Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H


Most religious believers insist that moral doctrines are facts. They are objectively true no matter what anybody thinks. They say you hold them because they are true and not just because you believe or think they are.  If good and bad are real, or facts or objectively real (all these terms mean the same thing) then they are not just ideas in your head.  It is more important that they are true than that you have them in your head.  The truth does not care what you want or think so one way or another the principles will force.


What if you think it was morally objectively true that stealing was wrong last year but this year it is okay? That would suggest that objective morality can change with the times or fashions. That is not belief in objective morality at all.


So though moral principles may have to be applied differently to suit a situation, the principles themselves do not change.


Believers want moral principles to be fixed and unchangeable. All attempts to say God is the basis of morality are about trying to say that moral rules are fixed. They go as far as to say there is a God who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow in terms of his support for moral principles. They go as far as to say God is the reason morality is set and irrevocable and certain. So there is a principle of moral unchangeability. For example, a principle says that it is always completely wrong to lie to somebody in a way intended to hurt them. It excludes any attempt to put out a moral doctrine that says it could be right tomorrow.


The idea that morality and its evaluations of right and wrong is set in stone brings us to the question of how moralists will try to force all that on others.  It would be insane to impose a changing morality on people.  If you are going to force you need a fixed and unchangeable one.


Objective morality forces itself on us and we end up having to co-operate and force it on ourselves and thus on each other.  Nobody is an island.  When you claim that your doctrine and morals are objectively true that is saying it is others business what you do and especially what you think in relation to morality.  What you think becomes what you do.  And it becomes your business what they think.




Believers want the principles of morality to be unchanging. Is the unchanging as important to them as the wrongness? Some say it is. Others say the

unchanging matters more than the wrongness. Others say the wrongness matters more than the unchanging.


If something is wrong then if it is more important for it to be unchangeable than for it to be wrong then morality inherently implies a right to impose its will on people.  In practice, the moral


If you believe morals are facts then you stand for compelling others:


Psychologically they are pressured to agree.


They are forced to suffer if they break the rules.


They are emotionally blackmailed perhaps in a subtle way but subtle makes it no less real.


And as nobody has the right to choose what is a fact, facts are not about what you think or want, facts involve compulsion.


We see then that it is vital to get it right on morality and moral rules. We must not condemn too much or too little




Most God believers say that you cannot believe in moral goodness or moral badness unless you believe in a God whose authority makes actions morally good or morally bad. In other words, doing the best thing, doing the right thing is an incoherent idea if there is no God!


They say, "If the law or God’s law allowed raping children would it be okay? Or is it wrong in itself? How do you measure standards? Whose standard matters if mine differs from yours? You see that you need to worry about God's standards and nobody else's." This is a plot to stop you deciding what the standards should be and to stop the next person doing that too. The plot is to get people to agree to let one person, God, set the standards. This may make things simple but what is simple is not necessarily right.


Notice too how the raping of children is used to emotionally blackmail you to accept the argument. An argument full of threats and which uses the rape of children to implement and deliver the threats can hardly pass for an argument for morality!

When God is not provable and when it is fashionable and common for people to doubt, they are virtually saying, "Drop morality if you don't believe!"

Nobody wants to do that. Even moral relativists and subjectivists oppose some things totally. They are not relativist or subjectivist all the way. You can see how there is a bullying underlying tone to faith in God. It is not true that the concept respects free will or your freedom. It is: believe or suffer. It is: believe or else.




Religion says that only if there is a God are there objective standards of right and wrong. That is to say that if there is no God, then we only call things right and wrong because we like and dislike them. Then, it is argued, morality is subjective or based on feelings and notions. Nothing then is really right and wrong. But we want to mean more than liking when we say something is right. We cannot avoid wanting that.


That is another reason why morality involves force.


Some argue that if there is no God or free will there is no morality because we are just a collection of objects. But even if we were it could still be that morality exists. In a universe where there are no living beings it is still wrong to kill a person. A person doesn't have to exist for that to be wrong.

And we don't really see ourselves as objects. We think its wrong to torment even flies to death.


The argument is based on lies and blackmail. It does not fit how even atheists see people.




Is objective morality based on free will alone? Or on God alone? Or both?


It is believed only a free agent, such as a human being, can be moral or immoral. An animal that kills is only doing what it is programmed to do so you cannot punish it.


If free will enables you to be moral or immoral then why is morality about compulsion? That is not much of a free will!


If free will is given by God so that you can be moral or immoral then why is morality about compulsion? That is not much of a free will and to blame it on God is just insulting God if he exists.


Morality is real or it is just whatever you want it to be. It is that simple. That is the choice you have which means you do not have much of a free will at all. You would think the more choices the more free you are.




Some say there is nothing at all literally that is objectively moral. That is contradicting yourself. You are saying it is a lie and wrong to say objective morality is non-existent. So you are saying objective morality does exist.


Some say that there is no way of knowing if anything is objectively moral. Then you are saying you know that there is no objective morality meaning it is objectively moral to deny its existence. That is another self-contradiction. It is the same as saying nobody knows what is objectively moral or if such morality exists.


The alternatives to belief in objective morality is that morality is rubbish or that morality is relative. The moral relativist says that what is morally right for me is right for me and that if you have a different idea of what is right for you then that is okay. In other words, no moral principle is true for everyone. But that is stating a moral principle! And nobody says that if you feel you can kill your baby on a whim and that is good that you should be allowed to. Relativists are hypocrites and never consistent.




Morality is no good if truth does not matter.  Even if morality is fact-based it does not follow that moral people want it because it is true.  They might all want it for something else.  Power.  Truth enforces and you cannot escape it.  If morality is about saying there is truth and talk about truth is really a way to try and get power then those who say it is true that there is no truth are doing the same thing. You would rather be forced by a believer in truth than one who believes there is no truth!  There is no evidence that anybody really wants morality for its own sake.  Even if they do you cannot think that very many do!  The pope and Jesuses of this world have only ever wanted one thing - to use truth to use you.  It strokes their egos.




It could be that the need to believe in objective morality or objective good is programmed into us.  It would not be real morality if you define morality as doing what you have the power to not to do.  Philosophers say you need to do what is right freely for if you are programmed you are no more moral than a clock.  But even if what is programmed into you is not objectively moral it could be about objective goodness.  In practice, it would be as good. 


It is argued, "Even if objective morality is programmed into us it is part of our nature and thus even if it is an illusion it is still objectively wrong to try and get people to defy or dismiss this aspect to their nature. It harms us to oppose the aspect."


If so then it is wrong to say it is programmed in even if it is true.  And relativists and those who think free will is rubbish are the enemy.  My answer to the argument is that we cannot get rid of the programming so it does not matter if we know that it is just programming.  We should know.  We don't need God and religion and other ideas that demand we deny we are programmed.  They are just symptoms of that form of bigotry called dogmatism.


The need to believe in objectively good acts being programmed is what would matter.  The need to believe in objective morality being programmed is nonsense.  The difference is that with the first there is nothing that need force you to judge and maybe hate those who do bad.  But morality is about punishment and risks causing hate.  A philosophy that says belief in objective morality though wrong is still necessary opens the door to abusing sinners in the name of justice is bad.  It is an abuse in itself for there is no need for it.  Creating the sea for hate to swim in means you cannot say, "I oppose hate" and expect that to be enough to get you off the hook even if you say it in all sincerity.




If you say morality is nonsense or not real objectively, then you are saying that it is objectively immoral to say that morality is real. That is incoherent. You are saying that there is no objective morality and then you say that it is objectively evil and deceitful to say there is.


You cannot get away from principles. If you say there are no principles you are saying there is in fact a principle that there are no principles. That may make no sense but at least you are still saying principle is needed and that you have a principle. If there are no standards that is to say standards are to be abandoned but that becomes a standard!


Law exists by default - it is self-existent. Suppose it is not objectively good to feed a baby or kill it, then it is the law that morality is nonsense. It becomes evil to say that feeding or killing it is objectively wrong. Even a God cannot create such a law. Christians believe that he somehow is that law but he did not make it.


If all that is correct, then we are logically forced to accept and comply with moral standards.


Some say that we are logically forced to comply with one. If that is true, then it is still the case that morality opposes your freedom. You are forced to start with one rule that is to be your basic one. Everything is still about being forced. You are forced if you are forced to obey few or many rules when the rule behind them is based on force.




Religion teaches all that but it does not tell you the rest.


A mathematician who says that all sums are rubbish is still making a mathematical statement. If you say that 1 and 1 = 2 is not true or is a delusion then you are saying 1 and 1 can be anything but 2. That is still maths. You contradict yourself. But if you admit you are making a mathematical statement the contradiction disappears.
Now you can say, "To say nothing at all is objectively moral or immoral is to contradict yourself by making a moral statement." But what if you say, "All moral rules are nonsense except the rule that it is nonsense. To say anything else is a lie." There is no logical problem with the notion that the only thing that is objectively wrong is to lay down any other objective moral judgements. There is no contradiction if you mean there is only one moral principle: that all other moral principles are false.
A morality that says such a thing indeed would be the worst thing imaginable. It would surpass everything else in what depravity it allows and permits and revels in.
It would demand that anybody who has more than one moral rule should be persecuted and that person would be seen as opposing a fact.
It would mean you would pretend to hold to the same morality as everybody else and when you get the power you can show your true beliefs and make the blood run. You may say it is a lie, and thus wrong, to say there are objective moral standards except the standard that there are no other standards.

If objective morality is untrue then it is a lie to say it is true. To say it is a lie is to say morality is real.


The element of force is a worry for all who promote and embrace objective morality. It gives it a bullying tone. It gives its adherents a spirit of intolerance. It tells them that intolerance is a necessary and unavoidable evil. We know that objective morality bullies in several ways.


People who endorse relativism sense the bullying tone and fight it with relativism. But relativism is not the answer.
If you say there could be many things that are immoral or moral but you don't know which is which then what? You might say, "It is objectively immoral to claim to know that anything is moral or immoral. Apart from the fact that it is immoral, you cannot know any other moral facts."
That is just as destructive as saying there are no moral facts but the fact that there are none.
It is probable that most people who oppose our moral standard are not saying there are no moral facts but one but that there is no way of knowing more than one.
If you want to believe in objective morality you are going to end up with a self-refuting morality. A self-refuting objective morality is not an objective morality at all. It is moral subjectivism and lies masquerading as morality.


We know from experience that letting people proclaim murder good because they want to believe it is not workable. So we are forced to take morality as real. Remember we have no choice. Even those who say morality is what they want it to be only act as if they believe it in a few things. They are still mostly the same as anybody who believes only in real morality. They cannot change very much.


So everybody believes in objective morality. They cannot avoid it any more that they can live without air.




If you need God to have an objective morality, and objective morality is a necessary evil, then that is reinforcing a necessary evil in an unnecessary way. It is using God to ground the morality and claiming he implements it so for his sake we should be objectively good and moral. If something is a necessary evil it should not get any glorification by being attributed to a good God. It is bad enough and there is a coarseness and intolerance in wanting to confer sacredness and beauty on it.


If you have to tolerate objective morality and regret its element of force then you are not doing that by turning it into God or God's law.

Believers however are clear that feeding a starving baby is not an objective moral principle if there is no God. But if there is no God then their argument would mean that the only thing that is objectively moral is to deny that objective morality exists.


That is an extreme and deranged doctrine and we should not be rejoicing in their God or religion. It shows that they are willing to use the baby's suffering to get you to believe. They cannot praise you for helping the baby for that is the sin of blessing good that leaves God out. But so hypocritical they are that they probably will.


Does God command what is right because it is right? Then God is not God or boss for he has to obey moral law but he doesn’t make it. He only conforms to it. In that case, belief in God or non-belief has nothing to do with morality. You can be moral without God. You would even have the right to disagree with God on right and wrong for it’s independent of him.


The notion that righteousness is God's character and he didn't invent it and there is no higher law is just a dodge. It does not deal with the question.
These Christians deny that God's laws are arbitrary. But it is possible that owing to circumstances that God might have to make laws for the sake of making them. If there is no one way to protect kindness or justice then why not? It is better than no law at all. Moral values being grounded in God does not necessarily imply that his rules are non-arbitrary.


Christians do not like the view that morality is independent of God. If morality is independent of God, there could be circumstances in which God does not want us to believe he exists. It might be bad for us. Truth sometimes is bad for us. Perhaps God makes rules precisely so that in the bigger picture we may break them and that is a good thing. To stress the belief in God and that objective morality is grounded in him and to harass atheists for not believing is just bigotry.


Many say that once you take God out of the equation, morality becomes a subjective matter, it is a matter of us making up the rules as we go along. This is totally wrong. If it were true, then we HAVE to believe in morality as a non-subjective reality OR ELSE! How religion can tell you to believe morality is non-subjective or else and say it respects our free will is mind-boggling. Better a subjective morality than one you are forced or blackmailed to follow. If God gives you free will and then blackmails you to believe in morality as a reality what right has he to let you do evil and blame you? What right has he to say, "I am pure love and have to let people do wrong for I cannot force them to love me!" That is a lie and an excuse and insult to those who suffer and die. Both religion and the concept of God are based on an implicit threat - people don't mind for they imagine that is good for keeping people in line. But that does not make it right. A morality that is based on force not love is not a morality though it may be a convincing copy.


The "Only God grounds objective morality" argument accuses sceptics of being hypocrites and moral relativists. That accuses them of being part of the machine that declares the holocaust right because it was Nazi culture. If that is behind the argument, then the argument fails to create morality for it is a case of, “We have to accept it for the alternative, relativism is terrible.” There is no freedom or morality when there is that pressure. It might be subliminal or implicit but it is there. It is going to influence voters and politicians to try and force.


From what we learned about how you can say the only objective moral principle is that there are no other principles - this needs to be shouted out - IS THAT IF YOU WANT TO PREACH GOD IN ORDER TO GROUND OBJECTIVE MORALITY YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME!
We conclude that it is objectively immoral to bring God into the equation if there is an objective morality. God only undermines it. And he does it for several reasons. We have seen all those.


It is obvious that a person decides to help others then the person should be free from pressure.  It is objectively true.  That is important.  Its being objectively moral is not as important. 


Morality is a sum-up of rights-justice, love and responsibility.  These ingredients are not equal.  Responsibility comes first not love or justice.  Love and justice cannot be thought about unless we have personal responsibility for they only apply to responsible beings.


We conclude that there is a lot of lies told about objective morality.




Morality is a sum-up of rights-justice, love and responsibility.  What is morally right/wrong cannot be changed by anybody.  It is just right or wrong and that is all there is to be said.


So morality is forced on us.  It is a reality that we have to line up with for it is bigger than us and does not care about what we want or think.


The question, "Why justice and love?  Why care about responsibility?  Why do these things matter?"  The WHY of morality does not matter when we are forced.  The why implies thinking we are not forced or wishing we are not forced. The why shouldn’t matter.  It does not change the fact that if you discard morality as fact you end up with another one that is acting like fact too. 

Some people may be moral and be our moral guardians not for the sake of being moral but because they are attracted by how it is forced on us.  You can appear to be very loving and good and devoted in advancing those values while in fact you are using love because it is force.  It is the force not the love you really care about. 

People want to find out that because love and compassion and so on exist that this shows we ought to do them. This is the mistake of thinking is can get you to a moral ought. We must remember it goes the other way to - love and compassion and so on exist but that does not mean we ought not to do them either.  It just gives you choice.  Take love, "Ought I love?" and "Ought I love not?"   If love exists that has nothing to do with showing I should love. Some say it does not matter for life goes on. We just stick a should on and that is that and we do without showing is means ought or can do. This is an argument for pragmatism.  Pragmatism is another thing forced on us in the sense that we cannot get an ought then we still have to act and are forced to act on being pragmatic.

CONCLUSION: Objective morality is like reason.  When we say we don't use reason or use moral facts and don't say that things like justice are really true we are fooling ourselves.  We are using reason yes for we are forced to.  If we resist we use reason in a twisted way.  We are using morality for we are forced to.  If we resist then we use morality in a twisted way.  In other words, trying to resist means we proclaim the wrong things rational and the wrong things to be objectively morally good.  Thus to resist is just a form of self-abuse even if you don't know it. Its violence against how you cannot avoid being a being who reasons or who sees morals as real.  It is opening yourself up to deception and it is deception.  If God grounds objective morality then it follows that we are evil if we do not believe in God.  We would be worse than the person who claims to be well-meaning but who thinks you can use children for leisurely target practice.  You strike at the heart of morality by striking at God.   Morality does not care that we ask why justice and love, its components, are valid and true.  It is not about us though we need it.  It just forces us to accept there is objective morality.  That is why we struggle with it for we like to be free.  We don't really like or love it.  But we make the bondage worse by trying to fight it.  If God grounds objective morality then we cannot truly like or love God!  It is something extra to bother us.  We can only pretend or make up a version of God that suits ourselves.

SHOUT: Morality is objectively true no matter what we think about it simply because we need it and it is NOT ABOUT US!  Apples feed us no less though they are not about us at all.  We need them.  Morality then is not about God either.  God based morality is an abuse.  Morality based morality looks like a tautology but it is not.  Some things are just true.