Theists and atheists are in the eternal confrontation. There are suggestions that atheism originated immediately with religion, in opposition to it. In the ancient world, atheism has not become so widespread as it is now, it has not become a stream, but it still existed as an element of outlook in certain schools and doctrines. Atheists do not enter into a kind of war against believers. This is not a confrontation, but rather a scientific necessity.
This can be easily proved by the example of faith, which is fundamental in religion, and science that is the basis of atheism.
The science studies facts and finds your evidence. Faith does not need proof but follows the path of blindly following unconfirmed dogmas. It is an erroneous opinion that religion and science do not intersect. They can co-exist in society, without affecting each other, as they are directed at two completely different areas of human life.In fact, science and religion are diametrically opposed fundamentals for worldviews.
Of course, any representative of a certain worldview can present evidence in his favor. The religious-mystical worldview presupposes faith in God. The scientific-humanistic worldview, which atheists can use, presupposes the existence of norms of behavior and life goals, which are conditioned by natural scientific knowledge. I think that we live in an era of scientific knowledge.
Atheists and believers in their many disputes exchange symmetrical allegations of immorality. Atheists say in the following way. They accuse the believers of the fact that their morality is based on fear of God and they ask the question whether they really do not understand without faith that it is prohibited to kill, steal, lie, etc.,? Believers respond in the following way. If there is no God, then everything is allowed; therefore one can expect anything, any immoral act from an atheist since nothing will stop him. What is true?
There are a lot of argumentative examples for one as well as for another opinion. A person in the choice of his actions is guided by two main sources of information. Firstly, it is a deep inner conviction how one can act. This persuasion is fairly stable and almost always says the same thing to all people. It is called a recognition or a voice of recognition. Secondly, a person is guided by the arguments of his mind. Is it sensible to act in one way or another, what authoritative people, customs, doctrines, laws of the country say about this, how relatives, friends, colleagues will appreciate the act, what consequences there may be? Having received information from two sources, a person makes a decision. The solution is not necessarily correct, mistakes are possible, as well as conscious ignoring of the information received.
What is the difference between a believer and an atheist? recognition (the inner criterion of truth) does not depend on the mind, and it is inherent in every person regardless of his perception of himself as a believer or an atheist. The matter is in a person’s listening to this voice. This is not directly related to what the person believes or does not believe. Consequently, there is no fundamental difference between people. The difference is manifested when information is received from the mind. The believer, in this case, has no questions. He knows how the religion that has sacred books, prophets or authoritative priests ascribes to act or not act. Religions of the light direction always call for moral behavior. The mind of the believer is likely to receive the right advice. It is possible to say that the moral of a believer has a firm and time-tested basis – religion.
With the atheist, everything is more complicated. The arguments of the mind that it was taught by parents, school, literature, philosophy are not so indisputable. After all, both parents and school teachers were sometimes wrong, so, perhaps, in this case, they are not right. Writers, philosophers, sages lived at other times, so their calls may become outdated.Links to customs also do not help too much. To rely on the indisputable correctness of state laws is generally ridiculous. What decision will be made by an atheist? The answer is difficult if only he does not rely on his inner conviction.
The conclusion is very simple. The moral of a person (his choice between good and evil) is determined only by his free choice. The main assistant here is our recognition, which everyone has. It never makes a mistake. But it is more difficult for an atheist to make his choice since his mind can rely only on sources of information that are unreliable, unsteady and contradictory.
- Do Atheists Have No Reason to be Moral? – ThoughtCo,
- Good Minus God: The Moral Atheist – The New York Times,
- Where do atheists get their morality? – Kids Without God,