Replies

Atheism is philosophically unsound, proceeding as it does from unproven and unprovable premises. Philosophical problems aside, however, the practical reason atheism must be attacked is because the worldview that develops naturally from atheism is ultimately nihilistic and anti-human, and a society based upon atheism will become likewise (e.g. USSR, PRC, etc.). I won't belabor the issue, but at the most basic level the atheist worldview holds that no absolute, transcendent standard of moral value exists; right and wrong become therefore a matter of personal opinion, which means that Might Makes Right.

I mean no disrespect, but I would ask you to carefully examine the philosophical bases of atheism and reconsider them in the light of reason. The greatest minds the human race has ever produced all found atheism to be bankrupt and unsatisfactory; I suspect that, upon serious reflection, you will as well.

“The greatest minds the human race has ever produced all found atheism to be bankrupt and unsatisfactory;”

“The greatest minds”: that’s subjective

Bankrupt? how so?

Unsatisfactory? Only if you have to know you have salvation. I don’t need to know that I guess. I have other motives that drive me in this world. Less self-serving motives, IMO. I dunno, I just don’t get that: “unsatisfactory.” Who says?

Atheism is philosophically unsound, proceeding as it does from unproven and unprovable premises.

Are you aware that Science is philosophically unsound, proceeding as it does from unproven and unprovable premises?

Might Makes Right.

That 'philosophy' tends to permeate religion too. Do I need to point out a few typical examples?

I would ask you to carefully examine the philosophical bases of atheism and reconsider them in the light of reason.

You are confused. Atheism like Science is not based on philosophy or logic. It is based on evidence or the lack thereof, in the case of religion.

I can’t speak for the Miss but I am very uncomfortable with atheism. Technically I’m an agnostic but disbelief is disbelief. The main problem with a godless universe is that you are left without justice. Mankind has had millennia to figure out how to remove its own corruption and we have made ZERO progress. Even Christian societies and empires failed miserably. This is why I am not an anti-theist. I don’t give a damn about what Ayn Rand and other atheist philosophers call “loyalty to reason” or the “morality of pure reason”. There is no justice in this would. Therefore, God MUST exist even if he certainly doesn’t.

Despite this stance, I don’t know how to escape the position that I’m in. I’ve been trying to believe for years and I’ve found absolutely nothing that could convince my mind. Mere feelings of “God’s presence” would not be enough since my mind would quickly dismiss their validity. The reason why I don’t dismiss the possibility of God is that it is very difficult for anyone to imagine supernatural evidence that can be totally distinguished from natural evidence. Even the resurrection of dead humans, as fantastic as it would seem, could still be regarded by a skeptic as a super-rare natural phenomenon. Likewise, how are we to demonstrate that all known natural phenomena are indeed natural and not supernatural? This is why I am an agnostic and not a positive atheist. I’m not certain that supernatural things don’t exist but I can’t confirm them either.

Atheism is philosophically unsound, proceeding as it does from unproven and unprovable premises.

Duh!......substitute Christianity or whatever religion in that sentence and the same hold true.

Just looking at the constant haggling on the religion forum I don't think anyone should be pointing the finger at others for "distorting reality". Come on!