This is a pretty good post here:
You clicked on this post for one of two reasons. Either you’re hoping that I’m right or you know that I’m wrong. For those of you who are eager to pierce me with your wit and crush my pre-modern mind, allow me to issue a challenge. I contend that any response you make will only prove my case. Like encountering a hustler on the streets of Vegas, the deck is stacked, and the odds are not in your favor.
Before our love fest continues, allow me to define an important term, “worldview.” A worldview is your view of everything inside (and possibly outside) the universe: truth, religion, beauty, war, morality, Nickleback — everything. Everybody has one.
While it is true that there is no definitive atheistic worldview, all atheists share the same fundamental beliefs as core to their personal worldviews. While some want to state that atheism is simply a disbelief in the existence of a god, there really is more to it. Every expression of atheism necessitates at least three additional affirmations:
THINKAPOLOGETICS.COM 
It’s a pity that the Huffington Post article did not have a facility to leave comments. The Pastor wrote a good article, but it is an old argument and has been repeatedly refuted.
Ed, youshould see the post called:
An atheist explains the real consequences of adopting an atheistic worldview
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/an-atheist-explains-the-real-consequences-of-adopting-an-atheistic-worldview/
In the atheist worldview, humans have no dignity. If you read the quotes the pastor left,
Dawkins says:
Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life…life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA…life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference-Scheff, Liam. 2007. The Dawkins Delusion. Salvo, 2:94.
if that’s really true and has good evidence behind it (which it doesn’t). Theism has a clear teleology which is the belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history. Many atheists adhere to a naturalistic worldview which has no teleology. In other words, humans are a blind cosmic accident who came from a process that has no meaning, no purpose, no goal, no directions.
Thanks Chab
I’m not sure I get the point here. From the cosmic viewpoint my life has no meaning, all human life has no meaning. That’s the way it is. As it’s meaningless then there is no meaning in the meaninglessness. If I get upset over being meaningless that shows that I give it meaning.
Now of course I do sense meaning and it comes from relationships. My family relationships give a strong sense of meaning while my interaction with an eBay seller almost none. This meaning has been endowed to us by evolution and it is a mistake to try to extend it to the cosmic level. We were not aware of the cosmic level when our instincts were evolving. As I see it the causality goes in this way: our desire for a cosmic meaning has produced a cosmic relationship – God. You see it the opposite way.
I am tied to the whole world in a web of relationships. Eg my lifestyle will impact on CO2 emissions which will impact of an African living in 50 years time. I feel the meaning from all these relationships and it drives my actions. I guess you claim that this meaning is an illusion, but I say that it is the real thing, human relationships are the real basis for meaning. Trying to extend it to a cosmic relationship is the illusion.
The atheist blogger was fine until he made a logical fallacy. He lept from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’. How things are do not in themselves give moral imperatives. He went off track when he said how atheists ought to live.
Cheers, Ed
Ed, in atheism, you cant’ go from ‘is’ to an ‘ought’.
A moral duty encompasses both a proposition and a command; both are features of minds. But based on a naturalistic worldview, whatever is there IS right. In other words, the descriptive element is there. But there is prescriptive aspect here which is missing. It is a challenge to make the leap from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought.’
Great Chab.
There have been 2 themes here – morality and meaning. Your main blog was mostly on morality and then the discussion has been from the atheist blog you linked to, which was more about meaning. In this last post you have left the issue of meaning (are you happy with my reply?) and returned to morality.
On morality, we seem to be in agreement: under theism the ‘is’ of God’s existence could lead to an ‘ought’ in morals (although there are well known objections here) while, under atheism, I certainly agree that it is a challenge to make the leap from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought.’ I seek to find my ‘ought’ elsewhere.
Thanks, Ed
Hi, my name is Mike and I am currently working on a book called, ‘How to Debate Atheists.’ I have completed the first three chapters and would appreciate any feedback.
http://mikemanea.com/unapologetics/how-to-debate-atheists/
Hi Mike, if interested, you can send it to me at the email address under the contact info tab.