Eager to be free from Moral Absolutes
One of the pitfalls the Atheist makes for himself is the rejection of Moral Absolutes. The common atheist I have met normally shuns Moral Absolutes because it then becomes tied to a metaphysical Morality-maker who everyone knows is God. In the atheists eagerness to make sure he cannot be brought under the compliance to any moral code, commandments from God or a Morality-maker he creates an abyssal that removes him from everyone else.
Justifications for morality in Atheism
To make matters worse for the atheist he then attempts to ground any moral conception or ethic in materialistic explanation. This explanation is supposedly the shield of defense against Christianity or any metaphysical authorship because it locates all morality in a variety of naturalistic explanations. Darwinian naturalism, gets a few votes, materialism gets its votes, humanism gets it adherents, personal concoctions of newspaper, magazines, atheist blogs and YouTube commentary fill out the concept for many others.
The laymen resources
Some more sophisticated anti-theist propagandists refer to Dr. Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett or John Loftus. All of these men have written their books and debated various Christians (often with disastrous results) but they are the mainstay for new ideas, and for some the courage to attack Christians in all forms of media and public mocking.
The Atheist writers offer little help
Even with these PhD’s the inescapable conclusions reemerge in every atheist challenge. What conclusions? Morality does exist whether you claim it from God or from nature or from societal norms. What other conclusion? If there is no absolute morality there is no specific moral code binding on any one of us. I am not ruled by another’s conscience except by consent. If I am compliant without consent I am under moral constraint and seek to be free from it. It is in this mixed bag that some atheist will not admit to any morality, they are amoral and live according to their own dictates with all the internal modifications needed to interact with the world they live in. If there were any people group that need to comply the most it would be this group. Since everyone outside of themselves thinks tangental to their mental construct of morality they cannot say they have anyone agreeing with them in principle, only in terms of pragmatism…lets get along to live peaceably. The Atheist horsemen cannot set this atheist free in this world, they can only give credence to particular nuances in individual atheist ethic. For the rest who admit to morality whether its a mixture of moral absolutes or personal moral principles these people have the difficulty of preaching morality to others without the slightest authority to do so.
Read this short article taken from John Loftus website.
What Can Account for Morality, We’re Asked?In David Eller’s excellent book, Atheism Advanced, Eller basically explains morality as those moral rules made up by people in order to define what it means to be part of any culture. They are usually based upon the religious myths each culture accepts. There is no morality then, only “moralities.”
He finds that there are moralities among animals like Chimps, so it shouldn’t surprise us when language bearing humans came up with more elaborate moral rules. And since we’re talking about human beings, it’s no surprise that our moralities have some major similarities since we are social animals who need to get along, to be loved and to love, to help and to be helped. Anyone who doesn’t accept the moral rules of a culture are not allowed in the group, or we banish them, ostracize them, imprison them, and kill them. Do you want the benefits of being in the group? Then obey the moral rules, or at least don’t get caught. Otherwise, you’re on your own. As such, there is nothing prohibiting someone from not accepting the moral rules of a culture if s/he doesn’t want the benefits of the group (which would be a Freudian “death wish”). Are acts like murder, rape, and theft objectively and universally “wrong” then? That’s probably a nonsensical question.
Therefore, there can be no argument for the existence of God based on morality. Human beings make up their own moralities because we’re social beings who need to belong and get along. Morality is part of our survival instinct. We need other people to survive!
———-For a Christian who might be stunned by the conclusion that it’s probably a nonsensical question whether or not murder, rape, and theft are objectively and universally “wrong,” then think again. Look at your own Bible. There is plenty of that to be found in it, all sanctioned by your barbaric God. Elsewhere I’ve argued that rational self-interest can account for our morality.
Not so fast, there’s a problem
The Christian finds an inherent problem with this authors conclusion; namely, if that group creates its own morality that is for the purpose of a survival instinct, what makes them think that nature has not selected us to adopt a different morality that derives glory and honor from completely annihilating this other people group? We are completely with our moral right and without the slightest implied wrong-doing on our part we may conduct our warring as long as we exist. While the doomed to extinction people group may find us reprehensible we are naturally disposed to it and consequently beyond reproach. Transfer this same line of reasoning to God, the bible and Christians, how can the atheist possibly find Christianity, the bible or God morally wrong in any case since we have adopted our own moral code? It would not matter if the bible was a complete jumble of failing tic-tac-toe games or unfinished seduko games. It would not matter in the slightest if the numbers were wrong or the games were all ties. Its irrelevant. The atheist by his own admission has a morality that is only adopted by an agreeable society of atheists (if they wanted to form community) and that morality has no power to condemn or approve my morality no matter how different it may be to them.
The right to judge is rendered powerless by the atheist
The pitfall of the atheist moral relativism is that it has no authority to condemn God or the bible except among those who agree with them. The outsider need not concern himself in the slightest because their moral code is not founded upon anything other than their own personal proclivities and tastes. The atheist in his eagerness to declare himself free from moral absolutes has rendered his angry moralizing of God and the bible as irrelevant since I do not hold to their moral code…and cannot since it is not standardized.
Condemnations are no more than personal bias
There are a great many other things that can be said about atheist moralizing, but one thing is for certain, their condemnations are strictly personal and according to their own axioms I am free from any condemnation by them. Now, they spend alot of time bashing God, condemning the bible’s texts on slavery, rape or genocide, but all of that is mere bluster and grandstanding…and it has no relevance whatsoever unless the atheist is playing by the rules of the Christian where such actions would be condemned.
The double-standard renders their argument illogical
But, is this not the point? The atheist refuses to be constrained by a Morality-maker other than themselves, therefore the atheist is using a double-standard against the Christian and blatantly calling the Christian into account to the atheist…where in fact the atheist has claimed the Christian cannot condemn him because he does not believe in God or any Morality-maker.
This is the working of the power of sin in the atheist, it is the irrationality of the Void, a reigning of Sin in the heart.