The Moral Argument Against Atheism

Jan. 11, 2026

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" They are corrupt; their ways are vile. There is no one who does good." Psalm 53:1 (Berean Study Bible)

Without God, there is no consistent basis for morality. That is not to say atheists never do moral things; - many of them do. But they have no basis for morality. So let’s look at some other proposed definitions of morality and see how they fall short. As the Bible references will show, these can be good partial descriptions of morality, but they fall short as the definition of the basis of morality.

Is Moral Whatever is Lawful?

   Even when unstated, this is a common belief that many have. Wrong is what is illegal; if it is legal then it is moral. More broadly, an alternative way of putting it is that morality is the shared values of a society. Romans 13:1-3 shows that It is important to obey human laws when they are not against God.

   When the laws are good, morality should align with laws. However, in trying to make human laws the basis for morality there are five problems.

Laws can be too lax: Moral would not contradict legal if there were the laws were perfect. But until the Twentieth century, it was legal to take opium and give it to others making them opium addicts. It was legal for pregnant women to take opium and drink alcohol, despite the fact that this harms the baby. Around 1000 A.D. it was illegal to murder someone, for no reason at all, inside the city of Stockholm. But it was OK outside of the city.

Laws can be too restrictive: In the hadiths, the basis for the moral and legal code of Sunni Islam, when you get out of bed you should put your right foot on the ground first, before your left foot. When you wipe yourself after going to the bathroom, you should use an odd number of stones. Would you call this morality?

Laws and society can be unjust: In Roman culture, if a slave girl refused to have sex with her master, her nose could be cut off. In Muslim cultures it was legal to a man have sexual relations with slaves and captives, whom the Qur’an and hadiths call, "women your right hands possess". These need not be your wife, and they do not have to give consent. Both society and the morality police agree that it is immoral that women should be educated, in the Taliban-run Afghanistan. (But apparently an exception was found for the daughter of a Taliban leader!) In the U.S. south, a person could be whipped, forcibly separated from their spouse, or sold far away if they were a black slave. As Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States most unfortunately stated in 1840, "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." So there you have it; now we know what moral truth is; - at least in the eyes of this Confederate leader. We certainly need a better standard than just whatever evil laws people pass.

Laws and society can be just plain wicked: In ancient Babylon at one time, an unmarried woman must go to the temple and act as a temple prostitute one time (at least) before she could get married. In ancient Sumeria and ancient China, when a king died, his pets and wives would be killed in order to be buried with him. In the Roman Empire at various times, you had to make a sacrifice to the Roman Emperor as a god.  These laws are neither too restrictive nor too lax; they are just plain evil.

Even the perfect legal cannot include all of moral. All of the previous have in common "bad laws". But there is a fifth problem. Should a good, perfect law be identical to morality? For example, since it is good for your body to exercise regularly, should we fine or imprison those who are not doing so? You should love others; if you don’t love others enough, how is a policeman going to determine that, and enforce that? This is ridiculous.

   So defining morality as legality can at the same time be too lax, too restrictive, unjust, wicked, and too ridiculous.

Is Whatever Does Not Hurt Others or Yourself Lawful?

  Some would argue that if something doesn’t hurt others it is morally OK. Others would add that you should not hurt yourself either. In 2 Corinthians 10:8 and 13:10 Paul said his authority was for building people up, not tearing them down.

   Not wanting to hurt others is good in general. However, as a basis for morality there are at least four or five problems with trying to make this a basis for morality.

Do policemen actually ask criminals if they would like to go to in jail? Imprisonment is harmful to their freedom, and it is very harmful to their financial well-being, when they could be out robbing and stealing from others. Sometimes in a gunbattle policemen shoot. Policemen cause harm to criminals; - should they all stop and resign from being policemen?

In military defense, is it OK to defend your homes and family against invaders? Some would be pacifists, but then what about defending the oppressed by doing more than requesting the oppressors to consider stopping? Pacifist Quakers had a conundrum when they would help escaping slaves and the owners came after the slaves. Quakers solved this by telling the pursuing slave owners, "friend, I would not harm you for the world, but you are standing where I am about to shoot."

To insects and snakes in our homes we intentionally cause harm all the time. We set rat traps and we hunt and raise animals for food. We even put our pets to sleep, as a mercy when they get too old to enjoy life anymore. Those things are all causing physical harm.

To "non-humans", is it OK to kill them, and take their belongings if you consider men and women of a different ethnic group as non-humans?

Is committing suicide OK, selfishly not even considering the deep pain you will leave with your family and friends that you abandoned? This includes "quick suicide", with a gun, knife, rope, etc. as well as "slow suicide" with drugs or alcohol.

Is it Moral if It springs from Virtue?

   The ancient Greeks and Romans thought that morality is what comes from practicing virtue. Is a person, trustworthy, loyal, helpful, obedient, brave, and reverent (towards Greco-Roman gods)? Other people, like the Boy Scouts, also throw in friendly, courteous, kind, cheerful, thrifty, and clean. Paul also urged us to emulate noble things in Philippians 4:8-9. We are to flee from evil things and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance, and gentleness in 1 Timothy 6:11.

   Pursuing virtual is good. However, there are problems with making this the definition of morality. What if you are loyal to a sadistic killer, or obedient to a gangster. Hitler was said to be kind to his dogs. You can be kind and helpful to a someone to protect their income, - of robbing other people. So a virtuous approach, towards an evil cause, is not morality.

Does Morality Equal Personal Conscience?

   Related to this is trying to define morality as whatever is true to your personal conscience. Now Paul mentions following our conscience in Romans 14:1-6.

   Our conscience should align with morality. However there are severe problems with calling this the basis for morality. As one tombstone in the old west said, "I never shot anyone that didn’t need shooting." What if you were a sincere, educated Nazi, who believed that Jewish people, and other lesser races (like gypsies), should be not only discriminated against but hated. What about infant sacrifice? If your personal conscience originally for those things, or else corrupted to now be for those things, then would those be right for you?

   How do we decide if aborting babies is right? If you are a man, is something that females should decide? Then what if there are a lot of females who are against abortion. Or is this something that a single woman’s own conscience should decide, up to the moment the baby is about to be born naturally? This assumes not only that a woman’s personal conscience is never wrong, or that wrongfully killing unborn babies is not very important anyway.

Whatever Produces a Good Outcome

   This definition, called utilitarianism, or consequentialism says, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". The results of the greatest happiness determine if the action was good or not. If the outcome is worse than it otherwise would have been, the action should not have been done. If the action caused something good to happen, then the action was good. Motivation and intent do not matter. English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (wrote 1739-1832) is considered the founder of utilitarianism. He was for animal rights, against forcible eviction of convicts to Australia, and against the American Revolution.

 It is important that we work towards goodness and ultimate happiness. James 4:17 is somewhat similar; it says that if you know what is good and you fail to do it, for you it is sin.

   However, there are two problems with attempting to make this the basis for morality. First of all, how do you know if an action produces good results or not? If a man rapes a woman, and their grandchild becomes a famous world leader, then was the rape good? Fritz Haber intentionally experimented to successfully invent poison gas that the Germans used in World War I, and later against Jews in World War II. But the results of his research helped develop chemotherapy drugs to fight cancer? Was his research evil because the number of people who died of poison gas greater than those cured of cancer? But if someday in the future the number of people of people that chemotherapy cures of cancer becomes slightly greater than those killed by poison gas, does his research change from evil to good? So one problem is how to judge whether a result is for the greatest good or happiness or not. So many Communists would say that truth and virtue is whatever helps communism. But then again, someone with different political beliefs could say that truth and virtue is whatever helps their political system.

   A second problem is that this makes the ends justify the means. Many people implicitly believe this today when they praise Che Guevara. He tried to help the poor, but anybody, rich or poor, who was not for him and the governments he served was massacred. If someone thinks your views stand in the way of progress (regardless of whether or not their opinion is correct), does that give them the right to slaughter you? Yes it does, if you hold to the philosophy of Che Guevara in particular and utilitarianism in general.

Whatever is Done Out of a Sense of Duty

   A part of this was covered in the article on Understanding Atheism (https://www.biblequery.org/OtherBeliefs/Understanding%20Atheism.html)

   In contrast the previous, the philosopher Immanuel Kant said that "goodness" cannot be defined by the outcome. Sometimes evil actions still work out for good, and even good actions can end up causing harm. Kant said morality comes from intent and what is done out of a sense of duty.

   In the Bible, one of Paul’s motivations was a duty to "finish the race" in 2 Timothy 4:7 and "press on" in Philippians 3:12-14. We are to be like good soldiers for Christ Jesus in 2 Timothy 2:3-4. So "doing your duty to God" comes close as a basis morality, except that we have to know what our duty to God is. However, as reading about Jephthah shows, there are big problems with making your perceived sense of duty, as the basis for morality.

   But if someone enticed you, threatened you, or misled you to promise to doing something awful, would you feel clean and moral to do it, because you are doing your sense of duty, - sort of like Nazi Concentration Camp officers did to the jews and others in World War II. The Soviet armies in World War II had what they called the "Iron Rule". When they were retreating from an area, Russian civilians who were left could give the Nazis information about troop strength and movements, so the Iron Rule was that the Soviet soldiers were to kill the Russian civilians. Are you willing to argue that this was moral?

   What if I somehow sensed in my thoughts that it was my duty to kill people who think morality is only based on a sense of duty. Would you encourage me to do moral sense of duty?

Whatever is Done out of Love

   It is important to do everything out of love as the greatest virtue (1 Corinthians 13), to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). In fact, without love we remain in death in 1 John 3:10-14. The Ephesian church in Revelation 2:1-6 was rebuked for even though they were doing everything right, they had forsaken their first love. So doing everything out of love would come even closer than duty as a basis for morality, except there are two problems with making this a definition.

   Who do we love first? Which love are we walking about. Ignoring move of money and loving yourself first, some people love the praise of people more than the praise of God. We are to love God first and foremost. Yes it is fine to love our life and health, but if God asks us to be a martyr and die for Him, or be a "confessor" and suffer torture or mutilation for him, then issue is not whether we love God, but whether we love God first.

   How do we love? We show our love for God by obeying Him, but also by believing Him, that His way is the best way If we think that it loving someone else is doing something that is against what God commands, then either we will realize that our supposed wisdom is not as good as God’s, or else we think we know better than God, which is not really loving God first at all.

Does Morality Comes from a Book?

   Yes, we should follow what God commands us in the Bible. We are to love God’s Law (Psalm 119:97) and it can help us keep our way pure (Psalm 119:9). We need to be enlightened on what true morality is, and God Word is a "lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path" (Psalm 119:105. However even this definition of the basis for morality has two problems.

   The Pharisees loved God’s law more than they loved God. They had no room in their heart for Jesus’ words in John 8:37.

   Should morality be universal? Is what is moral in the United States the same as what is moral in say, Iran? If you agree, then you can’t say morality comes from a religious book if it is the wrong religious book. Is it OK to kill a rival wife? the Hindu Vedas say so. But in Christianity, Judaism and Islam (implied) no. Is practicing homosexuality OK? In Old and New Testament say no, but Hinduism and Islam do not say. Should you kill people for leaving your faith? In Christianity no, Hinduism does not say; Islam, Zoroastrianism, and early Mormonism say yes.

   So morality cannot just come from a book, religious or otherwise, because what if you are following the wrong book?

The Basis for Morality is what the True God Taught

   Only God is good (Matthew 14:17; Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19); because He is only good, the source of all goodness. He gives us the definition of good. God does in His own words, the Scripture of the Old and New Testaments. Goodness comes from hearing, believing, desiring and obeying what God would have us do. So technically Christians don’t believe that something is true or good because it is just in a book; rather we believe it because God said it, and we believe scripture is what God’s said and taught. The famous book by Charles Sheldon, In His Steps, shows how things would change if we only asked, "what would Jesus do" and do it. Of course, Jesus never repented because He never needed to, so it is better to ask, "what would Jesus have me do?" and show your love for God by obeying and do it with a cheerful heart. Remember, to obey is better than sacrifice (1 Samuel 15:22; Micah 6:6-8).

   There is nothing else that can be a universal basis for goodness and morality.

Conclusion

   All of these proposed definitions except the what the True God taught do not work as a basis for morality. Now many of them can get you close, "in the general ballpark", but none of them are a consistent non-contradictory basis without an anchor at the center. That anchor is God.