DoctorAlien:
Because an atheist does believe in God, but does not believe that he believes in God, he is simply a walking bundle of inconsistencies. One type to watch for is abehavioral inconsistency; this is where a person’s behavior does not comport with what he claims to believe. For example, consider the atheist university professor who teaches that human beings are simply chemical accidents —the end result of a long and purposeless chain of biological evolution. But then he goes home and kisses his wife and hugs his children, as if they were not simply chemical accidents, but valuable, irreplaceable persons deserving of respect and worthy of love.

DoctorAlien:
Consider the atheist who is outraged at seeing a violent murder on the ten o’clock news. He is very upset and hopes that the murderer will be punished for his wicked actions. But in his view of the world, why should he be angry? In an atheistic, evolutionary universe where people are just animals, murder is no different than a lion killing an antelope. But we don’t punish the lion! If people are just chemical accidents, then why punish one for killing another? We wouldn’t get upset at baking soda for reacting with vinegar; that’s just what chemicals do. The concepts that human beings are valuable, are not simply animals, are not simply chemicals, have genuine freedom to make choices, are responsible for their actions, and are bound by a universal objective moral code all stem from a Christian worldview. Such things simply do not make sense in an atheistic view of life.

DoctorAlien:
Many atheists behave morally and expect others to behave morally as well. But absolute morality simply does not comport with atheism. Why should there be an absolute, objective standard of behavior that all people should obey if the universe and the people within it are simply accidents of nature? Of course, people can assert that there is a moral code. But who is to say what that moral code should be? Some people think it is okay to be racist; others think it is okay to kill babies, and others think we should kill people of other religions or ethnicities, etc. Who is to say which position should be followed? Any standard of our own creation would necessarily be subjective and arbitrary.

ValentineMary:
Humans have no predefined purpose, we choose our purpose. As conscious beings, we can choose what we want. If we have a predefined purpose by a good God, then he/she/it is responsible for all the people who became serial killers, rapist and terrorist. Since he gave them an already defined purpose.
Then that would be incompatible with an all loving being. Purpose are attributes of conscious organisms built in by evolution to ensure survival no matter how complex or primitive it might be.

ValentineMary:
We have come a long way in civilization and it is undeniably that survival of the fittest got us here to select the best suited to survive.

But in this case, our morality are guided by secular laws which has to a great extent helped in ensuring our survival.

So u wondering why atheist should bother just keeps me thinking.

DoctorAlien:


In other words you say that life is meaningless.

GOD gave man freewill. As such, man can do whatever he wants. But he is not free from the consequences of his actions. Any action has a consequence.

Are you confused? How can you say we have no purpose and then say that evolution programmed purpose into us? What is the purpose of man from the evolution POV?

ValentineMary:
Not all atheist believe in absolute morality. Morality is obviously subjective to individuals based on their exposure and knowledge.

DoctorAlien:
Now, some atheists might respond, “That’s right! Morality is subjective. We each have the right to create our own moral code. And therefore, you cannot impose your personal morality on other people!” But of course, this statement is self-refuting, because when they say, “you cannot impose your personal morality on other people” they are imposing their personal moral code on other people. When push comes to shove, no one really believes that morality is merely a subjective, personal choice.

DoctorAlien:
Consider the atheist who is outraged at seeing a violent murder on the ten o’clock news. He is very upset and hopes that the murderer will be punished for his wicked actions.

dalaman:
What is the purpose of humans? The universal purpose of humans that is acceptable by all humans on earth is what?

hopefulLandlord:


He's outraged because violent murder goes against the laws of the land he's in; its a felony

DoctorAlien:
Many atheists behave morally and expect others to behave morally as well. But absolute morality simply does not comport with atheism. Why should there be an absolute, objective standard of behavior that all people should obey if the universe and the people within it are simply accidents of nature? Of course, people can assert that there is a moral code. But who is to say what that moral code should be? Some people think it is okay to be racist; others think it is okay to kill babies, and others think we should kill people of other religions or ethnicities, etc. Who is to say which position should be followed? Any standard of our own creation would necessarily be subjective and arbitrary.

DoctorAlien:


Who made the laws binding? Who gave him/her/them the authority? Who said killing is bad? Does the belief of a million human beings turn a relative into an absolute?

hopefulLandlord:
and saying absolute morality comes from a god puts you in a position that you can't possibly criticise Al Qaeda, boko Haram for the destructions they're doing since they also are working with absolute morality which comes from their version of god; you also can't possibly criticise the killing of twins, Apostasy laws, Honour killings etc

DoctorAlien:
I have not pointed out any absolute moral value. Moreover, this indicates that you don't really know what I'm talking about when I say absolute moral values. It is simply something that is universally agreed upon as moral/good.

So, are you saying that there is nothing universally agreed upon as good?

hopefulLandlord:

the law is binding so long you're living in the environment of that law, you're subjected to it

people gave the lawmakers the authority

we vote the president, senators, house of reps, Governors, house of assembly, local govt chairmen, councillors etc WE all combined to give them that power; a functioning society needs laws to checkmate things

DoctorAlien:
Laws of logic stem from God’s sovereign nature; they are a reflection of the way He thinks. They are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities, because God is an immaterial (Spirit), omnipresent, unchanging God who has all knowledge (Colossians 2:3). Thus, all true statements will be governed by God’s thinking—they will be logical. The law of non-contradiction, for example, stems from the fact that God does not deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). The Christian can account for laws of logic; they are the correct standard for reasoning because God is sovereign over all truth. We can know some of God’s thoughts because God has revealed Himself to us through the words of Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ.

hopefulLandlord:


give me examples of those things universally agreed on as "good"

DoctorAlien:


If life has no purpose and meaning, and you exist today by chance, why do you go on living?