Andrew, no offense, but your last post was such a mess that I will confine my comments to only one point. Prior to proceeding with addressing that one argument, however, I would point out that you still have failed to answer any of my questions. You mock them, but you do not answer them.
Now to the one argument which to which I will confine my reply. According to you, Andrew, atheists must develop their own moral code. Specifically, you have written, “It is the duty of every person to develop, investigate, construct, analyze and evaluate a personal code of ethics. We must be able to look at our code, and modify it if needed.” This is an extremely problematic position for you for two primary reasons.
First, where does your idea for what is moral come from? There are moral norms that are universal, not dependent on any culture or societal influence. There are even moral norms that are not dependent on the age in which we live. For example, it is wrong in every culture and in every age to kill someone without justification. It is wrong in every culture and in every time for someone to steal someone else’s property, even if the person is justified. Where do such moral norms come from? And, just as important, how are you able to perceive what is moral? Moral absolutes exist, they come from God, and your ability to perceive what is moral comes from God.
The second issue with your position is that it smacks of relativism. According to you, I am the sole determiner of what is moral. Yet, if each of us is a moral island unto himself, then there will inevitably be conflict. And when there is conflict, how is one to determine which position is correct? For example, a Palestinian believes it is moral to strap a bomb on his body, walk into a pizzeria, and detonate the bomb, killing non-combatant women and children. Who are you to say that is wrong? Or to use a more extreme example, Hitler believed it was his moral duty to exterminate Jews. If it is as you say that each person determines morality for themselves, then you cannot say that Hitler was evil.
No, my friend, as much as you try to deny it, atheism cannot provide a basis for morality. In fact, atheism fails to provide any idea on how you would even perceive what is moral. Where does you idea for morality come from? It comes from God who instilled certain moral absolutes in each person. We each have a conscience, yet a conscience serves no evolutionary purpose. Indeed a conscience actually is anti-evolutionary. You feel good if you, without any benefit to yourself, help an old lady across the street. Yet, opening a door for an old lady does not benefit you in any way or serve any evolutionary purpose.
Now to more particularly address your statements about Christian morality. Yes, slavery was once the norm; Christians were the ones who came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong and that it should be abolished. They came to that conclusion based on what they read in the Bible. Racism was once the norm, yet Christians were the ones who led the Civil Rights movement. I challenge you to think of a single ethical “improvement” that Christians did not lead.
|Jeffrey Dahmer was sentenced to 900 years in prison|
On the other hand, what have atheists offered us? It is thought that Stalin killed upwards of 10 million people; Pol Pot about 2 million of his own countrymen. And they pail in comparison to Mao Zedong who is thought to have killed at least 20 million people. Jeffrey Dahmer was a confessed atheist who brutally killed at least seventeen boys, dismembered them, stored their body parts, ate their body parts and indulged in necrophilia. As Dahmer said, “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”. He is right.
Atheism has consequences… and they are not good.