Does atheism "cure" the supposed ills of religion?

[Paul of Tarsus]

We've all heard the horror stories preached by atheists (or at least I've heard them) regarding the presumed ill effects of religious belief. We are told that Christians and other theists tend to be intolerant, narrow-minded, fanatical, often immoral, and irrational. And atheism, if not the cure for these ills, is "the 911 call." It's a step in the right direction toward truth and logic and laying to rest all those religious beliefs that have led to so much injustice and cruelty.

Is it true that atheism cures the supposed ills of religion?

I must admit that at one time I thought it was. However, after many debates with atheists, I'm not so sure anymore. I've seen a LOT of muddled thinking among atheists in those discussions not to mention intolerance for opposing viewpoints. Fanaticism and irrationality apparently are not the unique traits of the religious.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 70:

...
My point is that the inability on the part of some people to prove God exists is very weak evidence that God does not exist.

When we see, for some two thousand years now, theists' inability to support their god claims beyond the swearing up and down, and the legislating and law making, it's far more logical to conclude their claims are false. Flights of fancy. The stuff of dreams.

We can also consider how god beliefs arise across various cultures, humanity as a whole, and individuals. Here there is sound data to suggest an inquiring mind might seek answers for the unanswerable and unknowable. False memories are a thing, as evidenced by conflicting accounts in eyewitness testimony. And then there's that whole poking sticks in the ground to change the colors or patterns of animals.

God might well exist even though some theists cannot prove he exists.

"Might".

The state of the art in religious apologetics.

I introduced the idea of the primordial ooze as an example of something that may have existed despite the inability of some atheists to prove it ever existed.

You stated such to be an atheist(s') belief (claim?).

I pointed out this atheist makes no claims regarding primordial, or ooze.

Here's the outline of the fallacy:

Some people cannot prove that A is real.
Conclusion: The inability of those people to prove that A is real is evidence that A isn't real.

Do you see the mistake in this reasoning? Even though some people cannot prove A is real, A might well still exist because those people lack the means to prove that A is real.

I think this angle fails to consider the 'following' claims regarding a god or gods the theist can't show exist.

The walking on the water, the turning folks into stone, all such as that. And that whole conflicting 'eyewitness' account business regarding biblical claims should lead to the proper, logical conclusion that folks'll make em up some fancy tales.

To answer your irrelevant question, many atheists have substituted the primordial ooze for God as the creator of life.

And we should expect em to show they speak truth (in debate at least).

So please link to and quote verbatim where anyone has made such a claim within this thread.

I mean, other'n you.

I can't possibly replace, in any aspect of my life, a god I can't show exists to have ever been there to be replaced.

It's like saying I replaced Odin by smoking pot so's I can put up with the pretty thing's gibberings for any more'n a minute.

[Paul of Tarsus]

from Post 65

Maybe God exists, but theists just don't have the means to prove he exists.

Or maybe he don't, and god claimers are a pack of liars?

Logically, an inability to demonstrate that a claim is true does not prove the person making the claim is lying. If it did, then I would need to conclude that you are lying.

I propose that if god claimers could show they speak truth, well how bout that.

How about what?

This atheist makes no claims regarding primordial, nor how oozy it may be.

Many atheists do, so my point is still valid.

Theists make claims regarding god/s they can't show approach reality. I challenge such folks to offer some means by which we may confirm they speak truth.

Atheists often make claims that they can't show "approach reality." Do you challenge them to offer a way to confirm that they speak truth? You would if you are fair and consistent.

As I rethink on whether it was, you and logic had y'all a blind date, and y'all both stood y'all each other up. At the same time.

Hmmm. And I thought only the religious make statements that make little sense.

In summary, the main problem I see with your argumentation here is that it is very biased. You criticize theists for transgressions that are also evident among atheists. Atheism is no cure for dishonesty.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 72

Maybe God exists, but theists just don't have the means to prove he exists.

Or maybe he don't, and god claimers are a pack of liars?

Logically, an inability to demonstrate that a claim is true does not prove the person making the claim is lying. If it did, then I would need to conclude that you are lying.

In what system of logic does asking a question constitute it a lie?

I propose that if god claimers could show they speak truth, well how bout that.

How about what?

That.

Don't you read good?

I propose that if theists could show they speak truth, well how bout that.

We could just shut us down the whole entire debate, and let otseng have him some much deserved time off.

This atheist makes no claims regarding primordial, nor how oozy it may be.

Many atheists do, so my point is still valid.

Please link to, and quote verbatim where such has occurred, that we might examine such as relates to context, and all such as that.

My point here is that nowhere in this thread has any atheist made such a claim.

Unless you're an atheist, then how bout that.

In the context of scientifical explanations about such stuff, there's the underlying implication that such thinking is open to correction based on new, confirmable data.

Only don't it beat all, in a couple thousand years now, the theist has been utterly incapable to show their favored good exists to have him an opinion they can't show he does.

Theists make claims regarding god/s they can't show approach reality. I challenge such folks to offer some means by which we may confirm they speak truth.

Atheists often make claims that they can't show "approach reality."
...

Please link to, and quote verbatim where such has occurred, that we might can all of us set to a proper analysis.

Do you challenge them to offer a way to confirm that they speak truth? You would if you are fair and consistent.

Whataboutism is such a sad state of affairs, but as I mentioned above, bring me claims I seek to challenge, and I'll challenge me every one of em I can get to. Atheist, theist, anyone but the pretty thing. Can't challenge her or I don't get me no dinner, nor me no clean clothes.

I challenge theists to show they speak truth. That is my right within the rules of this website, and this section ofitthere. And within those rules, I'm under me no obligation to challenge me claims I don't seek to challenge. If such a condition is too upsetting for ya, I propose ya talk to the mods about adding a, "But, but atheists..." rule that might help it bring you some sense of comfort in these troubled, theist claims challenging times.

I suffer not how upset my challenges may cause those incapable of showing they speak truth regarding their god claims.

As I rethink on whether it was, you and logic had y'all a blind date, and y'all both stood y'all each other up. At the same time.

Hmmm. And I thought only the religious make statements that make little sense.

I propose that if ya can't make you no sense of the words you read, fetch you a dictionary, or have the good grace to ask for clarificationings.

It'd be a shame if folks thought you couldn't understand the words of an eighth grade dropout.

But that's kinda what I'm agetting at - so often when humans can't make em them no sense of something, they raise their hands to the sky, and declare, "God works him in his mysterious ways".

Where a good ol, "Well how bout that" doesn't create claims of invisible sky daddies that can't be supported beyond, "Well now about that, he might be him up there".

In summary, the main problem I see with your argumentation here is that it is very biased.
...

Agreed.

I'm very biased against those who make claims in debate, only don't it beat all, they can't show they speak truth - or worse still, ignore challenges to their claims altogether.

You criticize theists for transgressions that are also evident among atheists. Atheism is no cure for dishonesty.

Another reason this atheist refrains from making claims I can't support.

(As I tip my hat in sincere preciation that you seem to refrain from making claims you might not / can't support. Now that ain't picking on ya. That's just me trying to tell me the truth best I can. I respect that bout ya.)

Would that the whole, "He's up there, I swear it", crowd might learn from your example.

[Tcg]

To answer your irrelevant question, many atheists have substituted the primordial ooze for God as the creator of life.

This reveals a continued misunderstanding of what it means to be an atheist. An ashiest is one who lacks belief in god/gods. Given this fact, we don't fear God, we don't cry out to God for help, we remain atheists in foxholes, and we most certainly do not seek for a substitute for God.


Tcg

[Paul of Tarsus]

To answer your irrelevant question, many atheists have substituted the primordial ooze for God as the creator of life.

This reveals a continued misunderstanding of what it means to be an atheist. An ashiest is one who lacks belief in god/gods. Given this fact, we don't fear God, we don't cry out to God for help, we remain atheists in foxholes, and we most certainly do not seek for a substitute for God.

So who made you the pope of atheism being the infallible interpreter of what it means to be an atheist? Am I to bow down and kiss your foot believing every assertion you make?

We then see that blind allegiance to authority and belief in dogma is not cured by atheism. Heck, I'm free to disagree with your assertions, something that atheists apparently are forbidden to do.

[brunumb]

My point is that the inability on the part of some people to prove God exists is very weak evidence that God does not exist. God might well exist even though some theists cannot prove he exists.

On the whole, the notion that God might exist is generally accepted by both sides. Hence the debate. The inability of theists to prove that their God exists is not regarded as evidence that God does not exist. It is, however, a compelling reason to not accept the claim that God does in fact exist. You appear to be misrepresenting the way atheists regard the lack of evidence for God.

[brunumb]

So who made you the pope of atheism being the infallible interpreter of what it means to be an atheist?

A die-hard theist is hardly in a better position to assert what it means to be an atheist.

[Paul of Tarsus]

My point is that the inability on the part of some people to prove God exists is very weak evidence that God does not exist. God might well exist even though some theists cannot prove he exists.

On the whole, the notion that God might exist is generally accepted by both sides. Hence the debate. The inability of theists to prove that their God exists is not regarded as evidence that God does not exist.

Tell Knothead that. It is his idea.

It is, however, a compelling reason to not accept the claim that God does in fact exist. You appear to be misrepresenting the way atheists regard the lack of evidence for God.

I'm just responding to what an atheist just got done posting. Your comment here reminds me of Christians who believe in an invisible man-god in the sky but deny it whenever somebody points out how absurd that idea is. It goes like this:

Say something dumb.
When somebody points out that what you said is dumb, deny you said it.

So who made you the pope of atheism being the infallible interpreter of what it means to be an atheist?

A die-hard theist is hardly in a better position to assert what it means to be an atheist.

OK, then appoint an atheist to be the "die-hard atheist," and then make him the infallible interpreter of what it means to be an atheist. If anybody sees atheism differently, then proclaim their ideas to be false and heretical. After all, the die-hard atheist has the Truth (uppercase T), and all those who oppose him utter falsehoods.

Atheism is then seen to be no cure for mindless allegiance to authority.

[JoeyKnothead]

So who made you the pope of atheism being the infallible interpreter of what it means to be an atheist? Am I to bow down and kiss your foot believing every assertion you make?

You got a lotta dang gall to say that, after declaring that whole atheists and the primordial ooze deal.

We then see that blind allegiance to authority and belief in dogma is not cured by atheism. Heck, I'm free to disagree with your assertions, something that atheists apparently are forbidden to do.

This atheist disagrees with your blind, illogical, and downright goofy assertions.

I propose you'd do best to quit trying to argue against the strawmen of your own creating, and just fess up to being ignorant of atheist thought.

[brunumb]

OK, then appoint an atheist to be the "die-hard atheist," and then make him the infallible interpreter of what it means to be an atheist.

Rather nonsensical, but far more acceptable than having a believer in gods telling atheists what it is their atheism really means. A God might exist, but that is a somewhat useless statement compared with telling us that a God actually does exist. In the absence of evidence, what reason should anyone have for accepting the claim, let alone going along with all the instructions and prohibitions that allegedly stem from said God?