An Atheist response to Theist quetions about moral authority.

Some fellow atheist/materialists (atheists from this point on for brevity) out there may be familiar with a few popular theist questions dealing with morality. The questions usually go something like this?

Question #1:
If you don't believe in God (and thus a universal right and wrong), what basis do you feel entitles you to say someone else is "wrong?"
Question #2:.
How do you convince someone else to follow your morals if they are based on your impression of right and wrong and therefore hold no more authority than those of anyone else?

Now I'm sure many theists are also familiar with this question. The usual popular follow-up to the question is talking about the Holocaust or Apartheid. Basically, they wonder how an Atheist can condone these horrendous acts violence when he/she (he from this point on for brevity) has no God-backed authority to say his morals are any more "good" than those of the Nazis or South Africa.
First thing to notice is that this is basically a loaded question. The theist has the dichotomy stuck in his/her (his from this point on for brevity) head that either there is a universal authority for moral law, or else morals are completely relative. Now to be fair, I have seen many atheists brush this off a little too easily. There is an underlying point. At some level, there is a sort of relative nature about morals, even if there may be wide societal agreement over what is right and wrong. Various people have made arguments for compelling reasons to accept a materialist secular base of morality, for example John Loftus, Richard Carrier, Paul Kurtz, etc... . However, any question of morals is always going to be a difficult one. The question over right and wrong truly is a "million-dollar question." There has always been widespread disagreement over what is right and wrong, so an atheist is going to end up in a painful debate where he is constantly on the defensive if he is forced to answer this question. So personally, a better response is to turn this around and ask the theist what their response is to the problem of defining right and wrong. As I plan to demonstrate, this will put the theist on the defensive and they may find their response poses even more questions than it answered.

Interpretation of the theist response to Question #1:
Now the theist is likely going to say that either their morals come from God (Divine Command Theory) or that God is the enforcer of a natural good and evil (Natural Law Theory). Either way, both answers basically state their God as their authority for good and evil ("God-Derived-Morality"). So basically, any "God-Derived-Morality" theist can say that they are entitled to condemn the actions of the Nazis as bad because their morals are based on an authority that supersedes any human set of morals. It follows that their morals also supersede any of society's laws. So as a result, there is no reason to have any reasonable base for their morals, except that they are an obedience to their God. It may be clear where I'm going with this. The God authority for morals solves one problem (a little too simply), but also poses yet another problem. Basically, it is safe to say that most theists believe that the morals they hold in high regard are nearly identical to those held by their God. Add to this the fact that there are multiple religions around the world, comprising hundreds of denominations, each with a slightly different idea of what their God commands as right and wrong. As a result, their are many different ideas of what exactly is right and wrong, each idea supposedly held by the ultimate authority in the universe (according to the "God-Derived-Morality" theist). So as a result, morals are not only relative, but each person believes their morals, no matter how gruesome, are the ultimate morals of the universe, and thus supersede any law, person, or society. So even if a "God-Derived-Morality" Islamic extremist believes it is good to kill any person who draws a picture of Muhammad, he believes his morals still supersede any law, person, or society. If a "God-Derived-Morality" Pro-Lifer believes it is moral to kill an abortion doctor, he believes his morals still supersede any law, person, or society. If a "God-Derived-Morality" Ugandan Christian Fundamentalist believes that a person should be imprisoned or even killed for homosexual acts, he believes his morals still supersede any law, person, or society. If a "God-Derived-Morality" Nazi believes he should kill a Jew because he is obligated to as a Christian, he believes his morals supersede any law, person, or society. So it seems as though, if the "God-Derived-Morality" theist were to condemn these people, they may be slightly hypocritical because these people are doing just as they do, using their own interpretation of any one of the multiple Gods in existence as their ultimate moral authority. So the theist should be at least worried about setting such a dangerous precedent.

Interpretation of the theist response to Question #2:
As mentioned before, there are hundreds of denominations of Christianity alone, each with a slightly different interpretation of the Christian God and the Bible. So if you are trying to convince someone who holds to a different view of this authority than you, you may run into a snag. Imagine a member of the United Church of Christ trying to convince a Ugandan Christian Fundamentalist not to kill homosexuals. And an even worse situation is when a theist is trying to convince someone who believes in a different God than him. He has absolutely no leg to stand on! And since he has abandoned all reliance on a reasonable defense of his morals, and thus a reasonable way to demonstrate the efficacy of his morals, he is hopeless.

Now my point is that the issue of a standard for morality, what is right and what is wrong, has been a long standing issue that has plagued philosophers for ages. It is one of the "million dollar questions" of humanity. And yet the theist seeks to answer this question with a cheap two-cent solution that actually poses more problems than it solves. It should be obvious the theist's answer does not work. How many gruesome acts have been done under the supposed authority of the ultimate power? The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, 9/11, slavery, etc... It just seems dangerous for someone to think they have access to the ultimate moral authority in the universe. And this moral authority supersedes the authority of ANYTHING ELSE! This is worrisome to say the least...

A few ways to tell if your climate change denier doesnt have a clue what he/she is talking about

Climate change is an incredibly complex issue. It is no wonder why so many people seem to have no clue what to make of all the conflicting statements. In general, if you are familiar with the scientific/peer-review process and you put just a little bit of time into the research, it should be pretty obvious that the global warming deniers are just another highly organized/well funded anti-science movement with the goal of confusing and misinforming the public. However, with all the "scientific" sounding arguments that deniers use, it can get overwhelming to determine if the individual is trying to "talk over your head."

But there are a few ways to tell if your climate change denier doesn't have a clue what he/she is talking about:

1: They bring up the 31K "scientists" that deny AGW. They are uncritically accepting the scam known as the Global Warming Petition Project (uncritical acceptance of claims).

2: They bring up the argument that we haven's surpassed the 1998 temp. Not only is it highly unlikely they've actually looked at the NASA GISS Surface Temp Analysis. It also shows they have a general lack of knowledge about El Nino/La Nina cycle and 5 year mean (cherry picking). This argument has also been addressed and dismissed by the more academic climate change denialists. They have predicted that it will blow up in the denialists' faces.

3: They say that, because CO2 makes up such a small part of the atmosphere, it must not be that important. This should seem illogical right off the bat without even basic knowledge of climate science. Imagine if you made this very same argument to a police officer who pulls you over with a 0.1% BAC. The argument means nothing out of context. The small amount of CO2 in our atmosphere means the difference between the world we live in and a frozen planet.

4: They devolve the argument into politics. The argument is about SCIENCE, not politics. (red herring) They also frequently bring up Al Gore, a politician not a climate scientist. Although Al Gore is credited with helping to bring the Global Warming issue to the public sphere, his statements are frequently exaggerated or outdated.

5: They claim that climate scientists are creating a scientific conspiracy to get grant money (This one is a gem used by nearly EVERY promoter of pseudoscience! It is illogical (without sufficient evidence) as you could say that doctors are purposely making us sick, etc... It also ignores the fact that these researchers spent 8+ years in college, over $100k in tuition/fees/college expenses, and turned down $100k+ corporate/government jobs to pursue a meager $40k-$60k doing research at a university. Does this sound like the character of scammer? argument is baseless). One of the popular modern pieces of "evidence" is the "Climategate" collection of stolen emails. I Love this one because it shows just how easy it is for the right wing side of the media to exploit scientifically ignorant uncritical Americans who don't even want to ask what a "trick" is or what "decline" the scientists are actually "hiding".

Now there are a whole host of other arguments, many of them dead giveaways as well. But these are so horrendously illogical or just straight-up wrong that it is nearly impossible to conclude the denier really knows what he's talking about. Here are a few good sources of clear rebuttals to common denier arguments:

Skeptical Science
Peter Sinclair's Greenman Studios
RealClimate

Creationists should be careful when citing a link between Darwin and the Holocaust.

Here is Darwin’s connection to the Holocaust:

1: Darwin Introduced the theory of evolution by means of natural selection in 1859.

2: Herbert Spencer coined the idea of "survival of the fittest," 5 years later and tried to do exactly what Darwin wrote AGAINST, applied Natural Selection to his preexisting beliefs on sociology.
3: In 1883, a year after Darwin's death, Francis Galton (Darwin’s cousin) introduced the idea of Eugenics as a scientific analysis of selective breeding in humans, as opposed to Darwin’s focus on animals/plants.

4: Victorian Era upper class bigots combined and perverted Eugenics and Spencer’s theory to create the concept of Social Darwinism, which survived long after the scientific basis for Eugenics (eliminating disease) was dis-proven. Social Darwinism by this time had become more remnant of ARTIFICIAL selection, which had been around long before Darwin’s time.

5: This perversion known as “Social Darwinism” became a mechanism Hitler used to justify his preconceived notions about a “superior race.” Hitler never directly sources Darwin for any idea and actually condemns Darwin’s books to be burned.

Here is the [historical figure called] “Jesus’” link to the Holocaust:

1: Various Ancient Roman age writers wrote books about a figure known as Jesus, who may or may not have existed (whether or not he existed is not relevant as this is based on the historical figure). We call these books the New Testament.

2. Hitler claimed to be directly “influenced” by the bigotry against Jews in the New Testament and claimed his hatred of Jews was justified by the stories of the New Testament. However, just as with Social Darwinism, this influence was likely a way to justify his preexisting beliefs about a “superior race.” Although this is almost certainly a perversion of New Testament themes (arguable), it is a common theme throughout his personal writings and speeches.

So which link is stronger? A perversion of a perversion of a perversion of Darwin’s SCIENTIFIC (not normative) theories, or a perversion (maybe of a perversion) of the teachings of the figure “Jesus?”

So to creationists: “People who live in glass houses should not throw stones”