One of the foremost examples for the arrogance of religious believers is their desire to have a monopoly on morality and ethics. The question is often posed, "if there is no god, why not just go around killing, stealing, or doing whatever you want?" Other theists will present a different formulation of the issue, which is more offensive in my opinion, saying that atheists are only capable of good behavior because God allows it. This is the argument proposed by the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry in their article, Can Atheists be ethical? [1] As it will be shown, every Christian, Muslim, or other religious believer who questions the ethics of atheists exhibits some very severe assumptions and ignorance.

I. Got Ethics?

On more than one occasion I have been asked, "if you're not accountable to a god, why not just do anything you please?" Is God the only source of authority in our world? Are there not laws and law-enforcement officers in much of the world? Nonetheless, we actually are free to do as we please, though most of our actions will have consequences. Because we wish to avoid some of these consequences, we choose not to engage in certain actions. How often do the faithful ask themselves what would please God, instead of how might this affect me?

To assume that all ethics must be rooted in a belief in God is embarassingly fallacious and entirely without evidence. If having a relationship with God was really the determining factor in making someone an upstanding ethical character, then why do some believers still make unethical choices? Could it be that ethics means something different to different people? Your inability to imagine how a person could be ethical apart from faith in a god does not mean anything except that you perhaps have a lack of imagination.

In the article, Is Atheism a Religion?, I established that atheism is nothing but one simple proposition: the rejection of theism. It is not an ideology, system of beliefs, or ethical paradigm in itself. Except for specific, conflicting views like those in Divine Command Theory, atheism is perfectly compatible with virtually any system of ethics. An atheist's ethics are independent of their atheism; you can be a Contractarian atheist, a Natural Rights atheist, a Utilitarian atheist, etc. "Of course atheists can be ethical," some Christians might agree, "but why are they?"

II. God Tells Me All About Atheists

Accepting any holy book's word about those who reject it is not a smart move, because it is obvious that the authors of that particular book have quite a bias, and demonizing the opposition is a technique frequently used in writing and religion. It is always best to become acquainted with both sides of a debate, and not to assume your favored side has perfectly summed up and addressed the issues of the opposition. However, this is exactly what the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry does in their article:

This is a favorite claim for many argumentative Christians, who want to tell atheists that we are ultimately subject to God, no matter how we consciously choose to disobey Christian doctrines. It is not enough for a religion to shun those who disagree, but it also has to paint the non-believers and believers as being one and the same, at the core of things. I have seen Muslims tell atheists that, "you've already accepted the first portion of the Shahada (there is no god...), why not just accept the rest of it?"

The goal is to make the process of assimilation easier, by convincing the unbelievers - as well as other believers who are unsure of their faith - that even rebellion against God is only possible with God's permission. In short, that no one can escape God. Of course, this makes the glaring assumption that there is a god who allows non-believers to still be ethical, and so I consider this argument to be less effective at persuading the godless to fall in line and intended more to calm the doubts and nerves of the faithful who question why God has not obliterated certain blasphemous individuals.

Not surprisingly, the theist's argument can be turned over onto them too. As Richard Dawkins has stated before, if Christians actually took their ethics from the bible, they would be stoning disobedient children (Deuteromony 21:18-21), executing homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), and behaving far more like the bronze-age fanatics who wrote their holy text. Instead, they behave according to the dictation of society, as we all do. They are not ethical because they follow their bibles, but it is because they act in spite of what their bibles say.

III. Absolutes And Relatives

In the second half of the article, the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry attempts to illustrate that atheist morality is on unstable ground, because we have no absolute certainty of what is right and what is wrong.

If this is not the height of arrogance, then perhaps I know not what is. To break it down, the author is saying, "I am right and I am certain of it, but you don't have that privilege". This is a far more dangerous line of thinking than relative morality. If one acknowledges that morality is relative, they will be less likely to infringe upon the rights of others than someone who believes that they know, with 100% certainty, what is best for all people in all cases.

Christians and preachers love to point out that saying "there are no absolutes" is an absolute statement, yet they completely miss the fact that most people intend it as a statement of belief. Regardless, I think the most logical conclusion to reach about the absolution or relativity of morality is that we simply do not know. Many religious believers pretend that their morality is absolute, but there is no way of providing even a shred of evidence that it is, especially given that there is also slim to no evidence for a god or for the literal truth of the bible.

First of all, this assumes that the totalitarian system would be in the self-interests of the atheist, as would killing dissenters, Christians, mentally ill, etc. What the author bases these assumptions on, I am not quite sure, but I think it is fair to say that it is not from the consensus of atheists. Useful morality is not decided upon by what best suits the individual, but it is an agreement between the populus, benefitting the society AND the individual. In the author's example, annihilating those groups mentioned would not benefit anyone but a select few, and would deprive millions of their rights and lives.

Subjective, relative morality is always open to criticism and questioning too. Whereas, if God were to command something like the slaughter of the Canaanites, Hittites, and several other nations (Deuteronomy 7:1-6), absolute morality being obedience to God would mean that it is an unarguable command. The atheist actually has a choice to join or not join the forces of the totalitarian regime, but what is to stop the Christian from participating in God's divinely-sanctioned slaughters?

IV. Atheism Has No Ethics

As it turns out, some of the religious fanatics are partially right: atheism has no ethics, but atheists do. Atheist ethics are the same as general human ethics, and they can vary from person to person. They may not be absolute, but we can only do the best with what we have, without resorting to any unproven pretensions that are the mark of a lazy and immature mind. A couple hundred years ago it was acceptable to own slaves (nowhere does the bible advocate abolitionism), but now our ethical and moral paradigms have shifted in many countries. The ability to change one's thinking and have an open discussion of morality is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign of strength and progress.

1. Matt Slick. Can Atheists be ethical? Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. Last retrieved Jan. 13, 2012.