Young Writers Society

The problem with arguing the concept of athiesm.

Part 1. Introduction
As an athiest, I have often found myself in the opposition of a debate involving religion.  Athiests can never seem to win a debate about religion, and some may put it into poetic terms: Neither side can be proved nor disproved.  I do not believe this true, because in reality the only driving factor of the existence of the concept of theism is simple:  People believe.  Although many points can be made for both sides, but the big difference between athiests and theists is that a theist does not want to relinquish the idealism of a higher power.

Part 2.  How the notion of afterlife emerged
I first will discuss the idea of heaven and hell.  Imagine nothingness upon death.  This thought is in fact impossible due to the fact that you cannot imagine not having the ability to imagine, and in fact have no mental capability at all.  This in theory may hve driven the belief that there is something after death.  When you do attempt to imagine not being able to think, and nothing being in your perception, you still have the concept in your mind that you'll have the ability to think.  This idea can evolve into the concept of ghosts or spirits, people who exist after death but cannot be seen.  Life on earth for an eternity would be lonely, especially since you would in fact be nothing, technically.  Just because we can't imagine nothingness after death doesn't mean it's not a complete possibility and reality.  When the concept of religion arose, along with the afterlife, which has been demonstrated as far back as the Egyptians, the idealism that morals would decide your fate was installed.  To further explain this portion of my argument, I will have to explain my next point.

Part 3.  Why we could have very well imagined a higher power's existence 
Imagine not knowing how anything happened.  What is the circle in the sky that moves, and is replaced by another as the sky turns black.  What are those white dots in the air?  Why can't I touch them?  Where did I come from?  How did this all come to be?  What is sickness, what is death?  The answer to all of these questions was this:  A higher power did this.  Something made this happen.  It must be extremely powerful, then... As some of the first in the new race of homosapiens, with a higher thinking capacity, you would fear the power, maybe want to befriend it.  You would choose to worship it.  The idea of religion came along way before Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, even before the Egyptians.  Modern day scientific knowledge only arose around 300 years ago, which is 1700 years after Christ was "Reborn," assuming only for the convenience of making this argument that he was, we didn't know what caused sickness, we didn't know why the sun rose or set, nor did we know about other planets, or that the stars were just more of our sun.  How do you explain something that existed before you came to realization?  You assume someone created it.  Obviously nobody human could create the world.. So the concept of god still stood strong.    We now have massive amounts of scientific knowledge that explains things in which god was used to explain.  The sun sets and the moon rises because the earth is tilting, disease is caused by microscopic organisms.  We know that there's more to the universe than what we see with the bare eye.  When an athiest tries to argue science with a thiest, saying the word science may as well be like dropping the F-Bomb.  Before I elaborate, I would like to return to a previous point I made involving the after-life.

Part 4.  Morals leading to heaven or hell, and the history 
Now with the idealism of god, and worship, the concept of after-life served a greater purpose.  Now the idea of morals deciding fate after death could arise, although not instantly.  Nobody knows the complete history of every human tribe in existance since the beginning, but the idea which I have presented is undeniably valid. Humans were simple minded in the beginning.  When theists attack the idea of evolution, they are saying we instantly came from apes.  The truth is, hundreds of thousands of years and variables went into evolution, and the appearance of our higher thinking ability WAS NOT instantaneous.  On a side note, the acceptance of evolution is not completely denied in the theist community, the main issue is only the humans.  This is my segway into my next point about science.

Part 5.  SCIENCE!!!!
I have argued with a large number of theists, which all seem to deny the idea of scientific proof.  This close mindedness disgusts me personally, as most of the time they won't even pay attention to an argument once the words science and proof are used.  The arrogance displayed in this response is childish.  Science does prove things.  The Earth does in fact spin, gravity can be measured in any situation, we do orbit the sun, the sun is mostly hydrogen, and nuclear fission in the core creates light and heat emitted towards us.  A big argument theists pose is that the chances of us living on a planet in the perfect position with the perfect conditions is unreal.  First of all, I would like to point out that our conditions are far from perfect.  Secondly, the truth is that the true question is not whether we'd exist on the perfect planet or on a unfit one, because the chances of our human existance on a planet with the right conditions is 100% compared to any other, since millions of years of evolution would still bw necessary, and in the wrong conditions, life wouldn't last long enough.  The real question is only whether or not a planet with the perfect conditions would exist.  The odds in reality are quite good.  Of course, with every point made to counteract their theory involving only god, they just back up a foundation point of the proven.  It seems almost to be a neverending cycle when arguing the nonexistance of god.  

Part 6. The Origin of Life
Where did human's come from?  Theists will of course say, "Adam and Eve," but let me remind you that these tales woven in the "Holy Bible" were made long before the Renaissance, the birth of the age of science.  They didn't know that people were in fact made of cells which are made up of organelles and truly made completely out of atoms.  Let it be questioned how their god managed to pull a feat as complicated as that, and why he did.  If man were to reverse engineer a cell on a molecular level, and assemble a new cell EXACTLY the same, would it be alive?  Unless life requires "pixie dust" to occur, we would have successfully created life.  Life truly I'd nothing but recurring chemical reactions in truth, although it still mystifies.

Part 7. The Origin of the Universe
On a similar note, the big bang theory seems to be a mocking point for theists.  I can't say I disagree with their opinion, it is true what they ask, where did the particles to create the big bang come from.  The big bang theory is extremely flawed.  There are, however, more accurate theories which are completely plausible, just less recognized.  Einstein himself proved that matter is just a form of energy.  Recently in digital electronics we used 74LS02 chips, known as NOR chips (Not Or, or the inverse of the outputs you would obtain from an or chip). Wiring them up in a certain way, we created a true paradox.  The output was random 1's and 0's (On and off signals) being spit out in random intervals..  I would like to point out that the existence of NOTHING is in fact a paradox, an impossible circumstance.  Existance implies that something has being.  Nothing is nothing, it has no being, yet it has to exist.  Energy being spit out randomly is what most likely occured in the creation of the universe.  You may realize that this creates another paradox, "The Beginning of Time." From prior research, I have learned that time is really just an illusion created by the subconcious.  It is just another manmade tool, used to measure events and distance in another dimension, which is time.  Our minds are all connected to this dimension, moving.  This dimension was created before man, back along the timeline of evolutionary progress of animals.  Time does not exist, and everything is happening at once, we just percieve the events through our dimension called time.  So in fact, the random spewing of energy and everything of it's result all happened at one point.  This point if put on a graph, would be our universe, where in time, it would be stretched and separated into a straight line.  This is my personal theory, derived through research, comparison, and real world observations.  This theory is only a theory, but much more viable than god.  This opinion is of course biased, I apologize for that, but I felt my thought needed to be shared, and the final judement shall belong to you.

Part 8.  Holy Moley! It's the Holy Bible 
When it comes  to the bible, theists seem to bring up every passage in it, and even the whole bible itself.  According to them, if someone says god wrote a story book, it's automatically true, and at the same time it proves he's real.  Using their logic, if I titled this book "The holy scripture of the magic leprachaun," it would automatically mean magic leprachauns exist, and can write an extensive thesis.  I'd like to bring up a paraphrase from the bible myself.  According to god if nobody believes in him, he is nothing.  Exact logic.  He exists through faith, and only faith.


Part 9.  A Thought on the Bible
I personally believe the bible is something sinister.  Any half wit can write a book, and a bunch of men in an organization whose aim is to guide the population according to acceptable moral rules can write the bible.  I don't want to go all "Conspiracy theorist" on you... But it's extremely more viable than a book from god.  Stories from the bible are extremely exaggerated too, who in their right mind would believe god flooded the earth, that water came from nowhere.  That the exact molecues Hydrogen and Oxygen out of all atoms, were to appear in enourmous exponential amount and then disappear.  The only way to dispel the lunacy of this point is to throw it in their face with an analogy.


More to come          

I don't have time at the moment to critique this fully, but I would like to point out that a lot of your arguments are flawed since they are based on gross generalizations, such as theists denying the proofs of science, or that science and theism are irreconcilable. I am a theist, however, I am also a science major (Biology and Chemistry), and I have no trouble reconciling these aspects. There are some things that science cannot explain, and there are somethings I believe science will never be able to explain simply because they are not scientifically explicable; in these things, I believe, there will always be room for God.

I'll critique this properly later. :D

I think you can discuss a subject like this all you want, but you're only going to provoke a response that makes your argument look "flawed".

There are huge amounts of depth you haven't gone to and this is a very sensitive subject for some people, so if you are going to write about it, I'd make sure to get in all the necessary arguments.

I'm not really going to review, but more "argue my point."

You see, I'm an atheist myself - well perhaps more of an agnostic - but as for arguing a point such as this I thoroughly disagree.
Theists believe for all sorts of different reasons and all sorts of different levels and sometimes it doesn't matter how much proof you throw at them they will always believe, this is because faith is more powerful than anything; It's like love.
To me, people don't have a faith because it's proved (in a general situation) but they have faith because it gives them something... you know? That meaning to life, that reason or that hope.

I mean I may be an atheist, but in a life threatening situation you know what the first thing I'll be doing is? praying, because there's always that slight feeling of hope.

Hope this helps, in a way...
Ben

Athiests can never seem to win a debate about religion, and some may put it into poetic terms: neither side can be proved nor disproved.

The view that the existence of God can be neither proved nor disproved is Agnosticism, not Atheism, and it is not a poetic term.

Also, you do not capitalize the first letter after a colon unless it is a proper noun.

I do not believe this true, because in reality the only driving factor of the existence of the concept of theism is simple: people believe.

Interesting argument, but can you support it? Also, all you're really saying is that because people believe God exists, they believe God exists. How does this tie into proof that God does not exist?

Although many points can be made for both sides, but the big difference between atheists and theists is that a theist does not want to relinquish the idealism of a higher power.

This assumes the absolute impossibility of a higher power existing in the first place. Unless you can support this, it is yet another unsubstantiated claim. Also, with the way it is currently phrased, this gives the impression of an attack on idealism in general; I suggest balancing this by mentioning where atheists stand in regards to this difference.

I am currently wondering what the main point of this essay is/will be. It is unclear at the moment. Are you going to be focusing on the debate between atheism/theism? Will you be focusing on the main reasons theism exists, as viewed from the side of atheism? Are you going to be detailing the differences in general life-views of atheists and theists?

Also, you need to proofread this. There's a lot of very basic mistakes: extra words, misspellings, improperly used punctuation, etc. These are mistakes that I am sure you are quite capable of catching yourself if you re-read this more carefully.

This thought is in fact impossible due to the fact that you cannot imagine not having the ability to imagine, and in fact have no mental capability at all.

Please note the underline. This is a prime case of incautious phrasing leading to completely different conclusion that what was intended. The way it is currently phrased, you appear to be saying that the reader is incapable of thinking at all when what you really mean is that no one can truly grasp being in the state of being unable to think. I suggest deleting everything after the comma; it's the easiest fix.

and nothing being in your perception

Unclear. I think this is partially due to punctuation, partly due to a missing word.

This idea can evolve into the concept of ghosts or spirits

Tense shift. Actually, this entire paragraph has no consistent tense. It gets confusing whether or not you are referring to the hypothetical present, the hypothetical past, or the hypothetical future.

Life on earth for an eternity would be lonely, especially since you would in fact be nothing, technically.

Contradictory. Being nothing, you would be unable to experience anything, much less emotions.

which has been demonstrated as far back as the Egyptians

There have been a number of civilizations predating the Egyptians wherin which the concept of an afterlife has been displayed. Is there any reason why you chose the Egyptians as your example rather than one of these others? Why? What is it that makes the Egyptian concept of an afterlife so notable? This really ties in to my comment in my previous post about how you make sweeping generalizations; they would not be sweeping generalizations if you clearly based them in a specific source. However, casual mentions are not enough; you must show the reader why the source is relevant, how it supports your arguments, and why you chose that particular source. Basically, you need to elaborate.

What is the circle in the sky that moves, and is replaced by another as the sky turns black. What are those white dots in the air?

This is really much worider and more obscure than it needs to be. You're trying to make a point here; your first priority to be to state things as clearly and easily to understand as possible. "What are the sun and moon? What makes them move through the sky? What are stars?"

It must be extremely powerful, then...

Why are there ellipses?

As some of the first in the new race of Homo sapiens, with a higher thinking capacity, you would fear the power, maybe want to befriend it. You would choose to worship it.

Why is there a sudden shift to second-person? Also, this assumes that all your readers will react the same way; most may react like this, but not all, and you are essentially alienating part of your audience.

Speaking of which, what is your intended audience? As it stands, you've done a very good job of preaching to the choir, ensuring that most theistic readers will ignore you. If your intention was to write a thesis on an atheist's view on how theism came into existence and why it continues to exist, focus on that and only that; there's no need to mention how theists ignore science, or your personal experiences with theists, or that theists and atheists do not agree. You also need to keep your tone more neutral instead of the "theists are superstitious/illogical/stupid" vibe you're giving off right now.

Modern day scientific knowledge only arose around 300 years ago, which is 1700 years after Christ was "Reborn," assuming only for the convenience of making this argument that he was, we didn't know what caused sickness, we didn't know why the sun rose or set, nor did we know about other planets, or that the stars were just more of our sun.

This is one long, rambling sentence, and any point(s) you had were lost in the length and rambling. Streamline it. Also, why was mentioning the birth (not rebirth) of Christ even necessary?

The sun sets and the moon rises because the earth is rotates. Disease is caused by microscopic organisms.

(1) Run-on sentence. (2) The earth's rotation is what results in day and night, not its tilt. The earth's tilt on its axis of rotation combined with its orbit around the sun is what causes seasons. If you're going to call out theists for not paying attention to facts, the least you can do is make sure that you yourself get the facts straight.

Also, more a minor quibble than anything, but not all diseases are caused by organisms. There are various microscopic entities (such as virii and prions) that are not technically organisms, nor are they considered living things.

Before I elaborate, I would like to return to a previous point I made involving the after-life.

Why? You already talked about the afterlife. If you were going to jump between the afterlife, how the idea of God was possibly created, then back, and then back again, why didn't you just organize things so that you went over everything about the afterlife and then logically linked the idea of an afterlife as leading to the creation of the idea of God?

Part 4. Morals leading to heaven or hell, and the history

This heading makes no sense.

Nobody knows the complete history of every human tribe in existance since the beginning, but the idea which I have presented is undeniably valid.

How so? Can you prove the validity with concrete, incontrovertible proof? What you presented is a logical hypothesis on how the concepts of God and an afterlife were created, but, as you just said prior to your claim, no one knows the complete history of every (much less any) human tribe in existence. The only way to gather incontrovertible proof is to have observed one such tribe of humans as they developed these concepts of a higher being and an afterlife. This is clearly impossible, and therefore it is impossible to prove without any doubt that what you have proposed is undeniably valid.

Part 5. SCIENCE!!!!

And this heading kills any semblance of mature, intellectual discussion this paper had before this point.

I have argued with a large number of theists, which all seem to deny the idea of scientific proof. This close mindedness disgusts me personally, as most of the time they won't even pay attention to an argument once the words science and proof are used. The arrogance displayed in this response is childish.

This entire section comes off as petty and leads me to ask the question, "Why did you write this in the first place?" Was it to one-up some theists you couldn't convince about atheism being the undeniable truth of the matter, and therefore the only right answer? If so, then you are no better than the theists you are ranting against.

Secondly, the truth is that the true question is not whether we'd exist on the perfect planet or on a unfit one, because the chances of our human existance on a planet with the right conditions is 100% compared to any other, since millions of years of evolution would still bw necessary, and in the wrong conditions, life wouldn't last long enough.

What? Were you trying to invoke the infinite monkey theorem which states that, given enough time, any given thing will occur? And compared to what?

Theists will of course say, "Adam and Eve," but let me remind you that these tales woven in the "Holy Bible" were made long before the Renaissance, the birth of the age of science.

Question! Have you ever read the Bible in full? If you haven't you will find that most of the Old Testament is a record of the history, laws, and lineages of Israel. Many of these events, such as the Exodus from Egypt, can and have verified by historical records from other civilizations.

Also, biologically, in order for any new species to emerge, there must be at least one male and one female, an Adam and an Eve, if you will.

On another note, the Renaissance was not the birth of science. Much of Western scientific, mathematical, and philosophical knowledge still has its source in Ancient Greece. Ancient Greece, in turn, learned much from Ancient Egypt, and vice versa. During the Dark Ages, while the rest of Europe was illiterate and uneducated, it was the Christian monasteries that not only preserved this ancient knowledge but further developed it. In addition, well into the modern day, many of the most brilliant minds in science were strongly theist. Charles Darwin, in particular comes to mind, as was Gregor Mendel, the Augustinian priest who laid the foundations for our modern understanding of genetics.

There are, however, more accurate theories which are completely plausible, just less recognized.

Such as?

Wiring them up in a certain way, we created a true paradox. The output was random 1's and 0's (On and off signals) being spit out in random intervals.

How is this a paradox? Also, how is it known that the intervals are truly random?

This is my personal theory, derived through research, comparison, and real world observations. This theory is only a theory, but much more viable than god.

None of this research which you have included in this essay. How are we supposed to conclude that this theory is more viable than the existence of God if we have no idea what led you to this conclusion? Also, in the next sentence, you contradict yourself by essentially saying, "This is just my opinion, though, and you can think whatever you want."

Part 8. Holy Moley! It's the Holy Bible

This entire section can be described in two words: "petty" and "unnecessary". You already talked about the bible earlier on; why couldn't you have addressed everything about the bible in one place?

Stories from the bible are extremely exaggerated too, who in their right mind would believe god flooded the earth, that water came from nowhere.

A massive flood which almost wiped out humanity is not a Christian-only phenomenon; almost every culture has a story about one such flood (the Greeks, the Egyptians, and the Chinese, just to name a few), all of which are uncannily similar. There was a catastrophic flood which almost wiped out humanity, and there is geologic proof of this, however, it was not on a world-wide, but localized, scale. You have to keep in mind that, way back then, the human population was concentrated closely together for various reasons, among them that travel was limited by how far you could walk with what supplies you could carry.

Overall: your organization really needs a lot of work. You jump back and forth between ideas, and that makes things difficult to follow. You also need to proofread this for spelling and grammar in addition to coherency. Another thing you need to work on is providing support for your claims and keep your facts straight; we readers cannot read your mind, and so you have to show us what lead you to think the way you think, to come up with the conclusions you did. It also doesn't help your case if you get things like the earth's rotation resulting in day and night wrong. You also need to pick one main point and stick to it. I still have no idea what your thesis was; this is more a rant than anything. Lastly, your tone needs work; I've already covered why.

Okay, I feel out of place here being the youngest and all, but I just wanted to mention something. No, I don't big words and quotes and such, I just have exprerience, thoughts, and a teenage girls curosity.
Ben, I find it rather, for a lack of a better word, entertaining that you described faith to love. In my opinion you shouldn't have done that. I only speak for myself when I say this, but love really isn't the best comparasion. Love itself is another topic, another rant, another debate. To refer to it as "more powerful than anything" is pushing it a bit, dont'cha think? Well, i'll let Sarah cover the whole love thing.
Also, to pray you need someone to pray to. That someone you pray to would be your god. You having a god would result in you believe in "something bigger", which would result in you having a religion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Atheist don't have a god, or so I thought. So, Ben, who do you pray to? You can't pray to nothing. Who do you have faith in? I'm just rather confused by that statement is all.
Kyllor, you often commented on the grammar mistakes, order, etc. of this piece. Does it really matter the order of which things were presented? I don't believe the author was worried as much about grammar, spelling, and order. The point of this passage was to get his argument across, not enter it for a essay or something. I think you wasted more time roasting him about his grammar than commenting on the actual piece. You are obviosly a strong believer in The Bible, kudos to sticking to your religion. But, if God was going on back then, being so fuggin' holy, making food fall from the sky, turning stones into bread, water into wine, parting seas, and all that other religious crap, why can't he help the starving people of today? Why isn't food falling from the sky in Africa? Are the African people not "worthy"? Is God being -gasp- lazy? Don't mean to offend anyone, but why is God taking a break now? We still need him! Why is he on vacation? Why can't he help now as he was doing in the past?

God's been on break apparently since he was first recognized. Rather shady I think.

Part 9. A Thought on the Bible

I personally believe the bible is something sinister. Any half wit can write a book, and a bunch of men in an organization whose aim is to guide the population according to acceptable moral rules can write the bible. I don't want to go all "Conspiracy theorist" on you... But it's extremely more viable than a book from god. Stories from the bible are extremely exaggerated too, who in their right mind would believe god flooded the earth, that water came from nowhere. That the exact molecues Hydrogen and Oxygen out of all atoms, were to appear in enourmous exponential amount and then disappear. The only way to dispel the lunacy of this point is to throw it in their face with an analogy.

Actually, there is evidence to suggest that the Earth was once covered by a thick layer of water vapor or something. Apparently it helped dilute a significant amount of damaging radiation from the sun. Thus, the reason why people were known to live for so long in the old Biblical stories.

By the way you misspelled molecules and enormous. Unless they are spelled that way in your part of the world.

I'm an agnostic, so I don't fully grasp the concept of a God. But there is a significant amount of evidence to suggest that it isn't all just fairy tales. Keep an open mind.

Ok you know I've a lot to say, but I'm short of time, so I'll say just a few things! 1. what you tried to say in this topic was told many years before you, and I don't find anything new in your essay (let me name your work essay, but I don't really thing that it can be considered as such). 2. One of viewers has asked some questions and I'll try to answer, first of all please think deeper when yuo read Bible and don't understand everything in primary meaning! Then God is everywhere and if you really want to find Him, you'll. if you think about Africans so much why don't you help them, have you ever tried? Don't blame God for your mistakes! There so many people in the world that have nothing but their God in this world, so be careful when you speak about this topic, and finally I want to inform you that scientists nowadays have many provements of God's existence, and they are physics and biologists, so please give facts and provements that you're right, if you can of course, scientists can!!!
I'm a theist myself, and I do believe in God for whenever I pray to Him, He does all that I ask for, and He really makes all my dreams come true!!! and there were so many cases in my life, when I was very depressed and sad, but with the help of miracles I became alive again!!! I really feel God's presence in my life and it is wonderful!!!!!

Hey there, an interesting argument here. I've been hearing a lot of these argument these days and I would like to reply to your argument, just to give some pros and cons.

I would start with argument 3 since there lies a solid conclusion to the argument. Okay, it begins with you stating, "Higher Power has been imagined." You started it as a question but at the end, you concluded that statement. So here are the premises I had observed.


Premise (1): Scientific method began 300 years ago and prior to this, all explanations were concluded on God.
Premise (2): you argue that science is an f-bomb like a body of knowledge that has been proven.

Counterarguments:
Premise (1): I agree that modern science started three hundred years ago. But I would argue that science is more of the way of thinking than the knowledge that has been achieved. Okay, here is an example: the methods of science is gathering data can be traced back to the middle ages. When a person, back then, want to explain why things were in the world and its relation to God, there were two ways.
(a) the first way is symbolic. When I look at a fire, I can give a metaphor that the rising of fire is like a soul ascending to trancendance. Or if I look at a tree, then I can match that its rigidity is like the rigidity of God.
(b) the second method is looking at the nits and bits of things. This method was to understand how God created things. For example, I want to know how God created trees. I want to know what makes it up. I first look at the trunk, the leaves and understand what makes this tree different from the other, and once I gather all explanations I link back to God.

Hence, modern science has a relation to the second method. They try to peer as well what makes up what. So, I would say that it is more of the method than the knowledge what makes science. Oh, as a note, people in the middle ages, already know God exist to them, so their methods in understanding does not blindly conclude simply that God created that but understanding what this object has in correlation with God. They do not argue whether God exist or not because for them he is. So, with that belief held, they then manifest on what they can learn on this world.

premise (2) Science is an F-bomb. I accept that prior to the knowledge that has been accepted but simply thinking that science are the logical knowledge proven is limited. Science is much more, as one professor said, the art of proving false, and concentrate on what is really not true than what is true. Popper made this argument that of the hardcore and softcore. Hardcore is the hypothesis and fact while the soft core are the explanations. Take for example the earth-centered theory. Hardcore: earth is centre while softcore: explanations. Once the hardcore is disporven, then the whole theory is false but...proven to be false will lead the way to the question, then what is it? So what comes next are a number of theories to replace it until we get the modern knowledge of the solar system.
That is what science is. the knowledge we achieved is simply the result but science is more than the result but the methods involved. So I disagree with the second premise that science is the F-Bomb, the knowledge that has been gathered. There are lots more but I will keep it simple.
To conclude, your conclusion doesn't hold much rigidity as to why higher power has been imagined.

fourth argument:
I don't really see a conclusion in this argument but simply an opinion that theists disregard science. That is not true. A great number of theists has regard science, respect science and led science.
This fourth argument, seem does not prove a point in argument terms but simply argues that theists disregard or hate science. I predict that these kinds of theists are fundamentals because as far as I know catholic theists do not disregard science in proving something relation to God.

fifth argument:
again, not a soild argument but only points an intuition that when theists debate on origin of life, they always go stuck with the creationist theory. That close minded. I would argue that the story of adam and eve must not, and i stressed, be taken too literally. One may get some idea from it but must not conclude that such thing is an actual science. The purpose, maybe one of them, of the genesis theory is not to show that these events are true but to give a theological understanding of the origin of life. I too am a skeptic of this creationist and don't accept this literal meaning, but when understanding the context behind it, I appreciate the theological richness that lies behind it. So, I asked you, to get your bias out, and try to understand the context and the general purpose of it, and why on earth has it been written.

Sixth argument:
It seems you study physics just by the explanation very different from psychology but from the argument I had read i want to know, what is the purpose of this. Are you simply giving evidence to prove something. You started the argument that the big bang is flawed, and you showed us why it is false. So, this argument is more to do with disporving the big bang than God. A good argument comprise of two things: a premise and a conclusion. You start with the conclusion with a statement relating to the origin of the universe which goes back to the main argument of no God. Yet, the sixth argument does not do that but goes on with the big bang. Here are the premises I observed:
premise 1: big bang is flawed.
conclusion: God does not exist.
I don't get how the premise ( suppose to be more than one) led to the argument than there is no God.

Seventh argument:
I know now what kind of theists you are dealing, the fundamental kind, the type that only use the bible and depend on the bible solely. Catholics when proving God do not solely use the bible. The bible may be influence in some sense but sticking to it only, is never a good idea. I am a theist and when I argue something about God, I do not use the bible. Some catholics do, but for me, I reason out things giving a reasonable argument.

Again, this argument has a flawed structure: a conclusion with weak premise. If a conclusion has weak premise than what you are pointing at falls apart. You gave a premise that the bible is made by nitwits, how so? Give a premise. Argue in relation to the context involved in their writing about the bible.

hence, i end that the only logical argument seemed to the third that itself has a lot of weak points that needs to be reconciled.

Hey there!

First of all, you need to spell check this! You don't spell "atheist" or "atheism" right, and while that's a minor point, it makes your argument look a bit silly!

I found a couple of weird parts about your argument. First of all, you make atheism sound like it only started 300 years ago, when that's just not true. While I am not sure when the actual term "atheist" came around, I'm sure you can do research into this! I know that in the philosophy books I am reading, they keep on mentioning people who believe in Aristotle's words without believing in God, so that may a neat starting point. They were known as "non-believers" and the like.

Next of all, your talk about science is rather shoddy. I am not sure of your background of science, but I am about to graduate as a biochemical engineer with an emphasis on genetics, so I've had background in physics, math, biology, chemistry, genetics, environmental science, engineering, and toxicology. Wooo. Plus, I was thinking about going into astrophysics, with an emphasis on the geology, so I kind of understand that too (though I am not a complete expert on that). Anyway, while I kind of guessed what you were talking about because of my background in science, your argument about the science was rather lackluster at best and confusing at worse. You gave no real examples and didn't cite your sources as well. So. Not good.

Another thing. You are doing quite a bit of labeling, and I don't think that is good for your argument. You label the term "theist," which literally means those that believe in a theology, and use that term as the same as "Calvinistic Christian Sects." This completely discounts every other religion in the world, which is silly. Towards the beginning, this sort of labeling didn't matter as much because you were being very general and explaining the principles of atheism (which was good!), but towards the end, you began arguing against Calvinistic principles, which are definitely not the only theistic principles. So your argument doesn't really hold up very much. Even in Christianity, not all Christians believe in some of the things you assumed Certain Christian sects (my own included) are not Calvinistic in the least and we oppose many of the ideas that Calvin brought up which are followed by many Calvinistic sects today. So, whereas the Calvinistic sects are very strict about only looking at the bible for the source of the truth, my church looks at many other sources for morality which do not have a basis in God whatsoever, such a Aristotle and science and such. And yet, I am a Christian as well. So, half of your argument becomes invalid all at once, just because you improperly labeled a rather small group with a term that refers to all who believe in a theology. So. Be careful about that.

Did I mention that you need to proofread? Do a quick spell check! That should get rid of most of the errors!

Anyway! Quick recap!

- Atheism has a long, proud history! Don't be afraid to talk about atheism in its young ages as well, as I think that may be able to help your argument in the long term.

- I love reading about science! Research the science before you write about it. The existence of hydrogen, you'll find, is not so rare as you might think. The existence of oxygen is another curiosity! But I think you'll find it absolutely fascinating to learn that, in its first stages, it's believed that water didn't cover the Earth initially... another chemical did. I won't spoil the surprise, but look it up.

- Be careful about the terms you use! The word you want is not "theism." It is "Calvinism." Be clear as to what this means! Towards the beginning, you're okay (generally) but you definitely refer to Calvinism later.

- Spell check is your friend!

Hope that helps!