Atheism Examined

I'm going to disagree on two major points.A firm sense of right and wrong makes it easier to become an atheist. It certainly made it easier for me to reject Christianity - and it should make it easier for anyone. Nobody with a firm sense of right and wrong could endorse, for instance, the genocide attributed to Joshua. I suspect that religion is more often a way for people to be self-righteous, to pretend to themselves that they are good people when really they are not.As for whatever personal reasons lead people to religion it is not necessary to "see" this evidence to know that it is hugely unreliable. There are many religions in the world. Many are mutually inconsistent. The "Abrahamic" religions with their claims to absolute truth are especially clear on this. Anyone who calls themselves a Christian ought to reject any such evidence that leads people to Islam or Hinduism or any other religion except perhaps Judaism - and even then only for ethnic Jews.It could be different. If there really were a "god" that this "evidence" pointed to then we ought to be able to see some sign of it in the patterns. But we don't. Most people follow the religion of their parents, the religion they were brought up in. Religions spread by ordinary human contacts. A god needn't wait centuries for misisonaries to reach remote parts of the world !So to simply say that this "evidence" is dismissed because it cannot be examined is wrong. It may be examined indirectly and it is clearly wanting.

quote:

---

My point was that if I was an atheist, it would be easier for me to be immoral.

---

Which only suggests that you lack a firm sense of right and wrong.

quote:

---

Yes, especially with specific religions. But for theism, in general, the reliability improves, even if it is just a little bit. The specifics of a particular religion aren't that important for a discustion about theism/atheism.

---

That's far from obviously true. You have to assume that whatever is behind it all is unreliable on practically everything other than the bare existence of gods for that to make sense. Which doesn't really make a lot of sense, for instance, if you assume that it's divine revelation. In the end I see no reason why it should be assumed to be reliable on one issue and hopelessly unreliable on everythign else.

quote:

---

Maybe that's the best way to do it, in god's opinion. We can't really say how god shoudl have or should not have done things.

---

Or maybe you're just reduced to implausible speculatiosn to try and dismiss the counter-evidence. Whjy would it be the best way ? Doesn't God want the true religion to stand out as true ? Doesn't God want human worship ? On both counts letting humans do the spreading stands against the supposed wishes of God.

quote:

---

Sometimes its ruled as non-evidence a priori. It is refused to be examined, not incapable of examination.

---

I think you mean that the "evidence" itself is judged as worthless as evidential support for it's content - which as I have pointed out above is the rational judgement based on a wider and more correct examination.

quote:

---

Hypothetically, maybe my sense is firm but I choose to do wrong... or I just don't care if I do wrong.

​

I don't really see a reason to do right other than because its the right thing to do. So what?

---

So Brian's right - at least in your case.