The Argument for/Pro presented in the debate "Atheism is reasonably impossible" is flawed

I personally think that my opponents argument has more holes than a tennis racket, and will now proceed to point them out.Atheists do not believe in gods by definition.This does not commit them to materialism, though most are materialists. It does, however, commit them to naturalism. An example of a famous atheist who was not a materialist is Bertrand Russell. Bertrand Russell was a neutral monist. He believed that there was something more fundamental than mental and physical stuff. Here is an article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for anyone interested in the position and it also confirms that Bertrand Russell held the position.Neutral Monism is only one of many possible metaphysical positions an atheist can take with regard to the relationship between the mental and the physical besides Materialism. Another example of a position an atheist can take is what David Chalmers terms Type-F Monism. I fall into this category. In this ontology, what we think of as physical properties are really just abstracted mental properties. In other words, mass actually has a feel associated with it. We abstract it out when we quantify to predict behavior. In Type-F Monism, .0001 grams could actually stand for what it is like to see the color blue. Someone interested in learning more about this position and many other alternatives might enjoy this article from David Chalmers: It is even possible that an Atheist subscribe to interactive naturalistic dualism. What make a theist’s notion of a “spiritual being” unpalatable to most if not all atheists is that theist’s invariably attribute complex cognitive functions to something other than the brain and so personality and memory can persist without it.Hence a theist can believe in an afterlife where spirits can remember their previous life and reflect on it. This seems to be at odds with observations of patients with brain damage who can become very different in personality and are no longer able to recall memories. A naturalistic dualist can believe that there is mental(experiential stuff) and physical stuff and that they are distinct and fundamental, but that cognitive functions require a brain that evolved and and this shapes the experience of the mental stuff so that it becomes the experience of what it is to be a human being. In the case of interactive naturalistic dualism as proposed by physicist Henry Stapp that mental stuff is what brings about the collapse of the wave function of the brain. It experiences memories and thoughts only because it is the wave function associated with the brain. Wave functions in general would not experience cognitive functions. These are all naturalistic positions positions an atheist can take besides materialism. Atheists do not have to be materialist and some are not. I don't quite get what you are trying to argue here. Maybe we should go over my arguments again. Natural laws are both absolute (they affect all physical things) and they in themselves are non-physical. For them to have been created, the creator must have also been absolute, ( ie, omnipotent) and non-physical. This could only be God. In your argument you seem to be saying that not all Atheists are materialists. I accept this, but I fail to say how it is relevant to our argument as they are still Atheists and therefore don't believe in God. Your argument also relies on a misunderstanding of how many scientists and philosophers use the word law in the expression "natural law". A materialist can hold the position that the behavior of an electron is self determined and described by natural laws written by men. You may not believe that an electron can determine its own behavior, but an atheist can and there is no contradiction in holding this position or disagreement with empirical observations. You may have an intuition that disagrees with the intuition of an atheist, but does not invalidate his position. “A materialist can hold the position that the behavior of an electron is self determined and described by natural laws written by men. You may not believe that an electron can determine its own behavior, but an atheist can and there is no contradiction in holding this position or disagreement with empirical observations.” Is this argument that some Atheists believe that natural laws 'just are', and that the natural laws are just descriptions of what 'just is', and the fact that they believe that makes it a reasonable possibility? Because I am pretty sure saying 'it just is' is not a reasonable answer. An atheist can even say that there are no laws of nature in the sense that you use the term. They describe the likelihood of behaviors and do not even predict them. “Describe the likelyhood?” Are you saying that every time I throw a ball into the air there is only a likelyhood it will come back down? And “do not predict it?” Are you saying the when my ball comes back down (like it always will) the Law of Gravity hasn't predicted that?Here is an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that talks about this position of the descriptive nature of natural laws: I'm afraid this link didn't lead anywhere.There is no contradiction in these posittions or disagreement with empiricle observation. An atheist does not have to believe that natural laws dictate behavior, They can hold that these laws simply describe behavior or probabilities. Describe behaviour...that never varies, therefore something must be making it do that. I think I mentioned before why natural laws don't describe probabilities, only certainties.