13 Flaws to Atheism

Introduction At the time of this writing, approximately ten percent of the worlds population is atheistic, that is, they dont belive in the existence of a Supreme Being. Depending on where you live, the odds of your running into an atheist might be greater or less that that, and the chances that you will know that quality about him will probably be even smaller. Atheism, like conservatism or liberalism, is a private decision, and unless he has a reason to let you know his position on the subject, hes perfectly within his rights to keep the matter to himself. Or he might be among those who feel the need to openly express their atheism, whether it be for the purpose of constructively sharing ideas or trying to convince you to change your own beliefs. Over the past ve years, Ive spent a considerable portion of my free time discussing and debating politics and religion on Internet message boards. During such exchanges, I have learned that atheists tend to gravitate toward a collection of basic arguments, both oensive and defensive, that they feel best supports their conclusion that there is no God. On the surface, some of these arguments appear quite good and even potentially convincing. But on closer examination, they each fall apart, usually of their own weight. Below is a short list of arguments that atheists often use when either defending their own belief system or criticising those of Christians. Each is followed by my own counter-argument, explaining why their reasoning-and ultimately their conclusion about God-is awed. Atheism isnt a belief, but the lack of a belief. This is what I call the ingle denitionf o atheism. It is the cornerstone of most atheistic defenses. Atheists like to use this denition because they feel that it protects them from certain criticisms from Christians and other theists. For example, if atheism is a lack of a belief, then atheists cant be criticized for believing anything. This simple idea is a powerful weapon for atheists on message boards. It is, however, wrong. Since there is (currently) no scientically veriable evidence to support either side of the God question, both theism and atheism have to be called beliefs. Just as theism is a belief that there is a God, atheism is the belief that there isnt. Atheism, therefore, is not immune to the criticisms that other belief systems might draw. Atheism is not a -or has no- philosophy. This is not true. Atheists believe that there is no God. Therefore, they believe that all decisions made by the individual, the family and the government should be made without regard to religious dogma. That is a philosophy. This is true regardless of anecdotal incidents when atheists, for ulterior motives, say that its okay for certain people to believe in God, e.g., Im in favor of the citizens of such-and-such country believing in God if it will keep them from slaughtering each other. These are actually exceptions that prove the rule, since they are always under unusual circumstances. The basic atheistic philosophy remains intact. Even when an atheist says, dont care if other people believe in I God or not,hes merely expressing an isolationist viewpoint toward a philosophy that he still 1

applies to himself. Otherwise, he wouldnt be an atheist, for no atheist will follow any religious dogma. Atheism is supported by science. Again, this is not true. Because no scientically veriable evidence exists on either side of the God question, science cant even address the issue, let alone reach any conclusion. Atheism is supported by logic. Not only is this wrong, just the opposite is true. In logic, its impossible to prove a negative, that is, prove that a God Who Can Do Anything doesnt exist. When someone claims he is an atheist, he is in eect claiming to have proven a negative (at least to himself)-which is a logical impossibility. In terms of pure logic, the only viable alternative to theism is actually agnosticism, which is the belief that the existence of God cannot be known. But atheism runs counter to logic. The burden of proof is on theists. No, it isnt. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether youre talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a mile in one minute-while the worlds best atheletes cant break the three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now, about 90% of the worlds population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus, throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their case for the deviation. There is no evidence to support a belief in God. Yes, there is. Testimonial evidence abounds. Millions claim that God has touched their hearts, cured their illnesses and improved their lives. Atheists refuse to acknowledge this evidence, because they accept only scientically veriable evidence. This is a restriction that they have chosen to place upon themselves, yet they demand that others do the same thing, which is ridiculous. Atheists say that human testimony cant be trusted because human senses cant be trusted. The fact that this twisted logic eectively discounts all life experiences doesnt seem to phase atheists in the least. Its yet another example of how atheism shuts down the mind. Theists should believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. This is in reference to something called the Invisible Pink Unicorn Argument, an amusing little ditty that atheists enjoy bringing up from time to time. The argument says that, since theists have no evidence that God exists, then they cant discount the existence of other ctitiousGods, such as-you guessed it-the Invisible Pink Unicorn. On closer examination, this argument actually goes against atheists. As I mentioned above, theists accept the testimony of others as valid evidence for the existence of God. Literally millions of people believe in God, pray to Him, worship Him, and claim that He has cured their illnesses and changed their lives. This cant be said of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, so theists dont believe in it. On the other hand, since atheists reject testimonial evidence, it is they-and not theists-who cant distinguish between the Unicorn and God. Religion is the major cause of war. This is historically incorrect. When it comes to the causes of war, religion comes after politics, economics, territory, natural resources and greed. World leaders who want war have often tried to rally support from their people by tying the eort to their religious beliefs, but that has nothing to do with the real reasons for their wanting to go to war. 2

The crusades and the inquisition show that Christianity is evil. In any organization, there is the potential for corruption. Those events took place at a time when the Bible was kept under lock and key within the walls of the church. The public was not allowed to read it and had to depend on their priests to do all Biblical interpretations. This was a system that bred corruption. Dishonest priests would pander to dishonest rulers, and the result was sometimes anything but religious. I agree with historians who say that, had the Bible been available to the public, those events wouldve never been allowed to happen. The majority of prisoners/criminals are theists. This is a bogus argument for two reasons: 1. Since 90% of the population is theistic, its not statistically surprising that the majority of people in any given institution would be theists. 2. The relevant surveys, taken within prison walls, are unreliable since prisoners are known to give answers that they feel will put them in the best light in the eyes of prison ocials in particular and the public in general. They know its not going to help their chances for parole if they claim to reject God, so they say they are theists. Christians have a higher divorce rate than do atheists. Atheists who use this argument think that it illustrates how hypocritical Christians are. But in reality, it shows just the opposite. Atheists believe that morality is relative, that is, there is no absolute goodr badbehavior. o Atheists therefore get to make up their own morals to t whatever lifestyle they desire. For example, if an atheistic husband nds out his wife has been cheating on him, he has the option of deciding that cheating is okay. The two of them might even decide to have an pen marriage, o n which both parties can freely enjoy extramarital aairs. With a morality that can be changed to suit any set of circumstances, atheists have fewer reasons to seek a divorce. Christians, on the other hand, receive their morality from God via the Bible. Those morals cant be augmented to suit the whims of the moment. Indelity and other such oenses are taken very seriously. After doing what he can to save a marriage, sometimes a Christian literally has to choose between following God or sticking with a spouse who wants to pursue an ungodly lifestyle. Sometimes divorce is the only answer. So, it is because of high Christian values-and not hypocrisy-that the divorce rate is higher among Christians, while atheists have fewer divorces because of their changeable standards of morality. Atheists do good deeds because its the right thing to do, while Christians do them because they want to get to heaven. Both sides of this statement are wrong. Atheists believe in the evolutionary theory that everything a person does can be linked to either the drive to survive or the drive to reproduce. And they do mean everything. They believe that a child loves his mother because the mother is needed for survival; a man loves a woman because she can help him reproduce; people do good deeds because it keeps them from being killed by those who might otherwise dislike them; etc. Christians, on the other hand, do good deeds through the compassion that is taught in the Bible. Going to heaven is simply the icing on the cake. Can your all-powerful God create a rock that is too heavy for Him to move? If you answer, No,then the atheist will reply, Then your God cant create such a rock and therefore isnt all-powerful. you answer, Yes,then the atheist will reply, Then your God wont be able to If move the rock and therefore isnt all-powerful. read a few long and complicated answersto Ive this apparent dilemma, but the fact is, the question itself is problematic, much like the question, 3

 Can God run and walk at the same time?r even the often-quoted statement, Everything I o say is a lie.(If everything I say is a lie, then that statement itself is a lie, so I must therefore be telling the truth. But if Im telling the truth, then everything I say must be a lie, and were back to square one.) All three examples illustrate the limitations of the human mind and its logic. The rockquestion doesnt say anything about the nature of God nor His power, but our own inability to comprehend something that is beyond our understanding.