Just because you don't like it doesn't make it rubbish. Feel free to offer your own logic in response, but considering you are the guy claiming science hasn't figured out heterosexuality I imagine your logic will be rich with faults.
My comment about science and heterosexuality was inartfully worded, I'll admit.
My point was that the topic of human sexuality is an entire ocean and science has only dipped it's feet in. It's presumptuous of you to think that the science about homosexuality is somehow settled. You think there is no scientific basis for homosexuality and that it's a mental illness - so far science disagrees with you, but this is a 'conversation' in the scientific community which is just getting started.
As for your 'Atheist's dilemma', it seems like a less elegant version of the
Euthyphro dilemma.
I don't like or dislike the version you posted, but it's simply shoddy logic. The main premises of this argument constitute a 'false dilemma'. If you restrict the initial propositions of an argument to a black and white choice between two options which are presupposed to be valid in and of themselves, then of course you can continue 'logically' through to a conclusion, but that doesn't make it valid.
This argument is an informal fallacy because it's not evident (anywhere in the argument) that the opening propositions are in fact valid, and in either case, they aren't the only possible choices, therefore the conclusion is unconvincing.
This type of argument is
inductive, meaning the argument itself cannot be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever (vs. a
deductive argument). With inductive reasoning, the premises of an argument seek to supply very strong evidence in support of the conclusion. Your 'Atheist's dilemma' has weak and restrictive premises, the conclusion is dodgy, and I remain unconvinced.
Listen, people way smarter than you or I have been debating this for millennia. If there were an airtight formal deductive argument (
where the premises are definitely true, and the terms of the argument are unequivocal, therefore the conclusion is necessarily true) on either side of this debate, we would have heard about it. The issue would have been solved.
Which leads me to the conclusion that arguments about the existence or lack thereof of a higher power (which by definition must be inductive, since belief in God is a matter of Faith, and disbelief in God is a different sort of faith) won't really get us anywhere.
It's interesting mental gymnastics for sure, but no one ever read your 'Atheist's dilemma' and found God. As well, there are plenty of 'logical' arguments against the existence of God - my guess is they wouldn't sway you.
For what it's worth.