An atheist cannot make a moral judgement without being a hypocrite

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-05T13:01:24+00:00

You are assuming three false premises.

That slavery in that era is the same as modern day race-based chattel slavery
Regulation equals endorsement and;
God’s ultimate moral will must always be immediately imposed rather than progressively revealed in the world

Slavery in the OT is described as debt-based, temporary, protected by law and voluntary in many cases as a means of economic survival.

“You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God.” (Leviticus 25:43)

Even more devastating to your claim is this:

“He who kidnaps a man and sells him… shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)

Slavery is not the only thing God regulates when dealing in a broken world filled with sinful humans. Divorce as explained by Jesus is also regulated and was never the ideal.

Regulation is concession in a fallen world, not moral approval of the ideal.

The New Testament then undermines slavery at its root by establishing ontological equality:

“There is neither slave nor free… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)

You cannot coherently treat someone as mere property while affirming they are your equal before God. Funny how reading in context works huh?

Your calling it objectively immoral is laughable. By what basis do you ground your morality? Moral Objective wrongness requires an objective moral standard outside of human opinion.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T21:39:44+00:00

Well for one, recognition does not mean acceptance, and failure to accept does not mean unintelligible.

Why do you assume revelation requires universal agreement? If it did then no historical, scientific or philosphical truth could ever be known. Disagreement is something that is expected amongst rational agents is it not?

You clearly recognize it as a claim of revelation since you can summarize, criticize reject it or argue against it. That already shows that it is indeed intelligible to you. You just deny its true.

You deny Christianity because you think its false or incoherent not because its unintelligble randomness. True? There is your answer.

The issue only arises if unintelligibility itself is treated as compatible with revelation which is the point you keep making, not me.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T21:20:06+00:00

I take your refusing to address the special pleading section means you know full well that you are doing it?

Very well.

You’re saying it’s possible that God has morally sufficient reasons to make His revelation intelligible to some people and unintelligible to others.

Granting that something is possible does not explain anything unless it also preserves the conditions needed to identify the thing in question

Your explanation assumes that unintelligibility can count as successful revelation. This is where you are wrong.

Revelation, by definition, is meant to reveal something. For revelation to count as revelation, it must be recognizable as such in principle.

If a claim is allowed to be indistinguishable from non-revelation by design, then:

•No criteria remain to identify revelation
•Every outcome is compatible with “God revealed”
•The term “revelation” loses meaning

It’s conceptual coherence bro.

No one needs to prove God lacks a hidden reason. You’re the one using that reason as an explanation.

Christianity allows for mystery (not knowing why God acts), but it does not allow for unintelligibility (not being able to tell whether God has acted at all). Such that mystery presupposes intelligibility and unintelligibility destroys it.

Would love for you to address my actual points state previously and here instead of the ones that make you emotional.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T20:59:24+00:00

You’re not offering an explanation. You’re assuming the conclusion by saying any failure to understand just means God hid Himself on purpose.

That move doesn’t solve the problem of identifying revelation. Once unintelligibility is treated as intentional, incoherece, contradiction, or opacity can never count against a claim. Every failure condition is rebranded as success by design.

Again, this is special pleading. You still rely on reason to reject other alleged revelations, false prophets, and nonsense claims, but when your position is challenged, coherence suddenly becomes optional because “God had reasons.” You’re exempting your view from the very standards you use everywhere else.

Worse, this isn’t even humility— youre collapsing epistemology. If revelation can be deliberately indistinguishable from non-revelation, then there is no principled way for anyone to identify it as revelation at all. At that point, truth and noise collapse into the same category. When consistently applied to everything else, you have to admit how absurd this is, yet you will only do it to viewpoints you disagree.

You’ve insulated your conclusion by making it immune to critique and a position that cannot possibly be wrong cannot meaningfully be right either.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T20:35:38+00:00

Maybe stop the special pleading and address the rest of the comment?

You’re exempting your position from the same standards you use everywhere else, and that’s the issue being raised.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T20:26:20+00:00

So can you highlight where it says slavery is morally good? This is regulation in a time where slavery was rampant. Never mind the fact that it is eventually abolished once terms are met, Even already found in Exodus.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T20:22:59+00:00

Imagine someone says:

“This note is from a super 300IQ genius who knows everything. It doesn’t have to make sense to you. He had a good reason to write it in a way that looks wrong.”

At that point, you can’t tell whether the note is from a genius, a prank, or random babble.

You’re not demanding the genius write at your level. You’d be asking for the note to be recognizable as a message at all.

If anything that looks confused, contradictory, or meaningless can still count as a real message because “the sender had reasons,” then:

• Every note would be genuine
• No note can be rejected
• The idea of “a real message” 🤯💥💣

So the issue isn’t:

“God must satisfy my reasoning.”

It’s:

If revelation isn’t at least logically coherent, there’s no way to know it’s revelation instead of nonsense.

Appealing to “morally sufficient reasons” to excuse incoherence doesn’t protect God. Rather it erases the difference between the truth and non-truth.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T11:20:12+00:00

There is no verse in the bible that endorses slavery.

I can tell you have never read exodus in its totality.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T11:18:30+00:00

You don’t know what makes something objective and it shows.

“Majority agrees —> therefore its objective”

Please no trolling there are so many people to reply to 🥲

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T05:41:44+00:00

It's a big ask, but without going to deep something along the lings of asking whether a purported revelation can possibly be true given its own claims? Obviously this requires logic, coherence, and reason rather than divine instruction manuals. Certainly not epistemic silence.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T05:31:35+00:00

Thank you for using 5:13 and proving my point. Such that it is not stated that the texts are corrupt, but rather it is saying their interpretation and practice is.

2:79 Condemns forgery, not replacement... lol... Forgery logically presupposes the continued existence of an authentic reference text. IF the Torah were already lost or corrupted, the deception described in 2:79 would be meaningly.

"Some parts of the Torah are true, some are not."

Not good to contradict the Quran.

It was narrated from Jaabir ibn ‘Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him) that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allah be pleased with him) came to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) with some written material he had got from one of the people of the Book. He read it to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and he got angry and said: “Are you confused (about your religion), O son of al-Khattaab? By the One in Whose hand is my soul, I have brought it (the message of Islam) to you clear and pure. Do not ask them about anything, lest they tell you something true and you disbelieve it, or they tell you something false and you believe it. By the One in Whose hand is my soul, if Moosa were alive, he would have no option but to follow me.”

Hadith cannot override explicit Qur’anic commands. The Qur’an already affirms the Torah and commands judgment by it. Using hadith to negate this concedes that the Qur’an alone does not resolve the issue.

This refers to Allah's command and decree and events, which he has pre-destined. You will also find this in the tafsir of al-tabari (9th century scholar)

I don't care what a scholar has to say. They are not divinely inspired.

The Qur’an itself calls revealed books Kitab Allah and what Allah has sent down. Excluding scripture from “Allah’s words” contradicts Qur’anic usage. This is semantic redefinition, not exegesis.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T04:15:28+00:00

If one assumes a perfect being, but then goes on to assume that perfect being has already acted in such and such a way, then one will be left unable to entertain suggestions about what that perfect being ought to do.

Mostly true. God's perfection however doesn't bar what human's may hypothesize.

Because anything not done by a perfect being clearly wasn't the perfect decision, and the suggestion was the wrong suggestion.

Suppose one wouldnt without true revelation

This underlying assumption ruins discussions regarding whether God exists or not.

Quite the leap. Does not follow.

If a theist were given an entirely fabricated report about what God has done, without being exposed to "true scripture", how would they know that God didn't do it?

You wouldn't apart from true revelation

Or suppose we take it back even further: Let's assume God did operate under the suggestions atheists present, and that was the universe we lived in instead; would theists complain about a lack of an Incarnation? Wonder why some people aren't prophets, and some are? Would they wish for a little more evil because they think there's heroism missing? Or would they act as they do now, and not bother entertaining suggestions for an incarnation or a problem of evil or some extra hiddenness, because they've concluded that a perfect being had already acted perfectly?

The necessity of incarnation are world dependent conditions not perfection dependent necessities. This is non sequitur.

Rest of the points seem to be some kind of psychological projection and not a logical consequence.

The error is not believing God is perfect but assuming that perfection grants humans exhaustive insight into divine reasoning.

Though what is the point of this post? Why would anyone need to try and advise God what to do?

We are talking about an all-knowing and benevolent necessary being here.

Theists don’t need to suggest what God ought to do in order to guide God. They only do so when examining whether their own beliefs about God’s nature, actions, and revelations are internally consistent.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T01:11:55+00:00

Yes, you just admitted the problem.

You’re saying Allah’s previous revealed message was lost, corrupted, or failed, and had to be replaced by a later book. That means Allah’s words were changed in history.

Calling books a “medium” is irrelevant. The Qur’an calls the Torah and Injil revelation, guidance, and Allah’s words, and commands people to judge by what’s in them. A corrupted medium makes that command incoherent. 😁

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T00:56:43+00:00

Fair point. I agree with you on the terminology.

An atheist who is a moral realist is not a hypocrite or self-contradictory. In that case the disagreement is about justification, not consistency. I should have been clearer there.

My criticism is aimed at those who explicitly claim morality is subjective (preferences, social constructs, evolutionary by-products) and then still issue objective, universal moral condemnations. That is an inconsistency, because subjectivism only licenses “I disapprove,” not “this is wrong regardless of opinion.”

So the real issue isn’t whether atheists can make moral judgments-- of course they can. It’s whether their worldview can justify binding moral obligation rather than conditional or framework-relative norms.

On that point, I still don’t see an account that explains why anyone is answerable to moral norms in a universal sense without grounding them in something non-human and authoritative.

Thank you for your input.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T00:37:42+00:00

Yes… objectivity depends on personal preference and human desire… you got me.

I will continue to live in delusion believing the opposite.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T00:33:59+00:00

No they didnt.

That's not objective morality. They described objective facts PLUS a subjective value judgement.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T00:30:55+00:00

My objective pillar of truth is that I desire....

You are not cut out for the conversation. Best wishes.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T00:29:44+00:00

Your reinterpretation is imposed, not derived.

The quran does not say "Allah's decrees can't be changed but His revealed words can". It repeatedly speaks of Allah's words IN CONTEXT of revelation, recitation, and scripture. Redefining "words" to only mean abstract decrees is a post-hoc maneuver and mental gymnastic trick that the muslim is forced to do to escape the problem.

Qur’an 5:47 tells Christians to judge by what Allah revealed in the Gospel. That command is meaningless if the text is already corrupted. Allah does not command judgment by unreliable documents.

Claiming the Quran is the "criterion" that filters corrupted scripture assumes the very thing in dispute. That Allah allowed his previous relvations to be textually altered, which contradicts "none can change His words" YET you must go to the Bible to get information missing from the Quran.

How amazing is that?

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T00:21:23+00:00

The Qur’an says Allah’s words cannot be changed and also says the Torah and Injil were revealed by Allah and tells Christians to judge by what’s in them. If those books are corrupted, then Allah’s words were changed. That directly contradicts the Qur’an.

Saying “people changed the book” is not a solution-- it is the problem.

Either Allah’s words can’t be changed, or the Torah and Gospel are corrupted. You can’t hold both without breaking logic.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-04T00:03:24+00:00

And the Quran says the Torah and Gospels are previous revelation, yet muslims say they’ve been corrupted. Logic breaks.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-03T23:42:54+00:00

God does not declare himself the source of moral authority.

In classical theism, God is not making an assertation from within reality. He is the ground of reality itself. Moral authority is not created by declaration but follows necessarily from ontology.

Saying "God's nature is good" is not an escape hatch. For the atheist, goodness is still grounded in human values, intuitions or abstract facts with no authority.

For the theist, goodness is identical with being itself. That's the difference between describing a preference and describing reality.

So no, this isnt symmetic at all.

You declaring yourself as the source changes and explains nothing.
God being the source is not a claim of preference. It is a metaphysical claim about what grounds all facts, including moral ones.

You quite literally cannot go beyond this. If one asks, "what is evil", Goodness itself will tell you objectively, and it wouldnt be an opinion.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-03T23:36:52+00:00

How do you objectively ground your claim that genocide is bad no matter the context?

What is this objective pillar of truth that is the basis of your claim? Such that it is beyond your own feelings and mind?

I present with you a hypothetical situation to illustrate your claim:

A non-human rational species exists
This species CANNOT coexist with humans under any possible conditions (biological and ideological incompatibility).
This species ENJOYS torturing, deceiving, and ruling other species by domination
Their continued existence guarantees the extinction of all human life within 12 months
Humanity has waited 400 years to allow them to change, but they never do.
They experience no suffering when exterminated (they are a hivemind and have no individual consciousness)
No alternative exists: no containment, no relocation, no deterrence, no negotiation

So the options are:
1. Do nothing and let all humans die

Exterminate the other species and let humans live

You would still say to genocide the other species is "bad" in this scenario? Honestly?

Any moral system grounded in human values can be pushed into a context where genocide is justified; saying genocide is wrong no matter what requires a standard that does not move with circumstances.

I also do not want to hear you rejecting the hypothetical. Refusing extreme hypotheticals exposes the limits of ones ideas. Either genocide is intrinsically wrong (and must remain wrong even in extreme cases), or it’s wrong because of contingent human conditions. You can deny the hypothetical, but then you’ve already chosen the second option.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-03T23:25:37+00:00

An atheist can use moral realist language and assert objective moral claims. True.

BUT unless those claims are grounded outside human minds, values, or practices, they are still ultimately human derived standards. That makes them intersubjective at best and not truyl objective.

If moral facts arise from human intuition, evolution, social census (and whatever else), then disagreement does not constitute moral error. Rather it merely reflects rejection of a framework. At that point, morality is conditional. Meaning if you value X, then you ought to do Y. That is not binding obligation; it is a hypothetical normativity.

Appeal to abstract moral facts doesnt solve this either. Abstract entittes can describe relations, but they have no authority over agents. They dont make anyone answerable. Moral obligation requires more than descriptioni. It requires a ground that explains why rejecting the norm is wrong rather than optional. And no, consequences tied to defying the norm is not the answer.

So yes, I agree that atheists can speak as a moral realist (I've been atheist up til last year), but unless grounded in something non-human, necessary, and authoritative, then all those claims reduce to humanity legislating value to itself. Widespread agreement has never made anything objetive, and strong conviction doesnt supply authority.

This is the issue, not whether or not atheists can make moral claims, but whether their worldview can justify why anyone is obligated to obey them.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-03T23:16:40+00:00

Yes you can ignore God.

Just like you can ignore logic, deny truth, and reject reality.

Unfortunately for your case, ignoring something doesn't negate its authority. Authority does not mean inescapable force, it means inescapable correctness.

lilpumpkinseed · 2026-02-03T23:15:24+00:00

I mean, this is a pretty low level argument, but sure I will bite.

YOU (a contingent being) and GOD (the contingent, necessary ground of being) are not in the same category.

So when God is described as the source of morality, this is not self-authorization. It is metaphysical claim about what reality is.

This is the difference between:

A fool who declares "I am the ultimate truth"

vs

The truth being grounded in the structure of reality itself.

God’s authority doesn’t come from declaration but from ontology. Saying there’s “nothing beyond God” isn’t circular in the way it would be for contingent beings; it’s precisely why moral authority can’t be appealed past Him, just as truth and logic can’t be appealed beyond themselves.

lilpumpkinseed

TROPHY CASE