The New Atheist Morality

The 'New Atheists', like Dawkins and Hitchens, get very touchy when you use the (transcendental) moral argument for God, which goes something like this:

'If there is no God, and everything happened by accident, there is no reason to value human life and no one can say objectively that what _______ (insert dictator of choice) did was wrong.'

The point is then made by the Christian that the Atheist is borrowing from the Christian worldview to get his morals, and that if Christianity is thoroughly rejected (say, by a whole country), expect eugenics and so on.

The Atheist normally blusters his way through saying "how dare you say I have no morals?" and "look at what God did in the Old Testament" and missing the point entirely in a variety of other ways.

Richard Dawkins recently posted about his mate Dr Evan Harris losing his seat in Oxford West and Abingdon, bemoaning the fact that voters didn't like being represented by a man who thought we should allow people to bump off the elderly, murder the unborn, create animal-human hybrids, and so on.

This is the point: Dawkins, Harris and others see nothing wrong with these things. In debates, they claim that you can be a wonderful, moral person without Christ, and yet as soon as any difficult topic comes up, they haven't a leg to stand on. Christians know Christ, know that these things are wrong. More importantly, God knows and will judge.

So don't let your village atheist/secularist* off next time they say they can have morals without Christ. Ask them about these things and they'll soon show themselves as amoral.

* 'village atheist' is a term coined by John Frame for an atheist who lost very badly in a public debate with Greg Bahnsen. There are, in fact, plenty of atheists who are against abortion, euthanasia etc. but the vocal ones nearly always aren't. This difference of opinion between the two shows even more clearly why atheists have to have relative morality, which is no morality at all, rather preference.