Shifting the Burden of Proof

What are the good arguments that atheism is true?
This phrase may be convincing to some, and is used by WLC in his debates, but my disdain for it can be seen in the WLC v. Hitchens debate in which Hitchens corrects WLC that the phrasing is misleading and commits the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Hitchens correctly says that atheism is the position that a certain set of claims isn't true, not a claim in of itself. After WLC commits the same mistake directly following Hitchen's correction, Hitchens spends more time correcting WLC adding "I wish you would get this bit right." Nonetheless, he didn't get it right, for he continued to use the misleading flawed charge against Hitchens multiple times thereafter. The only conclusion I can muster is that WLC was following the mantra that "if you say a lie long enough, it becomes truth." Alas, here is the correction.

The world fits the null hypothesis better than the alternative. The null hypothesis,H₀, is the method of assuming that a claim is false, and then you compare the null hypothesis (H₀=God does not exist) to H₁ (H₁:=God exists). If the evidence fits H₁ better than H₀, then H₀ is rejected and we have evidence for H₁. Otherwise, we conclude in favor of the null hypothesis.

This is why it is meaningless to ask for evidence that atheism is correct, for it is a rejection of a claim, and it is the lack of evidence for the alternate hypothesis that makes the conclusion of atheism being valid. So the question is, what would we expect to be different from a universe with no god than a universe with a god? This answer has been answered in different ways in the past, either that the Earth is the center of the universe, that there are no atheists, that if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, that you will be able to move mountains, or societal health will be linked to the proportion of a certain religion. This essentially asks, "what are the real world consequences or manifestations of god." If there is no difference from a universe without god and one with, then he effectively does not exist.

So, returning to the original question, the correct answer is that thus forward, our observations support the null hypothesis rather than the alternative hypothesis that god exists. Additionally, one could say that by continuing to fail to support H₁, one is accumulating more evidence against its existence, which would support the conclusion that god does not exist.

Prove Atheism
And if they go for the more ridiculous charge of "prove atheism", I wouldn't mind getting a little facetious in my answer.

Atheism is lack of belief in a god or gods.
I lack belief in a god or gods.
Therefore atheism exists.
Q.E.D.

Pascal's Wager

Suppose we’ve chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we’re just making him madder and madder!
–Homer Simpson

This is exactly why Pascal's Wager fails. It sets up a false dichotomy between atheism and a specific deity with eternal hell for nonbelievers, such as Christianity. It goes something like this, if Christianity is true and you believe, then you earn everlasting life, if you don't believe, you earn eternal punishment. If Christianity is false, inferring that if there is no god, then nothing happens after death. Given the expected return of our options, we should believe even if we think it is extremely unlikely to be the case.

In this formation of the argument, the inference that Christianity being false leads to no gods is false due to the false dichotomy, it could easily be the case that Islam is true or an unidentified deity would reward the atheist (no doubt for valuing rationality) while punishing the believer. Considering more options of this type where non-belief is preferred by the deity rather than belief, Pascal's Wager can be easily turned in the atheist's favor. The number of deities this could be applied to is endless. For this reason, Pascal's Wager has been portrayed as trying to pick a winning horse out of an infinite number of contestants, trying to do so without an epistemology that gives reasonable results would be a futile pursuit.

Static Morality

Finally, can anyone explain why “opinions on who shall live and who shall die, who shall go free and who shall be enslaved or imprisoned, who shall be comforted and who shall be made to suffer” should be at the bottom of the list of “that which shall not to be questioned?”

Because questioning reveals flaws. If you want to improve our moral customs, then they must be open to questioning. If not, they become frozen in the time in which they were instituted and that will remain the status quo until such questions are entertained.

Sharia Law
Witches were burned long ago
Til the flame of freedom began to glow
And we learned to say the word 'no'
No, know that your laws are unjust
Not worthy of respect, only disgust-by Nessrriinn

Euthyphro Dilemma

Is something good because God commands it or not because God demands it? If it is good because God commands it, then it is by definition arbitrary and subjective. If it is good for reasons other than God's command, then there are independent objective reasons for why its good, morality is independent of God, and God is unnecessary for finding moral values. The first picture paints a fairly stark version of morality where what is considered good could include anything from rape to murder and what is considered wrong could include anything from charity to the color green. The second picture means that the theistic question of "without God, where do you get your morals?" becomes a meaningless question as morals are independent to God's existence. Each side of the dilemma is unfavorable towards the theist, which makes Socrate's argument undefeated since its conception.

Some apologists have tried to bridge the dilemma by offering obfuscated explanations of it being a false dichotomy. However, I just see this as them trying to have their cake and eat it too. Also, any argument that relates morality and God usually fails because of this point. For example, William Lane Craig's moral argument for the existence of God:

1. If there are objective moral values then God exists.
2. There are objective moral values.
3. Therefore, God exists.

If objective moral values exist, then it does not infer that God exists since objective moral values are independent to God's existence (the second prong of the Euthyphro dilemma). The only way for the first premise to be true in the form of "If there are moral values, then God exists" is to say that God is to claim that God is the reason for why something is considered moral, which is by definition subjective (the first prong of the Euthyphro dilemma). For this reason, the first premise is false.

Good arguments for the existence of god...

Don't exist. As far as from what I can tell, a good argument falls into one of three categories:

1. The fallacy is hidden in the argument. For example, Matt Slick's transcendental argument for God's existence sets up a false dilemma and then tries to violate it later on in the argument. It also makes an equivocation fallacy between logic and logical absolutes. Sometimes the definitions of terms will be different to accommodate a contradiction.

2. The argument is just an analogy. For example, Paley's Watchmaker analogy is known for demonstrating the teleological argument. Plantinga's irrational tribe that see's trees as demon's is an analogy he gives for his evolutionary argument against naturalism. Analogies are meant to convey the idea in a more familiar way, it shouldn't be the foundation of your argument; if it is, the analogy is probably dis-analogous.

3. The argument is valid and possibly sound, but it doesn't point to god's existence. For example, the Kalam Cosmological Argument concludes with the astounding claim that "the universe has a cause." Such a cause may be God or some quantum phenomenon. As noted by Matt Dillahunty, even if we grant that the cause of the universe by a really powerful supernatural being called God, that does not mean that it currently exists. It could have drained all of its energy in the creation of the universe or desist in some other event. By other definitions of God, defining the being to being eternal, this argument also fails to demonstrate that being.

Unfair to criticize the Church?

But then there's no point criticisng the Chruch's stance, or people who listened to the Church, because had they listened to the Church's stance in its entirety, people would not have multiple partners, and the issue of aids would be far less severe.

Criticisng the Church is unjust because the only reason why aids it's such a big problem was that people were too greedy to stop at one partner, which the Church advised against.

I don't see how its unfair to criticize the Church's stance on this issue. The method of abstinence only education is demonstrably ineffective and counterproductive. Its unrealistic to presume that the answer to the problem is an answer that does not take into account desires inherent to being human. If you know that telling someone information that will lead to more suffering than another known method, it is worthy of criticism. If you think that the Church's position is the solution, then you are part of the problem.

Methods of Discovery

The fruits of the scientific enterprise vastly outnumber any other method of discovery. Contrast this with divine revelation, and you get the most barren method of exploring the natural world. Not only is every claim unfounded, it is merely chance that a certain conclusion would be correct. Divine revelation would be synonymous in this context. Every supernatural claim when tested carefully has failed. These track records can give us an idea of how well the method is at accurately finding information about the environment we live in.

We can use our observations of the past claims to estimate how accurate both of these methods are. We can infer how probable a claim is correct from this method. There is a high degree of certainty that conclusions from the scientific method will be accurate and a low degree of certainty that conclusions from the divine revelation method will be accurate. For this reason, the scientific method is a better instrument for finding "truth" than divine revelation.