Atheism and moral-relativity

Atheism is often linked (wrongly) with moral-relativity. Before I go any further, let me make it clear that moral-relativity is NOT morality, but a belief system that seeks to destroy morality. Many famous atheists try to promote moral-relativistic ideas under the banner of atheism, and impressionable herd-atheists automatically accept these ideas. The great majority of atheists are not freethinkers in reality (most people in general aren't), they blindly follow atheists leaders in the same way that Catholics follows a priest. It is especially the herd-atheists that typically are moral-relativists, those that go to the moral-relativism stance on their own are just not very "bright". For those moral-relativistic atheists that are reading this, think of an actual example for where moral-relativity applies. And remember, I'm looking for an ACTUAL example, not a made-up one.

The fact of the matter is that there are right and wrong answers to each and every situation. Moral-relativists use fantasy to imagine how moral rules don't apply in every situation, and this allows them to ignore the rule completely (and/or ignore individuals that violate moral rules). I've written many posts going into detail for why moral-relativity is stupid (just search for "moral-relativism" in the search bar at the top).

The biggest problem I see with atheists associating atheism with moral-relativity is that it creates the false assumption that people can only be moral if they believe in God. In other words, that without a belief in God, a person can't be moral. If a person claims to be a moral-relativist, people automatically assume they are an atheist (which is obviously another problem altogether). It makes people assume that atheists are all amoral or immoral, which isn't the case for all atheists. We are beings that do exist, and there are behaviors that promote psychological well-being and flourishing, and behaviors that do the opposite. There are moral answers to all questions, the "anything goes" moral system is bogus. And it makes the atheist community look bad when an atheist promotes such nonsensical ideas.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has a secret child!

I just read on Yahoo News that Arnold Schwarzenegger has a 'secret child' (click me for story). Why does it seem like so many politicians are unfaithful? I believe it has to do with the nature of a politician. Most politicians, in order to be successful, need to be sociopathic to an extent. Harsh? Well, I believe underlying many stereotypes is a grain of wisdom. I believe that, yes, politicians are just good liars, and in order to be a "good" liar, a person must be a bad person (at least in my opinion). People that lie and cheat are moral-relativists. We know of so many politicians that have cheated on their spouses, the question is how many do it and get away with it?

I believe Arnold Schwarzenegger is sociopathic, and moral relativism is the morality of a sociopath. When confronted with an immoral temptation (like cheating on a spouse), a sociopath will utilize moral relativism to justify their actions. I bet if Arnold found out that his wife cheated on him, he wouldn't have accepted it like he accepted it as being okay to cheat on her - this is the nature of a moral-relativist. At the end of the day, we are moral creatures by nature, sadly, we can use our brains to think ourselves out of moral obligations.

If you read the comments of this story on Yahoo News, you will see most people being sympathetic (even though I think Yahoo filters comments). This just goes to show that moral relativism is a strong force in society. To sympathize with someone is to accept their actions as being permissible, and this just goes to show how many people subscribe to moral relativistic thinking. Very few people would tolerate being cheated on, yet they accept it when they do it themselves, and feel sympathy for those that do it to others (perhaps they can associate with it). Anyways, yep, just wanted to put my 2 cents in on this issue. It's a shame most politicians are scumbags, I believe if a politician gets caught, even in a white lie, they should be punished at the polls severely. America needs more of a paranoia of being lied to by politicians. If politicians can't be trusted to be faithful to their wives, how can we trust them with running society? 

Moral-relativism is a societal cancer.

While reading the book How We Die by Sherwin B. Nuland, it occurred to me that moral-relativists could be considered a societal cancer. Strong words? Well, before I get too far, let me quote the lines that led me to this conclusion.

"Knowing no rules, cancer is amoral. Knowing no purpose other than to destroy life, cancer is immoral. A cluster of malignant cells is a disorganized autonomous mob of maladjusted adolescents, raging against the society from which it sprang. It is a street gang intent on mayhem." -Sherwin B. Nuland

In the quote, Nuland is literally talking about cancer, but I see ways in which it could be applied sociologically as well as biologically (both are very interdependent). Is it possible that certain individuals are cancerous to a society? Well, for us to perceive it in such a way, we must look at society as being machine-like (which isn't very hard to do), and the individuals that make up the society as being similar to the cells of the body—either functional or nonfunctional. Also what must be looked at is how the world-view of a moral-relativist (including the influencing biological factors) replicates. To clarify, when I use the term 'moral-relativist', I am referring to the world-view individuals posses, not their actual being (chemically, certain parallels perhaps could be drawn as well). I just found this to be an interesting way of looking at the issue of moral-relativism in society. I believe what makes a human human is not the possessed biology, but the possessed moral-values. We don't value flesh and bone, we value meaning and purpose—the life of a moral-relativist is meaningless, and its meaninglessness spreads like a cancer.

Sorry if this post seems a bit rambley. It's just food for thought, and perhaps even a cure for cancer.


Here is a link to purchase How We Die, buy it!

Abortion is immoral

I am a pro-life atheist. I have written many blog posts on why I believe abortion is morally wrong, and this is another one of them, enjoy (wrong word choice?)...

Another reason abortion is wrong, a reason that is not often brought up, is because it is the objectification of human life. Objectification is exactly the tactic used by pro-choicers, they claim that it is ...

"just a ball of cells"


"isn't self-aware"


"is no different than killing skin cells"


All arguments pro-choicers utilize immediately seek to objectify human life. An unborn baby (words like 'embryo' and 'fetus' are mere tools to objectify human life) is human life, there is no way around this with any intellectual honesty. Abortion is immoral, and so is attempting to argue in favor of it.

Pro-choicers view human life as merely an instrument for their own ends, and even objectify themselves for the sake of superficial pleasures and/or material gains. This is the sad reality for why most atheists are pro-choice.

Atheists often are too damn wrapped up in their own delusional objectivity (read this blog post to understand what I mean by this). They often have a hard time valuing human life beyond its perceived material worth. For example, many atheists try to dehumanize all human life as being 'mere chemical reactions'. Not to digress, but I would argue that in order to deem something valueless, this requires a methodology of assigning value in itself. I am unable to grasp how pro-choicers are unable to see the value of an unborn baby beyond its physiological makeup. Not only does this devalue the life of an unborn baby, it devalues all human life as being "mere objects" vunerable to the wrath of sociopathic individuals.

Objectifying human life has caused so much evil in this world (check out my post on evil). We must stop the objectification of human life. 

An atheist's perspective on evil.

Does evil exist? 

Many atheists would claim that it doesn't. As it was stated in the video I put up by Allsaintsmonastery: evil is caused by lack of empathy, it does not physically exist, instead it is a descriptive state and/or behavior of a being. Evil cannot be done in the presence of empathy for all those affected.

What is evil? 


I believe evil is the potential behavior of conscious beings to be both unempathetic and destructive (to the self and others).

Why don't many atheists believe in evil?


This is because some of the most outspoken atheists are also the dumbest. Those atheists that don't believe in evil are moral-relativists, which means that they embody evil (evil needs the cover of ignorance in order to thrive). It is our awareness of unempathetical and destructive behavior that allows us to resist it.  This is why moral-relativists are evil, it is obvious that they provide camouflage for evil by promoting and embodying concepts that seek to de-label it (evil thrives when there is little awareness of it). Many atheists don't want to believe in evil because of a guilty conscience; such atheists are aware of the harm they have caused.

I would say that the root of all evil is dehumanization (i.e. objectification), and such a thing is caused by lack of empathy (for the self and/or society). I believe the atheist community needs to put more thought into the subject of morality; to pretend morality doesn't exist allows for the perpetuation of immorality (which is evil).  

Weird atheist-kid supports and sympathizes with pedophiles

I agree 100% with the guy in the beginning. Now, for the dirty little (using the term 'little' for the sake of irony) kid...

SacrilegeWithASmile - "I think that having a sexual thought about a child is the equivalent of having a sexual thought about a woman" ..."I have sympathy for pedophiles". 


No, it's not. Sexual thoughts about children is not "normal" (what the moral-relativist was seemingly implying); people that have such thoughts should be viewed as a threat to children. If you have sexual thoughts about children, you really should seek professional help. Not for your sake, but for the sake of those around you. It takes a very twisted mind to view children as sexual objects - a mind that cannot be compared to the norm (as SacrilegeWithASmile attempts). Typically when we think of a pedophile, we are thinking about those that do act on their impulses (otherwise, how would we know?). I am a strong believer that pedophiles should be castrated and/or have their sex drive chemically destroyed (yes, even if it is child pornography that is found). Pedophilia is not curable (again, castration wouldn't hurt, and would be a hell of a deterrent), and there should be no sympathy for such people. Those that view children as sexual objects should not be tolerated in our society, period. I can't even imagine the psychological damage a child would sustain from being molested - to sympathize with those that desire to do that is disgusting.

I want to stress that SacrilegeWithASmile does not represent the atheist community at all, and I believe he speaks volume for the failings of moral-relativism.

Joe Rogan on religion/morality

It's not a good thing to teach kids a religious-morality with the expectation that they will become atheist/agnostic later. If the only reason we behave morally is that "God is watching", then this will cause problems if the person becomes an atheist/agnostic (will become moral-relativists once they lose religion). A better morality is one that is based in empathy, and understanding the consequences of immoral behavior (on the self and society). Religion creates a pseudo-morality which is dangerous if people stop believing in the religion. A secular-based morality works with rationality.

Moral-behavior is behavior that is beneficial to the functionality of society, immoral-behavior is behavior that is harmful to the functionality of society.

The only down-side of this is that it requires more thought than the "I better not do it because God will be mad" morality of religions like Christianity, Islam, etc. 

Are atheists immoral?

"Not possessing a religious basis for morality, atheists are fundamentally incapable of having a coherent system of morality." -www.conservapedia.com (source link at bottom of post)

The site also continues to claim that atheists are more likely to view the following behaviors as being "morally acceptable"..

-illegal drug use
-excessive drinking
-sexual relationships outside of marriage
-abortion
-cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage
-obscene language
-gambling
-pornography and obscene sexual behavior


While it pains me to admit it, conservapedia is right. Atheists are more likely to view the above behaviors as morally acceptable. The problem is not so much that atheists lack a religiously-based morality, but that our society is/has been too reliant on religious systems of morality. In other words, without God, we don't know why we should act morally (there are other reasons).

Yes, atheists are more likely to believe the listed behaviors as being morally acceptable. The problem is that, as a society, we have not accepted reasons for believing that such behaviors are morally wrong besides "God is watching". There are sociologically-based reasons for seeing that many of the listed behaviors are harmful (i.e. immoral). I address each point below...

Illegal drug use - If a drug is immoral to use only because it is illegal, this reflects a flaw in moral-reasoning, being that it is moral-relativism (which isn't true-morality at all). It can't be denied that certain illegal drug-use can be harmful to society, as well as some legal drugs. To determine if a drug is good for a society vs. harmful what must be looked at is its effects on society as a whole, along with the diversity of the ways people use it (which isn't always an easy task). For example, taking Tylenol can be good, but taking an entire bottle isn't. Many factors exist in this area, and require more than just 'black and white' thinking.

Excessive drinking - Excessive drinking obviously has harmful effects on a society's ability to function, causing it to be immoral.

Sexual relationships outside of marriage - While many atheists will strongly disagree (as should be expected), it is true that such behavior perhaps is immoral (i.e. causes societal harm). The family unit is the foundation of a society, and we can easily observe the high divorce rates as being linked to sexual relationships outside of marriage (at least in part). The problem is that the instant pleasure given by sex outside of marriage (or a relationship in general) blinds people to the long-term harm caused by such behavior (i.e. when someone cheats in a relationship). Marriage equates to committal, and this is a weak force in our society, and perhaps such a moral stance has societal advantages (which would make it a moral stance).

Abortion - I've written many blog posts about this subject. The practice of abortion can be shown to be destructive to society in multiple ways. One issue with abortion that I haven't blogged about is that it eliminates the fear of pregnancy while in a uncommitted relationship (see above point). Fear of pregnancy used to be a good way of pushing people into the right direction (finding long-term/committed relationships, and forming families). If you are curious what my other arguments are against abortion (I have many), just use the search bar at the top, or the 'labels' on the lower right-side.

Cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage - It is important for a person to be committed to a relationship before cohabitation. The best way to show committal is through marriage/engagement. Many people end up in bad situations from being stuck with someone that they are not committed to, but have nowhere else to go. This moral issue has a lot of grey area, and I do not believe it is all that clear. Cohabitation is a great way to get to know a person better, but it is also a good way of getting stuck in a bad relationship, and not feeling free to leave (out of fear, etc.).

Obscene language - Certain "language" can cause harm to the functionality of a society (i.e. can be immoral). Words have meaning, and words can/do influence society in a positive or negative way. Speaking vulgarly is not "edgy", and it can be harmful in ways that can be subtle. Hearing obscene language can cause people to think in ways that they ordinarily wouldn't, and can ultimately lead them down immoral paths (i.e. destructive paths). Many atheists will disagree out of personal bias, but things such as musical lyrics do have a big impact on an individual's world-view (many atheists love their vulgar music). Most people are guilty of using offensive language (myself included), but it certainty can be problematic. If anything there is a time and place, and certain things should never be said (like much of the crap in contemporary music).

Gambling - Gambling addiction is very harmful to the functionality of a society (making it immoral). The word 'gamble' is much too broad however—we gamble virtually every day when we get out of bed (not to get hit by a car while crossing the street, etc.)

Pornography and obscene sexual behavior - The difference between pornography and prostitution is if the buyer is in the business of selling the footage. Pornography is prostitution, and prostitution is harmful to the functionality of a society in ways so obvious that I don't feel I need to elaborate. 

Yes, many atheists behave immorally. Not many people are able to claim that all of their behavior is beneficial to themselves and/or society. That said, atheists (and obviously others) need to do a better job, and be more thoughtful when it comes to the subject of morality. Just because religiously-based morality is based in fiction, doesn't mean morality itself is. Morality can be just as logically-based as anything else. Immorality exists on both sides (Christians make up a good majority in the United States), and as Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Here is a link to the page on conservapedia (click me). Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Their pseudo-morality needs to be challenged by atheists with secular, well thought-out morality. 

Atheism is Moral Relativism?

This is a common argument that the religious make against nonbelievers (i.e. atheists). Obviously atheism =/= moral relativism. Atheism has nothing to do with morality at all (atheism is the mere disbelief in deity/s). However, most atheists seem to be moral relativists, so this stereotype can be applied in most cases. But, not all atheists are moral relativists (including me). Most often it is Christians that accuse atheists of being moral relativists (I've seen a few Muslims do it as well), when in reality they are the ones with morality that is relative. Morality for a Christian is based solely on their perception of the beliefs of a particular god (imaginary or not). A Christian's view on what his/her god's morality is varies greatly, so obviously some or all Christians are wrong (more likely all). For example, some Christians believe God hates gay people, others believe that God loves gay people (someone is obviously wrong).

An example of this would be during the time of slavery. Christians used the bible to justify the practice, believing that God thought it was morally permissible. This shows that a Christian's view on what is moral and what is not is completely relative/bias. Christians enjoy engaging in moral-relativity and use their god as a means of perceived justification (slavery, rape, genocide, etc).

As I claimed before, I am not a moral relativists, unlike many atheists, Christians, Muslims, etc. For someone to not be a moral relativists they must first understand what morality is, along with what purpose it serves. Morality, simply put, is behavior (can be in the form of cognition and physical action) that is beneficial to the functionality of society. Obviously the smallest unit in a society is the individual. Being a social species, it is very important for us to have an innate sense of morality without understanding its purpose. But, it is undeniable that this is the purpose of morality. When a person believes they are acting morally, this does not necessarily mean that they are. It can be difficult to get beyond personal bias and warped world-views in order to see a clear, objective picture of how the behaviors of individuals influence society as a whole.

This model of morality can be easily applied, and in many cases, our moral reasoning is spot on as a society. A great example is murder. We view murder as being morally wrong. Why? Well, the act of murder is destructive to the functionality of a society (destruction of individuals and the harm to the well-being of others). Lying is morally wrong—as a species that relies heavily on information, if we are unable to get good, accurate information, our society's ability to function is harmed. While there are exceptions to actual acts (such as lying in certain situations), the foundation of morality is not relative with this view. While it may be difficult for an individual to assess how their/others behavior influences society as a whole, it cannot be denied that it does. It also cannot be denied that actions have consequences, and those consequence, while they appear to be the sole of cause of harm, have underlying factors that do not appear on the surface to be harmful in themselves (i.e. the underlying causal behaviors). This is why morality should be thought about in this way—it allows for a deeper understand of morality.  This is the kind of morality atheists should subscribe to, not moral relativity. When atheists endorse moral relativity, they look like fools—when Christians do it, they look like hypocrites. 

Atheists Are Emotion-Deniers!

Okay, maybe not all atheists are emotion-deniers. However, it seems that many (if not most) atheists attempt to totally shut off their ability to think emotionally. Like with morality, many atheists cannot tell the difference between right and wrong (or wont admit it because an irrational belief in moral-relativism).

Humans are emotional beings by nature, and require emotion to function properly in society. I believe that suppressing the 'emotional reasoning' part of the mind causes people to behave sociopathically. Moral-reasoning asses both logical-thinking and emotional-thinking (emotional-thinking in a bigger way than normal). If one of those types of thinking (emotional or rational) is suppressed, then a poor view of morality is created.

Another type of thinking that requires some emotion is empathy. Even though many atheists deny emotion as being real—which it is, subjectively, and our subjectivity encompasses everything. With subjectivity properly understood, emotion is just as real as logic, and it should not be denied as existing. And while many atheists suppress emotional-thinking, that does not mean they can completely get rid of this faculty, but it can be weakened (harming empathetical-intelligence, etc.).

Sadly, being able to think with some emotional-intelligence is important—obviously this type of thinking should not be suppressed. Having a well-rounded mind is better than having a mind that leans towards one area by suppressing another. Obviously most atheists are able to think emotionally. But, I would argue that those that are moral-relativists are emotionally-unintellectual—which is why when discussing concepts like morality, they look a-little "slow" like this guy in the video below...

rape can be moral using utilitarianistic moral-reasoning.

If you don't know what utilitarianism is, read about it here.

Many atheists subscribe to this moral philosophy in part/whole. The basic idea behind this moral philosophy is that the ends justify the means, and that moral decisions should be based on the Greatest Happiness Principal (G. H. P). G.H.P is basically about how moral decisions should be based upon whichever outcome leads to the most happiness and least pain. Motives don't matter with this philosophy only the telos (end).

But, I don't want to get to much into the description of this philosophy (the basic idea is that moral decisions should be based upon what leads to the most pleasure/happiness and least pain). The point in this blog post that I'm looking to make is that there are many holes in this moral structure—that such moral reasoning is not moral at all.

Here is a good example that highlights the flaws of utilitarianism..

There is a guy named Bob. Bob considers himself to be a very moral individual, and he subscribes to the moral-philosophy of Mills (as briefly described above). Using this morality, Bob is able to morally justify in his mind the act of rape. In this example, it is assumed that while raping the individual, the individual is harmed in no way, and the person is unaware that it occurs. If Utilitarianism is used, then there is no harm caused at all, but there is pleasure (albeit disturbing). So by using the G.H.P Bob is not immoral by raping this person, in fact it is moral to rape, because raping someone in this way causes no harm, but does cause happiness (more total happiness than would exist otherwise).

While this may seem like a cheap-shot, it is in my opinion a good reflection for why this is no way to contemplate morality (people can use this type of moral-reasoning to justify immoral behavior).

 I know I'm a broken record (brought this up many times), but morality should be based on something that doesn't seem to be brought up that much in discussion about morality (I personally don't hear it that much anyways); which is, moral-behavior should be judged based upon how that behavior influences the functionality of society (if it harms it, it is immoral, if it benefits it, it is moral, etc.). It seems this way of looking at morality should be obvious from a sociological context. I mean, that is the purpose of morality, it is cognition that leads to actions that are beneficial to society ("beneficial" can even mean behavior that supports existing useful moral behavior; i.e. the status quo is not necessarily immoral for not improving societies functionality, but merely maintaining it can be moral in itself). I can't seem to think of any moral contradiction with this view of morality; or in other words, it seems all-encompassing of morality as we know it, and leaves plenty of room for improvement.

It seems to me that atheists should be embracing this view of morality instead of utilitarianism and/or moral-relativism (both have similarities). A view of morality that looks at how morality influences society on all levels is way more logical than anything else out there.  

Atheists Have A Self-Centered Morality?

Apparently behavior is only good if it is inspired by God, that makes sense (sarcasm). It is not that just atheists get their morality from themselves, we all do. Even a person that believes in God still gets their morality from themselves. There are better ways to debate morality than to have it determined based upon whether not their is a God (can't be proved at the moment). Many atheists are moral-relativists, and this causes a misconception that all atheists are like this, which is untrue.

"you want evidence of a god, look in a mirror"

That is no more evidence for a god than it is for cosmic gnomes.

The believers need to argue against moral-relativism, and they need to argue against it without God, because God is not a convincing argument to an atheist; for any person with an average intelligence this should be obvious.

"it's not about evidence buddy"

Evidence is a very important thing for determining the validity of the claims of the existence of a being (which should be obvious). Atheists are oftentimes lost when it comes to morality, but that does not mean believers are any better off. Morality is something which has been polluted with ideas like 'moral-relativism', etc. But, moral-relativism is not actually connected with atheism (i.e. not all atheists are moral-relativists). Beating a dead horse here, I know, but this morality debate is something that needs to be discussed, it seems in general, both sides (religious vs.. atheist) are wrong. 

A Douchey Moral-Reletivistic Atheist.

This is the perfect example for what is wrong with many atheists. Behaviors can be right and wrong, and there is no need to evoke religion to differentiate between right and wrong. With any sort of understanding of our species (how evolution formed our psychological/physiological needs) it should be incredibly obvious to even the most unintellectual humans (short of being mentally-handicapped) that there are behaviors that are productive and behaviors that are destructive to the self and society. This is the difference between right and wrong, and for any atheist (or anyone, but especially an atheist) to deny this is so mind-numbingly stupid mere words cannot give it justice. This is the one area that the religious are winning in general, because it seems most atheists are moral-relativists. The problem with many atheists is that they open their minds so much that their brains fall out. I cannot stress this point enough to atheists; moral-relativism is both wrong and incredibly unintellectual. Moral-relativism is a pseudo-morality.