BellaOnline Forums Religion and Spirituality Atheist Can Atheism REALLY be defended?

Since you've never been an atheist, how do you know what they believe inside, or what moral compass they use? I think you are drawing wide conclusions based on no personal experience, my friend.

You make no point, other than that fundamentalist fanatics are always looking at other people's lives to point out potential wrong instead of improving themselves. A bit of the voyeuristic peeping Tom syndrome there. It's also a violation of biblical teaching. Judge not, brother.

Furthermore, let's just look at the vast millions of dollars the Catholic church has had to spend to the victims of priest rape by those who "followed a moral compass".

Please. What good did a belief in the creator do then? Your so-called "spiritual retribution" didn't save countless tens of thousands from rape by those in authority who abused their power.

Hell or not is bargaining, not faith. And even the threat of hell didn't stop the holiest of the holies (bishops, priests and even popes) killing, raping, mutilating, and decimating the lives of innocents the world over. Your argument has no legs on which to stand.

I know you said this to Jordan, but I just wanted to say

[color:"blue"]Nice point![/color] <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

This one would definitely score points in a debate.

But, just because I believe in God doesn't mean I adhere to moral rules only because He laid them down. I genuienly care about people, too and want to do what's best. I have not tried to say my morals are any better than a person's who is an atheist. I just know where to turn to if I ever get confused on an issue as to what I should do. Probably you do, too; be it an elder, a relative, or some piece of literature that you find guiding. Mine just happens to be the Bible.

One thing that's been missing from this discussion and is really at the center of it is the difference between external and internal rules and sense of meaning. In other words, morality and meaning that have been given to you by an outside source, or morality and meaning that you have developed for yourself. I've long believed that a life which has been guided since early childhood by external rules, whether religious or cultural, never develops any internal compass. Empathy is built into the human psyche, but it can atrophy, along with many other capacities that would normally
develop, if they were allowed to.

Obviously Jordan has no internal compass, so has no comprehension of what it it, or how other people can live by that instead of by the rules he/she has been taught. A life lived by rules is a life that goes into a tailspin when there is no rule for a particular situation. It's very understandable that Jordan thinks atheists must and will simply do whatever they darn well please, regardless of the well-being of others.

Does this have something to do with why bible-believing christians pick and choose which commandments and parts of the bible they use? Certainly. Because, in reality, the bible isn't the answer book they insist it is, so when they can't find an answer (a rule) for something the writers of the bible never imagined or experienced, they are forced to create the best answer they can. The result is what any intelligent person would expect, a patchwork of contradictory statements any of which can be discarded in favor of whatever seems best at the time. Or statements that are held on to desperately and fanatically as a protection against chaos. Bible-believers are constantly looking for guidance where there is none because they don't know how to function without a set of rules.

Most atheists concentrate on the violence and bigotry that religion often descends to, but my primary accusation against it is that it stunts the human mind and makes people much less than they could be if their minds were free.

Somewhere, if I could find it, I have a quote from Milan Kundera, who said that anyone who lives by a dogma can't conceive that anyone could live without adhering to some kind of dogma.

Correction--no wonder I couldn't find it--wrong author. "Vaclav Havel evokes critically the mindset of someone who subscribes to an ideology and believes that anyone who doesn't subscribe to it must therefore subscribe to another ideology, because he can't imagine anyones not subscribing to an ideology. from The Protean Self

So based on what I have read you guys are saying rights and wrongs relative to the person. And nothing is really objective. Isn't that true? I mean that is exactly how it should be if there is no God. Don't you agree? But how can you say who is right and who is wrong then? Was Hitler right or wrong? I am definitely sure he thought he was right and if rights and wrongs are subjective then Hitler was not wrong. Because ralatively to him he was right. Ya sure you could say he was wrong but he could say he is right. Then who is right there?

Moral Laws are not subjective and are not ralative. Here is an absolute moral law: Rape is wrong. Is anyone here disagrees with that? And moral obsolutes doesn't come from immoral nature or human beings because if humans decide who is right and wrong then one person couldn't call actions of anyone else wrong. A society can't make moral laws because then a society couldn't call actions of another society wrong. So if societies made moral laws then Nazis were not wrong because they made their own laws. And it is not majority of the people that decides something is right and wrong because majority of people believed that the Earth was flat and Slavery was right. Moral laws can only come from a Moral lawgiver and that Moral Lawgiver has to be higher than everyone else. If the Moral lawgiver says Rape is wrong then it doesn't matter if Hitler said it is right. It is wrong.
Therefore then moral laws require moral lawgiver and that moral lawgiver is God.

Atheism falls short of a moral lawgiver and therefore the only thing it gives us is, Subjective Moral Laws but as shown above atheism fails to give us an standard to believe what is right and wrong. As someone said earlier ATHEISM JUST IS AND DOESN'T NEED A DEFENCE. Then those of us that says everything that is right needs a defence to show us how it is right and wrong better leave this post because we'll definitely not going to get any answers and are wasting our time. If you are an atheist please think about what you believe in because noone wants to believe in blind faith. I don't and I hope you don't either.

But still I would like to say yes God does exist and God Loves You unless someone gives me some good prove that atheism is right and theism is not because I believe I don't blind faith unless prove otherwise.

WOW i come back to this post after a few days and theres so much to read!!

10 pages in 7 days. That was some seed I planted.. lol
I cant be bothered to read all that now im too tired.
Can anyone just tell me if anyone has bothered to refute the science?

By the way. The likely hood of life being created without God is like someone kissing a frog and it turning into prince!!
since that doesnt happen THAT OFTEN (was that fairytale true? I was so high on sweets as a kid lol) and since the statistics basicaly rule it out as impossible... I would assert it is impossible!

Sorry to try and bring the subject back to the point!

Michelle, that wasn't directed at reasonable people who happen to choose christianity. It was directed at people who refuse to make sense. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

GLY, if I've translated properly you spent 1/2 a page saying 'who is the moral law giver of atheists'. Logic, reason.

K7, I think it's bad form to be condescending when you've ignored every point made to you.

Thanks.

Sometimes I think about it and I laugh.

If a believer in God says you have to believe and says have faith, that person is told that they shouldnt blindly follow a religion that cant be proved.

I would assert that no one should believe without proof. I never play the faith card.
But evolutionist scientists keep making this claim that God doesnt exist, cant prove it, fail to prove it and tell us to have faith that it will be discovered one day.

we as humans have discovered the way life works. What comes together to make life work, how it is maintained.
By looking at a persons make up in there cells. The complexity of life in a persons DNA and RNA.
We can see there is a blueprint there. We can see it is impossible for that life to be built on its own.
But we are told to have faith because that blueprint even though it exists cannot be Gods blueprint!

you people are not making a logical arguement. Atheists are trying to play the have faith card!!! LOL

"If I was an athiest I wouldn't give a thought to any of that. I'd take what I want, when I want."

Jordan13, that would make you a very selfish, unloving person. Is this the sort of person you would be if there was no God or if you didn't believe in God?

Hmmm. Interesting.

Thank you for proving my point that your type makes up straw men so that you can knock them down. Either that, or you're just displaying your complete ignorance. No scientist says that evolution disproves god, or asks anyone to have faith in anything. The theory of evolution is about natural selection of species. It says nothing at all about god. You are confusing the personal beliefs about god of some scientists with the science of evolution. The two are not connected and the effort by religionists to make a connection is one of their more specious techniques. There are scientists who support the theory of evolution and who are religious.