Ominous Moral Storm Clouds

lightning_bolt_cutie_marks_by_rildraw-d3ysqk4One can reasonably predict that as the infatuation with skepticism and atheism grows among the influential “intellectual elite” of our society, so too will their readiness to embrace more radical changes in moral values. Religious believers expressing dismay and horror at the ominous moral storm clouds looming on the horizon are met with smug derision, hysterical counter-accusations, or utter indifference. There is nothing that atheistic societies are incapable of rationalizing and accepting – including the sexual molestation of children.

–Rabbi Moshe Averick

20 thoughts on “Ominous Moral Storm Clouds

      • Morals belong to everybody. It’s a set of rules so that people get along. There is no need to have religion to have a set of rules. Theists do not have a monopoly on morality.
        In fact, atheists lead good productive, cooperative and meaningful lives without religion. It’s human nature, we don’t need rules dictated to us by hypocritical churches.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Who decides on “the set of rules”? If it’s the opinion of some person or group, why should that be binding on anybody? Perhaps you have a very different opinion, and who’s to say you’re wrong?

        In some societies people love their neighbour, in others, they eat their neighbour. Do you have a preference?

        Without transcendent moral laws you have no ultimate reference point to decide moral issues. It’s my opinion against yours. Make-me-up morality will not get us very far. To have transcendent moral laws you need a moral lawgiver. And that takes us back to God. Without God morality collapses.


      • If a god exists, why do Christians do things that are wrong? Why do some priests sexually molest children?

        A quick view of the definition of morals:
        “a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • The misdemeanor of priests is a reflection of how flawed and badly in need of redemption we all are. “He who is without sin let him cast the first stone.” This conduct does not reflect on the priests’ faith, but on their LACK of it.

        I am afraid you are confusing morals (lessons from fables) with morality (the distinction between right and wrong). You can’t have morality without a moral law, and you can’t have a moral law without a law giver. And that takes us back to God.


      • You we have moral laws created by agreement between men. People agree to them in behaviour or even by voting.
        In you system, you’d be bound by laws given without consultation by an imaginary character interpreted by self appointed religious leaders. We all know how corruptible they are.


      • Morality “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.”
        Morals “a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.”

        You’re question was ” On what basis can an atheist say that anything is morally wrong?”. You will find your answers in the above definitions. We are born into a world with laws, we are taught by our parents, we go through life with challenges that help us determine right from wrong. If we go back to the days of the caveman, I’m certain that if a caveman throws his child down a cliff and it dies, it quickly learns that throwing a child off a cliff isn’t the right choice to make. 🙂

        You’re quote mentioned “There is nothing that atheistic societies are incapable of rationalizing and accepting – including the sexual molestation of children.” but as we know, this is not an atheism issue, unless you are claiming the priest is an atheist. Instead, you state it is an issue with his lack of faith, which makes no sense. People of deep religious convictions have been known to do morally bad things.

        Buddhists do not believe in a god but seem to live moral lives. Apparently, those moral laws must come from someplace other than a god.

        Liked by 2 people

  1. There is no objective set of morals. When a country can finally reject organized religion and come up with morals for themselves, we may finally drop the archaic nonsense and drop the prejudice towards gays and women in this country.

    Do you see issues with morals in predominantly atheists countries? No, you see less discrimination and lower crime rates.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Things go well in atheistic countries? Last century atheistic anti-God regimes were set up in a number of countries. Paradise didn’t happen. Ruthless oppression took place in every case. The resulting slaughter of human lives exceeds anything that has ever happened in history. Here’s the head count:

      USSR — 20 million
      China — 65 million
      Vietnam — 1 million
      North Korea — 2 million
      Cambodia — 2 million

      Never has mass murder happened on such a scale in any other century in history. As far as the destruction of human lives goes, atheism wins the prize hands down. If you like the notion of getting rid of faith you might consider moving to North Korea. They’re taking a serious shot at it.


  2. First of all, those lives weren’t taken in the name of atheism. They were taken as a result of oppressive authoritarian regimes. That’s a false equivalency and I think you know that. You should certainly be ALLOWED to worship whatever you want. You might be thinking, “Well if those regimes valued God, there wouldn’t have been all those murders.” First, this isn’t true. Tons of violence is committed in the name of religion (never in the name of atheism). And this doesn’t mean we should believe in God either. It still provides no proof for his actual existence and it suggests that humans aren’t capable of acting morally without fearing some make-believe pit of eternal fire.

    Now I think you understand that I’m speaking about democratic countries where religion is rejected by choice. Happiness measurements are higher and crime rates lower. We can also make more scientific progress when the majority of our population quits believing in Noah’s ark and accepts evolution and climate change.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Isn’t it interesting that in every case where materialistic atheism took power, massive destruction of human life took place. It follows logically. Once you deny the fact that people are made in the image of God, that human life is sacred, eliminating them is no longer a moral problem.

      Once you espouse the idea that people are no more than a random collection of chemicals, why not simply get rid of undesirable people? Soviet leader Kruschev stated that it was necessary to break eggs to make an omelet. And they broke lots of them. It makes sense. If belief in God is discarded, there is no basis for believing in the dignity of humans. And it should be no surprise that atrocities follow.


      • Without god, we base our laws on how we’d like to be treated ourselves. In this case, we create laws that we are responsible for rather than some imaginary deity. We can, therefore, change the rules to suit our needs.
        The alternative is to be stuck with rules that were created when the religion was invented and then not modernised as society evolves.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Also, no atheist has ever suggested that life is a ‘random collection of chemicals’. Not one, none, ever.
        Misrepresenting your opponents’ views is no way to win a debate.

        Liked by 1 person

      • If you seriously only adhere to moral guidelines because you fear a god, then you’re probably a horrible person. Hopefully you do good things because you respect other people and want the best for society.

        Also this whole “lack of morals” thing still doesn’t provide proof for God. Think about the thousands of different religions that have asserted different moral codes. I have a pet dragon who is invisible, and he created us, and he is my moral guide. What makes your god more right? Because my dragon never wrote a book that condones misogyny, slavery, and genocide. Sounds like my dragon is a better moral guide than your god.


      • I have a number of reasons for following moral guidelines but the one you mention is not one of them.

        How many millions of people testify to the truth of your dragon? How thousands affirm that their lives have been transformed for the better by him? How many thousands have given their lives for their belief that he’s real? Once you can come up with something close to that you might start having an argument.


      • Hey Travis, I don’t think our discussion is going anywhere. Probably you have better things to do with our time, and I think I do too. Stick with your pet dragon, and I’ll stick with the Lord Jesus Christ. And if you discover your dragon is not all he’s cracked up to be, come back and I’ll tell you the best news you’ve ever heard about Someone who gave His life for you. Have a good day.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s