Hello everyone! I have recently run across some excellent online resources and one of them is a newer blog entitled Wintery Knight Blog.
This blog offers excellent commentaries on debates, tackles common objections offered by unbelievers, and much more.
Here is a sample taken from a post entitled How do Atheist Scholars justify Morality on Atheism in Debates?
"I want to tell you that the easiest topic to debate with non-Christians is the foundations of morality. Here’s a primer:
- If atheism is true, there is no free will. As Dawkins says, there is only DNA and you dance to its music. Period. If there is no free will, there are no moral choices and no moral responsibility. Moral actions are not rationally justifiable on atheism.
- If atheism is true, humans are accidents with no intrinsic value. Any value that is assigned to humans is arbitrary, and arbitrary standards do not constrain the will of rational people when it is not in their best interest and they will not be caught (e.g. - Stalin).
- If atheism is true, there is no accountability. Being good or evil is irrelevant to where you end up, and where humanity ends up. (The heat death of the universe). Being good when it hurts is irrational on atheism. Being bad on atheism is rational if you won’t get caught and you get pleasure.
- There are only 2 reasons to be moral on atheism. If you get pleasure out of following these made-up rules or if you avoid punishment. That is not what theists mean by virtue. Acting in the way you were designed to act in order to achieve what Aristotle called eudaimonia."
Please feel free to share your thoughts and many thanks to the Wintery Knight for permission to feature the blog!
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad A. Gross