Very Good Point

Among many other reasons, Christianity is good for the world because it makes hypocrisy a coherent concept. The Christian faith certainly condemns hypocrisy as such, but because there is a fixed standard, this makes it possible for sinners to fail to meet it or for flaming hypocrites to pretend that they are meeting it when they have no intention of doing so. Now my question for you is this: Is there such a thing as atheist hypocrisy? When another atheist makes different ethical choices than you do (as Stalin and Mao certainly did), is there an overarching common standard for all atheists that you are obeying and which they are not obeying? If so, what is that standard and what book did it come from? Why is it binding on them if they differ with you? And if there is not a common objective standard which binds all atheists, then would it not appear that the supernatural is necessary in order to have a standard of morality that can be reasonably articulated and defended?

So I am not saying you have to believe in the supernatural in order to live as a responsible citizen. I am saying you have to believe in the supernatural in order to be able to give a rational and coherent account of why you believe yourself obligated to live this way. In order to prove me wrong here, you must do more than employ words like "casuistry" or "evasions"—you simply need to provide that rational account. Given atheism, objective morality follows … how?

The Christian faith is good for the world because it provides the fixed standard which atheism cannot provide and because it provides forgiveness for sins, which atheism cannot provide either. We need the direction of the standard because we are confused sinners. We need the forgiveness because we are guilty sinners. Atheism not only keeps the guilt, but it also keeps the confusion.

— Douglas Wilson, from HERE.


Me? I'm an agnostic. I have issues with Christianity. Some are philosophical, some are personal, some are just weird. I go over this stuff in my head a lot.

But over at Vox's folks often stop by and make asses of themselves. Vox's point is the same as Mr. Wilson's; atheists have no objective morality that they can expect to apply to anyone other than themselves.

I would have to agree. It's all well and good for an atheist to say "you have to abide by the golden rule". But at the end of the day, if someone else decides to anally-rape you, eat your liver in a dip and wear your skin as a hat... well, you just have no real basis to object other than your personal preference for continuing to breathe. And - logically and objectively - why should YOUR preference take precedence over his?

After all, it's really just differing opinions.