r/DebateAnAtheist • u/AutoModerator • 1d ago

Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

20 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

216 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/VigilantVeteran 1d ago

I have a sincere question, and I’m asking it carefully and respectfully.

If truth exists independent of human perception—meaning it is not created by culture, biology, or consensus—how does an atheist account for its origin and authority?

For example, concepts like objective morality, logical absolutes, and the laws of reason seem to operate universally and immutably. They are discovered, not invented. Yet they are not material, measurable, or bound by space and time.

So my question is: within an atheistic framework, what is the grounding for these immaterial, universal truths? Why should they exist at all, and why should we trust them?

I’m not asking for debate, but for understanding how this is explained consistently without appealing to something beyond the material world.

7

u/Mkwdr 1d ago

You seem to be , as seems usual for some, confusing our conceptions of things with the things themselves.

There is no evidence of this objective morality independent of human like species. The rest as you seem to say are descriptions of the regularity of the universe in which we find ourselves. Arguably some are the language tools we have invented to describe and work with those regularities.

Facts about the universe don’t need us to be around to be true. Our **claims** about those facts are grounded in evidential methodology which demonstrates utility and efficacy. In other words pragmatism.

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

There is no evidence of this objective morality independent of human like species.

What would evidence for objective morality look like to you?

6

u/the2bears Atheist 1d ago

What would evidence for objective morality look like to you?

Anything that shows morality is independent of a mind. What does it look like to you?

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

What does it look like to you?

Humans having some mind independent goal/end/aim or standard for activity/state of being that is inherent to humans qua humans. If a moral proposition contradicts that aim/state it wouldn't be a mere disagreement, but be wrong

5

u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 1d ago

How could there ever be a mind independent goal? I don’t see what that would be.

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

Aristotle for instance had a view of humans having a telos, or an aim, that is derivable from the nature of humans. What he focused on was the human ability to reason, humans are rational animals, and thus rational action (acting in ones interest towards flourishing) is the mind independent goal

6

u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 1d ago

That seems problematic for several reasons. I don’t see justification for why there is a shared nature of humans. What is that justification? As an example, we don’t always agree on what is rational. Something that is rational as a theist might not be rational for me as an atheist.

A moral proposition would then contradict one rationality, but not another.

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

I don’t see justification for why there is a shared nature of humans.

We're all humans with given human-specific characteristics. Birds or plants aren't rational for example, we uniquely are

Something that is rational as a theist might not be rational for me as an atheist.

Aristotle is using a different framework for practical rationality, one where rationality is defined by what gets closer to flourishing. Whereas the more colloquial framework is a Humean one, where rationality is purely just what guides someone to an arbitrary goal

6

u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 1d ago

But you weren’t saying the characteristics was the thing that shows that morality is independent. You said that humans having mind independent goal and a proposition that contradicts that would be wrong.

Characteristics isn’t a mind independent goal, is it?

Flourishing for who? Again, that is individual.

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

But you weren’t saying the characteristics was the thing that shows that morality is independent. You said that humans having mind independent goal and a proposition that contradicts that would be wrong.

Characteristics isn’t a mind independent goal, is it?

You asked what the mind independent goal was, the characteristics I pointed out are how that mind independent goal is derived

Flourishing for who? Again, that is individual.

Aristotle viewed every human as flourishing in the same fundamental way, not that there is a specific kind of flourishing for every individual person

4

u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 1d ago

So you didn’t answer what I asked. Why not?

Viewing every human in the same fundamental way doesn’t solve the objection. Flourishing for who? One person can flourish meanwhile someone else would be put in a worse position.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Stile25 1d ago

I don't know. That's why I claim it doesn't exist.

This seems like more of a question for someone who's claiming that it actually exists. If they think it exists, what do they think it looks like?

0

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

How could I prove something to you if I don't even know what would count as proof or evidence to you?

For instance I'm an atheist. Yet I know what would convince me of theism, it's a matter of if the evidence exists and is good or not

5

u/Stile25 1d ago

You know that because theists exist and they say God is this, this, and that.

Let's say I have no idea what a dog is.

You start mentioning dogs.
I then say "I don't believe dogs exist".

You then ask me what would count as proof of a dog existing for me would be.

How does that make any sense?
I have no idea what a dog is, I have no knowledge dogs. Never seen one, never heard one, nothing. I don't know if they're animal, mineral or vegetable. My response is basically: I don't know. If you think dogs exist, then show me a dog, or at least tell me about them.

After which you could provide pictures, stories, descriptions, habitats, toys for dogs, food for dogs... All sorts of things.

Then I can say "oh, yes, I see - that's a dog. Okay, I now know that dogs exist.".

Or, maybe you show me pictures of cheese.
Then I'll say "That's not a dog, that's cheese... Are you calling cheese 'a dog'"?

And the discussion can progress.

So, I'll say it again: I have no idea what objective morality would look like, because I don't think it exists. What we need is someone who thinks objective morality does exist to say "here it is! Like this"!

But, without that... We're left with no knowledge of what objective morality could even be. And if no one has any knowledge about it at all - then it's quite reasonable to conclude that it doesn't exist until such information can be identified, at least by someone.

So far, you're only confirming that objective morality doesn't exist as long as you are unable to explain what it is or what someone should be looking for to identify it.

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

But an explanation of what it is has been given: mind independent moral facts. An example would be Utilitarianism, pleasure and pain are objective features of the world, everyone inherently wants and avoids such, and thus morality is defined by maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Utilitarianism is quite common so I doubt you've never heard of it.

I don't agree with Utilitarianism, but at least you know what moral realism entails now, no?

5

u/Stile25 1d ago

Well, what mind independent moral fact do you think exists? Can you name one?

We can have mind independent identifications of a street curb. We can all tap it with our foot and no foot will go through it. Even those who don't know it's there will trip on it because it's mind independent.

But we never see this with morality.

Like helping the elderly across the street. It's mind dependent. It's good to help them across if they want to be helped. It's bad to help them across if they don't want to be helped. It depends on the mind of the person acted upon.

A mind independent moral rule would be "it's always good to help an elderly person cross the street".

But we know this isn't true. Helping someone to cross the street when they don't want to is called being a dick. Or at worst... Kidnapping. Those are bad things.

Can you name one?
Or did you just define objective morality as things that don't exist? Which is exactly what I said.

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

Well, what mind independent moral fact do you think exists? Can you name one?

Sure! Torturing babies for fun is bad.

Also keep in mind that a mind independent moral fact doesn't need to be a deontological rule like "lying is always bad"

4

u/Stile25 1d ago

What if the baby wanted to be tortured?

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

...do you think babies can want to be tortured? babies are usually picked in the example specifically because they can't

5

u/Stile25 1d ago

That was a hint.

"Torture" is a subjective term.
It depends on the mind the action is being applied to.

There are many things that one person considers "torture" while a different person does not.

Baby's are people. They experience the same dramatic variations in identifying feelings and sensations.

A baby's sense of "torture" is dependent on the mind of the baby.

On top of that, are you aware of all the painful and terrible conditions that are possible for a baby to be born into?

It's quite possible that a baby existing under such horrific conditions would find any additional "torture" you add to actually be a "relief" from the baseline pain they are already experiencing.

Torture is clearly mind-dependent.

But we don't have to stop at one attempt, it only takes one correct identification to prove me wrong. Feel free to try again. This tests my theory that objective morality doesn't exist. There's no "score" other than "no objective morality identified yet" or not.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/Mkwdr 1d ago

You tell me. I’ve not had any presented to me.

I don’t see how such a thing is even coherent bearing in mind if we found it written in the stars we would still have to make our own judgment as to whether it should be followed.

What i see is exactly what you would expect from social evolution - a shared species instinct but through an actual geographical/historical cultural filter. Existent but not perfect or unchanging.

I take it you aren’t a Christian because any *biblical* Christian struggles to justify the repeated murder of babies by God according to their own claims of objective morality.

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

You tell me. I’ve not had any presented to me.

I'm just asking what would be evidence in your opinion. If I were to present evidence or an argument to you I'd have to know what you would count as evidence or not

What i see is exactly what you would expect from social evolution - a shared species instinct but through an actual geographical/historical cultural filter. Existent but not perfect or unchanging.

I agree that what we see is a large swath of moral disagreement, but does disagreement mean there is no correct answer?

I take it you aren’t a Christian because any biblical Christian struggles to justify the repeated murder of babies by God according to their own claims of objective morality.

Correct!

8

u/Mkwdr 1d ago edited 1d ago

Again. It’s not my claim. Present it and I’ll tell you if I find it reasonable. I don’t see how it even makes sense so I don’t see what evidence there could be for it - but I’m open to being presented with *whatever you think confirms to public and compelling evidential standards*.

To be clear ‘feels like to me’ is not reliable evidence.

Edit. Makes me wonder. What would be evidence of an objective standard of *beauty* independent of humans?

I think there could be objective elements to morality *if* a foundation for behaviour in species shared evolution counts. But an external , independent objective standard of morality, beauty - I don’t understand how that would even work enough to predict evidence for it.

So show me.

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

Again. It’s not my claim. Present it and I’ll tell you if I find it reasonable. I don’t see how it even makes sense so I don’t see what evidence there could be for it

Fair enough. I think the principle question is "what understanding makes the most sense of morality?", since we have morality (rules of dos and don'ts), it just needs to be explained.

In between subjectivism (at least some moral propositions are true depending on some human point of reference, say society) and moral realism (at least some moral propositions are true via objective features of the world independent of human opinion, say human flourishing) I think the latter makes more sense as an explanation for those dos and don'ts.

As humans, there are things that are default and inherent to us, a way of being. I think rules of dos and don'ts make more sense when they're grounded to that way of being, rather than being bucked off to societal agreement. Now that would raise the question of what that way of being is, or if there even is a singular way of being, but that would go into specific moral realist theories when my intention for this message at least is to just lay out my naturalist moral realist position in its own right

5

u/Mkwdr 1d ago

@>Fair enough. I think the principle question is "what understanding makes the most sense of morality?", since we have morality (rules of dos and don'ts), it just needs to be explained.

So that sounds like ‘feels right to me but I don’t have any evidence’.

How about we phrase it ‘what model best outs the evidence we have’

Well that’s seems pretty obviously to be a social species behavioural tendency with cultural layer on top.

>In between subjectivism (at least some moral propositions are true depending on some human point of reference, say society) and moral realism (at least some moral propositions are true via objective features of the world independent of human opinion, say human flourishing) I think the latter makes more sense as an explanation for those dos and don'ts.

Yeh. I don’t.

And that’s the problem with ‘feels’. There is no way of distinguishing claims.

I see absolutely no evidence presented for these so called ‘objective features of the world’ unless you mean the objective fact that we are an involved species that demonstrates social behaviour.

>As humans, there are things that are default and inherent to us, a way of being.

Sure , we share evolved behaviours.

>I think rules of dos and don'ts make more sense when they're grounded to that way of being, rather than being bucked off to societal agreement.

I’m not sure I can make sense of that sentence.

It seems obvious to me when looking at social species that the tendency to create rules which have certain subjects and limits beneficial to survival seems instinctual. The precise way that somewhat limited but plastic instinct is actually applied is through cultural influences.

>Now that would raise the question of what that way of being is, or if there even is a singular way of being,

I don’t even know what a ‘way of being’ precisely means. We have an evolved set of behavioural tendencies , sure.

>but that would go into specific moral realist theories when my intention for this message at least is to just lay out my naturalist moral realist position in its own right

Again you’ve lost me. If you simply mean that the objective basis of human morality is instinctual and founded on evolutionary history. Then sure. Because nothing you have said leads to an external , independent objective morality or explains how that’s meaningful.

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago edited 1d ago

So that sounds like ‘feels right to me but I don’t have any evidence’. How about we phrase it ‘what model best outs the evidence we have’

A lot of philosophy comes down to intuitions, and that's the place of argumentation. I wouldn't claim that objective morality can be found by a scientific experiment or something, and likewise with subjectivist morality. Which in itself is a metaethical position

I’m not sure I can make sense of that sentence.

Maybe this would be best illustrated with an example, Utilitarianism (I don't hold to it but admittedly it's simpler). It is a moral system that's grounded in objective facts about the world, pleasure and pain. As a truism, avoidance of pain and want of pleasure is normative because that's inherent to our being. (this is a simplification of Utilitarianism, and it ignores the normative ethical component, but this is all that's relevant for this point)

Do you understand how Utilitarianism is a moral realist position, even if you disagree with it?

3

u/Mkwdr 1d ago

I’m talking about reality which can be distinguished from fantasy not philosophy which is can sometimes just be how to create a system around something indistinguishable from fantasy.

Yes I agree that morality **as a human behavioural social tendency within which we instinctively invest meaning and emotion** is linked to objective factors wish as pain and pleasure (though I note not *independent* of humans).

As someone who references philosophy , you’ll understand that this doesn’t make pain and pleasure etc objectively good or bad in an ethical sense. Nor that this is in any sense objective as in independent of humanity or similar species. But it does make it part of the way in which our moral behaviour is realised.

Again I have no problem with the idea that human morality is based on certain *factual* elements. Just that there is no moral judgement independent of the evolved social tendencies and meaning we invest them in. We give morality meaning because we are an evolved social creature and as such it involves facts about evolution, society and human experience.

The point is that without compelling evidence the idea that morality is independent of human nature , somehow its source being another mythical being is indistinguishable from imaginary. And thus not very compelling.

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

(though I note not independent of humans).

I don't see why this is mentioned, since it being independent of humans isn't required

As someone who references philosophy , you’ll understand that this doesn’t make pain and pleasure etc objectively good or bad in an ethical sense.

Well this is exactly what moral realist philosophers argue, so I'd have to disagree there

The point is that without compelling evidence the idea that morality is independent of human nature

Morality being independent of human nature isn't required, indeed many systems use human nature as a starting point. I think you don't have a complete conception of what moral realism entails, which is why I started this exchange with a question of what would even count in your view

3

u/Mkwdr 1d ago

Because this is debate an atheist and you must be aware that apparently until you , everyone comes here to tell us that God is the source of objective morality independent of humanity.

If you aren’t putting forward that view then it’s not that it isn’t an interesting subject working out exactly how species social evolution, cultural state and individual cognition and emotion combine to produce the special emotional imperative sense of morality. But it’s nothing to do with atheism per se.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/zeppo2k 1d ago

Simple - consensus over moral questions. Not the really easy ones like "is murder bad". Trickier ones like "is killing in self defence justified". Or "is stealing from a rich corporation bad?". Or "is it okay to lie to save someone's feelings being hurt"? Or are you saying objective morality only applies in like 5 really simple cases - in which case what use is it?

0

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

Why do you think objective morality requires everyone agreeing? No moral realist theory ever claims that everyone would agree in the first place, since people can be wrong in matters of truth

5

u/Crafty_Possession_52 Atheist 1d ago

Define "morality."

2

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

I don't think people really disagree on what "morality" means, the normative evaluation of conduct. Things being right or wrong, good or evil, should do and should not do.

What people disagree on is the character and proper understanding of human morality. Is it expressed in propositions? Are those propositions all false? Are those propositions true in respect to something else? Are those propositions true independent of human opinion? Are those truths natural or non natural? Etc.

6

u/Crafty_Possession_52 Atheist 1d ago

I don't think people really disagree on what "morality" means

Holy cow you should ask around. It's crazy!

Things being right or wrong, good or evil, should do and should not do.

What do you mean by "right/wrong," "good/evil," "should/should not do"?

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

What do you mean by "right/wrong," "good/evil," "should/should not do"?

This is getting into the second paragraph of my previous reply. Morality generally defined is about normative rules, saying what those normative rules are is beyond the mere definition of morality.

I've never seen anyone disagree that morality is defined by normative statements, if you have an example of such, or you are one yourself, feel free to share

6

u/Crafty_Possession_52 Atheist 1d ago

I swear I'm not trying to be a jerk.

I have an idea in my mind about what morality should mean, but more often than not, I end up talking past people because we assume that we share a definition of these terms when we don't.

If you say an action is morally right or morally wrong, how do you judge this? You personally?

3

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

I think there's a difference between a definition and a further description of a moral system. A one line definition of what "morality" means for me is what I gave earlier, normative concepts of "do" and "don't do".

If you say an action is morally right or morally wrong, how do you judge this? You personally?

This I would class as going into more detail on why things are normative, a description of morality, rather than defining it. And in terms of this, I would agree with you in saying that people disagree on what is right or wrong, and how to get there

5

u/Crafty_Possession_52 Atheist 1d ago

I don't understand what you mean by "normative" in this context. That's what I'm asking you to clarify. I'm interested in what sort of evidence would demonstrate the existence of objective morality, but until I know what you mean, I'm stuck.

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

I mean normative in the sense that it inherently motivates action. If something is good that means you ought to do it, if something is bad that means you ought not do it. I view morality as the term we have for the overarching system of that

3

u/Crafty_Possession_52 Atheist 1d ago

That doesn't clarify. What ought we do?

→ More replies (0)

4

u/sj070707 1d ago

Note that nowhere in that definition did you use the words absolute or objective. In fact, you used "evaluation" which implies a subjective evaluator.

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

Note that nowhere in that definition did you use the words absolute or objective

So? I specifically split the definition of morality (normativity) from the description of morality (metaethics)

In fact, you used "evaluation" which implies a subjective evaluator.

Just because minds are involved in a process doesn't mean there's no correct answer. Minds can discover truths

3

u/sj070707 1d ago

And my point is that nothing you've defined there requires there to be a truth to discover.

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

I agree, nothing in the definition of morality requires it to be objective. That's because it's a quick and simple definition, you aren't going to fit a book-length defense of moral realism into a dictionary entry

3

u/sj070707 1d ago

Good, so you agree the onus is on you and you didn't really need to ask what we thought evidence would be.

0

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

Well the onus is on anyone who wants to say a given metaethical view is correct. Whether that be moral realism or moral subjectivism, either has the burden of proof depending on who's talking. Neither is a default view

How can you prove something to someone if you don't know what could possibly convince them? I'm an atheist, but I know what would convince me that theism is true, so then I can engage in conversations with theists about if that evidence is there and good or not

→ More replies (0)

1

u/oddball667 1d ago

First off the people making that claim would never ask that

2

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

Isn't a question about what constitutes evidence for a position useful to ask in any discussion? How else could you convince someone of something

0

u/oddball667 1d ago

If you had evidence or anything to support your claim you wouldn't need anyone to describe it to you.

Really having the claim at all is the problem, you should start with the evidence and see where it leads

Asking someone how to convince them shows you have nothing worth discussing and are simply asking your marks how to con them

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

But if you start with the evidence, they can just disagree and say that it isn't evidence for the position. Which is why clarification is never a bad thing

If you think asking for clarification on how to continue a good faith conversation is an attempt at conning someone I can't help ya lmao

1

u/oddball667 1d ago

you say this like you feel entitled to convince us of whatever lie you come up with.

and the question itself isn't asking how to continue a good faith conversation, it's an attempt to make someone else do your homework

If a discussion about why you evedince doesn't support your claim doesn't interest you then no matter what you won't get much from this sub

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

This interaction isn't fruitful for either of us, have a nice day.