Atheism's Thirteen Biggest Flaws (without dysfunctional link, modship pending)

*************
M*W: You are sadly mistaken about atheists. We really don't worship anything, except maybe, our families and dear ones. And knowledge.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

then its all about themselves - after all its MY family, MY dear ones and MY knowledge (which commonly gives rise to the popular materialistic notion, it is okay for the families of others - that are not in MY country - to starve, but my family must be well fed)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So the minority of the world being atheist and thus selfish is to blame for the starvation of millions?
Materialism has nothing to do with religion or lack of. Although perhaps selfless acts do, after all, religious people mostly only do these things for their 'eternal reward' or because they're told to. What reason do atheists have apart from it being the best thing to do for the world?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

my father was a devout atheist..... and explained why... all the same reasons all the atheist here.... its all the same.

ive heard it all before.

and its based on a lack of reflection on all the real evidense.

-MT

 

there is a lot of similarity between the unsatisfactory performance of religious principles and atheism

 

Please define these religious principles - or at least explain what you mean by the phrase.

 

I'd suggest you get to know some atheists and their intentions, as opposed to presuming anyone who doesn't comply perfectly with your ideals is atheist.
As for the religious; (unsatisfactory performance in who's eyes by the way?)
They still identify themselves as theists, and I'd suggest that since they are in the majority they are far more likely to be to blame for materialism and selfishness than a few atheists.
Out of the majority of people I've met and known the best behaved and most selfless identified themselves as atheist or agnostic, the more materialistic were theists.

Your credibility and intelligence are on thin ice with such baseless statements.

 

Can you give an example of a non-materialistic non-selfish atheist? Just for kicks.

 

And yet in your thread that tried to do that you fell short of actually being able to.
Define god - then we can start.

See the first response with regard to the characteristics of God.
Additionally - I never said that they are claiming a glass of sand can quench thirst - that is nothing but a strawman logical fallacy set up by you!

Stop getting hung up on the detail of the analogy and just respond to the underlying issues.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You yet again squirm your way through actually answering anything but your own strawmen.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Define "non-materialistic" - or at least quantify it.
Define "non-selfish" - or at least quantify it.

 

Might want to ask Anti-flag

 

I think atheisms biggest flaw, if one discounts logic, it that is has minds like Medicinewoman and Zenbabelfish, to name but two of its followers.

One only has to read a few paragraphs of their thoughts, counterpoints, and rebuttals to see what kinds of minds are attracted to this idiocy.

 

Likewise.

 

Yes, me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I, for one, think that there's a lot to be said in Christianity's favour. But putting up lists of straw men just for the pleasure of making poor arguments to try to knock them down, isn't one of them. For example:

First of all, I never heard any atheist making an argument like that. Secondly, if I were he I would have questioned the statistic, or certainly looked outside the United States. And thirdly, the argument that Christians (in following God's law) have "higher moral standards" and consequently are forced to, well, disobey a key teaching of Jesus himself, is rather more an argument that would attract people to the atheist non-hypocritical morality, isn't it?

I love the way he believes that "burden of proof" apparently has to do with how many people have the belief one way or another, ie the people who have the "burden of proof" are the minority who have to convince the majority. This is actually not even true in a court of law, where most jurors would pretty much assume, sight unseen, that someone who is standing before them is probably guilty. And he uses the same argument to knock down the "Invisible pink unicorn" (apparently never having heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) because, apparently, he does not understand the point the atheist is making, which is "You believe in the conventional image of God because you are surrounded by people who believe in that God and not the Invisible Pink Unicorn".

 

I don't think you are making a good case for religion. If the principles don't perform, what do you expect but that people move on to something else?

 

Hmm you're promoting yourself. Decidedly unselfish.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sarkus,

They claim "weak atheism" but their actions cry "strong atheism".

If you don't BELEIVE that there is no God, then what are you defending?
Why does it come across as though you BELIEVE there is no God?

Then why is there so much effort to remove "in God we trust" from the dollar bill, for example?

So what is their atheism based on?

 

Personal testimony is not sufficient as proof. There is as much testimony about ghosts, UFO's, and faith healing in other religions like Voodoo.