>What atheists fail to realize, is that even though they do not believe in all that religious crap and science is their gOD.
Let me offer a different take:
they don't realize that pretty much every TOP level "scientist" or "science type guy" in world history believed that God was giving direction.
>Disbelief in God does not imply belief in nothing. One can disavow the God of the Bible and yet still believe that there is a higher power in the universe (whatever one chooses to call it).
That is not an atheist.
Many founding fathers of this nation were deists.
I would say that any belief in any "higher power" is a form of theism even if it rejects some of the more questionable aspects of the Old Testament.
>There are atheists who believe that there is no basis for morality.
Kant's Groundwork is very powerful.
I don't think he was really an "atheist" though.
Did that backwards.
Kant tries to ground morality on reason alone.
But I still think he was not an atheist.
>Personally, I have an issue with the concept of a all-powerful supreme creator that is self-aware and able to communicate with us.
Most edumucated people would agree.
However, I think that if you look back into the history of almost any culture on earth, you will find that their forbears took it for granted that some such communications were possible.
This includes Western Civilization.
(And all or most of the others…)
In Homer, it is taken for granted that some have the ability to "read the signs".
They might get it wrong, for sure.
And the powerful can reject the reading or distort it.
Most of Christian history subsequently built in the idea that God can somehow "speak" to us somewhat directly.
This idea has had various incarnations.
I admit that it does seem odd to someone "educated" in the doctrines of the past century, but I think most people born more than a few centuries ago would not have found it odd at all.
Did "science" debunk this idea?
OMFG!
>>I say man is truly good when he is good for the sake of being good.
This anon is basically restating Kant.
>That comes from a sense of empathy. It does seem, however, that many lack empathy and therefore are unable to choose to be good for the sake of being good. They act out of selfishness. For example, one's love for one's child may come from the sense that the child is merely one's property. We can see this in parents who abuse their kids yet claim to love them.
This anon disagrees.
But I think this disagreement springs from a grounding in the horribly misguided therapeutic culture of recent times.
Empathy is actually very important.
But it IS NOT THE SAME AS GOODNESS.
It is basically the ability to actively take the perspective of another.
AND THAT IS ACTUALLY GOOD.
IT IS CRUCIAL for deeper goodness.
But being able to understand in some inner way why someone will TORTURE CHILDREN does not excuse it!!!!!!!!!!!!
FAR more crucial to goodness is COURAGE.
Without courage, every virtue will get sacrificed.
Read more Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics especially… 90% absoduckinlutely correct).