> The problem with this line of argumentation is atheism does not explain or give reasons for the most basic questions we have as human beings Unfortunately, t

> The problem with this line of argumentation is atheism does not explain or give reasons for the most basic questions we have as human beings Unfortunately, that has no bearing on whether it is true or not. It would be nice if there were ready answers, but if ready answers to these questions don't involve being true, then those answers aren't worth anything and it's better to have no answer. > We can all agree that murder is wrong, but what's to stop an independent person from asking the logical question "who says?" This is an excellent question. It seems like a hard question, and my answer would be that it seems like no one does, and emotions against murder are a part of our psychological instinct. It doesn't seem becoming an atheist removes this instinct, you remain moral and adhere to the norms of the society around you. It works out. But! If it didn't work out, that would be too bad, because having no answer to "who says?" doesn't make religions true, it just makes reality scarier. In other words, even if atheism turned everyone into a murderous sociopath, if gods don't actually exist, then they don't exist. It's kind of like saying "I wish light speed wasn't a universal speed barrier. It would be cool to travel to other galaxies in a single lifetime". But wishing doesn't make light speed any faster. Luckily we're all here stuck at sublight speed together, which makes things a little easier to bear. And luckily those moral feelings seem to be programmed into us from birth, not from religion, so things work out on the atheism front as well.