Atheism is more logical than theism.

The epistemic claims of theism are that one or more deity exists, and that the deity controls some part of the world. Since these are both epistemic claims, they must be backed by empirical evidence. However, since they are unfalsifiable hypotheses, they can never be proven either way.Of course there is no empirical evidence to support Atheism or Theism; it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. I will examine whether or not it is logical to believe in an unfalsifiable hypothesis.If the human race went through life believing every single unfalsifiable hypothesis ever invented, we would never get anywhere. People would believe that magical intangible unicorns are in control of the world, and that invisible fairy dust makes plants grow. Neither or these are logical claims, due to the fact that they are unfalsifiable.The God Hypothesis is unfalsifiable. The reason that so many people believe it, is most likely because science does not have a clear answer for some of the things that religion claims to have answers for. However, to claim that as evidence for the existence of a god would be to use the Argument From Silence Fallacy, which I will get to in a bit.Con brings up the fact that no isolated human culture has been atheistic. The reason for that is fairly simple. As a naturally curious species, humans always try to find answers for the things they do not know. Up until around mid-late 19th century, there just was not enough known about the universe to contradict claims made by Christianity or Islam. Now that our technology has gotten more advanced, we have been able to discover new things about the universe that indicate no need for a supernatural deity. Atheism has progressively spread more and more since these recent discoveries, with a widespread drop of 9% in religiosity from 2005 to 2012 (1). As we are gaining new knowledge all the time, there is a definite correlation between the knowledge gained over the past 50 years or so, and the increase in atheism. The more we learn, the more atheists. That would suggest that it is actually atheist norms that have higher cerebral faculties.For something to be illogical (or simply provide no evidence, in which case it would be illogical to believe in), it must use logical fallacies. I will cite some logical fallacies that the theists/deists use to verify the God Hypothesis.Argument From Ignorance Fallacy (2) - The God Hypothesis claims that there is a deity, and because it has not been proven wrong, theists and deists consider it to be correct.Argument From Silence Fallacy (3) - Theists and deists claim that god exists, due to the absence of evidence of what caused the Big Bang.Con seems to think that the issues of The Big Bang and Thermodynamics relate to Atheism and Theism. An Atheist is not required to accept any science that they don't want to. Atheists simply lack a belief in God. However, as a proponent of science, I will support my claim about quantum fluctuations more, although it does not prove anything about which is more or less logical (or, as the case might be, the same amount of logic).Since Con's only refutation thus far is to cite Stephen Hawking, and to make the claim that Hawking disagrees with me, I will cite more Stephen Hawking, where he will state clearly that he agrees with me."Denouncing philosophy (and religion) as "outdated and irrelevant", [Stephen Hawking] announced that science dispenses with a designer behind nature because the law of gravity explains how the universe "can and will create itself from nothing."" (4)Stephen Hawking clearly states that the universe "can and will create itself". This is clearly in agreement with my argument. Plus, as an advocate of the Multiverse, Stephen Hawking would probably agree with me that we are most likely not the first universe. Thus, it is entirely possible that our Big Bang was created by a quantum fluctuation that started in another universe, where time had already begun.Con keeps bringing up empirical evidence, and the fact that there is none that points toward Theism or Atheism, and therefore neither viewpoint is more logical. However, since Theism is the positive belief, an Atheism is a negative belief, or lack of belief, a lack of empirical evidence should, logically, point to a lack of belief."A scientist who is indifferent in any belief system “is more logical then” Atheism."Con seems to misunderstand atheism. There are two types of atheism: Gnostic atheism, and agnostic atheism. Gnostic atheists claim to know 100% that there is no god; agnostic atheists claim that there is no evidence, and therefore no need for a belief in god. An agnostic atheist would not claim to be 100% positive that there is no god, but they still lack a belief in god. I am an agnostic atheist, and so are most scientists. Agnostic atheism is the position of indifference on religious matters. Gnostic atheism claims to know for sure that there is no god, and is therefore a claim to knowledge that one does not have. Agnostic theism, while still not claiming to be positive there is a god, still requires a belief in one. And gnostic theism, similar to gnostic theism, is a claim to knowledge that one does not have. People generally claim to be just agnostic when they lack a belief in god, but consider the word "atheist" as negotively connotated, and therefore will not associate themselves with it.Summary: The God Hypothesis has no evidence to support it. The God Hypothesis is unfalsifiable. Most theists use logical fallacies to justify a god's existence, and the ones that don't simply do not provide evidence. Thus, believing in a god is illogical.I enjoyed debating you, and enjoyed being subjected to different opinions than that of my own and that of the opinion of deeply religious. I hope to see you again in the future sometime.(1) http://redcresearch.ie...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...(4) http://www.evolutionnews.org...