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

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by lightgigantic, Feb 12, 2007.

  1. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Ok so since you can't access this link unless you have password, I guess you will have to take it all here
    ...... it may seem a bit long, but it is nothing compared to the number of posts that get regurgitated on the same points this post summarizes.

    [Read More Here]
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2007
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Satyr Banned Banned

    I think Religion’s single most important flaw – if one discounts reason and argument and evidence – is that it has minds like lightgigantic and IceAgeCivilizatinos, to name but two of its representatives, as its followers.

    One has to only read a few paragraphs of their thoughts – if you can call them that – to see what kinds of minds are attracted to these myths.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Boss Foxx I piss excellence. Registered Senior Member

    Those are really interesting ... as hardly any apply to me, personally. It's interesting to see atheism from points of view outside of atheism ... particularly assorted "evangelicals" from time to time.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. mountainhare Banned Banned

    That 'essay' is a load of crock. It paints atheism with a very broad brush. If I were a professor in Sociology, I'd give that little write-up a fail.
  8. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Light, Atheism is a result of Theisms biggest flaw... The assertion that 'magic' exists.
  9. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    I try to avoid these religion threads but these arguments really are insultingly weak.
    Do they!??
    Appeal to popularity: an elementary logical fallacy.
    I think most atheists would agree that it's "bad" to run round stabbing random strangers. More usefully, one might classify such a person as clinically insane, and deal appropriately, rather than promising him an eternity burning in Hellfire.
    Yes, it's tough being a grown-up. Choosing your own moral path in life isn't the free-for-all in the candy shop that the above statement implies - it's often hard, thankless, can be absolutely heart-breaking. But, yes, the knowledge that you've 'done the right thing', not because someone's told you to, but because you've considered and debated all the relevant issues and arrived at a decision that you can live with does bring it's own rewards - vanishingly small though they might be sometimes.

    Poor, LG; very poor. You really have to try harder than this.
  10. seekeroftheway Let go your conscious self... Registered Senior Member

    Both sides of this argument are biased. Why? Because both sides are trying to vanquish the other, it's a power grab. No one can win, guys, I hate to break it to you, but you can't prove or disprove the existence of God, EITHER OF YOU. You can have fun trying, though, which I think is the only reason why any sane person would still be here.
  11. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    quite commonly, yes

    the issu eis more about how there is not a clear connection between the pink unicorn/celestial teapot/etc and god since the former is clearly fabricated and does not draw any serious advocates

    notice how this response contradicts the one you give below
    then I guess you, and the others who posted before you, will have to do better than merely saying "this is really bad" (after all, its a bit unreasonable to accept the words of atheist on faith don't you think?)
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    how do you know that god is completely unknowable?
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2007
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Ah - yes - the cherry-picking of atheism.
    This is "strong" atheism that this person is talking about.
    It does not cover the majority of atheists that, I think, are of the "weak" variety.
    This flaw is thus invalid for the majority of atheists.

    This is covered above by the obvious cherry-picking the definition.

    This, and the rest of this supposed "flaw" is nothing but a strawman - unless this person has actually found out what it is that all these atheists actually "believe".
    Atheism is merely a stance on the existence or not of god - nothing else.

    I've never heard this said before - ever!
    Most will say that theism is NOT supported by science - but never that atheism IS.
    Nothing but drivel.
    This person is good at setting up strawman fallacies and blowing them over.

    Other than continuing along his own narrow definition of atheism, this is blatantly wrong.
    It is irrational / illogical to "believe" in anything that is not proven.
    Thus logic DOES support the majority of atheists - the "weak" variety.
    It also supports those atheists who see the probability of a god as not non-existent but so small as to be negligible (i.e. a "stronger" variety of atheism).

    In this one argument this person has shown that they truly do not understand the words they are using. One canbe both agnostic and atheist - or agnostic and theist - or non-agnostic and (a)theist.

    5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
    No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
    you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
    proof lies with the deviation from the norm.[/quote]LOL! ROFLMFAO!
    How many logical fallacies in this!!
    This person has little comprehension of rationality or logic.
    Burden of proof is on the claimant of existence.
    Otherwise things are true because the majority say it is? LOL!!

    God of the Gaps.
    And like others have said - this means that alien abduction is truth, that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, that the Sun rotates around the Earth etc.

    This is partly true - in that atheists can't distinguish between the two - just as they can't distinguish between any two things for which there is no evidence.
    The theists' flaw is in the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy, the Appeal to Consensus logical fallacy and probably many others.

    I can't be bothered with the rest as they continue along the same lines of misinformed and badly argued drivel.

    All this person has done is reinforce some of the logical fallacies that theists hold for their "belief" - the Appeals to Authority and Consensus.

    I'm also wondering if the essay was in fact tongue-in-cheek to show just how poor the arguments from theists actually are.
  14. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Why not? Can you please provide some proof for this lofty claim of yours?
  15. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    No they don't - so there!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No, really - they don't. If I saw God just once I'd be an instant convert, believe me. I mean, he'd have to be doing something really impressive at the time, like making fire come out of his ears or something, but yes, I'd be willing to trust my senses on something like that. I trust my senses the vast majority of the time. They help me to tie my shoelaces, and cross roads, and correct spelling errors, and distingush shit from sugar. They're really rather invaluable to me, I don't know what I'd do without them, and I think most people - athiests or not - would say the same. So don't be so bloody ridiculous.
    Whereas the latter has had several millennia in which to establish itself and garner the financial backing and support of the world's most powerful institutions. Which god are we talking about by the way - or are they all to be given equal validity. Perhaps they're all one and the same?
    I've read both several times and still see no contradiction. Enlighten me.
    I'm trying to help you, LG. I'm not disdainful of the religiously-inclined but the opening post here is laughable, and grossly misrepresents and oversimplifies the views of non-believers.
  16. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    But you can show that absense of a God is more likely than his existence.
  17. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    I think he's confusing the idea for something else. When someone says I just experienced the 'holy ghost' or something equally as nebulous, what an Atheist might not trust is:

    * That person's intent.
    * That person's honesty.
    * That person's ability to distinguish internally vs. externally generated experience.
    * That person's interpretation.
  18. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Personal anecdotal reports are not evidence, as the senses can be decieved.
  19. SnakeLord Valued Senior Member

    What a load of old gibberish.

    A) Numbers do not equal truth.

    B) It is not clear on what "proof" you make the statement that the pink unicorn is clearly fabricated. Have you searched the entire universe etc etc, are you omniscient?

    C) A being of such indescribable power would not need "serious advocates". It would most likely be far beyond human comprehension. Why trust something advocated by any old idiot?
  20. scorpius a realist Valued Senior Member

    god has been disproved long time ago,and many times over its just that the brainwashed masses of religious simpletons dont want to admit they lost the argument so they continously rewrite their flawed arguments in some faint hope it will somehow stop atheists using reason/logic and everyone will accept their skyman.
    wont happen
    there cant be loving god in a world full of natural disasters and evil.for one
    xian god is also defined as being everywhere at the same time ,so if he aint right here right now he dont exist.
    case closed
    maybe god should already show her face and put all atheists in their place!!
    waiting waiting stil waiting hmmm
    didnt think so
  21. scorpius a realist Valued Senior Member

    cool looky here and count how many fallacies you have commited in your write up
  22. Satyr Banned Banned

    I believe the quality of those arguments speak for themselves.

    Who’s attracted to religion?
    The weak, the dying and the stupid.
  23. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    i am extremely religious....

    in fact i am a zelot.

    yet... my faith is based on science.

    all of you... who hate religion... you do so, due to your ignorance.

    so sad.


Share This Page