The Desire For Inconsistency In Atheism

Modern day conversations with atheists typically linger around the area of epistemology (the study of knowledge).  But it has been my experience that the conversation commonly takes a turn into the realm of ethics (the study of what people "ought" and "ought not" do).  If naturalistic atheism is weak in epistemology, it fails miserably when it comes to ethics.  Why?

It is impossible to derive ethical rules from nature itself.  This is called the naturalistic fallacy.  Just because something "is," it does not follow that it "ought."

If naturalistic atheists were consistent, and saw the fallacy clearly, then they would have to conclude that there is no such thing as ethics.  They can only observe the world and say that murder happens.  They can never observe the world and say (consistently) that murder ought not to happen.  In their worldview, a man murderously "playing" with a child is just as natural as a killer whale murderously "playing" with a sea lion.

These types of things happen in nature.  The atheist has no basis for saying that they ought or ought not to happen.

Now, when these conclusions are drawn, some will take offense and say things like, "I may be an atheist, but I'm not a bad person - I don't like murder."  To this our response should be something to the effect of, "Yes, it's because you are inconsistent.  And it is my prayer that while you are an atheist, you remain inconsistent."

This post may sound a bit arrogant, as if the Christian is the good guy and the atheist is the bad guy.  I'm not saying that.  But what I am saying is that the atheistic worldview is absolutely dangerous.  People who say that they are Christians may commit murder; but, their sinful action would be highly inconsistent with their professed worldview.  However, when an atheist commits murder, we may not say that they were being inconsistent with their own worldview.