How do atheists feel now that atheism has been debunked?

CARM is garbage.

I mean, here is a bit from it:

"We see in the Bible in Genesis 3 where Adam and Eve were cursed and sent out of the Garden of Eden. In Genesis 4, Cain kills Abel. In Genesis 4:17 above we see that Cain had relations with his wife. Where did he get his wife? The answer is simple. Cain married one of his sisters."

Another one?

"Also, no rain is recorded in the Bible until after the flood which seems to support this idea. This canopy, if it is true, might have provided some sort of protection from the sun's harmful rays. We can't know for sure and it is only a theory. Nevertheless, after the flood, the lifespan of people on earth was drastically reduced. "

To put it succinctly, CARM would have to be a lot better than it is to qualify as being only moderate garbage. Right now, it is concentrated, fetid $#!+. Only complete morons could conceivably enjoy that filth, and actually even that is a stretch of the imagination; being that stupid was thought to be incompatible with life, even at the bacterial level.

Edit: Atheism having holes? Like what? The _only_ claim of atheism is that there is no god. Where is the hole? If you have claims about there being a hole in evolution, then this is another debate. One which you are evidently poorly equipped mentally to discuss, owing to you not even understanding the value of the words you use.

A quick perusal reveals what appears to be a collection of rehashed arguments, mis-stated logic, and reverse usage of arguments atheists posit.

Nothing there debunks atheism. Nothing there even presents a new argument for the existence of a god (the only possible way to "debunk" atheism is to prove the existence of a god).

The strongest (and that's a relative term) argument provided is that atheists can't prove there are no gods anywhere in the universe. No atheist with a decent brain would state he could. In fact, most atheists simply point to the utter lack of evidence supporting existence of god(s) as the best possible evidence of non-existence. If the argument on that site were valid, it would be easily an order of magnitude more valid in "debunking" every religion in existence.

First and for most your completely wrong and so uneducated its unreal.

Atheism has holes?????????????

FIRSTLY

Atheism is simply a belief in no God end off nothing more. Nothing to do with science nothing to do with life. People who say I see no need for a God and I don't beleive in it bam Atheism is born. And as you can prove no God Atheism stands strong. AKA no holes. Science and learning it is a choice we make.

SECONDLY

Don't speek up of other peoples flaws when yours are true to your own words. There are so many holes with religion its untrue.

THIRDLY

Atheists who actually know what they are on about and know science will not admit or claim we as humans know it all we know nothing in comparisson to what there is to know and learn out there we are still a young species and science is even younger. Science does have flaws no doubt about it why? Well its because humans make mistakes lets face it if there was a God he trusted us with this planet and we f*cked it over. Humans make mistakes they then correct those mistakes if we can and science advances this is how LIFE as a whole works not just science. We live we learn we move on.

You realise you failed the moment you said "...Atheism has been debunked?" right?

in fact, no one at this factor is conscious precisely the way all of it got here approximately. yet actual, that's not the factor! the factor is that technological understanding makes each attempt to learn and examine all the opportunities, and then verify what it unearths by utilising crosschecking and experimenting, and changing that is conclusions the place needed. the extensive accelerator they have equipped in Europe (Switzerland i think of) is the very cutting-edge attempt to recreate the great Bang and locate the particle that won mass from in simple terms that is action after the great Bang. As yet, each little thing is inconclusive. faith on the different hand claims to have all the solutions, the respond being an invisible and all efficient being in the sky, who created each little thing and takes an activity in each and each human beings, and could choose us while we die. faith has been around on account that guy first became guy, and had no incorrect way of answering all his questions different than by utilising imagining a Being up in the sky or in the mountains. Now, we don't choose gods any further. we've the answer to maximum issues, and we are in the technique of looking the in simple terms precise answer, to all issues. Gods have been for the ignorant (i don't advise that disrespectfully) and human beings are actually not to any extent further ignorant. we don't choose gods, and we don't might desire to be provided a reward while we die, or a punishment.

Atheism has some holes in it? Ha! Like Christianity doesn't? Why the hell would you believe that some magic man created everything and everyone?

any proof you have is pointless because you can not prove that the proof exists. reality as we see it is based on our perceptions. we can not know with absolute certainty that our perceptions are correct ergo reality itself is open to questioning. thus the only thing i know with absolute certainty is that i must exist in some form or another because a nonexistent entity can not think. i think therefore i am. the rest of reality is highly improbable to exist as i perceive it.

HAHAHAHAHAHA just found this little snippet on that site funny flawed logic is flawed

"There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible, and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, the atheist would have to propose that it may be possible that there is no God.1 But stating that something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality, or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is a possibility? Not at all. Simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter, and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists."

just because i can not prove that there isn't an ice cream shop on jupiter (would be interested to see how they built something on a gas planet) does not mean it must exist. that's like saying to this guy "prove that you don't have hair growing on your stomach. you cant therefore you must have hair on your stomach." it remains a possibility but is not a proven fact.

so i thought i would be nice to them and let them know the mistake. just submitted a correction. :)

atheism is just the non belief in any gods. Unless you have scientific evidence for a god's existence, which means manifestation then sorry crap.

Just because we might not have knowledge of everything does not get to a god any-more than it gets to fairies.

Personal experiences don't equate to a god any more than people seeing leprechauns equals leprechauns existing.

CARM has unloaded a huge load of BS meant to sound good to those who don't understand atheism and don't have logical thinking skills. It has NOT debunked atheism.

EDIT: It is simply not possible for the absence of belief to have "holes" in it. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. It is not a belief system, it is not a body of doctrine, it is not a series of teachings. It can't possibly have "holes" in it.

Cute website. Made me giggle.

I randomly clicked on "If everything needs a creator, then who or what created God? ", to see how debunked I'd feel. It seems the answer to "who/what created God?", is "Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him."

I feel completely debunked now. Stumped even. Brilliant website.

How exactly do you debunk something that makes no claims? Atheism is a rejection of theistic claims for lack of evidence. And that's it.

To prove atheism wrong, you'd have to bring absolute proof for theistic claims... Good luck !