There are many inherent philosophical flaws and moral problems associated with atheism. Here are some points that have gotten lost in the shuffle:

 

Atheism lacks a moral code

What is the atheist moral code? We all know what the Christian and Jewish moral codes ask of its adherents. We also know that all of the evil committed by Jews and Christians was the result of individuals refusing to live by those codes. But how can one know if an atheist is good or bad other than by judging them on the basis of the Judeo-Christian moral codes? The simple answer is: we don't.

There is no logically and morally consistent atheist moral code though several have been attempted over the past two centuries including Nietzscheism, fascism, social Darwinism, scientism, Malthusianism, communism and objectivism, but all of these have been abject failures both philosophically and on a practical level.

We are constantly inundated by empty atheist bragging about how wonderful they are but when pressed for details and proof, they initially are shy about offering data and, when pressed further, they become incensed and start down a long whiney road of recriminations. But, at the end of it all, to live as an atheist, by the beliefs of atheists, nothing good has ever come of it. However, we shouldn't presume that their lack of benevolence is the end of that story. Atheism has been responsible for a great deal of evil in the world. For a community that insists they are “humanists” they've certainly killed an inordinate number of their fellow human beings, a great number of them, Christians. 

 

Atheism has consequences — very negative ones.

Atheists can't generate trust based on the atheist moral code because one doesn't exist. If one knows only that a person is an atheist, a lack of trust in that person is a rational position to take, even for other atheists.

Atheism denies the existence of absolutes and, thus, it rejects objective truth. For example, Nietzscheism rejects such concepts as good and evil. Despite this, they see themselves as “good” and religionists (i.e., Christians) as evil. Modern pseudo-skepticism rejects tradition, morality, rationalism, science and logic. Both Nietzscheism and objectivism reject altruism and embrace narcissism as the higher “good.” Individual rights become more important than traditional morality and the concept of the common good.

 

Atheism is a blinding, choking narcissism

Atheists recognize no absolutes except for themselves. This explains the flagrant anti-intellectualism of James Randi, Penn Jillette, Michael Shermer and Ellen Johnson. They raise their emotions and perceptions about science, knowledge, logic and reality. If data contradicts their feelings, it must be due to an “illusion,” as in the case of free will. Logic is negligible, being relegated to a curiosity or perhaps a mere annoyance that, somehow, stands in the way of “real truth.” But, without absolutes, there can be no absolute truth. And if there is no absolute truth, why do they insist they are right? Without absolute truth, everyone is automatically correct — always and at all times. And if everyone is right, why are atheists so angry?

Atheism is not merely a rejection of God — it's a rejection of authority, society, reality, logic and morality. Atheists can't submit to any authority other than their own — and considering atheists’ inability to cooperate even among themselves, they refuse to submit to each other. They are extremist individualists as portrayed by Ayn Rand, Friedrich Nietzsche and Anton LeVey's pseudophilosophies. Refusal to submit to the rules of logic is anti-rational. And with this dangerous combination comes a great deal of unresolved anger and hatred as exemplified by Madalyn O’Hair and her dealings with both theists and her fellow atheists. Atheism isn't rational — rather, it’s merely rationalization.

 

Atheism has offered nothing good to the humanity 

Atheism has offered so little, if anything, to the world, that atheists feel compelled to minimize everything the Catholic Church has accomplished in the past 2,000 years or insist that “if” the Church has accomplished anything at all, it has been overshadowed by the supposed evil it has perpetrated. This is a monumentally hypocritical statement considering:

• the 155 million people dead at the hands of atheists in the past century — and still going on in atheist-controlled China 
• the first genocide in the Modern Era (i.e., the Massacre of the Vendée) was perpetrated by atheists.
• the first introduction of public atheism in modern society was the Reign of Terror.
• atheists had no involvement whatsoever in the foundations of Western science.
• there are no successful, long-term atheist charitable concerns anywhere.
• atheists claim to be rational but get angry when they find their arguments aren’t convincing.
• atheists simply don't have a reputation of caring for the poor, disabled, elderly and disenfranchised — a reputation they’ve worked very hard (not) to establish and maintain.

None of these actions have produced good for the world.

 

Scientism isn't science

Scientism is the atheist philosophy that science is the only standard by which humanity is meant to live. Putting aside the reprehensible history unbridled scientific curiosity has unleashed upon the world, atheists have resolutely refused to prove their claims. Scientism is a philosophy. Science is science. Atheists must come to understand the difference.

 

Atheism has an atrocious moral record

Though Jews and Christians have had bad individuals who have committed great evil, they’ve also done incredible good for the world. In fact, everything good about Western society is the result of Judaism and Christianity. Atheism, on the other hand, has contributed absolutely nothing and, further, it's committed outrageous evil in a shockingly short period of time, from the Reign of Terror to modern times. More than 150 million dead — and still counting — is a cold, hard fact of history and is not simply going to “go away” just because atheists refuse to take responsibility for their actions.