Message from @Amadeus
Discord ID: 461345661955080192
Without religion, you get Stalins, Maos, and Lenins.
In anycase from boots definition morals would work without god
What if there are no consequences? What if jail doesn't strike fear? I've probably made a thousand arrests. The vast majority were repeat offenders.
No, they wouldn't.
They wouldn't be morals anymore.
They would be laws.
If jail doesnt strike fear how does god?
Fear of society shunning you for doing wrong.
God sends you to Hell. Forever.
Laws are different from codes and statues. B
Of course, there will always be excepts, but that's why we call them excepts.
But they dont care about god or hell
Again, excepts.
Just like people dont care about laws sometimes
"Hey, look, there's a tall woman! Your statement is false!" - Non-arguments.
And those people are exceptions.
You're right, because they don't believe in a god.
So religion works except when it doesnt...
And laws work except when it doesn't.
Well not in the traditional sense. Everyone believes in a god. But for an atheist, that god is himself.
you may not fear Hell in your normal life, but if you actually believe in Hell or think there is a chance, and you think you could go there, you will fear it and you will have an uncomfortable death
The point being laws apply even if you dont believe them
And Laws have a much easier habit of resulting in tyranny.
Morals do not.
Religion resulted in tyranny when it was the law
Morals arent religion
Depending on the religion yes
You can have morals without religion
Tell me what right a man has to decide what is moral
Not so much the other way
However, religion is the best entity of actually getting people to agree with your morality.
Also, religion was the result of the need for explanations and was the result of society agreeing on common principles and figures.
Man can weigh the good and make decisions based on that
Ehzek, define "good."
With the highest morality comming from what is best for you and others
Who decides what is best?
Alright, what is the best for you and others?
In fact, tell me what can be considered "good" in an objective manner?
What is "best" for a poor family is to slaughter a rich family and take everything from them. As has happened in every godless communist revolution
When you treat others as yourself and wouldnt do something to others that you wouldnt want done to you
Except that slaughter is bad because slaughtering the poor family would be bad for the poor family