perhaps some of you know about Jason Lisle, whom works for the institute of creation research, and his blog, anyrate he claims that only his religion can provide objective morality and all other worldviews fall short now when somebody told him that if his morality was based on the commands of a god, or what not its by definition subjective he said this......

"If God were merely a very powerful individual as you’ve suggested, the situation wouldn’t change much. But God is actually the Creator of all that is. He is sovereign. And He is the Judge. All people will answer ultimately to God, and hence His rules are necessarily objective. They are the same for everyone, and binding on everyone because we all owe our existence to God and will answer to Him. Clear?" and "People are finite, and so our personal preferences are limited to our own mind. But God is infinite, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and sovereign. So His thoughts determine reality, and His preferences determine morality. In order for morality to be objective, it must stem from God. No other system can make sense of that.”

and i was utterly dumbfounded when he wrote those things and i was wondering did the things he make utterly no sense what so ever? could a command of a being ever become "necessarily objective?

Views: 229

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

As SB correctly characterized this god, one that is amoral, narcissistic, bellicose, arbitrary, violent, and childish. One minor problem with Mr. Lisle's premises, which all of us here on A|N know only too well.

There's no such thing as god. And, just like every other theist of every other religion that has been constructed by the mind of man, each and every one of their gods are anthropomorphic. Ideas of human-like super-beings, imbued with magic and comic book like super powers. 

One other thing about this. Mr. Lisle, like every other theist, falls into the self made and illogical trap of their own fantasy. He claims that people and their minds are finite - presumably his also - yet then speaks with authority on the mind of god. when he says,  " All people will answer ultimately to God, and hence His rules are necessarily objective. They are the same for everyone, and binding on everyone because we all owe our existence to God and will answer to Him." 

Yet one more example of failed apologetics for the non-existent.

All people will answer ultimately to God...

And he knows this HOW, exactly? Yeah, I know - inconvenient question.

he is probably gonna say god told him

Of course he is ... and just HOW do we confirm that?  His say-so?  Somehow, I don't see that cutting the mustard.  Whereupon he falls back on the bible ... and I ask the same question ... and out comes the circular logic, no doubt.

[sigh] This stuff gets so predictable sometimes that it just gets downright tiresome...

Tiresome? Absolutely! Yet, the moment we quit pointing out the illogical and delusional fantasies, they win and we lose. I, for one, have no desire to give them one inch of the high ground.

No argument, Pat.  I guess I keep expecting them to come up with something ... you know ... NEW!  Too much to ask? 

Yeah, probably.

What you each say needs to be repeated over and over again, and in time more people will be recognizing the fallacies on their own and you won't have to do all the clarifying. Tiresome? Yes! Important to be said? Definitely! Do keep up the challenges to attitudes, traditions and values that need confronting.


Religious morality is necessarily subjective and relative, because it depends on faith.


Ethics, generally, are rules, principles, policies for behavior, with the goal of ______ (fill in the blank).

Religious ethics fills in the blank with something supernatural. "Pleasing God", "Getting admission to Heaven", "Achieving Nirvana", whatever.

Atheist ethics fills in the blank with something in this world. What is the purpose of human life? We have our choice on that. "Promoting the health and happiness of my family, friends, adopted circle, and our descendants." "Contributing to the long-run survival of human civilization". "Maximizing my lifetime total of pleasure." There are a million possibilities.


Religious morality is based on faith. Faith is, ultimately, believing what you are told, by someone whom you have chosen to regard as an authority. Your chosen authority tells you about invisible things, Heaven and Hell and God, and about what this God wants you to do and not do.

Faith is required, to believe that this invisible god actually exists, that he/she/it wants your obedience, and that for some reason this god cannot or will not speak to you directly, but WILL speak to this self-proclaimed authority. You must have faith that your chosen authority is actually hearing from this god and not from some other invisible spirit, some mischievous or malevolent ghost or demon. You must have faith that your prophet is not making it all up out of whole cloth, and is reporting accurately what this invisible spirit is saying. If your chosen prophet lived centuries ago, you have to hope that the words of this prophet were recorded, copied, and translated accurately for, as Jeremiah said, "actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely". (Jer. 8:8)

See my longer essay at




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

Latest Activity

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service