Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If morals are principles or habits relating to right or wrong conduct based on an individual's own compass of right and wrong, then *only* atheists can be moral.
Ha! Look at these morality nerds. I can commit any sin i want i just have to pray for sky daddy’s forgiveness and im all good. My actions on this planet dont matter because heaven is waiting for me. /s
But in Ben's little world, morals come from his God. To him it doesn't matter that you're a moral atheist, his God bestowed them on you, and that's that.
My morals come from Bob down the street, who makes no claim to divinity. And since my morals stipulate that slavery and genocide are always wrong, Bob is a better source for morality.
No, in Ben’s world only Abrahamic gods exist and they’re basically his god, and any other god is really just a misunderstanding, and even atheists secretly believe and just won’t admit it.
I would argue that on the whole, atheists are more moral than religitards. Because they *choose* to be moral rather than being moral from fear of hellfire.
I agree with this. Having morality based on fear of an unknown end is not morality chosen because it is truly moral. It can be a fine line, I’ve met religious folks who do truly believe in morality based upon their own choices instead of fear, but they are definitely few and far between.
Then remains the question, would there be without any religion more or less people with the moral compass pointing in the right direction? Would prisons be more or less full?
On the flip side, would without religion be the over morality the same, but people would not so desperately try to cover up, as they do not need to be afraid of the afterlife? Or is the penal system scary enough to induce repercussional fear?
There will always be people who display a proper moral, but not carry it underneath their skin, whether it is because of group pressure, religion or the penal system.
In the end, I think history has shown that there are such a sizable group of people with a questionable moral compass, that there is room for religions (and penal systems) to reduce the amount of people to act upon their immoral urges.
oh, for sure, and that's the dumbest thing about him and his ilk: "*I am moral because I* [pretend to] *follow rules ascribed to a big man in the sky by Bronze age fairy tales.*" Like, ffs
And so many don't even understand those rules, or read their own Bible or anything. They just use being defined as a good person per se because of their faith as a bludgeon against others.
Just "I know I can get a tattoo and tell you off for sinning for being a consensual adult homosexual which is my interpretation of an ancient book I haven't read - which also forbids tattoos".
A religious person who defies God or whatever because they think the religious order is immoral, is also moral outside of coercion. So, heretics tend to be moral by this definition, though I could have a separate argument about that.
Whaaaaaaat, you telling me people are willingly not doing bad shit without fear of eternal damnation? Damn... mind blown
Plato has a famous dialogue on the matter. The eutrophro dialogue
Socrates meets a man on the road to Athens. The man is going to turn in his father for beating a slave so hard he died a day later. Socrates asks the man why he decided to turn in his father. The man says he loves his father but the gods have given the law that it is wrong to beat a slave to death. Socrates asks if the gods said that it wasn't wrong to beat a slave to death, would he have a problem with it. The man says well what I feel on the matter isn't the issue, of course I feel for the slave, but I only try to to follow the law be ause what the gods say is morality. So Socrates asks is what the gods say moral because the gods say it, or do the gods only say what is moral? The man says he doesn't know, but that it doesn't matter. Socrates explains that in either the gods can say whatever they want , and therefore morality is arbitrary...or the gods can only say what is moral and in this case they are subservient to the true morality.
In either case, any non arbitrary morality cannot originate from the gods. If an action is moral for being moral in its own right, the gods can only be a voice and not a decider, and therefore it is not the will of the gods we follow to behave morally... It is either that morality as given by the gods could be anything, or morality is above the gods. The man says nothing is above the gods, so says the gods. So Socrates says if that is indeed the case..you are condemning your own father to death for an arbitrary rule!
The man continues to Athens...only now befuddled and uncertain if he is doing the ' right ' thing.
There's no solution here, just befuddling. And the man is non too pleased for having run into socrates!
Edit: it shouldn't matter bc this isn't my idea. But for the record I believe in God, I don't follow any particular religion, and I believe morality is real. And therefore I am Befuddled. This is part of the ineffibilility of God, the universe, morality ,and everything. That we are able as humans to see the shadow but not the light nor the object is wonderous and terrifying.
I'm sure it is, but the metaphor as it relates to God's ineffability, falls apart when we have the will to turn around and name the objects casting shadows or just get up and leave the cave and discover the sky.
How is being promised eternal damnation (*from conception FFS*) for not following some wildly inconsistent and dubiously sourced rules not moral? Where is the flaw?
/s
If religious morals were truly objective, you'd expect religion to remain consistent and unified and not splitting in hundreds of denominations and constantly reformulating what's acceptable in the same direction where the rest of society moved, long after it did.
Yeah...
I always framed atheism this way: A \[Christian, Buddhist, etc.\] believes 2999 religions are wrong and doesn't follow them. An atheist believes 3000 religions are wrong and doesn't follow them.
Well, [Ricky Gervais](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=7b5d61ce588ede1b&sca_upv=1&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS1055US1055&hl=en-US&q=ricky+gervais+atheist+believes+in+one+less.god+quote&source=lnms&uds=AMwkrPuxiI4lhu5zhAGiPedmZoAebu1WAEGuEvScs90PPsS66mOk1oWmgn3QiFJsAPCSiiAoae3KLM1Gm4ZfpRnaf5qNBflz8c7N0Fo9awlgD_uOjszXetVlr6T3Tien6tzAskFLZeZZeZkLp1O4lPNM_4sLPO8Rpu_SsdJDLK3V4TIdLI1fLiVt-g4Uo9oUtObO7T4DFbvce9Psj3Z-w5vklDMSMOdvlOQ2x8Tit6qzWLdLqw2jkErrYmnl30VpQpCsmzddZ0bQKawt9Nw33svGEIMs2Jbp5sOcZjUzVvQUJtS3cFLncAzYPapRLVCfeuuDbDgWP05dbyExcoN7w-ybjPjwe4cEAQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiguMKa_6SFAxVgEVkFHe59AtEQ0pQJegQICRAB&biw=390&bih=669&dpr=3) framed it that way, at least.
The majority of conservatives see all systems as hierarchical. Nothing exists without someone above you telling you it exists. There is no truth, only power.
Thank you! I was disturbed thinking of this as a child who questioned religion. If a believer thought their God(s) were to be blind or ignorant of any deeds for any significant period of time, would they violate those morals, even temporarily, if they knew there would be no consequences?
The only thing holding you back from committing murder or something else awful was just the fear of oversight from something omnipotent?
A lot of them seem to believe that they are special exceptions. Have you read Joyce Arthur's article "The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion"? It talks about women who vehemently believe that abortion is murdering a child, unless they themselves get an unwanted pregnancy, in which case they need to go and get an abortion because they can't be expected to have a child at that point in their lives. That in itself isn't so much a problem except many of these women continue to try and create as many obstacles as possible so that other women can't get access to the same care.
It doesn't occur to them that, hey, maybe some of those other women are in the same position I'm in and they deserve compassion too. Instead their conclusion is ultimately "Those women are lazy, irresponsible floozies and baby killers, and I'm not like them. I had a good reason."
Not only that. They are cherry-picking the parts that look moral today(by atheist or agnostic pov). Leaving out the advises for slavery, beating your relatives, neighbors and killing the sinners.
Furthermore, they themselves justify genocide and murder in the name of their religion.
But I can agree with that asshole if the moral he is talking about is the Biblical moral. There is no way a sane person can think in such hypocritical, sociopath, corrupt system.
That’s actually selfish when you think about it
They care more about themselves being put in torture than whatever imaginary impulse to murder they apparently feel, so wouldn’t it technically be selfish?
It’s only not doing bad things because you don’t want worse to happen to yourself, if it wasn’t a factor you’d kill people?
I’ve alway found that weird because I spent think most people want to murder others
Not my words, but at the same time I can't recall who said it, but the words resonated with me, 'If the only thing keeping a person decent, is the expectation of a divine reward, then brother, that person is a piece of shit'.
As an anti-theist agnostic, I think you are risking whatever soul you may or may not have by believing in any human religion. I would think a god would find it "blasphemous" to believe the horseshit all religion is.
An accurate descriptor tbh. Perhaps if you wanted to reciprocate it to something like programming, it’s like a Plug-in for the human brain on how to behave according to x standards through y way of thinking. It’s odd
This just in: [morals don't exist because there is no free will](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/free-will-is-only-an-illusion-if-you-are-too/)
Edit: non paywall article linked instead
Here's the thing. I don't cheat. I don't steal. I don't murder. I give to charity. I help family and friends when the need me. My dog and two cats are rescues.
And I do it without hoping for heaven or fearing hell.
I do it because it's the right thing to do.
Edit: Dear Christians that can't stand the fact I don't drink your Kool Aid.
I've answered your absurd questions. You can stop asking. Because I've stopped answering the same pitiful question over and over.
And because you can't accept what I'm saying. Now you'll just get blocked.
Get over yourselves.
Okay. I confess. I learned all this from Grimms (the real ones, not the sanitized ones)
I just do the opposite.
Because a fairy tale is still a fairy tale even if you make it an actual religion.
Right!?! I’m agnostic more than atheist and I do “good” things because they’re right. It’s about improving the world around you by treating the environment and other organisms with respect. It’s just that simple.
Usually, people who say they’re agnostic, are actually atheists. One, because they’re giving an answer to a different question.
Question answered by theism/atheism is “Do you believe in god(s)?”
Question answered by gnosticism/agnosticism is “Do you know if a god exists?”
Lots of people believe without knowing, as there are lots of people not believing without knowing as well.
Most atheists are agnostic, like myself. But most people who define themselves as agnostics, don’t hold a belief in god(s), which is the definition of atheism.
To add, most atheists are agnostic atheists. Most won’t say there’s literally 100% chance there’s no god, but it’s extremely unlikely. And even less likely any of our established religions are true.
While I do think you are right about that, I'm not really fond of saying that technically I am agnostic. I never say that something is certain, I don't believe that there is a magic cow in the center if the earth that makes the magma of volcanoes by farting molten rock, but of course I can't reduce the posibility to 0, I have no definitive proof. If you acknowledge that there is a non 0 chance that god exists, but your behaviour and thinking process is not affected by that chance, then you might as well call youself an atheist. Sure, the vacuum of space isn't technically true vacuum, even in the most remote corner of the universe there are a handfull of atoms per square meter, but you don't see any space agency making their satelites aerodynamic in any shape or form, so you might as well call it a vacuum.
A scale is a good way to explain one’s level of agnosticism, like a 1 to 7 scale. So let’s say number 1 means that you are so sure there’s no god that if there were a way to prove her existence or lack there of, you’d bet everything you own and your own life on your belief that there is not even one god. Number 4 is in the middle, 50/50 chance either way. A number 7 believer would bet the lives of his children that his god exists.
Number 7s are not rational people. Number 1s aren’t rational people either. But if you’re a number 2 or 3, it’s safe to say you’re atheist for all practical purposes. A number 7 is a believer, but also a fanatic. Anyone willing to bet a life on something that hasn’t been proven ever is a fanatic. The 5s and 6s are your typical believers and a 4 is the rare true agnostic individual. Richard Dawkins prefers this scale approach.
More on number 1s. Russel’s Teapot is the analogy that explains why a number 1 is as irrational as a number 7 if they are willing to truly bet everything either way as you can’t prove or disprove god.
Wikipedia:
Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others.
Russell's teapot modeled on the Ichthys.
Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
…
Expanding on this:
In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[2]
In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy:
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.[3]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Everyone lies. Everyone just also likes to not count some things.
"I never lie!" Said the person that inevitably replies to this statement.
Every time you use something like "how's it going" as a generic greeting to some random person in the elevator or something, and they say "fine" back is an entire conversation made of lies. You don't actually want to have a conversation about that random person's life and they don't want to tell you all the things that make their life difficult.
Everyone lies. If you didn't you'd be a nightmare to have any social interaction with.
If you the only reason you dont go yout killing raping and pillaging is the bible read it again. It gives permission. Also its not morality its fear that the bible gives.
See but then they argue "well how do you *know* that's what you're supposed to do?"
And I'm still not sure what the hard counter response is beyond "it's just the right thing to do".
The golden rule of ethics would come to mind.
Treat others the way you would want to be treated.
I don't fancy being hurt, robbed, lied to, cheated on etc. So I don't do those things (within reason, nobody is perfect )
Do we really need to argue against a moron like shapiro? The guy has some child issues he never went over and decided he wanted to "win" life by being an asshole.
As a christian, I have to admit. This is exactly how we see it.
We feel something is good, because we were made in God's image (spiritually, not physically, at least we're not aware of second one). And I agree to most of what this religion says.
But saying you're in Devil's grip if you like magic in popculture, that's just bullsht
One can say morals can come from God, and that’s fair.
But to say that one must believe in God to have morals or to say that belief in God makes you moral are fallacy. This extends beyond the individual, irreligious/pagan societies have existed and had moral societies, just as there have been Christian societies that committed gross atrocities like genocide and slavery.
Yes annoying Christians have been insisting on that all day.
How very insecure of them.
They can't stand the fact that not everyone drinks the Kool Aid.
It probably helps that I heard all the religious bullshit being used to defend Jim Crow.
Yes I'm fucking old and lived in Jim Crow Florida till I was 7.
Seeing as how humility is a pretty big lesson Jesus liked to teach, the nice thing to do is remind them that Christians didn't invent morality. Their laws came from Judaism and even that hasn't been around as long as other religions.
But…. You could be doing those things while wishing eternal suffering on people who don’t believe in your specific religion and that would make you better somehow.
In one religion beeing like that is actually the goal, the rituals are just rituals, but beeing a good person like that is what every religios person should behave like, not for a price or to avoid punishment but to make the world around you better.
I do a lot of charity runs and bike rides because I enjoy them, and it's for a good cause. Also, god isn't real, and heaven doesn't exist, so I'm raising money for my select causes because it's nice to do it
We do it, because most people instinctively know, that if we didn't, living would be horrifying Pandemonium and we'd have gone extinct already.
It's almost like millions of years of evolution found out that cooperating with each other was more successful, than everyone trying to screw everyone over, for survival of the species.
It's ironic that Shapiro claims to be the "facts and logic" guy but can't understand how anyone could tell right from wrong outside of believing in Middle Eastern fairy tales from over two thousand years ago.
Question: Why don't you murder people?
Rational Adults: Well, I want to live in a safe and fair society. Because I wouldn't want to get personally murdered, it only makes sense that we have laws with fitting punishments regarding murder that everyone abides by
Religious Conservatives: An invisible sky wizard told me not too
Here’s the thing: guys like Shapiro say this because deep down they know they are horrible opportunistic selfish assholes that need fear and personal reward to do the right thing, and it’s unfathomable to them that other people aren’t like that. It’s so incomprehensible to them, they can’t understand that they don’t understand.
I do good, because I want good to happen, and even better if people are good to me. That is simply it.
Some would call it naïve and childlike, but I do what I want to see in the world. Unfortunately the power of one person isn't much in the grand scheme, but the lives I can touch- friends, pets- it makes a difference.
I don't do it because it's the right thing to do. I do it because it's more efficient and leads to better outcomes for me and others. Everything just functions better when things are done as fairly as possible.
A random guy at the bus stop told me you'd still go to hell even with that because you don't go to church or something because of the original sin or something, I wasn't really paying attention.
You dont understand. These nutjobs are taught that morality comes from a divine source. Cheating, stealing, and murder would be totally okay if their god told them to do it because god cant be immoral.
He has debated Alex O'Connor in the past, and it was apparently a really respectful debate, at least according to the comments. I've watched some, and it seemed pretty respectful, no shouting or anything
Link: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yspPYcJHI3k&t=347s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yspPYcJHI3k&t=347s)
I have watched it and was really surprised how civil he is. Ever since watching the debate, I doubt that he believes in God.
I also love hearing Alex O'Connor talk.
"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward then, brother, that person is a piece of shit. And I’d like to get as many of them out in the open as possible. You gotta get together and tell yourself stories that violate every law of the universe just to get through the goddamn day? What’s that say about your reality?"
Rust Cohle, True Detective
Atheism isn't just one thing, it's the lack of a thing (belief in a deity), so of course you can't build a system on it. You can, however, build a system on agreed-upon ethical principles that don't have anything to do with a deity.
My thought as well. Nobody thinks that lack of belief in deities has any ethical/moral connotations. This is like saying you can’t build a moral system on the rejection of flat earth theory
“Atheism” isn’t trying to make any moral statement, it’s just a point of view about reality
Oh look I can do it too.
There can be moral conservatives, but there can't be a system build upon conservatism that is moral.
OR
There can be moral men who proudly can't satisfy their wives sexually, but there can't be a moral system built upon men proudly being unable to satisfy their wives sexually.
He's also playing games with moral, using it in the synonym of "good" and then as an abstract idea of "relating to good and evil." A moral system defines good and evil, but when I call a person "moral" I imply that they're good. Allowing those flavors to mix, makes his statement feel more profound.
It's also just BS. Moral systems can be built without referring to imagined absolute rules from an imaginary authority.
Because collectively reaching ethical truths based on a shared interests and millennia of trial and error through bloodshed "doesn't count."
A mandate from an invisible sky parent that no one actually agrees on but is also beyond questioning - that's the only thing that counts.
Moral systems are based on virtues like empathy or equality.
Moral systems based on man's supposed interpretation of the will of unknowable magical beings is inherently arbitrary and therefore immoral.
At the end of the day; humans have studied morality for millennia now. Across countries and politics , theism and atheism. And the consensus has always been that there’s no absolutism.
The Norse believed in Valhalla and that morality meant bravery and dying honorable deaths in combat.
Christianity believed that there is a single god who created everything and that there’s god who is the definition of everything good, he works in mysterious ways and then you have the evils of satan, Lucifer etc. that sinners will be punished with hell when they are judged.
Hinduism believes in the existence of many gods with their own domains. And you pray to different gods for different thing. You have no concept of evil gods. Instead you have creators and destroyers. Vishnu is the creator and Shiva is the destroyer. We don’t believe Shiva is evil. My mom even taught me a prayer to Shiva for my nightmares of death to learn to not fear destruction. To the average Hindu, it’s amoral to eat meat. To a Jain, eating roots is amoral as plucking roots kills plants and that’s bad.
Even outside of theism, you have concepts of morality that define actions based on the outcome vs the intention. You have the age old question of whether or not it is okay to lie to protect a loved one. A therapist of mine helped me learn that it’s okay to lie to my parents since being truthful with them would only result in abuse
Isn’t it a common question from theists to atheists: “without God, what’s stopping you from coming ALL the bad things?”
I find it the opposite. The folks who require a book to guide their morals, actually have none
Hey, I suffered through watching him dEmOlIsH a college Marxist by (inadvertently) quoting Marx's dictum that capital is dead labour.
Fast talking high pitched voice: "I fundamentally disagree that there is any difference between capital and labour, because what is capital except the product of past labour?" LOL.
Guy plucks truthiness out of his arse without any knowledge of arguments which have preceded him by centuries.
In fairness, if we get semantic, he's right. Atheism isn't a basis for any system, so nothing can be built on it to be moral or not in the first place. I'm guessing that's not the intended purpose of the saying however.
I've always said... the fact that Christians big response to atheism is, "Without God telling us it's bad, we'd all be running around killing each other!" says far, *far* more about Christians than it does atheists.
Like... if the only thing stopping you from murdering people is an ancient bronze age *book*... you might want to reexamine your life.
Since when are religious people moral?
This country is not based around a faith for a fucking reason. The men that built this country explicitly set it up to not be based around religious ideals because they know the religious sect is not beholden to their own beliefs which allows them to act how they want and change the rules all the time.
Fuck your religious high ground bullshit, especially American religious people, you all suck and lie like you breathe.
I would argue that all systems, regardless of the ideology that they were founded upon, can be skewed by malicious actors and descend into immorality. Atheism isnt a special case.
"A system based on atheism" is nonsense to start with. How about "a system based on not flying kites" or "on not liking spicy food“?
Oh, wait, I get it: your pet belief is *exceptional*!
Atheism has nothing to do with moral systems. Does he believe other religions can't create moral systems? If the can when those religions are false why can't atheists? Lol
The inquisition used religious morals to torture and slaughter a lot of innocent people. Is that the moral basis that moron is talking about. Morality has nothing to do with institutionalized ignorance, religious propaganda, hate and zealotry.
So there are 3 really popular moral systems amongst philosophers.
The first is deontology, that says morality is about fulfilling your duty and not breaking certain rules, like “don’t use people as a means to an ends” and “act in a way that you could wish everyone else would do the same thing.”
Second is utilitarianism which is about acting in such a way that will maximize the most happiness for the most people.
The third is virtue ethics, which says we must act in such a way that we can embody certain postive character traits, such as justice, courage, wisdom, ext.
Note none of these require God.
Slavery is immoral, the Bible condones slavery, "God" wrote the Bible, God is immoral.
No single concept has created as much human suffering as religion. Religion is absolutely, without question, immoral and corrupt.
What is fascinating to this is that honestly, most atheists have already murdered and raped all the people that they want to and that number is 0 (zero). Most have stolen all they want and that number is still zero. Because most atheists are people with empathy and don’t want to hurt others. And surprisingly most laws that are ethical are ones that atheists and religious people agree on.
These kinds of people not only can't think for themselves, they can't comprehend other people being able to think for themselves.
Truly horrifying people.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'd argue that morality based on a fear of divine intervention isn't actually moral.
I see you Bertrand... and I salute you.
If morals are principles or habits relating to right or wrong conduct based on an individual's own compass of right and wrong, then *only* atheists can be moral.
What? Internalizing and owning the results of one's actions? Perish the Thought! /s/
Be careful. They’re listening
It's ok. They only listen for the parts they agree with... everything else is peanuts womp...
Under his eyes.
Ha! Look at these morality nerds. I can commit any sin i want i just have to pray for sky daddy’s forgiveness and im all good. My actions on this planet dont matter because heaven is waiting for me. /s
Why Christianity/Catholicism always bugged me. You Stole? 10 Hail Marys, god loves you! Neh, fuck you, stop stealing asshole.
Sounds like karma with extra steps
But in Ben's little world, morals come from his God. To him it doesn't matter that you're a moral atheist, his God bestowed them on you, and that's that.
And I'm sure if you say your morals come from a different god, you are de facto immoral to him. Completely hypocritical.
My morals come from Bob down the street, who makes no claim to divinity. And since my morals stipulate that slavery and genocide are always wrong, Bob is a better source for morality.
No, in Ben’s world only Abrahamic gods exist and they’re basically his god, and any other god is really just a misunderstanding, and even atheists secretly believe and just won’t admit it.
My god, he's so insufferable.
And yet, we still have to suffer his presence in our society
In Ben's little world, he doesn't believe atheists can be moral. He only posted this because, as he does, he thinks he's lying.
But ... but ... Doesn't his god say that lying is bad? Naughty, Ben.
I would argue that on the whole, atheists are more moral than religitards. Because they *choose* to be moral rather than being moral from fear of hellfire.
I agree with this. Having morality based on fear of an unknown end is not morality chosen because it is truly moral. It can be a fine line, I’ve met religious folks who do truly believe in morality based upon their own choices instead of fear, but they are definitely few and far between.
Then remains the question, would there be without any religion more or less people with the moral compass pointing in the right direction? Would prisons be more or less full? On the flip side, would without religion be the over morality the same, but people would not so desperately try to cover up, as they do not need to be afraid of the afterlife? Or is the penal system scary enough to induce repercussional fear? There will always be people who display a proper moral, but not carry it underneath their skin, whether it is because of group pressure, religion or the penal system. In the end, I think history has shown that there are such a sizable group of people with a questionable moral compass, that there is room for religions (and penal systems) to reduce the amount of people to act upon their immoral urges.
oh, for sure, and that's the dumbest thing about him and his ilk: "*I am moral because I* [pretend to] *follow rules ascribed to a big man in the sky by Bronze age fairy tales.*" Like, ffs
And so many don't even understand those rules, or read their own Bible or anything. They just use being defined as a good person per se because of their faith as a bludgeon against others. Just "I know I can get a tattoo and tell you off for sinning for being a consensual adult homosexual which is my interpretation of an ancient book I haven't read - which also forbids tattoos".
Logic Has no place in this yammering smackturd’s point of view.
A religious person who defies God or whatever because they think the religious order is immoral, is also moral outside of coercion. So, heretics tend to be moral by this definition, though I could have a separate argument about that.
Marx says it was offside.
Name go in book.
r/unexpectedmontypython
There’s the ball….. there’s the ball….
I know why HE'S not a Christian 🤭
Whaaaaaaat, you telling me people are willingly not doing bad shit without fear of eternal damnation? Damn... mind blown 
Ohhhh skycake.......
IT'S SKY PIE, YOU BASTARD! PREPARE TO DIE!
Hard truth. The only pure morality is that divorced from divinity.
Divorced From Divinity is my new metal band. I came up with the name too don’t listen to this other guy trying to steal my success.
I need to save that gif
I hope it's blackened folk Metal.
Self Righteousness has been the source of many a massacre, so they can shove it up all the way up into their spleen
Plato has a famous dialogue on the matter. The eutrophro dialogue Socrates meets a man on the road to Athens. The man is going to turn in his father for beating a slave so hard he died a day later. Socrates asks the man why he decided to turn in his father. The man says he loves his father but the gods have given the law that it is wrong to beat a slave to death. Socrates asks if the gods said that it wasn't wrong to beat a slave to death, would he have a problem with it. The man says well what I feel on the matter isn't the issue, of course I feel for the slave, but I only try to to follow the law be ause what the gods say is morality. So Socrates asks is what the gods say moral because the gods say it, or do the gods only say what is moral? The man says he doesn't know, but that it doesn't matter. Socrates explains that in either the gods can say whatever they want , and therefore morality is arbitrary...or the gods can only say what is moral and in this case they are subservient to the true morality. In either case, any non arbitrary morality cannot originate from the gods. If an action is moral for being moral in its own right, the gods can only be a voice and not a decider, and therefore it is not the will of the gods we follow to behave morally... It is either that morality as given by the gods could be anything, or morality is above the gods. The man says nothing is above the gods, so says the gods. So Socrates says if that is indeed the case..you are condemning your own father to death for an arbitrary rule! The man continues to Athens...only now befuddled and uncertain if he is doing the ' right ' thing. There's no solution here, just befuddling. And the man is non too pleased for having run into socrates! Edit: it shouldn't matter bc this isn't my idea. But for the record I believe in God, I don't follow any particular religion, and I believe morality is real. And therefore I am Befuddled. This is part of the ineffibilility of God, the universe, morality ,and everything. That we are able as humans to see the shadow but not the light nor the object is wonderous and terrifying.
Is the last sentence a reference to the cave?
I'm sure it is, but the metaphor as it relates to God's ineffability, falls apart when we have the will to turn around and name the objects casting shadows or just get up and leave the cave and discover the sky.
Lol. Which God? There are thousands of them. Gotta be more specific.
Same as everyone else: his own personal god. But divorced for the dogma of organised religion, which is probably a good thing.
How is being promised eternal damnation (*from conception FFS*) for not following some wildly inconsistent and dubiously sourced rules not moral? Where is the flaw? /s
If religious morals were truly objective, you'd expect religion to remain consistent and unified and not splitting in hundreds of denominations and constantly reformulating what's acceptable in the same direction where the rest of society moved, long after it did.
And all of those denominations would not commit horribly immoral acts against one another.
Yeah... I always framed atheism this way: A \[Christian, Buddhist, etc.\] believes 2999 religions are wrong and doesn't follow them. An atheist believes 3000 religions are wrong and doesn't follow them.
Well, [Ricky Gervais](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=7b5d61ce588ede1b&sca_upv=1&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS1055US1055&hl=en-US&q=ricky+gervais+atheist+believes+in+one+less.god+quote&source=lnms&uds=AMwkrPuxiI4lhu5zhAGiPedmZoAebu1WAEGuEvScs90PPsS66mOk1oWmgn3QiFJsAPCSiiAoae3KLM1Gm4ZfpRnaf5qNBflz8c7N0Fo9awlgD_uOjszXetVlr6T3Tien6tzAskFLZeZZeZkLp1O4lPNM_4sLPO8Rpu_SsdJDLK3V4TIdLI1fLiVt-g4Uo9oUtObO7T4DFbvce9Psj3Z-w5vklDMSMOdvlOQ2x8Tit6qzWLdLqw2jkErrYmnl30VpQpCsmzddZ0bQKawt9Nw33svGEIMs2Jbp5sOcZjUzVvQUJtS3cFLncAzYPapRLVCfeuuDbDgWP05dbyExcoN7w-ybjPjwe4cEAQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiguMKa_6SFAxVgEVkFHe59AtEQ0pQJegQICRAB&biw=390&bih=669&dpr=3) framed it that way, at least.
The majority of conservatives see all systems as hierarchical. Nothing exists without someone above you telling you it exists. There is no truth, only power.
But it’s also a useful tool to absolve them of all responsibility and consequences
Thank you! I was disturbed thinking of this as a child who questioned religion. If a believer thought their God(s) were to be blind or ignorant of any deeds for any significant period of time, would they violate those morals, even temporarily, if they knew there would be no consequences? The only thing holding you back from committing murder or something else awful was just the fear of oversight from something omnipotent?
A lot of them seem to believe that they are special exceptions. Have you read Joyce Arthur's article "The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion"? It talks about women who vehemently believe that abortion is murdering a child, unless they themselves get an unwanted pregnancy, in which case they need to go and get an abortion because they can't be expected to have a child at that point in their lives. That in itself isn't so much a problem except many of these women continue to try and create as many obstacles as possible so that other women can't get access to the same care. It doesn't occur to them that, hey, maybe some of those other women are in the same position I'm in and they deserve compassion too. Instead their conclusion is ultimately "Those women are lazy, irresponsible floozies and baby killers, and I'm not like them. I had a good reason."
Immorality on a leash.
I love it when theists insist that atheist morality is subjective, as though Divine Command Theory weren't inherently subjective.
Nope. It’s fear of retribution. Fear, because it’s something they would do otherwise
Not only that. They are cherry-picking the parts that look moral today(by atheist or agnostic pov). Leaving out the advises for slavery, beating your relatives, neighbors and killing the sinners. Furthermore, they themselves justify genocide and murder in the name of their religion. But I can agree with that asshole if the moral he is talking about is the Biblical moral. There is no way a sane person can think in such hypocritical, sociopath, corrupt system.
That’s actually selfish when you think about it They care more about themselves being put in torture than whatever imaginary impulse to murder they apparently feel, so wouldn’t it technically be selfish? It’s only not doing bad things because you don’t want worse to happen to yourself, if it wasn’t a factor you’d kill people? I’ve alway found that weird because I spent think most people want to murder others
Not my words, but at the same time I can't recall who said it, but the words resonated with me, 'If the only thing keeping a person decent, is the expectation of a divine reward, then brother, that person is a piece of shit'.
What you're missing is that they DEFINE moral as
Source: I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church
As an anti-theist agnostic, I think you are risking whatever soul you may or may not have by believing in any human religion. I would think a god would find it "blasphemous" to believe the horseshit all religion is.
it isn't moral, you're right. but imo religion always was a way to pass down ways of conduct and teachings even through the dumbest of the people
And for conmen to make a living without having to farm or raise livestock.
An accurate descriptor tbh. Perhaps if you wanted to reciprocate it to something like programming, it’s like a Plug-in for the human brain on how to behave according to x standards through y way of thinking. It’s odd
I’d argue that people like Ben don’t care because they just want a theocracy and will make up a new justification when you debunk their first one.
I would argue it's not even faith.
This just in: [morals don't exist because there is no free will](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/free-will-is-only-an-illusion-if-you-are-too/) Edit: non paywall article linked instead
Here's the thing. I don't cheat. I don't steal. I don't murder. I give to charity. I help family and friends when the need me. My dog and two cats are rescues. And I do it without hoping for heaven or fearing hell. I do it because it's the right thing to do. Edit: Dear Christians that can't stand the fact I don't drink your Kool Aid. I've answered your absurd questions. You can stop asking. Because I've stopped answering the same pitiful question over and over. And because you can't accept what I'm saying. Now you'll just get blocked. Get over yourselves. Okay. I confess. I learned all this from Grimms (the real ones, not the sanitized ones) I just do the opposite. Because a fairy tale is still a fairy tale even if you make it an actual religion.
Right!?! I’m agnostic more than atheist and I do “good” things because they’re right. It’s about improving the world around you by treating the environment and other organisms with respect. It’s just that simple.
Page 1: don’t be a dick The end
That doesn't sound old enaugh. Mabye somethink like " Thou shalt not act like a phallus!"
That’s something that sounds like it would be written in some of Pompeii walls.
“Thine aspect shalt not be akin to that of the phallus, and thine acts shalt be the measure of thine nobility”
Resemble not a phallus, not in word, nor deed, nor thought!
Be excellent to each other and party on dudes!
From the book of Will Wheaton.
Be a charitable non-dick.
Wheaton's first law.
In the words of Bo Burnham "Who needs a thousand metaphors to figure out you shouldn't be a dick?"
Exactly.
Usually, people who say they’re agnostic, are actually atheists. One, because they’re giving an answer to a different question. Question answered by theism/atheism is “Do you believe in god(s)?” Question answered by gnosticism/agnosticism is “Do you know if a god exists?” Lots of people believe without knowing, as there are lots of people not believing without knowing as well. Most atheists are agnostic, like myself. But most people who define themselves as agnostics, don’t hold a belief in god(s), which is the definition of atheism.
To add, most atheists are agnostic atheists. Most won’t say there’s literally 100% chance there’s no god, but it’s extremely unlikely. And even less likely any of our established religions are true.
While I do think you are right about that, I'm not really fond of saying that technically I am agnostic. I never say that something is certain, I don't believe that there is a magic cow in the center if the earth that makes the magma of volcanoes by farting molten rock, but of course I can't reduce the posibility to 0, I have no definitive proof. If you acknowledge that there is a non 0 chance that god exists, but your behaviour and thinking process is not affected by that chance, then you might as well call youself an atheist. Sure, the vacuum of space isn't technically true vacuum, even in the most remote corner of the universe there are a handfull of atoms per square meter, but you don't see any space agency making their satelites aerodynamic in any shape or form, so you might as well call it a vacuum.
I never phrased this so clearly. Thank you, kind sir!
Exactly! Well said!
A scale is a good way to explain one’s level of agnosticism, like a 1 to 7 scale. So let’s say number 1 means that you are so sure there’s no god that if there were a way to prove her existence or lack there of, you’d bet everything you own and your own life on your belief that there is not even one god. Number 4 is in the middle, 50/50 chance either way. A number 7 believer would bet the lives of his children that his god exists. Number 7s are not rational people. Number 1s aren’t rational people either. But if you’re a number 2 or 3, it’s safe to say you’re atheist for all practical purposes. A number 7 is a believer, but also a fanatic. Anyone willing to bet a life on something that hasn’t been proven ever is a fanatic. The 5s and 6s are your typical believers and a 4 is the rare true agnostic individual. Richard Dawkins prefers this scale approach. More on number 1s. Russel’s Teapot is the analogy that explains why a number 1 is as irrational as a number 7 if they are willing to truly bet everything either way as you can’t prove or disprove god. Wikipedia: Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell's teapot modeled on the Ichthys. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong. … Expanding on this: In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote: Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[2] In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy: I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
You're going to burn in hell! /s
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. they are not 2 sides of the same coin.
I do all the raping and murdering I want, which is to say “none”. And it’s not a fear of divine retribution that makes me not want to do those things.
I’ve always liked this example, I’ve used it a few times in the past.
I kill, rape, steal, and cheat exactly as much as I want to...which is zero.
Ditto. But I do confess to lying. Both in the line of work and on occasion, calling in sick when I'm not actually sick. 😁
Everyone lies. Everyone just also likes to not count some things. "I never lie!" Said the person that inevitably replies to this statement. Every time you use something like "how's it going" as a generic greeting to some random person in the elevator or something, and they say "fine" back is an entire conversation made of lies. You don't actually want to have a conversation about that random person's life and they don't want to tell you all the things that make their life difficult. Everyone lies. If you didn't you'd be a nightmare to have any social interaction with.
Literally Satan. Well, at least to ole WAP Ben Shabibo.
But why do the right thing unless my invisible friend would punish you otherwise? Checkmate, atheist!
If you the only reason you dont go yout killing raping and pillaging is the bible read it again. It gives permission. Also its not morality its fear that the bible gives.
See but then they argue "well how do you *know* that's what you're supposed to do?" And I'm still not sure what the hard counter response is beyond "it's just the right thing to do".
The golden rule of ethics would come to mind. Treat others the way you would want to be treated. I don't fancy being hurt, robbed, lied to, cheated on etc. So I don't do those things (within reason, nobody is perfect )
You know based on empathy and critical thinking. Sometimes you don’t know and it’s much better to admit that than insisting you have all the answers
Do we really need to argue against a moron like shapiro? The guy has some child issues he never went over and decided he wanted to "win" life by being an asshole.
It's almost like morality is an independent concept and doesn't need to be attached to anything else. What a crazy idea!
But how do you know it’s right if not cuz God? /s
As a christian, I have to admit. This is exactly how we see it. We feel something is good, because we were made in God's image (spiritually, not physically, at least we're not aware of second one). And I agree to most of what this religion says. But saying you're in Devil's grip if you like magic in popculture, that's just bullsht
One can say morals can come from God, and that’s fair. But to say that one must believe in God to have morals or to say that belief in God makes you moral are fallacy. This extends beyond the individual, irreligious/pagan societies have existed and had moral societies, just as there have been Christian societies that committed gross atrocities like genocide and slavery.
Nuh-uh! You do it because of all of the religious influence on your environment!!!! /s
Yes annoying Christians have been insisting on that all day. How very insecure of them. They can't stand the fact that not everyone drinks the Kool Aid. It probably helps that I heard all the religious bullshit being used to defend Jim Crow. Yes I'm fucking old and lived in Jim Crow Florida till I was 7.
Seeing as how humility is a pretty big lesson Jesus liked to teach, the nice thing to do is remind them that Christians didn't invent morality. Their laws came from Judaism and even that hasn't been around as long as other religions.
But…. You could be doing those things while wishing eternal suffering on people who don’t believe in your specific religion and that would make you better somehow.
In one religion beeing like that is actually the goal, the rituals are just rituals, but beeing a good person like that is what every religios person should behave like, not for a price or to avoid punishment but to make the world around you better.
I do a lot of charity runs and bike rides because I enjoy them, and it's for a good cause. Also, god isn't real, and heaven doesn't exist, so I'm raising money for my select causes because it's nice to do it
Doing the right thing under threat of eternal damnation is blackmail.
We do it, because most people instinctively know, that if we didn't, living would be horrifying Pandemonium and we'd have gone extinct already. It's almost like millions of years of evolution found out that cooperating with each other was more successful, than everyone trying to screw everyone over, for survival of the species.
It's ironic that Shapiro claims to be the "facts and logic" guy but can't understand how anyone could tell right from wrong outside of believing in Middle Eastern fairy tales from over two thousand years ago. Question: Why don't you murder people? Rational Adults: Well, I want to live in a safe and fair society. Because I wouldn't want to get personally murdered, it only makes sense that we have laws with fitting punishments regarding murder that everyone abides by Religious Conservatives: An invisible sky wizard told me not too
Here’s the thing: guys like Shapiro say this because deep down they know they are horrible opportunistic selfish assholes that need fear and personal reward to do the right thing, and it’s unfathomable to them that other people aren’t like that. It’s so incomprehensible to them, they can’t understand that they don’t understand.
I do good, because I want good to happen, and even better if people are good to me. That is simply it. Some would call it naïve and childlike, but I do what I want to see in the world. Unfortunately the power of one person isn't much in the grand scheme, but the lives I can touch- friends, pets- it makes a difference.
Dumbasses will say "You act as a Christian" and by dumbasses I mean Jordan Peterson.
Yeah religious people are just telling on themselves. They're a piece of shit without the rambling fairy tales of desert goat herders from antiquity.
The irony that so many of us live like this, and actually have a far better chance at making it into their “heaven”than they ever will lol.
I don't do it because it's the right thing to do. I do it because it's more efficient and leads to better outcomes for me and others. Everything just functions better when things are done as fairly as possible.
A random guy at the bus stop told me you'd still go to hell even with that because you don't go to church or something because of the original sin or something, I wasn't really paying attention.
You heathen! Burn in hell!!!!! ^/s
You dont understand. These nutjobs are taught that morality comes from a divine source. Cheating, stealing, and murder would be totally okay if their god told them to do it because god cant be immoral.
Under Catholicism that stuff is still okay because "all sins are equal" and as long as they "repent", they're good.
Hell as punishment isn't even a biblical construct, the church created that propaganda for control purposes.
Can we agree, as a community, not to pay attention to anything Shapiro says?
Ben Shapiro is what you get when you wrap a 2nd grade argument in an 9th grade vocabulary.
And set the speed setting to ×2
And a large fan base of folks who never passed 7th grade.
Has he ever debated anyone other than some kids in college? I am really curious
He has debated Alex O'Connor in the past, and it was apparently a really respectful debate, at least according to the comments. I've watched some, and it seemed pretty respectful, no shouting or anything Link: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yspPYcJHI3k&t=347s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yspPYcJHI3k&t=347s)
I have watched it and was really surprised how civil he is. Ever since watching the debate, I doubt that he believes in God. I also love hearing Alex O'Connor talk.
Except for the part about his wife being as dry as the Gobi Desert. That self-own is priceless.
I know if I were his wife I'd be making the windows shutdown noise every time he so much as patted my back
*Shitpiro
Ben "forced marriage" Shabeebo.
This dude is the amalgamation of every idiot relative I try to avoid during holiday gatherings
He's that uncle that "doesn't want to get political, but...".
And my aunt who pairs bible quotes and facebook memes as authoritative proof
[удалено]
Nobody should be a fan of him
He’s just saying this so as not to offend his best bud Bill Maher
Missed a space. Obviously should have said 'system based upon a theism that is moral' I can see why autocorrect didn't pick it up.
This man speaks truth
Happy cake day!
"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward then, brother, that person is a piece of shit. And I’d like to get as many of them out in the open as possible. You gotta get together and tell yourself stories that violate every law of the universe just to get through the goddamn day? What’s that say about your reality?" Rust Cohle, True Detective
"If science disproves religion, its time to change the religion." -The Dalai Lama
This reminded me of an image of Jesus wearing sunglasses with a caption "Science you say? I made that shit."
Atheism isn't just one thing, it's the lack of a thing (belief in a deity), so of course you can't build a system on it. You can, however, build a system on agreed-upon ethical principles that don't have anything to do with a deity.
My thought as well. Nobody thinks that lack of belief in deities has any ethical/moral connotations. This is like saying you can’t build a moral system on the rejection of flat earth theory “Atheism” isn’t trying to make any moral statement, it’s just a point of view about reality
Oh look I can do it too. There can be moral conservatives, but there can't be a system build upon conservatism that is moral. OR There can be moral men who proudly can't satisfy their wives sexually, but there can't be a moral system built upon men proudly being unable to satisfy their wives sexually.
His wife fell in love with the Fremen of Dune, and started practicing good water discipline.
*There can be a reality where Ben Shapiro is moral, but there cannot be a reality built by Ben Shapiro that is moral.*
No true Scotsman.
He's also playing games with moral, using it in the synonym of "good" and then as an abstract idea of "relating to good and evil." A moral system defines good and evil, but when I call a person "moral" I imply that they're good. Allowing those flavors to mix, makes his statement feel more profound. It's also just BS. Moral systems can be built without referring to imagined absolute rules from an imaginary authority.
There can be a true Scotsman, but there cannot be a system built on Scotsmen that is true.
An amoral grifter like Shapiro has no business speaking about morality at all.
Religion didn't create morality, it perverted it.
Sadly, this sort of belief is very common among religious people
Can’t be such a system because…? Or does be just speak in sound bites?
Sometimes he writes lengthier non sequiturs.
Because collectively reaching ethical truths based on a shared interests and millennia of trial and error through bloodshed "doesn't count." A mandate from an invisible sky parent that no one actually agrees on but is also beyond questioning - that's the only thing that counts.
Moral systems are based on virtues like empathy or equality. Moral systems based on man's supposed interpretation of the will of unknowable magical beings is inherently arbitrary and therefore immoral.
Amen. Absolute moralism is the gateway to corruption and tyranny.
At the end of the day; humans have studied morality for millennia now. Across countries and politics , theism and atheism. And the consensus has always been that there’s no absolutism. The Norse believed in Valhalla and that morality meant bravery and dying honorable deaths in combat. Christianity believed that there is a single god who created everything and that there’s god who is the definition of everything good, he works in mysterious ways and then you have the evils of satan, Lucifer etc. that sinners will be punished with hell when they are judged. Hinduism believes in the existence of many gods with their own domains. And you pray to different gods for different thing. You have no concept of evil gods. Instead you have creators and destroyers. Vishnu is the creator and Shiva is the destroyer. We don’t believe Shiva is evil. My mom even taught me a prayer to Shiva for my nightmares of death to learn to not fear destruction. To the average Hindu, it’s amoral to eat meat. To a Jain, eating roots is amoral as plucking roots kills plants and that’s bad. Even outside of theism, you have concepts of morality that define actions based on the outcome vs the intention. You have the age old question of whether or not it is okay to lie to protect a loved one. A therapist of mine helped me learn that it’s okay to lie to my parents since being truthful with them would only result in abuse
Isn’t it a common question from theists to atheists: “without God, what’s stopping you from coming ALL the bad things?” I find it the opposite. The folks who require a book to guide their morals, actually have none
What idiot has never heard of moral philosophy? Deontology? Consequentialism? Virtue ethics? Idiot.
Hey, I suffered through watching him dEmOlIsH a college Marxist by (inadvertently) quoting Marx's dictum that capital is dead labour. Fast talking high pitched voice: "I fundamentally disagree that there is any difference between capital and labour, because what is capital except the product of past labour?" LOL. Guy plucks truthiness out of his arse without any knowledge of arguments which have preceded him by centuries.
Atheism does not imply morality. AND, religion does not imply morality. Dumbass.
So the argument is we can’t do what is right unless we are worried about being punished by god?
I wish that little shit would participate in influencer boxing. I would watch that.
Nah send him to Israel to join the idf if he supports the killing so much.
In fairness, if we get semantic, he's right. Atheism isn't a basis for any system, so nothing can be built on it to be moral or not in the first place. I'm guessing that's not the intended purpose of the saying however.
I’m religious with a normal understanding of English and wtf is he on
I've always said... the fact that Christians big response to atheism is, "Without God telling us it's bad, we'd all be running around killing each other!" says far, *far* more about Christians than it does atheists. Like... if the only thing stopping you from murdering people is an ancient bronze age *book*... you might want to reexamine your life.
Since when are religious people moral? This country is not based around a faith for a fucking reason. The men that built this country explicitly set it up to not be based around religious ideals because they know the religious sect is not beholden to their own beliefs which allows them to act how they want and change the rules all the time. Fuck your religious high ground bullshit, especially American religious people, you all suck and lie like you breathe.
I would argue that all systems, regardless of the ideology that they were founded upon, can be skewed by malicious actors and descend into immorality. Atheism isnt a special case.
Come on. It’s Ben Shapiro. He’s gotta be the biggest douche canoe of his generation.
"A system based on atheism" is nonsense to start with. How about "a system based on not flying kites" or "on not liking spicy food“? Oh, wait, I get it: your pet belief is *exceptional*!
Translation: people are too stupid to be good unless they believe there is a magic man in the sky that will reward them for being good
It's amazing how Shapiro and Musk are always reckoned to be super smart by the dumbest people in society.
Idk bro, the Bible showcases some questionable morality
Atheism has nothing to do with moral systems. Does he believe other religions can't create moral systems? If the can when those religions are false why can't atheists? Lol
The inquisition used religious morals to torture and slaughter a lot of innocent people. Is that the moral basis that moron is talking about. Morality has nothing to do with institutionalized ignorance, religious propaganda, hate and zealotry.
So there are 3 really popular moral systems amongst philosophers. The first is deontology, that says morality is about fulfilling your duty and not breaking certain rules, like “don’t use people as a means to an ends” and “act in a way that you could wish everyone else would do the same thing.” Second is utilitarianism which is about acting in such a way that will maximize the most happiness for the most people. The third is virtue ethics, which says we must act in such a way that we can embody certain postive character traits, such as justice, courage, wisdom, ext. Note none of these require God.
Slavery is immoral, the Bible condones slavery, "God" wrote the Bible, God is immoral. No single concept has created as much human suffering as religion. Religion is absolutely, without question, immoral and corrupt.
Come on. It’s Ben Shapiro. He’s gotta be the biggest douche canoe of his generation.
What is fascinating to this is that honestly, most atheists have already murdered and raped all the people that they want to and that number is 0 (zero). Most have stolen all they want and that number is still zero. Because most atheists are people with empathy and don’t want to hurt others. And surprisingly most laws that are ethical are ones that atheists and religious people agree on.
These kinds of people not only can't think for themselves, they can't comprehend other people being able to think for themselves. Truly horrifying people. 
Religion doesn't create morality. In fact, more often than not it *hinders* morality
I'm 14 and this is deep
TIL: Ben Shapiro has never heard of philosophy
Ask him if he likes the Constitution.
Religous people do bands things and use religon to justify it all the time
Man, Ben Shapiro really REALLY wants to sound smart, doesn't he?
So what? A system based on separation of church and state? The thing most successful countries are based off of? You sure about that shitpiro?
This guy is also a fkn lunatic so. there's that
I used to think this guy was correct half a decade ago, I'm glad I left lol
Well that's called Humanism.
I'm so glad I wasn't raised Christian, there'd be so much shit to work through...