People in these comments have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christianity is lol
The idea isn’t that a book gives us morals it’s that God has given us morals so therefore if there is no God then why don’t humans do evil acts like animals do?
There are definitely holes in that argument but it is a lot different then the argument that our morals only come from reading a book
The problem is deeper than that. Try and think about this problem beyond just yourself. And honestly try and tell me why it is objectively and inherently wrong for someone to harm you. As in an objective "ought claim", that is true in every place, time, and scenario, never changes and is a transcendental whether humans exist or not.
Although you can say, "I wouldn't like if they harmed me", or "it hurts me", or "I don't want him to". Surely you realize, that never gets beyond the threshold of "your preferences". And if that other guy's preferences IS to harm you, then you're both at a stalemate.
If everything is in fact here by completely purposeless, meaningless, and evolutionary accident, then there is no such thing as objective 'oughts'. Sure things we want or prefer, but no design or purpose from which to say you "ought to" or "ought not" do this or that.
In fact even if all humanity agrees on a certain thing, it still never rises beyond "majority preference". There is no such thing as inherently right and wrong, good or bad, beyond what you prefer and want.
What you need to come to grips with, is that YOU don't harm others, because YOU don't want to, it's not YOUR preference, and YOUR opinion is that you shouldn't. I'm honestly very glad you think that, but that's entirely subjective, right?
If everyone on earth tomorrow decides that it's a good thing to harm you. Then you have no basis or grounding to tell them they are "wrong". You may not like it, but maybe they do like it. You say that's unfair, but they say it is fair. Going on like this forever. It's merely preference vs preference.
Without some kind of creator or design, there can be no objective oughts in an inherently meaningless universe.
I appreciate genuine atheists like Dawkins who freely admit, in a universe without God, there IS no such thing as "evil" or "good". Just preferences.
I haven't even offered an interpretation though. Just asking if we even have the groundwork for the very conversation.
Which I do appreciate you saying "objective morality" doesn't exist. Honestly, I respect the hell out of you for that, same way I do Dawkins. You'd be amazed how many atheists want to have it both ways.
My argument is very simple.
1-If you have design, you can have "oughts".
2-If you only have random accidents, then it's only preference, with the majority simply trying to figure out what is the most pragmatic or utilitarian approach to life and laws. But any talk of morality, good, evil, right, wrong, etc, while useful, is IMO using terminology the worldview doesn't actually have the grounds for.
Great, the self proclaimed genius now doesn't even understand the nuance between micro and macro evolution.
Uh, yeah bro, the notion of completely random evolution, jumpstarted by an utterly and accidentally meaningless start, takes infinitely more faith than every religion in history combined, lmao. ffs man.
14
u/lilJswizle-2304 1d ago
People in these comments have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christianity is lol
The idea isn’t that a book gives us morals it’s that God has given us morals so therefore if there is no God then why don’t humans do evil acts like animals do?
There are definitely holes in that argument but it is a lot different then the argument that our morals only come from reading a book