Let's assume that there is no god

If you believe moral only can exist with a God then you're already thinking morals are subjective.

Just let something like culture and traditions dictate what's right or wrong instead of God and you're basically set.

Morality can be based on (but are not limited to) the following without God,

-Morality is a key imperative of Reason.

-Morals are pragmatic, and useful things are truthful things.

-Moral things are pleasurable (a stance that does not necessarily lead to debauchery if we consider excess to be a negative).

- Virtue ethics (If you think virtue is not a thing consider this quick thought experiment: Supposing you had a child, what traits, if any, would you want them to have?) .

>Only social convention can exist

Wow.

Let me tell you a little 'what if' story, a thought experiment, if you will.

Jesus pretty much preached to his followers about love and respect to your fellow men and weaker people, while also telling them that it is the "love of God" that binds them spiritually.

but what if Jesus already knew that there is really no 'God'? The fact that he already knew Judas is gonna betray him is an allusion to this lie; the "love of God"?

Jesus then died on that cross and in the end, no God did came to rescue him, he was fully aware of this.
I think this is to reinforce that 'lie', or rather, that spirit, in which the "love of God" or His kingdom is not something transcendental but it was the community itself that embrace this belief trough faith.

Interesting enough, behavioral research has shown that certain groups of social living primates show the same basic morals as humans do
>do not cheat
>do not steal
>don't hurt others for fun
etc.
Morals are a set of behaviors that evolved with social living primates.
Religious "morals" on the other hand are a joke, they change their morals according to times
>death penalty good
>death penalty bad
>slavery good
>slavery bad
and so on.

> how can morals exist?
How indeed.
> Only social convention can exist.
Yes, so?
In any case, doing things you were told to do and not doing things you were told not to because you're afraid of punishment and want to be rewarded doesn't make you somehow morally superior either.

Chimps & Bonobos show full sets of morals:
earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/chimps_and_bonobos_prove_that_moral_behavior_is_a_product_of_evolution/

Christfags they do so because muh Jeebus.
kys

You are correct.

One can still have morals but they have no basis other then muh feels

Woah, is this the reason why Christians never cheat or steal? Really makes me think

Evolutionary behavior ingrained into a social species is a bit more than muh feels. It is the set of accepted and unaccepted behavior that made social living possible.

why should I follow these rules when It benefits me to break them?

youtube.com/watch?v=lPoJlaHDmP8
Because ill kill you if i see you breaking the law.

Because an altruistic punisher will take care of you if you don't. Interestingly enough, primates (tested in humans, chimps and bonobos) enjoy when a bad guy gets punished. If an individual plays bad (cheat, steal, hurt) the rest of the groups shows distrust and loathes that individual. If another individual takes it upon him to punish said individual, it will get perks from other individuals from the group.

Check the experiments they have done, all primate species show the same set of morals and makes individuals behave in a social acceptable way the benefits them and the group in the long run. Real intradesting shit, you wouldn't believe how much animal is left in humans and our behavior.

I'll do it only when I Won't be caught then.

What if you get caught tho?

And if you do not have a brain damage you know it was bad and feel bad about it.
Stirner pics won't change human behavior, and that behavior has much more to do with biology than with philosophy.

That's irrelevant, the point is that if morals are bullshit which they are and the new morals are social rules why should people follow these rules when they can gain from not doing so.

In cases where it is almost impossible to be caught or when the risk is very low people will commit crimes when there is no moral guilt to stop them. They may end up getting caught but the crimes will still be commmited.

So I should only be moral because of the possibility of punishment?
Good. Then, as people can't possibly know my every move, I'll be immoral when no one can prove it. Also, morality isn't completely covered by law, so when I wish to be immoral within it, I don't even have to hide my actions
Unless there's a superior being who sees it and will punish me for my actions

>morals are bullshit
Morals are a fact. They just don't come from Religion or Philosophy, but from nature itself.
Your nihilistic crap is for rebellious teenagers at best.

>So I should only be moral because of the possibility of punishment?
Wanna read the post again? Because thats not what I said edgelord.

>Morals are a fact
>doesn't show any arguments for that
>Your nihilistic crap is for rebellious teenagers at best.
>ebin ad hominem
you sure showed him

Im not sure what it matters if there are crimes that never get caught.

Wow, this is about as Gangsta as you can get, when you're a soft kid from middle class suburbia! So hardcore!

The world carries on regardless of whether or not there is a god, so it's a worthless quandary.

It's like I said the sky was green, it has no actual bearing on the outside world. The sky remains blue.

press.princeton.edu/titles/8240.html
Are you mad because I made fun of Stirner? Sorry kid, nothing personal!

nice ad hom.

you don't anything about me anyway, I wen't to a pretty soft school but I was the hardest kid there, not that that means much.

Of course that's what you said. I don't think you're understanding your own argument here. If I should only be moral because there's the possibility of an "altruistic" punisher to fuck with me, and that I should be afraid from social ostracism, then when I feel like doing something immoral the only thing I have to fear is getting caught.
If a chimp decides to steal a banana, and no other from its tribe see him doing it, would he still be punished?

You must have looked really tough in that trench coat!

Morals are a fact but you point you are consistently missing is that they have no actual basis other than social standards, they have no moral authority without a higher power.

I really thought we were going to have an actual debate here. What a shame.
You ain't me, laddie

yeah but what he said goes for both of us.

They have the full authority of an evolutionary developed set of rules and behaviors that made social coexistence as a group possible and is ingrained in our very self.
Thats better than a bronze age fairy tale or some edgy kid in a german students bar.

You had a trench coat too?

former christian here. i never had a moral crisis from losing faith

Ever try to take a bone from a dog, to give to other dogs?

Even animals hate communism...

Stupid answer, please go back to /pol/. You will like it more there, here everybody thinks your an idiot.

It's also in our nature to have mental illnesses and to torture people and stuff. Your arguement as far as I can tell is.

1 people have an innate sense of justice and will punish those who break it.

2 Therefore people should live morally due to fear of punishment.

3 people who know it is impossible or highly unlikely they will be caught or punished should be moral because?

Who are you talking to?

>your an idiot
This is either shit bait, or you need to kill yourself immediately.

Morals are not just punishment but also things like trust, social standing, perks, inclination toward cooperation between individuals etc.
If you break fundamental rules, aka behave bad, the whole group will like you less. It is a complex process, but in the end no one will collaborate with you, you will get less from everything, and people cheer when somebody kicks your ass. As a result of your social isolation you feel bad and you know you've been a bad boy.
The same in 4 year old children, chimps and bonobos.

Morals are just the thing that you instinctively know/feel are correct behavior amongst members of your social group. Now add a thin layer of culture and some perversions of society and you are there. You can kick those thin layers, but you cannot possible change the the firmware.

IF THEY CATCH ME.

Living immorally is it's own punishment. Anything gained from that kind of lifestyle isn't very fulfilling and is at best nice but unsatisfying. See: Drug dealer. You will probably have a nice house,items and women but will have 0 capacity to actually enjoy them because of the constant fear of getting busted and pleasure losing it's lustre after a while. Not to mention the relationships formed in that line of work won't really be wholesome or truly fulfilling.

Even a shitty moral wageslave is better off than any immoral millionaire.

have you been tested for autism?

Nah but I have Bipolar, seriously "be good or bad stuff happen to you when people find out" What if they can't or don't find out, the arguement sort of collapses.

Not him but consider people in warzones. The legal system has likely completely collapsed in that area and people commit some truly heinous acts. But how do you account for the ones who don't commit warcrimes while having the opportunity dangled in front of them?

Punishment is just one facet of morality, there exists many other dimensions.

Normal people doe have something called empathy and emotions. They are part of the software developed by millions of years of evolution to help us answer simple questions like this by instinctively knowing what is wrong and right. It seems to work just fine for the majority of humans, but of course there is a small percentage of defective ones who don't get it.
What are you just an edgy kid that tries to argue hist stupid "but what if" point or a full blown psychopath that feels no empathy for his victim? Because that are about the options here.

Well I would say that those people are following their own personal sense of justice. I'm not saying morality doesn't exist just that it has no objective basis.

In my personal opinion the ideal moral system would be when everyone follows their own code whether that be Oskar Dirlewanger-esque or christlike.

>I'm not saying morality doesn't exist just that it has no objective basis.
It is pretty well established that it has objective roots in the general behavior of social primates.

>In my personal opinion the ideal moral system would be...
Yes because something that and edgy teen pulled out of his ass will work so much better than what million years of evolution have created instead.

not only that

people risk their lives to help and protect others, in some cases friends and family, in some cases complete strangers, you see amazing shit happen when a city is under siedge or when a population is caught in a battle, precisely when youd expect people to be selfish, and granted some do, most go all out with group solidarity and putting others first, same thing happens in catastrophies like floods and earthquakes, but in times of war theres a daded imperative of sticking with your own, not being a traitor, and keeping the group alive, it is a survival mechanism

Following your code and

>Normal people doe have something called empathy and emotions. They are part of the software developed by millions of years of evolution to help us answer simple questions like this by instinctively knowing what is wrong and right.

are 100% compatible which you would realised if you weren't trying to pounce on me so hard.

Thats another thing shown in the animal experiments, altruistic behavior is strongly encouraged and will give a variety of perks back, including gifts of food and spontaneous sex.
So even primates have a moral system on what behavior they perceive as good or as bad and they act upon it.

> It is pretty well established that it has objective roots in the general behavior of social primates.

Primates such as bonobos also eat dead (ape) babies and rape each other.

Whats that got to do with basic morals?
Endo-canibalism is neither good nor bad per se and rape is hurt, it happens but it won't exactly give you bonus points in your social group.

Well the arguement was that since apes engage in certain behaviour we it has an objective basis and we should do the same (maybe i'm retarded) surely you can't just pick and choose the parts you like?. Are humans who do "bad" things unnatural or are they also doing objective instinctual behaviours

Not really an argument. The experiments show a value system of good and bad and that good behavior is encouraged and bad punished. It does neither need to follow your view on morals nor does it have to prevent 100% of all bad behavior.

but its not a moral system

its a set of functions

often theres barely any conscios choice about it, the only choice is to purposefully makeyourself be a sahole and risk getting ostracized, but realy you feel the need to behave that way more than you feel the need to be selfish or run away

think about it, lets say you see someone hurt in the street, or say theres a girl sitting and crying, the spontaneous reaction is to offer help, any possible inhibition or deliberation about it come second, in fact its only if you spontaneously feel aversion or want to just get away from that and cant be bothered that something comes up and tells you its ''the right thing todo'' or ''expected'' or ''people will think youre a creep if you do/ashole if you dont'' etc...

theres nothing particularly moral about any of that, its just how most people are wired, unless they went troug fuck knows what that changed them or they have some disorder

Please read the articles about the behavioral research they did with the apes, it doesn't work the way you describe.

Well, but basic morals are pretty simple truths.
Don't cheat, don't steal, don't hurt members of your group, cooperate, protect your friends etc.
Thats the thing we perceive as good and bad and behavior that makes us either upset or proud.
And that's all there is. Sophisticated systems about morality are just a brainfart with no real funding in reality or human nature.

Thats me.

I would agree with you but personally if I saw someone trip over or whatever obviously I would help them up etc etc. The more interesting and where this arguement starts to collapse somewhat is say you find someone sleeping with a paper bag with 100k of U.S dollars in it. Taking it is surely the "wrong thing" but I believe most people would take all of it or at least some. anybody can be moral when it only benefits them (involuntary egoism) but how many people are willing to make sacrifices for others (esp those they do not know) even when to do so would be the right thing (tm)

Don't steal except for 1 million exceptions same with don't cheat and don't hurt, morality isn't that basic.

You may do it, but yet you still instinctively understand what is right and wrong.

>your five year old toddler plays on the playground
>beats up a 4 year old girl and steals here ice cream
you will get pretty mad at that little bastard and teach him a lesson

>your five year old toddler fights a kid who tries to steal ice cream from the little girl
you are proud as fuck and will buy him some ice cream
little girl will remember and once she hits puberty will be 70% more inclined to dtf with now grown up toddler.

Human nature

Fine, (picrelated) but (muh psychopath) should people do the right thing? if the right thing benefits me then of course I should do it but if it doesn't surely it would make logical sense for me to do the wrong thing even knowing that it is wrong.

in other words why should I do the right thing?

>user has a point
>gets ignored for being too good a point

every time

blah blah blah blah.

says nothing of substance, writing like hegel trying to obfuscate stuff.

You got me wrong there, with basic morals I mean a basic set of behavior that is universal. But it does only extend to your social group, which is only a few dozen individuals you know and care for.
In anonymous mass civilization things become complicated because an abstract crime (bad behavior) towards an anonymous to not trigger the emotions you normally should get for this. Also the retribution mechanism of your group is not triggered directly.
This doesn't mean you got no morals, just that the mechanics that make morals work have a problem to be extended into modern society.

So, idiotic explanations aside(seriously, this "every group has half the 10 commandments as evil" is childish and laughable, if one studies history).
Anyway, the main arguments for morality are social utilitarianism and/or game theory

Counterpoint:
Mongols and other raiding barbarians.
They contradict all of that, on a civilisational scale

>implying civilizations have a moral
>implying mongols didn't have the same set of basic morals as all other humans

>raiding barbarians
That's like calling a hurricane "a bit of a gust"

>The Existential Problem & Religious Solution
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=iw36V_iXR2k
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=jkh2TXCHpNs

>Man or Rabbit?
youtube.com/watch?v=X9fR1vSxNEQ

>The Laws of Nature
youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk

>Mere Christianity
youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow

>The Origin (or 1,2,3,4)
youtube.com/watch?v=tw9biRRv_bM

>‘Right & Wrong’ – A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM

>The Reality of the Moral Law
youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A

>What Lies Behind the Moral Law
youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg

>The Poison of Subjectivism
youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

>The Rival Conceptions of God
youtube.com/watch?v=yaGwF7A79_w

>The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
youtube.com/watch?v=ZxwnHVr192A

>Why I Am Not a Pacifist
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=k2xY2k26HFo
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=jreq3mVvDgc

>Bulverism (Foundation of 20th Century Thought)
youtube.com/watch?v=DH53uFBOGbw

>The Necessity of Chivalry
youtube.com/watch?v=GBT9LasyC3E

>The Three Parts of Morality
youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeCyrgjIQ

>Sexual Morality
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=-RkZXZx6HCI
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=7AXi4-_HPRk

Morality is objective and absolute.

>Worst Objection to Theism: Who Created God?
youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ

>Digital Physics Argument for God's Existence
youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas

>The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=s2ULF5WixMM

>Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism
youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

>The Introspective Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw

>The Teleological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=3Yt7hvgFuNg

>What Atheists Confuse
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=XbLJtxn_OCo
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=bj0lekx-NiQ

>Is Atheism a Delusion?
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=xnBTJDje5xk

>Atheists Don't Exist
youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0

Atheism is irrational and illogical.

Implying I have time to watch all that.

Also objectively proving god, hehe

>complaining about watching/reading
>on the HISTORY board

retard

Implying you've watched half of those videos.

> everything must have a cause
> except the god because he is *super special*
Christians are just pussies who fear to believe in super-god that created their god. They are no better than the atheists.

Most of this videos were debunked in previous threads, user.

I have, because I'm the one who posted them in this thread.

Never seen it debunked, feel free to provide links.

Straw man.

>In such a situation how can morals exist?
Via empathy.
>Being stabbed hurts
>I don't like to be stabbed
>Stabbing other people hurts them
>Other people probably don't like to be stabbed
>When other people are in pain or suffering I feel bad
>I won't stab other people because that will make me feel bad

Every time I hear a serious Christian (and I suppose other religions too) talk about morality I get the suspicion that they are all complete sociopaths. "If I won't get punished for it why shouldn't I tie up a girl, rape and torture her for months, and then kill her?"

But empathy doesn't actually stop stabbing totally, people do in fact get stabbed.

It'd be hard to argue that all stabbers are sociopaths. Clearly empathy is not a very powerful force for many people.

> straw man
It isn't. If you claim that God exists because all of the existing things must have the cause than God itself should have one. It is perfectly logical that in reality there must exist more powerful Super God, the one who created Christian God. Only atheists would deny him and we all know that monotheists are no better that atheists in practice.

> empathy doesn't actually stop stabbing totally
nether is god

>But empathy doesn't actually stop stabbing totally
Neither does biblical or government enforced law. Morality doesn't prevent anything but it gives you a moral compass. Everyone is willing to break their moral code for something. Judges are sometimes corrupt, Christians sometimes commit murder, desperate Atheists sometimes pray to god.

The moral is if something feels wrong it probably is wrong, and that is a perfectly valid way to live your life. There is nothing wrong with having differing moral codes as long as everyone follows the same legal code.

denying first cause implies an infinite chain of even more super gods creating eachother, just as moronic as muh infinite singularity exploded

but empathy is much more widespread than Christianity or any other religion

>There is nothing wrong with having differing moral codes as long as everyone follows the same legal code
but who decides the legal code? how do you justify enforcing a legal code on someone with a contradictory moral code? because it "feels" like you can?

> denying first cause implies an infinite chain
There is nothing bad about an infinite causal chain. To the contrary, we never have seen any uncaused first cause in practice. Could as well be the fiction. The thing happened because it simply happened is the most retarded position. There must always be some sort of cause, deal with it.

> muh infinite singularity is bad
> but muh infinite good, infinite power, infinite knowledge, and infinite presence are totally okay! XD

God himself is fucking bigger singularity between all of his omniwhatever properties that singularity of the big bang.

>but who decides the legal code?
Politicians chosen by the majority of the population ideally.

>how do you justify enforcing a legal code on someone with a contradictory moral code?
Because order must be maintained. The same reason attempting to secede from a country is almost always a crime even though the ten commandments never say "Thou shall not secede from your country." If everyone got to do what they wanted there would be chaos.

If you truly hate a system leave it, ignore it, fight it, or submit to it, either way a standardized code of law must exist as long as people have autonomy and an imperfect sense of right and wrong.

On a related note, lets assume you knew for a fact with 100% certainty that god existed. Would it make you any more justified in forcing his will onto others? Either way a will is being forced onto people who don't want it.

it just meas that xtianity is not spread enough DEUS VULT FAGGOT

>implying mongols didn't have the same set of basic morals as all other humans
Except they didn't, as genociding 1/6th of the world, and considering it just k showed.

And if we apply game theory and/or social utilitarianism, as this thread has implied is the most logical compass, Genghis Khan and other steppeniggers, regardless of ethnicity, have done super moral things in their atrocities.

empathy is a meme term that means jack shit, misused by people that don't understand it.
aeon.co/essays/do-we-need-a-telepathy-machine-when-we-already-have-empathy

> JEUS RULT
what did he mean by this?

>empathy is a meme term that means jack shit, misused by people that don't understand it.
So what does empathy mean and why can't it be used as a moral compass? Post an actual argument instead of just linking to an article.

Because that's what happens when you rely on something as primitive as a punishment/reward system. Reward stimulates one's desire, how is it different from any other form of greed? It is hedonism at the root, hedonism mixed with fear, a recipe for despair if you ask me.

Learn to embrace a passive consciousness and accept truth and wisdom as the highest ideals and morals will come to you as readily as breathing.

I'd argue that monotheistic religions, by convincing everyone that morality is impossible in their absence, only sow the seeds for the destruction of the society they created, since they inevitably burn out after several millenia, like every other religion previous to them has done. A moral system ought at least to be tautologically incapable of providing justification for evil, clearly from the OP cartoon, monotheism does that simply to raise the stakes, and clearly the religion and its adherents don't even care about morality (aside from how it can be construed to benefit their doctrine), otherwise they would provide a more robust doctrine.