My gripes with atheism.
(It is important to note that this is not an argument for theism, deism, agnosticism, or any other personal belief system. Nor is this an attack against any individuals, or groups. Refrain from taking offense, but feel free to defend your personal beliefs as you deem necessary.)
If the history of this universe was made into a calendar year, January 1 being the day of the origin of the universe, life on earth would have appeared on September 25. The first humans (meaning the first members of the homo genus, not necessarily anatomically modern humans) would have appeared on December 31 at approximately 10:30pm.
I thus find it shocking that we, arguably one of the most recent additions to the universe, find it within our ability to draw sound conclusions about it, particularly conclusions based on unavailable evidence, or the absence of evidence (depending on who you ask, of course). Turn in a 6th grade science project in which you create a hypothesis, are completely unable to test it and thus unable to prove or disprove it, yet you somehow conclude that your hypothesis must be true, especially because of the fact that there is no Earthly way to prove or disprove it. You'd likely get an F.
This is one of my biggest gripes with atheism. For most atheists to be so scientifically-motivated, their evident breech of the scientific method astounds me. Science simply does not work that way. You cannot argue that because if there was any evidence of God, it is not available to us, so He, She, They or It must not exist. You cannot similarly argue that because there is no evidence of God, He, She, They or It must not exist. Science disapproves of these hasty conclusions, atheists, you should know better!
For other atheists, their biggest issue with God ties deeply to religion. Some argue, for example, that the Bible and other religion doctrines define God as being benevolent, ominous and omnipotent. They then asses the condition of the world, and conclude that if there is a God, HSTI (He, She, They or It) has either allowed billions to suffer in the history of our Earth, and is allowing still millions more to suffer today, which would make HSTI malevolent, or HSTI simply does not have the power to change the conditions of our reality, which would make HSTI powerless. Therefore God, at least as defined by the religious doctrines of those who follow HSTI, does not exist.
One initial rebuttal to this argument is that the condition of the world is due entirely to human causes, and HSTI does not have to get us out of this mess, especially when we're making no collective efforts to get ourselves out of it, which can be reasonably argued. But an atheist can easily reply to that, and commences the ongoing, never-ending typical argument.
There's instead a much better, far less contentious argument that can be made, and only minimally debated. Atheists, all of whom oppose religion, all of whom inherently must believe religion is man-made, use the principals of religious beliefs to disprove God, which is not only cyclical, but entirely illogical. "If men decided that God must be "benevolent, ominous and omnipotent" and HSTI is not, God must not exist." Doesn't make much sense, does it? You see, most atheists in making their arguments for atheism, or against any other belief system fail to fully separate the concept of God from religion, such as in the argument given previously. Inability to separate the pure possibility of God from the religious conception of HSTI leads to automatic failure of your argument.
For me, it's simple. We live in a world, a universe of most unknowns. Though we have discovered a lot in our brief lifetime as anatomically modern humans, it is more than fair to say what we do not know more than trumps what we do know. To make an assertion as strong as saying, "I know this cannot possibly exist," with no evidence available for either side, is egotistical, and counterintuitive.
Long before Darwin came along, there were several who hypothesized macroevolution, but there was no evidence supporting it, yet no evidence opposing it. That, obviously, didn't make evolution any less possible, or real.
