Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[IDScience]

So, let me get this straight: first, you decide to "define true atheism," by telling us what we believe and demanding that we go with your definition and not our own or the dictionary's. Essentially, you strawman us.

Yes I do know what you believe if you adhere to proper definitions, and I can prove it

Atheism is famous for equating the concept of God with flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, etc.. Now if this comparison holds valid in your own mind, you should be able to positively assert the same thing about God as you do about theses other fictional characters, or anything else you claim you don't believe

1. You don't believe flying spaghetti monsters exist
2. And you can positively assert "I believe flying spaghetti monsters do not exist”

1. You don't believe invisible pink unicorns exist
2. And you can positively assert "I believe invisible pink unicorns do not exist"

1. You don't believe the earth is flat
2. And you can positively assert “I believe the earth is not flat”

And this example works in 100% of all other things you claim you “don't believe”. Yet you still can't see what should be blatantly self evident to a honest rational mind

Your problem is, you either lie to yourself about Gods existence, or lie about the absurd comparisons to
known fictional characters. I believe its the former, you believe God exists, but willfully lie to yourself for convenience sake.

Rejecting somethings existence equates accepting its non-existence, and vice versa. because the law of non contradiction dictates something can't both exist and not exist at the same time.

Therefore according to the law of non contradiction, God can't exist and not exist at the same time, therefore if you don't believe God exists -Just as with spaghetti monsters and invisible unicorns- you must believe God does not exist because the final outcome of your equation equates GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

"Has intelligence that is godlike" is your criteria for a god? Nothing else? Dodgy - isn't obviously contradictory. Congratulations, jackass, you managed to define a- possibly fictional!- concept that doesn't collapse in on itself"

Yes it is my criteria, because the only thing that is needed to prove (the belief in) theism correct and (the belief in) atheism incorrect is an intelligence capable of creating a universe and all life it in, nothing more. And you have given no argument against a God-like intellect from existing, therefore your post is nothing more than arrogant insults with no explanatory value. Angry rhetoric is not competing in a debate

And then to cap it, the sun-drenched monument to your ignorance at the top of the summit of ineffective argumentation you've thus far provided, is blatant special pleading and a shifting of the burden of proof: I don't need to provide any positive evidence for my god, but unless you can provide comprehensive evidence that my god does not exist, your position is irrational!

Lets reword that to. "I don't need to provide any positive evidence for other superior life in the universe, but unless you can provide comprehensive evidence that other superior life in the universe does not exist, your position is irrational!"

Now you should see where your argument falls apart. You don't need positive evidence to believe in other life in the universe, and you don;t need positive evidence to believe in other superior life in the universe. You use logical inferences and mathematical odds to make that leap of faith. The difference between theists and atheists is, theists don;t irrationally cap intellect and attribute levels of all life that can possibly exist, so that it is less than God-like

Just as the unimaginably small atom was proven to mimic a solar system -a concept that would have been laughably ridiculous 200 years ago-, the entire universe can also be a "single cell" in a much larger system. Your problem is your mental scope is extremely narrow and limited in its ability to comprehend the fact that, SIZE HAS NO RELEVNCE at all to the potential existence of a system or a life form or intelligence. Now expand your mind and comprehend what I just said. And you can start this mental expansion by researching “universal fractals”. Everything that exists, patterns, systems,, and life, exist on unimaginably small and large scales.

But let me ask you this, genius: wouldn't it logically follow that if my position is irrational because I can't provide evidence against your argument, that yours is irrational because you haven't provided any evidence for it?"

First, I don't need evidence for my claim for it to be rational. Just as the multiverse of inflationary cosmology and the “many worlds” of quantum physics do not need evidence of their existence to be a rational concept. If one universe exists, many or endless other universe all with different attributes/constants can also logically exist, and this is based solely on inference

And I have logical inferences for my position, a fact that has blown right over your head. Life exists here, therefore life can exist elsewhere. Varying degrees of life with varying degrees of attributes and intellects exist here, therefore varying degrees of life with varying degrees of attributes and intellects is a logical possibility and can't be ruled out of existence.

If we find an statue of an elephant on mars, do I need observable evidence of the potential designer or the design process to assume a designer could exist?. No I do not. And proving the existence of the elephants designer is unfalsifiable, yet ID is not rejected based on logical inferences of design. Now if you want to be inundated with "appearance of design" quotes from evolutionary science, ill be happy to give them to you.

Because let me be absolutely clear: "It's logically possible!" is nowhere near "it exists." Possible gods are not extant gods, and moreover, it's only possible if our only criteria for possible is "not logically inconsistent,

Did I say that?. No. I said because its logically possible, it can't be rejected as atheism does. If God is logically possible, it then goes without saying to reject what can be logically possible is illogical in its self, just as rejecting all other possible life in the universe (big or small) is illogical.

because you've got no indication that it's physically possible, or that it did happen, just that intelligence might grow to that threshold because we've seen intelligence"

Oh but you do, because you believe a primordial soup gave rise to a single cell, and a single cell gave rise to progressively more intelligent life forms with a wider range of attributes. Therefore your own theory (if true) indicates it is "physically possible".

I observe a wide range of intellects co-existing, thus logically assume a wide range can exist throughout the universe, and beyond. Which is independent of how they became a wide range of intellects.