Bad news for atheists -- evolution works agains them?

You are not listening to what I'm saying at all, and you're just hearing whatever you want to here. Not surprising though, you clearly don't even understand the definition of atheism. No atheist would admit to the possibility of a singular supreme being. Atheism is not the disbelief in the Christian God, or whatever other god you want to sub in him for him. It is the disbelief altogether in a singular theistic god at all.

But hey, people can't stand hearing that their OPINIONS are NOT FACT. I said atheism is becoming much like a religion in the way they PREACH their BELIEFS.

You fall back onto science which is always the atheist go to, but really what has science proven regarding existence? It has proven zero. It has given us some THEORIES, of which people have based more BELIEFS. Really we have absolutely squat for evidence either way. Lack of evidence is not evidence in itself, so neither atheism nor theistic religions have any facts to go on here. You say not exploring facts is ignorant, yet atheists refuse to accept that a God exists, or even in the possibility that he does. This is where the preachy atheist drive, and the "My beliefs are right, your beliefs are wrong" starts kicking in, and atheists become no better than say Christians or Muslims. Case in poit, someone like yourself who waves the atheist flag, yet isn't even an actual atheist.

Do I think these religions are wrong? Yes. Do I think that atheism is instantly the answer because I disagree with religious teachings? No. It really seems to me these days that both sides of the argument are playing the same stupid foolish game trying to be the one who is right and recruit more followers for their cause. Thus having atheistic beliefs, finds itself parallel to having theistic beliefs in the stupid way the believers respent their ideas.

You're both a pain in the fucking ass to listen to after a while.

Evolution proves that Christian belief is wrong. Studies have proven that prayer is wrong. All any of this proves is that people's beliefs are wrong. It proves nothing about there being a supreme entity or power existing one way or the other. When there is no physical proof either way, you can justify your beliefs in whatever way you'd like.

Your point about agnosticism and atheism is spot on, and just goes to further my point. Agnosticism differentiates between beliefs and knowledge, and stands uncommitted to taking sides when their is no true knowledge. Questioning our ability to truly know, seems like a much more logical road to take than standing on either side of a dead end argument, beating the same dead horse, and while arguing over some shit we just cannot and do not understand.

Back to my first point, evolution does not work against atheists in anyway, and who cares? Either side could be right. I tend to side with atheists, but I don't instantly believe it is the absolute correct belief. What I KNOW, is that it is a belief, and I'll leave it at that. I'm not going to cling to it, and regard it as fact like atheists do.

Sorry to hijack your argument with babaganoosh, but this is simply neither true for the atheists I know nor is it true for the leading atheists that grab all the press. They all admit to the possibility; what they all address is the probability based on the evidence or lack thereof of the theistic claims compared to alternative explanations.

correct, as long as the other god you substitute is a theistic one.

sadly, i agree with you. don't lump all atheists into this group, though.

What would you suggest we fall back on? Do you really need the case for science made for you? Either turn off your computer, quit driving your car, heating your house, etc. or make another argument.

Again, this is simply not true by definition. The "possibility" certainly exists. The possibility that angels and gremlins exists, but there has to be some justified reason to believe so. Wouldn't you agree with that?

I already gave an example of evidence that could have easily pointed to theism being the preferred explanation. It just did not turn out that way.

I don't think being "preachy" is right either. People should assess the evidence and reach reasonable conclusions -- even if they are not definitive and subject to revision (as is everything that is based on evidence).

Atheism is only an answer to the the claim that theism is true. It is not, and never will be, more than that.

This may be true, but it is only ignorant people or people with an agenda that pursue this. Atheism is a philosophical position in response to a claim and that's it.

If this was directed in part to me, I'm sorry you feel that way. Not my intention.

In order for the Fundamentalists to out breed the Atheists ( or I would argue that most people are Agnostic) One would have to assume that greater than 50% of the offspring actually conform to the religion in which they were brought up, otherwise those same fundamentalists could be breeding themselves into a minority!

I think we were talking past each other a bit. It sounds like we agree on almost everything.

see above on the difference between agnosticism and atheism. They are not mutually exclusive.

I may be wrong on this, but there may be more at play here for why certain groups have more children than others.

For instance, it may be that higher educated, wealthier groups have less children, while lower educated, poorer groups have more children.

The fact that lower educated, poorer groups are more religious, or are the fastest growing groups of religious, may not be the cause, but rather a correlate, of the birthrate.

No slip, I mean it when I say power. Even if all that power boils down to is the energy we know from science class as a kid and it has no rhyme or reason to it. It is still there as a whole and turning that cranks that make everything go. Which in itself is miraculous and unexplainable. We get our energy from the sun, and what do all the modern Judaeo-Christian religions seem to trace themselves back to? Sun worship. So maybe their original roots aren't wrong, and it is simply the corruption of religious institutions over the centuries which have erred. I simply don't think we can know, or ever will know. It simply just is.

I tend to agree with the opinion that Atheism as a term shouldn't even exist. Why do you need to identify yourself as a non-something? I'm not an adoctor, I'm just not a fucking doctor. It's a given name for a belief system which is spawning a whole religiouslike following of anti-religion. All it's missing out on now, besides the obvious god-figure, is a weekly meeting and a donation box so the church of atheism can go on their mission to promote the atheist agenda

I agree with you on most of what you've said ya. I can agree on that.

Jesus Christ on a cracker... it's a vagina, woman! Not a clown car!

Yeah, I don't take issue with this at all. It's just definition and semantic preferences. "Power" to me usually references agency, so I would be quick to broaden the use of the word or add other words.

We do know how the sun makes it energy; which is not to say why that is the case. There will always be the question of "well, why is it that way and not some other way?".

We will always be left with "well, because such and such made it that way. we don't really understand such and such because such and such is timeless, immaterial, etc. It's all just a mystery!".

I find that unsatisfactory, but it will always be there.

Anyone who says there definitively is NOT a god is just as bad as the people who say there is one in my book.

The existence of god is non falsifiable and therefor a belief that there ISN'T a god is still... blind faith. Remember that atheists!

I don't pretend to know if there is or isn't a god, I simply live my life the best I can according to my own morals and values.

What I loathe about Western Religions, specifically Christianity, is that they teach "forgiveness" as the absolute solution. They should be teaching self reflection and changing your own patterns that you aren't happy with. The idea that you can do whatever you want in this world and that it's "ok" as long as you ask for forgiveness is downright appalling to me...

Atheists and agnostics and non-theists and secularists have all been born from generations before them as well.

Study: Busted.

i pretty much agree with everything AJC has said (sounds like you did a minor or a major in Philosophy too? lol). imho, god, if such a thing exists, is basically an infinitely complex mathematic equation involving the universe, that we will always be incapable of understanding. 3.14............

Are you really trying to tell me what I believe? That's awesome.

If you're looking up atheist in the dictionary as the entire foundation for your argument then you are off-base. We have no idea if some kind of supreme being exists. We deny the existence of a monotheistic god and ruler. Yes, we look to science to dispute religious teachings. So far hard evidence has worked extremely well in disputing ridiculous teachings.

I'd be happy to look for evidence that a god exists. I am always open to seeing some kind of hard evidence of that. I have yet to see a shred. Again, why do people want to cling to a supreme being as the only plausible explanation? There are thousands of possible explanations (some more plausible than others). I think Hitchens said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." I don't want to get into the whole burden of proof discussion but for me to believe I need to see proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."