The Top 5 "Arguments" Of Modern Atheists Debate militant atheists for any length of time, and you will soon notice that their arguments aren't just arbitrary and unsound... They're also almost universally the same! You'll notice the same points used over, and over, and over; points which have long since been debunked and were never sound to begin with. Here are 5 of the most commonly used arguments by modern atheists, which can take on various forms while still retaining the same core claim: Claim 1. "There is no evidence for God or design." This is an arbitrary assertion, and a massive logical fallacy... Atheists cannot prove that everything is evidence for naturalism, so they have zero basis for stating "no evidence" (as fact) for design. And in fact, if mindless causation of the universe is untrue, what the atheist claims is evidence now, would ultimately prove to be no evidence at all! (No atheist can claim any sort of objective proof whatosever for mindless causation of the universe.) In reality, both sides share the same body of evidence, but have different interpretations... The real question therefore has *never* been one of availability of evidence! ...Rather, a rational approach to the issue would be to ask, "What is the most logical inference or conclusion *from* our mutual body of evidence?" Atheists don't like this approach, because it's very easy to demonstrate that intelligence is far and away the most logical conclusion. So instead, they claim "no evidence" as a mantra of denial. When faced with this logical argument, the atheist will often resort to arguing that what we claim as evidence, could just as easily be said to support a "flying spaghetti monster" or "pink unicorn"... However, they have no basis by which to claim that design is more easily substituted with pasta and unicorns, as opposed to a big bang that is said to violate the laws of physics - which means that it too is supernatural by definition!... "At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang." - Stephen Hawking And secondly, intelligent causation is not an arbitrary idea picked from a hat. There are reasons why billions of people throughout the world believe in an all-powerful creator, but not flying pasta. And these reasons include corroborating evidences (along with self evident truths), a number of which I'll cover as we move along. When you encounter an atheist equivocating by replacing "God" with flying pasta or pink unicorns, you can be certain that they've completely abandoned rational discourse. Claim 2. "Evolution has been proved." This argument is simply false, as well. Note point 4 on this Indiana University web page in regard to the purpose (and limitations) of science: http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/unt.not.html If anybody tells you that a scientific theory has been objectively proved, they have overstepped the boundaries of science (i.e., they don't know what they are talking about). Furthermore, Darwinian evolution is impossible without abiogenesis. And yet, abiogensis has never been observed, and has a number of fatal problems that scientists have been attempting (but failing) to solve for decades: http://tinyurl.com/3ne76cm And finally, on numerous levels, evolution simply does NOT comport with what we actually observe in the real world: http://www.silverweapon.com Claim 3. "You believe in fairy tales made up thousands of years ago by ancient goat herders!" This is nothing more than an ad hominem/insult in poor disguise. For starters, in this context, time has no bearing on what is true and factual. Since when does truth have an expiration date?!  And let's not forget that atheism is an ancient belief as well. (...Are you beginning to see why these arguments defy reason and common sense?) And goat herders? The books of the Bible were written by over 40 different authors from all walks of life: King, priest, prophet, lawmaker, philosopher, scholar, poet, soldier, rabbi, physician, tax collector, and fisherman. Atheists wouldn't dismiss the incredible engineering behind the great pyramids of long ago, so why do they so readily dismiss the wisdom of the Bible? As for myth, legend, or fairy tale? In reality, there is a dedicated branch of Biblical archaeology, such as the research done by the Biblical Archaeological Society, founded in the 1970's... http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org And the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ has been validated by a vast majority of modern experts and scholars: http://www.garyhabermas.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r62LpPhLdQ 4. "God of the gaps! Goddidit!" By itself, this is merely another arbitrary assertion. But let's take a closer look... Consider first of all that intelligence and information are natural mechanisms... Creationists and IDers, rather than arguing from ignorance, can easily support creation and design logically, based on what we do know from observation of these natural mechanisms and others! (And when we factor in the principle of cause and effect, the supernatural implications of such observations are obvious. This is precisely why Darwinists reject even the mere suggestion of intelligence, despite that it's purely a natural mechanism from their own perspective, and should therefore be allowable in science.) For example: Based on all that we've observed of the natural mechanism of encoded information, we know that it originates from intelligence only. And so, there is absolutely zero basis to infer that what evolutionists propose as the first information (such as that found in simple cells) came from a mindless, undirected cause! At this point, the atheist will often argue that DNA does not contain information, but this is simply false: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna As a last ditch effort, atheists may attempt to claim that information is merely an emergent result of the arrangement of chemicals in an organism. But this is equivalent to claiming that one could open up Microsoft Word, turn the keyboard upside down, and with a blindfold on start writing information with instructional value to assemble functional systems (replication is a specific function, for example). Obviously, the results would be gibberish with zero function or selectable benefit. But a benefit wouldn't matter anyhow, being that natural selection doesn't "act" without replicating life... And finally, on a more down to earth level, if DNA information didn't have real meaning, why do we as intelligent beings incorporate what we learn from living organisms into man made design and engineering? ...So there we have just one of many sound logical arguments for creation and design, where no argument from ignorance is necessary. On the other side of the coin, you'll very often catch atheists using a "Nature of the Gaps" fallacy... For example, just the other day I was debating an atheist who argued in favor of abiogenesis by saying, "We haven't yet demonstrated life from non life, however, we're here and alive, aren't we?!" ...In other words, despite conceding that we've never observed abiogenesis, he was concluding natural causation anyhow - thereby filling in an "I don't know" with nature. 5. "You're anti science, and/or you don't understand it!" (...Often followed by an insult or twelve.) First and foremost: This argument is almost a sure sign that science has left its intended boundaries, and become a full-fledged worldview in the mind of the atheist! In other words, they're "placing all bets" merely on what we know about nature, which most would agree is currently far less than 1% of all there is to know throughout the universe! Science as a worldview is irrational; science is simply an investigation of nature. Nothing more. And nature itself has never been shown to cause itself, per the scientific principle of cause and effect... Here, the atheist (also) needs to be reminded that nature is not exclusive to the naturalistic worldview. It's also part of the Biblical worldview, being that Christians (rightly) believe God created nature!  In other words, atheistic naturalists don't have a "corner" on nature by any stretch. So believers in God have absolutely no reason to be anti science, and in fact many Christians that I know happen to love science! Most of the founding fathers of modern science were believers in God, I might add. As far as the accusation of "lack of understanding" is concerned, that's yet another arbitrary assertion which must be substantiated in order to carry any weight at all in argumentation... However, even if a lack of understanding were substantiated, science is not the only "evidential game in town"... Other forms of evidence which often have far more influence on worldviews and relevance to what's true (being that theories don't equal truth), include personal experience, anecdotal evidence, intuition, historical evidence, philosophical & logical arguments, immaterial/non-physical evidence, and more. So it's a complete non sequitur to imply that science alone, when/if fully understood, would change minds or determine worldviews... Again, scientific theories prove nothing, and science is not a worldview! In reality, the more learned we become about science should only serve to further our appreciation and amazement over God's creation... The Bible affirms that because of creation, no man has an excuse not to believe. In other words, God is self evident! And indeed, it is irrational to look at ourselves in the mirror and conclude that we are merely a product of undirected, mindless causes. ...We are fearfully and wonderfully made in God's image. What To Do When You Encounter A  Parroted Atheist Argument... If you encounter one or more of the 5 arguments covered here in any of various forms, or encounter other commonly repeated, unsound arguments... It's unfortunately very likely that the atheist using/committing them doesn't have a serious interest in honest discussion. In other words, chances are they don't want to learn about the things of God, but rather are on a personal mission to build their own faith in an untenable, man-centered worldview (by attempting to win arguments, make believers look and feel foolish, or even "convert" believers to secularism)... And therefore, we need to make choices on whether we're going to spend our valuable time engaging such arguments (over and over), or rather spend our time in ways that could potentially be much more effective. P.S. If and when you do determine that it's best to leave a discussion because a commonly parroted atheist argument arises, whether it's one of the 5 we've covered here or another, feel free to link to this page to politely let the atheist know why you're not willing to engage them! Despite what they'll accuse, there is nothing "cowardly" about using your most valuable resource wisely, that being your time!