If you believe there is no God, what's the point of having morals or ethics?

men love to protect and take care of women and give them pleasures, they live for this, they live to serve

women love to be taken care of and have men try to fulfill their desire, women live to be served

+> everybody is happy

>they live for this, they live to serve

Actually you got that wrong. I'm sure there are number that feel this way, but I think for the majority men want something the women have [spoiler] dat pussy [/spoiler] and so they give the woman something that she needs that she can't get on her own, security.

This is why religionous people are so pathetic.
The decency and goodness of one's nature became but a way to please what you believe to be your salve master. And the sense of "right or wrong" will change immediately when your lord says so.
Is that what "right" supposed to mean? You're even willing to give up the very sense of justice and ability to judge, and replace them with a "God".

Religion is truely a shame to humanity.

Social animals tend to act for profit of their own group. Human, being very smart animal, is very good at it. Moral and ethics is just simple biology.

Of course there is, you stupid idiot. Group cohesion, evolutionary fitness (to a point - there's diminishing returns past a certain point), the reasonable (and often satisfied) expectation of not being fucked with since you're not fucking with anybody else (in the metaphorical sense of doing injury, now), that type of thing.

Now, if someone else is repeatedly fucking with you without provocation, then much of that goes out the window. And this too is regularly accounted for in historical accounts of ethics. There are various edgy modern ideologies that call for you to destroy your enemies, and even Islam is on board with killing the infidels (the other). But lest you be unsatisfied, remember this: even the Catholics have a formalized notion of Just War.

Between our capacities for intraspecies cooperation and competition, the spheres of ethics and combat can be arranged.

The common good of all mankind. The golden rule.

>Religious folk try to convince people to join their group by fearmongering

Literally proto-SJW

Same reason you want there to be a god so that there can be a point to having morals and ethics. If there weren't a reason and that scares you, there's your reason.

How come there are so many people who worship different gods in history, so many denominations within many religions, and yet you find kind, heroic, and benevolent people, even though their god or way of worship is wrong to you if you accept one of them? The only answer is just, "huh, I guess that's just sometimes people's nature."

...

Atheist morals and ethics are based on how other people will respond to your actions in the physical world. For example, if you go around killing people, you won't be able to live an enjoyable life.

Also Islam, judaism, hinduism,taosim,confucianism monarchism, facism, comunism, totalitarism and anarchism

The golden rule is an ass backwards piece of shit and tells masochists to hurt others.

>Do unto others as THEY would have you do unto them
Simple change that turns the shitty rule into an actual golden rule.

>anarchism
Yes.
>the rest
No.

>hurr durr hypothetical rare exceptions cancel the logic

This is obviously on a community level, not individual to individual.

Alternatively, we can just cull all sadomasochists by making such behaviour a capital punishment. :^)

>This is obviously on a community level
And on the community level it fails just as hard. See: disagreements between communities, like muslim retards who want to force Sharia law on other people.

Face it, the only way the golden rule works is if it's told to a five year old, whose only moral reasoning is "I wouldn't want THAT to happen to me, better not do it to others", which is purely an appeal to egoism.

Being a functional member of a society.

Don't we have this thread daily (or at least every 2nd day). And it always ends up the same.

Also morals and ethics are subject to change, so all points out we make up our own morals and ethics.
Why we do that? Ask evolutionary biologists.

WE NEVER HAD THIS FUCKING THREAD BEFORE

NOPE

NEVER

Roll.

>Wasserstein
So ice? Fuck, even as a Jew I'm poor.

A high standard of living?

Are you fucking joking? Can you honestly see no benefit to everyone being paragons of virtue besides everyone going to heaven. Really.

...

>morals
>ethics
Getting hella spooky there dude.

What, you mean obvious stuff like no inter-group stealing, raping, or killing? The obvious answer there is social cohesion.

As far as robbing/raping/killing outside groups the reasons there are more complicated but can be roughly summarized as modern warfare is destructive and hurts your own standard of living as much as it does the enemy.

If you mean stuff like don't masturbate, smoke weed or fuck whores then the answer there is that there isn't any moral or ethical reason not to do those things.

Empathy, successfully conducting yourself in society, maintaining your own personal conception of self.

>not understanding that Stirnerian reasoning allows all morals and ethics

No John, you are the spooked.

There are plenty of practical reasons not to fuck whores and do tons of drugs.

Masturbation is pretty harmless though, that's true. It's become a fairly embarassing issue for people whose religion forbids it since the prior medical consensus that it caused bad morals or blidness or whatever has been so thoroughly discredited.

dice sounds.

lets see

Rolling

Because life is still worth living when you aren't being fucked by everyone around you.

>what's the point if sky daddy doesn't tell me what's right

Because you hope other people have morals and ethics so nobody fucks you over, and if people discover you have neither they'll avoid you like the plague.

Shiphraim Katzenberg

naisu

If you believe there is a God, what's the point of having morals or ethics?

if you do believe there's a god, whats the point in living being so fucking stupid?

Because they benefit you biologically

rool

Are you implying that master morality is superior?

you can live happily
God enjoys tormenting you

No the same user but yes master morality is superior because it's regenerative not degenerative. I disagree with human rights being degenerate but other than that he was correct.

>ITT Spooks

>Higher powers have to exist to determine morality
>Higher powers have to exist for there to be a point to emotions that are inherently human

Every time.

Fucking Christfags.

>I need a point to life or I should just kill myself
fixed

You need morals and ethics in society for it to continue existing in the long run. Immorality brings about self-destruction

I get off on other peoples' well being

to not be a cunt.

Don't be a cunt, you don't need a skydaddy to stop you doing that.

Just... don't...

... be a cunt.

There is only one step to this program.

Why?

rollin dem ancient temple lamb bones

rollin oy vey

There is no point.

Our "morals" become what our emotions deem acceptable and what the all powerful State allows us to do.

It's how I live now. Some days I give a shit about the poor and will give them water and food, other days they can fuck themselves.

No morality too it.

Schlomo Wasserbach

Because if you don't we'll be a cunt to you

Show me potato salad

It still annoys me how that those retards consider those as jew names, especally -owsky what is variation of typical Polish name ends -ski.
But roll anyway.

>Schmudiah Katzenbaum
Whatever I got double dubs.

since atheists have no objective morality, they can't say shit to a mass murderer or mass child molester.

if we're just the result of an arbitrary, impersonal evolutionary process of atoms, then who are you to tell a murderer what they do is "bad"?

I don't want to be harmed so I deem harming people as bad.

Just kosher my shit up rabbi

People who think this way concern me. Is a belief in a higher power the only thing keeping you from murdering and molesting?

The holy scripture doesn't really have an opinion on child molesting. Where did you get a wild idea that child molesting is bad, theistfag?

Thankfully we all know God exists because we do have morals and are set upart purposely from other creations.

Religion is a subset of morality, not the other way around.
Before humans invented gods, they invented ways to deal with each other.

Because I want to.

What's your take on psychopaths then.....no empathy, no guilt, no sense of right or wrong, infinitely selfish, and no desire for helping fellow man.
Oh and you can't fix them.....you can convince them though that a God in the sky is always watching and ready to punish.

Not everyone is as kind hearted as you.

>Oh and you can't fix them.....you can convince them though that a God in the sky is always watching and ready to punish.
There's no need for fucking up their already far-gone psyche, my christard friend. If they don't follow the law they get put in the looney bin.

I'm not a christfag but thanks for trying to figure me out.

I do however believe that religion, as manipulative as it is, was amazing damage control for a percentage of the population who lack basic decency, altruism, and empathy.....especially in a time period where modern policing didn't exist.

It was a way to bring the cop into their heads and police this percentage of the population.

And not effectively obviously.....but it was good for its time.

We still don't have any astounding methods for dealing with them. And they plague the world still.

>no sky daddy = no point to life

????

Just Soros my shit up.

>not understanding that Stirnerian reasoning allows all morals and ethics

While it allows it - because it allows bloody everything - it doesn't mean you have to forget what it is and specially what it's not.

Personal ethics and moral is for you and you alone, unless you use them as tool to make dumb people do your bidding, it don't matter, because you know what you're doing and why you're doing it, you're not fooled by the idea that you're doing "something good", you're doing something to please yourself.

Using spooks like morals and ethics as an argument is a tool like any other, sadly, anybody can also see that it is deeply flawed and that it gets you nowhere into the discussion, hence why morals and ethics aren't good arguments.

>Ye old "you ought to" meme"

oy vey

The idea of self interest is incoherent, because interests are shaped by something beyond the self.

OP: What's the point of being a good person if you aren't going to get rewarded for it later (or be brutally punished for not)?

Normal, non-sociopathic person: My motivation for being a good person is that I judge it to be the decent and right thing to do. I personally hold myself to a standard of behaviour which involves not hurting people needlessly, treating others with respect, being honest, not stealing, because I am not a cunt. i do all of this not as some cost-benefit analysis I've undertaken to get a reward in the end. I don't need a future award, or brutal punishment as an incentive to be a decent person. I just choose to be a decent person.

Hell I'd argue that if you're only being moral/good because it will get you into heaven, then you aren't doing 'good' or being moral AT ALL. You're just selfishly chasing your own ends, that other people may benefit is just an externality.

tl;dr: if the only thing preventing you from not being a horrible cunt is the threat of hell, and the only thing motivating you to be a decent person is the promise of heaven, then you are quite literally a sociopath, unironically.

There's a reason why being a bad person is correlated with a lack of long term thinking. It's because all action is taken with the assumption that it will "matter". The damaging actions of a sociopath ultimately amount to nothing because all traces of the bad get scrubbed away. Long-term thinking means you see that taking certain actions is the same as taking no action, and choose to avoid them.

To keep society civilized.

>self interest is incoherent because interests are shaped by something that you cannot really pinpoint or prove exist

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. You could be a determinist or even compatibilist about it and tell me that my spooky "interests" are just made up things created by my environment, but at the end of the day your consciousness (or subconsciousness for the "unlighted normies") is the one trying to calculate the better outcome for you. Yes, it might not always be what you want, but you are still actively working in your best interest, be it on the long or short run.

If believing in God goes hand in hand with your interests, go at it, use them spooks as tools bud

If you think you can get more without it, same thing in my book

You will always go with your Ego. And if you think you aren't, you're just being proper spooked, because I betcha your ego get quite the kick from being perceived as "holier than thou" to anons online - well, some people do anyway

What is and isn't in your Ego's interest is arguable, and riddled with spooks. But like I said, ain't nothing wrong with spooks, as long as you know what they are

You really need to sit down and think through what you're saying here. Which essentially boils down to,

>if I wasn't a Christain, then i couldn't tell a mass child murderer what they did was wrong/bad

Think about that for a while. without your faith, you literally couldn't judge your childs killer as bad? You are THAT morally lost, you are THAT far away from having any moral views of your own, any sense of justice or bad/right/wrong of your own, that without your book the most heinous crimes you could not call bad?

Why would you not be able to recognize that a mass murderer did was bad, without your faith? This is actually concerning to me. It' like you people truly have no sense of morality at all, and ACTUALLY need this book to tell you what is self evident to almost everyone else.

Either you're a complete psychopath bordering on autism, you just truly do not have any moral sense, or you're being stupid and made a stupid post to try and trip up atheists witj your stupid logic.

I sincerely hope it's the second optoin. The idea that there are people in the world who are completely morally blind, lost in the dark with no sense of right or wrong without their holy book is worrying to say the least.

what if you lost your faith? would you just go round killing people running people over stealing shitting in the supermarket because you just have literally n o fucking idea what is good and what is bad and what is right conduct?

You don't need a point, values, morals, anything.
But when you realize that, you ask yourself, what do I want?

I do want to be a good person because I admire good people and think their actions are beneficial, I admire courage, honesty and fairness as well, and I do want to live because I enjoy most of my life.

In short, instead of letting god spook you, you spook yourself because you feel like it.

Btw: not even an atheist just an agnostic, there is not even a point to choosing and I don't really mind either way so I normally ignore it.

"I want you to masturbate me"
"Right away sir"

It might not be provable now, but we're plenty far along.

Do some reading about Virtue Ethics or Eudaimonics.

>then who are you to tell a murderer what they do is "bad"?

Unless I'm the one giving out the punishment to the murderer, I really don't have that authority. The authority goes to whoever has the has the most power and force their will the most.

This power is currently by owned the government.

People usually don't murder each other left and right because that would disrupt the current social cohesion of this current society. I like the feelings of "doing good" and being "a good person," and positive emotions like love and peace, being content, and all those other emotions. It's nice to live in a place where we don't harm each other, that I don't have to fear for my safety, at least I thinks it's nice. Of course, my morals are shaped by the the society I was born in, If I was born someplace else I would have different morals, but I have the choice to reject them or not if I please.

I mean, "murder is bad" isn't really clear cut. Soldiers murder people, but we justify it. During the Crusades, people were allowed to murder in the name of God.

Morals are based on whoever is in power and can uphold those morals.

People have feelings, if you need the threat of eternal punishment to consider that, you wouldn't pass either way.

[money lending intensifies]

arbeit macht frei

> The authority goes to whoever has the has the most power and force their will the most.
Is that a descriptive or a normative claim? If it's a descriptive, then it's okay. If it's normative, then I disagree with that kratic position.

>Soldiers murder people, but we justify it.
Murder is by definition a form of unlawful killing. For legal positivists, soldiers are legally justified to kill, so they by definition don't murder people.

>Morals are based on whoever is in power and can uphold those morals.
Only law is upheld by those in power, not morals.

oy vey roll

The point isn't that Christianity grants morality, rather that it explains and reaffirms it. In an Atheistic system, there would be no justification for morality, which would contradict the inherent morality common to all of humanity.

>inherent morality
No tho ?

It's worse when Christianity's "explanation" for morality ends up being some at best some cute fiction and at worse a sick delusion.

Far better to address the realities of social and individual actions and determine universal commonalities while preserving unique human dignity, rather than superimposing some magical worldview.

Belief in any particular God is clearly not a requirement for acknowledging commonly held moral behaviors.

>rather than superimposing some magical worldview.
What is is it with fedora wearing fuckwits thinking religions come out of some small underground cult as a means of indoctrinating the masses into a radically different moral system, rather that it being a system of beliefs contextualised by the society in which the religion is born and develops in?