Evidence for God from Science

While I always understood the concept of morality being relative on atheism, for some reason, I have a difficult time grasping how 'rationality, reality and truth' are also relative, and how adding god into the equation solves the problem. Can someone clarify?

This is just a variant of the Divine Hiddenness argument. I think there's no good response to that except Calvinism and Inclusivist/Universalist views of salvation.

I told you certain things in PM, but more here... Do you think it's rational , on the materialistic worldview, to act in the manner dictated by one's "conscience", against one's material self-interest, solely to avoid the negative emotion that will ensue otherwise? Not what you would do. B...

I am actually agnostic, but same crap. I've mentioned above that it's only rational to abide by the rules set by the elite insofar as it benefits the individual. But here arrives the argument of what is beneficial to you. Even if there are no direct negative consequences for one's life, the mere neg...

It doesn't matter how the dominant morality came about: it is of no consequence whatsoever. Atheism recognizes that there is no such thing as objective right or wrong; these are determined by social consensus. An atheist can pick the principles he wishes to live by - for the moment or for life - an...

In the world is this thread about?

Yes, it is rational. There is no ''unquestionable acceptance'' about it either, it just is easier. Choosing the easy path demonstrates intelligence. Really dumb atheists make things hard on themselves. So how is it rational, in light of the fact the dominant morality could be wrong, given that it w...

Yeah...so what? Most atheists just want a nice world where everybody appreciates the next guy and you mind your own business. And so they adopt the dominant morality because that's all they care about. In this sense, atheists are no different from other people. And do you think that's rational? To ...

Objective morality is impossible on atheism, yes, but would you say it is irrational to act morally, given atheism? The atheist would use the argument that it makes him feel good to do what he sees as good.

I have to confess I'm pretty ignorant myself (though I am not from America). It's because I used to see no value in having broad knowledge on a variety of subjects with no practical application. I remember I asked my grandmother why I should care about history, she said "so when someone asks yo...

Are you in high school? I wish we had "government" and "global events" classes.

I see that Murray edited the OP so it now focuses more on the "kill infidels" verses rather than Hell. Smart move. Now it looks significantly less hypocritical.

Okay, I already explained all this, but here I go again. 1. It is evil by societal standards. Philosophical quibbling of whether evil is objective or relative is irrelevant to the discussion. 2. Genocide is evil on the Christian moral code, which neo-x subscribes to. Ergo, he was saying that, on his...

I didn't say it was objectively wrong. I already covered all this.

"Evil" doesn't appear on the first page of the thread. It appears on the second, but he didn't say it. Come on, now. He claims that they support the mass murder of religious people. Now, since I know some anklebiter will shout at me how atheists have no "objective morality", I w...