Serious Problems with Atheism

[ignoramus]

We are a true think tank of sceptics!

A sceptic tank, so to speak!

Segui to CL?

[Cyberman]

[ignoramus]

Ouch!!! No need to slap the shit out of me!!!

[Cyberman]

Sometimes a surgical application of brutality combined with mindless violence is the only answer.

[Ravenshire]

There are some very serious problems for atheists to consider;  

...

There is one very serious problem for theists to consider:

No theist can make a demonstration of the existence of their god/gods.

No shit!

Hey, Pulse. Show us your gawd, or at least some compelling evidence (not a bunch of baseless assertions, biased testimonials, faulty logical "arguments"  and other such crap the theists usually fling at the walls around here) and we'll give it all the consideration it deserves.

[Pulse]

Yeah I think they are working on it, hopefully this one will work; Thank you all for replies, Just a thought about what Science is Really about these days;

Professor of Genetics, Richard Lewontin wrote; “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant 

promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It

 is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori 

adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, 

that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”  Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, 9 January, 1997, p. 31.

Is this an objective search for truth?

As others have said . . . the above is just an opinion, and I disagree with Lewontin. If there is a god, and that god has any influence in the world, then that influence can be investigated. The problem is that a god which operates outside of what we might call nature, is working supernaturally, and so it does not follow any necessary laws, rules or procedures etc. As mere humans we cannot set up experiments to determine what is going on, if the results are outside a certain remit, ie. if they do not fit into a set of rules of some sort.

But as I said, if there is a god, and that god has any influence in the world, then that influence can be investigated. So for example, we can investigate the efficacy of prayer, using scientific study. Such studies have been done, and prayer has been found to be unreliable in the promotion of the curing of cancer patients. I believe that prayer may have some positive effects in peoples' lives, but such effects may be entirely placebo. If there really were prayers, answered by some god, using powers outside of nature, then that would be operating outside of any set of rules, laws, etc. which science could uncover and put to paper. But first, we would need to set up an experiment to show that there is some outcome from praying, an outcome which is set in motion by prayer, which could be demonstrated to be other than placebo in its effect, or not just some natural effect which we have not yet understood.

I do not view that as being a failure to search for an objective truth, as far as we are able. Merely inserting a god or some explanation outside of natural or material causes seems much more like a failure to search for truth, but rather an insertion of some unknowable, untestable speculation. Such an insertion does not derive any real knowledge IMHO !

So science does not in fact rule out explanations other than the material, but when put to the test, effects outside of the material have not been detected, nor been necessary. Furthermore, where in the past a god had to be invoked to explain phenomena, science has removed the need for that hypothesis in most cases.

There is much evidence of God for the open minded, for example using our logic to see that DNA could Never Code itself to Code itself to Replicate, it's an impossibly vicious circle. And experimentally proving prayer is like experimentally proving a son or daughter loves its parents. It's a relationship, and Prayer is a relationship, and if we pray to God just for a joke or to test Him, then He sees He is mocked, that doesn't bode well for a close relationship, with God, or with your spouse or child.

[LadyForCamus]

C’mon OP, you cannot tell me that NDE's aren't real!
They're 100% true!

When someone is near death, the brain makes up all sorts of shite!

Death on the other hand....is what gives our lives meaning. Get it?

Omg, SHUSH it with the NDE stuff, Iggy!  *looks around*   Sick Ricky will hear!!!  

[Angrboda]

        Why do atheists constantly use words like religion is evil, atheism good, when these terms are meaningless in a Godless Universe?

These terms aren't meaningless in a Godless universe. The error is in your assumption that atheism implies nihilism. It does not.

2) If you were really an atheist, you would realize that we are ALL just rearranged pond scum and life is just a set of random Meaningless events in a random Meaningless Universe. 
    So as an atheist, why try so hard "Meaningfully" explaining  that in this utterly Meaningless Universe there's no deity?

If I were really an atheist, hmm? You seem invested in attributing nihilism to atheists. The two are not synonymous. Why try so hard to explain that there's no deity? Because we believe it's the truth, and many atheists find embracing and promoting the truth to be meaningful.

    a) Possible responses maybe; Religion is dangerous and threatens our survival; BUT in a Godless Universe, why is humanity's survival better than extinction? If humans nuke one another out of existence, what difference will that make to the Universe?? 

I'll let the Universe answer for itself. Oh wait, it can't, because it doesn't have a point of view on the question. It has no point of view, period. However if you ask the question of most living humans, theist and atheist, it matters a great deal. We value our existence and that of others of our kind. Is that so hard to understand. By the way, what does the existence of a god add to the meaning of our own self caused extinction. Will he/it be sad that humanity died. How does that matter to you?

3) Atheism; The Universe Caused itself, no First Cause needed; this requires blind faith and is counter-intuitive; very much the same as what atheists accuse religious people of, seems hypocritical doesn't it??

All answers as to the origin of the universe seem equally absurd. Pulling the idea of a non-contingent being out of thin air doesn't change that.

4) The Big Bang Theory is Full of Fudge factors that are an embarrassment to Cosmologists many of whom admit the theory is popular because it is well funded, but how is that an objective search for truth? 

Are you trying to imply that you don't believe the big bang theory? What exactly do you believe about the origins of the universe?

5)   Atheistic science these days is so Dogmatically wedded to Materialism, it cannot even begin to tell us what Consciousness is, the most basic principle of human existence. Doesn't it seem hypocritical that Atheism is so dogmatic?

Are you anti-science? There is no such thing as "Atheistic science." There is science, and there is everything else. Science is wedded to methodological naturalism, which is the fundamental reality that science can only investigate natural causes and effects. Are you suggesting that something else should be the case?

 6)  And BTW atheism has led to some pretty strange philosophies, like that of the Church of Euthanasia; Save the Planet, Kill Yourself! How can Atheists counter such "logic"?

If these philosophies are rooted in error, the atheist would counter them the same way that anyone else would: with reason and facts. What kind of absurd poisoning the well is this?

As a Christian I have experienced that no Atheist on earth has any convincing arguments to these most basic questions which I believe only the Christian religion can answer.

That much I'll accept. You seem rather closed minded. I don't doubt you find atheist answers unconvincing and Christian ones compelling. Duh.

I'll be honest, believing in Atheism would be so much easier in life because you can do whatever you want and think there is no consequences, but Ahteism seems so incredibly counter intuitive, that to even begin to take it seriously, one has to suspend all logic.

This suggests to me that you haven't seriously considered what real atheists have to say. It makes your bold claim that, "no Atheist on earth," has any answers to your questions sound like a hollow exaggeration.

Btw, "Meaningless," "Universe," "Atheism," and "Atheist" do not need to be capitalized as they are not proper nouns. Capitalizing them is very common among people who oppose atheists and atheism on ideological rather than factual grounds. Let's hope you're not one of them.

[robvalue]

Me: "Hey God, could you stop giving AIDS to babies please? And provide food, clean water and shelter to all your people?"

God: "No, fuck off. You don't believe in me enough or something. Kiss my ass. Do it yourself."

Me: "We're trying. It's just, you could do it instantly."

God: "Fuck off."

[Ravenshire]

Oookay. Again, what does that have to do with atheism? You're just pulling a scientist's quote about one of his scientific views. This isn't a science site, although some of the scientists here can have that conversation with you if you want. Is that what you wanted instead of an atheist conversation?

How else can we continue to discuss atheism if we leave science out of it? Atheists constantly say there's no evidence for God, isn't that a scientific statement?

Well, is a courtroom a laboratory?

As has been pointed out to you, atheism is a stance on a single topic. Belief in gawds.