Hopefully that clears up any questions you have well enough, and I don't really want to argue about this anymore, seeing as I'm only fifteen and I know I probably won't be able to persuade you to view the world as I do (unless, by chance, these links help you - if so, that is a miracle in itself and great!). You can also PM me any other questions you have.
Age is not a defining factor, and should not be a defining factor, about the validity of your beliefs. But if you wish not to argue, I respect your choice. I shall counter your links anyway, and you may simply interpret as an exercise for me to practise my debate skills and confirm my opinions. (ugh semantics D: )
For the first link, it is a pro-atheist link, which constanty mentions that life is meaningless if God had a plan for us. Nothing to rebut here, and I agree with most of the points.
For the second link, the rebuttal to this delves into a lot of semantics. I answered yes to the existence of absolute truth, since I can confirm that I am having an experience. I cannot confirm the nature of the experience(e.g. real, hallucination, dreaming), but it is an experience nonetheless. I do not even know how to begin to doubt whether I am having an experience, and I presume that something in my own mind cannot be experience by all people everywhere at everytime. So yes, as far as I can tell, the statement that I am having an experience is an absolute truth.
Next question, Do you know something to be true. I answered that I believe I know something to be true, namely the fact that I am having an experience.
Next question, Does Logic Exist. From my experiences, logic exists. Logic, for example, states that something cannot be simultaneously true and not true, and so far everything I know of holds up to this claim. In fact I do not even know how to think of something that violates this statement. So yes, logic exists.
Next question, Does logic change. I cannot guarantee that because logic has worked all the time, that it will work tomorrow. So the answer should be "I don't know". But sadly that is not an option, and because logic has worked so far according to all my experiences, I shall go with "Logic does not change"
Next question, Is logic made of matter. Semantically, I would say so. Logic is a process that is undertaken by matter, it is a pattern or a computation that happens to matter. Logic is like the image printed onto paper, a pattern from blotches of ink. Without matter, logic would not exist, and the process cannot occur.
Next question, does matter change. Matter changes, according to my observation.
Next question, they asked me again if logic is made of matter. They claim that there is a contradiction if logic does not change, logic is made of matter, but matter changes. I disagree. Bringing back the analogy of printed images, the atoms that are used in the ink may change, but the pattern produced by the ink still stays. Likewise, even though matter changes, the process of logic need not change.
That was an awful lot of semantics. Just before the "The Proof That God Exists..." button, they state that according to my options, "Truth, knowledge, and logic are necessary to prove ANYTHING and cannot be made sense of apart from God." I disagree. Firstly, logic is not necessary to prove everything. Bringing back the example of me knowing that I have an experience, logic was not required to know that, and no deduction was necessary. I do not doubt, or even know how to doubt that claim, and do not require logic to doubt that claim.
Secondly, God is not required for me to know I am having an experience. Why would you need God to understand that you are having an experience? I understand that you need some form of universal outside observer to determine the nature of your experience, since you are unable to confirm it without a universal reference, but knowing that I am having an experience does not require God.
And so they claim, "The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything". If they mean that I need God to know that the nature of my experience is one that is true, I agree that an outside observer is required. But I do not claim that, as I stated before, I do not need God to prove I am having an experience.
And assuming God exists, and that God is able to let us know whether our experiences are true, and that he is infalliable, this does not mean that we know absolute truth from God. God may be infalliable by definition, but human beings are not, and human beings are unable to accurately discern true revelations from false experiences of true revelations.
Phew, that was a mouthful. The third link has obvious gaping holes regarding the viability of atheism. Its the usual, 'matter coming from nowhere/always existing is illogical, but God always existing is justified'. Most laughable about the link is how they claim a reason Christianity is more accurate than Islam is because the Bible is more scientifically accurate, giving examples from the Quran(e.g. mountains prevent earthquakes), while ignoring the plethora of scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. This rebuttal is heavily abridged, but its mostly because most of the examples are trivial to rebut.