In Boghossian’s words, “You need to become comfortable in not knowing and not pretending to know...“

Ah, if only atheists meant such things when they said them. Well, ok, they are typically sincere, just confused.

As example Boghossian advises us to become comfortable with not knowing, while at the same time launching a project whose goal is to convert believers to non-believers, because apparently, he's not yet ready to be comfortable with not knowing.

Throughout the book Boghossian says that the quickest way to make someone an atheist is to attack not their religion or their idea of God, but their faith.

And in order to do that, he will have to sell them on having an unproven, and typically unexamined, faith in the power of human reason to meaningfully and credibly comment upon the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, the scope of God claims.

I didn't bother to read the rest, as this seems just another atheist who doesn't understand the difference between reason and ideology, and who is intent on replicating some of the worst properties of religion under a different colored flag.

As for "faith," below is a magnificent documentary from a former atheist turned born-again Christian called "The Case for Faith." I recommend it highly for anyone on the fence about Christianity. It is life-changing. There's another film called "Unstoppable" that came out last year which I have not seen yet but have heard great things about that also covers the topic of "faith" and why we believe.

The Case for Faith
http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=FJ0J2FNU

This is not the time and place to discuss he particular fallacies of all the apologetic arguments are. This was a comment on faith. The point being that there is no need for faith or trust if the apologetic arguments are sufficient.

There are plenty of deconstruction and criticism of all apologetics.

Have a look at Iron Chariots.org or a couple of great YouTube channels Knownnomore and Counter Apologist.

The main fallacy is the argument for ignorance, essentially that the origin of the cosmos or morality or the specificity of cosmological constants is unknown so a god must be the explanation.

"So if a person claims to be Catholic, but does not believe exactly as described in the Catechism, I should believe they are not really Catholic. Yet they call themselves Catholic?"

I think it depends.

It depends on how great someone's error is. Someone might have some wrong ideas about some tenets of fatih, out of ignorance maybe, but this does not make him "non-catholic".

If someone believe that humans were created by Prometheus and Zeus (like in the old Greek myth) or that "he believes that Baron Samedi is the master of the dead and the giver of life" as you cite, then he is grossly going against Catholic Christian faith.

To be a Christian and even more specifically a Catholic, you must have some core beliefs, but this does not mean one must per se have perfect theological knowledge.

For example you are Catholic if you believe that there is one trinitarian God, but it is not necessary (although recomended!) that you know all the fine points of trinitarian theology.

So a person who claims to be Catholic, but is de facto a polytheist (just to make an example) then of course he is not believing at all in the Catholic (or even Christian) faith.

But if one claims to be Catholic or Christian, but has a somewhat wrong idea of God but he is fundamentally momotheist and trinitarian, than he is a Catholic.

Of course if there is ignorance in someone it should be corrected, when spotted.

that is why the cathechism exists.

you argument is flawed.

most atheists do not know anything serious about the theory of evolutiuon or quantum mechanics and still preach like the are experts on it thinking that these fields "prove atheism"

However the misguided conception of such theories by the "common folk" does not make these theories equal to these misguided conception.

So you can argue that many people do not understand the meaning of faith fully, but you are *wrong* in giving you personal idea of what Catholicism means by "Faith". In fact you are just attacking a straw-man.

Moreover even if many people have some lack in knowledge, this does not invalidate their faith, as faith is not a mere theory (like Einsten's General Relativity for gravitation for example) but it is a way of life that trascends mere philosophical meanings.

think atheistic views and atheism should be treated as unreasonable and potentially harmful and should be approached civilly.

Actually atheism is not "potentially harmful", it IS harmful.

Not only we have good lessons from recent modern and contemporary history, that where secularims and atheism prevailed in a society, immediately there occurred gross violations of human rights.

One just needs to observe groups like the FFRF and American Humanist assiciation, which acts as totalitarian bullies.

===

"The most prevalent harms seem to be when families and friends change religions. Particularly when Christians become atheists or change religions.They are often disowned by their families, or family members become convinced their loved ones will literally burn in hell forever. This is very upsetting and divisive and it is based on nothing more than religious views. "

The same, if not worse, happen in atheist families when someone becomes religeous.

Just think how atheists reacted when Antony Flew rejected atheism (even without accepting any particular religion) and how mean spirited the whole atheist community was against him, Dawkins in front.

This sort of fundamentalism happens very often in atheist families as well and even in worse manner.

So you are just being the kettle calling the pot black.

--

In fact I contend that atheism is not only irrational but dangeorus to humanity as a whole, since a small group of atheists already cause great damage, in several ways, to large communities.

Moreover most "atheist criticism of religion" can be turned on atheims itself and even with more efficiency.

Funny thing is that all atheisyts say that the "Cosmological ,Argtument is fallacious" and at the same time they all fail to give one good fallacy in it.

it's funny that most atheist 'evengelizers', Peter Boghossian claim "all arguments for God fail " yet thet never, ever, provide a decent explaination for it.

Even the objections reported http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/ have been long discussed and some of them do not even touch Classical Theism but arise only in the supoositions of modern thinkers (eg arguing in terms of "possible worlds" which is fallacious in my opinion).

The best attempt by the new atheists is Dawkins criticism of Aquinas and that was a teribly pathetic attempt at that.

So your "anti-aèpologetics" arguments ate fallacious, as most are, usually based upon straw-man and ridiculization.

====

The atheist cop-out argument is usually what you do "I do not accept that premise as true." (without providing any sufficient explaination) .

That sounds to me the same kind of cop-out answer young earth creationists and intelligent design supporters give when confronted with scientific data.

===

"popularity"

Atheists are SO KEEN to use this argument more than theists.

Usually they love to come out with some manipultated statistics that says "most people in group X are athests", as if that is a supporting reason for atheism.

So I guess you can add double-standards to straw-man.

===

It can be thus safely concluded that supporters of atheism ground themselves in fallacious arguments, and more often than not, in ignorance regarding several topics.

I am saying that theists intuit that because we exist, something caused our existence. It is an axiom - you can say that our axiom is like "2 is green" but if you'd like to disregard objective definitions to any of my words, then you can say anything I'm saying is like anything else.
That I am a chance outcome of the universe is in itself an intuition that you hold - a guess. You would need to know all of the information in the universe to say that with any sort of falsity. I would guess that you do not, so you are just laying down ground rules and then accusing me of not naturally intuiting them. This is the same thing you are accusing me of doing and we can just go back and forth in a loop forever on this one. It is just a philosophical position that everything in the world has a cause and eventually something doesn't or eventually something does - or maybe you think it's a loop, then I would say where'd the loop come from and you'd say it doesn't have to come from anything and then I would say is there anything else you know of that didn't come from anything?

That something exists instead of nothing implies a greater force than we know about materially.

Why? Please be precise. I'm not even convinced that the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is logically coherent. It's like asking why 2 is green.

It is backwards for me to prove God, because I don't know need to describe how anything works for me to at my most basic say, "I am alive."

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

You have to begin to break down what alive means to convince me that my "aliveness" is really a fiction, a chance outcome of a universe that can be reduced to physical laws.

Simply because you are live doesn't make that liveness a fiction. And yes indeed - you are a chance outcome of a universe which possesses certain regularities of behavior. So what?

If I gained consciousness for the first time in a room, it would lead me to believe that the fact of existing most likely didn't begin with myself.

Probably. You are a child of your parents. Again, I don't have any clue where you're going with this.