[split]Atheism is based of ignorance.

[Mister Agenda]

Or, rather, not believe.

If you don't believe in God, a higher power, anything transcendent, eternal immaterial whatever you want to call it that is relevant to us beyond and/or within the physical universe then you believe the opposite of the existence of this.

That does not follow. I don't believe you own a Persian cat. That doesn't necessarily mean I believe you DON'T own a Persian cat.

If you're not sure either way you make up your mind, not being sure doesn't win the argument.

True, lack of certainty isn't a great way to win arguments, its primary virtue is honesty.

Claiming we can't know for certain won't work either as I'm just going to agree with you.

You've mistaken a position for an argument.

So I think I have cut through line of argument meaning you'll have to defend your actual metaphysical belief, why you believe it and what you like about it.

Because when you simply ask us, you don't get the answers you need to justify what you want to think of us.

That's the part I'm interested in not the smoke screens you place around. The Sword of Christ will cut through all that obscurantism and flak and gets right to the heart the action.

You're not the sword of Christ. It's just a username. You need to check yourself.

Are there any good reasons to believe that this universe is all there is, that we came essentially from nothing or random chance coincidence, we're here for no purpose and we when we die there is nothing else?

If the alternative is to believe things that are indistinguishable from make-believe, no further case needs to be made for not assuming beyond what we can know.

Is there a good reason to assume that all religious, spiritual, mystical experience is a delusion/hallucination and all religions are 100% false and a lie?

The fact that none of them can be distinguished from delusions.

I would like to see these arguments, the meat and gravy of it, the sustenance.

It's possible that what you believe is so (provided you don't believe in something with contradictory properties or actual evidence against it, as many theists do). However, we have no good reason to believe that what you believe is so. There's nothing more to it. We note that everything you offer is severely flawed and we wouldn't accept that kind of argument on any other topic, either.

It would take more faith for me to be an atheist. (classic line).

As long as it would take faith for you to be an atheist, in my opinion, you shouldn't be one. We're not trying to recruit you.

There is some truth to it though I don't see how a universe this complex or beings as complex as ourselves could be coincidental or unintentional.

That is another classic line, and it illustrates the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity. It carries no more weight than someone saying they don't see how a universe as chaotic as ours and beings as confused as we are could be the products of something supremely wise and powerful.

Blind natural forces at work without a goal or destination in mind.

That's actually a scientific question. When we investigate natural forces do we find them to have a goal or destination? Never. Not once. The place where such planning should be the most evident, the development of life, only reveals chance and the rules of chemistry and probability.

And certainly if you look at the impact God has had in human history, much for the good, you're saying this is a delusion of the human brain? Are you sure you're not fighting against the evidence?

Are you sure that you're not so biased that you can't even imagine all the concepts you presumably disagree with that this argument would support if applied consistently? Other gods besides the one you're thinking of? Ideas now known to have been mistaken? This is an argument from consequences, and is evidence-free.

Right so it's a fantasy people entertain to be happy you believe this. Why do you believe this?

You have a habit of mis-supposing what people think. You have the right to believe what you want. We're not going out of our way to argue with you. If you don't engage us, you don't have to hear what we have to say. There's no arguing with faith in the sense of believing things you know aren't justified by evidence. The people who don't actually have that kind of faith (they want to believe that the evidence actually IS on their side, in which case faith is not required to believe it) are the type who show up here.

Why are you believing the claims of materialist naturalism? You don't know these claims are true.

I don't know of anyone who converted to 'materialist naturalism'. It's just something that is still standing once you no longer accept that people who make mystical claims know what they're talking about. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that whenever we find a verifiable explanation for something, it's never anything unnatural.

Belief in God is a vice but pure physical materialism and naturalism is somehow a lofty virtuous thing?

Belief in things without good reason is a vice. Possibly you have had personal experiences sufficient to justify your belief in God. Your personal experiences do not justify other people believing in God. Belief in God would only be a vice if it is unjustified. Not being able to prove it to others doesn't mean it's unjustified. Thinking that you can prove it to others without evidence beyone your own testimony tends to discredit the hypothesis that your belief is so justified. If God extended his grace to save me, I wouldn't expect others to take my word for it unless my mind were somehow damaged in the process.

Is this a reaction against of the excesses of religious belief?

No. It's a reaction to finding out that there's no good reason to believe God is real.

But you know belief in God has inspired much good in the world as well right? It's not all Inquisitions and Crusades.

If it was all puppies and fluffy bunnies, it would not add one percent to the probability of it being true.

---

I posted five useful philosophical developments and the philosophers who were behind them.

I don't dispute the value of philosophy. But you've posted no such thing in this thread.

---

What is the % increase in atheists year on year in 'murica? If it goes up relative to population growth, then doesn't that sort of dismiss your thesis, unless of course whatever god it is that you refer to wants more people to remain atheist from birth?

In a series of Gallup polls asking the question 'Do you consider yourself an atheist?', in the USA the percentage was about 1% in 1990, about 3% in 2005, and about 5% in 2012.

---

Sorry,but strong atheism proves God cannot exist.

Strong atheism is a position. Positions don't prove anything.

Too many problems. God's omniscience vs free will. Problem of evil. And more. Theism is simply intellectually disreputable. God is a failed hypothesis. Ignorance of the facts is why people remain religious believers.

I'm a strong atheist towards that version of God as well. But that version isn't the only version.

Knowledgeable strong atheists have conviction. When it comes to religion, we are all born ignorant. But strong atheists can learn God is a failed hypothesis and no longer be called ignorant.

The God of deism isn't self-contradictory, it only lacks evidence. I don't believe in that God either, but I am a weak atheist towards it.

---

Atheist is the default stance one takes when everything else lacks sufficient evidence. Where's the ignorance exactly?

Isn't it agnosticism more specifically?

Good question. Agnosticism is about what you don't know. Atheism is about what you don't believe. Agnostic Atheist=doesn't know, doesn't believe. Most atheists are agnostic atheists.

---

The two aren't mutually exclusive

Actually they are mutually exclusive. Both claim to be about what one believes.

Except one (agnosticism) doesn't. An agnostic can believe or not, but not claim they know.