Critics of atheism please come forward.

[Alex_G]

Seeing as most of this has been critical of atheism (as the topic invites), i thought i'd give some opposition no one likes a one sided discussion.

Atheists can no more prove that God does not exist than theists can prove that God does exist.

True, but that would still not incline equal chance of his existance. To believe on the because he cannot be disproven doesnt make any sense?
Bertrand Russel's Celestial teapot analogy conveys this;
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Most atheist's arguments are based on a religious concept of "God". Once they "defeat" the religious God-concept, they have no more argument to present. Atheism is not a position as much as it's a reaction to a position.

That is only if you think that no God is a regressed, less grand or 'defeated' situation in comparison to his existance.(existance as we believe). Does it not suffice to stand in awe at the structure of the world itself, insofar as our inadequate senses allow us to appreciate it? -inspired by Albert Einstein

Atheists tend to ignore the function and value of faith, even as they practice it, because like religionists, they think "faith" is defined by believing in a religious ideology.

True, religion has many apparent benefits from comfort and reassurance to social enjoyment, but are its benefits a false mask in some cases? Can it provide falsehoods? Majorly, is it justifyable when children enter the equation? I personally dont overlook religious advantages, but also do not overlook is disadvantages.

Atheists tend to believe that logic and reason are the only ways humans can or should explore "truth". They ignore the value and power of imagination and intuition as a means of defining the "truth".

I do like this one I must admit, i like the idea of underestimated abilities of the human mind such as imagination. The only thing i can really say is that we trust logic and reason so, because it yields so many successfull results and basically runs our world today.

Some cool criticisms here from PureX. Singled you out to reply to because ur post caught my eye the most

 

[Free4all]

Why?-------------------------------

 

[Alex_G]

Is that a why aimed at me? care to explain what you are refering to exactily?

 

[LogDog]

Why?-------------------------------

Because I'm an atheist and I don't worship anything. I have plenty of atheist friends and they don't worship anything. I have corresponded with plenty of atheist on other forums and they don't worship anything either. So unless you can present some evidence to support your assertion that everybody worships someone or something, your thinking will remain flawed.

 

[rojse]

Atheists can no more prove that God does not exist than theists can prove that God does exist.

Please prove to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. Then prove to me that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. Then prove...

Trying to prove an entity which is given attributes which makes it essentially unprovable is fallacious logic.

Most atheist's arguments are based on a religious concept of "God". Once they "defeat" the religious God-concept, they have no more argument to present. Atheism is not a position as much as it's a reaction to a position.

Is there any concept of God that is not religious?

Atheists tend to ignore the function and value of faith, even as they practice it, because like religionists, they think "faith" is defined by believing in a religious ideology.

I have not ignored the value of faith. I have family members who gain great benefit from their faith, and I wish them all the happiness in the world in following that faith.

I know that faith is not merely religious. I have faith in justice, for example, and the truth. This is a concept that I can clearly define, can give examples of, and so forth.

Atheists tend to believe that logic and reason are the only ways humans can or should explore "truth". They ignore the value and power of imagination and intuition as a means of defining the "truth".

Isn't truth and imagination oxymoronic, along with truth and intuition?

I do give great value to the imagination. I read a lot of science fiction, and read up on a lot of futuristic ideas. All of them are imaginary at this stage, but it is an imagination grounded in reality, backed up by science and technology.

Intuition cannot define truth, because intuition is not based on reason or logic. You may intuit something, but how can you make me believe in the truth of what you are thinking? By telling me: "it's an intuition?"

 

[rojse]

I wonder how you would go about converting someone to atheism? Tell them that when they die, there is no heaven? Tell them there is no god that cares about their individual welfare?

It's a pretty hard sell, let alone trying to evangelise the concept.

I can imagine people standing up in a hall (can't be a church) and everyone standing, shouting: "There is no salvation! Praise the random fluctuations of the Universe!"

 

[logician]

As far as proving/disproving the existence of something, the onus is on the person who postulates the incredible(a man/god) to prove its existence, not the rest of us who are just waiting for convincing evidence to come forth. We have no obligation to disprove a story that postulates the scientifically impossible, or the absurd.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[logician]

I wonder how you would go about converting someone to atheism? Tell them that when they die, there is no heaven? Tell them there is no god that cares about their individual welfare?

It's a pretty hard sell, let alone trying to evangelise the concept.

I can imagine people standing up in a hall (can't be a church) and everyone standing, shouting: "There is no salvation! Praise the random fluctuations of the Universe!"

LOL! Yup, atheism doesn't promise eternal life, riches in heaven, or tennis matches with angels, however, it does offer something very precious, a free and open mind.

 

[PureX]

To believe on the because he (God) cannot be disproved doesn't make any sense?

Not any more sense than it would make NOT to believe in a God because God can't be proven. Which is in fact the atheist's only argument. "God" is no more likely to exist than not to exist, depending upon our definition of "God". So the lack of evidence is not any more evidence of non-existence than it is evidence of an unknowable or undefinable form of existence.

Bertrand Russel's Celestial teapot analogy conveys this;
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

But of course this is a false analogy, and is therefor nonsense. A teapot can in no way be taken for a reasonable analogy to "God". A teapot is a simple object representing nothing but itself. "God" is a complex ideal involving the supposition of infinite states and mysteries that a human being could not possibly verify regardless of the power of his telescopes, and which he can barely even comprehend. Russel's analogy is in fact absurdly un-analogous to the point of being disingenuous.

That is only if you think that no God is a regressed, less grand or 'defeated' situation in comparison to his existence.(existence as we believe). Does it not suffice to stand in awe at the structure of the world itself, insofar as our inadequate senses allow us to appreciate it? -inspired by Albert Einstein

I'm unable to understand what argument you're presenting, here.

True, religion has many apparent benefits from comfort and reassurance to social enjoyment, but are its benefits a false mask in some cases? Can it provide falsehoods? Majorly, is it justifiable when children enter the equation? I personally dont overlook religious advantages, but also do not overlook is disadvantages.

I see no reason to assume that a belief in "God" makes us any more deception prone than any other theological or philosophical position. Also, please keep in mind that there are many theists and deists who are not religious. Not that religion is in itself any more deception prone, either, though I do suspect that religious organizations, being a product of human social/political interaction, do tend toward deception, as do pretty much ALL categories of human social interactions.

Some cool criticisms here from PureX. Singled you out to reply to because ur post caught my eye the most

I'm glad that someone replied. the OP invited such a debate, but then the poster did not follow up.

I am actually agnostic regarding the existence of a deity. However, I do accept the existence of "God", as loosely defined: the great mystery force that creates and sustains all being.

 

[logician]

"But of course this is a false analogy, and is therefor nonsense. A teapot can in no way be taken for a reasonable analogy to "God". A teapot is a simple object representing nothing but itself. "God" is a complex ideal involving the supposition of infinite states and mysteries that a human being could not possibly verify regardless of the power of his telescopes, and which he can barely even comprehend. Russel's analogy is in fact absurdly un-analogous to the point of being disingenuous. "

This statement is certainly untrue, as most religions are really no more complex than that China teapot, in fact, the China teapot may have been more difficult to construct.

 

[Alex_G]

Good on you wanderer085, one less thing for me to deal with.

Not any more sense than it would make NOT to believe in a God because God can't be proven. Which is in fact the atheist's only argument. "God" is no more likely to exist than not to exist, depending upon our definition of "God". So the lack of evidence is not any more evidence of non-existence than it is evidence of an unknowable or undefinable form of existence.

Everything els that we know has some proof and therefore is accepted as true. The totaly unproven existance of God does not equal this in probability even though it may seem at 1st glance. ( Given, there may indeed be evidence out there for his existance but it is not at 50% probability). The whole black and white image of this creates a false sense of probabilities.

But of course this is a false analogy, and is therefor nonsense. A teapot can in no way be taken for a reasonable analogy to "God". A teapot is a simple object representing nothing but itself. "God" is a complex ideal involving the supposition of infinite states and mysteries that a human being could not possibly verify regardless of the power of his telescopes, and which he can barely even comprehend. Russel's analogy is in fact absurdly un-analogous to the point of being disingenuous.

ditto wandere085

I'm unable to understand what argument you're presenting, here.

Atheism isnt really defined by the beliefs it doesnt hold any more than theism is defined but the beliefs it doesnt hold. Atheism isnt an argument against theism, its an argument towards what theism isnt if that makes sense. If God was disproven atheism wouldnt loose its argument, hopefully everyone would instantly become atheist. When u said atheism is no more of a position than a reaction to a position, you really mirrored a chauvanistic theist,(which i know you are not).

I see no reason to assume that a belief in "God" makes us any more deception prone than any other theological or philosophical position. Also, please keep in mind that there are many theists and deists who are not religious. Not that religion is in itself any more deception prone, either, though I do suspect that religious organizations, being a product of human social/political interaction, do tend toward deception, as do pretty much ALL categories of human social interactions.

Now i dont really get what you are saying about 'deception prone' exactly but i think i get the feel. All i said was that i as an atheist dont ignore the good of religion like u said earlier, but like to be aware of both good and bad it playes in society.

 

[ayani]

I think it's impossible to be a true atheist - everybody worships something, it is written in the heart of man. I don't care where you go, deepest depths of the jungle, they will be worshipping someone or something.

that is an interesting perspective... i like the phrasing "written on the heart of man".

i'd say that people have a deep desire innately to believe in something, to adhere to a philosophy, teaching, or perspective that gives life meaning. atheism can be one of these perspectives. logdog certainly spends alot of time here, passionately making his points and backing his stances. if it wasn't so important to him, he wouldn't have as much to say. same with all of us, really.

 

[Alex_G]

that is an interesting perspective... i like the phrasing "written on the heart of man".

i'd say that people have a deep desire innately to believe in something, to adhere to a philosophy, teaching, or perspective that gives life meaning. atheism can be one of these perspectives. logdog certainly spends alot of time here, passionately making his points and backing his stances. if it wasn't so important to him, he wouldn't have as much to say. same with all of us, really.

I agree, people do seem to have a deep desire to believe in somthing no mater how big or small it is within them. Why this is so is another interesting matter of conversation. (which im trying to assess in my topic A Religious Breakdown) ohh the subtlety of my advert lol.

 

[ayani]

Alex- i think part of the answer to that lies in the phrase that stood out for me: "written on the heart of man".

i think there is an innate drive within us to seek out meaning, connections, relationships, and to understand or map the nature of the world (social, natural, spiritual, etc.) Viktor Frankl called this the "will to meaning", as oppsed to the "will to power" or the "will to pleasure".

so... one critique of atheism would be that some atheists go out of their way to critique or attack the (spiritual) world views of others, while allowing for their own passionately defended world view (which also ultimately confronts the spiritual).

 

[camanintx]

I'd also add that some atheists don't even want to consider the possibility of anything supernatural.

I consider anything deemed supernatural a logical impossibility. Anything that affects this universe would by definition have to be natural so calling something supernatural is like called a square round. If something is logically impossible, then there is no need to "prove" that it doesn't exist.

 

[rojse]

I would describe the word supernatural as being something outside of our current understanding of the scientific world. I would include ghosts, ESP, levitation, and so forth under this category, because they are unexplainable with our current scientific understanding.

This is not to say that this phenomena cannot be real, or is illogical.

 

[ChristineES]

Because I'm an atheist and I don't worship anything. I have plenty of atheist friends and they don't worship anything. I have corresponded with plenty of atheist on other forums and they don't worship anything either. So unless you can present some evidence to support your assertion that everybody worships someone or something, your thinking will remain flawed.

Some people worship themselves, some their car, others their home, some people worship their spouse or children. You can even worship your government, your country, and your home city. Worship does not have to be done to only a deity, but to anything. Their must be something that is important to you, every person I have known has at least one thing that is important to them.

But I can't say anything about you personally, as I do not know you at all.

 

[logician]

I would describe the word supernatural as being something outside of our current understanding of the scientific world. I would include ghosts, ESP, levitation, and so forth under this category, because they are unexplainable with our current scientific understanding.

This is not to say that this phenomena cannot be real, or is illogical.

Actually, scientific experiments have been conducted concerning the existence of paranormal or psychic abilities, and the results have led scientists to be extremely skeptical of their existence.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Atheism is like some who knows of religion but doesent want to even taste the sweetness of religion. Its like hating mangoes whithought tasting them.Everyone loves mangoes!

 

[Nanda]

Atheism is like some who knows of religion but doesent want to even taste the sweetness of religion. Its like hating mangoes whithought tasting them.Everyone loves mangoes!

For many of us, it was actually more like biting into the mango, and getting a mouthful of rotten fruit.