What Is The Biggest Drawback Of Atheism?

[dblack]

I’m not the first person to observe the religious fervor of the far left militant atheists.

You can spot them by how they attack rival religions.

Yep. It's a common tact for religious people who are feeling defensive about their faith.

 

[dblack]

An additional fallacy to the “atheism is a religion” stance, is that it’s often erroneously coupled with the belief that atheists/agnostics are Leftists. While some are; some aren’t. Most atheist/agnostics I know are right leaning. But I seldom cavort with Leftists...

Yeah. Was Ayn Rand a leftist??

 

[dblack]

So, the question seems to be is whether a comforting myth is preferable to reality.

Well, reality isn't all that clear. Pretty much the only argument that there is no god ...

There is no argument that there is no god. But that has nothing to do with atheism. Atheist stop at that fact that there is no argument that there is a god. That's all we need.

As I said, if that's the myth that makes you happy.....

No myth, just a rejection of your beliefs. That's all. You're telling yourself stories.

Your myth is that you are not telling yourself stories. I fully admit that I am telling myself stories. I just prefer my stories to yours.

The stories I'm not telling myself?? Those stories? Do you realize you're making no sense?

FWIW, my comment "you're telling yourself stories" wasn't in reference to religious faith. The story in question is telling yourself that your religious faith is no different than any other belief. Religious faith is radically different than mundane beliefs. Or at least that's what I've been told. If it's not, what's the point?

 

[dblack]

Buddhism is atheism. It is a religion. Atheism is a religion.

You need to take a logic course. I don't know if you're attempting an argument, or what, but this statement is too stupidly flawed and fallacious to even argue with. I guess you win.

 

[james bond]

I fully admit that I am telling myself stories. I just prefer my stories to yours.

Atheism believes in science. However, they believe false science. For example, Darwin did not create the ToE, but only explained it. Atheists are misled easily.

It's not stories if it's science. Then it's hypothesis and theory.

 

[Hollie]

Until you can say how God put us here, this statement carries no weight.

Here is an equivalent statement:
I have plenty of evidence for an un-provable Alien visit, such as we are here.

See below.

We are here and have a sequence of how it was done.

Actually, as a creationist, you have nothing. Your 'sequence' is at odds with what we see with our own eyes, and you have no 'how' whatsoever. Saying 'God did it' say nothing about how God did it.

Please explain. What should we be seeing?

I did explain how God did it. It's all written down in the Bible as the Bible theory in science. It's the secular/atheist scientists who have not explained, but tried to make up circumstantial evidence to fit their theory. It is all a house of cards built on false evidence and assumptions. They secular scientists had to remove creation scientists before they could built their house of cards. If you had anything, then you would have listed it as start of space-time, quantum particles pop into existence, big bang, early gases form, expansion of space, long time, theory of everything resolves quantum mechanics and laws of physics, abiogenesis, etc. However, all you have is bullshit and a house of cards, so that explains your post.

If the Bible was historical we should see:

1. Evidence of a global flood (we don't have such evidence)
   
2. No evidence of local floods going back millions of years (we do have such evidence, ask any oil-well driller)

If you did explain how God did it I must have missed it. What was the mechanism for turning dirt into people?

C'mon, didn't we go over this already? Why not let the creation scientists back in on the peer reviews and Nature and Science articles? Then we should get more varied scientific opinions which will lead to better theories and wider scientific opinions. That's why I say atheists are usually wrong. Their science is fake based on circumstantial evidence and not the scientific method. Otherwise, religion would have been replace by science and the atheist religion. Science has always been about who makes the best arguments, not find the facts that fit the theory and disregard the ones that don't. That said, I believe God will destroy the Earth this time due to mass non-belief instead of mass evil.

The big creation science events were creation in 7 days (today we observe the sabbath which is further evidence), global flood, the tower of babel, and the Jesus sacrificing himself and resurrection, fulfilling of prophecies, and the end times.

Global flood evidence is 3/4 of Earth is covered by water, bent rocks, dinosaur graveyards, marine fossils on top of mountains and dominating fossil record, and more.

Local floods was a theory on an abcnews documentary. It's on youtube.

The mechanism for turning dirt into Adam was God's breath. No human can create life from non-life. Life does not pop into existence from non-life like primordial soup (which I doubt forms naturally). Then he took Adam's rib and created Eve. The evidence for that is the human rib regenerates itself in the body. No other bone does it.

Silly conspiracy theories aren't going to help you here. There is no vast conspiracy preventing the fundamentalist ministries from publishing in peer reviewed journals. The fundie ministries need to present their data for supernaturalism. Just make sure the supernatural data is in a form that can subject to peer reviewed testing.

Can you give us some idea how someome would present a supernatural occurrence and then data as to how to others coukd test and confirm the supernatural event?

 

[diver52]

Well, reality isn't all that clear. Pretty much the only argument that there is no god ...

There is no argument that there is no god. But that has nothing to do with atheism. Atheist stop at that fact that there is no argument that there is a god. That's all we need.

As I said, if that's the myth that makes you happy.....

No myth, just a rejection of your beliefs. That's all. You're telling yourself stories.

Your myth is that you are not telling yourself stories. I fully admit that I am telling myself stories. I just prefer my stories to yours.

The stories I'm not telling myself?? Those stories? Do you realize you're making no sense?

FWIW, my comment "you're telling yourself stories" wasn't in reference to religious faith. The story in question is telling yourself that your religious faith is no different than any other belief. Religious faith is radically different than mundane beliefs. Or at least that's what I've been told. If it's not, what's the point?

You have been told God loves you, do you accept that? If not, then why do you accept what you have been told about religious faith? You are buying in to stories you don't even believe. Religious faith isn't special. It's as mundane as dirt.

 

[james bond]

Buddhism is atheism. It is a religion. Atheism is a religion.

You need to take a logic course. I don't know if you're attempting an argument, or what, but this statement is too stupidly flawed and fallacious to even argue with. I guess you win.

It's not logic. It's a simple argument to defeat a simpleton .

Atheism is a religion because it believes in no God. Or gods. A Christian may be able to argue that atheists believe in Satan and are influenced by him since we have the The Satanic Temple and they believe in atheism, evolution, and evolutionary thinking, i.e. godless science. Today, we have creation scientists excluded from peer reviews. Science was not this way before the 1850s. Atheistic science came about from a rebellion against the God theory in science due to atheist farmer James Hutton and his pupil Charles Lyell with uniformitarianism or the present is the key to the past. It led to Chales Darwin who was pupil of Lyell and his explanation for ToE. We also have evolution contradicts everything in the Bible, so it is an argument for Satan, too.

"In terms of contemporary definitions of atheism, the Webster-Merriam dictionary defines atheism in two ways: "1) a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods 2) a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods."

Definition of atheism - Conservapedia

 

[Hollie]

I fully admit that I am telling myself stories. I just prefer my stories to yours.

Atheism believes in science. However, they believe false science. For example, Darwin did not create the ToE, but only explained it. Atheists are misled easily.

It's not stories if it's science. Then it's hypothesis and theory.

There is no requirement for belief in science. Big bang, evolution, science ... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Faith on the other hand ... well, I think I'll let the supernaturalists trailblaze that watery path across the sea. When it comes to "evidence of things unseen" ... the examples devolve quickly into partisan religious dogma.

 

[james bond]

Silly conspiracy theories aren't going to help you here. There is no vast conspiracy preventing the fundamentalist ministries from publishing in peer reviewed journals.

You know that's bullshit. A creation scientist could lose their job if they presented the Bible theory. For example, a baraminology paper would not be accepted by Nature, Science, or any of the science journals. Only one college in the US would accept it. I think baraminology has not been accepted by Britannica. I think they're less biased.

 

[james bond]

There is no requirement for belief in science.

Okay, if atheism is just based on no God and no morals, then demonstrate no God or gods exist. Make a logical argument that no God or gods exist from the fact, "The universe had a beginning."

 

[anynameyouwish]

There is no requirement for belief in science.

Okay, if atheism is just based on no God and no morals, then demonstrate no God or gods exist. Make a logical argument that no God or gods exist from the fact, "The universe had a beginning."

"Okay, if atheism is just based on no God and no morals, then demonstrate no God or gods exist."


ok.

look behind you......do you see a god?
no?

look to your left.....any god there? no?

look to your right.....see any god?. no?

look in front of you...
down on the ground....
up in the sky.....

see any god?

no?

there ya go........demonstrated that there is NO god.


So now YOU PROVE there IS a god.....


i'll wait.......

 

[Vastator]

There is no requirement for belief in science.

Okay, if atheism is just based on no God and no morals, then demonstrate no God or gods exist. Make a logical argument that no God or gods exist from the fact, "The universe had a beginning."

Only you have posited that atheism is based on no morals.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Wow! That's a lot of fartsmoke in one paragraph... even for you!

At least you consider your god unprovable. It's a start.

You're just making assertions and trolling irrelevant opinions. I can't discuss seriously with an atheistic/agnostic troll.

So you consider your opinion irrelevant. Good to know.

every opinion on this message board is "irrelevant".

most especially the opinions of deranged, hate filled conservatives who are all treasonous traitors.

and that is my RELEVANT opinion.

 

[Hollie]

There is no requirement for belief in science.

Okay, if atheism is just based on no God and no morals, then demonstrate no God or gods exist. Make a logical argument that no God or gods exist from the fact, "The universe had a beginning."

Thats a nonsense argument. You are claiming the existence of a unique collection of gods. You are tasked with supporting your argument.

Morals and ethics are claimed by religionists to be the result of the inerrancy of any number of religions (an utterly untrue assertion with reams of evidence against it), which is then touted as the wondrous panacea that solves all the world's ills and makes all those who believe people deserving of eternal paradise. It seems that there is an undercurrent of fear and arrogance used to justify appalling behavior.

Atheism is not a "belief" system and makes no judgements regarding morals.

 

[Hollie]

Silly conspiracy theories aren't going to help you here. There is no vast conspiracy preventing the fundamentalist ministries from publishing in peer reviewed journals.

You know that's bullshit. A creation scientist could lose their job if they presented the Bible theory. For example, a baraminology paper would not be accepted by Nature, Science, or any of the science journals. Only one college in the US would accept it. I think baraminology has not been accepted by Britannica. I think they're less biased.

You know you're struggling to defend your conspiracy theory.

What prevents the ID'iot creation ministries from publushing in peer reviewed journals is their lack of any credible evidence for supernaturalism and their lack of any credible methods that exist for testing for the supernatural.

 

[BreezeWood]

There is no requirement for belief in science.

Okay, if atheism is just based on no God and no morals, then demonstrate no God or gods exist. Make a logical argument that no God or gods exist from the fact, "The universe had a beginning."

.

Okay, if atheism is just based on no God and no morals, then demonstrate no God or gods exist.

you deliberately distort the truth, your 4th century book without proof of your god has no moral authority either by your logic.

your book is responsible for uninterrupted persecution and victimization of the innocent from its beginning - you for some reason are the same, your religion is what has no morals with a backbone to withstand evil. in fact how can a christian have morals while unable to live without sin, a spinless religion at best.

stop using jesus who you crucified, they represented the religion of antiquity. the final judgement will occur when christianity is brought to justice for who will be admitted to the Everlasting.

 

[dblack]

There is no argument that there is no god. But that has nothing to do with atheism. Atheist stop at that fact that there is no argument that there is a god. That's all we need.

As I said, if that's the myth that makes you happy.....

No myth, just a rejection of your beliefs. That's all. You're telling yourself stories.

Your myth is that you are not telling yourself stories. I fully admit that I am telling myself stories. I just prefer my stories to yours.

The stories I'm not telling myself?? Those stories? Do you realize you're making no sense?

FWIW, my comment "you're telling yourself stories" wasn't in reference to religious faith. The story in question is telling yourself that your religious faith is no different than any other belief. Religious faith is radically different than mundane beliefs. Or at least that's what I've been told. If it's not, what's the point?

You have been told God loves you, do you accept that? If not, then why do you accept what you have been told about religious faith? You are buying in to stories you don't even believe. Religious faith isn't special. It's as mundane as dirt.

Well, the religious people I know disagree with you vehemently.

 

[james bond]

Not quite accurate. Communism finds advantage in promoting atheism for the purpose of eliminating competition.That by no means dictates that atheism must, and will lead to Communism. Classic correlation/causation fallacy.

You are in denial and have no link. It is cause and effect. Karl Marx wrote it. One of the deceptiveness is they seem unrelated, but in the primitive communism stage, the atheist religion ends up being tied strongly to politics more so than science. Already the new atheists are calling it secular humanism. It is another step closer to socialism and communism.

Karl Marx

"Marxist faith & religion
This system does not include any supernatural beliefs, but despite its rationalist pretensions, it has a quasi-religious, faith-based quality. Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy created this dictionary of Marxist concepts:

• Yahweh = Dialectical Materialism
• The Messiah = Marx
• The Elect = The Proletariat
• The Church = The Communist Party
• The Second Coming = The Revolution
• Hell = Punishment of the Capitalists
• The Millennium = The Communist Commonwealth

Another quasi-religious element is personality cults of Communist leaders. Joseph Stalin was the first, and he was followed by Mao Zedong and others, with North Korea's leaders continuing personality cultism. North Korea is also a Communist monarchy, with three generations of god-kings so far."

Karl Marx

 

[james bond]

you deliberately distort the truth, your 4th century book without proof of your god has no moral authority either by your logic.

your book is responsible for uninterrupted persecution and victimization of the innocent from its beginning - you for some reason are the same, your religion is what has no morals with a backbone to withstand evil. in fact how can a christian have morals while unable to live without sin, a spinless religion at best.

stop using jesus who you crucified, they represented the religion of antiquity. the final judgement will occur when christianity is brought to justice for who will be admitted to the Everlasting.

Heh. I notice you do not use your 1st century religion of antiquity spiel anymore since blasphemy against it used to mean the death penalty. Now, it's just 4th century and Jesus having final judgement. No need to go over this again as you could not deny the 10 commandments. Otherwise, what was on the tablets Moses received? What moral values were promoted by Moses. His two grandson's were burnt to a crisp for not being holy with their offering to God. They offered "unauthorized fire before the Lord."

It was the Jews that crucified Jesus. Why are you bringing him into this? I only stated to demonstrate no God or gods exist. This cannot be done. There is no logical argument for no God or gods while we have Kalam's Cosmological Argument, ontological argument, Descartes' thinking on proof of God's existence, and more.