Is that a "yes" to my question?
Part ocular bat, part unusual hoon, part designer. Loves to discuss adventure games, fantasy world-building, philosophy, ethics, atheism, science.
398 followers 257 following 1,314 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Is that a "yes" to my question?
Yes, I understand you believe God can remove anyone from the Earth. My question is specifically about *humans* removing other humans from earth, on God's command. Again: if God commanded you (a human) to commit genocide, would you?
Your explanation seemed to be that acts like genocide are not immoral for humans to commit when ordered by God. As such, I simply asked if you yourself would commit such acts if ordered by God. You're free to set the record straight with a simple yes or no.
In short, โYes I would commit those acts if commanded by God and doing so would be moralโ seems to be the answer that any Christian would grudgingly have to give โ assuming they had the courage to answer at all. All Iโm saying is just be honest and own it. ๐คท 5/5
Alternatively, if God does indeed command such acts, then for people to perform them must not be โfundamentally evilโ. ...Or we just bite the bullet and admit that God sometimes commands fundamentally evil acts. 4/
At the same time youโre also unwilling to admit, โYes I'd commit those acts on Godโs command.โ For one, it undercuts what you earlier called the โfundamentally evilโ nature of such acts. If certain acts are *fundamentally* evil for humans to perform, God wouldn't command humans to perform them. 3/
As a Christian youโre clearly unwilling to say, โNo, I would not obey commands from God to commit genocide or infanticide,โ because obeying God is fundamental to Christianity. To say youโd put your own moral judgment ahead of Godโs commands would be anathema, so answering โnoโ is a nonstarter. 2/
Itโs telling that you still avoid giving a straight answer to my question. It suggests that you recognize the hazards you open yourself up to if you do. Shall we explore it together? 1/
So that's a yes: you would commit such acts if ordered. Correct?
That's a yes? You would do it?
So then if God ordered you to commit (say) genocide or infanticide, you would do so? (And it would not be immoral?)
So just to clarify before continuing: If God ordered you (a human) to commit genocide, you would do so โ even though you know "deep down" that it's wrong for humans to commit genocide. Is that your position?
I'm just noting that Christian morality is neither objective nor absolute, but is subjective and variable.
I never said it was explained. Your claim was that it's "basically impossible". My point is that science has in no way concluded that.
I didn't say it's been proven. I'm just noting that science has absolutely not shown it to be "basically impossible".
Science says no such thing. www.washingtonpost.com/science/2025...
That cuts both ways: Deep down you probably know that genocide is fundamentally an evil thing to do. So if God orders you to go out and commit genocide (as per 1 Samuel 15 and elsewhere), will you go along with it?
Yep. In these cases 1 Samuel 15 always comes to mind, since it describes God ordering humans to go out and commit genocide. With God, nothing's absolutely immoral, only subjectively immoral, since you never know when God might order acts up to and including genocide, infanticide, etc.
Someone can have earnest faith that their god wishes them to go out and kill. Many have. Why would it be "corrupt" for them to do what they truly believe God commands?
The way I've always understood it is that atheism's about belief and agnosticism's about knowledge. All atheists lack belief in God, but agnostic atheists (like us) don't think we can prove he doesn't exist, while gnostic atheists think they can.
Faith can incite people to do all kinds of terrible things. I see nothing illogical about that observation.
Such a lovely piece! โค๏ธ
Imagine the complicated and precious genius of the girl who made this embroidery sampler in 1811 The Solar System, sampler, unknown maker, 1811, England. Museum no. T.92-1939. Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
Brains are shaped by natural selection which is a NON-random process.
I don't see sufficient evidence for the existence of gods, so I lack belief that they exist. The term we use for that lack of belief in gods is "atheism". As for dictionaries, they define the meaning of words, but that doesn't mean everything is "just a dictionary definition". ๐คท
๐ Woot!
Nothing: atheism means simply that they don't believe in gods. That's all that the term necessitates. Beyond that, atheists can and do hold various diverse positions, different cultures, etc.
The article talks about ethics because atheists have ethics, but it's just not something defined by atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods.
If facts don't matter, then just say USAID spent $50 trillion on glow-in-the-dark dildos. Still false, but funnier. ๐
www.factcheck.org/2025/02/sort...
Being able to incorporate Nikita's gorgeous pieces into my world-building project has been wonderful! Whenever possible, please support human artists and use human-generated artwork.
I'm fine getting a "bless you"! ๐ Personally I tend to use "Gesundheit".
The idea of a morality that somehow exists outside of such human considerations, or independent of any human considerations, is illusory โ and unnecessary.
Morality's a set of rules that serves a purpose: to help us live together socially and flourish. A society whose members abuse or kill each other is less likely to persist than one whose members don't. Humans overwhelmingly prefer to persist and flourish, so we make rules to encourage that outcome.
But everyone doesn't approve, and won'tโthat's the point. Think of it like this: we're free to make traffic rules that encourage reckless driving instead of barring itโฆ but do we? Would we ever? No, because it'd be contrary to the reason we have such rules in the first place. Morality's the same.
You and I and our society agree it's wrong, so it'd be intersubjectively morally wrong. What we *can* determine objectively is the harm that such behavior causes. Societies whose members harm each other are less likely to flourish than those that don't โ and humans prefer to flourish.
Agreed, there's no truly objective or mind-independent standard โ or at least no one's every demonstrated that there is. The closest thing we have is our natural, shared tendency as social beings to prefer certain states and outcomes over others. All morality is intersubjective, and that's fine.
'Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something that we create in our own lives. And although this vast and incredibly old universe was not created for us, all of us are connected to something bigger than ourselves.' Stephen Fry #thatshumanism ๐งต
"What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?" He was comparing it to his own sense of justice. Just, fair, and cooperative behavior helps social beings persist and flourish, so humans (and even some other primates) naturally tend to prefer it since it serves a basic need.
What is #humanism๐คธโโ๏ธ? & who are #humanists?
Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher, offers a message of hope for humanity in this 1952 interview, reflecting on his humanist beliefs.
'Death is a natural part of life. It makes sense for us to try not to be afraid of this, but instead to come to terms with it. Then we can focus on finding meaning and purpose in the here and now, making the most of the one life we know we have.' Stephen Fry in that #thatshumanism.
That said, I'm sure you're right that we won't change each others' minds, but that's OK: it's still good to try to better understand other POVs. Thank you for the chat!
Other critiques seem to rest on false assumptions of what atheists believe rather than on what most actually do believe. For instance, neither I nor any atheists I know would describe ourselves as nihilistic or devoid of purpose. Far from it!
Thanks for elaborating. The things you critique are for the most part very real flaws โ but they aren't flaws of atheism. Arrogance, for example, is a *human* problem, something that is very easy to find these days among people of all stripes: theists and non-theists alike.
Yep. I'm muting that account โ it pretty clearly exists to troll rather than for any kind of positive or constructive interaction.
From @humanists.uk! #Thatshumanism is the perfect introduction to the humanist approach to life, featuring four animations narrated by Stephen Fry, and brand new posters all about humanism for schools. Have a look for yourself! humanists.uk/thatshumanism/
Today is day one of #thatshumanism! ๐ โ our popular social media campaign featuring our much-loved animations with Stephen Fry. To celebrate, we're launching a brand-new series of posters designed for schools, teachers, and anyone curious about the humanist approach to life. ๐งต
We agreed that one shouldn't be arrogant in one's claims, but we didn't address why you feel that atheism (and even agnosticism) entails hubris, pride, or idleness. Perhaps sometime we can explore that. Take care ๐
Understood. That being the case, though, Iโm still puzzled by your original post which was specifically about the "ideology" of atheism and agnosticism โ not just how people assert it. You suggested the ideologies entail hubris, pride, and idleness, but I don't see that they do. Can you elaborate?
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you meant it was arrogant for them to assert that they know objectively that God does not exist. Instead it sounds like you're saying just that the *way* they claim itโ"spouting their beliefs"โis arrogant. No objections, then, to the same assertions made civilly?
Right: I do not say it's objectively true that God does not exist, but I lack belief that he does. Likewise, you do not say it's objectively true that God does exist (since you see such claims of objective truth as arrogant), but you believe that he does. In short, we just differ in belief, yes?
As such, it sounds like your beef is more narrowly just with gnostic atheists, which I think is understandable. Since their claim to know that their beliefs are objectively true is something you consider "arrogant", do you not say that your own beliefs are objectively true?
Not really: atheism's about belief, but agnosticism's about knowledge, so they overlap. Gnostic atheists lack belief in gods and claim to *know* that they don't exist. An agnostic atheist (like me) also lacks belief in gods but doesn't think we can know it for sure: it's unprovable.
So you as a theist admit God might not exist, and I as an atheist admit it might. We each have the humility to recognize we might be mistaken, but base our beliefs on what we consider the evidence shows. Why then did you claim that atheism is an idea of "utmost infallibility", hubris, etc.?
Correct. I don't think one can prove there are no gods, I just lack belief that there are. It's no different than Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster โ they might exist, but there's insufficient evidence for them, so I don't believe. Could you be wrong about your Christianity?
The idea that one cannot trust oneself is an insecurity. Insecurity is common among Theists because their worldview is built on Fear. Insecurity is the fruit of Fear, the Fear of not good enough. Fear is the absence of Love and Love is all there is. I am a proud Love centered person, an Atheist.
Atheism is not a set of beliefs. It's simply a lack of belief in the existence of gods.
"Trusting one self with utmost infallibility"? That's not at all what atheists believe. I'm atheist and I absolutely am fallible. When I fail at something I have to take personal responsibility for that, make amends, and strive to be better. That seems like the exact opposite of idle convenience.
True. I think the problem (well, one of them) is that people so often confuse "subjective" for "arbitrary". A moral belief may be subjective, but that doesn't mean there aren't very solid and consistent reasons why we hold it.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...
Elisha.
Agreed, the Christian god truly is a deplorable character. It's weird to hear people describe him as a patient and loving being since that's very much *not* how he's described in the Bible.
Science has its scope, as does mysticism. Understanding gods is not the domain of science โ just as understanding the universe is not the domain of mysticism. To quote Egon Spengler...
โThe death of human empathy is one of the earliest and most telling signs of a culture about to fall into barbarism.โ Hannah Arendt
As for the universe, we can't observe it forming like we can with rain, so all we can do for now is theorize. Supernatural agents like gods or leprechauns are theoretical causes that we can't disprove. However, until we rule out natural explanations, I'm not jumping on either of those bandwagons. ๐
Why unintelligent? I simply observe that one can invoke the supernatural to explain most any phenomenon. For example, "rain spirits" can explain precipitation โ but I doubt it's the explanation either of us considers best. Is that fair?
๐ฏ
Same if you start with leprechauns. Magic's the simplest explanation for anything, but it's not necessarily the best. ๐
Neither science nor atheism claims either of those things.
...and changes whether it's a being, is conscious, and has agency. ๐ If you want to consider the unconscious natural process described in M-Theory as your god, you're totally free to โ but it's an unusual stance for a Christian.
Except God is usually presented as something with intelligence and agency, yes? A natural precursor (as in M-Theory) would not be. If you're OK defining God as an unconscious natural force, that's fine with me. ๐
bsky.app/profile/huwm...
Captain Jean-Luc Picard sums up Star Trek's humanism in 60 seconds. ๐ Video source: @roddenberryfdn.bsky.social www.facebook.com/reel/1084806...
I agree that the idea of there ever having been nothing seems nonsensical. That there's always been something seems more likely, or at least less problematic. (However, as quantum mechanics has amply demonstrated, the universe is under no obligation to conform to what humans consider intuitive. ๐)
Why would the universe have come from nothing?
I've never been quite sure what a soul is: the definition varies depending on who you ask. If it's something supernatural (like an invisible, immortal copy of me), then no. If it's just synonymous with mind, then yes.
A Hindu may likewise say that their own religion is the one that's actually true. I appreciate why adherents of a given religion may feel (and assert) that theirs is the only right one, but from the outside the competing claims seem pretty much indistinguishable.
A Hindu will likely say that Brahma is not the god of Jesus โ just as a Christian will (I assume?) say that theirs is not the god of Shiva and Vishnu. I'm just trying to understand if your claim of truth extends to any/all creator deities or just a particular one. It sounds like the latter?
I guessed that was the case, but didn't want to presume. ๐ So then when you say it's the truth that your god exists and we can connect with it, is that true only for your god but not for others like (say) Brahma?
That could refer to many different gods. Are you thinking of a specific one, or just any of them? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...
Nope, ancient authors by and large were no more "stupid" than people are today โ they simply didn't have the benefit of the millennia of accumulated understanding we enjoy today. Take Eratosthenes: he managed to work out the size of the Earth with remarkable accuracy in 260 BC. Hardly a dim bulb. ๐
Many religions describe the afterlife. I think the Hindu concept of Samsara โ the ongoing cycle of birth, death, and reincarnation that leads to moksha โ sounds most pleasant. The Christian idea of an inescapable eternity spent as a conscious, static version of myself never felt very appealing.
Do you mean any god, or one god in particular? (Many different religions claim connections to gods.)
"Worship of human intelligence..." I never suggested it should be worshipped, and I don't believe it follows a linear trajectory. Things certainly can be forgotten. The point is simply that as we grow our understanding of the world, we build on what came before, we don't just throw it all out.
But again: learning something new doesn't mean that everything we knew before gets thrown out. Our growing understanding of the importance of gut bacteria rests on a vast amount of underlying/preceding science that remains useful and valid.
Nothing says that all scientific understanding must ultimately be proven wrong.
The way I often hear it put is that agnosticism is about knowledge, while atheism is about belief. Atheists lack belief in gods, but there are gnostic atheists (who say we can know there's no god) and agnostic atheists (who say we can't). I'm one of the latter.
True! As framed by theists, the notion that "God is good" is uselessly self-referential since it requires an outside standard of goodness against which to judge God โ something that few theists accept. As such, if God commanded genocide, genocide would suddenly be good. ๐คท
No, we don't assert that alien life exists because we have not yet determined that it does.
No Gazan child repeatedly tried to destroy Israel. Israeli forces, however, have shot, bombed, and starved roughly 18,000 Gazan children (so far). By any sane measure, that's "extreme violence".
Let him beg. :) I actually agree with him about morality being rooted in flourishing and well-being, but just disagree that our preference for such states or outcomes is non-subjective.
You can conclude through pure reasoning that murder is likely to yield certain outcomes, but whether we favor those outcomes is subjective. Morality always rests at least in part on subjective human preference.
You hold the opinion that your particular god is the basis of morality. Morality based on opinion is subjective.
Agreed, it's not unique to religion. My point is that religious organizations often have features that others don't which make them a more conducive environment for abusers โ like the idea that leaders have some kind of supernatural authority or power.
I'm atheist and I don't claim that. I cannot prove that there's no God, just as I cannot prove that there are no little pink aliens on Pluto... but until there's evidence for them, I reject the notion that they're real.
That said, insulating abusive leaders from being challenged, questioned, etc. is a lot easier when they're seen as being more than just some normal officer or administrator. It can be tougher to call someone out when people believe they're the representative of a mysterious supernatural power.
I think that *any* organization that promotes too much deference and trust in its leadership simply because of their rank, or that sets them up as somehow above normal forms of oversight and discipline, is primed for abuse. It's not a uniquely religious problem.
Personally I love losing myself in a complex and well-crafted fictional world, but nothing jolts me out of it faster than lazy canon-breaking. Doctor Who suffered a lot from this in recent years. "Wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey" was used to lampshade tons of ridiculous flaws, retcons, and plot holes.
If the intention of the show-runners is to get people to emotionally invest in the broader universe, then respecting the canon matters. If the intention is just to make fun one-off stories, then it doesn't. "Sealab 2021" is a classic example of this: the station blows up in every episode. ๐ฅ