Why does atheism generally lead to a breakdown in morality and ethics in the name of (((science)))?

>Sorry if your so called Christian values have become irrelevant

>implying Christianity is the only religion in the world

>all religion is same
Says the guy enjoying a civilization his devout Christian forefathers built.

>his devout Christian forefathers built.
hmmmm

hmm, scientists and capitalists built it, not because they were "devout Christians", but because they were scientists and capitalists

In order to progress in science and technology, there can be no possible taboo too great to breach when in search for the inexorable truth. Indeed, some of the greatest revelations of science and industry arise when people seek to prove their moral and ethical superiority, or are spurred on by a religious purpose- only to find another truth, unrelated entirely.

>Says the guy enjoying a civilization his devout Christian forefathers built.

You misspelled "deists".

>Why does God need proof of his existence?
Because he makes demands of people.

>he is some /b/ type attention whore
Considering among these demands is worship of him and no other gods, following his laws to the letter, and the fact that in the Bible has thrown the most horrendous pissy fits over the slightest deviation from his worship, yes, he is in fact an attention whore.

is god an trap?

>generally
So let's assume that what you're saying is true about the European civilisation.
What other atheist societies have there been in history and how did their morality break down in the name of science?

It doesn't and you're delusional or trying to start a pointless shitfest. Fuck off.

why does religion generally lead to a breakdown in morality and ethics in the name of god?

Why does your Æutism generally lead to a shiiting up of this board, guy who's totally not Ælian?

>Dark ages was caused by religion meme.

you must be new.

>I'm an autistic faggot who won't fuck off from Veeky Forums

You must be Ælian

this

Why do these anti-thiests think the church created the black plague?

Are you implying abortion is something new or only happens in atheistic societies?

You make a big claim, you must provide some big evidence. I'm sure a big guy like you can handle it.

Firstly, do you have some example of this happening?

Secondly can you fuck off to /pol/ ?

Its a miscarriage posing as an abortion. Such images are very popular on the internet, where the peasants react emotionally to them and continue to be outraged without informing themselves.

*tips facts*

Okay. So why does religion generally lead to a regression into dark age in the name of (((god)))?

>It would imply that he is some /b/ type attention whore.
i think the "love me or burn in the eternal hell i created for you" more than implies that

I am God. No, I don't need to prove it, God doesn't need proof.
Now I demand of you to sacrifice your pet. God wills it. I will it. Go with my blessing.

>Christian values have become irrelevant in the western society
Nah, they are just the core of it

The idea that human life is holy and sacred is on the way out. Abortion, human testing, assisted suicide, these are all becoming more popular in developed countries.
Christianity is going away and, funnily enough, the very satanist views of transhumanism are advancing.

I was just joking, but you should check out Weber's theories about the Christian/Protestant (Lutherans, Calvinists, Pietists et al) ideological divide in the concept of work as sacred and the evolution of Capitalism in nations where the latter was the mainstream ideology.

Depends on how the masses approach to atheism.
If they approach after a personal evaluation while keeping in mind the pros and cons embracing atheism is a good choice; the problem is that atheism is glamourified, it's trendy to be a god-hater now, what are you some kind of church boy xD? I bet you sucked your priest off. Being atheist because it's trendy will lead you to existential dread later in life, and existential dread without a proper rebuilding phase leads to reckless hedonism.

1. Post proof he's not real
2. Figure out what? If he's real? Read the damn books for that

Because most humans are subhuman that need an emotional inhibitor(morals) to their animal insincts, me as an atheist see this.

The point of the pic is that human fetus already looks human (well, of course it does since it is human, but the point is to remind it to those who irrationally decide it isnt to suit their agenda)
Of course it's not an abortion, abortion cuts the fetus in slices

I don't understand how even an atheist can not be opposed to the act of murdering unborn children because they are "inconvenient", I can not comprehend how a mother can excuse herself from murder by simply claiming she has control over "her body".

You have control over your house too, but you can not throw your child out into the cold and let them freeze to death because you find feeding them inconvenient, legally that's arguably murder and if not it's at least manslaughter and child neglect, not to mention the fact that it is UNDENIABLY immoral by every single reasonable standard. Human beings all have responsibilities in this world that they need to learn to deal with, murder is not an excusable solution for being inconvenienced by someone's existence unless you're some insane anarchist or something.

The fact that this massive child-murdering machine continues to operate on a daily basis fills me with such dread. There is a massacre occurring every single day within our own borders and communities and we can not do anything about it because the victims are deemed "not people" because they are in a womb, or don't posses the arbitrary amount of intelligence required to be considered a person. This is no different from any other genocide at all.

The people who stood by and did nothing while Nazis systematically murdered millions used the exact same excuses we use to justify the killing of unborn children, and I predict we will be judged exactly the same in the future.

your desire to defend life is not genuine
you probrably don't even help with children-focused ngos
you don't care about unborn children at all, it's more about enforcing your morals to others

Lmao I hate humanities

burden of proof is on (You)

Nice armchair psychology, you don't know anything about me at all.

>Post proof he's not real
You can't prove a negative
Prove bigfoot doesn't exist.

The USSR, the Khmer Rouge, Maoist China.

Hilary Clinton in her final debate openly admitted to supporting partial birth abortion and no one batted an eye.

Roe vs Wade has indoctrinated multiple generations that unborn human life isn't human. And that women have the right to murder on a whim.

Muh feels: the posts.

>answer my loaded question and if you disagree then GTFO
You are deluded.

>You can't prove a negative
Gettin' sick of this meme desu, there are many negative statements be proved just as definitively as any positive statement. Hell, any "positive" statement is equivalent to the negative of a negative, hence why you rarely see statements categorized this way outside of the "u can't prove a negative" meme.

Source?

Any philosophy can lead to the deaths of millions.

However I think you are being facetious OP because by pretty much all metrics people are living longer and dying less which is due to science, which would be impossible to achieve if Western society was less secular.

t. riven main

Stop spamming this dead meme

t. riven main

This guy understands.

>if you don't give your money to random (((NGOs))) then you don't care about society or children
Well, to be honest, most abortions in the current year are of black children so it's an excellent check on that population. I'm more concerned with contraception because that's what functions as a limiter on the white birthrate.

>science necessitates rationalism
"no"

Prove me wrong

No, science necessitates empiricism.

no u
And empiricism is useful basically as a tool. It's totally epistemologically ungrounded.

You aren't even saying anything

>It's totally epistemologically ungrounded.
Welcome to epistemology.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

>Says the guy enjoying a civilization his devout Christian forefathers built.
Our current civilization was built by secular scientists, hardwork did not create shit it was technology, if hardwork and being pious was enough then every single shitskin would be civilized.

It shouldn't. Atheism itself is just a lack of faith.

How I can explain the phenomenon of atheists becoming immoral, is that the "movement" of atheism can be attributed to people who don't fit in with society. Atheism is popular among the rebellious anarchic type people who live to be contrary to society; alot of this is due to Marxist anti-religious teaching. Whenever the will of an individual becomes stronger than the will of the people, the alpha who carries that individualistic ideology inevitably becomes the center and the epitome of the new collective.

In the Analects, Ci gong wanted to do away with the sacrifice of the sheep, and Confucius said "Ci, you love the sheep, I love the ritual". Confucius was demonstrating that the ritual was important to our relationships in society, strengthening them (such as family dinners, holidays, etc). Religion is a type of ritual. But if the individual didn't have a say in what was acceptable, things like cannibalism would become ritual, and that's not good. A balance of society and individualism is important to maintain strength among relationships.

In a legalistic society, moral decay is inevitable, because anti-social behavior is protected by law. We're not allowed to gang up on atheists, for example. They don't have to live in fear of a religious society, and so our legal system gives them a stage for them to spread propaganda, causing a destruction of moral values. I wouldn't say it's because they're atheists; I believe it's because they are given the right to be contrary.

>hurr if you want science you have to have rationalism
>no you don't
>w-well, empiricism
>lel, empiricism
>that doesn't mean anything!!

I know, you can't no nuffin, but proponents of empiricism and science as a sole tool for understanding the world generally know even less than I do.

...

But they're not sentient. It's like killing a bug.

memes: the post

ITT pro baby killing atheists deny god and pedal the racist pseudoscientific theory of evolution

>what is the Protestant Work Ethic

East Asia had all the technological advantages that Western Europe had. Please explain why they didn't subjugate the entire known world for the better part of half a millennium?

Ben Franklin was a Deist and he recognized the "usefulness" of an upbringing in Christian morality after two business partners stiffed him, whom he had previously instructed in Deism.

>Why does atheism generally lead to a breakdown in morality and ethics

Because atheism is nihilistic. Ask any atheist what they believe in, and it's most likely some form of secular humanism, which isn't value-free, but it's also not transcendent meaning and will fluctuate accordingly.

Nietzsche obviously pointed this out 130 years ago, as did Dostoevsky.

>using racist as an insult

The vast majority of atheists are so as a matter of convenience, rather than logic. The reality is the overwhelming majority of humans are incapable of acting rationally without a dogma based on the illusion of intrinsic value.

Only an elite few can effectively use and be trusted to responsibly wield facts and truth. This is why religiosity is necessary for the masses and atheism as an ideology is cancer.

Responsible atheists do not need advocacy. They're smart enough to keep their non-beliefs to themselves while functioning in society.

Because atheism is a mental illness

>Not helping an NGO is the same as murder.

Science killed religion and had no way of replacing the role it played in society. Religion is much more than "muh god" it gives us lessons about humanity which were developed through our history and to cast it aside without really thinking about how to replace it is foolish.

Western Civilization was built by pagans...

This is true.

If you're not looking up toward the divine. and a society and it's laws is organized accordingly, you're stuck down on earth and will eventually recede into your own selfish desires as a means of which to exist in reality.

That's basically why. That's why religion exists, and why it should continue to exist. Society would fundamentally break down over time and become hyper materialistic.

Nihilism is the bane of any civilization.

Religion is merely another cultural expression, it changes with the times, it picks and drops certain teachings of the prophets and passages of the holy texts depending of the historical context. It's a side effect of economical and political climate. It is as immutable as any other cultural aspect of society, that is to say: not at all.

And yet the archetypes within the stories are literally eternal.

You think it's a coincidence that Satan is depicted as a snake in the Old Testament, and Evil is also depicted that way simultaneously in the form of a serpent chaos monster in almost every other mythology on the planet?

No, it isn't a coincidence at all.

What changes is what said archetypes represent. The snake from the Genesis will always be the devil or evil in general, but the concept of evil will change. With the old testament Christianity dropped a lot of stuff that was considered canon for centuries.

And snakes being prevalently portrayed as a spawn of evil isn't surprising at all considering they are venomous creatures. There's however various cultures that regard them as sacred; certain natives from the south america explained the creation of the world as the result of a battle between two giant snakes, one controlled the sea and the other the earth, the earth snake was man's ally and the protector of human kind.

Of course it changes.

But you have to wonder why these archetypes exist at all. It obviously has something to do with evolutionary adaptation.

Imagine for a moment that religion is actually an evolved expression of some kind of unconscious fantasy, and that this ultimately is meant to give people meaning in the world, and to make sure we value things like beauty, love, truth and procreation.

Makes perfect sense to me, and while I don't consider myself religious in any strong sense, I don't think it's a coincidence that the advent of science and rationalism in culture, coincided with increased nihilism and adherence to totalitarian ideologies in the 20th century.

A gingerbread man also looks human, and you cook that in the oven, then eat it.

It literally doesnt

...

Then whats the right way to go about it?

Religion being a drive for a moral compass is no different at its purpose than a fairy tail or an old story that delivers a message of "be good"; what religion provides that those cannot is an organized structure that gives a sense of communion and purpose to it's adherents. Ultimately it's simply a medium for itself as the message changes constantly but the name remains. Yes that is the purpose of religion but to argue that

>it gives us lessons about humanity which were developed through our history

Is simply not true. Like you said, the stories are always the same, but the meaning changes, they are not millenary precepts of wisdom as much as reflections of the society of the era.

>the advent of science and rationalism in culture, coincided with increased nihilism and adherence to totalitarian ideologies in the 20th century

Repressive regimes and mass killing aren't a 20th century invention, and what is most, they often found (and still do) re assertion in religion, precisely because religion at that era had a different message that allowed such interpretation; what changed was the level of control that technology allowed, the 20th century isn't even particularly brutal when compared to the whole of human history, it is actually a comparatively peaceful period, the chronological closeness to the dark events and the advent of mass media is what influences our perception. If you asked a 13 century peasant if people deserved to die based on their faith or race, the answer would probably be "yes", today it would generally be "no".

>the 20th century isn't even particularly brutal when compared to the whole of human history

This is a completely retarded statement.

Please give an example of a historical situation before the 20th century which is analogous to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

That was *literally* not figuratively, the one point in history where somewhere in the league of 50000 nuclear warheads were primed and aimed at all of humanity.

Even with entirety of human history combined, we have not been that close to complete and utter annihilation.

Wow, you mean that as more advaced technology allows for more destructive weapons ? I am speechless by this critical breakthrough. Surely the Christian or Muslims societies of antiquity would never employ science in such a way.

Don't be retarded.

Also, I love how you picked an example where it was an atheist nation that decided to back off instead of destroying the whole world.

neither does atheism lead to OP's point then

bye

>Also, I love how you picked an example where it was an atheist nation that decided to back off instead of destroying the whole world.

Tbh, it's not relevant to me that they were atheists, what's relevant is that the entire world was balkanized between capitalist and communist in the first place, which is what Nietzsche predicted would happen in the 20th century.

He also predicted in Will To Power that it would kill tens of millions of people, which it also did.

Because by default 85% of population in any society is of average or low intelligence.
Such people can't really comprehend and adopt abstract ideals that although they promise more for society don't have some external and mystical "enforcer" that will punish you if you don't behave certain way.
Even if they adopt them they become a pseudo-religion which doesn't work the same way as real religion.
Religion is absolutely necessary for social cohesion.

I mean, just look at Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism became a pseudo-religon and Lenin became a pseudo-prophet.
Communism is the apex of secular humanism, yet ironically it produced some of most inhumane societies in history.

>Tbh, it's not relevant to me that they were atheists

It is considering your argued that religion was indispensable as it was basically the source of society's moral dogma.

>which is what Nietzsche predicted would happen in the 20th century.

Could you elaborate a bit on this?

>most of the population is average
GEEZ

>It is considering your argued that religion was indispensable as it was basically the source of society's moral dogma.

Well, I personally think that some form of existentially transcendent meaning is necessary for people to not devolve into nihilism or crazed ideology.

As you probably know quite well, the Soviets weren't exactly stellar people, even if they somehow managed to stop nuking everyone.

>Could you elaborate a bit on this?

Well, Nietzsche was concerned with the loss of belief in Christian metaphysics. He believed the rationalism of the scientific age would completely destroy people's ability to believe in it, and he also believed that it would cause one of two things, either rampant nihilism, or people would resort to ideological authoritarianism of some kind(which is essentially what happened in the 20th century, first with the Russian Revolution, and then the growth of Nazism), and that millions of people would die and culture would never recover from it.

His entire concept of the Superman/Overman, is an attempt to find a third way(e.g not accepting neither nihilism nor ideological authoritarianism).

He died before he could flesh it out properly, but he lays it out somewhat in Thus Spake Zarathustra.

kek