Comments on: Is Atheism Morally Bankrupt?

By: Samuel Skinner

Samuel Skinner — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:36:55 +0000

“On what basis can we define in absolute terms that he was wrong?”

So the solution… is Gods personal opinion? Not a very good plan.

By: Naumadd

Naumadd — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 02:21:52 +0000

But it is precisely biology – life – that makes goals and values – ethics – possible. The existence or non-existence of an inanimate object isn’t contingent on taking action or not taking action. It is only a form of life that needs, first, to decide if it values the fact of its life or does not, i.e., an answer to the question “Do I wish to continue living.” The answer to that question, which, I must point out, is asked again and again from moment to moment and whose answer isn’t consistently the same, then and using what is true of all of nature as the standard becomes the basis for all other values. Biology creates the need of values, of goals, of ethics or morality, of virtues. Often, life inadequately addresses these needs thus leading to actions counter to the goals of self and counter to the goals of others.

By: Mats

Mats — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:17:14 +0000

So: Apologies to American churchgoers but people CAN be moral and decent without someone either putting the fear of God into them or inspiring them with the love of Christ.

I think the point of the article was missed. I don't think he was sugesting that without God people can't be moral. What he was saying is that without God you can't justify being moral. Like Greg Bahsen said, quoting Van Till "Unbelievers sure can count, but they cannot account for the ability of beeing able to count". Supose you are met with someone like Stalin. Both you and me know that Stalin was wrtong (I am a Christian). However, my personal opinion is just as valid as Stalin's personal opinion. On what basis can we define in absolute terms that he was wrong?