Section 5 .. Other Beliefs/


003white  Section 5 ... Other Beliefs     >        Index To Atheism       >        Atheism  & The Christian Moral Code     


Atheists and The Christian Moral Code

Please Note: Each coloured link within the article will lead you to a related topic on a different page of this site. However, while the text is part of the original article, the links are not. The author of this article may or may not agree with the views expressed on those pages, or anything else on this site..

Also See Section  I...  Choose Life That You Might Live What is truly interesting is that most people seem to be prejudiced against the Bible, but well disposed towards other 'scriptures'. This is a rather illogical situation, because there is far more evidence in favor of the Bible being true, than there is for any of the other 'holy books'. This includes scientific, historical and archaeological corroboration and the many fulfilled prophecies.  

Hey Atheists ... Get Your Own Moral Code
From Whence Came Morals?

Also See   Morality Apart From God


Hey Atheists ... Get Your Own Moral Code
By Doug Giles

I received a lot e-mails from snippy atheists after my column, "Atheists had Better Pray to God They're Right" ran the week of May 13, 2007. I had many God-deniers tell me, quite self-righteously I might add, that they lived by a high moral code without the aid of any "opiate" or "crutch" like Jesus or Moses, and they didn't need some archaic holy book giving them the skinny on how they should live.

Hey, arrogant atheists, here's an aside before I take you to task any further: that self-righteous, "I'm good enough without God" attitude is the very sin that Christ condemned the most. But I wouldn't worry about that, since Jesus probably never existed anyway. And if He did, He wasn't "the One" He thought He was and said He was and thus, all He said was a load of hooey. That is, according to your wizards.

Anyway, back to my point. Did I make a point yet? Please forgive me. My coffee is wearing off. Okay, now I'm tracking. . . .

In the volley of hate email hailed down upon me, one particular anti-God guy stated that he lived better than most Christians. He further patted himself on the back by saying that his Christian buddies even gave him big props for his squeaky-cleanness. Well, let me join in your hombres' praise by saying a big "Good for you, dude. Here's a brownie button." I'll be the first to admit that I'll take a civil atheist over an irrational and violent al Qaeda op any old day.

The problem I have, however, with the atheists and their goodness and their morality claims is that all your ethical codes of conduct sound strangely similar to the principles inherent to the Judeo-Christian traditions. As a matter of fact, it seems as if you have bellied up to the Bible and are treating it like a buffet . . . passing up on the worship of the person and work of God, while taking second helpings of His moral principles, you duplicitous, little, evolved monkey, you.

One of my old seminary profs used to say that although such muddled atheists would never verbally affirm the existence of God, they would live according to some ethical standard, some moral capital they have milked from us theists.

If I were an atheist and I believed that God didn't exist, that the Bible was a bunch of weird bunk written by religiously deluded men several thousand years ago, that Jesus was an apocalyptic, sandal-wearing, hippie forerunner of David Koresh who went around spitting out cheeky clichés who needed not to be heeded, but straight-jacketed or at least ignored-I sure as heck wouldn't be borrowing any tidbits of His wisdom to navigate my life's glide path.

If Moses, Elijah, Abraham, David, Jeremiah, Paul and Peter were not who they claimed to be and spoke not for Whom they claimed to speak, then these dudes were certifiably psycho and you wouldn't find me (if I were an atheist) taking any of their moral maxims and making them into inspirational refrigerator magnets.

That's what I appreciate about the atheist and philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Freddy is one of the few atheists who told his fellow atheistic buddies that they couldn't have their cake and eat it, too. Nietzsche understood that we can either have God and meaningful morality, or we can have no God and thus, all life is meaningless and without any trace of hope . . . it officially sucks.

Nietzsche came to the conclusion that if there is no God-or God is dead, as he put it-then he's not going to live "as if" God is alive and His moral principles mattered. Yes, brass-balled Friedrich said that the opposite of how the Bible says to live is the way we should live.

Nietzsche, unlike you postmodern Nancy atheists, was welded to his belief that God was dead and Christian morality was gonzo. He was not a half-hearted atheist parading around like most atheists do today, claiming the title while schlepping to Judeo-Christian principles.

Once again, if I did not believe in God and I believed that the 10 commandments were BS and that faith, hope and love is for "the herd", and that I came from nothing and I'm going to nothing and there is no ultimate eternal accountability for my actions-then I am sure not going to live like I did. Why do you do so, Mr. & Mrs. Atheist?

So what's it going to be, my obstreperous amigos? Are you going to continue to blather on about there being no God and then live like there is one and that His word and will matters? Get consistent, why don't 'cha? Don't live by the Ten Commandments. Don't live by the Golden Rule. Don't do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That's our stuff. That's the Judeo-Christian way. Get your own commandments that are logically deduced from the "no God" hypothesis, write your own unholy book and form your own civilization. Then let's see how appealing it is, how it betters the planet and how far you'll get.


From Whence Came Morals?
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

“[E]volutionary psychologists believe they are closing in on one of the remaining mysteries of life, the universal ‘moral law’ that underlies our intuitive notions of good and evil.” Such were the words of Newsweek senior editor Jerry Adler in his article, titled “The New Naysayers” (2006).

It has long been understood that morality exists (see Taylor, 1945, p. 83). Even the most renowned atheists have admitted such (see Simpson, 1967, p. 346): there is good and there is evil; there is right and there is wrong. Different people draw the moral line at different places, but “they all agree that there is such a line to be drawn” (Taylor, 1945, p. 83). Why?

Why are humans moral beings if, as evolutionists teach, we merely evolved from lifeless, mindless, unconscious matter over billions of years? Why do humans feel a sense of “ought” to help the poor, weak, and oppressed if we simply evolved by the natural law of “might makes right” (i.e., survival of the fittest)? Adler highlighted Richard Dawkins in his “New Naysayers” article as one of three scholars who “argue that atheism is smarter” (2006, p. 47). Apparently, one example of atheism’s superiority comes from evolutionists’ new explanation for morality, which they describe as “one of the remaining mysteries of life” (p. 48). According to Adler,

Dawkins attempts to show how the highest of human impulses, such as empathy, charity and pity, could have evolved by the same mechanism of natural selection that created the thumb. Biologists understand that the driving force in evolution is the survival and propagation of our genes. They may impel us to instinctive acts of goodness...even when it seems counterproductive to our own interests—say, by risking our life to save someone else. Evolutionary psychology can explain how selfless behavior might have evolved (pp. 48-49, emp. added).

And what exactly are these explanations? (1) “The recipient [of our acts of goodness—EL] may be a blood relation who carries some of our own genes.” (2) “Or our acts may earn us future gratitude, or reputation for bravery that makes us more desirable as mates.” (3) “The impulse for generosity must have evolved while humans lived in small bands in which almost everyone was related, so that goodness became the default human aspiration” (p. 49).

There you have it—atheism’s “smarter” explanations for morality. Although the “driving force” of evolution—natural selection—runs contrariwise to such moral, human impulses as empathy, charity, and pity, now we are told it “may impel us to instinctive acts of goodness...even when it seems counterproductive to our own interests” (p. 48). In summary, our sense of moral “oughtness” allegedly comes (1) from wanting to pass on our genes, (2) from a desire to be a hero and gain popularity, and/or (3) by default.

In actuality, “smarter” atheism is as foolish as ever (Psalm 14:1; 1 Corinthians 1:25). The desire to pass on one’s genes or to be a hero fails to explain the origins of human morality. When a person sees an unfamiliar child hanging from a six-story balcony and feels compelled to save that child from death (even though no one is watching), that sense of moral obligation must be explained in some way other than evolution. When a person is compelled to spend valuable time, money, and energy to help a poor stranger survive, even though such action may mean risking injury or death, naturalistic explanations simply will not do. To say, “goodness became the default human aspiration” is simply a copout for lacking an adequate naturalistic explanation.

Morality exists and makes sense only if there is a God, because only God could have created it. If all naturalistic explanations for the existence of morality have been shown to be inadequate, by default, the only logical explanation must be Supernatural (i.e., God).

Adler, Jerry (2006), “The New Naysayers,” Newsweek, September 11, pp. 47-49.

Simpson, George Gaylord (1967), The Meaning of Evolution (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press), revised edition.

Taylor, A.E. (1945), Does God Exist? (London: Macmillan).

Copyright © 2007 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.


Index To Atheism