Why atheism is wrong (from a Christian perspective) [ATHEISTS ONLY]

Zombrex

In the spirit of my suggestion on this thread may I present to you a little thought experiment.

I don't know how successful this will be, or if the Christians (or any other religion interested) will take up the banner, but here goes.

I would like atheists, particularly the regular ones on this forum, to rip atheism apart, from a Christian perspective initially (other perspectives could be included later, but I want to focus on the Christian perspective initially).

Why? What would we possibly want to tear down are perfect, rational, logical view of the world Wicknight? I hear you all say.

Two reasons

1) The constant charges that both sides just don't get either other is annoying. I would love for a atheist to read this thread and go "Ah, ok, so they do understand reason 352 why atheism is nonsense"

2) It is very health to challenge one's own beliefs and perspectives. We can become too complacent in believing not only that we are correct, but that the reason we believe we are correct is also strong and without flaw.

This isn't a trick. I'm not looking for someone to go "HA! there is no reason atheism sucks. We win losers", as tempting as that would be.

Not is this a thread to defend atheism. Let me repeat that, THIS IS NOT A THREAD TO DEFEND ATHEISM.

In fact if you see something that really annoys you and you think is really silly, run with it. See if you can find a way of making the argument hold that isn't silly, see if you can expand on the argument. Give examples of people who have put forward the argument etc etc. You don't need to give reasons why the argument is flawed at contradicting atheism, only if the argument doesn't contradict atheism enough.

I hope you guys appreciate the purpose of this thread. It is not to get a one up on the Christians, it is for ourselves to get a better understanding of why we believe what we believe. I hope the Christians will read this thread, find it interesting, understand that we aren't idiots after all, and hopefully start their own thread.

BTW I said atheists only in the title, but if theists wish to make suggestions that is welcome. The atheist only part was more for effect

Again if any thiest makes a suggestion I ask that you don't defend atheism, or critize the suggestion, but in fact run with it.

Zombrex

To get the ball rolling.

Atheists often go on about how they reject what they don't know is real, or reject something "without evidence"

This is flawed on a number of levels. Humans lack the ability to to judge things in the universe to a high level of accuracy. We recognize that fact in things like the scientific method. God's existence is not dependent on us being capable of determining he exists. If we can't determine he exists that demonstrates our lack of ability, not that he doesn't exist.

You can't therefore say I conclude God doesn't exist because I see no evidence for him. You see no evidence for him because you lack the ability to see evidence for him.

iUseVi

Ok, this thread is FANTASTIC. I'm gonna take a while to formulate my arguments, but I'll be back.

Sapien

You're really not trying, Wicknight.

On a point of order. Are we practising arguments advocating belief in a god, or in God? The Judeao-Christian God, I mean. Because one I can do, the other would kill me dead.

eoin5

One problem I have with many atheists is their inability to believe that irrational thinking can be good. Since ad-homineum is encouraged heres a speech by Douglas Adams to point out what good religions can do when they work properly.

douglas adams wrote:

There's a very interesting book - I don't know if anybody here's read it - called 'Man on Earth' by an anthropologist who use to be at Cambridge, called John Reader, in which he describes the way that… I'm going to back up a little bit and tell you about the whole book. It's a series of studies of different cultures in the world that have developed within somewhat isolated circumstances, either on islands or in a mountain valley or wherever, so it's possible to treat them to a certain extent as a test-tube case. You see therefore exactly the degree to which their environment and their immediate circumstances has affected the way in which their culture has arisen. It's a fascinating series of studies. The one I have in mind at the moment is one that describes the culture and economy of Bali, which is a small, very crowded island that subsists on rice. Now, rice is an incredibly efficient food and you can grow an awful lot in a relatively small space, but it's hugely labour intensive and requires a lot of very, very precise co-operation amongst the people there, particularly when you have a large population on a small island needing to bring its harvest in. People now looking at the way in which rice agriculture works in Bali are rather puzzled by it because it is intensely religious. The society of Bali is such that religion permeates every single aspect of it and everybody in that culture is very, very carefully defined in terms of who they are, what their status is and what their role in life is. It's all defined by the church; they have very peculiar calendars and a very peculiar set of customs and rituals, which are precisely defined and, oddly enough, they are fantastically good at being very, very productive with their rice harvest. In the 70s, people came in and noticed that the rice harvest was determined by the temple calendar. It seemed to be totally nonsensical, so they said, 'Get rid of all this, we can help you make your rice harvest much, much more productive than even you're, very successfully, doing at the moment. Use these pesticides, use this calendar, do this, that and the other'. So they started and for two or three years the rice production went up enormously, but the whole predator/prey/pest balance went completely out of kilter. Very shortly, the rice harvest plummeted again and the Balinese said, 'Screw it, we're going back to the temple calendar!' and they reinstated what was there before and it all worked again absolutely perfectly. It's all very well to say that basing the rice harvest on something as irrational and meaningless as a religion is stupid - they should be able to work it out more logically than that, but they might just as well say to us, 'Your culture and society works on the basis of money and that's a fiction, so why don't you get rid of it and just co-operate with each other' - we know it's not going to work!

iUseVi

Ok, my number one piece of evidence that totally convinces me would persuade me of theism is personal experience. Interesting this is a weak one for other people, but anyway here goes:

Lots of people say that God speaks to them. I could dismiss a few, but there really is a lot. Now I am aware of the counter claims, (It's normal to have a "conversation" in your head, etc.) but people genuinely seem sincere. Of course crazy people can be sincere too, but these people aren't crazy.

Much as I hate to admit it, these people can be intelligent, fun to be around, etc. In essence, normal human beings.

I don't hear voices in my head, and I am itching to talk about the counter arguments. But in the spirit of the thread, this is the most convincing thing I can think of. Normal sane people say they talk to God, and I believe that they do have genuine "spiritual" experiences.

So people saying God speaks to them is fairly good circumstantial evidence in my books. If I heard God speak to me, that would be very strong evidence, so when ever your ready God....:p

EDIT: I'm gonna rack my brains for others, but this is hard!

Pompey Magnus

A belief in a God or Gods is one of the most commonly found traits among humans, dating back thousands of years. This is because we all have a spark of the divine within us and we yearn to know our creator. He gave us this yearning as he wants us to find him so that when we do it will have been a truely meaningful journey for us. If he made himself too obvious the experience of finding God will be more or less meaningless.

There are thosands of seperate religions but all these contain an underlying truth, they are all pathways to the same creator. To believe in the divine is an important part of being human, it has been since the species began to truely develop and even today with the advancement of science it remains an important force in the lives of billions of people. To reject belief is to cut out an important piece of humanity and the unbeliever is left unfulfilled, even if they themselves do not realise it.

Dave!

Don't be giving the Christians ammunition lads!

Fanny Cradock

Put your backs into it, lads!

stereoroid

Wicknight wrote: »

You can't therefore say I conclude God doesn't exist because I see no evidence for him. You see no evidence for him because you lack the ability to see evidence for him.

It depends on what you mean by "conclude", doesn't it? This relates to another thread: I have "concluded" that there are no gods, in the sense of "that book is closed for now". It's not a final, life-long, definitive "NO" to the question, and it doesn't have to be.

If I try imagine a Christian perspective, all I can come up with are objections that have already been debunked. Such as the idea that atheists say "there is definitely no God". No, we don't do that, see the "how can you be sure?" thread.

Another one is the accusation that Atheists are not fully up-to-speed on every philosophical argument for God's existence, or the latest Apologetic literature. Guilty as charged: I'm lazy, and feel that if your God wants me to get off my bum and do something for Him, he can come and tell me in Person. I'm through with trusting what any human being says or writes on the topic. This may be another failing of atheism: an inability to follow orders, or accept that something is true just because it was written in a book long ago, and "authorities" vouch for it.

Schuhart

I'm all fla'd out from my post on my 'God concept' thread, but I just felt I had to say this thread a brilliant idea while not feeling I'm up to thinking of a decent argument. (And, in saying that, I'm not looking for election).

All I can think of at the moment is that atheists overestimate the extent to which we understand the world around us. Hence, the rigor that they think they are subjecting religion to they frequently relax for their own beliefs. Consider the ease with which atheists will accept the evidence of a book on evolution written by Richard Dawkins. They will see no reason to go off themselves and confirm the 'evidence' he claims exists to show that humans are the product of a mechanical process, seemingly feeling that the fact his book was published is proof of its validity.

When you consider the amount of contradictory conspiracy theory books published about the Kennedy assassination, it should be clear that just because a book is popular and sells well is no proof of accuracy. Also, we know that scientific knowledge changes radically over the decades. If DNA had never been discovered, natural selection would never have achieved the currency it has today. Who's to say that some discovery won't be made in the future to unseat DNA as an explanation of anything?

But, most of all, consider how atheists will so readily accept Dawkins as an expert on human origins - despite the man having an obvious bias against religion. Consider the irony of atheists then having the gall to question the integrity of the Gospel authors on grounds they had a vested interest, despite the fact that those same authors risked torture and death for the beliefs they were recording.

I'll start listening to atheists when they get their heads straight. They could start by accepting Jesus into their lives, and take it from there.

kelly1

I like it! OK, CerebralCortex, you're up next!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

because I say so.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

I like it! OK, CerebralCortex, you're up next!

Sure no problem. I find it very difficult going from day to day believing that this is an extistence without purpose, from what little I know about the universe(s) it is unimaginably vast and unfortunately my finite mind can't understand an infinite existence. Therefore I must admit it is hard to be completely sure that it is without purpose whether or not that purpose is god I just don't know. For me to know fully I'd actually have to be the creator, but alas I'm not.
I hope that makes sense.

Dades

In my experience, somethin' can't come from nothin'.

And God ain't nothin'.

Zombrex

stereoroid wrote: »

This may be another failing of atheism: an inability to follow orders, or accept that something is true just because it was written in a book long ago, and "authorities" vouch for it.

Think you are slightly missing the point of the thread.

We are too rational isn't a flaw with atheism

Did remind me of this


Serious posts guys, serious posts. If you genuinely can't argue from the position of a theist then you don't need to post. This isn't an atheism is great thread

Malari

While I don't agree with Gould's "non-overlapping magisterium" as he originally intended it to mean, I do think there is a gap there between what science and evidence can show us, and what we will never empirically know. Religious people (Christians, as we are talking about them specifically here) fill that gap with a god; atheists would prefer to leave it vacant.

I think the "leap of faith" they often talk about is a more recent phenomenon than is usually acknowledged. The phrase was only coined in the 19th century in relation to people just carrying out the religious duties, observing laws, etc, without having any real conviction.

Belief is now the strongest virtue of Christianity; being good, moral, following god's laws are not as central, it would seem. Faith was almost brought in to counteract the emptiness and herd mentality of religious congregations.

I think atheists (myself included) have difficulty accepting that difference between leading a good life and having belief in a god, that is so essential to Christians. Atheism could be accused of refusing to see that the leap is necessary.

kelly1

Malari wrote: »

Atheism could be accused of refusing to see that the leap is necessary.

Nail hit squarely on the head!

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

Nail hit squarely on the head!

Get back in your box!

kelly1

Dades wrote: »

Get back in your box!

Sorry boss. Will keep quiet...

RealEstateKing

Well the basic arguement as I would see it is this:

(1) It is inate in human beings, as pattern-seeking animals, to seek irrational, seemingly absolute sources of good and evil: In an experiment that was once done, a bunch of rational people were given a jacket and asked if they liked it. They all said they did and were told they could keep it: They were then told that the jacket had once belonged to Herman Goering/Klaus Barbie or some other high-ranking Nazi - almost all of them turned straight off the jacket - even though there is no rational reason to do so - it's just a peice of cotton after all.

(2) There are many instances in life in which we think this way - and in fact - many of the most pleasurable things in life require us to think this way: Football, for example. Unless you make yourself think irrationally, football is just a bunch of guys kicking a ball around a field - you have to submit to totally irrational beleifs in 'the team', 'the boys in green representing our nation' (and ignore the fact that most of them are English, highly paid and have no idea who you are, or whatever. )

(3) The same is true for many other things - Romantic love ,Music, charity, teaching kids in inner city schools, getting people off drugs and many other things. Irrational beleif is often neccessary for human happiness and progress.

All of these are things, that if you had to explain to another in rational terms why they are so great, you couldnt.

Reason, thus, is a great tool for getting things done, but it doesnt speak to our hearts at all: So, even though as Richard Dawkins would say "Yes, but that doesnt mean it's true.", a world without religious beleif is no more possible than one without romantic love, or music.

If it isnt possible for it to go away, what is the point in arguing against it? It serve's no more purpose than telling a mother that her love for her child is just a bunch of chemical reactions in her synapses.

Furthermore, as regards the arguement that religion causes conflict and wars: We could easily say the same about romantic love: We all know at least one person that has had their world turned completely upside down - and spiralled into alcoholism, drug addiction or suicide as a result of romance gone wrong. Should we therefore do away with love?

Lastly is the status of atheism as a priveleged beleif: 99.99999999% of people who have ever lived are theists: Atheism is only possible for somebody living a priveleged life in an advanced country: Go to a bunch of Bolivian peasants ekeing out a living growing meagre crops on the Altiplano, you wont find a single atheist there: Reason offers no comfort in a world where half your kids die in childbirth, and hunger, disease and death are always just around the corner.

Akrasia

I don't get this thread at all.

Are we supposed to just repeat the debating points the christians use against us as though we actually believe them?

Why?

Are we supposed to think up new 'flaws' in atheism that we might not actually believe ourselves but we think a christian would find compelling?

Why?

I am an atheist because I don't believe in god. All the arguments that a christian uses against me boil down to "but god does exist, so meh"

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Sorry boss. Will keep quiet...

Less hooting, more suggestions for discussion on why we are wrong (that goes for the atheists too!).

(I might remove the Atheist Only banner, as I said in my OP that was for effect more than anything else, I don't mean to totally exclude theists. Post here, but post with discussion)

Zombrex

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't get this thread at all.

That isn't a requirement.

Post or don't post, its up to you. But if you can't think of any flaws in your own beliefs that would be some what worrying.

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't a requirement.

Phew.
Because this thread seems to me to be a big ol' straw man in waiting.

Actually - how can you have a flaw in a belief?
Surely that's only possible in the logic process of arriving at one.

Akrasia

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't a requirement.

Post or don't post, its up to you. But if you can't think of any flaws in your own beliefs that would be some what worrying.

The main 'flaw' I can see in Atheism is that it doesn't unite people under a common umbrella the same way Christianity does.

At least christianity has some kind of frame of reference when trying to pursuade others to act in a certain way (at its most basic, the golden rule) whie atheists can have totally different belief systems (an extreme atheist socialist arguing against an extreme atheist individualist capitalist might have no common ground at all on which to base an eventual agreement)

If everyone was atheist and there was no more religion, people would still separate along nationalist and political lines and there would still be conflict and division.

Political beliefs can be just as intransigent as religious ones and there are some studies to indicate people are born with innate tendencies towards either collectivism or individualism, and that rational discourse will never be able to fully bridge the gap.

Akrasia

now I feel dirty.

Galvasean

Scientists freely admit that nothing can be proved 100% wrong or right. Therefore you cannot be certain that atheism is correct and must be open to at least the small possibility of theism. Anything else would be in hypocrisy to the scientific method atheists value so much.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

Actually - how can you have a flaw in a belief?
Surely that's only possible in the logic process of arriving at one.

That is the same thing isn't it?

calahans

Science does not explain the origin of the universe. Is it more likely that the universe exploded from nothing, or that there is a higher power which created everything given the delicate balance of all our physical laws?

For example if gravity or the strong nuclear force had slightly different values the universe could not support life. There must be a design.

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the same thing isn't it?

Actually in hindsight - a flawed belief could be one you hold in contradiction to what the logic process has unearthed.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

Actually in hindsight - a flawed belief could be one you hold in contradiction to what the logic process has unearthed.

well I actually said flaws in a belief. I would be very surprised if someone said there are no flaws in any of the beliefs they hold. That to me would strike as unfounded arrogance. But just because there are flaws in ones belief doesn't mean it is wrong to hold that belief.

For example I believe my bus is going to turn up at lunch time to take me to lunch. The flaw in that is that there are million things that could stop that happening. I still believe it though, because I consider them unlikely. But I certain wouldn't say there are no flaws in my belief and I'm 100% certain .

Perhaps "flaw" is the wrong word here, but the point I'm trying to get across is that everyone should recognize and consider the reasons why they could be wrong, even if at the end of that process you still hold on to your belief.

kelly1

I suggest:

1. natural instruments/senses can't detect the supernatural. Only what is supernatural (e.g. the spirit) can "detect" the supernatural (e.g. spirit).

2. Why do we have more matter than anti-matter in the universe if the universe came from nothing.

3. Science doesn't know how life began, how DNA came about. I'm talking about abiogenesis and not evolution.

4. Nobody can declare with any conviction that God doesn't exist. There is no proof of this. One needs to extract ones head from the sand and explore the possibility and not discount out of hand the witness of those who have experienced God first hand. They can't all be mad!

5. Why is man the only rational being with a seemingly built-in need to find and worship some being greater than himself?

6. How do thoughts and ideas come from physical material, regardless of its complexity? Is brain activity the thought itself or an effect produced by the thought?

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

...4. Nobody can declare with any conviction that God doesn't exist. There is no proof of this. One needs to extract ones head from the sand and explore the possibility and not discount out of hand the witness of those who have experienced God first hand. They can't all be mad!....

Is that true though? I mean I can say with clear conviction that Zeus doesn't exist and I can say Yaweh doesn't exist with clear conviction. Or am I wrong? I take offense on being told my head is in the sand.

kelly1 wrote: »

They can't all be mad!

Why not? Depends on your definition of madness really doesn't it?

kelly1

That's not really in keeping the spirit of this thread, is it? I'm talking about the possibility of an ultimate being, the source of everything. I don't think it's logically possible to have multiple gods because you have to ask how did they get there in the first place? Isn't it absurd to think that multiple equal gods exist eternally? How would there be any harmony? Too many cooks etc. Not a very thorough argument I know, but something to chew on.

calahans

kelly1 wrote: »

I suggest:

1. natural instruments/senses can't detect the supernatural. Only what is supernatural (e.g. the spirit) can "detect" the supernatural (e.g. spirit).

Not really. I presume I have a spirit but I can't detect the supernatural.

kelly1 wrote: »

2. Why do we have more matter than anti-matter in the universe if the universe came from nothing.

3. Science doesn't know how life began, how DNA came about. I'm talking about abiogenesis and not evolution.

Fair points

kelly1 wrote: »

4. Nobody can declare with any conviction that God doesn't exist. There is no proof of this. One needs to extract ones head from the sand and explore the possibility and not discount out of hand the witness of those who have experienced God first hand. They can't all be mad!

This is more of a personal belief than any kind of argument.

kelly1 wrote: »

5. Why is man the only rational being with a seemingly built-in need to find and worship some being greater than himself?

Well to be fair man is the only self aware being we can communicate with. Maybe if we meet aliens that dont believe in God we can investigate this.

kelly1 wrote: »

6. How do thoughts and ideas come from physical material, regardless of its complexity? Is brain activity the thought itself or an effect produced by the thought?

Fair point

TheBigLebowski

kelly1 wrote: »

That's not really in keeping the spirit of this thread, is it?

So have you got anything to say that is in the spirit of this thread? All I see is you defending your own beliefs. Have you any logical arguments against Christianity or are they just too numerous to even start?

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

That's not really in keeping the spirit of this thread, is it? I'm talking about the possibility of an ultimate being, the source of everything. I don't think it's logically possible to have multiple gods because you have to ask how did they get there in the first place? Isn't it absurd to think that multiple equal gods exist eternally? How would there be any harmony? Too many cooks etc. Not a very thorough argument I know, but something to chew on.

I guess its not.

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't think it's logically possible to have multiple gods because you have to ask how did they get there in the first place? Isn't it absurd to think that multiple equal gods exist eternally? How would there be any harmony? Too many cooks etc. Not a very thorough argument I know, but something to chew on.

Where is the absurdity? Why couldn't there be harmony(which is a human idea)? God might decide he'd like to split himself in two. Would you be able to ask him for me? What does the holy trinity imply or should I just resign myself to mystery? Actually its mystery that makes it difficult to be purely atheist and extremely difficult to be a Christian.

Zombrex

Guys seriously, not the purpose of this thread. This is not a thread to defend atheism against the very posts the thread is inviting. What part of that concept is not understood?

Kelly has put forward some good points, on invitation from myself. Either expand on these points within the context of the thread or leave it. Do not counter the points unless you are expanding on them as even more reason why atheism is wrong.

I'm defending this thread on the Christian forum against charges that leopards can't change their spots, and I really hope we can all get on the same page.

Zombrex

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

So have you got anything to say that is in the spirit of this thread? All I see is you defending your own beliefs. Have you any logical arguments against Christianity or are they just too numerous to even start?

Logical arguments against Christianity is not the purpose of this thread. Kelly is doing exactly what he was asked to do by me, and I started this thread.

CerebralCortex

Wicknight wrote: »

Logical arguments against Christianity is not the purpose of this thread. Kelly is doing exactly what he was asked to do by me, and I started this thread.

I'm sorry its just so difficult other than saying "Christianity has a flawless explanation for my existence". I really don't know what else to say other than that.

stereoroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Logical arguments against Christianity is not the purpose of this thread. Kelly is doing exactly what he was asked to do by me, and I started this thread.

Didn't you also specify "Atheists Only"? If so, why do you accept Kelly1's proselytizing here?

This is just not going to work. As an atheist, I can not genuinely write anything from a Christian perspective. Even when I was a kid, and nominally Catholic (because my mother was Catholic), I don't remember being anything like the Christians I see posting here. :mad:

I can try to imagine being there, but I am still limited to the anti-atheist arguments that I have previously heard and dismissed. I don't see how I (or any atheist) can be expected to provide you with genuinely new ammunition to use against us. (That is what you're after, isn't it - anti-atheist ammo?)

kelly1

Stereoroid, I think Wicknight is only asking you to explore loopholes in the atheist argument. Sounds like a scientific/rational approach to me.

CerebralCortex

Yes. The only thing I can come up with is that we should a least be agnostic.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Stereoroid, I think Wicknight is only asking you to explore loopholes in the atheist argument. Sounds like a scientific/rational approach to me.

I think you'd have to suggest a loophole to get us started.

calahans

Wicknight wrote: »

Guys seriously, not the purpose of this thread. This is not a thread to defend atheism against the very posts the thread is inviting. What part of that concept is not understood?

Kelly has put forward some good points, on invitation from myself. Either expand on these points within the context of the thread or leave it. Do not counter the points unless you are expanding on them as even more reason why atheism is wrong.

I'm defending this thread on the Christian forum against charges that leopards can't change their spots, and I really hope we can all get on the same page.

I think there is a flaw in what you are trying to achieve, or at least the way in which you are trying to achieve it. If you are trying to get atheists to attack what they believe by putting up counter arguments that is fine, but this will not get anywhere unless there is a debate about the points. You say to run with something even if you dont agree - so does that mean that we have post after post agreeing/expanding on a point which no one posting believes in?!?

BrianCalgary

calahans wrote: »

I think there is a flaw in what you are trying to achieve, or at least the way in which you are trying to achieve it. If you are trying to get atheists to attack what they believe by putting up counter arguments that is fine, but this will not get anywhere unless there is a debate about the points. You say to run with something even if you dont agree - so does that mean that we have post after post agreeing/expanding on a point which no one posting believes in?!?

Why does everything have to be an argument? Why can't you have an exchange of information?

I applaud wicknight for this thread. It has got me thinking the other way, the flaws in Christianity, that is.

iUseVi

It's not really working like I expected. At first I thought it would be a good idea - an exercise in thinking about things from someone else's position.

But I don't really find anything convincing. I can think of avenues of discussion but they all end up with me being just as convinced as I was before.

I suppose I've learned that there really are not any doubts in my mind, nor apparently for most other atheists here. (Thanks Wicknight:p) I know this thread is not meant for atheists to say how great they are, but seriously, we ran out of ideas pretty fast.

Dave!

How about a thread about why theism is wrong? We don't have enough of those

stereoroid

kelly1 wrote: »

Stereoroid, I think Wicknight is only asking you to explore loopholes in the atheist argument. Sounds like a scientific/rational approach to me.

Well then, what loopholes? I've seen other posts on this forum, and we know there are webpages out there, pointing out "the flaws in atheism", but all seem to me start with a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is. Do I have to re-state the basics? Maybe I do:

To me it is very simple: it is a lack of belief in Theistic gods. In that sense, it is a reaction to Theism: it is "not Theism". So, what is Theism? I am not a Theist, so I'm not going to tell a Theist what he or she believes*, but I think the start of the Wikipedia article is reasonable:

Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities . There is also a narrower sense in which theism refers to the belief that one or more divinities are immanent in the world, yet transcend it, along with the idea that divinity(s) is/are omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

That is what I don't believe. That is atheism. That is all atheists have in common: anything more is personal, and beyond the definition. It does not claim 100% certainty that any particular god does not exist, it does not close the door to future possibilities, as we learn more about the universe. If you can see a loophole in that, please point it out. Oh, and don't bother with arguments from "personal experience", such as "I can see", or "I have faith", because I don't see what you do, and I don't have faith, and I'm not going to get those in response to anything said by people - because people can, and do, say anything to justify their beliefs.

It really is that simple, and if you want to try complicate it further, you're on your own. That is the mistake these anti-atheist sites and lists make: they're attacking the straw men erected by priests and mullahs, that atheists are evil, they deny the Christian God, are immoral, and so on - none of which are part of the basic definition of atheism: lack of theistic belief.

* theists take note: please stop telling atheists what atheism is, or what we believe. Not being atheists yourselves, you are not qualified to lecture us on what atheism is and is not. I'm not Irish, though I have lived here for 8 years; assuming you're Irish, how would you react if I tried lecturing you on what you think? Ow. :eek:

Dades

I appreciate this is a mirror image of another discussion, but this thread is just bizarre.

I have to say I have given it some thought, and the only flaw I've seen is that some atheists talk in terms of "proofs" and "definites" - i.e. that the truth is 100%: No Gods.

Those atheists are wrong though.

Atheism is just a conclusion that should be open to change. We go to great lengths to establish that it is not a religion, and now we're trying to do a direct comparison.