Follow @TenBillionIQ for more posts and original content.
The overwhelming majority of atheist “criticism” against Islam and religion in general are moral claims. Yet to an intelligent person this does not make sense. How do people without any moral foundation have the audacity to make moral arguments in the first place?
In short there is “objective morality” and then there is “subjective morality.” You see, atheists do not have any objective morality in the first place. What atheism can only do is create subjective morality.
Subjective = opinion, whereas objective = fact (there is no 3rd one).
e.g: “Red is the best color” is subjective, but “2+2=4” is objective.
In other words, atheists are criticizing Islam based on their own subjective personal opinions. They might as well say, “I hate Islam because Muslims like the color green, but my favorite color is blue,” and it be no different than the garbage they say currently.
What Is Morality
Now morality, just like heaven, is a religious concept. For us, the definition of good (right; justice) is simply obedience to Allah. And the definition of bad (wrong; injustice; evil) is disobedience to Allah. This never changes, they are objective, and based on the wisdom of Allah. (And God exists, as can be proven via many methods such as ontological proofs of God, proofs of miracles via occasionalism, and prophethood via said miracles and sahih hadith to prove such miracles actually happened. But this is another topic altogether)
Very simple rules and definitions. We think actions like murder, stealing, rape etc., are wrong simply because Allah forbid these things. By committing these actions we are disobeying Allah and that is why these actions are evil. Our morality anchors on Allah.
When atheists try to detach morality from God they have to come up with something to anchor it to. Or else there is no reason to believe things like murder, rape, homosexuality, bestiality, etc., are evil. So they attempt to come up with similar rules, albeit they all are flawed and contradictory with what is actually practiced. We well explain further later in this article.
What Academic Atheists Say
Imagine an atheist trying to prove angels exist, but God doesn’t. It does not make logical sense as one is contingent on the other. More intelligent atheists like Friedrich Nietzsche realized this, who stated “There are no moral facts.” (Nietzsche 182-183) In other words, from an atheist perspective, there is no such thing as good or evil. When lions kill zebras or dolphins rape each other in the wild, is any of that good or bad? It’s neither; it’s just animalistic nature. Atheism merely extends this to human society (after all, we are animals as well).
In fact, even the learned atheist scholars admit that creating objective morality is impossible for actual humans. Shafer-Landau states:
“Moral truth is constructed from the views taken from a perfectly informed and dispassionate standpoint, from the standpoint of pure practical reason”. He then goes on to say “The preferred standpoint may be literally unattainable by actual human beings, or attainable only after securing an extreme kind of cognitive and affective detachment from the attitudes one at present possesses.” (39-40)
In other words the only way a human can achieve a state where he can create objective moral truths, is if he attained a god-like status (ironic lol). And in this state you must have no biases or personally cherished beliefs of any kind, and be totally neutral.
He ends with:
“We can understand many of the criticisms that are levelled against such theories as challenges to their claim to have satisfactorily achieved a neutral standpoint.” (40)
So basically if you are not truly neutral (i.e., if you hold anti-Islam beliefs or worship LGBT) then you can never create any objective morality.
So we can conclude that atheism has no objective morality.
Refuting Laymen New Atheists
Of course many laymen atheists will deny this and attempt to claim they have morality. The simple question to refute atheism’s claim of having a moral foundation is just to ask:
How does atheism logically determine what is good and what is bad?
Now you will see many atheists get very confused, perhaps even angry, and refuse to provide you an answer. Simply because most of these reddit-new-atheist types cannot answer it.
But if they were even somewhat intelligent, then the possible answers they could give would be something like:
1a – Maximize Happiness, Pleasure, and/or Wellbeing (i.e., Hedonism)
1b – The Harm Principle (remove/minimize harm)
3 – Consent
4 – Evolution (i.e., what animals do, benefits survival)
(Some might even suggest “empathy” which is just another term for morality, and in this case, that would be circular reasoning.)
#1 The Harm Principle
#1 is John Stewart Mill’s “harm principle,” an improvement to Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism. It can be summarized as: “Do what ever you want as long as you don’t harm anyone.”
This logic contradicts atheism, as mountains of scientific studies have shown atheism is harmful to human health and society. This large meta-analysis shows how atheism harms people’s well being, mental health, and results in higher crime rates.
You can read more about the harms of atheism on this twitter thread of scientific papers
Thread on religion and atheism
— Devon Shapiro (@DevonShapiro) January 29, 2019
So no atheist can consistently use this logic without also abandoning atheism itself. They cannot claim an action is morally wrong because it harms people since atheism itself is something that harms people, and therefore, by this reasoning, atheism itself is morally wrong.
Hedonism & Liberal Feminist Sexual Ethics
A more outdated version of Mill’s harm principle is based on utilitarianism, i.e., maximizing net happiness in society. Hedonism (pleasure seeking) is the basis for many liberal and feminist ethics. One of the strongest criticism of it is that it would allow gangrape, on the basis that a group of rapists would gain more total happiness than the victim gained any unhappiness such that the net happiness in the world has increased.
This atheist logic of promoting hedonism also permits things like rape, bestiality, and child molestation. Atheist philosopher David Benatar explains those who promote “sexual liberation” open the doors to rape as a “human right.”
I will elaborate more on this topic in much more detail in a future article or thread
Atheist philosopher Dr. Lars Gule states that human sex with animals (bestiality) should be a human right in his debate with Mohammed Hijab, saying “as long as it’s not hurting the animal.” This is similar to the views of atheists like Peter Singer PhD.
Even Lawrence Krauss, an atheist who pretends to know philosophy, was forced to admit that brother-sister incest is permissible in atheism. This is from his debate with Hamza Tzortzis.
It should be noted that Lawrence Krauss is an alleged sex offender who was Jeffrey Epstein’s friend and is a high ranking leader of new-atheist activism.
Scientific studies on the topic of atheism and morality have found that even atheist participants judge things like incest, bestiality, and cannibalism as representative of atheism.
The logical end conclusion of basing morality on consent is antinatalism, summarized as: “Life is the ultimate evil since nobody consents to being born” (Benatar, “Better” 50). So here atheism will cause the extinction of the human race.
Of course even if we do not go to this extreme conclusion, atheism also contradicts informed consent. After all, no atheist, in attempting to pull religious people into atheism, informs people in advance that atheism causes health problems, depression, and promotes higher suicide rates. So becoming an atheist by way of persuasion and influence from other atheists would, therefore, lack informed consent.
This ironically also contradicts atheism. Secularism (i.e., the political philosophy of atheism) results in population decline and a civilization’s eventual extinction. Atheist societies do not and cannot survive.https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/pvwpy/
Atheist societies are evolutionarily inferior.
And of course we should not even need to explain why the behavior of animals should not be the basis for morality. After all dolphins are known as rapists of the sea.
Now you see just how absurd secular moral arguments are. They attack Islam based on reasoning that permits rape. Atheism basically tells you to stop believing in God and start believing that rape and bestiality are human rights.
Atheists attack Islam because we do not support women dressing like prostitutes, yet this same reasoning of sexual ethics permits rape and child molestation.
The worshippers of science (more like “soyence”) talk about how “religion harms people” yet no scientific evidence backs any of this up, and ironically mountains of scientific data show atheism harms people.
They talk about “consent” yet misrepresent the harms of atheism in order to obtain an illegitimate consent. They worship evolution but do not realize atheism is evolutionarily inferior.
Don’t be fooled by these bad arguments atheists make; none of them hold any ground once we begin to scrutinize it.
Atheism clearly has no morals. Even their poor attempts to claim they have objective morals are easily refuted not just by religious people, but by their own atheist academics. If any atheist thinks otherwise they are free to reply with a reason I did not mention above.
-  Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Nietzsche: The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols: And Other Writings. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
-  Shafer-Landau, Russ. Moral realism: A defence. Oxford University Press on Demand, 2003.
-  Mill, John Stuart. “Essay on liberty.” (1859).
-  Benatar, David. “Two views of sexual ethics: Promiscuity pedophilia, and rape.” Public Affairs Quarterly (2002): 191-201.
-  Benatar, David. Better never to have been: The harm of coming into existence. Oxford University Press, 2008.
One of my original memes, my next article will be about a case against LGBTQPi++