a crime.
you parade history to say ‘we made law’ and then act surprised we use law to judge behavior that’s the contradiction you hide from,if moral rules are merely invention, why mourn injustice? Why educate, legislate, or punish? Civilizations that treated right and wrong as optional collapsed into violence and ruin,those that enshrined restraint endured and prospered,you claim philosophy freed us from a paternal God, yet your own arguments rely on the fruits of the very moral architecture you deny. Either live entirely by your creed celebrate tribal survival and the strong’s whims or accept that some principles function like truths because they preserve life and community,the choice is simple: build, or burn empires are carved from restraint and law, not nihilism. Your theory fails the field test, the phalanx of reality has already marched through it.
You ask: if objective moral truth exists, does it apply only to humans? What of aliens, whose evolution might grant them a different “moral compass” that looks monstrous through our eyes are they sinners? Are they damned? Does the universe play favorites, punishing some creatures while sparing others simply because they were born on Earth? Hear me with the sweep of reason and the authority of history,if moral truth is real, it is not a human-only club,any being capable of moral choice human or alien would stand under its principles, though the demands may differ according to their nature, faculties, and circumstances,Consider this objective moral law is like gravity it does not wink out because a species has a different form. But “applies” does not mean “applies identically.” Just as generals and soldiers are under the same law of war yet have different duties, so too would moral obligations vary with the capacities and needs of any moral agent. An alien might act in ways we find abhorrent, yet either their compass is mistaken relative to objective moral truth, or their nature makes those actions morally appropriate for them. Without a standard, we cannot even judge them at all,the incarnation of Christ as human explains how redemption entered our history, but it does not prove cosmic favoritism,historical necessity dictated a human bridge it does not limit the scope of justice or moral law to our species alone. Likewise, evolutionary explanations for morality cooperation, empathy, reciprocity describe why humans tend to value certain behaviors, not whether those behaviors are truly right,explaining the origin of a value is not the same as justifying it objectively
No, that grotesque caricature isn’t ‘the truth’ of any major faith, it’s a strawman designed to dodge real discussion. If your best retort to serious theology is a fantasy about suicide and virgins, you’ve already lost the debate.
DNR but liked anyways.
It's okay,well based on the obvious number of replies you can see I've dominated,refuted and completely killed every atheist argument like Alexander the great I am undefeated
GAYthiesm taken to its logical conclusion leads to complete total skepticism for literally everything including one’s own existence and leads to nihilism because nothing has meaning things simply just “are” and even then you don’t know what actually “Is” because that requires knowledge which has preconditions that cannot be justified as an GAYthiest.
).
We haven't touched ground yet, we are still discussing morality as a possibility. And my atheist stance can explain more than what your monist God stance about human problems. People lament abuse of power because it violates the principle behind all actions which is sympathy and cooperation, without it there's no society. This would be a law apriori of action, as Adam Smith and Hume remark. People celebrate fairness when the social contract is respected whatever their laws might be, in some societies abortion is seen as good in others as bad. How do you determine if an action is moral or inmoral with God? Nowadays we live in the morals of empathy which are left meaning since it's all about feelings and no rational laws, although the first liberal laws had foundation on Locke's social contract. Religion is a weapon of power when is forced, like what happened to africans and indios when europeans arrived. As for your argument is very general, there has been empires with different religions. In the old age pretty much everyone believed in a superior power no matter if it was an animal or a god. It's very stupid to keep believing in such tales in 2025.
Atheism is cope for those who can’t cope with burning in hell.
Mashallah brother
You’re mixing history, philosophy, and opinion into a stew and calling it ‘atheist clarity.’ But the cracks show. You say morality is sympathy and cooperation, yet admit societies disagree completely on what counts as moral abortion, slavery, warfare, all treated differently across eras. If morality is just sympathy, then the Nazis were ‘moral’ by their own standard, since they cooperated within their group,that’s not morality that’s tribal instinct dressed up with philosophy quotes,you appeal to Hume and Smith, but even they knew sympathy doesn’t create obligation it explains behavior. Obligation requires something beyond personal feeling or social convenience. Otherwise morality is just fashion, changing with the times like hemlines. If today’s empathy says abortion is moral, and tomorrow’s empathy says infanticide is moral, by your logic both are equally valid. That is not law ‘a priori.’ that is relativism,Then you turn to religion as ‘power.’ Yes, religion has been abused by power but so have democracy, science, and every other human institution,the abuse of a thing doesn’t erase its truth. Europeans using Christianity as a sword does not prove Christianity false, only that men twist the sacred for gain just as men twist philosophy or secular ideology into weapons,shall we dismiss reason itself because tyrants have used it to justify genocide?and finally you declare belief in God ‘stupid in 2025.’ But your whole argument rests on invisible standards of fairness, obligation, and truth none of which you can ground in atoms, genes, or sympathy you borrow moral language from a worldview you reject, without God, your sympathy is just a chemical reaction, your cooperation just herd instinct, your fairness just a survival strategy, Call that ‘morality’ if you wish, but it’s not binding, not universal, and not reason it’s preference,you mock the idea of a monist God, yet your own stance can’t explain why anyone should be moral when it costs them. At best you explain why people feel moral impulses. At worst, you excuse every atrocity as just another social contract. That is the poverty of your ‘atheist stance.’ That is why belief has endured through every empire and every age. Ideas built on sand wash away but truth remains.
You’ve just admitted the atheist midwits are full of shit, which is already a victory in itself,But let’s be clear dismissing universal morality as ‘mid-tier deism’ doesn’t save you it exposes you, Because the moment you say morality isn’t universal, you admit it’s just preference, which means you can’t condemn a single atrocity in history. Nazi genocide, slavery, torture all become mere ‘alternative preferences.’ If you recoil from that, you’ve already betrayed your own stance and appealed to something higher than preference.
You’ve already admitted the possibility that the universe is created,now here’s the wager, if there is no soul, no heaven, no hell then nothing matters, and at worst I’ve lived a disciplined, meaningful life shaped by higher principles. But if souls exist, and there is judgment, then the stakes are eternal heaven or hell. In that case, the atheist gamble is the most reckless bet in history.
If you think it’s the opposite, then show the math,ifGod doesn’t exist, believers lose nothing but gain meaning and order in this life,if God does exist, unbelievers lose everything for eternity. Where’s the ‘opposite’ in that? You can mock, but mockery isn’t an argument it’s just proof you’ve got nothing to stand on.
Because I am not a moralist. Societies have been buildt on norms, those norms created laws, laws created habits and people started believing in certain morality that's grounded in history. The problem with religioncopers is that you will always act as God, telling everyone else if what they do is right or wrong based on something said in a religious book, this is not different than being a judge in a court. Your narcissist behavior comes from being deeply brainwashed by a particular religion, but actually there's no need to be christian to experience the kind of social principles that found morality, you probably think that all atheists will act wrong but they might share some behaviors of other religious people such as helping people in need. This is where sympathy comes from, it's in our human brain, not outside the world not in a God that gives us a sense of life. The ability of feeling empathy for example can be emotional or rational, as you might have learned in the different personality archetypes they're not incompatible. I'm taking your divine stance to come back to earth. Atheism is natural, no one is born believing in God, everyone copies their parents behavior and adults follow social norms to fit in. This is a more scientific explanation of morality than your metaphysic philosophy based on a being that has never been proven. Such words as cooperation, social contract, sympathy and fairness can explain a whole lot of human interactions without being biologicism. We should also talk about the social effect of language because most norms are actually rationalized emotions given on language. And as I said before an action can be moral or inmoral depending on the context, even Aristotle (a conservative) knew this. You're just talking about ontology but never about ethics.
You’re confusing description with prescription.
And what do you think I believe about human nature? There's no need for that trascendence. Religioncels always try to ontologyze morality as if human actions were directed by some God outside our bodies. I think the nazis were right; the only thing I would critisize about them is the holocaust in the same way I can not agree with Stalin when he tried to push the economy and many died from hunger. Their plan to take Europe was a reaction to the Versailles pact after the first world war. This is not morality but politics, when states fight each other is not a moral problem but most likely an economic one. About slavery, everyone who is against it has empathy and everyone who is in favor doesn't have it. And obviously morality is a preference, you are the individual deciding how to act. You can decide when to break the law or to not break it based on multiple reasons. Human rights are also a social construct, christians in the old and middle age were in favor of going against muslims because they don't shared the same religion. Helping others is good because it's good for them, if I was an egoist of course I wouldn't say the same thing. If there was no police everyone would show their true standards. Religion gives a sense of obligation just like the goverment, to respect laws that benefit the majority but you have to know it's all in your head.
You’re still confusing consequence with moral principle. Saying “Nazis were right politically” or “slavery is a preference” only proves my point: without God or an objective moral standard, morality is reduced to preference, power, and survival.
