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.

[Tcg]

The positive thinking is the same variety of idea, and it's not religious.

Which once again doesn't change the fact that religion includes this idea. Additionally, you've not shown that "positive thinking" agrees that "God works in mysterious ways." If you were to do so, all you'd do is show that "positive thinking" is also religious.


Tcg

[Purple Knight]

Which once again doesn't change the fact that religion includes this idea.

I agree that it does. I just don't think religion generated it. If anything, it generated religion. I'm speaking to the nature of the topic: The ills of religion, as in, which ills would we be rid of if we got rid of religion. Which ills would even be reduced or ameliorated. The type of lazy thinking your chart shows, this specific lazy thinking masquerading as genius and perfection, is not an ill of religion, though it might seem so, since religions practice it.

Additionally, you've not shown that "positive thinking" agrees that "God works in mysterious ways." If you were to do so, all you'd do is show that "positive thinking" is also religious.

The bit I'm saying positive thinking does identically is the flow of the chart. You do have to replace "God works in mysterious ways" with "you weren't thinking positively enough" but the similarity is in the flow itself, and the main relevance is that it avoids having to ever blame the One Solution or admit it might not be adequate. The proponent gets to use the same One Solution for everything, never has to think, and gets to offload the blame when it doesn't work.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Atheism is, I would argue, on reason and evidence, True (the better argument) and that's why is it something that society should have, not that it is is going to be some magical cure for the 'Ills' of religion. Though if it was, that would be a bonus.

I see that your answer to the question for debate is no, atheism is not the cure for the supposed ills of religion. I agree, but I'd be the happiest man in the world if it was that easy.

So what reason and evidence is available for atheism?

[JoeyKnothead]

So what reason and evidence is available for atheism?

Theists' inabilty to show their claims regarding a god they can't show exists should be at the forefront here.

[Paul of Tarsus]

So what reason and evidence is available for atheism?

Theists' inabilty to show their claims regarding a god they can't show exists should be at the forefront here.

Maybe God exists, but theists just don't have the means to prove he exists. Also, atheists cannot prove the "primordial ooze" ever existed, so is their inability to prove it existed evidence that it never existed? I don't think so. I would rethink that logic if I were you.

[Tcg]

Also, atheists cannot prove the "primordial ooze" ever existed, so is their inability to prove it existed evidence that it never existed? I don't think so.

What does the "primordial ooze" have to do with atheism and why would an atheist need to prove it existed?


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

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?

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

Also, atheists cannot prove the "primordial ooze" ever existed, so is their inability to prove it existed evidence that it never existed?

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

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.

As I note how -ahem- oozy they may go about it.

I would rethink that logic if I were you.

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.


The fact remains, theists can most certainly not show their god exists, can most certainly not show their god has the facilities to process thought, nor opinion, and most certainly they can not show they speak truth about them any of it.

But they know how to spell 'logic'. On that point, I must concede.

[JoeyKnothead]

What does the "primordial ooze" have to do with atheism and why would an atheist need to prove it existed?

PM me, I got pics of the pretty thing.

Just funning. She hit me. I'd produce me a drawing from memory, but the concussion and all.

[TRANSPONDER]

The apologetic for God (or Jesus) supposedly working in the life of the believer is not perhaps an 'ill of religion' or not specifically of religion. But if it is - that people can fool themselves into believing that they found their car keys because of God, or if they didn't find them, He would help, in time..and if they never turned up... God had his Reasons. In other words, whatever happens is what God did. It (see the flo-chart above) is a recipe for self - delusion, and not just a religious one. Fortune - tellers work the same way. Even political apologists.

So the point is not an ill of religion but a failure of thinking. It is irrational and faulty reasoning. Rationality and logic can help to show the fallacy of such self (or doctrine) - serving errors of thinking. Atheist rationale refers to rationalism all the time.

The fallacy of counting the hits and ignoring the misses. That's an easy way of persuading ones-self that miracles are happening in one's life all the time. Charles Schultz put it nicely in a cartoon with Lucy complaining 'Why does it always rain when I want to go out out?' and Linus explaining that really it doesn't; she only remembers the times when that happens.

There's the whole rationale of God having control of the world..except when a disaster or scandal or something that looks like no god is in control of anything happens, and then we get the excuses - the Devil, God's can't interfere with free will, Men are all sinners. Take your pick. The fact is that it all explains perfectly well if we are on our own.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Also, atheists cannot prove the "primordial ooze" ever existed, so is their inability to prove it existed evidence that it never existed? I don't think so.

What does the "primordial ooze" have to do with atheism and why would an atheist need to prove it existed?

That's another issue entirely. 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. 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.

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.

To answer your irrelevant question, many atheists have substituted the primordial ooze for God as the creator of life. Although atheists cannot prove that the primordial ooze ever existed, their failure in no way rules out the primordial ooze as the origin of life. The same reasoning applies to theists' presumed failure to prove that God exists.