Sylogism for Objective Morality: 1. Action presupposes reasons -> To act intentionally is to take oneself to have reasons for acting. 2. Reasons must be universalizable -> A reason counts as rational only if it could justify action for any relevantly similar agent, not merely because it is "my" preference. 3. Agency is the capacity to recognize and act on reasons -> Agents are beings capable of understanding and acting for reasons. This capacity exists in varying degrees, including developing or partial forms. 4. Agency requires objective conditions -> To act for reasons, agents require certain generic goods: Life, bodily integrity, minimal freedom, and cognitive functioning. Without these conditions, agency is impossible. 5. Therefore every agent must value these conditions because these goods are necessary for any action at all, every agent must regard them as necessary for their own agency. 6. Denying them to others is arbitrary -> If an agent claims these goods are necessary for themselves but not for others, the justification becomes identity-based ("because it’s me"), which is not a rationally generalizable reason. 7. Therefore rational agents must recognize the agency of others -> Consistency requires recognizing that the same conditions that justify protecting one's own agency apply to other agents and developing agents as well. 8. Violating those conditions without justification frustrates agency -> Actions like killing, coercion, or torture unjustifiably destroy the preconditions that make agency possible. 9. A norm is objective if denying it requires a performative contradiction -> If one must rely on the agency the norm protects in order to reject it, the norm holds independently of personal preference. Conclusion: Unjustified destruction or frustration of agency is objectively wrong, because any rational agent must recognize and preserve the conditions that make agency possible.

Blocked for demonstrsting the meme...

The number of Christians taking Mathew 18:6 out of context just shows that you can make the Bible and Jesus say whatever you want them to say.

Looking at Christians today makes me cringe that I used to be a Christian.

I feel like this paints Christian ethics as some sort of utilitarian divine command theory. I've been asked several times by Christians "Would you kill baby Hitler?" My answer is always "no". Why? Because baby Hitler has done nothing wrong to deserve the death penalty. (Not to mention the fact that if I was omnipotent and omniscient, I'd be able to figure out a way to prevent the Holocaust without bloodshed). But in D2J's framework, without even knowing what baby Hitler will grow up to do, obeying a command from God to kill that baby would be the right thing to do.

You know I don't reject any premises, just your conclusion but just because something is possible doesn't mean it's probable. Also you must read it as rebellion otherwise you're not engaging faithfully, the tree represented Gods right to rule, the reason they ate from it was

Why exactly do atheists have to explain the Big Bang but theists don't have to explain how God's power actualises? If you don't know how God turns His thoughts or speech into material and energy, you're merely saying, "I prefer supernatural ignorance to naturalistic ignorance."

Christians are allergic to hypotheticals

Judges 1:19 NRSVUE [19] The Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country but could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron.

Notice how D2J never posts or responds to what the Bible actually says. He can go around proclaiming his objective moral high ground, but when confronted with his own scripture he runs and hides. Is chattel slavery objectively immoral? If yes: D2J would you like to explain how laws such as Leviticus 25:44-46 can come from a being that is objectively (and perfectly) moral? Did chattel slavery used to be moral, and now it isn't anymore? (making God a moral relativist) I see no way that an omnicient and omnipotent being couldn't have gotten around the cultural and historical context of the time. God could rain bread down from the sky to keep his people alive, but he couldn't find away to keep his chosen society intact without allowing them to own people as property?

The Bible’s moral arc is humans slowly dragging their god towards decency, then pretending he led the way.

The Trinity defies the laws of logic: P1 - In order to be 100% of something then you must be identical to that thing P2 - Jesus is not identical to God C - Jesus was not God because he was not 100% omnicient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Or even simpler... P1 - You cannot be 100% of two things C - Jesus was not fully God and fully man Or P1 - God cannot die P2 - Jesus died C - Therefore Jesus cannot be God Or 1. Father ≠ Son 2. Father = God 3. Son = God now we have a contradiction because 1 and 2 mean Father = Son Or to be more precise Christians assert that: 1. There is exactly one divine being 2. There are exactly three divine persons 3. Each divine person is fully God 4. No divine person is identical to another 3. entails that each person has everything required to be God 1. entails that only one entity can have everything required to be God Contradiction. Contradictions don't exist, therefore the trinity doesn't exist. In the end the Trinity says: - One God, three persons. - Each person is fully God. - The persons are not identical. -> That yields either three Gods, one person, or a contradiction. None of which Christians can except. You have to break the logical laws of identity and Non contradiction in order to make this work.

You have to imagine that before this picture was taken, Peter Parker hired the bus driver to run over the child 😅

Question for Christians: Why does God have a chosen people? Why did Yahweh not reveal himself to people in Africa, East Asia, and the America's? How cool would it have been if Colombus sailed the high seas over to America and found some fellow Yahweh followers!