Question about atheists

Amy Bennett said:Look, I’m not going to go in circles here just because you’re playing dumb. You made a claim, and I refuted it. Yet, you keep spinning the exact same narrative from one post to the next. What do you think I'm doing here—wasting hours trying to convince someone like you? Honestly, what's your deal? I've said all I deem necessary, and if that doesn't sit right with you, well, that's your problem. It doesn't affect me either way. We've already covered the rest of your questions. You are literally just looping through the same point because your main argument relies on that tired atheist myth—the idea that people only start calling things "allegory" once science provides a better explanation.

But there are ten other questions you haven't touched. We aren't even circling them; you're just dodging them entirely. Like that bit about the little house, the woods, and the guy knocking—any sane person would have given an answer to that by now. Just give me something to work with.

wiredfalcon2 said:That’s exactly my point. You believers take something science has already debunked as total nonsense and just rebrand it as an "allegory" so you can claim "nobody actually believes that." Give me a break. Five hundred years ago, they would've burned you at the stake just for suggesting the Earth wasn't made in seven days, and nobody would've been sitting around talking about how it was all just a symbolic version. Look, if faith tells us that God wrote the Bible through his followers, then it's all or nothing. Either it's all truth, or God isn't real. You can't just pick and choose which parts are literal and which parts are "allegory" depending on whatever way suits the current generation of believers. Why would God bother telling the world He made the Earth in seven days if He didn't? Why say humans lived 700 or 800 years ago if they didn't? Why say a burning bush could talk if it couldn't? Why say Moses parted the sea if he didn't? Why say the Earth is the center of the universe if it isn't? Yeah, etcetera, etcetera...

See, that's the logic "per se," but you guys won't touch it. And since you refuse to deal with it, we end up stuck talking about "values" and "perspectives" just to try and bring you down to the level of your own delusion.

People were talking about biblical stories being allegories way more than 500 years ago.

Gerald Jackson48 said:People were talking about biblical stories being allegories way more than 500 years ago.

Science was around long before the Bible ever existed.

wiredfalcon2 said:But there are ten other questions you haven't touched. We aren't even circling them; you're just dodging them entirely. Like that bit about the little house, the woods, and the guy knocking—any sane person would have given an answer to that by now. Just give me something to work with.

If he’s out there hacking away with an axe, you'd probably just start praying... 😁

Nathan Doyle said:If he’s out there hacking away with an axe, you'd probably just start praying... 😁

Look, we don't actually know if he's using an axe because we can't see him. We just have this sound that makes us think he is.

wiredfalcon2 said:Just because you "had a run-in with some guy on a forum" or "lack the willpower" doesn't mean you actually went out there and proved anything. Your little claim that you've got "reason" and therefore know when something is a bible allegory doesn't answer a single real question. Like, why is something in the Bible an allegory? Why isn't something else? Why was something once seen as literal and now suddenly it's an allegory? Why would God even bother putting allegories in the Bible in the first place, and how does God feel about people who interpret those allegories differently? Of course you don't have answers to that. Honestly, how could you? There aren't any real answers to give because the Bible is just a deeply contradictory fairy tale, not proof that God exists. If anything, the proof is that God doesn't exist—at least not in any logically consistent way. So we're back to the original point: why do atheists care about God's judgment? It’s because you guys just refuse to look at the evidence before ignoring it. You skip the hard questions, pretend they don't exist, and then—suddenly—the stuff you can't escape from (the stuff actually written in the Bible) magically becomes an allegory. And when that doesn't work out, you hide behind this esoteric concept of "common sense" that doesn't even exist.

Look, let me show you how common sense actually works. Suppose you and I are living in a cabin in the woods, and at 2 AM, someone starts pounding on our door. Based on the sound, it sounds like an axe hitting wood. Is it common sense to let them into the house, or should we keep the door locked?

What counts as proof to you? Like, when is it sent, to whom, and what kind of evidence are we even talking about here?

Look, you don't have answers to those questions—and honestly, how could you? There aren't any real answers to find, because the Bible is just one big contradictory fairy tale, not proof that God exists.

He gave you an answer, but you clearly don't care... you've just shut your ears, your mind, and your soul.

Actually, the proof is that God doesn't exist—at least not in any logically consistent way. So we're back to the original question: why do atheists care about God's judgment of values? It's because you guys refuse to accept any evidence until you ignore it, skipping over questions or pretending they don't exist. Then, suddenly, when faced with stuff you can't run from (the actual text in the Bible), you arbitrarily hide behind allegories—and when that fails, you hide behind this fake "common sense" concept that doesn't even exist.

What kind of answer is that... besides, some atheists judge believers' values, and vice versa for that matter.
One side calls it evidence, the other side rejects it... ad infinitum.

So, if believers aren't responding to an "informative conversation"—at least not the way you think dialogue works—it’s no wonder.

Whether "common sense" is esoteric or not ("a bunch of biases picked up by age 18"), people use it. What's your alternative?

There is simply no alternative to democracy.

wiredfalcon2 said:Science was around long before the Bible ever existed.

Oh yeah? What kind of science—what actual methodology are we even talking about here?

Nathan Doyle said:Look, there’s really no such thing as objective morality out there... It’s just something humans cooked up, and it evolves right along with us, shifting not just between different cultures but even from one individual to the next. Even our basic grasp of what's right or wrong changes as we grow and change as people. I mean, even things like the value of a human life or the definition of murder aren't viewed the same way from one era to the next, let alone from one culture to another... To me, seeing a gay couple kissing on a street corner in NYC doesn't bother me at all, though I'm guessing you probably see that as immoral... And abortion doesn't clash with my own sense of morality, whereas you probably equate it directly to murder... Not to mention all those massive gray areas, like killing in self-defense—since the whole "thou shalt not kill" thing doesn't exactly include an "unless it's self-defense" clause—or a starving person stealing food to survive, or the whole trolley problem, or even animal rights... At the end of the day, you get as many different answers to those questions as there are people on this planet...

Most of the time, I just act based on how I actually perceive the world around me. My morality is pretty much my own thing—it’s really just a byproduct of how I was raised, the people I grew up with, empathy, and just using my head... I don't feel like I need some higher power stepping in to tell me how to live my life. Honestly, life doesn't have some grand, overarching purpose—and honestly, why would it even need one? Like I've said before, the whole point of life is just... living it. If this idea of "meaninglessness" ever actually started messing with my daily routine or making me feel totally paralyzed because I couldn't find a reason to get out of bed, I'd probably just go see a professional and get some help...

I mean, I just don't see the logic in believing that some higher power created me just to put me through this gauntlet, testing me against an evil that was probably cooked up by the same entity just to reward or punish me... It feels like being a pit bull or some fighting rooster bred specifically for the ring. You get a treat if you win the fight, but if you lose, you just get broken and tossed out into the trash... Honestly, what kind of life is that...

Well, if it actually exists—and honestly, a lot of us, myself included, are pretty skeptical about the whole thing—then he obviously hasn't delivered on it yet... everything... What would it even take... If he really wanted to prove himself to me, he could just find someone to predict the exact order of a deck of cards I shuffled myself. The odds of getting that right are basically 1 in 52 factorial... and honestly, even though the chance isn't technically zero—you don't need to be all-powerful, just insanely lucky—it would be more than enough for me to start taking everything he says as gospel. I might even throw a curveball and ask him to dye his hair bright green right in front of me, just so I could be absolutely sure... 😁 I mean, sure, I believe in a higher power based on what's in the Bible, but those random violent, misogynistic books that have zero depth and just make no sense at all? No way. I can't even take them seriously...

I'm honestly worried that if things work that way, the crowd in heaven is gonna be pretty small and incredibly boring...😁

Yeah, I get what you're saying—it’s all pretty obvious at this point—but that doesn't actually prove that morality isn't objective. Just because we can trace how "morals" evolved over time, or point out all the different moral disagreements people have, doesn't really tell us anything about whether morality itself is objective or not.

My behavior usually aligns pretty closely with how I perceive the world around me. I’ve developed my own internal moral compass—it’s really just a byproduct of how I was raised, my environment, empathy, and plain old reason. Honestly, I don't feel like I need some higher power stepping in to tell me how to act. Life doesn't have some grand, overarching purpose—and honestly, why should it? Like I've said before, the whole point of life is just... living it. If this idea of "meaninglessness" ever started messing with my daily routine—if I found myself feeling paralyzed because I couldn't find a deeper purpose—I’d go ahead and seek out professional help.

It just doesn't add up—honestly, none of your actions seem to align, and all that morality you’ve built up in your head feels pretty hollow. On one hand, you’re arguing about God, suggesting it's foolish to believe in Him based solely on personal experience if there isn't concrete evidence or actual arguments to back it up. But then, on the other hand, you go ahead and construct these personal moral codes and live out these specific "purposes"—even though, according to your own worldview, all of that is just as fake as the God you claim doesn't exist while you're busy debating His nonexistence. And then there's the part where you say you'd seek professional help if you ever felt a lack of willpower—but if your perspective is right, nothing about your situation would actually be "wrong" to begin with. So, what exactly would professional help be for?

I just can't wrap my head around the whole idea that some higher power created me specifically to test me—to throw me into this constant struggle against evil that was apparently created by that same power—just to reward or punish me based on how I fare. It feels less like a divine plan and more like being a pit bull or a fighting rooster bred for the ring. You win, you get a treat; you lose, and you’re just tossed into the trash. Honestly, what kind of life is that?

Evil is really just an absence of good—nothing more, nothing less.

Well, if it actually exists—and honestly, many of us (myself included) have our doubts—then clearly He hasn't provided it. I don't quite follow—could you clarify what you mean by "everything"? I want to make sure I'm on the same page before I jump in. What would it actually take? If someone really wanted to prove themselves to me, they could just start with something like predicting the exact order of a deck of cards—one that I shuffled myself. I mean, the odds of getting that right are 1 in 52 factorial! Even though the math says there’s a non-zero chance—you don't exactly need to be all-knowing, just insanely lucky—it would be enough for me to hang on their every word after that. I might even throw in a little extra request, like asking them to dye their hair green right in front of me, just to be absolutely certain. 😁 Look, I believe in a higher power based on the Bible—not those shallow, violent, misogynistic books that lack any real depth or logic. I honestly can't take them seriously.

Besides, you aren't obligated to jump through hoops just to satisfy someone else's whims. If God exists, then He knows what's truly sufficient, and any lack of faith—whether it's yours or anyone else's—is a matter of the individual soul. You could argue that God hasn't provided enough evidence or a clear path to reach Him, but who are we to make a claim like that? God? If we were, there wouldn't even be a debate to have. 😁

wiredfalcon2 said:But there are ten other questions you haven't touched. We aren't even circling them; you're just dodging them entirely. Like that bit about the little house, the woods, and the guy knocking—any sane person would have given an answer to that by now. Just give me something to work with.

No. There's that thing with the axe, but I don't see the point of it at all—I don't get how it connects to anything.

Amy Bennett said:Yeah, I get what you're saying—it’s all pretty obvious at this point—but that doesn't actually prove that morality isn't objective. Just because we can trace how "morals" evolved over time, or point out all the different moral disagreements people have, doesn't really tell us anything about whether morality itself is objective or not.

My behavior usually aligns pretty closely with how I perceive the world around me. I’ve developed my own internal moral compass—it’s really just a byproduct of how I was raised, my environment, empathy, and plain old reason. Honestly, I don't feel like I need some higher power stepping in to tell me how to act. Life doesn't have some grand, overarching purpose—and honestly, why should it? Like I've said before, the whole point of life is just... living it. If this idea of "meaninglessness" ever started messing with my daily routine—if I found myself feeling paralyzed because I couldn't find a deeper purpose—I’d go ahead and seek out professional help.

It just doesn't add up—honestly, none of your actions seem to align, and all that morality you’ve built up in your head feels pretty hollow. On one hand, you’re arguing about God, suggesting it's foolish to believe in Him based solely on personal experience if there isn't concrete evidence or actual arguments to back it up. But then, on the other hand, you go ahead and construct these personal moral codes and live out these specific "purposes"—even though, according to your own worldview, all of that is just as fake as the God you claim doesn't exist while you're busy debating His nonexistence. And then there's the part where you say you'd seek professional help if you ever felt a lack of willpower—but if your perspective is right, nothing about your situation would actually be "wrong" to begin with. So, what exactly would professional help be for?

I just can't wrap my head around the whole idea that some higher power created me specifically to test me—to throw me into this constant struggle against evil that was apparently created by that same power—just to reward or punish me based on how I fare. It feels less like a divine plan and more like being a pit bull or a fighting rooster bred for the ring. You win, you get a treat; you lose, and you’re just tossed into the trash. Honestly, what kind of life is that?

Evil is really just an absence of good—nothing more, nothing less.

Well, if it actually exists—and honestly, many of us (myself included) have our doubts—then clearly He hasn't provided it. I don't quite follow—could you clarify what you mean by "everything"? I want to make sure I'm on the same page before I jump in. What would it actually take? If someone really wanted to prove themselves to me, they could just start with something like predicting the exact order of a deck of cards—one that I shuffled myself. I mean, the odds of getting that right are 1 in 52 factorial! Even though the math says there’s a non-zero chance—you don't exactly need to be all-knowing, just insanely lucky—it would be enough for me to hang on their every word after that. I might even throw in a little extra request, like asking them to dye their hair green right in front of me, just to be absolutely certain. 😁 Look, I believe in a higher power based on the Bible—not those shallow, violent, misogynistic books that lack any real depth or logic. I honestly can't take them seriously.

Besides, you aren't obligated to jump through hoops just to satisfy someone else's whims. If God exists, then He knows what's truly sufficient, and any lack of faith—whether it's yours or anyone else's—is a matter of the individual soul. You could argue that God hasn't provided enough evidence or a clear path to reach Him, but who are we to make a claim like that? God? If we were, there wouldn't even be a debate to have. 😁

No. There's that thing with the axe, but I don't see the point of it at all—I don't get how it connects to anything.

I run into this nonsense all the time—it’s honestly exhausting. What is that supposed to actually mean? By that logic, would total passivity be considered ultimate evil? Does sitting alone in a dark room just meditating suddenly make me a bad person? Wtf?

Lisa Jackson7 said:What counts as proof to you? Like, when is it sent, to whom, and what kind of evidence are we even talking about here?

Look, you don't have answers to those questions—and honestly, how could you? There aren't any real answers to find, because the Bible is just one big contradictory fairy tale, not proof that God exists.

He gave you an answer, but you clearly don't care... you've just shut your ears, your mind, and your soul.

Actually, the proof is that God doesn't exist—at least not in any logically consistent way. So we're back to the original question: why do atheists care about God's judgment of values? It's because you guys refuse to accept any evidence until you ignore it, skipping over questions or pretending they don't exist. Then, suddenly, when faced with stuff you can't run from (the actual text in the Bible), you arbitrarily hide behind allegories—and when that fails, you hide behind this fake "common sense" concept that doesn't even exist.

What kind of answer is that... besides, some atheists judge believers' values, and vice versa for that matter.
One side calls it evidence, the other side rejects it... ad infinitum.

So, if believers aren't responding to an "informative conversation"—at least not the way you think dialogue works—it’s no wonder.

Whether "common sense" is esoteric or not ("a bunch of biases picked up by age 18"), people use it. What's your alternative?

Look, if someone asks you a question and you just dodge it, you haven't proven they're wrong or that their question is invalid. Again, I’m going to circle back to those unanswered questions that have nothing to do with when we started calling things allegories:
Why would God tell the world He made the Earth in 7 days through His followers if He didn't? Why say people lived 700-800 years ago if they didn't? Why say a burning bush can talk if it can't? Why say Moses split the sea if he didn't? Why say the Earth is the center of everything if it isn't?

His response is basically that allegory matters more for saving my soul than dry facts. But God never actually says allegory is more important than facts. We just reached this point where we assume "common sense" tells us what's an allegory and what isn't—but we don't know, because there is no such thing as "common sense." You could get 30 different people using their own version of common sense to interpret an allegory in 30 different ways. There is no universal common sense.

So, either God doesn't care which interpretation we pick, or He does care, which makes it pretty stupid to punish people for getting the interpretation wrong. If we decide something is an allegory—even though God never explicitly calls it one—then we can just declare anything in the Bible an allegory and twist it however our own common sense dictates. Which means you get as many interpretations as there are people.

Lisa Jackson7 said:What counts as proof to you? Like, when is it sent, to whom, and what kind of evidence are we even talking about here?

Look, you don't have answers to those questions—and honestly, how could you? There aren't any real answers to find, because the Bible is just one big contradictory fairy tale, not proof that God exists.

He gave you an answer, but you clearly don't care... you've just shut your ears, your mind, and your soul.

Actually, the proof is that God doesn't exist—at least not in any logically consistent way. So we're back to the original question: why do atheists care about God's judgment of values? It's because you guys refuse to accept any evidence until you ignore it, skipping over questions or pretending they don't exist. Then, suddenly, when faced with stuff you can't run from (the actual text in the Bible), you arbitrarily hide behind allegories—and when that fails, you hide behind this fake "common sense" concept that doesn't even exist.

What kind of answer is that... besides, some atheists judge believers' values, and vice versa for that matter.
One side calls it evidence, the other side rejects it... ad infinitum.

So, if believers aren't responding to an "informative conversation"—at least not the way you think dialogue works—it’s no wonder.

Whether "common sense" is esoteric or not ("a bunch of biases picked up by age 18"), people use it. What's your alternative?

People don't use common sense; they use experience and "social knowledge"—basically the education they got from everyone else. If their own experience clashes with what society taught them, they might toss the social stuff aside, or they might just rely on pure guesswork about things they have zero experience with. Common sense doesn't exist. Therefore, claiming we should use some universal common sense to decode the Bible is like saying we should use unicorns to decode it. They don't exist either.

Amy Bennett said:Yeah, I get what you're saying—it’s all pretty obvious at this point—but that doesn't actually prove that morality isn't objective. Just because we can trace how "morals" evolved over time, or point out all the different moral disagreements people have, doesn't really tell us anything about whether morality itself is objective or not.

My behavior usually aligns pretty closely with how I perceive the world around me. I’ve developed my own internal moral compass—it’s really just a byproduct of how I was raised, my environment, empathy, and plain old reason. Honestly, I don't feel like I need some higher power stepping in to tell me how to act. Life doesn't have some grand, overarching purpose—and honestly, why should it? Like I've said before, the whole point of life is just... living it. If this idea of "meaninglessness" ever started messing with my daily routine—if I found myself feeling paralyzed because I couldn't find a deeper purpose—I’d go ahead and seek out professional help.

It just doesn't add up—honestly, none of your actions seem to align, and all that morality you’ve built up in your head feels pretty hollow. On one hand, you’re arguing about God, suggesting it's foolish to believe in Him based solely on personal experience if there isn't concrete evidence or actual arguments to back it up. But then, on the other hand, you go ahead and construct these personal moral codes and live out these specific "purposes"—even though, according to your own worldview, all of that is just as fake as the God you claim doesn't exist while you're busy debating His nonexistence. And then there's the part where you say you'd seek professional help if you ever felt a lack of willpower—but if your perspective is right, nothing about your situation would actually be "wrong" to begin with. So, what exactly would professional help be for?

I just can't wrap my head around the whole idea that some higher power created me specifically to test me—to throw me into this constant struggle against evil that was apparently created by that same power—just to reward or punish me based on how I fare. It feels less like a divine plan and more like being a pit bull or a fighting rooster bred for the ring. You win, you get a treat; you lose, and you’re just tossed into the trash. Honestly, what kind of life is that?

Evil is really just an absence of good—nothing more, nothing less.

Well, if it actually exists—and honestly, many of us (myself included) have our doubts—then clearly He hasn't provided it. I don't quite follow—could you clarify what you mean by "everything"? I want to make sure I'm on the same page before I jump in. What would it actually take? If someone really wanted to prove themselves to me, they could just start with something like predicting the exact order of a deck of cards—one that I shuffled myself. I mean, the odds of getting that right are 1 in 52 factorial! Even though the math says there’s a non-zero chance—you don't exactly need to be all-knowing, just insanely lucky—it would be enough for me to hang on their every word after that. I might even throw in a little extra request, like asking them to dye their hair green right in front of me, just to be absolutely certain. 😁 Look, I believe in a higher power based on the Bible—not those shallow, violent, misogynistic books that lack any real depth or logic. I honestly can't take them seriously.

Besides, you aren't obligated to jump through hoops just to satisfy someone else's whims. If God exists, then He knows what's truly sufficient, and any lack of faith—whether it's yours or anyone else's—is a matter of the individual soul. You could argue that God hasn't provided enough evidence or a clear path to reach Him, but who are we to make a claim like that? God? If we were, there wouldn't even be a debate to have. 😁

No. There's that thing with the axe, but I don't see the point of it at all—I don't get how it connects to anything.

The whole thing is, there is no such thing as this "common sense" you keep leaning on. It’s just as common sense to let a guy inside as it is to keep him out. The only logical move is to peek through the window and see if the dude is actually holding an axe or not.

Same deal with the whole seven days of creation thing. There isn't some common sense way to decide if it's an allegory or whatever. All we can do is check if it's actually true—it's not, because the Earth wasn't made in seven days, so what's written in the Bible is just bullshit.

Since there’s no universal common sense, if we're going to play that card, my interpretation of the Bible being a manual for a toaster is just as valid as yours being about soul salvation.

You can't have it both ways. The Bible can't be an allegory and also be literal truth at the same time. And common sense can't be universal if everyone's version is different, which it clearly is.

Amy Bennett said:Yeah, I get what you're saying—it’s all pretty obvious at this point—but that doesn't actually prove that morality isn't objective. Just because we can trace how "morals" evolved over time, or point out all the different moral disagreements people have, doesn't really tell us anything about whether morality itself is objective or not.

My behavior usually aligns pretty closely with how I perceive the world around me. I’ve developed my own internal moral compass—it’s really just a byproduct of how I was raised, my environment, empathy, and plain old reason. Honestly, I don't feel like I need some higher power stepping in to tell me how to act. Life doesn't have some grand, overarching purpose—and honestly, why should it? Like I've said before, the whole point of life is just... living it. If this idea of "meaninglessness" ever started messing with my daily routine—if I found myself feeling paralyzed because I couldn't find a deeper purpose—I’d go ahead and seek out professional help.

It just doesn't add up—honestly, none of your actions seem to align, and all that morality you’ve built up in your head feels pretty hollow. On one hand, you’re arguing about God, suggesting it's foolish to believe in Him based solely on personal experience if there isn't concrete evidence or actual arguments to back it up. But then, on the other hand, you go ahead and construct these personal moral codes and live out these specific "purposes"—even though, according to your own worldview, all of that is just as fake as the God you claim doesn't exist while you're busy debating His nonexistence. And then there's the part where you say you'd seek professional help if you ever felt a lack of willpower—but if your perspective is right, nothing about your situation would actually be "wrong" to begin with. So, what exactly would professional help be for?

I just can't wrap my head around the whole idea that some higher power created me specifically to test me—to throw me into this constant struggle against evil that was apparently created by that same power—just to reward or punish me based on how I fare. It feels less like a divine plan and more like being a pit bull or a fighting rooster bred for the ring. You win, you get a treat; you lose, and you’re just tossed into the trash. Honestly, what kind of life is that?

Evil is really just an absence of good—nothing more, nothing less.

Well, if it actually exists—and honestly, many of us (myself included) have our doubts—then clearly He hasn't provided it. I don't quite follow—could you clarify what you mean by "everything"? I want to make sure I'm on the same page before I jump in. What would it actually take? If someone really wanted to prove themselves to me, they could just start with something like predicting the exact order of a deck of cards—one that I shuffled myself. I mean, the odds of getting that right are 1 in 52 factorial! Even though the math says there’s a non-zero chance—you don't exactly need to be all-knowing, just insanely lucky—it would be enough for me to hang on their every word after that. I might even throw in a little extra request, like asking them to dye their hair green right in front of me, just to be absolutely certain. 😁 Look, I believe in a higher power based on the Bible—not those shallow, violent, misogynistic books that lack any real depth or logic. I honestly can't take them seriously.

Besides, you aren't obligated to jump through hoops just to satisfy someone else's whims. If God exists, then He knows what's truly sufficient, and any lack of faith—whether it's yours or anyone else's—is a matter of the individual soul. You could argue that God hasn't provided enough evidence or a clear path to reach Him, but who are we to make a claim like that? God? If we were, there wouldn't even be a debate to have. 😁

No. There's that thing with the axe, but I don't see the point of it at all—I don't get how it connects to anything.

So, if you're really out there claiming that objective morality actually exists, how does that even work in practice... like, what exactly does it cover and where is it all coming from? Is this stuff just etched in stone forever, or is it something that shifts and changes as we go...
I wonder if those kids raised by wolves out in the wild actually possess some kind of objective morality, or if it's all just instinctual survival... it really makes you think about whether right and wrong are hardwired into us from birth or if we have to learn them through society and culture...

Amy Bennett said:Yeah, I get what you're saying—it’s all pretty obvious at this point—but that doesn't actually prove that morality isn't objective. Just because we can trace how "morals" evolved over time, or point out all the different moral disagreements people have, doesn't really tell us anything about whether morality itself is objective or not.

My behavior usually aligns pretty closely with how I perceive the world around me. I’ve developed my own internal moral compass—it’s really just a byproduct of how I was raised, my environment, empathy, and plain old reason. Honestly, I don't feel like I need some higher power stepping in to tell me how to act. Life doesn't have some grand, overarching purpose—and honestly, why should it? Like I've said before, the whole point of life is just... living it. If this idea of "meaninglessness" ever started messing with my daily routine—if I found myself feeling paralyzed because I couldn't find a deeper purpose—I’d go ahead and seek out professional help.

It just doesn't add up—honestly, none of your actions seem to align, and all that morality you’ve built up in your head feels pretty hollow. On one hand, you’re arguing about God, suggesting it's foolish to believe in Him based solely on personal experience if there isn't concrete evidence or actual arguments to back it up. But then, on the other hand, you go ahead and construct these personal moral codes and live out these specific "purposes"—even though, according to your own worldview, all of that is just as fake as the God you claim doesn't exist while you're busy debating His nonexistence. And then there's the part where you say you'd seek professional help if you ever felt a lack of willpower—but if your perspective is right, nothing about your situation would actually be "wrong" to begin with. So, what exactly would professional help be for?

I just can't wrap my head around the whole idea that some higher power created me specifically to test me—to throw me into this constant struggle against evil that was apparently created by that same power—just to reward or punish me based on how I fare. It feels less like a divine plan and more like being a pit bull or a fighting rooster bred for the ring. You win, you get a treat; you lose, and you’re just tossed into the trash. Honestly, what kind of life is that?

Evil is really just an absence of good—nothing more, nothing less.

Well, if it actually exists—and honestly, many of us (myself included) have our doubts—then clearly He hasn't provided it. I don't quite follow—could you clarify what you mean by "everything"? I want to make sure I'm on the same page before I jump in. What would it actually take? If someone really wanted to prove themselves to me, they could just start with something like predicting the exact order of a deck of cards—one that I shuffled myself. I mean, the odds of getting that right are 1 in 52 factorial! Even though the math says there’s a non-zero chance—you don't exactly need to be all-knowing, just insanely lucky—it would be enough for me to hang on their every word after that. I might even throw in a little extra request, like asking them to dye their hair green right in front of me, just to be absolutely certain. 😁 Look, I believe in a higher power based on the Bible—not those shallow, violent, misogynistic books that lack any real depth or logic. I honestly can't take them seriously.

Besides, you aren't obligated to jump through hoops just to satisfy someone else's whims. If God exists, then He knows what's truly sufficient, and any lack of faith—whether it's yours or anyone else's—is a matter of the individual soul. You could argue that God hasn't provided enough evidence or a clear path to reach Him, but who are we to make a claim like that? God? If we were, there wouldn't even be a debate to have. 😁

No. There's that thing with the axe, but I don't see the point of it at all—I don't get how it connects to anything.

I honestly think morality basically started because we just needed a way to make living together less of a headache, you know, like a way for everyone to keep each other in check... When most people actually stick to those social rules—whether they’re written down or just understood by everyone—life gets a lot easier because you finally know what to expect from the people around you and how to act yourself. That’s really the whole deal with morality. As long as a person's own sense of right and wrong doesn't clash too much with the standards of the rest of the community, everything tends to run pretty smoothly and stay in harmony...

My morals don't mean anything? How does that even make sense... If I didn't have the moral compass I do, I probably would've caused so much damage to the people around me and ended up wrecking my own life in the process. But the way things are, I feel good, and I'm actually pretty satisfied with the way I've lived my life and how I'm living it now... It’s not like any of it is worthless...
Am I living some kind of "higher purpose" or whatever? Honestly, I'm just out here living my life. My life *is* my purpose, you know... I try to live it in a way where every single day feels as good as it possibly can, and there's nothing fake about that at all...
Yeah, look, when you start searching for some kind of "meaning" and everything just feels heavy and pointless because you can't find it, you really should consider talking to a professional... I mean, why would you just settle for living life feeling totally drained if there's actual ways to help yourself feel better? It could honestly be anything from a chemical imbalance in your brain to some deep-seated stuff in your subconscious that needs to be dug up and sorted out... Mental health struggles are real, and depression is such a common thing, so there's really no point in acting like it isn't a serious issue...

Amy Bennett said:Yeah, I get what you're saying—it’s all pretty obvious at this point—but that doesn't actually prove that morality isn't objective. Just because we can trace how "morals" evolved over time, or point out all the different moral disagreements people have, doesn't really tell us anything about whether morality itself is objective or not.

My behavior usually aligns pretty closely with how I perceive the world around me. I’ve developed my own internal moral compass—it’s really just a byproduct of how I was raised, my environment, empathy, and plain old reason. Honestly, I don't feel like I need some higher power stepping in to tell me how to act. Life doesn't have some grand, overarching purpose—and honestly, why should it? Like I've said before, the whole point of life is just... living it. If this idea of "meaninglessness" ever started messing with my daily routine—if I found myself feeling paralyzed because I couldn't find a deeper purpose—I’d go ahead and seek out professional help.

It just doesn't add up—honestly, none of your actions seem to align, and all that morality you’ve built up in your head feels pretty hollow. On one hand, you’re arguing about God, suggesting it's foolish to believe in Him based solely on personal experience if there isn't concrete evidence or actual arguments to back it up. But then, on the other hand, you go ahead and construct these personal moral codes and live out these specific "purposes"—even though, according to your own worldview, all of that is just as fake as the God you claim doesn't exist while you're busy debating His nonexistence. And then there's the part where you say you'd seek professional help if you ever felt a lack of willpower—but if your perspective is right, nothing about your situation would actually be "wrong" to begin with. So, what exactly would professional help be for?

I just can't wrap my head around the whole idea that some higher power created me specifically to test me—to throw me into this constant struggle against evil that was apparently created by that same power—just to reward or punish me based on how I fare. It feels less like a divine plan and more like being a pit bull or a fighting rooster bred for the ring. You win, you get a treat; you lose, and you’re just tossed into the trash. Honestly, what kind of life is that?

Evil is really just an absence of good—nothing more, nothing less.

Well, if it actually exists—and honestly, many of us (myself included) have our doubts—then clearly He hasn't provided it. I don't quite follow—could you clarify what you mean by "everything"? I want to make sure I'm on the same page before I jump in. What would it actually take? If someone really wanted to prove themselves to me, they could just start with something like predicting the exact order of a deck of cards—one that I shuffled myself. I mean, the odds of getting that right are 1 in 52 factorial! Even though the math says there’s a non-zero chance—you don't exactly need to be all-knowing, just insanely lucky—it would be enough for me to hang on their every word after that. I might even throw in a little extra request, like asking them to dye their hair green right in front of me, just to be absolutely certain. 😁 Look, I believe in a higher power based on the Bible—not those shallow, violent, misogynistic books that lack any real depth or logic. I honestly can't take them seriously.

Besides, you aren't obligated to jump through hoops just to satisfy someone else's whims. If God exists, then He knows what's truly sufficient, and any lack of faith—whether it's yours or anyone else's—is a matter of the individual soul. You could argue that God hasn't provided enough evidence or a clear path to reach Him, but who are we to make a claim like that? God? If we were, there wouldn't even be a debate to have. 😁

No. There's that thing with the axe, but I don't see the point of it at all—I don't get how it connects to anything.

Honestly, I think concepts like good and evil are just things humans made up to make sense of the world... In reality, there’s really only objective pleasure or benefit versus pain and damage, whether you're looking at the immediate impact or the long-term consequences, in any combination you can imagine. Anything beyond that is just a lie, and no matter how many times people repeat those moral labels, it doesn't actually make them true...

Honestly, that whole dog versus rooster in a ring thing is such a spot-on comparison, I’m actually pretty happy with it... 😁 You believers are all just playing out this imaginary scenario in a ring with an imaginary master, an imaginary opponent, and these imaginary rewards and punishments. Isn't it kind of humiliating to believe you were basically designed just to be tested? And then on top of that, you're supposed to love the very thing that created you. It feels just as twisted and tragic as some stray fighting dog loving its owner... but the dog doesn't know any better and doesn't even know how to break free... 😢

Amy Bennett said:Yeah, I get what you're saying—it’s all pretty obvious at this point—but that doesn't actually prove that morality isn't objective. Just because we can trace how "morals" evolved over time, or point out all the different moral disagreements people have, doesn't really tell us anything about whether morality itself is objective or not.

My behavior usually aligns pretty closely with how I perceive the world around me. I’ve developed my own internal moral compass—it’s really just a byproduct of how I was raised, my environment, empathy, and plain old reason. Honestly, I don't feel like I need some higher power stepping in to tell me how to act. Life doesn't have some grand, overarching purpose—and honestly, why should it? Like I've said before, the whole point of life is just... living it. If this idea of "meaninglessness" ever started messing with my daily routine—if I found myself feeling paralyzed because I couldn't find a deeper purpose—I’d go ahead and seek out professional help.

It just doesn't add up—honestly, none of your actions seem to align, and all that morality you’ve built up in your head feels pretty hollow. On one hand, you’re arguing about God, suggesting it's foolish to believe in Him based solely on personal experience if there isn't concrete evidence or actual arguments to back it up. But then, on the other hand, you go ahead and construct these personal moral codes and live out these specific "purposes"—even though, according to your own worldview, all of that is just as fake as the God you claim doesn't exist while you're busy debating His nonexistence. And then there's the part where you say you'd seek professional help if you ever felt a lack of willpower—but if your perspective is right, nothing about your situation would actually be "wrong" to begin with. So, what exactly would professional help be for?

I just can't wrap my head around the whole idea that some higher power created me specifically to test me—to throw me into this constant struggle against evil that was apparently created by that same power—just to reward or punish me based on how I fare. It feels less like a divine plan and more like being a pit bull or a fighting rooster bred for the ring. You win, you get a treat; you lose, and you’re just tossed into the trash. Honestly, what kind of life is that?

Evil is really just an absence of good—nothing more, nothing less.

Well, if it actually exists—and honestly, many of us (myself included) have our doubts—then clearly He hasn't provided it. I don't quite follow—could you clarify what you mean by "everything"? I want to make sure I'm on the same page before I jump in. What would it actually take? If someone really wanted to prove themselves to me, they could just start with something like predicting the exact order of a deck of cards—one that I shuffled myself. I mean, the odds of getting that right are 1 in 52 factorial! Even though the math says there’s a non-zero chance—you don't exactly need to be all-knowing, just insanely lucky—it would be enough for me to hang on their every word after that. I might even throw in a little extra request, like asking them to dye their hair green right in front of me, just to be absolutely certain. 😁 Look, I believe in a higher power based on the Bible—not those shallow, violent, misogynistic books that lack any real depth or logic. I honestly can't take them seriously.

Besides, you aren't obligated to jump through hoops just to satisfy someone else's whims. If God exists, then He knows what's truly sufficient, and any lack of faith—whether it's yours or anyone else's—is a matter of the individual soul. You could argue that God hasn't provided enough evidence or a clear path to reach Him, but who are we to make a claim like that? God? If we were, there wouldn't even be a debate to have. 😁

No. There's that thing with the axe, but I don't see the point of it at all—I don't get how it connects to anything.

I wouldn't go that far. It wouldn't cost an omnipotent being anything at all to just hand me a winning hand of cards. If the absolute most an omnipotent being would bother doing for me is give me one silly book and a bunch of narrow-minded people, I'll pass... 😁

Lisa Jackson7 said:Oh yeah? What kind of science—what actual methodology are we even talking about here?

The Bible is just a collection of books someone picked out to suit their own agenda. Asking that question is totally idiotic.

Justin Baker6 said:The Bible is just a collection of books someone picked out to suit their own agenda. Asking that question is totally idiotic.

A true believer can't look at it that way. The Bible is a book given directly by God—meaning, it was recorded by individuals who were divinely inspired.

It’s very similar to how these newer faiths came about:

Mormons call themselves: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This movement was founded in 1830 by Joseph ( Joe ) Smith (1805–1844) from the USA, whose ancestors migrated from England and belonged to a free Presbyterian church. His father was involved in fortune-telling and gold prospecting, and his mother had a bit of a superstitious streak herself. That kind of religious atmosphere definitely left its mark on Joe. On top of that, he dealt with some significant trauma during his formative years, which led to some mental instability.

He claimed that when he was fourteen, Jesus appeared to him and told him that all existing churches were misguided—and that he was the chosen one to establish a new, true Church of Jesus Christ. He also claimed that a Mormon prophet sent him a messenger, a son of Moron, who told him that several gold plates were buried in a nearby hill. Apparently, these plates were inscribed in a reformed Egyptian language and contained Godly revelation and the history of ancient Americans. With the help of the angel Moron, Smith translated these records and published them as the Book of Mormon. To me, this book just feels like a scattered collection of thoughts from the Old and New Testament mixed with a made-up history of America. It isn't even worth mentioning—though I will—that there have been nearly 4,000 revisions made to this book to date, a fact that speaks volumes about the "authority" of the text.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:A true believer can't look at it that way. The Bible is a book given directly by God—meaning, it was recorded by individuals who were divinely inspired.

It’s very similar to how these newer faiths came about:

Mormons call themselves: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This movement was founded in 1830 by Joseph ( Joe ) Smith (1805–1844) from the USA, whose ancestors migrated from England and belonged to a free Presbyterian church. His father was involved in fortune-telling and gold prospecting, and his mother had a bit of a superstitious streak herself. That kind of religious atmosphere definitely left its mark on Joe. On top of that, he dealt with some significant trauma during his formative years, which led to some mental instability.

He claimed that when he was fourteen, Jesus appeared to him and told him that all existing churches were misguided—and that he was the chosen one to establish a new, true Church of Jesus Christ. He also claimed that a Mormon prophet sent him a messenger, a son of Moron, who told him that several gold plates were buried in a nearby hill. Apparently, these plates were inscribed in a reformed Egyptian language and contained Godly revelation and the history of ancient Americans. With the help of the angel Moron, Smith translated these records and published them as the Book of Mormon. To me, this book just feels like a scattered collection of thoughts from the Old and New Testament mixed with a made-up history of America. It isn't even worth mentioning—though I will—that there have been nearly 4,000 revisions made to this book to date, a fact that speaks volumes about the "authority" of the text.

And yet it’s been edited a million times over since then.
Plus, you have to assume every single translator out there interpreting it their own way was also just perfectly guided by God, right... 😁

Atheists are really just believers going through a midlife crisis😬

I honestly feel like believers are just atheists going through a bit of a rough patch... 🐔

Nathan Doyle said:And yet it’s been edited a million times over since then.
Plus, you have to assume every single translator out there interpreting it their own way was also just perfectly guided by God, right... 😁

The reality is pretty plain to see: in the American mindset, the only version of the Bible that actually counts is the one sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church. Anyone else? They’re treated like they’re worse than an atheist. 😁

Nathan Doyle said:I honestly feel like believers are just atheists going through a bit of a rough patch... 🐔

And crises? Those are just atheists hiding inside believers.