Why do Christians slander atheists with the label "moral relativists?"?

Question

In my experience Christians see moral rules as something imposed on them from the outside, not something they embrace as rational and purposeful, and they spend their whole lives struggling with the impulse to break the rules they think their god imposes. On the other hand, I follow virtually all the same rules of interpersonal behavior simply because I think they are rational and socially responsible and I don't find sticking to my convictions a challenge.

Some Christians seem to think there were no laws against stealing, killing, adultery, etc until Moses came down from the mountain, and they seem to think that because we atheists don't look to the Bible as the sole authority on everything from particle physics to vinyl siding that we have no values or ethics, or at least they'd like to think so in order to denigrate our disbelief. But their assumed moral superiority simply isn't in evidence, either historically or in current events. It's a red herring and pure ad hominem.

Maran: I did not say "all Christians"

Creatrix: Exactly.

Fud: But their point is not to define, but to malign. They use "moral relativist" when referring to atheists as short-hand for "immoral" , the same way right wing conservatives use "liberal" as short-hand for "gay, commie, hippie, druggie, unpatriotic, etc."

Chloe: Christians would say my atheist acquaintances are "hyper legalists" when it comes to their notions of right and wrong. I've met a couple of moral relativists, but I have to say I've known many more Christian adulterers than atheist adulterers. Anecdotal evidence isn't proof of a general principle of course, but that's my experience.

J.P.: You're correct of course. My issue is that "moral relativist" is being misued to imply "amoral or immoral."

Guineagangplank: Since a claim of divine revelation is nothing more than another man's untestable assertion that his opinions come from a god, and since divne revelation claims conflict on all sides, i think we can safely assume that they are not divine revelations, just some other guys opinions, observations and whims. I believe you would agree with that statement as long as it isn't applied to your preferred "revelation" just as others who say your revelation is false would agree as long as I don't say their preferred revelation is mere assertion.

Debrenee, again I did not say "all Christians" , but perhaps I should have said "some", but I don't think it's a generalization to say that this is a belief most Christians hold about atheists.

THX1138: That movie is prophetic in all kinds of scary ways as disparity of wealth grows and feudalism returns. But to your points, I would simply say that truth is no more than as accurate a description of reality as we can manage given the state of our knowledge and would not attribute that to any deity. Otherwise we sync.

Hi Terial: I didn't actually say Christians see the rules as irrational, but that they tend to see them as imposed and don't really think through to the fact that these are man made rules derived for social harmony in a community setting (as well as for obvious health reasons in a pre-scinetific culture with no cure for STDs, unsupported children are a burden in a culture that is always on the edge of starvation, etc). As a social scientist I do not see any of these rules as spiritually derived and understand them to have all had some rational basis in some context. Even the taboo on homosexuality coming from a need to increase tribal numbers. Few Christians can give me a rational explanation for why fornication is a bad idea. Particularly not the ones who assume pyschology is evil and demonic (which of course generally doesn't include anyone but the fundies), but I can certainly give a rational explanation, both psychological and medical for marital fidelity.

Answer 1

You're right, I have had conversations with religious folk who completely failed to grasp why they would *want* to be moral anyway without the threat posed by the afterlife. This makes them less moral people for me. Nb I don't find most religious people to be like this.

Contrary to what the answerer below says, there are many sources of moral universalism that don't require god. Kant argues that morality is a matter of logic. Moreover, as you are a rational being, the source of that morality is *you*. For him morality is still absolutely universal.

There is also universal human sympathy - generally humans don't like to see others in pain. Thus causing pain for no reason would be universally wrong.

So... **please can everyone stop saying it is a fact that non-believers have to be relativists**. It is a simple fact that some people are moral absolutists on non-religious grounds. Even if you don't agree with them, they still exist.

Answer 2

Catholics believe that humans innately have a sense of right and wrong. In other words, the reasons you give- that moral rules are rational and socially responsible- are one reason that Catholics (and Christians) hold them. It's not like someone in an African tribe who's never heard of Jesus doesn't know anything about right and wrong.
Not everything that is wrong can be determined by reason, though. The Bible further defines and confirms what we already know through the natural law, but it also forbids and commands things that could not be discovered with reason alone.
Yeah, God gives rules, but you're wrong in saying Christians see them as irrational, because they don't. God commands and forbids, and so reason also commands and forbids.
Not sure if you follow virtually the same rules as Christians, but there is no one who finds all of them easy. It's easy for me not to steal a car, but not to do other things...
And if you do follow the same rules, then any Christian who condemns your ethics because of your atheism is wrong, even if they believe that relativism is a result of atheism in general.

Answer 3

The only absolute truths that I see, the only truths that I would call the truth of God are the truths of nature itself. The rest, all morality is man's invention, claiming that it's divine just gives a special significance. Lies and invention to create a moral society, to fill needs and desires, are not absolute. The truths of Muslims are not the truths of Christians, The truths of the Jews are not all the same truths of Hindus or Buddhists. Conflicting truths from God? Someone must have invented something on their own. But gravity is the same everywhere, that's the only kind of absolute truth I can picture. All morality is relative.

Answer 4

You are seriously generalizing Christians here. I don't label anyone, and I've never even heard of the term you are referring to and I am a Christian. I was taught from the time I was a baby to be a moral person and find them rational and that they do have a purpose. It's not all just from my religion. Everyone, I don't care what group they are categorized in, struggles with always doing the right thing. Sometimes it's just not that simple.
As far as particle physics and vinyl siding, I don't remember seeing anything about that in my Bible. And I do not denigrate anyone who doesn't read and follow the Bible, I have non-believer friends actually. They wouldn't stay my friends if I treated them that way.
I personally believe that Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins and that if you ask him into your heart and ask forgiveness, you go to Heaven. My Bible says to treat everyone the same, do not judge. It's not my place as we are all sinners and humans. God is the only one who can judge anyone.

Answer 5

Chrislims would desire to have confidence that we are stupid,evil,devoid etc. It says of their e book that something if us are incorrect, evil etc. So it incredibly is a fallacy to assume people to no longer react to that. Any of them that do *no longer* have confidence what their e book says, and ignore approximately it and settle for us agnostics, atheists, gays, those of different or no faiths etc, are *no longer* following their handbook. At this factor they'd desire to end accepting others and discover ways to cull us names and shun us/pity us returned, otherwise they see themselves on a slippery slope of dropping faith (devil working by us returned!!) it incredibly is like saying no longer all racial supremacists are racist, and that a number of them graciously settle for people of all races to be equivalent and worth of appreciate as persons. It only would not make experience. If there have been some racial supremacists that weren't racist, then which would be an impossibility. If a Christian would not demonize homosexuality and unbelievers (working example) how can they nevertheless be a Christian? Non-Christian people did no longer call themselves barbarians, savages,unclean, demons etc until eventually invading Christians 'positioned them of their place.' i did no longer label me, yet Christians and Muslims labelled the two me AND themselves. i'm beneficial there are a number of greater cults and religions that demonize others, yet i'm passionate on the subject of the Chrislims who stay around and with me, they're those I stay and artwork with, and the main populous.

Answer 6

Simple fact: We are moral relativists. Without an absolute law-giver, we cannot claim to be absolutists.

What they fail to understand is that they too are moral relativists -- they have picked a religion as 'right' and thus chosen their morals. Their set of morality cannot be proven to be any more 'absolute' than anyone else's.

All morality is relative.

And for those who thing 'morality' and 'truth' are the same, and that my calling all morality relative is somehow saying all truth is relative: This sentence is the only absolute truth because all else is relative.

Answer 7

Because an atheists' morals are not based upon an absolute unchanging revelation. Their morals are based only upon their own observations and whims, and can thus change according to the situation or dictates of society or ones perception or preferences. A Christians morals should be based upon the absolute and unchyanging law of God. To say "moral relativist" isn't slander- it is merely the statement of fact.

Answer 8

I agree with you to a point.

Many Christians believe GOD himself is the biggest moral relativist of all: because he sees 'all sin the same' and a 'sin is a sin', it only matters what your opinion and belief is on HIM!....So He's obviously very childish and has no concept of ethics or morality at all obviously, according to Christians.

However, many atheists indeed ARE moral relativists and I personally take issue with that.
I myself am not.... We do not need a book or the belief in God to know right from wrong, and the bible did NOT give us moral rules.--Exactly how do we know that slavery is wrong? obviously God is all for it! And how do we know that human sacrifice is wrong? -It is at the core of the Christian faith!
damn, it barely helped humanity for two thousand years with ANY ethical dilemma and it still fails to serve us today.

Answer 9

Amen. What this mentality is basically saying is that, without the Bible, Christians would be amoral killing machines who smack their moms on the way out the door to fornicate with their neighbour's wife before killing her and nicking the tv set so they can sit and burn sheep in offering to David Hasselhoff before blaming the neighbor for killing his wife.

Answer 10

Because they needed a group of primitive drunks, rapists, and murderers to write their Holy Bible.