Atheism is right

Truth_seeker you are driving me to the point of insanity I give you so many reasons yet you claim there not reasons here's the rest . 1: The consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones.When you look at the history of what we know about the world, you see a noticeable pattern. Natural explanations of things have been replacing supernatural explanations of them. Like a steamroller. Why the Sun rises and sets. Where thunder and lightning come from. Why people get sick. Why people look like their parents. How the complexity of life came into being. I could go on and on.All these things were once explained by religion. But as we understood the world better, and learned to observe it more carefully, the explanations based on religion were replaced by ones based on physical cause and effect. Consistently. Thoroughly. Like a steamroller. The number of times that a supernatural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a natural explanation? Thousands upon thousands upon thousands.Now. The number of times that a natural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a supernatural one? The number of times humankind has said, "We used to think (X) was caused by physical cause and effect, but now we understand that it"s caused by God, or spirits, or demons, or the soul"?Exactly zero.Sure, people come up with new supernatural "explanations" for stuff all the time. But explanations with evidence? Replicable evidence? Carefully gathered, patiently tested, rigorously reviewed evidence? Internally consistent evidence? Large amounts of it, from many different sources? Again " exactly zero.Given that this is true, what are the chances that any given phenomenon for which we currently don"t have a thorough explanation " human consciousness, for instance, or the origin of the Universe " will be best explained by the supernatural?Given this pattern, it"s clear that the chances of this are essentially zero. So close to zero that they might as well be zero. And the hypothesis of the supernatural is therefore a hypothesis we can discard. It is a hypothesis we came up with when we didn"t understand the world as well as we do now" but that, on more careful examination, has never once been shown to be correct.If I see any solid evidence to support God, or any supernatural explanation of any phenomenon, I"ll reconsider my disbelief. Until then, I"ll assume that the mind-bogglingly consistent pattern of natural explanations replacing supernatural ones is almost certain to continue.(Oh " for the sake of brevity, I"m generally going to say "God" in this chapter when I mean "God, or the soul, or metaphysical energy, or any sort of supernatural being or substance." I don"t feel like getting into discussions about, "Well, I don"t believe in an old man in the clouds with a white beard, but I believe"" It"s not just the man in the white beard that I don"t believe in. I don"t believe in any sort of religion, any sort of soul or spirit or metaphysical guiding force, anything that isn"t the physical world and its vast and astonishing manifestations.2: The inconsistency of world religions.If God (or any other metaphysical being or beings) were real, and people were really perceiving him/ her/ it/ them, why do these perceptions differ so wildly?When different people look at, say, a tree, we more or less agree about what we"re looking at: what size it is, what shape, whether it currently has leaves or not and what color those leaves are, etc. We may have disagreements regarding the tree " what other plants it"s most closely related to, where it stands in the evolutionary scheme, should it be cut down to make way for a new sports stadium, etc. But unless one of us is hallucinating or deranged or literally unable to see, we can all agree on the tree"s basic existence, and the basic facts about it.This is blatantly not the case for God. Even among people who do believe in God, there is no agreement about what God is, what God does, what God wants from us, how he acts or doesn"t act on the world, whether he"s a he, whether there"s one or more of him, whether he"s a personal being or a diffuse metaphysical substance. And this is among smart, thoughtful people. What"s more, many smart, thoughtful people don"t even think God exists.And if God existed, he"d be a whole lot bigger, a whole lot more powerful, with a whole lot more effect in the world, than a tree. Why is it that we can all see a tree in more or less the same way, but we don"t see God in even remotely the same way?The explanation, of course, is that God does not exist. We disagree so radically over what he is because we aren"t perceiving anything that"s real. We"re "perceiving" something we made up; something we were taught to believe; something that the part of our brain that"s wired to see pattern and intention, even when none exists, is inclined to see and believe.3: The weakness of religious arguments, explanations, and apologetics.I have seen a lot of arguments for the existence of God. And they all boil down to one or more of the following: The argument from authority. (Example: "God exists because the Bible says God exists.") The argument from personal experience. (Example: "God exists because I feel in my heart that God exists.") The argument that religion shouldn"t have to logically defend its claims. (Example: "God is an entity that cannot be proven by reason or evidence.") Or the redefining of God into an abstract principle" so abstract that it can"t be argued against, but also so abstract that it scarcely deserves the name God. (Example: "God is love.")And all these arguments are ridiculously weak.Sacred books and authorities can be mistaken. I have yet to see a sacred book that doesn"t have any mistakes. (The Bible, to give just one example, is shot full of them.) And the feelings in people"s hearts can definitely be mistaken. They are mistaken, demonstrably so, much of the time. Instinct and intuition play an important part in human understanding and experience" but they should never be treated as the final word on a subject. I mean, if I told you, "The tree in front of my house is 500 feet tall with hot pink leaves," and I offered as a defense, "I know this is true because my mother/ preacher/ sacred book tells me so"" or "I know this is true because I feel it in my heart"" would you take me seriously?Some people do try to prove God"s existence by pointing to evidence in the world. But that evidence is inevitably terrible. Pointing to the perfection of the Bible as a historical and prophetic document, for instance" when it so blatantly is nothing of the kind. Or pointing to the fine-tuning of the Universe for life" even though this supposedly perfect fine-tuning is actually pretty crappy, and the conditions that allow for life on Earth have only existed for the tiniest fragment of the Universe"s existence and are going to be boiled away by the Sun in about a billion years. Or pointing to the complexity of life and the world and insisting that it must have been designed" when the sciences of biology and geology and such have provided far, far better explanations for what seems, at first glance, like design.As to the argument that "We don"t have to show you any reason or evidence, it"s unreasonable and intolerant for you to even expect that"" that"s conceding the game before you"ve even begun. It"s like saying, "I know I can"t make my case " therefore I"m going to concentrate my arguments on why I don"t have to make my case in the first place." It"s like a defense lawyer who knows their client is guilty, so they try to get the case thrown out on a technicality.Ditto with the "redefining God out of existence" argument. If what you believe in isn"t a supernatural being or substance that has, or at one tim