The Elephant will be addressed


There’s often conversation about whether Atheist have morals. I assert that by the definition of what it means to be an atheist it is impossible.

Before I continue with the reasoning for why an atheist cannot have morals, I must prelude this by having the reader understand that I do not think that all people who identify as an atheist do not have morals. I think many atheists don’t realize and what others don’t’ want to admit is that much of what they hold as what is moral stems from religious authorities and are not a product of some human evolutionary thought process. Most atheists have some set of morals and beliefs. The situation is just that many of them want to pick and choose which moral standards they want to uphold so they reject the authority from whome morals derive. If an atheist says they have morals the question they should be asked is, why? And then why again. In doing this it will lead to the inevitable exploration of the question of, what makes something good, and what making something bad.

This examination is for if someone were an atheist to the full extent of what it means to be an atheist by the definition of what it means to be an atheist. To make my point I have to define what an atheist is and what morals are to ensure my argument is clear.  To be an Atheist, has a clear definition.

An atheist – is a person that does not believe in a God, gods, or a supreme being or personality.
Moral – of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior

The Reason 

Can a person that does not believe in God simultaneously hold the belief that behavior can be good or bad? The question we must explore is, what determines if a thing is good or bad? For the personality that believes there is no God, the idea of a greater good is absent. How can someone hold both the belief that there is not a greater personality and the belief that there is a greater-will-to-be-done outside of the realm of themselves? That’s inconsistent because there cannot be a will, agenda, purpose, or intent without it belonging to someone.  These are all derivatives of someone's personality.

The determining factor for the personality of a truth atheist to discover what good, is left only to justifications for the betterment of themselves because there is no reason why this personality would consider a greater purpose of considering someone else.

If the determining factor for what is good is confined to be determined by an individual person, their live experiences must be the deciding factor. Whatever gratifies the person's sensual desired the most would be deemed as good. There is no other way of experiencing satisfaction outside of sensual pleasure if there is not a greater will to be done and no logical reason to consider others. If every individual person can conclude what their own right and wrong is there would be no way to have a civilization, which I think most people would say that would be a bad thing. If people choose to do whatever they want that would be anarchy. I think most people would agree that those who advocate for anarchy do not have morals.

Subjective Morality 

Many atheists say that humans in a society can collectively decide on what is moral. This means morality is voted on, so whichever ideas have the most votes determines morality. Issues with this position are clear, just because the majority of people may be for something does not make it good. Another issue with this position is, who, who gets to vote. When it comes to laws people are classified by what territory they are in. If popular vote determines morality, then how do we decide which level of geographic boundaries are sufficient to vote on what is moral. Should there be a city vote, state vote, national vote, or what about a world vote to determine what objective morality is? In the case where we must conduct a world vote to determine what is moral, if Islam is the largest religious beliefs system does that mean all the customs of that religion are moral? What about if we go in the complete opposite direction and say that every family or ever person can choose what is moral? This would never lead to a civilization as there would be no respect for person property because anyone could conclude for themselves what is moral.

I know many atheists would respond by saying they don't believe in objective morality and that they believe in subjective morality. I'll get into this later but in short, subjective morality could never produce a civilization because of reasons outlined above that people can pick and chose what they want to be good or bad.  

To not believe in a creator is to say there’s not purpose for our human’s lives. This surely is not the case. There is a God and He has created us for His good purpose. He wants us to love Him and love each other. Something a truth atheist would have no reason to do if it were not for God.

Psalm 14:1 ...The fool that said in his heart, There is no God

Sign up today for free and be the first to get notified on new updates