Serious Problems with Atheism

[Crossless2.0]

Personally, and like Dawkins I speak for just one atheist, I have no use for the word "evil" and prefer the word  "prosocial" to "good".  Goodness and Evil as nouns are nonsense.  Acts which get singled out as 'good' tend to be ones which are good for the wider group.  As a community we naturally appreciate such acts.  But self serving acts which serve only the individual are not 'evil', they're just not socially relevant.  On the long view, even the pursuit of solitude or solitary pleasures can be seen as having some prosocial value if by nurturing the individual that individual is then able to go on to more fully participate in and contribute to the social good.  

But some acts actually subtract from the social good and I have no problem calling them "bad": hitting or even killing others in anger, robbing them, the destruction of property, and so on.  But "evil" is still a reach.  The closest I can come to attaching meaning to that would be anyone who inflicts pain and suffering on others for the pleasure they receive in doing so, like Charles Manson.  But then, he was obviously deranged so possibly all 'evil' is really an offshoot of pathology of one kind or another.  But "evil" as a thing in itself itself exists no where but fiction (e.g., in the bible).

That's at the core of the debate isn't it, why is "prosocial" better than "antisocial"? Why is human survival better than 

extinction? 

As the 2007 atheist suicide-murderer Pekka-Eric Auvinen from Finland said ‘The faster the human race is wiped out

 from this planet, the better … no one should be left alive. No mercy for the scum of earth.’ ‘I am the law, judge and 

executioner. There is no higher authority than me.’ 

Why are the random electron collisions in his brain forming his "logic" 

"bad" and the random electron collisions in your brain forming your "logic" "better"?

So my point is we innately know that there is Good and Evil in this Universe because we have a Conscience which is simply 

irreducible to random electron collisions in our skulls, and it requires the stubbornness and closed-mindedness of a Dawkins to

 deny the obvious.

First, what the fuck is with your formatting? You're writing bad prose, not bad poetry.

Regarding your "atheist suicide-murderer", from Wikipedia:

Pekka-Eric Auvinen (4 June 1989 – 7 November 2007), an 18-year-old student at Jokela High School, was born in Tuusula, Finland. Between December 2006 and January 2007, Auvinen's parents tried to get him referred to a psychiatric outpatient clinic, but the offer was refused, as his symptoms were deemed mild. It was recommended that before a resort to hospitalisation, efforts to use antidepressant medication would be taken first. Auvinen had irregularly taken SSRI-antidepressants one year prior to his death. Auvinen was frequently bullied at school, and school students reported changes in his behavior to a youth worker, saying he acted threateningly and remarked that they would die in "a white revolution". One of his teachers described him as a militant radical who was interested in both far-right and far-left movements. Auvinen had apparently been planning the shooting since at least early March.
Auvinen had a number of online accounts, including a YouTube account he used to upload videos about school shootings and violent incidents, including the Columbine High School massacre, the Waco siege, the Tokyo subway sarin attack, and bombing during the Iraq invasion. Several months before the shooting, an American YouTube vlogger, "TheAmazingAtheist" from the state of Louisiana, called for authorities to investigate accounts with content on school shootings, including one used by Auvinen. But no actions were taken.
Auvinen uploaded a homemade video to YouTube prior to the shooting, declaring that he would carry out a "massacre", and uploaded a manifesto to a file sharing website. His manifesto expressed anger at his social alienation and called on "strong-minded and intelligent individuals" to revolt against the "idiocracy" of the "weak-minded masses".

So your example of -- what? the dangers of atheism? -- is a troubled kid with a history of anti-depressant use; whose parents apparently thought he needed additional psychiatric help; who was bullied by his peers; who had an obsession with violent images; who had a history of threatening behavior; who was interested in radical movements of both the right and the left; who apparently had delusions of grandeur; and who harbored vengeful fantasies. Now connect the dots. What does any of this have to do with atheism?

As for your remark concerning Dawkins, he is not the simple-minded reductionist you are trying to portray.

You, on the other hand, are exceedingly dishonest and are grasping at straws.

And your bad prose is not bad poetry, so stop with the shitty formatting.