Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Esquilax]

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

Only if you completely screw up in recognizing what you're actually defining.

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

You understand that the reason that comparison exists is because there is the same level of evidence for god as for those other things, right? It's an illustrative point to show how ridiculous the excuses people use for believing in god are, once you remove the veneer of social acceptability that religion has. It's not some literal position.

But as you've consistently failed to recognize, when we're discussing atheism and theism we aren't talking about the literal existence of god, which you've rightly pointed out has only two positions. We're talking about our belief in that being, of which there are multiple additional positions you seem desperate not to see. Lacking belief being just one of them, in addition to belief and denial to varying degrees.

Instead of simply understanding this relatively easy point, you insist on screaming that other people just believe what you want them to, as though you can actually change a person's mind just by telling them what would be easier for your argument. But surely you're smart enough to know it doesn't work that way, or am I being too optimistic there?

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.

But when we're talking about my beliefs, we aren't talking about whether god exists. We're talking about whether I believe that god exists, a position of opinion, not objective reality. How hard is that to get through your skull?

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.

The law of non contradiction affects objectively real objects, not one's opinions or beliefs about them.

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

So, you're intent on just shifting the burden of proof? You don't have to demonstrate your claim, but if I can't refute it then I'm irrational for not believing it?

Oh, no wait: I'm irrational if I hold your strawman version of atheism- which I don't- and don't believe it. I guess since I'm a real person capable of defining my own beliefs and not your fucking puppet, I'm in the clear.

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!"

That's still a true statement; believing in a thing without evidence 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

Oh, you're one of those.

Sorry, but logical inferences and probabilities derived from zero data beyond the number of planets is not sufficient justification for believing that aliens literally exist. It is sufficient to justify accepting the possibility that they exist, but without some demonstration of objective reality, bridging the gap between a possibility and true belief is irrational. The same is true of god, and your problems with atheism are based around your dishonest misrepresentations of that position, and not what we actually believe.

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.

And when you can actually demonstrate this to be a real, true thing that is actually happening and not some inductive postulate, guess what? I'll believe it. Same deal with your god. You're just totally failing to provide the same level of evidence that you could easily provide for, say, a pack of playing cards.

First, I don't need evidence for my claim for it to be rational.

Yes, you do.

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.

Yes, they do. That's why they're merely hypotheses right now, because they don't have a sufficient level of evidence to justify belief. They may not even be rational concepts, once we know more, which is why nobody believes in them to the extent that you believe in your god.

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

How have you determined, beyond your own baseless flight of fancy, that there are no limitations on the kinds of universes that can form?

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.

Whoa, hold on. That absolutely does not follow at all. Life existing here is only indicative that life can exist here, but since we have no idea of how life formed on earth it could very well be that the conditions that led to the beginning of life no longer exist anywhere in the universe. There are plenty of additional checks you'd need to do, you can't just leap from "life exists on earth," to "life could therefore exist elsewhere." Aside from wishful thinking, what reason do you have to believe that?

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.

How have you determined that omniscience and universe creating, two skills that we have no reason to believe are even logically possible- and omniscience in particular is not logically possible- but are attributes of god, can actually arise?

Incidentally, I think I've spotted yet another flaw in your plan: life arising requires a universe to already exist. Which means that any god that exists, under your own arguments, did not create the universe, but arose in it. Therefore, not god, as universal origins are a definitional part of god. Unless you're going to assert that god didn't need a universe to exist, or existed in a different one, in which case your inductive arguments can be used against you; we've never seen a being exist without a universe, therefore we can't imagine that it's possible. We've never seen life arising in another universe, therefore we can't imagine it's possible.

If all your inferences, which your position hinges on, are about things taking place in this universe, then by necessity any god you want to posit must also have arisen within this universe, or else falls victim to the problem of what we haven't seen, according to your own premises.

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.

How do we recognize design? Because I bet your answer to that question will be really revealing.

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.

But according to your own argument, god is not logically possible.

And atheism doesn't necessarily reject god anyway, beyond your outright lies. You may want to watch it, with lying like that; see, we have a thing called Rule One here, you can see it on the rules page, and if you keep breaking it you may end up reported. I'd hate for that to happen, in place of a productive conversation. So just... stop lying about us, maybe?

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".

When did I tell you my position on the origins of life? Oh, I didn't? Then I guess you must be talking out of your ass, huh?

Besides, you're making another enormous leap of logic here. "Abiogenesis is possible," does not lead to "omniscience and creation ex nihilo are possible." How the hell are you even getting there? What makes you think that intelligence can scale up to the point of knowing everything? What in the universe even hints at that being the case? You only have one species of human-like intelligence to even go off of; one example is not a sufficient sample size from which to draw these conclusions.

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.

Using that logic one could just as easily assert that since the wide range of intellects that we see never surpasses human intellect, that human intellect is the upper end of that range of intellects. See how inferences based on extremely limited observations can bite both ways?