Serious Problems with Atheism

[Pulse]

Tazzycorn, you seem to be STRETCHING the truth somewhat (Atheism has no rock solid basis for morality so i am not surprised) ok Ill quote more from Dawkins and see if you can by some miracle extract from this fuller quotation that I was wrong and Dawkins in fact believes there is Good and Evil in the Universe

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”   Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

Personally, and like Dawkins I speak for just one atheist, I have no use for the word "evil" and prefer the word  "prosocial" to "good".  Goodness and Evil as nouns are nonsense.  Acts which get singled out as 'good' tend to be ones which are good for the wider group.  As a community we naturally appreciate such acts.  But self serving acts which serve only the individual are not 'evil', they're just not socially relevant.  On the long view, even the pursuit of solitude or solitary pleasures can be seen as having some prosocial value if by nurturing the individual that individual is then able to go on to more fully participate in and contribute to the social good.  

But some acts actually subtract from the social good and I have no problem calling them "bad": hitting or even killing others in anger, robbing them, the destruction of property, and so on.  But "evil" is still a reach.  The closest I can come to attaching meaning to that would be anyone who inflicts pain and suffering on others for the pleasure they receive in doing so, like Charles Manson.  But then, he was obviously deranged so possibly all 'evil' is really an offshoot of pathology of one kind or another.  But "evil" as a thing in itself itself exists no where but fiction (e.g., in the bible).

That's at the core of the debate isn't it, why is "prosocial" better than "antisocial"? Why is human survival better than 

extinction? 

As the 2007 atheist suicide-murderer Pekka-Eric Auvinen from Finland said ‘The faster the human race is wiped out

 from this planet, the better … no one should be left alive. No mercy for the scum of earth.’ ‘I am the law, judge and 

executioner. There is no higher authority than me.’ 

Why are the random electron collisions in his brain forming his "logic" 

"bad" and the random electron collisions in your brain forming your "logic" "better"?

So my point is we innately know that there is Good and Evil in this Universe because we have a Conscience which is simply 

irreducible to random electron collisions in our skulls, and it requires the stubbornness and closed-mindedness of a Dawkins to

 deny the obvious.