User:LindySoul/atheism

I wont profess having any theistic inclination. I consider myself to be atheistic only if you define atheism the way its supposed to be - a simple lack of knowing one way or another. I do study religion and spiritualism. And I am open to spiritual and theological truth. I actively pursue such truths. I am not an anti-theistic bigot, as most who label themselves 'atheists' will act. I have not closed myself off, nor do I arbitrarily disregard or reject the prospect. I have never found a solid basis for disbelieving.

Atheism should be open to theistic possibilities. Anyone who has rejected the concept completely has done so on an inconclusive basis. They are therefore anti-theists.

I argue against blind faith. Both blind faith in favor of theism, and blind faith in favor of atheism.

Throughout my life, I have heard many arguments from atheists against theism. Some more logical than others. But this page is here to debunk blind, ignorant, anti-theistic faith. I have taken most of the pro-atheist arguments that I have heard and demonstrated their fallacies.

I can forgive theists for not being completely rational. It is, after all, a component of their dogmas and the very meaning of faith. That is not to say they lack reasoning or logic skills, but just that they must necessarily give in to pure faith and give themselves a little leeway. It is actually impressive to bring faith into a material world with such convictions. It is said that through faith, further rationales to support theism emerge.

I, however, cannot forgive an atheist for the same infraction. Atheists profess logic and reason and rationalism above all others, so when they base their faith against theism on equally ridiculous fallacies, I am quite embarrassed to call them a fellow human. Its a sad thing that arrogant surety in ones own intelligence can be used to reinforce and validate ones own biases. It is true, that intelligence is a tool to support ignorance.

A note on syntax
Yeah yeah... just because these formal logical arguments arent written in perfect formal form doesnt mean you cant fill in the gaps, nor does it mean the written forms are invalid arguments. I didnt include the full proof and wrote it fairly generically to help the layman. The argument, as well as my criticisms of it and the fallacy, can still be fully understood. Anyone with a formal education in formal logic should be able to see validity and fill in the technical gaps themselves. I streamlined it for simplicity.

Case 1
If we Know God is real then Religion is Valid We do not Know that God is real Therefore Religion is Invalid


 * $$G \supset R$$
 * $$\neg G$$
 * $$\therefore \neg R$$


 * Many atheists will say that a lack of affirmed knowledge of the validity of God or religion necessitates that we do no observe theism.
 * The premises are not necessarily true. The arguments soundness is debatable, even if the argument was valid.

Case 2
Christianity is a theology. Christianity is invalid. Therefore, theology is invalid.


 * $$C \supset T$$
 * $$\neg C$$
 * $$\therefore \neg T$$

Case 3
Christians believe in God. Christianity is invalid. Therefore, there is no God.


 * $$C \supset G$$
 * $$\neg C$$
 * $$\therefore \neg G$$

Affirming the Consequence
Atheism believes in (validates) Science. Science is valid. Therefore, atheism is valid.


 * $$A \supset S$$
 * $$S$$
 * $$\therefore A$$

Case 1
Either divine creationism is true or a big bang magically happened. Science indicates that the big bang magically happened. Therefore, God had no part in creation.


 * $$C \lor B$$
 * $$B$$
 * $$\therefore \neg C$$

Case 2
Either God created life or life evolved. Science indicates that life evolved. Therefore, creationism is invalid, God had no part in the formation/development of life.


 * $$C \vee E$$
 * $$E$$
 * $$\therefore \neg C$$

Case 1
If God doesnt exist then religion is invalid. God doesnt exist. Therefore, religion is invalid.


 * $$\neg G \supset \neg R$$
 * $$\neg G$$
 * $$\therefore \neg R$$

This is a valid Modus Ponens. But the premises are not verified, therefore the argument is unsound.

One, we cannot be sure that God doesnt exist. But even if he hypothetically didnt exist, for sake of an assumption, does that negate religion? Religion can be about more than praising God, but is about community and communion, and mutual support. Its about the pursuit of spiritual, philosophical truths about life, about the human condition. Whether God exists or not.

Case 2
If religion is wrong then the pursuit of spiritual truth is wrong. Religion is wrong. Therefore, the pursuit of spiritual truth is wrong.


 * $$\neg R \supset \neg S$$
 * $$\neg R$$
 * $$\therefore \neg S$$

Another valid Modus Ponens, but an unsound argument.

One, is religion wrong?

Two, is the first premise true? Many atheists actually close themselves off to discussing things that they believe they cant know through science.

Case 3
If God doesnt exist then spiritualism is wrong. God doesnt exist. Therefore, spiritualism is wrong.


 * $$\neg G \supset \neg S$$
 * $$\neg G$$
 * $$\therefore \neg S$$

I can conceive of a universe that the soul continues to exist, or the mind transcends the physical, and simultaneously a universe in which God doesnt exist.

Case 4
If evolution is real then God doesnt exist Evolution is real Therefore, God doesnt exist


 * $$E \supset \neg G$$
 * $$E$$
 * $$\therefore \neg G$$

Case 5
Either God created life or life evolved, exclusively. Science indicates that life evolved. Therefore, creationism is invalid, God had no part in the formation/development of life.


 * $$C \oplus E$$
 * $$E$$
 * $$\therefore \neg C$$

Equally Valid Counter Argument
If something has not been proven, it should not be believed Theism has not been proven to be real therefore, theism should not be believed.


 * $$\neg P_{x} \supset \neg B_{x}$$
 * $$\neg P_{T}$$
 * $$\therefore \neg B_{T}$$

To the atheists credit, this is a valid modus ponens. Unfortunately, even though the logical statement is valid, it is not necessarily sound. The premises have not been proven factual.

Furthermore, the logic works for the reverse argument, as well: If something has not been proven, it should not be believed Atheism has not been proven to be real Therefore, atheism should not be believed.


 * $$\neg P_{x} \supset \neg B_{x}$$
 * $$\neg P_{A}$$
 * $$\therefore \neg B_{A}$$

Over-Generalization: Case 1
Some (if not all the known) Gods are mythological. Therefore, the concept of God is invalid.
 * $$(\exists x) ( G_x \cdot M_x )$$
 * $$\therefore (\forall x)( G_x \cdot M_x )$$

Over-Generalization: Case 2
The Christian theology is invalid. Therefore, all theology is invalid


 * $$\lnot T_C$$
 * $$\therefore (\forall x)( \lnot T_x )$$

Over-Specificity to Non-existent Counter-Examples as Proof of Universal Invalidity
The Tooth-fairy, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Invisible Pink Unicorn have contradictory qualities. Therefore, they dont exist. Therefore, no myth or concept of a creator is valid.


 * $$\neg E_{tf} \cdot \neg E_{fsm} \cdot \neg E_{ipu}$$
 * $$\therefore (\forall x)( \lnot E_x )$$

Unicorns
Unicorns dont exist, no one argues that point. Absence of Proof is usually acceptable proof of absence for most people.

Problem 1: Unicorns have been proven to not exist because we have been living on every corner of this planet for a very long time. Unicorns might still exist on far away planets... but not on Earth. For all intensive purposes, we have checked every nook and cranny of our world and have verified unicorns dont exist.

Problem 2: Unicorns have been proven to not exist. We know what they are supposed to look like, they are defined with physical features. Even if we checked every nook and cranny of the universe and knew unicorns didnt exist, that same methodology cannot be applied to the intangible, immeasurable entities that lack defined physical descriptions.

Problem 3: Absence of proof is proof of absence is a fallacy to begin with. Unicorns might exist on distant planets. Why is the fallacy applied to unicorns with so much ease? Then generalized to God?

Prepositional Fallacies
Some (if not all the known) Gods are mythological. Therefore, the concept of some unknown intelligent creator is invalid.
 * $$(\exists x) ( G_x \cdot M_x )$$
 * $$\therefore \lnot (\exists x)( C_x \cdot \lnot M_x )$$

Atheistic Creation Myth
All things have a cause. The universe doesnt have a cause. The universe created itself.

First there was nothing. Suddenly it lost equilibrium because of a dark matter nebula. This then created the universe.

Spontaneous life is impossible - life cannot spring from non-life. Bio-genesis is the cause of life - but the process is unknown.

False Understanding of What Science Has and Has Not Achieved
"The Theory of Evolution" is not a theory.

The Big Bang is not a theory.

Carbon dating is an exact science. And of course has been verified accurate through time-travel.

Double-Standard Justification
The universe always existed. But the idea that a God always existed doesnt make sense

The universe came from nothing, obviously. But the idea that God sprung from no where doesnt make sense.

Myth is typically based in factual history. Except for theology, which has no foundations as fact.

Christians who dont try to save me are either hypocrites or not true Christians. So I ignore their argument. Christians who do try to save me are forcing their views down my throat. So I ignore their argument. Either way, I have a rationale for ignoring their argument.

Exceptions to the Rule Arguments
All things have a cause. Except the universe.

Spontaneous life is impossible. Life cannot spring from non-life. But it did billions of years ago when this planet was first seeded.

Education and Reinforced Ignorance
Teaching me about their opinions when I have already decided not to listen equates to "forcing their views."
 * Theists dont share one consciousness. Why is it that atheists get angry at those theists for trying to share what they believe? No theist can possibly know whether or not you have been told of the religion, or if anyone has attempted to sway your judgment, and no theist has any way of knowing of your chosen atheism.

Not listening to their argument when I have already decided not to listen makes me rational and unbiased.

Continuous efforts at conversion is "forceful" and disrespectful.
 * Granted, some theists could be more tactful. So could atheists.
 * Anyone who doesnt respect your wishes - once they have been respectfully informed of them - is testing you patience and will probably provoke disrespect after the fact.
 * Atheists should be more offended by the theist that doesnt try to convert them. "Am I not good enough to be in your heaven?"  It is an integral part of Christian dogma, particularly, to convert people. Christians are not to "horde the light." Conversion is done to "save souls".  If the atheist knew that fact and fully understood it, they could respect the legitimate attempts of theists; and should be more offended by the reluctance of a self-proclaimed devout to not share their light.

As an atheist, I emphasize knowledge and fact and objective study. Anthropology is the scientific study of cultures and beliefs and traditions. But I refuse to educate my children (or myself) in the facts of religion by permitting an unbiased education of theology in public schools. I do this because I wish for my children to grow up with the same lack of         understanding and ignorance that I have. When the subject is theism, lecture equates to preaching and forced conversion.
 * Can I refuse to allow my kids to learn physics because it, too, is "forced conversion" to atheistic claims?

I refuse to educate my children (or myself) in the facts of religion by permitting an unbiased education of theology in public schools. I do this because knowledge of theistic dogma doesnt aid in my efforts of creating logical counter-arguments to theistic claims. God forbid I risk learning something that might actually learn something that would eliminate my             biases and help me to see either theistic claim or find argument to its contrary.

I refuse to study religion objectively because of fear of what I may find. God forbid I risk learning something that might actually convince me of theism. I have chosen to be atheist, and discovering theistic truth is scary and yields me no excuse to reject it.

I dont mind if my kids learn about unverified atheistic theory about creation, just so long as they dont learn about equally unverifiable theistic theory about creation.

I dont mind if my kids learn about myth and folklore, as long as it isnt religious dogma. Even though I commonly refer to religious dogma as folklore, I place it in an even more segregated category. And that has nothing to do with anti-religious bigotry.

I dont care what schools teach. I wish they taught more, better, and more in-depth. As long as they dont teach theology. And that has nothing to do with anti-religious bigotry.

Separation of Church and State requires that schools not formally teach theology. And, likewise, politicians should also be required to be atheistic.
 * Actually, the Separation of Church and State requires that no one religion be endorsed over another.
 * It also prevents any public school from preaching - that is, conversion or affirming faith.
 * It does not, by design, prevent the education of religion in a formal, objectified and unbiased manner.

I dont agree with the politics taught in government or social science classes. But teaching children about religion is against the rules because I dont agree with religion. But teachers may continue teaching politics and government, even though I also disagree. If I dont agree with my children learning about Black History, will they learn "real stuff" during February instead?

Theology isnt real. Science is.
 * Theology is real - as an anthropological and cultural subject, not unlike what schools already teach in the social sciences.
 * Any scientific theory is a theory because it lacks conclusiveness and therefore no theory taught in science can be taken as "real".
 * Many sciences in many schools throughout American history have taught scientific "fact" that later turned out to be false.
 * Who is anyone to decide what truths are true without any conclusiveness?
 * Who is anyone to decide what knowledge, no matter how subjective, is worth teaching?

Science that Contradicts
Evolution is a slow gradual process spanning centuries if not millennium and countless generations of living bodies. But there are gaps between species in the fossil record. (But we will ignore that fact)

Theistic counter argument: Either evolution is false, or it has been influenced artificially with spurts of sudden, drastic, guided, and purposeful change.

The laws of entropy ensure that the universe 'cools' and 'simplifies' as it ages. Yet complex life formed from the mess that started the universe. The two in no way contradict one another.

Theistic counter argument: If life evolves and adapts to its environment, and life is one of the most complex entities in existence, and the universe is getting simpler as it ages... then logically, life has existed since the inception of the universe, possibly before, since it is so much more complex than anything else in existence. Or, life was manifested or designed through a deities efforts.

In a Newtonian universe, all things have cause. Causality rules. The Universe has no cause. It either sprung from nothing, created itself, or always existed. The two in no way contradict one another.

Testability - False Applications of Science
Theism lacks testability, reproductivity, etcetera. Therefore, theism should be regarded as false.
 * Firstly, just because a theory cannot be verified doesnt mean it isnt true.
 * Even electricity is a theory, believe it or not. A pretty good one, albeit.
 * Secondly, science, particularly atheistic science, are the ones who decided to add those stipulations.
 * Thirdly, when was the Big Bang or evolution tested and verified? I dont recall any testing done involving the explosion that began existence. I dont recall any biologists witnessing or producing evolution.

Appeals To Emotion
The idea that a God always existed is stupid.

The idea that God sprung from no where is stupid.

Religion doesnt do anyone any good.

Religion is stupid.

Criticisms of History
Religions (not corruptible churches) have at some time in history been about war, control, fear, and forced conversion. Therefore, the concept of a creator is invalid.

Churches have at some time in history been about war, control, fear, and forced conversion. Therefore, the religion of the Churches subjugated victims are invalid.

The Nature of Logic
Even though many logical proofs involve first making an assumption for proof, Then logically exploring it, forming argument, Searching for any logical contradictions that may validate or invalidate any of the premises or          presupposed assumptions involved... That practice is only applicable to non-theistic arguments. We will not assume that a deity exists and explore the concept logically without first proving his existence. Because it makes no sense arguing with premises not yet proven. Why do we hold this double-standard? Just because. Its not like hypothetical experiments have ever let to any realizations or conclusions.
 * If the premises were proven already, there probably wouldnt be any need to argue. How does not knowing if God is real, from an objective perspective, justify not arguing and debating to discover what is and isnt true about him?

Logic is objectively true.
 * Quantum Logic

If God exists, hypothetically, he would have created all things, including the laws of        nature and of physics. Therefore, God is not bound by such limitations because they are of his creation. As an atheist, however, I can formulate valid logical arguments against his existence. Ironically, even though God isnt bound by his physics, he is bound by my logic.
 * Logic, as we know it on the Newtonian level, is a man-made philosophy. Even if it werent man-made or could be argued to be inherently valid to the universe, it is not objective and therefore not universal.  Even if logic was universal, hypothetically, and inherent to the universe, God still seeded the universe and its rules.  If God is not bound by physical laws, why would he be bound by logic - he created both. Logic need not ever apply to God.

False Occam's Razor
Religion uses an over-multiplication of entities, specifically God. Never mind that a single creator entity is actually an oversimplification of the universe. Never mind that atheism requires more upon more upon more scientific study, atoms atop of       quantum particles, constantly revealing more questions and confusion and complexity. Never mind that atheistic science produces more unanswered questions and it finds solutions. The continuous pursuit of more and more physical entities to       explain all of science is in no way an over-multiplication.

It seems that if Occam's Razor is to be used as a valid argument, atheistic science seems the more complex solution to the problem of creation.

Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is true. Atheistic science is simpler. Therefore, atheism is true.

Occam's Razor is in fact a fallacy. The belief that the simplest solution is the correct one is false. Admittedly, the simplest solution is typically the easiest to disprove; it isnt necessarily the easiest to prove, but could be. The simplest solution most probably the correct one, and should be the basis of hypotheses and the design of an experiment to test validity; but the simplest theory isnt necessarily the correct theory. No rational mind, no one besides a bigot who justifies their claims solely via Occam's Razor would think so. It is not rational, but is often a rationalization.

False Burden of Proof
Atheists believe in science and logic. Theists believe that God transcends the physical and religion is about faith. Therefore, atheists believe in proof, while theists by design cant prove. But, as an atheist, I will sluff responsibility to prove off me and onto the theist. I use the claim of "Burden of proof" as my get-out-of-jail-free card. Even though I know full well the theist cant prove, And even though (I presuppose) logic and science is on my side, I refuse to make the effort to prove or disprove... and not for fear of any realizations I may have. Because I say so.

Theology needs proof. Atheism doesnt need proof. Because I say so.
 * If that isnt a stereotyped double standard, I dont know what is. How can any one philosophy be arbitrarily placed on a pedestal and yielded privilege not extended to all?

Atheism is valid by default simply by virtue of atheism. Therefore, theists have the burden of proof.
 * And White people are superior by default, simply be virtue of being White. Black people must prove their individualized value in society. (Propositional substitution proves invalidity.  If the falsehood of this prejudiced, racial statement is obvious, then so must the above anti-theistic argument.)

Atheism is a more recent trend in western thought. Atheism is the side that challenges long-standing Christian ideology. Therefore, the burden of proof is on theism to self-defend.
 * By one interpretation, the Burden of Proof has always resided with "he who opposes." The side that questions mainstream and tradition is supposed to be burdened with having to prove.
 * By another interpretation, and justified by the fact that even in courts-of-law dating back centuries, he who accuses the other of wrong-doing is the one burdened. Theists do their job by conversion, and arent wrong for abiding by dogma. Atheists are not required to hear it nor to agree. But atheists actively fight theism, accusing it of being fallacious.  Supposedly, atheists are self-labeled as rational and objective, and yet the controversy wages not because theists convert, but because atheists are offended by the prospect.  Atheists are in fact the ones accusing theism of being wrong.

Even though its on the theist to prove his claims, I will ignore him when he speaks because he is preaching to me ridiculous dogma. And my choice has nothing to do with any close-minded bigotry on my part. Find me a theist that wont speak of theism and I will listen.

The concept of burdening either side with proof while the other goes free not to prove is not a cowardly maneuver. It is not a fallacy in and of itself to obligate any side of a controversy with more labor to evidence their claim. The presupposition that atheism should not be burdened with "science" is in no way bigotedly motivated. And it doesnt necessarily allow an atheist to "get out of jail free" of having to pose an argument, back their claims or find reason and rationale of their own.

False Tautologies and Equivalences
Proving the invalidity of theistic arguments equates to proving atheism.

Proving the invalidity of anti-atheistic arguments equates to proving atheism.

Proving the validity of atheistic arguments equates to proving their soundness, and thus proving atheism.

Atheism and Science are one and the same philosophy.
 * $$(A \equiv S) \cdot (\forall x)(\forall y)[(P_x \equiv P_y) \supset (x = a \cdot y = s \cdot x = y)] $$

Atheism and Reason are one and the same philosophy.

Ad Hominems
Christians are guilty of sin, themselves. Therefore, I do not listen because they are hypocrites.

Christians are guilty of sin, themselves. Therefore, I do not listen because what does religion offer?

Christians are guilty of sin, themselves. Christianity teaches of sinless ways. Therefore, I do not listen because it obviously doesnt work and has no basis.

Evil-doers in History proclaimed theological association. Therefore, I reject religion because it is evil or because I dont want to become evil.

Religious people are stupid.

Unfounded / Unverifiable Premises or Unsound Argument
Science and theism are mutually exclusive.
 * $$\neg (S \equiv T)$$

A lack of faith in theism necessarily requires faith to the contrary argument.
 * $$\neg F_T \equiv F_A$$

Either evolution occurred or creation occurred, exclusively.
 * $$\neg (E \equiv C)$$

All Fallacies, Unorganized
Note some common fallacies made by atheists against religion or in favor of atheism. Feel free to elaborate on these, explain them, and even use example or logical syllogisms. Feel free to appropriately place them in one of the other section above.

Set 1
"Atheism isnt a theologically-based belief system that violates rights by virtue of association with a philosophy."

"Bigotry is perfectly rational as long as its against theism."

"I dont understand religion. Therefore religion cant be understood. Anything that cant be understood is wrong Therefore religion is invalid"

"Religion is based on faith. Therefore religion cant be understood rationally. Anything that cant be understood is wrong Therefore religion is invalid"

"I dont need religion to be moral"

"Statistical claims"

"Evil gods dont deserve worship"

"Religion doesnt apply to my life"

"Atheists are rational and intelligent. Theists dont recognize science, nor are they rational or intelligent, nor do they have their legitimate rationales for belief."

"Theists dont believe in science."

Set 2
"cant prove a negative"

"Cause vs correlation"

Difference between theory, hypothesis and fact

"Criticizing tradition. Old is restrictive, unliberal, conservative"

"Religion is about ritualism."

"Bible-thumpers use the bible to prove the bible, which is fallacious. Atheism doesnt need proof, because science is self-reinforcing... which is in no way the same fallacy."

"The bible is an ancient story book. Never mind that archaeologists use ancient manuscripts all the time to infer historical fact; and diaries and journals and other unverified written material can easily be used in the court of law as evidence to itself."

"Bible-thumpers think they can learn from the Bible and that it is never wrong. But its okay if I misquote and misunderstand Darwin's Origin of Species or my high school physics book, which has been revised dozens of times since original print; and base my life around misconceptions in logic and science."

Set 3
"If the Christian God is real, God is omniscient and he knows our futures. How can free will exist? Never mind the fact that the supposed soul transcends the physical universe, and that a non-theistic universe is bound by Newtonian predictability." (I say regardless of what God knows or doesnt know about our futures, free will cant possibly exist in a non-spiritual universe)

"Anything beyond human understanding or influence or control or... or... or... is not of human concern. Anything not of human concern should not be studied. God cannot be understood. Religion shouldnt be in anyones practice or mind"

"'To be or not to be'... I never read Hamlet, so I admit I have no clue what it means or why he said it. I dont know who he was talking to or what he was communicating. And even though I have equally never read the Bible, I do give myself permission to draw all the conclusion I wish from scripture"

"Christians who live up to their dogma are blinded faithfully by an impractical religion. Christians who dont live up to their dogma are hypocrites and untrue to their faith. Either way, I have a rationale for ignoring them."

"Christian dogma is impractical in a modern world."

"Telling me about their religious beliefs is arbitrarily labeled as 'forcing their views', but only because I have already decided not to hear them out. Because each and every Christian on the planet should already know atheists dont want to be converted, and they should be able to recognize an atheist from a theist."

"Even though no one can formulate a logical argument for or against any debate that they dont know or fully understand, I allow myself to make claims about religion using the limited understanding I do have."

"The (possibly empty) promise of eternal life and joy and salvation, pitted against the threat of eternal damnation and pain, puts a crink in my lifestyle. And so, giving theology my legitimate unbiased attention isnt worth it."

Set 4
"Atheism isnt a belief."

"Theists turn atheist every day. Never mind all of the atheists (including those with advanced degrees in physics) that turn theist."

"Respected scientists are not employable by the church, and are incapable of using science to validate theological claims."

"There is NO physical evidence supporting creationism."

"Religious dogma explicitly states information about physical science that has been proven false."

"Admitting that there is a lot of unknown and unanswered questions, and that the universe is immensely complex, and that we know only a small fraction of the truth of existence, and that probabilities indicate a slim likelihood that existence would have played out as it did... I still yield no wiggle-room to fit in a creator."

"Even though scientists fully admit that the Big Bang is a theory, and that evolution is a theory, I will take them to be undeniable fact simply because they are atheistic theory and will put blind faith in science"

"All the atheists that agree with me only validate my belief. But all the theists that challenge me dont cause doubt."

Set 5
"All known, practiced religions are man-made dogmas. Therefore all known, practiced religions are wrong.  Therefore the concept of a creator is invalid."

"Instead of arguing against specific theists and their specific conversion tactics, I will argue against the concepts of theology instead and because of those tactics."

"Instead of arguing against specific dogmas and verses of specific religions, I will use specificity of one to negate the entire concept in general."

"I will site specific theological dogma as proof to undermine all theologies and the concept of theism."

When the subject of study is theology, lecture equates to preaching and forced conversion.

Mutation and adaptation equate to evolution.

Intra-species evolution equates to inter-species evolution.

Evolution is the random convergence of mutation which aids a species to survive.

Genetic engineering proves evolutionary.

Comment
Those few who do use valid logic either use unvalidated premise; or they argue with statements whose negative is equally valid.

And even then, the question arises whether logic itself is valid. Logic is applied differently on the quantum level, and perhaps even on the relativistic level, that is counter-intuitive if not completely fallacious on the Newtonian level. Who is to say what other levels of existence exist, preexistence, some where and some how that God fully understands the workings of everything; no matter how invalid it may seem to us humans. Simply put, using logic to prove or disprove the guy who invented logic isnt very logical.

Others
religion and science cannot coexist

* God is either real or fake. * We dont know that god is real. * Therefore God is fake.

appeal to tradition

religion is an institution

evolution of the eye

origins of God, origins of Big bang

Im not a religious person... but if you dont see how atheists are bigoted against religion, I cant help you to understand. If you are that blinded by faith in science... I feel sorry for you.

I understand the theory of evolution perfectly. Better than most atheists. And I can tell you that it is just a theory, and in fact it is quite incomplete, with contradictions and gaps in reasoning.

At least (most) theists recognize the fact and importance of unverifiable faith. Some are even agnostic in that they dont believe factual evidence can exist. But atheists will twist theology, twist logic, twist science even, just to make an argument for no reason other than they hate religion.

Atheists usually ignore or disregard the contradictions and inconsistencies that do exist in science in favor of "complexity" and "uncertainty" and "statistical variance" and "probability", and the "unknown".