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

[Medicine*Woman]

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)

*************
M*W: DO NOT put words in my mouth! If I had meant that I worshipped MY FAMILY ONLY, I would have said that. If I meant that I worshipped only MY DEAR ONES ONLY, I would have said that. If I meant that I worshipped MY KNOWLEDGE ONLY, then I would have said that! Obviously, to be an atheist, I had to learn the TRUTH somewhere, since I was a formerly deluded christian. Materialism is for selfish people, of which I am not one.

 

[nova900]

Materialism is for selfish people, of which I am not one.

I see a lot of selfish attitudes every sunday..on sunday religous TV programs.
Rather than giving sermons on aiding people in need,making the world a better place( in truth..I see a small portion of this ,in all due fairness to some christians)
I usually see some clown quoting scripture and hellfire and send the bucks in for your "miracle faith kit" and people in the crowd nodding in agreement in an attempt to reassure themselves that they are hearing the truth. It leaves you with the feeling that for many christians it's all about dis- regarding the problems common sense tells you lie with the bible(other than the outright lack of evidence that supports it)and it's depiction of god and saving your own butt to avoid the pitts of hell. Talk about selfish..sheesh!

 

[Redefine91]

I am a devout christian and I too hate TV evangelists. Billy Graham is a brilliant man but besides that, its tough. Joel Osteen is ok. The rest are fake and are probably doing it for the money. Pat Robertson is giving us a bad name.

Please don't judge an entire religion, composed of millions, by a few dozen domesticated monkeys who somehow got on TV.

 

[nova900]

I am a devout christian and I too hate TV evangelists. Billy Graham is a brilliant man but besides that, its tough. Joel Osteen is ok. The rest are fake and are probably doing it for the money. Pat Robertson is giving us a bad name.

Please don't judge an entire religion, composed of millions, by a few dozen domesticated monkeys who somehow got on TV.

I don't

 

[Jan Ardena]

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

I did not say it was proof.
What would you regard as sufficient evidence to warrant a BELIEF in God?

Jan.

 

[spidergoat]

For prayer to work a higher percentage of the time than can be accounted for by randomness.

For one biological structure of irreducible complexity to exist.

For the light from stars greater than 5,000 or 10,000 light years away to be invisible, having as yet insufficient time to reach us.

 

[SkinWalker]

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

Buddha.

 

[S.A.M.]

Buddha.

He dumped his wife and kid, so doesn't count.

 

[spidergoat]

Dumped them... in a palace. It was probably an arranged marriage anyway.

 

[S.A.M.]

Dumped them... in a palace. It was probably an arranged marriage anyway.

Which makes no difference to the fact that he abandoned them. Hardly unselfish.

 

[SkinWalker]

He was both non-materialistic and selfish. He may have been both at one time, but he embodied both of these qualities at the same time while being an atheist. Play semantics and be argumentative for the sake of inflating your spammed up post-count all you want, but the facts are facts.

 

[S.A.M.]

He was both non-materialistic and selfish. He may have been both at one time, but he embodied both of these qualities at the same time while being an atheist. Play semantics and be argumentative for the sake of inflating your spammed up post-count all you want, but the facts are facts.

Its not semantics. He abandoned his responsibilities as a prince, his parents and his family because he feared sickness, old age and suffering. His doctrine preaches abandonment of desire and his altruism neglects the role of social responsibility to hermitage and isolation. Can't get any more selfish than that.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I see a lot of selfish attitudes every sunday..on sunday religous TV programs. Rather than giving sermons on aiding people in need,making the world a better place( in truth..I see a small portion of this ,in all due fairness to some christians)
I usually see some clown quoting scripture and hellfire and send the bucks in for your "miracle faith kit" and people in the crowd nodding in agreement in an attempt to reassure themselves that they are hearing the truth. It leaves you with the feeling that for many christians it's all about dis- regarding the problems common sense tells you lie with the bible(other than the outright lack of evidence that supports it)and it's depiction of god and saving your own butt to avoid the pitts of hell. Talk about selfish..sheesh!

*************
M*W: Yeah, I know what you're talking about. I used to watch Jimmy Swaggart just to see him cry!

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

For prayer to work a higher percentage of the time than can be accounted for by randomness.

How do you know it doesn't already work 100% of the time?
What would you regard as a 'prayer that works', what is the conclusion based on?

For one biological structure of irreducible complexity to exist.

light from stars greater than 5,000 or 10,000 light years away to be invisible, having as yet insufficient time to reach us.

Why would this mean that God exists necessarily?

Jan.

 

[spidergoat]

How do you know it doesn't already work 100% of the time?

I think it's common knowledge. This fact is usually explained away as "God has mysterious ways". It's seems like a kind of selective attention. In support of prayer, we are given examples where people prayed and it worked. But those same people fail to acknowledge all the times it doesn't (even when the pray-er is sincere).

What would you regard as a 'prayer that works', what is the conclusion based on?

When the outcome that is prayed for occurs? The one scientific test I'm aware of used churchgoers to pray for someone recovering from surgery to get well. The outcome was compared to a control group.

Why would this mean that God exists necessarily?

In the biological case, it would mean it didn't evolve from simpler, useful structures.

In the case of stars, it would mean that they were placed there according to the timeline commonly associated with the biblical account.

In either case, it wouldn't be proof, but it would count as evidence in favor of theists.

 

[Fathoms]

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

You aren't exactly making a compelling case for youself here. You seem to believe this about atheists because you want to, not because there is any good reason too. On what basis do you presume to tell me what I do and don't believe, and judge my moral character negatively in lieu of nothing more than a generalization?

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

How do you know it doesn't already work 100% of the time?

I think it's common knowledge.

prayer
- address to God: a spoken or unspoken address to God, a deity, or a saint.
- addressing of God: the act or practice of making spoken or unspoken addresses to God, a deity, or a saint
- something wished for: something that is wanted or hoped for very much
- religious service: a religious service at which...

The question is; do people who see God as an order-supplier, demanding this and that, for the purpose of satisfying their whims, actually pray?
If you study scriptures you will note that people who actually pray, address God, are authorised.

This fact is usually explained away as "God has mysterious ways".

You assume it is "explained away". If God exists, then He is entitled to have "mysterious ways", wouldn't you say.

What would you regard as a 'prayer that works', what is the conclusion based on?

When the outcome that is prayed for occurs?

But it has occured, people have testified to that, despite the assumption that some of the prayers didn't. Why don't you regard that as evidence?

In the biological case, it would mean it didn't evolve from simpler, useful structures.

In the case of stars, it would mean that they were placed there according to the timeline commonly associated with the biblical account.

In either case, it wouldn't be proof, but it would count as evidence in favor of theists.

Then so does the evidence of testimony. Why do you doubt it?

Jan.

 

[spidergoat]

The question is; do people who see God as an order-supplier, demanding this and that, for the purpose of satisfying their whims, actually pray?

Let us concentrate on those pray-ers that are sincere and undemanding. What is the percentage of those prayers that are answered?

Suppose the person who studies the answer isn't the person who prays?

If you study scriptures you will note that people who actually pray, address God, are authorised.

Fine, let's only observe those people. I'm willing to set up the experiment that way.

You assume it is "explained away". If God exists, then He is entitled to have "mysterious ways", wouldn't you say.

Then you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to say God obviously exists, but can offer no testable hypothesis to prove or disprove. That's like if I had an imaginary friend who I only see when I'm alone. Could I really expect anyone else to believe it?

But it has occured, people have testified to that, despite the assumption that some of the prayers didn't. Why don't you regard that as evidence?

Here's an example. Let's say I hypothesize that wearing my socks inside out makes me lucky. Suppose I happen to be wearing my socks inside out and I do win the lottery. Is that evidence that wearing my socks inside out caused me to win the lottery? ...Or was it just a coincidence?

There are already established ways to distinguish real effects from coincidence. So far, the effects of prayer are indistinguishable from mere random chance.

Then so does the evidence of testimony. Why do you doubt it?

Because people can be tricked. They see what they want to see. They see magic tricks and believe them. They believe in good luck charms. We fall for optical illusions, we hear voices, we have hallucinations. Basically, people are irrational, and my intent is to separate the rational from the irrational.

Testimony is enough to start the investigation, but it can't end there.

 

[Sock puppet path]

Which makes no difference to the fact that he abandoned them. Hardly unselfish.

Sorry Sam but I find it somewhat amusing that one who follows the religion laid down by Muhammed is accusing anyone of being selfish.

 

[spidergoat]

Taking a wife is selfish. Basically, it's like saying we aren't good enough as individuals, I have to assume an artificial connection to another person. To commit to one individual is to exclude every other person on the planet. True love doesn't pick favorites.