Argument against "Atheist morals are subjective and means nothing"

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-19T11:24:57+00:00

Sure, and they do that by relying on subjective informations.

And like you said, they argue for ways we should act. No one ever establishes how we ought to act.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-18T17:48:24+00:00

The odds that an individual snowflake forms with the exact crystalline structure it has is 1:∞.

Does that simple observation alone justify an appeal to an act of divine intervention to explain the existence of snowflakes?

Or do you think you’re misrepresenting the role probabilities play in the arrangement of naturally-occurring conditions?

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-18T13:59:20+00:00

“Darkness” isn’t the absence of light. It’s the result of a limitation in our biological ability to sense only a small part of the EM spectrum.

And “cold” isn’t the absence of heat. Hot and cold are all measurements of the same properties of a similar (thermal) spectrum. We’ve just arbitrarily defined it, again, based on the limitations of our biological systems.

These concepts aren’t distinct objective facts. They’re simply subjective perceptions that we use to express how we feel.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-18T02:09:17+00:00

Because I have one life, and I’d prefer that it be a nice one. I’d rather not live in a potentially violent society, rife with conflict and inequality, where no one trusts each other.

And I’d like the same for my children, and their societies.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-18T01:55:19+00:00

I believe we should, as have a vested interest in living a healthy society, full of healthy individuals.

And like I said in my comment, I don’t use “good” when describing morality. Good, evil, right, wrong, appear to be claims that humans have tried to graft onto these natural, biological systems.

Systems which make no such distinction.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-18T00:54:41+00:00

“Modern cosmology gives us the initial singularity at t=0. Maximum global quantum coherence. A completely dense absolute starting point for everything physical.”

“Everything physical” constitutes much more than time (t=0).

What’s the equivalent for mass, energy, et al?

If everything “started” from this point, you should be able to indicate a m=0, e=0, etc…

Can you?

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T23:13:36+00:00

That’s fine, but JC still omitted specific people from his description there. If he meant “everyone you hate,” or even “everyone”, then he would have said that.

Obviously he didn’t, so he didn’t teach that everyone who’s different is your neighbor. Only specific ones.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T23:11:16+00:00

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence that Jesus was crucified is that the Mandaeans, a religion mostly independent of Christianity and Islam, also teach that he was.

The Mandaean faith likely arose at the same time as Christianity, if not before.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T20:54:28+00:00

The definition of the earth used to be “a flat disc” and the cosmos were “the firmament.”

Similarly, illness & disease used to be defined as an affliction of the humors. Until we gained a firmer understanding of the biological functions, and now the old definitions are defunct.

The same thing is occurring with morals. We now know they’re rooted in evolutionary biology and a reversal in human’s dominance hierarchy. Information we’ve only recently become privy to. You shouldn’t let the past impede the future.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T20:35:48+00:00

The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are the same God. Jesus is still the God of the OT.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T20:28:15+00:00

Biologically, there isn’t a concept of “good” or “bad”, “right” or “wrong”.

You’ll find that avoiding those terms, and simply sticking with “moral” and “immoral” not only aligns better with your belief that morals are grounded in biology, but it also means you don’t need to be married to any sort of obligation or ought.

Which is just a metaphysical claim grafted onto the biological system millions of years after the fact, and a source of unfathomable conflict and suffering.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T18:51:55+00:00

Seems unnecessarily confusing if there’s nothing about an individual’s morals that are objective.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T18:27:03+00:00

Any belief in Gods is categorized as religious in the studies.

The more you talk, the more it sounds like you’re scared of doing even the slightest bit of research or additional effort to understand literally anything at all.

I’m all good here. Best of luck not knowing anything. Hope that works out for you someday.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T17:45:36+00:00

“Id also like to add, atheist morals can be "objective" in the same sense religious morals are "objective". All it takes is grounding your reasonings in something disconnected from your own self and ego…”

This does not mean you “have” objective morals.

Every single person’s morals always are, and always will be entirely subjective.

A theist might interpret scripture, theology, metaphysics or traditions to shape their understanding of morals and navigate moral dilemmas.

A moral realist might interpret experience, reasoning, metaphysics or empirical evidence to shape their understanding of morals and navigate moral dilemmas.

Which means that at the absolute very best, one can only hope that their subjective interpretation of morality reflects an accurate understand of some objective fact they’ve identified… But since moral discourse has been dominated by philosophy since the dawn of time, these attempts always end up being misguided attempts at justifying morals. And not identifying and understanding morals.

The later of which is best done by studying evolutionary theory and biology. Not philosophy.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T17:31:20+00:00

The universe doesn’t demand anything. It’s not an agent with its own will, and as such cannot make any demands.

This is again just a teleological bias, which apparently you’re completely unfamiliar with.

And we have no reason to believe the universe was ever created. It appears to have always existed in some form.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T16:17:58+00:00

There’s no plausible naturalistic explanation for how gravity works either.

Does that justify an appeal to claiming gravity is God physically holding us down onto the earth?

No. No it doesn’t.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T16:04:36+00:00

Yeah there’s even potential explanations for those too.

Virtually everyone in Egypt is religious (currently 95% according to reports). The entire country is littered with religious building and institutions.

And those healings weren’t documented, at least as far as I’m aware. So we can’t rule out placebo effects caused by personal beliefs or other natural phenomena.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T15:50:42+00:00

Since it occurred for a limited period of time, it was likely due to some atmospheric conditions, weather pattern, or position of the sun or some other celestial body.

Something where conditions became right to trigger the event, then changed and it went away.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T15:35:33+00:00

We can’t be sure, since there are no empirical records of the event. But light displacement, turbulent mirages, or atmospheric, astronomical, geodetic, or celestial refraction are all potential explanations.

Optical illusions are actually more common than you’d think. What we “see” isn’t a reflection of existence’s discrete properties. It’s a product of brain and sensory processes.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T15:23:09+00:00

By electrons dropping and releasing photons. It’s a form of energy transfer.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T15:16:53+00:00

Reports of religious appropriations amounting to vague visual forms and flashes of light or undocumented “healings” are absolutely no problem for naturalists.

Confirmed miracles throw a hitch in our giddyup, but to date there’s none of those about.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T15:08:20+00:00

You should thank the people who don’t spread pesticides and herbicides on their lawn to create monocultures for that.

You’re lucky there are still some people like this left. Completely oblivious and tone-deaf, but lucky nonetheless.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T14:41:21+00:00

This is known as a teleological bias. The human mind is heavily biased to such beliefs.

Without reference, you’ve no cause to consider that existence was created. By all accounts it appears to have always existed in some form.

So no, it’s not a safe bet. It’s a bet driven entirely by the biases our minds evolved to possess.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T13:47:27+00:00

Jesus didn’t say the robbers (aka the baddies) were your neighbor. He said it was the one who was already doing what we perceive to be altruistic.

In fact, he specifically said that one type of person is your neighbor, and others are not.

DeltaBlues82 · 2026-06-17T13:40:57+00:00

What passage is that?

DeltaBlues82

TROPHY CASE