Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[IDScience]

Hardly. I suggest you check a dictionary.

I have "checked a dictionary". Either God exists or he does not exist. Its either A or B, if you reject A you must accept B, and vice versa. Learn the law of exclude middle

Agnostics are atheists because they lack a belief in god. I personally disbelieve in all the gods invented by man. Any god at all I just find extremely unlikely.

Incorrect, agnostics also lack a believe in Gods non existence, their undecided on the issue. Just as someone can be undecided on string theory or multiverse, they have not accepted or rejected the claims, but remain undecided

Sure there might be sentient life elsewhere. Check.

Then there might be a God, therefore atheism is not logical

Um, no. We just from possibility to existence. You missed a crucial step here.

Yes I jumped from life form 1.1 to God, both of which have no observable evidence. But I accept the possibility that both are equally probable

Ah, back to possibilities. Actually, the possibility of something 1% greater does not lead to an infinite string of larger larger possibilities. For example, there are physical limits on mammals living out of the water with regard to load bearing weight, consumption of food, and blood pressure constraints which elephants and giraffes push the boundaries of. Brains require an enormous about of energy, produce heat, and create problems in the birth canal. Life forms else where may have different physical constraints, but constraints there will be. Infinite intelligence is therefore not possible in a life form.

Using physical limitations of life forms on earth, then extending that argument to places elsewhere in the universe is not possible . Secondly the argument is about size of intelligence not physical dimensions. Third an infinite intellect is not needed to create the universe because the information contained in the universe is limited thus the intellect required to create it can also be limited. All knowledge does not equate unlimited in knowledge. Someone can know all that can possibly be known (thus be all knowing) but still not have infinite knowledge

I'd like to see how you calculated the possibility of god. Humans or any multi-celled animal are much less likely than single celled animals. God, would be off the scale. If a god were as likely as single celled animals, we'd be hip deep in gods."

And how do you know we are not hip deep in Gods?. You can't see beyond your limited scope. We are gods (Elohim)

Psa 82:6 I have said, You are gods; and all of you sons of the Most High.
Psa 82:7 But you shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

God is a position of authority not a person, just as president is a position not a person. The Hebrew judges were also called Elohim.

Nonsense. Just a quick survey of the life we know shows increased intelligence is quite unlikely. There are very few animals approaching human intelligence, but a number of animals are sentient, depending on how you define sentient.

And just a quick survey 3.5 billion years ago would have shown you increased intelligence was quite unlikely. Your at odds with your own theory of evolution.

Back to "true atheism." What you define as true atheism is gnostic atheism. Few atheists are gnostic.

Gnostic is not a valid term. No one knows (via empirical observation) anything, they only believe. So we are technically talking about 4 groups of people

1. Those who believe God does exist
2. Those who believe God does not exist
3. Those who are undecided on Gods existence
4. Those with no concept of the question (babies, mentally ill)

And since you reject option 1 & 3, you must accept option 2. Because either God exists or he does not exist. You are not undecided on Gods existence as agnostics are