Common arguments against Atheism debunked here

[Undecillion]

Bellow I have composed a list of common arguments commonly made against atheism and I have debunked them all.

if you would like to help improve any of these arguments by means of fixing the grammer or by adding your own imput, than by all means share your thoughts.


1. How do you know there isn’t a god?

No one actually knows that there isn’t a god, though the lack of evidence for his existence means that the only rational conclusion that anyone could come to, concerning the existence of a god, is that his existence is to be considered moot until sufficient empirical evidence is presented to suggest the contrary.

2. God will send you to hell for not believing

If that is true, than everyone is in trouble, because how can anyone know for sure that any one specific god is the one that people must believe in to assure their place in heaven? Why can it not be one of any of the other hundreds of gods out there people should fear not believing in?

And if there is a god, blind faith would probably be the worst way to show your thanks to the creator of human intelligence.

3. God gives us hope that nothing else can give us

If one decides that they really want to believe that they can’t find hope through anything but god, than that’s the way it’s going to be for that individual, though it should be known that a great deal of atheists would certainly disagree if one was to claim that their lives were filled with nothing but hopelessness.

4. how can you deny god’s existence when there is proof all around you?

Just as one can claim that nature is proof of god’s existence, others can claim that nature is proof of his nonexistence. Neither claim can be justified by means of rational thinking.

5a. Gnosis proves that there is a god

Because no one have any sort of proof to come to a valid conclusion on the subject of whether or not anyone’s personal experience was real or was even relevant to the existence of a god, it is only logical that such claim be dismissed as nothing more than moot.

5b. But by that reasoning your memory and senses are not reliable either.

Both gnosis and memories can be equally unreliable, this is true, however, unlike memory and gnosis, empirical evidence can be observed at any time and does not purely rely on one’s memory to suspend itself from oblivion and remain constant, therefore it is more reliable. As for the senses, they are always working and are only rarely distorted enough to reveal any sort of inconsistencies that would serve to validity the claim that they are unreliable, other than that, the overwhelming amount of consistency that is demonstrated in the realm of what we perceive as real makes the theory of nihilism rather implausible, though not quite impossible. And in the unlikely event that this reality is proven to be fake, God’s existence would not become any more plausible anyway.

6. Atheism is just as dogmatic as any other religion.

This is what is referred to as stereotyping. No rational thinking atheist is actually that close minded. And if one wants to argue that they should then be called agnostic rather than atheist, than fine, they would just be arguing semantics, not the rationality of Atheistic belief (or lack thereof).

7. Atheists have no morals

Can one honestly say that without religion people would just go about killing and torturing each other whenever they feel like it? Morals emerge from sympathy, not god.

8. God is real because the bible said so

That is called circular logic. It is just like saying that the ocean is blue because the sky is blue and the sky is blue because the ocean is blue, it doesn’t really make sense does it? Same thing goes for that argument.  

[[-Erik-]]

Have you got anything unrelated to the Big-Bang that goes against creationist arguments?

 

[Prince Rilian]

[-Erik-]

Have you got anything unrelated to the Big-Bang that goes against creationist arguments?

There's a book called The Problems of Evolution by Mark Ridley. The entire first chapter is devoted to a proof of evolution as contrasted to creationism and transformism.  

[[-Erik-]]

By the name I can tell it's a christian book. Is it?

 

[D i v i n i t y]

I think the arguments are pretty good, but I think you should add more to the "how can you deny god’s existence when there is proof all around you?"
rebuttal. To me, that just sounds like it's leading to "Look at all the design and beauty around you. This is NOT a result of random chance."
And unfortunately, you have to specifically address this to most creationists or else they won't understand what you're trying to tell them. I'd go in depth about how complexity doesn't need a designer, and etc.  

[[-Erik-]]

D i v i n i t y

I think the arguments are pretty good, but I think you should add more to the "how can you deny god’s existence when there is proof all around you?"
rebuttal. To me, that just sounds like it's leading to "Look at all the design and beauty around you. This is NOT a result of random chance."
And unfortunately, you have to specifically address this to most creationists or else they won't understand what you're trying to tell them. I'd go in depth about how complexity doesn't need a designer, and etc.

Oh, please, do it.  

[Henneth Annun]

Some of the "arguments" (the questions) though are asked in ways that assume things that are inherently wrong/a product of misunderstanding, so I can't help but chuckle at calling them.