What would be a good way to eliminate atheism?

Seems to be working. They keep going back for more.

it must be the drink. It's probably high in spirits, holy spirit.

"Simply the absence of belief. " Just a strong conviction in [the belief or fact?] that there is no God of any sort anywhere. Yes?

not the serpent's?

"what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." would that assertion apply to assertions that there is no god of any sort anywhere?

A logical fallacy, proving a negative. Prove to me there are no flying pink unicorns. Make a case that there is something to disprove. It is then incumbent for each of us to weigh the argument as we see it. Fallacies, or whatever. 

A negative can never be proven and should therefore never be asserted as an absolute fact. No one can make a valid assertion that there is no god of any sort anywhere. Also, the absence of evidence for the existence of something is not evidence for the non existence of that thing. Those are major weaknesses which atheists tend to turn a blind eye to. You don't have to accept those realities but if you do then you'll only be doing yourself a favour. 

Yes, indeed, "It is then incumbent for each of us to weigh the argument as we see it."

Conversely, it can also be said, that there has yet to be made a valid assertion FOR the existence of any gods. Lack of evidence for a thing is absence of reason that such a thing exists. Telling oneself this is so, or programming others to believe in it, doesn’t make it a reality. Using your method, god should never be asserted as a fact. But yet it is claimed as such, isn’t it? 

Relying upon one or another flawed, oft-redacted set of claims rife with contradictions and unsupported supernatural assertions to form one’s worldview, is a choice, and an unacceptable one in the eyes of those who see it for what it is. Those for whom
preponderance of evidence carries more weight.  

Man’s religions and the dogma of invisible deities have stunted our species for millenia; they all cannot be true, but certainly all can be wrong. I find it both amusing and sad that there are still educated people willing to assert (and kill for) such historically destructive and backward Bronze Age superstitions in this enlightened age. 

This post was edited by Don Barzini at February 4, 2018 11:05 AM MST

I'm fully with you on your second paragraph.

I'm afraid I cannot agree with the opening of your final para. It falls into the same trap that many entrants into atheism from Christianity fall into - they generalise into all religions their knowledge/experience in one religion. Yes, it was religion that led Europe into The Dark Ages for a thousand years, but it was also religion [albeit another one] that inspired people to take up the lead in expanding the frontiers of human knowledge, go about it in a way we now call science and help Europe come out of the backwaters.

Your first paragraph is a bit like the curate's egg. You're headed in a more reasoned direction though, and yes, there are, unfortunately, the types that you're alluding to. Reminds me of a Christian I was talking to who, after a while, said Jesus IS alive, he is here. So, looking around, I asked, "Where?" The answer I got was "You're talking to him right now" 

I don’t dispute the countless good works done in the name of religion, but I would submit that such works could be (and have been) just as effectively carried out absent the banner of faith. 

I also will not claim with a wide brush that all religion has been a drag on humanity the whole time, BUT the “stunting” (as I worded it) of our species that I refer to could only have spawned from religion.

As such, I cite: the accumulation and abuse of clerical power, Crusades, witchhunts, inquisitions, genocides, institutional mysogyny, shunning of science, suppression of learning and freethought, and countless crimes and sufferings brought about for the promotion of one line of superstitious thinking over another. 

I appreciate your sober assessments, Clurt. While we are not in lockstep agreement, I think it‘s accurate to say we understand each other. 

One has to be fair and have a balanced approach. In his book The Making of Humanity , first published 1919, Robert Briffault does more justice to the positive contribution of religion I alluded to in my last post. On pages 190-191 of his book, he observes that “modern European civilization would never have arisen AT ALL" [had it not been for the early Muslims] He continues, "there is NOT A SINGLE ASPECT of European growth in which decisive influence of Islamic culture is not traceable....What we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of enquiry, of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs”

Just because there have been people who have done bad using religion does not mean religion is bad. I think we have agreement on that.

Actually I don't think atheism should be eliminated unless God finally admits he inspired the bible story writers to make up fake stories like Creation,  parting of the Red Sea.. what else?

"God finally admits" would turn all atheists, who believed that it was God who was doing the admitting, into theists. 

All those whose religion has "stories like Creation,  parting of the Red Sea.. what else" might continue to believe them and refuse to believe that it was their God who was doing the admitting.

GK Chesterton said that if you were raised Catholic and don't get far enough from it to see what it truly stands for and understand its great value, then you will fight it all your life.....

You fight it by being a JW....

I'd suggest you get farther away---probably sooner than later.

...For your sake.

Silly

Get out from under the shadow of the Catholic church and you will then see it clearly with the advantage of sunshine rather than shadow.

Your JW theology was born and lives in the shadow, not the light.

And don't give me any crap about Abel being the first JW.

All I said was silly and you come back with that? Almost as silly as your comment to ben1011 as if he was a JW.

JW's just get their name from the Bible as those in the Bible were known for witnessing about Jehovah (English) or Yahweh (Hebrew) so JW's today witness about Jehovah.

^{Is 43:10-12} You yourselves are my witnesses, declares Yahweh, and the servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that it is I. No god was formed before me, nor will be after me. ¹¹ I, I am Yahweh, and there is no other Saviour but me.¹² I have revealed, have saved, and have proclaimed, not some foreigner among you. You are my witnesses, declares Yahweh, I am God,

(Hebrews 11:4) By faith Abel offered God a sacrifice of greater worth than that of Cain, and through that faith he received the witness that he was righteous, for God approved his gifts, and although he died, he still speaks through his faith.
(Hebrews 12:1) So, then, because we have such a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also throw off every weight and the sin that easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,
(Revelation 1:5, 6) and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.” To him who loves us and who set us free from our sins by means of his own blood— 6 and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father—yes, to him be the glory and the might forever. Amen.

New flash to Tom, JW's are not the only ones that disagree with the Catholic Church. Ben1011 is not and was not a JW. He was a Catholic. 

That was your assumption by this post, yes? 
[tom jackson  ben1011

"ANYTHING that gets people to thinking about one thing or another is fine with me".......and with me too. And it is in that spirit that I offer the following for consideration:

1. It is natural for a religion to say that it is true. Asking it to say otherwise would be asking it to commit suicide, and that is unreasonable. It should be expected for every religion to say that it is true. It is the responsibility of everyone who comes across that claim to verify it before accepting it. It is similar to the principle of caveat emptor, buyer beware.

2. Assuming that you have quoted them right, it is significant that they claim to be 'the one true church' and not 'the only true church', for among their catechisms is CCC 841 which clearly and openly declares that "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims;" [highlighting is mine]

3. As for "if you really wanna know what the one true religion is, why wouldn't it be Judaism?  after all, it's the one that God set up.....right?" Maybe, but if we are to apply the caveat emptor principle we might start by asking whether that claim comes from God. Assuming that the existing Jewish scripture comes from God, is there anywhere in that scripture where God says that Judaism is from God, let alone claiming that it is "the one true religion" from God?