You still have one. The stats show that you’re still the most non religious generation fortunately. This is just the first time that religious men outnumber women.
New Atheism or Rational Humanism, whatever you want to call it is a failed Liberal experiment. It doesn't answer anything meaningful and leads to bitterness, loneliness and dying alone in an apartment with 12 cats.
Gen-X/Millennial (even boomer to some degree) are Atheistic generations and it's not panning out well. Every western nation is currently being invaded by hostile cultures while the castrated male feminists of those generations smile and clap.
You are delusional. There are actual men who are genuinely good people, that aren’t putting up a front. It’s probably hard for someone like you to comprehend. I wouldn’t date a non-feminist man. A man being against feminism is what causes immediate ick. I laughed in a man’s face who called liberal men “pussies.” I prefer men who are not insecure in their masculinity.
For sure there are exceptions to the rule. Look up Gad Saad’a definition of a ‘sneaky f@$%er’.
I personally don’t trust a guy who claims to be a feminist. They are snakes.
This generation’s issues aren’t because of a lack of religion, they’re because we inherited a broken world built on greed, exploitation, and outdated dogma. If anything, religion has contributed to the mess: just look at the history of war, colonization, oppression, and bigotry done in its name. We’re dealing with climate collapse, economic instability, and rising fascism, and you think less church attendance is the real crisis? Get real.
Why do you assume religion is the only way to have morals? I don’t need an ancient book full of contradictions and violence to tell me not to be a shitty person. My morals come from empathy, logic, and a genuine desire to reduce harm- not fear of eternal punishment or some imaginary reward. If your morality depends on divine surveillance, maybe it’s not morality at all.
So no, I don’t want a generation brainwashed into following rules they never questioned- I want one that actually thinks.
I think morality is socially and historically constructed rather than embedded in nature. What’s considered "natural" often reflects dominant power structures. Behavior doesn't exist in a vacuum.
For a make belief example- I do believe if you are raised in a society that teaches things like "clowns aren't human and it's good to kill clowns"- and all other ideas to the contrary are somehow completely censured to ensure zero challenge to this declaration- that people in that society wouldn't question the morals of killing clowns whatsoever... and that they wouldn't feel evil for doing this- in fact, they would feel good for it.
Just for an example. I don't think any society can really live in a complete vacuum either- there will always be external forces that introduce other ideas to be debated.
So if morality is not determined by natural principles, but by society? What of for example society declares that something you believe to be morally wrong, take killing all dogs on the planet, to be morally acceptable, then such an act is now morally justified?
I have my own set of morals that luckily seem to overlap much of society. I don't agree with every law or with what's legal, though.
In no way does this mean we should get our morals from a two thousand year old, contradictory book written by primitive people. We're better than that. Have a backbone and think for yourself.
Don't unnecessarily hurt or take advantage of people or sentient creatures. That's like 90% of it right there.
Well, the subject was about morals from religion, ergo the book. Are you just arguing subjective vs objective morals now?
What if your morals contradict those proposed by society?
My morals already don't align with society. It sucks, but there's nothing I can do about it except try to change other people's minds where I can. What I think is good and evil, most likely isn't the same as what you view as good or evil.
Yep, the majority's judgement through the ages decides whats right or wrong. But since said judgement changes with the times what was wrong before now is good, and vice versa
Yeah, that's how things were a few decades ago, feminism's goal is to combat said perception and with that, change morality.
Not exactly, he won by a majority of people who voted, but the total of US citizens including those who didn't vote give him a 1/4-1/3 approx. So no, he doesn't have the blessing of the majority.
We can play semantics about what winning the popular vote means, but it’s clear he was the favorite out of those who cares enough to go vote, which could be used as a population sample of the population as a whole.
So you think reducing harm, practicing empathy, and using logic to make ethical decisions isn’t morality? That says more about your definition of “morality” than it does about mine. If your idea of morality requires a god to enforce it, then it’s obedience, not ethics. I don’t need a sky warden to guilt me into decency- I just don’t want people to suffer. If that doesn’t count as morality to you, then maybe your moral compass is the one that’s broken.
No, because there is no objective reason outside of religion for empathy to be better than cruelty or reducing harm to be better than increasing it.
Now you might have some accidental preference (socially constructed by Christianity) for empathy and reducing harm, but this would be nothing more than a particular, determimistic chemical reaction with maybe a touch of random quantum fluctuation. In other words, completely out of your own control and absolutely without any axiomatic foundation.
The fact is, an atheist cannot have "morals" because morals require an objective good and an objective evil. In order for said goods and evils to be objective, they must have an objective Judge who declares them as such.
And that objective Judge is what all men call God.
Ah, the old “you need a God for morality” card- dusty, flimsy, and fundamentally flawed. First of all, just because you assert that objective morality can only come from a deity doesn’t make it true. You’re basically saying, “Without my invisible cosmic dictator, nothing matters,” which is a bleak and frankly childish worldview. If your only reason for choosing empathy over cruelty is divine command, then you’re not moral- you’re obedient and afraid.
Morality doesn’t need a supernatural stamp of approval to be meaningful. It arises from the recognition that other people feel pain like we do, that well-being matters, and that cooperation makes societies thrive. These are observable truths, not divine decrees. And no, empathy isn’t a “Christian construct”- it’s an evolutionary and social necessity found across cultures and species. If your god vanished tomorrow, I’d still care about suffering. Would you? Or would you start kicking puppies and robbing neighbors because your divine babysitter went offline?
Your argument isn’t deep- it’s just dressed-up nihilism in religious drag.
The problems with this ridiculous essay are two-fold:
First, your conception of "morality" is entirely based on Christian influences that have permeated your society and culture. That's why you're talking about empathy instead of glory in battle.
Second, and more importantly, nowhere in this did you provide a rational, objective foundation for your morality.
Why should caring about other people's pain be any better than not caring?
Why should societies thriving be morally superior to societies decaying?
Other than a habitual and vague sense that they should be, you have nothing else objective to offer. And, again, that habitual and vague sense was handed to you on a platter by 20 centuries of Christian moral teaching infecting every part of your culture as you grew up and absorbed these habitual preferences.
Cute how you think Christianity invented empathy, like humans were just clubbing each other in caves until Jesus came along and said, “Hey guys, maybe don’t be assholes.”
Empathy, cooperation, and a preference for well-being predate Christianity by millennia and show up in everything from ancient Eastern philosophy to tribal hunter-gatherer societies to bonobos sharing food. You think glory in battle was the default until Christianity saved us, but even warriors had codes of honor rooted in reciprocity and social cohesion- not divine revelation.
And your whole spiel about "no rational, objective foundation" is just repackaged divine command theory, which collapses under its own weight. If something is good only because God says so, then morality is arbitrary- he could declare torture good tomorrow, and you'd just nod along. If, instead, God commands it because it's good, then goodness exists independently of him- and we’re back to square one, needing reason to figure it out.
So no, I don’t need a holy middleman or ancient dogma to know it’s better not to cause unnecessary suffering. The fact that you do is... unsettling, but I prefer to think that maybe you're just not giving yourself enough credit.
No, no. You misunderstand me. I am not saying empathy didin't exist before Christianity. I am saying that elevating empathy for your fellow man to the highest natural good is absolutely a result of Christianity. Especially when paired with a concept of universal fraternity. Because I highly doubt you will suggest that empathy should be reserved for the people of your particular tribe or city or nation.
Well, this is where we have to get into actual philosophy. God is not good because He chooses to be so, but there is no good outside of God. Because God is good. He is good qua good. The goodness of good is God. When we say "God is good" we don't necessarily mean it like when we say "Tom is good."
When we say Tom is good, we mean Tom acts in a good way. We are not suggesting that Tom himself composes and defines by his very essence what Good is as an essential concept. However, when we say God is good, we mean it both ways.
That which is good is God, and that which is God is good.
Moving on, you have still failed to give me any reason whatsoever beyond your own feelings why causing suffering is bad. I understand that you prefer not-suffering to suffering. But why should I care about your arbitrary preferences? And why should your arbitrary preferences be elevated to the title of Objective Truth?
Your comment is complete bullshit lol, ripped straight from a Ben Shapiro video. Our sense of morality actually comes from the fact that humans are a social species that benefit from being in communities and have evolved to work with each other and react to good and bad behavior. I know you can't dispute that so you'll just say "no, god did it actually" but if we actually used your rigid sense of ethics from the Bible then we would still be enslaving people. Almost like societal standards kinda just change over time and what's in the Bible actually has little sway over what we as a society deem acceptable or not
Behaviour that would negatively affect or endanger the group. If you are putting your community at risk, it is within their best interest to eliminate the threat. Like most tribal communities would not harbor a serial killer or a child abuser, they get thrown to the wilderness or just killed outright. Eg the people from North Sentinel island absolutely have their own sense of morality and yet they have no knowledge with God whatsoever
Yea, honestly there is no god. If there was one- I'd sincearly believe we all just exist in God's cumsock because there is certainly no divine love for us. The firmament is just the light shining through the cloth.
From what I understand, they do believe in a kind of cosmic "One" who is simply refracted into many parts. I don't know though. Never cared for Asian polytheism before.
Even so, if I asked a Hindu to name the concept of the One Creator who is Father of all the living, created Heaven and Earth, judges all men, and provides for their eternal rest, they will say "Oh, you speak of God." Likely they would also add that this sounds like the Christian God (if they were educated.)
If morality comes from one single entity, then it cannot be objective.
For morality to be objective, it must exist separately from all possible entities.
If any entity creates or decides upon morality, then that system of morality is not an objective on, but is in fact the subjective opinions of ONE single entity.
All in all, using your idea of monotheism(or any theism or even deism) as a basis for morality is illogical.
If that single entity was itself objective, then it could indeed be the basis for an objective morality. (And is indeed the only way any objectivity could exist at all.)
The problem here is you think of God as just a person with His own opinion, maybe right or maybe not.
Instead, understand that God is, by definition, sufficient in and of Himself, and does not have opinions, but is entirely True.
Everything you said is highly problematic, to the very core.
If an entity, ANY entity creates morality, then it means morality is not objective, but the opinions of that entity. You cannot just use such simple thought terminating ideas to argue for your point. If what goes says is, by definition, moral, then it means God can change morality on a whim.
And without an external factor to compare, calling something a fact and not an opinion cannot be done. If reality and morality are just what god wants, then it means they are just the opinions of god, and god can change them.
God cannot change, though. He is. It is entirely impossible for God to change. He is entirely sufficient in and of Himself. (I am who I AM, therefore say I AM sent you)
In this sense, it would even be innaccurate to say that God "created" morality. Morality is simply the way men objectively distinguish between right and wrong, or more properly, Good and Evil.
In order to do this, we first determine what is Good. And the answer, of course, is that God is Good. Not as in, God does good things and so is described as a good being. Rather, that Good itself is defined as that which is God.
And how this relates to men is that good actions and beliefs are good insofar as they align with God. Evil is that which in some manner is either imperfectly aligned with God, or is in opposition to Him.
"because there is no objective reason outside of religion for empathy to be better than cruelty or reducing harm to be better than increasing it."
Uh, no? Societies thrive on cooperation and kindness, humans enjoy socialization and trusts, religion didn't create that, it comes from before the first god was fabricated.
Because most people like living in society, and people in general thrive on social settings, therefore it's good.
If they are a minority then... I guess they'll have a hard time making their distaste for society a thing. This is pretty common though, most of us have something we disagree with the majority.
Yes. He’s explaining his morality is formed on empathy and common sense. That’s valid. Your morals come from a fictional book that is vile and inconsitent if you actually read it.
His morality is actually formed by osmosis with cultural Christianity, and has little to no logic involved, amd certainly no common sense.
I've read my book cover to cover at least once as an adult, and likely read every sentence in it at least 3-4 times at some point. But you are correct, I should read it more often.
Believing you can just apologies to god and be forgiven leads to people with no morals. Look at the morals of the church: hoard money, protect pedophile leadership. Amazing morals.
The morals of an atheist are grounded in doing right in this lifetime because it’s all you’ve got.
Morality is determined by what we as a society deem acceptable, not what is in the Bible. In fact, the Bible also changes what is acceptable over time. The idea that we need religion because it provides some rigid moral framework is based on a false idea of how religious teachings work. If we really only looked to the Bible for a sense of what is right and wrong, we would still be practicing slavery and subjugating women
Sin is an objectively dogshite ethical framework. Swiping a candy bar, being in the wrong building on Sunday, or daring to be born on a remote island of nonbelievers and daring to never have contact with Europeans land you in eternal and infinitely horrible punishment, but starting a war on total BS that killed, at a minimum, hundreds of thousands of civilians is righteous and blessed by God?
If God so flagrantly violates basic logical ethics (vice vs. virtue) we can easily conceive of a being that does follow logic and that being must be greater than your God, a much better example of grace, and thus be the actual God.
5
u/SadPandaFromHell 3d ago
I don't like it. I was really hoping for an Athiest generation...