Atheism's Thirteen Biggest Flaws (without dysfunctional link, modship pending)

[Medicine*Woman]

Well, its seems to me that forums are where atheists gather to have their...religious services. But instead of worshipping God, they worship themselves.

*************
M*W: You are sadly mistaken about atheists. We really don't worship anything, except maybe, our families and dear ones. And knowledge.

 

[lightgigantic]

*************
M*W: You are sadly mistaken about atheists. We really don't worship anything, except maybe, our families and dear ones. And knowledge.

then its all about themselves - after all its MY family, MY dear ones and MY knowledge (which commonly gives rise to the popular materialistic notion, it is okay for the families of others - that are not in MY country - to starve, but my family must be well fed)

 

[Anti-Flag]

then its all about themselves - after all its MY family, MY dear ones and MY knowledge (which commonly gives rise to the popular materialistic notion, it is okay for the families of others - that are not in MY country - to starve, but my family must be well fed)

So the minority of the world being atheist and thus selfish is to blame for the starvation of millions?
Materialism has nothing to do with religion or lack of. Although perhaps selfless acts do, after all, religious people mostly only do these things for their 'eternal reward' or because they're told to. What reason do atheists have apart from it being the best thing to do for the world?

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

For a theist, you seem to know an awful lot about what it's like to be atheist Mosheh, with the exception of course that atheists at least nominally try to be logical, wheras you seem to be quite adept at mind reading. Well, it's at least comforting to know you won't be using your powers for evil, lest the wrath of the lord strike you down.

my father was a devout atheist..... and explained why... all the same reasons all the atheist here.... its all the same.

ive heard it all before.

and its based on a lack of reflection on all the real evidense.

-MT

 

[lightgigantic]

So the minority of the world being atheist and thus selfish is to blame for the starvation of millions?
Materialism has nothing to do with religion or lack of. Although perhaps selfless acts do, after all, religious people mostly only do these things for their 'eternal reward' or because they're told to. What reason do atheists have apart from it being the best thing to do for the world?

there is a lot of similarity between the unsatisfactory performance of religious principles and atheism

 

[lightgigantic]

The process of enabling verification is also subject to the same scrutiny.
For example, if I claim to have witnessed god, and give my "process for verification" as taking a certain hallucigent - and someone takes the hallucigent and "witnesses god" (as I had claimed they would) - does this mean that we are really witnessing god?

probably not, since god can be qualified by certain characteristics (like for instance its not uncommon for people of psychotropics to claim that they are god, which raises the question how is it that god runs the risk of drowning in his own vomit?)

Afterall, I claim it - I provide a process - and others "witness" it through following the process.

If a group of people take hallucinogenics and say that a glass of sand can quench your thirst, it can be rejected because sand and water do not share the same qualities

All you are doing in this scenario is taking a phenomena that is obeying the laws of the Universe (albeit in this case the interaction of chemicals that induce hallucinations) and calling it God.

if seeing god is all about taking drugs, why are there many religions that don't advocate taking forms of intoxication?

All you are doing with any other process that claims to "witness god" is taking a phenomena that is obeying the laws of the Universe and calling it God - which adds nothing to the understanding of that phenomena.

You are assuming that all saintly persons are on drugs
You are also assuming that the phenomena of consciousness can be defined by molecular reductionist paradigms
There is no scientific evidence for either of these claims (ie there is no person making claims of directly perceiving these things as true, nor is there any process advocated that would enable one to perceive them as true)

 

[Sarkus]

there is a lot of similarity between the unsatisfactory performance of religious principles and atheism

Please define these religious principles - or at least explain what you mean by the phrase.

 

[Anti-Flag]

there is a lot of similarity between the unsatisfactory performance of religious principles and atheism

I'd suggest you get to know some atheists and their intentions, as opposed to presuming anyone who doesn't comply perfectly with your ideals is atheist.
As for the religious; (unsatisfactory performance in who's eyes by the way?)
They still identify themselves as theists, and I'd suggest that since they are in the majority they are far more likely to be to blame for materialism and selfishness than a few atheists.
Out of the majority of people I've met and known the best behaved and most selfless identified themselves as atheist or agnostic, the more materialistic were theists.

Your credibility and intelligence are on thin ice with such baseless statements.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'd suggest you get to know some atheists and their intentions, as opposed to presuming anyone who doesn't comply perfectly with your ideals is atheist.
As for the religious; (unsatisfactory performance in who's eyes by the way?)
They still identify themselves as theists, and I'd suggest that since they are in the majority they are far more likely to be to blame for materialism and selfishness than a few atheists.
Out of the majority of people I've met and known the best behaved and most selfless identified themselves as atheist or agnostic, the more materialistic were theists.

Your credibility and intelligence are on thin ice with such baseless statements.

Can you give an example of a non-materialistic non-selfish atheist? Just for kicks.

 

[Sarkus]

probably not, since god can be qualified by certain characteristics

And yet in your thread that tried to do that you fell short of actually being able to.
Define god - then we can start.

If a group of people take hallucinogenics and say that a glass of sand can quench your thirst, it can be rejected because sand and water do not share the same qualities

See the first response with regard to the characteristics of God.
Additionally - I never said that they are claiming a glass of sand can quench thirst - that is nothing but a strawman logical fallacy set up by you!

if seeing god is all about taking drugs, why are there many religions that don't advocate taking forms of intoxication?
...
You are assuming that all saintly persons are on drugs

Stop getting hung up on the detail of the analogy and just respond to the underlying issues.


You yet again squirm your way through actually answering anything but your own strawmen.

 

[Sarkus]

Can you give an example of a non-materialistic non-selfish atheist? Just for kicks.

Define "non-materialistic" - or at least quantify it.
Define "non-selfish" - or at least quantify it.

 

[S.A.M.]

Define "non-materialistic" - or at least quantify it.
Define "non-selfish" - or at least quantify it.

Might want to ask Anti-flag

 

[Redefine91]

I think Religion’s single most important flaw – if one discounts reason and argument and evidence – is that it has minds like lightgigantic and IceAgeCivilizatinos, to name but two of its representatives, as its followers.

One has to only read a few paragraphs of their thoughts – if you can call them that – to see what kinds of minds are attracted to these myths.

I think atheisms biggest flaw, if one discounts logic, it that is has minds like Medicinewoman and Zenbabelfish, to name but two of its followers.

One only has to read a few paragraphs of their thoughts, counterpoints, and rebuttals to see what kinds of minds are attracted to this idiocy.

 

[wsionynw]

I think atheisms biggest flaw, if one discounts logic, it that is has minds like Medicinewoman and Zenbabelfish, to name but two of its followers.

One only has to read a few paragraphs of their thoughts, counterpoints, and rebuttals to see what kinds of minds are attracted to this idiocy.

Likewise.

 

[wsionynw]

Can you give an example of a non-materialistic non-selfish atheist? Just for kicks.

Yes, me.

 

[Silas]

I, for one, think that there's a lot to be said in Christianity's favour. But putting up lists of straw men just for the pleasure of making poor arguments to try to knock them down, isn't one of them. For example:

11. "Christians have a higher divorce rate than do atheists."


Atheists who use this argument think that it illustrates how hypocritical
Christians are. But in reality, it shows just the opposite.


Atheists believe that morality is relative, that is, there is no absolute
"good" or "bad" behavior. Atheists therefore get to make up their own morals
to fit whatever lifestyle they desire. For example, if an atheistic husband
finds out his wife has been cheating on him, he has the option of deciding
that cheating is okay. The two of them might even decide to have an "open
marriage," in which both parties can freely enjoy extramarital affairs. With
a morality that can be changed to suit any set of circumstances, atheists
have fewer reasons to seek a divorce.


Christians, on the other hand, receive their morality from God via the
Bible. Those morals can't be augmented to suit the whims of the moment.
Infidelity and other such offenses are taken very seriously. After doing
what he can to save a marriage, sometimes a Christian literally has to
choose between following God or sticking with a spouse who wants to pursue
an ungodly lifestyle. Sometimes divorce is the only answer.


So, it is because of high Christian values-and not hypocrisy-that the
divorce rate is higher among Christians, while atheists have fewer divorces
because of their changeable standards of morality.

First of all, I never heard any atheist making an argument like that. Secondly, if I were he I would have questioned the statistic, or certainly looked outside the United States. And thirdly, the argument that Christians (in following God's law) have "higher moral standards" and consequently are forced to, well, disobey a key teaching of Jesus himself, is rather more an argument that would attract people to the atheist non-hypocritical morality, isn't it?

I love the way he believes that "burden of proof" apparently has to do with how many people have the belief one way or another, ie the people who have the "burden of proof" are the minority who have to convince the majority. This is actually not even true in a court of law, where most jurors would pretty much assume, sight unseen, that someone who is standing before them is probably guilty. And he uses the same argument to knock down the "Invisible pink unicorn" (apparently never having heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) because, apparently, he does not understand the point the atheist is making, which is "You believe in the conventional image of God because you are surrounded by people who believe in that God and not the Invisible Pink Unicorn".

 

[spidergoat]

there is a lot of similarity between the unsatisfactory performance of religious principles and atheism

I don't think you are making a good case for religion. If the principles don't perform, what do you expect but that people move on to something else?

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, me.

Hmm you're promoting yourself. Decidedly unselfish.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

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.

They claim "weak atheism" but their actions cry "strong atheism".

Atheists believe that there is no God.

This is covered above by the obvious cherry-picking the definition.

If you don't BELEIVE that there is no God, then what are you defending?
Why does it come across as though you BELIEVE there is no God?

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.

Then why is there so much effort to remove "in God we trust" from the dollar bill, for example?

3. "Atheism is supported by science."

Most will say that theism is NOT supported by science - but never that atheism IS.

So what is their atheism based on?

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.

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.

This depends on what you regard, and would accept as proof.

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.

It is evidence, all the other stuff you wrote is unecessary, either you accept it as evidence or not.

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.

Your straight-forward, (seemingly) unreasonable refusal of the evidence, gives reason to believe that your position is one of a strong-atheist.
Two questions; why don't you believe in God? What could/would cause you to believe in God?

The theists' flaw is in the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy, the Appeal to Consensus logical fallacy and probably many others.

So a theist should ignore such overwhelming testimony, and pretend he/she is the only theist in the world?

I'm also wondering if the essay was in fact tongue-in-cheek to show just how poor the arguments from theists actually are.

You assuming it is a "poor essay" does not make it so.
You have a perception of "atheism", which by all accounts seem perfect, but the reality is that none of you actually live up to that perception. I think this chap is describing what you do actually live up to.

Jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Personal testimony is not sufficient as proof. There is as much testimony about ghosts, UFO's, and faith healing in other religions like Voodoo.