The Irrationality Of Atheism (The Moral Dilemma)

Atheists like to paint themselves as the people who are rational, enlightened and reasonable as opposed to these irratonal, unreasonable, unenlightened and superstitious theists or religous people.
But ironically the atheists in their desperate attempt to discredit theism and religion are behaving increasingly irrational und unreasonable.
In fact, they remind me of all other ideologues who deny reality in the most ridicoulous ways in order to save their world view.
I have watched many debates and read some articles on the existence of God and I must say that the theists had by far the better, more convincing and consistent arguments.
Out of the many debates I just want to mention the debates with William Lane Craig vs. Cristopher Hitchens or John Lennox vs. Richard Dawkins.
In these and many other debates and articles when the atheists are not able to refute the best of the theist’s arguments like the cosmological argument they seek refuge in the criticism of theism and religion on moral grounds.
Not able to prove that God does not exist they simply have to do this, since if there is no other reasonable argument against theism, this is the only option they have left.
In a simplified form their argument goes approximately like this: Theism is responsible for the worst crimes in human history and it is dangerous because it leads to theocratic tyranny and back to the dark ages where superstition and irrationality reigned.
Furthermore it leads to division and conflict because of the wars and crimes still comitted in the name of religion.
The atheist conveniently overlooks the evil and slaughter that was comitted in the 20th century by openly atheistic regimes like Stalin’s Russia and Pol Pot’s Cambodia where millions of people where butchered and starved to death.
But even if all the accusations against religion where true, so what?
Why is killing, enslaving and oppressing people bad?
Why is theocratic tyranny, superstition and living in the dark ages of irrationality bad?
These are clearly moral questions but on atheism there is no ground for objective morality. There is no such thing as objective morality as all morality has evolved like any other feature or behaviour of homo sapiens.
The atheist believes that anything that is good for the survival of a species or a society evolves over time to become the moral norm of a species or society.
And so the atheist cannot object to theism on moral grounds.
Now, the atheist could try to show, that theism is bad for the survival of a species or society.
The fact that nearly all societies that we know of had religions is a blatant proof that religion in general does not hinder the survival of the human species.
But even if the atheist could show conclusively and without any doubt that religion is bad for the survivial of society or species this argument becomes absurd and here is why.
According to the atheist, life is nothing special but the totally random result of blind natural forces and totally random events.
As Dawkins says:
“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 ).
So why should the extinction of a species be a morally bad thing from an atheist perspective?
Answer: It can’t be a morally bad thing since there is absolutely no purpose in the universe.
To classify a behaviour A as moral or immoral you have first to know what the desired outcome B is and whether A leads to B or away from B.
By desired outcome I mean not that which we humans might desire but that which the purpose of the universe is.
Here atheism selfdestructs.
But let’s be fair. Atheists pretend to value freethinking and freedom.
Again, on what grounds can an atheist demand freedom and reject that which supposedly limits freedom?
Answer: He has no ground to stand on, since in the atheist’s totally deterministic world view freedom does not even exist.
Again atheism selfdestructs.

So we see, that atheists cannot argue against theism or religion on moral grounds because of the lack of objective morality in atheism.
Atheists try to construct a kind of evolutionbased morality which fails miserably because this contradicts their world view that there is no purpose to life or the universe.
Ironically the atheists have to appeal to absolute theistic moral values to argue against theism.