What Is The Biggest Drawback Of Atheism?

[james bond]

"You don't answer my question, so one less atheist to provide any logic"


and zero christians who can provide any logic.

belief is NOT logic.

Can any atheist/ag here provide such a LOGICAL argument that supports your belief that there is no God?

Your argument is unconvincing, so you shouldn't be frustrated that you are not convincing anyone.

You don't answer my question, so one less atheist to provide any logic.

"You don't answer my question, so one less atheist to provide any logic"


and zero christians who can provide any logic.

belief is NOT logic.

You didn't answer my question either. That's two. May as well call it three strikes already as God threw his 110 mph fast ball past Hollie.

We have faith in the belief of God just like you have faith in the belief of no God. Both are religions.

I and many Christians here have provided much logic such as the following:

OTOH, atheists have no objective moral values, so may have trouble doing the following:

 

[Vastator]

Atheism is a religion because it believes in no God.

That's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Because it's such a dumb claim, it gets the laughter that it deserves.

So why do many theists make such a stupid and dishonest claim? They can't defend their position with reason, and they know it, so they make up a "atheism is a religion too!" fable to supposedly paint atheists as hypocrites. Doesn't work. All they're doing is showing their belief in yet another theistic fable.

Non stamp collector is also a great you tuber...

 

[james bond]

But if it makes you happy, logical arguments have been made on both sides.

Such as?

It's like playing chess with pigeons isn't a valid argument although that's what getting a logical argument from atheists is like.

 

[Hollie]

There is a logical argument that there are no gods. You will have to come to terms with that.

I've already counted you as one who does not any logical argument.

I’m not sure that anyone cares that you are sick and tired answering there is no evidence for God. There is no evidence for your gods. Silly references to Kalam's Cosmological argument are merely time wasting. Similarly, your suggestion to offering “scientific evidence” to your gods are nothing more than screeching tirades that offer no evidence.

It's really an insult to atheists that their stupid beliefs get in the way of the truth. Besides, no logical argument, we already established atheist scientists explanations are lacking and do not include the scientific method. It's all historical BS. Thus, I've shown atheists do not have a leg to stand on.

Empirical evidence for the Theory of Evolution is abundant.

All false except for natural selection. Already covered multiple times. Yawn.

You do yourself no favors by making these emotional outbursts denigrating knowledge and evidence when your tirades are utterly contradicted by the relevant sciences.

Already covered. It's you who gets emotional and sometimes gets angry with veins bulging in the neck and red eye .

The above is another of your emotional outbursts.

You have not established any lacking of any scientific explanation. Your only counter to the success of science is to retreat to silly conspiracy theories. It's difficult to understand how you function in your day to day existence with such an odd worldview. The beliefs of the hyper-religious leaves them poorly equipped to survive in a society / culture that evolves (<----purposeful term) away from how life existed 2,000 years ago. One of the profound difficulties religious fundamentalists have with reality in general (and science in particular) is that they are more complex than whipping out a handy verse or poem. Human existence does not consist strictly of ideals and opposites, but instead, of continua along multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious fundies that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.

What defies logic (and all of earth history) is the fantastically absurd notion of a 6000 year old earth, zapped into existence by angry, immoral gods.

 

[james bond]

Just how badly did those internet atheists humiliate you? Given how awful your arguments are here, I can see why you got destroyed. Why did you think you'd do better here?

Man, you got by me. At least you learned that you are an internet atheist. Not just a regular atheist, but they can all be regular.

So the club didn't tell you that if A implies B, then "not B" implies "not A"? I bet they did. Pity you didn't understand.

Haha. Did I say that? Let me tell you what I said in no uncertain terms. All you did was state the same logic. Your logic is redundant. Then I thought I pointed out your logic has nothing to do with "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence." I gave you a couple of real world examples which you did not address and nor refute. It seems you are stuck repeating yourself.

No need, as it doesn't apply to the issue. Like I said, we're not talking about absolute proof. We're talking about actionable evidence.

I addressed this, too, with the head of NASA, Ellen Strofan. She wanted to go to Mars to find aliens or evidence of past aliens. Originally, people wanted to go to Mars to colonize it. I thought it was because atheists like her and their scientists have a bug up their arse about not finding aliens. It screws up their evolution. It screws up their panspermia. It screws up their atheism religion. Creation scientists believe God did not create aliens because he did not say it in the Bible, i.e. Bible theory. I thought Trump was doing his job of draining the swamp getting rid of her.

What you like to do is turn what I stated into incorrect logic and then make up examples to fit your logic. That's circular reasoning fallacy.

Most intelligent people, and not just atheists, would agree that it's good logic.

If there are aliens on earth, we would have evidence of them.
We have no evidence of aliens on earth, so there are no aliens on earth.

Sure it does. Otherwise, you would've yelled "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ALIENS. IT MEANS THERE ARE NO ALIENS!!!" I even gave that to you on a silver platter. You got more now. Otherwise, show me the alien. While my side has Drake's equation, Fermi's paradox, the Great Filter theory, Elon Musk, fine tuning facts, no abiogenesis, Bible theory, and more. I already said these things to you and you're stuck on a => b and !b => !a. Helloooooooooo, Mr. Internet Atheist.

Now, you're giving me more repeating yourself or circular logic. Just read what I said above.

You talked about actionable evidence, so where's your real life example? Who looked for aliens on Earth? What would tell you that it was an alien versus some new organism or previously unknown organism? It's special pleading when you want it from me, but you don't do reciprocate. Wasn't that your original complaint?

...

As for the rest, it's you losing it. BTW, I did not deflect anything.

 

[james bond]

The whole "leap of faith" thing is supposed to be irrational.

That's just your assertion and you preface it with a lie.

 

[dblack]

The whole "leap of faith" thing is supposed to be irrational.

That's just your assertion and you preface it with a lie.

Well, it's what religious people have told me. I suppose it's possible they're lying. Why would they do that?

 

[james bond]

The above is another of your emotional outbursts.

Nyet.

You have not established any lacking of any scientific explanation. Your only counter to the success of science is to retreat to silly conspiracy theories. It's difficult to understand how you function in your day to day existence with such an odd worldview. The beliefs of the hyper-religious leaves them poorly equipped to survive in a society / culture that evolves (<----purposeful term) away from how life existed 2,000 years ago. One of the profound difficulties religious fundamentalists have with reality in general (and science in particular) is that they are more complex than whipping out a handy verse or poem. Human existence does not consist strictly of ideals and opposites, but instead, of continua along multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious fundies that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

I just did with no aliens and argued for it despite the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." All one of the atheists has to do is find an alien, but none have been found due to fine tuning facts. That's not just theory and it's what the secular/atheist scientists discovered. We don't have multiverses either. We do not have the flying spaghetti monster nor an unicorn except in the imagination.

>>Human existence does not consist strictly of ideals and opposites, but instead, of continua along multiple (often infinite) possible options.<<

Here's the one thing I could get beyond your complaints. We cannot have infinite options. We are limited by what we know. Thus, science only states best theory, not proof. Proof is more for logic and math, and I asked for the atheist logic of no God. I think I agree that "human existence does not consist strictly of ideals and opposites." Can you provide some examples, so I understand what you mean?

 

[james bond]

Very Christian european capitalists and very Christian Nazis and very Christian American capitalists participated in similar scale genocides. And so your theory faceplants.

No, Hitler and his leaders just used Christians and Catholics in order to get buy in for their new regime. Have you read Mein Kampf? The Nazis were national socialists. They eliminated Christians like JW because they opposed the war and refused to fight. They eliminated gays, *colored* people, gypsies, handicapped or impaired people, Slavs, Russians, Poles, and promoted Aryan superiority. Out of these minority groups, the Jews were singled out as the most hated. Nazism is antisemitism. It's ironic that the Jews are the chosen people by God. It eventually turned into fascism and dictatorship form of government which many believe was their intent all along. If Hitler was Christian, the he certainly wasn't a practicing one. He may have been atheist, but he was not adamant about it. I would think he promoted atheism in order to promote Nazism. Their leaders didn't think the religions in Germany could co-exist with Nazism.

 

[Hollie]

The above is another of your emotional outbursts.

Nyet.

You have not established any lacking of any scientific explanation. Your only counter to the success of science is to retreat to silly conspiracy theories. It's difficult to understand how you function in your day to day existence with such an odd worldview. The beliefs of the hyper-religious leaves them poorly equipped to survive in a society / culture that evolves (<----purposeful term) away from how life existed 2,000 years ago. One of the profound difficulties religious fundamentalists have with reality in general (and science in particular) is that they are more complex than whipping out a handy verse or poem. Human existence does not consist strictly of ideals and opposites, but instead, of continua along multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious fundies that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

I just did with no aliens and argued for it despite the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." All one of the atheists has to do is find an alien, but none have been found due to fine tuning facts. That's not just theory and it's what the secular/atheist scientists discovered. We don't have multiverses either. We do not have the flying spaghetti monster nor an unicorn except in the imagination.

>>Human existence does not consist strictly of ideals and opposites, but instead, of continua along multiple (often infinite) possible options.<<

Here's the one thing I could get beyond your complaints. We cannot have infinite options. We are limited by what we know. Thus, science only states best theory, not proof. Proof is more for logic and math, and I asked for the atheist logic of no God. I think I agree that "human existence does not consist strictly of ideals and opposites." Can you provide some examples, so I understand what you mean?

There is no such thing as "fine tuning facts". I'm concerned when the hyper-religious toss around "facts" because there is always a scarcity of "facts".

My contention is that there is nothing “factual” about the gods. Let's look at this another way. When people say they believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain they exist-- well, I would say that qualifies as being completely, utterly, positively… absurd.

 

[james bond]

The above is another of your emotional outbursts.

Nyet.

You have not established any lacking of any scientific explanation. Your only counter to the success of science is to retreat to silly conspiracy theories. It's difficult to understand how you function in your day to day existence with such an odd worldview. The beliefs of the hyper-religious leaves them poorly equipped to survive in a society / culture that evolves (<----purposeful term) away from how life existed 2,000 years ago. One of the profound difficulties religious fundamentalists have with reality in general (and science in particular) is that they are more complex than whipping out a handy verse or poem. Human existence does not consist strictly of ideals and opposites, but instead, of continua along multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious fundies that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

I just did with no aliens and argued for it despite the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." All one of the atheists has to do is find an alien, but none have been found due to fine tuning facts. That's not just theory and it's what the secular/atheist scientists discovered. We don't have multiverses either. We do not have the flying spaghetti monster nor an unicorn except in the imagination.

>>Human existence does not consist strictly of ideals and opposites, but instead, of continua along multiple (often infinite) possible options.<<

Here's the one thing I could get beyond your complaints. We cannot have infinite options. We are limited by what we know. Thus, science only states best theory, not proof. Proof is more for logic and math, and I asked for the atheist logic of no God. I think I agree that "human existence does not consist strictly of ideals and opposites." Can you provide some examples, so I understand what you mean?

There is no such thing as "fine tuning facts". I'm concerned when the hyper-religious toss around "facts" because there is always a scarcity of "facts".

My contention is that there is nothing “factual” about the gods. Let's look at this another way. When people say they believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain they exist-- well, I would say that qualifies as being completely, utterly, positively… absurd.

You're not answering my question, "I think I agree that "human existence does not consist strictly of ideals and opposites." Can you provide some examples, so I understand what you mean?"

Anyway to answer your fine tuning complaint:

It was easier to find these articles during 2007 - 2011 time frame when people started questioning evolution. Stephen Hawking and secular scientists investigating the big bang found these parameters, but I guess those articles were removed after 2011 because it went against evolution.

"According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so “finely-tuned,” and so many “coincidences” have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.

In fact, this “fine-tuning” is so pronounced, and the “coincidences” are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind.

Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the “fine-tuning” and conclude that the universe is “too contrived” to be a chance event."

In a BBC science documentary, “The Anthropic Principle,” some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.



Now, the secular links have been removed except for a BBC documentary above, here's an article on it from Judaism -- The "Fine-Tuning" of the Universe.

 

[ding]

Can any atheist/ag here provide such a LOGICAL argument that supports your belief that there is no God?

Sure. Why did you think the question was difficult?

1. Lack of belief in anything is the default state.

2. Logical belief requires good evidence.

3. There's no good evidence for God.

4. Hence, belief in God is illogical.

The evidence for God is all around and in you.

If you ask me it’s illogical not to believe in God.

 

[ding]

The definition of logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

The definition of reasoning is the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

So let’s start it.

It should be obvious that there are only two options available. Either space and time were created by “spirit” or it arose through natural processes.

Sound reasonable?

 

[G.T.]

The definition of logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

The definition of reasoning is the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

So let’s start it.

It should be obvious that there are only two options available. Either space and time were created by “spirit” or it arose through natural processes.

Sound reasonable?

No...thats an utterly absurd and false dichotomy.

Spirit could be a natural process.
There might not be such thing as spirit.
There could be something not thought of, that may happen to fall in neither category, and you can only eliminate that by arguing from ignorance: I cant think of something therefore it cant exist.

You shoot you miss almost every time dude. Its s000o0o0o0 gross.

 

[Hollie]

I don’t think that retreads of 1980’s vintage BBC videos are relevant. The problem with these types of YouTube videos is that they’re intended to promote the narrow and presumptive view of the author.

The “quote” you cut and pasted was unattributed for a reason. It came from someone’s s personal blog. We have no reason to accept that a growing number of scientists accept the nonsensical “fine tuning” slogan when there is no evidence of any fine tuning. Please explain this fine tuning in terms of a profoundly chaotic universe that includes black holes which swallow solar systems and where stars, planets and even galaxies collide with one-another. This tends to destroy your 6,000 year old planet meme as we see these collisions from thousands upon thousands of light years away.

Galaxies

What is “to contrived” is the nonsensical claim of a fine tuned universe that is not fine tuned at all. ID’iot creationism is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against the gods. If the gods can do anything, they could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.

 

[ding]

The definition of logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

The definition of reasoning is the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

So let’s start it.

It should be obvious that there are only two options available. Either space and time were created by “spirit” or it arose through natural processes.

Sound reasonable?

No...thats an utterly absurd and false dichotomy.

Spirit could be a natural process.
There might not be such thing as spirit.
There could be something not thought of, that may happen to fall in neither category, and you can only eliminate that by arguing from ignorance: I cant think of something therefore it cant exist.

You shoot you miss almost every time dude. Its s000o0o0o0 gross.

Putting your objection aside for the moment. Are you disagreeing with the assertion that there are only two options?

 

[G.T.]

The definition of logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

The definition of reasoning is the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

So let’s start it.

It should be obvious that there are only two options available. Either space and time were created by “spirit” or it arose through natural processes.

Sound reasonable?

No...thats an utterly absurd and false dichotomy.

Spirit could be a natural process.
There might not be such thing as spirit.
There could be something not thought of, that may happen to fall in neither category, and you can only eliminate that by arguing from ignorance: I cant think of something therefore it cant exist.

You shoot you miss almost every time dude. Its s000o0o0o0 gross.

Putting your objection aside for the moment. Are you disagreeing with the assertion that there are only two options?

That WAS my objection, so how fucking stupid was this as a follow up?

Sorry, ding. Cant do this with ya, you're stupidity and obsession with begging for your religiousity to be agreed with is bitch made, to me. I value my time.

 

[captkaos]

From what I can tell, the biggest drawback to being an atheist is they don't have a chance of getting their first blowjob at church camp like so many kids do now days.

Yeah them priests and youth directors do get busy at camp and before mass and after mass and during bible study thanks for reminding us !

 

[ding]

The definition of logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

The definition of reasoning is the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

So let’s start it.

It should be obvious that there are only two options available. Either space and time were created by “spirit” or it arose through natural processes.

Sound reasonable?

No...thats an utterly absurd and false dichotomy.

Spirit could be a natural process.
There might not be such thing as spirit.
There could be something not thought of, that may happen to fall in neither category, and you can only eliminate that by arguing from ignorance: I cant think of something therefore it cant exist.

You shoot you miss almost every time dude. Its s000o0o0o0 gross.

Putting your objection aside for the moment. Are you disagreeing with the assertion that there are only two options?

That WAS my objection, so how fucking stupid was this as a follow up?

Sorry, ding. Cant do this with ya, you're stupidity and obsession with begging for your religiousity to be agreed with is bitch made, to me. I value my time.

Then by your own admission you admit that the only possibility you will consider is the universe arose through natural processes and you are unwilling to explore any other alternative.

This discussion may not be for you because I am considering other alternatives.

So you might as well leave now as every post you make will only be made to prevent an objective discussion on the possibilities.

 

[captkaos]

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 is the lack of evidence that there is. This is a logical fallacy and proves nothing. So they are all ultimately myths. Might as well pick the myth you find most comforting.

You are correct that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so to the extent one would claim it is, that assertion would be a fallacy. But it would not be a myth. A myth demands a something to mythologize, not a nothing.

Logically, atheism isn't even possible. Agnosticism is, but that's different.

The Fact you have to believe something actually exists to be in opposition to it. Saying they don't believe in god is in fact an admission that there may be one, that they don't believe in. Chase your tails it's okay. Nothing will forgive you!