The Atheist Consensus

In a debate about where our moral values and obligations come from, atheists told me that the moral standard we perceive to exist has come about by a collective decision. According to atheists, societies, over time, have formed a consensus as to which behaviours will allow them to survive and which behaviours will lead to our demise. The result, they say, is our present moral code.

This of course throws the idea of naturalism out the window since naturalism is a purely unguided process of chemical interactions in which the "I" does not even exist, much less ponder its existence, but that is for another discussion.

In response to this collective morality idea I asked,

"How do atheists explain their consistently doing those things they know to be bad for the collective?"
=========

An atheist suggested that my question was dripping with irony.

What’s ironic about that question? Christianity has an explanation for our involvement in behaviours that are destructive to self and others.

“The heart is desperately wicked. Who can understand it?”

“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.”

The post that brought these comments was on the topic of Corruption. The fact of personal corruption is the answer that Jesus gave for the sorry state of our behaviours. In reality, it's an awareness of personal corruption that brings most people to a state of repentance. In fact, until that awareness is present, repentance will not and cannot take place. Christians are those who have become aware that we are chronically in violation of an objective moral standard, the source of which is Creator God, and we are hopelessly incapable of rectifying the situation on our own.

Atheists on the other hand say that our moral standards arise from, not Creator God but via a collective consensus. Yet atheists themselves don’t obey that consensus.

Why not?

Atheists say that humans are not inherently evil nor that we have a "sin" problem. The question then arises, if you have the ability to be good, if you have the ability to do what's right, why do you do those things that are destructive to your own survival? If you have control over your behaviours, why do you do things that hurt others and are harmful to the collective?

Atheists (as with all other humans on the planet) don’t even live up to their own private moral code, let alone the collective's consensus.

Why not?

On atheism what is the explanation for the wrong that you do; wrong that goes against the moral standard that was developed in, and with consensus over eons?

Are you just lazy? Perhaps too dull of mind? Slow of thought?

Do you not agree with what the collective has decided? In which case the standard that atheists say exists is itself an illusion, an atheist origin of morality mythology - yet

When you've been wronged you know without doubt that an objective wrong exists. You know that an objective moral standard exists, BECAUSE you wouldn't know that what happened to you was wrong if an objective "right" did not also exist. When you've been wronged, you know and you know absolutely that it has nothing to do with some person or group of person's opinion.

Yet that is what you claim to believe. Does that seem rational?

If right and wrong are just a matter of having made a decision, why not obey the decision that you've made?

How ironic that atheists should find fault with Christians - those who admit to not just poor behaviours but to being evil by nature - while atheists behave badly and at the same time claim to be good.