What Is The Biggest Drawback Of Atheism?

[Taz]

Back to the OP... Atheism is a religion.

Nope. You're using words incorrectly (dishonestly?) again. Please stop.

Nope. I’m calling it like I see it.

Not all atheists have elevated their atheism to a religion.

re·li·gion

noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   • a particular system of faith and worship.
     plural noun: religions
     "the world's great religions"
   • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
     "consumerism is the new religion"

As with the "consumerism is the new religion" example, Atheism can be seen to be a "religion", but not with the traditional definition.

I’m not the first person to observe the religious fervor of the far left militant atheists.

You can spot them by how they attack rival religions.

Why far left? Too many hillbillies on the right who believe fake stuff?

 

[ding]

Back to the OP... Atheism is a religion.

Nope. You're using words incorrectly (dishonestly?) again. Please stop.

Nope. I’m calling it like I see it.

Not all atheists have elevated their atheism to a religion.

re·li·gion

noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   • a particular system of faith and worship.
     plural noun: religions
     "the world's great religions"
   • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
     "consumerism is the new religion"

As with the "consumerism is the new religion" example, Atheism can be seen to be a "religion", but not with the traditional definition.

I’m not the first person to observe the religious fervor of the far left militant atheists.

You can spot them by how they attack rival religions.

Why far left? Too many hillbillies on the right who believe fake stuff?

Because that’s how militant atheists roll, Taz. Far left.

 

[Vastator]

Back to the OP... Atheism is a religion.

Nope. You're using words incorrectly (dishonestly?) again. Please stop.

Nope. I’m calling it like I see it.

Not all atheists have elevated their atheism to a religion.

re·li·gion

noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   • a particular system of faith and worship.
     plural noun: religions
     "the world's great religions"
   • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
     "consumerism is the new religion"

As with the "consumerism is the new religion" example, Atheism can be seen to be a "religion", but not with the traditional definition.

I’m not the first person to observe the religious fervor of the far left militant atheists.

You can spot them by how they attack rival religions.

Why far left? Too many hillbillies on the right who believe fake stuff?

An additional fallacy to the “atheism is a religion” stance, is that it’s often erroneously coupled with the belief that atheists/agnostics are Leftists. While some are; some aren’t. Most atheist/agnostics I know are right leaning. But I seldom cavort with Leftists...

 

[ding]

Nope. You're using words incorrectly (dishonestly?) again. Please stop.

Nope. I’m calling it like I see it.

Not all atheists have elevated their atheism to a religion.

re·li·gion

noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   • a particular system of faith and worship.
     plural noun: religions
     "the world's great religions"
   • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
     "consumerism is the new religion"

As with the "consumerism is the new religion" example, Atheism can be seen to be a "religion", but not with the traditional definition.

I’m not the first person to observe the religious fervor of the far left militant atheists.

You can spot them by how they attack rival religions.

Why far left? Too many hillbillies on the right who believe fake stuff?

An additional fallacy to the “atheism is a religion” stance, is that it’s often erroneously coupled with the belief that atheists/agnostics are Leftists. While some are; some aren’t. Most atheist/agnostics I know are right leaning. But I seldom cavort with Leftists...

Not the militant ones.

 

[james bond]

Back to the OP... Atheism is a religion.

Nope. You're using words incorrectly (dishonestly?) again. Please stop.

Nope. I’m calling it like I see it.

Not all atheists have elevated their atheism to a religion.

re·li·gion

noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   • a particular system of faith and worship.
     plural noun: religions
     "the world's great religions"
   • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
     "consumerism is the new religion"

As with the "consumerism is the new religion" example, Atheism can be seen to be a "religion", but not with the traditional definition.

Buddhism is atheism. It is a religion. Atheism is a religion.

The meanings of words and their usage change over time. It's why we have etymology.

We'll soon have secular humanism is a religion. You just don't know it.

 

[Taz]

Back to the OP... Atheism is a religion.

Nope. You're using words incorrectly (dishonestly?) again. Please stop.

Nope. I’m calling it like I see it.

Not all atheists have elevated their atheism to a religion.

re·li·gion

noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   • a particular system of faith and worship.
     plural noun: religions
     "the world's great religions"
   • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
     "consumerism is the new religion"

As with the "consumerism is the new religion" example, Atheism can be seen to be a "religion", but not with the traditional definition.

Buddhism is atheism. It is a religion. Atheism is a religion.

The meanings of words and their usage change over time. It's why we have etymology.

Buddhism is Buddhism. Atheism is a religion like consumerism is a religion, like in the example. So not a religion in the traditional sense.

 

[ding]

You can easily spot a religion by how it attacks a rival religion.

 

[james bond]

Buddhism is Buddhism. Atheism is a religion like consumerism is a religion, like in the example. So not a religion in the traditional sense.

Your first sentence is irrelevant.

Buddhism IS a religion. Even leftist wikipedia says so. "Buddhism (/ˈbʊdɪzəm/, US: /ˈbuːd-/)[1][2] is the world's fourth-largest religion[3][4] with over 520 million followers, or over 7% of the global population, known as Buddhists.["

Buddhism - Wikipedia

Atheism is belief in the absence of God. It has no moral system. It also leads to secular humanism and communism.

 

[Taz]

Buddhism is Buddhism. Atheism is a religion like consumerism is a religion, like in the example. So not a religion in the traditional sense.

Your first sentence is irrelevant.

Buddhism IS a religion. Even leftist wikipedia says so. "Buddhism (/ˈbʊdɪzəm/, US: /ˈbuːd-/)[1][2] is the world's fourth-largest religion[3][4] with over 520 million followers, or over 7% of the global population, known as Buddhists.["

Buddhism - Wikipedia

Atheism is belief in the absence of God. It has no moral system. It also leads to secular humanism and communism.

Well, I'm agnostic, so god not existing hasn't been proven yet. Nor has it been proven to exist.

 

[james bond]

Here's a weird case, too.

Atheists incensed after IRS grants them tax exemption as religious group
"Atheists incensed after IRS grants them tax exemption as religious group

The leader of an atheist group reportedly is incensed that the U.S. government has granted it a tax exemption, citing allowances for religious organizations — and she’s even angrier at learning that she’s considered a minister under the Internal Revenue Service code.

“We are not ministers,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, who heads the Freedom from Religion Foundation in The Blaze. She added: The organization doesn’t want the tax exemption if it’s based on codes granting allowances to religious groups."

Atheists incensed after IRS grants them tax exemption as religious group

Atheists are wrong again.

 

[james bond]

Well, I'm agnostic, so god not existing hasn't been proven yet. Nor has it been proven to exist.

Same as atheism. It just means you're weak.

 

[Taz]

Well, I'm agnostic, so god not existing hasn't been proven yet. Nor has it been proven to exist.

Same as atheism. It just means you're weak.

It means that I don't believe in fairy tales, like you. I need real proof. Have any?

 

[Vastator]

Buddhism is Buddhism. Atheism is a religion like consumerism is a religion, like in the example. So not a religion in the traditional sense.

Atheism is belief in the absence of God. It has no moral system. It also leads to secular humanism and communism.

Not quite accurate. Communism finds advantage in promoting atheism for the purpose of eliminating competition.That by no means dictates that atheism must, and will lead to Communism. Classic correlation/causation fallacy.

 

[alang1216]

We are here and have a sequence of how it was done.

Actually, as a creationist, you have nothing. Your 'sequence' is at odds with what we see with our own eyes, and you have no 'how' whatsoever. Saying 'God did it' say nothing about how God did it.

Please explain. What should we be seeing?

I did explain how God did it. It's all written down in the Bible as the Bible theory in science. It's the secular/atheist scientists who have not explained, but tried to make up circumstantial evidence to fit their theory. It is all a house of cards built on false evidence and assumptions. They secular scientists had to remove creation scientists before they could built their house of cards. If you had anything, then you would have listed it as start of space-time, quantum particles pop into existence, big bang, early gases form, expansion of space, long time, theory of everything resolves quantum mechanics and laws of physics, abiogenesis, etc. However, all you have is bullshit and a house of cards, so that explains your post.

If the Bible was historical we should see:

1. Evidence of a global flood (we don't have such evidence)
   
2. No evidence of local floods going back millions of years (we do have such evidence, ask any oil-well driller)

If you did explain how God did it I must have missed it. What was the mechanism for turning dirt into people?

 

[james bond]

It means that I don't believe in fairy tales, like you. I need real proof. Have any?

That makes you atheist, not agnostic. If you want to consider yourself an ag, that's fine, but you and your fellow ags will have to pay taxes. I get write-offs on my religious activities.

I have plenty of evidence for an uprovable God, such as we are here. We have no abiogenesis and no aliens. The Earth is in a prime location and may be the only place that sustains life in the whole universe because of harsh solar winds and the fine tuning facts. We probably are not multi-planetary, i.e. can't colonize another planet or the moon. Evolution contradicts everything that God said in the Bible, so it's false.

 

[Taz]

It means that I don't believe in fairy tales, like you. I need real proof. Have any?

That makes you atheist, not agnostic. If you want to consider yourself an ag, that's fine, but you and your fellow ags will have to pay taxes. I get write-offs on my religious activities.

I have plenty of evidence for an uprovable God, such as we are here. We have no abiogenesis and no aliens. The Earth is in a prime location and may be the only place that sustains life in the whole universe because of harsh solar winds and the fine tuning facts. We probably are not multi-planetary, i.e. can't colonize another planet or the moon. Evolution contradicts everything that God said in the Bible, so it's false.

Wow! That's a lot of fartsmoke in one paragraph... even for you!

At least you consider your god unprovable. It's a start.

 

[alang1216]

I have plenty of evidence for an uprovable God, such as we are here.

Until you can say how God put us here, this statement carries no weight.

Here is an equivalent statement:

I have plenty of evidence for an un-provable Alien visit, such as we are here.​

 

[james bond]

Until you can say how God put us here, this statement carries no weight.

Here is an equivalent statement:
I have plenty of evidence for an un-provable Alien visit, such as we are here.

See below.

We are here and have a sequence of how it was done.

Actually, as a creationist, you have nothing. Your 'sequence' is at odds with what we see with our own eyes, and you have no 'how' whatsoever. Saying 'God did it' say nothing about how God did it.

Please explain. What should we be seeing?

I did explain how God did it. It's all written down in the Bible as the Bible theory in science. It's the secular/atheist scientists who have not explained, but tried to make up circumstantial evidence to fit their theory. It is all a house of cards built on false evidence and assumptions. They secular scientists had to remove creation scientists before they could built their house of cards. If you had anything, then you would have listed it as start of space-time, quantum particles pop into existence, big bang, early gases form, expansion of space, long time, theory of everything resolves quantum mechanics and laws of physics, abiogenesis, etc. However, all you have is bullshit and a house of cards, so that explains your post.

If the Bible was historical we should see:

1. Evidence of a global flood (we don't have such evidence)
   
2. No evidence of local floods going back millions of years (we do have such evidence, ask any oil-well driller)

If you did explain how God did it I must have missed it. What was the mechanism for turning dirt into people?

C'mon, didn't we go over this already? Why not let the creation scientists back in on the peer reviews and Nature and Science articles? Then we should get more varied scientific opinions which will lead to better theories and wider scientific opinions. That's why I say atheists are usually wrong. Their science is fake based on circumstantial evidence and not the scientific method. Otherwise, religion would have been replace by science and the atheist religion. Science has always been about who makes the best arguments, not find the facts that fit the theory and disregard the ones that don't. That said, I believe God will destroy the Earth this time due to mass non-belief instead of mass evil.

The big creation science events were creation in 7 days (today we observe the sabbath which is further evidence), global flood, the tower of babel, and the Jesus sacrificing himself and resurrection, fulfilling of prophecies, and the end times.

Global flood evidence is 3/4 of Earth is covered by water, bent rocks, dinosaur graveyards, marine fossils on top of mountains and dominating fossil record, and more.

Local floods was a theory on an abcnews documentary. It's on youtube.

The mechanism for turning dirt into Adam was God's breath. No human can create life from non-life. Life does not pop into existence from non-life like primordial soup (which I doubt forms naturally). Then he took Adam's rib and created Eve. The evidence for that is the human rib regenerates itself in the body. No other bone does it.

 

[james bond]

Wow! That's a lot of fartsmoke in one paragraph... even for you!

At least you consider your god unprovable. It's a start.

You're just making assertions and trolling irrelevant opinions. I can't discuss seriously with an atheistic/agnostic troll.

 

[diver52]

So, the question seems to be is whether a comforting myth is preferable to reality.

Well, reality isn't all that clear. Pretty much the only argument that there is no god ...

There is no argument that there is no god. But that has nothing to do with atheism. Atheist stop at that fact that there is no argument that there is a god. That's all we need.

As I said, if that's the myth that makes you happy.....

No myth, just a rejection of your beliefs. That's all. You're telling yourself stories.

Your myth is that you are not telling yourself stories. I fully admit that I am telling myself stories. I just prefer my stories to yours.