What do you feel is wrong with atheism?

[credance]

I don't want to leave anyone out.

 

[Bishka]

Nothing.

Everyone has their beliefs or non-beliefs and there is not anything wrong with that.

 

[Nanda]

Not a thing.

 

[ChristineES]

I don't know yet, but I will keep looking. People say that Christians are good at finding faults. (Just kidding)

 

[sandandfoam]

Richard Dawkins

 

[doppelganger]

Atheism is based on the same fallacy as theism - the objectification of "God" as a thing such that one can talk about whether this imagined thing does or does not exist.

 

[Yerda]

I don't want to leave anyone out.

As an atheist I think it's mostly irrelevant and pretty empty. It's such a small position in comparison to humanism for instance. I can't think of any promising movement where atheism is a prerequisite.

 

[Yerda]

Atheism is based on the same fallacy as theism - the objectification of "God" as a thing such that one can talk about whether this imagined thing does or does not exist.

I don't recognise that fallacy. If you believe in a benevolent creator entity and want to call that agent "God", fire away I say (and also contradict it if you see fit). What's the problem?

 

[gnomon]

Atheism is based on the same fallacy as theism - the objectification of "God" as a thing such that one can talk about whether this imagined thing does or does not exist.

This is a false statement.

 

[doppelganger]

This is a false statement.

Atheism is defined in response to theism. "Theists" posit a thing they call "God" which they believe exists. "Atheists" don't believe this thing so posited exists. There is nothing false about the statement. If it makes you feel better, the initial mistake is that of theists imagining "God" as a thing in the first place, which sets the boundaries of the dispute.

 

[gnomon]

Atheism is defined in response to theism. "Theists" posit a thing they call "God" which they believe exists. "Atheists" don't believe this thing so posited exists. There is nothing false about the statement. If it makes you feel better, the initial mistake is that of theists imagining "God" as a thing in the first place, which sets the boundaries of the dispute.

Actually that does make me feel better.

Not believing in an object defined by others and not shown to exist is not fallacious. Second, the label of atheism is pretty much given and applied by theism.

edit: I understand what you are saying and do not necessarily disagree. I should actually berate the OP for not clarifying the term atheist. Or perhaps it was left to each of us to put forth in our response. I don't know.

 

[Sunstone]

Atheists don't like children.

 

[Yes Man]

Atheists don't like children.

Ridiculous, children are delicious! I want my baby back, baby back, baby back........

 

[credance]

Actually that does make me feel better.

Not believing in an object defined by others and not shown to exist is not fallacious. Second, the label of atheism is pretty much given and applied by theism.

edit: I understand what you are saying and do not necessarily disagree. I should actually berate the OP for not clarifying the term atheist. Or perhaps it was left to each of us to put forth in our response. I don't know.

I don't think the term atheist means that some one believes in nothing. I was thinking more in the terms of not believing in a creator or supreme being. As in man being in total control of his destiny even though we know man is not responsible for his existance. do you believe in philosopy, science, etc.

 

[Darkness]

Atheism is defined in response to theism. "Theists" posit a thing they call "God" which they believe exists. "Atheists" don't believe this thing so posited exists. There is nothing false about the statement. If it makes you feel better, the initial mistake is that of theists imagining "God" as a thing in the first place, which sets the boundaries of the dispute.

With most of the world believing in a God of some sort, it is necessary to label yourself an Atheist.

 

[RationalSoulution]

Atheism is defined in response to theism. "Theists" posit a thing they call "God" which they believe exists. "Atheists" don't believe this thing so posited exists. There is nothing false about the statement. If it makes you feel better, the initial mistake is that of theists imagining "God" as a thing in the first place, which sets the boundaries of the dispute.

chicken or the egg?

atheism wasn't necessarily a response to theism...it may have just been a search for an answer. no one can really say :sarcastic

 

[Willamena]

Not believing in an object defined by others and not shown to exist is not fallacious.

The fallacy is not in believing, not believing or disbelieving in an object, but in considering "God" an object at all (idolatry). The atheist, whether they "have no belief" or just disbelieve, has indulged the fallacy of considering the objectifyed "God."

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Atheism is based on the same fallacy as theism - the objectification of "God" as a thing such that one can talk about whether this imagined thing does or does not exist.

There's a lot of truth in that, but it's steotyping. Many theists openly acknowledge that God cannot be conceptualized, but they have a problem: they're human. Human reasoning is based on finite assumptions of duality and beginnings and have an innate desire to consciously unify in mind what is unified in reality. The fact that they can't seem to get past the finger is the the atheist's problem, as well as that of many theists.

But to answder the OP:

The great difference between a religious and a nonreligious philosophy of living consists in the nature and level of recognized values and in the object of loyalties. There are four phases in the evolution of religious philosophy: Such an experience may become merely conformative, resigned to submission to tradition and authority. Or it may be satisfied with slight attainments, just enough to stabilize the daily living, and therefore becomes early arrested on such an adventitious level. Such mortals believe in letting well enough alone. A third group progress to the level of logical intellectuality but there stagnate in consequence of cultural slavery. It is indeed pitiful to behold giant intellects held so securely within the cruel grasp of cultural bondage. It is equally pathetic to observe those who trade their cultural bondage for the materialistic fetters of a science, falsely so called. The fourth level of philosophy attains freedom from all conventional and traditional handicaps and dares to think, act, and live honestly, loyally, fearlessly, and truthfully.

 

[Willamena]

There's a lot of truth in that, but it's steotyping. Many theists openly acknowledge that God cannot be conceptualized, but they have a problem: they're human.

That's not a problem, it's an excuse.

That's similar to what I thought last year, but since then I'm concluded that until they realize the unconceptualized God, they are still indulging the idol.

 

[Willamena]

Human reasoning is based on finite assumptions of duality and beginnings and have an innate desire to consciously unify in mind what is unified in reality. The fact that they can't seem to get past the finger is the the atheist's problem, as well as that of many theists.

That's not really a problem, or it doesn't have to be. The "finite assumptions of duality" do not differ from the "infinite" of unity (or to put it another way, "Form does not differ from emptiness").