Nostr Web Client

I think the point of the meme was not that people can be compelled to accept truth by overwhelming reason and logic, which is impossible, but that it is horrifying to see the implications of a worldview that rejects an absolute standard. I will not be able to convince you, that is not my job, but here is an example of what the meme what getting at. The atheist Nietzsche rejects God and then has no standard for good and evil so he goes “Beyond Good and Evil” in his book. He rejects absolute truth, so you must create your own meaning. Even if that meaning is gaining power and oppressing the weak. In the attempt to free yourself from God, you end up rejecting the very ideas of truth and evil, which you mentioned in your reply and which shows you value these things. But, the implication of the atheist worldview (hence the meme) is that these have no value in your worldview and any pursuit of them as an atheist is self defeating. That is the absurdity that is difficult to face. Either embrace subjective morality and meaning as Nietzsche did, or logically and reasonably conclude that there cannot be any definition of good or evil without an absolute standard that exists outside the system it is measuring. Without God, nothing is truly “evil” because He defines what is good.

How sweet… the classic claim that without God, morality crumbles into nihilism and chaos. One might as well argue that without Zeus hurling thunderbolts, the weather would cease to function. Morality is not handed down from on high; it emerges naturally in social beings who must coexist.

We don’t need divine decrees to recognize that suffering is bad and cooperation is good—natural selection has already wired us for empathy and reciprocity.

But tell me: Is something good simply because God commands it, or does God recognize it as good because it is inherently so? And if morality depends entirely on divine authority, which god are we talking about? Human history is littered with deities Zeus, Vishnu, Odin, Yahweh, and countless more. How do you determine which one holds the monopoly on moral truth? And if morality can exist without appealing to the supernatural, why insist on a celestial referee at all?

(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.

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.

this post came to mind

Atheism in a nutshell:

"I have no proof God doesn’t exist."

"But I’ll mock you for believing in Him."

"I also believe the universe made itself."

Totally rational.

This is a strawman argument. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods due to insufficient evidence. No serious atheist claims the universe “made itself” — rather atheism follows the evidence wherever it leads. Mockery is directed at irrational beliefs, not at sincere inquiry.

Either the universe had a Creator or it made itself.

This statement sets up a false dichotomy, as if there were only two options: either the universe was created, or it somehow conjured itself into existence.

But reality isn’t that simplistic. Other possibilities exist:

1. The universe could be eternal, with no beginning and no need for a cause.

2. It could have emerged from a higher-order natural process, without requiring a conscious creator.

3. It might be part of a multiverse, where physical mechanisms continuously generate new universes.

The question of the universe’s origin is complex and demands a deep dive into the laws of nature—rather than a mere coin toss between two choices.

Pretty much all of science says the universe had a beginning and is expanding. I love how atheist are all about science until it no longer fits their narrative anymore. But yes this is the argument it always comes to with atheist and the creation argument that the universe must be eternal. It is a much better answer than "we don't know", I will give you that.

Truth is there is 2 choices here. There is either something eternal or something can come from nothing. There is no other choice here. If you believe the universe is eternal and intelligence came from non intelligence and life came from non life that is very unscientific but it still makes a lot more sense than something coming from nothing.

Thanks for the Zaps! 🙏

I think you tend to make overly simplistic assumptions.

The question of the universe’s origin is one of the greatest scientific and philosophical challenges. The prevailing scientific consensus, supported by cosmology and empirical evidence—such as cosmic background radiation and the redshift of distant galaxies—suggests that the universe began with the Big Bang around 13.8 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. However, this does not necessarily mean it emerged from “nothing,” nor does it rule out the possibility of some pre-existing reality.

The notion that there are only two options—either something is eternal or it sprang from nothing—oversimplifies the complexity of modern cosmology. Theoretical physicists explore a range of possibilities, including quantum fluctuations in a timeless multiverse, cyclic universe models, and vacuum energy fluctuations that might give rise to space-time itself. While speculative, these ideas are grounded in physics and mathematics rather than mere metaphysics / religious beliefs.

The emergence of intelligence from non-intelligence and life from non-life is a separate but well-studied question, addressed by abiogenesis and evolutionary theory. These fields provide well-supported mechanisms showing how biological systems could arise from inorganic molecules through chemical evolution. Evolution by natural selection is a rigorously tested process that explains how complexity and intelligence can gradually emerge from simpler forms.

In science, uncertainty is not a flaw but a driving force for discovery. “We don’t know yet” is an honest, intellectually responsible position—one that leaves room for new insights rather than rushing to metaphysical conclusions. The real question is: do we seek answers through evidence and inquiry, or do we settle for explanations that simply feel satisfying?

it's just a fact and you said nothing at all to contradict it.

I did address your claim by pointing out that modern cosmology offers more than just the two options you presented. The fact that we don’t yet have a complete answer does not mean we must accept a false dichotomy. Science is about exploring possibilities based on evidence, not forcing conclusions to fit preconceived notions.

If you believe my response ‘said nothing at all to contradict’ your claim, then either you did not engage with the points I made, or you are dismissing scientific inquiry in favor of a predetermined conclusion. Are you open to discussing alternative models supported by physics, or is your position fixed regardless of new evidence?

it's REALLY simple, if something is not eternal that means something had to come from nothing. This is SIMPLE logic.

Good day.

😂😂😂 I love how you say “SIMPLE logic” while presenting a classic false dilemma. It’s a bit like saying, “Either you eat pineapple on pizza, or you’re an enemy of humanity.” Meanwhile, there are plenty of other alternatives—such as, you know, actually considering other scientific models.

Let me break this down for you:

1. “Something can’t come from nothing” – Sounds intuitive, but modern physics has explored concepts like quantum fluctuations, vacuum energy, and spontaneous emergence. The Big Bang isn’t just “Nothing → POOF → Universe!” It’s based on quantum mechanics and relativity.

2. “Either something is eternal, or it came from nothing” – You present this as if these are the only two options, but modern cosmology offers others:

• Cyclic Universes (the universe expands, contracts, and repeats)

• Multiverse Theories (our universe is part of a larger “foam” of universes)

• Quantum Cosmological Models, which challenge our classical understanding of space and time.

3. “Atheists ignore science when it doesn’t fit their narrative” – Oh, hello there, projection! Science changes its views based on new evidence—the exact opposite of faith, which clings to a fixed dogma.

4. “You must give up your pride to believe in the Bible” – I don’t know who’s prouder: the person who says, “We don’t know everything, but we keep exploring,” or the one who says, “I have the absolute truth because a book told me so.” 😉

At the end of the day, your argument doesn’t seem interested in science—it seems interested in certainty. But science isn’t here to satisfy our need for simple answers; it’s here to understand reality, no matter how complex or counterintuitive it may be.

But hey, if you prefer to live in SIMPLE logic, have fun with that. I’ll try to stick with reality. 😘😘

Cheers

Proverbs 26:4-5 King James Version (KJV)

Answer not a fool according to his folly, Lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own conceit.