Most situations in life are addressed by simple, unconditional rules of Biblical ethics that are explicitly stated in the Bible. In other cases, we can take ethical decisions based on principles given in the Bible. Here are some examples of Biblical ethical rules:-
We now look at the ethics of other belief systems.
I'm not trying to mock or be hurtful. All of these things have been done in the name of Hinduism. Different Hindu texts have different ethical directives and no one text can be objectively established as authoritative over others. Hindu ethics is as good as non-existent because it is self-contradictory. More on Hinduism
Any system of ethics based on atheism lacks all the above requirements. My female subordinate at work is pretty. Atheism gives me no reason to believe that refraining from taking liberties with her will be better for my happiness in the long run. There is therefore no positive incentive. There's hardly any chance of getting caught, so there's no negative incentive. Consistent atheism would mean treating her like what atheism claims she is: an ultimately worthless bag of molecules produced by time and chance. Therefore, consistency to atheism works against ethics. Thus, atheist ethics fails. Further discussion
"The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe. When a man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil, there is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil that is in man. The Communist torturers often said, “There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.” I heard one torturer say, “I thank God, in whom I don’t believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.” He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners." - Richard Wurmbrand, Tortured for Christ, Chapter 2.
The moral nihilism that follows from atheism is so contrary to human nature and intuition that most atheists today insist on having some ethical standards. Let us examine atheist morality:
Most atheists today insist that homosexuality is good and that bestiality, pedophilia and rape are wrong. When asked why, they usually reply that unlike in the former, consent cannot be established in the latter. This "answer" actually raises more questions than it answers:-
Why should consent be the criterion of right and wrong? According to atheism, a person is just a collection of molecules that has evolved by chance. Why is her consent so important? Now if consent is granted as the criterion of right and wrong:-
If parental consent is what justifies abortion and vaccination, how about forced marriages, child marriages and the killing of unwanted children?!
Some atheists say that it is only human consent that is important, not animal consent. But such a distinction between animals and humans is a Christian idea based on the Biblical teaching that only man (and not animals) is made in God's image and the subject of divine redemption.
Some atheists say that human consent matters but not animal consent because humans are intelligent, and animals are not. But this only raises the question: why should intelligence be the deciding criterion? And if it is, it would imply that chimps should be treated better than parrots (because chimps are more intelligent than parrots); it would also mean that it is okay to rape a mentally challenged person (who has no intelligence). Most atheists would disagree with these conclusions - a contradiction.
And if animal consent does not matter, bestiality must be right, a conclusion that most atheists would squirm at. Incidentally, atheist philosopher Peter Singer, in his Unsanctifying Human Life, points out how atheists are inconsistent in giving special preference to human life. He is in favor of killing the disabled and bestiality (if there is no obvious harm to the animal). Other atheist philosophers such as Bernard Williams oppose him, yet complaining that Singer is "so damn logical"!
Some atheists would say that it is okay to sacrifice consent if there is hope for later good. To see how pernicious this idea is, one only has to look at Mao's Great Leap Forward, in which millions of peasants were killed, supposedly for the "greater/common good" (which never came - humans never know the future perfectly).
Bernard Williams is the "most brilliant and most important British moral philosopher of his time." (to quote The Times). "I did all the major vices" he told The Times in his interview published on 14 June 2003. He cheated on his wife, left her and wrote about a dozen books on ethics. Everywhere you turn, atheist ethics is self-contradictory.