bigTop wrote:I believe whole heartedly that only can have morals without a divine being involved.
I wish I had that kind of faith.
bigTop wrote:Humans, like other animals, are social. Social animals will protect others of their pack/group.
Social animals will also steal, lie, covet, commit adultery, rape, torture and murder. Millions do it every day and it makes front page news regularly. Humans start from nothing. They begin life in helplessness, ignorance, and inexperience.
Atheists are people who, whether they like it or not, have the law of God written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15). They are subject to the same laws of our country (and other countries) and they have a sense of right and wrong. They often work with people who are religious and have ethical standards as well as work with other atheists. So they are exposed to all sorts of moral behavior. In addition, they often form their own moral standards based on what suits them, (selective morality). Besides, robbery, lying, rape, etc., can get you imprisoned, so it is practical and logical for an atheist to be ethical and work within the norms of social behavior and laws, even though the reason Western society has those laws is because Western law is based on British Common law, which originates directly from Biblical law. However you want to look at it, atheists, generally, are honest, hardworking people.
Nevertheless, some Christians raise the question, "What is to prevent an atheist from murdering and stealing? After all, they have no fear of God and no absolute moral code." The answer is simple: Atheists are capable of governing their own moral behavior and getting along in society the same as anyone else.
At the risk of labeling the atheist as self-centered, it does not serve the best interests of an atheist to murder and steal since it would not take long before they were imprisoned and/or killed for their actions. Basically, law abiding societies will only put up with so much if it is to function smoothly. So, if an atheist wants to get along and have a nice life, murdering and stealing won't accomplish it. It makes sense for them to be honest, work hard, pay their bills, and get along with others. Basically, they have to adopt a set of ethics common to society in order to do that. Belief in God is not a requirement for ethical behavior or an enjoyable life.
On the other hand
Atheists' morals are not absolute. They do not accept a set of moral laws from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged. They do have neighbours though, that accept moral laws from an absolute God. However, they do live in societies that have legal systems with a codified set of laws. This would be the closest thing to moral absolutes for atheists. But, since the legal system changes, the morals in a society can still change and their morals along with it. At best, these codified morals are "temporary absolutes." In one century adultery is wrong. In another, it is right. So, if we ask if it is or isn't right, the atheist can only tell us their opinion.
If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong. If there is no God, then who cares. If it serves the best interest of society and the individual, then kill. This can be likened to something called, "experimental ethics." In other words, whatever works best is right. Society experiments with ethical behavior to determine which set of rules works best for it. Hopefully, these experiments lead to better and better moral behavior. But, as we see by looking into society, this isn't the case: crime is on the rise, large numbers within society are completely indifferent when it comes to the suffering of others and most people are uninterested to know how God controls society.
There are potential dangers in this kind of self-established/experimental ethical system. If a totalitarian political system is instituted and a mandate is issued to kill all dissenters, or Christians, or mentally ill, what is to prevent the atheist from joining forces with the majority system and support the killings? If it serves their self-interests, why not? Morality then, becomes a standard of convenience, not absolutes.
But, to be fair, just because someone has an absolute ethical system based on the Bible, there is no guarantee that they will not also join forces in doing what is wrong. People are often very inconsistent. But the issue here is the basis of moral beliefs and how they affect behavior. That is why belief systems are so important and absolutes are so necessary. If morals are relative, then behavior will be too. That can be dangerous if everyone starts doing right in their own eyes. A boat adrift without an anchor will eventually crash into the rocks.
The Bible teaches love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even when it might harm the Christian believer, though it also teaches one to defend onself when threatened and also and especially to hate evil, where evil is anything and everything that God claims in His Word that is not good. In contrast, the atheists' presuppositions must be constantly changing, and subjective and does not demand love, patience, and the welfare of others. Instead, since the great majority of atheists are evolutionists, their morality, like evolution is the product of purely natural and random processes that become self-serving.
Atheists cannot claim any moral absolutes at all. To an atheist, ethics must be variable and evolving. This could be good or bad. But, given human nature being what it is, I'll opt for the moral absolutes -- based on God's Word -- and not on the subjective and changing morals covered in human tradition that atheism offers.
MarcusOfLycia wrote:If man has no spiritual element, what specifically about the arrangement of particles that makes up a man causes him to have so much more inherent value than a blade of grass that taking his life is considered morally wrong when killing a blade of grass is seen as morally neutral?
Very well said Marcus.
