Atheism Discussion 2.0 - Roundtable Discussion in Progress

Please take this discussion to PM. It'll come up eventually, but until then please stay on-topic.

 

It's not that G-d is needed. It's just that for many people, they see a G-d or a supernatural entity or even just a force that helps garner some explanation for that we cannot. While I'm not a religious man, I do consider myself spiritual. And since I have had encounters and I am not mentally ill, I do have to say there is something out there. I just don't know what it is. If it's a G-d or a mystical force. Who knows.

The need, though, comes also from the wonder or hope that something greater might just expect us on another plane of existence, whether we become energy or go into a "heaven" or whatever.

For me, having had encounters... that proved to me there is something else out there... maybe a force. And just the idea of being another existencial plane... well, it fascinates me.

For a lot people, they might see the need for G-d just as a "hope" or "meaning for their lives".

For me, it's not about that. It's hope to experiance something else. I can find and want to find enough meaning for my life right here. But a new experience unknown to us... that could be something cool. And at the same time, it helps explain certain things.

You people might think I just imagined things, my mind played tricks on me or maybe I have a mental disorder. Well, fine. I know that was not the case. And that would make a few of us then that are just crazy. It didn;t make me religious. It didn't make me want to believe in a single G-d. But it got me thinking.

And that's when I stopped being an athiest.

 

I believe that falls under 'agnostic theism', but I could be wrong. I'd be interested in hearing your experiences. I will say that I have had no less than three very vivid scary dreams about alien visitation, yet as far as I am concerned they were just that, dreams.

 

Except... I wasn't asleep or dreaming

But anyway. I'll get into that tomorrow perhaps. It's late, I'm tired and I'm chatting with my brother on AIM. So I'll pick this up tomorrow instead.

 

SotT

It's just that for many people, they see a G-d or a supernatural entity or even just a force that helps garner some explanation for that we cannot.

Although I agree that people see G-d in such a way, I just cannot see how G-d is an explanation of anything. A higher being that we don't understand at all is a bigger mystery than the universe around us. There is also a much better chance of understanding the universe than we do G-d.

While I'm not a religious man, I do consider myself spiritual. And since I have had encounters and I am not mentally ill, I do have to say there is something out there. I just don't know what it is. If it's a G-d or a mystical force. Who knows.

That's cool. I can respect and somewhat understand that. In a way, something supernatural/spiritual is needed for those events to make sense. You also do not seem to take it too far. You do not say something like 'I felt really good when I thought about my soul, so there must be a biblical G-d.' What your saying says you did not make up your mind before hand and are just trying to justify it with something; to me it says you are being honest and fair.

The need, though, comes also from the wonder or hope that something greater might just expect us on another plane of existence, whether we become energy or go into a "heaven" or whatever.

That seems more of a psychological need than one that is 'the universe needs a deity to exist.' Although it is useful and cool to debate what sort of psychological needs the general human mind might have for a G-d, I took the topic of the thread to be more towards the universal 'needs' for one (which may be a bad assumption on my part).

For a lot people, they might see the need for G-d just as a "hope" or "meaning for their lives".

Forgive me for being blunt, but that is pathetic to me. Again, since G-d is something that is so poorly understood (and probably impossible to understand) people are putting their hope and meaning of their lives into a black box that they have no say in. It would be like going up to a random stranger and asking him to perform brain surgery on you. Maybe he is a brain surgeon, maybe not, you don't know. And even if you get into a relationship with G-d, it would not really answer the question of how He puts meaning in peoples lives (as opposed with getting to know the stranger to see if he is a surgeon or not).

Now, I like to think that people are smarter and better than that, which would imply that my thinking is flawed somewhere. So I keep asking, reading, debating, etc...

 

Well, It's not about lack of intelligence and I think it's wrong to label it pathetic. Some people just don't see this world as being significant in the grand scheme of things. Not that they think nothing is important, but that they believe there most be more purpose to life than just enjoying it or waking up to work 8 hour days for 5-7 days a week until they retire and die.

Which is understandable.

But you can't call them pathetic, because then that's just as bad as the whacko religious groups who think everyone else is pathetic or damned.

There is nothing wrong with faith.

And yes, I did justify it afterwards. I'm a very cynical guy. I doubt everything. But then things happen, and they make me question.

Personally, I feel it's much better being an agnostic than an athiest or a religious. Because I cannot say for 100 percent certainty right now that one side is right. I see no real evidence in there being a bibical or Hindu or Muslim or Wiccan deity... but at the same time, I see no evidence for there not being any supernatural force or entity or who knows... maybe various G-d's. Who knows.

So I am, in the middle.

I mean, who knows... maybe in 100 years we will get a scientific explanation for an afterlife. Because we're all energy and when we die, we become energy and that always stays so in a way, we are eternal but on another form of existence and that would explain the spirits and encounters people have. Who knows.

 

SotT

Some people just don't see this world as being significant in the grand scheme of things. Not that they think nothing is important, but that they believe there most be more purpose to life than just enjoying it or waking up to work 8 hour days for 5-7 days a week until they retire and die.

I agree. I mean, there are the other 16 hours a day of your life and stuff. And whatever you do with yourself. Yes there is much more to our lives than just working, literally living and eventually dying.

But why G-d? For what reasons would one accept a concept that is impossible to understand and probably just as difficult to prove? Why would one devote so much of their life to something that is so vague?

And this may just be semantics, but if someone has had an experience where they somehow know that G-d exists, then why do they keep calling it faith?

But you can't call them pathetic, because then that's just as bad as the whacko religious groups who think everyone else is pathetic or damned.

Actually no I am not, there is a difference. The whacko religious groups will actually try to do something to change everyone else. I won't. I will debate it and try to understand it, but I am not going to try to change them. In the fact that we all have opinions we are similar, but what we do with them is very different.

There is nothing wrong with faith.

Faith is another one of those things that makes no sense to me. Again, I feel all faith is blind and therefore it is potentially a very harmful thing. It is also impossible to justify if it is blind. Again, I do not see why anyone would accept something as true out of faith. Either faith is a messed up thing, or my concept of it is incorrect (or some other option that somehow is not covered by those two options).

And yes, I did justify it afterwards. I'm a very cynical guy. I doubt everything. But then things happen, and they make me question.

That is fine, but please realize that by my definitions (and with what little information about you I have), you are not accepting it out of faith. You saw/experienced something that convinced you that something spiritual exists. That is knowledge. If you would jump and say that it must be G-d, then that would be faith since it is not really justified by (how I understand) your experience.

Personally, I feel it's much better being an agnostic than an athiest or a religious. Because I cannot say for 100 percent certainty right now that one side is right. I see no real evidence in there being a bibical or Hindu or Muslim or Wiccan deity... but at the same time, I see no evidence for there not being any supernatural force or entity or who knows... maybe various G-d's. Who knows.

I fully agree. I am practically an atheist, but more accurately I say I am an agnostic. I do not think there is a god, nor do I think that there is any sort of spirituality or anything supernatural (I think that everything can be explained with enough time and effort) but I know that I do not know for sure. There could be a literal biblical G-d (or any other) that I have completely missed. I don't think there is and I act as if there is not one, but I do not know and I do not pretend to be certain. I also don?t use faith as a substitute for knowing.

I mean, who knows... maybe in 100 years we will get a scientific explanation for an afterlife. Because we're all energy and when we die, we become energy and that always stays so in a way, we are eternal but on another form of existence and that would explain the spirits and encounters people have. Who knows.

I agree, maybe we will. But I feel that to pretend that we know right now based on something like faith is IMO dishonest.

 

I want to go back a few posts to answer something that Enforcefr said.

Well, I think part of your misunderstanding is about the nature of faith. I don't see faith as being inherently blind. Just because it can be blind, doesn't mean that it must be.

At first, faith is blind. That's because faith is the first step on the road to knowledge, and without at least some measure of knowledge, you have to accept everything on faith. However, as you exercise your faith, and put it to the test, it either grows or it dies.

I've made no secret of the fact that I'm LDS (Mormon). As part of that, I believe in the Book of Mormon as divine scripture. However, that belief is not a blind one. The Book of Mormon encourages people to read it, study it, and pray to ask God if it is true or not, and it promises that you will receive an answer. Yes, it takes faith to do that, but after doing that, it doesn't require faith anymore. If you receive an answer, then your faith grows towards becoming knowledge. If you don't receive an answer, then your faith dies.

That is very similar to the scientific method. At first in the scientific method, you need to have faith in your hypothesis. Without that faith, you have no reason to even attempt the experiment. The faith motivates you to conduct the experiment. After you conduct the experiment, your faith in the principle you were testing grows or dies according to the results of the experiment.

This is especially true for a student who is first learning the scientific method. I remember my high school physics classes. First, we would study the principles involved, but until we performed the experiments for ourselves, we didn't really know if they were true or not. As we performed experiments, our knowledge grew, but so did our faith. Based upon our knowledge of one principle, the next experiment was based on knowledge, but it also was an extension of faith.

I have faith in God, not blindly, but because I have had had experiences that confirm to me that God does exist. Do I have physical proof? No. Can I prove it logically? Again, no. However, I know that my experiences are true, and I can't deny that, no matter what other people claim it might have been.

I hope that helps clarify faith for you a bit.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Can we trust our experiences though? There's a school of thought that our senses aren't always reliable and that people can experience things, but they don't know the mechanics of them so they attribute them to whatever deity they believe in.

 

Kimball What you call faith is I think very different from what I am calling faith.

As I have said, I believe faith is blind, but that is because of how I define it. Let me explain why I define faith the way that I do.

If I would say that the big bang absolutely happened, that would be faith. Saying that as far as I understand, something like the big bang probably happened is just thinking (and in more every day examples, we have no choice but to make conclusions like that). The difference between those two statements is what I consider faith.

Faith does not have to be with an absolute, but it is in a religious sense. A Christian (as far as I know) must accept that there is absolutely unquestionably a God, no doubt about it. Absolutes are absolute and should be treated as such. Yet as far as I know, there is no absolute proof for anything. So how can you justify an absolute belief on evidence that is not absolute? To me, that is blind and also the definition of faith.

 

I'm not sure that is accurate either, especially in relation to modern religions.

At least with the religious figures I've observed (mostly Catholic Priests) during tragedy/conflict situations, they always use phrasing such as "how do you view the incident?" and "what do you think is God's ultimate plan relating to your mom's death," etc...

I don't think any Priest comes right out and says "You must absolutely believe that ____ represents divine intervention" or whatever.

Saying that as far as I understand, something like the big bang probably happened is just thinking (and in more every day examples, we have no choice but to make conclusions like that).

I certainly think there is room in religion for your above example, and is no different than accepting a probable event based on faith.

I think I understand where Kimball is coming from. Just because one person hasn't recieved a faith based experience doesn't mean that such experiences don't exist. Maybe they are all around us, but it simply depends on what the person is looking for in order to recognize them.

At any rate, I certainly don't think it requires absolute faith.

 

<< Can we trust our experiences though? There's a school of thought that our senses aren't always reliable and that people can experience things >>

Yes, we can. If not, there are a crap load of people then that can't be trusted... which I don't buy for a minute.

And the fact that my brother, myself and a few others who have come into our house and we did not even share our own experiences with them yet they had the same encounters... well, either we were all sprayed with LSD in gas form or it's a conspiracy.

Yes, we can trust our experiences. I know senses are not always reliable... but to a degree. There is a point where you draw the line.

 

Yes. But say there's a bank robbery and the robber does not wear a mask. But when they ask for descriptions everyone describes someone differently. They all shared the same experience, but they all saw someone different. I'm not saying this is an ideal example. Just that there's a point where what we experience isn't completely trustworthy. Also factor into it the power of suggestion.

 

But there is still a line. We can trust our experiences if we are firm and strong minded. I trust mine with 100% certainty.

 

Being firm and strong-minded is nice, and you may be right. But when it comes to tricking ourselves...we tend to do it a lot.

 

Mr44

Faith does not have to be with an absolute. Given how vague God is, there is defiantly room to question things like ?what is His plan?? and stuff like that. However aside from what a person figures out (or more accurately IMO, makes up), they have no way of knowing what God?s plan is. So if they figure out something and believe it as true, even if they do not believe it absolutely, I would still call it faith since they are accepting it to a degree that is not justified by the evidence.

And even if there are parts of Christianity (and most other religions) that don?t require absolute faith, there are other parts that do, such as the ?fact? that there is a God.

Fid and SotT

Haven't either one of you seen or even been temporally fooled by an optical illusion? Has anyone ever lied to you and you believed them at first? Have you ever sworn you saw something and then realize that you were wrong?

Our observations may be right 99% of the time, and to trust them most of the time, or trust them all the time but be willing to change our minds, is fine. But to trust them absolutely is again not justified by the fact that our observations can be wrong.

Practically, just to live, we have to trust them.

 

Haven't either one of you seen or even been temporally fooled by an optical illusion? Has anyone ever lied to you and you believed them at first? Have you ever sworn you saw something and then realize that you were wrong?

Why yes, I've been fooled in various ways like you've described which is why our experiences cannot be trusted to give us an accurate understanding when something 'supernatural' happens. Humans like to deceive themselves all of the time. And while I think SOTT is being genuine when he says he experienced something I just don't think that it couldn't be explained if given time.

 

Here's the problem that I see with your definition.

Faith isn't something that cannot be proven. It is something that cannot be proven through physical or logical means. If I tell you of my spiritual experiences, you have to take those on faith, because I cannot prove them to you logically or materially. However, for me, having those experiences provided that proof. It is still faith, because I cannot prove it to someone else in the same way, but it isn't blind because it is supported by proof.

Again, let me draw on my own religious background to clarify this.

One of the key parts that differentiates my church from other Christian churches is our belief that Joseph Smith was called as a prophet in our times. We believe that he had a vision in which he personally saw God and Jesus Christ and spoke with them.

However, what physical proof could he give of that? None. Does that mean that it didn't happen? He certainly went to his grave proclaiming that he had seen that vision, and on multiple occasions refused to recant even under threat of death.

After he had that vision, was his faith blind? Or was it informed by his experiences, even if he could not prove it to anyone else?

Sometimes, all you need is a little bit of faith, enough faith to put God to the test, and from there it can grow. It by no means has to be "absolute".

Not justified by what evidence? Does a lack of physical evidence mean that something did not happen? Can not your own personal experiences be a form of evidence to you, even if no one else shares that evidence?

In my case, it's not just one or two experiences, but a long series of instances where I have had my faith in God confirmed to me. With one or two, perhaps I could have been mistaken, but when it is is a regular occurance, through a variety of means, I find it far harder to believe that it is not reliable. If I shouldn't trust my own observations on this matter, then why should I trust anyone else's observations (or lack thereof) either?

Kimball Kinnison

 

Kimball

Just because I don't have a ton of time and because I know I can make things sound more complex than they need to, here is a brief summary of what I am about to say. To absolutely believe in God without absolute proof is faith. To believe in God because you have had an encounter that proved his existence to you (or something along those lines) is not faith, it is knowing. To have personal experiences that prove it to you is not faith because those experiences are evidence and can lead to knowing.

Faith isn't something that cannot be proven. It is something that cannot be proven through physical or logical means.

What else is there? I mean, if you see something happen, even if you do not understand it at all (and ignoring extreme possibilities that involve your senses being wrong), you know it happened. The evidence is that you saw it, which I consider logical.

If I tell you of my spiritual experiences, you have to take those on faith, because I cannot prove them to you logically or materially.

It does not matter if you can prove them to me, it matters if you can prove them to yourself.

However, for me, having those experiences provided that proof. It is still faith, because I cannot prove it to someone else in the same way, but it isn't blind because it is supported by proof.

We are just defining faith in different ways. You seem to be defining it as believing in something you cannot explain to another. I am more or less defining it as believing in something that you cannot even justify to yourself.

Simply seeing God may prove that there is a god, but did that experience prove to you that God is an all powerful, all knowing, timeless, perfect being? Or is that stuff you are assuming?

One of the key parts that differentiates my church from other Christian churches is our belief that Joseph Smith was called as a prophet in our times. We believe that he had a vision in which he personally saw God and Jesus Christ and spoke with them.

However, what physical proof could he give of that? None. Does that mean that it didn't happen? He certainly went to his grave proclaiming that he had seen that vision, and on multiple occasions refused to recant even under threat of death.

After he had that vision, was his faith blind? Or was it informed by his experiences, even if he could not prove it to anyone else?

I would say that after his vision, he knew there was a God. That little question I asked to you and SotT; if you know that there is a God, why do you still call belief in His existence faith?

Sometimes, all you need is a little bit of faith, enough faith to put God to the test, and from there it can grow.

I would not really call that assumption for the sake of testing the idea 'faith' though. If it indeed it, then it is surly different from (for example) Bubba_The_Genius's faith in God.

It by no means has to be "absolute".

I agree, but is whatever trust you put into whatever concept justified by the evidence you have for it?

And for the Bible (and Book of Mormon); do they say that one must have absolute trust and faith in God, or that it is ok to just sort of believe in Him?

Not justified by what evidence? Does a lack of physical evidence mean that something did not happen?

Um, lack of ANY evidence means that there is no reason to believe it. It may still have happened, but we literally have no reason to think it did.

I feel that lack of absolute evidence means that there is no reason to believe it absolutely.

Can not your own personal experiences be a form of evidence to you, even if no one else shares that evidence?

Yes it can.

In my case, it's not just one or two experiences, but a long series of instances where I have had my faith in God confirmed to me. With one or two, perhaps I could have been mistaken, but when it is is a regular occurance, through a variety of means, I find it far harder to believe that it is not reliable. If I shouldn't trust my own observat

 

FID, I am a VERY cynical guy. I take everything with a grain of salt.

That said, yes, I have been fooled before. My mind has played tricks on me before.

But there is a line. There is a difference between my mind being tricked, as it happens to all of us, and something right there which just... causes you to freeze.

That, and several of us had the experiences... without anyone telling them or suggesting.

I don't mind talking about it here... because we don't "know" each other. But in the real world, I keep certain things to myself

Just because, I don't want people thinking I'm a loon.

Here, I don't mind... because, well, I can just log off

 

I only have a few minutes, but I wanted to respond to possibly the most important part of your post, Enforcer:

Actually, there is a story in the Bible that clearly shows that faith does not have to be absolute, but that the purpose is to help your faith in God grow.

Note carefully the verse that I put in red. The father clearly admitted that he did not have an absolute faith in Christ, and yet Christ was still willing to help the man, and in doing so, helped the man's faith to grow. To me, this is but one example of how God works, how he does not require absolute faith from us, but instead rewards what faith we demonstrate by helping us to gain more faith.

(Incidentally, there is a passage in the Book of Mormon that helps explain a bit more of this, and you can read it here.)

Kimball Kinnison

 

It's an interesting world proposed by the theists, where some people receive proof of the existence of God and others do not. Throughout my life, my experiences have been uniformly grounded in a reality that seems clearly governed by physical laws in no need of divine intervention, with no suggestion of supernatural events of any kind. Some of the technology I use is difficult for me to fully understand, sure, but if I have questions I read up on it until it makes enough sense to me that I'm no longer curious.

Why this divide betweeen people whose lives seem to be constantly touched by the supernatural, and those whose lives are rooted in a reality about which we may not know or hope to know everything but the very not knowing of which helps define and shape the "human project?"

Why would a God interested in salvation of everyone reveal the supernatural to a select few, forcing the vast majority to make do on either the choice to believe or not to believe?

As I've said here in the past, all of us are methodological naturalists. We need to be just to get through the day. Reality is the opposite of the cliche that "there are no atheists in foxholes." The truth is, "there are no theists on the highway." You can't rely on God to drive your car for you, or earn your income for you, or dodge out of the way of the anvil that has fallen from the fifth floor at your head.

We behave as if the physical world is all there is because we have to in order to get through the day. The person who relied on supernaturalism would not survive for long in this harsh world of facts.

 

Kimball Keep in mind that what we each call faith (and what the Bible/BoM call faith) is something different, and there could very well be no correct meaning of faith. (I may have thought about this too much from a semantic point of view). You are saying that faith does not have to be absolute. Ok. Can it? If so, would it be useful to have a different words for the different types (or is absolute faith enough?)?

But what you said is separate from that.

It is times like this that I wish I knew the Bible better. I mean, I want to quote a few passages I have found, but to me they are vague (Hebrews 11:6 and a few others say that believing is the way to God, but they do not seem to make the distinction of absolute or not).

I may have to give you this one that, especially Mormonism and maybe Christianity clime that absolute (blind) faith is not needed.

However I feel it is clear that there are many people who do consider absolute faith to be needed and who do actually have absolute faith in some aspect of God (whether it is in how good He is or in that He exists or some other single or combination of aspects), and I would consider their faith to be blind. I will give you this one, but do you have any idea why many people believe this, even if it is a mistake to do so (heck, I fell for it!)?

 

Hm. Obviously I've not spent enough time in this thread, none of you are discussing... ME!

Anyway, some stuff I ran across:

If there is no God and we are really just animals and basically "bags of chemicals"
then what makes murder wrong. Some may say morals are, but a moral is something that
you know is right so if 2,000 people say murder is wrong but 2001 people say murder
is fine then the majority of the people know it is fine and basically murder
becomes morally right.

The question is more why the majority doesn't, and I find it is quite easy to
reason this to be a memetic survival benefit, i.e. the existance of this preference
isn't strange from a genetic/memetic standpoint.

I disagree with both of these statements in one way or another. The first is right to a degree but religion does nothing to combat this. The same things apply to religion as apply to atheism -- centuries of wars in deeply religious societies happened somehow. The difference is simply instead of a direct change you have people quoting different sections of the bible. Religion can be used to condone anything: it's been used to condone murder, slavery, and many other acts one would consider evil. Religion itself does not mean adherence to morals, and nor does it even mean an agreement on proper morals. It merely means the field upon which morals are debated.

Also I'm not sure the public's standpoint on murder is something that has been created from a genetic/memetic standpoint. Actually, for instance, many would be surprised to find that the murder of a fellow neighbor was not a completely unknown act in Western Society not so very long ago. "Vendetta killings" were very, very common years ago, mostly solved by duels. Duels were not simply fought by nobles, but on all levels of society. They were not epidemic, but it was an accepted way of doing things. It was not religion that brought an end to dueling and the moral rejection of it, nor even a moral argument at all. It was Louis XIV who brought an end to it as a way of tightening grip on power and making people more dependant on the Gendarmes.


Actually I have to disagree with you. First think about is that to an atheist,
morals are subjective and can just be changed however they want them to be. To a
theist, that is not the case; morals are set in stone and cannot be changed. The
fact that there are atheists who do stick to some form of morals without a deeper
reason to is to shows a much stronger person than a theist who sticks to them.
Atheist do not have the option of (blind) faith to rely on, so to come to some
conclusion is something that they must do themselves. Also an atheist is in a
sense justified to break and change their morals whereas a theist is not, again
showing a more honest atheist than a theist.

And I have to 100% disagree with this in turn.

There's a logical argument on both sides, attacking positions that thier own equally provides no answer to. First of all, those favoring religion have a problem with individuals defining thier own moral code because:

A) Because morals are based on personal decision, one person can have a different one from another and there is no common ground and, like in a democracy, nothing gets solved

and more importantly:

B) Because morals are based on personal decision, men can simply change thier minds on what is moral and what is not.

However, the above post also ignores the following:

A) Because morals are NOT based on decision, if the teachings of a given pastor change, the morals change as well.

And the more lengthy one:

B) Because morals are NOT based on decision, it lacks individuality. Which essentially means the morals are all theory and have no meaning because they're promoted long before thier conext can possibly be understood ("Thou shalt not commit adultery" "Daddy, what's adultery?"). Since the person bases thier morals on learned behavior and not moral decision, the argument is that what results in the majority of cases are people who are easily 'tempted' (t

 

Kimball

Look, my definition of faith is different from yours and the Bibles/BoM. What would you call what I am defining faith as? How does the Bible/BoM define faith? I don't feel this has been clearly answered; I feel that you are saying faith in a religious sense does not have to be absolute, but you haven't really presented what faith really is. You talk about the properties of faith, but not really what faith is itself.

Believing without seeing is something I have had quoted to me a few times. Although I would expand that to believing without observing (you never see a taste, but that doesn't mean believing that food has taste is done on faith), isn't that literally blind faith?

Gonk

In a religious sense, what does it mean for something to be wrong? Does it mean it will separate us from God? Does it mean it is harmful? Does it mean it will stain our soul? All of those things (and every other answer I have ever heard) sort of have a 'so what' quality to them. Basically, if I don't care if I am separated from God or if it is harmful or if my soul will be stained, then the actions are not wrong to me. Basically I do not see how right and wrong can be absolute, or how they have and real meaning in a religious point of view.

You quoted me about how I feel an atheist sticking to a moral code is a stronger person than a theist.

An honest theist can not have his own personal moral code. From his/her point of view, morals are set in stone, they are absolute, they cannot be changed, they cannot be modified for whatever reason. That is a lot easier to obey and follow than an atheist who can pick and choose whatever morals he/she wants. So for an atheist to stick to his/her own morals, it requires more personal discipline, more self control, and to me that person would just be a stronger person overall.

I am still rereading your post because honestly I am having trouble keeping in my head all that you said, so please keep that in mind if you reply.