While in a conversation with a friend and atheist, the subject of morals and “living right” came up. As the discussion was unfolding, he surfaced the annoying hubris of theists (namely, me) to think that all atheists are immoral, living in a type of wild wild west of morality—doing whatever we want, whenever we want to do it.

“Why wouldn’t a believer in God think this about you?” I asked.

My friend did not expect this response and reacted: “It is ignorant to think that atheists can’t be or are not some of the most loving and moral people living today.”

To which I replied, “Agreed, but you did not answer my question. I asked you why don’t think a theist would think this about you. In other words, what compelling and binding reason would you give as the basis or authority for your morality?”

He said, “Because I have an obligation to live right.”

“To whom do you owe this obligation?” I asked.

“To humanity—to fellow man!” he said.

After letting his answer hang in the air for a moment, I asked the 20 million dollar question: “Why?”

“Why what?” he asked.

“Why do you owe allegiance to humanity and by the way, which humanity? If you lived in Germany during the Second World War would your allegiance to ‘humanity’ include killing Jews for the greater good of Germany? What if you served in one of Stalin’s gulags, would your obligation to “Mother Russia” compel you to participate in taking the lives of over 14 million fellow citizens? To who would you owe your moral obligation if you were serving Chairman Mao as he systematically starved or killed between 40 and 70 million of his fellow men during his revolution in China?”

“Are you saying that atheism was the reason for those atrocities?” he asked.

I said, “No, wicked people are the reason for which those atrocities happened. However, atheism paved the way for the evil that those men and women did when they rationalized and promoted their actions. Given that there was and is no standard above the ‘greater good’ of atheism, atrocities can thrive in the environment of that worldview. Atheism as a system of thought has no absolute standard that is true for all people, all places, all times—regardless of what someone might say is the “right thing” or the “greater good” or for “the good of fellow man.” In the end, atheists should expect the theistic objection that atheism paves the way for evil men and women to justify and applaud horrible acts. Atheism cannot stand against a convincing and compelling communicator such as Hitler, or the brute force of Stalin, or the nationalistic fervour of Chairman Mao because there is no moral or ethical standard by which a tyrant can be measured and judged. Atheism has no place for measuring or evaluating right from wrong, good from bad, wicked from pure. In short, atheism has no objective standard of right or wrong.”

My friend would not concede, but I think he has a better understanding of the inherent pitfalls of atheism from a philosophical and moral worldview. He did not reject atheism nor did he fall to his knees and become a theist, but I hope that some day that this will occur. I don’t hope this happens because the world would be a better place if more people were theists (there are a lot of horrific “gods” out there); I say this because I have hope that if he comes to believe that God does exist that he will begin to consider what this God is like and that this searching will lead him to Jesus.