I am seriously questioning my atheism

[Haven]

Disclaimer: This post may be out of place on the Christianity and Apologetics forum (even though it does have some relation to Christianity), if it is, I apologize and ask that it be moved to a more appropriate place on the forum. However, I do intend this thread to be a discussion, if not a debate, so I felt this was the best place for it.

As many of you know, I am an ex-evangelical Christian and a current atheist. By "atheist," I mean I lack belief in god(s) of any kind, although I do not assert that there are definitely no gods. Since departing from Christianity, everything has made so much more sense: an eternal Universe (defined as the totality of natural existence) explained existence, evolution explained the diversity of life on earth, the absence of god(s) explained the problems of evil, inconsistent revelation, and so on.

However, there is one thing that I have been unable to account for under atheism: morality. Atheists almost invariably state that moral values and duties are not objective facts, but are simply subjective statements of preference and have no ontological value. That is, of course, until we are presented with cases of true evil, such as the Holocaust, the atrocities of Pol Pot, or the horrible psychopathic serial killings of individuals like Jeffery Dahmer. Then we as atheists tacitly appeal to objective moral values and duties, saying that individuals who commit should be severely punished (even executed) for doing "evil," saying that they "knew right from wrong." But if right and wrong are simply statements of subjective opinion, then how can we say that others knew "right from wrong" and are accountable for their actions? If relativism is true, they simply had differing opinions from the majority of human beings. However, it seems obvious to me (and to the vast majority of others, theist and atheist alike) that this is absurd -- the monsters who carried out the aforementioned acts really, objectively did evil.

Given this, the only reasonable conclusion is that moral facts and imperatives exist.

However, atheism appears to offer no framework for moral facts. Because of this, a few weeks ago, I started up a discussion on Wielenbergian moral realism, which states that objective moral values are simply "brute facts" that exist without any explanation. However, others rightly pointed out that the existence of "brute facts" is ontologically problematic and that the best explanation (on atheism) is that morality is simply subjective. Additionally, even if atheistic moral facts existed, the Humeian problem of deriving an "ought" from an "is" would preclude them from acting as moral imperatives; commands which human beings are obligated to follow.

In light of these airtight logical objections to atheistic moral realism, I was forced to abandon my position on moral facts and tentatively adopt moral relativism. However, relativism still seems problematic. After all, if morality is subjective, no one person can accuse another of failing to recognize the difference between "right and wrong," however, it is obvious to me (and, I would suspect, to other atheists as well) that right or wrong really objectively (not subjectively) exist.

The only rational conclusion I can seem to come up with is that there is a (are) transcendent moral lawgiver(s) who both grounds moral facts and issues binding moral commands on all humanity; i.e., God(s). This echoes evangelical Christian philosopher William Lane Craig's moral argument, which syllogism reads:

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists

Premises 1 and 2 seem bulletproof -- (1) was demonstrated earlier in this post, leaving (2) as the only premise to attack. However, (2) seems to be as obvious as a hand in front of my face. The conclusion necessarily follows from (1) and (2), so is there any rational reason for me to reject the conclusion of the argument?

Remember, I am no believer of any kind. I am a staunch, educated, informed atheist, and I am well aware of the philosophical arguments against God(s), such as the problem of evil, the dysteleological argument, the problem of omniscience, etc. I'm also well aware of the plentiful empirical evidence against the existence of God(s), for instance, evolution, mind-body physicalism, etc. These are the reasons I reconverted from Christianity in the first place. However, I don't see way around this problem other than to accept either that our apparently obvious sense of moral facts is somehow mistaken, or that (a) theistic being(s) exist.

Debate question: Are my issues with atheism legitimate? Can atheism provide a coherent moral framework other than nihilism, relativism, or subjectivism? Do these problems really present evidence for theism? Is William Lane Craig right? Is this a real problem for atheism, or are my (our) emotions simply overriding my (our) rationality?

Feel free to present evidence for or against atheism, Christianity, or any religious or nonreligious perspective in this thread.

[arian]

In a way, yes, I also agree, just like the universe, ...

The universe does not have conscious will. And your I AM is a concept...but more of that later.

And the work is not complete and will not be...ever.

But even atoms follow a specific order, someone had to give them those orders no?

I don't think the universe has a conscious will either, it just follows the order, the purpose it was created for. Now the Bible says that God said: "Let us make man in our own image, in our likeness, .."
Here is where God placed something different into man (made of dust of the universe) a bit of Himself, and the dust became conscious, with a free will. The body follows the order God created it for (just as the whole universe does), but our soul, our spirit inside this body is of God, it is 'spirit' and can alter and even destroy this body and the world around it, even effect the universe this body resides in.

No, the work is never complete, I agree with you. God finishes one thing and goes on to work on another grand-project, we are very much like our Father in whose image we were created. Sadly, ... we get so involved with ourselves that we forget this simple fact, and end up hurting others around us, to a point we destroy even ourselves, .. I mean this body. God holds us accountable for our actions.

I agree to 'conscious evolution' by plan and hard work.

Your god found it hard work?

Why else would He have rested after the project of this here physical creation was done?

"we, homo sapiens, are evolution become aware of itself" and then we go and screw it all up.

What is screwed up? In an emergent universe, which it is, it is only as it can be.

So what, ... sit back and evolve?

Now why would 13.75 billion years of perfect evolution screw itself up by becoming conscious of itself?

You are nothing if not consistent. You are still creating straw men to shoot down, or set fire to.

I never claimed, and never would claim, perfection for evolution. They are you words, not mine.

OK, ... you just said; "In an emergent universe, which it is, it is only as it can be", right?
Now how can that be not 'perfect'?

Can I be anything more, or less then what I 'can be' in an emergent universe?

Yes we are created from, by and 'included' IN God, and our spirit/soul is transcendent.

In a way. We are made of stardust. And the 'dust' that makes up your left arm most probably came from a different star. We include and transcend the stars.

Yes, Iim sure we are made up of the same substance the universe is created from, but our soul, that spirit who we really are is not. As I said, that is from God.

We can engage in the evolution of other organisms and systems like we can take a rock and derive copper and iron ore from it, we can alter genes of existing plants, take the female sheeps DNA that was already created by God and put it in its own egg and wait till it gives birth to ....So what?

So what? I find it remarkable! We are lucky to exist!

What luck? I thought luck had nothing to do with it? Do you know the odds of a single strand of energy evolving into a universe that we see now would be??

10^100,000,000,000,000 would be an under estimation. Something described scientifically as 'impossible' is only (something like) 10^42, or 10^420 odds. We have a trillion times better luck in having a tornado go through a junk yard and assembling a brand new 747 jet than the BB creating even a single planet, not alone human life with a brain to question itself.

Everything we needed was already there, created by God.

 

So you keep saying.

And you bible god - the great I AM was preceded by tat team asi, as I have mentioned previously. The IAM is Awareness itself.

Tat Twam Asi, or Satan only wished he preceded our Creator, and now tries hard to convince mankind that he is like the Most High.

I agree that when I say; "I am" is awareness that I exist, but He who created us is always aware, and it is in Him we reside and have our whole being.

And the only creatures as far as I know it, who can have knowledge of, and access to, are we homo sapiens. Perhaps other animals have glimpses of it.

That Awareness is like the screen on which the movie of our mind is projected. The movies are different but the screen is the same.

I believe a little different Bernee, I believe that our mind is not the projector, but the created universe we observe all around us is. We use our physical bodies to be part of the show, we are active participants in this 'movie-making' which in turn creates each of our characters. We are children of God, becoming aware at birth, and create/form our character of who we will become in life. And bring all that we have become and achieved and present it before our Creator on That Day, and give an account of it all then.

Those that want to continue to grow with God will enter His New Eternal Kingdom He has prepared for them. Those that want nothing to do with Him, will be cast into the darkness they have prepared for themselves throughout their lives, which is called hell.

The suffering part is forever knowing what they have given up, a life with their Creator. There, they will get to try out their theories, their made up religions. They will get to see what 13.75 billion years will bring about without a Creator over and over again.

Again, I enjoy our debates Bernee51.

[arian]

So the story of the 13.75 billion year old history of the 'theory of evolution' started by Darwin is becoming far more convincing than the stories in the 5,000 year old Bible? Come on now, cave paintings, assumptions, theories over the Bible?
Science proves a 'Creator', and anti-science, or sci-fi tries to disprove it with them guess-sos, and with them theories of what 'might of' happened billions upon billions of years ago that has NOTHING to do with science.

Science
1. study of the physical world: the study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment
Microsoft® Encarta®

... the rest is not science, but religion.

I would like to address this part of your post just to correct some of the information you have given. I have no idea what the point your making is nor am I really interested in debating it if this is the type of information I will receive in return.

Thank you Polyatheist, I would gladly rephrase my point. Don’t loose interest in someone just because their view is different than yours, you never know what you may learn from them. I have learned a great deal on this forum, so please let’s reason together.

The theory of evolution does not go back to the start of the universe,

You are so right my friend, the theory of evolution does not go back to the start of the universe, the ‘theory’ started in 1859 when Darwin wrote his book ‘On the Origin of Species’. So you see the ‘theory of evolution’ only goes back 153 years, not nearly enough to make ‘scientific’ claims of what happened 3.7 billion years ago (biological evolution) here on earth, and especially not 13.75 billion years ago when the tiny pin sized universe popped out of nothing.
Now if we had documentations of a Darwin back 3.7 billion years ago witnessing this evolution and taking samples of the algae in the primordial soup, then that would be real science. Darwin’s observations which he called ‘natural selection’ are assumptions and nothing more. They are sci-fi fairy tales gone-wild.

Look, today we have algae, single sell bacterium, tadpoles, lizards, monkeys and humans right? It is claimed that we all evolve at the same time, … right? Is this how it all started 3.7 billion years ago, from the beginning, with everything like we have now evolving at the same time? Well that would explain natural selection, but if algae was all there was at the beginning, the whole thing regarding this ‘theory of evolution’ falls apart now doesn’t it?

Another words when the algae first appeared in that primordial soup, were there tadpoles, lizards, monkeys and humans in that primordial soup evolving at the same time, or did it all start with the algae evolving legs, eyes and a brain to reason first?

Also, how could the theory of the big bang that created our planet not be a part of evolution?

So water accumulating on a rock called earth, which is claimed to have evolved from the big-bang has nothing to do with the ‘theory of evolution’? Isn’t that like saying; “The mother has nothing to do with the fetus growing (evolving) inside her womb�? Can you take the mother out of the equation when studying and making up theories of the development of a baby in her womb?
… never mind, of course we can. It is called ‘abortion’.

nothing in Darwin's theory or the improved theory talks about the start of the universe.

Have you ever questioned why that is? I can understand Darwin not mentioning it, but after all these years, after all the data collected and all them books written, hasn’t the question ever arisen? I am dumbfounded that no one ‘connected the dots’ yet? You know, … the universe was gas first, then it evolved stars and planets from which evolved water, algae, bacteria and monkeys. I see a connection!

Boy, I can just see the headlines when some well known great atheist evolution scientist connects the two; “Evolution Theorists have stumbled on a revolutionary idea that the ‘Theory of Evolution’ might be somehow connected to the ‘Big Bang theory’! The clue was right there before us all along … ‘big-bang to planet, … water’, (as in the primordial soup) to biological evolution�.

Second, Darwin's theories are not based on cave painting and assumptions as you have stated.

No, they are what you yourself called; ‘improved theory’, which they added on later to sell to the public in hopes of taking their mind off of God.

Darwin used his observations of similar species (under the same genus) having very different physical characteristics from island to island. These islands were separated by very small distances, yet the variety of finches and mockingbirds what astounding. This lead to the collection of mountains of evidence that has been collected to this day (and is still growing) that supports the theory of evolution.

Variety does not mean ‘evolution’. God loves variety, every leaf on every tree is different, every snowflake, every animal, every human, and even with the trillions of differences, snow is still snow, leafs on a tree are still leaves and animals are still animals as humans are humans.

Gen 1:20-22
20 Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
NKJV

Science does not prove a 'creator' if it did more scientists would be theists or agnostic instead of the overwhelming majority being Atheists.

Theism is the belief in god or gods, it is ‘religion’, and science is not supposed to be involved in religion, but in observing the physical world. Because theories like evolution and the BB were mixed in science, it has become a religion like any other.

You are confusing theories like evolution and the big-bang with science. Science is observing the physical world, not making up stories of where it might have come from, or who made it. As I said, that part comes from ‘religion’. Theories like evolution and the big-bang derived from theism which has created make-believe stories of god and gods other than our Creator. Atheism is the other side of the same coin, one side it’s theism, the other atheism.

One picks up a black meteor in the desert and says; “Hey, this rock came from God� and before you know it a religion is created and a billion people bow down before it and worship that rock.

Don’t laugh, because another looks at a rock and comes up with a theory that it came from nothing, from nowhere and for no reason, and writes books on it and you have 5 billion people worshiping the ‘theory’.

If a farmer one day found a Volkswagen Bug in his pineapple field, he wouldn’t claim it evolved from one of his pineapples now would he? But then again, I’m sure many would fall for that too.
Everything was created by somebody, the car, the clock, the monkey, man, rock, sun, the moon, … everything. How can you say; “This was created by smart people who engineered it all out first, machined it, painted it and here it is, but us humans, … well we just evolved from soup, the result of a hot rock cooling, add 3.7 billion years and wha-la, here we are?

Science proves what it can measure in the physical world, this in and of itself does not prove a creator.

As I keep saying, science does not involve itself in ‘who’ made it, but ‘how’ it is made and what it is made out of. The common sense that ‘someone’ had to design and create it should be obvious even to the most simple minded.

As to the origins of the universe, physics does have a few theories on the matter which contain more evidence then any biblical or other human theory. The most obvious is the big bang, which has several variations. This is one of those variations that has been found to be a working model of the start of the universe:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-yea ... puter.html

I read it, and I’m sure I could program a supercomputer to give me the answers that I WANT too. That is another human theory. Nine theories do not make one fact, unless I program it like that into the computer.

Come on, nine spacetime dimensions found when even the third one is an illusion? Please explain to me the ‘third dimension’. When we’re standing on a long stretch of highway, we see the road coming to a point before us, right? Is that dimension real? Does things shrink with distance?
Our sun is 1,392,000km in diameter, yet we see it as about ten inches in diameter, which one is correct? Or did the sun shrink with distance? You see, our third dimension is an illusion.

Time is an illusion too, and if you say the universe always existed (since you cannot say it popped out of nowhere and nothing) then as I believe Stephen Hawking said; “something must have always existed�. If something always existed, it is ‘eternal’, and time cannot reside in eternity, just as something the size of a pinhead cannot reside in ‘nothing’, nor can it be infinite. Infinity does not ‘expand’ either, it is ‘infinite’.

The laws of physics are already within the universe, and this is the reason we can observe these laws.
Studying these observable laws did not somehow give us the ability to ‘create’ the universe (which the BB theory tries to do).
The universe, to our most advanced observations so far is ‘infinite’. Now to claim it was just a finite tiny pin-sized universe 13.75 billion years ago is a man-made theory based on human pride which leads to belief in our own arrogance, and then we encourage others to hypothesize towards this goal at any means, even threat of their job, or life.
Who or what caused its existence and from where it all came from, what size it was, or that it was a string of gravity is just man made religious stories. My simple mind tells me that if all the physical creation has laws governing it, it has had to have a Creator and a Lawgiver, and the Bible explains this and much more in great detail.

You might need to do a bit of brushing up on your physics but the mathematical proof is sound.

Mathematical proof, which one? None was presented.
Was it the number nine as in the nine dimensions? I can do some ‘sound mathematical proof’ for that too:
5+4=9
6+3=9
2+7=9
8+1=9, … hey, nine must be the answer! Look, I have given mathematical proof, they all lead to nine.

Yes, … I have been brushing up on my physics, especially on the quantum level. Right now I am trying to establish an approach to figuring out where the next wave of sun-light will play out on the bottom of my pool when a 1200cc Harley Motorcycle, exactly a mile to the north of my pool starts its motor at exactly seven o’clock in the morning when the angle of the sunlight into my pool is just so, and the traffic is the heaviest around our city. I will first have to figure out the wind force/direction and effect it has on the waves creating the dancing lights, and deduct that from the vibration effect of the Harley at a mile distance. I understand that we always have some seismic activity even 320 miles from the nearest fault-line, so I will need a very accurate seismic report at the place and time of my actual measurement. My next door neighbor comes outside and talks on the phone a lot because she cannot get a good enough signal in the house, and I tell you she is loud. If she is out at the time of my measurements, it will definitely have an effect on the waves already created there. I also realize that even a fly going across the pool will have some very tiny effect, depends on the size of the fly, the speed and the height it flew across the water.

But will the water, the sun, the vibrations in the earth and how they effect the water in my pool which in turn changes the dancing sunlight on the bottom of my pool prove that there is no Creator? Will it give me the answer to ‘everything’?

Of course not. It proves the opposite, that there are absolute laws in the physical world, and I have observed them scientifically. Thus studying the universe through science proves there is a Creator.

[Burninglight]

WLC wrote:
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists


I agree. The Bible states that God has written His laws on the hearts of all man. That is where our common sense of right and wrong come from. Everyone knows, for instance, that adultery, murder and stealing are wrong. Where does that moral knowledge come from?

[wonderer]

Disclaimer: This post may be out of place on the Christianity and Apologetics forum (even though it does have some relation to Christianity), if it is, I apologize and ask that it be moved to a more appropriate place on the forum. However, I do intend this thread to be a discussion, if not a debate, so I felt this was the best place for it.

As many of you know, I am an ex-evangelical Christian and a current atheist. By "atheist," I mean I lack belief in god(s) of any kind, although I do not assert that there are definitely no gods. Since departing from Christianity, everything has made so much more sense: an eternal Universe (defined as the totality of natural existence) explained existence, evolution explained the diversity of life on earth, the absence of god(s) explained the problems of evil, inconsistent revelation, and so on.

However, there is one thing that I have been unable to account for under atheism: morality. Atheists almost invariably state that moral values and duties are not objective facts, but are simply subjective statements of preference and have no ontological value. That is, of course, until we are presented with cases of true evil, such as the Holocaust, the atrocities of Pol Pot, or the horrible psychopathic serial killings of individuals like Jeffery Dahmer. Then we as atheists tacitly appeal to objective moral values and duties, saying that individuals who commit should be severely punished (even executed) for doing "evil," saying that they "knew right from wrong." But if right and wrong are simply statements of subjective opinion, then how can we say that others knew "right from wrong" and are accountable for their actions? If relativism is true, they simply had differing opinions from the majority of human beings. However, it seems obvious to me (and to the vast majority of others, theist and atheist alike) that this is absurd -- the monsters who carried out the aforementioned acts really, objectively did evil.

Given this, the only reasonable conclusion is that moral facts and imperatives exist.

However, atheism appears to offer no framework for moral facts. Because of this, a few weeks ago, I started up a discussion on Wielenbergian moral realism, which states that objective moral values are simply "brute facts" that exist without any explanation. However, others rightly pointed out that the existence of "brute facts" is ontologically problematic and that the best explanation (on atheism) is that morality is simply subjective. Additionally, even if atheistic moral facts existed, the Humeian problem of deriving an "ought" from an "is" would preclude them from acting as moral imperatives; commands which human beings are obligated to follow.

In light of these airtight logical objections to atheistic moral realism, I was forced to abandon my position on moral facts and tentatively adopt moral relativism. However, relativism still seems problematic. After all, if morality is subjective, no one person can accuse another of failing to recognize the difference between "right and wrong," however, it is obvious to me (and, I would suspect, to other atheists as well) that right or wrong really objectively (not subjectively) exist.

The only rational conclusion I can seem to come up with is that there is a (are) transcendent moral lawgiver(s) who both grounds moral facts and issues binding moral commands on all humanity; i.e., God(s). This echoes evangelical Christian philosopher William Lane Craig's moral argument, which syllogism reads:

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists

Premises 1 and 2 seem bulletproof -- (1) was demonstrated earlier in this post, leaving (2) as the only premise to attack. However, (2) seems to be as obvious as a hand in front of my face. The conclusion necessarily follows from (1) and (2), so is there any rational reason for me to reject the conclusion of the argument?

Remember, I am no believer of any kind. I am a staunch, educated, informed atheist, and I am well aware of the philosophical arguments against God(s), such as the problem of evil, the dysteleological argument, the problem of omniscience, etc. I'm also well aware of the plentiful empirical evidence against the existence of God(s), for instance, evolution, mind-body physicalism, etc. These are the reasons I reconverted from Christianity in the first place. However, I don't see way around this problem other than to accept either that our apparently obvious sense of moral facts is somehow mistaken, or that (a) theistic being(s) exist.

Debate question: Are my issues with atheism legitimate? Can atheism provide a coherent moral framework other than nihilism, relativism, or subjectivism? Do these problems really present evidence for theism? Is William Lane Craig right? Is this a real problem for atheism, or are my (our) emotions simply overriding my (our) rationality?

Feel free to present evidence for or against atheism, Christianity, or any religious or nonreligious perspective in this thread.

But God himself is immoral.

[Burninglight]

But God himself is immoral.

How do you figure that ?

[EduChris]

...Are my issues with atheism legitimate? Can atheism provide a coherent moral framework other than nihilism, relativism, or subjectivism? Do these problems really present evidence for theism? Is William Lane Craig right? Is this a real problem for atheism, or are my (our) emotions simply overriding my (our) rationality?...

If the sum total of all reality can be reduced to some impersonal admixture of chance & necessity, then objective moral values do not exist; they are instead a powerful illusion that we have adopted due to survival constraints. Similarly, if non-theism is true, then our inner mental conscious life is an illusion--including our sense of volition.

If moral accountability, volition, and consciousness are all illusory, then theism becomes a moot issue. But can we live our daily lives actually believing that all of these things--the most real things we can ever know or experience--are illusory? I doubt it. That is why theism is the most rational viewpoint--it allows us to expect that our inner mental conscious life is real and genuine, and in turn this allows us to have at least some degree of initial confidence in the other judgments that we routinely make in our daily lives.

[Artie]

WLC wrote:
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists


I agree. The Bible states that God has written His laws on the hearts of all man. That is where our common sense of right and wrong come from. Everyone knows, for instance, that adultery, murder and stealing are wrong. Where does that moral knowledge come from?

Cooperating organisms have a better chance of survival. Cooperation produces a common code of behavior called morals. These morals were written out by men as in the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule in religions, or in the judicial system in the form of laws.

[His Name Is John]

Cooperating organisms have a better chance of survival. Cooperation produces a common code of behavior called morals. These morals were written out by men as in the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule in religions, or in the judicial system in the form of laws.

Then why is it in not one society in the history of humanity has rape, murder and stealing not been condemned?

Why are these three constants not found in the animal world?

[Haven]

Why are these three constants not found in the animal world?

They are. Animals -- at least sentient ones -- don't rape or kill each other, and those that live in communities don't steal from each other.

[Burninglight]

Cooperating organisms have a better chance of survival. Cooperation produces a common code of behavior called morals. These morals were written out by men as in the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule in religions, or in the judicial system in the form of laws.

Then why is it in not one society in the history of humanity has rape, murder and stealing not been condemned?

Why are these three constants not found in the animal world?

Good question. It is because God has been there before theists and wrote His laws on the hearts of all human beings but not on animals. Even the animals are held accountable if they, for instance, hurt or kill a person. They some how instinctly know they will suffer for it and fear us, but they have no reasoning ability such as people into the deeper things of morality that are God given. All people know God exists. That is why atheist get angry when you remind them of what they are trying hard to forget.