1. Most Atheism believes the Universe is self replicant.  Something I just cant behind when weve never observed it.

2. we HAVE observed someone creating something however and logically speaking it just seems like a more sound choice.  Again Ill use another thought experiment to illustrate my point.

3. Imagine you take 2000 bricks, a couple pounds of cement, and a bunch of TNT.  You put them all into a pile and blow up the TNT.  You repeat this process every time for 1 million years.  The pieces after the explosion never come together to build a house. In fact there is always pure chaos withpieces strewn everywhere without order.  The big bang (something most people who believe in Universe self creation believe) is this on an unimaginably bigger scale.  We never even get a house after a small explosion and Im expectwd to believe something as infinitly complex as the Universe is possible after the same senario?

4. If you walk up and see a house which is more logical.  That the house built itself or that a carpenter built it.

Answer the question.  If you came up to the Mona Lisa or Statue of David which is more logical.  To believe that they created themselves or that a sculpture / painter made them.

1. Where is your source that "most atheism believes the Univese is self replicant"? Sounds like blatant assumptions to me.

2. Yet we've never observed someone creating him or herself, which is what religion

3. Chaos/randomness under different circumstances will lead to different results. For examples: sand dunes in the desert. The wind and movement of tiny sand particles is seemingly chaotic, yet over time very structured dunes will inevitably form. You and I aren't educated enough about the Bing Bang to know its minute circumstances and the probability for it to create strcuture.

4. Obviously the house built itself, because IN THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE, we haven't noticed things create themselves. This is not applicable to outside the observable universe.

But weve witnessed intelligant design.  Something that seems apparent in all things.

Answer the question.  If you came up to the Mona Lisa or Statue of David which is more logical.  To believe that they created themselves or that a sculpture / painter made them.

Poor argument. You are bringing up human-made objects and asking if they were created. Of course they were created by humans. But for every human-made object, there's infinitely many more natural objects in the universe. And you can't use human-made objects to infer things about nonhuman-made objects.

So basically your grand point is to throw human logic out the window and take wild stabs and guesses at what might have happened? Doesnt sound like science to me at all.

We know where paintings and sculptures come from, so I don't think this is as great an analogy as you apparently do.

Its not assumption its logic.  See my previous post.  The notion that science and a belief in god cant co exist is absurd and one of the biggest problems in modern day "scientific circles"

Point to where I've made any guesses. 

And you didn't answer my question about the source that most atheists believe in a self replicating universe. Did you just make that up?

Sure you can.  The single cell alone pretty much trumps the idea of chance.  You get into the whole realm of irriducibly complex parts and systems that had to coalesce simultaneously but that alone is a novel in itself.