Despite atheists claiming you can have morality without religion, I will simply point out the ironic logical inconsistencies in asserting such a claim
Morality, just like heaven is a religious concept. It's like an atheist trying to prove angels exist but God doesn't. Angels are creations of God after all.
More intelligent atheists like Friedrich Nietzsche realized this.
Source: "The Twilight of Idols" (1889) Nietzsche
Morality i.e good/bad (or right/wrong ; justice/injustice) are defined by God. By definition what good is what God says it is, and vice versa.
Obedience to God's commandments is what is defined as good and disobedience to his commands is defined as bad. The logic is that simple
Now when atheists try to separate morality from God they also need to come up with a logical reason. They get their reasoning from classical liberalism, or a variation of John Stuart Mill's harm principle
Source: "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill & https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-012-9406-7
This reasoning can be explained as such:
"Happiness and pleasure should be maximized"
"Do what ever you want as long as you don't harm anyone"
Or as the US Declaration of Independence says
"The pursuit of happiness"
The simple refutation to atheism is that atheism itself causes harm and unhappiness
I'm sure you've all seen these mountains of scientific papers on how atheism harms human health, I don't need to show you all of em do I, but here's a example
Wearing hijabs is proven to benefit a woman's mental health, promote body sensitivity, reduce sexual objectification/harassment
Yet atheism in France try to ban hijab, directly harming women. You see the inconsistency.
And that's it, the argument is over, I win again. It's just that easy to refute and debunk atheism. It can be done in minutes.
Even PhD atheist philosophers like Dr. Lars Gule admit this, in this video here, that under atheism's illogical attempt at creating a secular version of morality, they can logically permit bestiality, or in this case sex with pet dogs (of course in Islam that's a death sentence, in atheism it's a human right to have sex with your pet dog)
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Samuel, the title of your post is, “Atheism has no morals”
Well, I think you are completely correct! Atheism hasn’t a bloody thing! Atheism is simply the rejection of god claims.
Seems that Devon, David H and Sammy Hyde and seek all came out the same sock drawer where they reached identical conclusions using identical phraseology.
Amazing innit? .
@Old man...Amazing innit?
Coincidence, divine inspiration, or perhaps yet another demonstration of Christian morality...
Re: OP - Atheism has no morals
...*astonished look*.... Are you fucking kidding me?!? Seriously??? All this time I have been on this site, and none of you bozos ever bothered to mention this to me?... *shaking head in utter disappointment*... Well, ain't that just fabulous?!? All the time I have spent on here simply wasted!... *heavy sigh*... Looks like I now have a ton of catching up to do. After all, had I known atheism meant not having any morals, then I would have been out robbing, stealing, cheating, and being a total scumbag the past several months. But did any of you godless heathens bother telling ME about this?.... NOOOoooooooo.... You just wanted to run around out there and keep all the fun to yourselves! Don't bother to help a brother out! You bunch of selfish bastards. But, then, I suppose I should simply expect such things from a group of immoral atheist slime.
Thank you so very much, Mr. Hyde, for finally revealing the truth to me. Obviously couldn't count on any of these other turds to let me know. I guess they are too worried about protecting their precious Atheist World View. But - hey - now that I finally know atheism has no morals, I ain't gonna waste any time in taking full advantage of it. Nope, I've already wasted too much time as it is. First thing in the morning I'm heading downtown to catch up on some overdue fun. Gonna start off with simple things, though, and then work my way up the ladder. I think I'll start with stealing the money out of the jar of a blind beggar. I've always wanted to do that... *briskly rubbing hands together with excited anticipation*...
Samuel Hyde what is your opinion on owning another human being, which is slavery.
For the sake of equal treatment, I will state that as an atheist I am opposed to slavery. I also consider slavery immoral.
Hey, Jekyll and Hyde! If you are going to edit your OP, it is a courtesy to make a note of it to let others know what was changed. That first attached pic was laughable enough. However, your current pic borders on breaking rule number 8. Just so you know, I tend to get a bit cranky when narrow-minded brain-dead bigoted losers start slinging the type of bullshit you seem to be promoting. I am being nice right now. You might want to keep it that way. Just sayin'....
I think he means that atheists ALSO have no morals. Probably because he has as failed to grasp the meaning of the word atheist.
The level of wilful ignorance is so egregious that I truly don't know where to begin . Perhaps with Greek philosophers (?)
Nah, there are people here far more talented at evisceration of the wilfully ignorant who pass by from time to time.
Probably irrelevant, my impression is that our new little friend/ village idiot/chew toy is a fly by troll. Or a semi literate adolescent .
@Samuel Hyde: in atheism it's a human right to have sex with your pet dog
I can just imagine you and your fellow religious loons obsessing enviously about all the fun we atheists are having humping our spaniels and dachshunds. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the reality is that most atheists only have sex with apes.
There was a young man from Dundee
Who buggered an ape in a tree.
The offspring was horrid
All chin and no forehead
Three balls, and a purple goatee.
That sounds just like a description of Australia's Minister for Deportations...umm...sorry, "Home Affairs"
I knew that man from Dundee
Who shagged an ape in a tree.
They named him Allah
He fucked a koala
And Muhammad came to be.
@Samuel Hyde: I have not read your post yet, however, so far, we are in complete agreement. "Atheism does in fact, have no morality." There is absolutely nothing moral or immoral about the lack of belief in God or gods. Morality is a complete non-issue when it comes to atheism. It's a sad fact that we can not say the same about the immorality of RELIGION. Please demonstrate even one immoral act or belief that not believing in a god generates.
"Morality, just like heaven is a religious concept."
An extremely bigoted and narrow minded point of view. All cultures, religious or not, have a sense of morality. Troops of apes and monkeys engage in moral behaviors. We can trace the evolution of human moral behavior. And when we look at our old religions with their blood sacrifices , religions like yours, we can see clear movement from the immoral practices of human sacrifice to animal sacrifice and on to symbolic sacrifice. Finally we reach a state of no longer sacrificing anything. HEY! That's atheism! Perhaps their is some morality in not believing in Gods. Atheists do not engage in blood sacrifice or related rituals. Isn't that moral behavior? (Well, actually we are just not engaging in the behavior and that is not moral until some people speak out against it. So, actually, being anti-theist would be moral in this case.)
THE REST OF YOUR ASSERTIONS ARE JUST TOO STUPID TO ADDRESS. I suggest that if you want to debate something, you avoid the shotgun approach. If you want to debate "A TOPIC" just keep your idiotic assertion to "ONE PER POST."
Apparently this individual is totally unaware, that there now exists an abundant scientific literature, covering the evolutionary and biological basis for  our capacity for ethical thought, and  our motivation to act thereupon.
Time to reprise this ...
All morality is a human invention. The only evidence we have, of creatures producing an abstract concept of ethics and devising conceptual frameworks within an intellectual field of endeavour devoted to these, centres upon humans. We have evidence that humans have written treatises on ethics - everything from Urukagina's laws and Hammurabi's laws through to, for example, the works of Immanuel Kant. We have NO evidence that any other entity has produced treatises on ethics or formulated ethical ideas. Any statement that an invisible magic man is responsible for our ethical constructs is mere blind assertion, not least because the postulate that this invisible magic man even exists is a blind assertion. As a direct consequence, the observational evidence supports the notion that morality is a human invention.
Oh, and one of the more interesting developments from neuroscience that supernaturalists have apparently missed out on is this. Humans (and indeed other primates) possess a part of the brain known as the ventromedial pre-frontal cortex. It has been demonstrated experimentally, courtesy of cases of brain injury to this region, that this part of the brain is the very part of the brain responsible for our capacity to engage in ethical decision making. When that part of the brain is damaged, ethical decision making is manifestly impaired. In other words, we have an organic and biological basis for our capacity to act as moral beings. An interesting and relevant paper is this one:
Characterisation Of Empathy Deficits Following Prefrontal Brain Damage: The Role Of The Right Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex by S.G. Shamay-Tsoory, R. Tomer B.D. Berger and J. Aharon-Peretz, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15: 324-337 (2003)
Here's the abstract:
Another apposite paper is this one:
The Role Of The Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex In Abstract State-Based Inference During Decision Making In Humans by Alan N. Hampton, Peter Bossaerts and John. P. O'Doherty, The Journal of Neuroscience, 26(32):, 8360-8367 (9th August 2006) (full paper downloadable from here)
Here's the abstract:
Another apposite paper is this one:
Characterisation Of The Decision-Making Deficit Of Patients With Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex Lesions by Antione Bechara, Daniel Tranel and Hanna Damasio, Brain, 123: 2189-2202 (2000)
and also this one:
Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex Activation Is Critical For Preference Judgements by Martin P. Paulus and Lawrence R. Frank, NeuroReport, 14(10): 1311-1315 (28th March 2003)
However, the one I'd really like to concentrate upon from here on is this one:
Impairment Of Social And Moral Behaviour Related To Early Damage In Human Prefrontal Cortex by Steven W. Anderson, Antoine Bechara, Hanna Damasio, Daniel Tranel and Antonio R. Damasio, Nature Neuroscience, 2(11): 1032-1037 (November 1999)
Here's what the Anderson et al paper says:
Indeed, further research in this area has established an interesting fact: if the pre-frontal cortex is damaged in childhood, before a child has begun to learn basic ethical precepts, that child becomes a sociopathic adult, incapable of responding to any impulse other than instant gratification of wants and desires, regardless of the cost to that person or others affected by said behaviour. If the damage occurs in adulthood, the behaviour is still antisocial, but is accompanied by feelings of guilt because ethical precepts have already been learned, and knowledge of this affects the individual adversely in terms of guilt feelings after the fact. Plus, when subjected to testing in a clinical environment, adults with pre-frontal cortex damage can give appropriate responses to questions about appropriate behaviour in social settings, but are unable to act upon this knowledge, and continue to be driven by immediate gratification, even when they know that this behaviour is self-defeating. The pre-frontal cortex has also been implicated as the origin of fear memories in normal individuals, as of 2006 (courtesy of researchers at the University of Toronto). Modern data with respect to this relies upon functional MRI scanning, which can track brain activity in real time, and those brain imaging systems have found a startling correlation between reduced activity, reduced volume and reduced interconnections with other brain subsystems, and individuals falling into the following categories:
 Sufferers of unipolar depression;
 Persons subjected to repeated high-intensity stress (e.g., battlefield shock cases);
 Incarcerated criminals;
 Diagnosed sociopaths;
 Drug addicts;
 Suicide victims (survivors of suicide attempts have been imaged via fMRI: successful suicide victims have had the pre-frontal cortex directly measured by dissection).
Therefore there is a biological basis for ethical behaviour in humans, and work on the great apes is being performed in anticipation of finding corollary brain activity related to socialisation and the establishment of behavioural 'norms' within great ape social groupings.
The pre-frontal cortex is regarded as being implicated in the presence of empathy not just in humans, but on other mammals too, though this work is in its infancy and detailed, robust findings have yet to be published. However, given what has been verified empirically in cases of pre-frontal cortex injury, scientists anticipate that empathy will also be found to be correlated with healthy functioning of the pre-frontal cortex.
Additionally, I have since found that pre-frontal cortex damage is implicated in schizophrenia, courtesy of this page from the Society for Neuroscience. Again, it refers to brain imaging studies, this time in humans and other primates.
A letter to Nature is also apposite here (link), viz:
Indeed the pre-frontal cortex appears to be involved in a surprising amount of decision making. This page on depression covers this in some detail.
This page also reports a study from the British Journal of Psychiatry, which notes structural differences in the pre-frontal cortex that are observed between socially well-adjusted individuals and pathological liars, and a parallel reversal of those differences in persons with autistic spectrum conditions (who have been observed for many years as possessing a considerably reduced capacity to lie and fabricate - there are numerous peer reviewed studies with respect to this, from researchers such as Professor Uta Frith and Dr Simon Baron-Cohen).
A peer reviewed paper that can be accessed that discusses several of these findings in detail is this one, in which the connection between pre-frontal cortex damage and increased pursuit of immediate gratification is experimentally verified. This article from the American Journal of Psychiatry also covers the relation between pre-frontal cortex damage and schizophrenia.
So, the evidence the basis for morality is organic, and has precious little to do with any invisible magic men. In the case of humans, our accelerated brain evolution (courtesy of ASPM and FOXP2, two genes critical to the development of a large cerebral cortex and language capability, papers on which I have presented elsewhere) has also led to an expansion of the size of the ventromedial pre-frontal cortex, and the forging of connections between that brain region and the cerebral cortex proper, facilitating the coupling of our empathic capabilities, which are also seen in other primates. The following scientific papers, authored or co-authored by primate researcher Frans de Waal, are apposite here:
Empathy: Its Ultimate And Proximate Bases by Stephanie D. Preston and Frans de Waal, Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 25: 1-20 (2001)
Mechanisms Of Social Reciprocity In Three Primate Species: Symmetrical Relationship Characteristics Or Cognition? by Frans B. M. de Waal and Lesleigh M. Luttrell, Ethology and Sociobiology, 9(2-4): 101-118 (1988)
Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay by Sarah F. Brosnan & Frans B. M. de Waal, Nature, 425: 297-299 (18th September 2003)
Primates—A Natural Heritage Of Conflict Resolution by Frans B. M. de Waal, Science, 289: 586-590 (28th July 2000)
Reconciliation And Consolation Among Chimpanzees by Frans B. M. de Waal and Angeline van Roosmalen, Behavioural Ecology & Sociobiology, 5(1): 55-66 (March 1979)
I'll now set about covering these papers in some detail. First,
Empathy: Its Ultimate And Proximate Bases by Stephanie D. Preston and Frans de Waal, Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 25: 1-20 (2001). The full paper is downloadable from here. Here is the abstract, with appropriate sections highlighted in bold:
So already we have a paper that discusses evolutionary explanations for altruism. Let's take a further look at this, shall we?
So we have hard experimental evidence that rhesus macaques will suffer privation rather than see fellow members of their species endure pain. Which means that these organisms possess empathy for each other that is directly observable, and reflects the sort of empathic responses that used to be thought to be exclusive to humans.
Continuing, the authors write:
So the notion that empathy, and as a consequence, altruistic behaviour, is a natural consequence of evolutionary processes can be traced in the scientific literature all the way back to Darwin. Which means tht an evolutionary explanation for altruism is anything but a recent development.
The paper concludes with:
So, the authors conclude that in order to act in an altruistic manner, what is needed is:
 An ability to relate perceptions to actions within an internal mental model of some sort (and the model in question doesn't have to be anywhere near as intricate as ours);
 An ability to relate responses of other organisms of the same species to a given external action, to our own likely actions to those same external actions (in short, "putting oneself in the shoes of the other");
 An ability to make judgements, with respect to future actions to take, that maximise shared benefit and minimise shared suffering.
Since the papers on the ventromedial pre-frontal cortex and human brain development mediated by ASPM cover the development of the relevant hardware required for this, it should not be surprising to conclude, as a result of observing empirically that rhesus macaques possess the necessary hardware to act in this manner, that our own hardware supporting this behaviour arises from the familiar process of common descent with modification, and indeed, the ASPM papers provide evidence with respect to the modifications that took place in our lineage.
Next, we have this:
Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay by Sarah F. Brosnan & Frans B. M. de Waal, Nature, 425: 297-299 (18th September 2003). The abstract reads as follows:
Oh dear, that evidence that evolution can produce such behaviour is starting to pile up. So, even capuchin monkeys possess what might be termed "a sense of fair play". Sadly, I don't have access to the full paper, but I suspect it will make very interesting reading for those who do have full access.
Let's see another paper, shall we? Namely:
Reconciliation And Consolation Among Chimpanzees by Frans B. M. de Waal and Angeline van Roosmalen, Behavioural Ecology & Sociobiology, 5(1): 55-66 (March 1979). Abstract quoted yet again below:
This was a paper that performed a quantitative analysis of the requisite behaviours back in 1979. And which, moreover, contains what appears to be a direct empirical observation of chimpanzees acting socially to mitigate the results of violent conflict, and seek to minimise the occurrences thereof amongst their number. Which once again demonstrates that we are not unique in this vein by any stretch of the imagination.
Let's see what else is in the literature shall we?
Mechanisms Of Social Reciprocity In Three Primate Species: Symmetrical Relationship Characteristics Or Cognition? by Frans B. M. de Waal and Lesleigh M. Luttrell, Ethology and Sociobiology, 9(2-4): 101-118 (1988). Again, here's the abstract:
Next, we have:
Primates—A Natural Heritage Of Conflict Resolution by Frans B. M. de Waal, Science, 289: 586-590 (28th July 2000) (full paper downloadable from here). Once again ...
Well, I think that more or less wraps that up, don't you?
Basic empathy for others of our species, and to a varying extent, individuals of other species as well, is an integral part of us as human beings, and it has its origins in our primate social ancestry. Indeed, examples of that ancestry coming to the fore in other modern primates are well documented - the gorilla Binti Jua, who, in her zoo enclosure, rescued a three year old boy who fell into it, carried him to a place of safety, and guarded him from the other gorillas, until the zookeepers could carry the boy to a waiting ambulance. You can read more about this here, here and here. Presumably, Binti Jua knows nothing about an invisible magic man, and certainly not the invisible magic man that numerous supernaturalists contend is supposedly "necessary" for altruistic or ethical behaviour. That last link I just provided, incidentally, highlights the fact that scientists are increasingly aware of the presence of behaviours in other species that can be classified as 'ethical', and indeed, much of the primate research of Frans de Waal and others has brought this into sharp relief in recent years, as I documented above.
Incidentally, one of the papers above also cites the instance of Binti Jua (described briefly on page 19 of the paper, with a reference to an earlier paper describing the incident more comprehensively).
I think that should deal effectively with the "you need my magic man to be moral" canard, don't you?
Adragonism (ie, the lack of belief in the existence of dragons) also has no morals. Why aren't you complaining to them also that they are immoral people?
@LostLocke Re: "Adragonism (ie, the lack of belief in the existence of dragons) also has no morals."
...*rolling eyes*.... Oh, great. Here we go again. Ugh! Why are you dragonists ALWAYS trying to use that same old tired claim that we adragonists have no morals? Sure, I know a few adragonists who are absolutely horrible people. But their being douchebags has nothing to do with their lack of belief in dragons. Just so happens I also know a couple of dragonists who have very questionable morals. Should I now believe ALL dragonists are bad people? Granted, I do get a good little chuckle at how misguided and naive some of you dragon believers often behave. Otherwise, it is no skin off my nose if a person wants to believe in dragons. Hey, whatever floats your boat. Just don't try pushing your dragon beliefs on me or others, and we can all get along just fine.
That being said, I have to admit I do enjoy the dragonist sacrifice story where the Supreme Dragon is slain to save all of humanity. Some of the annual reenactment plays that are performed every Spring Equinox can be really badass! Especially in the dragon churches that have green-screen and CGI capabilities. Spectacular! Unlike other sacrifice stories I've heard, that Supreme Dragon does NOT go down without a fight.... *chuckle*... Gotta have a bit of respect for that, at least.
You either can reason what is moral or you can't, if you can then you don't need the opinion of a deity, if you can't then the opinion of a deity will be useless to you anyway.
Please demonstrate some objective evidence for the existence of any deity.
Atheism doesn't have any morals to it. Humans can have morals without religion.
@ Samuel Hydedespite
My atheism just defines me as someone who rejects theist claims to the existence of their specified god. Nothing more.
Neither my atheism or agnosticism has any bearing on my distaste for beastiality.
As a humanist, my sense and practice of morality, like my choices in literature, politics and sexual proclivities, is a purely personal matter and frees me from the supposed 'objective or absolute' definitions declared by gods and theists and even the suggestions of other atheists or other humanists.
Personally I derive, 'reason' as you put it from a far wider range of secular writers than just Mill. Humanism has a rich and detailed history of expression and includes authors such as Confucius, Mencius, Thucydides, Epicurus, Cicero, Seneca, Aurelius, Spinoza, Bentham, Hume, Darwin, Remsberg, W.K. Clifford, D'Holbach, Ayer, Grayling, Bronowski, Chapman Cohen, Victor Stenger, Ingersoll and that's just what's on my nearest bookcase. They all express the need for minimum harm through considerate and intelligent regard for others. Its the universal 'do unto others' maxim I am sure you are familiar with which has its beginnings long before the Abrahamic religions.
The above list should also include Nietzsche (not on my bookcase) but I think you have just been quote mining. What you have provided as his quote re morality would be his explanation for the theist view and not his own philosophy. I haven't read a lot of his works but I know he claimed to be an atheist (I recall reading a translation of a letter to his sister explaining why.)
I am somewhat underwhelmed by your 'refutation' where after comparing the humanist creed for living life responsibly and with minimum harm to others with the Declaration of Independence phrase 'the pursuit of happiness' you suddenly equate atheism with harm and unhappiness. You are suggesting religion doesn't harm or create unhappiness? It would be a stupendously stupid claim.
I have seen the great and lasting harm religion and its enforcement has had on the lives and personal relationships of otherwise blameless people. It has been tragically evident following the selfless religious expression of Islamic fundamentalists in 9/11, and the Bali Bombings that followed. I have studied the stories and met with the victims of enforced family separations of the Koori people by the various established churches in Australia. The child abuse, the papal denial of condom use in Africa, the numerous self-appointed theist prophets who led their deluded followers to their god through mass suicide. I have never seen anything like these atrocities or any other, done in the name of humanism or atheism.
I don't care what Muslim women wear. I believe they should be free to wear what they like but with the single exception of removing headwear to establish identity for legal purposes. But I have my doubts that after growing up with life long religious indoctrination they have the real freedom to make a bone-fide decision. Beyond a call for modest attire, I don't recall the Q'ran even insisting on full-body coverings. That is an enforced cultural misinterpretation of the text. And the sexual harassment these women suffer would be more an issue of the lack of morality, common decency and self-control of Muslim men.
The argument has been running forever and will never be over. You have won nothing and refuted nothing. You have only engaged in hubristic claims, misinterpretations of cherrypicked quotes and self-congratulatory self-affirmations.
I suggest you stick with your religion but leave the proselytizing to other more intelligent and reasonable believers. Your ignorant and convoluted arguments are a bad advertisement for theism.
edited for spelling and orphans.
Meh, the OP is just a sock puppet who made one opening comment in this thread, then made a post in another thread to support that OP (whom I strongly suspect is the same person).
The patterns of behavior, the content, and the fact they quickly appeared, made just two posts each, then just a quickly slunk away points strongly to a sock puppet.
I have zero respect for such children. But although I disagree on almost every point with Nogba, I have high respect for this gentleman who seemed to be very honest, stuck around for a few days, and made sincere replies to questions.
Even sock puppets have value for honing arguments, in the absence of legitimate posters. I agree its a shame that the majority of theist posters who zip through here lack the honesty, integrity and therefore relative staying power of Nogba.
> Atheism has no morals
If you were really a rational person, you could say atheists have no morals because atheism is neither a religion nor a philosophy.
> Despite atheists claiming you can have morality without religion, I will simply point out the ironic logical inconsistencies in asserting such a claim
Theistic religions especially Christianity and Islam have killed more than 375 million people for the name of jihad. Second, atheism is without/no god. Atheism is not 'without religion'. Jainism is an atheistic religion and Jains follow a doctrine of utter non-violence. They do not even kill an insect or a worm.
> Morality, just like heaven is a religious concept. It's like an atheist trying to prove angels exist but God doesn't. Angels are creations of God after all.
Angels and God/(s) are creation of your mind. You take hallucination drugs to alter the reality.
> More intelligent atheists like Friedrich Nietzsche realized this.
Nietzsche was an anti-religious, not an atheist. In fact, he wrote a book named 'anti-christ' which means who 'opposed (not absence) the doctrine of Christianity'.- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion
> Morality i.e good/bad (or right/wrong ; justice/injustice) are defined by God. By definition what good is what God says it is, and vice versa.
Oh so you really think morality is derived from God. Christian and Islamic God command their followers to kill disbelievers and homosexuals, to do polygamy, to mutilate genitals, to burn witches, to kill strangers, to kill interfaith couples, to kill animals on Eid. If these acts are said to be moral, then atheism should be considered as immoral.
13 islamic countries where atheism is banned- https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/12/13-countries-w...
Surah no 8 verses numbers 15 and 16 recommend Muslims to fight against disbelievers and whoever comes back from fight, will be tortured by the Allah-
O you who have believed, when you meet those who disbelieve advancing [for battle], do not turn to them your backs [in flight]. And whoever turns his back to them on such a day, unless swerving [as a strategy] for war or joining [another] company, has certainly returned with anger [upon him] from Allah, and his refuge is Hell - and wretched is the destination.
Even though, Muslims will kill their own men (Muslims), if anyone of them breaks sabbath (Surah 2 verse 165)
And you had already known about those who transgressed among you concerning the sabbath, and We said to them, "Be apes, despised."
The Koran orders Muslims to kill those wives who do sex with their gay husbands (Surah 7 verses no 80–84)
And [We had sent] Lot when he said to his people, "Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds? Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people." But the answer of his people was only that they said, "Evict them from your city! Indeed, they are men who keep themselves pure." So We saved him and his family, except for his wife; she was of those who remained [with the evildoers].
> Now when atheists try to separate morality from God they also need to come up with a logical reason. They get their reasoning from classical liberalism, or a variation of John Stuart Mill's harm principle
John Stuart Mill lived around 200 years ago. You are debating this topic in 2020. It is not 1806. The logic is very simple- you follow your God's commandment because they have been told by your God, not because they are really moral. On the other hand, we do not follow any commandment of any authority (our parents can be exception). We do moral works because it is decided by ethics. An animal kills other animal, yet he saves other species' animals as well. An animal never follows any religion or God. Doesn't it ?
> I'm sure you've all seen these mountains of scientific papers on how atheism harms human health, I don't need to show you all of em do I, but here's a example
Is it even a scientific paper ? Can you give an authenticate link of this paper ? I have statistics how much harm has been done by Christians and Muslims. Muslims have killed 270 million people on the name of their religion https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/. This data does not include people who were killed through homophobia though. If you include that part, the statistics will cross 1000 million. Chrsitians also have killed 107 people for the name of their religion. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Death_toll_of_Christianity.
Alone Pakistani Muslims kill 1 crore animals on Eid each year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_animals
> Wearing hijabs is proven to benefit a woman's mental health, promote body sensitivity, reduce sexual objectification/harassment. Yet atheism in France try to ban hijab, directly harming women. You see the inconsistency.
I am aware of what happened in France i.e. Paris attacks 2015, Magnaville stabbing 2016. The way Muslims are migrating to France, they are making it as a house of criminal activities. Many terrorist Muslims wear hijab so that they can commit crimes by covering their faces. It is not a coincidence that rapes, corruption and organised crimes are increasing in France after this migration.
> And that's it, the argument is over, I win again.
Sadly, you have lost to me aka a true debater. And people counter-argue. This is not a speech where someone can argue only.
> Even PhD atheist philosophers like Dr. Lars Gule admit this, in this video here, that under atheism's illogical attempt at creating a secular version of morality,
Appeal to authority- a PhD philosopher can make distorted version of morality but it proves nothing. A degree is a requirement for jobs, not for knowledge.
> they can logically permit bestiality, or in this case sex with pet dogs (of course in Islam that's a death sentence, in atheism it's a human right to have sex with your pet dog)
Atheism has no pope, no ritual, no founder, no doctrine, no belief. Since you give an example of an atheist, I may also give you an example of a theist- Osama Bin Laden. Everyone knows how he sent a letter before 9/11 to USA. He wrote in his letter that he is going to bomb according to Allah's will. None atheist has killed anyone for the name of atheism though.
Saying atheism has no morals, is like saying not believing in unicorns has no morals.
It's an asinine nonsequitur.
Atheism is the absence or lack of belief in a deity. If that belief was the sole provider of human morality then theists would be demonstrably more moral than atheists in similar circumstances, and they're quite demonstrably not, as any research into prison populations demonstrates.
Really. Read your bible. The bible trio has murdered babies (Passover) children(Sent two she bears to kill 42 children for the high crime of making fun of the prophet Elisha for being bald) and committed genocide(Noah story). Also why is it so easy for all religious clergies to rape children and lie about it? No other profession in the world can come close to their number of child rapist. The first treaty Adolph Hitler signed was with the Catholic Church and the first treaty Mussolini signed was also with the Catholic Church. I could go on but you get the point, I hope.
Correct, but atheists clearly do have morals.
You haven't pointed anything out, merely made an unevidenced assertion. Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for the existence of objective morality?
It's the theistic assertion that subjectively cherry picking archaic superstitious myths represents morality that is irrational. Since morality is the ABILITY to differentiate between right and wrong behaviours. If you blindly follow ancient superstitious texts then this quite demonstrably isn't morality. Even Nazis managed to blindly and unquestioningly follow rules.
Sadly this guy appears to be another drive by, only interested in preaching his own opinion at us, but lacking the integrity to rationally debate that opinion.
T'was ever thus....
Another unevidenced assertion, and one that is a demonstrably false. The concept of morality exists outside of superstition's bare assertions, you only have to google humanist or secular ethics to see this.
Then by definition you don't need morality. Do you even know what the word means? Your spiel suggests that you don't. I suggest you go and learn its definition, before making facile unevidenced assertions, that contradict its definition.
Atheism is simply the position one has, on a very specific subject in this case the lack of belief in a god and/or gods.
If you are trying to claim that theism is the birthplace of morality, being god given. Then you have to demonstrate that a god actually exists.
I'll allow you to try to demonstrate that, let's hope you do a better job then every other piss poor attempt ever made.
However, I would conceed that morality and theism are entwined by an unbreakable common point.
They are both man made.
Two unevidenced assertions, both demonstrably false as well. The French government is not atheism, that's another execrable nonsequitur you've used to attack a position that doesnt share your theistic position. The French government may be secular, but this is not the same as them being representative of atheism.
Secondly you haven't offered a shred of tangible evidence for your claim this ban will harm women. You don't even bother to detail what the ban entails, and when, let alone how this causes harm. Your hysterical hyperbole is risible, as are your unevidenced assertions.
Hardly surprising given you're clearly trolling.
That's a text book appeal to authority fallacy for a start, so claims about being rational are destroyed right there. Secondly what has the opinion of a single atheist to with atheism, you are conflating apples and oranges, it's either a dishonest attempt to troll, or a woefully lack of understanding. Or both of course.
Nietzsche was driven quite mad by syphilis for a start, but that aside, he could decide the moon was hollow and filled with creme fresh, this doesn't change the meaning of atheism from being a single position on one single belief.
You also have failed to offer a single cogent rational argument, or a shred of objective evidence as to how disbelieving in a deity renders anyone less able to differentiate between right and wrong behaviours?
Theistic beliefs are entirely subjective. They are not supported by any objective evidence. So religious and theistic morals are as subjective as secular morals.
Indeed, since all that any mythology fanboy has ever had to offer, at bottom consists of "my mythology says so, therefore it's true", the assertions of mythology fanboys can be safely discarded on the basis that they arise from this risible origin.