Theology vs Atheism, the argument?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Oh, would you look at that, a separate page for Theory as opposed to Scientific Theory, almost as if they were two different things.

Maybe youre the one who should look up definitions of words, before you make yourself look even more stupid by thinking Scientific Theory and Theory mean the same thing.

I will admit, I do not know exactly what you are asking.

Anyhoo, here are my thoughts:

1. There is no factual evidence that theists can provide to atheists that they would accept. Why?

They look for God where they cannot find him, in space/time, when God is outside of space time. The creator of space/time.

2. The fact that most atheists, when asked "If there is no creator, how did matter come into existence?" they respond with the big bang theory. This theory states that energy created matter. (in a nutshell) that molecules began to band together and form matter because of ENERGY. Well, where did energy come from? Some say it always existed and others go as far as saying that matter itself always existed. Defining energy as having always existed, and being the creator of matter and all that is, is giving it God-like properties without any proof, just like creationists, therefore it is no more logical or illogical to believe either way.

3.If I were in court charged with a murder that I did not commit, of course I would rather have a logical jury, but what I would REALLY rather have is God on my side , whether the jury was logical or not.

Ok, here's the arguements in their most basic form. For Atheists, in a nutshell, they don't believe anything they can't see. Ghosts, the afterlife, souls, spirits, magic, etc, it's all complete bullshit to them.

For the people who have a religion, the logic is that we're here, we know we weren't always here, and zero, no matter how hard you try to explain it, does not equal one. The universe is far too orderly and complex to be made completely at random, and evolution, despite what most want to believe, is full of holes and missing links in the fossil record. Life is just too orderly for it to occure at random, and that's why religion exists in the first place, people have always had that "Where did I come from and why am I here" question in the back of their heads.

Oh yeah, and as for Agnostics, they see the universe and the world they're in and know it's not completely and totally random, but they look and see all the conflicting ideas and philosophies floating around in the world and the hate they all generate between each other, and they simply decide not to deal with it, and let life happen as it does. Que sera sera.

I'm afraid I have to back up Dr Mankitten

Your question disintegrates with the usage of the phrase 'religious logic'

for instance, an infinite afterlife: a contradiction in itself - one cannot have a beginning without an end.

For the same reason your request for 'intelligent logic and reasoning' from 'religious people' will go unanswered because they are not compatible. Religions are simply not based on 'intelligent logic and reasoning'

Since you are so smart and logical, let me ask you a question. What happens to your "argument" if the assertion - that religious people simply accept what they are told - is actually false? The whole thing falls apart.

I know I only became religious at the age of 28, after getting my first Physics degree and spending some serious time questioning my atheism. What if somebody honestly and earnestly seeks the truth and comes to the conclusion that Jesus was who he claimed to be? Is that really just blindly accepting something? It sounds like YOU have accepted something as true without reflection of your own.

So, try again.

Except that evolution is an observed fact which serves as the basis for the their which, far from trying to further prove the truth of evolution (as observation already establishes its truth, along with math abduction logic), seeks to understand the specific mechanisms by which biological systems have implemented the process of evolution as well as the specific history of evolved biological systems on Earth. The Big Bang is also a fact as long as the universe is consistent and has always been consistent. And since there is no reason to think it isn't it becomes reasonable to conclude that the Big Bang is almost certainly a fact.

The definition of a scientific theory is completely different than the context you're using. Whether or not something is designated a theory has absolutely 0% bearing on whether it's a fact or not.

static is not correct a LAW is fact a theory is just a probable conclusion from gathering data from observation its not neutons theory of physics its laws of physics

First what is actually true.

Secondly all beliefs are human beliefs or lack of, so the chances are very high that neither is right.

It is 100% true that all are tools however.

Newsflash. In science, a theory is a fact.

To the uneducated layman, you for example, it's just a guess.

Edit - The textbook defintion has no bearing on how the scientific community uses the words. Like I said, to the uneducated layman, YOU, the idea is backwards.