How can one have morals if he does not believe in God, ethics, or judgement for his actions?

How can one have morals if he does not believe in God, ethics, or judgement for his actions?

Why do people do good things when no one's watching?

believing in god doesn't make you a "owner" of these traits either, this logic is flawed

the logic is flawed if you think in that fallacious way, assuming that all people who say they believe in God practice good ethics

moral relativism doesnt mean lack of morals. its just a philosophical version of build-a-bear

well I've never assumed anything so I'm safe

You can achievee an ideal of good based on concepts of reciprocity and collective well being without ever basing ethics on God. You should nonetheless define “God” for the purpose of clarity.

So they could tell people about it later

but no one says anything to anyone if they find someones wallet or watch and bring it to lost and found, majority of people are just not criminals so society can agree that returning the wallet is the only acceptable ethical action

How does God have morals or ethics?

>doing something for a reward/fear of punishment
>morality
Pick one

they dont

le historicism face xddd

Because he is like us.

Next.

daily reminder aquinas answered every pathetic atheist response in this thread in the Summa Theologica

you have to first go to the build-a-bear store before you can build a bear

The abrehamic God is a criminal, I don't see why you'd base your morals on him. Terrible choice, isn't it?

So, we, having God be like us, have morals and ethics?
And so, the answer to: "How can one have morals if he does not believe in God, ethics, or judgement for his actions?", is, "Cause we are."

Daily reminder Aquinas conveniently borrowed all his arguments from polytheists.

Morality stems from humans, not from God, and it isn't some abstract ahistorical set of laws, it's already present and always present in us.

Aristotle would've been a Christian if he wasn't born before Jesus

Aristotle is a saint

stop using words incorrectly

Who even does that?

Yes, most people do. As a matter of fact, we have a very specific psychological diagnosis for people who are incapable of doing good for its own sake. They are called psycho- and sociopaths. To get a diagnosis, you have to be outside of the norm. More people do good because of the internal voice than people who ignore or have no internal conscience.

Rather God having us be like him. Nice little mental gymnastic you did, there.

Let's see what else, the answer to that last question is "Because we were created by him"

stop using speech incorrectly.

But how does God have morals, ethics, or judgement for his actions?

Why should you care about what your conscience says if it's just evolutionary ape-brain programming holding back your big-brained redditor rationalism?

His will is perfect

But "will" comes after morals ethics and judgement.

>this post

Socially blind. People absolutely talk about the events of their day to the people they know, no matter how mundane. Finding a wallet however is not really mundane, it's actually a novel surprise. Therefore people would return it for the event that it comes up in conversation and they have to look like a good person, whether the act of return was disingenuous or sincere, and if they don't return it then they'll go to whatever length to keep the story from coming to surface to avoid being chastised by their social circle, barring that their social circle is also amoral or teenagers: in which case it would actually be bragging rights.

upvoted

>Why should you care about what your conscience says if it's just evolutionary ape-brain programming holding back your big-brained redditor rationalism?
>why should
no reason
But you can try fighting your guilt, shame, conscience etc. We can talk about overcoming human nature, only psychos can. Yet, even they, instead fall into even lower states of nature.

That's incorrect, sweetie.

*sigh*

it's another episode of dumb dumb atheists trying to derive ought from is. . .

Read dostoevsky.
Karamazov brothers, and then, demons.

>It's another episode of dumb christfaggots don't understand that morality is not an a set of laws on a piece of paper but the expression of the collective zeitgeist understood historically
>talks in r*ddit lingo
>tells other to fuck off back to r*ddit

Please explain in more detail

>how can one have morals if he does not believe in ethics
...excuse me?

So its more like a build-a-bear in an abandoned mall where there are still some relics. Workable but not ideal.

>Good
Isn't that just defining good by whatever the majority say it is?
That's like saying it's good to kill everyone over 60 because it will have a collective well being.

God makes the universe with a natural end that he has designed (at least according to Christian theology), hence following the rules that God has given helps to achieve the natural end.
Morals are the rules God has given that lead you to that natural end.

Couldn’t the same be achieved through divine commandement?

His biggest influence was Aristotle who was a monotheist.

That's all wrong since God as a creator deity doesn't exist. ;)

What could exactly?

if this were true than there would be no evil. relying on moral impulses we have no control over alone is a recipe for disaster, especially if you're dealing with people in the out-group.

A disproportioned and unjust rule of killing anyone who fits a certain condition. It happened during the Inquisition. I don’t see how basing one’s ethics on God provides more or less cohesion or reason to principles against a purely secular background.

>It happened during the inquisition.
I'm not seeing where it was commanded by God, but by people.
>Basing it on secular principles
God is unchanging according to most definitions
therefore morality would be unchanging. Can we say the same thing about humanity?

ok, paranoid bitch

Or rather morals ethics and judgment itself proceeds with God's will.

Perhaps God is unity, which is why all of these things are one and emanate from one source?

Fear, insecurity and weakness.

Start with the Sophists

So they can feel good about themselves. Or because they're scared something bad might happen otherwise.

It's a pity that he is not allowed to get into heaven because he never knew Christ.

Some people are capable of believing in something greater than themselves.

This Morals are imitation virtues sold to the weak to comfort their lack of any genuine virtue. The strong person doesn't kill, or steal, or whatever, neither because anyone tells him not to, nor because he thinks it is "morally wrong," nor because he feels "guilt," nor any nonsense like that, but because he does not will to — or maybe he does fancy to in some occasions.

Cynical faggot. Some people have just veen hurt badly enough to want to spare other people from pain.

Most can't. Those who can, belief in God ensures a stronger dedication to doing good

>belief in God ensures a stronger dedication to doing good

this but ironically

lol no, he doesn't because its a waste of time and the weak are pitiful (grotesque but lamentable). Cruelty is done in proportion to its necessity and nothing else. His nature necessitates regular almost gratuitous cruelty but never errs into tyrannical psychopathy. Nietzsche did not advocate sadism at all.

Obviously it wasn't commanded by god, given that there is no god.

Great rebuttal my friend. Have some good and some upvotes.

Religion keeps the morally worthless in check

INNER DAEMON
D A E M O N

read THE APOLOGY

deism =/= theism

why would it have been the christian god lmfao

Read Hegel and Fichte.

I didn't say that user, I just said he believed in one God.
Someone else said he would have been a Christian.