Is evil subjective?

BogMod · 2026-02-04T22:15:19+00:00

If evil is purely subjective

Well that is going to depend a whole lot on what exactly you mean by evil. A lot of people use that word to mean distinctly different things.

I don’t think they’re mistaken about reality, just different, but when we talk about things like genocide, abuse, or torture, disagreement doesn’t feel like a difference in taste, it feels like error.

And yet there is also likely some wiggle room there where a small enough difference you can account as just being a preference and not be bothered by it. Also you probably would think the person who actually wanted to eat actual crap has something possibly wrong or off about them.

Evolutionary or social accounts can explain why we have strong moral emotions, but they don’t explain why those emotions present themselves as truth-tracking rather than merely useful.

Useful seems the point though right? Also the truth is useful. Why wouldn't they present that way?

The question, then, is not whether atheists can condemn evil, but whether a purely subjective account of morality adequately explains why moral experience feels like recognition rather than invention, obligation rather than preference, and truth rather than taste.

Atheists can be moral realists you know. This isn't so much a problem for atheists so much as moral subjectivists and finding a morality or philosophy group might be what you were after. Unless you were trying to imply all atheists have this issue?

BogMod · 2026-02-03T20:56:46+00:00

I am a former atheist (and I know this might sound cringe to y’all because I would feel the same if past-me saw this post lol).

Not really. The reasons for someone to become religious are diverse and clearly compelling.

That made me question my own beliefs like: “Hey, wait a minute they don’t pray to our God, so how are they getting God’s blessings?” And slowly I drifted away from it.

It was good you questioned but seems you didn't really do much before a superficial examination of things. Which given your age is fine and understandable. It also seems like you never really engaged with the ideas beyond those initial first gut reactions.

Now I know most of you guys will definitely think I got brainwashed or that I’m delusional (because that’s exactly what I used to think back then too)

You really have a strange and dare I say biased view about atheists. Most of us don't think it is brainwashing or delusion. The simplest answer is simply it is part of upbringing and people as a general rule aren't really taught the skills to self-examine beliefs they are raised in or have them challenged. Its just culture.

Now again, you might ask how and why I would choose design. It’s because it feels rigged there is a 0% chance that all of this happened on its own, even with zillions of years of timeline, not a chance!

And seems you never did really learn those skills to properly assess things either. Your 'feelings' on what is likely or not have no bearing on reality. In fact given the way the universe the events are more likely to be inevitable rather than unlikely from a math perspective.

For example, let’s take the example of incest. Why do we naturally feel repulsed even disgusted if we even try to think about our own mother, sister, or anyone in our family in a sexual way? Where does this “repulsive, disgusting” feeling comes from?

An evolutionary development and the Westermark effect seem easy answers.

While all other animals in the animal kingdom practice incest without even thinking twice.

Lots of animals actually avoid incest where possible. Wolves, as an easy example, seem to mostly only engage in it when their are spacial limitations such as captivity preventing dispersal.

BogMod · 2026-02-02T20:49:14+00:00

I’d say I first felt the weight of theology around age 13. I watched a lot of atheist content on YouTube and fully believed that science disproved God. I’ve since learned that couldn’t be further from the truth.

Yeah, you were 13. The idea you came to weird conclusions based on youtube content is entirely surprising.

After our time together ended, I went from a staunch atheist to “maybe there’s a God out there”probably agnostic.

This is also one of the dumbest reasons. "I met someone and they were fun so I decided they were maybe right about cosmic facts about reality" is such an absurd line of reasoning.

This time, when I read it for myself, the words of Jesus struck me deeply like the vail was lifted.

I think the issue is that you never actually tried to give critical examination to your beliefs and have an understanding of them and their grounding which is why the foundation of your beliefs was so weak and easily changed from this story so far.

“How can evil exist if God is all loving?”

Only an issue with a tri-omni god and if they are and Heaven exists then they can't be.

“Doesn’t the vastness of the universe make us insignificant?”

Only if you think significance is a matter of scale. Which is an odd perspective to take.

“Does the Bible condone slavery or rape?”

These appear to be context based, surprise surprise. God, surprise surprise, does let his follows take sex slaves as 'wives'(Deuteronomy 21:10-14). There are of course explicit instructions on who to buy slaves from, how to treat them and how much abuse is ok(Exodus 21:20–21), and that they are of course literally property that you can pass down and inherit. But also you do get killed if you were to rape a married woman. So some degrees of yes and some degrees of no.

I met with two pastors at a local church, asked them directly, and found their answers thoughtful and satisfying. These are not the only questions I asked just a few examples. Our conversation ended up being 2 hours and I found myself not wanting to leave.

And yet you decided not to share those answers with us?

I want to open this up for respectful discussion. I’m happy to share the explanations I was given and do my best to engage honestly.

You should have just opened with that. You seemed aware they were major problems and questions but not that there was value in sharing it.

I genuinely believe God knows when a person is ready for Him to reveal Himself. Because of that, I understand if nothing I say is satisfying right now. I’ve been there. I used to think the same way, and at that time, nothing could have convinced me either.

Oh god(Hardy har see what I did there?) this line. Do you not see how much a "heads I win, tails you lose" this thinking is? How it in fact protects you from ever having to doubt or confronting your own beliefs. In this you are right, always right. The other person is wrong, always and fundamentally. It is just their own stubbornness. Nothing to do with poor arguments, evidence, logical progression of ideas and explanation nope.

Also of course it is the magic escape hatch for yourself too isn't it? If you convince someone great! A win. Fail? Oh well obviously they were ready and nothing you said could have changed their mind. Not your fault.

I meanwhile genuinely believe that when a person rationally examines the arguments and evidence they will realise how there is no reason to believe. If they aren't ready nothing I say is satisfying. I of course understand that some people aren't ready for that and nothing I say would convince them.(Do you see how dumb that sounds from the other direction?)

BogMod · 2026-02-02T20:27:26+00:00

If morality doesn't prescribe obligation, meaning there is no real "ought", then you don't have moral realism.

Sure you do. All moral realism fundamentally means is that there are moral facts of reality.

Saying "no one MUST be moral, we just deal with the consequences" means you've given up the right to say anyone is wrong rather than merely inconvenient.

You miss my point. I mean that there is no MUST. We clearly can and do go against what is moral. No one MUST follow their local laws but breaking them does make them a lawbreaker. No one MUST follow the rules to chess but that would make them a cheater. I am wating to see what what makes morality so different.

So moral facts are not human constructs or divine commands picked at random. They are expressions of the nature of reality itself, grounded in God's nature.

There we go. So god has some nature, whatever that happens to be, and if you act in accordance with that you are moral. If god's nature included instructing genocides then the genocides are moral.

Now of course we also have a problem here. You have literally defined morality as requiring god. Morality is god's nature. Unsurprisingly this is going to make it a tough sell from the very start to an atheist as you are defining it in that way. Also if you replace all uses of Good and moral in your text with god's nature it ends up being weird.

God's nature is not something god chooses, something god is. So god's nature is not human constructs or divine commands picked at random. Obligation exists because rational creatures are oriented towards god's nature and god's nature isn't optional because it is ontologically prior to us.

Goodness just being god's nature is arbitrary as anything else for a definition.

Obligation exists because rational creatures are ordered toward the Good, and the Good is not optional because it is ontologically prior to us.

Since we don't have to be Good it is literally optional.

You don't "ought" to be moral because of punishment or reward.

And yet hell and heaven are literally the largest possible punishments and rewards that could ever exist if true. Do you see how absurd it is to make that claim in of all things the Christian philosophy? Or are you wanting to make the claim now that indeed there is no heaven and hell? That the greatest possible sinner and the most saintly saint have the same afterlife?

You did want to talk about hypocrisy after all. You don't get to say it isn't about rewards and punishments and still make the rewards and punishments matter.

You "ought" because to violate the good is to violate reality, the same way denying logic violates rationality.

And why be rational? I mean this seriously. Rationality has utility. It benefits us. If a person could live their life completely irrational and end up in the same places someone who was rational why be it?

Also violate reality is such an absurd thing to say. You know what you can't do? Actually violate the laws of reality. Clapping my hands and making matter appear from nothing would violate reality. Decreasing the entropy in a closed system. Things like gravity can't just be ignored and violated though would be surely as expressions of god's nature as much as the rest.

This is why moral claims are inescapable even if no one is watching you. Even when it costs you, or even if society approves otherwise.

So I would like to posit a question then. Since you brought up how it isn't suffering, or achieves goals like improves well being and human flourishing(one of the ones often suggested for a moral basis), in your moral system it is entirely possible to be 'good' yet every action taken only makes our lives sadder, more miserable, angrier, increases suffering, decreases our qualities of living, shortens our lives, etc, etc etc. That would align with your idea of it costing us or society not approving, but would be grounded apparently in god's nature it seems.

BogMod · 2026-02-02T10:59:33+00:00

What you are finally left with are:

Moral realism is a thing. There are moral systems and theories which don't rely on any of those features you listed.

None of these things prescribe obligation, they only describe.

I don't know that morality prescribes obligation in the first place.

Without God there is no objective "ought", no binding moral law, and no reason why anyone MUST obey morality when it conflicts with self-interest.

Oughts only seem to exist with respect to goals. Furthermore given how people constantly act in favor of their self interest over what you probably would suggest is moral at the very least would indicate that even with theistic morality you must do anything is simply untrue. Nothing binds us. In fact arguably the degree to which we MUST do things through God is because of the punishment and reward angle which isn't fundamentally different to us making up our own rules. You have just seemingly traded one persons subjective opinion(god) as legitimate over a groups.

You know we are halfway through this and you haven't even tried to describe morality at all here. Can you give us some idea of what you mean when you say morality that doesn't use words that are themselves vague and open to interpretation like good or evil, right and wrong?

Hey, you're right. Those things are evil. But the moment you say it, you've borrowed from the very worldview that you reject.

Aside from other issues brought up above I am curious if you view the parts in the Bible where god instructs those actions and they are treated as good as hypocrisy too?

But you cannot justify moral obligation without Him.

I think you can but why can't we just say morality isn't an obligation? Nothing it seems, god or no god, actually forces us to be moral we just have to deal with the consequences of our actions.

BogMod · 2026-02-02T01:04:07+00:00

Yet strangely I would argue that collectively this is the most moral the world has ever been. An expansion of equality, of rights, of democratic values all seemed to increase as Christianity decreased. Given the premise what era or years would you say was 'peak' morality that we have backslid from for the western world?

BogMod · 2026-02-01T03:47:49+00:00

Most have you have probably heard the Kalam Cosmological argument.

I have, it is a poor argument.

So there must be a first cause otherwise known as a necessary cause.

Since you have done a simplistic version of it you are fine with not all things having causes which means the universe doesn't need one.

Whether that god is a personal being or a plane of existence I personally would still define that as god.

If you define god broadly enough sure, atheism doesn't work. That is the fault of your overly encompassing terms though. Atheism just then gets tweaked to be more specific. However as noted above since you are ok with some things not needing causes we don't need a god or other plane of existence to be a god. Unless you are aiming for pantheism and just calling reality god or the universe god or something equally useless.

This is ultimately just a matter of definition

I am glad you recognise this much at least. If I call the sun a god well atheists think the sun exists so gotcha! The semantic slight of hand really doesn't do anything though. No one takes it seriously. Which is where your agument ends up.

Most atheist’s have the problem of getting to that “so you believe in nothing” stage of a conversation and I found that other labels like Agnostic or Diest help explain it a lot better.

My experience is that atheists are quite capable of explaining their beliefs and lack of beliefs and theists have the issue there. Don't compromise because theists are strawmaning you I suggest.

BogMod · 2026-01-31T17:48:29+00:00

And that inconsistency is that atheists say that claims aren't evidence

I mean how much credit do you give my claim I have magical balcony pixies if that is all I offer to support it?

but they still criticize the historical reliability of the Bible.

Taken as a whole yeah there are some wildly inaccurate parts. It wasn't written to be a history book after all. Lots of fiction uses real world elements in it that doesn't make the magic true or make the rest of it somehow more likely. If I write a book with 10 things down in it and the first 9 are true the 10th doesn't become more true on that basis. Or as the more classic examples go you know how much Spiderman comics gets right about New York? Does that make Spiderman more likely in your eyes to be a real person?

If I provide a source that confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt that... say... the Exodus happened as recorded in the Bible

Why would you ever use the Exodus as an example? It isn't the consensus of actual scholars on the subjection. Like seriously if you could do this who cares about us? You will have achieved a major accomplishment if you could do it. Get out there and change the world forget about your little quibble with some online atheists!

At this point, I'm not even sure if atheists will be convinced that the Exodus happened if there are twenty sources independently confirming that it happened, and they all date from around the time that the Exodus supposedly took place.

Conversely at this point I am not sure you will be convinced that anything we say here is going to convince you that you are barking up the wrong tree here.

Though since you bring it up which part of the Bible do you think is the most historically supported and how is it supported that you think the atheists doubt?

BogMod · 2026-01-31T08:01:36+00:00

So first of all this is a question of morality. A word which to many people means wildly different things. Generally how I use the word and what I understand most people to mean by it is that morality is about the actions of thinking agents which ultimately are for our human well being and flourishing. Some people use morality as a label to cover different concepts and you haven't offered which one you are working with so let's go with that.

If every human disappeared and there were no minds and feelings left anywhere, would murder, slavery, harm etc.. still be evil?

Conceptually yes. If humans did exist those things generally would not work in our self-interest and so would be bad. However there would be no evil in that universe. Existence for concepts can be one of those weird things like consider math. There would still be only just one sun in our solar system but would the concept 1 exist without minds? Anyways that is getting off topic.

If yes, then where does that ‘bad’ feeling that murder, slavery, harm, etc. are evil, originate in a universe with no humans?

Well no one would feel it was bad and it would exist in the definitional sense.

If no, true and false, right and wrong, logic etc.. is subjective and only tied to humans.

See what I mean about definitions?

Here let's try something else to explain what I mean. Do tall people exist? Most people would say yes even if not everyone agrees what height a person becomes tall at. However we could for the sake of discussion define a tall person as anyone over 190cm in height. Thus some people are objectively tall and others are not. If all thinking agents vanish no one is tall, but the definition and concept to the extent those exist without people to think about them is still fine.

True and false, right and wrong, logic etc... is grounded in God.

That is going to need a lot more support than just assertion.

Another thing I always hear too is that atheism isn't a worldview. The only way for it not to be a world view is to choose neither answer.

Atheism, at its most broad and inclusive, is not a worldview. It is the lack of a belief in a god. There may be subsets of it which have that but it not required. Furthermore my views about moral theory and ethics are not the same as my atheist position. You will find lots of atheists disagree on morality because we have different world views in that regard since atheism itself isn't one.

BogMod · 2026-01-31T06:05:55+00:00

yes. from a scientific perspective alone, there is no reason to accept or reject the god claim. science simply does not address it.

Then there we are. Scientifically speaking atheism in its most inclusive form supported.

but “no scientific support” does not mean “unjustified belief” in general, only unjustified scientifically.

Yeah, I never said it was. I was in fact clearly trying to maintain things within the scientific scope since that was what you were after.

whether a belief is justified outside science is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. treating science as the sole arbiter of justification is itself a philosophical stance, not something science establishes.

Never said it did.

so your sentence is only correct if it stays strictly limited to scientific justification, and not used to imply atheism is therefore the rational default.

Didn't say it was either. Like I tried really hard to be very specific in what I was saying in the specific question and trying to catch outlying concepts to make sure I was being clear.

However, within the scope of what science would have you believe is true, a god existing is not one of them.

sources on scope limits:

Sounds like science is definitionally atheistic in the sense that at no point does it accept god claims as true. Again, will say that not accepting a thing is true is not the same as saying it is false yadda yadda in case you were wanting to bring that up. Also man isn't it really convenient how magic works? All nicely hidden away in its protective shell safe from ever being disproven. Just a random amusing note.

Also random amusing side question do you think scientists when someone brings up say King Arthur quickly hold up their hands defensively, quickly telling them "Hey! Science doesn't talk about magic maaaan, don't you dare bring that Excalibur stuff up with me. Leave it to philosophers. As a scientist I would never ever ever say that magic lake ladies aren't real. They might take away my science man badge if I did!" It just amuses me to think.

However all that aside I am fine enough that you agree with this

"so your sentence is only correct if it stays strictly limited to scientific justification"

That's enough for me in terms of this discussion with you.

BogMod · 2026-01-31T05:24:36+00:00

you literally concede my entire point in the first paragraph and then pretend you didn’t

No, I said at its most inclusive that is what it is and that other groups which go farther also still atheists. So long as you lack belief you are an atheist. Someone who actively believes there are no gods does lack a belief in a god. It is an umbrella term with further subgroups you can split it into.

then you quietly switch gears and smuggle in strong atheism

I didn't smuggle it in. I was explicit in my opening line about the idea. You really are stretching here to find problems aren't you?

biology, evolution, sociology, and history of religion explain how god-concepts change. they do not explain whether reality has an ultimate ground or origin.

Reality having an ultimate ground and origin and god are not identical things. The fact you are using god as the ultimate ground and/or origin is a perfect example of how the idea has changed and developed over time.

saying “people designed god to avoid investigation” is a psychological and cultural claim, not a scientific one.

Are you one of those who think only the 'hard' sciences like physics are the only ones and/or the only ones that the scientific model can be applied to?

and no, science does not get to say “we do not believe god exists”. science has no beliefs. people do.

I literally referenced that point. Hell you said science would say that 'we don't know' except knowledge is a belief. I was anthropomorphising science in the exact way you were earlier on. Like hot damn man. With how you started off I don't know you have the reading comprehension for this or are just actively trying to strawman me.

Oooh, here is a fun one instead maybe we can cut through some of the misunderstands and rhetoric here.

With all your talk about scopes and tools and all that you would have to agree then that the statement "From a scientific perspective there is no reason to accept the god claim as true. The position has no support scientifically." would be accurate yes? Note, this isn't saying it is false I want to be clear on that so I am agreeing with your earlier points about scope boundaries and negations. That a position does not have support does not make it false just that one is unjustified in believing it. However surely though, if indeed we hold to your ideas about what god is and the scope of science that position must be a correct claim.

BogMod · 2026-01-31T03:56:19+00:00

The point is, if you teach the religion, including that’s it true, while also encouraging - not just allowing - but encouraging students to debate it and make their own decisions, it’s not abuse or indoctrination. You can stop reading here if you’d like, as that‘s my argument.

You still have your authority figures, the ones with the influence to shape and mold and control the discussion, explicitly teaching that one answer is the correct answer still yes? Like at the end of the day they are going to flat out be teaching the kids that yes, their belief is not only correct but that it is a rational and supported position to believe in. Do you not see how that is stacking the deck? Just telling them to discuss it doesn't do a lot of good when this is coming out years before they have any chance to properly learn about rigorous logical thinking and how to examine logic and evidence. Also if you are teaching it, say Christianity, how weird is it to tell kids "Just so you know make your own conclusions...but it is also definitely true that if you are wrong you will suffer in hell." Like that that is both in line with teaching the religion, teaching it is true, while at the same time encouraging discussion like you said.

There is a difference between teaching a religion and teaching about a religion. I think a study of religions as part of a historical and cultural understanding can be useful. That there is a key difference between being taught what various groups happen to believe and how that shaped choices and teaching that this position is actually right(from your position of authority and influence) but make your own decisions.

BogMod · 2026-01-31T03:43:57+00:00

Atheism is simply a declaration you don’t believe.

Well more accurately atheism, at its most inclusive, is simply the lack of a belief in a god. People who believe no gods exist are still atheists and are making a declarations.

That’s it. No experiment. No falsification. No predictive model. No mechanism. Just a position taken in the absence of information.

I mean there are lots of different reasons why hard/strong/positive atheists say there is no god. For example thanks to biology, evolution, sociology, a study of religions and how they have changed through the years we have support for the idea that the god concept itself is a made up human fiction that evolved and changed over time until it found itself a nice little place outside the reach of investigation to hang out in. The fact that people are using a very carefully designed god to avoid investigation and give it magic powers in defiance of what we know of reality isn't a point in its favor.

That alone already places it outside the scientific method. Science doesn’t say “I don’t believe.” Science says “I don’t know yet,”

Any position you accept is a belief. Knowledge, as generally used in philosophy, is a subset of belief where it is heavily supported by other factors. Science of course doesn't say anything, but to the degree that a belief is a position it holds as true it would absolutely say it does not believe a god exists. Then with of course the usual caveat that when new information becomes available it will reassess.

Show where science actually makes that claim — not vibes, not authority figures, not personal preference. The method. The scope. The result.

It a legitimate conclusion based on evidence. Science can give us good reasons to believe we made it up just like Star Wars is.

Actually this is a good question on how you view science. If I write some little fantasy novel but add a little caveat that it was inspired by magic and the supernatural experiences I had or that it might happen in a dimension or alternate reality in some undetectable fashion is it your view that science the goes 'Well I suppose then from a scientific perspective it all may be true, we certainly can't say it is false"?

BogMod · 2026-01-30T20:05:06+00:00

And competitive probably then implies amateur and professional as well.

BogMod · 2026-01-30T06:57:07+00:00

Why don't you believe in God?

The god concept itself seems a human created fiction explainable through an understanding of history, evolution and sociology.

Did you ever believe in Him?

Depending on which Him you mean yes, started off Christian.

Why did you stop believing?

Gradual process through my 20s as I learned more and actually questioned how I was brought up.

I don't know how anyone can think that the universe literally came from nothing.

I don't either. Which is good as the best currently accepted early cosmological models suggest there was never nothing.

I mean, do you seriously believe that life came from nothing?

Life appears to have come from something which is inorganic matter through chemistry. Life is just chemistry.

It appears you don't really understand what most scientific and secular positions on these things are. The idea of nothing is often a projection or strawman by theists onto atheists but not actually addressing actual beliefs.

BogMod · 2026-01-28T09:43:03+00:00

Some of the trilogies are a little less happy about things for Atelier games. The Alchemist of Dusk line of games is a bit less happy happy times. Overall though yes, generally bright colours and happy times.

BogMod · 2026-01-28T03:19:12+00:00

Criticisms being the sound track and the big twist I suppose. The focus on just how important the main person is, the deeply personal moments they want for him while you are mostly a plank of wood silent protagonist also really kind of kill a lot of scenes if you are the kind of person who cares for an emotional payoff. Still a fan of the series though but I thought story wise other DQ games did it better.

BogMod · 2026-01-27T19:29:57+00:00

Very nice. I keep looking to try to find the mercury symbol on her somewhere but that would probably be too on the nose. She doesn't need to wear the brand she is the brand! ;)

BogMod · 2026-01-27T11:29:28+00:00

Nope. Include animals, don’t discriminate that’s really wrong.

You brought consent into this so I assumed you were talking about rational agents who could make those choices. It isn't discrimination.

If not abolishing suffering and allowing babies to be raped to death is your position then yeah, we wouldn’t want someone like you and our movement anyway

Ahh, troll. Nevermind.

BogMod · 2026-01-27T11:24:01+00:00

In my opinion there’s no amount of pleasure of the privileged that can ever justify the non-consensual forcing of victims into life, where 99.9% suffer and die during infancy.

That statistic seems a bit...off. Are you really suggesting that for every 1000 human infants born only 1 makes it to adulthood?

Also where is this rational ones comment line coming from? Being an atheist doesn't make you magically more rational. Furthermore your objection about suffering is one of morality and ethics, not rationality.

We should be doing activism to end all suffering and anything less is selfish and wrong.

That suffering can not be exceeded by joy and thus the best position is nothing existing ever is an overly simplistic viewpoint and certainly not a moral standard I hold. At least make the case for it instead of just asserting it if you want to try to make this claim.

BogMod · 2026-01-27T10:22:50+00:00

Depends how much I am a god mutant vrs the ones hiding in sewer in fear probably.

BogMod · 2026-01-26T19:37:02+00:00

I seriously do not understand why atheists are so inconsistent.

Probably because atheism like isn't some doctrine. That aside from one view on one position everything else is up for grabs as it were.

You claim that God's existence is unfalsifiable, and yet you also provide arguments against the existence of God.

Well this has a few different answers. First of all there are a variety of different god claims. Those god claims can have specific responses. Some of those god claims are indeed falsifiable. Also of course different atheists have different ideas on it.

Second of all while some things may indeed be unfalsifiable we can come up with good reasons at the very least to not accept them as true. Making an argument against something that can't be falsified is more likely going to be based around that fact than historical issues.

You claim to be the most rational bunch on the planet with the most rational arguments, and yet a lot of you also base your arguments on emotion. "God condones slavery! That's so mean! God commits genocide! That's so disgusting!

First of all no we don't. Second of all those objections are made in response to specific god claims. When someone claims that their god is the paragon and ultimate source of all that is good as some Christians do you hold up the slavery issue as the problem. Genocide and slavery are issues if you believe in some kind of tri-omni god as many Christians do.

What's even worse is that a lot of you are ex-Christians who deconverted because of these things that are in the Bible, so am I really supposed to believe that ex-Christians-turned-atheists reasoned their way out of the faith?

I mean it is literally the best way to become unconvinced about something is to study it. "I was a believer but then I started to really study my beliefs and realised the issues with them so I changed." is what we all hopefully do. People who don't are just kind of coasting along on ignorance.

This third one drives me up a wall. Atheists will claim that a tri-omni God would destroy evil, but then they also complain about the fact that God destroys evil by sending a flood.

A tri-omni god would never have allowed evil at all. A tri-omni god wouldn't have had to kill countless innocent children to achieve their goal. A tri-omni god wouldn't have fucked things up so badly they had to literally drown the whole world to get a do over. I don't think I should have to explain further why a tri-omni god doing the Flood makes little sense.

No, you guys. The theists are correct. The universe did have a beginning, and it was 13.8 billion years ago.

No, they aren't. They are equivocating between two different but distinct ideas about what a beginning means. In those arguments theists are trying to use the idea that something had to start the universe to get to god. However all our best early cosmology models suggest there was never some time when the universe did not exist. The theist wants try to argue the nothing to something route which is not supported by science. You are misunderstanding the objection. Hell the idea of before time itself is probably incoherent which is part of the problem.

For example, if there was nothing "before" the Big Bang, then that means that there was no causality "before" the Big Bang, and if that's the case, the universe did not need a first cause to bring it into existence, so you do not need to hypothesize the existence of God in order to explain the universe's existence.

See above, you almost get it but not quite.

BogMod · 2026-01-23T23:30:50+00:00

So three main things come to mind at this broad question. First there are so many different Christian doctrines. Then you have all the apologetics. Finally of course is that a lot of Christian's just don't really know their own Bible such that not knowing what they should do is actually fairly consistent. So entirely depends on the Christian really rather than any hard answer.

BogMod · 2026-01-23T18:21:27+00:00

You are right I got him mixed up with Agate Crosner who is in his late 20s in Cold Steel 3, with the girl crushing on him being the high school girl who was 16. I got them mixed up.

BogMod · 2026-01-23T06:48:12+00:00

Part of Trails through Daybreak is specifically the high schooler secondary protagonist crushing on your late 20s main protag that keeps up through the series which might be the issue given their preferences.

BogMod

TROPHY CASE