RicOlie_2 said:
What I meant is that I disagree with those atheists (it is an atheist and perhaps agnostic viewpoint, though not all--and maybe only the minority--hold it) who believe that morals evolve over time. I believe they are fixed from the beginning. Those who believe in moral subjectivity don't believe that there is such thing as right and wrong. I am aware that this doesn't mean that they can't distinguish between the two, but they deny its existence.
In case I didn't make it any clearer, I am not of the opinion that atheists have no concept of right and wrong at all, but I am condemning moral subjectivity or evolution.
You disagree with morals evolving over time. Yet if you read the Old Testament you'll find plenty of things that people thought were perfectly acceptable, nay, sometimes necessary, and we don't. Stoning women, for one. Stoning women was once right.
the certainty of the nonexistence of any god seems no more reasonable than the belief in such a god
I beg to differ. It may seem unreasonable to you, because you come from the postulate "there is a god". But I assure you, it is not unreasonable. And I do understand the merits and reasons of theism.
Again, my choice of words was perhaps unclear. I don't mean that atheism is less reasonable, but just that it is not more reasonable. I don't necessarily believe that it is any less resonable either.
Ok, I misunderstood. But, IMHO, the notion of a physical world "no more, no less", does not seem as reasonable to the notion of a physical world created by a methaphysical being. Why? Because to me that equals to having the notion that pets have the gift of language, but only when we do not see them. We never see them speak, yet we are sure they do. Just when we're not around. It's taking the common notion of cats and dogs (possibly living together) and adding something totally absurd, just to maybe explain the almost-human looks our animal friends give us.
and atheism doesn't explain so many things (science may one day, but I doubt it)
[arche?]
I am not referring to the Arche or anything else which will likely remain a mystery forever, but rather I am referring to so-called supernatural experiences (which I naturally do believe are supernatural for the most part) and miracles.
Sorry, science has already debunked all of them as hoaxes or mass hysteria. So called pre-mortem experiences have already been reproduced outside of life-threatening situations, with the use of drugs. If there are scientists who say "it's a miracle", they're theists.