Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Mister Agenda]

To pick a nit, not all agnostics are atheists. Many are theists.

How can you lack belief in a god and be a theist?

The definition of 'agnostic' is not 'lacks belief in a god'. That's the definition of an atheist. An agnostic lacks knowledge of a god. Belief is a different axis. An agnostic atheist doesn't know and doesn't believe. An agnostic theist doesn't know but believes anyway. There's no requirement that a theist be without doubt or even be very sure, only that they think a god at least probably exists, even if they acknowledge that it's something of which they can't have knowledge. Reading the Bible didn't make me an atheist, it made me an agnostic theist: I still believed in God but no longer believed the Bible had good information on that being, and I didn't consider it a fact, just my opinion. Just as I now consider there probably being no God my opinion, not a fact.

To pick a nit, not all agnostics are atheists. Many are theists.

How can you lack belief in a god and be a theist? Or do you mean they believe in god but aren't sure?

Pretty much, yes. There are a lot of people willing to admit that they believe on faith, not knowledge. We have a tendency to get theist visitors who aren't content with that, but millions are fine with that uncertainty.

---

I can prove the philosophy of atheism is an invalid proposition, because nothing prohibits a life form with the attributes of a God from existing, other than the atheists inability to comprehend the concept of BIG LIFE.

Atheism is neither a philosophy nor a proposition. It is a state of being. The state of not having a belief that any deities are real in the sense of being actual entities with supernatural powers.

Therefore my argument does not make theism true, but make atheism irrational.

You can't even comprehend what atheism is, which isn't exactly rocket surgery.

Just as its irrational to reject any other life in the universe. But this also does not mean there is other life in the universe, but only proves rational and irrational propositions about what life forms can and can not exist.

It's irrational to reject the possibility of other life in the universe, because we know it happened once. But it's not particularly ratonal to be 100% certain it exists, given that we do not know the odds of abiogenesis. It's reasonable to think it's more likely than not given what we already know, but certainty is not yet warranted based on only one example: life on earth. Certainty is even less warranted in the domain of other extant civilizations existing. We have no idea what the odds of a life-bearing planet giving rise to a technological civilization are, it could be one in a billion, or one in a universe for all we know.

Regarding God, I am an agnostic nonbeliever, regarding life elsewhere I am an agnostic believer.