Why are atheists considered to be so dishonest?

[oi_antz]

Why are there only two options? Experience generally tells me that most apparent dichotomies are false. I see a multitude of options. What exactly are these only two options?

So, what you're saying is that because you don't like the "God's hate" side, which you admit is valid, you choose to ignore it, or discard it, and in fact advise me to do the same. This is after you told me not to discard information just because I don't like it. It just seems inconsistent, doesn't it?

JGG, I think you need to re-read the thread, it seems to me that you are ignoring some very important information. Yes, you have just two options: you can either work for God or you can work against Him. There is only one way to work for God, that is to speak the truth about Him. There are an infinite number of ways you can work against Him, because it is then up to your imagination to fake the truth. It is true that God hates those that work iniquity, it is your choice to make whether you want His love or His hate. I will say it again, if there is anything further you want to know from me, please do not hesitate to ask.

 

[JGG]

JGG, I think you need to re-read the thread, it seems to me that you are ignoring some very important information. Yes, you have just two options: you can either work for God or you can work against Him. There is only one way to work for God, that is to speak the truth about Him. There are an infinite number of ways you can work against Him, because it is then up to your imagination to fake the truth. It is true that God hates those that work iniquity, it is your choice to make whether you want His love or His hate. I will say it again, if there is anything further you want to know from me, please do not hesitate to ask.

So, if I'm not a Christian (and the right type of Christian at that), then I must be one of those that "work iniquity," and God hates me. Correct?

 

[oi_antz]

So, if I'm not a Christian (and the right type of Christian at that), then I must be one of those that "work iniquity," and God hates me. Correct?

I can't tell you whether God hates you or not, He doesn't gossip about others. I can tell you that you are the only one who is qualified to know whether God is happy with the way you think and talk about Him, as for me I will tell you what I think is correct and if we don't happen to agree, then it's probably an indication that at least one of us is wrong. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[oi_antz]

Hi JGG,

I just want to answer one more question that you asked, that I didn't reply to:

I said: "So, I can see here that what Fred is saying is correct. However, the way he says it is not at all how Jesus would say it, or how Christ's disciples are instructed to spread the word."

You said: "Well, how did Jesus say it?"

This is how Jesus said it:

Matthew 21:40-44 (New Living Translation)
40 “When the owner of the vineyard returns,” Jesus asked, “what do you think he will do to those farmers?”

41 The religious leaders replied, “He will put the wicked men to a horrible death and lease the vineyard to others who will give him his share of the crop after each harvest.”

42 Then Jesus asked them, “Didn’t you ever read this in the Scriptures?

‘The stone that the builders rejected
has now become the cornerstone.
This is the Lord’s doing,
and it is wonderful to see.’[a]

43 I tell you, the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation that will produce the proper fruit. 44 Anyone who stumbles over that stone will be broken to pieces, and it will crush anyone it falls on.”

I hope this helps

 

[cfhmagnet]

After surfing most of the rest of the forum I finally find the hotly debated atheism section To answer the OP, I think it's actually situational. For one, are you online? I find the lack of accountability offered by the internet greatly improves the courageousness of the individual. Also, what type of community are we talking about? What are the life details of the person/people accusing us of being liars? For some people, it's indoctrinated from birth that atheists are liars (see evangelical...) For others it can just be an emotional knee jerk or a response given in the heat of the moment. Every person is different. From observing posts on this very forum, I see Christians who could be good friends of mine, and Christians who ought to be on a watch list so they don't hurt anyone. I don't think there is any one good reason why we are the second most hated subgroup in the US. I am convinced that lack of/improper education is a large part of the problem. Science gives good, empirical answers, but I didn't even have the grasp of science that I do today until I took a philosophy of science course. If somebody who loves, enjoys and looks to it as much as I do has a lack of understanding of it, how can we expect those who have NO idea what science is to understand it? And the other big problem, as mentioned much earlier, is the "Us vs Them" mentality. For a country that was built to be more free and inclusive, we sure do a good job of splintering ourselves.

 

[BleedingHeart]

After surfing most of the rest of the forum I finally find the hotly debated atheism section To answer the OP, I think it's actually situational. For one, are you online? I find the lack of accountability offered by the internet greatly improves the courageousness of the individual. Also, what type of community are we talking about? What are the life details of the person/people accusing us of being liars? For some people, it's indoctrinated from birth that atheists are liars (see evangelical...) For others it can just be an emotional knee jerk or a response given in the heat of the moment. Every person is different. From observing posts on this very forum, I see Christians who could be good friends of mine, and Christians who ought to be on a watch list so they don't hurt anyone. I don't think there is any one good reason why we are the second most hated subgroup in the US. I am convinced that lack of/improper education is a large part of the problem. Science gives good, empirical answers, but I didn't even have the grasp of science that I do today until I took a philosophy of science course. If somebody who loves, enjoys and looks to it as much as I do has a lack of understanding of it, how can we expect those who have NO idea what science is to understand it? And the other big problem, as mentioned much earlier, is the "Us vs Them" mentality. For a country that was built to be more free and inclusive, we sure do a good job of splintering ourselves.

I disagree with you in one fundamental aspect. There IS one major reason we are hated as much as we are, and we both know what the primary reason is. Please see post 166.

 

[cfhmagnet]

Well put post, but I still think it at least partially falls to upbringing and/or intellectual dishonesty with oneself and others. Isn't that ironic? One's own intellectual dishonesty leading that person to attack others as dishonest?
But back to my point, religion is normally handed down through upbringing or "finding" a belief in something. So if somebody who is raised to believe their belief is correct and others are false, it will follow that they will accuse their perceived "infidels" as dishonest. If it is something they "find" and they accuse others of dishonesty, the intellectual dishonesty can occur in one of 2 ways: 1. Calling the kettle black. If you only recently "found" God, weren't you yourself dishonest for a significant portion of your life? 2. Turning off curiosity and demonizing things outside of your experience. This is an expansion of being raised in belief, but works for the born again type as well. Following unquestioningly may be taught as a virtue, but it sure can lead to problems relating with the world around oneself.

 

[The Iris]

I've been spending the past while, trying to feel out Christianity's impression of atheists (the people, not the belief system). The most common impression that believers seem to have of atheists is that we are somehow inherently dishonest, and prone to lying and manipulation.

What is this accusation based on? I have my theories, but I'm curious as to where you suppose this line of thought comes from?

The only reason I can think of to conclude that is with an Atheist's world view there are no absolute morals. Lying being "bad" is only relative.

But I dont think the majority realizes that. Heck, I dont think the majority of Atheists realize they're atheist.

 

[JGG]

The only reason I can think of to conclude that is with an Atheist's world view there are no absolute morals. Lying being "bad" is only relative.

I'm not sure I disagree, but in what way is "lying being 'bad' only relative?" Perhaps an example?

 

[The Iris]

I'm not sure I disagree, but in what way is "lying being 'bad' only relative?" Perhaps an example?

Well it's not easily explained quickly but I'll do my best.

There are two branches of ethics that Atheists (I, and many including Richard Dawkins argue) have to fall under.

Ethical Relativism: Moral relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions regarding the differences in moral or ethical judgments between different people and cultures: * Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental .

And

Emotivism: Emotivism is the meta-ethical view which claims that ethical sentences do not express propositions but emotional attitudes.

To an Atheist, especially to those who believe our existence can be explained by god-less origin of the universe theories (that we are the products of accidents), morals cannot be transcendent, and every thing we call "evil" is subject to one's opinion, or relative. Sorry but I honestly dont have time right now to dive into this... Perhaps Google will suffice until my return!

 

[cfhmagnet]

Well it's not easily explained quickly but I'll do my best.

There are two branches of ethics that Atheists (I, and many including Richard Dawkins argue) have to fall under.

Ethical Relativism: Moral relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions regarding the differences in moral or ethical judgments between different people and cultures: * Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental .

And

Emotivism: Emotivism is the meta-ethical view which claims that ethical sentences do not express propositions but emotional attitudes.

To an Atheist, especially to those who believe our existence can be explained by god-less origin of the universe theories (that we are the products of accidents), morals cannot be transcendent, and every thing we call "evil" is subject to one's opinion, or relative. Sorry but I honestly dont have time right now to dive into this... Perhaps Google will suffice until my return!

As I am currently taking an ethics course, I believe I can help in this matter. Moral relativism is crap. Any person with half a brain, raised in a sane society understands that. And people who attempt to lump atheists under this blanket either don't understand atheism, human nature, or both.
And morals do not under ANY circumstances need to be "transcendent". In fact, a transcendent view of morals is disgustingly flawed in that if you take away the watcher, you take away the need to be moral. Buddhists and moral atheists have a better take, they see good/moral actions as intrinsically good, not necessary for salvation or because big brother is watching/judging your every action.
My moral system was raised on a good, decent upbringing, and has recently been supplemented by Aristotle and Immanuel Kant, a man who believed in God, but didn't need a god to RATIONALLY justify moral action. My view, in short, has a lot to do with respect. Each individual person is just that, an individual person, and should be treated as such. The problem with immorality lies in people who don't see people as an end, but only as a means to their own end.

 

[JGG]

As I am currently taking an ethics course, I believe I can help in this matter. Moral relativism is crap. Any person with half a brain, raised in a sane society understands that. And people who attempt to lump atheists under this blanket either don't understand atheism, human nature, or both.
And morals do not under ANY circumstances need to be "transcendent". In fact, a transcendent view of morals is disgustingly flawed in that if you take away the watcher, you take away the need to be moral. Buddhists and moral atheists have a better take, they see good/moral actions as intrinsically good, not necessary for salvation or because big brother is watching/judging your every action.
My moral system was raised on a good, decent upbringing, and has recently been supplemented by Aristotle and Immanuel Kant, a man who believed in God, but didn't need a god to RATIONALLY justify moral action. My view, in short, has a lot to do with respect. Each individual person is just that, an individual person, and should be treated as such. The problem with immorality lies in people who don't see people as an end, but only as a means to their own end.

I tend to agree with this a fair bit. I tend to shy away from the idea of moral relativism as I understand it (as basically was described in the Wiki entry). It suggests that somehow I could accept Nazis killing millions of Jews to be somehow even morally ambiguous. Clearly I cannot.

I would suggest that where people assume atheists are moral relativists, most of us are probably simply aware that in our current stage of development, morals are very subjective. Different people with different information (values, goals, facts, needs, perspective, etc) arrive at different conclusions of what is good, and what is not good. As we still only possess very rudimentary tools for evaluating morals we are still hindered by these variables, and as yet, cannot confirm a model of moral objectivity. This doesn't mean that such a model does not exist.

That being said, I'm very curious as to what examples of the fundamental moral differences between Christians and atheists The Iris will present.

 

[DomainRider]

The only reason I can think of to conclude that is with an Atheist's world view there are no absolute morals. Lying being "bad" is only relative.

It seems to me that lying is always lying (my definition seems to differ from some Christians here, in that for me a lie is a deliberate deception), but it's true that in an atheist view there are no absolute morals. Morals vary between individuals and cultures, and across time, although, of course, there are some that are almost universal - those necessary to ensure group survival.

I have never heard a description or definition of absolute morals that wasn't circular or illogical. For me, the Christian view of morals from God (absolute or otherwise) founders on the Euthyphro Dilemma: Does God command the good because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God? If the former is the case, then God is commanding good based on some morality independent of God, so morality doesn't originate from God. If the latter, then what God commands is good by definition - arbitrary morality. But if, instead, morality reflects God's nature, this simply rephrases the dilemma - is God's nature the way it is because that's right/moral, or is rightness & morality defined by God's nature?

So if actions consistent with God's nature are morally right, and God's actions are consistent with his nature, then God's actions are always morally right. According to the bible, God has taken some pretty unpleasant actions - mass killing, genocide even... does this mean these actions are morally right? If you say they are moral for God but not for man, then God's nature isn't the arbiter of morality for man after all... Again - if dishonesty is wrong because it's against God's nature, why is God's nature honest? Because honesty is morally better than dishonesty? but why is that? because it is in agreement with God's nature? Circular argument.

I can't see that morality has any objective meaning in this worldview. I want morality to be rational, objective, measurable, understandable, broadly agreed; not arbitrarily commanded.

So I choose a rational humanist view of it, where morally right means promoting happiness, wellbeing, and health, and/or diminishing unnecessary harm and suffering; and morally wrong means diminishing happiness, wellbeing, and health, and/or promoting unnecessary harm and suffering.

There will always be difficult judgements and grey areas, but in the main, these definitions are clear, simple, rational, understandable, objective, and easy to apply - and most people intuitively agree with them because most people have a capacity for empathy and desire the same kinds of things; they realise that such definitions will promote a healthy, happy, flourishing, cooperative community, and most people want such a community.

Frankly, I think most Christians actually follow broadly the same moral definitions, despite their lip-service to the self-contradictory concept of absolute moral authority. I suspect that some of those who think about it in any depth find it difficult to admit because an independent, objective morality allows us to examine the morality of God's actions - and the actions of the God of the bible don't compare well against a rational morality.

But if I misrepresent the case, or I misunderstand something, or if there really is a good argument for moral absolutes or absolute morals, then I hope someone will explain.

 

[The Iris]

As I am currently taking an ethics course, I believe I can help in this matter. Moral relativism is crap. Any person with half a brain, raised in a sane society understands that. And people who attempt to lump atheists under this blanket either don't understand atheism, human nature, or both.
And morals do not under ANY circumstances need to be "transcendent". In fact, a transcendent view of morals is disgustingly flawed in that if you take away the watcher, you take away the need to be moral. Buddhists and moral atheists have a better take, they see good/moral actions as intrinsically good, not necessary for salvation or because big brother is watching/judging your every action.
My moral system was raised on a good, decent upbringing, and has recently been supplemented by Aristotle and Immanuel Kant, a man who believed in God, but didn't need a god to RATIONALLY justify moral action. My view, in short, has a lot to do with respect. Each individual person is just that, an individual person, and should be treated as such. The problem with immorality lies in people who don't see people as an end, but only as a means to their own end.

Ad hominems and strawmen aside:

What basis do you have for judging one act as more good than me? You and me, both created by fluke chance. In addition, how do you even determine what makes an act good or not? If I personally feel that by satisfying my sexual desires through rape is good, why on earth should I choose to abide by your system of ethics that outlaws it (or not yours per se, but any system that views rape as wrong)?

 

[JGG]

Ad hominems and strawmen aside:

What basis do you have for judging one act as more good than me?

If you're asking why I think my judgment of morals is better than yours, I don't necessarily. Nor do I believe that your judgment is better than mine. This is merely admission that we have a subjective view of morality, rather than an objective one. Different viewpoints on the same dillemma often find a better solution than just one. I hope you don't think that pointing out that morals are subjective is the same thing as moral relativism.

You and me, both created by fluke chance. In addition, how do you even determine what makes an act good or not? If I personally feel that by satisfying my sexual desires through rape is good, why on earth should I choose to abide by your system of ethics that outlaws it (or not yours per se, but any system that views rape as wrong)?

Well, I would say:

1. You can try to find a society where there is a system where it is not outlawed. Regardless of the moral stand one might have, it is illegal in our society.

This does not mean that I approve of a society that legalizes rape, just that I realize it may exist. There are societies in the world that treat women horribly because that is part of their culture. It doesn't mean I think the way they treat women is morally correct, but I accept that it is part of their culture, and I am not.

2. I'm sure you don't actually need someone to explain a secular justification for why rape is morally wrong.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

On the topic of God's morality I don't think it is absolute really, James said it this way "If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right." - Jas 2:8 Paul also said it The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." - Rom 13:9 Jesus also when asked what is the greatest commandment said, Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." - Mar 12:30-31

If we treat people the way we want to be treated then we are obeying God. Of course we do not thow out the law for the law teaches us what is good for us. But God is simple in his application. Love, God's love, is just treating people well. That includes treating sinners well, he does not make a distinction treat good people well and bad people badly, to clarify this to his disciples Jesus said "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. - Luk 6:27-28

 

[The Iris]

If you're asking why I think my judgment of morals is better than yours, I don't necessarily. Nor do I believe that your judgment is better than mine. This is merely admission that we have a subjective view of morality, rather than an objective one. Different viewpoints on the same dillemma often find a better solution than just one. I hope you don't think that pointing out that morals are subjective is the same thing as moral relativism.



Well, I would say:

1. You can try to find a society where there is a system where it is not outlawed. Regardless of the moral stand one might have, it is illegal in our society.

This does not mean that I approve of a society that legalizes rape, just that I realize it may exist. There are societies in the world that treat women horribly because that is part of their culture. It doesn't mean I think the way they treat women is morally correct, but I accept that it is part of their culture, and I am not.

2. I'm sure you don't actually need someone to explain a secular justification for why rape is morally wrong.

I guess that depends on how one defines subjective. I've heard it broken down as a persons perspective on something existing only in the mind, while others say it's thought within the mind that are modified by personal bias.

I've never heard anyone equate morality with a government's law before. It becomes a pointless redundancy if it is.

Actually, I do. Not that I haven't heard it explained before, but that every explanation has included some view that not everyone holds. And without some unchanging higher power to lay laws down, their views are as accurate as a person who views all the evils of today as good.

I really dont intend to take this discussion much further. This discussion is all irrelevant, but ethics is my favorite subject and I appreciate your input so I have a hard time backing down So, this will probably be my last post. You can pm me or something is you'd like, but my schedule is kind of sporadic.

 

[cfhmagnet]

Ad hominems and strawmen aside:

What basis do you have for judging one act as more good than me? You and me, both created by fluke chance. In addition, how do you even determine what makes an act good or not? If I personally feel that by satisfying my sexual desires through rape is good, why on earth should I choose to abide by your system of ethics that outlaws it (or not yours per se, but any system that views rape as wrong)?

I see neither an ad hominem (I don't do that online, it's rather cowardly, and before you go claiming that I was directing the "half a brain" comment at you I will clarify to say that I was directing it at people who believe in moral relativism, which you stated you don't believe in...so... clear now?) nor a strawman, and I would be happy if you would point out the latter if indeed I did commit the fallacy.

I never said that I have the power to judge acts better than others. I said that every person should be treated as an individual, and a free one with a right to happiness besides. One of the major qualifiers of determining that an act is bad is the asking of two simple questions: 1. Does it infringe on a persons happiness? 2. Does it cause undue harm? If you were to rape somebody to satisfy your sexual desires, this not only infringes on their happiness but ALSO causes undo harm. This act is wrong, permanently and concretely. I would say that your position as quoted here is scary:

"And without some unchanging higher power to lay laws down, their views are as accurate as a person who views all the evils of today as good."

What I want to understand (to avoid any more strawman accusations) is what I believe your saying. You're saying if there is no big brother out there watching us all, we might as well be psychopaths? Am I correct in this understanding?
Either way, if you do have the interest in ethics that you claim, I can suggest some good readings for you. There has been a lot of work done since the bible, by both religious and secular men, and it is an intensely interesting field. I hope you find time to return. This is a rich conversation, although my schedule is tight as well.

 

[The Iris]

I see neither an ad hominem (I don't do that online, it's rather cowardly, and before you go claiming that I was directing the "half a brain" comment at you I will clarify to say that I was directing it at people who believe in moral relativism, which you stated you don't believe in...so... clear now?) nor a strawman, and I would be happy if you would point out the latter if indeed I did commit the fallacy.

I never said that I have the power to judge acts better than others. I said that every person should be treated as an individual, and a free one with a right to happiness besides. One of the major qualifiers of determining that an act is bad is the asking of two simple questions: 1. Does it infringe on a persons happiness? 2. Does it cause undue harm? If you were to rape somebody to satisfy your sexual desires, this not only infringes on their happiness but ALSO causes undo harm. This act is wrong, permanently and concretely. I would say that your position as quoted here is scary:

"And without some unchanging higher power to lay laws down, their views are as accurate as a person who views all the evils of today as good."

What I want to understand (to avoid any more strawman accusations) is what I believe your saying. You're saying if there is no big brother out there watching us all, we might as well be psychopaths? Am I correct in this understanding?
Either way, if you do have the interest in ethics that you claim, I can suggest some good readings for you. There has been a lot of work done since the bible, by both religious and secular men, and it is an intensely interesting field. I hope you find time to return. This is a rich conversation, although my schedule is tight as well.

It seems to me that lying is always lying (my definition seems to differ from some Christians here, in that for me a lie is a deliberate deception), but it's true that in an atheist view there are no absolute morals. Morals vary between individuals and cultures, and across time, although, of course, there are some that are almost universal - those necessary to ensure group survival.

I have never heard a description or definition of absolute morals that wasn't circular or illogical. For me, the Christian view of morals from God (absolute or otherwise) founders on the Euthyphro Dilemma: Does God command the good because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God? If the former is the case, then God is commanding good based on some morality independent of God, so morality doesn't originate from God. If the latter, then what God commands is good by definition - arbitrary morality. But if, instead, morality reflects God's nature, this simply rephrases the dilemma - is God's nature the way it is because that's right/moral, or is rightness & morality defined by God's nature?

So if actions consistent with God's nature are morally right, and God's actions are consistent with his nature, then God's actions are always morally right. According to the bible, God has taken some pretty unpleasant actions - mass killing, genocide even... does this mean these actions are morally right? If you say they are moral for God but not for man, then God's nature isn't the arbiter of morality for man after all... Again - if dishonesty is wrong because it's against God's nature, why is God's nature honest? Because honesty is morally better than dishonesty? but why is that? because it is in agreement with God's nature? Circular argument.

I can't see that morality has any objective meaning in this worldview. I want morality to be rational, objective, measurable, understandable, broadly agreed; not arbitrarily commanded.

So I choose a rational humanist view of it, where morally right means promoting happiness, wellbeing, and health, and/or diminishing unnecessary harm and suffering; and morally wrong means diminishing happiness, wellbeing, and health, and/or promoting unnecessary harm and suffering.

There will always be difficult judgements and grey areas, but in the main, these definitions are clear, simple, rational, understandable, objective, and easy to apply - and most people intuitively agree with them because most people have a capacity for empathy and desire the same kinds of things; they realise that such definitions will promote a healthy, happy, flourishing, cooperative community, and most people want such a community.

Frankly, I think most Christians actually follow broadly the same moral definitions, despite their lip-service to the self-contradictory concept of absolute moral authority. I suspect that some of those who think about it in any depth find it difficult to admit because an independent, objective morality allows us to examine the morality of God's actions - and the actions of the God of the bible don't compare well against a rational morality.

But if I misrepresent the case, or I misunderstand something, or if there really is a good argument for moral absolutes or absolute morals, then I hope someone will explain.

I'll get to these both tomorrow or on Monday. Please have patience!

 

[BleedingHeart]

I see neither an ad hominem (I don't do that online, it's rather cowardly, and before you go claiming that I was directing the "half a brain" comment at you I will clarify to say that I was directing it at people who believe in moral relativism, which you stated you don't believe in...so... clear now?) nor a strawman, and I would be happy if you would point out the latter if indeed I did commit the fallacy.

I never said that I have the power to judge acts better than others. I said that every person should be treated as an individual, and a free one with a right to happiness besides. One of the major qualifiers of determining that an act is bad is the asking of two simple questions: 1. Does it infringe on a persons happiness? 2. Does it cause undue harm? If you were to rape somebody to satisfy your sexual desires, this not only infringes on their happiness but ALSO causes undo harm. This act is wrong, permanently and concretely. I would say that your position as quoted here is scary:

"And without some unchanging higher power to lay laws down, their views are as accurate as a person who views all the evils of today as good."

What I want to understand (to avoid any more strawman accusations) is what I believe your saying. You're saying if there is no big brother out there watching us all, we might as well be psychopaths? Am I correct in this understanding?
Either way, if you do have the interest in ethics that you claim, I can suggest some good readings for you. There has been a lot of work done since the bible, by both religious and secular men, and it is an intensely interesting field. I hope you find time to return. This is a rich conversation, although my schedule is tight as well.

From a utilitarian ethical perspective, one could argue that there is no greater good achieved, since only one person benefits from the act, whereas a girl and her family are traumatized and harmed.

It's been my experience that those who scream about absolute morality either typically have a double-standard when examining themselves by the same methods.