The religion of Athiesm - utterly illogical - utterly evil

Their form of worship does exist, illogical point 1.

By definition, an atheist is about non belief, about believing in nothing, there is no reason for them to tell others about their non belief and by doing so, they are in fact showing they believe in something, in most cases, they worship science, they worship mankind, they worship anything other then God, anything at all will do for them because we as human beings, have to believe in something, it’s hard wired into our being.

Their model still requires faith, point 2

Their entire system of thought is completely full of holes, and when you address them in these issues, we are supposed to go by their word and have “faith” that mankind will some day figure it out. Now the thing is, why are we supposed to have faith in an entirely man made belief and not have faith in a divinely inspired belief system?

There is no real moral base, point 3

Man left to his own devices unchecked is inherantly evil, since he cannot forsee the future, he cannot know what his actions will impact upon others, now and in the future. His standard of rightousness is based upon the status quo, no matter how twisted and warped it is, that is his guage.

The fruits of athiesm, total corrupt exploitation, point 4

China makes a good example here, look to the human rights issues they have there, look to how poorly the human element is addressed, people are literally expendable, taking a back seat to the all mighty buck, that country has been Godless for quite some time, look to the USSR, it crashed and burned for many reasons including the human rights issues. Look to Nazi germany, again, it was a country at the time that threw out God, and look where it led them to as well. These are examples of a world we would be living in, if we let the atheists have their way.

They want to blame all people, especially those with religion for their problems, point 5

They keep thinking, get rid of religion and the world would be at peace, they blame all of the evils of the world on our views of God and deny the nature of mankind. They come up with argument after argument about how this or that is bad because they don’t understand the motivation behind believers actions. They completely ignore all of the good we as believers do in this world.

They have very limited, ignorant perspectives along their God, science itself, point 6

Instead of having what is supposed to be an objective, analytical scientific reasoning, looking at “all” of the options, “all” of the probabilities, “all” angles, and “all” possiblities, they start out with a model that is complete in their minds, then try to fit the universe within it’s confines, completely ignoring anything that stands outside of those confines. When I have to listen to some speaker, teacher, etc. and find out they are athiest, my respect for the individual plummets, it’s like a college professor that has only taken one class to get his degree, his views are limited, quite limited and biased.

They have complete and total ignorance of Gods word, point 7

It is so very rare you will encounter one that has read the bible even once, they only pick apart bits and pieces and use them out of context. Yet, we are supposed to bow down to them as the ultimate authority, this is literally bowing down to ignorance.

Their agenda is the ultimate evil, point 8

Why on earth do they come here to debate, thinking in their minds that they are saving us and we are going, saving us from exactly what? Others, because they can’t stand people that have faith are entirely here to derrail them, to get them to slip up, and it makes them feel good if they can discourage people from having any kind of faith, any kind of belief that is not perfectly in line with their false religion.,

They are mindless beasts, point 9
Just as an animal only knows about the world around it, that it can observe, and to it, that is all there is, it’s exactly the same with them. If they cannot see it, test it, analyze it, then it’s not real. The animal may not understand photosynthesis, but it knows the plant it is eating is good for it and that is all it needs to know. The atheist reduced mankind to the level of the animals, being no better then them in any way because his, just as the animals world is self contained to it and there is nothing more to it then what they directly experience.

A world of atheists would produce the following result.

All people that have any kind of deformity, disease, or abnormality will be exterminated. All life would be is survival of the fittest, so the strongest are the ones that have the right to survive, just as it is in nature. Science would be pushed back into the dark ages, since the limited models they base everything upon would never change because they are never challenged. Compassion, kindness, charity would be considered a weakness because they don’t directly advance mankind in their minds, and one that displayed it would be slated to the gas chamber for squandering resources on such foolishness. There would be no need for the family unit, since we have no need to procreate through natural means, it’s too messy to them, too dangerous that a bond is actually formed between two human beings, and after all, since God is completely out of the equation, the marriages would fail anyway since they are based upon only selfish ambition along with only a physical chemistry, and once that wears thin, it’s off to the next and the next partner. Look to the divorce rates we have these days guys, then out of them, look to the margins of those that have God in, and Out of them, you will find the latter to be dominate, figure wise.

The individual would be frowned upon, if you are not in their ultimate and complete conformity, you are considered a wild card, and in their world, that must never happen, for you cannot control or predict an individual, so those that wander away from the herd are quickly exterminated. Our society would be reduced to a race of mindless drones with no hope, no love, no compassion, no humanity what so ever, we would be reduced to being less then animals, for our existence would only be here to serve the state and the state alone at any and all costs.

Ultimately, atheism is an excuse to deny your own humanity, to deny your own accountability to a higher authority, and entirely so that you don’t have to have a guilty conscience, actually any kind of one at all, psychopathic behavior would be encouraged, since after all, what does that pesky conscience serve the individual self for, remorse doesn’t serve the individual in their world, only being happy with yourself no matter what actions you take, just as the animals do in the wild, they have no remorse because it doesn’t help them survive.

With the unraveling of society coinciding with elimination of God from our institutions, don’t you just wonder exactly why the two happened at the same time? Honestly, this is proving very much how we need God to be part of our lives and just because a group of people cannot understand anything spiritual, we as a race are being forced to lose what we held dear, thus the reason for so many of the worlds problems. It’s not religion that was causing them, it was lack of religion that is causing them because humanity needs to stay close to God, and the more he moves away from him, the more in trouble his life becomes.

With the very few that have actually read the bible, they may have read through the words printed out, and in that context, they are only reading the top layer of what it actually is, totally ignorant along what they mean because what they mean is far deeper then the printed word, this is one of the reasons we call it the living word. It deals with matters of the spirit, not matters of the brain, and this is why they cannot possibly understand it, so that being said, they try to find ways to discredit it. It’s not our fault what is written is far advanced to the atheists understanding, it’s not written for an animal to understand, it’s written for mankind, and him alone because he is a spiritual being, he has a soul, and this is something an atheist has no understanding of. It might as well have been written in a completely unknown language to them, for that’s as much sense as they can ever make of it, because they take the entire word out of it’s intended context.

Anyway, let the games begin

Atheist ate my hamster!

If you think this is going to somehow smooth the path to understanding think again prodigalson 12 (and we don’t need more religion we need to live out our faith more concretely).

and irrational:

The Irrational Atheist

On one side of the argument is a collection of godless academics with doctorates from the finest universities in England, France and the United States. On the other is Irrational Atheist author Vox Day, armed with nothing more than historical and statistical facts. Presenting a compelling argument, Day strips away the pseudo-scientific pretensions of New Atheism with his intelligent application of logic, history, military science, political economy and well-documented research. The arguments of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and MIchael Onfray are all methodically exposed and discredited as Day provides extensive evidence proving, among other things, that:

[LIST]
*]More than 93 percent of all the wars in human history had no relation to religion
*]The Spanish Inquisition had no jurisdiction over professing Jews, Muslims or atheists and executed fewer people on an annual basis than the state of Texas
*]Atheists are 3.84 times more likely to be imprisoned than Christians
*]“Red” state crime is primarily committed in “blue” counties
*]Sexually abused girls are 55 times more likely to commit suicide than girls raised Catholic
*]In the twentieth century, atheistic regimes killed three times more people in peacetime than those killed in all the wars and individual crimes combined
[/LIST]
The Irrational Atheist provides the rational thinker with empirical proof that atheism’s claims against religion are devoid of logic, fact and science.

Catholic girls are never abused?

That one is quite random. If it compared atheist suicide rate to Catholic (or Christian, or general theist) suicide rates it might mean a little more.

Looked to me as if all of them begged ‘it depends what you mean by’ questions.

Point 1:

By definition, an atheist is about …] believing in nothing

No. An atheist is “about” not having a belief in gods. Atheist believe in all kinds of things – family, friends, life, art, philosophy, enjoying nice sunny days, etc., etc. Atheists don’t “believe in nothing.” We have one less belief than theists do.

Point 2:

Their entire system of thought is completely full of holes, and when you address them in these issues, we are supposed to go by their word and have “faith” that mankind will some day figure it out.

No. You will find that most atheists believe in things for which there is evidence. In matters where no evidence is available (where’d the stuff that preceded the Big Bang come from???), the honest atheist will respond, “I don’t know,” which is the correct answer.

What atheists don’t do is have “faith” – defined as belief without evidence (or based on very flimsy evidence, like a strong internal feeling).

The other definition of “faith” – confidence – atheists do have in things, but we often call it confidence to avoid confusion.

Point 3:

There is no real moral base

Atheism is a position on a question, not a worldview or an all-encompassing philosophy. Each individual atheist is free to subscribe to the moral philosophy that he or she sees as most true. I personally – and I seem to be in the minority of atheists – am a moral nihilist. I don’t think that the terms “good” and “evil” are inherent to things, but labels we add to things that mean nothing more than “I like it” or “I don’t like it.”

Point 4:

The fruits of athiesm, total corrupt exploitation

It’s almost too easy to cite countries with high populations of nonbelievers or nonreligious people and point out how they have less crime.

But instead of doing that, I’ll point out that whether or not something leads to stuff you like has nothing to do with whether it’s true or not. The two are separate questions.

Point 5:

They want to blame all people, especially those with religion for their problems

Perhaps a very few atheists do. I don’t, nor do I know any atheists who do.

Point 6:

They have very limited, ignorant perspectives along their God, science itself

Being “open minded” doesn’t mean accepting every position you hear of. It means being open to evidence for positions. There’s no evidence that any gods exist. It’s not “limited” to not consider positions for which there is no evidence whatsoever (except for really bad evidence, like strong internal feelings).

Point 7:

They have complete and total ignorance of Gods word

Most of them probably have as little knowledge of your mythology as you have of the mythology of India. I haven’t met any who want you to consider them an “authority” on the subject (let alone the “ultimate authority” that you claim they do).

Point 8:

Why on earth do they come here to debate, thinking in their minds that they are saving us and we are going, saving us from exactly what?

I can only speak for myself, but I come here because I find talking about this kind of stuff fun.

Also, it can help when I’m thinking a subject through to have people pose counterarguments that I never would have thought of on my own.

Point 9:

They are mindless beasts

Well, I would prefer “mindful beasts.” We humans, all of us, certainly are animals – that’s a fact, not a question in dispute – but we have more advanced brain functions than our fellow animals. That’s why we can figure out what photosynthesis is, for example.

It is also absolutely true that things that cannot be measured or analyzed in some way do not “exist” in any sense of the word “exist” that is any useful. The word “exist” – if it means anything at all – means to manifest in a way that exhibits properties that can be observed in some fashion. Things that don’t manifest in an observable way aren’t “things” that all – they don’t exist.

Being “open minded” doesn’t mean accepting every position you hear of. It means being open to evidence for positions. There’s no evidence that any gods exist. It’s not “limited” to not consider positions for which there is no evidence whatsoever (except for really bad evidence, like strong internal feelings).

I have some questions about this view.

  1. How does an athiest deal with degrees of love? If it is an evidence-based system, wouldn’t that necessarily result in frequent error? If A loves B, how does B know that? What if A doesn’t express it; does that alter the truth of the love?

  2. How can you have things like “beauty” or “excellence” if it is up to the individual to decide what to believe? Suppose you think the Mona Lisa is a great work of art, but I don’t. How do we find out if it is a great work of art or not, or is that truth relative?

  3. If all we can know for sure is what evidence shows us, i.e. - the scientific method, how do you get around the notion that the statement itself requires a belief, as it cannot be proven using that same scientific method?

  4. How is a belief that all we can know is what we can have solid evidence for any different from a belief that we can know things where there is a lack of evidence?

Ah, now these are actually good questions. It’s my pleasure to answer them, but I should note that the answers I will be providing are my own – there’s no guarantee that other atheists would agree with me on any of these points, as atheism is nothing more than lack of belief in gods.

“Love” is a label that we put on emotions – and in fact, the word “love” ecompasses a lot of different kinds of emotions, from the “love” of a form of entertainment to the “love” of a specific individual to an even more abstract “love” of the world, or something like that.

Emotions aren’t mysterious, non-physical things at all. The experience of them might be difficult to put into words, but what they actually are are neurochemical processes that we can identify.

So, if A loves B, B will know through A’s actions and words, ideally. If A doesn’t express it in some way (word or action), then B will, obviously, not know. What’s B supposed to do, read A’s mind?

  1. How can you have things like “beauty” or “excellence” if it is up to the individual to decide what to believe? Suppose you think the Mona Lisa is a great work of art, but I don’t. How do we find out if it is a great work of art or not, or is that truth relative?

Personally, I don’t think beauty is an objective quality that inheres in things themselves; instead, it is a value judgment that accompanies our perception.

Now, humans are similarly constituted, so it’s not surprising that large numbers of people find the same kinds of things “beautiful” – but there are also people who find things “beautiful” that other people would consider ugly, disgusting, or weird. I’m sure everyone reading this can think of some painting they’ve seen in a museum that didn’t strike them as particularly beautiful – and in fact, may have struck them as rather weird…and yet there are people who swear that such things are “beautiful.”

  1. If all we can know for sure is what evidence shows us, i.e. - the scientific method, how do you get around the notion that the statement itself requires a belief, as it cannot be proven using that same scientific method?

Because it doesn’t require a belief (i.e. it doesn’t require “faith” – it rests on evidence). It’s a statement that has a great deal of evidence supporting it: i.e. all of the results that it’s generated.

It’s not a faith based claim to say that our conclusions need to be supported by evidence because we have all of the evidence we’ve collected over the course of the history of science that lets us determine that evidence works as a means of telling fact from fantasy.

The computer that you’re reading this message on is a result of the same scientific process we’re talking about here. The fact that your computer works – along with all the other marvels of technology we live with – demonstrates that there’s something to this evidence stuff.

Also, be careful when you throw around terms like the “scientific method” – I don’t mean that every last thing I think has to be tested by experiment. My point is that all of my beliefs rest on evidence, which is an idea that underlies the scientific method, but is not limited to that method.

  1. How is a belief that all we can know is what we can have solid evidence for any different from a belief that we can know things where there is a lack of evidence?

Well, here, it’s a matter of definition. What does it mean to “know” that something “exists”? If by “exist” you mean anything other than “exhibits and manifests properties that can be detected or affects the material world in some way that can be detected” – then you’re using “exist” in a totally new way that matches no other definition of “exist.”

I mean, imagine if I said that a purple dragon “exists” in my backyard but that by “exists,” I mean that the dragon has no properties that can be detected and has no effects on the material world that can be measured in any way whatsoever.

Would you really consider that dragon to “exist”?

Thanks for the thoughtful questions and respectful tone, very much unlike our OP.

Well it’s not a problem being respectful… we’re just having a civil conversation and neither of us is looking to burn the other one at the stake or anything like that. I’m just curious to know how an atheist approaches these questions is all.

I do appreciate your answers, but some of them didn’t really answer my question. Could be that I didn’t ask it in a thorough enough way so let me try again on a couple of them.

So, if A loves B, B will know through A’s actions and words, ideally. If A doesn’t express it in some way (word or action), then B will, obviously, not know. What’s B supposed to do, read A’s mind?

What I was getting at here is a matter of truth. If A does love B, we could say, for now, that is true. The problem is, based solely on an evidence-based system, B can never discover it. If asked, B would say A does not love B, because there is no evidence for it. Yet it is true A loves B. This seems to me to be a system that is prone to error as a result of the limitations placed upon it.

It’s not a faith based claim to say that our conclusions need to be supported by evidence because we have all of the evidence we’ve collected over the course of the history of science that lets us determine that evidence works as a means of telling fact from fantasy.

Again I was posing the question to something larger. Let me ask it this way - is it only possible to know something (is true) using an evidence based system? In other words, does evidence for something limit all that we can possibly know? I mentioned the scientific method because what you’re describing as an evidence-based system sounds distinctly like that - where it requires some sort of “test” of evidence, where the weighing of that evidence will either prove or falsify a claim. If it’s not that, I’m misunderstanding what you are trying to say as regards this sort of system.

To expound on the limits of the above, when I say “evidence” I do not mean necessarily direct evidence. An example would be the shape of our galaxy - we can’t see the other side of it, so we don’t really know if it is a spiral like every other spiral galaxy we can observe, or if ours is the one, unique half-spiral out there. We conclude ours is just like all the others by indirect evidence, not direct evidence. I’m not trying to split hairs over that kind of thing. I’m more looking at things like reason and philosophical conclusion as opposed to something put under a microscope.

Well, here, it’s a matter of definition. What does it mean to “know” that something “exists”? If by “exist” you mean anything other than “exhibits and manifests properties that can be detected or affects the material world in some way that can be detected” – then you’re using “exist” in a totally new way that matches no other definition of “exist.”

Well I would define “exist” as having some form of being in reality. Example… uh, how about a black hole to a 19th century astronomer? They couldn’t detect one - did it exist? I would say yes, it existed, though they could not perceive it or know it at that time. Now move to the 20th century. No one aimed observation equipment at the sky hoping they would find something like a black hole. As a result of studying pulsars, now quasars, the mathematics demanded some theoretical “object” that had the properties we associate with black holes be out there. But there was no evidence for them aside from some unknown necessity to make the math come out right.

My point is, I believe something can exist though we don’t have evidence for it. Black holes existed in 50 B.C. - but limiting reality to only that we have evidence for would lead to the false conclusion they didn’t exist. Since I don’t believe empirical evidence is the only way we can know something, it leads me to wonder if the system you suggest is limited in what it can know and how accurate does it sample reality?

The scientific method, where it turns into fact is when you can reproduce something consistently in a controlled environment. This would mean that since evolution is considered a true science, we can observe the evolutionary process, documenting it along the way. When in fact, we cannot, we can only look to evidence and form a “theory” about it, not state a fact, since we have not been there throughout the entire process, observing it along side, we can only see the results. Taking that example, just as a computer can be programed to adapt and change it’s software structure based upon random, human external user influence, what is to stop the same type of coding happening within the dna from the very beginning. This would mean that what we observe now is only the result of what was programmed to be, in the first place, and the programmer had foresight to make an algorythm to cover any and all contingoncies that can happen in the future generations, carrying on that same line of code through each one. A nice working example of this is where you take two of the same species and vary the amount of space and resources they have to stay confined and live off of, you will notice how in too many of these cases, the successive generations will adapt and cater to their surroundings. Try this one at home with two fish of the same speceice and age, place one in a smaller tank, feed both the same, and take note how the one in the smaller tank does not grow to the same size of the one in the larger tank.

Thanks for the clarifications, DOShea. I’ll try to address your rephrased questions adequately.

Well, the only way B could possibly know that A loves him is through evidence – he might notice that A smiles at him frequently or winks at him; A might go through a lot of trouble to do something nice for him; or A might flat out tell him that she’s in love with him.

Now, B might misinterpret certain behaviors of A, sure – but the more evidence he builds up, the stronger the case becomes – and thus, the more likely it is to be true – that A loves him.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying that evidence always indicates absolute proof of something – I’m saying that the more evidence you have, the more likely it is that the claim is true and that without any evidence at all, you’re not justified in accepting the claim.

If A loves B but gives him absolutely no signs of the love at all, then B is not justified in concluding that A loves him, even if it is true.

Can you give me an example of someone figuring out that another person loves him without relying on any evidence at all?

Again I was posing the question to something larger. Let me ask it this way - is it only possible to know something (is true) using an evidence based system?

Again, I am not aware of any way of knowing that doesn’t rely on evidence. I’ll ask again: can you give me an example of someone figuring out that another person loves him without relying on any evidence at all?

To expound on the limits of the above, when I say “evidence” I do not mean necessarily direct evidence. An example would be the shape of our galaxy - we can’t see the other side of it, so we don’t really know if it is a spiral like every other spiral galaxy we can observe, or if ours is the one, unique half-spiral out there. We conclude ours is just like all the others by indirect evidence, not direct evidence. I’m not trying to split hairs over that kind of thing. I’m more looking at things like reason and philosophical conclusion as opposed to something put under a microscope.

Sure. Based on the evidence, it’s a reasonable inference – and therefore likely to be true – that our galaxy is a spiral.

Again, how else would we conclude what the shape of our galaxy is, if we do not rely on evidence?

Well I would define “exist” as having some form of being in reality. Example… uh, how about a black hole to a 19th century astronomer? They couldn’t detect one - did it exist? I would say yes, it existed, though they could not perceive it or know it at that time.

Okay, there’s two things here: 1) whether something exists, and 2) whether it is justifiable to accept the claim that something exists.

Black holes existed in the 19th century because they manifested properties and/or effects on the material universe that were (in theory) measurable. However, since no one could observe evidence of them at the time, no one on earth at that time would have been justified in believing in them.

That’s not an error – that’s called being reasonable. Let me explain.

If our goal is to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, then we need to develop a system that will make it most likely for us not to be misled – therefore, we need to set up standards of evidence that are high enough to make sure that we are actually confirming the (likely) existence of things in the world around us.

My point is, I believe something can exist though we don’t have evidence for it.

I believe that too, but for it to “exist,” it needs to be theoretically measurable or observable by someone using some instrument. And it is not justifiable to believe in it until evidence for it is forthcoming.

Since I don’t believe empirical evidence is the only way we can know something

Well, here’s our bone of contention again, and now I’m really interested – can you give an example of someone knowing something without evidence? I’m sure that someone might guess a correct answer without evidence once in a while, but that hardly seems like a reliable system for discerning truth…

I think everyone would agree that our material stuff and laws came from something.

And logically speaking that ‘something’ can either be an intelligent something or a non intelligent something.

It seems to me that if an atheist bases his beliefs on only evidence, and he so passionately argues against the ‘intelligent something’ then he must be in possession of a great deal of evidence showing that our material stuff and laws came from a non intelligent something.

Otherwise, the rational thing to do would be for him to support or criticise both possibilities equally.

“'Something” ist not a possibility. “Something” is rather vague and cannot be compared to a precise scientific theory with tons of evidence.
When we want to compare a pure materialistic explanation of how the universe came into being with “something” supernatural, we need to specify that “something”. And then, very quickly, we get far more than just two possibilities.

‘Something’ is a word chosen that is deliberately vague.

It allows all possibilities.

And those possibilities could be intelligent or non intelligent.

If you are argueing so strongly against the ‘intelligent something’ and not at all against the ‘non intelligent something’ then you obviously favour the second over the first.

Since you say you are basing your views on evidence, i am simply asking you for that evidence.

Otherwise to argue so strongly against the first while not against the second, and all the while saying evidence is the determining factor, seems very irrational.

Me? The science is all out there to learn. You have to study physics to at least partially understand the origin of the universe. That of course is a painstaking process, high hurdles to take, years to spend - just believing in “something intelligent” having said “fiat bla” and there it was, is much simpler…

Wrong on all 9 points, I’m afraid.

This link might help clear up some of those misconceptions.
talkorigins.org/

Peace.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.