Critics of atheism please come forward.

[ayani]

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

right but... all religion? everything from UU to Rastafari to Shi'a Islam to Baptist to Hindu to...

what troubles me sometimes is that atheists can make blanket statements attacking "God", whereas they are really attacking a single idea of God, and are not taking into account the manifold understandings of God, Divinity, etc. that are believed in by millions.

 

[Nanda]

right but... all religion? everything from UU to Rastafari to Shi'a Islam to Baptist to Hindu to...

what troubles me sometimes is that atheists can make blanket statements attacking "God", whereas they are really attacking a single idea of God, and are not taking into account the manifold understandings of God, Divinity, etc. that are believed in by millions.

Understandably so. But not one religion can honestly claim to have any more validity than any other religion when it comes to things like scientific proof, can they? In any religion, at some point you're going to have to go beyond the limits of what can be tested and observed, and make a leap of faith; something most atheists are unwilling or unable to do.

 

[Free4all]

Alex, try switching to threaded mode, hopefully that'll help.

 

[Booko]

Believe it or not, you don't have to watch those shows. Actually, I don't even watch them, they usually appear so phony to me. They are not even good actors.

I've watched a few of those shows, but more as a "Know Thy Enemy" sort of thing.

Much of that stuff strikes me as decidedly unScriptural anyway.

 

[Nanda]

I've watched a few of those shows, but more as a "Know Thy Enemy" sort of thing.

Much of that stuff strikes me as decidedly unScriptural anyway.

I always watch the Kirk Cameron/Ray Comfort ones. They're always good for a chuckle.

 

[ayani]

Understandably so. But not one religion can honestly claim to have any more validity than any other religion when it comes to things like scientific proof, can they? In any religion, at some point you're going to have to go beyond the limits of what can be tested and observed, and make a leap of faith; something most atheists are unwilling or unable to do.

this is true. granted, we can't really take pictures of God. many atheists i talk to say things like "ok, i'd believe in a God if He would spell out some kind of really clear message in the stars in all the world's written languages and instantly cure everyone of their life-threatening illnesses". mrrr... well...

one does have to take a leap of faith... but what i find useful as a thinking person is to, from time to time, go back to the roots of what i am looking for in faith, in a worldview, and in my time here. what one can test and observe are one's inner reactions to these questions, and the answers that speak most clearly to them. think of any person starting from scratch spiritually, looking for a faith or a church or a philosophy... it may be a bigger leap of faith later (in a specific person, book, cosmology, etc.), but initially what drives that longing is something i feel all people, whether atheist, theist agnostic, etc. can relate to.

 

[matthew.william]

Someone please point out a TV show that evangelizes atheism, unlike the hundreds of xian evangelists in 50's hairdos that flood the airways every week.

Give me a break.

RichardDawkins.net - The Official Richard Dawkins Website

The more prominent atheists of today such as Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are evangelizing. From the above article:

I admit, I sympathize with those sceptics on this site who fear that we are engendering a quasi-religious conformity of our own. Whether we like it or not, I'm afraid we have to swallow this small amount of pride if we are to have an influence on the real world, otherwise we'll never overcome the 'herding cats' problem.

What other OUTs might we imagine? Well, suggest your own. Vote OUT representatives who discriminate against the non-religious, the way George Bush Senior is alleged to have done when he described atheists as non-citizens of a nation "under God". Politicians follow where the votes are. They can only count atheists who are OUT. Some atheists are defeatist in thinking we'll never be effective simply because we're not a majority. But it doesn't matter that we're not a majority. To be effective, all we have to be is recognizable to legislators as a big enough minority. Atheists are more numerous than religious Jews, yet they wield a tiny fraction of the political power, apparently because they have never got their act together in the way the Jewish lobby so brilliantly has: the famous 'herding cats' problem again. And the argument applies not just to politicians but to advertisers, the media, merchants across the board. Anyone who wants to sell us anything caters to demographics. We need to stand up and be counted, so that the demographically savvy culture will come to reflect our tastes and our views. That in turn makes it easier for the next generation of atheists. Fill OUT 'Atheist' on any form that asks for your personal details, especially the next census form.

If that's not evangelistic, I don't know what is.

As for the thread topic, I have no problem with atheism as a mode of thought. That's fine. I just don't see it's benefits. I can look at atheistic societies and cultures of today and yester-year, and not really see it as a step up.

~matthew.william~

 

[Kungfuzed]

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.

Are you saying that Atheists should chase down every possible God, even ones that haven't been invented yet, and try to disprove them? Don't many religions claim that their God is the only God and that all other gods are false? Do you require them to disprove all other gods as well? We only disbelieve one more God than they do.

 

[Hope]

I always watch the Kirk Cameron/Ray Comfort ones. They're always good for a chuckle.

Awww! I like Kirk and Ray. They're some of the few I do actually like. :yes:

It's most of the others that I think totally misrepresent Christianity. I admit I sometimes watch them anyway, just for entertainment purposes. The charismatic ones jumping and screaming and knocking people over are the most fascinating (or most disturbing, depending on how you look at it).

 

[Prometheus]

I think too many people confuse passion with fundamentalism, evangelizing, or militancy.

I can't be a "fundie" because that would mean I'd be intolerant of other views. I'm not and strongly believe in the free exercise of religion so long as it breaks no laws. It's when people do more than believe, but actually act on those beliefs in a way I think causes harmful effects, that I will speak out.

I can't be an evangelist because I don't go out of my way to convert people to my way of thinking. There are people of different religions all around me, but I don't hand out pamphlets or knock on their doors or become upset when they say a prayer in front of me. In public life, I don't get into a discussion on religion until another party brings it up first.

And militancy? Well, unless I'm threatening people with violence to change how they think, being aggressive about your religious stance causes no harm so long as I don't instigate the discussion.

I'm very passionate about my world view and love to engage in debate about religion at every opportunity. I can do that with little restraint here, but in my personal life, it rarely comes up.

 

[Nanda]

Awww! I like Kirk and Ray. They're some of the few I do actually like. :yes:

My problem with Ray and Kirk is that they claim to have the truth, but are often laughably misinformed. Take "The Atheists Nightmare," for example: YouTube - Kirk Cameron And Bananas

And then watch "The Atheists Nightmare Debunked" :YouTube - Atheists nightmare debunked. Ray Comfort/Kirk cameron

Funny stuff.

 

[Booko]

I always watch the Kirk Cameron/Ray Comfort ones. They're always good for a chuckle.

I admit to a bit of :biglaugh: every time I just see "Creflo Dollar" show up on the schedule.

 

[Booko]

As for the thread topic, I have no problem with atheism as a mode of thought. That's fine. I just don't see it's benefits. I can look at atheistic societies and cultures of today and yester-year, and not really see it as a step up.

When religion goes bad and starts slaughtering and oppressing people, atheism is preferable.

Atheism is decidedly a step up from the sort of religious superstition that kills people for supposedly cavorting with demons, being "witches", daring to assert scientific observation over unnecessarily literal interpretations of scriptures, or simply being members of another religion.

 

[MaddLlama]

When religion goes bad and starts slaughtering and oppressing people, atheism is preferable.

Atheism is decidedly a step up from the sort of religious superstition that kills people for supposedly cavorting with demons, being "witches", daring to assert scientific observation over unnecessarily literal interpretations of scriptures, or simply being members of another religion.

True, but people always find something to kill each other over. Communist countries where atheism is the law, like in China, doesn't seem like that much of a step up. Maybe a half-step.

 

[Booko]

True, but people always find something to kill each other over. Communist countries where atheism is the law, like in China, doesn't seem like that much of a step up. Maybe a half-step.

True enough, replacing a totalitarian religious regime with an atheistic totalitarian regime still leaves you with a...totalitarian regime.

However, on the individual scale which would you think is a "step up"?

1. Go in lock step according to your religious leaders and help them with the killing and oppression.

2. Decide to opt out.

 

[Jeremiah]

I was wondering if you guys wouldn't mind voicing some of your criticisms regarding atheism. Please do so in the space provided below.

Well there is something that I am seeing allot. It is appalling ironic.

It seems the norm that when in debate over religious views between an atheist and a theist. That the atheist asserts his/her position by applying reason to the supernatural claims of the theist.

But most atheists agree the supernatural is simply either not known yet or is unknowable pertaining to reason. How does one reason the unknowable pertaining to reason? It makes no sense.

True it is a fallacy on both sides to use reason as a testament of the unknowable pertaining to reason. But when an atheist keeps shouting it's unreasonable and irrational all they are really doing is attacking the personal beliefs of the individual. I have slipped and done this at times and I can understand the frustration that occurs when reasoning with another person. But to continue an attack on the supernatural (i.e. the unknowable pertaining to reason) with reasons is fruitless. The reasonable approach as I see it is to express your understanding that the unknowable pertaining to reason is in fact unknowable pertaining to reason.

The irony of it all (another then the reasonable debate over the unknowable pertaining to reason) is that the approach is deceptive. By describing the unknowable pertaining to reason in the bounds of reason we circumvent the fact the unknowable pertaining to reason is unknowable pertaining to reason. This ideal is a major contributor as I see it in sustaining an atheist position.

That it is unreasonable to question that that can not be answered. That the reasonable approach is question that that can be answered. (with respects to reason.)

 

[LogDog]

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.

I'd argue that this isn't an accurate representation of the circumstance. It's not just as likely that a god exists as it is that one doesn't. You're correct in suggesting that the actuality of a god can not be disproved but the merit of the god hypothesis can be examined and determinations can be made as to the probabilities of its accuracy.

Supernatural claims are a dime a dozen and if science were able to examine, test, and retest just one of them and subsequently come to the determination that it was legitimate, the merit of the god hypothesis would benefit tremendously. But the fact remains that not a single purported supernatural events has ever been substantiated even though James Randi and his scientist colleagues have a million dollars waiting for the first person who can present to them a supernatural phenomenon that can be studied, tested and substantiated. Needless to say, the money is still up for grabs.

Since, in the grand scheme of purported supernatural events, there is not a shred of evidence that legitimizes even one of them, the merit of the god hypothesis becomes highly suspect. In other words, if it could be scientifically proven that a certain individual does indeed have the ability to levitate, the probability that the god hypothesis is accurate increases dramatically.

The scale isn't balanced. Evidence in favor for the god hypothesis is limited to the subjective experience of the individual. None of it is scientific. If we're talking about the scientific probability that a god exists, compared to the scientific probability that one doesn't, probability (at this point in time) for existence is hovering right around zero.

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.

Most teapots are simple objects but this one is highly complex and very special indeed. It is responsible for creating the universe, life itself and represents everything there is, was and ever will be. It has many of the same characteristics as your false god except for the fact that it's not blood thirsty and is actually far more rational. It is true that if you had a telescope powerful enough, you could see it, but there is no way that a mere mortal could truly comprehend its magnificence. Although other teapots can not be thought of as a reasonable analogy to your (false) god, this one can. How is this possible you ask. Well, it just is. And to believe it, all you need to have is a little faith.

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

I invited your criticisms. No more. No less.

 

[rojse]

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.

Seeing as though this thread is about to go completely off-topic, I think I will argue against this statement within this thread.

There are several major reputable companies that have done research into ESP, and found evidence for it. Sony, for one, spent seven years running a division called ESPER (Extra Sensory Perception and Excitation Research). Their final results, published quite low-key in 1998, stated that ESP existed, but was not of any commercial practicality to them, so they closed down their division.

Sony Proves that Psychic Powers Are Real

Princeton University has ran a program called PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) for more than three decades. They found that people have a small but statistically significant influence on a random number generator, influencing approximately two or three number generations out of ten thousand rounds.

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research

Scientists are always skeptical of extremely bold claims about the existence of data that is not explained through current scientific information. I completely agree with this precaution. Science requires replicability on demand, and psychic powers are not of such a nature.

 

[LogDog]

RichardDawkins.net - The Official Richard Dawkins Website

The more prominent atheists of today such as Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are evangelizing. From the above article:

What other OUTs might we imagine? Well, suggest your own. Vote OUT representatives who discriminate against the non-religious, the way George Bush Senior is alleged to have done when he described atheists as non-citizens of a nation "under God". Politicians follow where the votes are. They can only count atheists who are OUT. Some atheists are defeatist in thinking we'll never be effective simply because we're not a majority. But it doesn't matter that we're not a majority. To be effective, all we have to be is recognizable to legislators as a big enough minority. Atheists are more numerous than religious Jews, yet they wield a tiny fraction of the political power, apparently because they have never got their act together in the way the Jewish lobby so brilliantly has: the famous 'herding cats' problem again. And the argument applies not just to politicians but to advertisers, the media, merchants across the board. Anyone who wants to sell us anything caters to demographics. We need to stand up and be counted, so that the demographically savvy culture will come to reflect our tastes and our views. That in turn makes it easier for the next generation of atheists. Fill OUT 'Atheist' on any form that asks for your personal details, especially the next census form.

If that's not evangelistic, I don't know what is.

Is Dawkins zealously preaching and disseminating the gospel of atheism or is he simply defending a position?

You're not insinuating that the methods of atheism's most vocal advocates compare to the methods of christianity's most vocal advocates are you?

 

[Pah]

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

Actually, there is strong scientific evidence that no gods exist. There is no credible evidence that any god exists. Science makes known the evidence against godly existence

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.

As mentioned earlier, science does provide argument to show gods do not exist. Further, the theological arguments we employ are quite valid to show that theological thoughts are created by man and carry no divine input.

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.

Religious faith is best compared to a child's belief in Santa.

Although at times in history, religion has provided a social "glue" that furthered evolution and does provide a personal refuge. But, on the other hand, religion has played the largest part in human suffering.

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".

Imagination and intuition only starts the process of validating a truth. In the case of gods, it has not reached the certainty of truth.

OK, there's a few.

If you have more, I'd like to help correct them.