The MuslimSkeptic Website writes (link):  

Atheism Has No Morality:

The overwhelming majority of atheist “criticism” against Islam and religion in general are moral claims. Yet to an intelligent person this does not make sense. How do people without any moral foundation have the audacity to make moral arguments in the first place?

In short there is “objective morality” and then there is “subjective morality.” You see, atheists do not have any objective morality in the first place. What atheism can only do is create subjective morality.

Subjective = opinion, whereas objective = fact (there is no 3rd one).
e.g: “Red is the best color” is subjective, but “2+2=4” is objective.

In other words, atheists are criticizing Islam based on their own subjective personal opinions. They might as well say, “I hate Islam because Muslims like the color green, but my favorite color is blue,” and it be no different than the garbage they say currently.

What Is Morality:

Now morality, just like heaven, is a religious concept. For us, the definition of good (right; justice) is simply obedience to Allah. And the definition of bad (wrong; injustice; evil) is disobedience to Allah. This never changes, they are objective, and based on the wisdom of Allah ... Very simple rules and definitions. We think actions like murder, stealing, rape etc., are wrong simply because Allah forbid these things. By committing these actions we are disobeying Allah and that is why these actions are evil.

 

Response: Religions also have absolutely no "objective morality"

Islam also has no "objective morality", but it was only the "subjective personal opinions" of so-called Allah (i.e. Muhammad), which Muslim Preachers claim to be "objective morality".

For example, let us see the "subjective personal opinions" of Muhammad/Allah regarding Slavery, where he says:

  • It is okay to rape captive women and even minor girls (although they were innocent and had no role in the war). 
  • It is okay to turn captives (including small children) into slaves for their entire life.
  • It is okay that coming generations of slave parents are also born automatically as slaves (i.e. the evil of Slavery by Birth in Islam).
  • It is okay to separate a baby of 6 months (who has two teeth) from his/her slave parents and sell him/her in the Islamic Bazaars of Slavery. 
  • It is okay for an owner to rape his slave girls. And after fulfilling his lust, it was ok for him to hand her over to his brother or slave. And once all his brothers and slaves have raped her one by one (in Shia Muta Type "TEMPORARY Sexual Relationship), then she could be sold to 2nd master in the Islamic Bazaar of Slavery. And it was ok for the 2nd 2nd to rape her, and then sell her to the 3rd master...
  • It is okay for an owner to snatch away the wife of his slave, and then rape her, and then return her to his slave.
  • It is okay to prohibit slave women from taking Hijab. 
  • It is okay that slave women are compelled to move in public with naked breasts ... (Please read all these Sharia Rulings about Slaves here)

All these acts are CRIMES of Islamic Slavery against HUMANITY that Islamic preachers give the name of "objective morality", and act upon it, without realizing its criminal nature. 

And when Muslims follow these morals of Muhammad, then this is only an example of the "Master-Slave Morality". 

Muslims will commit all types of other crimes too (like killing innocent people for leaving Islam), attacking and killing non-Muslim nations in the name of Jihad etc. while they consider it to be an "objective morality".

Similarly, It was only the "subjective personal opinion" of Hindu gods that the "Caste System" was okay. But for religious Hindus, it became a matter of an "objective morality". It was only the "subjective personal opinion" of the biblical god, where he asked to kill all men, women and children and to leave no survivor (Deuteronomy 2:34). But for religious Jews, it became a matter of "objective morality".

 

Islamic divine command theory:

The MuslimSkeptic Website wrote (link): 

For us, the definition of good (right; justice) is simply obedience to Allah. And the definition of bad (wrong; injustice; evil) is disobedience to Allah.

This means, whatever acts Allah/Muhammad prohibits, e.g., murder, rape, stealing, etc., are Haram/wrong/evil [if committed against Muslims]. However, the same acts are Halal/good/right [if committed against non-Muslims].

Did Allah/Muhammad forbid such acts because they were wrong? Or are they wrong because He forbade them?

Islam doesn't provide a moral or ethical framework that justifies why an act is considered right or wrong. Rather, it provides a moral code similar to that of the Mafia, the Yakuza.

The moral code of Islam forces its members to follow the orders of their gang leader [Muhammad/Allah/Caliphate/Amir], just like the Mafia members have to follow the orders of their Godfather, and the Yakuza members follow the orders of their Kumicho.

Steven Weinberg famously said: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

 

Humanity within us is ENOUGH to guide us on what is right and what is wrong

The inherent humanity within us serves as sufficient guidance in determining what is ethically correct and incorrect. For example, when atheists critique the immoral acts perpetuated through Islamic slavery, then Muslim preachers respond by arguing that atheists lack an objective moral framework and that their condemnation of such practices is merely a reflection of their "subjective personal opinions".

In the own words of the MuslimSkeptic website (link): 

You see, atheists do not have any objective morality in the first place. What atheism can only do is create subjective morality.

Subjective = opinion, whereas objective = fact (there is no 3rd one).
e.g: “Red is the best color” is subjective, but “2+2=4” is objective.

In other words, atheists are criticizing Islam based on their own subjective personal opinions. They might as well say, “I hate Islam because Muslims like the color green, but my favorite color is blue,” and it be no different than the garbage they say currently.

However, this Islamic argument is flawed since it fails to recognize that humanity itself provides a universal moral compass that transcends individual opinions or beliefs. The inhumane treatment of slaves in Islam is unequivocally reprehensible and should be acknowledged as such, regardless of personal biases or affiliations.

Furthermore, the analogy drawn between personal preferences, such as a preference for the color blue, and moral judgments is misguided. Moral principles are not comparable to subjective opinions or tastes, as they are rooted in fundamental human values and are objectively discernible. The mistreatment of slaves in Islam cannot be dismissed as a matter of personal taste or opinion; rather, it is a clear violation of basic human rights and dignity. Even if some Muslims may personally dislike the color green or have a fondness for blue, this does not detract from the fact that the injustices perpetrated under Islamic slavery are morally repugnant and demand condemnation.

 

Buddha didn't need any Divine Objective Morality; instead, he created his own system of morality:

Buddha didn't believe in any gods, and he didn't claim to be a prophet. He relied solely on his mind and rational thinking to develop his teachings. The humanity within him was sufficient to guide him toward what is good.

Islamic Preachers are mistaken when they claim that atheists cannot have any morality without a god or religion. They forget that humanity transcends all religions and gods (including Allah).

Now, let's rephrase the questions:

  • Do Muslim Preachers believe that Buddha had morals? If yes, were they the result of objective morality or subjective morality?
  • If you claim Buddha had only subjective morality due to the absence of religious guidance, do you think Buddha was justified in criticizing the so-called Objective Morality of the caste system and saying that all humans are equal, despite having only subjective morality?
  • Do you deny the presence of humanity in Buddha?
  • Do you deny that Buddha was able to create a whole new system of morality using rational human thinking (i.e., freethinking) guided by the humanity within him? He didn't need any angel to bring any revelation from any god for this new system of morality.

In simple terms, if objective morality exists, it is merely another name for the humanity within us, while religions have nothing to do with objective morality. Religions follow only the subjective moralities of their founders.

Indeed, humanity and empathy provide the foundation upon which we build the entire system of morality.

 

The Origin of Humanity/Morality lies in our Hormones:

Our physiology has EVOLVED to release hormones that promote feelings of happiness and well-being when we engage in positive social interactions, such as showing love, kindness, or empathy towards others. This suggests that morality may have an innate component, as demonstrated by a scientific study which highlights the biological basis of moral behaviour:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124201903000454

Abstract

Is there an innate moral sense? Scientific evidence, from child development, linguistics, and behavioral economics to neuroscience, moral psychology, and primatology reveals universal drives that constitute a biologically prepared moral architecture within human nature. This innate moral sense is akin to the innate predisposition for smell or language and suggests human beings are born with the prototypes of a sense that fosters anxiety when they witness others in distress and, similarly, promotes positive feelings when that distress is alleviated. Incorporating the concept of an innate moral sense into our models of social and political life would improve ethical analysis.

Nobody needs to instruct a baby on how to love their mother; it comes naturally thanks to hormonal influences.

Skin-to-skin contact between a newborn and their mother shortly after delivery is crucial and emotionally charged for both parties. Your touch and voice provide comfort and security for your baby, and this interaction triggers the release of oxytocin in your body.

Notably, childbirth and breastfeeding lead to a significant increase in oxytocin levels in women, promoting maternal bonding and nurturing behaviors.

Oxytocin, often referred to as the "love hormone," plays a crucial role in fostering attachment between parents and their offspring. While it was initially believed that only mothers experienced a surge in oxytocin levels during childbirth and breastfeeding, research has shown that fathers also exhibit similar hormonal changes when they engage in activities that promote bonding with their children.

Studies have revealed that emotionally invested fathers display increased levels of prolactin, a hormone typically associated with breastfeeding and sexual satisfaction, and vasopressin, a hormone linked to bonding and stress response in mothers. These findings suggest that fathers who actively participate in parenting experiences can experience hormonal changes akin to those of mothers.

However, the extent to which these hormonal changes occur depends on the level of proximity and interaction between the father and child. For instance, when a child sleeps with their parents, the father's recognition and response to the baby's cries, and playful interactions between the two, all contribute to strengthening their bond. In contrast, when there is a lack of physical closeness, the fatherhood effect diminishes.

As individuals mature, their moral compass is no longer solely determined by innate factors. Empathy, enlightened self-interest, and societal pressures become increasingly influential in shaping an adult's moral values. While empathy remains a vital aspect of moral development throughout a person's life, its significance wanes somewhat as other factors come into play.

In contrast, infants rely heavily on instinctual behaviours such as empathy and trust in their caregivers, which significantly impact their early moral formation. As the child grows and interacts more with society, external influences progressively shape their moral code. Ultimately, the interplay between innate tendencies and environmental factors contributes to the complex and dynamic nature of human morality.

We request the readers to please also read our article: What is the Purpose of Life as an Atheist?

 

Muslim Tactic: CONFUSING people, so they don't dare to criticize the evils of Islamic morality

Modern Muslim Preachers use different tactics so that normal people become CONFUSED and don't dare to start questioning the evils of Islamic morality against humanity. These tactics are:

  • Quoting/Misquoting atheist philosophers (like Nietzsche, John Stewart Mill, Jeremy Bentham etc.), or using terms like Utilitarianism, Hedonism, The Harm Principle etc. Normal people never heard these names and terminologies, thus they become confused and stop criticizing the evils of Islamic morality. 
  • Moreover, they tell normal people that they are not "qualified" enough to criticize Islam. They should first learn philosophy and only then do they get the right to differ from Islamic morality. 

Response:

The answer is "NO":

  • We don't need to read or follow the teachings of any atheist philosopher. We read them only to deepen our knowledge, but we don't have a "Master-Slave Morality" relationship with these atheist philosophers like Muslims have with Muhammad. 
  • Moreover, all such things like Humanity, Empathy, Utilitarianism, Hedonism, the Harm Principle etc., there is hardly any difference among them, and one comes to the same final results in one way or another. 
  • And we don't need a PhD in philosophy first to criticize the wrong things in Islam. 

And the "humanity" within us is fully enough to guide us:

  • that Islamic morality is criminal when it allows raping innocent captive women and even small girls, although they have no role in wars, or when it practices "Slavery by Birth", or when it snatches away a baby with two teeth (i.e. 6 months old) and sell the baby in the Islamic Bazaars of slavery .... 
  • that Islamic morality is criminal when it kills people for leaving Islam. 
  • that Islamic morality is criminal when it incites hatred against non-Muslims, and incites Jihadists to attack non-Muslim states and impose Islamic Sharia there forcefully. 

Remember, Buddha didn't know any atheist philosophers or terms like Utilitarianism, Hedonism, the Harm principle etc., but humanity within him was fully enough to guide him towards the good. 

Remember, we ex-Muslims also didn't know any atheist philosophers when we were Muslims. Still, the humanity within us was also telling us clearly at that time (when we were Muslims) that Islamic morality regarding poor slaves and apostasy and hating non-Muslims was wrong. Yes, we were also brainwashed during our whole religious life as Muslims that Islamic morals are from Allah and thus they cannot be challenged. Still, humanity within us kept on challenging this religious brainwashing and won this war in the end. 

Even moderate/progressive Muslims feel today that Slavery is wrong, killing people for simply leaving Islam is wrong, It is due to the presence of humanity in them. Therefore, they try to CHANGE these Islamic Rulings in the name of Reforming Islam. (Note: It was the same with Buddha too, who didn't end the caste system altogether, but reformed it by claiming that all four castes are equal, and preference is only based upon Karma). 

The lesson is, that you neither need a PhD degree first to enter Islam nor to criticize Islam nor to leave Islam. 

 

Islamic apologists: In the absence of any religious objective morality, Atheists will always have conflicting opinions due to their subjective morality (for example Incest)

An Islamic apologist wrote: 

Do all atheists have an issue with consensual incest with no involvement of pregnancy provided there is consent on both parties, or would they criminalise it if they are in control of society?

Response:

Humanity/Empathy in us provides us with the "Fundamental Framework"  for constructing ethical principles. Therefore, there is general agreement on primary moral values such as honesty being good and lies being bad.

However, sometimes variations in viewpoints emerge when addressing secondary matters where there isn't a clear right or wrong response. For instance, some individuals may hold that deception is never acceptable, while others think that under some exceptional circumstances, it could be justified or required to achieve a better outcome. Such divergences of thought on secondary issues are natural and expected.

It's crucial to recognize that:

  • These are only religious people who believe that their god is 100% perfect, and thus he also made a 100% perfect world and system of moral code.
  • In contrast, those who aren't religious don't assume 100% perfection in the world or its systems. Consequently, we must assess choices based on the degree of harm or benefit they bring, striving for the most optimal result possible given the circumstances.

Consequently, we (i.e. the non-religious people)  have established a fundamental framework, of how to solve such issues. For example:

  • Our approach involves engaging in open dialogue. 
  • We also use our present and past knowledge and experiences to solve it.
  • We also utilize our intellectual ingenuity to devise new innovative solutions.
  • Through all this, we strive to get the most effective solution, which may not be 100% perfect, but still the most optimal one. 
  • Moreover, we recognize that even with our best efforts, mistakes can still occur. Thus, the freedom of criticism in our society makes sure that a mistake does not stay as a mistake, but we are compelled to reform ourselves and correct our mistakes. Fortunately, the freedom of critique within our society ensures that errors are identified and corrected, fostering continuous improvement and growth. In religions like Islam, this facet of reformation is absent, while Divine Sharia laws cannot be criticized and thus cannot be corrected by men.  

The history of incest is as under:

  • Ancient tribes already observed the fact the children from incest relationships were weak and suffering from several diseases. 
  • But ancient tribes were also involved in a lot of fighting and capturing women of other tribes. Thus, they also observed that their children from women of other tribes didn't suffer from that weakness and diseases. 
  • Initially, although incest with siblings and parents was prohibited, incest between uncle-niece was allowed, like in the Abrahamic religion of Judaism. Till the time of Muhammad, although uncle-niece incest was also prohibited, however, Muhammad still allowed incest between a cousin brother and sister. To see the horrible consequences of cousin incest among Muslim communities, please read our article: Cousin Marriages: Allah (i.e., Muhammad) Bears Responsibility for the Miseries of Disabled Children
  • But then a few civilizations also observed the diseases in the cases of cousin incest, and they prohibited it too. You will hardly find any cousin incest marriages in atheist communities today, but Muslims are still unable to get rid of it while it is a part of Objective Morality in Muslims to have cousin incest marriages. 

So, the issue of incest was completely dead in the previous centuries due to diseases in offspring. And it is practically also dead even today in the non-religious West.

However, in this century, after the invention of condoms and abortion operations, religious Islamic preachers came up with a new hypothetical question. They ask:

In the absence of objective morality, what stop atheists to involve in incest relationships, while no harm is possible to any baby today due to condoms and abortion?

Yes, as a non-religious community, we do face this challenge today. And here is the approach that we use to solve it:

  • Firstly, we don't deny the reemergence of this challenge in this century but openly accept it. 
  • Consequently, as mentioned above, we have established a fundamental framework for tackling such issues. Our approach involves engaging in open dialogue, leveraging collective knowledge and experience, utilizing intellectual ingenuity to devise innovative solutions, and diligently working towards finding the most effective resolution. Remember, this solution may not be 100% perfect and my not solve the issue 100%, but it should still be the most effective solution. 

The usage of this approach brings us to the following results:

  • Physical Harms: Although they have been reduced, they are still present. It is important to recognize that abortion itself carries inherent risks, and there is no guarantee of preventing pregnancy in every instance.

  • Psychological Harms: The desire to have children is deeply ingrained in human nature, and entering into an incestuous relationship already introduces psychological pressure. In non-incestuous relationships, even if partners initially have doubts about having children, there are numerous cases where individuals ultimately choose to embrace parenthood despite their initial reservations. However, in the context of incestuous relationships, the ability to reverse an earlier decision and proceed with pregnancy and raising children is not feasible. This intensifies the psychological burden on individuals involved, as they may be grappling with conflicting emotions and desires. The inability to alter their earlier decision further exacerbates the psychological strain. Even if non-incestuous parents are willing to consider abortion, the procedure itself can inflict significant psychological pressure on them. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is a complex and emotionally challenging one, and it can have long-lasting effects on the mental well-being of those involved. It is also important to note that people's desires and circumstances can change over time. However, in an incestuous relationship, individuals are effectively bound to their initial decision, with no option to reverse course. This lack of flexibility can lead to feelings of being trapped and contribute to further psychological distress within the relationship.

  • Power Dynamics within a family: The power dynamics at play in these relationships make them taboo for a reason. Family members can exert considerable control over one another, making it difficult to break free from their influence even after reaching adulthood. This is why teachers are not allowed to have relationships with their students, even in colleges and universities, where the students are adults. For instance, a girl may be influenced and brainwashed by a family member from childhood to engage in a romantic relationship with her cousin-brother, and then continue to be influenced by them to only love him and not seek other relationships. Such a girl may find it challenging to escape this influence and brainwashing even after reaching adulthood. Moreover, if a dispute occurs, then it breaks the whole family. 

Based on these facts, there is a consensus among atheist communities that incest should not be ECOURAGED, but discouraged. 

But the next issue is, despite this discouragement, still humans can make mistakes (while human nature is not perfect) and siblings can still indulge in sexual activities. So, how to deal with such cases?

Logically, there are two ways to deal with such cases:

  • The first one is to declare it illegal and punish those who indulge in incest. 
  • The second approach is to control this issue through "Social Taboos", by educating people and providing them with psychological help.

An overwhelming opinion (among the non-religious community) is that the second approach brings more positive results, while:

  • Punishing people will not solve this issue, as it will only go UNDERGROUND. 
  • Such people will also not come out in the open to get any psychological help. 
  • People will keep on living under huge guilt and mental pressure, and reformation is almost impossible. 

While the chances of success in the second approach are much better, as:

  • We already have an experience in the case of cousin marriages. Social taboos and education were enough to bring this rate to ZERO in non-religious communities. 
  • It makes it easy for people to get psychological help and solve their problems. 
  • People don't have to spend their lives under fear mental stress and guilt. 

But as stated earlier, we are flexible and able to reform our wrong decisions easily. Thus, we will watch, and if at any stage we feel that the 2nd approach of Social Taboo is not working, and is not producing the desired results, then we will bring REFORMS again. And then we may introduce laws which declare incest officially illegal and may introduce a punishment for it.