A lot of people seem to be under the impression that I left a lot of unanswered questions in my last entry about atheism. The truth is that I’ve already answered those questions in the article itself and in my responses to some of the comments. I’ll repost some of the answers I’ve already given and try to expound on them

So I don’t offend people whom I don’t want to offend, let me first clarify:
I don’t generalize theists. There is a profound difference between normal theists and evangelists. I have nothing against theists in general. Unlike some of the more hardcore atheists, I don’t claim intellectual superiority over believers. I know a lot of believers who are a lot smarter than me. I think the main difference between atheists and “normal” theists is in their way of thinking, not in their intellectual capacities. Faith is a normal part of human existence. Even the most hardcore of atheists don’t always base their beliefs on empirical data or logic. Faith, though, is a very subjective and personal thing and therefore cannot be used in an argument

Faith can be a gift or it can be a flaw, depending on how it is used. For hardcore evangelists, their faith has become a serious character flaw. They've let their beliefs take over their lives and cloud their judgement
Evangelists tend to be extremely, ludicrously, preposterously fanatical. These zealots tend to be very gung ho when it comes to defending their religion to the point that they become very offensive and very personal. They reject scientifically accepted facts like evolution, make ridiculous claims like the world is only 6000 years old or that the entire scientific community is in a conspiracy to hide evidence supporting the noah’s arc parable. They end every other sentence with “amen” or “praise the lord” or “damnation to you, infidel”.

With that out of the way, let us now proceed to the FAQ

1.)Do you know how the universe began? Do you know how life began?etc)

No I don’t know for sure how the universe or life began. Science itself doesn’t know for certain how the universe or life began. What does that prove though?
There is a reasoning fallacy that is used in almost all debates about god. It’s called “god of the gaps”.. This type of reasoning involves trying to look for holes in science and then claiming that they are proof for god. Most of the evidence for god that evangelists have presented so far are of this nature. Examples of arguments you here a lot in debates: “The miller-urey experiment failed to create life out of non-life therefore god created life”, “You can’t find the missing link from this species to that species therefore evolution is false and god exists”

One major difference between the evangelest’s way of thinking and a free thinker’s way of thinking is that the former immediately assumes that god is the default answer to anything that can’t be answered as of yet.
There is no rule in reasoning that says god is the default answer to anything that science can’t answer. It’s also fallacious to equate what science currently can explain to what actually has an explanation. The proper way of proving the existence of a creator would be to provide direct empirical evidence for its existence or a hypothesis or model for how it operates and then support that hypothesis with direct empirical evidence. As of the moment, God is a conclusion without a working hypothesis.
By arguing that science doesn’t have a conclusive answer for a specific question, you only succeed in proving that science currently doesn’t have a conclusive answer for that particular question.

In science, a particular theory can only be overturned by a more complete and more plausible theory. You can’t overturn any scientific theory with any supernatural theory since, by definition, a supernatural phenomenon or entity cannot be objectively observed, tested and confirmed. Therefore a supernatural theory will only contain unverifiable claims and subjective interpretations without empirical backing

2.) The human eye, brain, etc is incredibly complex therefore they must’ve been designed right?

The argument “complexity requires intelligent design” is problematic since you’ll have to contradict your own argument at a certain point.

Furthermore, complexity naturally arises in nature without divine intervention. I wrote a few posts about the difficulty of differentiating between complexity and design. post 1, post 2