New to reddit, glad to be here. I found myself to be very interested in objective truth as I was getting older, especially towards the latter part of my teen years and especially in terms of the correct (universal) worldview. I will pseudo-define a "skeptic" as follows: someone who does not have a particular worldview (as in they choose to not think about it). The exception would be those still searching for evidence of a worldview, in which case it would seem your opinion would be unqualified to begin with. A skeptic, in these terms, has no place whatsoever in any argument and such a person does not deserve to be taken seriously. To be clear, because terminologies often get misconstrued, if one defines atheist as someone who doesn't believe in God (non-positive assertion), as in they are on the fence, I very well might be talking to you. In those defined terms, atheism isn't really a worldview. You can sit here and say that atheism is defined as someone who doesn't believe in God (negative), as opposed to asserting that there is no God (positive), but if you agree with my previously mentioned reasoning on skepticism, which I do not see why you wouldn't, then it follows that one would at least have a different worldview, such as materialism or determinism (some would say they are essentially the same). This is an issue for atheists because now we have arrived at a positive assertion, that there is nothing beyond the material world AKA a positive assertion that there is no God. So if you agree with my previously pseudo-defined term of skepticism, which I do not see why you wouldn't, than we have arrived at the following deductive argument: (1) Respectable opinions require the positive assertion of a position (2) All major philosophies besides theism and deism imply a positive assertion that there is no God (3) Therefore, respectable atheists take the positive assertion that there is no God. With that being said, in my following dialogue I am equating the term atheist with the previously defined "respectable atheist".
When I first got to college I was bombarded with atheistic ideas. Many people provided points on atheism that appealed to rational, and at first I really agreed. But after doing my own research, I have to say, it is much more irrational to be an atheist. I watched countless videos and debates from atheist-apologetics and theist-apologetics from Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, CS Lewis, etc. and I have to say, the Christians destroyed them. I know that it may seem that using the term destroyed is under biased circumstances and you may watch the debates and interpret them differently, but at the time I was watching these very unbiased. The Christians simply utilized infallible usage of logic, reasoning, oratory skills in general, and even science!! Needless to say I have sense been seeking Christ and it has utterly transformed my life. I have two basic topics I want to discuss. One, why objective morality requires an objective moral giver. Two, that understanding that there truly is a way we were meant to live, established by God, does not mean we have to be perfect (or else).
One: I'm sure you've heard this argument before but I simply have heard no sufficient arguments against it. Either morality is objective or subjective, one or the other. I dare say that I hope you truly do not believe that morality is subjective, for most nations operate under the assumption that it is objective. In fact most leading atheists such as Dawkins don't think morality is subjective. We as United States citizens objectively think murder is wrong. You can't say that evolution is the reason for why WE think that because I could very well be in Saudi Arabia, mention that I'm a Christian and be put to death, because that's Sharia law. In those terms you could argue that morality is subjective to communities, but if your going tell me that religious persecution isn't objectively wrong...I guess I have no words for you. Furthermore, on evolution, natural selection is a process by which certain characteristics become more or less popular in a population as a function of reproductive success. How does morality spell out the advancement of our species? In my opinion if morality has anything to do with the advancement of species in the long run, it will be the more aggressive, morally questionable societies that take over. A moral country would not take over the world, conquering different nations. Citizens of the United States critique their own nation all the time for their controversial imposition in other countries, let alone take them over. But a society like the Islamic state is clearly focused on expansion and has definitely has made clear progress in that regard. They've even tried to make their way into the United States (look up Sharia court, Tyler, Texas). Point being that if any type of morality took over, it would be the objectively wrong morality of something like the Islamic State and their Sharia court. I mean damn, Hitler and the Nazis nearly succeeded. Thus I conclude my argument that morality is indeed objective and it definitely does not have a relationship evolution.
Okay so if we've come to that conclusion, that there is indeed a certain way to live established by God...well than dang that's kind of scary because I haven't necessarily been doing all these prescribed things. Well guess what? No one has and no one ever will, perfectly. Except Jesus of Nazareth. The thing that sets Christianity apart from every other religion ever is, every other religion goes: do these things and in return salvation. Christianity goes: Salvation, in return do these things. In so many words. Jesus announced that man will never be good enough. Paul says it several times in the Bible, "there is not one good person, no not one." The gospel is called the good news for a reason. It’s the greatest news of all time.