Freedom2012,

I’m appalled by your constant berating of atheists just for being atheists, and your approach is beyond reproach if your only objective here is to show the right path to godless fellows. I couldn’t resist your false accusation and your intransigence in standing your ground without making any plausible philosophical argument in favor of god. When an argument starts with a foregone conclusion and not a premise, there can never be a meaningful conversation, let alone the exchange of ideas beneficial to both parties.

Personally, I have felt faith should be a personal matter and its influence should not cross one’s personal realm and have thus stayed away from discussing about faith with my family and friends, as it always tends to end up in an unpleasant manner. However, having said that, and as it had to happen and here we are conversing about it, I feel I’m on defensive about my core beliefs since my conviction of my own morality has been questioned. Therefore I’m reluctantly getting into conversation again and firmly standing up for myself and people who share my position alike. But if you are going to substitute theological supposition- based upon religious scriptures attributing to higher power- as the foundation of morality (leaving aside the metaphysical question whether there is god or not for a moment) and not its utilitarian agenda based upon philosophical argument, I personally will dismiss it. You may feel it’s a moral obligation to spread divine message to fellow brethrens but I have wholesale disagreement with that idea itself.

Before even getting into discussion about your questions, I would like to point there is distinction between your belief (emanating from religious dogma), the ethical principles (objective or not), and culture that has incorporated religion as a way of life.

1)      Atheism can provide accountability for objective morality.

Philosophically, the most common division of morality is:

Note that it doesn’t talk about God. Essentially, you are saying that objective morality is due to God (via religious scriptures; otherwise there is no way of knowing objectivity from religion. You’d need to extrapolate your scriptural writing to address modern day problems that are not objectively included in them, but objectively so that its truthfulness and falsity can be ascertained.

There was an interesting material published by Harvard professors about morality without religion which was for the purpose of educating students.

Since the focus of the argument is about moral objectivity, I am not going to elaborate on other kinds. The moral objectivity through religion categorically denies there are other two types of morality.

 b) Relativism (Subjectivism): Morality is relative to a group and shaped by culture. Subjectivism says morality is subjective to individual perception. E.g. Is it morally right or wrong to send your parents to senior care (eastern vs. western)? If a poor boy steals medicine for his dying mom and he didn’t have money, is that morally right or wrong?  Definitely you will not get universal answers to these questions – which may depend upon an individual and the society/culture she belongs to. Moral relativism

 Remember you were saying “what is good for goose is not always good for gander.” That’s moral relativism, not objectivism.

2)      Our own existence can come into question and why we ourselves exist without being proven we exist. Atheists failed to prove that they exist contrary to their own paramaters for existence to be valid.
I am not clear what this question has to do with atheists. Human evolution (theists, atheist and in-between) has been explained by Darwin’s theory of evolution. It’s older than 6,000 years old what religious fanatics had been saying (and some of them still do despite abundance of scientific evidence). But a clever ploy to invoke creationism with teleological argument never fails to push the argument into indeterminate question. This ontological question about self-existence has been explored, probably, since there were human on earth (Adam and Eve??).  A statement that summarizes your self-existence may help - Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) by Rene Descartes. Read about Phenomenology too.  

3)      How unconsciousness can give rise to consciousness.
I guess you are talking about big-bang theory. I don’t have a definite answer, and no one does. As I had previously said in one of my posts, a possible explanation could be Anthropic principle. Scientifically, we are still far away from getting an explanation, and there is a possibility we may never get a definite answer. That’s the ultimate goal post for the question for the existence of God.

This is what Stephen Hawking had to say:

“When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It's like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere, it doesn't have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.

We are each free to believe what we want, and it's my view that the simplest explanation is there is no god. No one created the universe, and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization: There is probably no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that, I am extremely grateful. “