An EXPLORATION INTO THE MOST OBVIOUS FLAWS AN ATHEISTIC DOGMA.
I feel the notion that atheism, like religion, is well founded in the common mind, rhetoric aside. They both have rituals, they each make metaphysical claims. They both have the equivalent of high priests. Both atheism and religion seem to contain extremists with the attendant arrogance difficulty. Of course there are some very obvious flaws in both atheism and theistic fundamentalism.
For the fanatical religious person, a holy book is canon for ultimate truth and for the “died in the wool” atheist it’s the philosophy of science as the only relevant criteria for what is considered knowledge. This is why some convinced fanatical atheists have a problem with human free will, and even the existence of consciousness itself in some cases. This is down to the fact that if free will is real, it is another method of action in the cosmos other than the study of cause and effect, otherwise known as science. Obviously this would give convincing evidence that the philosophy of science was not the only grounds for knowledge, and thus its denial is tried by atheists of the far extremist grouping.
Atheists are those who maintain there is absolutely no God. Agnostics then become those who are undecided or cannot come to a definite view. This has the result of lowering the number of atheists in the world. It’s essential to be cognizant of this almost subconscious use of words for both parties to the debate.For me it is more sensible and useful to make a distinction between those who insist there is no God, those who are effectively undecided, and those who are convinced there is a God. For this reason I believe there is more justification to use the definition that atheists are those who maintain there is no God, agnostics are those in between who are undecided, and of course theists who preach there definitely is a God.

Another idea that springs into my mind is on the issue of evidence. Atheists will frequently equate fairies, Father Christmas or their fellows, with God, in that they put them on the same choice list. The criteria given for doing this is based on evidence they insist. This is actually the truth of course. When it comes to scientific evidence there is indeed the same amount for God as fairies, i.e. “zero”. However this belies the notion that there can be more than one type of evidence other than only scientific evidence.

To my mind another example of evidence involves people and motive. For instance no one can categorically prove that their spouse loves them. It’s a non-scientific question. Evidence is certainly garnered in order to decide if it’s the case or not for the one in receipt of the love, and one loving, naturally, is aware they love without any evidence at all. As mentioned in my previous comment, this realm of evidence all relates to people and the fact they are beings with agency and consciousness. Something many atheists try to deny based on science of course. A useless effort by my reasoning!

and the same old story rises again.....absolutely nothing to gain, lose or debate here....waste of nairaland space
..smh

Any reasonable thinking person will concede that this type of evidence is not scientific but is still valid, based on a certain kind of truth, in this instance personhood. Taking into account that personhood and a whole realm of evidence that is based on it witnesses to a deep fundamental truth, that there is more to existence than science alone and also that agency itself is a competitor as it were to science. On this basis, the notion of a God is not unreasonable, as God is defined as having personhood. As personhood is agency and agency can engender an effect apart from the scientific definition of cause and effect without agency, the cosmos could very well have been made by the agency and personhood of a God. The evidence for this would be un- scientific, but sufficient, on the other principal type of evidence we all acknowledge and utilise daily when interacting with and acknowledging people.
With this reasoning it’s not feasible to place fairies on the same playing field as the concept of God. After all science cannot explain science but an agency could conceivably do so and fairies are not thought necessary to create the fine tuning of the natural world. The term freethinkers cannot be applied to atheists who`s basis for all thought and all evidence is the philosophy of science. There are other things outside their philosophy. Atheists cannot be considered to be freethinkers when their basis for all thought, and all evidence is confined within the philosophy of science. In essence, they dont think outside the 'box' as they claim to, their thought process is confined only to scientific philosophy. This quote from the William Shakespeare is one that needs to be memorised by everyone of the atheistical persuasion;
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.

http://christopheranton.hubpages.com/hub/The-futility-and-emptiness-of-atheist-philosophy

ooman: and the same old story rises again.....absolutely nothing to gain, lose or debate here....waste of nairaland space
..smh

Why not face the issues, rather than venting out emotions, which is unintelligent for an atheist to do.

Rhymeyjohn: Why not face the issues, rather than venting out emotions, which is unintelligent for an atheist to do.

its just that there is no issue to face
.....

Errm, yes, good op. Not that I have the time, but even if free will existed, and do note you have not in any form whatsoever shown that it does, merely speculated, how does that equate to GOD!!!?

As for the evidence bit, do you honestly expect to be taken seriously?

And for some reason you guys typically cannot escape the 'atheism is a religion' drivel.

The atheists are not worth our time. Christians should move on and learn to ignore them. There's nothing to be gained from arguing with fools.

^^^except only fools know fools...

FearGodAndLive: The atheists are not worth our time. Christians should move on and learn to ignore them. There's nothing to be gained from arguing with fools.

Indeed, I agree. You should stick to spending an inordinate amount of time and other resources using scripture to figure out which hand to use to wipe your a$$ with after taking a $hit. It's of dire importance. As with wearing mixed fabrics, trousers if you're female or eating shellfish; it could land you in hell.

I understand learned nonsense about 'fools' like this one are acceptable though, and in fact encouraged and the norm.. So pls, proceed good sheeple!

FearGodAndLive: The atheists are not worth our time. Christians should move on and learn to ignore them. There's nothing to be gained from arguing with fools.

But Christians cannot ignore Atheists

Atheism is the default (NATURAL) mind set while christianity or religion is a contraption of premediaval man overwhelmed by ''mystifying'' natural phenomena that they could not explain.

Science and other modes of enlightenment are demystifying the world's superstitious beliefs and one day pastors will only be good as masters of ceremonies for wedding and naming ceremonies

Besides, am convinced that most people don't go to church to worship God anymore.
They go to find boyfriends, girlfriends, wife, husband or to show off their latest jeeps, dress, fashion and whatever

wiegraf:
And for some reason you guys typically cannot escape the 'atheism is a religion' drivel.

Whatever helps them sleep better

turnstoner:
But Christians cannot ignore Atheists

Oh we can, my dear. Christ didn't spend his time trying to convince atheists. He couldn't stand such foolishness.
Romans 1
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

I hope these verses sink in.

turnstoner:
Atheism is the default (NATURAL) mind set while christianity or religion is a contraption of premediaval man overwhelmed by ''mystifying'' natural phenomena that they could not explain.

A fallacy, because if atheism were the default mindset, there would be no religion.

turnstoner:
Science and other modes of enlightenment are demystifying the world's superstitious beliefs and one day pastors will only be good as masters of ceremonies for wedding and naming ceremonies

The Bible acknowledges man's fallibility, that's why Paul cautions Christians to

Hebrews 12
2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

turnstoner:
Besides, am convinced that most people don't go to church to worship God anymore.
They go to find boyfriends, girlfriends, wife, husband or to show off their latest jeeps, dress, fashion and whatever

It might come as a shock to you, the Bible agrees with you here.

FearGodAndLive:
I hope these verses sink in.

Guy, listen. You can't just quote bible to an atheist and expect that to convince him. Atheists don't believe in the bible. To them it's just a bunch of nonsense written by superstitious pre-industrial holymen. You might as well quote from the Bhagavad gita and expect that to convince a Christian that cows are holy.

If you want to convince an atheist, you need to base your argument on logic and evidence. Appeals scriptural authority only work on those who already believe in your scriptures ie Christians.

a great deal of re-focusing of Christian energies on the atheist phenomena lately, perhaps we are worth saving from our emptiness

Evil Brain:

Guy, listen. You can't just quote bible to an atheist and expect that to convince him. Atheists don't believe in the bible. To them it's just a bunch of nonsense written by superstitious pre-industrial holymen. You might as well quote from the Bhagavad gita and expect that to convince a Christian that cows are holy.

If you want to convince an atheist, you need to base your argument on logic and evidence. Appeals scriptural authority only work on those who already believe in your scriptures ie Christians.

Yeah!
spot-on, @evil!

Let's call @feargod&live's argument:

argumentum ad revelation

arguments based on purported revelation from god:

something that goes against the very core of the atheist/agnostic creed (that there was never any revelation from a God) and therefore not likely to make any impression!

lagerwhenindoubt: a great deal of re-focusing of Christian energies on the atheist phenomena lately, perhaps we are worth saving from our emptiness

who knows?? aleast you acknowledge that you are empty. seek a change.

still waiting for the atheist that would intellectually address the op. Rather than boxing straw men, or throwing hefty 'punches' on easy preys like 'feargod' whose post did not align with the thread. It show that a large crop of atheist as not as intelligent as they call them selves. so much for 'thinking outside the box'

The Op is so wrong on many things. . .The Op forgets that we have specific gods and how we are told they function. . .The fact that such gods do not function the way were are told but function only on the pages of story books are enough. . .All gods are clearly a human creation. . .History and anthropology shows that to be true. . .If you define what a belief is, it's basically a construct inside the brain that filters reality through it. . ..If you think for example that people are bad, you'll start paying attention to bad behaviors of people to validate your belief and ignore good people that don't validate your belief.

This is nothing new. Just how the brain works. It recognizes patterns of what makes a belief.As for religious beliefs it's the same thing. People will filter their lives through those beliefs and start seeing "miracles" and signs of God that the ordinary person would just assume as normal. . . .The problem is that beliefs are constantly being refreshed with these new evidences, so when you try to challenge a person's belief he'll start acting angry or upset.

This is why logic doesn't work to deconvert a theist. Their beliefs carry a huge emotional baggage.

Beliefs also don't have to be real. But they are useful in parts of our lives. Humanity couldn't survive without beliefs. For example if you don't believe you can find food you'd never go out to hunt.

The problem is when beliefs get out of control. Example: religion fanatics

I think it sums it up pretty well how it works.