Atheists: How far into counter-arguments have you studied?

Ive always wondered how far into counter-arguments you have been fed that are based on a priori? I base my answers on facts. I studied this stuff in college, so I guess pretty far. I guess your saying education is a counter argument for religion or something. That is what your implying, right?

Hey. Not believing in god does not automatically mean you believe in evolution. It is not an A or B question. Disproving either of them does not prove the other true in ANY way.

I have never read a book that bashed evolution, the only ones I have seen are put out by people that are not credible like Dr Dino. The books I have read that are pro bible have made up facts and ignored history we have.

Science is not out to disprove or prove god, it is just a byproduct of learning. Unless it is christian science (which is not "science" at all) and it start with what it want to make into a fact and says "OK, how can I make this true?"

Real science looks at facts and asks "what does this mean?" It comes up with an answer and then does something else christian science does not do, turns it over for a peer review to see if it is right.

Science has all sort of questions that may never be answered, religion has all sorts of answers that may never be questioned. You decide which is narrow.

I read from legitimate science books. And there have been some that have questioned certain aspects of the theory of evolution. The problem with Creationism "science" books, is that it isn't legitimate science. The facts are blurred, distorted, or completely left out or changed if they don't support the Creationist agenda of pushing religious dogma. Any "science" that claims the supernatural is evidence isn't legitimate science. Any "science" that has an agenda isn't true science. Science MUST remain neutral. It must simply look at the evidence, and report exactly what it sees. Science MUST keep religion out of it. Religion is a faith-based belief system that has no evidence supporting it at all. That is the opposite of science. The theory of evolution does not say that there is no God. God doesn't come into the picture from a scientific viewpoint. It is simply studying the evidence, and reporting what the evidence says. If you want to then decide that that's just how "God" did it, then that's up to you. This shouldn't be such a religious issue. Religion has nothing to do with it.

"You are convinced through evolution, science, Biblical flaws, etc"

There is your first mistake. I came to be an atheist out of studying RELIGION, not science.

"I want to know how many of you have blindly believed what evolution and faulty science has taught you. "

I have studied every theory and scientific postulate I believe. I don't accept anything blindly. That is a theist practice, not atheist.

"What books have you read that have bashed evolution, or books that have supported Bible details?"

Many, the majority of which have been online articles. I have never seen one valid rebuttal. All suffer from at least one logical fallacy, or a misunderstanding about the theory or science in question.

If people were being responsible in their studies, they should have read the sources closely and been able to draw their own conclusions. Reading actively rather than passively. It's not necessary to read all of the counterarguments to your point. It would be an immense and, most likely, fruitless task.

Also, in all honesty, I don't really care what the Bible says. What I care about is what it makes people do. When people justify intrusions using their Bible to force others into their view of 'right,' I respond to those arguments. It doesn't matter if they're perverting the scripture; if it's widely interpretted as such, that's what matters.

I was raised in a Christian household and spent much of my childhood reading the Bible. I have the utmost respect for my father, who tries to get me to believe that God's way is the only true way every time I talk to him. I'm a college graduate who took some philosophy and religion courses in school. And I'll always listen to anybody's opinion attentively before replying, be it a positive or negative reply. So basically I've had every chance to become and/or stay a Christian...but based on what I've seen and experienced I'm convinced that God doesn't exist, and like many Christians my belief gets stronger the more experiences I have and the more I hear from people of faith.

1) You have not grasped the concept of "burden of proof". It's up to people who posit entities to provide good arguments, and not up to others to disprove them. Otherwise we should be here all day "disproving" Jesus, Allah, the Tao, werewolves, ghouls, fairies, kraken, gnomes, Osiris, Jupiter, Isis, the Great Spirit, Atlantis, King Arthur, Alice in Wonderland...

2) Referring to science and evolution as blind belief is, indeed, being narrow-minded.

3) If there is some argument in those books we "must" read, why not present the argument and see how it passes critical muster. Surely you're aware that there all kind of books out there that say all kinds of things...

I've read Michael Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box'. It's complete garbage. Michael Behe misrepresents data, makes ridiculous assumptions and seems to think that most people who read it have no knowledge of genetics, evolutionary biology or basic chemistry. I do, and can tell from reading it that he's an idiot.

The same can be said for Kent Hovind's arguments. These men are not scientists. They don't follow the scientific principle and apply what limited understanding they have from the presumption that science is wrong and that the bible must be true, because they believe it.

What books have bashed on evolution? i looked through the bible one day and fell asleep. what kind of faulty science is there. what you may call faulty science i call theories. another question for you, what books other than the bible support biblical stories. there is no evidence of the exodus, some guy says he found Noah's arc though he won't let anyone up the mountain, what good does that do? no proof

Quite a bit really, the problem is that when the assumption of a divine being disappears, it would be rediculously hard to find supporting evidence to support the idea. Imagine a world where no one had thought of a God and someone tried to convice you that one existed, even though there was no evidence, what would you do.

I read Michael Martin's: Atheism a philosophical Justification. All it contains is rehashed arguments that have been around since ancient Mesopotamia. Its complete garbage, the man's not even original, so its not like you atheists are producing anything better then what the theists have put out.