Atheism is right

This is not my argument yet but here is my reason for not believing in god during most of my life I had terrible happenings happen to my life I never did I anything wrong I was a smart kid I listened to my mother but somehow nothing good happened in my life when my sisters were born it felt like the ignored me so I turned to god but nothing happened I read the bible and went to church but nothing happens a 1 day I met this girl who was atheist already on the brink of loosing my faith I realized what I did wrong was praying to a figment of human evolution the reason humans whant to believe in a god is not that he exist but they want answers to questions they want answers so that created gods all gods were crates so that humans would feel important look at what there doing to the earth why doesn't god stop them becouse ther no god don't get me wrong there is a possibilitie that I may be wrong but I see s much things that a god wouldn't want to see in his creation to do to a once buetifull planet . One reason why the dod doesn't exist is that . Unreliable Source: The only way creationism can ask a person to reject so much scientific truth that supports evolution is by offering its own source of more important and presumably more reliable truth. the Bible is Not a Perfect Text makes clear, the Bible may be a source of important truths, but it is not a source of historically and textually reliable truths. Creationists almost always affirm some form of biblical inerrancy " the belief that everything in the Bible is literally true " but such affirmations of inerrancy are not credible. Two Bad History: Creationism depends on a literal reading of the Genesis stories. However, a literal reading of these stories is a very recent phenomenon within the history of Christian thought. Not until the latter half of the nineteenth century did such biblical literalism get a significant public defense. Prior to this period, just about every major Christian thinker, from Origin, to Augustine, to Aquinas, to Luther and Calvin, affirmed an allegorical reading of the Genesis stories of creation. Creationism is thus an innovation in Christian thought, not a defense of traditional Christian truth. [However, even Christians who have affirmed an allegorical reading of Genesis often still seem to affirm a literal sense of the Fall of humanity, presumably from some original act of sin, usually committed by some original human person couple. While I do not find this allegorical/literal method consistent or compelling, it does not detract from the conclusion that a strict literalism regarding Genesis 1-3 is a very recent position in the history of Christian thought . 3 3. Bad Science: Despite the work of Henry Morris and others to develop so-called "creation science," these efforts to create a scientific foundation for creationism have been a dismal failure. For example, no model has ever been created to explain successfully either where enough water for a global flood came from or where it went after the flood. Additionally, not even one essay in creation science has been accepted in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Instead, creationists produce journals where they talk to each other. Finally, creationists are again, and again, and again, wrong on the facts when they try to refute evolution. This would be very tiresome if it were not for the fact that affirming false facts can always sound impressive to people who do not realize that what is being affirmed is false. Mark Isaak"s book The Counter-Creationism Handbook makes very clear just how often creationists make claims that depend on false claims. Needless to say, such a practice is a clear sign that one is defending a very weak position. 4 4. No Consistent Position: Creationists cannot agree on what it means to be a creationist. Today, young earth creationism (which, against massive evidence to the contrary, affirms that the earth is 6-10 thousand years old) is the dominant position, but there are still many old earth creationists (a position that did not require rejecting almost all findings of modern geology), the position that was originally more dominant. Additionally, creationists are divided on the question of whether or not the flood was a local phenomenon, or a global one. Creationists disagree with each other over the question of whether or not God continues to create new species, or if such new species have actually evolved since God"s initial creation and the flood. Thus, if someone asks you if you believe in creationism, you might first ask them what they mean by the term. This disagreement among creationists is not comparable to disagreements among scientists who affirm evolution. There is universal agreement among the supporters of evolution regarding the basic features of evolutionary theory. Disagreements arise over particular mechanisms for evolution, or particular explanations of the evolution of a particular species. 5 5. Not Falsifiable/Testable: Evolution is, in theory, vulnerable to countless falsifications and countless tests of its truth. Find a single species that fails to display all of the major fingerprints of evolution, find a single fossil that is not where it is supposed to be in the geologic column, etc. and evolution would have a problem on its hands. It would have to explain the anomaly. That is, evolution is falsifiable. Rather amazingly, given the millions of species on our planet and the millions of fossil findings, no compelling anomalies have been found. Creationism, however, is invulnerable to falsification. Every apparent falsification can be ignored by appeal to "mystery" or the limits of human understanding. Generally speaking, arguing with a claim that cannot be falsified either empirically or on the grounds of coherence is a waste of time. The philosopher Bertrand Russell made this clear with the example of "Last Thursdayism." In theory, the entire world could have been created last Thursday and all of the memories we have of life before last Thursday could be part of the initial set up of the creation. Of course, one could never test or disprove this theory, and believing it adds nothing to our understanding of the world. Creationism is just like Last Thursdayism. There are really only two reasons to argue with creationists; first, to help them understand why so many people think their affirmations are ridiculous; and, second, to stop them from causing trouble, either in our classrooms, or our society.5. Not Falsifiable/Testable: Evolution is, in theory, vulnerable to countless falsifications and countless tests of its truth. Find a single species that fails to display all of the major fingerprints of evolution, find a single fossil that is not where it is supposed to be in the geologic column, etc. and evolution would have a problem on its hands. It would have to explain the anomaly. That is, evolution is falsifiable. Rather amazingly, given the millions of species on our planet and the millions of fossil findings, no compelling anomalies have been found. Creationism, however, is invulnerable to falsification. Every apparent falsification can be ignored by appeal to "mystery" or the limits of human understanding. Generally speaking, arguing with a claim that cannot be falsified either empirically or on the grounds of coherence is a waste of time. The philosopher Bertrand Russell made this clear with the example of "Last Thursdayism." In theory, the entire world could have been created last Thursday and all of the memories we have of life before last Thursday could be part of the initial set up of the creation. Of course, one could never test or disprove this theory, and believing it adds nothing to our understanding of the world. Creationism is just like Last Thursdayism. There are really only two reasons to argue with creationists; first, to help them understand why so many people think their affirmations are ridiculo