Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Asmodee]

I signed up just to respond to this post. I'll introduce myself later.

Let me first define true atheism

The problems start here. This is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, an attempt to restrict the definition of something to be more amiable to your position. Regardless what pandering definition you found which you think matches your position, the "definition" of an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any gods, not just God, specifically, as your definition states. There are many forms of atheists. I, for instance, am an agnostic atheist, one who does not believe in any gods and, in fact, finds the idea of a god existing ludicrous, but freely accepts that I may be wrong. Am I? Prove it!

Atheism is a complete and total rejection of all theistic claims.

Also wrong. I do not have to reject "all" theistic claims to be an atheist, just the god. If a theist claims to be able to heal with a touch, I can believe that and still be an atheist so long as I don't attribute it to a god.

If theists assert God (creator of the universe and all life in it) does exist, atheists must assert the contrary , i.e. God does not exist.

Wrong. While an atheist may assert specifically that no god exists, to be an atheist one needs only not believe any gods exist, not specifically assert that they do not. So if a theist asserts God exists, the atheist can simply respond "I do not believe that". He or she does not need to make an assertion of non-existence.

A.We have observable empirical evidence of a wide range of sentient life, all with varying degrees of intelligence/attributes, existing here on earth

B.Therefore a wide range of sentient life, all with varying degrees of intelligence/attributes existing elsewhere in the universe, including other possible dimensions, is a logical possibility and can not be ruled out

Therefore If A is true then B is logically possible and can not be rejected

A and B are true. The conclusion is not. Any concept can be rejected, no matter how ridiculous it is to do so. The point is valid, but stated improperly.

Atheists will easily accept the existence of a sentient life form (lets call it life form 1.1) that is 1% superior in intelligence to humans, and they will accept this possibility by blind faith using nothing more than logical inferences. So then we must assume life form 1.1 could exist, therefore can not be ruled out of existence. And life form 1.1 would also logically assume the possible existence of life form 1.2., and life form 1.2 would also logically assume the possible existence of life form 1.3 etc. etc.

This is a shambling mess. The main problem here is that "possibility" does not require faith. It requires faith to accept that life form 1.1 does, for sure, exist. Accepting a possibility due to logical inferences in no way resembles "faith". The rest of this is more or less accurate, within logical limits, which I will get to shortly.

And at every step along the way an intelligent life form that is 1% superior in intelligence/attributes can logically & rationally exist from the perspective of the life form that is 1% inferior, and at no point along the way does this chain of slightly superior life forms become an irrational concept (i.e flying spaghetti monsters) from the perspective of the preceding slightly less intelligent life form. Therefore in this chain of logically possible life forms, the existence of life form 100000^100000 (i.e creator of the universe, thus God) becomes as logical a concept as life form 1.1 is.

Incorrect. To assume that because I accept the idea that any given life form in the universe may posses 1% higher average intelligence in no way suggests that I must accept that somewhere along the way this superior intelligence and unnamed "attributes" would make the jump to magical powers. A further problem with this assertion is you are talking about possibilities due to natural processes until you reach the "final stage", which is a being not created by natural processes and, therefore, does not follow the chain. This also has the problem with, let's say, the 1,000 life forms below this "god" getting together and killing it. The first one below it only has 1% less "power". The second one below it only has slightly less than 3% less power. If even those 2 got together they could kill your god. If you accept this argument as valid then you must accept that possibility. And there's another. The 1% ABOVE your god. If we don't stop before your ideal god-creature, why would we have to stop after? now we have God's god. Then God's god's god, etc. Do you accept that there are 100000^100000 beings above your god? If you don't accept the parameters of your on logical conclusions, why should I?

The concept of a God-like intelligence is only rejected by narrow minded subjective atheists that are incapable of mentally grasping the existence of BIG LIFE, when in fact there is no rational, logical or mathematical basis to reject a God-like intelligence from existing. Just as single celled organisms and trillion celled organisms have the same mathematical chances of existing , humans and a God-like sentience also have the same mathematical chances of existing

Again you're making the jump from "ordinary life form bound by the laws of physics" to "super-life form with magical properties which created the physical universe". The two have nothing in common. It's not just apples and oranges, it's apples and Winnebagos.

Not to mention that I, as I mentioned, am an "agnostic atheist", who freely accepts the idea that some god-like being may exist. The concept is ludicrous and I am sure no such fairies exist, but I may be wrong. If I am, prove it and I'll change my mind.

As for your "mathematical chances" of a god existing, that is just plain nonsense. You are again applying the known laws of the universe to something which supposedly created the universe. If a thing created the universe then it, by its nature, cannot be bound by the laws of this universe, making it IMPOSSIBLE to state what the chances of its existence might be because we can state said chances only by what we know of what we can see, measure and quantify, ALL of which lies within our universe. We have no data from outside the universe and do not even know there is an "outside our universe" and can therefore not make any claims whatsoever about the mathematical possibility of a specific imagined being existing.

Understand, the "SIZE OF INTELLIGENCE" has absolutely no relevance what so ever to the potential existence of a sentient life form. Therefore unimaginably small life has the exact same chances of existing as unimaginably big life does as far as logic is concerned, and the IIT proves it at every incremental step.

Again, not true. Very small life has a much bigger chance of existing than very big life. It is believed that very big life came from very small life, so by necessity very small life would be more abundant. More than 100 trillion microorganisms live in our bodies, and the bodies of each of the 7 billion people on Earth. That's 100,000,000,000,000 x 7,000,000,000 microorganisms living in people alone. I think it's safe to say microorganisms are FAR more prevalent than larger organisms.

Once the atheist opens the door of possibility to the existence of life form 1.1, he then must produce a reason to stop this incremental intelligence from reaching Godhood in a stepwise fashion.

The fact that it makes the leap from "natural processes" to "outside the universe" is a good reason to stop. The fact that it makes the leap from "physical life form" to "Ghost Superman with Magical Powers" is a good reason to stop. The fact that you want to stop before going one step further is a good reason to stop.

And the atheist can never produce a valid reason to stop the progression of this incremental intelligence other than he can't mentally comprehend a God-like intelligence existing. Therefore the atheist is forced to compare the concept of God to absurd concepts like flying spaghetti monsters to justify his reasoning in what should be a perfectly logical concept.

Wrong. I just gave you three reasons. And we aren't "forced" to make any comparison to "justify our reasoning". The FSM is an example we use, not "what we are forced to resort to". What is your reasoning for stopping at your God in your "perfectly logical concept"? What is your reasoning for believing that the 50 or so life forms below your god can't get together and kick your god's ass, their combined mental and "other attributes" being able to easily overpower your god.

Atheists illogically and irrationally put a cap on the intelligence/attribute levels of all life that can possibly exist, and do so without ever giving an explanation why a God-like intelligence can not exist or is highly unlikely to exist.

That depends on what you mean by "God-like intelligence". Do you mean, "super smart"? I can totally see that. Do you mean, "Magical powers"? That really doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with intelligence now, does it? Do you mean, "A life form created withing the universe, by the universe by natural means which is so much more advanced than us that it appears magical to us"? I can totally see that. Do you mean, "Existed before the universe, created the universe, has ACTUAL magical powers?" A little less believable, not to mention that it makes your little "life form 1.1" analogy completely pointless as it assumes natural processes right up until "I win!" where we suddenly have MAGIC!...not to mention the process mysteriously stops for no apparent reason.

In fact the only logical reason someone has to put a cap on the intelligence levels in the universe, is if a life form knows all that can be possibly be known, thus is all knowing and can't know any more

Not true. There are physical limitations to processing power vs the size of the processor (in this case, the brain). There is also the difference between "intelligence" and "knowledge". There's also the fact that to "know everything" requires "the magical power to watch me poop from outside the universe, of course knowing the smell, consistency, chemical makeup, position of the atoms, subatomic particles, etc., all without being anywhere near me, and do this, but for every subatomic particle in the universe, simultaneously". Now, as each atomic particle, at least, consists of a certain amount of "data" it is logical to assume that any life form, even granting it magical powers, would have to have a way to store this data in order to "know" it. To store the data about the position of an electron, the spin of that electron, etc. would require more matter than a single electron. Let's be generous and say it would require only 2 electrons to store all information about a single electron. Now this being has to be made of fully twice the amount of matter in the universe to be "all knowing", BUT, it can't be made of any of the matter IN the universe or it would be a runaway effect of storing information about 1 requires 2 requires 4 requires 8 requires 16 on to infinity. So, logically, such an "all knowing" creature could not be made of matter and/or could not be contained within our universe, thus, not abiding by ANY of the known laws which govern ANY of the known universe, including life, making it COMPLETELY different from all other possible life, breaking the hell out of your analogy.

Therefore true atheism (not agnosticism) is an illogical concept

Therefore you don't understand logic, science or atheism.