Except that there is a great deal of evidence for the big bang theory, and there is no evidence for an intelligent creator.
Circumstantial, tangential evidence. The same can be said of an intelligent creator. After all, several creator theories include a big bang type of beginning of the universe, so the implied evidence supporting the theory of a "big bang" also support equally those theories of an intelligent designer.
The question itself shows that creationism is not an explanation. That's because creationism doesn't rule out alternatives - an intelligent creator could have done anything. It doesn't rule out the deist concept, suggested by some on this thread, of evolution and abiogenesis being accurate but with a creator behind these events.
It's another link in the chain of explaination. Yes, it then begs the question of the creator's creator, composition, etc. But, that doesn't mean it's not true. It doesn't imply it can't be, just because it causes more questions.
Can you point me to the post where I made that assertion? Your paragraph suggests that you may have misinterpreted what I was trying to say.
I agree it was an interpretation. If I misjudged what you've said, I apologize. At this many posts in this thread, no, I can't go back and find it.
The problem is when a person focuses on doing what he believes pleases his gods, he cannot focus on the consequences of his actions for himself and for others.
That depends entirely on what he believes will please his God.
Virtually all religions expect someone to focus on the greater good for all, above themselves.
Religion has no monopoly on the pro-life stance. There is a valid secular argument to be made for the pro-life position. But the argument made by many (not all) religions are inherently invalid - this argument is nothing more than "our gods say so." That stance automatically neutralizes any other arguments that these religions make about the value of life, because it means that one shouldn't value life on its own merits. The stance unnecessarily distorts the abortion question, focusing it on divining the will of gods instead of on the value of life.
I wasn't saying that abortion is a religious question, I was stereotyping the people involved (statstics stand for themselves). Certainly there are valid secular reasons, based upon the morality of not harming someone else. But, what is the basis for that morality? Some would say that the basis is "human nature", not something taught through a religion. I would say that "human nature" is inherent because that's how we're designed. I would also say that society, especially American society being Christian in the vast majority, is based upon Christian values - so even the non-religious are influenced by Christian values through constant exposure.
While I understand that, I don't understand why the person would find that atrocious. Is that person following his own conscience at the expense of his religion's doctrines? Or does that person simply have a different belief than the fanatic about what their gods require?
I think most would find it atrocious because the vast majority of religions feel that life is the greatest gift we've been given so far, with the ability to grow our selves, our families, and our souls. To obliterate ourselves and innocent others in the name of religion seems counter to the basic understanding of virtually all religions. Today, it's Islamic fantatics. Most Islamic religious leaders will say that the mass killing of innocents is not in line with their religion. The fantatic leaders make the news by saying they're doing the will of Allah.
Demonstrating the lack of evidence for an afterlife doesn't "condemn" anyone because there is no judgment involved. Like the universe itself, the finite nature of life is indifferent to human wishes and desires. The burden of proof is on the claim of an afterlife. Also, it's reasonable to wonder if the believer who claims there are punishments or rewards after death is merely offering his own opinions about others and is merely projecting these onto claims about gods.
There should be no human judgement involved for the religious person, either. There always is human judgement, because that's also how we were designed. The average atheist judges the average person of faith as being a bit ignorant, or at least easily mislead. It's posted on this forum every day. The average person of faith feels compelled to tell that average atheist how they'll "burn in hell", or some other such judgement. Like kids fighting about whether Mom and Dad will punish them. But, the judgement is God's, not ours. If someone is an atheist, then they have no worries of God, because He doesn't exist. If someone is a person of faith, they need not worry about there being no after-life, because it's as clear to me as my hand before my face that there is one. My point was that both sides offend the other with their belief that the other side is wrong, and how they'll not get their belief met at death. Each side has a belief of what will happen, and they're both equally abhorant to the other.
How can one believe in absolute truth and also believe that others are allowed their own views? The former explicitly means that it's wrong to hold any beliefs that go against that truth.
Because beliefs have no hold on what the truth is. Regardless of whether I believe in God or not, if the truth is that He's out there, He's out there. If the truth is that I'm wrong and He's not, I'm wrong and He's not. Truth is not swayed by people's beliefs.
Defining morality according to absolute truth means that the consequences of actions are irrelevant. And again, this would hold for any absolutist secular ideology.
I don't understand how morality coming from what the truth is would mean there is no consequence to actions IF the truth is theistic in nature (no pun intended). I only see there being no real consequence for actions if the truth is that we're just amino acid mutations infesting a small rock in a yo-yo of a universe that continually expands and contracts.
