Is it not interesting to hear atheists/agnostics speak of morality? In their elitism, they speak about that which they do not subscribe, as if they even know about that which they speak. The arrogance of it is a marvel. We are told, “[t]he very thought that there are no moral absolutes, in spite of what many religious leaders and other claim, is anathema to them.” I wonder if this is an absolute, and she is certain of it!

As has been said many times previous, morality comes from man, or not man. These are the only two options available for intelligible conversation. If it comes from man, then all is subjective, and Hitler (Stalin, etc.) did nothing morally wrong. If one asserts that they did, by what standard will the judgment be made?

If morality comes from “not man,” what is the source? Since atheists and agnostics have no source outside their personal “I think,” they are then unable to ascertain a source that can have any objectivity, and thereby benefit man. Would they offer rocks and dirt as the source, or the beasts of the field? Perhaps they would offer us the moon and the stars as a source?

Atheism, as an ideology, is devoid of a moral code that can, or will, benefit man. All the atheist can do is adopt the Christian moral code, and then ridicule others for their adoption of it. But, then, should we be surprised by such an empty ideology?

Printed 10.1.2014 in the Mattoon Journal-Gazette