[Jabberwock]

In case you did not know (and not notice), Christian morality is also not absolutistic (therefore it is relativistic). For example, Christians believe that if killed you, then it would be wrong, but if God did, then it would be quite all right. Bible says that for Jews it was OK to kill disobedient children or victims of urban rape, or that some types of slavery are permitted under specific circumstances. That is also moral relativism.

[Levi]

“In case you did not know (and not notice), Christian morality is also
not absolutistic (therefore it is relativistic). For example, Christians
believe that if killed you, then it would be wrong, but if God did,
then it would be quite all right.”

You don’t understand what the difference is. Humans kill for no reason, but God does it for judgement. By the way, if morality is not absolute, then God does not exist; for then God is relativistic, which is foreign to Christianity.

“Bible says that for Jews it was OK to
kill disobedient children or victims of urban rape, or that some types
of slavery are permitted under specific circumstances. That is also
moral relativism.”

What made you think that this is relativism? What passages are you referring too?

[Bob]

“What made you think that this is relativism? What passages are you referring too?”

Killing is bad. Except if God does it. That’s relativism.

[Levi]

You don’t understand the difference. God does it for punishment, but man does it for fun. God will not just kill people unless they are deserving of it.

Do you understand, yet?

[Bob]

Yes, I understand. You’re explaining to me how you fit the pieces together to form your worldview. That’s fine, but it does nothing to justify it in my mind.

And we still have problems like God’s support for genocide and slavery. We think they’re obviously morally wrong. God didn’t.

[Levi]

“Yes, I understand. You’re explaining to me how you fit the pieces together to form your worldview. That’s fine, but it does nothing to justify it in my mind.”

Why isn’t it justified, atheist?

“And we still have problems like God’s support for genocide and slavery. We think they’re obviously morally wrong. God didn’t.”

Where in the Bible does it say that?

[Bob]

“Why isn’t it justified, atheist?”

Because, Christian, making claims and providing evidence aren’t the same thing. You’ve provided no evidence for your claims.

“Where in the Bible does it say that?”

We’ll start with slavery. Read Lev. 25:44-46.

Something may be wrong with your Christian worldview if an atheist understands your holy book better than you.

[Levi]

“We’ll start with slavery. Read Lev. 25:44-46.

Something may be wrong with your Christian worldview if an atheist understands your holy book better than you.”

I just wanted examples, Bob. I wanted a Bible verse.

Are you sure slavery was the same back then as it is now?

[Bob]

Good—so I gave you a Bible verse. Now the big question: are you going to dance away from the obvious meaning of that verse (god defines the rules for chattel slavery) or are you going to ponder this obvious clash between god being A-OK with slavery and “God is love”?

You asked about slavery being the same. The key point–bondage for life–is the same.

[Levi]

[Bob]

“Isn’t God only making regulations for slavery?”

Yeah, that’s all he was doing–just making the rules for chattel slavery. It’s not like God’s version of slavery was worse than that in the antebellum South; it was just the same.

Which, of course, brings up the question: you worship this guy?!

[Levi]

“Yeah, that’s all he was doing–just making the rules for chattel slavery. It’s not like God’s version of slavery was worse than that in the antebellum South; it was just the same.”

It was worse? Why?

“Which, of course, brings up the question: you worship this guy?!”

I do.

[Bob]

“It was worse?”

I didn’t say it was worse. Read for comprehension next time.

[Bob]

“It was worse?”

I didn’t say it was worse. Read for comprehension next time.

[Levi]

“Yeah, that’s all he was doing–just making the rules for chattel slavery. It’s not like God’s version of slavery was worse than that in the antebellum South; it was just the same.”

It was worse? Why?

“Which, of course, brings up the question: you worship this guy?!”

I do, quite frankly. But not whatever you think my God is.

[Levi]

“Yeah, that’s all he was doing–just making the rules for chattel slavery. It’s not like God’s version of slavery was worse than that in the antebellum South; it was just the same.”

It was worse? Why?

[treebeard (atheist)]

> God will not just kill people unless they are deserving of it.

How about Exodus Passover, when God killed all the first newborns of Egyptians, including slaves and prisoners?

[Levi]

Punishment for Pharaoh’s hard heart. Ask God that.

[treebeard (atheist)]

You said

> God will not just kill people unless they are deserving of it.

> Punishment for Pharaoh’s hard heart. Ask God that.

Can you explain what did the infants, slaves and prisoners do to deserve this punishment?

[Levi]

“You said

> God will not just kill people unless they are deserving of it.

> Punishment for Pharaoh’s hard heart. Ask God that.

Can you explain what did the infants, slaves and prisoners do to deserve this punishment?”

That’s why God hates sin. It negatively affects others.

[Bob]

”

That’s why God hates sin. It negatively affects
others.”

Which doesn’t answer the question.

Try to be a little more honest in the future. Answer what’s put before you, and admit where you don’t have an answer.

[Bob]

How about encouraging Satan to test Job by killing Job’s servants and 10 children? How about the Flood?

[Levi]

“How about encouraging Satan to test Job by killing Job’s servants and 10 children? How about the Flood?”

What is wrong with testing? What is wrong with punishing an evil world (actually, the Bible says that he will come to punish the world again as it coming near to [or even worse] than the days of Noah) while saving his people?

God’s ways are higher than our ways, so do not put him to the test.

[Bob]

“What is wrong with testing?”

It’s unnecessary. God is really smart, and he knows the outcome. When God tests someone/some people, it looks like he’s *not* omniscient—which is the default hypothesis anyway.

“What is wrong with punishing an evil world”

Let me get this straight: a perfect god creates people who are evil, and then he kicks himself for being so gosh-darned clueless that he didn’t see that coming, but of course he did. And you worship this guy?!

“God’s ways are higher than our ways, so do not put him to the test.”

(1) I’ll assume he exists so I can avoid testing him once I know he exists.

(2) Read Isaiah 7:12–13. Or try Judges 6:36–40. God has no problem with being tested. Seriously, don’t you read your Bible?

[Levi]

” “What is wrong with testing?”

It’s unnecessary. God is really smart, and he knows the outcome. When God tests someone/some people, it looks like he’s *not* omniscient—which is the default hypothesis anyway.”

What do you mean by that?

” “What is wrong with punishing an evil world”

Let me get this straight: a perfect god creates people who are evil, and then he kicks himself for being so gosh-darned clueless that he didn’t see that coming, but of course he did. And you worship this guy?!”

But can he intervene and make us robots? What do you mean?

” “God’s ways are higher than our ways, so do not put him to the test.”

(1) I’ll assume he exists so I can avoid testing him once I know he exists.

(2) Read Isaiah 7:12–13. Or try Judges 6:36–40. God has no problem with being tested. Seriously, don’t you read your Bible”

First passage God invites someone to test him, it is not testing unasked for. Second, Gideon asks for a sign. If you want to test God, ask him yourself. We’ll see if he listens to an atheist.

[Jabberwock]

The term
‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways.
Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are
deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that
the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but
relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

plato.stanford.edu

Moral Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Moral Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[Algernon]

Levi @Operationalitheia ,

“By the way, if morality is not absolute, then God does not exist; for then God is relativistic, which is foreign to Christianity.”

What is foreign to Christianity is an absolute view of what is moral and what is not moral. With the Bible being widely open to interpretation and containing many discrepancies / contradictions, through the ages Christians have had, and continue to have, differing views on moral issues like slavery, capital punishment, homosexuality, abortion and gun control to name just a few. The list goes on and on. Yet many Christians believe and insist that their own moral views are given by God and therefore absolute. How are Christians in a better position to “accuse others of wrongdoing” than non-Christians?

With all the emphasis that Jesus gave on humility, it’s something that is in short supply for many, many Christians. This is especially true of Evangelical Christians.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by  Algernon.

[Levi]

That is quite a modified reply, Algernon.

“What is foreign to Christianity is an absolute view of what is moral and what is not moral. With the Bible being widely open to interpretation and containing many discrepancies / contradictions, through the ages Christians have had, and continue to have, differing views on moral issues like slavery, capital punishment, homosexuality, abortion and gun control to name just a few.”

Sorry. The Bible is not open to anything but a literal interpretation. There are many interpretations, but is that what God wants? No, he cannot be changed. “Which interpretation is the best?” Should be our question after your comment.

“The list goes on and on. Yet many Christians believe and insist that their own moral views are given by God and therefore absolute. How are Christians in a better position to “accuse others of wrongdoing” than non-Christians”

That doesn’t undermine absolutes. It’s just views.

“With all the emphasis that Jesus gave on humility, it’s something that is in short supply for many, many Christians. This is especially true of Evangelical Christians.”

What’s the point here?

[Algernon]

Levi @Operationalitheia ,

You speak of “what God wants”, but the fact is that with the Bible being what it is, “what God wants” is open to interpretation. Seems like you lack the humility to accept this truth and arrogantly insist that YOUR interpretation of “what God wants” is absolute and by extension YOUR moral views are absolute.

As I wrote earlier:

“With all the emphasis that Jesus gave on humility, it’s something that is in short supply for many, many Christians. This is especially true of Evangelical Christians.”

• This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by  Algernon.

[Levi]

“You speak of “what God wants”, but the fact is that with the Bible being what it is, “what God wants” is open to interpretation. Seems like you lack the humility to accept this truth and arrogantly insist that YOUR interpretation of “what God wants” is absolute and by extension YOUR moral views are absolute.”

Is that your moral view? Are you forcing your interpretation of “what God wants” on me?

[Algernon]

Levi @Operationalitheia ,

My moral view? I wrote nothing about MY moral view. Do you even bother to try to understand what others write? What do you think that the following says?:

You speak of “what God wants”, but the fact is that with the Bible being what it is, “what God wants” is open to interpretation. Seems like you lack the humility to accept this truth and arrogantly insist that YOUR interpretation of “what God wants” is absolute and by extension YOUR moral views are absolute.

I’ll let you know where you got it wrong.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Algernon.

[Levi]

“My moral view? I wrote nothing about MY moral view. Do you even bother to try to understand what others write? What do you think that the following says?:

You speak of “what God wants”, but the fact is that with the Bible being what it is, “what God wants” is open to interpretation. Seems like you lack the humility to accept this truth and arrogantly insist that YOUR interpretation of “what God wants” is absolute and by extension YOUR moral views are absolute.”

What does my personality and my “arrogance” (I disagree) have to do with my view?

[Bob]

“What does my personality and my “arrogance” (I disagree) have to do with my view?“

Ah. I think we’ve entered the “Just Asking Questions” phase of Levi’s debate.

[Levi]

????

[Algernon]

Levi @Operationalitheia ,

You keep having trouble comprehending what I write. This also seems to be true of what other posters write. As well as scripture for that matter. It’s a recurring theme. For example,

Leviticus 25

44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45You may also acquire them from the sons of the foreign residents who reside among you, and from their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may also pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves.

Clearly God is expressly giving permission to acquire and own chattel slaves and not merely “only making regulations for slavery” as you asserted in your post to Bob @seidensticker .

• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Algernon.

[Levi]

https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-did-god-permit-slavery Tell me your thoughts on this article.

[Algernon]

Levi @Operationalitheia ,

Once again you’ve failed to comprehend what I’ve written. Evidently you are either unable or unwilling to engage in a meaningful conversation. As I pointed out earlier:

“You keep having trouble comprehending what I write. This also seems to be true of what other posters write. As well as scripture for that matter. It’s a recurring theme.”

To make matters worse, in your latest post to me, you even failed to write anything meaningful whatsoever. Instead, for all intents and purposes, you only posted a link to another website. Do yourself and others a favor. Take a class in reading comprehension. Then read up on how to have a meaningful conversation.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Algernon.

[Levi]

I’ll try my best, Algernon.

“He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely
be put to death.” Exodus 21:16. Slaves come to the owners by their own actions, not owners to the slaves.

Here are two points from AiG:

[Bob]

“Sorry. The Bible is not open to anything but a literal interpretation. There are many interpretations, but is that what God wants? No, he cannot be changed.”

Suit yourself. Then the immutable god is the one who defines the rules for slavery and orders genocide.

“ “Which interpretation is the best?” Should be our question after your comment. “

No, “How the heck could an immutable, perfect, omniscient, all-good god inspire *that*” should be our question.

[Levi]

“Suit yourself. Then the immutable god is the one who defines the rules for slavery and orders genocide.”

Genocide? We haven’t talked about that yet. Where in the Bible is that?

“ “Which interpretation is the best?” Should be our question after your comment. “

No, “How the heck could an immutable, perfect, omniscient, all-good god inspire *that*” should be our question.”

That’s your interpretation of the text.

[Bob]

“Genocide? We haven’t talked about that yet. Where in the Bible is that?”

You’ve got a lot on your plate. I suggest you come to grips with God laying out the rules for slavery first.

“That’s your interpretation of the text.”

I’m presenting some of God’s abysmal traits to you. You’re changing the subject where possible. Instead, come to grips with the fact that God advocates slavery (and more—we’ll get to that).

[Levi]

“You’ve got a lot on your plate. I suggest you come to grips with God laying out the rules for slavery first.”

Tell me your thoughts on this: https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-did-god-permit-slavery

” “That’s your interpretation of the text.”

I’m presenting some of God’s abysmal traits to you. You’re changing the subject where possible. Instead, come to grips with the fact that God advocates slavery (and more—we’ll get to that).”

See above.

[Bob]

“Tell me your thoughts on this: https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-did-god-permit-slavery“

It contains this about Paul writing Philemon: “Paul was sowing the seeds to explode the whole situation of slavery.”

Wow. Hilarious. Paul’s letter obviously *didn’t* explode anything, least of all slavery. Do you not know of the history of slavery in the last 2000 years?!? One guy’s private letter, *in which he DIDN’T insist that slavery end*, which was not addressed to a government official (least of all the Roman Senate or the emperor), is a bold stand against slavery? Pathetic.

Now, your turn. Many comments before I gave you the passage Lev. 25:44-46, where God makes clear he’s A-OK with slavery for life, y’know, just like in the good old U. S. of A. for a couple of centuries. Kinda destroys your idea of objective morality, when God is fine with something that Western civilization today is pretty much universally against. Looks like we have 2 very different answers to one moral question, which means, no objective morality.

desiringgod.org

Why Did God Permit Slavery?

John Piper explains why slavery, even though it was justifiable under the old covenant, should be abolished.

[Bob]

“Even if Atheism is true, could I live it out?”

Even if germ theory were true, could I live it out?

“Well, I can’t, especially Relativism, which follows from Atheism and Evolution.”

Here is your error, I think. You imagine objective moral truths. I have seen no such thing, and the ball’s in your court to provide evidence. Instead, I see morality as defined in the dictionary (and it’s not objective).

“1. Relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing.”

I will do so, with pleasure. If you violate my moral sense, I will at least note that and possibly point out your problem and argue against it.

Of course, you’ll do the same. Sounds like moral relativism.

You can probably imagine what I’d say about the remaining claims.

[Levi]

“Even if germ theory were true, could I live it out?”

Germ theory is not a belief that needs to be lived out consistently as Atheism is.

“Here is your error, I think. You imagine objective moral truths. I have seen no such thing, and the ball’s in your court to provide evidence. Instead, I see morality as defined in the dictionary (and it’s not objective).”

I’m saying I can’t live if there’s no objective moral truths. If you believe that, prove to me that you live that out by giving me a journal of your day. I will see if you are a hypocrite or not.

“‘1. Relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing.’

I will do so, with pleasure. If you violate my moral sense, I will at least note that and possibly point out your problem and argue against it.”

That’s relativism if you only do so with pleasure.

“Of course, you’ll do the same. Sounds like moral relativism.

You can probably imagine what I’d say about the remaining claims.”

I’ll do the same? Why? What would you say to the rest?

[Bob]

“Germ theory is not a belief that needs to be lived out consistently as Atheism is.”

Suppose a relative was infected by the smallpox virus, and then they died. I might be unhappy about that outcome—that is, the germ explanation for the death—but that does nothing to change the fact that I must live with.

I’m an atheist, so apparently I’m wrestling with some difficulty in “living out my life.” There is no Yahweh to solve my problems or give me comfort. This doesn’t bother me at all–it’s just something adults deal with–nor am I inconsistent in my beliefs. Point out counterexamples if necessary. Then again, *you’ve* got quite a problem with consistency. Your god is all good, and yet your life isn’t perfect, I’m guessing. You’ve got to make excuses for when he doesn’t answer prayers.

“I’m saying I can’t live if there’s no objective moral truths.”

I don’t even know what this means. Makes no sense. Please expand on this.

Look up “morality,” “good,” “bad,” and so on in the dictionary. You’ll find no requirement for objective moral truth (that is, moral truth that is valid and binding whether there’s anyone here to appreciate it or not).

“If you believe that, prove to me that you live that out by giving me a journal of your day.”

Give me a couple of examples of where you’re sure I’m inconsistent. Honestly, I can think of nothing.

“That’s relativism if you only do so with pleasure.”

?? I gave a counterexample to your opening post. I can indeed point out someone’s error, and I do.

“Of course, you’ll do the same. Sounds like moral relativism.

You *wouldn’t* respond to someone breaking your moral truths? Please expand.

“What would you say to the rest?”

I can expand on those, but first let’s get this first
one straightened out. I think your argument is built on fault premises, and there’s
no point in figuring that out more than once.

[Levi]

<div>”Suppose a relative was infected by the smallpox virus, and then they died. I might be unhappy about that outcome—that is, the germ explanation for the death—but that does nothing to change the fact that I must live with.”</div><div>

So we can live out Germ theory, countering your initial post.

</div>

“I’m an atheist, so apparently I’m wrestling with some difficulty in ‘living out my life.’

You can’t live consistently with Atheism, but you can live “comfortably”. But that’s a different issue.

“There is no Yahweh to solve my problems or give me comfort. This doesn’t bother me at all–it’s just something adults deal with–nor am I inconsistent in my beliefs.”

There is a Yahweh. You just don’t let him come into your life. You are not living inconsistently? Give me examples from your own life.

“Point out counterexamples if necessary. Then again, *you’ve* got quite a problem with consistency. Your god is all good, and yet your life isn’t perfect, I’m guessing. You’ve got to make excuses for when he doesn’t answer prayers.”

God is all good, and I’m not. That’s inconsistent?

” ‘I’m saying I can’t live if there’s no objective moral truths.’

I don’t even know what this means. Makes no sense. Please expand on this.”

Here: I can’t live if murder isn’t objectively bad, if human trafficking is okay, etc.

“Look up “morality,” “good,” “bad,” and so on in the dictionary. You’ll find no requirement for objective moral truth (that is, moral truth that is valid and binding whether there’s anyone here to appreciate it or not).”

I don’t trust relativistic dictionaries.

” ‘If you believe that, prove to me that you live that out by giving me a journal of your day.’

Give me a couple of examples of where you’re sure I’m inconsistent. Honestly, I can think of nothing.”

Words, for example. You might give someone praise, yet relativism destroys such an idea as a reality. You might cringe at the evil in the world, if there’s such a thing in relativism. Need any more?

” ‘That’s relativism if you only do so with pleasure.’

“?? I gave a counterexample to your opening post. I can indeed point out someone’s error, and I do.”

Then re-post it. I was saying that if you only think evil is real or punish people because of “evil” for only pleasure, then what objectiveness is there to it?

” ‘Of course, you’ll do the same. Sounds like moral relativism.’

You *wouldn’t* respond to someone breaking your moral truths? Please expand.”

I’m so far away I don’t know what that means. I would respond to someone breaking moral truths.

” ‘What would you say to the rest?’

I can expand on those, but first let’s get this first
one straightened out. I think your argument is built on fault premises, and there’s
no point in figuring that out more than once.”

Then what premises are you talking about and what’s your attack against them? (Hint: I got those from Greg Koukl)

[Bob]

“So we can live out Germ theory, countering your initial post.”

So we can live out atheism, countering your initial post.

Bob said, “I’m an atheist, so apparently I’m wrestling with some difficulty in ‘living out my life.’”

And Levi said, “You can’t live consistently with Atheism, but you can live “comfortably”.”

And we go round and round yet again. I live consistently with atheism just fine, thanks. If you see a counterexample, point that out clearly. Repeating the same claim without evidence makes me think you have no evidence.

“There is a Yahweh.”

Stated without evidence. Again.

“God is all good, and I’m not. That’s inconsistent?”

No, Jesus said that he’d answer prayers, and yet he doesn’t. That’s inconsistent.”

“Here: I can’t live if murder isn’t objectively bad, if human trafficking is okay, etc.”

The atheist has all these problems within society, just like you, but the atheist doesn’t have to square an all-powerful, all-loving god with this imperfect world.

“I don’t trust relativistic dictionaries.”

Yet another dodge. A dictionary defines words, and you redefine any that displease you. Must be nice.

“Words, for example. You might give someone praise, yet relativism destroys such an idea as a reality.”

If I gave some sort of objective praise, perhaps I’d run into problems, but my saying, “Great job,” is quite easy to say.

“I was saying that if you only think evil is real or punish people because of “evil” for only pleasure, then what objectiveness is there to it?”

I don’t even understand your point, so I’ll ignore it.

“Then what premises are you talking about and what’s your attack against them?”

<sigh> I see no evidence for objective moral truths. You say that they exist and that they’re mandatory. OK, show me that they exist.

“(Hint: I got those from Greg Koukl)”

Not a great source. I respond to his silly arguments many times in my blog.

[Levi]

“Bob said, “I’m an atheist, so apparently I’m wrestling with some difficulty in ‘living out my life.’”

And Levi said, “You can’t live consistently with Atheism, but you can live “comfortably”.”

And we go round and round yet again. I live consistently with atheism just fine, thanks. If you see a counterexample, point that out clearly. Repeating the same claim without evidence makes me think you have no evidence.”

You are making claims without evidence. Where is an example from you life, Bob? Maybe I could come over and see how you live.

” ‘There is a Yahweh.’

Stated without evidence. Again.”

That will be for another discussion, Bob.

” ‘God is all good, and I’m not. That’s inconsistent?’

No, Jesus said that he’d answer prayers, and yet he doesn’t. That’s inconsistent.”

He has his timing, thank you. What made you think you could put God’s responses under your time frame?

“The atheist has all these problems within society, just like you, but the atheist doesn’t have to square an all-powerful, all-loving god with this imperfect world.”

An all-loving God offered a way out through the cross. If you don’t respond, it is your fault, not his.

Are you a good person?

“Yet another dodge. A dictionary defines words, and you redefine any that displease you. Must be nice.”

What kind of writer is there here though of dictionaries/

” “Words, for example. You might give someone praise, yet relativism destroys such an idea as a reality.”

If I gave some sort of objective praise, perhaps I’d run into problems, but my saying, “Great job,” is quite easy to say.”

Too easy. True praise is not possible. Can you live with that?

” “Then what premises are you talking about and what’s your attack against them?”

<sigh> I see no evidence for objective moral truths. You say that they exist and that they’re mandatory. OK, show me that they exist.”

Again, I can awaken you to the fact, but I can’t prove it to you. Are you a good person?

” “(Hint: I got those from Greg Koukl)”

Not a great source. I respond to his silly arguments many times in my blog.”

What blog?

[Bob]

“You are making claims without evidence. Where is an example from you life, Bob?”

No idea. I don’t know what living inconsistently with atheism would look like. Since you’re sure I am inconsistent, the ball’s in your court. Point out my inconsistencies.

Bob said, “No, Jesus said that he’d answer prayers, and yet he doesn’t. That’s inconsistent.”

Levi said, “He has his timing, thank you. What made you think you could put God’s responses under your time frame?”

You act as if we have an omni-everything god to consider, but we don’t. We have a claim of such a god, for which I’ve seen no evidence. I have *no choice* but to test out your claims (which is pretty hard, given that you’ve offered zero evidence) using my time frame.

On my point that the Christian has to square a perfect god making bold claims for prayer vs. the reality of prayer here: https://onlysky.media/bseidensticker/prayer-doesnt-work-as-advertised-2/ You’ve got quite a challenge squaring those.

“An all-loving God offered a way out through the cross. If you don’t respond, it is your fault, not his.”

Uh oh—someone hasn’t read his Bible. Romans 5:8-19 makes clear that we don’t need to do anything to get the benefit of Jesus’s sacrifice.

“What kind of writer is there here though of dictionaries”

You’re right—Christians often redefine words to suit their needs at the moment. And it’s quite embarrassing when words like “morality,” “good,” and “bad” are defined without any claim of objectivity. If *you* want to invent the idea that our everyday morality is actually objective morality, you’ve got a big job ahead of you … but then you know this already.

“True praise is not possible. Can you live with that?”

I rub your face in the stain on the carpet, and you come back for more. Slow learner?

“Praise” is defined in the dictionary. Y’know, like “morality.” And, again, no mention of objective anything.

“Again, I can awaken you to the fact, but I can’t prove it to you. Are you a good person?”

Sure, let’s say I’m a good person. That would be a *relative* claim. That would just be me saying it. Or, it might be *you* saying it. The discussion could proceed in either case, but we are not making any objective moral claims.

(Wow—this back and forth, where I demand evidence for you bold claims and you ignore it, is getting tedious.)

“What blog?”

https://onlysky.media/bseidensticker/

onlysky.media

Prayer Doesn’t Work as Advertised

Reading Time: 8 minutes Here’s an excerpt from my book where two characters discuss prayer. What does the Bible claim about prayer? Does it deliver on those claims? Is prayer redundant if God already knows everything? How do we explain … Continue reading

[Levi]

“No idea. I don’t know what living inconsistently with atheism would look like. Since you’re sure I am inconsistent, the ball’s in your court. Point out my inconsistencies.”

Praise, objectiveness (our minds are mere “matter”), “should”, “obligated”, etc. Have any of those entered your language and life/

“Bob said, “No, Jesus said that he’d answer prayers, and yet he doesn’t. That’s inconsistent.”

Levi said, “He has his timing, thank you. What made you think you could put God’s responses under your time frame?”

You act as if we have an omni-everything god to consider, but we don’t. We have a claim of such a god, for which I’ve seen no evidence. I have *no choice* but to test out your claims (which is pretty hard, given that you’ve offered zero evidence) using my time frame.”

God has his timing. Why do you think he has to immediately respond to your prayers?

” “An all-loving God offered a way out through the cross. If you don’t respond, it is your fault, not his.”

Uh oh—someone hasn’t read his Bible. Romans 5:8-19 makes clear that we don’t need to do anything to get the benefit of Jesus’s sacrifice.”

We need to “confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in our heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (figure out where that is the Bible, for a challenge)

” “What kind of writer is there here though of dictionaries”

You’re right—Christians often redefine words to suit their needs at the moment. And it’s quite embarrassing when words like “morality,” “good,” and “bad” are defined without any claim of objectivity. If *you* want to invent the idea that our everyday morality is actually objective morality, you’ve got a big job ahead of you … but then you know this already.”

I just know, just like you just know. You, however, have convinced yourself that true morality isn’t real.

“ “True praise is not possible. Can you live with that?”

I rub your face in the stain on the carpet, and you come back for more. Slow learner?”

What do I need to learn about morality from you?

” “Praise” is defined in the dictionary. Y’know, like “morality.” And, again, no mention of objective anything.”

So? What does the dictionary have to say?

” “Again, I can awaken you to the fact, but I can’t prove it to you. Are you a good person?”

Sure, let’s say I’m a good person. That would be a *relative* claim. That would just be me saying it. Or, it might be *you* saying it. The discussion could proceed in either case, but we are not making any objective moral claims.”

Let’s see if you are a good person. Have you ever lied?

[wonderer]

@Levi

Praise, objectiveness (our minds are mere “matter”), “should”, “obligated”, etc. Have any of those entered your language and life/

See the rudiments of our praising and blaming here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  wonderer.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  wonderer.

[Levi]

wonderer

What have monkeys to do with us?

[Bob]

“Praise, objectiveness (our minds are mere “matter”), “should”, “obligated”, etc. Have any of those entered your language and life/”

I say things like “Great job!” or “You should do X.” This causes no problems. I don’t intend to say that there’s anything objective about these. You clearly haven’t thought through your claim about objective morality.

“God has his timing. Why do you think he has to immediately respond to your prayers?”

Never said he did. The contradiction is between what Jesus promised and what Christians today know happens when you pray. More: https://onlysky.media/bseidensticker/prayer-doesnt-work-as-advertised-2/#:~:text=Perhaps%20not%2C%20but%20%E2%80%98-,ask%20and%20ye%20shall%20receive,-%E2%80%99%20is%20pretty%20straightforward

“We need to “confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in our heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (figure out where that is the Bible, for a challenge)”

Whatever. Romans 5:18-19 stands.

“I just know [that objective morality exists], just like you just know.”

Hmm. Let’s test that. Abortion is morally acceptable. Do you agree? If not, then I guess the morality of abortion is in the eyes of the beholder, not objective.

“You, however, have convinced yourself that true morality isn’t real.”

Not at all. I look up “morality’ in the dictionary, and it’s the definition I’m familiar with.

“What do I need to learn about morality from you?”

That you have yet to show me that objective morality exists. Remember how you assumed that in your opening post? Everything you said since is built on that foundation of sand.

“So? What does the dictionary have to say?”

It supports our shared use of a language.

“Let’s see if you are a good person. Have you ever lied?”

You’re adorable! Like a 5yo, you see yourself about to get punished and try, desperately, to change the subject.

This conversation is already too scattered for us to add more tangents. You have shown that you know little about morality. Either admit it so we can flush the conversation down the toilet and hope for better from you next time, or you can show that objective morality truly *does* exist. Aside: big-name apologists like WLC and Greg Koukl do little better than you in justifying the claim of objective morality.

onlysky.media

Prayer Doesn’t Work as Advertised

Reading Time: 8 minutes Here’s an excerpt from my book where two characters discuss prayer. What does the Bible claim about prayer? Does it deliver on those claims? Is prayer redundant if God already knows everything? How do we explain … Continue reading

[Levi]

“I say things like “Great job!” or “You should do X.” This causes no problems. I don’t intend to say that there’s anything objective about these. You clearly haven’t thought through your claim about objective morality.”

What do you mean? When you say “Great job”, what standard are you referring to? What makes something “Great”? Why is that even real when we all die? Why even say it if people who do a “bad job” have the same fate as the people who do a good job?

” “God has his timing. Why do you think he has to immediately respond to your prayers?”

Never said he did. The contradiction is between what Jesus promised and what Christians today know happens when you pray.”

Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. -1 Peter 5:6

“What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?” -Matthew 8:29 Looks like even demons know God has his appointed time.

Are you convinced now?

” “I just know [that objective morality exists], just like you just know.”

Hmm. Let’s test that. Abortion is morally acceptable. Do you agree? If not, then I guess the morality of abortion is in the eyes of the beholder, not objective.”

If I say no, what does that mean? Deep inside you know it is wrong, but you try to live as you please (for relativism allow it).

” “You, however, have convinced yourself that true morality isn’t real.”

Not at all. I look up “morality’ in the dictionary, and it’s the definition I’m familiar with.”

What’s the definitions

” “What do I need to learn about morality from you?”

That you have yet to show me that objective morality exists. Remember how you assumed that in your opening post? Everything you said since is built on that foundation of sand.”

Like what? I’m trying to “prove” it to you, trying to awaken you to the fact. But of course, Satan has blinded you. Wake up! I can’t prove it to you, but I can pray for you. It all lies in the heart. If you want proof, that’s all I can give you, for I can’t prove morality by science, logic, etc. How would you like me to prove it to you?

” “Let’s see if you are a good person. Have you ever lied?”

You’re adorable! Like a 5yo, you see yourself about to get punished and try, desperately, to change the subject.”

I am not, Bob. If I changing the subject, please let me know, so don’t do anything outside of what I’m supposed to do. In the meantime, why not stop avoiding my question and dodging out of the way? Have you ever lied? (I’m trying to prove objective morality to you right now, if you saw)

“This conversation is already too scattered for us to add more tangents. You have shown that you know little about morality. Either admit it so we can flush the conversation down the toilet and hope for better from you next time, or you can show that objective morality truly *does* exist. Aside: big-name apologists like WLC and Greg Koukl do little better than you in justifying the claim of objective morality.”

Watch this, please. Tell me your thoughts: https://youtu.be/CpYFZmMxMqc?si=3N21XhNZx2FzmtnR

[Bob]

“When you say “Great job”, what standard are you referring to?”

Are you from some other planet? How clueless are you? If English isn’t your first language, use a dictionary.

I use my own standard, obviously. Why–are there objectively true moral standards that we can all tap into? Then, for the dozenth time, tell us about these objective moral truths. Show us they exist.

“Are you convinced now?”

You’re a funny guy. Your thoughts, which I’ve deleted, made no sense in the context of the discussion. I’ll repeat myself: the contradiction is between what Jesus promised and what Christians today know happens when you pray.

“If I say no [that I don’t agree abortion is OK], what does that mean?”

Uh, it means that we’re not tapping into objective morality. We each have our own moral opinion.

“Deep inside you know it is wrong, but you try to live as you please (for relativism allow it).”

Adorable! No, wait–I meant, pathetic. You salvage an argument by saying, “You actually just agree with me. So I win the argument.”

I’m rapidly losing interest in educating you. I and other commenters are trying to help you out, by educating you on some topics in morality and Christianity that you’re unfamiliar with. You seem to not see this opportunity and haven’t shown any appreciation or adaptation to these new ideas.

If I soon stop responding, it’ll be because you’re a waste of time. (But here’s a fun idea: just tell your friends that I crumbled in the face of your superior argument!)

“But of course, Satan has blinded you. Wake up!”

Ah, of course. It couldn’t be because you don’t have a solid argument.

“If I changing the subject, please let me know, so don’t do anything outside of what I’m supposed to do. In the meantime, why not stop avoiding my question and dodging out of the way?”

I’ve wasted too much time already and don’t want to follow a tangent until you’ve responded to the first thing I asked in response to your opening post, which was about objective morality. You don’t understand it and haven’t changed your argument one iota.

“Watch this, please. Tell me your thoughts: https://youtu.be/CpYFZmMxMqc?si=3N21XhNZx2FzmtnR “

I have zero interest in Greg Koukl’s arguments. I’ve never met a single one that was solid and convincing. Here are a few articles I’ve written about Koukl’s clumsy arguments about morality. Perhaps reading the first couple will give you some insights:

https://onlysky.media/bseidensticker/understanding-morality-its-really-not-that-hard/

https://onlysky.media/bseidensticker/if-the-problem-of-evil-is-uncomfortable-just-redefine-it/

https://onlysky.media/bseidensticker/rationalizing-away-the-canaanite-problem/

https://onlysky.media/bseidensticker/atheism-fails-because-there-is-no-ultimate-justice/

[Fred]

“especially Relativism, which follows from Atheism and Evolution.”

Your entire post is contingent upon your claim that relativism follows from atheism and evolution. You’re wrong, by the way.

[Levi]

Relativism is (I think) the fact that there are no moral absolutes; are there moral absolutes in Atheism and Evolution? None.

[Fred]

IMO, morality is rooted in self-preservation and the evolutionary imperative for preservation of the species and driven by empathy. So I’ll grant that there are no “moral absolutes” that transcend humans, but these instincts are part of what makes us human – so they aren’t relative to individuals or groups; they are intrinsic to humanity. This negates all your objections (e.g. it’s perfectly reasonable to “accuse others of wrongdoing” because all humans have the same sense of right/wrong).

There is a “problem of evil” only if there are transcendent moral absolutes. If there is a God, then there are moral absolutes, thus God’s existence is incompatible with the existence of moral absolutes. ‘

Suggestion: in the future, instead of making derogatory accusations as you did in your opening post, try asking questions about how atheists answer such questions. We’re always happy to answer, and it avoids exposing your obvious prejudice.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by  Fred.

[Levi]

“IMO, morality is rooted in self-preservation and the evolutionary imperative for preservation of the species and driven by empathy. So I’ll grant that there are no “moral absolutes” that transcend humans, but these instincts are part of what makes us human – so they aren’t relative to individuals or groups; they are intrinsic to humanity.”

You destroyed your point. Objectiveness transcends what humans think or believe. (Also, there are different morals in different religions)

“it’s perfectly reasonable to “accuse others of wrongdoing” because all humans have the same sense of right/wrong.”

That’s not objective if there’s no standard. Faulty humans cannot make standards.

<div>”Suggestion: in the future, instead of making derogatory accusations as you did in your opening post, try asking questions about how atheists answer such questions. We’re always happy to answer, and it avoids exposing your obvious prejudice.”</div><div>

What “accusations” are you talking about? I was only taking down the idea of living consistently with relativism, not the relativists. Even if I was, it’s a chance for them to look at their own lives to see if they really live out their beliefs.

</div>

[Poul]

Evolution is a description of a core mechanism of biology. It is a fact that not even WLC will deny. It has nothing to do with ethics.

Atheism is usually defined as the worldview that rejects the claim of theism that God exists. It has nothing to say about ethics and there is no reason to think that atheists do not hold ethical beliefs that agree with yours.

Meta-ethical moral relativism (which is what I assume you are referring to) is the viewpoint that in case of moral disagreement (of which there is plenty), no one is objectively right or wrong. It has nothing to do with either Evolution or atheism. But I see how the prejudice against Evolution and atheism have been conflated into the false belief that you express.

Professional theists like WLC (who should know better) espouse the idea that objective moral law exists and that (presumably) it can be read from your choice of religious text. But he gets into trouble with most people’s idea of objective moral law when he argues that genocide of the Canaanites (when ordered by God) was allowed.

To test this, I asked perplexity.ai “Is abortion permitted or banned by scripture?” and got the answer that “The question of whether abortion is permitted or banned by scripture is a complex and contentious issue. The search results provide various perspectives on this topic. The Bible does not explicitly mention the word “abortion,” and there is no single, unified view among Christians on this matter. Some argue that the Bible’s prohibitions against killing and its emphasis on the sanctity of human life condemn abortion, while others interpret the biblical passages differently.”

Even if one were to hold to Meta-ethical moral relativism, it doesn’t mean that one would not agree to commonly held opinions on ethical matters. Such a person would however hold the opinion that moral rules are man-made. Even those that some claim are “objective” because they are given by the bible. After all, the bible didn’t fall from the sky into Moses’ lap.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by  Poul.

[Levi]

“Evolution is a description of a core mechanism of biology. It is a fact
that not even WLC will deny. It has nothing to do with ethics.”

If Evolution is all there is (no God, etc.) then there are no “ethics” or “morals”.

[Bob]

“If Evolution is all there is (no God, etc.) then there are no “ethics” or “morals”.“

What I think you’re struggling to say is, if there is no objectively correct god to create morals, there can be no objectively true morality.

I’m still trying to get you to justify your claim that objective morality (moral truths valid and binding whether there’s anyone here to appreciate them or not) exists.

Or, much easier: admit that you can’t so we can put these ridiculous claims to rest.

[Levi]

“What I think you’re struggling to say is, if there is no objectively correct god to create morals, there can be no objectively true morality.”

That’s right. Subjective humans cannot create morality, nor can science create morality (namely, objective morality).

“I’m still trying to get you to justify your claim that objective morality (moral truths valid and binding whether there’s anyone here to appreciate them or not) exists.”

Morals is not something I can prove; you either get it or you don’t. For example, I can’t prove “two plus two equals four” or “2+2=4”. Someone may object by lining up apples (2 apples plus 2 apples equals 4 apples), but that is merely substituting apples for numbers. If someone were to disagree, I would be at a loss to prove it to him or her. Either you get it or you don’t. That is just like morals. I can’t prove to you evil is real; either you get it or you don’t. If you don’t, the least I can do is to awaken the innate knowledge you have of objective morality.

[Bob]

“Subjective humans cannot create morality, nor can science create morality (namely, objective morality).”

We’ve been at this for how many comments? And we’re still at the stage where you imagine objective morality but don’t have any evidence.

“Morals is not something I can prove; you either get it or you don’t.

So just take it on faith?! Nope.”

“For example, I can’t prove “two plus two equals four” or “2+2=4”.

<sigh again> Now we’re out of the domain of morality. The issue is: can *moral* truth claims be objective or not? You say Yes, and I’m pleading, *begging* to be shown evidence. You don’t have any. Without this first step, proving that objective morality *exists*, your moral argument falls apart.

[Levi]

” “Subjective humans cannot create morality, nor can science create morality (namely, objective morality).”

We’ve been at this for how many comments? And we’re still at the stage where you imagine objective morality but don’t have any evidence.”

How would you like me to prove it you? Science? No, because morality isn’t physical. Logic? Not really.

” “Morals is not something I can prove; you either get it or you don’t.

So just take it on faith?! Nope.”

You don’t take it on faith. You just do, just like math and metaphysical concepts.

” “For example, I can’t prove “two plus two equals four” or “2+2=4”.

<sigh again> Now we’re out of the domain of morality. The issue is: can *moral* truth claims be objective or not? You say Yes, and I’m pleading, *begging* to be shown evidence. You don’t have any. Without this first step, proving that objective morality *exists*, your moral argument falls apart.”

Can you prove morality is subjective?

[Poul]

“Can you prove morality is subjective?”

I think the ongoing conflict between Hamas and the state of Israel is ripe with evidence that morality is subjective.

[jayceeii]

I’d side with Poul on this. It’s extra interesting as it seems a test of the biblical doctrine that the Israelites are God’s chosen people, and where this same God encouraged them to slaughter and enslave the nearby races. They are certainly following that same standard, albeit with no modern prophets egging them on, as if perhaps YHWH is not really there. I’d have thought this racial justification the reverse of truth, that should be individualized.

[Levi]

“I think the ongoing conflict between Hamas and the state of Israel is ripe with evidence that morality is subjective.”

That’s how you interpret it. I interpret it as Satan searing their conscience and leading them into his final plan to seduce the world into following him.

[Bob]

“That’s how you interpret it. I interpret it …“

Exactly. You each have your own interpretations. That’s not evidence of objective morality.

[Levi]

“Exactly. You each have your own interpretations. That’s not evidence of objective morality.”

It shows you can’t just put your interpretation on me and say it’s true without some evidence that yours is better.

[Bob]

“How would you like me to prove it you? Science? No, because morality isn’t physical. Logic? Not really.”

I don’t need proof, just a preponderance of evidence.

But this is some progress. You’ve admitted that you just assume objective morality. You have no evidence for it. Going forward, please don’t assume objective morality.

Given this, go back to your earlier comments where you assumed objective morality. You will perhaps better understand my position.

“You don’t take it on faith. You just do, just like math and metaphysical concepts.”

Yes, many Christians just accept that objective morality exists, and then they imagine the atheist is in some sort of predicament. You perhaps now see the problem with such arguments: you’ve actually got to do the work of making a solid argument.

“Can you prove morality is subjective?”

I dunno. I also don’t care. It’s not my job. You want to have objective morality for your argument? Fine–*then provide some frikkin’ evidence*.”

And, BTW, this attempted shirking of your burden is pretty pathetic. If you make a claim, you must be ready to defend it.

[Levi]

” “How would you like me to prove it you? Science? No, because morality isn’t physical. Logic? Not really.”

I don’t need proof, just a preponderance of evidence.”

The ubiquitous nature of right and wrong. All laypeople know that murder is wrong, but sometimes they just do it because it feels good to them. (That’s the Devil’s temptation). How about you? Do you know somethings are right and wrong? (I sure do)

“But this is some progress. You’ve admitted that you just assume objective morality. You have no evidence for it. Going forward, please don’t assume objective morality.”

I assume objective morality just like I assume “1=1” and so forth. If I didn’t, I couldn’t get anywhere. Morality is innate, not something I can just prove like the theory of relativity and so forth. How about you? What do you assume?

“Yes, many Christians just accept that objective morality exists, and then they imagine the atheist is in some sort of predicament. You perhaps now see the problem with such arguments: you’ve actually got to do the work of making a solid argument.”

What kind of “argument” are you talking about? What would make it solid?

” “Can you prove morality is subjective?”

I dunno. I also don’t care. It’s not my job. You want to have objective morality for your argument? Fine–*then provide some frikkin’ evidence*.”

I just realized we wandered away from proving I can’t live without objective morality to proving objective morality. If you want evidence, look at the ubiquitous nature of it. Not just one hundred or one thousand, but many, many more. (Can you get that I can’t just prove something I just know?)

[Bob]

Your explanation about how morality is objective just cuz: “The ubiquitous nature of right and wrong. All laypeople know that murder is wrong, but sometimes they just do it because it feels good to them.”

Take something a little more challenging, like abortion, euthanasia, or capital punishment. Do “all laypeople” agree with you?

No, morality isn’t felt the same way by everyone.

“I assume objective morality just like I assume “1=1″ and so forth.”

Again, simple arithmetic facts aren’t morality.

“If I didn’t, I couldn’t get anywhere. Morality is innate, not something I can just prove like the theory of relativity and so forth.”

People have answers to moral questions; it’s just that they don’t always agree.

Is morality objective? Do we all have access to this morality? If so, give me the answers to the big moral questions that we all just know.

“What kind of “argument” are you talking about? What would make it solid?”

It’s not my job to solve the position you’ve thoughtlessly gotten yourself into.

“(Can you get that I can’t just prove something I just know?)”

Sure. You’re beginning to see the problem. If your argument contains a “C’mon–you’ll give that one to me, right? I mean, don’t we all ‘just know’ that it’s correct?” then it’s not a plausible argument. If we all just knew this, no one would debate abortion or any other moral issue.

[Levi]

“Your explanation about how morality is objective just cuz: “The ubiquitous nature of right and wrong. All laypeople know that murder is wrong, but sometimes they just do it because it feels good to them.”

Take something a little more challenging, like abortion, euthanasia, or capital punishment. Do “all laypeople” agree with you?”

I can’t do much political stuff right now because of Beego’s rules. But what I can say is that the Devil is leading people astray, changing their “morality”, blinding God’s moral compass inside them.

““I assume objective morality just like I assume “1=1″ and so forth.”

Again, simple arithmetic facts aren’t morality.”

I was comparing them, not saying they were the exact same thing.

” “If I didn’t, I couldn’t get anywhere. Morality is innate, not something I can just prove like the theory of relativity and so forth.”

People have answers to moral questions; it’s just that they don’t always agree.”

Like what answers?

“Is morality objective? Do we all have access to this morality? If so, give me the answers to the big moral questions that we all just know.”

1: Yes. 2: Yes, if the Holy Spirit awakens you to it, which I will pray that he will do. 3: What questions?

“It’s not my job to solve the position you’ve thoughtlessly gotten yourself into.”

Please don’t make thoughtless answers. I have this position not because I was a fool. I won’t, but what if I said that to you, relativist who doesn’t understand relativism? (I wouldn’t call you that for real, Bob)

” “(Can you get that I can’t just prove something I just know?)”

Sure. You’re beginning to see the problem. If your argument contains a “C’mon–you’ll give that one to me, right? I mean, don’t we all ‘just know’ that it’s correct?” then it’s not a plausible argument. If we all just knew this, no one would debate abortion or any other moral issue.”

We’re in the wrong discussion for that. In any case, I’ll try to awaken you to the fact. Have you ever stolen anything, even if small?

[Bob]

“I can’t do much political stuff right now because of Beego’s rules.”

Not sure what that is, but I can guess.

All I can suggest then is that you consider the problem. Do objective moral truths exist? And are they reliably accessible by anyone? If both these are true, then there should be no vexing moral questions like abortion, capital punishment, and so on. We should all have the same moral intuition.

But we don’t. Therefore, why imagine that obj. moral truths exist? We get along just fine with relativistic morality.

“But what I can say is that the Devil is leading people astray”

If obj. moral truths are not universally accessible for any reason (the Devil or whatever), then don’t tell me that they’re reliably accessible.

“Yes, if the Holy Spirit awakens you to it, which I will pray that he will do.”

So then, no, the objective moral are not reliably accessible by humans. Stop pretending otherwise.

“I have this position not because I was a fool.”

Well, it certainly isn’t because you followed the facts. You start with your conclusion, and you ignore inconvenient evidence that I (and others) bring up.

“Have you ever stolen anything, even if small?”

Here again, you’ll be assuming objective morality. Sorry, I’ve got no time for this.

[James]

Which is logically equivalent to saying “If God didn’t invent the rules of chess* and they were created by humans then the rules of chess don’t exist!”

*Add pastime of your preference.

If the topic wasn’t about the existence of God, nobody would even begin to take this type of claim seriously, would they? Yet when defending God belief, people make an analogous claim all the time.

In order to survive as long as possible, people must share space in a way that minimises harm to themselves. To achieve this, they must minimise harm to others (go around harming others, and the risks of you being harmed by others wishing to keep themselves safe increases exponentially). In the absence of a God, “moral” is merely a term that describes the attitudes and behaviours that achieve this outcome.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by  James.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by  James.

[Levi]

“Which is logically equivalent to saying “If God didn’t invent the rules of chess* and they were created by humans then the rules of chess don’t exist!”

*Add pastime of your preference.”

What made you think “Chess” is equivalent to “Morals”?

<div>”In order to survive as long as possible, people must share space in a way that minimizes harm to themselves. To achieve this, they must minimize harm to others (go around harming others, and the risks of you being harmed by others wishing to keep themselves safe increases exponentially). In the absence of a God, “moral” is merely a term that describes the attitudes and behaviors that achieve this outcome.”
What? Why am I obligated to minimize harm to others?
</div>

[Poul]

“What? Why am I obligated to minimize harm to others?”

What? You don’t think so? And yet you claim to know objective moral obligations?

[Levi]

” “What? Why am I obligated to minimize harm to others?”

What? You don’t think so? And yet you claim to know objective moral obligations?”

I don’t think so if Relativism is true. I think I do know objective moral obligations (unless I need to change them), but that doesn’t matter as long as Relativism is true.

[James]

Which is logically equivalent to saying “If God didn’t invent the rules of chess* and they were created by humans then the rules of chess don’t exist!”

*Add pastime of your preference.”

What made you think “Chess” is equivalent to “Morals”?

I didn’t claim that chess is equivalent to morals. My claim is that the rules of a game such as chess are analogous to how morals function, if the latter are the consequence of human’s creating them.

We know that the rules of a game are invented by humans, yet when people break those rules nobody claims they do not really exist on that basis. People are still disqualified from competitions for breaking the rules and people are praised, rewarded and celebrated for winning by the rules despite everyone involved knowing that the rules are invented.

What? Why am I obligated to minimize harm to others?

I don’t think the question makes an awful lot of sense because here, we are talking about your values and they are not something you can be commanded to have. Either you do have them, or you do not. There are a set of acts that will minimise harm to others. If you want to minimise harm to others and want to act in a way that is consistent with your desire then the “ought” that exists in relation to those actions is a consequence of acting in a way that is consistent with your goal. In other words, if you want to do X then you ought to do Y because Y is the only way of achieving X. It is just that when those actions exist in relation to minimising harm, we call them moral (that is the definition).

[Levi]

” ‘Which is logically equivalent to saying “If God didn’t invent the rules of chess* and they were created by humans then the rules of chess don’t exist!”

*Add pastime of your preference.”

“What made you think “Chess” is equivalent to “Morals”?”

It isn’t.

“I didn’t claim that chess is equivalent to morals. My claim is that the rules of a game such as chess are analogous to how morals function, if the latter are the consequence of human’s creating them.”

Well, it is equivalent in Relativism.

” ‘What? Why am I obligated to minimize harm to others?’

I don’t think the question makes an awful lot of sense because here, we are talking about your values and they are not something you can be commanded to have.”

Explain?

[Bob]

You still owe us convincing evidence that objectively true moral laws exist (that is, valid and binding whether there’s anyone here to appreciate them or not).

WLC has never done this. Maybe you can do better.

[Levi]

“You still owe us convincing evidence that objectively true moral laws exist (that is, valid and binding whether there’s anyone here to appreciate them or not).

WLC has never done this. Maybe you can do better.”

What do you consider to be “wrong”?

[Poul]

Evolution explains what we observe in biology: A competition to reproduce. You may find it disturbing, but that doesn’t make it any less factual. And it doesn’t prevent us – as thinking individuals – from putting the concerns for the success of the species (a.k.a. ethics) above the concerns for our personal success in the game to reproduce (which we recognize as a more primitive drive).

There are people who believe in God in addition to recognizing the fact of evolution. The two beliefs are not mutually exclusive. And sure, you could argue that your moral imperatives stem from God and call them “objective”, but you still have to peacefully coexist with people who don’t accept that view on ethics (and may live by somewhat different moral rules). And, I would argue, you ought to show them the same amount of respect as you do the people who agree with you. But, alas, religious people who argue for the “objective” status of their morals often do not. As an atheist, I’m inclined to argue that calling moral rules “objective” or god-given is just the threat of saying “obey the rules or suffer the consequences”.

[Levi]

“Evolution explains what we observe in biology: A competition to reproduce. You may find it disturbing, but that doesn’t make it any less factual. And it doesn’t prevent us – as thinking individuals – from putting the concerns for the success of the species (a.k.a. ethics) above the concerns for our personal success in the game to reproduce (which we recognize as a more primitive drive).”

That doesn’t produce a standard with which to measure morality.

“There are people who believe in God in addition to recognizing the fact of evolution. The two beliefs are not mutually exclusive. And sure, you could argue that your moral imperatives stem from God and call them “objective”, but you still have to peacefully coexist with people who don’t accept that view on ethics (and may live by somewhat different moral rules). And, I would argue, you ought to show them the same amount of respect as you do the people who agree with you. But, alas, religious people who argue for the “objective” status of their morals often do not. As an atheist, I’m inclined to argue that calling moral rules “objective” or god-given is just the threat of saying “obey the rules or suffer the consequences”. “

Evolution without God produces Relativism, which is unlivable. Do you get it now?

[Poul]

“That doesn’t produce a standard with which to measure morality.”

And I wasn’t trying, because neither of us can. And I know your response, so don’t even bother: There isn’t such a book of absolute, objective moral rules agreed upon by every culture, is there?

“Evolution without God produces Relativism, which is unlivable. Do you get it now?”

Repeating a claim without giving any kind of evidence does not win any argument. Do you get it now?

[Levi]

” “That doesn’t produce a standard with which to measure morality.”

And I wasn’t trying, because neither of us can. And I know your response, so don’t even bother: There isn’t such a book of absolute, objective moral rules agreed upon by every culture, is there?”

There is none. There is a compass, though; but we have just deadened it in accordance with Satan.

” “Evolution without God produces Relativism, which is unlivable. Do you get it now?”

Repeating a claim without giving any kind of evidence does not win any argument. Do you get it now?”

What evidence is needed? Logic? If it is logic, then here you go:

1. If there’s a law, there’s a lawmaker

2. There is no lawmaker; as hypothesized by Evolution

3. Therefore, in Evolution, there is no law.

[James]

1. If there’s a law, there’s a lawmaker

2. There is no lawmaker; as hypothesized by Evolution

3. Therefore, in Evolution, there is no law.

If God doesn’t exist and make the laws then humans do (not the process of evolution). It being true that humans are the lawmakers (absent God) is sufficient for (2) to be false.

Humans make laws all the time (eg, you must drive on the right/left – depending upon where you are) and people are routinely punished for breaking those rules. Nobody thinks that God told us to drive on the right or the left and we know that we invented those rules (when we invented transport), but we don’t hear anybody saying that those laws don’t really exist because of that, and can be disregarded on that basis. Not only would it not be true, it’s just not how people or society functions.

The only time I read or hear someone saying that morals do not really exist if we came up with them, is Christians when they are objecting to atheism. We know from other, analogous examples, that this simply does not follow.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  James.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  James.

[Levi]

” ‘1. If there’s a law, there’s a lawmaker

2. There is no lawmaker; as hypothesized by Evolution

3. Therefore, in Evolution, there is no law.’

“If God doesn’t exist and make the laws then humans do (not the process of evolution). It being true that humans are the lawmakers (absent God) is sufficient for (2) to be false.”

How can humans make laws? I thought in the different religions they gave contradictory laws, so how can they be transcendent above other people? Nay; it is subjective.

“Humans make laws all the time (eg, you must drive on the right/left – depending upon where you are) and people are routinely punished for breaking those rules. Nobody thinks that God told us to drive on the right or the left and we know that we invented those rules (when we invented transport), but we don’t hear anybody saying that those laws don’t really exist because of that, and can be disregarded on that basis. Not only would it not be true, it’s just not how people or society functions.”

I will go so far as to say those laws are not something we need to do if God were nonexistent; but because he gave us common sense and told us to obey authority when it lines up with his command, I do think it is good to obey them.

[Bob]

“How can humans make laws? I thought in the different religions they gave contradictory laws, so how can they be transcendent above other people? Nay; it is subjective.”

Laws made by legislatures are not objective or transcendent, and yet they exist.

Laws like Newton’s Law of Gravitation aren’t made by anyone; they’re discovered through science. And, coming from fallible people, they might change in the future.

“I will go so far as to say those laws are not something we need to do if God were nonexistent; but because he gave us common sense and told us to obey authority when it lines up with his command, I do think it is good to obey them.”

So we must follow God’s laws/rules, and it’s OK to follow manmade laws/rules if they line up with God’s?

You can imagine objectively true laws from God if you want, but (1) you need to provide evidence of God, which you haven’t, and (2) disobeying manmade laws can have consequences in the one life we know we have (like prison).

[Levi]

” “How can humans make laws? I thought in the different religions they gave contradictory laws, so how can they be transcendent above other people? Nay; it is subjective.”

Laws made by legislatures are not objective or transcendent, and yet they exist.”

So there’s no transcendent law without God.

“Laws like Newton’s Law of Gravitation aren’t made by anyone; they’re discovered through science. And, coming from fallible people, they might change in the future.”

I agree.

” ;I will go so far as to say those laws are not something we need to do if God were nonexistent; but because he gave us common sense and told us to obey authority when it lines up with his command, I do think it is good to obey them.’

So we must follow God’s laws/rules, and it’s OK to follow manmade laws/rules if they line up with God’s?”

Yes.

“You can imagine objectively true laws from God if you want, but (1) you need to provide evidence of God, which you haven’t, and (2) disobeying manmade laws can have consequences in the one life we know we have (like prison).”

Evidence for God is not to be in this discussion. Evidence for morals might. Are you sure you want evidence? What kind of evidence do you want?

[Bob]

“[Evolution] doesn’t produce a standard with which to measure morality.”

Yeah, and neither does Chemistry, darn it. And yet, in its domain, it does very well. Ditto material science. Ditto atheism.

And yet Christianity claims to have quite a bit to say about morality.. Read the Bible, though, and you find an abysmal source of morality. BTW, did you respond to my point about God’s rules for chattel slavery (Lev. 25;44-46)?

“Evolution without God produces Relativism, which is unlivable. Do you get it now?”

Let’s first work on *your* getting it. You’ve not explained the unlivable part (I’m an atheist, and atheism nicely explains the supernatural), and you’re still trying to get objective morality without evidence. Nope—something so incredible needs much evidence.

[Levi]

” “[Evolution] doesn’t produce a standard with which to measure morality.”

Yeah, and neither does Chemistry, darn it. And yet, in its domain, it does very well. Ditto material science. Ditto atheism.”

Chemistry is a study, not a theory. Anyway, why listen to you? After all, that’s your truth, not mine.

“And yet Christianity claims to have quite a bit to say about morality.. Read the Bible, though, and you find an abysmal source of morality. BTW, did you respond to my point about God’s rules for chattel slavery (Lev. 25;44-46)?”

I sent an article for you to give your thoughts on.

” “Evolution without God produces Relativism, which is unlivable. Do you get it now?”

Let’s first work on *your* getting it. You’ve not explained the unlivable part (I’m an atheist, and atheism nicely explains the supernatural), and you’re still trying to get objective morality without evidence. Nope—something so incredible needs much evidence.”

If there’s no wrong, no good, no praise, no tolerance; then no rules and crimes everywhere.

Why am I obligated to prove it to you? You have your truth, and I have mine. You think relativism is true, and I don’t. Fair enough.

But if obligation is true, then I will answer you: Have you ever spoke God’s name in vain? (I’m trying my best to prove it to you, Bob.

[Bob]

“If there’s no wrong, no good, no praise, no tolerance; then no rules and crimes everywhere.”

No, if there is no *objective* wrong, then there is no *objective* rule against it. And so on.

The regular kind of “wrong,” “good,” “rule,” and so on still exist and serve us nicely.

“Why am I obligated to prove it to you? You have your truth, and I have mine.”

You’re not obligated to. If I’m not motivated to waste time on you, or if you have better things to do than listen to my argument, then obviously we won’t have an interaction and won’t risk changing our minds or learning anything. And yet, sometimes, people do engage in debate and, sometimes, change their minds.

“Have you ever spoke God’s name in vain? (I’m trying my best to prove it to you, Bob.”

It’s not clear what this mean to the original audience, but let’s say yes. I care nothing for what the Bible says about either set of Ten Commandments. (Fun fact: the second set of 10 Commandments–the one not smashed that was put in the Ark–is in Exodus 34. It’s very different than the original.)

[wonderer]

Levi:

“Even if Atheism is true, could I live it out? Well, I can’t, especially Relativism, which follows from Atheism and Evolution. Here’s why I cannot live it out:”

I’m pretty sure you are mistaken about your reasons. Note that they were all about some atheist of your imaginings.

The real reason is that it would take a lot of learning you haven’t done yet, for you to be able to understand the diverse perspectives of atheists. So of course you can’t live it out now.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by  wonderer.

[Levi]

“The real reason is that it would take a lot of learning you
haven’t done yet, for you to be able to understand the diverse
perspectives of atheists. So of course you can’t live it out now.”

So you’re an atheist? Can you prove to me you live consistently with your belief?

[wonderer]

Levi:

“So you’re an atheist?”

Close enough, though perhaps talking about your understanding of what ‘being an atheist’ means is in order, because those things you think about the atheist of your imaginings don’t really have much to do with me.

“Can you prove to me you live consistently with your belief?”

My belief is that you and I are evolved social primates. I think I live fairly consistently with that belief.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  wonderer.

[Levi]

” “So you’re an atheist?”

Close enough, though perhaps talking about your understanding of what ‘being an atheist’ means is in order, because those things you think about the atheist of your imaginings don’t really have much to do with me.”

What do you believe?

” “Can you prove to me you live consistently with your belief?”

My belief is that you and I are evolved social primates. I think I live fairly consistently with that belief.”

No, you can’t. How many times have you said the word “Should” and “Ought”?

[wonderer]

Levi:

What do you believe?

Way too many things to list. You’ll need to be more specific.

No, you can’t. How many times have you said the word “Should” and “Ought”?

I don’t know how many times I have said “should” and “ought”. In any case you haven’t given me any reason to think judgements about what should happen are unexpected for evolved social primates.

Did you watch the monkey video? It seemed pretty clear to me that the one monkey had a pretty strong judgement about the way things should go. Why think human judgements need a fundamentally different sort of basis than the monkey’s judgements?

[Levi]

“Levi:

What do you believe?

Way too many things to list. You’ll need to be more specific.”

What do you believe in regard to God and the Bible, for starters.

"No, you can’t. How many times have you said the word “Should” and “Ought”?

I don’t know how many times I have said “should” and “ought”. In any case you haven’t given me any reason to think judgements about what should happen are unexpected for evolved social primates.”

It’s unexpected since you believe we are primates with no standard?

“Did you watch the monkey video? It seemed pretty clear to me that the one monkey had a pretty strong judgement about the way things should go. Why think human judgements need a fundamentally different sort of basis than the monkey’s judgements?”

Humans are fundamentally different than monkeys. We can make theories, we have observe microbes, we have a moral compass, we can speak languages, etc.

[James]

1. Relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing. That’s horrible. I can’t accuse the murderer of murder nor the rule-breaker of rule-breaking. That’s because if morality is personal opinion, you are merely thrashing what your opinion is on someone else, which does nothing. I can’t live that way even if I said I could.

This is just a false dichotomy. The opposite of morality being objective is not that it is merely personal opinion. For example, the rules of chess (pick any activity of your choice and where you know the rules are invented by humans, if chess is not your thing) are not objective in that they were created by human beings and those rules could, in principle, be changed but neither are they created on a whim or purely on the basis of personal opinion either. Neither does something being subjective entail that it is an opinion. The way that people experience colour can and does differ from person to person (in addition to changing in individuals over time, as they age) making it subjective. But the way people experience colour is not based on personal opinion.

For the rest of your objections, simply think about a situation like a game (football, chess, baseball etc). In those contexts, we know that the rules that competitors adhere to are invented by humans. Does this mean that we cannot praise athletes or hold them accountable when they violate those rules? It seems not. We do it all the time and nobody has an issue with it.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by  James.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by  James.

[Levi]

“This is just a false dichotomy. The opposite of morality being objective is not that it is merely personal opinion. For example, the rules of chess (pick any activity of your choice and where you know the rules are invented by humans, if chess is not your thing) are not objective in that they were created by human beings and those rules could, in principle, be changed but neither are they created on a whim or purely on the basis of personal opinion either.”

Good point, James. However, I’m appealing to what most Relativists say: Morality is a matter of personal opinion, unless you believe society chooses morals.

“Neither does something being subjective entail that it is an opinion. The way that people experience colour can and does differ from person to person (in addition to changing in individuals over time, as they age) making it subjective. But the way people experience colour is not based on personal opinion.”

Again, that’s what most Relativists say morality is. Actually, Subjective-ness is according to the subject; namely, you in Relativism. Objectiveness is above what others like; which is kind of like chess, though the rules are for something different.

“For the rest of your objections, simply think about a situation like a game (football, chess, baseball etc). In those contexts, we know that the rules that competitors adhere to are invented by humans. Does this mean that we cannot praise athletes or hold them accountable when they violate those rules? It seems not. We do it all the time and nobody has an issue with it.”

Praise all you want; I’m talking about true praise. If we all die in the dust as our end, then praise is worthless.

[Ebby (Christian)]

Hello everyone! I’m late to the party but figured I’d show up since i’ve been thinking about these questions. There is a difference between subjective morality and relativistic morality, no? I thought the former means that morality is based on opinion where was the latter means that while it is beyond opinion as to whether there is a such thing as right or wrong, whether some things are right or wrong can depend on the context. Also, the creator of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SymcbqKPjS0 seems persuasive to me in refuting the analogy that morality is like human made games like chess and football. What do you all think?

[Jabberwock]

Unfortunately, he misunderstands how an analogy is supposed to work. It can easily be shown if we replace ‘morality’ with ‘rules of chess’ in his first premise:

1. If rules of chess have no metaphysically special ground, then rules of chess are nothing more than facts about preferences.

But that is obviously not the case: if you choose to move your figures differently, then the other player WILL object, even if you say ‘Oh, I prefer to do it this way’. If you do it in a tournament, all others and judges will do that as well. In other words, they believe that you SHOULD move in a particular way, or that you have an obligation to do that. Sure, it IS different than morality, you do not have a MORAL obligation to move figures in a specific way. But that is how analogies work – they are not meant to be IDENTICAL or be a reduction to the issue they present, it is enough that they show one particular aspect that is the same. And this analogy does exactly that – nobody believes that rules of chess are ‘specially’ metaphysically grounded, but also nobody believes that they are NOTHING MORE than a matter of preference. This is clearly reflected in non-preferential language used: some moves are ‘wrong’, ‘illegal’, ‘incorrect’, etc. Sure, as I wrote, it is not moral ‘oughtness’, but it is ‘oughtness’ all the same.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Jabberwock.

[Bob]

Nice analogy.

[Ebby (Christian)]

I could be wrong here but I think the point regarding ‘facts about preferences’ with respect to chess is that the rules themselves are based on arbitrary standards/goals (e.g. to checkmate your opponent) whereas the rules of morality are based on something beyond the arbitrary. If that is true, then we’d agree that the goal of chess, to checkmate your opponent, is arbitrary/based on nothing more than someone’s preference to have that be the goal. I don’t think we’d say that that the goal of morality, for us to be moral/do good not bad, is based on nothing more than preference though. I agree with @treebeard in that i don’t want to muddy the waters here. I may reach out to the YouTuber if you have any follow up thoughts/questions though.

[Jabberwock]

His thesis is that morality is unreducible, because it deals with how things should be and not how things are (around 2:35). But as the example of chess shows, we derive ‘should’ from arbitrary rules all the time. We draw lines in the sand and say ‘this is a state border, you people ought to stay on your side’. Again, I am not saying that chess rules or border laws are the same as morality, I am pointing out that, contrary to the video author’s claims, morality is not in any way unique in describing how things should be (i.e. how people should behave).

[Ebby (Christian)]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I may start another discussion for this one. 👍

[treebeard (atheist)]

I’m interested in discussing this video, because i don’t understand its logic. If you say it seems persuasive, maybe you can explain/defend it. But I think it would be better if you create a separate discussion for this, so we don’t mix things with Levi’s argument.

Levi’s argument already has everything including the kitchen sink in it..