Now the majority of people nowadays do no go by the hope of old times. Now the reason for this is important and goes beyond mere words. Our culture sees ethics especially national or civil politics as the rules and standards by which we guide ourselves. These rules of conduct are external and can be described and discussed in a lot of ways. It seems that the vast outlet one by one possess there own idea from an endless multitude of opinions. Now these are the rules by which we choose how to behave and by which we sometimes judge others. Since this is basically the core of what everyone is trying to edify, everybody can be said to be moral in there own way unless they hold a motive of abolishment or taboo. Atheists in particular invariably adhere to some standard of conduct as it is just what human beings do.
But it is precisely this that sets atheists apart. What truly makes them look immoral in the eyes of believers of God. The nature of a non believers life is not rightly described as the adherence to an external set of norms and standards even if those norms and standards are described as being logical and true to the human condition. The immoral life of atheists is a different mode of existence and not described so much by what it does as by how it does. This special life is not distinguished by its behavior. If this were not so, then an atheist behaving like a Christian and manifest worship would seem to be a Christian. We can put this objectionably in that they presumably cannot describe how it is that they differ other than to say that they choose to believe certain things about God, life, earth and the universe. But is the endless phenomenon of the earth's events including all natural occurrences and even Christ's death only to give us certain ideas? Well, if the doubtless unmoral life is not about behavior, what is it about?
In other words, an atheists chooses to believe what they want but reject the notion that has helped boroughs of people for centuries. You can even argue without belief in God we wouldn't be where we are as people or society today at all. Whether you believe or not, it's hard to deny that he has helped people to persevere through our harsh past. Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with their refusal to surmise God whatsoever but it is not the rejection of God that makes them seem immoral to most Christians today. However, it is the rejection of the greater and higher good. This seems to be an enormous misunderstanding that leads to crude and wasteful arguments. This greater good that is mentioned is based on moral obligation. It does not mean merely that we can find people around who claim to have certain duties. Nor does it mean that there have been many people who thought they were obliged to do certain things like clothing the naked and to avoid doing others like committing adultery.
The premise is claiming something more namely, that we human beings really are obligated that our duties arise from the way things really are, and not simply from our desires or subjective dispositions. It is claiming, in other words, that moral values or obligations themselves and not merely the belief in moral values are objective facts. And the way things really are, are perceived adversely. All of us on this site know this in spades, of course. Now given the fact of moral obligation, a question naturally arises. Does this picture of the world presented by atheism accord with this fact? Now truthfully, the answer is no. Why? There is a certain tunnel vision that guides the ultimate number of people not just on this site but primarily everywhere. This is the idea that either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the religious one involving God. Atheists never tire of telling that all are the chance products of the motion of matter, a motion which is purposeless and blind to every human striving. Now this is greatly reasonable and is sure a thought that everyone should determine for themselves no doubt. Given this picture, in what exactly is the moral good rooted? Moral obligation can hardly be rooted in a material motion blind to purpose. Can it?
Well we know this certainly that it is in the human state to believe we have a reason to inhabit this earth. But suppose we say our purpose is rooted in nothing deeper than human willing and desire. In that case, we have no moral standard against which human desires can be judged. For every desire will spring from the same ultimate source which would be purposeless, pitiless matter. And what becomes of obligation? According to this view, if I say there is an obligation to feed the hungry, I would be stating a fact about my wants and desires and nothing else. I would be saying that I want the hungry to be fed, and that I choose to act on that desire. But this amounts to an admission that neither I nor anyone else is really obliged to feed the hungry—that, in fact, no one has any real obligations at all. Therefore the atheistic view of reality is not compatible with there being genuine moral obligation in any form. This is why the typical atheist perspective, not all, of reality does not fit the ethical duty that humans are purposed to have. Unfortunately, this has not shown that ethical subjectivism is false or if there are even a such thing as objective values.
Furthermore, the argument assumes that there are objective values and it aims to show that believing in them is incompatible with one picture of the world, and quite compatible with another. Those two pictures are the atheistic and materialistic one, and the broadly speaking religious one. Now truthfully, there is not an objective picture as they are both viewpoints in their own right that either work with some people or not. Granted, if ethical subjectivism is true, then the argument does not work. However, almost no one is a consistent subjectivist. Many think they are, and say they are until they suffer violence or injustice. This explains why a lot fall in to mental traps because they maybe were determined to never steer that viewpoint. In that case they invariably stand with the rest of us in recognizing that certain things ought never to be done. And for the many who are not and never will be subjectivists, the argument can be most helpful. It can show them that to believe as they do in objective values is inconsistent with what they may also believe about the origin and destiny of the universe. If they move to correct the inconsistency, it will be a move toward the religious view and away from the atheistic one.
Nowadays, however, that view does not conclude to God but to some vague religious view. It is compatible, for example, with Platonic idealism, and many other beliefs that orthodox Christians find terribly deficient. But this general religious view is incompatible with materialism, and with any view that banishes value from the ultimate objective nature of things. That is the important point. And it is hard, if not impossible, to conceive of objective moral principles somehow floating around on their own, apart from any persons. It seems most reasonable that moral conscience is the voice of God within the soul, because moral value exists only on the level of persons, minds and wills. This does not have to be the Christian God and it doesn't even have to be a God to you as we all have a different perception of this. But I like to positively attribute this to something like a God or warrior within yourself that stops you from fallacious actions and that allows you to think intelligently. But again, as I said earlier, there is no proof that concept is the external sincerity. However, this supreme being is not necessarily the creator of anything, but is our sensible and sound mind that can be likened to a God if you want it to.