Second Wave of Modern Atheism

 It's for all intents and purposes the opposite of how logic works, I'm supposed to give some credence to an idea with no reason to believe it because it's in the vaguest notion possible. I could bring up Hitchens' Razor and the response would be people trying to say that foundationalism (specific to theism) counters it when foundationalism is debatable and foundationalism based on a nebulous deity is worse than foundationalism predicated upon what stimulates our sense into perceiving specific things.

 https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page https://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/ https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/author/hemant-mehta/ https://www.evilbible.com/ https://atheistsites.net/ https://atheistscholar.org/lecture/atheist-websites/ https://blog.feedspot.com/atheist_blogs/ https://www.atheismunited.com/wiki/Huge_list_of_atheist_agnostic_skeptic_humanist_websites

 If you listen to the Cosmological Argument, you'll hear theists say that things that aren't contingent can't come from nothing, so there must be a deity. This still has problems. Essentially, a God is demonstrated because there needs to be a cause for the universe. When asked about the cause of this God, then this God is causeless because it's eternal. Essentially, this God is causeless because they say so and we have to believe them because there needs to be an origin for the universe. The problem is that this God is demonstrated because it explains how the universe was created, but the universe can't cause itself because it hasn't demonstrated the ability to cause itself, even though it creating itself also fills the need for an explanation. Additionally, theist want you to think it's more logical that an illogical thing is still occurring rather than an illogical thing happening before stabilizing into something logical. Essentially, instead of making an...

 This is presuming that they have actual evidence of a deity instead of just filtering weird stuff about quantum mechanics into a Christian framework that they're familiar with. Essentially, I have to trust that there wasn't some type of perception bias in the same organ that produces pareidolia just because the minds are factually well-informed.

 There's the classic point that the religious are the ones pushing a position of theism in a world where this deity isn't present in any way not explained by something else. However, there are two other reasons the religious should hold the burden. 1. Their claim is active: something exists despite the lack of definitive proof. The atheist claim is passive: there isn't anything more than what is demonstrated to be real through evidence, or, under some circumstances, indisputable analysis that determines it to have been there instead of something else. 2. The religious claim is the one that inflicts a burden. Denying the religious claim if it is true entails either hell in the Christian faiths or being subjected to rebirth in the Eastern religions (or, according to some denominations of Buddhism, both). The atheist claim just tells you not to assert properties onto dirt that isn't already found in the dirt.

 Both are described as transcendental, having the ability to move past the laws of science. The only difference is in the details, magic relying on some supposed type of energy, and divinity relying on some type of deity. Neither are conclusively proven, explicitly observable, or even convincing to every single person. The only difference between these two is that one has social prestige, being more convoluted in order to provide answers and have some type of philosophy, while the other is more focused on the magic system and larping. The truth values of the ideas are the same.