Can Atheism Explain Morality?

Can Atheism Explain Morality?

[@CWHolleman]

Nearly every species of animal on this planet has an aversion to wanton violence and needless harming of the same species. Not sure it has to be any more complicated than that.

[@melchior2678]

Nearly. That raises the obvious question, what about those for who this does not apply. Your argument suggests that by virtue of being the minority they are wrong. Hence, minorities are evil, by your logic.

[@melchior2678]

"Nearly"

[@melchior2678]

"minorities bad" - your argument in a nutshell

[@cryogeneric]

Except the ones that eat their young and kill each other for mating or territory rights, etc.

[@iveseen1]

Well that rules us out then.

[@pepperachu]

It's an easy argument. You can be atheist but still show morals of course, but God is an objective foundation for these morals. The atheist has no foundation

[@pepperachu]

@@SupremeSquiggly if there is 1 True God, it stands to reason there are false gods. If your sincerely seeking Him, you would find Him. I find no better evidence than the evidence of Jesus Christ

[@pepperachu]

@@SupremeSquiggly well that was bizarre and from left field...I genuinely have no idea what I said that was dishonest or "lacking moral courage". Lol no need for all this pretense, you could have just ran instead of fronting yourself like this courageous intellectual dude

[@pepperachu]

@@SupremeSquiggly sure thing bud

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

I, and I alone, determine which human behaviors are moral, amoral, or immoral. Just as everyone else does.

[@pepperachu]

@@Theo_Skeptomai you do, and that's the problem

[@AussieNaturalist]

Why do so many theists, especially someone like Dr Craig who knows better, misrepresent what atheism is, it’s simply the disbelief in the claim of a god or gods, so it obviously doesn’t or can’t address morality, that’s something else entirely… 🤷‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[@Bi0Dr01d]

That is what is claimed atheism is, but there is a valid 2-Part combination of reasons why this definition cannot be true, namely, that the expression "lack of belief" is an inaccurate expression to describe the situation, and because our practical behaviors tend to point to one conclusion above the other. With these two things combined, it demonstrates that the standard definition of atheism is not true. The first point: *"Lack of Belief"* When there are only two mutually exclusive propositions (God exists/God doesn't exist), One of these two outcomes *is necessarily true.*a person can *lack belief" in one, or you can "lack belief" in another, but he cannot "lack belief in both", because one of these two propositions *is necessarily true.* It implies the correct expression is not "lack of belief", It is *"Equal Belief in both".* So, if one was going to use his state of unbelief, the correct definition would be to have equal belief In both the proposition that God does not exist, and the proposition that God does exist (50/50). However, it is likely the case that the atheist position is not perfectly 50/50 but that he favors one of these two propositions above the other. __________ The Next Point: *"Not all positions allow for neutrality"* Although the gumball analogy communicates a neutral ground because one does not have to live life which assumes one or the other, this is not the case for God. Some situations do not allow for the neutral ground, and the question of God's existence is one of those examples that does not allow for the neutral ground.* Here's an example. Let's say that you walk outside in the morning to get mail from your mailbox. As you walk to your mailbox, a man runs up to you and says: "There is a meteor that will fall on your house in 5 minutes!". If you respond by saying: "I don't believe you. I'm not saying you're wrong, *I'm just saying I'm not convinced",* then even though you're claiming this, you're treating the claim *as false.* The situation *does not allow for a neutral ground.* You have only two options in how you can respond to the claim, and your attempt to be "neutral" will support one proposition above the other. Should you remain outside relaxed having a conversation (which treats the claim *as false)?* Or should you be rushing in the house to get all the people evacuated and to collect all of your valuable belongings to protect everyone from the coming meteor? However you react to the claim will treat the claim as either true or false. If the position were truly "neutral" this would be displayed in the person's *anxiety, not his indifference.* To be indifferent indicates the lack of care which communicates that one believes the risk is unlikely that a meter will fall on his house and thus treating the claim *as false.* The anxiety is truly neutral in which a coming meteor in 5 minutes is *equally likely and risky* to the belief that there isn't one coming, which is why the person should have a high level of anxiousness if the position is truly neutral, but indifference does not match this claim of neutrality. By choosing not to be startled and rush in the house to protect everyone and get them evacuated, one has CHOSEN to take the risk that the claim is false, pushing the needle in favor of the proposition *"God does not exist".* It means that while one is claiming to hold a neutral position, when he chooses to live life and the situation blows down to it, he will choose "God does not exist" above the proposition "God does exist", In whichever choice the atheist chooses out of these two propositions *IS his true position.* Therefore, "Atheism is a lack of belief cannot be the true definition".

[@AussieNaturalist]

@@Bi0Dr01d It seems as though you’re been listen too much to Jordan Peterson 🤔🤷‍♂️🤦‍♂️ I’m sorry but you have conflated many different things with atheism, which is odd considering it directly relates to ONE single claim: a god/s exist = theist. And an atheist is someone who says, I don’t believe those claims = a-theist. Everything else is something else. It’s really not that hard to comprehend.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

@@AussieNaturalist Actually, I don't listen to him at all regarding those issues and have no idea what he believes about the definition of atheism, but I thank you for the compliment. Your response only reiterates how you've defined it, but that's not a counter objection, that is only an arbitrary dismissal by presupposing your view is correct, of which if you believe that this is counter objection, then all you're doing is begging the question in light of the argument I presented.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

@@AussieNaturalist an atheist can "say" whatever you wants, but the conclusion "lack of belief" is a false and an invalid definition. The correct definition, if this were hypothetically true, would be "equal belief in both", not lack of belief, Of which when the situation boils down to it and the situation force is the atheist to choose a side (because there is no true neutral ground), he will choose to assume the position "God is not exist", which makes the definition lack of belief factually untrue, regardless of what the atheist "says", So if you can provide a stronger argument than using a definition to prove the definition is valid (which is circular reasoning or making the question), and if you can give a stronger argument then merely pointing out with atheists "say" even though I'm pointing out why how they describe their position isn't accurate, then there wouldn't be a basis to accept your conclusion.

[@AussieNaturalist]

@@Bi0Dr01d You’re misrepresenting what atheism is, in other words you’re being dishonest because you realised that your position is untenable. If you have to be so dishonest to defend your position, then it’s not a position worth defending… 👎 Your whole argument is not worth the time it took you to post. Goodbye 👋

[@maxdoubt5219]

Nope. If "objective" morality is a thing, then God's behavior in the bible is exactly what that morality should teach us to reject.

[@truthbetold8787]

Gods behavior in the bible?

[@JosephHowes2003]

​@@truthbetold8787have you read it? His behavior is abhorrent.

[@kingmello04crimson93]

​@JosephHowes2003 Is it really that bad to create life and then when they keep messing up to give them a way to salvation??

[@truthbetold8787]

@@JosephHowes2003 based on what standard?

[@JosephHowes2003]

@@truthbetold8787 under what standard is genocide acceptable? Infanticide?Slavery? Or look at the "moral teachings" that involved offering up virgin daughters to be raped so the perpetrators wouldn't commit homosexual acts. It's a disgusting book that's luckily fiction.

[@heavysleeper14]

Is it morally right to burn people alive forever because they’re not part of your club? 😒

[@Raiddd__]

No obviously not, good thing that’s not what Christianity claims!

[@ricksonora6656]

Is it morally right to reduce a Creator’s claim over His creation to being “part of your club”? I Is it morally right to reduce rebellion against the King of Kings to club membership? Is it morally right to use straw man arguments to rationalize said rebellion?

[@ricksonora6656]

Go back to sleep.

[@alicedesousa4076]

Again the Inquisition fallacy LMAO The french revolution killed more ppl in the name of atheism in ONE MONTH (around 50.000) than the church in the Inquisiton in 300 YEARS (around 25.000). Btw, you should read the manual of the Inquisitor and learn that they only sentenced to death ppl that have actually comitted hideous crimes, and that your rights (not being considered guilty until there is proof valid of it) come from the Church in the Middle Ages.

[@OneTheBlue]

@@ricksonora6656 Jesus most likely, did not believe in hell. So I don't understand why Christians talk about hell so much.

[@hooligan9794]

OK so I know a guy named Greg. Greg tells me what is moral. Oh by the way Greg is special so his views are "objective" So the Gregian view accounts for morality in the same way Christianity does. Wow that was easy and obviously meanless unless I could demonstrate that Greg exists. Just as step 1.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

It's true that WLC is presupposing that objective morality exists and therefore God exists, but there's a purpose behind this approach. He's basically implying that the person who claims not to believe in objective morality already believes in it without acknowledging that belief. He's appealing to a person's intuition which informs him that God exists. By presupposing "moral duties", he's saying to the audience "You have an intuition or innate knowledge that there are moral duties". Otherwise, they are illusions that we pursue. The evidence that we already have this innate foundational belief in objective morality is, for example, that we make a distinction between our desires and what is right and moral. By making a contrast between what we want to do and what we ought to do, we're implying that we can be wrong in our choices, but if morality is ultimately subjective, then there is no right and wrong and any conclusion is valid. The fact that we would sacrifice to uphold a moral conclusion implies that we have a genuine belief that what we are sacrificing for is "actually right" as a "moral truth". Here's another example that we already have this built-in innate understanding: Let's say that you have a loved one, whether it be a spouse, parents, or your son or daughter, and this person is at the risk of death, and the only way you can save this person is by sacrificing your own life in order to preserve theirs. Would you do it? If the answer is "Yes", then it isn't only that You "value them", This demonstrates that you actually believe that person's value objectively exists. Otherwise, one is laying down his life based on an imagined concept he knowingly made up in his mind. A person is throwing his life away based on an illusion that the person he's dying for is valuable. Since the person is willing to die because of this value, it shows genuine belief that the value actually objectively exists. One of the objections that some use against Christianity regarding the resurrection and the martyrdom of the disciples is the point that the disciples died for what they claimed to have seen, Jesus risen from the dead, and some would say in response: "Many people die for their religious beliefs". However, by an atheist or agnostic making this point, He's already acknowledging that death for something demonstrates sincere belief in that thing. So, applying this acknowledgment to self-sacrifice due to the value of another person: if a person is laying his life down for The sake of another, he's implying an acknowledgment of a person's distinctive value from his own and being willing to die because of it, demonstrating genuine belief in it, and by extension, it implies There is a fundamental belief in objective morality that the atheist or agnostic *already has* but isn't acknowledging. WLC is appealing to this side of the unbeliever, implying that WLC has a mutual understanding with the audience he's speaking with that he knows that they have this innate knowledge, and they know that they have this innate knowledge but aren't willing to acknowledge it. However, if the unbeliever attempts to resist this conclusion that he already innately has within him, WLC is saying that If objective morality does not exist, then our moral pursuits are illusory, and life's purpose is an illusion. I say this with respect, but there's something significant that needs to be considered. You're of course rejecting his conclusion and considering it as invalid or non-evidential, and as a result you do not accept what he's saying. You're implying that you only accept conclusions that are evidential or are not "fictional". However, on the other hand, if you reject that objective morality exists, then by definition, you believe in "fictional" value. You're living a life based on the idea that your life has purpose, which is a fictional construct that I assume you may have "invented". If you're going to reject the conclusion of objective morality and God's existence because you do not believe it's real, and yet you pursue things that from your own worldview you know is not actually real, like "the human value" and "purpose", then this would be a form of hypocrisy. According to logical consistency, there would not be a basis to reject WLC's point, just on the basis of logical consistency alone. However, the other reason not to reject this point is because according to my explanation of innate understanding that you already have, "you already know it exists". You might have constructed a narrative or a worldview to explain away these things, but the actual knowledge you have of this is very deeper within, and your belief in objective morality and value is more fundamental than the worldview that you're using to explain away why it doesn't exist. In other words, in some way, it may be considered that you might in some degree be betraying your own intuitions that inform you that these things are objective in order to maintain unbelief in God. Put even more shortly and more clearly, there might be a form of immorality involved in not believing in objective morality. If you already innately are informed by your intuitions that Objective moral exists, then to create a narrative of the world in which they don't exist is to lie against those intuitions and betray them for the sake of atheism.

[@hooligan9794]

@@Bi0Dr01d Some strange arguments there. I think you may not be understanding what subjective morality means. Firstly, I agree we have an innate moral sense. I believe it is due to our evolution as a social primate species. This does not make our morality "objective" in the way that is usually intended. The fact that we have moral intuitions (most of us anyway - makes oue wonder how Craig would explain psychopaths) Objective morality assumed there are moral truths that are wholly independent of humans. There are somethings that are right and some things that are wrong as a matter of truth. I think this idea is nonsense. I am not denying anything and there is no inconsistency here. Infact, the Christian finds themselves in the position of having to twist themselves into knots to explain God own actions under this view. It also raises the Euthyphro dilemma. You also seem to suggest that if I see someone as valuable then I am somehow committed to objective morality? This is a complete non-sequitur. There is no logical connection between these two things. You essentially admit that people will die for what they believe is true. What someone believes is true and what is actually true are often nothing alike.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

@@hooligan9794 Yes, they are unique arguments. I'm glad you do understand and acknowledge that There is an innate moral sense, but evolution does not encompass or fully explain the full spectrum. Evolution gives us a wide variety of different behaviors and beliefs, and those whom we consider immoral people who would gravitate to those other aspects, such as rape, murder, tribalism, war, etc. We can also attribute evolution to these things, and a person we would consider evil could gravitate to these things and also build a rationale and label it as "moral", and we would gravitate toward other things like generosity, compassion, etc., Anyway we would call it "moral". This means that we are choosing among these arrays of different things endowed to us by evolution as what we consider "moral", implying that we hold the view that some tendencies given to us by evolution is more "morally right" than others, so it goes beyond just a matter of whether or not evolution enables us to reason this way, but that we have moral beliefs that we believe are actually right and we therefore are implying indirect truth claims through our moral judgments, implying an innate understanding that these things objectively exist, not just that we have an innate "moral sense". The "innate moral sense" is that there is true morality, not just the inclination to be compassionate. Evolution does not provide enough of a response.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

@@hooligan9794 _"There are some things that are right and somethings that are wrong as a matter of truth. I think this idea is nonsense"_ With all due respect, I don't think you believe it's nonsense *ultimately,* and I stress the expression *"ultimately".* I think that you believe that you believe this. However, it's not always the case that our practical beliefs line up with our theoretical beliefs. A person can say "I don't believe there's a cliff a couple feet ahead", but then if a person responds and says "Okay, then jump. Just walk a few steps forward and we will see". If a person responds and says "Don't push me, I don't want to go". "Stop, I've got nothin' to prove", then while his theoretical beliefs say one thing, his practical life says something different. That's why I pointed out the laying of one's life down for a loved one, because this is an example of *a practical belief* that contradicts the *theoretical or constructed belief.* You can claim "I don't believe this", and "I think this is nonsense", but if you have a loved one and you would lay down your life in order to preserve theirs, then that practical belief is a contradiction to what you're claiming you don't believe. There's a saying that "Actions speak louder than words", and the willingness to lay down one's life and perform the action of self-sacrifice due to upholding moral values or to presuppose the value of humans not only shows a contradiction, but it shows that your belief in objective morality is actually more fundamental than your worldview that attempts to explain it away. Those practical beliefs speak louder than the mere words "I think this is nonsense". It means that you believe in objective morality more than you do not believe in it, but you're not acknowledging that belief. So, I would have to disagree with you. I would say that you do not "think it's nonsense", you believe in it, and this is the side of you that WLC is appealing to.

[@hooligan9794]

@@Bi0Dr01d Ah, the arrogance of it! You know what I REALLY believe. You ignored my argument. I could lay down my life something I value. That has zero relationship to morality, let alone objective morality. Thinking something has value is not a moral position.

[@brianramsey414]

I don't do ANYTHING I want because I would feel bad for hurting people. It's that simple

[@angryman_]

And what if someone who doesnt feel bad hurting other people comes along, why can you call him wrong or evil?

[@edwardwicks304]

Yes, that's just you personally. There's lots of other people that will feel otherwise.

[@brianramsey414]

Ya don't say lmao@@edwardwicks304

[@Bi0Dr01d]

Brian Ramsey, by saying that you don't do anything you want because you feel bad for hurting people, you're implying that what we want or don't want is not necessarily moral, implying that you're making a distinction between desire and morality. This inherently implies that if a person decides to make his own moral framework based on desires, *it's possible for him to be wrong.* This also implies that you're acknowledging "moral duty" through making this contrast between desire and morality, and it therefore implies that objective morality exists. It proves WLC's point.

[@brianramsey414]

NOPE just saying what I do personally has nothing to do with other people. You guys are making this way deeper for IDK why but have fun lol@@Bi0Dr01d

[@OneTheBlue]

The origins of Christain ethical and moral precepts can be found in Greek philosophy. And they did it long before there was such a thing as Christianity.

[@jensswales]

yes, whats your point?

[@OneTheBlue]

@@jensswales Ah, the classic, Internet aggressive comment. "Grrrrrr. What's yer point?!?Grrrrrrr! 😠" The point is that moral precepts do not come from religion.

[@jensswales]

@@OneTheBlue what do you mean by "come from religion"? invented by religion? a product of belief systems?

[@OneTheBlue]

@@jensswales I mean that our ethical and moral precepts are derived from human reasoning. They did not come from a god.

[@jensswales]

@@OneTheBlue how did you come to that conclusion?

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Morality doesn't need an explanation. I, and I alone, determine which human intentions, decisions, and actions are moral, amoral, or immoral. Just as every other individual.

[@___Sevak___]

fk ur explanation if i want ur beautiful mother or sister i wil just take her, anyway as an Atheist our goal is the grave, i will enjoy my time while i am here, & even medical science can not prove consciousness, so i will just be raping some AI robos in human flesh. peace

[@___Sevak___]

u can call me Anti-social

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@@___Sevak___ Hi Anti-social.

[@___Sevak___]

@@Theo_Skeptomai hi 😂 my point is thats why most Atheists r privileged people, what is stopping me being a psychopath/serial killer/rapist as an Atheist i should enjoy myself to the fullest before the black screen appears

[@tubsy.]

So it's subjective and therefore meaningless

[@Cdave-im5em]

The logical proposition would be if there is evidence that object in reality is true. Then the discussion can focus on the force of that morality. But simply presupposing objective morality, so that your conclusion can follow that God must exist is begging the question

[@Cdave-im5em]

@@ChokeItDown typical theist retort - fact-less, unsubstantiated, red herring, etc. Try something new for a change… actually providing evidence.

[@flavioa2252]

It’s literally an innate experiment akin to reality. It’s not a pressup…

[@Cdave-im5em]

@@flavioa2252 provide your evidence for an objective morality without appealing to the Bible or anecdotal evidence.

[@flavioa2252]

@@Cdave-im5em that’s asinine lol morality is experience. Provide me evidence of what red tastes like?

[@Cdave-im5em]

@@flavioa2252 maybe look up “false equivalency” as it could help prevent any further ignorance from shining through.

[@Guanda70]

That makes no sense. Why did he mention atheism? Atheism and morality are not related. People get their moral values from the society they live in, parents that raised them, etc. If your opinion on one single subject is enough to build up a whole moral system, we're screwed. Let's say, I'm a vegetarian, in my opinion consuming flesh of dead animals is not good. Then, on that analogy, we need to take that in consideration to determine I have an understanding of what's moral or not? That's crazy talk. Unless you have an agenda.

[@ta3p-theannex3project84]

The nonsense machine in action.

[@___Sevak___]

imagine theres no law or rules & I am an Atheist & i dont believe in Heaven or Hell, & i am also a poor man who is not privileged, whats stopping me from raping beautiful women in ur family & taking ur riches, urinating on the mens corpses, etc, just going full Viking & the end of the day my destination is the graveyard what difference does it make? I should rather enjoy myself to the fullest while I hv time left... even consciousness is not scientifically proven & im just raping some moving AI robots in human flesh lol (whats ur answer to this?) (thats why all Atheists r privileged people while their God-Beiliving ancestors built their republic,u wont be an Athiest when u witness death, famine, plague or in a rd world country)

[@mustachemac5229]

Hundreds of religions all claiming that their gods give the objective moral standard. How can we objectively know who is right and who is not?

[@manofthehills5001]

The moral argument doesn’t aim to establish one specific religion, it merely aims to establish the existence of an objective moral lawgiver. In terms of which religion has the correct conception of this moral lawgiver, that requires further investigation into other facts and arguments. I happen to be a Christian theist because of the historical facts surrounding the life, death, and I believe resurrection of the historical Jesus.

[@Raiddd__]

Obviosuly by investigating the evidence / arguments for the truth of each religion in question? … But I sense that that’s not really the question you’re asking. Seems like you’re tacitly implying that since there are many many different religions that claim to be true and have the correct objective moral code that this somehow implies or proves that there really isn’t objective morality? Well that would definitely be an unfounded claim. The simple fact that there are many different opinions or conventions surrounding different religions does not bear whatsoever on the claim Craig is making here that the vast vast majority of people do believe in and agree on at least SOME core of objective moral values. It simply doesn’t bear on what he’s saying.

[@mustachemac5229]

@@manofthehills5001 The issue arises because there are many different groups of people who want to establish that their version of objective morals fall upon their deity/ deities. Requiring further investigation should be the go-to for everybody, but that isn't what happens. What we see are these different groups of people all claiming that they have sufficient evidence and that they have the historical background and that they have the archaeological evidence etc etc etc. What you're saying is exactly what they're going to say about their religion. So again: *How do we objectively know who is correct and who is not?*

[@mustachemac5229]

@@Raiddd__ No. I'm just pointing out that there are numerous religions all claiming objective moral standard la comes from their god. Every single religion claims that they have sufficient evidence and that their holy book is inspired. So again: *How do we objectively know who is correct and who is it?*

[@Ejacunathan]

​@@mustachemac5229you stop looking to others and you figure out what is intuitive and add to it as you experience life. If the universe does indeed work by fixed laws, or laws rhat change in a fixed pattern, then the majority of people will eventually come to the same conclusions. Self deception is high because people don't know how to sift through propaganda and arbitrary social rules.

[@ctt59]

Arguments for God should be compelling and we know they are in line of our sense of the world.

[@echelon2k8]

Easiest way to end with a faulty conclusion is to begin with a faulty premise.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

I have a feeling that his approach is not as simple as you might be interpreting it.

[@lovespeaks777]

According to subjective morality, If someone believes something is morally right or wrong for them, it is subjectively right or wrong for them. Following that logic, someone could believe racism is right one minute, but then 5 minutes later believe it is wrong and that would be true for them. And they could change their mind endlessly but it would be true for them. Is this not absurd?

[@echelon2k8]

@@lovespeaks777 No more absurd than pretending that subjective morality is objective by claiming that it originated from a god and that this objective morality can change whenever we claim that god changed it.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

@@echelon2k8 This is not about going back and forth and trying to one up each other saying "You're absurd, no your absurd". He's trying to get you to consider in a more serious way that your own intuitions inform you that morality is not ultimately subjective. He's appealing to your own innate knowledge. We can "know" things, but those things that we know innately we can bury through our intellect which creates a worldview that obscures that knowledge. What he's trying to communicate is that he knows from his own intuitions that There are true rights and wrongs, and not only does he know this, he's communicating to you that he knows that you know it as well, and that there's a mutual understanding that you both know it, and it is through this knowledge that we can recognize this "absurdity" that no matter what moral conclusion a person makes, they're always "right". This is why it is not absurd to believe in objective morality due to us having innate knowledge that there are true rights and wrongs, and by extension, to conclude that God exists follows.

[@tubsy.]

And yet he didn't

[@karltiedemann7222]

Jesus Saves!!!

[@manofthehills5001]

The struggle I have with this argument is I find it difficult to find a good premise for why we believe in objective moral laws, other than it seems wrong to do X. Is there a reason other than intuition why one should believe in an objective set of moral values and duties?

[@jackplumbridge2704]

We experience the moral realm just as we experience the physical world. Since we have no defeater of our experience of the moral realm, we ought to trust that our experience is accurate, just as we do with our physical senses.

[@spencergsmith]

Why is our intuition not good evidence for objective moral values? If objective truth exists, our intuition can often be an accurate indicator of objective morality, especially when there is nothing significant to oppose it.

[@ricksonora6656]

I think the cost of rejecting objective morality is considerable. - An atheist cannot pose the problem of evil. Saying evil is a standard by which God’s existence can be judged contradicts saying evil is mere opinion. - The atheist who says nothing is intrinsically evil risks branding himself a sociopath, at least at an intellectual level. - Starting with the premise that objective morality does not exist, a person can set aside intuitions and emotions and proceed to rationalize any immoral act. History is full of atrocities arrived at that way. I know that doesn’t directly answer the question. However, many scientists and engineers have been judged harshly for theoretical work that did not take ethical consequences into account.

[@manofthehills5001]

@@spencergsmith I suppose one could say that from an evolutionary perspective, we have been trained as a species to feel good about doing that with helps others and feel bad when doing that which harms others. Is it fair to say that there is a possibility that our “experience with the moral realm” is really just our conscience programmed by natural selection? While this might not defeat God, it seems to me that if true, this defeats objective morals made by a transcendent creator. By the way, I’m a Christian, I’m just figuring out how to work around certain objections to this argument.

[@patrckhh20]

That's the whole point. There is no reason to believe in them in atheism.

[@Trapper4265]

Empathy, well-being, happiness, and reasonable thinking towards others In my community or on this planet, plus responsibility for my actions, are the bases of my moral standards. Not once did I have to appeal to a supernatural entity.

[@lovespeaks777]

Nope, but they mean nothing. It’s just your opinion

[@tubsy.]

You can't justify your moral standards. You know, you would have had a completely different standard if you weren't born in the modern age, right? So don't you be thinking FOR A SECOND, that you have these views because you are morally good. Your views are a product of your environment, not your "moral character"

[@lovespeaks777]

⁠@@tubsy.I believe the Bible, so I don’t believe any person is inherently good. And my moral standards aren’t “my” standards, they’re are an expression of God’s character. I didn’t make the rules

[@tubsy.]

@@lovespeaks777 I know, I wasn't talking to you

[@danf7568]

Colleges and Universities promote employment of openly religious professors, administrators, etc., to attract financial private donations from aging religious neighbors, etc., -- my view! MONEY! Learning sciences biology, etc., has replaced religion for many of us.

[@wolfreyet]

You’ve been spewing out the same garble for decades mate and youve convinced no one.

[@lovespeaks777]

And subjective morality is convincing? According to subjective morality, If someone believes something is morally right or wrong for them, it is subjectively right or wrong for them. Following that logic, someone could believe racism is right one minute, but then 5 minutes later believe it is wrong and that would be true for them. And they could change their mind endlessly but it would be true for them. Is this not absurd?

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

I want to live in a society where people are nice to each other. That benefits me in the long run. Every good action I do is one small contribution towards creating such a society. Isn't that a good enough secular basis for morality?

[@youngKOkid1]

Craig’s point is that it’s not an __objective__ basis for morality; that would simply be your subjective basis.

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

@youngKOkid1 Possibly so, and maybe there is an objective basis for morality and maybe there isn't. What I would dispute is that Craig can offer any more objective a basis than mine.

[@youngKOkid1]

@@joshuakohlmann9731 ok, I don’t understand why you think that. If God exists, then he is the objective basis for moral values. But without the existence of God, there can be no objective basis for moral values.

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

@youngKOkid1 What's objective about God? In fact, _which_ god? Or which gods? Doesn't deciding on the god you're establishing as an objective moral basis involve a subjective choice from the very start?

[@youngKOkid1]

@@joshuakohlmann9731 The Wikipedia page "Attributes of God in Christianity" elaborates on this more; in short, God in Christianity is all-powerful (omnipotence), all-knowing (omniscient), and all-good (omni-benevolent). Unlike all other things in the universe, including the universe, God's existence doesn't depend on any external factors; he is the uncaused cause. To your second point, humans don't establish God as anything; humans use evidence and reason to understand God as best we can given our limited means and intellects.

[@christianalthoff1112]

Morals do not require faith and conversely faith does not presuppose morals. Plenty of people claim to believe in god and have horrible morals. Your argument can be disproven by a small child.

[@AC-zx4hd]

If there were zero Christian sociopaths, I would maybe tend to agree, buuuut…

[@anuupeace8801]

I would argue theres even more sociopaths when it comes to people who have no belief or no christian background at all to be honest.

[@TooLateForParachutes]

Christianity doesn't cure you of evil. You're still findamentally flawed as a human in a broken world. Christianity is a means of redemption through the sacrifice of someone else (Jesus). The whole point is that humans are so screwed up that we could never earn our own redemption, and thats why we require a savior. My point being; even a Christian can do evil things, its not our actions (good or bad) that get us to heaven. Its our commitment to Jesus that redeems us.

[@Bamboozled007]

Ever heard the term “wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing” or “Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves”?…..you can call out the person but understand they have nothing to do with Christianity….they just use it to prey on the weak.

[@pepperachu]

​@@anuupeace8801your right I've met some "weird Christians" in my day. But it's Godless people that have done me wrong more than anyone group on planet earth

[@mick20075]

@@TooLateForParachutes that's why the world is a mess cause these people are Christian just sad acts that want a life without fighting for one and that's what insanity is Fking spastics Sotherton are cause most of them are lying to feel better which is narcissistic as fuk

[@mitchhaelann9215]

Yes. Easily. Atheism actually explains morality better than any religion possibly could, because it follows the evidence. As long as you actually know what morality is (not a single christian in all of history has). Morality is observed in every vertebate social species. The metrics it is measured by (empathy, fairness, equity) are observed in crows, wolves, meerkats, elephants, literally every animal that has a spine and lives in groups. It's a naturally evolved methodology that allows social species to work and live in groups for mutual survival and enrichment. This is why christians are incapable of being moral. They just don't get it.

[@NeoDemocedes]

The basis IS that the vast majority of us agree. That's it. Problem solved. No need to appeal to a moral authority that you can use to control others. But isn't it weird how a God's morals always just happens to line up with the opinions of that believer? It's almost like God is just a way for people to justify treating others according to their own desires.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

I think the question "Can Atheism explain morality" should not be the question to put on the front of the video. Don't get me wrong, it's a good question, but unless the nuance of what the question is trying to imply is explained exhaustively, I think that an atheist will misunderstand what is being asked. The short answer to the question is "Yes, The atheist can explain morality." An atheist can say that morality is the result of a human construct based on empathy provided to them through evolution in which they are able to understand and feel the pain of other people and therefore care for their fellow man. However, although this is a popular answer among many atheists, This answer seems to misunderstand what the question is trying to ask. Also, William Lane Craig is referring to a very specific context that is also seemingly very much misunderstood by seemingly many atheists. When WLC is talking about what "grounds morality", He's talking about the comparison between two moral conclusions that are in disagreement with each other in which neither of them can be concluded as moral right than the other if no objective moral value exists, and therefore, there's no way to "ground" them. It seems that many atheists attempt to answer this question of "grounding" under a different context by explaining a rationale as to how one has constructed their moral framework, which doesn't address the point being made. The moral argument is not saying that an atheist cannot be moral, and it's not asking for the atheist to give his rationale or explain the basis for why he holds his subjective views, The moral argument is trying to communicate that in order for any moral judgment to be more right or true than another, there must be an objective standard which points to God's existence. WLC is explaining that we already have innate awareness that objective morality exists, even if we do not have perfect knowledge of it, and this intuition informs us that morality is objective, and God exists.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

@@SupremeSquiggly on the contrary, people are so proud in their unbelief that they will repeat slogans that there's no evidence for God, not because they have evidence of this conclusion, but because they heard it repeated so many times that they assume the same slogan and continue the rhetoric. Furthermore, an atheist will do exactly what you just did in spending as much of their mental effort to fortify ones unbelief and then try to make it appear that they're merely trying to be rational, when what is actually happening is that they're trying to create so many walls that prevent them from concluding that God exists as possible because they are literally avoiding the conclusion while presenting a mask that they are just mere skeptics. It's illegitimate skepticism. Many atheists are not actually showing objective evaluation because it seems that reasoning at times is based on this narrative that there is no evidence, which causes the unbeliever to reason within a box and presuppose these slogans in their talking points online, hence your assertion that it cannot be demonstrated, And if you see that it is demonstrated, because you have put yourself in a vulnerable position if what you're claiming is untrue, this further promotes you not being objective by trying to save face by rejecting any such evidence one would present. In short, if the atheist "looks bad", he will not concede the conversation, and he will therefore not be objective in how he evaluates the evidence for the conclusion. This is why atheists should stop using the slogans that morality cannot be demonstrated, because either it points to a burden of proof that the atheist has, or if a Theist sets aside the atheist's burden of proof and instead yields to the atheists *imposed narrative* and does proceed to provide evidence to the atheist anyway, then the atheist looks bad for saying this and therefore this creates a conflict of interest to where he cannot receive evidence. Thus, the best thing for the atheist to do is to be humble and neutral and not be overly confident and not make claims in one direction or another and just be open-minded to asking for such evidence with a willingness to accept and evaluate it objectively.

[@Expiee]

Exactly, sexul abuse and rape arent really wrong and it just your opinion verss mine. Thats why subjective morality is unreasonable and not logical.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

WRONG. Sexual abuse and rape are immoral.

[@___Sevak___]

@@Theo_Skeptomai fk ur social morality if i want ur beautiful mother or sister i wil just take her, anyway as an Atheist our goal is the grave, i will enjoy my time while i am here, & even medical science can not prove consciousness, so i will just be raping some AI robos in human flesh. At the most u cal call me Anti-social. peace

[@philbreadcrumbs8179]

We ARE just animals, and claiming that objective morality must exist and therefore god is real as he MUST be the source is fallacious reasoning. The reason that most people don't commit murder isn't because of some intrinsic moral rule given to us by a higher power, its because we know that nobody wants to be murdered, being murdered sucks, so we don't go around murdering. So yes, atheism can easily explain morality very easily

[@lovespeaks777]

No, this is fallacious reasoning: According to subjective morality, If someone believes something is morally right or wrong for them, it is subjectively right or wrong for them. Following that logic, someone could believe racism is right one minute, but then 5 minutes later believe it is wrong and that would be true for them. And they could change their mind endlessly but it would be true for them. Is this not absurd?

[@philbreadcrumbs8179]

@@lovespeaks777 I don't disagree at all with what you're saying, and my reasoning isn't fallacious. You're right, it's all subjective, even murder. My point is that just because a moral attribute, such as not wanting to murder people, is so widely shared DOESN'T make it objective, and therefore it cannot be objective morality, let alone one intrinsically given to us by some magical entity. Not once did I claim that it wasn't subjective, just that MOST people don't want to murder because they have empathy and can recognize it's a pretty bad thing and NOT because some god packed them full of moral goodness.

[@creeg1998]

Yeah but the Bible condone slavery, so that kind of really doesn't seem like a supreme moral judge

[@lovespeaks777]

How are you complaining about any moral issue when morals don’t exist according to your own view?

[@creeg1998]

@@lovespeaks777 because that isn't my view. I just don't think that morality is derived from a god

[@KenMasters.]

@@creeg1998 The Bible condoning slavery is proven to be a lie. 5 reasons why: 1. Israelite slavery is not the same as Egyptian slavery. It’s has nothing to do with discriminatory forced servitude, it was voluntary means of working off debt, avoiding homelessness, and keeping POWs from mustering a rebellion. 2. Slave-trading is condemned in both the Old and New Testament of the Bible, it even calls man-stealing a death sentence in Exodus 21:16. (A scripture Atheists often leave out like every other context) 3. The Bible teaches that all men are made in the image of God. Bondservants and bondmasters are equally human, protected in one in Christ. (That’s throughout the Old and New Testament) 4. Jesus came to set the captives free. 5. The main goal of God is spiritual redemption, not social reform. The Old Testament was not ideal, it was forward looking to a better and complete testament with is the New.

[@creeg1998]

@@KenMasters. I don't really understand what Egypt versus Israelite slavery has to do with anything. However, you kind of shoot yourself in the foot on your very first point when you say the Bible doesn't condone slavery, but it's okay to keep prisoners of wars as slaves. Keeping people as slaves isn't cool, no matter what the justification

[@KenMasters.]

@@creeg1998 It has a lot to do with everything. Because you manipulative and ahistorical Hatetheists always leave out Egypt's tyranny just to falsely demonize and discriminate the Hebrews as the "true oppressors". Even going as far as calling Slavery in Egypt a "myth", despite archeological evidence of ancient carvings in Egyptian wall-art showing Hebrew slave captives. Yes, the Jews were attacked in the 1400 BC era a long long ago before World War II, Egypt is also the reason why the Freemason/Illuminati invaded the Native American lands and built the nation using African Slaves, it wasn't the Christians who did it, the Bible first spread its way to Africa before it went to Europe! and yes, the Bible *never* condoned slavery (and the 5 reasons are proof), they only condone jobs. Their version of slavery legally exists to this day in fact but under different names: The Bondservants are now "Butlers"; the Maidservants are now "Maids"; Slavery is now "Housekeeping" (due to the US ruining slavery); and instead of selling themselves, people order them. POWs nowadays are forced to do community service in public prisons for free of course. But you're just using them to further your smoke-screens.

[@somerandom3247]

Do you have any evidence that these morals are actually objective? Or do you just blindly believe that they are? The way we dermine the morality of something in an entirely subjective process, making morals subjective. I dont need to provide a basis for objective morals because im not claiming they exist. You are the one who needs to provide the basis.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

Moral realists are not saying that people do not have moral disagreements, nor are they saying that people do not view morality from their own subjective viewpoints. It would not be rational to say no person ever has their own subjective perspective regarding moral issues, and as a result, it would not be rational to interpret the moral arguments this way, which therefore follows that your argument is not addressing the main issue. In other words, those who argue for objective morality are not saying "Objective morality exists, therefore subjective morality does not", They are ultimately saying "both exists". This means that when you point to examples of subjective morality, you're not making your case against their arguments any stronger, your only pointing out things that both sides already acknowledge. For example, It's like saying "if Truth exists, no one would be able to tell a lie". This is obviously not the case. Objective truth can exist while people can have their own subjective perceptions of it and even falsehoods. This also applies to the laws of logic. Are the laws of logic objective? Of course. However, can the laws of logic be utilized subjectively in which people can form intellectual arguments that disagree with each other? Of course. However, it would be false to say "We utilize logic and the laws of logic in our own subjective perspectives in which it is a subjective process that we reason about these things. Therefore, logic is ultimately subjective". That is a non-sequitur and does not logically follow.

[@somerandom3247]

@@Bi0Dr01d I agree with all of that, but my argument still stands. You guys are claiming that objective morals exist, but have yet to provide an example of an objective moral, or a basis for its objectivity. I.e. no evidence of such a thing.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

@@somerandom3247 No, it doesn't stand. Your argument is based on the presupposition that no theist has ever met a burden of proof concerning objective morality, and you have a burden of proof for this claim. You could not justify your talking point without meeting a burden of proof for this first, which means you're talking point begs the question, and by giving yourself a free pass not to substantiate your own claims but only require evidence when theists make them implies a type of double standard which therefore implies a preference toward unbelief apart from evidence. Also, the statement "There is no evidence, there is no evidence" can potentially be a form of indoctrination. Do you conclude this because you have evidence that you can present to show what Theists presented is insufficient, or are you saying this because you keep hearing this from other atheists and adopt this lens by which to observe the discussion?

[@Bi0Dr01d]

@@somerandom3247 First, it actually seems quite obvious that objective morality exists, both because this is what our intuitions inform us and which we already know that it does exist even if we may not have perfect knowledge of it through our subjective reasoning, but also because All moral positions, including immoral positions, must utilize "truth" in order to ground that position, and that would imply that there are objective facts about moral judgments, which implies that there are objective aspects of morality. For example, if a person wanted to kill another person and try to justify it through some type of falsehood, in order to construct that falsehood, one would have to utilize different truths and misapply them in order to justify the act, but this makes "truth" foundational to all moral positions, which follows that a moral judgment can be illegitimate. This is obviously the case. Let's put it this way so that you can see an example: If someone were to ask an ethical question about logic by asking the question "Should we be logical", there are only three possible answers to this question. "Yes, "No", or "I don't know". If the answer were "No, we should not be logical", The person is already contradicting himself by utilizing logic in order to answer the question, or to even recognize what is being asked. Thus, the answer "No would be factually incorrect", and in light of the fact that the answer cannot be "No", then it follows that the answer "I don't know" would also be wrong, which means the only correct answer is "Yes, We ought to be logical", and because there's only one correct answer, it follows from this that objective morality exists. That's not to say that people did not use their own subjective reasoning in their perceptions of morality, but both are implied simultaneously. Objective morality *obviously* exists, but because we construct our own models of the world and have our own preferences to how we observe reality, we do not allow ourselves to acknowledge this which therefore requires someone else to provide evidence when that should not be necessary. It's necessary due to the unwillingness to observe it in order to preserve unbelief in God, and that is why there is an aspect of immorality involved in not believing in objective morality. What? To believe morality is solely subjective is immoral 😱 ?!? Yes, I DID just say that lol... There are several more examples I can give to easily show that to believe that morality is ultimately subjective is *MORALLY WRONG.* I want you to *really pay attention to this.* *Example 1:* You can give a hypothetical scenario of a man who kills other people purely for fun *and no other reason.* In court, the serial killer's openly admits this, and the attorney does not deny it either but rather attempts to persuade the court to allow The jury to let The serial killer go by attempting to cast doubt in the minds of the jury that "killing someone purely for fun is wrong". One can use the scenario to ask an atheist: "From your subjective viewpoint, *is the attorney,* who is trying to cast doubt on the conclusion that "killing people for fun is wrong" in the minds of the jury, *morally wrong for attempting to persuade the jury otherwise?* Is the attorney morally wrong/evil/corrupt for actually trying to convince the audience to doubt something as clearly wrong as "murdering only for fun"? If the answer is no, then the atheist or agnostic would imply his position is immoral because he makes an exception to persuade the jury to believe murder for fun is acceptable. If the answer is yes, and it is concluded that the attorney is morally wrong for attempting to cast doubt on something that is clearly wrong, *then by extension, to question whether or not right and wrong objectively exists would also be morally wrong.* Therefore, to doubt the existence of objective morality would be immoral, and therefore to ask evidence for objective morality would be immoral. Thus, to doubt God's existence would be immoral. This would mean that to ask for evidence for God would be incorrect, because God's existence *should be believed,* and this conclusion can be concluded from an atheist's *subjective* position _____________ *Example 2:* There's also another way to form this argument to show unbelief in objective morality to be immoral, and also logically inconsistent. The reason why is because In order to live by the Golden rule, and be opposed to sexism, racism, discrimination, etc., We must recognize that humans are equal. If a person is a Theist, he has a basis for this conclusion because he can say that God creates us all to be equal, hence why we should treat each person with respect. However, under naturalism, *there is no basis to make this conclusion.* Why is this the case? Because if there's nothing more to humans than their physical makeup, then it is precisely their traits and skills that make them valuable, and that would lead to only valuing people based on their usefulness or beauty, which doesn't lead to morality at all, it leads to *immorality.* Therefore, if one desires to live a moral life, and treat other people with value and dignity, he must appeal to something beyond the physical makeup of the human identity, implying an immaterial aspect of The human, and it is precisely this thing that makes the human valuable, but because it is immaterial, it is not compatible with naturalism. Therefore, living a moral life and naturalism are not compatible. They are contradictory. This means if a person wishes to maintain the belief in naturalism, he must reject his moral beliefs, but if he keeps his moral beliefs, then he must reject naturalism, because that is intellectually consistent. To keep both would be intellectually inconsistent and also be a form of self-deception, *bringing it into the realm of "immorality".* But if he rejects his moral beliefs to maintain naturalism, *this also leads him into the realm of immorality.* Therefore, the conclusion would be that to deny that objective value exists along with objective morality would be immoral, and logically inconsistent, if he maintains belief in naturalism. However, since these moral beliefs are generally *MORE FUNDAMENTAL than the naturalistic worldview,* then there is a stronger belief within each unbeliever that objective value/morality exists in spite of the claim that it does not, and in spite of the worldview that denies it, *making the world view immoral (and also irrational) to believe.* ➡ *It also undermines the notion that a person's position is ultimately evidence-based, because one is choosing to deny his most fundamental moral beliefs in order to hold on to a worldview which contradicts those beliefs, and yet he holds onto them anyway, and so there would have to be some form of denial of truth in order to maintain that position, which reveals that the belief is believed due to a preference beyond evidential reasons.* ⬅ _____________ *Example 3:* There is yet another way to show that belief in subjective morality is immoral. If we say that there isn't any position that is truly "morally wrong", We would have to conclude logically that rape, murder, abuse, cannibalism, and harassment of all sorts isn't wrong, but typically the person making this point in favor of subjective morality *doesn't actually believe this.* He would be shocked or horrified to encounter such things and would cry out for things like "Justice" in these kinds of matters, which implies he has *genuine moral beliefs,* which are further shown in his "convictions", his "guilts" in his own decisions, or conforming certain moral ideas for "better" ones, which follows that on the most practical level, he doesn't believe his own position concerning subjective morality, and if he doesn't really believe it, then why should another person accept what he claims to be true that he doesn't ultimately believe? If I were to believe something like that, I would have to believe that *against* my intuitive knowledge which informs me that there are true rights or wrongs (the same as the one making such a claim of a subjective morality who holds all these implications I've listed above), or if I choose to believe this in spite of the knowledge that the unbeliever, agnostic, or atheist also doesn't believe his own position in *the most ultimate and practical sense,* then this would be a form of lying against my intuitive beliefs, and accepting the conclusion of another person who doesn't even believe his own position to be true in the most ultimate or practical sense. Therefore, the belief in only subjective morality would be immoral.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

@@somerandom3247 *Example 4:* actually just recently came up with an argument for God's existence based on the trustworthiness of moral intuition, which is what is being communicated in the initial post by saying that even if One is an atheist, they know that the act is morally wrong, which implies a person's moral intuition to some degree can be trusted. A gentleman, who would be an atheist or agnostic, might say "I don't need a God to tell me what is right or wrong" generally speaking. These kinds of statements imply that although there are times in which our moral intuitions may mislead us through our desires or biases (such as concluding abortion is morally acceptable, for example), There is another aspect of our moral intuitions that can be trusted to inform us of what is truly right or wrong. By making this statement, the atheist is saying "My moral intuitions can be trusted". This can also be presented in the form of a question: "Can your moral intuitions be trusted"? There are two possible answers. 1. The atheist or agnostic's moral intuitions cannot be trusted 2. These moral intuitions can be trusted. If an atheist hypothetically chooses the first option, to conclude his moral intuitions cannot be trusted, then the atheist is essentially "waving his right" to engage in moral conversations because by his own admission, none of his moral conclusions are trustworthy, and therefore none of his evaluation of other moral positions are trustworthy. On the other hand, if the atheist or agnostic chooses option 2, that his moral intuitions can be trusted, then he is trusting them to inform him of the truth of what is morally right, and this implies that There are such thing as "moral truths" which ground moral judgment, which implies *Objective Morality Exists, therefore implying God exists.* If the given gentleman says he does not trust his moral convictions, then if he lives by them, he clearly *does* trust them. In short, either no moral intuition can be trusted or justified or concluded, or God exists. These are the two options. Perhaps an atheist would argue that objective morality does not necessarily point to God's existence, but in saying that, the burden of proof would be on him, *because "morality" is a system of value judgments, and objective morality implies that objective value exists. The only things that we see in reality that produce value for things are minds, and we do not observe anything else in reality other than minds that we see value come from. Therefore, "value" that comes from a Transcendent Source *also implies a Transcendent Mind, God.* If moral intuitions can be trusted *at any level to any degree,* then God exists... Basically, when we say there is "No evidence of objective morality", or "morality is ultimately subjective", What we are doing is *lying against our moral intuitions that inform us otherwise.* We're creating world views that we prefer and creating false narratives to define objective morality out of the picture in order to not believe in God's existence. This is immoral. __________ *Example 5:* One could argue that the reason we hold our moral convictions is because evolution has endowed us with ability to be empathetic. However, listen itself does not acknowledge the full issue. If we're using evolution to explain are moral beliefs, We must also acknowledge that "evolution" also provides us with other behaviors and beliefs that lead to all of these moral or immoral acts, I'm such as tribalism, war, rape, etc. Evolution would also provide a basis for a person to choose any of these alternatives above caring for his fellow man, and if morality in the human value are ultimately illusions we construct in our mind and don't objectively exist, and even if evolution has influence the person to choose to be compassionate, he is not actually forced to give in to those drives just as a person who is a rapist isn't necessarily forced into raping people. This means that in spite of what evolution influences us to do, we are doing those things because we are agreeing that we actually ought to do them, and that implies that we were accepting these conclusions coming not because evolution is influencing us to behave this way, but because we are agreeing that it is more morally right than the alternative, what's therefore makes these moral beliefs *appeals to truth* Rather than only that we have a drive to survive. Pointing to a bunch of human drives does not encompass the whole issue. This is why appealing to "evolution" does not explain the full issue. It is an unwillingness to acknowledge the full issue through that argument that keeps a person from acknowledging and that the human identity, the human value, and morality is "more than this".

[@TheBrunarr]

DCT isn't a good alternative

[@jackplumbridge2704]

Why not?

[@BruceWayne-oz7xc]

@@jackplumbridge2704euthyphro

[@RevengeOfIjapa]

​​@@jackplumbridge2704Because morality is still subjective and not objective, and you can't derive ethics that way unless you develop a particular philosophical concept of God, which mostly amounts to a reverse engineering of what you already think is right or wrong. Basically, the morality you'd get via DCT from the Islamic God is different from DCT from the Christian one, and then from the Bahai one etc. And then there's the Euthyphro Dilemma. FWIW I'm a Christian myself, and I hold of Christian ethics, but DCT is insufficient even from within a Christian context. I'd even say it's theologically problematic, by virtue of the way it functions. (I'm also a Philosophy grad lol)

[@danielboone8256]

@@RevengeOfIjapa Regardless of DCT's validity, what do you propose as an alternative?

[@TheBrunarr]

@@danielboone8256 real essentialism

[@badatpseudoscience]

If you break down Craigs argument logically, he effectively admits that his argument is based on appeal to emotion and group think. How morals evolve through evolutionary processes is a field of scientific research. There is no good evidence that they evolve from a God. If there was, Craig would site it.

[@michaelharrison7072]

Yes and we get that from parents not a god and we are by the way animals !

[@razagamerofficial1859]

😂😂😂 dude educate yourself on moral ethics why you have assumed that is to be true what if some parents say we need to survive and tell their kids to rape which is by the way best method to incrcrease population 😅😅😅and best for survival

[@lieslceleste3395]

Social contract theory born of our biology, e.g. mirror neurons.

[@JohnnyMagorish]

has he never heard of empathy

[@triggered8556]

Can you prove empathy exists empirically? No. So how do you determine what is empathetic behavior?

[@SarcasmIsMyGame_]

Does morality coming from the Christian faith prevent priests from abusing children?

[@lovespeaks777]

Nope. Anyone that does that is an imposter and is evil. But according to your view they’re only subjectively wrong, not really wrong

[@themuwahh1d]

I kindly request any non-theist to answer my questions without committing the straw man fallacy. I am just trying to find the truth for myself! Here are my questions: Doesn't it show the hypocrisy/contradiction of non-theists to not accept the existence of God on the grounds that it's not scientific, yet assume and accept that morality is an objective truth or that social norms have a scientific basis? When the scientific basis of what is good and evil is unclear and you believe that you won't be held accountable by a doctrine like God, on what moral understanding and foundation can you criticize a religion? If morality is subjective, isn't it contradictory for you to call Muslims immoral? If everything consists of a series of random actions, then what is the difference between my action as an organism and the rolling of a wheel? When we can't call the blowing of leaves good or evil, on what basis will we call an action I perform as a result of natural laws good or evil? Doesn't responding to this question with fancy words like "Do not do unto others what you do not want done unto yourself" (attributed to Confucius) or by saying "empathy" just bind the believer like a religion? If empathy is the answer, doesn't that justify the behavior of people who lack empathy?

[@haminal-haqq5193]

_"Can Theism Explain Morality?"_ No. That would mean to explain something by a god. A god is no explanation, it is only shifting the question another step by a gap-filling fantasy.

[@haminal-haqq5193]

@@hydepark1382 Do you think Craig's fantasy of 'objective morality' is not based on his 'God' fantasy?

[@ir0nic303]

Moral values are intrinsic to persons. A rock isn't immoral when it falls off a cliff and kills someone. That means that these moral values must be embodied in a person and not just some abstraction. Moreover, moral DUTIES are things that are owed or obligations. And that requires a law giver who knows the values and how to initiate duties off of thise values. This is why moral values and duties must be grounded in a person, and not some impersonal principle. And to top it all of, you say that theism cannot explain objective morality because "god is no explanation". But that is the thing, God IS an explanation. You are asking whether theism succeeds in being a possible explaination, but then go on to answer whether theism IS the explanation. Thise are entirely different questions, so you conclusion does not even follow.

[@patrckhh20]

@@ir0nic303 Well put.

[@alicedesousa4076]

Yes. Because science does not explain good or bad, but good and bad does exists, and its fairly equal among all humanity (a Christian, a muslim, a buddish and an atheist would all agree that r****ng a baby is bad, and whoever disagrees with it is wrong). This is an argument to start a conversation about epistemology and then metaphysics, and then God.

[@haminal-haqq5193]

@@ir0nic303 _"Moral values are intrinsic to persons. A rock isn't immoral when it falls off a cliff and kills someone. That means that these moral values must be embodied in a person and not just some abstraction. Moreover, moral DUTIES are things that are owed or obligations. And that requires a law giver who knows the values and how to initiate duties off of these values. This is why moral values and duties must be grounded in a person, and not some impersonal principle."_ Morality is intrinsic to all beings who are morally capable, that is, to those who have a sense of pleasure and suffering and can direct their actions accordingly. These are not only human persons. The personal morality has thus its starting point in the respective person. Morality in the sense of obligation only comes into play when communities agree on a common morality of rights and duties. The participants are thereby their own legislators. _"And to top it all of, you say that theism cannot explain objective morality because 'god is no explanation'. But that is the thing, God IS an explanation. You are asking whether theism succeeds in being a possible explanation, but then go on to answer whether theism IS an explanation. Thise are entirely different questions, so you conclusion does not even follow."_ You yourself say, "Moral values are intrinsic to persons." You are a person, I am a person. Each of us has his personal morality and we could agree on a common morality. The origin of all this is and remains our respective personal and therefore subjective morality. I consider the concept of an "objective morality" to be a free invention, because it means a morality that is universally valid completely independent of the thinking and will of an individual. However, as soon as one calls a morality, which is supposed to originate from the thinking and will of a certain God, "objective", this is an obvious self-contradiction, because this morality would be nothing less subjective than any other.

[@oscargr_]

Circular. Why do you think certain things are really objectively right or wrong? Also, if objective morality is real, then why only "certain things" and not everything? Is it because it's very easy to convince someone that we probably all agree that killing a group of school children is wrong... but it's much harder to convince someone that everybody agrees drinking tea is morally right.

[@stephenkaake7016]

I am God, harming me is objectively wrong

[@stephenkaake7016]

@@user-j2w3yL9mj I have been harmed, I should be rewarded for surviving through what no man could, instead people say 'he's God' he can take more harm, keep harming him he's God. Everyone should be treated how God demands they should. I demand you pick up a stick and tell everyone the abuse is wrong. No person should have to endure what only God can endure

[@mwffu2b]

Yes.

[@wtan5814]

You deny this Craig so how can we trustany of what you say is true?

[@claymenefee6999]

Morality is a combination of psychological egoism and social contract.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

I would like to share with you a very unique take on the matter and potentially change your mind. You may or may not ever have heard of this before, but it is potentially the case that to not believe in objective morality could be considered "immoral", and I might even be able to use your own subjective moral beliefs to demonstrate it. Bear with me... You can show that the person who denies objective morality and value, for example, already believes it exists in spite of the claim one does not, and one could even argue that this belief that exists is more fundamental than the naturalistic worldview one claims to believe in, and therefore, holding on to that worldview anyway and denying objective morality could therefore be immoral. Also, there are ways in which to ask for evidence for objective morality could itself be immoral as well, making the request for evidence for God's existence also immoral, because God's existence is connected to objective morality. For example, You can give a hypothetical scenario of a man who kills other people purely for fun *and no other reason.* In court, the serial killer openly admits this, and the attorney does not deny it either but rather attempts to persuade the court to allow the jury to let The serial killer go by attempting to cast doubt in the minds of the jury that "killing someone purely for fun is wrong". One can use the scenario to ask an atheist concerning this hypothetical scenario: "From your subjective viewpoint, *is the attorney,* who is trying to cast doubt on the conclusion that "killing people for fun is wrong" in the minds of the jury, *morally wrong for attempting to persuade the jury otherwise?* Is the attorney morally wrong/evil/corrupt for actually trying to convince the audience to doubt something as clearly wrong as "murdering only for fun is wrong"? If the answer is no, then the atheist or agnostic would imply his position is immoral because he makes an exception to persuade the jury to believe murder for fun is acceptable. If the answer is yes, and it is concluded that the attorney is morally wrong for attempting to cast doubt on something that is clearly wrong, *then by extension, to question whether or not right and wrong objectively exists would also be morally wrong.* Therefore, to doubt the existence of objective morality would be immoral, and therefore to ask evidence for objective morality would be immoral. Thus, to doubt God's existence would be immoral. This would mean that to ask for evidence for God would be incorrect, because God's existence *should be believed,* and this conclusion can be concluded potentially from an atheist's *subjective* position.

[@claymenefee6999]

@@Bi0Dr01d dude. Stfu. Prove your god of gtfo

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Are you willing to answer some straightforward questions concerning your comment?

[@claymenefee6999]

@@Theo_Skeptomai sure

[@flavioa2252]

So I can break the one between you and I at anytime and if I’m not caught it’s totally ok. Lol gotcha.

[@karlhowe5181]

I think the question is who gets to decide right from wrong and to what extent and why them. I guess it has to be someone or something but why them and how do we know they are right. A lot of gray areas and everyone has an openion on it. When you think about it, it's almost arbitrary. It's not wrong for animals to do what we call wrong I don't know how many cats I've seen rapped by other cats we should do something about that and sometimes animals kill their own species fighting over sex and food, somebody's gotta stop them it's just wrong 😦

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

I, and I alone, determine what human behaviors are moral, amoral, or immoral. Just as everyone else does. Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his or her own moral assessments. Do you agree?

[@karlhowe5181]

@@Theo_Skeptomai That's OK if in reference to self but if not the I alone is an imposition on other people's I alones. Manson and clan , Dahmer and other such folks could make the same claim. I'm sorry there I go again judging other folks determinations 😁 I have a problem with that to I have no right to judge a person no not even Hitler. I actually mean that I can judge what he did but I can't judge him. But Hitler could have said I alone make that determination So honestly I don't know the answer. I don't agree but I don't disagree, I don't know.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@karlhowe5181 I have the right to assess anyone's behavior, just as anyone has the right to assess mine. Do you agree?

[@karlhowe5181]

Well assess even judge the actions of others as well as yourself that doesn't mean your right or wrong about it or that they are right or wrong about their assessment but insofar as judging them or being judged by them ,no not really. I mean yes everyone has the right but that dosent mean they are right. Besides you'll then need a judge to judges and a judge to judge that judge and so on . On what bases the majority I don't think so though being the lone wolf or esoteric sure don't. Openions are like heads everybody's got one and none of them always agree , more than one perspective could be right . Be determined on what bases the governments? The good of the majority over the individual or the good of the individual over the majority. I would almost use the word arbitrary except that implies the system is right and that's not always the case . Assess I agree you have the right and of course you do because I say you do 🤣 Or because we agree but no not if your saying judge the person or people.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@karlhowe5181 No. You're wrong. My moral assessments are always "right" and I am the sole arbiter of morality. Just as everyone else. There is no _objective_ morality.

[@hooligan9794]

No. Atheism is a belief position about one proposition. It can't explain anything. There is a naturalist explanation for morality. Craig just doesn't like it.

[@sly8926]

There is no naturalistic explanation for morality. It doesn’t exist according to naturalistic theory.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

There's a natural explanation as to why we feel good when we do good, but that doesn't encompass the whole issue because we also acknowledge that things that make us feel good aren't necessarily good, and we also contrast our desires for what's right, and we also feel guilty when we do things that are wrong, and all of these things point to not only our inclinations or feelings to think a certain way, but our actual agreement with those ways as if certain ways are legitimately right and others are legitimately wrong, and therefore we will gravitate to some ideas and reject others, and this implies indirectly that all moral claims are truth claims at some level, and that implies our agreement or disagreement with our own natural tendencies is based on our appeal to truth and not only based on evolution orienting us this way, and that is why the natural explanation does not encompass the full spectrum.

[@hooligan9794]

@@Bi0Dr01d This does not follow. Moral truth claims are not implied by our preferences. Evolution has instilled in us a sense of fairness. We know how it feels to suffer and to be treated unfairly. It feels bad. We also have the ability to understand the world from someone else point of view. An ability that allows us to predict other people's likely behaviour. The combination of these things and the fact that we care about the people close to us (our tribe) has created compassion and empathy. Both evolutionary advantages for a social species. We are also selfish, so of course there would be tension between what we want for ourselves and what we want for others. As a group, we prefer the things that are better for the group and those things will be considered good by the group at large. This is the origin of moral "rules". A perfectly reasonable explanation of the whole spectrum of moral feelings and action. On your view, how do you explain sociopaths and psychopaths? People who do not have the moral impulse at all, who feel no compassion? On the evolutionary explanation, you would expect some number of people like this. In any social group, there are always opportunists. It is a survival strategy and you would expect varying degrees of it. Psychopaths are simply the extreme end on side of the spectrum. People who are doormats are the other extreme.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

@@hooligan9794 It would be incorrect to call them "preferences". You're creating a narrative that isn't accurate in order to claim it doesn't follow. We don't make moral stances because we merely prefer them, *we actually believe* they are legitimately right. This is why we experience guilt or shame. If we did not believe in our moral convictions, we wouldn't experience guilt, but the fact that we do implies we've done something wrong, and if we have felt like we've done something wrong, then we are implying that we are not the source of right and wrong because it's not possible for us to be wrong about something we arbitrarily invent. In other words, every moral claim is some way is an indirect truth claim, and it does imply that every person who holds a moral position who claims not to believe an objective morality actually does believe in it. Evolution has instilled in us everything, good and bad. We hold to the good because we believe it's actually true. It isn't only that evolution has given us the ability to be empathetic or good, it's that we actually agree with that ability that it's actually correct or right, and that's why evolution doesn't explain the full issue.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

@@hooligan9794 _"on your view, how do you explain sociopaths in psychopaths? People who do not have the moral impulse at all, who feel no compassion?"_ Easily. If I argued that The human soul exists in which there is a mind beyond the physical mind, and you asked me what about "brain dead people", I can answer that the pilot cannot operate damaged equipment. If the person malfunctions, this doesn't prove that there isn't an Objective morality, It only implies that the person has a disorder. It also doesn't even follow from this that he has no concept of right and wrong, it only implies that the way that he feels emotions is different than other people while it's still possible for him to have a grasp on morality and still know right and wrong.

[@Ethan-hk8se]

If you need God to set the standard FOR you, then you’ve got a serious problem, lol

[@drcraigvideos]

You've misunderstood the argument. The argument is that the best explanation for objective morality is the existence of God. So, if you believe that there are objective morals, then it is rational to affirm the existence of God. - RF Admin

[@Ethan-hk8se]

@@drcraigvideosI mean hey, for the ancient Greeks, Zeus was the best explanation for lightning. Does that make it the RIGHT explanation? I don’t think so.

[@drcraigvideos]

@@Ethan-hk8se Right. Our arguments get better as we gain more information and think more deeply about the questions. Did you have an actual objection to the argument? - RF Admin

[@Ethan-hk8se]

@@drcraigvideos Two points. Firstly, if you found out that God did not exist, that it was somehow provable, would that make you feel justified in going out and raping, murdering and stealing? And secondly, if God came down and told you to do something to which we can all rationally deem to be horrible (like throwing a baby off a building) would you go through with it?

[@drcraigvideos]

@@Ethan-hk8se //Two points. Firstly, if you found out that God did not exist, that it was somehow provable, would that make you feel justified in going out and raping, murdering and stealing?// What one would do given that information is a personal psychological report that is irrelevant to whether morality is in fact objective, not dependent on our opinion of it. //And secondly, if God came down and told you to do something to which we can all rationally deem to be horrible (like throwing a baby off a building) would you go through with it?// If God (a maximally rational being) literally told you to do something, how could it be irrational to do it? That seems like a contradiction in terms. - RF Admin

[@joojotin]

This is so true

[@somerandom3247]

No it isnt. The moral argument falls flat on its face when you realise that morality is not objective. Atheists dont have to provide an objective basis for morality. Theist do, becUse they are the ones claiming it to exist.

[@arcticpangolin3090]

Please demonstrate that morality is objective first. Appealing to intuitions doesn’t cut it. Even if we grant that most people intuit that morality is objective, this doesn’t matter. Humans intuit false things a fair bit. And appealing to a god also doesn’t get you to objective morality, even if we grant you such a god exists. It still wouldn’t be objective as it relies on an implicit value judgment that we ought value what said god dictates as moral law.

[@ron7328]

If there is no God, then all things are permissible. We all end up in the same place and there will be no justice. So what difference does it make in the grand scheme of things? Objective morality exists. it’s so obvious and it’s fun to watch people try to prove otherwise even though they do not live like it doesn’t exist

[@velkyn1]

funny how craig fails again. One big question: why can't christians agree on what "objective morality" their god gave them, and why can't any of them show that their version is god approved?

[@lovespeaks777]

According to subjective morality, If someone believes something is morally right or wrong for them, it is subjectively right or wrong for them. Following that logic, someone could believe racism is right one minute, but then 5 minutes later believe it is wrong and that would be true for them. And they could change their mind endlessly but it would be true for them. Is this not absurd?

[@velkyn1]

@@lovespeaks777 Yep, that's subjective morality, which is what Christian morality is, entirely subjective. It would be rather absurd to change morality that quickly, but it is what can happen. Generally the time frames are much much longer. Christians cannot agree on what morals they wan tot lcaim their god gave them as "objective morality" and not one can show that their list is god approved. Christians also show that their morality is subjective since they excuse their god for doing things they would find horrific if a human did the same. This indicates that their morality is subject to *who* someone is, not any moral always associated with an action. it also shows that christian morality is little more than might equals right.

[@lovespeaks777]

@@velkyn1​​⁠I’m just shocked you can blame God for anything according to your view. Your subjective opinion doesn’t make anything moral objectively true, so if it isn’t really true, why do you believe it?

[@velkyn1]

@@lovespeaks777 I dont' blame god for anything, since it is imaginary nonsense. I can blame the lies that christians tell for causing harm. I do love when a christian tries to claim that nothing is true if their god isn't real. Alas, reality shows that claim to be rather ridiculous. No need for objective morality at all, just like there is no need for your god and no evidence for it or supposedly objective morality. It's great that your morality is subjective just like everyone else's, LS. You can't show otherwise, that some god agrees wtih yuo and only you when it comes to morality.

[@lovespeaks777]

@@velkyn1There are many atheists that argue morality is objective and I think that’s great. It’s a much more reasonable view.

[@atheistcomments]

Your God still only exists as an imaginary character, Bucko.

[@paparu]

No He's not

[@atheistcomments]

@@paparu Never has a god been demonstrated to exist outside of the imagination.

[@paparu]

@@atheistcomments nope ur wrong.

[@frankemerson8584]

@@paparu Oh yeah ? Demonstrate your god exists then.

[@grateful3300]

And this is where the conversation ends. I guarantee papyru doesn’t respond with an answer (or he/she gives some non-answer answer).

[@danielboone8256]

Has Dr. Craig responded to Dr. Erik Weilenberg's account of morality?

[@rafaelbetancurt7920]

Yes. He had a debate with Wielemberg

[@ploppysonofploppy6066]

Typical dishonesty from WLC. "Thou shalt not murder", was man's law in the earliest civilisations before it got into the bible. Owning slaves was eventually banned, although the bible seems OK with that.

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

Also, "thou shalt not kill" was a law given to Moses just before the Israelites worshipped the golden calf. And how did God tell Moses to respond? Yup, you guessed it...

[@ploppysonofploppy6066]

@@joshuakohlmann9731 Good point. Was that before or after the genocide of the Midianittes? Apart from the virgin women (that could be kept :for their own uses"). Very moral.

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

@ploppysonofploppy6066 Before. The God of the Old Testament is a very different kettle of fish from the "God of love" in the New. Much darker and more warlike, closer to one of the Greek or Roman gods.

[@TheWayOfRespectAndKindness]

Total nonsense. Morality is consistent with evolution. I know god exists, however, morality evolves over time. If god was dictating morals, then why did the crusades happen? All the Abrahamic religions are based upon human ego and anthropomorphic. God allows us to learn from our mistakes. And we aren’t any more special than the rest of God’s creation. Learn to live in harmony, or perish.

[@lovespeaks777]

Your subjective opinion doesn’t make anything objectively true, so if it isn’t really true, why do you believe it?

[@dataforge2745]

There is no objective morality. Try making an objective argument for any objective moral. You can't. You can only justify any moral claim by saying someone said so. Even theists only make this claim by labelling something as objective morality if a given subject says it's moral. Which obviously means it's still subjective, by definition.

[@cryogeneric]

I don't believe that's the case. Even in the video, WLC says objective moral duties and values are "sensed". Theists have always maintained that humans naturally follow objective moral law even when the individuals following it are non-religious and have no written basis to point to.

[@dataforge2745]

@@cryogeneric Labeling your feelings as objective does not make it objective.

[@cryogeneric]

@@dataforge2745 It's more complicated than that. Do people condemn the holocaust simply because they "feel" it's wrong? Or is it objectively wrong? Why or why not?

[@dataforge2745]

@@cryogeneric They feel it's wrong. Because you cannot provide an objective argument to those who feel otherwise.

[@cryogeneric]

@@dataforge2745 Ok, shouldn't an objective argument be required for either position? Suggesting it's just one's opinion that the holocaust is bad is hardly a tenable position. It's just more likely to be objectively bad.

[@hdmaragh]

can atheism explain morality? answer: nonquestion. Atheism is a position as to the existence of a deity. if it's about morality, then keep it in the realm of ethics. And yes that can be explained without a deity. now to expose myself by entering wlc's world of bible. . . the bible and the bible's god doesn't teach a thing about morality. It's just obedience. There is nothing immoral OBJECTIVELY about eating a fruit from a tree. There is something immoral OBJECTIVELY to be willing to kill your own child because some deity said so. Isn't it crazy how I can use my own sense of morality to disagree with this god who craig says is the source of the very morality I seem to hold? The only logical conclusion (in craigs type of syllogisms) is that "because the morality we hold in objectivity is in direct contrast to this god, the god can not be the source of that morality, therefore objective morality is not found in a god"

[@djarmstrong23]

Right it’s gods opinion what is good or bad. So we just need to figure out gods opinion.

[@OneTheBlue]

If there is a God who has an opinion that he wants us to know, then it is his responsibility to tell us.

[@intra532]

@@OneTheBlueHe did

[@OneTheBlue]

@@intra532 If you are referring to the Bible, then he chose an extremely imprecise means of communication.

[@himynameisjohnwumsh7631]

@@OneTheBlue 13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

[@lovespeaks777]

It’s already implanted in. It’s called the conscience. God’s smart

[@francom6230]

Well,, that truly sums up my experience trying to be Christian. "Give and you recieve." Is in fact: "Give and they will take whatever they can." I've been a silly fool living around atheists acting like animals. I still pray b'cuz that's where "hope" comes from.🙏 🤔

[@ricksonora6656]

Giving to receive is from the offshoot of Pentecostalism, the prosperity (false) gospel. It’s funny how fanatical (pseudo-) Christianity meets secular materialism like that.

[@TheMirabillis]

I believe that God having the majority of Humanity suffer for all of Eternity future in a Hell is objectively bad and wrong. Therefore, the basis of objective right and wrong cannot be the nature of God. The moral conscience of a Christian also knows this but Christians ignore their moral conscience on this and they make excuses for God.

[@thinkingandwondering4725]

God doesn't put as in hell we put ourselves in hell and he gives us the free will and that is good (in many chases )

[@TheMirabillis]

@@thinkingandwondering4725 \\ God doesn't put as in hell we put ourselves in hell \\ According to the Bible that is not true. I can give a Scripture that says, that God has People thrown into the Lake of Fire.

[@JonTopping]

This is kind of viewing the whole Gospel backwards though. I can understand why you would see things this way, because there are lots of Christians (mostly Reformed types) that teach Christianity as though "God is hateful and wants to inflict tortures upon people so you better smarten up!" But this actually isn't the picture the Bible paints for us. It's not "excusing" God; it's just looking at how God has actually expressed Himself, and realizing that the Reformed types of Christians are viewing the Gospel backwards. Most people think Christianity is something like, "God wants you to believe in Him, and if you don't, then He'll torture you for eternity." However, the way the Bible describes it is that, every human is broken by sin, and bent towards enjoying evil. This is bad for us, and will lead us into suffering, destruction, and death. Because God loves us so much, He goes out of His way to save us from this, even altruistically being willing to take our punishment upon Himself (that's the whole point of Jesus dying on the cross for us). It's not that God sends people to hell. It's that people follow Satan in His rebellion against God, and reap the consequences of that, and God wants to help us out of that bad situation. I'm sure you're familiar with John 3:16? Well, if we look at that verse, and the following verses, this whole aspect gets clarified. "16 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." Notice, God does NOT want us to go to hell. Jesus did NOT come to condemn the world. God's goal is to SAVE the world from hell. We are ALREADY condemned, and require Jesus' help.

[@ir0nic303]

We freely choose to accept and reject God. Everyone who rejects God is still in their sin. Since they have sinned against an infinitely Holy God, they are deserving in infinite punishment. Sometimes justice must be served, and a lot of the time, it ain't pretty. May I ask, how can you conclude that God sending someone to hell is objectively immoral when God's very own, just, nature is what determines objective morality? Seems like faulty logic.

[@TheMirabillis]

@@JonTopping You’re telling me what the Bible tells you but not what your moral conscience tells you.

[@deerecoyote2040]

Evolution by natural selection. Humans are demonstrated to be psychologically influenced towards certain patterns of behavior based on their genetics. Ergo, humans hundreds of thousands of years ago living as nomads would've evolved a moral compass for one simple reason. Morals help survival. Humans on our own, as individuals are physically weak and ill-equiped to deal with nature. Severe weather, predators, natural disasters, diseases, hunger, famine, etc. But as a group, through cooperation, we are stronger. In prehistory, humans who were genetically predisposed to behavior that helped others survive were more desirable to mate with. This logically follows, as a human who has been demonstrated to help you hunt, gather, survive, etc is less likely to kill you, and the two of you working together are more likely to successfully raise a child, and pass on your genes. And so, humans who had traits that allowed empathy, compassion, and generally what we now call "morality" benefited humanity, allowing for cooperation, and the survival of the race. Humans who were compelled to kill, rape, and steal were not able to pass down their genes, because nobody would mate with them. The evidence for this is pretty much obvious, I mean, would you have kids with a murderer? No! Why? Because they may kill your child, causing you emotional harm, or kill you, which will stop you from living and passing on your genes. This isn't the best explanation I've given of this concept, because I'm a bit short on time, so feel free to ask for elaboration or ask respectful questions in the replies. This shows that we don't need morality to come from a god, because it would've naturally evolved. People working together helps everyone survive and pass on their genes (which is a driving biological instinct in most people), and so mutations that predisposed people to be "helpful" got passed on, and those without that mutation didn't. Because, as we all know, a helpful mutation is called an adaptation, which gets passed down and survives. Those maladapted, don't. This passing on of "helpfulness behavior" genes snowballed and eventually became what we call our morals today. So there. Simple, moral compass explained without a god.

[@aiya5777]

too long don't read, make it shorter. 20 words may suffice

[@tubsy.]

Nope. A "moral compass" generated by evolution for the survival of a species and objective morality are two completely different things. You are wrong.

[@peanutlover5998]

A couple of problems with that line of reasoning. 1. You could just as easily explain any violent behavior as useful genes passed down through evolution, making them no worse in this “objective” view. 2. This doesn’t make our morals objective. Evolution doesn’t produce the most efficient, best organism possible. Evolution is simply a process by which creatures prosper in environments where they have greater fitness than their competitors. As an example: if we had a different evolutionary path in a different environment or planet altogether that prioritized some immoral act like cannibalism or rape, would that then be justified morally?

[@deerecoyote2040]

@@aiya5777 I'm sorry your baby brain can't comprehend an explanation. You can't say this in 20 words. Because like the real world, it's really complex.

[@deerecoyote2040]

@@tubsy. Of course they're different, one of them actually exists. There is no objective morality. Don't believe me? Tell me an action that is morally wrong in every single situation.

[@gango23]

Correct bill, he hasn't done anything objectively wrong. But the vast number of us think it is subjectively wrong.

[@bradykenny5485]

Flawed worldview imo

[@gango23]

@@bradykenny5485 how so?

[@heartfeltteaching]

@@gango23Right, so on your relativist/subjectivist view of morality, the closest we can get to objective morals is strong intersubjective agreement on the rightness or wrongness of acts. But of course that all depends on who exactly is doing the intersubjective agreeing in which place and in which historical epoch. Yet the evidence suggests that for most of our history as a species we have intersubjectively valued hierarchy over equality and coercion over consent. If we imagine ourselves living in such places at such times, the spirit shudders. Social convention is ever-fluctuating.

[@gango23]

@@heartfeltteaching exactly,if choosing what we want this world to be like is subjective then we would see different laws in different places. History shows all the signs of us being a primitive animal gradually coming to terms with an ever increasing knowledge. I think of it as morals being another sense like smell or taste, me and you can disagree on what we think are good and bad to eat based on taste,no need for an objective standard there would you agree?

[@spencergsmith]

Explain it? Maybe. Justify it? No way.

[@melchior2678]

explaining entails justification. they can TRY to explain it but ultimately fail.

[@bigdomkook]

We are social creatures. We tend to lean towards beneficial actions to increase our chances of survival and comfort rather than non beneficial actions. If you ask for justification, you then presuppose an emotional or objective standard to hold those decisions to. Thats based per case and person

[@spencergsmith]

@@bigdomkook what do you mean by “beneficial?” Why is human survival “good?” Also, if that’s the case, then rape should be considered a net good, because it propagates the species, right? Without theism, morality cannot be justified or grounded in any way outside of subjective opinion, which means that actions such as murder, rape, slavery, or child abuse aren’t “wrong” they are simply culturally unaccepted. And if this is true, then if the Nazis won World War II, the Holocaust wouldn’t be wrong, because the people in that alternate universe would subjectively view it as morally right. Is that the morality you’re arguing exists?

[@bigdomkook]

@@spencergsmith ... it's beneficial for us, because strangely enough we are human. I dont know if you ever knew that. Things that are beneficial for the survival of our species would naturally be.. you know.. good. If you want to discuss rape specifically, we are social creatures. We realized over time that being generous to one another helped in creating social circles and caused us to thrive as a social species. With a mix of the social constructs of marriage and relationships we also developed more and more complicated feelings towards things like rape and murder. We dont live JUST to multiply. We survive as well, and we try to survive comfortably. Rape is a form of theft, and theft is detrimental to our fellow man. The opposite of beneficial. I can use reason and scientific discovery to explain this to you. All you have is your fear of going to hell. Morality is jsut the label we put on the line of actions we take to thrive as a species.

[@spencergsmith]

​@@bigdomkook nice sarcasm, that really supports your argument... So why is the survival of the human species GOOD? That explains why we might want to do something, but not why it's MORALLY RIGHT. Without the existence of God and His Word, "reason and scientific discovery" can only tell us what humans SUBJECTIVELY view as positive, but not why it's MORALLY GOOD. Also, there isn't really any reason for an individual to do what benefits society as a whole. Take Stalin, for example. He murdered MILLIONS of his fellow Soviet citizens, and he died a peaceful death in his old age. Why should any of us care what happens to society, when we could simply look out for ourselves? Atheism only provides subjective opinions about "right" and "wrong," but no objective standards. "Morality is just the label we put on the line of actions we take to thrive as a species." No, morality is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior" yet you're trying to frame it as survival of the species to benefit your argument. Also, it's ironic that you brought up "reason," since rational thought couldn't exist without a rational mind behind it all. "Reason" exists independent of humanity, so where did it come from? You need a rational mind which created the universe for the universe to operate based on rational thought, logic, and objective truths such as 2+2=4. Atheism steals rational thought and objective moral values from God in order to justify reason and morality, then mocks theism for attributing these things to their rightful author.

[@kingvegetakinggoku2008]

The non alchemist has responded to Craig many times

[@dodumichalcevski]

Atheism does not addres morality

[@mick20075]

But you animals choose for yourself right but animals can't and your animal ways disagree with others and they disagree with you so who's right? Animals kill I bet you dont speed the process of evolution up like hitler cause you would be dead 😂😂😂 Don't tell me the sad act liked his own comment desperate for attention much

[@lovespeaks777]

It tries to but fails because ultimately there is no standard (according to their view) of right and wrong no matter how much they say their subjective opinion matters.

[@dodumichalcevski]

@@lovespeaks777 Wrong

[@lovespeaks777]

@@dodumichalcevskiCan you demonstrate how it’s wrong? Because if you say it’s wrong but give me no reasons, why should I accept I’m wrong?

[@dodumichalcevski]

@@lovespeaks777 Atheism ONLY addresses the question If you believe in a god/gods. It makes no statement about morality.

[@Laocoon283]

We are in fact just animals. Sorry to break it to you.

[@KenMasters.]

Ape is ape, man is man.

[@Laocoon283]

@@KenMasters. mammal is mammal

[@KenMasters.]

@@Laocoon283 We don’t have fur. We came from the earth’s soil, soil has the same 5 ingredients as the human body.

[@Laocoon283]

@@KenMasters. what's that on top of your head bub? Silly egg.

[@KenMasters.]

@@Laocoon283 … Seriously?

[@MichaelJohnson-kq7qg]

Bad argument on so many levels. This is what happens when someone just parrots someone else's words - he hasn't even remotely thought about why this is a.momsemse argument.

[@wtan5814]

The world was created in 6 literal days and on the 7th God rested

[@carlisroy6666]

Apparently there was light two days before the sun and moon were made...

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

In fact, how were there even days before the sun and moon?

[@PerthScienceClinic]

So... when the priest sexually abuses the child, it's worse than if the atheist did?

[@triggered8556]

How did you come to that conclusion?

[@PerthScienceClinic]

@triggered8556 the speaker seems to be saying that atheists have an animalism world view and aren't capable of objective morality... so surely atheists can't be held to the same standards as, say, a priest who (apparently) has a basis for objective morality. Atheists apparently don't know any better.

[@tommythompson7941]

"...might as well Jump!"