Atheisms Thirteen Biggest Flaws

[DudeAlmighty]

Came across this:Atheisms Thirteen Biggest Flaws (http://petitecute.home.att.net/flaws.htm)

Quite a few things discussed there.

I got the feeling the author might have scanned some of these boards a bit, since the arguments look familiar.

[Heurismus]

I quite like it :eek: Shock Horror!

No really I do, from what I have read, yes there is a distillation of many aspects that we have argued and counter argued ourselves, but it does give a simple list for all atheists to examine and think about theirselves.

Are you mad Heuri? No I am not; that I have my own theory of what god is suits me. I know reasonably that there is no external God, but as an enquirer I also know that some of her arguments are valid and require further examination. I also know that those who cannot examine their own thoughts critically are falling into the area of just taking it for granted and thus equally arrogant as some theists are.

I've just put it in my favourites as I am examining the psychology of religion for several other purposes.

He who stands still gets left behind. TTFN, H :cool:

PS. Don't just react to it- examine its flaws and thereby examine your own.

[Toto]

I don't recognize the persona from this board. "Abby Aaron" - "Little Miss Soapbox"? "petitecute"?? who is a rabid Republican conservative.

There is a somewhat cruel parody here (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/guestwriters/stn/abby.html).

This was amusing.

9. "The crusades and the inquisition show that Christianity is evil."

In any organization, there is the potential for corruption. Those events took place at a time when the Bible was kept under lock and key within the walls of the church. The public was not allowed to read it and had to depend on their priests to do all Biblical interpretations. This was a system that bred corruption. Dishonest priests would pander to dishonest rulers, and the result was sometimes anything but religious. I agree with historians who say that, had the Bible been available to the public, those events would’ve never been allowed to happen.

So after Germans started reading the Bible, there was a Holocaust. Coincidence?

[Toto]

... I know reasonably that there is no external God, but as an enquirer I also know that some of her arguments are valid and require further examination. ...

Oh come on. Her arguments involve rejecting definitions of atheism and claiming that "God healed my hiccups" proves the existence of God.

What argument is valid?

[Heurismus]

Oh come on. Her arguments involve rejecting definitions of atheism and claiming that "God healed my hiccups" proves the existence of God.

What argument is valid?

None, but certainly none of hers, I was just saying that such a simple little list is a good basis for other atheists who may not have encountered such bullshit to rip to shreds themselves.


But as to hiccups I cure my own when I get them, but having identified what causes them I compensate to negate effects. Sorry if I made you bite, :) but here is one rational answer.

Maybe we should all take 1 point and rip it to shreds, good Idea or not? Theists can then learn themselves that they really are in the grip of 'mass mania'.

[Family Man]

She actually makes a couple of good points -- wars are not best explained by religious conflicts, though it did intensify some conflicts and its remarkable that religion didn't seem to do much to reduce conflicts.

On the other hand, she relies entirely too much on the old "millions of people have been positively affected by religion and, gosh-golly-darn-gee-whiz' they all can't be wrong.

The better critique of religion is that it is a human, not divine, creation. As such, we should see some positive and negative developments as a result, with the positive being more common (since this benefits humanity more). This is exactly precisely what we do see. Wars happen, and religion doesn't seem to mitigate that at all.

[MonCapitan2002]

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. A man who claims he can run a mile in one minute—while the world’s best atheletes can’t break the three-minute mark—has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now, about 90% of the world’s population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus, throughout known history—even back to the days of the caveman—humans have believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their case for the deviation.
This argument is complete bullshit. Just because the majority of people believe in a deity does not mean the burden of proof is on atheist. Since it is the theists who are making the assertion that gods exists, the burden of proof will always be on them, not the other way around. Ding dong the fucking bitch is wrong! If you assert that something exists than it is up to you to prove that it does. That is why the US justice system works on the guilty until proven innocent principle. They are the ones claiming that someone commited a crime and therefore the burden of proof is on them. All an atheist has to do is poke holes in the arguments of theists. The burden of proof is not on us and will never be on us.

I would just like to say one thing here. For centuries people believed Earth was flat and the center of the universe. If I went one millenia into the past and claimed Earth was a sphere, I would have been called daft. Most people believed that Earth was flat. Today we know that Earth is round and not in the center of the universe. Just because a belief is popular does not make it true. If one holds a belief, they better be able to justify via some method. This would apply to all theists on Earth. I also find it interesting that the twit makes no mention of the fact that not every theist believes in the same deity.

I would have to say that the burden of proof is on the person positively asserting a given claim. Just because theistic belief is common does not change the fact that the burden is on the theist. If you make a claim, then the burden of supporting the claim is on you. Lacking a belief in any particular claim is not the same as claiming its opposite is true. It seems as if this twit is unable to grasp that simple concept. I'm not exactly suprised by that, however.

The stupid bitch strikes out with this turd of an argument.

1. “Atheism isn’t a belief, but the lack of a belief.�


This is what I call the “single definition� of atheism. It is the cornerstone of most atheistic defenses. Atheists like to use this definition because they feel that it protects them from certain criticisms from Christians and other theists. For example, if atheism is a lack of a belief, then atheists can’t be criticized for believing anything. This simple idea is a powerful weapon for atheists on message boards. It is, however, wrong. Since there is (currently) no scientifically verifiable evidence to support either side of the God question, both theism and atheism have to be called beliefs. Just as theism is a belief that there is a God, atheism is the belief that there isn’t. Atheism, therefore, is not immune to the criticisms that other belief systems might draw.
The bitch proves herself to be a fucking moron here as well. Atheism is a lack of a belief in a deity. A lack of belief does not necessarily mean that one believes God does not exist. One simply lacks of a belief in God. While I believe God does not exist, believing as such is not a requisite to being an atheist. In this case she strikes out again.

I don't think the above is entirely clear. What I mean is that someone lacking in a belief of something does not mean that they actively believe that that something does not exist. I hope that clears that up.

Just look at the two different flavors of atheism.

"Weak" atheism is a lack of a belief in god(s) while "strong" atheism is the belief that god(s) do not exist. The first one is simply disbelieving the assertion that god(s) exist while the latter asserts that god(s) do not exist. In this case, the latter would have to put forth an argument supporting their assertion. If you are talking about strong atheism then the above quoted passage would be applicable. She seems to not understand that atheism by definition is lack of a belief in deities and not a belief that deities do not exist. While the distinction is subtle, it is nonetheless very real. Of course, being a theist, she is probably incapable of making that distinction.
6. “There is no evidence to support a belief in God.�


Yes, there is. Testimonial evidence abounds. Millions claim that God has touched their hearts, cured their illnesses and improved their lives. Atheists refuse to acknowledge this evidence, because they accept only scientifically verifiable evidence. This is a restriction that they have chosen to place upon themselves, yet they demand that others do the same thing, which is ridiculous. Atheists say that human testimony can’t be trusted because human senses can’t be trusted. The fact that this twisted logic effectively discounts all life experiences doesn’t seem to phase atheists in the least. It’s yet another example of how atheism shuts down the mind.
Here again the bitch fucks up. What she fails to mention is that all these claims are based on subjective experiences that cannot be objectively tested. Insofar as I know, no atheists have said that life experiences cannot be trusted. If we do not trust in our own mental and physical faculties, our lives would be very difficult indeed. What atheists recognise and theists do not is that our experiences are subjective and anything we see, feel and hear is subject to our own biases and perceptions. Simply believing that "God" has touched your life does not mean that "He/She/It" has.

I like how she calls our logic twisted while hers has more convolutions than a pretzel. All the testimonies mentioned have a basis only on the words of the theist making the claim. If something cannot be objectively tested measured and falsified then it simply does not qualify as evidence. An individual's subjective claim cannot be counted as evidence if one has nothing to back it up. I'd like to see what illnesses "God" has cured. If anyone cures illnesses, it is doctors. Unless of course you use the argument that the doctor was guided by God. :rolleyes:

I think I have been enough of an asshole for this thread. Here is my attempt to rip into shreds three of the twit's arguments. Feel free to tell me if my counter-arguments have holes in them. I basically did these off the top of my head and I wouldn't be surprised if others can put up better rebuttals to than the ones I made.

[worm]

wow.

worst. arguments. ever.

he/she totally misunderstands atheism, uses fallicious logic, and, at some points, even provides misinformation.

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

PoodleLovinPessimist hands MonCapitan2002 a Valium

My friend, you're going to die of a stroke if you get this worked up about every bad argument promulgated by a stupid theist.

[MonCapitan2002]

Yeah. You do indeed make a good point sensei. It is just that the stupidity of her arguments got me worked up. I can't help but get disgusted at such stupidity.

[mirage]

She does indeed torture logic at several points. (the athletic "deviation from the norm" in the burden of proof point, used to justify the argument from popularity, particularly pissed me off. She is a fuckwit.)

But the points about divorce rates, war and prison populations are valid. I would cringe if I saw an atheist defending with these. OK, so I don't think religion has helped peace on earth, but the strength of association is sufficiently dubious to make the atheist look like a raving fundamentalist on occasions.

[I_pity_the_fool]

11. “Christians have a higher divorce rate than do atheists.�

Atheists who use this argument think that it illustrates how hypocritical Christians are. But in reality, it shows just the opposite.

Atheists believe that morality is relative, that is, there is no absolute “good� or “bad� behavior. Atheists therefore get to make up their own morals to fit whatever lifestyle they desire. For example, if an atheistic husband finds out his wife has been cheating on him, he has the option of deciding that cheating is okay. The two of them might even decide to have an “open marriage,� in which both parties can freely enjoy extramarital affairs. With a morality that can be changed to suit any set of circumstances, atheists have fewer reasons to seek a divorce.

Christians, on the other hand, receive their morality from God via the Bible. Those morals can’t be augmented to suit the whims of the moment. Infidelity and other such offenses are taken very seriously. After doing what he can to save a marriage, sometimes a Christian literally has to choose between following God or sticking with a spouse who wants to pursue an ungodly lifestyle. Sometimes divorce is the only answer.

So, it is because of high Christian values—and not hypocrisy—that the divorce rate is higher among Christians, while atheists have fewer divorces because of their changeable standards of morality.

I see, atheists have a lower divorce rate because they're out enjoying promiscuous sex with total strangers, disregarding the sanctity of marriage.

Yeah. That's it!

[Kosh]

Every point in that page is either fallacious, or a strawman.

All that time surfing with us, and she didn't learn much....

[Family Man]

The two of them might even decide to have an “open marriage,� in which both parties can freely enjoy extramarital affairs.


Oddly enough, the only couple I've ever known who were in an open marriage were a couple of Christians. Got divorced too. So does that mean I can assume that only Christians have open marriages.

But, hey, sometimes people have to make shit up to continue believing what they want.

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

The two of them might even decide to have an “open marriage,� in which both parties can freely enjoy extramarital affairs.

She says this like it's a bad thing! ;)

[Hen Wen]

Well at first glance I wasn't nearly as disgusted as some of you are about this woman's 13 rebuttals. There was very little hatred or damnation in her prose, and her responses seemed relatively well thought out compared with those commonly employed by theists...

But after going through her points a second time, I felt a little annoyed as she continually relied on distortions, half-truths, and out right lies in each and every argument. Here's a few that were especially agitating for me:

- Her redefinition of atheism as a philosophy or way of life. This is only one step removed from calling atheism a religion, a claim that many theists happily make. I hate how she starts her list of arguments with this tripe. Right off the bat she is trying to undermine atheists and their "beliefs".

- She has the gall to claim that "atheism shuts down the mind"! And she says this right after hailing the importance of how her religion touches the hearts of millions! Christianity is clear as day about the unimportance of the human intellect, and religion propagates itself by using appeals to emotion (eg. heart), not reason, logic, or any form of intelligence.

- She hints that many prisoners (aka criminals) aren't True Christians because they are only pretending to believe in god in order to appeal to societal expectations or wants in order for some sort of personal gain. This may likely be true but she fails to mention that this phenomenon exists outside of the prison system as well. Of the 90% of the world's so called theists, I wonder how many are really sincere in their beliefs and how many are merely along for the ride on another one of society's bandwagons.

- On divorce, most religions and many of the denominations of Christianity are officially opposed to getting divorced. As a result, some religious spouses (at least the ones who actually follow their religious creed) feel forced to stay in bad relationships or abusive situations despite common logic and reasoning to leave. IMO, the statistics on divorce show that A) many Christians conveniently pick & choose which tenets of their religion to adhere to and B) the Christian way of "waiting until marriage" (refraining from sex, not living together) often does not allow the spouses to find out all they need to know about their future mate.

As for this woman being a former poster here, I highly doubt it. I would wager she spends most of her time on Christian boards that have the occaisonal stray non-believer whom she can pick on with her flawed and deceitful arguments.

[Prester John]

Arguments 4 and 5 are contradictory:

4: States athiesm is not supported by logic because you can't prove a negative.

5: States the burden of proof is on the athiest. ie asking the athiest to prove a negative - god doesn't exist.

Very weak arguments.

[Bold]

4: States athiesm is not supported by logic because you can't prove a negative.


...of course if God is by definition everywhere, then proving his non-existence is as simple as proving a local negative - finding somewhere that he isn't.

And the position that he does exist is a universal positive and so impossible to prove...


This argument seems too easy, but is it sound?

[Prester John]

...of course if God is by definition everywhere, then proving his non-existence is as simple as proving a local negative - finding somewhere that he isn't.

And the position that he does exist is a universal positive and so impossible to prove...


This argument seems too easy, but is it sound?

If a thiest were to provide a falsifyable definition of god then we might make some progress! They never do so you can't actually prove anything, any attempt to use your own falsifyable definition is easily countered by them denying your definition. Mind you they are happy to take evidence if they think it points their way, if it goes the other way then god gets all unknowable.

[rationalOne]

I'm disappointed. She used to have a section devoted to Betty Page. :)

Also she used to have a guest book where people posted counter-arguments. Too bad that's gone.

[Duck!]

For example, if an atheistic husband finds out his wife has been cheating on him, he has the option of deciding that cheating is okay.
Huh? Does she really think that atheists choose their morals and values like they choose what clothes to wear?

Oh no, my wife cheated on me! Not to worry, I think I'll decide that cheating is acceptable. Problem solved.


Duck!

[JPD]

I'm disappointed. She used to have a section devoted to Betty Page. :)

Also she used to have a guest book where people posted counter-arguments. Too bad that's gone.

The network backbone couldn't take the data flow.
Any of her arguments can be turned around and pointed straight back at her with a little word play. She isn't that bright - if she was she would have realised by now that she should stop believing in fairy tales.

[Lucretius]

From Flaw number 2

This is true regardless of anecdotal incidents when atheists, for ulterior motives, say that it’s okay for certain people to believe in God, e.g., “I’m in favor of the citizens of such-and-such country believing in God if it will keep them from slaughtering each other.�

Has anyone here EVER heard an atheist saying this ?

[DaninGraniteCity]

From Flaw number 2



Has anyone here EVER heard an atheist saying this ?

Neoconservatives?

[Plognark]

Wow, that's fucking horrible. Same shit that militant evangelicals who are fired up with passion of jebus come here screaming about after watching the passion of Mel and getting inspired to come bother the non-believers for a couple hours. :banghead:

*yawn*

[PinkPanther_04]

Huh? Does she really think that atheists choose their morals and values like they choose what clothes to wear?

Oh no, my wife cheated on me! Not to worry, I think I'll decide that cheating is acceptable. Problem solved.No kidding. :rolleyes: Apparently atheists aren't moral enough to get a divorce when our spouses screw us over.

I'm amazed at the insight this idiot has into atheists' relationships! :banghead:

[openeyes]

Every point in that page is either fallacious, or a strawman.

.... Yet to those who want to be bolstered against the atheistic viewpoint, they probably sound just fine, unfortunately.

[Sven]

11. “Christians have a higher divorce rate than do atheists.�

Atheists who use this argument think that it illustrates how hypocritical Christians are. But in reality, it shows just the opposite.

Atheists believe that morality is relative, that is, there is no absolute “good� or “bad� behavior. Atheists therefore get to make up their own morals to fit whatever lifestyle they desire. For example, if an atheistic husband finds out his wife has been cheating on him, he has the option of deciding that cheating is okay. The two of them might even decide to have an “open marriage,� in which both parties can freely enjoy extramarital affairs. With a morality that can be changed to suit any set of circumstances, atheists have fewer reasons to seek a divorce.

Christians, on the other hand, receive their morality from God via the Bible. Those morals can’t be augmented to suit the whims of the moment. Infidelity and other such offenses are taken very seriously. After doing what he can to save a marriage, sometimes a Christian literally has to choose between following God or sticking with a spouse who wants to pursue an ungodly lifestyle. Sometimes divorce is the only answer.

So, it is because of high Christian values—and not hypocrisy—that the divorce rate is higher among Christians, while atheists have fewer divorces because of their changeable standards of morality.

Oh my non-existent-omnipotent-being! :banghead:
Talk about a red herring...
The Christian who is the hypocrite is not the one who's been cheated on - it's the one doing the cheating!
If we get back to this basic fact, all of the following blather becomes irrelevant. The only way out then would be to invoke a no-true-Christian (scotsman) fallacy.

[Rusting Car Bumper]

But the points about divorce rates, war and prison populations are valid. I would cringe if I saw an atheist defending with these.

An atheist would not "defend" with those. An atheist would critique claims of religion with them. and why not? These are perfectly reasonable ways to show that supernatural religions do not promote the effects that are claimed.

In the United States supernatural religion has unprecendented access to people. It has its own TV channels with 24/7 programming. It has its own publishing companies and bookstores. It has a wide variety of meeting halls called "churches" which are widely attended and rivaled only by sports arenas. and almost every politician claims a religious connection.

At the same time the U.S. has high murder rates, high divorce rates, high levels of uninsured people, and so on. We could list all of the things out of sync with other developed nations. If supernatural religion has such unbridled access to people, its claimed message is one of generosity and morality, and lastly is claimed to be more successful then certainly it has to take some of the blame for these problems or in the least has to answer for its lack of success.

DC

[g-21-lto]

She does indeed torture logic at several points. (the athletic "deviation from the norm" in the burden of proof point, used to justify the argument from popularity, particularly pissed me off. She is a fuckwit.)
If you have someone claiming to be able to run faster than any athlete ever has before, then you have verifiable evidence from earlier attmepts at fast running to judge against. With the claim that God exists or doesn't exist, you can look at...nothing substantive. Oh, wait, personal testimony is now valid evidence. I forgot.

I can see personal testimony validating a personal belief, but it's not something you could justify trying to convert others based on. Then again if you want to live your life based on a revelation of that amount of dubiousness, hmm. Maybe not such a great idea. :huh:

[Answerer]

Came across this:Atheisms Thirteen Biggest Flaws (http://petitecute.home.att.net/flaws.htm)

Quite a few things discussed there.

I got the feeling the author might have scanned some of these boards a bit, since the arguments look familiar.

:rolling: :rolling:

I seldom used any of thirteen points. (Indeed sometimes people use some of the points on me)

My arguments to any theist are rather simple. One example is: Show me why other religions are bullshit as compared to yours and I will show you how yours are shitty in comparsion to them. In short, "you killed yourself" kind of argument.

You reaped what you sowed. :thumbs: :thumbs:

[HaysooChreesto!]

Overall, those are some pretty disappointing arguments. However, I do need to convert my wife to atheism so that we can have threesomes with all the hot looking women I cheat on her with. :rolleyes:
But since I'm the atheist it would probably go more like her telling me that she's been servicing the local Chip n' Dales troup and then me responding not with anger and disgust but suggesting instead that everything's fine. I guess I would look for the silver lining in the cloud and state that we should begin to screw whoever we can get naked with.

As if atheists aren't even human. That we lack the emotions that come with such a hurtful kind of betrayal.

The rest were just as bad. I wonder if she were to move into a community dominated by the KKK if she would turn into a racist. After all, most of the people she would be in contact with hate minorities so they'd have to be right. How can one not love the argument that, "Everyone else believes it, so what's wrong with you?"

[Xulfer Cirtsag]

I just came in to say that the webpage mentioned's (http://petitecute.home.att.net/flaws.htm) biggest flaw is that it is near impossible to read with black text and dark gray background.

[Pjanc]

Author also makes another fundamental mistake by thinking that atheists are a bunch of identical cheep, like theists...

Atheists blieve that blah blah blah. Atheists believe whatever they do. They don't have a blindfold on like the author.

#12 for example is bullshit. I don't do good deeds cause I feel like doing them. They do it cause they're affraid of punishment. We both do it for personal reasons, but I do it to feel good and they do it cause tehy're scared of hell. Quite a hostile tone we have here, not unlike the article.