The absurdity of atheism

[inocente]

Best posts in this thread.

I suppose - if you have a special fondness in your heart for rhetorical flourishes that, in reality, say nothing and mean even less.

:hey_bud:

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not precise. The scientific approach is only applicable to the objective reality. It is NOT applicable to the abstract sciences. Only an idiot would say that proving a mathematical theorem requires “testing”.

There are at least 2 epistemological methods. The scientific, which is applicable to the objective reality, and the axiomatic, which is applicable to the abstract sciences.

As such there is no sane person who would advocate this “scientism”. Happy now?

It seems to me that you require at least two other epistemological methods to make your way, existentially, in the world.

1. A method that provides reasonable assurance regarding metaphysics since deciding at all with regard to the choices a person makes and what ends to pursue – even in the area of science – requires a world view which spells out explicitly the significance of any aspect within the world, vis a vis the entirety, together with the ends and means which best fulfill the causal order. Science, for example, could make no “progress,” practically speaking, without an adequate explication of what science was supposed to be “progressing” towards.

No complete epistemology within a world view can do without a means of determining significance and meaning. Science can only tell us what is and how each thing functions within the whole, it cannot tell us about the significance of each thing or of the whole. That requires a metaphysic. To presume science provides its own metaphysic is what scientism essentially is.

1. A method that prioritizes values, specifically which ends and goods have high or highest priority over those which do not. This requires, additionally, a grounds for morality or moral system and a hierarchy of goods including those which are requisite or absolute (Summum Bonum) where agents within the world have some degree of autonomy over their actions.

In fact, I would argue these two additional epistemological methods have priority over the one you propose for science (the physical or material aspect of objective reality) precisely because to engage in science or the uncovering of objective physical reality means an option has been taken by anyone so doing to prioritize their engagement with the “outside” world over, for example, the internal world and/or a system of values/goods.

In other words, a person doing “science” alone has made a definitive choice to treat the outside physical reality as their top or only priority after finding themselves, subjectively speaking, in the world and attempting to answer the question, “What do I do now?” Instead of attempting to answer the most basic question of all “Who or what am I?” as their top priority, they have chosen to seek an answer to “What is all this outside of me?” Perhaps, even ignoring completely the question of “What is the value of knowing what is outside of me?”

That is exercising a fundamental option. On what grounds is that choice made and warranted, epistemologically speaking?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Now, the 64 thousand dollar question - to which it is impossible to get an answer - is: “how do you find out if a religious claim is true or not”? To make your task easier, here is a simple claim: "all humans and only humans have an immortal soul". Why are you (all) so scared of answering this question?

How do you determine the value to place on the life of any human being, including your own?

Neither science nor mathematics can answer that.

Yet it is a question that has to be answered unless you want to permit each individual to arbitrarily set that value on the free market.

Regardless, determining the value requires a metaphysical world view which has to spell out end goods/goals in a compelling and rich way. Both of these require, as I stated in my last post, a sound epistemological method.

Hence, you, as an atheist, are as “stuck” as any theist with having to provide that method. You cannot escape the requirement. In fact, the argument could be made that theism provides a sound basis for morality and a metaphysic which consistently accounts for values and a teleology that underwrites morality. Unfortunately, atheism provides no such grounding metaphysic. Certainly, eliminative materialism does not – which is a major failing for that metaphysic; at least, if a human being has any interest whatsoever in establishing human value and a consistent grounds for morality.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you “intuit” that truth is an object, rather than a concept, then you are mistaken. We speak about “truth” when the abstract picture we develop in our mind corresponds to the actual reality.

This is rather an odd claim you make about truth.

You say, “To intuit that the truth is an object is mistaken,” but then you turn around and claim that we can only know if the concept developed in the mind is true depending upon whether it corresponds to the “actual reality” that we, presumably, must also KNOW with certainty. :ehh:

The problem is how do you KNOW (i.e., conceive) that the reality (the object) you claim is “actual” – i.e., true to itself – without making a determination about whether the object in “actual reality” is actually real, i.e., true to itself?

This is a shell game you are playing.

I have the concept of X in my left hand and the actual object X in my right. You say, I can know my concept of X is “true” when it corresponds to the actual object X. But if I have the actual object X and I know for certain that it is the actual object X, why am I even bothering with the concept of X at all? The real question is: “How do I know that the actual object X that I have in my right hand is the actual object X?”

I have to know the true nature of the actual object X in order to make any true conceptual claims about the object in the first place, therefore your statement that “If you “intuit” that truth is an object, rather than a concept, then you are mistaken.” is malformed, because we can only speak with any degree of certainty about the “truth” of X in abstraction or concept that we have developed in our mind and its correspondence to the actual reality of X if we also already KNOW (i.e., have conceived) with certainty the actual reality of X.

 

[inocente]

The notion that the Bible and science cannot converge on truth at any point is truly wicked. Your notion that the Bible is being offered as a scientific paper is also wicked.
Why are you being so wicked today?

“True science discovers God in an ever-increasing degree — as though God were waiting behind every door opened by science.” Pope Pius XII address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 22 November 1951

I agree that promoting Genesis as a scientific paper is flawed, although I wouldn’t call you wicked for doing it, it’s not as if it’s on a par with mass murder or whatever.

I agree with the Pope, you should post that quote to creationists

I profoundly disagree with you that the bible must speak scientific truth. To quote Monsignor Lemaître again “The idea that because they [the bible writers] were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects, is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all”.

Indeed. Don’t forget to sign up for that bible study course .

As for you believing that quoting one line from Genesis next to an old tv show script has anything to do with science, that did make me laugh, thanks, but give me a warning next time so I can void my bladder first. Oh my.

 

[inocente]

What is interesting is your unabashed willingness to use science to establish your cherished points of view on things but when anyone brings up science which presents a case opposite to your opinions you thrash them with your “faith” thing, as if your faith is sufficient to move mountains of established science - well, except when it doesn’t need to, i.e., when science upholds your position.

And yet your Church doesn’t call ID science. Your Church got along fine for twenty centuries, then a bunch of Americans thought religion needs to get in on the success of science by selling half-baked nonsense dressed up as science. No wonder your Church is underwhelmed. You can’t sell ID to atheists, just the opposite, have a look at Charles’ thread. You can’t give ID away. Soon you’ll have to pay someone to cart it off to the dump. It’s not science, it’s a failed marketing exercise. And sooo last century. Get to grips with some proper grown-up science.

Let’s dismantle this claim, shall we?

So you are basically claiming doing science at all is “scientism” at its core because science is, after all, obtaining the assurance (or approval) of the formal methods of science for any proposed hypothesis (a held belief.)

No, you have this habit of putting words in my mouth.

I suppose that your presumption here is that your faith can never be subject to elements of faddishness.

No, you have this habit of putting words in my mouth.

Setting aside your “misinterpretation” as a vehicle for extemporizing sundry excursions , some of this is worth discussion, why not start a thread? We’ll all join in, honest guv. It seems a waste that you should be writing all of this when it’s off-topic and 860 posts into a thread.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Also funny that you already “know” that no evidence would convince me, even before presenting that evidence. Must be “cool” to be omniscient. Besides the question is not if the evidence is convincing or not, the question is the “method” of obtaining the evidence.

Here is the issue I have with your concept of evidence.

How do you know beforehand whether any particular item or artifact counts as “evidence” in the first place?

Suppose you find a footprint of a size 10 workboot in a flower bed. Is that evidence? It hardly makes sense to speak of “evidence” at all unless you also are willing to state what it is that the item is evidence FOR.

At least two aspects exist for evidence: relevance and significance.

Let’s go back to the footprint.

Suppose a murder has been committed in the living room of the house where the footprint was found. The footprint might be relevant, but we cannot possibly know that without having enough of the story in place about which the footprint might serve as a piece of evidence.

In other words, you would have to have a sufficient part of the narrative constructed and in place to know whether any item or artifact can possibly have any relevance with respect to the narrative in the first place. If you deny that narrative altogether, then no evidence whatsoever can possibly count as having relevance or significance.

It is easy to deny that the footprint can serve as evidence for anything at all, if you deny, in the first instance that anything transpired for there to be any evidence for. The footprint can only be relevant and significant with respect to the larger narrative that it might be a part of. Deny the larger part and you deny the significance of the evidence.

This, I suspect, is all that atheists are doing when they (and you) deny there is any evidence for God. There cannot be any evidence for God if you deny, in the first instance, that God exists. You remove the possibility of there being any evidence whatsoever.

Without a murder in the living room, the footprint in the flower bed has no evidential significance. It is irrelevant to any “known” event and can be dismissed as insignificant except, perhaps, to the insignificant event of someone having worked the flower bed.

Now suppose a murder had taken place in the living room. Does the footprint become relevant AND significant? What if the workshed of the property has three boots the same size and same print? Relevant? Yes. Significant in the murder investigation? Probably not. What if the print in the flower bed shows a large gouge in the heel that none of the other boots in the workshed have? Relevant? Yes. Significant? Yes.

Here’s the thing: we can only recognize evidence when we see that it is relevant to some aspect of an accepted narrative and significant when it makes a difference to our understanding of that narrative. If the narrative is dismissed outright, no amount of evidence can ever count as relevant or significant.

That is, I submit, the perspective on evidence that atheists take with respect to the existence of God and the Christian narrative. They do not permit or engage with a sufficiently large portion of the narrative to ever gain a sense of which evidence might be deemed relevant or significant with respect to the entire case made by Christianity. Therefore, if no sufficiently integrated part of the story is heard or allowed, any particular piece of evidence can be dismissed as irrelevant and insignificant to establishing the possibility of that narrative in the first place.

If the gouge in the heel of the boot is dismissed as insignificant, the footprint is as well and whatever missing part of the narrative the footprint might have provided is never admitted. Again, this is the problem with the atheist’s position vis a vis evidence for Christianity. No pieces of evidence are admitted on their own and therefore no sufficiently significant part of narrative is ever built to highlight the relevance of all the other pieces of evidence that exist.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And yet your Church doesn’t call ID science. Your Church got along fine for twenty centuries, then a bunch of Americans thought religion needs to get in on the success of science by selling half-baked nonsense dressed up as science. No wonder your Church is underwhelmed. You can’t sell ID to atheists, just the opposite, have a look at Charles’ thread. You can’t give ID away. Soon you’ll have to pay someone to cart it off to the dump. It’s not science, it’s a failed marketing exercise. And sooo last century. Get to grips with some proper grown-up science.

No, you have this habit of putting words in my mouth.

No, you have this habit of putting words in my mouth.

Setting aside your “misinterpretation” as a vehicle for extemporizing sundry excursions , some of this is worth discussion, why not start a thread? We’ll all join in, honest guv. It seems a waste that you should be writing all of this when it’s off-topic and 860 posts into a thread.

Except that it was you who brought up ID on this thread in the first place AND bringing it up had nothing to do with my response to your post, which you still haven’t adequately answered.

For those interested in reviewing the context, my full post was here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13538211&postcount=821
and I make NO references to ID.

Whereas, your response and your reply to Charlemagne does introduce ID as a convenient whipping boy…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13539639&postcount=832
and deflects from my point by steering towards irrelevancies.

Whether or not I choose to begin another thread on ID is more a function of the fact that I have already been involved in a number of those over the past few years and they all tend to end up in the same place. I am content to allow ID proponents to do their thing and, by doing so, determine where ID will end up. I have no need to make predeterminations because I don’t think science is supposed to be as a priori and as dogmatic an enterprise as you might suppose or insist it has to be.

 

[zyzz]

Richard Dawkins would not self-identify himself as an advocate of scientism because he recognizes that it is a pejorative term used by the other side in his favorite types of debate.

I rather doubt that this is the reason. Why don’t you ask him? I reject this “scientism” claim, because it is an incorrect way to look at the world. Anyone who understands that there is (and there MUST be) a different epistemological method for the objective reality and the conceptual picture of the reality (axiomatic, abstract sciences) does not subscribe to “scientism”. Yes, “scientism” is a pejorative term, which is used as a cop-out when the apologist has no good argument. The number of negative adjectives is growing quite fast. Things like “you have a closed mind and heart”, and “you are unable and unwilling to step out of the box you built for yourself”, etc… Don’t think that these assertions are “neutral”, they are quite insulting. In my eyes to accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty is one of the worst insults you can hurl.

I do classify him as such.

That is your prerogative. I suspect that you would be upset if someone would call you a “bigot”, because you would feel that you are NOT a bigot. It might be a good idea to extend the courtesy to others, and find out if your “label” actually fits, or not.

Likewise, you are not insane, although you arbitrarily discount any sort of revealed truth.

There is nothing arbitrary about it. Hearsay or revelation is notoriously unreliable, no matter what the subject of the revelation might be. Even with the best intentions (and I would never accuse anyone to have “bad” intentions) there is absolutely no guarantee that the person who makes the “testimony” or “revelation” is right. Do you think that I have a special standard concerning temporal and religious claims? Not at all. I use the same method for every claim.

The only way to know the truth about a religious claim is through one’s relationship with God.

That makes no sense. For an atheist (or a non-Christian) there can be no “relationship” with God. And, of course the major obstacle is the “silentium Dei”, the silence of God. Does that mean that you are unable to establish the validity of a religious claim for all the non-Christians? How on Earth do you hope to “spread the good news” if you are unable to defend your assertions?

I know I have an eternal soul, grounded outside of time, entering into time, right here and now.

I am sure that you honestly believe that. But since you cannot even give a coherent definition of the “soul”, much less prove that it is immortal, your honest belief is not even evidence.

 

[tonyrey]

I wI’ll keep my views to myself.

Very wise as it refers to a third party…

 

[tonyrey]

You are playing fast and loose with the word “existence”. The “mind” is an activity, not an ontologically existing object.

An activity of what? The brain? If so your materialism needs justification; otherwise it is a worthless dogma.

“Truth”, “freedom” and “justice” are concepts, not ontologically existing objects.

If they are merely concepts they can be ignored with impunity - as any criminal will tell you…

Each part of the physical reality has its own epistemological method to separate the “wheat” from the “chaff”. You cannot use a litmus paper to measure magnetism or electricity. But the underlying epistemological method is the same: “observe, hypothesize, experiment, measure, compare the prediction to the result of the experiment”. For claims about the abstract sciences we have a set axioms, and if the proposition is the logical corollary of the axioms, then we accept it as true.

“**the **physical reality” is another example of unjustified dogmatism.

Just slow down for a second. How can you say if a proposition is true or false if you cannot compare it to reality… whatever kind of “reality” you are talking about. After all the propositions are about the reality… what else? I have no problem with your approach which does not wish to restrict the reality to the physical reality. You are most welcome to postulate a non-physical reality. I am not going to discard it out of hand. But you must be able to present your epistemological method which I can use and reach the same conclusion about your suggested true propositions. Use this for example: “every human, and only humans have an immortal soul”. Chew on it, present your epistemological method.

Ever heard of introspection? Or is that merely another concept?

You are unable to use the sensory observation, since you deny that the soul can be observed.

I deny that the soul can be observed but the activity of the mind or soul is available for introspection - if you care to use that faculty.

You are unable to use the axiomatic approach, since there are no axioms. What else is there?

Ever heard of introspection? Or is that merely another concept that can be safely ignored if one wishes to commit a crime? Very convenient!

 

[Bradski]

What’s with the footprint and the murder?

It’s not the case that we don’t know the ‘context’ of faith or the existence of God to be able to make a decision on what constitutes evidence. To go back to your murder…

It’s you that is convinced that a murder has taken place. Colonel Mustard in the library with a lead pipe m’lud. We are not convinced, so we ask you why you believe it to be so. And then YOU supply what you consider to be evidence. You say THIS is why we believe. Look, you say, there’s a footprint. That’s part of the evidence. And we, for whatever personal reasons, are not convinced.

We have no evidence to produce. We are, in effect, the jury, trying to decide, beyond reasonable doubt, if what you are telling us, if what you believe, is true.

I’ve explained before that I, and I might suggest almost everyone else who hasn’t had a divine revelation, do not have a concept of God other than that which has been explained to us by others. Again, if you ask me what I think it is you believe, all I can do is repeat what you tell me. If you claim that what you believe is true, I can only make a decision based on what you tell me. Based on the evidence that you offer.

The context is what you tell us it is. You describe the murder scene. You bring forth expert witnesses. You put forward the arguments. You point out the footprint.

We are not convinced.

 

[zyzz]

An activity of what? The brain? If so your materialism needs justification; otherwise it is a worthless dogma.

I am with you! Of course it needs justification, and the justification is the zillions of actual tests and experiments which show that if one messes with the brain, one messes with the mind, the thoughts, the emotions, the memories… the whole shebang. Can you offer something similar to justify the concept of the soul? If you cannot, it is just another useless dawg-mah. (Sorry… I was traveling in Gawjah, and picked up the local accent. You know, when they speak of their football team, they say: “How 'bout them Dawgs?” And when you attend the church services, you hear them talking about “Gaaahd” and also “Jeeesus”.) Nice people with strange accents.

If they are merely concepts they can be ignored with impunity - as any criminal will tell you…

Nope, because we ACT on those concepts and ideas. And the criminals will be put into jails, hopefully.

“**the **physical reality” is another example of unjustified dogmatism.

I suggest you get out and look around… just for the fun of it. All you senses will report the existence of the “physical reality”.

Ever heard of introspection? Or is that merely another concept?

So now it is “introspection”… with Charlie it was “intuition”. Very good and useful activities, but insufficient in and of themselves.

There are physical objects and concepts. If you assert that there are supernatural objects, please present evidence for them. “Intuition” and “introspection” are not evidence.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . We have no evidence to produce. We are, in effect, the jury, trying to decide, beyond reasonable doubt, if what you are telling us, if what you believe, is true.

I’ve explained before that I, and I might suggest almost everyone else who hasn’t had a divine revelation, do not have a concept of God other than that which has been explained to us by others. Again, if you ask me what I think it is you believe, all I can do is repeat what you tell me. If you claim that what you believe is true, I can only make a decision based on what you tell me. Based on the evidence that you offer.

The context is what you tell us it is. You describe the murder scene. You bring forth expert witnesses. You put forward the arguments. You point out the footprint.

We are not convinced.

This is an example of the absurdity of atheism.
You don’t believe in God, with whom I have a relationship.
I don’t have to convince you.

You can believe and live your life as you wish.
You have been repeatedly advised as to how we come to know Him.

The “footprint” is your own existence, the entire universe.
It seems like a random happening because you don’t know a “murder” has taken place, which was meant to represent the existence of God.
That’s when the cosmos makes sense.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . If you cannot, it is just another useless dawg-mah. (Sorry… I was traveling in Gawjah, and picked up the local accent. You know, when they speak of their football team, they say: “How 'bout them Dawgs?” And when you attend the church services, you hear them talking about “Gaaahd” and also “Jeeesus”.) Nice people with strange accents. . .

I don’t know if you’re drunk, or whatever.
Life is more peaceful thanks to the /ignore feature.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So now it is “introspection”… with Charlie it was “intuition”. Very good and useful activities, but insufficient in and of themselves.

There are physical objects and concepts. If you assert that there are supernatural objects, please present evidence for them. “Intuition” and “introspection” are not evidence.

Introspection and intuition are notable lacks in the atheist mind if the atheist is, as he often is, a rank materialist. Likewise, when a Christian speaks of the desires of the heart, the atheist points to his heart and ask where the desires are located. It’s because the word “atheism” in and of itself is an empty concept. All it signifies is Nogod. Ancillary deductions would be No spirit, No heart, No life eternal, No objective morals, No objective grasp of truth, etc. etc.

Still waiting for an atheist in this forum to pile up a mountain of positives for atheism.

“Pure sensism leads inevitably to universal doubt; if reality is in the end reducible to sensible appearance, then, since this is in a state of perpetual flux and self-contradiction, no kind of certitude will any longer be possible. …] Truth is necessary and immutable; but in the sensible order nothing necessary or immutable is to be found; therefore sensible things will never yield us any truth.” ― Étienne Gilson

"Every time a man sins he renews this act of revolt and prefers himself to God; in thus preferring himself, he separates himself from God; and in separating himself, he deprives himself of the sole end in which he can find beatitude and by that very fact condemns himself to misery.” ― Étienne Gilson

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am with you! Of course it needs justification, and the justification is the zillions of actual tests and experiments which show that if one messes with the brain, one messes with the mind, the thoughts, the emotions, the memories… the whole shebang. Can you offer something similar to justify the concept of the soul?

Correlation does not prove causation.

Mess with the mind - have a thought, make a decision, intend an act and the electrochemistry, the neural circuitry, the body … the whole shebang changes in response. What is your point?

That the mind and brain are profoundly connected? Okay. We can all agree to that. But let’s not go all post hoc ergo propter hoc in the interim.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What’s with the footprint and the murder?

It’s not the case that we don’t know the ‘context’ of faith or the existence of God to be able to make a decision on what constitutes evidence. To go back to your murder…

It’s you that is convinced that a murder has taken place. Colonel Mustard in the library with a lead pipe m’lud. We are not convinced, so we ask you why you believe it to be so. And then YOU supply what you consider to be evidence. You say THIS is why we believe. Look, you say, there’s a footprint. That’s part of the evidence. And we, for whatever personal reasons, are not convinced.

We have no evidence to produce. We are, in effect, the jury, trying to decide, beyond reasonable doubt, if what you are telling us, if what you believe, is true.

I’ve explained before that I, and I might suggest almost everyone else who hasn’t had a divine revelation, do not have a concept of God other than that which has been explained to us by others. Again, if you ask me what I think it is you believe, all I can do is repeat what you tell me. If you claim that what you believe is true, I can only make a decision based on what you tell me. Based on the evidence that you offer.

The context is what you tell us it is. You describe the murder scene. You bring forth expert witnesses. You put forward the arguments. You point out the footprint.

We are not convinced.

And your post proves that you completely missed the point of my post.

 

[inocente]

Except that it was you who brought up ID on this thread in the first place AND bringing it up had nothing to do with my response to your post, which you still haven’t adequately answered.

For those interested in reviewing the context, my full post was here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13538211&postcount=821
and I make NO references to ID.

Nope, earlier than that, in post #814 you raised, apropos of nothing, the supposed fine tuning of the universe, the “proof” of an intelligent designer, what the Discovery Institute, the home of ID, calls “A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God”.

But it’s good to see that you finally concluded it’s off-topic, as I’ve been saying for some time. Don’t know what I didn’t adequately answer, but if it’s off-topic then well, you can guess the rest.

I have no need to make predeterminations because I don’t think science is supposed to be as a priori and as dogmatic an enterprise as you might suppose or insist it has to be.

On another thread, I remember objecting to someone who made the strange claim that science is a priori. He names himself after a famous philosopher, starts with a P, you may know him. I think perhaps he took my objections to heart and has since realized his mistake.

 

[zyzz]

Introspection and intuition are notable lacks in the atheist mind if the atheist is, as he often is, a rank materialist.

I don’t think you are qualified to speak of all the atheists, even if they are “rank materialists”. Self-analysis (introspection) and intuition are wonderful concepts and methods, which are very helpful in analyzing oneself and the overall reality. After all, ALL the scientific theories and ideas started with observing reality, and then “intuiting” a reason and making further assumptions. And since many of the scientists are also atheist, if you deny that they have no intuition, you are very seriously mistaken.

I suggest: stop this generalizing, because it leads nowhere.

Likewise, when a Christian speaks of the desires of the heart, the atheist points to his heart and ask where the desires are located. It’s because the word “atheism” in and of itself is an empty concept.

Nope, that is because the “heart” is a horribly and nauseatingly overused analogy for mindless emotions.

All it signifies is Nogod. Ancillary deductions would be No spirit, No heart, No life eternal, No objective morals, No objective grasp of truth, etc. etc.

From the lack of belief in some gods it does NOT follow general “immorality” (which you called “no objective morals”) it does not follow general idiocy (which you called "no objective grasp of truth). And, yes, I am happy to report that my heart is in good working order. Also I have a lot of good, positive emotions, with a truckload of compassion - even though it has nothing to do with my “heart”. Ah, and also I have a bottle of Jameson’s Irish Whisky (distilled three times) and that qualifies as “spirit”. Not to mention that I am in very good “spirits”.

But you are right, I have no hope of some eternal life. In that you were right.

Still waiting for an atheist in this forum to pile up a mountain of positives for atheism.

I guess you will have to wait a long time, because neither theism nor atheism have any predictive powers about the behavior of individuals. There are both good and evil believers and atheists. Atheism is NEUTRAL toward behavior.

Also I wish to point out that I have no urge and need to badmouth believers. I would never resort to insults like “stinking, disgusting believers”… because these are also the synonyms of “RANK”.