I have noticed logical fallacy from atheists, as I have noticed them from some supporters of most if not all positions which I have heard. I have however found atheists to be more insightful, critical and more honest when compared to a religious person.

Honestly, Empricalism isn't supported by me because everyone likes it. if anything its rare. I don't know of very many people who really stick to it. If your from north America, I doubt you do either.

It is true that perception can not be used to validate perception, I have no guarantee the laws of the universe will continue to work tomorrow, and i could be a brain in a vat or a program in the matrix. There are things that observation are unable to tell me, but if not observation then what will? Nothing, is the honest answer.

You make an interesting point, in that I only know about H2O because i learned from it, as you put it, from a book.

So, I will begin from the beginning

I see water. I immediately note that it is clear and liquid

I electrolyse the water, and I notice bubbles from either end of the electrical current

I do not know what electricity is, so I sit and watch. the water level is decreasing. Therefore, I conclude that the bubbles are components of water.

I capture one of the gases. I notice that it is flammable, and "pops" when combusted.

I see hydrogen gas, which also "pops" when combusted. No other gas does this

so I conclude that hydrogen is present in water

I capture the gas at the other end. I notice that it is much more flammable, flaring when combusted.

Oxygen gas, too, does this. No other gas does this so I conclude that Oxygen is also present in the water.

Eventually, all of the water is electrolyzed, so I conclude that only Hydrogen and Oxygen are present in the water. I measure the captured gas, and see that there is twice as much hydrogen by volume as there is oxygen by volume, so I conclude that there is two hydrogens for every oxygen.

The wonderful thing about this is that you can repeat this, anywhere in the universe, and get similar results.

Although the title is leading, atheists as a whole will only accept scientific fact that has undergone a rigorous process of testing before being accepted as a valid theory (note that almost nothing in science is truly regarded as fact anymore, it is all just theory).

An atheist has faith in his decision. They are not omnicient, they do not know all there is to know in the universe, therfore they cannot know that there is no God.

Faith in one's decision is not the same as possessing a faith. Don't confuse the two. Also, strong atheists know in colloquial terms that there is no god. One cannot prove a vague, poorly defined concept like "god" to be false, but there is strong evidence that the idea is a human invention and this is sufficient for most people until theists make an actual argument in favour of god's existence which doesn't rely on faith, but actually meets academic standards of integrity.

You see, the thing is that Atheism is a religion, but Atheists refuse to accept that. This is why they're so choosy about facts.

No it isn't. A religion is a belief in a doctrine shared by more than one person, which invokes the supernatural. The adjective religious is used to describe dedication towards a cause or activity which is pursued with zeal. That is where the equivocation begins, in that people assume religious must mean that a person has a religion - it does not, but merely takes the concept of religious dedication into adjectival form.

The reason that religious people make this equivocation is so that they may transfer the silliness of religion onto atheism and whatever other idea they presently wish to criticise. It is a silent admission that all religions are bogus acts of faith without evidence, simply it is the case that the group masquerade which holds together the theist's religious following creates a sort of blind spot so that this admission isn't a confession that the theists' religion is ridiculous.

You see, when I say I don't understand, but I know that God will reveal it one day either now or in the next life . . . The Atheist says i don't understand it but whatever the answer is, it has nothing to do with the divine or God.

The first part is religious, the second part is not, since atheism isn't religious by matter of category.

We both have our faith, the only difference is that I admit my answer is my faith, however, the Atheist refuses to acknowledge that their answer is also their faith.

For the same reason that medical doctors do not admit that theirs is a faith in pathogens which cause disease, and therefore they must possess a religion called medicine.

Also, it doesn't help that Atheists tend to have a superior elitest opinion of themselves as being open-minded when in reality they ignore, reject, and ostracize anything at all that disagrees with their religion of no-God.

This is more a projection of your own intellectual dishonesty.

Another fact that Atheists deny is that the no-God God has been responsible for the worse atrocities in recent human history. Most of the world's communism operates on the no-God religion of Atheism, and somewhat Buddism, which is really just another form Atheism that believes there is a higher place of nirvana we should all strive for.

Communism is an ideology and an economic policy. Religion is banished under communism because one cannot be loyal to their nation when they serve another master known as a priest.

Buddhism is a religion because it shares a common doctrine and a supernatural component.

Then there is Hitler. He acted and talked like man who had no conscience to any God, an Atheist, yet because Catholicism was so popular in that time and Hitler said a few things about God here and there as any dictator desparate to maintain his power would in a nation dominated by a particular religious persuasion, Atheists utterly refuse to accept that Hitler was an Atheist.

If you bother to read Meine Kampf then you'd realise that Adolf Hitler was a creationist, which is incompatible with atheism. Just one more example of the historical revisionism which takes place within theists' minds so as to prevent acceptance of their culpability for yet another war with religious roots. Did you know that the Catholic Church seeded all kinds of antisemitism throughout the middle ages across Europe? That this in combination with Hitler's appeal to German nationalism helped to seal the fate of so many innocent people.

They even ignore history. There are very few that did what Hitler did with such an utter lack of conscience to a higher power in all of human history, yet Atheists, even with these facts, they'll utterly ignore the obvious atheistic actions and attitudes of Hitler.

So your argument isn't based on Hitler's writings, his historical deeds like the Wehrmacht belt buckle logo "Gott mit uns" or his speeches. No, you ascribe his atheism to deeds which were so horrendous that in your personal opinion only an atheist could perform them. Forgetting, of course, the long history of evil deeds performed in the name of god.

Despite these facts, they also ignore the very real fact that the freest nation in the world was founded by people who did in fact believe in the Biblical Christ Jesus who said that all men are equal in the sight of God, who said that God shows no favoritism, who said that the slave shall be greater than the master in the kingdom of heaven, who said and supported many of the very ideals on which this nation was founded.

Again, if you study history you would know that many of the founding fathers were deists and freethinkers (an 18th century term which is fairly equivalent to atheist). However this still misses the entire fact that the United States was founded with Europe in mind, that is to say it was widely understood in those days to those men that a religious state is an oppressive one. This is why they created the United States as the first secular state, in order that we might enjoy freedom from religion in our lives.

Yet the Atheist believe that our founding fathers got those ideals and believed so strongly on those ideals that they were willing to die for them because of theories from Greeks and Romans. Greeks and Romans came up with some good theories, but those theories would never have gotten far without the Christian religion supporting them in the ancient and more recent words of prophets and Christ.

You're joking, right? Christianity signaled the end of the great Roman Empire and the beginning of the period known as the Dark Ages, which was where we saw all sorts of proto-Christian factions fighting each other for dominance until the Roman Catholic Church achieved superiourity through bloody supression of heretics and heterodoxy. This was the age of divine right by kings to rule over their people without question. It was a period of no individual liberty, and where the peasants had no voice.

Of course, you need to deny this if you're a Christian, otherwise it might reveal a flaw in your religion.

Atheists utterly refuse to accept the faith of Christianity was the rock on which this nation founded and established it's ideals and constitution. Unalienable rights had nothing to do with the divine even though without the divine unalienable rights can't possibly exist because the fact is, one man's opinion is another man's joke. But God's opinion, well that holds quite a bit more weight.

"God's opinion" merely means the Church's opinion which as we all know had no bearing on the founding of the United States. European states were founded on Church authority, and this lead to interfaith wars, and brutal suppression of human liberties. Remember Galileo? He was under house arrest for the remainder of his life, for undermining Church doctrine that the Sun orbited the Earth. Try looking up "The Recantation of Galileo."

Our founding fathers were wise men, they knew better than to make our state a religious one. Do you want to see some religious states for comparison?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Basic_Law_of_Saudi_Arabia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Pakistan#Islamic_provisions

Note the lack of ambiguity. Islam is the state religion, period. No other religions have authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

Note what our constitution says. It isn't religious at all.

Yet even despite this, what is the main religion that above all others is ridiculed by Atheists? What is the main religion that above all others, Atheists would have regulated and indoctrinated into something that could be more easily controlled? What is the one religion that above all others Atheists would abolish, probably before any other? We all know the answer, Christianity.

What is the primary religion is the United States? In Europe? Christianity. What is the primary religion in the Middle East, Southwest Asia, and Northern Africa? Islam. What religion do Atheists criticise (in secret, lest they be put to death) over there? Islam.

Of course, if you study history, mere criticism of Christianity is nothing, because Christians have a history of torturing dissenters, freethinkers, and heretics.

Yet Christianity never sought to establish a superior race or obliterate another. Yet Christianity never sought to establish complete control of the people in the hands of a few.

Yet Christianity never sought to force all people into one religion, at least not the religion itself didn't. Some who wanted power and wealth may have attempted to and failed.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/recantation.html

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings#Historical_parallels_in_the_West

So yes, Atheists ignore a lot of facts, they just refuse to admit it, thus they continue in their ignorance of self-believed superior open-mindedness ignoring every fact that indicates that their religion is wrong or harmful in a society.

Says the man who doesn't know about Divine Right, the Inquisition, the founding of the Church, the founding of the United States, Adolf Hitler or Communism.

Continue to throw your temper tantrum. Just because you don't agree with them or the evidence they have against your religion you find it necessary to try and delude yourself into believing that your perspective is absolute. You may not be a kid, but you have alot of growing up to do.

I'll dispute anything :)

And your argument goes both ways.

I could tell you there are really millions of deities, seven planes, four realms and eight forces of nature- neither atheist or christian would believe it: but that doesn't make it impossible. Atheism goes against dogma and doctrine- it only accepts proof.

You are right. We do not know enough to call them fact.

That is why they are called 'theory'

Atheists use evolution and the big bang as their primary reasons for their faith.

Atheism has existed long before modern science. Try another canard.

Yet even those two primary reasons do not disprove or indicate that their is no God. Even Christianity, the bain of Atheism is not effected by those two things, even if they were proven facts.

Probably because atheism isn't based on science, but you would know that if you did your research.

The fact is, there is way too much that we don't know yet to say that evolution is a fact or that the big bang is a fact. The Atheist merely chooses to put their faith, their trust that those theories or a version of them are, in fact, true.

I have two points which should speak for themselves:

Constructing Primate Phylogenies from Ancient Retroviral Sequences: Source Chart

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation: Source

If they are right, who cares, God still exists, Christ is still the Son of God. The Bible account in Genesis was only demonstrating what we could understand that God did to create all of life on the earth.

That's because these theories cannot disprove the concept of god. They can only disprove the empirical claims of the Christian god.

However, if they're wrong, then well, I hope that they can look a truly just creator, Christ, in the face and truthfully and honestly tell Him that they honestly sought Him out and that Atheism was honestly and truthfully the logical answer from where all of their honest searching and seeking of the one true God, who ever He is, led them.

As said before. Science cannot disprove the concept of god, since it is nebulous and ever shifting. The claims made about Christ can, however, be disproven: men do not rise from the dead. It isn't possible. Therefore Christ did not rise from his tomb.

Because if they didn't, then God will have to ask why? Why didn't you make sure by honestly seeking me out? Why didn't you trust that the God of all there is and ever was and ever will be, the only truly just that there is would draw closer to you and reveal Himself to you if you only sought Him out?

A god that existed wouldn't need others to find him. He would be self-evident. The Christian god is not self-evident, and requires mental gymnastics to evade the obvious pitfalls of faith in him. For example, if your god is compassionate then he cannot condemn people to hell, but this logical contradiction is one of the defining features of your god. Your god is proven by things which cannot happen, and the more impossible they are, the more you display them as great proofs of his existence.

I guarantee you, you will have no answer because a truly just God as God is, would not allow your seeking to be in vain. He will reveal Himself if you honestly seek Him out. It only make logical sense if God is in fact God, he'd have to be truly just, and a truly just God would not ignore one who is honestly seeking Him out. Also the Bible says that God will draw closer to those that seek Him.

Note the qualifier "honestly" because for all the billions of people who died seeking him out in vain, you can always say "they must not have been honest about it."