Atheism is Illogical

The belief that the Judeo-Christian God does not exists is not illogical. My opponent makes two claims to support his hypothesis that it is illogical. 1. Argument on complexity. 2. Miracles. Both of these things are relatively common in Pro/Con God debates. Why? Theists tend to rely on circular logic in order to justify their faith. This is because religion in and of itself is based on faith. I will now respond to each of these points. COMPLEXITY My opponent argues that the human body is too complex to have gotten there by accident, much like how a pocket watch in a field can be attributed to a maker, and not evolved from grass. This is a good analogy among theists, because it appeals to common human nature. However, this is also its flaw. Common human nature is very biased. We allow our social surroundings and culture determine the way we think. In the watch-in-the-field example, we look at a pocket watch and assume a maker. Why? Because we recognize human ingenuity and the social concept of manipulating our environment. Thus, we can identify a thing as "artificial" by relying on that bias. That having been said, a hypothetical man has now found the hypothetical watch in the hypothetical field and assumes it had a creator. Does it assume a HUMAN creator or a DIVINE creator? The only logical conclusion would be to assume a human creator. Our subjectivity in assigning the status of "designed" applies only to things that humans designed. Next step. The assumptions the man makes now fall into the classic trap of anthropomorphism (or rather, anthropocentrism). He takes these assumptions and egregiously brings them outside the scope of human behavior. Now, he likens the human to a watch. However, the hidden assumption here is a doozy: God now becomes the human. The man has taken an aspect of human culture, the creation of tools/manipulation of the environment, and made it a universal good. He puts intelligence on a pedestal and worships it. He gives this "super power" to God. Thus, the whole concept of my opponent's argument, the argument by complexity, is based on a non-sequitor. Although given that a pocket watch is created by a man, it does not logically follow that all things we compare to a pocket watch are created by a superior being. MIRACLES Humans are afraid of the unknown. They attribute everything unknown to faith because it gives them a temporary answer, an alleviation to the fear. Improbable events are often termed miracles, but they are simply that: improbable events. After doing some fast wikipedia browsing on the miracle Grotto, I have concluded that the grotto is probably not some miracle healing fountain. If this were the case, we could say that "placebo" is a miracle drug that can be used to treat about 60% of all diseases in the world. Placebo is not an actual drug. It is a term for a non-medicative pill used as a control for drug studies. Why? Because the placebo effect works. People who are given a placebo frequently show improvement, because the mind is tricked. This is called a "psychosomatic response". Psycho = mind, Soma = body. It is common knowledge that this placebo effect exists, and this is probably the case with the fountain. My opponent shows 67 cases that the Roman Catholic Church (biased source) has designated as miracles. How about the thousands upon thousands of other people looking for cures? In addition, all diseases that were apparently "cured" were shown to be diseases prone to spontaneous remission (without the presence of a magic fountain in other cases) or where the placebo effect takes place (also without the presence of a magic fountain). Funny note from a source I used: "Emphasizing the uncertain nature of Lourdes' power, French writer Anatole France visited the site in the late nineteenth century and said, surveying all the discarded crutches, "What, what, no wooden legs???" It's reasonable that a "cripple" with both legs intact can throw away his crutch. If a man with a wooden leg suddenly grows a new one, I'm flying to Lourdes and bringing back a few gallons of that water to sell on eBay. ************ The stance that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist, or that deities in general do not exist is not an illogical one. It stems from a lack of evidence. If a person is not convinced of the existence of a particular thing, how would it be illogical to say that the thing does not exist?