The ONLY logical objective end to atheism

This video clip illustrates what is the only logical conclusion on free will and the meaning of life, if someone is an atheist. Further, atheists have no room to argue morality.

People who believe in God are constantly reminded to live by their values. I think the same should be done for atheists. When an atheist argues for animal rights, for welfare for the poor, or for anything which they use moral grounds to argue, they should be reminded that they believe there is no free will, no morality, no objective reason for life, etc. It is about time that people begin to hold atheists to their own beliefs.

The full video (expelled) is very well done and I recommend everybody watch it. Im not sure where the argument comes from that atheists do not have free will. I dont think I would agree with it but I would like to hear it. And I think it is possible that atheists can argue morality but it has to be conducted in such a way as if two gods were arguing which morality is "better". Better meaning that the other enjoys it more or sees more benefit to it in his own eyes.

There is a debate on youtube between christopher hitchens and rabbi bochtea. It is a little slow at times but it is pretty interesting. The crowd is overwhelmingly opposed to the idea there is a deity but the rabbi keeps his cool for the most part. Also, a gold mine for converting atheists is this evolutionary idea of survival of the fittest where only the muscular, smart, straight, healthy survive. This is where most evolutionists would stop. There was a man who tried this once. His name was Hitler. He was an athiest and an evolutionist. He really thought this was good for the world and it was a popular idea. There were athiests in America talking about this idea and how it was good. There were a lot of people who did not think Hitler was crazy. But the question would arise, "why would you stop at eugenics?" They would say something like "its not nice", "its cruel", "its inhumane". This is when you have proven that there is something higher than them. You then ask, "where does that decency/love.charity come from?" There are only two logical answers in my opinion.

1)"it came from a deity"
2)"it was a flaw in your evolutionary process and you need to be killed- hey, survival of the fittest"

The Brain Train wrote:Im not sure where the argument comes from that atheists do not have free will. I dont think I would agree with it but I would like to hear it. And I think it is possible that atheists can argue morality but it has to be conducted in such a way as if two gods were arguing which morality is "better". Better meaning that the other enjoys it more or sees more benefit to it in his own eyes.

Free will would not be possible, because it could not come from anywhere. If we are purely physical and mechanical beings, it makes no sense to believe that we have choice. Instead, every thing we do would be because of a physical interaction of chemicals, electrons, etc. That leaves no room for free will.

As for morality, I am talking about objective morality. When someone is making a moral argument for the proper treatment of animals, non-violence, or the welfare checks for the poor, they are relying on objective morality. Statements like "Dog-fighting is wrong", "You shouldn't beat children", or "Rich people should pay more taxes" all appeal to some sort of morality. Atheists must abandon these sort of beliefs and these sort of statements if they hope to be consistent with their beliefs. Here are some other topics that atheists typically rely on an objective morality to argue for:

- Pro-Choice ("right to choose")
- Animal Rights
- Welfare
- Socialized Medicine

In fact, anyone having any rights of any kind, implies an objective morality.

Enron wrote:

The Brain Train wrote:Im not sure where the argument comes from that atheists do not have free will. I dont think I would agree with it but I would like to hear it. And I think it is possible that atheists can argue morality but it has to be conducted in such a way as if two gods were arguing which morality is "better". Better meaning that the other enjoys it more or sees more benefit to it in his own eyes.

Free will would not be possible, because it could not come from anywhere. If we are purely physical and mechanical beings, it makes no sense to believe that we have choice. Instead, every thing we do would be because of a physical interaction of chemicals, electrons, etc. That leaves no room for free will.

As for morality, I am talking about objective morality. When someone is making a moral argument for the proper treatment of animals, non-violence, or the welfare checks for the poor, they are relying on objective morality. Statements like "Dog-fighting is wrong", "You shouldn't beat children", or "Rich people should pay more taxes" all appeal to some sort of morality. Atheists must abandon these sort of beliefs and these sort of statements if they hope to be consistent with their beliefs. Here are some other topics that atheists typically rely on an objective morality to argue for:

- Pro-Choice ("right to choose")
- Animal Rights
- Welfare
- Socialized Medicine

In fact, anyone having any rights of any kind, implies an objective morality.

I think every thing we do is *because* of a physical interaction of chemicals, electrons, etc. and this give us the ability to have free will. What would the other force be that would give us free will? I think a dog has just as much free will as us (of course, I am not saying they are all as smart as us or can choose a religion like us) but I do not think all dogs are all alike or always make predictable decisions because of a physical interaction of chemicals, electrons, etc.

As for the morality issue, my experience with an atheist at work showed me that it will end when the atheist say "it is good because I think it is good." I guess the next step would be to jockey to find what we can agree that is "good" and then draw conclusions off of those to find a way to convince him that other things he thinks are bad, could be good. Im not convinced, however, that an atheist could not say that something is good or bad, because its all in his mind, related to other thoughts. But I think (and this is what you might be saying) it will naturally cut off logical discourse when you view two individuals as equals with equal thoughts and it is possible to say whatever you want and put your "godly" stamp of approval on it. Maybe not though

This topic is really interesting to think about.

The Brain Train wrote:

I think every thing we do is *because* of a physical interaction of chemicals, electrons, etc. and this give us the ability to have free will. What would the other force be that would give us free will?

I believe that God gave us free will. Without ID, there is no free will. I would like someone to explain to me how free will could come about without ID. This is actually one of the strongest arguments for a creator (IMO).

The Brain Train wrote:As for the morality issue, my experience with an atheist at work showed me that it will end when the atheist say "it is good because I think it is good." I guess the next step would be to jockey to find what we can agree that is "good" and then draw conclusions off of those to find a way to convince him that other things he thinks are bad, could be good.

I think the most appropriate response is "Why should I care what you think is good?" and leave it at that. By definition of something being subjective, it does not transcend one individuals consciousness. From now on, I will be asking this to any atheist that tries to tell me something that requires an objective morality. Brain Train, let's practice. You be the devil's advocate and play the atheist. Tell me what you think about saving the whales, violence, gun rights, abortion, or whatever you want as an atheist. I will show you responses that I think to be fitting. Seriously, I think this will help us understand what we are talking about.

I contend atheism is a religious belief in that it is a belief about a deity, or, more accurately, about the lack of a deity. The organization known as American Atheists has a heirarchal structure similar to other religions, produces propaganda to support the faith, has a speaker's bureau similar to evangelists, is licensed as a non-profit under Freedom of Religion, and pushes its beliefs into political actions. (Here is a link to the website.) Another group of atheists are Buddhists. It is utterly ridiculous to contend that is not religion.

I wrote a blog article entitled The Diamond That Shouldn't Exist in which I tie atheism and monotheism to two historical figures: Aristotle and Charles Darwin. Aristotle is both the Father of Biology, and the source of confirmation for some of the scientific errors in the Bible. Darwin is oft thought of as an atheist, but he majored in Theology in college, and said late in life that he was agnostic.

I challenged any atheist on Helium to debate me whether God could be disproven. One person took me up on the offer, and I wrote about our debate.

Here is a thought that atheists seem to not be able to answer scientifically. Humans and most animals have two electrical waves that can be measured: the brain and the heart. It is rare that both stop at the same time. More commonly, one stops first. Brain waves stop rather quickly if the heart wave stops, but the heart wave can be maintained without brain waves for quite some time. In fact, in many cases in which the brain waves cease and "the plug is pulled," death is attributable to starvation. Though these electrical charges are minute, they exist and can be measured. With that premise, what happens to that electrical charge at death? Most atheists contend it just goes away, but, scientifically, energy can be altered but it cannot be destroyed.

All that said, I think monotheists tend to sell God short while atheists give God too much credit.

Somehow I missed the link to your article. I found it very interesting and I think you brought a new perspective.