Message from @Little Boots
Discord ID: 461346255294038027
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
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
What if I deem it better to take your things so I can "help" others?
Therefore its not right
Its only right if it would also be better to the same to you in that situation which it isnt
But what if that slaughter was done for the greater good?
And what gives this "Golden rule" you propose any more legitimacy than communism, survival of the fittest, or any other system?
It cant be the greater good because no person would advocate their own slaughter
Who are you to decide good?
When you divide into groups it becomes immoral
Is what is good for one man the same for all men?
We know this through intelligence.