I was raised atheist, everyone I know is an atheist. Then at around 30 I started reading up on theology, philosophy after really basic questions I used to brush aside as a cringe Hitchens and Harris fan, started to really make me think about “the big questions”.
Things like the argument from contingency and there needing to be a prime mover or an uncaused cause due to infinite regress etc. Something can’t come from nothing just like there can’t be a square circle. It is a logical impossibility.
Recently went back and listened to William Lane Craig a famous Christian apologist debate Hitchens and he completely trounced Hitchens. Craig points out that without God morality can’t be objective and so rape being wrong really is completely arbitrary. And even from a utilitarian perspective there is utility in it. And even if you tried to argue that point a gang rape couldn’t be deemed unethical as more total pleasure and happiness for the perpetrators is occurring than pain and anguish for the single victim.
Once we accept that morality is either objective or arbitrary it seems you have to pick a side. Either rape is not wrong and its merely subjective disgust we feel. Or it is objectively evil and this grounded in a morality that is objective and rooted. Dawkins for example admits that rape being “wrong” is as arbitrary as the fact we evoled 5 fingers per hand instead of 6.
And yes atheists can be moral, I was an atheist and found rape evil, but I had no way to ground that as objectively so. It was just my impulse to feel that it was evil, I couldn’t give an argument why it was objectively wrong.
Just know that during the reign of of King Hammurabi, sixth king of the First Dynasty of Babylon (1795-1750BC), he wrote the Code of Hammurabi, which were laws written “to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak.”
I am what most consider a Bible Thumper, but you should be aware that the well read can present a good case for their unbelief. It is argued that The Law and the Code of Hammurabi were written at about the same time frame.
Not really sure what argument you are trying to make here regarding God having to exist for morality to be objective. There aren’t good arguments for atheism. There are arguments against particular religions. But to argue the universe could have come from nothing is a logical impossibility. And we can’t use science to argue metaphysical positions.
As far as I am aware the Egyptians believed in God. And all Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam believe that these people were monotheists who had their religion corrupted and turned into polytheism.
Having been an atheist for most of my life I certainly wouldn’t say they have good arguments for disbelief in God. They have arguments against certain religions. But Atheists will openly declare their atheism then hide behind a general “agnostacism” in order to avoid making a claim they then need to substantiate. This is the typical mott and bailey strategy of new atheism.
That is their epistemological get out of jail free card. Be open atheists for 20 years then when debating WLC or another philosopher hide behind agnosticism. Then once the debate is over argue there is no God which is a claim thus requiring evidence.
There is a reason Dawkins and Harris have stopped debating since philosophers started debating the. Harris has not done a single real debate since William Lane Craig and Dawkins has said he refuses to debate Craig as “he can be convincing”.
Craig basically copied the Kalam from Muslims but it is a valid argument for all theists:
I was just pointing out that the Gentiles had laws from about as long as the Jews had laws. Romans 2:11-16 validates that the Gentiles understood laws, such as the Code of Hammurabi or whatever their culture established.
My biggest issue with organized religion is that most consider you hell bound if you aren’t devoted to their religion. Further I find the concept antiquated and for those that can’t stand the thought that life is finite. I would be thrilled to find out there is an after life but I’m not sure I buy the all powerful concept or a divine being. Although I did believe in Santa one upon a time. I knew he was real… just knew it.
The entire premise of a faith-based belief system is that it’s engaged in WITH the absence of evidence.
Believing in something that we have evidence is kind of the default. It’d be strange to NOT believe in it. It’s why we mock flat earthers and the like.
Religion requires faith. Religion speaks on behalf of God. God itself could give me the evidence I need to believe, so either God doesn’t want to or doesn’t exist.
All my life I believed there was a GOD, had my questions though about the WHYS, the WHENS and etc
never liked the religion aspect of it all, found the leaders and others to be hypocritical
however, was born again thru Jesus Christ and read thru the Gospels and found a church that meets my needs and my questions were all answered and life is at peace…very rare do i worry or stress out about health or the future and if i go tomorrow i am ok with it
Definitely not religious or theistic, but I’ve grown much more open to the idea that consciousness is something other than the direct result of electrical impulses and chemical signaling between neurons. I’m also much more comfortable with that fact that I “know” almost nothing about the biggest and most important questions we all seem to have about life and the universe.
Regarding morality, I think Harris presents a pretty compelling conception of object morality from a secular perspective in his book The Moral Landscape. If you can put the “cringe” of your past beliefs aside, it may be an enlightening read.