quote:
To demonstrate this, Christian philosophers demonstrate the inability of atheism to account for morality.
Oh, no, not this again! Christians
try to demonstrate the inability of atheism to account for morality. Atheists can account for morality quite well. The problems that you state have nothing to do with whether a god exists or not. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that the question "why is it wrong to rape or torture someone" cannot be answered. How is this an inconsistency that proves atheism irrational? Why do you think that moral questions need to be answerable?
quote:
instead to show that atheism fails to deal with many issues that it must adequately deal with if it is to be considered a rational position.
Again, why must it adequately deal with these issues?
Secondly, atheism is simply the belief that there is no god (yes, I know that there are some here that disagree with this, but they can make their own arguments). It, in itself, is
not a philosophy. It is merely a part of a philosophy that a person has. Suppose that an atheist has a philosophy that
does deal with these issues? What then?
quote:
In light of this evidence, why is it more rational to believe in atheism?
Because most factors that influence my life can be explained without postulating the existence of a god. Because even those things for which I don't have explanation, god does
not produce a satisfying explanaion - just seems like another way of saying "I don't know", and it's easier, for me, to just say "I don't know and be done with it.
In short, the theist still has not produced any compelling evidence in favor of any god's existence, other than the ocassional argument from ignorance.
quote:
Most atheists/agnostics demand too much proof from the theist.
I don't demany
any proof from the theist. She is perfectly free to believe whatever she believes. It doesn't matter to me.
™ Version 4.2