Religion is Not Required for Morality, but Why Are Atheists so Gosh Darn Amoral?

There is no certifiable link between religion and morality - atheists, agnostics, and Pastafarians can all very well be as moral or immoral as they so choose, just as the same can be said that being inherently religious does not put you on any pedestal of morality. But with that said, why are atheists' ranks usually so amoral to begin with? Naturally, this is a wide sweeping comment, and variations do apply, usually in the more moderate atheists who don't feel that their disbelief is an identity upon which they need to force on other people. But as aggressive atheism becomes increasingly popular in the world, a less Douglas Adams and a more circa 1997 Ted Turner style atheism comes about.

Inexorably, where die hard atheists gather, a bizarre kind of amorality comes into play, where not only are moral absolutes almost entirely condemned, as is the case with Zeitgeist creator Peter Joseph, a common theme is what is known as "moral equivalence", where one side, who should have the moral high ground, is beaten down so that it can be "on par" with whomever is being challenged.

A common distributer of this erroneous thought process is Noam Chomsky and those who diligently abide by his theses, or to a lesser degree, failed presidential candidate Ron Paul. In this, actions such as the 9/11 attack are justified based on how we behave on the global theater, or worse, as is the case with Michael Berg, there is an actual apologetic movement for those with the blood of innocents on their hand, usually in the name of "moral grayness".

Naturally, one has to be a lunatic to assume that there is a single slate upon which we judge all actions through history - as a kind of moral context is necessary to determine whether one is worthy of condemnation. However there are absolute, universal morals that are inescapable, and have been largely written about by every major philosopher and free thinker in the history of mankind. For example, it can universally be agreed upon that inerrant greed, murder, and thievery are all examples of immoral behavior.

However, the clash and dispute usually comes about when we can't agree on what constitutes murder. For example, the Romans considered murder an absolutely reprehensible crime, however they were fully willing to condone conquests, the sacking of entire cities, mass crucifixions, and the gladiatorial arena on the grounds that these killings did not constitute murder. Whether we agree with this in a modern context is largely irrelevant, as it needs to be compared to the moral standard of the time.

This is often why historical discussions among amateur enthusiasts is often very difficult, as incidents such as the Massacre of Jerusalem in the First Crusade are invoked as an example of extreme Christian brutality, however anyone with a modicum of understanding about the time period knows that there was nothing particularly "extreme" about this measure. An easy "go to" example to debunk this theory that the behavior of the Crusaders entering Jerusalem is a "new" idea is the Muslim conquest of Constantinople, which saw a three day orgy of violence that forced Greeks to largely flee their peninsula for Italy.

Neither of these examples justify the other, however it is a definite example of trying to point out the folly in trying to hold contemporary moral standards to a historical event if you are unwilling to consider the context.

But when it comes to modern times, it is getting largely out of hand, as lunatics like Michael Berg and Cindy Sheehan find themselves literally sympathizing with terrorists. For example, Berg is the father of a man whose head was sawed off with a knife while the images were posted on the internet for all to see. Rather than condemn the man who did this to his son, Michael has taken the unenviable position of publicly mourning the death of the killer, saying that his son's death was really the fault of America, and therefore, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi can be excused.

This is an extreme example of course, but a kind of moral nihilism is beginning to encroach the entire atheist movement, or at least, the vocal, very possibly minority, are beginning to give the movement a bad name. Turning to Zeitgeist, the Movie creator Peter Joseph, he argues that there simply isn't any kind of morality that one can compare to, since all things are relative.

On his site, he argues, that religion actually is not conductive of morality, and that it is one of the sole catalysts of human problems - arguing instead that humans are "perfect" until religion, nationalism, and politics get in the way. The bizarre thing of course, is that he is simply using religious terminology with atheist vocabulary. One need only replace the ideas of Original Sin with Nationalism, and suddenly we have a new Church of Atheism.

In my time debating with atheists, the "moral nihilist" has struck me as the most alarming, as they argue that there is no such thing as morality - however when they are challenged with why I shouldn't simply kill them, they can't find a rational reason.

The fact is that there are several absolutes in this world - murder is absolutely reprehensible, forced bondage is absolutely reprehensible, and highlighting these things does not make you a "blind religious zealot", in many ways, they are the backbone of civilization. Perhaps the key difference between humanity and animal kind is that we are capable of realizing what is right and what is wrong, and evil only exists when we knowingly choose to do what is universally and inexcusably wrong.

I believe that this is something endowed in every person, regardless of race, religion, or politics, everyone knows inherently right from wrong, being a part of a religion does not make you "moral". In many ways, some people use religion as a way to enforce a morality that they wouldn't otherwise be able to behave in, for others, it is simply the logical course of behavior they'd adopt anyway.

So if it is independent of religion, why are atheists growing increasingly amoral in today's society?