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

I never claimed that Atheism required materialism, I just said that an atheist cannot believe in a spiritual being. And even if I did I fail to see how it is relevant to our debate topic. Below is a quote from your argument in your original debate which I cut and pasted into my second round response. Look again. It is an indication of your deep misunderstanding of the position you which to discredit."Ergo, Atheism requires materialism, the belief that nothing exists but the physical world." -Electrons, or any other inanimate objects for that matter, CANNOT determine their own behaviour. It is impossible. 1. Inanimate objects cannot make decisions, in fact, they cannot do anything at all.2. To determine (Determine, verb: Cause (something) to occur in a particular way) it's own behaviour an inanimate object must make a decision on which way to behave. 3. Inanimate objects cannot determine their own behaviour. 4. Inanimate objects appear to have a determined behaviour. 5. The behaviour of inanimate objects must be determined by an external force. I went on a bit of a tangent on the last 2 points, but I feel they are relevant. You can restate the same thing five different ways, but it remains your intuition and nothing more. There was a time when it was intuitively clear to people that the world was flat. They were wrong and I have no reason to believe that your intuition is anymore correct. You also seem to believe that deterministic theories attribute complex behavior to matter and energy. In fact they do not. An object in Relativity Theory actually behaves very simply. It simply follows the path of maximal aging. See: http://www.science20.com... Irreducible complexity would be a problem. Irreducible simplicity is not. -When I said:There is another problem with your argument. It appears to be completely at odds with empirical results. You claim that matter behaves the same all the time. This is not true. Deterministic Newtonian physics was displaced by Quantum Mechanics more than 80 years ago. Electrons passing through a double slit from a single source do not end up in the same place. At best we can come up with a probability distribution that can account for the pattern. This is not a traditional deterministic natural law. You said: I would appreciate sources on this subject. My opponent has not told me enough on this experiment for me to attempt to refute their conclusions.Try the following:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu...Feel free to find more by Googling it. You will win a Nobel Prize in Physics if you can refute it. -I have a basic understanding of the multiverse idea, but there are three serious problems for it I can think off the top of my head. 1.There is absolutely no evidence for it. And have you ever considered how ridiculous it sounds? It's like science fantasy. There is an incomprehensible number of the biggest things in existence (universes), out there, some of which have alternate versions of your self, doing exactly the same thing you're doing now. We can't actually sense them in any way, and probably never will, in fact, there is nothing to suggest they actually exist. Remember, my argument was "Atheism is reasonably impossible." 2.If it's true, the world we live in is not rational at all, but it is just that the timeline we are in gives the appearance of rationality. Every time an atom moves it is mind numbingly likely we will collapse into some strange, totally random sludge. 3.How could the multiverse possibly have been created? Think about it. An inconprehensible amount of ...universes...., bordering on infinite, created by inanimate objects? I will remind you again of the cautionary tale of the flat earthers. Also, direct observation is not necessary to confirm theories. Theories make predictions that can be tested. Multiverse theories make predictions too. The difficulty lies in creating or finding the conditions to test them. Here is one such attempt: http://physicsworld.com...We could not observe the Big Bang, but we were able to confirm it by detecting the background radiation it predicted. See: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...