DLH
Theoretical Skeptic
SIMPLY
What difference does it make whether OR NOT gods exist?
What difference does it make whether OR NOT gods exist?
-
Features
What difference does it make?
- Thread starter DLH
- Start date
NoHolyCows
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2025
- Messages
- 538
- Gender
- Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Skeptic
The difference is everything.
If gods exist, then reality has purpose beyond human perception. Morality might have an objective foundation. Life, death, and the universe itself could be shaped by a will beyond our own. If there is a god who judges, rewards, or punishes, then every action has eternal weight.
If gods do not exist, then meaning, morality, and purpose are human constructs. The universe is indifferent. Life is what we make of it, and death is the end. Every achievement, every relationship, and every struggle is confined to the limits of human existence.
Either way, the truth matters. The existence or nonexistence of gods changes everything about how we see life, death, and purpose. It defines whether we answer to something greater or only to ourselves.
NHC
Wiploc
Veteran Member
I've heard these claims all my life, but I've never seen them defended.
Take this part:
> Morality might have an objective foundation.
How do you figure? My position is that if religious morality is objective, then so is atheist morality. And if atheist morality is subjective, then so is religious morality. If you can defend the claim that religious morality is more objective than atheist morality, I'm keenly interested.
If that's not a topic you want to engage on, I'll be happy to discuss most of your other claims too.
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 8,127
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
The difference is that in a world where gods allegedly exist, I (or anyone else) generally need to go through a priest to get to them. Whether it's a Shaman or a Bishop, you've got to give their representative on Earth money, or fealty, or a sacrifice to "gain favor with the gods."
If you don't believe that "the gods" don't exist, you don't have to give them anything. All of their threats about eternal damnation or raining down storms or cursing your crops won't be affected in the least by tithing, offering up a goat, or offering up a virgin. Not even one tiny bit. They're all empty promises that have no basis in reality other than the fact that the priests/shamans need to have some threat to press you with so that they can get your gold, goat, or virgin. Truth is, no matter how much money you give them/how many animals or virgins you sacrifice, they're not going to make your life better by communicating your fealty to the gods. Because the gods don't exist. The priests are the ones who are extracting tributes from you. The rains are not going to come no matter how much you prostrate yourself in front of the priest. The sun will rise even if you give the temple of Ra nothing. You will not have 72 virgins in the afterlife no matter how hard you blow yourself up. You're not going to sit at the foot of Jesus in heaven if you "accept him as your lord and savior" because you - like Jesus - will be dead.
The only thing you'll accomplish is to make the priest or shaman who sold you that bullshit rich well beyond your wildest dreams. Creflo Dollar needs a new private jet, after all, and you will never, ever be allowed to ride on it.
DLH
Theoretical Skeptic
Morality in general is subjective, otherwise it would be the same for everyone all throughout time. Morality is whatever group you belong to deciding what is right and what is wrong for that specific time and then not doing it. Morality is a dog and pony show. In other words, morality is religion.
DLH
Theoretical Skeptic
I disagree.
If Jehovah God exists, he has explained the simple purpose of mankind which is to enjoy themselves. He created humanity out of love for them to enjoy themselves.
Gods do exist as a simple concept, a human construct.
That explanation is subjective, depending upon the individual and the cultural concept of God. Biblically, Jehovah created mankind in a small area - paradise - with two instructions. Don't touch the tree or its fruit, and fill and subdue the earth. God didn't have any moral concepts beyond that that I can see. The prohibition was symbolic of his sovereignty as creator, and the instruction was to provide them with work they would enjoy and enjoy the fruits of. Man (Adam) rejected it because he was afraid of living alone for eternity since Eve had been deceived.
Judging, reward and punishment are temporal, a necessity born from Adam's disobedience.
And ultimate self-destruction. But that isn't dependent upon the existence of gods, gods are created in the eyes of the beholder and a result or a part of the aforementioned constructs.
Ultimately if the gods are created, but not necessarily if we are God breathed. The existence of gods we create from "our truth" and purpose. They are a whim. Answering to something greater than ourselves individually?
ideologyhunter
Contributor
"Subdue the earth"??? Was that the phrase? In that case, we did Him proud. And we're choking/drowning/sizzling on it.
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 11,189
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
I completely disagree.
Morality is the informed and rational way to live a good life.
It's subjective because circumstances change and competent understanding changes.
Morality is not religion, quite the opposite. Religion is the delusion that you know about God(s) or the supernatural. Religious ethics are the faith that your personal agenda is approved by god or the supernatural.
Tom
DLH
Theoretical Skeptic
Okay, cool.
I don't disagree; I think that is the intended purpose of it.
Hmmm. I don't know. The thing about me people might not get is that I don't know that much about the Abrahamic religions. Most atheists know more about that sort of thing than I do, especially if they were "formerly warmer" as I call Ex-Christians. Because my interest has always been the Bible. I only take those religions under consideration if their doctrine or practice are presented as Biblical when it isn't. It's mostly bullshit, much of which is ancient Greek philosophy and fake fabricated morality.
My mom was irreligious, my dad atheist. She believed in God though she had no idea who or what he was. Tradition. Her mom had dragged her around from one congregation and denomination to another and she loathed the hypocrisy. The preacher tells them not to watch TV because it's the Devil's tool and it turns out the preacher is the only one with a TV.
After I studied with the JWs briefly she started up her own study and ended up becoming a baptized publisher in good standing. I remember when the JW.org website was just starting out she was warning me about the internet just like the preachers of her childhood. It was Satan's. That's what the "society" was telling them at the time. And I pointed out that they had started their own website. She told the Presiding Overseer (head of the congregation) who we both had studied with and him and his wife didn't believe me. I gave them the URL and they found out for themselves. Now they use the internet a lot in their "ministry."
They will tell you not to listen to certain music because it's immoral but they listen to different music which is also immoral. Rock is the Devil's but Country & Western, with adultery, alcoholism, violence, is fine. They will say not to watch violent movies and then watch John Wayne movies. It's the religious version of Douglas Adams' rules on technology.
- “Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.”
- “Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary, and you can probably get a career in it.”
- “Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”
As I mentioned above, I'm not conversant, so I will take your word for it, but my limited experience with religion is that it's a show. Theists don't really believe in God; they use it as a tool and a show. That's why you see so many atheists study the Bible more than Christians, especially once they leave the religion. It was what they wanted all along. Now their interest is real.
I've probably mentioned this here before, I know I often do on forums, but the local JWs where I live were out in "field service" (door to door) when they come across a well-known hellfire preacher and they struck up a conversation, as they are wont to do, and told him hell was a pagan teaching adopted by the apostate church much later. Much to their surprise he responded, "Oh, I know." They asked if he taught it anyway to scare the congregation into attending church and he laughed out loud and said "No, I teach it because if I didn't, I would be out of a job."
Do you see? They don't believe in hell; they use it to put themselves upon an ideological pedestal. A fake moral superiority. I think militant atheists do the exact same thing with science; it's only fake intellectual superiority.
Take the fake God out, replace it with another. It's all the same.
Last edited:
DBT
Contributor
What difference does believing make? If the gods don't exist, believing they do doesn't change anything, the gods still don't exist. Belief defines the mental state of the believer and how they see the world and interact with it.
pood
Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 7,067
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
And you’re wrong. Science is not about dictating or defining morality; it’s about finding out how the world works.
Of course, in the wrong hands, science can be misused. That’s the price we have to pay for the good things that science produces. Science produced the computer you osculate your mythical sky daddy on. Nobody prayed it up.
Wiploc
Veteran Member
Maybe, depending on how you define objective.
Christians like to claim that their morality is objective but mine is subjective. In support of this position, they two-step back and fourth between incompatible definitions of morality.
So long as you're consistent, I have no problem with your claim that morality is subjective.
Is this your test for whether other things are objective?
Sounds like you're a nihilist. You don't think morality is real? You don't think that kindness is better than rape and murder?
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth; I'm just asking questions that I think you have raised, inviting you to expand on your comments.
As long as we're on the subject of nihilism, one of my favorite jokes:
"I'm not a nihilist. I'm a hypocrite. At least I have principles."
NoHolyCows
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2025
- Messages
- 538
- Gender
- Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Skeptic
If you claim that Jehovah exists as a real being, then He is not just a concept or a human construct. You can’t have it both ways. Either He is an actual entity with objective existence, or He is just an idea people made up. If He is real, then His existence is not dependent on belief, just as the laws of physics don’t change based on whether someone acknowledges them. Saying that gods exist as “a simple concept” contradicts your own assertion that Jehovah is real.
You argue that judgment is only a temporary necessity caused by Adam’s disobedience. But that’s not how justice works. If morality and justice only exist as temporary measures, then there’s no real accountability. If someone commits a heinous crime but is never caught, does that mean they got away with it? If morality is just a construct, then it’s entirely subjective, and nothing is truly right or wrong—only convenient or inconvenient. But people don’t actually live that way. We hold people accountable for their actions because justice isn’t just a temporary reaction to wrongdoing; it’s a fundamental principle of how human societies function. If justice is real, then it exists independently of whether or not Adam sinned.
Your explanation of Adam’s disobedience doesn’t hold up. If he was afraid of being alone for eternity, then why would he knowingly go against an all-powerful God just to stay with Eve? That’s like someone intentionally committing a crime because they’re afraid of facing the consequences of not committing it. It makes no sense. If he truly feared loneliness that much, he could have begged God for another solution. Instead, according to your own belief, he knowingly broke the rule. That’s not fear—that’s choice.
You say humans were created just to enjoy themselves, but then you also say God gave them work. Which is it? If life was meant for pure enjoyment, why include responsibility at all? Look at the world—people don’t find real fulfillment in just pleasure. Athletes push their bodies to the limit, artists spend years perfecting their craft, scientists devote their lives to discovery. Pure hedonism doesn’t lead to happiness—it leads to boredom and emptiness. People seek purpose, not just pleasure. If God created work as part of life, then clearly, enjoyment was never the sole purpose.
Lastly, if gods are just human constructs, then truth is entirely subjective. But reality doesn’t work like that. You can’t decide that gravity doesn’t exist just because you don’t like it. You can’t refuse to believe in fire and expect not to get burned. If Jehovah is real, then He exists regardless of personal belief, and answering to Him is not a matter of preference—it’s a reality you either accept or deny. But if gods are only subjective human ideas, then nothing you say about Jehovah matters because he would be just another fictional character in a long list of myths. You can’t argue that he’s both real and a construct at the same time. That’s a contradiction, and contradictions don’t reflect truth.
NHC
NoHolyCows
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2025
- Messages
- 538
- Gender
- Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Skeptic
If gods are human constructs, then truth has no external, unchanging foundation. Without a divine authority, what is considered “true” is ultimately shaped by human perception, which is fallible and inconsistent.
History shows that truth is malleable. In ancient Greece, slavery was considered natural and just. Today, it is condemned as a moral evil. If truth were truly objective, it would have always been wrong. Instead, human values changed, and so did the truth. The Catholic Church once taught that the Earth was the center of the universe. For centuries, this was accepted as fact. Only later did science prove otherwise. If truth were absolute, it would not shift with human discovery.
Morality also becomes subjective without a divine standard. If there is no god, what makes murder or theft objectively wrong? Laws? Society? But laws change, and societies disagree. What is criminal in one country may be legal in another. Nietzsche recognized this dilemma when he wrote, “God is dead, and we have killed him.” Without a divine foundation, morality becomes a construct of power, not an objective truth.
Even science, which seeks truth, is built on falsifiability rather than absolute certainty. Newtonian physics was once considered true, but Einstein’s theories refined and even replaced parts of it. What we call scientific truth is merely our best current understanding, subject to revision as new evidence emerges. If there were an ultimate, unchanging truth, it would exist independently of human knowledge and would not be contingent on discovery.
Without a transcendent source, all truth is dependent on human consensus. If humans define truth, then by definition, it is subjective. If you disagree, then demonstrate an unchanging, absolute truth that exists independently of human perception.
NHC
DLH
Theoretical Skeptic
Now you're getting it!
"I think that people who haven't investigated these matters down this particular literal and philosophical pathway have never grappled with. . . . if there's no God, So, if there's no higher value, let's say, if there's no transcendent value, then you can do whatever you want. . . . this is why I have such frustration with people like Sam Harris, this sort of radical atheist because they seem to think that once human beings have abandoned their grounding in the transcendent that the plausible way forward is with a kind of purest rationality that automatically attributes to other people equivalent value. The universe that people like Dawkins and Harris inhabit is so intensely conditioned by mythological presuppositions that they take for granted the ethic that emerges out of that as if it's just a given." (see video below)
This is why it's so important to recognize what the simple word God really means. That it isn't restricted to sky fairy. The people who are misled by Gods are no more or less deceived than those who invent their own, not that the former didn't recreate their own God for the same reason. But those don't exist, says the skeptic, without rising above it. They are all in the same ship of fools, rolling around in a sea of insanity.
NoHolyCows
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2025
- Messages
- 538
- Gender
- Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Skeptic
DLH, your position assumes that without a transcendent foundation, morality is completely arbitrary, yet you also acknowledge that atheists, even those like Dawkins and Harris, operate within ethical frameworks. You suggest that they unknowingly borrow from religious morality, as if ethical principles cannot exist without divine authority. This is where your argument contradicts itself. If morality is entirely dependent on God, then those who do not believe in God should have no ability to reason morally. Yet, we see that they do.
Morality is not a product of divine command but a result of human social evolution, rationality, and cooperation. If morality were solely dictated by God, then we would expect a single, unchanging moral law across all religious traditions and cultures. Instead, moral values shift over time—even within the same religions. Slavery, for instance, was once defended using religious texts, yet today, the same religious communities universally condemn it. If morality were truly fixed and divine, such changes would never occur. The fact that they do suggests morality is not dictated by a supernatural source but instead influenced by human progress and cultural understanding.
You argue that without a higher value, people could do whatever they want. But this is a misrepresentation of secular ethics. Even in the absence of divine law, actions have consequences. Societies function because moral structures arise from the need for cooperation and stability. Murder, theft, and dishonesty are discouraged not because a god prohibits them but because they disrupt social order and harm others. We see this not only in human civilizations but also in highly social animals like primates, which demonstrate behaviors such as reciprocity, fairness, and punishment for rule-breaking—all without religion. If morality required God, then animals would have no concept of cooperation or fairness, yet they do.
You suggest that morality requires transcendence, but what exactly do you mean by “transcendent value”? If you mean that moral truth must exist independently of human perception, then you must demonstrate such a truth that is universal, unchanging, and unaffected by cultural or historical context. If your claim is that God is that source, then you must also explain why moral teachings attributed to God have changed over time. If religious morality were truly objective, we would not see contradictions between different religious traditions on fundamental moral issues like war, justice, and human rights.
You argue that atheists take for granted the ethics inherited from religious traditions, but this assumes that religion created morality rather than adopted it. Moral principles predate organized religion. Ancient human societies developed rules for cooperation long before written religious texts existed. The Code of Hammurabi, for instance, established moral and legal codes before Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. If morality were exclusively tied to God, then civilizations without knowledge of a specific deity would have no moral compass, yet history shows that moral systems arise naturally in all societies.
Your analogy of a “ship of fools” assumes that those who reject divine morality are lost in chaos. But if religious morality were truly the guiding force of humanity, then the most religious societies should be the most moral. Yet history is filled with religiously devout cultures committing atrocities in the name of faith. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and countless acts of violence were carried out by those who believed they had divine moral authority. If religious morality were inherently objective and superior, it would have prevented such horrors, not justified them.
If morality were truly objective in the way you claim, then you should be able to present a single moral law that has remained unchanged across all cultures and religions, independent of human interpretation. If you cannot do this, then morality, whether religious or secular, is shaped by human reasoning and social necessity. The only difference is that religious morality claims divine authority, while secular morality acknowledges its human origins. The claim that morality requires God is not only unproven—it is unnecessary. Ethics exist because human beings must coexist, not because a deity mandates it.
NHC
pood
Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 7,067
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
The idea that God is the source of morality runs afoul of the Euthyphro Dilemma. Does God like what is good because it is good, or is it good because God likes it? In the latter case, morality is arbitrary — Divine Command theory. We see this is in the bible: “an eye for an eye” is directly contradicted by “turn the other cheek.” God changes his mind, apparently, even though he is supposed to be flawless and unchanging.
But if the first version is correct, God likes the good because it is good, then there must be a higher objective morality even beyond God that God does not supply, but merely admires. In that case God is not needed for objective morality, and we are back to square one: Whece does such a thing arise?
I think morality is neither objective nor subjective, but intersubjective, a set of traits and behaviors like reciprocal altruism honed by evolution in social species and widely adopted by them because they proved to enhance survival. But these traits and behaviors can be substantially modified by culture to form different ethical systems, which is what we should expect and what we in fact see.
But if the first version is correct, God likes the good because it is good, then there must be a higher objective morality even beyond God that God does not supply, but merely admires. In that case God is not needed for objective morality, and we are back to square one: Whece does such a thing arise?
I think morality is neither objective nor subjective, but intersubjective, a set of traits and behaviors like reciprocal altruism honed by evolution in social species and widely adopted by them because they proved to enhance survival. But these traits and behaviors can be substantially modified by culture to form different ethical systems, which is what we should expect and what we in fact see.
Michael S. Pearl
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2004
- Messages
- 298
Not necessarily so. First of all, Dawkins, Harris, et al., can have been (and, indeed, have been) affected by the culture into which they were born and lived. Of course, they would have cherry-picked, and that is proper. Secondly, theists can (and have) asserted that there is such a property as the sensus divinatis and its cousin, the fitra, both of which can be associated with God in Genesis breathing life into man. This alleged property makes so-called moral reasoning a wide-spread natural ability.
This, too, is not necessarily so. By "objective", the theist can simply mean that moral being is not invented by and does not originate with humans. The intended point is that moral being seems to transcend mere human being. That aside, what we are referring to as the moral sense requires development - even in the case of theism-based morality, and moral manifestation can simply reflect the extent of development as well as differing contexts. Then, there is also the matter of whether the proper context for assessing the moral sense is a social view or the individual.
Aside from whatever it is that DLH claims, it could well be an error - nah, it is in fact an error - to think that morality (including a theism-based morality) can be entailed by law(s) or that moral being is a determinate matter. Morality - particularly as made manifest by and in individuals, including a theism-based morality - can well be an indeterminate matter, a matter requiring ceaseless creativity and re-creation.
Michael S. Pearl
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2004
- Messages
- 298
As presented, "good" is undefined, uncharacterized. Consequently, the dichotomy might well present an insufficient consideration.
If, as Levinas says, "love without reward is valuable", it can just as well be said that moral being without reward is valuable. And, in that case, morality is always subjective regardless of whether it ever happens to be intersubjective as well.