Not Bacon

91 posts / 0 new
Last post
AJ777's picture
You’re asking for proof that

You’re asking for proof that truth exists?

arakish's picture
No. I am demanding that you

No. I am demanding that you prove that "objective truth" and "objective morality" exist.

I say you cannot do it and thus have been wrong and lying this whole time and you are too scared to admit it.


AJ777's picture
Arakish, again you’re saying

Arakish, again you’re saying that objective truth doesn’t exist, but I am wrong. This is self
defeating. Do you know what a self defeating argument or statement is. Here’s an example: “I don’t know how to write a sentence in English.”

arakish's picture
AJ777: “I don’t know how to

AJ777: “I don’t know how to write a sentence in English.”

Actually you have not even proven to be able to do that. For all I know you are in Ulan Batar speaking Mongolian and have a translator typing it for you. That would explain why you avoid the question with bunch of bullshit every time you make a post.

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS, OR GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE. And you want to know something. It is shits like you that give theists the bad name. You are nothing but a piece of septic tank flotsam. You continue to dodge and ignore our questions with your sorry bullshit hoping to get us angry so you can back to your butt-buddies and show how you pissed us off.

Prove there is such a thing as "objective morality" and "objective truth". I want nothing less than OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

And the rest...

Have you returned to stop using avoidance and muddying the waters? Have you returned to stop skipping over our questions or shifting our questions with a question of your own? Have you returned to stop squirimg away from questions for which you have no answer and ready to admit “I do not know” when you do not have answer? Have you returned to stop dancing around by spewing presupposed assumtive assertion with no evidence after presupposed assumtive assertion with no evidence after presupposed assumtive assertion with no evidence? Have you returned to act like a human being and to treat others like a human being?

If your only purpose here is to play your stupid “merry-go-around” games with doing nothing more than asking your questions, but not answering anybody else's questions, then the best I could give you is to volutarily, Leave now. Never come back.


  • Is it objectively moral to force children to believe in the Bible utilizing mental rape, emotional molestation, and psychological terrorism? Is it objectively moral to force a belief in an entity that cannot be proven by utilizing mental rape, emotional molestation, and psychological terrorism?
  • Even if your God exists outside of normal space and time, anything it does to this realm will leave evidence. Where is that evidence?
  • There are approximately 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (20 trillion billions (US)) stars in this universe. We are now discovering that stars with planets are the norm, instead of the exception. We have even discovered several Terran-type planets within what is called the “Goldilocks Zone.” Do you honestly expect me to believe that your God created such a huge universe with all those galaxies and stars and planets just for a single species of backward, primitive, barbaric primates on only one insignificant planet orbiting an insignificant star located in an insignificant galaxy located in an insignificant universe? If you believe such a delusion, then you are truly suffering from the major mental disorders as described here.
    • Even if I were to say that only one-hundredth of one-hundredth of one-hundredth of one-hundredth of one-hundredth of one-hundredth of one-hundredth of one-hundredth of one-hundredth of one-hundredth of one percent (×0.000 000 000 000 000 000 01) of those total stars has an “earth-like” planet with intelligent life and an advanced civilization comparable to ours, that would mean that there would still be 200 such planets in this vast universe. Of course, if all 200 were evenly distributed throughout the universe, the distances would be so vast between us, none shall ever know the existence of the others. Ever. Think Critically about it.
  • From whence comes evil and sin?
  • Who sends who to Hell?


And do not forgot to address the questions directly posed and implied in this short essay...

There is no philosophical ideology more divisive than religion. Religion does nothing but pervert, demoralize, subvert, and bribe all persons with the belief that it alone possesses the one and only truth. And, the worst part of ANY religion is that it is an ideology that is implicitly and explicitly protected from any and all criticism from both within and without. Why should any ideology, especially religion, be so privileged? Can you not see how disastrous this way of thinking can be, and is?

I know religion is, and has always been, tremendously harmful to Humanity. I know that religions, and their way of thinking, and their theological disagreements, have created the greatest violence, destruction, injury, death, bigotry, harm, immorality, intolerance, wickedness, and abuse to the human species than any other cause. The main problem is not religious fundamentalism, but the fundamentals of religion. Religion’s loose version of “morality,” has NO place in a civilized society.

Sure. You can argue that it is the extremists, not the doctrine. All this says to me is that you have never truly read the various doctrines. It is both. Extremists might be using it as an excuse, but it is an excuse that the religious texts readily provide. I firmly believe, and shall take this belief to my grave, that the human species would have been much better off had there NEVER been ANY form of religion. EVER!

I see NO evidence of ANY gods, but plenty of evidence of religion’s harm.

And I am a lot more concerned with the welfare of my fellow human beings than I am about “offending” or “hurting the feelings” of a bunch of barbarians who choose to believe in the faerie tales of an obsolete, irrelevant, savage, offensive, and unsubstantiated, immoral Bronze and Iron Age religious text about a make-believe imaginative Sky Faerie and Magic Lich Virgin.

Offended? So the fuck what!

Ultimately, it is Religion that is Humankind’s worst enemy.


CyberLN's picture
AJ777, please be advised that

AJ777, please be advised that you are not obligated to comply with the above poster’s directive for you to leave the forum.

arakish's picture
Sorry CyberLN. I did not

Sorry CyberLN. I did not mean for it to seem an obligation. Just a directive of a possible answer he can deliver since he refuses to give any answers to our questions. I am standing my ground and directing AJ777 to answer my questions or he can leave. No obligation, but I ain't letting him alone. He either answers my questions, or...


CyberLN's picture
Ok, we will have this

Ok, we will have this conversation here if you like.

No, he is under no obligation to answer any particular question. He is welcome to stay as long as he breaks no forum rules. I understand you really want an answer to the questions you have posed but him not providing one to you does not mean he needs to leave.

Additionally, you are welcome to continue asking him questions as frequently as you like. However, I would ask you to take care not to break forum rules either. Remember that caustic name calling and personal attacks can be considered a violation of Forum rule #2.

AJ777's picture
CyberLN, thanks I wasn’t

CyberLN, thanks I wasn’t planning on leaving.

Cognostic's picture
That eliminates god, murder,

That eliminates god, murder, rape, child molestation, and ignorant people saying things about which they can not justify. Cite one thing that is true for all people in all places that is also true for your God. Things ARE NOT simply moral because your idiot god dictates them.

AJ777's picture
It will always be immoral to

It will always be immoral to torture children for fun. If this statement is true then morality is objective. If it’s not true then one has to hold the opposite belief.

Nyarlathotep's picture
If morality was objective,

If morality was objective, you wouldn't need to argue that it is. It would be obvious, and clearly it is not obvious.

AJ777's picture
It’s obvious to most people.

It’s obvious to most people. Some people think the earth is flat too.

Cognostic's picture
Obviously the statement is

Obviously the statement is not true.

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. Hosea 13:16

Psalm 137: HAPPY are those who bash the enemy's infants against the rocks.

But of course when god dictates the butchery of the innocent, it is a happy time.

toto974's picture
And this is really written, i

And this is really written, i checked in the Bible of my mother, in case we are called liars. "For the contexte", Israelites are thinking of vengeance upon Babylon,yes i read all the numbered Psalm.

Still, about every one with a sane mind not indroctrined from birth will agree that harming or killing children is wrong, especially on behalf of their parents behaviors.

xenoview's picture
Morality is subjective, comes

Morality is subjective, comes from the mind, and the laws of your society.

You have failed to prove that morals are objective. If
If morals come from your god, then they are subjective morals.

Objective morals would exist without a god, and everyone would know them.

I apply xenoview's razor to your claims of objective morality.

turning_left's picture
Comparing the UN's scientific

Comparing the UN's scientific predictions to believing a cryptic prophecy in a 2,000 year old book of a man raised from the dead coming to earth to bring famine and death to all of mankind except for those he magically takes to heaven or resurrects from the dead? Same, same.

Hitch's picture

Here is just one simple answer to "Objective Morality" case.
If "objective morality" exists, and your god has revealed "objective morals" then it would be impossible to interpret these "objective morals" differently. That would mean you will have no difference of opinions on these "objective morals".

In reality, we all hold different morals, each person differs from the other. Catholics interpret the same bible differently than the Protestants. Sunni Muslims interpret the same Quran differently than Shia muslims. One instance, killing and murder is prohibited, the other instance your "god" commands you to kill innocents for thought crimes. You can find a huge amount of evidence for this case. Catholics don't like protestants, sunnis don't like shias, nobody likes jews etc.

Now, it is pretty obvious that you are here to troll (at-least I think so, i maybe wrong) but I thought maybe we could save you from god.

AJ777's picture
Why would it be impossible?

Why would it be impossible? This does not follow. That’s like saying if a state law exists prohibiting election tampering, that makes it impossible for anyone to have an opinion on what election tampering is. Some of you guys keep referring to trolling. How can that be bad or good if morality is mere opinion.

Hitch's picture
@ AJ777:

@ AJ777:
>>>"Why would it be impossible? This does not follow"<<<

It follows perfectly.

>>>" That’s like saying if a state law exists prohibiting election tampering, that makes it impossible for anyone to have an opinion on what election tampering is"<<<

If something is subject to opinions, it is not objective. State Laws are subjective, they can be amended.

>>>"Some of you guys keep referring to trolling. How can that be bad or good if morality is mere opinion."<<<

That is the stupidest thing theists claim. It is like saying, why is murder/rape/theft wrong if there is no god?. Can we not figure out what is right and what is wrong ourselves?

Grinseed's picture
"Thou shalt not suffer a

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18

Is that some of the objective morality of your god?

I accept that the witch burnings of the 1500s was a tragic outcome of the deceitful Krammer's Malleus Maleficarum, in which he declared his delusional fears of a infestation of covens in the Rhine River Valley, but the very fact such a potentially dangerous incitement to burn old, otherwise harmless, widow herbalist midwives, who had cats for pets, should never had been put into a book authored by a supposedly omnipotent god who professes love for everyone.

It was a stupidly cruel and immoral thing to do even for Old Testament times.

And you say your religion is not the handiwork of men?

xenoview's picture
AJ, do you follow the ten

AJ, do you follow the ten commandments? They are from the OT, not the NT.

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

Furthering xenoview's question. Do you follow the correct Ten Commandments?


DoesAtheismEvenMakeSense's picture
Guy's, guy's, (and girls)

Guy's, guy's, (and girls) Take a breath and a small step back.

Even if I was an atheist, I would still argue objective morality exists. You are arguing against it using quotes from the Bible because your bias assumes when I take this stance that I am also claiming these objective morals come from God. This wasn't ever said by any theist (that I saw). All that was said was that morality is objective, not subjective. And pointing out the difference in societal law and cultural norms does not prove NOR negate that morality is objective. It simply shows that not every society is living morally.


There is a black pen in front of me. There is a set of true, objective properties attributed to this pen. (ie. black, 6 inches long, 1kg in weight, silver point). I tell you it looks white to me. That is a subjective claim, and it is actually not true. You tell me it looks black to you. That is also a subjective claim, yet it happens to be objectively true. You can subjectively say whatever the hell you want about the pen, it will remain objectively black, 6 inches long, 1kg in weight, with a silver point.The point in this silly analogy is that everything that exists within this universe has objective qualities whether you know or understand them or not. Admittedly though, this is as bad an example as the question about folding a paper objectively in half, because we are talking about physical objects.


This still holds true for non-physical things. Take love for example. Love is a non-physical concept, and the experience seemingly differs from person to person. Although the definition is broad we can still attribute an objective attribute required in order to fall under the definition.

love (verb) "feeling a deep romantic or sexual attachment to (someone)."

You can say you love something all you want, but if it isn't a "deep romantic or sexual attachment" then it is not love. So if this is true for non-physical concept of love, why wouldn't the same be true for morality?

*side note* The frustrating thing about language is while it allows us to communicate using agreed upon definitions, it simultaneously restricts expression, forcing us into the confines of current vocabulary. Definitions change over time as we try to improve upon precision of a definition.

CyberLN's picture
Please define and then

DAE, Please define and then demonstrate the existence of objective morality.

toto974's picture
Love is a physiological

Love is a physiological phenomena thus it is physical.

Foe4500's picture
FYI the rapture is happening

FYI the rapture is happening very soon and don’t worry about repenting because God already has his list of people he wants to save from the impending last 7 years on Earth.

AJ777's picture
“But of that day and hour no

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of [a]heaven, but My Father only.”

toto974's picture


Are you assumig the book of Revelation is to be taken in a literal sense?

AJ777's picture
That’s is Matthew.

That’s is Matthew.

Foe4500's picture
b.s to that aj777 we got

b.s to that aj777 we got mediums soothsayers seers you name it trust me people know you just don’t. and YES the book of revelation is a very serious book to reckoned with..


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.