If you’re a consistent atheist, then since there is no ultimate lawgiver, there is no ultimate law. Since there is no ultimate law, everything is relative. Society gets to choose what is right and what is wrong. If that society agrees that something is right or wrong, then that makes it so.
If there are two societies and they have differing views over right and wrong, they are both right in their respective universes, because everything is relative. If one society figures out a way to take over an opponent society, then it may exert its moral law upon that society, and the act of exertion alone is what makes that moral law binding and true, and nobody can argue against it. What this means is that might is right in an absolute sense. There is no appeal to a higher authority.
In this system, not only can a brand new moral code be achieved by force, but it can also be done through indoctrination. To the atheist, the master persuader who convinces a society to change its moral views gets to proxy as a god, since there is no God and no ultimate authority.
The common acceptance of homosexuality in the United States is a good example of how this works. Why does the average person accept homosexuality? Many would say it is because they have been enlightened and educated and understand the importance of avoiding bigotry. This isn’t the real reason, however. In fact, it’s folly to think that the humans who lived one hundred years ago were that much stupider than contemporary man. Human intelligence and education aren’t the deciding factors. Instead, for most citizens on the sidelines, what’s changed is that because homosexuality has gone from a crime and a mental disorder (atheist Sigmund Freud’s belief) to a thing that’s celebrated, and because atheism can only get its moral values based on what the majority say is right, that’s forced atheists to change their minds on this subject en masse.
I want to drive this point home. If the modern liberal who is staunchly pro-homosexual were to live one hundred years ago, he wouldn’t be pro-homosexual for this reason: the society was not for it. This is blindingly obvious once you understand the underpinnings of how the atheistic system works, but few today stop to think about it. “But of course I would still be an advocate,” someone says. My reply is that if you were, you would be a statistical outlier in the extreme. It’s possible that you would be an anomaly, but then to be consistent, you’re saying that you’re currently more staunchly in favor of homosexuality than the vast majority of your peers who are pro-homosexual. I find that unlikely. If zero of your social circle were ok with homosexuality and you knew you would be loudly condemned for saying that homosexuality is ok, do you really think you would go around talking about how important gay rights are? In the unlikely event that you did, the reply would be, On what basis do you make your claim? You wouldn’t have an appeal to authority, and you wouldn’t have appeal to society. You would have no basis outside of yourself. Unless you were one of the very vocal proponents that did indeed eventually change public perception of homosexuality, you would join the herd and state that you were against it. Do not kid yourself.
Let me digress for a paragraph. The implication of the above is that a modern homosexual’s approving friends aren’t approving for the reasons he thinks they are. They’re only approving because of the time in which they live, because society says it’s ok, because it’s safe. They would viciously deny that this is the case, but it’s true nonetheless. A homosexual’s typical atheistic friends would turn on him if the winds blew the other way. They did one hundred years ago, and human nature hasn’t changed. This is as plain as day to anyone on the outside looking in. The supposed victory for gay rights is not all that it appears to be. It’s transient. It will come and go with the wind, with what society deems suitable. Does that sound unstable? It does to me. It’s unsurprising though, because the foundation is based on unstable ideas. Society determines what is ok, and that fluctuates with each generation. That’s the atheist’s sacred creed: moral relativism.
If there is no absolute lawgiver, then what reason would you have for disagreeing with what the majority of society says is right? You may choose to disagree, but you would have no objective reason for why your proposed change is better. You have no appeal to authority. You have no reason or argument. You are chained to agreeing with society, or being different for no ultimate reason. There is no third choice. An atheist is, from a moral standpoint, forever doomed to reacting to his environment. Every turn he makes is based on his immediate surroundings, not on a true north. He can never rise above this without being inconsistent with his cherished worldview.
Let’s go one step further. Without absolute truth, nothing is worth dying for. If all moral decisions are derived from society, and if society is deemed to be those whom you are around, then why end your existence for a relative truth that is only true for certain people? After all, the things or persons you’re protecting are only true in their own world, and at the same time, the people who are killing you are also correct in their own world too. On the contrary, if you’re willing to die for something, that means that you’re admitting the people in front of you are completely wrong. You’re admitting that one “society” is at fault. You’re admitting that some people are right and that others are wrong. As a necessary conclusion to this, you’re saying that one society has absolute rightness over another society. It’s impossible for such absolute law to exist without an absolute lawgiver. There must exist a God for anything to be worth dying for. Thankfully, most atheists don’t live their lives consistently. Very often, atheists make practical gestures that prove that they know deep down inside, there is absolute truth and necessarily a God of truth.
“Stop being ridiculous,” someone says. “You’re introducing an extreme version of your opponent’s argument. Nobody would actually agree that this is the logical outcome of atheism. Why, if atheism were this illogical, nobody would be an atheist.” My reply is that you must never underestimate the power of denial. I argue that such an objector is blindly inconsistent, unwilling to face the true logical outcomes of their belief system. They accuse others of needing religion as a crutch while they themselves are groping at the true crutches of a cripple, groping at the dark, forced into an inconsistent lifestyle because their belief system is too flawed to be followed to its full unadulterated conclusions. The whole thing is a sham, a delusion, a house of cards.
Recently I was reminded of the frightening effects of what happens when an atheist is consistent. Piotr Kosewski left a comment to my statement that the Sharia is objectively morally flawed. Here’s what he had to say.
Sharia is acceptable for Muslims. This is their way of living. Why do you want to take this from them? Is this how Americans see freedom now? :)
You have to understand that people in different parts of the world live in different ways. Yes, sometimes they do things that would be morally unacceptable in our countries - maybe even illegal. But that’s how the world works.
That’s just how the world works? That’s what we’re supposed to tell the woman who’s abused in the Sharia? “Yes,” atheism shouts with a resounding cry. “You have no consistent alternative.” And you know what? Atheism is correct in its reply. I have no followup argument to Piotr until we can both agree that there exists a Just Judge who rules all the earth. Without that, I have zero firepower left to argue against the Sharia. None. Piotr wins, and so does the ruthless, vicious conquest of Mohammadism.
To unfold Piotr’s argument, he’s saying that if a society accepts the Sharia as its moral compass, then in that society, there’s nothing wrong with having punishments twice as severe for women as men. There’s nothing wrong with honor killings. There’s nothing wrong with every single sexist bigoted thing that the Sharia enforces.
In saying this, Piotr is conceding the first line of defense against the conquest of Mohammadism. If you cannot say that, in every context, in every society, no matter what, murdering a female relative in the name of “honor” is wrong, then you’ve lost the battle. You’ve left the field to the enemy.
Piotr’s proposition - that anything can be justified so long as society is complicit - is appalling to anyone who has an absolute sense of right and wrong. But how do you refute this if you don’t have a sense of right and wrong? And how can you have absolute right and wrong unless you have an absolute Person who reveals what is right and what is wrong?
A society of atheists is a ripe target for Muhammadism and its Sharia. Muhammadism is a false religion, but it is a religion, and it has a sense of absolute right and wrong. It believes in a god. And any society that has a sense of absolute right and wrong is eventually going to conquer a society that does not. It’s an inevitable consequence.
If you have a problem with the Sharia then you must of necessity have a problem with atheism, for the latter is a catylist to the former. In this respect, Bill Maher is sadly inconsistent. Bill Maher understands that Muhammadism is objectively flawed, but according to his worldview he has no basis to back this up apart from what the society in which he resides tells him is right. If that society ever changes - and history predicts unequivocally that society will change - Bill Maher will find himself an outlier with no reason to hold the line.
Being an atheist is a losing proposition. For the love of God - I mean that literally - please don’t be an atheist.