Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Mister Agenda]

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

The proper definition of atheism is 'the state of not holding a belief in any gods or God'.

Atheism is famous for equating the concept of God with flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, etc.

Atheism doesn't equate anything with anything. Some atheists do.

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”

Because we know Bobby Henderson invented it as a parody of intelligent design: we know for a fact that it's imaginary.

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

Because the attributes of being both invisible and pink are contradictory, therefore the IPU doesn't exist for the same reasons that married bachelors and Yahweh as depicted in the Bible don't exist.

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

I can positively assert that I don't believe in God too, but I think you meant that we can assert that the earth is not flat. That's because it's observably 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.

Because you didn't use a non-falsifiable example like:

1. You don't believe some sort of leprechaun exists
2. And you can positively assert no sort of leprechaun exists

No, I can't. I don't think leprechauns exist, I think they're highly unlikely, but they're poorly defined and magical, which means there is no way I can be sure there's no such thing. Just like a poorly defined and magical god. All I can say is there's no compelling evidence for leprechauns or magic.

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.

Your problem is that you're too thick to understand a simple point no matter how many ways it's explained.

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.

And your understanding of semantics is worse, but slightly more excusable because semantics can be tricky. Still, you have to be pretty thick to not get by now that we're not claiming that God both exists and does not exist, we're claiming we don't know whether God exists or does not exist, and we're not going to say we know when we don't.

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 final outcome of our equation is that god is so poorly defined and magical that the claim is impossible to falsify or confirm, so the rational thing is to dismiss the claim until that status changes. It doesn't mean the claim isn't true, but it does mean that it's not reasonable to accept that it IS true.

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.

Well, you'd have to prove it actually DID create the universe and all life in it, not just that such a being exists.

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.

I can't think of any reason to believe that a 'god-like intellect' is the only qualification needed to be an actual god.

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!"

Look up 'burden of proof'.

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.

Yes, we do.

You use logical inferences and mathematical odds to make that leap of faith.

Logical inferences and mathematical odds make it not a 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.

I doubt you'll find many theists who agree that advanced aliens are gods.