I, Matt Slick, was in an atheist chat room (voice on paltalk.com).  I was just listening while I worked on CARM.  They were discussing morality. In their dialogue they condemned the Bible and said it was immoral.  They cited slavery as an example. They routinely talked down about it, and the Bible, while they sat in moral judgment and made pronouncements.  But, of course, all they were offering for a moral standard was their personal opinions and whatever society happened to say was right and wrong. After a while, I finally spoke up. But before I did, I quickly wrote this following piece and I read it to them because I wanted to make sure I was clear. Here it is, though hastily assembled and delivered.

“What you atheists don’t seem to recognize is that, at best, your morality is based on your personal preferences and/or the collective set of opinions of the society in which you dwell. You then seek to proclaim what is morally right and wrong for others. But there’s a problem and you’re not seeing it. First of all, if all you have is your personal opinion about what is right and wrong then what gives you the right to impose your personal view on anybody else? On the other hand, if you appeal to the collective sense of society, then what gives you the right to judge another society when in their collective sense, they disagree with you?

“What you are doing is sitting in judgment without a basis where you can objectively say something is right or is not right. At best all you have is your opinions. You don’t see the problem in your own position.

“But when you imply that something is wrong by nature, such as slavery, then what you’re doing is saying that there’s an action that has an ontological moral value. But how do you have that in your atheistic worldview? The only way to justify universal morals is to presuppose a universal moral lawgiver. But since you atheists do not have a universal moral lawgiver, at best all you have are your subjective opinions which, as is evidenced in here, you want to impose on others. That sounds rather pompous seeing it is coming from personal opinions and moral relativism.”

I could’ve said it better but it was on-the-fly. Still, I thought I made my point well enough. The atheists responded with insults, name-calling, and various pronouncements of their moral superiority, but not a single one attempted to give a rational defense that would justify their moral high ground from which they looked down upon the word of God and others.

I then returned to the microphone and told them that. I was met with more insults and illogic. I thanked them for their time and left.

But, what I said was true. The atheists routinely like to speak about what is and is not morally correct, but they don’t have an objective standard with which they can judge any action to actually be morally correct. This is a huge problem for atheists and they routinely ignore it.  They have to because it is a problem for them.