Atheism / Agnosticism

'strong' Atheism: "I know that no gods/supernatural things exist."
In order to actually know that, you'd have to be omniscient. In order to know there's no God, you'd have to be God. Therefore this statement is self-refuting. If you are thinking "gods of the gaps," I ask "are you believing science of the gaps"? I invite you to "Run the Gauntlet" ('paste' on my account). Furthermore, if you cannot rationally prove Logic comes from natural law(s), you by definition believe in the supernatural! Note an important distinction between rationally knowing something vs merely irrationally believing it to be true: it doesn't matter if you believe Logic is natural, you have to rationally demonstrate it is, else you are being irrational.

'weak' Atheism / Agnosticism: "I'm don't know for sure."
Please examine the philosophical arguments and abundant evidences from history and the sciences. Many are listed on this account under "Evidence for Christianity" at the time of this writing, though the list is certainly not exhaustive.

[Sidebar] without an objective ultimate standard, atheists / agnostics tend to fall into materialism / determinism, empiricism, relativism, or possibly even "You can't know anything for sure". All are covered here on dedicated 'pastes'.

Among atheists that examined the evidence and ultimately became Christians based on the evidence, I'd recommend you see what Lee Strobel (investigative journalist) and J. Warner Wallace (cold case detective) have to say.

If I find an one at odds with their professed system, is the system therefore false?

If I desire a soda, do they therefore not exist? So is the folly of insisting religion is a social construct.

In order to make a moral objection against the Bible w/o borrowing from it, one must prove an alternative objective morality - but if such were done, it rather evidences an objective moral lawgiver. For it is written: He will destroy the wisdom of the wise.

[1] The box is red. [2] Red is the best color. Case [1] is simple (we have an objective standard for colors), but unless I justify an objective standard for [2], one could rightly call it mere opinion. So where is your justified objective moral standard?

If transcription of fossils were necessarily blind chance, do you reject the transcriptions of men, which can see? As both undergo selection: if fossils are evidence, history moreso.