Read on Twitter
Why atheists are inherently immoral (Thread):
Morality is simply defined as the distinction between right/wrong & good/bad. How do we find out what is right and wrong? We follow objective moral legislation.
What is Objective morality? To have an objective principle, it must be pure of any human emotion and subjectivity. To make this simple to understand I will pose the example of a thief. Is it wrong for him to steal?
According to the thief, it is okay to steal and he will justify it using reasoning such as that he was hungry and his family needed to eat. To the person who had property stolen from him, it is not acceptable or justified for the thief to steal from him.
To come to closure, we must have a judge who will rule whether the thief is right or the victim of the theft is right. That judge must be God for morals to be objectivally right or wrong, as any other source of derivation would hinder the judgement flawed due to subjectivity.
Let’s take another example- rape. Is rape OBJECTIVALLY right or wrong? To me it’s wrong but that is subjective due to the fact that to a rapist, it is permissible and acceptable.
Today’s Atheists try to counter this point by saying the majority of ppl in a society will hold that rape is bad, “therefore it is bad.” But if we concede that the best we can do is rely on Majority, then what happens if one day the majority becomes okay with rape?
Throughout history we have seen countless examples with the majority of people acquiring strength and asserting dominance on vulnerable individuals, and according to atheist logic this is acceptable.
The Mongols would storm cities and burn women and children alive. They were the world power at the time and no NATO or UN existed to “intervene” and stop them. According to atheists, because they had the democratic majority, all the harm and destruction they caused was moral.
Now let’s take a quick look at what many of the “great minds” of the new Atheism religion have to say about Morality. These are the men atheists look up to for guidance and direction:
Richard Dawkins: “Its a hard question..some philosopher can come and say suffering is GOOD and you can’t totally argue against it.”
Richard Dawkins (again) finding it extremely hard to find a way to beat around the bush and ends up saying morality can be decided through dinner party conversations and newspaper articles
:
:
Nietzsche says in his book, “Twilight of the Idols”:
“There are altogether no moral facts.” This is an incredibly dangerous statement, & the implications are crystal clear: There is no objective right/wrong. One could murder Nietzche’s wife and he would not be able to claim that it is objectivally wrong to do so.
Atheists, is this your Greatest Mind? Are these the men you look at for guidance? If so, your existence is pathetic as are the empty lives you live. Let’s continue 
The “Great Debator of the modern times”, Christopher Hitchens. He has a more interesting take on morality. He tries, in an effort to cope with the failure of his predecessors, to come up with a new theory. He claims that morals are innate. Let’s see why this is foolish.
Hitchens says that Morality is instinctive, and humans act upon the will of their innate predisposition. Let’s break this down and see why its such a ridiculous thing for an atheist to say.
1) The biggest error here is that if we applied this to an atheistic worldview, we would have to allow the rapist and murderer to claim they they have a predisposition as well, but that their predisposition is to rape and murder. This is self defeating.
2) The idea of a predisposition is an Islamic idea. We call it the fitrah and it means that God has provided us with basic instruments of understanding right and wrong without being taught it.
This is possible w/ God, but for an atheist to claim it they must rely on evolution. The issue is, if you say we have developed our current right/wrong due to the way in which we evolved, you concede that had we evolved in a different manner, our right & wrong would be different.
Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, HIMSELF refutes Hitchens in his book, “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex.”:
According to Darwin, humans evolving under our current circumstances lead us to our morals. If one day humans decided that to survive we must eat our children, then eating children would be morally acceptable. This proves that there is simply a strict lack of objective morality.
Now that we have established that atheism leads to a lack of morals, let’s see why this is such an important topic.
1)the vast majority of atheism’s arguments against islam are moral. For example, the Prophet (saw) consummated married w/ Aisha (r) at the age of 9. This is easily defendable but the issue is, atheists dont have any ground to question it in the first place.
2) State laws are derived from morals. Secularism is Godless and thus will never result in objective legislation. Today we see a global pandemic of citizens disagreeing and protesting. This is due to a lack of unified moral values which lead to a lack of agreement in legislation.
Atheists, leave your twisted, failing ideologies. Your idiot philosophers who have been picked apart & demolished in a 5 minute twitter thread will not bring you any help in this life or the next. Come back to the only objective moral path: Islam.
