(Social media is a bad medium for honest or civil debate, these convos are so much better in person). But I appreciate your directness and I’ll try to respond clearly. Yes. I am making a moral claim. Without an objective standard, one from outside the system you inhabit, you logically have subjective morality. To answer your other question, which standard is right….All forms of pantheism where God is part of creation degenerates into subjectivism. Your view, a form of atheism, reduces good and evil to pragmatism…to that which makes for a “better” society or perpetuates the species. But you have no basis to declare something better or worse. If it helps to perpetuate your genetic line, regardless of the action, then it is pragmatic and the bare basis for your morality. But, there is evil, you know there is. You know some things are just wrong. But your view cannot justify why. Yet, you inherently know that evil is wrong. We must, therefore, have an objective standard given to us from outside ourselves against which to measure our thoughts, words, and actions. If that standard is to be trusted, it must not violate laws of “non Contradiction.” That is, the standard must be internally consistent. Odinism or the Greek pantheon are just super humans who have the same weaknesses as us, capricious and finite. Islam presents one outside of creation but offers no forgiveness for those of us that violate the moral standards, unless you die in jihad in defense of the dar-al-Islam. Islam presents a god so distant and removed, that it cannot be understood at all let alone followed consistently. The The Person of Jesus Christ, who actually was righteous, who actually lived the life that we are supposed to live, who fulfills the Law that we see in the Old Testament, and is in fact that very moral Lawgiver in the flesh, it is He alone that took on our flesh to pay the price that we deserve. We deserve death for what we have done. That’s the right penalty for violating God’s law, for the evil that we’ve done. And, only by faith in Him and His amazing grace towards us, that we can become born anew and from above, and enter into a New Covenant (or new relationship) with Him. He will live in us that we can become more like Him. That’s what we were created to be. The moral law of God is thus satisfied, justice is done, we now have a consistent basis for right and wrong, and we can worship Him alone, obey His command to defend the weak or to seek justice for the oppressed, we can even sacrifice knowing He will ultimately make all things right. And we have His Word rather than political power brokers or religious figureheads to guide us. You can read it for yourself. Bible apps are often free. If you made it this far, I promise to read any response you make, you are after all in the image of God and have infinite worth. But we should allow this thread to end soon. Thank you for the opportunity to present my faith to you. It’s an honor to do so.
Discussion
Hi SuperDave, thank you for your thoughtful and respectful response. I appreciate the open exchange, even though we approach this from very different perspectives.
You argue that without an objective, external standard, morality must be subjective and meaningless. But this is a false dichotomy: either morality comes from God, or it doesn’t exist. In reality, there’s a third option—morality as a product of evolution, reason, and social consensus.
What we call “good” and “evil” isn’t arbitrary; it’s deeply rooted in our biology and social interactions. Empathy, cooperation, and fairness provide clear survival advantages—not just for individuals, but for entire societies. That’s why we find similar moral principles across cultures, regardless of religion. You instinctively know that torturing innocent people or harming children is wrong—not because a holy book tells you so, but because you are a compassionate, rational being.
You claim that without God, there’s no standard for “better” or “worse.” But how objective is a morality based solely on divine command? If something is good only because God decrees it, then morality is just obedience. That leads to absurd conclusions: if God suddenly declared murder or slavery to be good, would they become moral? If not, then morality must exist independently of God—and your argument collapses.
Your critique of other religions also seems somewhat selective. You dismiss polytheistic gods as flawed and human-like, and criticize Islam for its perceived harshness. But the Old Testament depicts a God who commands genocide, prescribes the death penalty for trivial offenses, and treats women as property. These aren’t “timeless moral truths”—they are exactly what we’d expect from an ancient tribal belief system.
You say we all intuitively recognize evil. But that only proves we have moral instincts—not that they come from a deity. We now understand why humans develop empathy and why societies function better with ethical principles. No supernatural explanation is needed.
Ultimately, your argument assumes that because you want an absolute moral standard, there must be one. But wishful thinking isn’t evidence. Seeking meaning and moral certainty is understandable, but the more honest, scientific approach is to examine the world as it is—even when it’s complex or uncomfortable.
And one last thought: you’re already an atheist—at least when it comes to Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, and the thousands of gods humans have worshipped throughout history. Estimates suggest over 3,000 deities have been part of human religions. You see all of them as human inventions—and on that, I completely agree. The only difference between us is that I’ve rejected just one more god than you have.
So, if you consider all those other gods to be man-made—what makes yours so fundamentally different?
FeyssPalmer, if we ever meet in person, the drink of your choice is on me. And, I thank you for an equally thoughtful and respectful exchange. I hope I understand your view correctly, that what we consider “morality” is the natural result of generational selection that fosters a more stable and functional society. Those traits are the ones passed on to our progeny. And, we have decided to call those traits “morality.” If so, then this pragmatic approach requires nothing more than to pass those traits on. No God required.
But I think that makes my point. The standards for what is a “good” society change with the wind, nothing is more arbitrary than that. Good by consensus changes with time and geography, as one empire supplants another. What perpetuates certain members of our species can also justify the worst crimes. Without an external law Giver, however, these actions are not “crimes”. And yes, I think you see my view correctly, an unchanging standard of morality must exist, or there is none. And, yes, my list of gods was woefully inadequate. You can lump all pantheistic religions into being part of the system they measure, therefore subjective. But the One that must exist outside the system in order to judge fairly is also the One that offers the way to pay for those crimes. He offers Himself. Not just the self sacrifice of a good man, but the Lawgiver Himself. And we, who were quite evil and selfish, are changed into better people as a result. That is what is fundamentally different about the person of Jesus Christ among all the ancient agrarian or early bronze age religions you listed.
Ultimately, I think your system lacks justice. Evil can be hidden and never made right. And I think your system allows evil to grow, under the justification that it is for the “greater good” of the species. And, from what I have read of your words, you definitely value truth, you truly value people, and you innately know there is a right and wrong. You claim that is the result of favorable genes. The Bible claims that God puts eternity into our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11). We know there is something after we die, but we purposely suppress this knowledge because we choose evil rather than good (Romans 1:16-32). There is a Moral Law, we know some things are right and wrong, but there is also something wrong with us because we know what’s right but don’t do it. I know you don’t see the Bible as authority. I only quote those two versus because I am not the source of truth, nor do I claim to be able to define right or wrong for myself. My human attempts at that put myself first and hurt other people. I only can point others to the One who does show us what is good. Because He made us in His image, all of us, and He is of intrinsic and infinite value, we therefore have value. That is why murder is wrong. God will seek justice for the innocent, He will not just let that go. He is merciful, but he is also just. Ok, this tome does not answer all your very legitimate questions and objections. It is too long already. But I hope that at the bare minimum, as a result of our exchange, there are two more people that understand each other better and truly want the best for the other. If you choose to respond, I’ll definitely read and consider your words, even a short response, but I’ll close out the thread.
A drink on you? A tempting offer—just as long as it’s not the biblical cup of wrath 😉
I appreciate your conviction and respectful tone, but I’m afraid your argument runs into a classic dilemma: Either God decides what is good—making morality arbitrary—or He recognizes what is good, in which case morality exists independently of Him, and we don’t need Him as a moral authority.
Yes, moral values evolve across time and cultures, but that doesn’t mean they are random. Evolution has made us more cooperative, compassionate, and just because the survival of our species depends not on selfishness but on collaboration. And if you claim that without God, justice wouldn’t exist—well, that assumes God actually ensures justice. Unfortunately, history shows that the greatest crimes have often been committed in the name of an absolute moral lawgiver.
But never mind—if we ever meet, I’d be happy to raise a glass with you. I’ll have a Suure Moscht 😉
I will find that Suure Moscht somewhere and enjoy one for you. Absolute pleasure chatting with you.