Drivel said:
1. "Atheism isn't a belief, but the lack of a belief."
Just as theism is a belief that there is a God, atheism is the
belief that there isn't.
Ah - yes - the cherry-picking of atheism.
This is "strong" atheism that this person is talking about.
It does not cover the majority of atheists that, I think, are of the "weak" variety.
This flaw is thus invalid for the majority of atheists.
2. "Atheism is not a-or has no-philosophy."
This is not true. Atheists believe that there is no God.
This is covered above by the obvious cherry-picking the definition.
Therefore, they believe that all decisions made by the individual, the family and the government should be made without regard to religious dogma.
This, and the rest of this supposed "flaw" is nothing but a strawman - unless this person has actually found out what it is that all these atheists actually "believe".
Atheism is merely a stance on the existence or not of god - nothing else.
3. "Atheism is supported by science."
I've never heard this said before - ever!
Most will say that theism is NOT supported by science - but never that atheism IS.
Drivel.
Nothing but drivel.
This person is good at setting up strawman fallacies and blowing them over.
4. "Atheism is supported by logic."
Not only is this wrong, just the opposite is true. In logic, it's impossible to prove a negative, that is, prove that a God Who Can Do Anything doesn't exist.
Other than continuing along his own narrow definition of atheism, this is blatantly wrong.
It is irrational / illogical to "believe" in anything that is not proven.
Thus logic DOES support the majority of atheists - the "weak" variety.
It also supports those atheists who see the probability of a god as not non-existent but so small as to be negligible (i.e. a "stronger" variety of atheism).
When someone claims he is an atheist, he is in effect claiming to have proven a negative (at least to himself)-which is a logical impossibility. In terms of pure logic, the only viable alternative to theism is actually agnosticism, which is the belief that the existence of God cannot be known. But atheism runs counter to logic.
LOL!
In this one argument this person has shown that they truly do not understand the words they are using. One canbe both agnostic and atheist - or agnostic and theist - or non-agnostic and (a)theist.
5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm.[/quote]LOL! ROFLMFAO!
How many logical fallacies in this!!
This person has little comprehension of rationality or logic.
Burden of proof is on the claimant of existence.
Otherwise things are true because the majority say it is? LOL!!
6. "There is no evidence to support a belief in God."
Yes, there is. Testimonial evidence abounds. Millions claim that God has
touched their hearts, cured their illnesses and improved their lives.
God of the Gaps.
And like others have said - this means that alien abduction is truth, that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, that the Sun rotates around the Earth etc.
7. "Theists should believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn."
This is in reference to something called the Invisible Pink Unicorn Argument, an amusing little ditty that atheists enjoy bringing up from time to time. The argument says that, since theists have no evidence that God exists, then they can't discount the existence of other "fictitious" Gods, such as-you guessed it-the Invisible Pink Unicorn. On closer examination,
this argument actually goes against atheists. As I mentioned above, theists accept the testimony of others as valid evidence for the existence of God. Literally millions of people believe in God, pray to Him, worship Him, and claim that He has cured their illnesses and changed their lives. This can't be said of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, so theists don't believe in it. On the other hand, since atheists reject testimonial evidence, it is they-and not theists-who can't distinguish between the Unicorn and God.
This is partly true - in that atheists can't distinguish between the two - just as they can't distinguish between any two things for which there is no evidence.
The theists' flaw is in the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy, the Appeal to Consensus logical fallacy and probably many others.
I can't be bothered with the rest as they continue along the same lines of misinformed and badly argued drivel.
All this person has done is reinforce some of the logical fallacies that theists hold for their "belief" - the Appeals to Authority and Consensus.
I'm also wondering if the essay was in fact tongue-in-cheek to show just how poor the arguments from theists actually are.
