TenQ:

1. God's moral laws for man is Objective for man.

BTW, I'm willing to bet that you can't name a single objective moral. I'm doubly willing to bet that you can't name one that wasn't violated thrice in your "holy" book.

TenQ:

A complex system.

-snip-

The more complex a system is, the higher the probability it is designed and built by a highly intelligent being.
Do you agree or disagree with this?

How do you measure how complex a system is?

TenQ:


Mary was so young and she has a Fiancé!?

Possibly an arranged marriage, with the ceremony and consummation to occur at a later date.

Regardless, this does not eliminate the problem of your evil little god-thing forcing itself upon her - with that kind of power imbalance, it's coercion rather than consent - the divine equivalent of holding a gun to someone's head.

TenQ:

It's good I scare you bad!
May all your demons ever be scared of my mention!

No wonder, response to simple questions throw you off the bridge.

I'm sure you've never heard of the word conscience: let me explain.

It's the little sentinel program God wrote into you to be your first tutor to doing good. It doesn't matter if you are Buddhist, Hindi, Hare Krishna, Muslim or Christian, you have a conscience (an instinct) that rewards you with peace and joy when you do good and withdraws peace and joy from your heart when you do evil.

Even when you finally decided for Atheism, you remember how EMPTY you felt!?

Even in your Atheism, if you've not completely overwritten your programming, you still have a conscience. Don't you!?

Sorry, but no. It's an evolved instinct upon which later social development is based as you grow.

You're a social animal descended from other social animals. Your ancestors survived by developing instincts against anti-social behaviours and toward pro-social behaviours. You inherited these instincts. You can see this in very young children who, despite being very cute, are a bunch of little sociopaths.

TenQ:

As for bestiality, it is highly subjective if you need no permission from an animal to kill and eat it.

My concerns were not for the well-being of the animal but rather that of society as a whole. No smart society allows potential rapists to start with animals and work their way up.

TenQ:

BTW one of the conditions is that it poses no harm to the society. Would it still be wrong?

And I am stating that there can be no circumstances where bestiality poses no harm to society, so that condition is simply silly. You might as well ask if murder would be aceptable if it didn't harm society. It makes as much sense.

TenQ:

Is there no UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything that exist?
You evaded the question:

I tried to tell you that the question likely makes no sense. You are asking "What is the cause of causality?" which is slightly sillier than wondering what the weight of your shadow is.

TenQ:

Logically, infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible. It has to terminate somewhere and that is the where the Uncaused First Cause of Everything is waiting

Except that "uncaused causes" are as irrational and impossible as infinite regress. This should indicate that your "simple logic" has failed under non-trivial circumstances and that you're going to need something a little more robust. Instead, you've taken an obvious mistake, given it a name, and granted it dominion over you.

TenQ:

Logic is very simple
If A>B (Postulate 1)
and
If B>C (Postulate 2)
THEN
C>A (Conclusion)

No, that's a failing mark in Primary 6 math, lol.

TenQ:

1. God's moral laws for man is Objective for man.

Rejected. Existential fallacy, because, existence of your god not yet demonstrated. Also, unsupported assertion.

TenQ:

God's law of morality binds us absolutely

Rejected. People break your alleged god's laws every minute of the day, all around the world. No "binding" demonstrated.

TenQ:

God is NOT subject to His own laws

Then why should we take them seriously?

TenQ:

A Miracle is the suspension of the Natural laws set by God for a purpose.

Unsupported assertion. I have never seen any credible evidence for miracles.

1000WaysToLive:


Guy... this is madness:



So is this:

Attempting to reason with TenQ is the same as attempting to teach a pigeon how to play checkers - the faculty for learning doesn't exist.

There's a correlation shaping up here: the greater the vacancy of reason, the more some witless god occupies the empty space. And here we are at hundreds of posts with, so far, none venturing an actual answer to my OP: How would absence of a god make a believer's life different? What does a god add that cannot be lived without?

In my case, whatever a god added back when I uncritically believed there was such a thing had no importance. It was the removal of a god that made living more positive.

TenQ:

How: Big Bang or Inflation of gravitational singularity
When: 13.8billion years ago

You're wrong

One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.

Wikipedia || Big Bang

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZdvSJyHvUU

TenQ:

Speak to my response if you can, and if you can't, it's not compulsory as you don't understand what is written

I did, numbnutz. I pointed out that you had uttered a falsehood. Why don't you take your own medicine, you clearly need it more than I do.

TenQ:

Have you ever seen an intelligent communication without an intelligent source?

If you go to the beach and you see written on the sand "TenQ likes Near1", will you conclude that the waves or a crab wrote it ?

Whenever you see systems like a House with functional doors, Windows, kitchen and bedroom, do you think that the storm must have done it!

When you see the DNA (a complex library of data and information), you think this was a random coincidence?

What you are asserting is the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything?

He has not asserted any such thing!

For crying out loud, are you simply incapable of reading for comprehension? Is English not your first language? Or is there some other handicap that explains your constant misreading?

TenQ:

The Universe originated 13.8 billion years ago from a gravitational singularity. Time, Space and Matter with ALL the Laws of Physics started simultaneously at this time.

Can you logically or scientifically prove that infinite regress of cause and effect is possible?

Since I haven't claimed it's possible, I'm not going to attempt to prove that it's possible. As a Christian, you do claim that a necessary being is possible. Can you prove it?

And no, you've misunderstood the science of the big bang. It does not say anything about how or when the universe originated. That is simply unknown.

TenQ:

Subjective morality is absolute!?

You amaze me.

Subjective moralities, plural, can be absolute.

One article defines it thus: "Moral absolutism is the position that there are universal ethical standards that apply to actions regardless of context."

Thus, if a person's subjective view of the rightness or wrongness of an act takes into account the context of the act, it is not absolute. If a subjective view of the rightness or wrongness of an act is true regardless of the context, then that person's subjective morality is absolute.

TenQ:

Your argument seem to say that Religion and Science are equivalent in their sphere of reference and that All religions are bad (without giving any content reason). The third point you were totally off as you didn't address the fact that Atheism is a belief system.

No, that is not my argument at all. I'm not going to restate it as I have no idea why you have such difficulty understanding the plain meaning of what I said. If you don't understand the particulars then ask some questions. You seem to be reading a lot into it that isn't there in what appears to be the consequence of motivated reasoning.

As to my claiming that all religion is bad, no I am not claiming that, and I even repeated that I didn't think there would be much change, so you appear to want to ignore what I did write in favor of what you want to believe that I believe. You're simply attributing things to me that are incorrect, possibly because you're under the influence of stereotypes about atheists that you hold. What I did say is that I thought some people might improve their behavior as a result of losing their faith. And some people, I'm sure, would be worse. I don't think there's a general, "religion is bad," though my mind is not made up on the question rather than my thinking that it is not the case that religion is bad. I'm just not sure. And anyway, the question was about Christianity, not all religion, so you've moved the goal posts here.

As to the third point not addressing your contention that atheism is a belief, since the point you raised had nothing to do with that but rather was a question about reality then there is a very simple reason for my not addressing it: it wasn't relevant. I'm beginning to suspect rather strongly that you have very poor reasoning skills, an active imagination, a bigoted outlook on atheism, and a strong need to believe that there is something inherently wrong with atheists and atheism.

As an addendum, I'll make a suggestion. When we have a strong opinion or theory about something, it's very easy to have a tendency to view any responses those views generate through the lens of that theory or opinion. Thus many of the things you've misattributed to me here appear to be because you conceive of certain problems in a certain way, and then view all responses as examples of objections you've previously considered and rejected. In this way, you're not really listening to what the other is saying and essentially only looking to confirm what you already believe. This isn't bad or shameful, I'm sure that I'm guilty of it as well many times. I don't know what to suggest other than that you try to have a more open mind.

TenQ:

Objective standard is any standard you can't bend at your whim.

Example is legal age in most western cultures set at 18 years old. Even if it changes to 17 years old, it is still an objective standard for citizens.

A man who had sex with a 17 years 9 months old girl would be attested for rape

Standards aren't literal things and so they are neither bendable nor not bendable. You'll have to explain what you mean without the figurative language otherwise we can only guess at your meaning.

TenQ:

The subjective code of a deity makes it objective for man.
Sometimes, a government steps in to fulfill the same role.

The age 18 years old as a baseline for consent is an objective rule made by government. If a child is 17 years 9 months, you cannot have sex with her as an adult without the risk of legal infraction.

You have no point dear!

You're using subjective and objective incorrectly and essentially making up your own definitions. And the way you've done it leads to an equivocation aside from being little more than a might makes right argument. What makes you think that God subjectively deciding X makes X objective for us?

TenQ:

Logically, infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible. It has to terminate somewhere and that is the where the Uncaused First Cause of Everything is waiting

That isn't a logical restriction. It may be the case, but it's not because of the laws of logic. And this simply leads to a paradox as something always having been is as difficult to conceive whether we call it necessary being or an infinite regress. It's essentially the same problem. So God has essentially the same problem as you think the other has in that his mode of existence doesn't make sense.

TenQ:

Let me ask you a question as an Atheist:
Is sex with an animal wrong if there is guarantee that the animal is not hurt, that adequate protection against STDs are used and no danger is posed to the society?

The act itself indicates a danger to society. Animals cannot consent. Leaving aside for the moment the wrongness that is animal rape, you've just identified somebody who isn't overly concerned with consent and may not always be content to limit their predation to the livestock. Letting your rapists get a start with non-verbal victims is not something that any smart society encourages.

TenQ:

Is there no UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything that exist?

Please wade me through: as for me it seems to contradict simple Logic!

That's because you're using simple logic and common sense to try and understand the most complicated and least common event in the history of history. Common sense is wonderful for not grabbing hot objects, sticking your tongue in electrical outlets, and avoiding a host of other common everyday hazards. It is complete rubbish at understanding the origin of the universe.

Endtimer:
The problem is that adherence to Godless morality is unwarranted.

And yet that's what we've been doing ever since we stopped letting the churches write our laws.

Chimpanzees show moral behaviour and most of them, the ones that fit the physical description of "chimp" routinely show moral behaviour to others in their troop. This without any god or gods. Just felt like putting it out there.

efficiencie:

Intelligence breeds intelligence and where there are free moral agents there will be never be a lack of calamities and solutions. I trust you are sensible enough to discern this. People today have created machines that learn and are intelligent. God didn't do that, man did but your post seems to attribute all forms of intelligence to God without acknowledging the reproductive capacity of intelligence.

Yeah, this is a load of clever wordplay. Intelligence doesn't breed unless you're speaking figuratively, in which case this becomes not a truth but a deepity.

efficiencie:

Well, news flash, the James Webb Telescope just destroyed your beloved big bang theory. Some galaxies have been spotted that seemed too old to be real with some dating back to within 200 million light years after the so called big bang. Lol, find another theory.

What make you think that GL-z13, if verified, is a problem for the big bang theory?

efficiencie:

But it is not self-entitlement or ego when Steve Hawkings claimed that the universe could spontaneously bring itself to existence. Lol. It is amazing how extremely brilliant minds can spout stuff that challenge the basest levels of intuition and commonsense. Imagine getting home and your kid tells you the food you left behind ate itself. Lol. But Steve Hawkings, one of the world's foremost theoretical physicists claims the universe caused itself and folks like you will immediately swallow that piece of crap and use it in arguments. How are you different from the religious folks you so accuse of being self entitled. Scientists say stuff and you swallow it without thought.

You mean like how quantum mechanics challenges the basest levels of intuition and common sense despite being the most extensively confirmed theory in history? That you use intuition and commonsense as your yardstick absent actual arguments and observations only shows that you're an idiot.

efficiencie:
Steve Hawking also believes the same only that in the place of God he attributes the universe beginning of the universe to gravity.

Not that it matters, as the point this is springboarding off of only shows you to be incompetent, but what is this a reference to?

Endtimer:
I agree that most people will continue living as though there is a reason to be good. What I’m saying is that there isn’t such a reason, regardless of whether people act as though there were. The problem isn’t that there are people who digress from morality. The problem is that adherence to Godless morality is unwarranted.

Okay. Then presumably you can demonstrate that objective morals would not exist in the absence of God. If you have and I missed it, please link me.

Endtimer:
...Everyone here wrongly thinks I’m talking about...

This is chronic with respect to your posts. Everyone but you doesn't get it. An objective observer might suggest you get a mirror.

TenQ:

You probably don't understand my point. Let me illustrate if for you.

Suppose we don't know any history of civilizations, can we by science alone accurately reconstruct the empires and civilizations that has existed before us?

History is in the frame of reference of Art, Story, past time.
Science is in the frame of reference to Science, matter, energy, reactions of matter.

Just as History alone cannot decrypt science, science alone cannot decrypt history.

Same with Religion/ Spiritism and Science. It's a parallel world of view which may cross once in a while.

I understood your point well enough, but mine doesn't seem to have registered with you. It depends upon the assumptions and definitions, just as what history is depends upon definitions and assumptions. The only question being whether or not in the set of reasonable definitions and assumptions that one can make about the subject, is there a set that demonstrates the opposite of your conclusions, and I suggest that there are.

As to history, your analogy, besides being a false one, shows the same problem. You define history as being a frame of reference of art, story, and past time. If I conceive of history somewhat differently from you, being only about what is past, then it may at some point in the future be possible to accurately reconstruct all of the past. It's not currently possible, but this isn't about what is currently possible but about what is possible in principle, and since whether it is possible for science to demonstrate god's existence being false depends critically upon cherry-picking your assumptions and definitions such that your chosen conclusion results, that is a form of begging the question and makes your conclusion invalid.

TenQ:

Throwing out the baby with the dirty bathwater!? LOL!
Have you heard this before:
"All humans are wicked and destructive therefore for nature to survive, humans need to be eliminated"!


Your point is highly synonymous!!

I fail to see how this is at all analogous. Failing further elaboration on your part, I'm dismissing it as much. And since I said that in general that things would not change much, either you simply didn't understand what I said or you're reaching in order to be argumentative. I didn't suggest throwing out any bathwater, and as far as having a point, my only point was that in some, religion is an enabler for their evil. If you want to dispute that, I'm all ears. Instead you've made a tortuous and poorly explained analogy which doesn't at all seem cogent. I think you're just looking to say "nuh uh" to anything anyone says.

TenQ:


Discard God, morality becomes subjective and there would be nothing that is wrong.
Bestiality, Necromancers, Cannibalism, Incest etc. You'll be forced to replace God with your government as a standard by which all will live.
I cringe at your offering

That's nice. Even if I were to agree, that has nothing to do with the third question or my response to it. This is a species of ignoratio elenchi, a fallacy whereby even if what the arguer says is true, it would not refute the point they are responding to. Since I've responded to such questions elsewhere, I'll simply note that in this context this is irrelevant and therefore a red herring.

It's pretty obvious now that you're just pissing into the wind for the hell of it. You'll make any response to points made just to be contrary and that is arguing in bad faith.

TenQ:
So you have swallowed the bait that Atheism is NOT a belief system?

Can one sincerely belief or lack a belief something you know completely?

Using your exact definition here:
"To be atheist is to live life without faith in the existence of a god or, gods."
By your definition,
Atheism is godlessness!

Faith is a TRUST in the integrity of a PERSONALITY!

It is impossible to lack trust in the integrity of a personality who doesn't exist! In other words, Atheism is a Rejection of an Uncaused First-Cause of Everything! This makes Atheists godless! This covers both Gnostic -Atheists and Agnostic -Atheists.

Godlessness!

To the best of my knowledge, I have never asserted the words you attribute to me here. I'll need you to cite the relevant context where I said this before I can respond. At this juncture I'll simply point out that again you are playing games with definitions here. In addition to being dishonest it renders your conclusion invalid.

Endtimer:
You missed the point again. I’m not talking about society based on murder. I’m talking about atheists like you saying that we should all do good and one bad egg decides that it is in his best interests to organize large numbers of people to live contrary to whatever social order you want to authoritatively impose.

Please tell me that you're being ironic when you describe secular law as authoritative.

History is replete with examples of "bad eggs" who did exactly as you describe. They didn't work out because, as I said, the social structures that they produce aren't stable. While you're at it, note how many of those used religion as a justification of their atrocities and how few religion did anything to stop.

Endtimer:
For instance, you are probably against bestiality and pedophilia. In your hypothetical society someone might decide that he loves children and animals and demands that their relationship be made legal. Regardless of how many times you claim that sleeping with children isn’t good for society, he may remark that good is a social construct or that he cares only for himself rather than society. There is no cohesive ideology to prevent him from carrying out his wishes other than authoritarianism based on what you, his fellow man, thinks is right. I’m only saying that that is a slippery slope to allow any kind of behavior.

It was called NAMBLA and it didn't get very far. That's because all societies function by majority rule and always have. It's just that the majority is no longer the church. Anybody who goes against the majority either needs a very persuasive argument or they get told that trying that shit will get them locked in a deep dark hole for a very long time.

The joke is that both secular societies and theocracies have subjective morality. Theocracies simply manage it by way of cherry picking the scripture that is convenient to them. This is why there is no single law for the entirety of Christendom. Nor for the Muslims, the Jews, or the Hindus. Instead, you get a whole host of different cultures springing up, each interpreting scripture to fit their desires.

Endtimer:

In fact, I suspect that the prisons in such a society would be filled with people who dared question other people’s ability to do whatever they please. Filled with the exact kind of person who thinks that we all lose if one guy gets to enjoy his fun with a few toddlers. Filled with people who dare tell others what to do even after breaking free of the oppressive shackles of religion.

Please tell me that you're being ironic again. You just described the prisons of every theocracy ever. By contrast, a couple centuries of relatively secular rule have failed to produce anything like what you describe. Or did you miss the part where churches no longer rule the world and society has failed to implode? You may have noticed a few improvements:

[1] Slavery is out. I know, that's unbiblical.

[2] Ditto stoning, burning of witches, heretics, and apostates.

[3] Shellfish are legal.

[4] Rape isn't. Funny how that one never rated a Commandment.

TenQ:

Seems you don't know the difference between objective and subjective morality.

Objective morality means ABSOLUTE code of living
Subjective morality is a RELATIVE code of living.

Example:
God: it is a sin to commit Fornication
You: as long as the sex is between consenting adults and is done safely.

Objective morality gives a standard from God.


Let me ask you a question as an Atheist:
Is sex with an animal wrong if there is guarantee that the animal is not hurt, that adequate protection against STDs are used and no danger is posed to the society?


Please don't doge this question!



[color=blue]Is there no UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything that exist?

Please wade me through: as for me it seems to contradict simple Logic!

No, that's not what objective morality means. It's rather ironic that you accuse her of not knowing the difference and then go on to demonstrate that you, yourself, don't know the difference.

Absoluteness is a qualifier of moralities and applies to both objective and subjective moralities.

Endtimer:


Just as I had asked you to look it up. Here’s one that proves my point and more:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religious-people-happier-healthier-our-new-global-study-explores-this-question/

Findings include:
-Religious people happier and more satisfied with life.
-Religious people less likely to drink and smoke.
-Religious people more likely to vote
Amongst others. Check it out.

There are other numbered points but, the summary of this first one caught my attention:

1Actively religious people are more likely than their less-religious peers to describe themselves as “very happy” in about half of the countries surveyed. Sometimes the gaps are striking: In the U.S., for instance, 36% of the actively religious describe themselves as “very happy,” compared with 25% of the inactively religious and 25% of the unaffiliated. Notable happiness gaps among these groups also exist in Japan, Australia and Germany.

Is it possible that the inactively religious & the unaffiliated are considerably less very happy because actively religious people are so annoying to be around? Very dodgy.

I also noticed it states, "...in about half the countries surveyed." - what about the other countries where this gap isn't as wide? Does that mean religion isn't even a factor in happiness?

Endtimer:
Here’s another study showing that religious people live longer:

https://www.apu.edu/articles/why-do-religious-people-live-longer/

This opinion article from a religious site, is based on a study of dead people. Here is a referenced quote from the Newsweek article about the study:
Scientists at Ohio State University arrived at the figure after studying over 1,000 obituaries from across the U.S. The team also factored in whether the person was married and their sex, which both can affect how long a person will live.

So, were one third of the victims who died in the WTC (that would be about 1000 people) happy or unhappy with their lives, according to their obituaries?

The above absurd question is about as relevant as the study. My point being, the interpretation of social surveys, as opposed to actual statistics, can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Lots of cool graphs, though. I do enjoy decoupage.

efficiencie:


...Order cannot be generated without intelligence...

Dump marbles into a slightly tilted empty box and they cover the bottom in a very ordered pattern. The examples of order from chaos are infinite.

Endtimer:

Unfortunately you’ve missed the point entirely. It’s not necessarily going to be crimes as extreme as rape, but people will want to know why they should obey certain humanist principles with time.

Because we all lose if we all play negative sum games like murder, rape, and theft. Any society that doesn't prohibit these behaviours doesn't last long. Seriously, how long do you think a society made entirely of murderers would last? Stabbity-stabbity and everybody's dead. Anthropologists of the future will marvel at the extremely rapid decline of the Endtimers, lol.

Endtimer:

I’m not talking about you and me. I’m talking about one rule breaker who isn’t content with pretending like there is order where there isn't

You say that like society doesn't have criminals. There's plenty of order, it's just imposed from within.

TenQ:

1. It would be impossible for science to prove or disprove God because the frame of reference or operations are completely different.

That's true given specific assumptions and definitions. Given a different but equally reasonable set of the same it's not true. So you are begging the question.

TenQ:
2. What would be your gain if a Christian converts to Atheism?

Which single or collective group of Christians are you asking about? The world would probably not change much, but if some religious assholes did, it might refocus their assholishness toward more innocuous behaviors than they engage in under their religious presumptions.

TenQ:

3. You seem to believe in the infallibility of science to your peril. Science is subject to the bias of the interpreter of available data.

Fallibility is a sliding scale, with much of science tending toward one side, and most of religion tending toward the other. That science is subject to bias is a canard unless you mean to say that science is more readily prone to the effects of bias than any other human endeavor, and for which I'd like to see some evidence. Quite the contrary, science, as much as any other human pursuit, has developed habits, norms, conventions, and practices which minimize the impact of bias on its conclusions. You want to know what's at the other end of the spectrum? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

FYI, TenQ, there's no such thing as "converting to atheism" - it is not a belief. To be atheist is to live life without faith in the existence of a god or, gods.

Endtimer:
Unfortunately you are the best informed atheist in this thread; despite your teenage in-your-face attitude you are doing better than the girl and that other guy by at least adding some sense to your invective. I’ll be quoting excerpts of your last post to make my point.

All this after countless users here have tried addressing your misinformation, most of which you have yet to respond to? Tsk tsk tsk. Quelle surprise.

One need read no farther than this post to understand that you have no interest in honest discussion. Your mind is closed tighter than a threatened clam. You're here to convince atheists of your views, but are unwilling to really examine theirs.

I see you're a recent member. Have fun in your time here.

Endtimer:
Your point about finding your own purpose is subjective and ultimately inconsequential. The purpose you pick for yourself only has no actual value. You might as well decide to become a superhero tomorrow. The value is subjective and not ultimate. On theism, it is believed that ultimate value can only be given if a thing has a purpose for which it is created. On atheism life is the result of mindless chance irrespective of the illusion of purpose with which you preoccupy yourself. Such a life has no ultimate value; only one that you make up as you go.

chryssanthe:


What the hell?!!! How do you know this? I've taken three decades of ballet. It gives me enormous purpose in life. Who the hell are you to tell me ballet has no actual "value" or purpose. How are you measuring "value"? Do you only a assign "value" to a god belief?
Well, I have news for you, people find enormous purpose and value in their lives through thousands of paths other than a god belief.
I and millions of other atheists wake every morning with incredible purpose in their lives because they sink their thoughts and interests into science, music, medicine, history, archaeology, finance and hundreds... nay....many thousands of other topics and indeavors they emerse themselves in. Who the hell are you to say these uncountable facets of interests are below and lesser than belief in a deity.

Frankly, your attitude is the direct manifestation of religious god-centric indoctrination and a worldview that teaches there is no other purpose in life, no other way to live a life other than worshiping a thing, who let's be honest here, has never been proven to exist. It's like telling someone the only way to live life is belief in Leprechauns and anything else is beneath contempt.

You are a piece of work. Wow.

As well as being horribly condescending. A thoroughly unlikable individual.

---

---

---

Endtimer:
If you need explanations as to how the Big Bang and evolution supports theism, I’ll tell you that it’s because they suspiciously involve an intelligent first cause. I’ll explain further if you require it.

Neither the big bang nor evolution imply an intelligent first cause. Why do you think otherwise?

Endtimer:
Atheism is only tenable in a predominantly religious society. If we all began to live without belief in God as a result of some impossible scientific discovery, it would ultimately destroy society or lead back to religion. The reason for this is because atheists take for granted the religious pillars all civilized societies are built on; the concept of morality and legislation for instance go hand in hand. Rather than reorder society after the eradication of religion, atheists would need to continue pretending as though religion still had moral force in society; until someone asks: “why can’t I just do whatever I want”. In the end we’ll arrive at a religious society because atheistic society is unsustainable and humans are incurably religious.

What is your evidence for this? I read your speculations about a correlation between irreligion and societal strife and failing actual evidence they demonstrate nothing.

Endtimer:
On a personal, rather than sociological, level religion provides purpose for living. Atheism doesn’t. On atheism, suicide is not morally abhorrent. Western nations are beginning to witness the effects of unbelief as their citizens increasingly end their own lives. Let me ask you a question: would it make any difference if you were going to kill yourself today or tomorrow? On atheism, it certainly wouldn’t. On atheism, the fact that we are going to die one day is enough motivation for us to end our lives at once. Anything is enough motivation for us to end our lives.

Religion provides no such thing. Religion is not an agent, it neither provides nor withholds. People choosing to believe in the claims of religion gives them the belief that their lives are possessed of meaning by a specific mechanism. That belief is not itself evidence of said mechanism. What is your evidence that the mechanism postulated by religion for morals and purpose i.e God/s actually provides morals and purpose? This appears to be mere assumption on your part.

Endtimer:
Contrary to what many atheists believe, increasing secularism negatively correlates with happiness in society. While happiness isn’t the point of life, it is worth noting that the decline of religion has been accompanied by increased depression in the west.

Correlation is not causation. This does not support your point. Speaking of specious arguments, though, if you prefer correlation, increasing secularism in the west is positively correlated with greatly increased lifespans, general improvements in overall health, a higher average standard of living, increased personal freedoms, a decline in violence, and greater average wealth.

What do you make of that, Endtimer?