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.

[1robin]

The U.S. is not by any stretch of the imagination actually made up of 4/5ths Christian.

"The majority of Americans (60% to 76%) identify themselves as Christians, mostly within Protestant and Catholic denominations, accounting for 51% and 25% of the population respectively." Wikipedia

There are many people who have gone to church at some point or like the message of Christ and if asked to choose they would say that they are a Christian, mainly because that is supposed to be good and atheism has a social stigma. However none of these people are true Christians, until you have been born again you are no more a Christian than attila the hun (your moral status is not the determination of whether you are a Christian or not evn though a Christian should have high moral standards). Sitting in a church doesn't make you a Christian any more than sitting in a garage makes you a car. Being born again changes your very nature and produces a different person by the experience. In my opinion there might be 1 out of 5 who meet this condition. The bible makes it very clear that the true believers are always a minority. So what this country does is more of a result of haveing more freedom than most nations.
Once again you cherry picked data,

I don't have any official statistics showing how many are "true" Christians. Do you?

you did not mention we give more money in foreign aid than anyone,

Actually, Norway gives most money in foreign aid per capita than anyone else. http://mindcheese.com/wordpress/?p=1299 "In 2005, a survey conducted by Gallup International in sixty-five countries indicated that Norway was the least religious country in Western Europe" Wikipedia

as well as have the highest standard of living in the world (or atleast we did until recently).

On every recent poll Norway and other non-religious countries are consistently voted as the best countries to live in in the world.

We have also been willing to die to save other nations from destruction by evil men.

Many Norwegians have also died in peacekeeping missions.

I thought this thread was supposed to be on objective morality not biblical morality.

I mentioned that those percentages are vastly inacurate I even tried to explain the reasons they are. I also mentioned the exact percentage I gave is my opinion. So why you quoted some more statistics after I had said all this I don't know. Christianity is considered good atheism, and other religions bad, so if a person has to choose 9like in a poll) they choose Christianity. Let Christ define what a Christian is, not wikipedia. The bible always makes it clear that true born again Christians have always been a small minority. I realize this is my word and that you can't have confidense in it's accuracy unless you are a true Christian, but this is irrelevant anyway. Christianity itself cannot be judged by people prefessing faith that are acting contrary that faith. You can assign guilt to the person but not the religion. Stalin acting the way he did is perfectly cinsistent with atheism. Atheism cannot account for the sanctity of life, nor objective morality so why not kill someone. The ideaology is consistent. I am not claiming that atheists want to do what Stalin did nor that they can't be good people. How did we go from objective morals to me defending Christ, then Christianity, now I am defending the US. To bring this sidetracked line of reasoning to an end the U.S. gives more than any other country to charitable causes, the last I checked Japan gave more per capita than norway but this has nothing to do with nothing, if we are not at the top anymore concerning standard of living we are toward the top so whatever your point was about how bad the US is is void. Where does the Norway obsession come from. Are you from there? Why don't you compare the amount of lives this country has lost and the money that we have spent on defending OTHER PEOPLE vs Norway and then let me know if you still consider the US such a bad place. However I don't want to defend the US, so why don't you make a comment relevant to the thread whatever that was and then we can have a relevant discussion. I have nothing against Norway by the way.

[Artie]

Atheism cannot account for the sanctity of life, nor objective morality so why not kill someone.

Drowning practically every person and a lot of the animals on the planet is the same as showing sanctity for life? How do you even manage to say that a being performing genocide has any sanctity for life? Atheism has nothing to do with sanctity of life. It's just a non-belief in deities. The sanctity of life is accounted for by logic, reason and common sense, knowledge of how and why morals developed, conscience, upbringing, the social contracts and laws of the land you live in.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 447:

...
Let Christ define what a Christian is, not wikipedia. The bible always makes it clear that true born again Christians have always been a small minority. I realize this is my word and that you can't have confidense in it's accuracy unless you are a true Christian, but this is irrelevant anyway. Christianity itself cannot be judged by people prefessing faith that are acting contrary that faith. You can assign guilt to the person but not the religion.

Plenty fair.

Stalin acting the way he did is perfectly cinsistent with atheism.

This atheist contends that the moral values I derive "after" accepting atheism would preclude my wanting to slaughter folks, while also contending some folks are of such a character as to warrant their own slaughter (murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc.).

Atheism cannot account for the sanctity of life...

This atheist accounts for the sanctity of life 'cause here I am in among it.

nor objective morality...

I challenge anyone to produce an "objective moral" that doesn't rely on the subjective to get it there.

so why not kill someone.

I don't go around randomly killing folks because of my stance on the sanctity of life.

To bring this sidetracked line of reasoning to an end the U.S. gives more than any other country to charitable causes...

Yours is ostensibly an argument from numbers, where such skews the contributions of poorer nations. We also incarcerate folks for smoking a hooter.

I leave the remainder of the post for others.

[1robin]

Atheism cannot account for the sanctity of life, nor objective morality so why not kill someone.

Drowning practically every person and a lot of the animals on the planet is the same as showing sanctity for life? How do you even manage to say that a being performing genocide has any sanctity for life? Atheism has nothing to do with sanctity of life. It's just a non-belief in deities. The sanctity of life is accounted for by logic, reason and common sense, knowledge of how and why morals developed, conscience, upbringing, the social contracts and laws of the land you live in.

I guess the original subject of objective morality has been substituted with somehow convincing yourself that you have the intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge to evaluate God almighty's moral state. Since we always come back to your unqualified accusations against an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent entity I will play along until I get bored.

1. The flood: If you were familiar with the story you would notice that the bible records that man had become completely corrupt, all they did continually was evil. So God gave them many years and many occasions to repent and they refused so he killed them all except for the only few that believed in him. Now if the bible is correct then is it more merciful to let evil run completely rampant until there is nothing but oppression and misery generation after generation until man finally destroyed himself. Or is it more merciful to wipe out the problem and start over which produced at least some level of justice and mercy. The problem came because of mans sin. God mentioned in the bible that he regretted what he had to do. Since the bible records ample reason for the flood events then all you can do is to throw out the bible but then you throw out your prized story of how unjust God was and your left with no argument. While if the bible is believed it was man's fault they were wiped out and your left with no argument. Any other position is speculation of the highest degree. So you can see that in a paradigm where mans will is left to itself similar to a necessary war sometimes violence is the most benevolent solution even though it is a regrettable one.

2. Sanctity of life: You are correct in saying that Atheism has nothing in it to justify a belief that Humans are objectively worth anything more than a rock or fly. It does nothing to establish an objective value for people. Thomas Jefferson when looking for a reason to justify inalienable rights did not lean on atheism he leaned on God.

Your arguments are irrational. Your selection of isolated instances to distort the overall biblical message of love and redemption are not a result of a reasonable argumentation, but an unreasonable distaste for God. Scholars that are opposed to christianity have still overwhelmingly acknowledged that the story of Christ is the greatest example of love in human history.

[1robin]

From Post 447:

...
Let Christ define what a Christian is, not wikipedia. The bible always makes it clear that true born again Christians have always been a small minority. I realize this is my word and that you can't have confidense in it's accuracy unless you are a true Christian, but this is irrelevant anyway. Christianity itself cannot be judged by people prefessing faith that are acting contrary that faith. You can assign guilt to the person but not the religion.

Plenty fair.

Stalin acting the way he did is perfectly cinsistent with atheism.

This atheist contends that the moral values I derive "after" accepting atheism would preclude my wanting to slaughter folks, while also contending some folks are of such a character as to warrant their own slaughter (murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc.).

Atheism cannot account for the sanctity of life...

This atheist accounts for the sanctity of life 'cause here I am in among it.

nor objective morality...

I challenge anyone to produce an "objective moral" that doesn't rely on the subjective to get it there.

so why not kill someone.

I don't go around randomly killing folks because of my stance on the sanctity of life.

To bring this sidetracked line of reasoning to an end the U.S. gives more than any other country to charitable causes...

Yours is ostensibly an argument from numbers, where such skews the contributions of poorer nations. We also incarcerate folks for smoking a hooter.

I leave the remainder of the post for others.

I was not speaking of any atheist's moralty in particular. I was making a point that in atheism there is no compelling reason to respect or value other life forms that do not directly help you in some way. An atheist can have moral ideas but cannot justify them by their atheism unless they engage in wishful thinking. It requires sneaking in some Christian like system while trying to deny the God of that system. That last point I made was terribly written but maybe you will get it anyway.

How does your behing a human prove that atheism can account for the value of life? You lost me on that one.

I didn't understand what you were specifically saying with your objective and relative statement. Maybe give me an example.

You don't go around killing people for a lot of reasons but none of them can be justified by atheism except the fear of punishment. I suspect you have a lot of Christian values that you don't attribute to their rightful source (western christian or islamic society)

My comments about charity were not made to prove anything. They were made to disprove someone elses statement about how terrible the US is. I don't think this has anything to do with the thread and would rather have not had to deal with it.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 451:

I was not speaking of any atheist's moralty in particular. I was making a point that in atheism there is no compelling reason to respect or value other life forms that do not directly help you in some way.

Such condition is concurrent to the position of "God's there" - only when one tacks on their theology do they start creating a philosophy of respect or value for other life forms that do not directly help them in some way.

An atheist can have moral ideas but cannot justify them by their atheism unless they engage in wishful thinking.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection]Projection[/i].

It requires sneaking in some Christian like system while trying to deny the God of that system. That last point I made was terribly written but maybe you will get it anyway.

Where you admit to your own inability to accurately or effectly express your own position, you display the very doubts you project onto me.

How does your behing a human prove that atheism can account for the value of life? You lost me on that one.

Because I value my life.

I didn't understand what you were specifically saying with your objective and relative statement. Maybe give me an example.

I requested that you offer just one example of an objective moral issue, value, or such.

Then, explain how it is 'objective' without resorting to subjective evaluations.

You don't go around killing people for a lot of reasons but none of them can be justified by atheism except the fear of punishment.

Reciprocity. I don't go around randomly killing folks 'cause I don't want folks killing me.

I suspect you have a lot of Christian values that you don't attribute to their rightful source (western christian or islamic society)

Bull feathers.

And projection to boot.

Where my value system coincides with other religious beliefs is essentially just that - coincidence.

My comments about charity were not made to prove anything. They were made to disprove someone elses statement about how terrible the US is.

Or, those comments were made to prove the US isn't as terrible as some believe. Either way, yours was an argument from numbers that, as I said, doesn't reflect on other nations' inability to offer as much aid.

I don't think this has anything to do with the thread and would rather have not had to deal with it.

Yet you were perfectly happy "dealing with it" when you weren't being challenged - as evidenced by responding to the notion to begin with.

[Goat]

Atheism cannot account for the sanctity of life, nor objective morality so why not kill someone.

Drowning practically every person and a lot of the animals on the planet is the same as showing sanctity for life? How do you even manage to say that a being performing genocide has any sanctity for life? Atheism has nothing to do with sanctity of life. It's just a non-belief in deities. The sanctity of life is accounted for by logic, reason and common sense, knowledge of how and why morals developed, conscience, upbringing, the social contracts and laws of the land you live in.

I guess the original subject of objective morality has been substituted with somehow convincing yourself that you have the intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge to evaluate God almighty's moral state. Since we always come back to your unqualified accusations against an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent entity I will play along until I get bored.

It's not really a good tactic to misrepresent things. On the other hand, I would love to see you provide actual EVIDENCE of 'God Almighty's moral state', and so show that 'objective morals' actually exist.

[Bust Nak]

I was not speaking of any atheist's moralty in particular. I was making a point that in atheism there is no compelling reason to respect or value other life forms that do not directly help you in some way.

So, the same goes for theism - there is no compelling reason to respect or value other life forms that do not directly help you in some way in theism either.

An atheist can have moral ideas but cannot justify them by their atheism unless they engage in wishful thinking.

Again the same goes for theists, they can can have moral ideas but cannot justify them by their theism unless they engage in wishful thinking - i.e. filling in the generic deities in theism with specifics. The point is you are not comparing like to like. You should be comparing atheism with theism, or humanism with Christianity.

It requires sneaking in some Christian like system while trying to deny the God of that system. That last point I made was terribly written but maybe you will get it anyway.

What I see are theists sneaking in some humanism like system while trying to attribute it to their deities. I suspect you have a lot of humanism value that you don't attribite to their rightful source.

[1robin]

From Post 451:

I was not speaking of any atheist's moralty in particular. I was making a point that in atheism there is no compelling reason to respect or value other life forms that do not directly help you in some way.

Such condition is concurrent to the position of "God's there" - only when one tacks on their theology do they start creating a philosophy of respect or value for other life forms that do not directly help them in some way.

An atheist can have moral ideas but cannot justify them by their atheism unless they engage in wishful thinking.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection]Projection[/i].

It requires sneaking in some Christian like system while trying to deny the God of that system. That last point I made was terribly written but maybe you will get it anyway.

Where you admit to your own inability to accurately or effectivly express your own position, you display the very doubts you project onto me.

How does your behing a human prove that atheism can account for the value of life? You lost me on that one.

Because I value my life.

I didn't understand what you were specifically saying with your objective and relative statement. Maybe give me an example.

I requested that you offer just one example of an objective moral issue, value, or such.

Then, explain how it is 'objective' without resorting to subjective evaluations.

You don't go around killing people for a lot of reasons but none of them can be justified by atheism except the fear of punishment.

Reciprocity. I don't go around randomly killing folks 'cause I don't want folks killing me.

I suspect you have a lot of Christian values that you don't attribute to their rightful source (western christian or islamic society)

Bull feathers.

And projection to boot.

Where my value system coincides with other religious beliefs is essentially just that - coincidence.

My comments about charity were not made to prove anything. They were made to disprove someone elses statement about how terrible the US is.

Or, those comments were made to prove the US isn't as terrible as some believe. Either way, yours was an argument from numbers that, as I said, doesn't reflect on other nations' inability to offer as much aid.

I don't think this has anything to do with the thread and would rather have not had to deal with it.

Yet you were perfectly happy "dealing with it" when you weren't being challenged - as evidenced by responding to the notion to begin with.

1. I am not tacking on any arbitrary religion to some assumed starting point. I am referencing the most widely accepted religion in the history of man. It exists separate and previous to me so it is not subject to distortion by me. It contains the only justification for the value of life not any assertion "smuggled in by me". It is part and parcel of "God is there" not as a separate system, it is how we know God is there. There is no reasonable argument for God is there without the religion. They are not separate and can't be divided.

2. I did not have time for your link but I have already seen many atheist's (Hitchens, Dennet, Dawkins, etc.....attempt to get morals out of evolution and it is one of the weakest arguments and most desperate attempts I have ever heard.
But I apologize for not having time to check your out.

3. I didn't see what you are talking about with the my doubts projected on something else point.

4. Because you value your life is not evidence for an atheistic sanctity of life proof. The motivation for that fact is selfish. The sanctity of all life is not selfish but objectively benevolent.

5. The sanctity of life issue only is only valid from a personal but objective point of view any subjective point of view of it is deficient in explanatory power for it's existence.

6. You proved my point in that reprisal is a fear of punishment and your motivation, which doesn't account for any act of altruism and so lacks explanatory power.

7. Non-bull feathers. Many philosophers and historians point out the obvious fact that most people in the west especially are the product of Christian and democratic influences so deep that they may not be recognized in connection with their original source. For example our inalienable rights found in the constitution. Your value system like it or not is based in large part on society and society is largely based on the influences mentioned above.

8. I'm bored so I will leave your last points for another time.

[1robin]

Atheism cannot account for the sanctity of life, nor objective morality so why not kill someone.

Drowning practically every person and a lot of the animals on the planet is the same as showing sanctity for life? How do you even manage to say that a being performing genocide has any sanctity for life? Atheism has nothing to do with sanctity of life. It's just a non-belief in deities. The sanctity of life is accounted for by logic, reason and common sense, knowledge of how and why morals developed, conscience, upbringing, the social contracts and laws of the land you live in.

I guess the original subject of objective morality has been substituted with somehow convincing yourself that you have the intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge to evaluate God almighty's moral state. Since we always come back to your unqualified accusations against an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent entity I will play along until I get bored.

It's not really a good tactic to misrepresent things. On the other hand, I would love to see you provide actual EVIDENCE of 'God Almighty's moral state', and so show that 'objective morals' actually exist.

If this was for me to resond to, your asking me to do what I wrote all that stuff above to suggest no one should do. I can't evaluate God's moral state in any meaningful way that was my point. I can only look at his actions and motivations if given and compare that to our social moral conventions but that would be of little use in this discussion.