@everyone Daily Question 🔖

-What are your thoughts on Athiesm? Simply not believing in a Deity, is it compatible with "Right wing" or other views in the modern day?

Early bolshevism was fucking gay

Stalin era bolshevism was actually pretty nationalistic and anti semitic

@Deleted User should I explain my thoughts in details?

@Deleted User Why are you doing qotd at literally 12:50am

there is only 53 people on

u fucking imbecile

do it during peak hours

Atheism isn't "simply not believing in a deity", in the very same way that a philanderer is not gay

The philosophical definition of atheism means to deny the existence (and, by extension, the possibility of) a Maximally Great Being

@Deleted User they can answer it when they wake up

or something

idk, ill repost in the morning

@Gust if you want to philosophize it that way that's your choice, mine is a lack of belief in any higher power.

It depends, do they cry when Nietzsche said "God is dead, and we killed him" or do they revel in that statement?

If they understand why Nietzsche said that, then they could potentially be alright, but if they think he was mocking the religious, then no they won't work in a "right wing" society.

For those who don't know, when the statement "God is dead and we killed him" was made, it was from a story about an old man who cried to the people about it, seeing them become more carnal and less caring when they became atheists, but they laughed him off and continued their decadence. The realization is that even if religion is wrong, the role it has in a society is important and cannot be replaced by worldly means. If it was, then no objective morality exists and we get into moral relativism, which as we know cannot work.

@Deleted User dont repost

I fully agree with Crazed Shotgun

Atheists have no objective morality and so are naturally inclined to decadence because they have no god to tell them no

If we let this kind of ideology spread our entire world will look like the goddamn Ptolemies

@Deleted User What if they just follow morality on their own terms and it alligns with the morality of a christian or any other religion.

Why do they need a master to tell then what is right and wrong?

Aligning morality with that of other religions while technically still being independent of that religion is fine
Without a concrete sense of morality we’ll end up jumping further and further down a worse and worse path

Moral relativism means death for humanity

Atheism is really a spectrum. There are those who dont believe in a god but believe in an uncaused cause, and there are those who just dont believe in natta.

I think either of which is fine and yes it could align with right-wing views but I personally believe it aligns more with better-wing views

multiple christian UTubers have made some solid cases that atheists cannot be moral unless they simply accept and function using the morality of well christians

as is generally the case, most even willa rgue moral relativism only then to run into absolutes such as 'slavery is wrong, and even if we return to it in the future we may return to somethign that is immoral"

arguing moral absolutes all of a sudden

morality, should we consider it objective, is a starting point and well in general an entire argument for gods existence. Objective morality is very much so in opposition to the atheist worldview.

Moral relativism is quite litrally a death for humanity as Konugh said. Its not even reverting back to darker times but rather establishign tha tmorality ultimately is just something that is a figment of our imagination and that ultimately changes on a whim.

There are however more reasonable and less reasonable atheists, most reasonable fall under the agnostic atheist tag since they often aknowledge and refuse to make their position one that is absolute aknowledging their philosophical shortcomings but choosing to trust it over other methods.

As far as right wing, I dont think so, the right wing is also a spiritual movement in a way, one that is aims for vitrue, morality, and holds these to be objective, it also holds things to be sacred. The right wing to some extent is fundumentally spiritual if not outright religious.

Morality can never be objective

even if the bible is right

morality should be based mainly upon hurt and suffering

thats what I think

and even tho its subjective if enough people agree on what I say then we can enforce it upon people

thats then absolute moral relativism, that means that if I and a bigger band of people come, and say "slavery is good" then it is literally good. the axiome of suffering simply means hedonism ie. I do what causes pleasure. And therefore it is good. The reason people agree on morality to any extent is becuse until not too long ago society believe in objective morality as fictated by god. Currently the left is makign pedophilia okay. Soon it might not be immoral at all, given enough people accept it as moral, to diddle little kids.

this then means that fundumentally the question is "does morality exist at all, or not at all?" -> If it exists it must be objective, if it doesnt it is simply a figment of our imagination.

(the axiome of suffering is extremely weak since it permits utterly immoral acts, generally its beyond inconsistent since suffering in and of itself is not a bad thing, or evil and can be a tool for good). But this s just devolving into adiscussion on morality its nature etc. Still fundumentally I do think the right is in essence to some degree spiritual

religious etc. and that this simply puts atheists often at odds with the right, and this in general plays out in trends. Atheists are trypically left leaning or left wing, with a fringe minority that is right wing and evne then they orbit the center never going too far into the right wing

Atheism and secularism is being pushed by the jews to destroy the modern world. I see know way you can be a nationalistic right winger and also be atheist.

lol