What Is The Biggest Drawback Of Atheism?

[diver52]

Getting back to the topic, the biggest drawback of being an atheist is the lack of a broad social network - which is essentially what religions are. Despite the weird fantasies of the OP, atheism isn't a religion, and atheists can't rely on a community of people who believe as they do for comfort and support.

I'm not sure it's a drawback, but I certainly can't argue against your point.

 

[Pogo]

What the heck, we're all gonna die due to Adam's sin and Satan.

If you believe this you are not an atheist

I uh, don't believe Adam is considered a god.

 

[Pogo]

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!

Okay, that has zero to do with my point, doesn't it. Nor does your non sequitur sequit itself anyway.
Oh and I don't need "forgiveness", thank you very much. I simply made an observation in logic. That requires no apology.

 

[james bond]

In step 1, he assumes what the default state is, but it may or may not be true.

Do you believe or disbelieve in blue-streaked invisible snarfblatts by default?

If you say you believe, you're either crazy or lying.

Disbelief in the default state until evidence is presented. That's not really arguable.

So, without deflecting to something totally unrelated to the topic, can you address that?

Haha. I hope you're not trying to make another logical argument over this.

The problem as I see it is you're assuming the default state. For you, it is negative. For others, it can be positive or neutral.

For example, I am going gold panning this weekend. It takes a lot of work and some hiking to get there. I have equipment you can use to do it. You may be negative, so I don't call you.

Another friend has tried it and who is more positive would be willing to go.

Another friend who has not tried it may go if they are convinced.

 

[james bond]

What kind of opposites to these ideals do they have?

Depends on the atheist. Why on earth would you believe that all atheists have identical beliefs on every topic?[/QUOTE]

I don't. That's why I was asking Hollie what are her ideals and opposites.

You mean subjective moral values, being they were created by men who claimed to be speaking for a god. Your values are as subjective as anyone else's. Christians can't even agree on what those moral values are supposed to be, illustrating their subjective nature.

No, it is God's word and Jesus will be the final judge of God's objective moral values. God gave it to all peoples. The persons, who authored the books of the Bible, wrote it down through the Holy Spirit. Thus, your behavior in life is compared to the objective moral values, God's promises, and your judgement will all be done after you die. Jesus sits in his white throne and will be judge, jury, and executioner of everyone.

 

[james bond]

neither the above is true failure is due to corruption that is inconsistent to the prosperity both take for granted - only a few are responsible and understand evolutionary progression as an involuntary requirement for survival or extinction.

The ideals are fine if they succeed. It's when they fail like you said and become corrupt or negative that you can have problems. As for the rest, we believe all things progress and develop through God, but whatever.

ToE is not just biological, physiological development it encompasses everything and humanity at best is a spectator not its motivation that easily is about to fall off the train. taking Earth with it.

It's just a theory; it may not apply.

ToE and evolutionary thinking helps to eliminate God and his objective moral values. Thus, I only have to avoid getting in trouble with the law. Otherwise, it's only a crime if I am caught. Yet, one may feel guilty for it or have pangs of doubt doing something one isn't supposed to. That's evidence for God, not evolution. Evolution is neutral about objective moral values. It does not have any moral values. Does atheism have any moral values? I think it has subjective ones, where other people judge your behavior.

 

[mamooth]

The problem as I see it is you're assuming the default state. For you, it is negative. For others, it can be positive or neutral.

No, for everyone, it's negative.

For example, I am going gold panning this weekend. It takes a lot of work and some hiking to get there. I have equipment you can use to do it. You may be negative, so I don't call you.

As you have good evidence that gold panning exists and that it sometimes works, that has nothing to do with the issue. You're not talking about the default state.

I don't. That's why I was asking Hollie what are her ideals and opposites.

That's not what you wrote. You asked what beliefs atheists have, not what beliefs Hollie has. The post is still there for everyone to see.

No, it is God's word and Jesus will be the final judge of God's objective moral values.

Yet every religion has a different take on what their god says those "objective" values are. Even Christians can't agree on those "objective" values. That demonstrates how those values are subjective.

 

[james bond]

No, for everyone, it's negative.

Hm.. Tell that to Jesus at final judgement. God gave a negative test to Adam and Eve. He told them not to eat the forbidden fruit on the Tree of Knowledge; it was his one rule. For us, he gave us a positive test in John 3:16 for his one rule.

As you have good evidence that gold panning exists and that it sometimes works, that has nothing to do with the issue.

You're not talking about the default state.

I thought I addressed that. I wouldn't call you, but call my other two friends. Why would their default states be negative?

That's not what you wrote. You asked what beliefs atheists have, not what beliefs Hollie has. The post is still there for everyone to see.

Okay, then let's discuss.

Atheists have faith in no God or gods. It's their religion. They have no evidence of no God or gods, but then they tell me absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence . If there are no God or gods, then the negative state is there is God or gods, right? I would agree with that. There you go.

Yet every religion has a different take on what their god says those "objective" values are. Even Christians can't agree on those "objective" values. That demonstrates how those values are subjective.

Can you explain a few differences with other religions?

What do Christians disagree on in regards to objective moral values?

 

[mamooth]

Hm.. Tell that to Jesus at final judgement. God gave a negative test to Adam and Eve. He told them not to eat the forbidden fruit on the Tree of Knowledge; it was his one rule. For us, he gave us a positive test in John 3:16 for his one rule.

That's christobabble, and I care no more about it that the babbling of any religion.

I thought I addressed that. I wouldn't call you, but call my other two friends. Why would their default states be negative?

We don't know, because they've all observed evidence that gold panning sometimes produces results. Their current states are not the default state.

This isn't complicated. Why is it so hard for you?

Atheists have faith in no God or gods.

Incorrect. Equivocation fallacy concerning the word "faith" on your part.

It's their religion

Incorrect. Dishonest attempt by you to paint atheists as hypocrites so you evade actual discussion.

They have no evidence of no God or gods,

Incorrect. For example, we have good evidence against your god, being how that creature falls apart in logical contradictions.

but then they tell me absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence

Nobody has told you that here. You're just making it up, as an evasion tactic.

If there are no God or gods, then the negative state is there is God or gods, right?

So, equivocation fallacy on your part, switching around meanings of "negative."

Can you explain a few differences with other religions?

I could, but as it's a dishonest trolling question designed to waste my time, I won't. Instead, I'll just point out it's a dishonest trolling question.

What do Christians disagree on in regards to objective moral values?

Let's start with gay marriage.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

The biggest drawback to being an atheist in my opinion is the most obvious answer which is never having the opportunity to know God. To not have Jesus in your heart. There's so much joy and love and learning that He teaches us and gives us. It's more than a drawback in my opinion, it's an emptiness that I don't know or understand how someone could handle having.

 

[james bond]

That's christobabble, and I care no more about it that the babbling of any religion.

No, it's in the Bible which we partly discussed. It is like God's autobiography written by various writers over 1500 years. It was found on clay tablets and then re-written on various manuscripts by hand. What is written on it was read and classified as non-fiction by the people of those times. There were the believers and atheists during those times, too. They knew the universe, Earth, and everything it existed and tried to figure out how nature worked. However, they could not explain their origins except this book did. We also had classical Greek thinking and they believed in gods, but their stories were contradicted. None of the stories in the Bible have been shown false throughout human history. Otherwise, we would not be here discussing it. Thus, you are wrong thinking it as "christobabble." There is no evidence to contradict what is written. Atheists started to use science the Greeks and other thinkers came up with in those ancient times, but they didn't find contradictions. They did think of other ways of how everything originated. Egyptians started to calculate the flow of the Nile and how long it took to get to places along it.

Just because you are ignorant does not make for a valid argument.

I'm going to ignore the rest because it degrades into negativity. I already started my weekend and don't want boring atheist complaints. Anyway, we can pick this up Monday if you're interested. Otherwise, just move on to some other poster.

 

[james bond]

The biggest drawback to being an atheist in my opinion is the most obvious answer which is never having the opportunity to know God. To not have Jesus in your heart. There's so much joy and love and learning that He teaches us and gives us. It's more than a drawback in my opinion, it's an emptiness that I don't know or understand how someone could handle having.

Thanks for reading. I like what you said. I, too, think Jesus is in your heart and the Holy Spirit is in your mind and body. He's the little voice in your head that guides us or gives us some kind of intuitive feeling. Also, I think the angels protect us. .

 

[rightwinger]

Getting back to the topic, the biggest drawback of being an atheist is the lack of a broad social network - which is essentially what religions are. Despite the weird fantasies of the OP, atheism isn't a religion, and atheists can't rely on a community of people who believe as they do for comfort and support.

I agree

Community acceptance is a main reason to remain in a religion. A social connection to those in the community.

 

[rightwinger]

The biggest drawback to being an atheist in my opinion is the most obvious answer which is never having the opportunity to know God. To not have Jesus in your heart. There's so much joy and love and learning that He teaches us and gives us. It's more than a drawback in my opinion, it's an emptiness that I don't know or understand how someone could handle having.

Some people don’t need it

It is just a case of hearing all the claims of a god and just not believing they are true

Are you empty because you do not believe in astrology?

 

[ding]

The biggest drawback to being an atheist in my opinion is the most obvious answer which is never having the opportunity to know God. To not have Jesus in your heart. There's so much joy and love and learning that He teaches us and gives us. It's more than a drawback in my opinion, it's an emptiness that I don't know or understand how someone could handle having.

Some people don’t need it

It is just a case of hearing all the claims of a god and just not believing they are true

Are you empty because you do not believe in astrology?

Yes, and those people aren’t here validating their non-belief by criticizing the beliefs of others.

No, it is the case of rejecting every single shred of evidence. It isn’t statistically possible that every single claim has no value in the argument.

Even expert witnesses who oppose other expert witnesses concede some points.

 

[BreezeWood]

That's christobabble, and I care no more about it that the babbling of any religion.

No, it's in the Bible which we partly discussed. It is like God's autobiography written by various writers over 1500 years. It was found on clay tablets and then re-written on various manuscripts by hand. What is written on it was read and classified as non-fiction by the people of those times. There were the believers and atheists during those times, too. They knew the universe, Earth, and everything it existed and tried to figure out how nature worked. However, they could not explain their origins except this book did. We also had classical Greek thinking and they believed in gods, but their stories were contradicted. None of the stories in the Bible have been shown false throughout human history. Otherwise, we would not be here discussing it. Thus, you are wrong thinking it as "christobabble." There is no evidence to contradict what is written. Atheists started to use science the Greeks and other thinkers came up with in those ancient times, but they didn't find contradictions. They did think of other ways of how everything originated. Egyptians started to calculate the flow of the Nile and how long it took to get to places along it.

Just because you are ignorant does not make for a valid argument.

I'm going to ignore the rest because it degrades into negativity. I already started my weekend and don't want boring atheist complaints. Anyway, we can pick this up Monday if you're interested. Otherwise, just move on to some other poster.

.

It was found on clay tablets and then re-written on various manuscripts by hand.

- re-written ... .

where are the clay tablets bond - to corroborate what was (re-written) forged(ery) from them, oh you can't find the originals ... how surprising - howabout etched in stone, what they did for prosperity - nothing at all for your bible - - are they being kept safe with your 10 commandment tablets. how about the pieces after dumbass shattered them - there seems to be something missing in you worldview - originality, authenticity. is halloween, fast approaching your favorite holiday ...

 

[rightwinger]

The biggest drawback to being an atheist in my opinion is the most obvious answer which is never having the opportunity to know God. To not have Jesus in your heart. There's so much joy and love and learning that He teaches us and gives us. It's more than a drawback in my opinion, it's an emptiness that I don't know or understand how someone could handle having.

Some people don’t need it

It is just a case of hearing all the claims of a god and just not believing they are true

Are you empty because you do not believe in astrology?

Yes, and those people aren’t here validating their non-belief by criticizing the beliefs of others.

No, it is the case of rejecting every single shred of evidence. It isn’t statistically possible that every single claim has no value in the argument.

Even expert witnesses who oppose other expert witnesses concede some points.

That is the point
I have not seen a single piece of credible evidence of a creator, let alone a God who watches over us

Claiming things on earth are pretty, so that means a God must have made them is not evidence

 

[Pogo]

The biggest drawback to being an atheist in my opinion is the most obvious answer which is never having the opportunity to know God. To not have Jesus in your heart. There's so much joy and love and learning that He teaches us and gives us. It's more than a drawback in my opinion, it's an emptiness that I don't know or understand how someone could handle having.

Some people don’t need it

It is just a case of hearing all the claims of a god and just not believing they are true

Are you empty because you do not believe in astrology?

Yes, and those people aren’t here validating their non-belief by criticizing the beliefs of others.

No, it is the case of rejecting every single shred of evidence. It isn’t statistically possible that every single claim has no value in the argument.

Even expert witnesses who oppose other expert witnesses concede some points.

That is the point
I have not seen a single piece of credible evidence of a creator, let alone a God who watches over us

Claiming things on earth are pretty, so that means a God must have made them is not evidence

What it is is a classic Non Sequitur.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

The biggest drawback to being an atheist in my opinion is the most obvious answer which is never having the opportunity to know God. To not have Jesus in your heart. There's so much joy and love and learning that He teaches us and gives us. It's more than a drawback in my opinion, it's an emptiness that I don't know or understand how someone could handle having.

Some people don’t need it

It is just a case of hearing all the claims of a god and just not believing they are true

Are you empty because you do not believe in astrology?

Yes, and those people aren’t here validating their non-belief by criticizing the beliefs of others.

No, it is the case of rejecting every single shred of evidence. It isn’t statistically possible that every single claim has no value in the argument.

Even expert witnesses who oppose other expert witnesses concede some points.

That is the point
I have not seen a single piece of credible evidence of a creator, let alone a God who watches over us

Claiming things on earth are pretty, so that means a God must have made them is not evidence

I'm just wondering, what kind of evidence are you looking for or want kind of evidence are you hoping to find?

 

[rightwinger]

The biggest drawback to being an atheist in my opinion is the most obvious answer which is never having the opportunity to know God. To not have Jesus in your heart. There's so much joy and love and learning that He teaches us and gives us. It's more than a drawback in my opinion, it's an emptiness that I don't know or understand how someone could handle having.

Some people don’t need it

It is just a case of hearing all the claims of a god and just not believing they are true

Are you empty because you do not believe in astrology?

Yes, and those people aren’t here validating their non-belief by criticizing the beliefs of others.

No, it is the case of rejecting every single shred of evidence. It isn’t statistically possible that every single claim has no value in the argument.

Even expert witnesses who oppose other expert witnesses concede some points.

That is the point
I have not seen a single piece of credible evidence of a creator, let alone a God who watches over us

Claiming things on earth are pretty, so that means a God must have made them is not evidence

What it is is a classic Non Sequitur.

It is the reality

God is a theory for how earth was created and how our lives are monitored and what will happen after we die

It is a theory completely without supporting evidence

Until there is such evidence, I choose not to believe it