Atheism Has No Morality

Follow @TenBillionIQ for more posts and original content.

The overwhelming majority of atheist “criticism” against Islam and religion in general are moral claims. Yet to an intelligent person this does not make sense. How do people without any moral foundation have the audacity to make moral arguments in the first place?

In short there is “objective morality” and then there is “subjective morality.” You see, atheists do not have any objective morality in the first place. What atheism can only do is create subjective morality.

Subjective = opinion, whereas objective = fact (there is no 3rd one).
e.g: “Red is the best color” is subjective, but “2+2=4” is objective.

In other words, atheists are criticizing Islam based on their own subjective personal opinions. They might as well say, “I hate Islam because Muslims like the color green, but my favorite color is blue,” and it be no different than the garbage they say currently.

What Is Morality

Now morality, just like heaven, is a religious concept. For us, the definition of good (right; justice) is simply obedience to Allah. And the definition of bad (wrong; injustice; evil) is disobedience to Allah. This never changes, they are objective, and based on the wisdom of Allah. (And God exists, as can be proven via many methods such as ontological proofs of God, proofs of miracles via occasionalism, and prophethood via said miracles and sahih hadith to prove such miracles actually happened. But this is another topic altogether)

Very simple rules and definitions. We think actions like murder, stealing, rape etc., are wrong simply because Allah forbid these things. By committing these actions we are disobeying Allah and that is why these actions are evil. Our morality anchors on Allah.

When atheists try to detach morality from God they have to come up with something to anchor it to. Or else there is no reason to believe things like murder, rape, homosexuality, bestiality, etc., are evil. So they attempt to come up with similar rules, albeit they all are flawed and contradictory with what is actually practiced. We well explain further later in this article.

What Academic Atheists Say

Imagine an atheist trying to prove angels exist, but God doesn’t. It does not make logical sense as one is contingent on the other.  More intelligent atheists like Friedrich Nietzsche realized this, who stated “There are no moral facts.” (Nietzsche 182-183) In other words, from an atheist perspective, there is no such thing as good or evil. When lions kill zebras or dolphins rape each other in the wild, is any of that good or bad? It’s neither; it’s just animalistic nature. Atheism merely extends this to human society (after all, we are animals as well).

In fact, even the learned atheist scholars admit that creating objective morality is impossible for actual humans. Shafer-Landau states:

“Moral truth is constructed from the views taken from a perfectly informed and dispassionate standpoint, from the standpoint of pure practical reason”. He then goes on to say “The preferred standpoint may be literally unattainable by actual human beings, or attainable only after securing an extreme kind of cognitive and affective detachment from the attitudes one at present possesses.” (39-40)

In other words the only way a human can achieve a state where he can create objective moral truths, is if he attained a god-like status (ironic lol). And in this state you must have no biases or personally cherished beliefs of any kind, and be totally neutral.

He ends with:

“We can understand many of the criticisms that are levelled against such theories as challenges to their claim to have satisfactorily achieved a neutral standpoint.” (40)

So basically if you are not truly neutral (i.e., if you hold anti-Islam beliefs or worship LGBT) then you can never create any objective morality.

So we can conclude that atheism has no objective morality.

Refuting Laymen New Atheists

Of course many laymen atheists will deny this and attempt to claim they have morality. The simple question to refute atheism’s claim of having a moral foundation is just to ask:

How does atheism logically determine what is good and what is bad?

Now you will see many atheists get very confused, perhaps even angry, and refuse to provide you an answer. Simply because most of these reddit-new-atheist types cannot answer it.

But if they were even somewhat intelligent, then the possible answers they could give would be something like:

1a – Maximize Happiness, Pleasure, and/or Wellbeing (i.e., Hedonism)
1b – The Harm Principle (remove/minimize harm)
3 – Consent
4 – Evolution (i.e., what animals do, benefits survival)

(Some might even suggest “empathy” which is just another term for morality, and in this case, that would be circular reasoning.)

#1 The Harm Principle

#1 is John Stewart Mill’s “harm principle,” an improvement to Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism. It can be summarized as: “Do what ever you want as long as you don’t harm anyone.”

This logic contradicts atheism, as mountains of scientific studies have shown atheism is harmful to human health and society. This large meta-analysis shows how atheism harms people’s well being, mental health, and results in higher crime rates.

You can read more about the harms of atheism on this twitter thread of scientific papers

So no atheist can consistently use this logic without also abandoning atheism itself. They cannot claim an action is morally wrong because it harms people since atheism itself is something that harms people, and therefore, by this reasoning, atheism itself is morally wrong.

Hedonism & Liberal Feminist Sexual Ethics

A more outdated version of Mill’s harm principle is based on utilitarianism, i.e., maximizing net happiness in society. Hedonism (pleasure seeking) is the basis for many liberal and feminist ethics. One of the strongest criticism of it is that it would allow gangrape, on the basis that a group of rapists would gain more total happiness than the victim gained any unhappiness such that the net happiness in the world has increased.

This atheist logic of promoting hedonism also permits things like rape, bestiality, and child molestation. Atheist philosopher David Benatar explains those who promote “sexual liberation” open the doors to rape as a “human right.”

I will elaborate more on this topic in much more detail in a future article or thread

Atheist philosopher Dr. Lars Gule states that human sex with animals (bestiality) should be a human right in his debate with Mohammed Hijab, saying “as long as it’s not hurting the animal.” This is similar to the views of atheists like Peter Singer PhD.

Even Lawrence Krauss, an atheist who pretends to know philosophy, was forced to admit that brother-sister incest is permissible in atheism. This is from his debate with Hamza Tzortzis.

It should be noted that Lawrence Krauss is an alleged sex offender who was Jeffrey Epstein’s friend and is a high ranking leader of new-atheist activism.

Scientific studies on the topic of atheism and morality have found that even atheist participants judge things like incest, bestiality, and cannibalism as representative of atheism.

#2 Consent

The logical end conclusion of basing morality on consent is antinatalism, summarized as: “Life is the ultimate evil since nobody consents to being born” (Benatar, “Better” 50).  So here atheism will cause the extinction of the human race.

Of course even if we do not go to this extreme conclusion, atheism also contradicts informed consent. After all, no atheist, in attempting to pull religious people into atheism, informs people in advance that atheism causes health problems, depression, and promotes higher suicide rates. So becoming an atheist by way of persuasion and influence from other atheists would, therefore, lack informed consent.

#3 Evolution

This ironically also contradicts atheism. Secularism (i.e., the political philosophy of atheism) results in population decline and a civilization’s eventual extinction. Atheist societies do not and cannot survive.

Atheist societies are evolutionarily inferior.

And of course we should not even need to explain why the behavior of animals should not be the basis for morality. After all dolphins are known as rapists of the sea.


Now you see just how absurd secular moral arguments are. They attack Islam based on reasoning that permits rape. Atheism basically tells you to stop believing in God and start believing that rape and bestiality are human rights.

Atheists attack Islam because we do not support women dressing like prostitutes, yet this same reasoning of sexual ethics permits rape and child molestation.

The worshippers of science (more like “soyence”) talk about how “religion harms people” yet no scientific evidence backs any of this up, and ironically mountains of scientific data show atheism harms people.

They talk about “consent” yet misrepresent the harms of atheism in order to obtain an illegitimate consent. They worship evolution but do not realize atheism is evolutionarily inferior.

Don’t be fooled by these bad arguments atheists make; none of them hold any ground once we begin to scrutinize it.

Atheism clearly has no morals. Even their poor attempts to claim they have objective morals are easily refuted not just by religious people, but by their own atheist academics. If any atheist thinks otherwise they are free to reply with a reason I did not mention above.


  • [1] Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Nietzsche: The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols: And Other Writings. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
  • [2] Shafer-Landau, Russ. Moral realism: A defence. Oxford University Press on Demand, 2003.
  • [3] Mill, John Stuart. “Essay on liberty.” (1859).
  • [4] Benatar, David. “Two views of sexual ethics: Promiscuity pedophilia, and rape.” Public Affairs Quarterly (2002): 191-201.
  • [5] Benatar, David. Better never to have been: The harm of coming into existence. Oxford University Press, 2008.

One of my original memes, my next article will be about a case against LGBTQPi++

Follow @TenBillionIQ on Twitter

MuslimSkeptic Needs Your Support!
Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments



Checked and shreked


I’ve been following Dr. Khalid on Twitter for a while and it’s good to see him contributing to Muslim Skeptic. As expected he did not disappoint and gave the best arguments against atheism in their own game.

Thanks to this, I’ve finally grasp the power of the argument of objective vs subjective morality


Brilliant article. I have a question:

For the harms principle with the group of rapist argument, what if an atheist were to say that the group of rapist would be the minority as rape has been seen as an evil in almost everyone in the world? Therefore, saying that human beings can use their common disgusts or satisfaction in deciding morality regardless of culture and background?

Essentially using the utilitarianism principle?

Green Frog

Not sure what you mean. I assume your trying to say if the majority of humans believe rape is wrong, but a minority believe rape is right.

That is still subjective, and one can easily say, the majority of Muslims in the Islamic world see atheism and homosexuality as disgusting. It’s just making subjective morals democratically decided.

a muslimah

Brother Daniel…You are the best muslim intellectual n student of knowledge in the ummah today..You are a true successor of Imam Aby Hanifa..wallahee… You stand for truth and have no qualms about taking a backlash when ignoramuses’ do that. We need more like u..Wallahee if u did bayyah, I would ask my husband to do bayt with u. I love your telegram channel…U r a real truth seeker and truth sayer and truth spreader. May Allah always protect u from the shayateen (jinn n ins)…Please keep waking up ppl so that they can unplug from the matrix. I m sorry but our ulema are clueless n have totally lost the plot.


Successor to Abu Hanifa? Don’t say weird things

a muslimah

Brother Daniel..I hope u read this comment for I dont know how to reach u via email..Dont have an address.. Can you please look into David Livingstone an awesome researcher of history..A revert to Islam and his writings are mindblowing…You should take him on ur webinars..He is a wakeup call for the umah for sure..He has an amazing website n I m sending u an article from it..


try this, maybe it won’t reach Br. Daniel directly, but it is worth a try I guess.


Can you please give me his Twitter handle.


Barak Allahu feekum. I learn a lot from your posts and this website, I hope you keep it going brothers! Salam Aleikum.

Wee Jim

“For us, the definition of good (right; justice) is simply obedience to Allah. And the definition of bad (wrong; injustice; evil) is disobedience to Allah. ”
…which, in turn, is an entirely subjective opinion, both as to whether Allah exists and as to whether morality is obedience to Allah. If obeying Allah is moral because Allah is moral, then those actions would be moral regardless of whether Allah exists and said those actions are moral. There is no need for Allah to exist for such actions to be moral. People who believe morality is obedience to Allah need to show that Allah’s orders are moral regardless of whether they are Allah’s orders or not.

On the other hand, if they say Allah’s orders are moral because they are Allah’s orders, morality is simply a matter of subjective taste or opinion: “We think actions like murder, stealing, rape etc., are wrong simply because Allah forbid these things.”
…but Allah did not just forbid but defined these things and the way he defined these things is subjective. As far as Allah is concerned – or so his followers say – deciding that a country is being governed against Allah’s laws entitles muslims to invade it, kill or enslave the inhabitants who resist, take over their property and forcibly marry or “persuade” female slaves to consent to sex. This isn’t murder, stealing, or rape in the eyes of muslims, but objective morality in practise.
If morality is simply doing what Allah says because morality is what Allah says it is, then morality is still merely a matter of opinion. Allah – or his followers – must show that Allah is correct in his assertion of what is moral. If not, it is entirely subjective.

Green Frog

“which, in turn, is an entirely subjective opinion”

How is it a subjective opinion? It’s as absurd as saying those who disobey God will goto hell is subjective.

And yes God exists, i.e if you haven’t already seen Godel’s proofs (Scott’s variant) :

I’m not sure why you wrote out all that when you coulda just said “Euthyphro dilemma”, which is already flawed in itself. God’s goodness is distinct from abiding by moral obligations.

Obeying God is what moral goodness is, if he willed it so, drinking alcohol and pre-marital sex can become morally correct (like hypothetically he came down and told us “you can drink alcohol as much as you want”) Then by drinking alcohol we are no longer disobeying him. These things have no intrinsic goodness or badness (same way lions killing zebras is not bound to any morality), it’s just whether God permits us to do these things or not.

God’s will decides what facts (correctness) are, that is his omnipotence. It be as absurd as saying “God is subjective for even creating the world, after all how did he decide whether or not to create the world”. Your question is as absurd as saying “Can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift?” The question itself is irrational and God’s omnipotence is not bound to irrationalities.


You didn’t actually address ships point, Muslims avoiding rape and pedophilia realities in the muslim communities corruption is a dajjalic downfall, /a muslim with a sense of right and wrong aka fitrah.

Green Frog @reply to "Son"

His point was irrational and logically flawed. I addressed the core cause of it. Muslims do not do those things because Allah forbid it, one who does is committing a sin. I don’t think you understand this topic at all. Even atheist academics would be embarrassed by your “point”

Wee Jim

“It’s as absurd as saying those who disobey God will go to hell is subjective.”
That is a subjective view. It isn’t even true in islam – which says those who disobey God and don’t repent in time will go to hell.

“Obeying God is what moral goodness is, if he willed it so, drinking alcohol and pre-marital sex can become morally correct”
According to islam, as I pointed out, god does say murder theft and rape are sometimes morally correct. Bringing islam to a country by force, killing the male inhabitants who resist or refuse to submit, taking their property and forcibly marrying or enslaving “their” women. This looks like murder, rape and theft to everyone else. To muslims they are obeying god’s orders and being morally correct.


Well said mate.


Wee Jim* well said mate.


Funny. You are saying morality is subjective yet below you said that rape theft is morality wrong. Excuse me what the hell?


They don’t see the irony of making moral claims as atheist. At the end of the day for them it boils down to Islam bad and Liberal secularism good.

Last edited 2 months ago by Isse
Fathur Haqi

Morality exist within the framework of existence, and nothing can exist in this world that is independent of Allah. As a result, if Allah is gone, then existence is gone, then morality that depends on the framework of existence cannot exist. Thus we have proven that morality cannot exist without Allah.

That was too easy :/.

Last edited 17 days ago by Fathur Haqi
Fathur Haqi

Islam does not allow rape, theft or murder. Slaves can only be taken from the combatants and even then Islam and Prophet encourage freeing of slaves for rewards (which you conveniently left out, typical atheist’s tactics I guess :/), countries that can be invaded are countries that doesn’t have an agreement with the Muslims, oppress them, or refuse propagation of Islam and even then, the non-combatants and their properties are completely off-limits. This serves moral and practical purposes.

Last edited 17 days ago by Fathur Haqi
Fathur Haqi

Propagation of Islam entails giving Allah and the people their due rights. As the creator of every blessings in the world, Allah has the right to be worshipped, and the people have the right to know about Islam and it’s teachings to allow them to ready themselves for the hereafter.expansion of the realm = more population, = more manpower = better ability for the state to protect and ensure the prosperity of it’s people. Just how the world was. Muslims didn’t create that world :/.

Last edited 17 days ago by Fathur Haqi

Great Article


Since schizophrenia, dementia, and other mental illnesses can induce immoral behavior and severely restrict free will, the simplest and most justifiable belief is that a moral God simply does not exist.
God causes or allows through bacteria, viruses, hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanoes, earthquakes, droughts, and floods, people’s indiscriminate suffering, regardless of free will. The randomness of suffering implies that we cannot infer that there is divine justice, love, and morality. Pain does not systematically promote any discernible moral ends. It is exactly what one would expect in the non-existence of a God: the indiscernibility of God’s concern with suffering. If the indiscernibility of God’s concern with suffering is beyond religious understanding, belief in a moral God is not justifiable, and the simplest and most justifiable belief is that a moral God simply does not exist. If the world is sufficiently unjust to allow the inference to a just God, are we justified in assuming that a God’s justice will be discovered in a supposed afterlife? The simplest and most justifiable belief is not that God cannot make us understand divine morality, justice, and love, an unjustifiable belief, but that a moral God simply does not exist. If God cannot prevent evil, how can we trust in divine providence, and that justice will eventually prevail? If God cannot prevent evil, what do theists love when they love a God?
In a Godless world, it is easy to understand how men invoking an imaginary God could make the 11 September attacks, Jonestown Massacre in Guyana, and Inquisition.
The men who committed these atrocities were men of faith in the scriptures. The God of the scriptures allows or commands in addition to genocide, slavery, homophobia, rape, and total male domination. An alleged loving, objective and absolute morality of an immutable faith in this God is morally unacceptable. A justifiable belief is that the objective and absolute morality of God simply does not exist. The statement that “God is an inscrutable mystery that cannot be touched by the intellect and put into words” is an attempt to make acceptance of the contradictory supposed God’s morality immune to criticism.
Some people say that without God, people would give themselves moral permission to do anything. But believers subjectively select which passages from the scriptures are metaphors and which are not, which passages to ignore and which not, so for them everything can be morally permitted as well. Morality about slavery and the equal rights of men and women have changed remarkably since the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but God’s supposed morality depended on a change in the believers’ subjective interpretation of the need to abolish slavery and equal rights in the scriptures. When people openly understand the development of religious morality in history, religious morality collapses as a bad human invention. Why should our civil rights be dictated by the believers’ subjective interpretation of the passages of the scriptures that they chose at any time to believe?
The claims of religious people that their morality is only a matter of faith in what is in the sacred scriptures are false. The violent religious extremist and the religious conservative choose what to believe, and what are the metaphorical interpretations of the sacred scriptures, just as religious liberals do. Why would a subjective account of morality lead to moral anarchy, and subjective supposed God’s moral revelations not? While someone seriously debates what is supposed to be the true morality of God, he is exercising his moral autonomy and showing that his moral judgment is independent of God. There is no reason at all to think that some group has a monopoly on the process that delivers the truth about morality, the supernatural, and the universe.
Why would religious faith be necessary for morality? Couldn’t you name a wicked action or a vile statement made by someone, attributable only to religious faith? Can you name a moral action or a statement that has been made by a believer that could not have been made by a non-believer? Is there anything evil that couldn’t have been made by anybody who says they have a God on their side? Which God is the true moral authority? Belief in a God is compatible with a variety of contradictory and diverse religious ethical beliefs, including about monogamy, divorce, homosexuality, birth control, Mormons’ refusal to allow blacks to be priests, etc. In 1543, for example, Martin Luther, one of the fathers of Protestantism, published a treatise titled “On the Jews and their Lies,” an extremely violent anti-Semitic manifesto. In recent years, several Anglican churches have revised their moral views to allow contraception, the ordination of women, and the blessing of same-sex unions.
The objection to choosing God as the absolute and objective moral authority is that we cannot be justified in believing appeals to a moral God without before assuming moral beliefs. The debate will always come down to whether there is some moral reason to believe in supposed moral authorities. Therefore for morality to make sense, our morality needs to be independent of God.

If the supposed God’s morality is unintelligible, why would I be morally required to obey him? Without provisional confidence conditional on objective and impartial experimental results, why should we think that faith in God is the right answer to anything we don’t understand? I might have a self-interested reason to obey the commands of a tyrant who will punish me if I disobey, but I still do not have any moral duty to obey that tyrant. Why should we accept that there is no evil God by definition? What cause could one have to praise him for what he does, if in doing something quite different he would have done equally well? Arbitrariness can be used as a measure of the will of God, but it deprives the meaning of morality because arbitrariness is not an objective truth. In principle, anything can be allowed, so God cannot be the source of morality. Believers say that it is God’s essential good nature rather than his arbitrary will that serves as the ultimate criterion for morality. But how do they know this? God also commanded the Israelites to destroy all that breathed in an entire country (Joshua 10:40). If we do not have independence in moral judgments, and if we don’t have the idea that killing is wrong without divine punishment, not having a God to punish murderers wouldn’t be more fearful than not having a God to punish sneezes. Why would love, justice, and morality necessarily come from the divine nature? If love is God’s moral commandment, and morality requires fear of God, then how can we force true love by fearing God?
What distinguishes reason and religious faith? When is religious faith a moral failing?

If every belief must be justified, and those justifications, in turn, must be justified, then how is the infinite recursion terminated? If you’re allowed to end in something assumed without justification, then why aren’t you allowed to assume anything without justification? Since science’s most fundamental assumptions are unprovable, is science ultimately also based on a kind of religious faith? Deep-seated knowledge conditional to experimental evidence in the past has been discredited: A purely mechanical being cannot reason; space must be Euclidean; every event is determined; temporal succession cannot be relative. We constantly ask our beliefs what results from what they experimentally predict. The scientist’s faith means provisional trust dependent on experimental results. What can be violated are prescriptive laws, but laws of nature are not prescriptive, are descriptive. As long as assumptions increasing the accuracy of predictions about the world are experimentally reliable, we do not need to change the most scientific fundamental assumptions.
A scientist’s faith is provisional trust conditional on impartial and objective experimental results.
Religious faith is meant to be perennial hope and trust, unconditional to objective and impartial evidence. If you had faith in your doctor in the religious sense, you would assume that he would do nothing wrong, no matter what wrong things you did or prescribed. But the kind of faith we have in our doctor is provisional and conditional, based on objective and impartial results, the same kind of faith we have in science. In science when there isn’t objective and impartial persuasive experimental evidence, we suspend judgment, we don’t take a leap of faith, a leap of trust. In religion and science, faith has different meanings, and they are exact opposites.
The claim that belief conditional on impartial and objective experimental evidence is of the same kind as belief in trinity, rebirth, resurrection, virgin birth, or the existence of God, Brahman, and Nirvana, is unjustifiable. Many people do not distinguish between believing something and expecting it. Consider that you cannot make yourself believe the sky is green by an act of will. Wanting to believe in God is like saying, “I have irrefutable proof that my son was killed in action in the war, he disappeared in action years ago, the rescue team recovered his bloody uniform, yet I still believe he is alive.” It is not a matter of deciding to “believe” a proposition, but of hoping, expecting a proposition to be true. A person decides to act as if the proposition is true for some practical purpose, regardless of whether or not there is objective, impartial evidence. When the influence of people’s reasons on their “beliefs” becomes stronger by objective and impartial evidence, their “beliefs” become less voluntary. Try voluntarily to believe something you now disbelieve, say, that you are Barack Obama or that being stabbed will not injure you. You can’t. Continuous ad hoc excuses of the lack of efficacy of prayers or lack of morality of a God and religions show that belief and mere expectation are different things.
Religious faith’s factual belief is in the same category as belief in superstitions, fairy tales, and delusions. Science replaces private prejudice with publicly verifiable evidence. Being able to ask questions, being open to objective, impartial, and experimental evidence has liberated us from superstition. What distinguishes science and religious faith is the criterion of objective and impartial experimental evidence. A religious faith arrogantly claiming to be right and imposing on others propositions for which no evidence conditional on objective and impartial experience is even conceivable is a moral failing.
Religious faith is the answer when one does not have objective impartial evidence as an argument.
Those who worship several different supernatural beings claim similar certainties of religious faith, so how can anyone claim that the certainty of religious faith is objective and conclusive impartial evidence? Bigfoot, Yeti, Loch Ness Monster, alien abductions, and Chupacabra have more eyewitness claims than the resurrection of Jesus Christ or any other founding myth of religions. When the Bible tells that a dead man was resurrected, why would the falsehood of this testimony be more unexpected than a resurrection? The resurrection of Jesus is an object of faith, not the basis for faith.
Why is most of the world not convinced of private evidence, supposedly not inferred, of another faith or religion? There is no point of view outside human reason from which reason can be judged. If faith isn’t based on arguments, why do apologists try to argue someone into God’s kingdom? If the attribution of the supernatural agency does not imply that similar events will follow, the supernatural means inscrutability of events. So, a miracle, conceived as a violation of repeatability of our experience, or conceived as an event with religious significance, could never be attributed to the supernatural’s agency, since the assignment of cause implies predictability. Why does no one ever pray for an amputee to grow a limb back? Why do so many more babies die in very religious countries such as Nigeria, Yemen, and Niger than die in the much less religious countries of Sweden, Denmark, and England? If prayer works, then it should be able to work anywhere regardless of the local economy. Why do religions count someone who seems to have had her wish granted and ignores the millions who died without intercession? This is called confirmation bias. If a miracle means an event with a religious significance, then it will be necessary to identify it without appealing to religious belief. Otherwise, the demonstration is a petition of principle, a question-begging.
It is not clear why for believers the interpretations, and not the facts, would be what is important. For example, Christians find in 1 Corinthians 15:14: “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith”.
It can be said that knowledge that can only be obtained privately cannot be used as a basis for science and morality. Who thinks that science cannot study values, love, and faith, typically commit a fallacy. They confuse making value judgments about values, love, and faith, with studying objectively how and why people make them, amenable to psychological studies, like other forms of human psychology. Religions cannot be understood by psychologists studying lone individuals any more than the structure of a beehive could be deduced by entomologists examining lone bees. The reason why a religion rejects other religions is precisely the fact that there is no objective impartial evidence of its beliefs.
The idea that religious people behave consistently with the morality of their religion, theology, or metaphysics is false. Religious people believe in all sorts of things that, in terms of the doctrines of their religion, they should not. Catholic Church vehemently opposes birth control and divorce, but most Catholics practice them anyway. Most Theravada Buddhists treat Buddha as having many of the characteristics of deities in other religions, but Theravada Buddhism is officially a religion without gods. Theravada Buddhists speak as if Buddha remains to watch over the faithful and aid them in their travails. To prove reincarnation by remembering objects from past lives is metaphysically incorrect from the perspective of the Buddhist doctrine of the non-self. If the self is impermanent, how could anyone carry a memory from one life to the next? Early Puritan Calvinists believed in predestination, but they acted as if humans had free will, for example, conducting witch hunts and looking for conversions. Muslims also accept predestination, but how do they justify a set of decisions and initiatives they have taken if they are predestined? Since humans rely so heavily on notions of self-human agency, it is difficult to believe that supernatural agents and forces control everything with predestination, divine providence, and karma. Yet, if they don’t, what exactly is the nature of their power of predestination, divine providence, and karma? Why do people pray to a God whom they regard as all-knowing and, in particular, as already knowing everything there is to know about the contents of their minds? Luck implies that events are beyond our control, which contradicts the very heart of religion, that a superhuman agent is in control and available for prayers. People might attribute luck to divine providence, which would mean that there isn’t actually luck at all. People often perform rituals that are designed precisely to bring about good luck, or bad luck for an enemy, despite the tacit assumption that in luck events are beyond control.
The premise of God’s unintelligibility and unknowability is always assumed by believers when it is necessary to try to save God’s existence and morality from contradictions. It is impossible to see how it can be useful to discuss the religious, practical, scientific, moral, and philosophical implications of God’s existence because it doesn’t deductively entail any impartial observation or even confer a probability on any observation. We cannot say “the world exists, so God exists” because affirming the supposed consequence is a formal fallacy that may result from the failure to consider other causes or the concept of cause not being applicable.
Proponents of the “Most people are religious” argument to prove the existence of a moral God, use the word supernatural ambiguously, at first in the broad sense that it may be plausible to maintain the almost universality of supernatural beliefs, and then it changes to a more restricted sense, demanded by the argument, in which it implies a universal belief in a supreme moral God.
There are well over 46% of people on the planet earth now who lack a belief in a moral ruler of the universe who is simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal, and the creator of the universe. Billions of people are referring to, addressing prayers, and worshiping the supernatural radically ignorant about his true nature and moral purposes. There is no such thing as a consensus to the best opinion when we come to such emotional and irrational questions as the existence of the supernatural or the immortality of the soul. Some religions, including Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, and Taoism, for example, do not believe in any personal moral god at all. Some rates of self-reported atheism: Sweden 85%, Denmark 80%, Norway 72%, Japanese 65%. Under what criteria would these countries be immoral?
What criteria must be met for a concept of supernatural to be considered legitimate? Supposedly refuting naturalism doesn’t establish the existence of any specific sort of non-natural. If there are things outside human knowledge, this doesn’t imply any realm outside the natural. How do we know that a supposed supernatural event does not have a natural explanation so far unknown? Why does someone who claims to have a firm knowledge when something is a manifestation of the supernatural remain silent when asked about the methods and means of the supernatural, and so, how does he know what is the work of the supernatural?
On what possible grounds can it be asserted that seem radically different supernatural concepts are, at the bottom, the same concept? If there is the same concept, what would it take for an idea of the supernatural not to share in that same concept? Most believers in any faith are born into it, being a member of a religion is merely an accident of birth. The processes behind religious beliefs about the supernatural are cultural processes of belief formation that are so divergent that they cannot be relied upon to deduce that there really is a supernatural behind the beliefs. The continuing very large secularization in rich industrialized and advanced post-industrial countries, which have a large percentage of non-believers in the supernatural relative to poor countries and countries lagging in human development, is evidence that we are not bound by nature to believe in the supernatural.
What is the evidence that morality, or morality based on faith, is objective? To assume the objectivity of faith would be to assume what one wants to demonstrate.

How can religious faith be an absolute objective foundation of the morality of humanity, if each religious faith is a matter of personal and private choice? There are no objective and absolute criteria for choosing between two rival moralities if morality needs religious faith. There are no independent judges or impartial decision procedures for determining which supposed God’s morality is objectively true. Therefore, arguing objective absolute morality from a God is vacuous. We do not know if a command is a legitimate divine command or some illusion of religious faith. If you are saying that you have got hold of absolute and objective religious moral truth, do you have an impartial explanation of why most people in the world disagree? There is no religious faith that is the majority in the world. The fundamentally subjective nature of religious faith makes the aspirations of the hegemony of a morality based on religious faith an authoritarian fantasy.
Is there objective morality in choosing the moral meanings of scripture verses? Some people use their moral contemporary intuitions to select some passages in sacred scriptures of thousands of years ago and ignore slavery, genocides, homophobia, rapes, and total male domination. At the next moment, they state that we cannot trust our moral intuitions without their favorite passages of sacred scriptures. If it is up to each of us to decide what God morally wants, especially by choosing which passages in the scriptures are metaphors and which are not, which passages to ignore and which are not, based on what seems morally good to us for the present time, then each of us is a moral authority and not God, not the scriptures. How can we understand God’s morality well to say that passages from the scriptures are metaphors, that passages to ignore, and still not understand God’s morality well to know why God allows or commands incomprehensible hideous suffering? Where is the objectivity of a supposed absolute divine morality?
The correlation between the community in which a person was created and their religious belief undermines religious belief. The demonstrated dependency of religious experiences and beliefs of each culture and time means that religions aren’t objective absolute sources of morality. If all knowledge of religious morality depends on the same source, then this source is unreliable because it leads to conflicting results. So, the grounds for belief in any religious morality seem no stronger than the grounds for an incompatible belief in any other, which is to say they have no objective absolute grounds at all.
Moral objectivists have argued that moral disagreements very often derive from disagreement about nonmoral facts. But if ignorance of nonmoral facts can undermine the existence of a true moral disagreement, it can undermine the existence of a true agreement too. To moral objectivists, slave owners may have believed that their slaves were intellectually inferior, and Inuits who practiced infanticide may have been forced to do so because of resource scarcity in the tundra. But would the inferiority of one group justify enslaving them? If so, why don’t we think it’s acceptable to enslave people with low IQs? Would life in the tundra justify infanticide? If so, why don’t we just kill off destitute children around the globe instead of giving donations to Oxfam? Differences in circumstances do not explain why people don’t share the same values. Why would we all desire the same ends if we were fully rational and found ourselves in the same circumstances?
If our moral concepts were responses dependent on objective properties, disagreements about their truth would necessarily involve a concept perception error on someone’s part or ignorance or uncertainty about non-moral facts. But, for example, a consequentialist and deontologist may both be conceptually competent and agree on non-moral facts while disagreeing about what is wrong.
Defenses of objective morality need to show that a criterion of objectivity is reliable and confer to objectivity a high likelihood of trust. Does moral objectivity mean moral majority? Moral majority where and when? If not, how to find moral objectivity? Was slavery accepted by the majority in the past? Why do we need to assume that an existing social consensus must be right? Experiments show that seeing an issue as objective correlates with the perception of the current consensus on the issue: People tend to vary their estimations of objectivity by the subject matter of the belief, for example, a belief about the morality of abortion is attributed a considerably lesser degree of objectivity than other beliefs such as the wrongness of opening gunfire on a crowd. Suppose you and your best friend are in a car. He drives. Suddenly he runs over a pedestrian. He was at a speed above the permitted speed. There are no cameras or witnesses besides you. Your friend’s lawyer says that if you testify, making sure he was driving below the speed limit, you will spare him from prison. What should you do?: a) You should honor the duties of friendship. b) You should not lie in court. This is one of the tests used to differentiate from other countries, countries with at least 4 qualities: Western, industrialized, rich, and democratic. In countries such as the USA, Canada, and Switzerland, more than 90% of entrepreneurs and managers who passed the test answered “b”. This was a majority. In countries such as South Korea and Japan, the majority opted for “a”. This was another majority. It can be said that the test is guided by different ethics equally valid for the prosperity of a society. Countries “b” tend to value an ethic that should occur in a more abstract and impersonal way. The “a” one, on the other hand, usually has an ethic that the type of relationship you have with a person determines your duties towards them. But even the “b” countries do not totally abandon this principle: you must maintain and educate your children, but not the children of others. (See The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous – Joseph Henrich)
How could moral objectivity be possible? One can never validly deduce an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. Nothing can be the conclusion of a valid argument that is not already implicit in the premises. No set of premises consisting entirely of nonmoral descriptive statements is sufficient to entail a normative conclusion. Thus, entirely descriptive claims cannot entail normativity. A moral evaluation cannot be expressed using only nonmoral terms. We can have reasons to act in a certain way only if acting is to our purposes, goals. Our reasons for action are always sensitive to our varying ends and so they are subjective. The possibility of moral thought and judgment does not depend on the provision of a suitable supply of objective moral principles because there is not the possibility of ultimate grounding of morality in morality, no principles are linking the nonmoral with morality, and the moral practice cannot be grasped from the purely nonmoral perspective. An evaluation expressed by someone is relative to an individual’s goals, desires for its own sake, preferences. If moral judgments are beliefs that motivate, they can only be beliefs about how to get something that we want. Therefore, either they are not objective, or they cannot motivate us and therefore are not practical. Our reasons for action are always sensitive to our varying ends and so they are subjective. But objective morality claims a supposed objective authority that transcends the ends of each of us, whether or not we care to accept it. Morality might be objective if we all happened to have the same needs, interests, desires, goals, purposes, and so on. However, we may not be contradicting each other to whatever extent we have different goals, or purposes, priorities. Why would we all desire the same ends if we were fully rational and found ourselves in the same circumstances? As it is possible to disagree with the value of goals even agreeing with all non-moral facts, or as it is possible not to know with certainty whether a non-moral premise of a moral judgment is valid, then all claims of universal moral objectivity are defeated. Other people can have opposed preferences, even when we agree on all the non-moral relevant facts and are reasoning correctly.
Experiments with different religions, Chinese, Westerners, including small-scale societies, show that it is not possible to identify a criterion for a moral and nonmoral normative distinction. The conviction that there must be a natural way of dividing normative judgments into those that are moral and those that are nonmoral is an illusion. Moral judgments are value judgments like when we evaluate sunsets as beautiful, novels as meritorious, motor vehicles as good or bad ones. These evaluations don’t need that our judgments are based on an objective mind-independent reality or need consensus with others whose basic desires might be different from our own. Something’s good-making features may be open to legitimate disagreement. The property of being a good car involves a fit between its objective features and what we want from a car, and that will vary somewhat from person to person. Our ability to explain why we evaluate a particular motor car as a good one gives us no guarantee that there is one objectively best set of specifications for a motor car. A thorny problem for objective morality is to explain why people with different moral standards would necessarily be simply talking about different subjects, while believing that they are talking about the same thing, but not necessarily those who disagree about ideal vacations.
Moral objectivists imagine that ethical truth is possible only if there is the possibility of only one correct moral decision. But there is no objective reason to prioritize among incommensurable moral values. Values, for example, such as dignity and autonomy, cannot be objectively traded off with pleasures: Sources of pleasure have a particularly steep rate of diminishing response value. The first donut you eat is very tasty, the second is fine, the third may give no pleasure at all. But this response does not work when we consider values such as dignity, or autonomy. As there is a variety of ethical values, and if they are incommensurable, one would expect irreconcilable disagreement about what we morally should prioritize. How should we prioritize pleasures over dignity or autonomy?
There can be no objectivity when we choose between incommensurable moral values, as between the pleasure of a good meal and human life. No matter how rational and well-informed we are, we are incapable of being motivated to count everyone’s interests. An emergency-room doctor can efficiently spend 20 hours a day saving lives instead of only 16. If he spends only 16 hours at work and chooses to spend precious hours during which he could be saving lives having fine meals instead, he has not measured the values at stake incorrectly because what matters in a lived life is the pursuit of a balance of values. Therefore, there can be no objectivity when we choose between incommensurable moral values.
Is objective morality the morality that would be universalizable? An agent may reasonably decide a case in one way without implying that anyone else should decide it similarly. Suppose Sophie and her two children are at a Nazi camp. A guard confronts Sophie and tells her that she must decide one of her children will be allowed to live and one will be killed, informing Sophie that if she chooses neither, then both will be killed. Sophie then has a morally compelling reason to choose one of her children. What should Sophie do? Whoever feels the force of conflicting moral demands on him and finally decides, is logically not committed to accepting that anyone else in situations like this should do the same. The fact that an individual adopts a moral norm of conduct for his use does not entail that the person requires it to be adopted by anyone else. An individual may adopt for himself a very demanding moral guide that he thinks may be too difficult for most others to follow. One who judges morally in complex situations finds out something about himself, rather than anything one can speak of as holding universally.
Is objective morality impartial? Some forms of moral partiality are morally admirable. Loyalty to one’s family, friends, community, or country, for instance, is commonly regarded as a virtue. Parents are thought to be morally obliged to take the best affordable care of their children and grandparents. Friendship requires us to do certain favors for friends without weighing our friends’ welfare impartially against our working for a charity. We are simply less likely to conclude that our friend acted disreputably, partiality is part of what makes good friends. Forms of love can conflict with the requirements of impartiality. There is not a morally objective decision between impartiality and partiality, so there isn’t an objective position to settle many moral disagreements.
A strong demonstration of the lack of objectivity in morality is to demonstrate that collectivities can flourish indefinitely without living a moral life. In the United States and South Africa, and elsewhere, gated, and walled communities, private schools, the flight of white class to increasingly remote suburbs, gentrification, signify the widespread conviction that one can isolate oneself from the moral problems of society at large. A just world would be one in which one could not succeed in this effort.
Those who believe in objective morality can show greater moral commitment and conviction. But they can show greater antisocial moral commitments too, including terrorist acts. The belief in objective morality predicts greater intolerance of another person who disagrees. Alleged objectivity of morality of religions can make disputes more intransigent if the parties consider their positions to be the only morally objective and correct ones. If after you found supposed objective principles, you are going to be incorrigible, and your reliance on supposed objective moral principles encourages dogmatism and narrow-mindedness.
A faith is immoral when it imposes its morality by force on others without objective impartial evidence.

A faith can impose its morality by force on consensual adult sex or an individual’s decision about the supposed sanctity of his painful terminal life. Suppose you came across a vehicle or building on fire, and no way to rescue a trapped person. And suppose you have the means to kill the person quickly and surely, perhaps a pistol. If you were the person trapped, or not, would the sanctity of life always be more important than suffering horribly in order to die? Questions of what is sacred, what makes it sacred, and what is the nature of sacredness are in the realm of religious subjectivity. The State should not impose a particular religious view on the supposed sanctity of life in euthanasia and abortion. Why should we accept that simply being alive without consciousness is intrinsically good? Do fertilized eggs and embryos have the same supposed sanctity of life as conscious people? In the choice between saving from a hypothetical hospital fire, 200 fertilized eggs, and one conscious person, why would the life of one conscious person have more supposed sanctity and priority? Do we really think that vast resources should be set aside to preserve people in an irremediable coma, while there are no resources to raise the desperate expectations of poor and vulnerable children? Why should we strive equally for our full lives as well as for the lives of people in a hopeless coma and unwanted embryos without a brain aware that they are alive?
If God gave us life and therefore, we don’t need to understand and we can’t blame him for giving us heinous sufferings, why do we blame pregnant mothers who take alcohol and cocaine? About 20% of pregnancies can evolve to natural abortion before 20 weeks, and of these abortions, about 80% are interrupted until the 12th week of pregnancy. Part of the abortions takes place without at least the woman knowing she is pregnant. A God who conceives the human reproductive system with such characteristics does not consider fertilized eggs and human life to be very valuable. Myths about the supposed sanctity of life may erect barriers against euthanasia and abortion, but at the price of religious double standards of morality.
Even where everyone believes in a God, there are still vital moral differences. In a democratic society adherents of competing visions of religions, need to leave their particular conceptions behind in public discourse and justify their proposed policies on publicly accessible grounds. Humans need to use their reason and not faith to identify common or collective moral principles according to which present ethical dilemmas can be resolved. If the theistic worldview is the attempt to obey God’s morality, and if the existence of evil is explained by holding that God’s morality is beyond human comprehension, has theism something coherent to tell us?
Why would be religious faith the main virtue of humanity?

If the concept of God or supernatural is compatible with most cultures remaining radically mistaken, why does every religion like to think that his faith accurately indicates true morality? If a moral God existed, he would ensure that people would know how not to relate to him immorally, as through human or animal sacrifices, or through the religious precedence of the masculine over the feminine, or through costly or painful religious demonstrations of vulnerable people to him.
Religion impedes the treatment of diseases by imputing epidemics to God, implying that the cures lie in correcting immoral behavior rather than in medical attention. Pastor Jerry Falwell regularly linked the AIDS pandemic to LGBT issues and stated, “AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals, it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”. Religious morality has impeded modern science, by producing bans on much stem cell research, and hindering vaccination through religiously based opposition by Christians and Muslims (See Vaccination and religion and Vaccine controversies). Scriptures are used by Jehovah’s Witnesses to explain why their religion refuses to accept blood transfusions. The Amish will not allow heart transplants and, in some cases, heart surgery because they view the heart as “the soul of the body.” Christian Scientists believe that the primary method of healing should be through prayer, and many members have in the past been against modern medical treatments.
Supernatural beings have not always been associated with morality. Ancient Greek gods were not interested in people’s ethical conduct. Much like the various local deities worshiped among many modern hunter-gatherers. Trust in the rule of law, in the form of an efficient state, a fair judicial system, and a reliable police force, is a predictor of moral behavior. When the rule of law is strong, religious moral belief declines, and so does distrust against atheists. Statistics show that atheists commit fewer crimes than average. A finding has now been confirmed in numerous laboratory and field studies. No matter how we define morality, religious people do not behave more morally than atheists, although they often say and likely believe that they do. In the world, there is a negative correlation between crime and lack of religious belief. (See for example Zuckerman, P. 2009. “Atheism, secularity, and well-being: How the findings of social science counter negative stereotypes and assumptions.” Sociology Compass; and Hofmann, W., Wisneski, D., Brandt, M., & Skitka, L. 2014. “Morality in everyday life.” Science)
Belief in God does not inspire people to be good: the leaders of the Inquisition feared God and desired paradise, but brutally tortured their victims.
The most abject moral nonsense will be excused if the utterer can claim the sanction of faith. Faith’s moralities resist free inquiry about their basic premises to accommodate the social change. Every religion makes use of reason gladly as far as reason will help them refuse the moral truth in an adversary faith, but when reason fails to save the morality of their sacred scriptures, they cry out, that its truth is a matter of faith, and above reason. Choosing a doctor or contractor or babysitter unconditional to objective and impartial evidence is not virtuous, it is irresponsible. Why would choosing morality based on religious faith virtuous?
What is the meaning of a just and good God?

An omniscient God knows before creation what free will decisions will be made. Therefore, God created some human beings to make them suffer forever after death. If God does not know everything, how can we trust in God’s providence, and that justice will eventually prevail?
The animals created by God have no free will, but they suffer like us. We have laws to arrest people who cause animal suffering. If there is a God who made the tiger and the lamb, the cheetah, and the gazelle, what is he playing at? Is he a sadist spectator who enjoys blood and pain? God makes us want to eat animals. There isn’t spiritual growth of animals, their suffering is just pointless.
From God, we would need freedom of choice, but not freedom to take evil actions. A person cannot kill everyone in the world, but that does not mean that he does not have free will. Free will does not mean the capacity to do all things. Freedom of choice doesn’t mean free action, just as a parent raises a child. When parents prevent their children from playing with firecrackers, it is the children’s freedom of action that is disturbed, not free will. If we can prevent evil actions, then we have a moral obligation to do so. A perfectly powerful and perfectly good God should be much more obligated to do the same. God’s intervention to prevent or stop evil actions will not destroy free will. In choosing between freedom of action for rape, torture and murder of children, and protection of children, we do not hesitate to agree that the evildoer should be deprived of freedom of action. Freedom is having the means and protection to make the best choices. Believers pray for divine providence and believe in the divine predestination of some. A just and moral divine providence and predestination should protect everyone from all evil behavior.
Why do theists support any attempts by people or governments to prevent immorality that God does not want to prevent? God seems to answer Auschwitz’s prayers: “I will not release you, for your fate must be in Hitler’s hands for his freedom of action to be meaningful”. What is more meaningful than God allowing millions of brutal deaths just to promote the freedom of action of a few Nazis and slave owners? If Satan is not omnipotent, why is Satan responsible for evil? A morally perfect and just God would not treat his created persons as collectivities but as individuals. If evil is not evidence of an evil god, then good is not evidence of a good God. If we cannot even imagine a justification for God to allow a monstrous evil like Auschwitz, then we cannot justify a belief in a moral God, and the simplest and most justifiable belief is that a moral God simply does not exist.
Why do young children in Africa need lessons that are not understood in extreme pain to a greater degree than American children? If God gave us life and a good environment for spiritual growth, then why should the world have God’s omission in the cruel suffering of children at the hands of adults and through natural disasters and diseases? Why should paradise serve as compensation for God’s omission in preventing child abuse? No compensation can make omission in child abuse good. Children can die early before they have a chance to master the challenge of spiritual growth. Some children suffer so much pain that they cannot develop morally. The experiences can become so painful that they turn away from God.
If we trust that the heinous and incomprehensible suffering caused by God or consented to by his lack of help, is truly necessary, just, and good, we must pray for the heinous and incomprehensible suffering caused or consented to by God. Our moral obligation to help alleviate revolting suffering disappears if we believe that in the afterlife the victims will always enjoy having gone through God’s inaction in hideous suffering.
According to ethical principles, a person should always consider others as ends in themselves, rather than mere means. If some people are forced to suffer so that others can demonstrate moral excellence, then God uses the most vulnerable people as a mere means to offer the opportunity to reward others with paradise. If the prevention acts are precisely what God wants, we must rejoice in each new divine evil because they would give us an opportunity for new preventions of his inexplicable cruelty. Who will rejoice in terrible pain so that others may receive a selfish reward? God may reward altruism, but this reward cannot motivate us without taking from altruism those attributes that he might want to reward. If unselfishness is its own reward, we need not worry about God’s existence as a fundamental moral guide.
Babies with Tay-Sachs genetic disease have a short life and suffer so much pain that life is not worth it. When comforting a bereaved mother with such a baby, do not compare her pain to the pain experienced when trying to complete a physical exercise or studying math. Most pain is not a moral teacher and spiritual guide, which helps to achieve higher goals. Pain and happiness have different origins in the brain and do not need each other. AIDS cannot be a divine punishment of lust because wives and embryos and those who receive blood transfusions can be punished as well. If the existence of a divine incomprehensible evil is necessary, why should we know the difference between divine injustice and incomprehensible divine justice?
A God who does not want or is unable to give us understanding or ask our consent to the heinous sufferings caused or consented to by him, either does not exist or doesn’t value us as moral beings capable of free will and learning but values us as we value ants. What glory is there in an omnipotent being, torturing forever who could not in the afterlife hurt anyone else? Would it be for the glory of man to fry ants?
Whoever says that we should not expect to understand God’s purposes about heinous sufferings caused or allowed by him cannot affirm the need for a God to explain the supposed perfection of the design of the universe which is based precisely on the assumption that we can understand God’s purposes. If God exists, and if life does not need to be physical, as religions believe, the creation of perfect physical parameters for life needs a purpose, because it isn’t necessary.
The very fact that there is no faith that is the majority in the world shows that there is not enough objective impartial evidence of a specific God and his supposed absolute morality for the majority. Why would God allow mortal disagreements about him for lack of convincing objective impartial evidence, not making his existence and morality absolutely obvious and undeniable? Why would a good God need to be absent?

The affection of a caring mother is palpable and comforts her children. A caring mother is not absent and does not need and could not use her power to coerce her children to love her. However, some believers say that God’s true existence and love cannot be palpable because that would unduly coerce people, taking away their moral freedom. If so, then:

People are not coerced now, but will be after death, for all eternity;
Supposed palpable divine providence and miracles nowadays or in sacred scriptures are palpable evidence of false Gods;
Those who believe in God do not practice the morality they desire because they are coerced;
Moses, Mohamed, the disciples of Jesus, and even Satan himself were compromised in their moral freedom;
Loving a being does not require its palpable existence, only imagination of hypotheses;
For sacred scriptures, divine love and moral freedom don’t have any meaning: Eternal hate and everlasting torture await in the afterlife anyone who questions the compassionate God’s infinite love. If it’s scary and sick if your boyfriend or girlfriend tells you: “If you don’t love me, I’ll torture you indefinitely”, why is it not if God tells you this in the sacred scriptures?
If God’s lack of moral improvement does not detract from his perfect goodness, then why does he value so much that we learn to resist evil instead of always being so? If God can create a paradise full of angels with free will, then free will is no justification for suffering. The value developed through experience with evil is the overcoming of evil. If there was no evil, why would God have to allow and make evil? If God’s existence and love were palpable, coercion would not be necessary;
God is unjust because he does not immediately punish and coerce immoral actions, but only in an intangible supposed life after death, and therefore makes his morality without tangible consequences in this life. The result is that human history and cultures reveal widespread differences of belief about what is morally wrong. We do not know whether a supposed divine command is a legitimate divine command or some delusion. There is no religious morality that forms a majority in the world. If God is hidden, the majority cannot develop the supposedly necessary morality, and therefore the absence of a good God is actually evidence that he does not exist;
Why do believers support any attempts by people or governments to coerce immorality that God does not want to coerce? God’s intention cannot be that we alleviate the worst suffering, because our ignorance about why God allows or causes terrible and incomprehensible suffering is equal to our ignorance about why we should intervene in God’s supposed always good actions or omissions. If we must trust in God’s intentions, this trust must paralyze our morality;
If an absent God is good, why would evil be the absence of God? Many can testify from personal experience that the state of alienation from God is not a state for which torture is an adequate metaphor. They were never interested in fellowship with God, to begin with, why would death change that?
The simplest and most justifiable belief is not that an absent God is good, an unjustifiable belief, but that a good God simply does not exist.
How harmful can religious morality be?

In the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20), we read to not take the Lord’s name in vain, but rape is not there, it is permitted in Genesis 30:3; Deuteronomy 20:14 and 21:10-14; Judges 19:24; 2 Sam 12:11-14; Numbers 31:17-18. 1 John 4:8 assures us that “God is love,” but this love ruthlessly commands Israeli soldiers to kill babies and women (Samuel 15:2-3; Joshua 10:40).“You must not own another person as property” was missing from the Ten Commandments of a culture that had slaves. Christians believed that God supported slavery (Titus 2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18, Ephesians 6:5). 620,000 Christian soldiers on both sides of the American Civil War were killed to solve the issue of slavery. If God’s love is incomprehensible, no one can truly love God. Without the Law of Moses, would we all wander like a little Jehovah, raping and shedding blood in genocides any time our pride in having the only perfect and merciful love was offended? Why do more than 40 Christian denominations claim to believe what the Bible says, but aren’t there two denominations that agree with what the objective and absolute morality of the Bible says, or with the meaning of Christian morality? When we see that people suffer indiscriminately in natural disasters and diseases, it is completely amazing to see people thanking God for his incomprehensible blessing. Imagine that God is a mother who makes her child suffer terrible pains, and lets her child get scared and die alone, and justifies this pain because it is the child’s opportunity to learn precious lessons that are impossible to understand. Abraham no doubt thought that he should obey without understanding the divine command to murder his son Isaac and was rewarded for this by God (Genesis 22:1-19). This biblical story clearly shows how religious beliefs make morality unintelligible and blind us morally. If believers accept the moral guidance of the Bible, they are forced to accept that the contemporary condemnation of genocide, slavery, and rape is not morally absolute and objective, and their subjective moral interpretation sometimes needs to be changed at the point of a bayonet, as in the case of American slavery and civil war.
Why should morality based on religion be questioned?

Christianity of the Inquisition, Calvinists, and Puritans is no different in practice from the Wahhabi Islam of Saudi Arabia, the Taliban, and ISIS. Or the faith in Mao’s red book. We classify convictions into degrees of credibility, determining how strongly valid objective unbiased proof exists. If faith ignores degrees of objective, unbiased support for evidence, then decisions based on religious faith can lead to moral disasters, as exemplified abundantly in human history. Unjustified beliefs threaten lives, livelihood, and social well-being: Bogus medicine kills people, opportunist religious authorities take our money and freedom. Religious faith can make people completely blind to the evidence against their views, making people more vulnerable to oppression, fraud, and abuse. Living with religious faith is morally dangerous because it forces you to believe without objective impartial evidence justification. Religions believe that their different conceptions of God are consistent with divine evil, for unintelligible divine purposes. In this case, a God is compatible with the divine evil of allowing men to be deceived by faith in false gods, for unintelligible divine purposes. Morality based on religious faith is the disease from which it claims to be the cure.
Faith in a supposed divine morality is to surrender our skepticism and our reason and to put all our trust in someone or something, that is a sinister thing because it will not admit the possibility of error and the need for correction. If someone doesn’t value objective impartial evidence, what evidence would you invoke to prove they should value objective impartial evidence? Religious faith can lead people to kill and die for it, without the need for further justification. It can be a gullibility with a halo of virtue, the denial of observation so that unearned moral authority can be preserved. Religions’ moral dogmas are the enemies of the moral and social evolution in history. What a supposed God commands is morally certain, and they are certain because they are commanded.


Nice wall of text. Where did you copy and paste it from?


God exists tho, your entire TL:DR wall of test has been refuted by a single sentence
Proofs of God’s existence:

Wee Jim

There’s a certain irony in your using Gödel’s Ontological Argument as “proof” of god’s existence. It was Gödel who proved that all mathematical systems must contain axioms unprovable within the system. The same applies to his proofs of God’s existence.
GIGO, as they say – Gödel in, garbage out.