Gothix: The DANGERS of Atheism: Objective morality can't exist without God

An outstanding video by Gothix on objective morality and Atheism. How in such a short time has this insanity spread you may ask? Objective Morality and the rejection of God.

What is stopping society from getting worse? Nothing. Because the government itself is complicit.

I’d like to hear an atheist react/rebutt this video.

a reply to: infolurker

That was a good video.

I don't watch videos, but I do remember that I reached the same conclusion as an atheist. My self-analysis was that I could not find any rational argument which leads the indiviual away from self-interest, and I knew that I continued to be moral myself partly out of ingrained habit and also because i wanted people to like me.

I know Kant came up with the "Categorical Imperative", but I still think this is an elaborate way of re-stating "Do unto others" which doesn't actually succeed in motivating the individual to obey it.

Here is an extract from the atheist stage of my college diaries.

On Wednesday evening [3rd] I went to the first meeting of the re-organised Humanist Society. There were two speakers. One was Professor Ayer, who who gave us a historical account of the origins of the Humanists, and the other gave us an account of the policies the Humanist Association was attempting to pursue now. One aspect of this, the attempt to have religious education in schools replaced by some kind of “moral education” was disputed in some of the questions afterwards, when it was asked what form this substitute would take, and what they would want to do if it was resisted by a majority of parents.

One questioner near the back brought together two aspects of the earlier speeches and asked whether, in view of the Humanists’ avowed aim to make sure that people had a life which was as comfortable as possible, and in view of the pollution crisis which would possibly tend to make life more unbearable, it would not be most in accordance with their policy to find a humane way of exterminating the race. It was an ingenious question, but Professor Ayer made the best reply possible, saying that if the majority of the human race really did want to commit suicide he wouldn’t try to stop them. A Germanic-sounding person sitting behind me also had a paradoxical sense of humour which made him almost incoherent with laughter as he expounded his paradoxes.

Professor Ayer’s own attitude towards Christianity was made clear when someone at the back, presumably a Christian herself, asked him whether he would allow any place for the importance of religious experience. He said that nobody minded the “wishy-washy” Christianity of visiting the sick and so on and if Christianity were to be reduced to that they would have nothing to argue about. Similarly there was nothing to object to in a feeling of awe in the universe, or a sense of communion with it, if that was what she meant, but surely the essence of Christianity was the dogma (a word heavily emphasised and repeated) and this was what he objected to.”

I don’t think I will be going to any of the later meetings. I’m just not interested in going over the old ground of abortion, drugs, progressive education and mental health. I suppose I’m not really a Humanist, if Humanism involves being interested in all these worthy subjects. In fact, as some of the questions were revealing, it is impossible to work out any purely rational basis for altruism on a grand scale. I don’t see how the logical process of thought leads away from self-interest and personal feeling as the main basis of action.

a reply to: Albert999

What exactly do you want rebutting?

I understand there's powers beyond my comprehension and you may define them as God's/gods but I've never had much interest in that, I like others to interpret things without their own influenced bias though so I'll ask : which one of them is the best arbiter for the individual's morality?

Bit of a trick question I know, you have no more right to judge than a 2 year old. If your ethics and morality have been built from a group setting I'd be at liberty to call you influenced too.

I do understand many religions have an obligation to spread their good words and I see no difference than an atheist who thinks they're morally obliged to influence the nature of others. I just see it for what it is, manipulation. Isn't that a form of warfare?

So much investment in controlling others, obviously such spending comes with it's influence and judgement also. That's not me picking sides or judging groups either because I haven't identified with one for a long time. It's me laughing at morality and whether it should be influenced at all. Let the filthy be filthy and invest in public baths. Horses for courses...

If the inevitable cycle of barring undesirables from civilization comes around again just do the decent thing and leave the gates open please. Don't chase down your 'demons' and don't go breaking moral codes either. That's not aimed at any particular group either because they all get carried away, quite evident that's the truth right?

This young lady uses "morality" as her premise, but the core of her argument is about her faith, not morality.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: Albert999

What exactly do you want rebutting?

I understand there's powers beyond my comprehension and you may define them as God's/gods but I've never had much interest in that, I like others to interpret things without their own influenced bias though so I'll ask : which one of them is the best arbiter for the individual's morality?

Bit of a trick question I know, you have no more right to judge than a 2 year old. If your ethics and morality have been built from a group setting I'd be at liberty to call you influenced too.

I do understand many religions have an obligation to spread their good words and I see no difference than an atheist who thinks they're morally obliged to influence the nature of others. I just see it for what it is, manipulation. Isn't that a form of warfare?

So much investment in controlling others, obviously such spending comes with it's influence and judgement also. That's not me picking sides or judging groups either because I haven't identified with one for a long time. It's me laughing at morality and whether it should be influenced at all. Let the filthy be filthy and invest in public baths. Horses for courses...

If the inevitable cycle of barring undesirables from civilization comes around again just do the decent thing and leave the gates open please. Don't chase down your 'demons' and don't go breaking moral codes either. That's not aimed at any particular group either because they all get carried away, quite evident that's the truth right?

That’s fair 👍🏻

Objective morality is just another label for altruism. People born with a altruistic heart don't need religion for they already feel the sadness and pain in others. In helping others they relieve that sadness in pain in themselves. Religion therefore is not a moral high-ground. More-so a methodology to soften the hearts of egotist so they can achieve a moral high-ground. Sadly that methodology does not awaken the masses. Only the few as stated in Luke 13:23-27. So it is incredibly dangerous to think Christianity is a better ideal. We don't want a return of people being burnt at the stake for questioning the christian elite again. Nor do we want to return to culture that saw the stoning of misbehaving children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) a means to conquer evil.

Morality comes from awareness of what you do effect other awareness and control your behavior to make sure the effect is positive. A human have more awareness than an ant and can keep more variables in its awareness. The higher awareness the more knowledge and wisdom of the effects of behaviors. The beings above humans are of course more aware and that limits what is acceptable behavior for them.

We live in a world where humans are playing around with power pyramids and usury. That is totally insanity on a higher awareness level.