Atheism: Intellectual Cowardice and Lazy Thinking

If life is to be meaningful ethically there needs to be justice and what amounts to a perfect judge after death. Without this judge inevitably, those that suffered unjustly in this life receive no justice and that is unethical. Without that judge, the moral sense of right and wrong and the internal ethic of man makes no sense. Why some would do ethical things even though it doesn't benefit them makes absolutely no sense. ~ Andy Pierson paraphrasing Immanuel Kant.

Therefore the assertion by Foydor Dostoyevsky would hold true: "If there is no God (judge), all things are permissible."

This would mean that ethics are only subjective preferences based only on human emotion, volition and sentiment. This would leave only (2) two viable explanations for human existence...

Theism or a belief in God

-or-

Non-theism or Atheism

People ask me why I get so impatient with middle-of-the-road agnostics and humanists that say that there probably is no God but humans are somehow more important or instilled with a dignity that animals don't have even though we are supposedly from nothing and returning to nothing after a momentary meaningless existence. They are not consistent in their argument and they don't even realize this most times. It is intellectual cowardice pure and simple. At least hardcore atheists are consistent in their militant consistency although their logic leaves much to be desired. The rest are just people that have not thought through their position correctly in a logical manner.

As for atheists themselves...

The principal and perhaps sole intellectual driving force behind the rise of the militant westernized atheistic jihad has been the false idea that concrete, testable data is the exclusive portal to reliable beliefs. This is false and irrational. Nonsense remains nonsense; even when it is uttered by world-renowned scientists and so-called "highly educated" people. Nonsense uttered by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and their ilk...or the murderous Sam Harris known for his religiously zealous comment:

“Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them.” Sam Harris-The End of Faith

If we look into the recent past we would've seen more rational, reasonable and logical statements from respected scientists like Max Plank... 

Plank, the patriarch of Quantum Theory wrote the following words: 

“Anybody who has seriously been engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with… Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. That is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of nature and therefore a part of the very mystery that we are trying to solve.” ~Max Plank

So, how is atheism inconsistent?

Throughout history it was believed that the highest form of knowledge, and indeed the highest form of science, is one that admits the yielding of the senses to human reasoning and creativity in a truly symbiotic harmony. In other words, we need all of our faculties for cognition in order to exercise our full intellectual capacities, not just one or the other by itself. By isolating and emphasizing one half of the equation as in being purely empirical and ignoring another such as spiritual or metaphysical - a person literally becomes rationally and mentally deficient. They literally become crazy or irrational. (Jinn 605-608)

So atheism at its core can be broken down into a concise syllogism showing its illogical flaw(s).

Thesis 1: Human understanding is at once rational, intuitive and empirical. 
Thesis  2: Science (the scientific method) is purely empirical. 
Thesis  3: Therefore, science alone is insufficient for human understanding, especially metaphysical. 
Thesis 4: Belief that science is sufficient for all human understanding is a fallacious epistemology. 
Thesis 5: Scientific atheism maintains that science is sufficient for human understanding. 

Conclusion: Therefore scientific atheism is based on a flawed epistemology that is not logical.

Science itself has admitted that it cannot even answer all questions posed to it. Nor is it even adequate or accurate enough at times as a tool for answering questions of the natural realm let alone the supernatural. Yet those in the scientific realm will have you believe they are an expert on metaphysical epistemology and physical/naturalism epistemology. This is why they tell you with certainty that God does not exist EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM! In other words, they are all bluster and no substance. The emperor has no clothes. All it really takes to silence the fallacious arguments is someone with a firm grasp of reason, speaking (rhetoric) and rationality to expose their pantomime for what it is. Illogical and religiously zealous unbelief. 

Religious zealotry...the very thing they abhor.

Even Charles Darwin himself (many atheist's beloved hero) ultimately denied atheism, and furthermore considered it absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist.

Jinn, Bo (2014-01-13). Illogical Atheism: A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinker from a Lapsed Agnostic. Sattwa Publishing. Kindle Edition.