Isn’t it funny how atheists live as if moral laws exist while denying the moral law giver :-)
Ken Perrott writes here that:
Some theists claim their god, and their holy scriptures, as the source of all human values…..As a non-theist I find these claims insulting because they imply that personal values require a belief in a god; that atheists cannot be moral.
I always find this form of argument intriguing because atheism per se is so patently obviously bankrupt of moral values. Note that I did not say atheists are bankrupt of moral values, but that their beloved system of belief is. I would challenge Ken to explain to these readers why ANY moral value he holds is anything more than his arbitrary personal preference.
Did you get that? I am claiming, as Christians generally do, that Ken CAN be a moral person, but not when viewed from within an atheist framework, because within that framework, moral values simply do not exist. How can they, because moral laws require a moral law giver, and atheism denies that such a law giver (God) exists.
So Ken, tell us why you are moral and how you know that. Tell us why rape is objectively wrong when it could be just as validly viewed as propagating your seed in a Darwinian fashion. Why is killing wrong? Animals are killing all the time, and we are just animals, right?
PS. You really need to read what Christians ACTUALLY write; your claim that we believe “…that atheists cannot be moral” is simply false. See for example this short YouTube video…
Define ‘moral values’ and why they require a moral law giver.
Coincidently I have posted something on this to go up Friday AM (Christian problems with morality). Perhaps you could respond then.
Basically I start with some scientific humility. Admitting that we don’t have all the answers (true of anything) and that we should investigate. I give some suggestions. But I also point out the problems that Christians have with morals – at least those with pre-enlightenment attitudes towards these issues.
Thanks Ken. I’ll check it out.
Hello,
Your claim here has been dealt with many times already. Here is a start. I suggest you do a little research.
Atheism is simply a stance with respect to supernatural deities, just as aunicornism is a stance with respect to unicorns. Your charge that it lacks a moral framework is thus a red herring. Atheists can possess a moral framework from a number of sources, such as humanism.
Let me ask you a question: why can’t a Christian own slaves, assuming it’s legal in their country.
Robert, why choose humanism as a source. Why not choose social darwinism or zoroastrianism?
Who decides what sources and good and which are bad? How do you even determine what good and bad are?
Greetings, Elizabeth:
Some choose humanism over others as a source because it 1) provides a comprehensive moral framework, 2) it does not draw this framework from an alleged supernatural deity, and 3) it comes pretty close to aligning with their own instincts of good and bad.
We humans decide what’s good and bad. It’s always been that way.
Now that I’ve answered your questions, will you answer mine?
Leave your response!
Nano-Blog News from around the world
NZ CHRISTIAN BLOGS
NZ CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES
PLACES TO VISIT