Total Posts:121|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is atheism intellectually bankrupt??

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 10:51:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm not saying that atheists themselves are not intellectual, in fact some are quite intellectual. But atheism as a worldview, is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and atheists have to resort to untruths in order to support it. It claims that science and logic support it, but that's wrong.

Science can only describe nature, it can't explain it. It can't say why nature exists, or how it became the driving force within the universe. Science will never find a natural explanation for the existence of the universe, because such an explanation cannot exist.

Every thing has a nature
The universe is a thing, thus it has a nature
A thing's nature describes how it works, and how it came about
A thing's nature cannot exist independent of that thing
Nature cannot exist prior to the existence of the universe
Therefore, there cannot be a natural explanation for the existence of the universe

An atheistic worldview can't account for logical absolutes or the existence of logic, moral objectivity, the existence of the universe, the conditions that allow life, or the existence of life.

Theism can give an answer for all those things. Further, theists will be honest enough to admit that, although we can see God in His creation, ultimately, we must have faith. Atheists argue that there is a natural explanation for everything, we just haven't found it yet, and refuse to admit that they use faith in their conclusions. Yet when asked to provide this science that supports their conclusions, it can't be provided. They believe in a conclusion that they have no evidence for. Is that not faith??

When atheists do provide science to support them, it usually involves the Bible, and an attempt to disprove some interpretation of the Bible. Now, as a theist, I cannot logically use the Bible to prove God's existence. So even if we were to stipulate that science disproves the entire Bible, does that prove that God doesn't exist?? No, it would simply mean that the book that we thought was meant to be the Christian's owners manual, is wrong. God Himself, and belief in His existence, is not touched by disproof of the Bible, though granted we would have to admit that we have no real way of understanding anything about Him.

I don't see atheists arguing with deists. The only thing I see them arguing against is religions that claim certain rules, and morality. They try to disprove the basis for these rules and morality. This tells me that their hatred and disdain is not for the idea of a god, just one who tells them what to do, how to act. They seem to see mankind as gods, and as such, there can be no higher power or authority to tell them what to do. They want to be God. Is this not the same pridefulness that caused Lucifer to be cast out of Heaven?? This was written about thousands of years ago, and is being acted out today, openly for all to see. Wasn't this also predicted thousands of years ago??

Atheists are the only group that I know of that band together and take comfort in identifying themselves by what they don't believe. Now I'm not saying that all atheists are idiots who act immoraly, though I'm sure someone will make the argument that I am doing that, but atheism, as a worldview, is intellectually and morally bankrupt. It offers no answers, and no help to mankind in any way, shape, or form. It is nothing more than a big "NUH-UH" to a set of rules that they don't like, that's it, that's what atheism boils down to.

For years atheists have argued that those who follow the Abrahamic religions, are immoral, and that we are irrational, not following logic and science. They have made their way into our schools and are indoctrinating kids against a belief in God by making fun of believers. They portray us as uneducated oafs, and pretend that science can answer all questions that need to be answered. This trend toward atheism/secularism is harmful and is apparent in every classroom. Many kids don't even know what morals are anymore. I say it's time that we start competing for the hearts and minds of people by showing that atheism can't support it's claims, and is not a valid worldview.

What say you??
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 11:31:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 10:51:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
I'm not saying that atheists themselves are not intellectual, in fact some are quite intellectual. But atheism as a worldview, is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and atheists have to resort to untruths in order to support it. It claims that science and logic support it, but that's wrong.

Science can only describe nature, it can't explain it. It can't say why nature exists, or how it became the driving force within the universe. Science will never find a natural explanation for the existence of the universe, because such an explanation cannot exist.
Simply because something is an unknown unknown (a truth that can never be learned) doesn't been it doesn't exist. There can be an explanation for the known world but simply because we can't explain, or don't have means to explain it, does not been that no explanation exists.

If you're arguing that the universe/nature has no cause then that's a different argument in itself.

Every thing has a nature
The universe is a thing, thus it has a nature
A thing's nature describes how it works, and how it came about
A thing's nature cannot exist independent of that thing
Nature cannot exist prior to the existence of the universe
Therefore, there cannot be a natural explanation for the existence of the universe

This is an equivocation fallacy. Your use of the world 'nature' shifts, you have two definitions.

A thing's nature describes how it works, and how it came about
This is the first definition. Nature(1) being an entity's properties and history.
Every thing has a nature (1)
Every concrete entity has properties and history.
A thing's nature (1) cannot exist independent of that thing
If their is not X, there is no nature of X. Correct. X is an concrete entity.
Nature (1) cannot exist prior to the existence of the universe.
Yes.
Therefore, there cannot be a natural (2) explanation for the existence of the universe
Here is were the equivocation is found. He uses "natural (2)" here to refer to "factual, scientific, not-mystic". Natural (1) was an entity's properties and history.

No natures (1) existed before matter because their was nothing to describe or have history.
Naturalness (2) can exist without matter/the universe because it describes a means not statuses. Spontaneous existence (something from nothing) is still natural.

This is true:
Every concrete entity has a nature.
The universe is a concrete entity, thus it has a nature.
An entity's nature describes it's properties and history.
A entity's nature cannot exist independent of that entity.
Natures cannot exist prior to the existence of the universe
Therefore, there cannot be natures before the universe.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 11:56:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 11:31:44 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/15/2012 10:51:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
I'm not saying that atheists themselves are not intellectual, in fact some are quite intellectual. But atheism as a worldview, is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and atheists have to resort to untruths in order to support it. It claims that science and logic support it, but that's wrong.

Science can only describe nature, it can't explain it. It can't say why nature exists, or how it became the driving force within the universe. Science will never find a natural explanation for the existence of the universe, because such an explanation cannot exist.
Simply because something is an unknown unknown (a truth that can never be learned) doesn't been it doesn't exist. There can be an explanation for the known world but simply because we can't explain, or don't have means to explain it, does not been that no explanation exists.

If you're arguing that the universe/nature has no cause then that's a different argument in itself.

Every thing has a nature
The universe is a thing, thus it has a nature
A thing's nature describes how it works, and how it came about
A thing's nature cannot exist independent of that thing
Nature cannot exist prior to the existence of the universe
Therefore, there cannot be a natural explanation for the existence of the universe

This is an equivocation fallacy. Your use of the world 'nature' shifts, you have two definitions.

A thing's nature describes how it works, and how it came about
This is the first definition. Nature(1) being an entity's properties and history.
Every thing has a nature (1)
Every concrete entity has properties and history.
A thing's nature (1) cannot exist independent of that thing
If their is not X, there is no nature of X. Correct. X is an concrete entity.
Nature (1) cannot exist prior to the existence of the universe.
Yes.
Therefore, there cannot be a natural (2) explanation for the existence of the universe
Here is were the equivocation is found. He uses "natural (2)" here to refer to "factual, scientific, not-mystic". Natural (1) was an entity's properties and history.

No natures (1) existed before matter because their was nothing to describe or have history.
Naturalness (2) can exist without matter/the universe because it describes a means not statuses. Spontaneous existence (something from nothing) is still natural.

This is true:
Every concrete entity has a nature.
The universe is a concrete entity, thus it has a nature.
An entity's nature describes it's properties and history.
A entity's nature cannot exist independent of that entity.
Natures cannot exist prior to the existence of the universe
Therefore, there cannot be natures before the universe.

I don't see an equivocation fallacy there. The universes nature is it's description and how it came about. It could not have existed before the universe did because there was nothing to describe, therefore it's nature cannot be the cause of it's existence. I'm not seeing where I changed definitions.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 11:59:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Can you put a Tl;Dr version with all of your points neatly summarized in numerical order?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 12:16:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 11:56:52 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/15/2012 11:31:44 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/15/2012 10:51:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Every thing has a nature
The universe is a thing, thus it has a nature
A thing's nature describes how it works, and how it came about
A thing's nature cannot exist independent of that thing
Nature cannot exist prior to the existence of the universe
Therefore, there cannot be a natural explanation for the existence of the universe

This is an equivocation fallacy. Your use of the world 'nature' shifts, you have two definitions.

A thing's nature describes how it works, and how it came about
This is the first definition. Nature(1) being an entity's properties and history.
Every thing has a nature (1)
Every concrete entity has properties and history.
A thing's nature (1) cannot exist independent of that thing
If their is not X, there is no nature of X. Correct. X is an concrete entity.
Nature (1) cannot exist prior to the existence of the universe.
Yes.
Therefore, there cannot be a natural (2) explanation for the existence of the universe
Here is were the equivocation is found. He uses "natural (2)" here to refer to "factual, scientific, not-mystic". Natural (1) was an entity's properties and history.

No natures (1) existed before matter because their was nothing to describe or have history.
Naturalness (2) can exist without matter/the universe because it describes a means not statuses. Spontaneous existence (something from nothing) is still natural.


I don't see an equivocation fallacy there. The universes nature is it's description and how it came about. It could not have existed before the universe did because there was nothing to describe, therefore it's nature cannot be the cause of it's existence. I'm not seeing where I changed definitions.

A natural explanation of a thing's properties (nature) is not the equivalent of a thing's nature.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 12:21:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 11:59:07 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Can you put a Tl;Dr version with all of your points neatly summarized in numerical order?

Nope because you already read it. If not and it's too complex, then just do a paragraph per week. I'll be around for questions. :)
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 12:23:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 12:16:21 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/15/2012 11:56:52 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/15/2012 11:31:44 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/15/2012 10:51:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Every thing has a nature
The universe is a thing, thus it has a nature
A thing's nature describes how it works, and how it came about
A thing's nature cannot exist independent of that thing
Nature cannot exist prior to the existence of the universe
Therefore, there cannot be a natural explanation for the existence of the universe

This is an equivocation fallacy. Your use of the world 'nature' shifts, you have two definitions.

A thing's nature describes how it works, and how it came about
This is the first definition. Nature(1) being an entity's properties and history.
Every thing has a nature (1)
Every concrete entity has properties and history.
A thing's nature (1) cannot exist independent of that thing
If their is not X, there is no nature of X. Correct. X is an concrete entity.
Nature (1) cannot exist prior to the existence of the universe.
Yes.
Therefore, there cannot be a natural (2) explanation for the existence of the universe
Here is were the equivocation is found. He uses "natural (2)" here to refer to "factual, scientific, not-mystic". Natural (1) was an entity's properties and history.

No natures (1) existed before matter because their was nothing to describe or have history.
Naturalness (2) can exist without matter/the universe because it describes a means not statuses. Spontaneous existence (something from nothing) is still natural.


I don't see an equivocation fallacy there. The universes nature is it's description and how it came about. It could not have existed before the universe did because there was nothing to describe, therefore it's nature cannot be the cause of it's existence. I'm not seeing where I changed definitions.

A natural explanation of a thing's properties (nature) is not the equivalent of a thing's nature.

The nature of something is how it works and how it came about.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 12:26:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 11:59:07 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Can you put a Tl;Dr version with all of your points neatly summarized in numerical order?

Basically mainly the Kalam Cosmological argument lol. Except he assumes that the universe must have a cause throughout the entire post and that it had a beginning. So he basically ignores the two main contended premises and contends that the explanation must be God.

He also just asserts that theism has all the answers. Well that's somewhat true. It has for centuries. It used to be the answer to thunder and volcanic eruptions, now as science has disproved those assertions it no longer is. Wherever there's a gap in scientific knowledge people like Medic just use God to fill that gap.

He also said he doesn't see atheists arguing with deists, only religions. I was like say what bro??
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 12:31:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ah... I see. So Medic has been committing the fallacy of assuming that everything as a cause? Tsk tsk.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 12:49:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1) Yay for atheism having to be equal to science, begin at science and end at science. Because atheism is entirely science. Which is like saying Islam is only about virgins, Mormonism is only about being a missionary work, and Jersey Shore being only about a deep insight in the next generation of single mothers' upbringing.

2) Yay for shoehorning atheists, but not shoehorning theists. "theists will be honest enough to admit that...ultimately, we must have faith" is as false as the claim as muslims are peaceful (and for any muslims reading this, note I refer to the people), the ground being made of chicken wings and One Direction being a group of half decent singers.

3) Your actual logic is flawed in the flow. There is no reason why the term "universe" has to be in the argument (this means I could use chicken or the French or salt instead. Take the example: "Bachelors are men": I cannot replace bachelors with, say, spinsters, or salt, because the statement is then wrong. But take the example "salt has a nature". I can put in any word there: bachelors, universe, One Direction, etc. and the statement becomes true).

Thus, I can use the same reasoning and propose that, therefore, science cannot explain the "nature of salt", and when nature essentially means how it works (or what makes it salt) and where it comes from, this is wrong on the face of it: science can tell us where salt comes from. Thus, the argument itself makes no sense, as I can conclude anything from it. I must conclude there's no natural explanation for salt, Saturn, Birds, One Direction, the French, the British Empire, and a vast array of other things.

Of course, the idea that "The universe is a thing, thus it has a [description of "how it works, and how it came about"]" is denied by many atheist philosophers and theist both.

4) Atheism does not account for "logical absolutes or the existence of logic, moral objectivity, the existence of the universe, the conditions that allow life, or the existence of life" in the same way theism does not. Specific denominations in theism may make these existences sensible, but not theism itself. Same goes for atheism. Though, of course, groups of atheism can also account for all these things (regarding morality, atheism in fact has massive flexibility, similar to theism, able to claim non-cognitivism, error theory, realism, idealism, subjectivity, relativity, objectivity, Forms, etc.) If you want to keep shoehorning people, go ahead. But try instead using the phrase "naturalists" instead. Otherwise I'll just respond as if we're discussing theism as a whole, and thus its inability to account for all these things.

5) There are two reasons you "don't see atheists arguing with deists". Firstly, deists haven't became ingrained in society, impressed intolerance onto others, and in general are humbler than the majority of Abrahamic sects. Religious groups are 99% of the time Conservative. Practical reasons motivate these debates and attacks a hundred times more than philosophical reasons, and any student of ideology will agree. Secondly, the difficulty of the debate with a deist. It's arguing against the existence of a non-intervening deity whose will is unknown or inexistent is not just difficult, but fruitless. There is absolutely no difference with what happens Which is why atheists don't go after those without a belief of a manifest destiny.

6) Is it really true that "Atheists are the only group that I know of that...take comfort in identifying themselves by what they don't believe"? Let me give you a list:

1 - Non-cognitivists: moral language does not exist.
2 - Moral nihilists: moral truth does not exist
3 - Error theorists: blegh
4 - Ignostics: religious language does not hold meaning.
5 - Antirealists - denial of verification-transcendency (similar to denial of objective truth)
6 - Subjective Idealism - denies the existence of objective materials
7 - Postmodernists - the second most painful word to define, but denies existence of objective truth in short
8 - Existentialism - the most painful word to define, but denies the existence of a lot of things, contrary to its name.
9 - Absurdism - denies existence of meaning in life.

I can go on [incompatiblism and the realm of free will words haven't been touched, nor ontology in general], but it's a bit pointless at this stage.

7) The idea that atheism "is nothing more than a big "NUH-UH" to a set of rules that they don't like" is describing emotivism, which is a very well known philosophy, which many ascribe to. Of course, many more deny it, especially major ethicists currently (though I'd say differently only a couple decades ago): Singer, Carrier, Rawls, and more have things to say on the issue.

8) The claim that "[atheists] have made their way into our schools and are indoctrinating kids against a belief in God by making fun of believers" is not just demonstrably false, but is dangerous on the face of it. Atheists have not done this in the realm of education because of the huge barrier between public education and ideology, short of multiculturalism and weak egalitarianism. This comical argument is due to the fact that Christianity has not penetrated the realm of education, thankfully. Evolution is not a threat to Christianity, only certain sects of it (just taking the common example) which actively deny its existence. Stopping evolution being taught is equivalent to stopping the creation of modern technology because of the Amish or banning freedom of speech against Islam due to Muslims or stopping teaching of Islam due to Christian evangelists or stopping treatment of blacks and whites equally due to racists, etc. There is no case (excluding optional courses outside of the curriculum, and Philosophy classes) that actively include criticisms of any given religion, or a deity itself. Provide evidence in the form of a major exam provider's course explicitly including criticism of religion and then you'll have evidence - not a Christian evangelist saying this happens, but the actual course itself and pointing me to the letters.

9) Of course, the most deplorable hyperbole needs to be pointed out: "Many kids don't even know what morals are anymore". Seriously? Really? This is just comical to even suggest. If you mean that people disagree on what is moral, welcome to the real world, where disagreements on what to do occur all the time, in every group. If you mean some are moral nihilists, again, this is a philosophical tradition emerging since the beginning of the 20th century (i.e. 1910s ish if I was forced for a date, emerging largest in the world war period), and is quite bluntly a result of moral objectivists having horrible arguments and rebuttals to the postmodernists and moral skepticists. If you mean they don't understand what the term morality means, then either non-cognitivism, the major "nihilist" theory (using the word loosely) has had more influence than one believes, or the American education system is terrible to such an extent that a vast overhaul is needed anyway, or, and this is my bet, you're using a silly hyperbole to make a baseless point.

In general, I usually don't take offence to challenges, but the ones I really do take offence to is when people shoehorn groups together for no reason whatsoever. What it shows is an inability to discriminate between groups - it'd be like not understanding the difference between a Catholic and a Sunni. This is either from a disturbingly pervasive ignorance, or an even more disturbing cognitive dissonance to make criticisers into an evil malevolent force to attack. The solution to defeating atheism, like all ideologies, is the same: defeat the best philosophers in favour of atheism in their grounds: lectures, books, and debates. Christianity has a foot up regarding debates, but the first two seem to be woefully lacking. Don't just complain: try doing something instead.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 12:49:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 10:51:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
I'm not saying that atheists themselves are not intellectual, in fact some are quite intellectual. But atheism as a worldview, is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and atheists have to resort to untruths in order to support it. It claims that science and logic support it, but that's wrong.

Science can only describe nature, it can't explain it. It can't say why nature exists, or how it became the driving force within the universe. Science will never find a natural explanation for the existence of the universe, because such an explanation cannot exist.

This is intellectually conceded. You claim to know that there is no natural explanation to the universe? Science already explains so many things about nature: how babies happen, he process which the go through in developing, I could go on and on. They are not merely just describing it.

Every thing has a nature

You wanna explain that? That is incredibly vague.

The universe is a thing, thus it has a nature
A thing's nature describes how it works, and how it came about

That's an unsupported claim.

A thing's nature cannot exist independent of that thing
Nature cannot exist prior to the existence of the universe
Therefore, there cannot be a natural explanation for the existence of the universe

An atheistic worldview can't account for logical absolutes or the existence of logic, moral objectivity, the existence of the universe, the conditions that allow life, or the existence of life.

First of all, what is an "atheist worldview." I hear theists throw this around all the time. Not all theists have the same "worldview" so why would atheists? Also why can't atheism account for logical absolutes? I say they exist because logic is us understanding the universe and we are limited in our understanding. Moral objectivity does not exist. Period. Just because we don't know exactly how the universe came to be or how life came to be does not mean that the explanation that humans came up with when they understood nothing about the universe is correct. The fact that theists claim to "know" all these things hurts your case. Admitting ignorance is better than finding a facile explanation. Any belief system can claim to know everything but that doesn't make it true.


Theism can give an answer for all those things. Further, theists will be honest enough to admit that, although we can see God in His creation, ultimately, we must have faith. Atheists argue that there is a natural explanation for everything, we just haven't found it yet, and refuse to admit that they use faith in their conclusions. Yet when asked to provide this science that supports their conclusions, it can't be provided. They believe in a conclusion that they have no evidence for. Is that not faith??

I'll provide any evidence you ask for. Also it depends on what you mean by "faith." Can I prove atoms to exist? No. But I can provide physical evidence that supports my claim. I believe in science because it proves itself to me every day. My tv, my car, my computer, my shower, everything we take for granted we have because of science. Tell me, how does religion prove itself to everyone around it every day?

When atheists do provide science to support them, it usually involves the Bible, and an attempt to disprove some interpretation of the Bible.

I don't know what atheists you talking to, I only use the Bible to dismantle theists' claims, not to support my own.

Now, as a theist, I cannot logically use the Bible to prove God's existence. So even if we were to stipulate that science disproves the entire Bible, does that prove that God doesn't exist?? No, it would simply mean that the book that we thought was meant to be the Christian's owners manual, is wrong. God Himself, and belief in His existence, is not touched by disproof of the Bible, though granted we would have to admit that we have no real way of understanding anything about Him.

I don't see atheists arguing with deists. The only thing I see them arguing against is religions that claim certain rules, and morality. They try to disprove the basis for these rules and morality.

Stop grouping atheists together, we are all vey different. I don't do this.

This tells me that their hatred and disdain is not for the idea of a god, just one who tells them what to do, how to act. They seem to see mankind as gods, and as such, there can be no higher power or authority to tell them what to do. They want to be God. Is this not the same pridefulness that caused Lucifer to be cast out of Heaven?? This was written about thousands of years ago, and is being acted out today, openly for all to see. Wasn't this also predicted thousands of years ago??

Seriously stop grouping us together. I actually support moral codes. Don't presume you understand all of us and psychoanalyze us like this. I show you the respect of not doing this to you, so don't do it to me. I don't want to be god, I just dont want to lie to myself about the existence of one just because it's comforting.

Atheists are the only group that I know of that band together and take comfort in identifying themselves by what they don't believe. Now I'm not saying that all atheists are idiots who act immoraly, though I'm sure someone will make the argument that I am doing that, but atheism, as a worldview, is intellectually and morally bankrupt. It offers no answers, and no help to mankind in any way, shape, or form. It is nothing more than a big "NUH-UH" to a set of rules that they don't like, that's it, that's what atheism boils down to.

Atheism isn't some kind of religion. We don't "band together." We just don't believe in god. Period. We aren't looking for answers in atheism. Most atheists look for answers in science which provides well-supported answers instead of taking things on faith. Science admits when it can't explain something, but that doesn't mean it will never be able to. Atheism doesn't help humanity, but straying away from religion does. Religion has prevented social, scientific, and societal growth for centuries. People cling to outdated moral codes and try to force them on others. It keeps them from accepting truths such as evolution. Please respond to this post.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 12:57:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 12:26:35 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/15/2012 11:59:07 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Can you put a Tl;Dr version with all of your points neatly summarized in numerical order?

Basically mainly the Kalam Cosmological argument lol. Except he assumes that the universe must have a cause throughout the entire post and that it had a beginning. So he basically ignores the two main contended premises and contends that the explanation must be God.

The syllogism doesn't even mention what the cause might be, it simply states that there can't be a natural explanation. The actual cause is irrelevant to it's purpose.

The universe began didn't it?? That's what science tells us, 9-14 billion years ago it began, unless something has recently changed that. So do things just begin without cause?? There is nothing, and suddenly something pops into existence without cause??

He also just asserts that theism has all the answers. Well that's somewhat true. It has for centuries. It used to be the answer to thunder and volcanic eruptions, now as science has disproved those assertions it no longer is. Wherever there's a gap in scientific knowledge people like Medic just use God to fill that gap.

Science has explained the mechanics of thunder and volcanic eruptions, but it can't account for their existence, can it??

God of the gaps is no different than science of the gaps. Where it seems that God is a likely cause, people like you assert that science will one day explain it. I see no reason to believe that science will ever be able to prove why we're here, beyond hypotheses. When you can create me a universe using science, you'll have a new recruit to atheism. Until then I'll continue calling your opinions what they are, science of the gaps.

He also said he doesn't see atheists arguing with deists, only religions. I was like say what bro??

Why not let the guy read it himself and come up with his own flawed interpretations of what I wrote??
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 12:59:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 12:57:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
So do things just begin without cause?? There is nothing, and suddenly something pops into existence without cause??

Yes.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 1:05:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 11:56:52 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/15/2012 11:31:44 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/15/2012 10:51:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Therefore, there cannot be a natural explanation for the existence of the universe

I don't see an equivocation fallacy there. The universes nature is it's description and how it came about. It could not have existed before the universe did because there was nothing to describe, therefore it's nature cannot be the cause of it's existence. I'm not seeing where I changed definitions.
No one is arguing that the nature of the universe caused its existence. The nature of entities doesn't cause, it's a set of facts associated to the item.

Actions cause, not natures.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 1:05:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 12:49:27 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
1) Yay for atheism having to be equal to science, begin at science and end at science. Because atheism is entirely science. Which is like saying Islam is only about virgins, Mormonism is only about being a missionary work, and Jersey Shore being only about a deep insight in the next generation of single mothers' upbringing.

2) Yay for shoehorning atheists, but not shoehorning theists. "theists will be honest enough to admit that...ultimately, we must have faith" is as false as the claim as muslims are peaceful (and for any muslims reading this, note I refer to the people), the ground being made of chicken wings and One Direction being a group of half decent singers.

3) Your actual logic is flawed in the flow. There is no reason why the term "universe" has to be in the argument (this means I could use chicken or the French or salt instead. Take the example: "Bachelors are men": I cannot replace bachelors with, say, spinsters, or salt, because the statement is then wrong. But take the example "salt has a nature". I can put in any word there: bachelors, universe, One Direction, etc. and the statement becomes true).

Thus, I can use the same reasoning and propose that, therefore, science cannot explain the "nature of salt", and when nature essentially means how it works (or what makes it salt) and where it comes from, this is wrong on the face of it: science can tell us where salt comes from. Thus, the argument itself makes no sense, as I can conclude anything from it. I must conclude there's no natural explanation for salt, Saturn, Birds, One Direction, the French, the British Empire, and a vast array of other things.

Of course, the idea that "The universe is a thing, thus it has a [description of "how it works, and how it came about"]" is denied by many atheist philosophers and theist both.

4) Atheism does not account for "logical absolutes or the existence of logic, moral objectivity, the existence of the universe, the conditions that allow life, or the existence of life" in the same way theism does not. Specific denominations in theism may make these existences sensible, but not theism itself. Same goes for atheism. Though, of course, groups of atheism can also account for all these things (regarding morality, atheism in fact has massive flexibility, similar to theism, able to claim non-cognitivism, error theory, realism, idealism, subjectivity, relativity, objectivity, Forms, etc.) If you want to keep shoehorning people, go ahead. But try instead using the phrase "naturalists" instead. Otherwise I'll just respond as if we're discussing theism as a whole, and thus its inability to account for all these things.

5) There are two reasons you "don't see atheists arguing with deists". Firstly, deists haven't became ingrained in society, impressed intolerance onto others, and in general are humbler than the majority of Abrahamic sects. Religious groups are 99% of the time Conservative. Practical reasons motivate these debates and attacks a hundred times more than philosophical reasons, and any student of ideology will agree. Secondly, the difficulty of the debate with a deist. It's arguing against the existence of a non-intervening deity whose will is unknown or inexistent is not just difficult, but fruitless. There is absolutely no difference with what happens Which is why atheists don't go after those without a belief of a manifest destiny.

6) Is it really true that "Atheists are the only group that I know of that...take comfort in identifying themselves by what they don't believe"? Let me give you a list:

1 - Non-cognitivists: moral language does not exist.
2 - Moral nihilists: moral truth does not exist
3 - Error theorists: blegh
4 - Ignostics: religious language does not hold meaning.
5 - Antirealists - denial of verification-transcendency (similar to denial of objective truth)
6 - Subjective Idealism - denies the existence of objective materials
7 - Postmodernists - the second most painful word to define, but denies existence of objective truth in short
8 - Existentialism - the most painful word to define, but denies the existence of a lot of things, contrary to its name.
9 - Absurdism - denies existence of meaning in life.

I can go on [incompatiblism and the realm of free will words haven't been touched, nor ontology in general], but it's a bit pointless at this stage.


7) The idea that atheism "is nothing more than a big "NUH-UH" to a set of rules that they don't like" is describing emotivism, which is a very well known philosophy, which many ascribe to. Of course, many more deny it, especially major ethicists currently (though I'd say differently only a couple decades ago): Singer, Carrier, Rawls, and more have things to say on the issue.

8) The claim that "[atheists] have made their way into our schools and are indoctrinating kids against a belief in God by making fun of believers" is not just demonstrably false, but is dangerous on the face of it. Atheists have not done this in the realm of education because of the huge barrier between public education and ideology, short of multiculturalism and weak egalitarianism. This comical argument is due to the fact that Christianity has not penetrated the realm of education, thankfully. Evolution is not a threat to Christianity, only certain sects of it (just taking the common example) which actively deny its existence. Stopping evolution being taught is equivalent to stopping the creation of modern technology because of the Amish or banning freedom of speech against Islam due to Muslims or stopping teaching of Islam due to Christian evangelists or stopping treatment of blacks and whites equally due to racists, etc. There is no case (excluding optional courses outside of the curriculum, and Philosophy classes) that actively include criticisms of any given religion, or a deity itself. Provide evidence in the form of a major exam provider's course explicitly including criticism of religion and then you'll have evidence - not a Christian evangelist saying this happens, but the actual course itself and pointing me to the letters.

9) Of course, the most deplorable hyperbole needs to be pointed out: "Many kids don't even know what morals are anymore". Seriously? Really? This is just comical to even suggest. If you mean that people disagree on what is moral, welcome to the real world, where disagreements on what to do occur all the time, in every group. If you mean some are moral nihilists, again, this is a philosophical tradition emerging since the beginning of the 20th century (i.e. 1910s ish if I was forced for a date, emerging largest in the world war period), and is quite bluntly a result of moral objectivists having horrible arguments and rebuttals to the postmodernists and moral skepticists. If you mean they don't understand what the term morality means, then either non-cognitivism, the major "nihilist" theory (using the word loosely) has had more influence than one believes, or the American education system is terrible to such an extent that a vast overhaul is needed anyway, or, and this is my bet, you're using a silly hyperbole to make a baseless point.

It's gonna take me a week to respond to all this so it'll be in sections.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 1:10:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 12:59:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/15/2012 12:57:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
So do things just begin without cause?? There is nothing, and suddenly something pops into existence without cause??


Yes.
It's an assumption, the best assumption, but certainly not a truth.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 1:13:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
what a trollish title.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 1:16:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 1:13:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
what a trollish title.

Ah, I was wondering when you were gonna come in an say something in a way that makes you seem sophisticated, and above it all.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 1:24:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 1:10:03 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/15/2012 12:59:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/15/2012 12:57:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
So do things just begin without cause?? There is nothing, and suddenly something pops into existence without cause??


Yes.
It's an assumption, the best assumption, but certainly not a truth.

Nothing is a truth because nothing can be 100% certain (inb4 this statement isn't certain).

Just because we perceive cause to be there for all of our daily interactions, does not mean that cause is actually ALWAYS there.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 1:26:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 1:16:10 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/15/2012 1:13:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
what a trollish title.

Ah, I was wondering when you were gonna come in an say something in a way that makes you seem sophisticated, and above it all.

It's a title that's dramatically worded to insult Atheism and that's a fact. I'm not sure where you derived "above it all" from that, but I'm not shocked. You tend to attack people personally when you can't prove that what they've stated is false.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 1:53:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 12:57:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/15/2012 12:26:35 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/15/2012 11:59:07 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Can you put a Tl;Dr version with all of your points neatly summarized in numerical order?

Basically mainly the Kalam Cosmological argument lol. Except he assumes that the universe must have a cause throughout the entire post and that it had a beginning. So he basically ignores the two main contended premises and contends that the explanation must be God.

The syllogism doesn't even mention what the cause might be, it simply states that there can't be a natural explanation. The actual cause is irrelevant to it's purpose.

Yeah if not natural then supernatural. It obviously is supposed to imply God. Don't know what you're getting at.

The universe began didn't it?? That's what science tells us, 9-14 billion years ago it began, unless something has recently changed that.

Yes I believe it did, but you shouldn't just make fallacious assumptions that it did especially when supported the assertion that atheism is intellectually bankrupt. Certain laws of physics seem to contradict it like the first law of thermodynamics so it's not so factual as you imply.

So do things just begin without cause?? There is nothing, and suddenly something pops into existence without cause??

Quantum mechanics make it uncertain of whether the physical universe operates in a cause and affect system. As a determinist, I believe it does but it's very debatable. Furthermore, even if causality applies to the laws of our universe, that does not imply those laws existed before the universe began. It's a fallacy of composition. You use the observations of our universe to conclude that those laws apply everywhere even outside of the universe. As an example, the concept of time is a necessary law for this universe but many people like William Craig even, assert that time only began to exist when the universe did. So we see then that certain seemingly necessary laws of our universe did not exist prior to it. Who's to say causality must have?

I'm a theist. I actually agree with the Kalam. I just don't think it's strong, especially your version of it. It's a very questionable argument. It's astounding to assert that atheism is intellectually bankrupt by basis of this argument.

He also just asserts that theism has all the answers. Well that's somewhat true. It has for centuries. It used to be the answer to thunder and volcanic eruptions, now as science has disproved those assertions it no longer is. Wherever there's a gap in scientific knowledge people like Medic just use God to fill that gap.

Science has explained the mechanics of thunder and volcanic eruptions, but it can't account for their existence, can it??

My God. Exactly what I'm talking about. ROFL. Listen, absolutely nothing can answer the question why is there nothing rather than something. Saying God did it only begs the question. Why on earth does God exist? Why does anything exist. Anything includes God and it's an obvious God of the gaps fallacy.


God of the gaps is no different than science of the gaps. Where it seems that God is a likely cause, people like you assert that science will one day explain it. I see no reason to believe that science will ever be able to prove why we're here, beyond hypotheses. When you can create me a universe using science, you'll have a new recruit to atheism. Until then I'll continue calling your opinions what they are, science of the gaps.

Science of the gaps. That's funny. No, I never said science will account for all things. Actually as a theist, I think God accounts for the origin of the universe. You just keep committing fallacies by fitting God into the equation wherever there's something unexplainable.

He also said he doesn't see atheists arguing with deists, only religions. I was like say what bro??

Why not let the guy read it himself and come up with his own flawed interpretations of what I wrote??

He's free to do that. I'm free to give my opinion.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 1:56:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 1:16:10 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/15/2012 1:13:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
what a trollish title.

Ah, I was wondering when you were gonna come in an say something in a way that makes you seem sophisticated, and above it all.

As if the title isn't twenty times that.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 2:02:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 1:05:45 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/15/2012 12:49:27 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote a really long rant here

It's gonna take me a week to respond to all this so it'll be in sections.

No problem. I tried to split it up to make it a bit easier.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 2:18:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The OP arguments are old and have been addressed many times here and elsewhere. I think believers who want to make claims about atheism take the time to gain at least minimal knowledge of the subject so they can at least get to the second level f trying to refute the counter-arguments that are well-established.

I'll make a few points, although others in the thread have done a good job of refuting the OP.

The religious argument based upon "atheists can't explain xxx while religious people can" assumes that there is a necessity to explain everything, and therefore a mystical or faith-based explanation is better than no explanation. Humans as a species have prospered by having an instinct to explain things. So thunder and lightning were once explained by angry gods in the absence of natural explanations. In retrospect, it would have been better to leave events unexplained rather that trying to please nonexistent gods. It may be that humans are inherently incapable of understanding how the universe created itself in any commonsense way, even though the mathematics for it happening is logically consistent.

Calling upon God as an "explanation" does no more than invoke an exemption from explaining. Consider "God has a nature; everything with a nature exists; everything that exists must come into existence must have a cause; therefore God has a cause"? The believer replies, "No, God is exempt from such questions and such logic." What is the origin of the exemption? It's purely an act of faith. However, the act of faith needed for God is for an immensely powerful immensely complex being. It's a much smaller leap of faith to allow an exemption for simple non-cognitive laws of nature. God is not an explanation because God is more complex and less explicable than the thing God is to explain.

Many, but not all atheists, believe in moral absolutes. Those that that believe in moral absolutes derive them in the way that Jefferson and Madison (Deists) did, "we hold these truths to be self-evident ..." The are derived from the nature of humankind. Deists believe the only way to find out what God wants is to examine human nature. The method works without a positing God as the original cause.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 3:19:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 12:49:59 PM, rogue wrote:

This is intellectually conceded. You claim to know that there is no natural explanation to the universe?

Are you conceding this point to me, or are you calling me conceited??

Science already explains so many things about nature: how babies happen, he process which the go through in developing, I could go on and on. They are not merely just describing it.

I agree with you to an extent, science has been good to us and given us many great things. But the point I'm making is that science can't account for existence, beyond a hypothesis. They don't have a testable theory about how the universe got here, and they can't prove how life got here.

Every thing has a nature

You wanna explain that? That is incredibly vague.

It's already explained...A thing's nature describes how it works, and how it came about

The universe is a thing, thus it has a nature
A thing's nature describes how it works, and how it came about

That's an unsupported claim.

Not really...http://www.merriam-webster.com...

An atheistic worldview can't account for logical absolutes or the existence of logic, moral objectivity, the existence of the universe, the conditions that allow life, or the existence of life.

First of all, what is an "atheist worldview." I hear theists throw this around all the time.

Basically, there is no God, morality is individualized, there is a natural explanation for everything and science has, or will have, the ability to explain all things.

Not all theists have the same "worldview" so why would atheists?

Theists have differences in beliefs but there is a common theme. God is responsible for our existence and is the only objective source for morality.

Also why can't atheism account for logical absolutes? I say they exist because logic is us understanding the universe and we are limited in our understanding.

That explanation doesn't account for the existence of logical absolutes. Matt Slick explains this very well in a video, in less than 5 minutes. Add http: to the link if you want the video...

//www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2EYQHd4LeKU

Moral objectivity does not exist. Period.

On the above page you'll also find a video called "The failure of atheism to account for morality", again by Matt Slick. Yes, I'm a fan of his, and find very few disagreements with his views. These videos explain my points much quicker than I can type them out.

Just because we don't know exactly how the universe came to be or how life came to be does not mean that the explanation that humans came up with when they understood nothing about the universe is correct.

Right, that in and of itself does not prove the answer correct, but in spite of all the attempts, theism has not been eliminated because no one, not even science, can invalidate God. Atheism has no answers for us. The choice to believe in God is yours to make, He gave you free will to choose.

The fact that theists claim to "know" all these things hurts your case. Admitting ignorance is better than finding a facile explanation.

I disagree that it hurts my case. Claiming it to be a "facile" explanation is merely an unfounded presupposition on your part.

Any belief system can claim to know everything but that doesn't make it true.

True, but this fact doesn't go anywhere in disproving it either.

Theism can give an answer for all those things. Further, theists will be honest enough to admit that, although we can see God in His creation, ultimately, we must have faith. Atheists argue that there is a natural explanation for everything, we just haven't found it yet, and refuse to admit that they use faith in their conclusions. Yet when asked to provide this science that supports their conclusions, it can't be provided. They believe in a conclusion that they have no evidence for. Is that not faith??

I'll provide any evidence you ask for.

How did the universe get here??

Also it depends on what you mean by "faith." Can I prove atoms to exist? No. But I can provide physical evidence that supports my claim.

I gave my definition of faith..."They believe in a conclusion that they have no evidence for". How did the atoms get here??

I believe in science because it proves itself to me every day. My tv, my car, my computer, my shower, everything we take for granted we have because of science.

lol...Look at the universe on a little deeper level. Why does science exist to be able to give you those things?? How did you get here to be able to enjoy them (please don't say your parents)?? God shows Himself to you every single day, but this atheistic/secular worldview prevents you from attributing things to their Creator, or even considering that there can be a Creator.

Tell me, how does religion prove itself to everyone around it every day?

If you refuse to believe in God then it doesn't. If you open yourself up to the possibility of God, then you'll be more likely to see God in His creation, and eventually God will give you the evidence you need to believe and have faith. I can't "prove" God to you if you don't want to believe, but just asserting that God doesn't exist doesn't make it so, either. Just saying "nuh-uh" to the evidence for God does not disprove it.

When atheists do provide science to support them, it usually involves the Bible, and an attempt to disprove some interpretation of the Bible.

I don't know what atheists you talking to, I only use the Bible to dismantle theists' claims, not to support my own.

Ok, so then you can't disprove God, just someone's understanding of Him. That assumes, for the sake of argument, that you actually do dismantle those claims.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 4:31:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 12:49:59 PM, rogue wrote:
At 9/15/2012 10:51:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Stop grouping atheists together, we are all vey different. I don't do this.

I don't know any atheists that believe in God or promote a Biblical morality, do you?? If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, I'm not going to talk about it as though it's a lawnmower.

This tells me that their hatred and disdain is not for the idea of a god, just one who tells them what to do, how to act. They seem to see mankind as gods, and as such, there can be no higher power or authority to tell them what to do. They want to be God. Is this not the same pridefulness that caused Lucifer to be cast out of Heaven?? This was written about thousands of years ago, and is being acted out today, openly for all to see. Wasn't this also predicted thousands of years ago??

Seriously stop grouping us together. I actually support moral codes. Don't presume you understand all of us and psychoanalyze us like this. I show you the respect of not doing this to you, so don't do it to me. I don't want to be god, I just dont want to lie to myself about the existence of one just because it's comforting.

Without a higher power, what is the source for your moral codes?? There can be no source other each person's subjective opinion.

I'm sorry that you're taking this as a personal afront, it isn't meant to be personal to anyone, however, we have to deal with these same kinds of claims on a daily basis from atheists. It's just the nature of the beast, so to speak. Argue religion, and someone is going to get offended.

Atheists are the only group that I know of that band together and take comfort in identifying themselves by what they don't believe. Now I'm not saying that all atheists are idiots who act immoraly, though I'm sure someone will make the argument that I am doing that, but atheism, as a worldview, is intellectually and morally bankrupt. It offers no answers, and no help to mankind in any way, shape, or form. It is nothing more than a big "NUH-UH" to a set of rules that they don't like, that's it, that's what atheism boils down to.

Atheism isn't some kind of religion.

lol...Please don't make me go there again. I'm just gonna let you have this one because I don't feel like arguing it again.

We don't "band together." We just don't believe in god. Period.

If it were that innocent and innocuous I wouldn't have felt the need to start this thread. The religion forum would be nothing more than believers discussing the Bible/Quran, etc., and religious issues. We wouldn't have all these discussions about how bad religion is for society, or how immoral God is. There wouldn't be atheist organizations that seek to "educate" the populous about the dangers of religion, etc., etc.

We aren't looking for answers in atheism. Most atheists look for answers in science which provides well-supported answers instead of taking things on faith. Science admits when it can't explain something, but that doesn't mean it will never be able to.

And you take it on faith that it will be able to explain the things we attribute to God. Yet so many atheists use our faith in God as a reason to ridicule us. Truth is that neither side can prove their conclusion, and both sides take their conclusion on faith. One side admits they use faith, and the other side, though using faith ridicules the other side for doing so.

Atheism doesn't help humanity, but straying away from religion does. Religion has prevented social, scientific, and societal growth for centuries. People cling to outdated moral codes and try to force them on others.

Straying away from religion has helped us a great deal over the past 40 years. It has brought us the legalization of baby killing as a means of birth control, destroyed the traditional family, led us to a point of financial ruin, etc., etc. Gee thanks non-religion, can't wait to see what's in store. I'm guessing that your big hang up with religion is that it opposes gay rights. If religion was silent on gay rights, there would be a whole lot fewer people claiming to be atheists, and a whole lot less opposition.

It keeps them from accepting truths such as evolution. Please respond to this post.

Who cares about whether people accept evolution or not. Why is their acceptance important to you?? Maybe if you could explain how we got here in the first place, then evolution might make more sense to them. Aren't you putting the cart before the horse here?? I see evolution as irrelevant to the issue of God's existence. Even if it were 100% accepted as truth by every human being, who's to say that God didn't put evolution in place??