You're invited to Lunch: Morality in Atheism

The atheist physicist Stephen Hawking says “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet.” The question is: Is this a personal opinion or an exaggeration from Hawking? Or is it the inevitable consequence of atheism? Is there a conceptual value for humans without the existence of Allah? Is there a value for morals without the existence of Allah? We will answer these questions in today's episode and we will see frightening examples of the moral breakdown caused by atheism You're invited to Lunch: Morality in Atheism Praise be to Allah, and may the Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon His Prophet Imagine a phone message from your brother saying: "You're invited to lunch." Does this message have any meaning? Of course! Is it a truth or an illusion? It is a truth Does it have any value? Yes Will you act based upon it? Yes You will tell your family: "We are invited to lunch at my brother's house, no need to prepare lunch etc." Imagine, on the other hand, that you forgot your mobile phone unlocked in your pocket, next to the house keys and the keys clicked on the phone's keyboard while you were walking back and forth, standing and sitting Hours later, you took out your phone to make a call and saw thousands of random letters with this sentence in the middle: "You're invited to lunch." Does this sentence have a writer who wrote it with intention? No! Does it have any value? No Will you act based upon it? Again, no Because even if something meaningful appears in the midst of this jumbled mess, it cannot gain any value According to atheistic logic all the moral values that humans feel resulted from such jumbled messes and have no worth or meaning; Therefore they don't require a resultant action! As, according to atheists, they come from randomness which which doesn't know what it's doing, doesn't promise and doesn't commit to anything In atheism, which interprets the universe and its existence in a purely materialistic way, there is no place for moral values, truth, falsehood, good or evil; because these are intangible values with no material explanation Also, since Man is the product of matter; nothing but matter; there is no meaning to mercy, honesty, loyalty or kindness to parents; as feeling these values is merely a result of random genetic mutations, just like the phone's jumbled mess! On the other hand, in Islam, there is a Creator with Perfect Attributes Who commands His servants to morals that are harmonious with His Attributes This Just Creator made oppression unlawful for Himself so logically, He forbade it among His servants, “O MY slaves, I have made oppression unlawful for Myself and I have made it unlawful among you, so do not oppress one another." (Muslim) He is Merciful and commands mercy among His servants Furthermore, the Creator created us with an innate love for these values and hate for their opposites (evil, injustice...) Even if this innate nature is overshadowed by human whims to satisfy desires and dominate, the fact remains that pure innate nature is the original state for Man Thus, in Islam, there is an explanation for the existence of morals, their value, our love of good morals and hate for bad ones The explanation is: the existence of Allah When humans deny the existence of Allah, they sink into a miserable spiral of atheistic confusion; as we showed in the last episode on mental axioms In atheism, there is no Creator and no Perfect Attributes There is only nature which produces humans: A material nature lacking nonmaterial moral values; it cannot be described as wise or just Thus, there is no place for moral values in a human being produced by nature But what about Man's love for good and hatred for evil? According to atheism, they are random genetic mutations which give the illusion that there is imaginary good that must be loved and imaginary evil that must be hated A leading atheist, Richard Dawkins was asked, "Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we've evolved five fingers rather than six?" Dawkins replied, "You could say that, yeah." This means that their so-called blind coincidence could have taken another path to produce a feeling that there is nothing wrong with rape! Everything is arbitrary and we cannot describe our feelings about rape being wrong or acceptable, as right or wrong feelings, because these feelings are the result of random coincidence Accordingly, the morality of atheists has no definite source, can't be described as right or wrong, is not in harmony with the Perfect Attributes of a Creator, and carries no accountability in an afterlife! It isn't absolute, so morals cannot be described as absolutely praiseworthy or absolutely reprehensible Where has this led atheists? Let's hear some examples from their famous theorists: In a debate titled: "Islam or Atheism, which makes more sense?" Professor Lawrence Krauss was asked why incest was wrong for him; as an atheist O, Krauss! Since you deny absolute morals from a Perfect Creator; what is the basis for your belief that incest is wrong? What was his answer? Let's see! So he says, "It is not clear to me that it is wrong." Dawkins tweeted about what happened to Lawrence Krauss in that debate, “'Why is incest wrong?' Islamist asked. Krauss tried to use reason in his answer Reason? Pearls before swine!” Thus, according to Dawkins Krauss' logic is a pearl and those who denounced it are swine who did not appreciate the value of his logic! Dawkins himself, in his book "The God Delusion", says in "The Changing Moral Zeitgeist" chapter, “We don't cheat, kill or commit incest.” Thus, he regards incest as a relative value: It is his personal choice not to commit it Yet he defends Krauss' point of view and considers it logical Here are some other examples of the moral degradation of atheists from Rashad Al-Qarni's "Return to Your Origin" program: "In a more daring impudent move, Professor Greve calls for incest to be decriminalized and for its penalties to be abolished Moreover, you may be surprised to hear that a European country has gone further to discuss the legalization of incest in parliament! What deviance! They even discussed how a father should be able to have children with his daughter; legally! All praise be to Allah for the blessing of Islam. Indeed, atheists are pushing morals towards the abyss We have the atheist, Dr. Dan Barker saying that rape may be morally acceptable if needed As for the atheist Peter Singer, here is another farce! He sees no real objection to bestiality, 'Humans and animals can have mutually satisfying sexual relationships.'” Not to mention Sam Harris' defense of rape, which he considers a part of the evolutionary strategy, Dawkins' defense of marital infidelity and his refusal to call it infidelity, given that neither of the spouses has any claim on the other's body! Professor Peter Singer also supports the killing of disabled infants if it benefits them and their parents! David Silverman, the head of the American Atheists Organization stated in a debate that moral values are all relative and there are no absolute moral values He was asked, "Based on that, torturing and eating children, for example, is not absolutely wrong It is subjective. Correct?" Silverman agreed This means that a person may torture a kid, roast him alive, and eat him; and not be wrong! Silverman knows that if he admits that it is absolutely wrong, then he has to acknowledge the existence of absolute meanings, which, in turn, necessitates the existence of Allah; as we have shown According to atheism, random genetic mutations may produce genetically different people whose feelings about any behavior, such as rape or torture, are completely different And the reason is purely materialistic so their judgments cannot be described as right or wrong Thus, it is not possible to criminalize or denounce anyone no matter how immoral his acts are because he can say, "It is immoral for you, but it is moral for me." There are people in our Muslim societies who use relative expressions when they talk about ethics and consider that absolute truths do not exist They even think that clear Shari'a (Islamic) texts on ethics and values are all open to debate and not absolute Some of them may be disgusted by the atheists' statements that we mentioned but they don't notice that such statements are the natural result of the moral relativism that they adopt If values are not based on the light of Revelation then the result is loss and confusion! “And he to whom Allah has not granted light; for him, there is no light.” (Quran Translated Meaning 24:40) Atheists pose the following question: How can good, evil, and virtuous moral values be determined without belief in a God? This question is a logical fallacy because, without a God, there are no intangible values: No good, no evil, no virtue and no vice But they run away from this fact Because they know that neither humans nor societies can survive without morals So, they began writing books to answer their logically fallacious question such as: "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values", (The book title) "The Science of Good and Evil", and other similar books However, they are all vain attempts because by their purely materialistic approach and their evasion of the fact that there are no values without a God; All these books seem to be saying: What is the proper laboratory reaction to know good from evil and justice from injustice? Perhaps it is now clear that when Stephen Hawking said, “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet.” He was in harmony with his atheism and he relieved himself from searching for morals for this scum Compare that to the words of Allah which can be translated as, “Indeed, We honored the progeny of Adam.” (Quran 17:70) He has honored them to be worthy of the status of worshipping a God Whose Attributes are Perfect In this episode we have shown how morality necessitates the existence of Allah and that there is no basis for morality with the denial of Allah's existence Glory be to Him Not only that, in the next episode, we will show that atheism doesn't allow its followers to be neutral toward morals Rather, it puts them at a crossroad: They either adopt some good morals, contradict themselves and betray their atheism and Darwinism Or they live in harmony with their atheism and Darwinism and adopt the worst, most corrupt morals Shockingly important facts, so stay tuned May the peace and mercy of Allah be upon you