NationStates Jolt Archive

This is in response to the religion threads that are currently gracing this message board, bringing their misconceptions and nuttiness on both sides with them.

So I'm going to let the religious ask me, an atheist, about why I chose my beliefs over, say, theism.

I respect religious viewpoints and will respond to them as non-antagonistically as I possibly can.

Thank you.

Can I help? I'm sorta agnosticy athiest, but more on the athiest side.

I'll sign on as well, as an atheist-leaning agnostic.

Please do not make a copycat thread of mine.

I think the mods may lock this soon, as these ask me a question threads are popping up too much.

Please do not make a copycat thread of mine.

The Godless Heathens would like to tell you to not tell them what to do.

This was inspired by my "comign out" thread, wasn't it?

I am curious about your religion. Is it true that if I worship the god Athe I will be granted eternal life and unlimited amounts of alcohol and unclothed women?

This was inspired by my "comign out" thread, wasn't it?

I dunno. That's an interesting idea.

How long till someone starts a "questions for a jew" or a "questions for a muslim" or "questions for a wiccan" or "questions for a babyeater"?

I am curious about your religion. Is it true that if I worship the god Athe I will be granted eternal life and unlimited amounts of alcohol and unclothed women?

I'm afraid you have to be bisexual to be considered for that offer. Bisexuals are the only people who can worship Athe without being killed instantly, and they are all given eternal life, limitless amounts of whatever they want, a nintendo wii, AND endless amounts of constantly aroused men and woman.

I dunno. That's an interesting idea.

How long till someone starts a "questions for a jew" or a "questions for a muslim" or "questions for a wiccan" or "questions for a babyeater"?



I hope not......

I dunno. That's an interesting idea.

How long till someone starts a "questions for a jew" or a "questions for a muslim" or "questions for a wiccan" or "questions for a babyeater"?

"Questions for a Pastafarian"

:p

"Questions for a Pastafarian"

:p

Oh my god.


THAT'S IT

I dunno. That's an interesting idea.

How long till someone starts a "questions for a jew" or a "questions for a muslim" or "questions for a wiccan" or "questions for a babyeater"?



I'm afraid you have to be bisexual to be considered for that offer. Bisexuals are the only people who can worship Athe without being killed instantly, and they are all given eternal life, limitless amounts of whatever they want, a nintendo wii, AND endless amounts of constantly aroused men and woman.

Well, I'd go gay for Brad Pitt ... does that make me bi?

Well, I'd go gay for Brad Pitt ... does that make me bi?

You count halfway *Gives you twenty virgins, two clones of brad pitt, and eternal youth (but not life)*

You count halfway *Gives you twenty virgins, two clones of brad pitt, and eternal youth (but not life)*

Wait! No Nintendo Wii?!

or "questions for a babyeater"?
Aren't you posting in it right now? :p

I am curious about your religion. Is it true that if I worship the god Athe I will be granted eternal life and unlimited amounts of alcohol and unclothed women?

Yes, it is true. But only if alcohol makes you vomit and you are male homosexual.

Wait! No Nintendo Wii?!

No.

We Siblings of Athe enjoy giving people a taste of what they can never truely enjoy.

This was inspired by the "Coming Out" thread, and the "Questions for a Christian" thread.

And as far as I know, "Questions for a ---" threads have been very common for the one year I've been looking at this forum.

Ask away!!

How do you explain creation without a God.

How do you explain creation without a God.

How do you explain the creation of God?

How do you explain the creation of God?

He has always been around, from before the beginning, and he will be there after the end.

Now please answer my question.

He has always been around, from before the beginning, and he will be there after the end.

Now please answer my question.

Ok. It has always been around.

He has always been around, from before the beginning, and he will be there after the end.

Now please answer my question.

Couldn't you then just say the exact same thing about creation?

How do you explain creation without a God.

You can't. Because there's no proof otherwise.

Hawking proved that the Universe started as a singularity, which was met with appause from religious leaders.

But assuming that the Universe was created by God according to His will through the Big Bang (which has already been proven in my opinion, though there are other scientific theories about the origin of the universe) contradicts any notion of science.

God simply cannot be scientifically proven, so He shouldn't be involved in proving things scientifically.

And physicists do not have a clear picture yet of how the universe started anyway, and they aim to find out eventually by unifying classical mechanics and quantum physics. But to just assume that God was First Causation takes us away from the scientific realms, and hinders scientific progress by keeping scientists from asking more questions about the universe.

You can't. Because there's no proof otherwise.

Hawking proved that the Universe started as a singularity, which was met with appause from religious leaders.

But assuming that the Universe was created by God according to His will through the Big Bang (which has already been proven in my opinion, though there are other scientific theories about the origin of the universe) contradicts any notion of science.

God simply cannot be scientifically proven, so He shouldn't be involved in proving things scientifically.

And physicists do not have a clear picture yet of how the universe started anyway, and they aim to find out eventually by unifying classical mechanics and quantum physics. But to just assume that God was First Causation takes us away from the scientific realms, and hinders scientific progress by keeping scientists from asking more questions about the universe.

He has not been scientifically proven because he chooses not to.

Are you sure you want to say that? What if you're wrong? Doesn't that make you a heretic if you are?

Will I have to give you the Babel Fish paradox?

----

Science is based on the idea that the extent of knowledge is "at the tip of your nose"; the idea that humans know absolutely nothing unless they experience it for themselves. Religion can be a motivator, but it doesn't give concrete, observable knowledge as far as science is concerned.

Thus you cannot prove either evolution or the big bang, for you cannot experience these themselves. These are both psuedosciences.

...So I'm going to let the religious ask me, an atheist, about why I chose my beliefs over, say, theism...




I suspect the rationality of all people who "choose their beliefs".

I believe in things because they seem most likely to be true.

Mendelian Genetics, which has been observed physically, is explained only by evolution and is the cause of it. So long as organisms reproduce like this: :fluffle: , Evolution is possible. Gene mutations in humans are being observed today. That means we're evolving.

The Big Bang is also linked to the physical happenings that have already been proven and observed through experimentation.

He has not been scientifically proven because he chooses not to.

What did God have for lunch yesterday? Does She look hot in a bikini?

Mendelian Genetics, which has been observed physically, is explained only by evolution and is the cause of it. So long as organisms reproduce like this: :fluffle: , Evolution is possible. Gene mutations in humans are being observed today. That means we're evolving.

No mutations in humans are helpful, show me one that is. Secondly, evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, according to which we should be devolving. Also, there are not transitional fossils. Until someone comes up with a actual experiment that can prove evolution it is a pseudoscience.

The Big Bang is also linked to the physical happenings that have already been proven and observed through experimentation.

What was the experiment.

No mutations in humans are helpful, show me one that is. Secondly, evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, according to which we should be devolving. Also, there are not transitional fossils. Until someone comes up with a actual experiment that can prove evolution it is a pseudoscience.

I've always been fond of the thumb bit. Great little bit, that was.

I've always been fond of the thumb bit. Great little bit, that was.

What?

...Hawking proved that the Universe started as a singularity, which was met with appause from religious leaders...

Singularity is not the same as the Universe starting from a single point. It only refers to the density of space/time.

What?

"Origin of the thumb
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!) This article has been tagged since August 2006.
The evolution of the opposable or prehensile thumb is usually associated with Homo habilis, the forerunner of Homo sapiens. This, however, is the suggested result of evolution from Homo erectus (around 1 mya) via a series of intermediate anthropoid stages, and is therefore a much more complicated link.

The most important factors leading to the habile hand (and its thumb) are:

the freeing of the hands from their walking requirements—still so crucial for apes today, as they have hands for feet, which in its turn was one of the consequences of the gradual pithecanthropoid and anthropoid adoption of the erect bipedal walking gait, and
the simultaneous development of a larger anthropoid brain in the later stages.
The opposable thumb has helped the human species develop more accurate fine motor skills."

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

"Origin of the thumb
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!) This article has been tagged since August 2006.
The evolution of the opposable or prehensile thumb is usually associated with Homo habilis, the forerunner of Homo sapiens. This, however, is the suggested result of evolution from Homo erectus (around 1 mya) via a series of intermediate anthropoid stages, and is therefore a much more complicated link.

The most important factors leading to the habile hand (and its thumb) are:

the freeing of the hands from their walking requirements—still so crucial for apes today, as they have hands for feet, which in its turn was one of the consequences of the gradual pithecanthropoid and anthropoid adoption of the erect bipedal walking gait, and
the simultaneous development of a larger anthropoid brain in the later stages.
The opposable thumb has helped the human species develop more accurate fine motor skills."

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

That is an example of something that is common between two species, not a proof of evolution

That is an example of something that is common between two species, not a proof of evolution

The question I was responding to wasn't asking me to prove evolution. If you don't believe it was a mutation, I don't care. I think it is kinda dumb not to, though.

The question I was responding to wasn't asking me to prove evolution. If you don't believe it was a mutation, I don't care. I think it is kinda dumb not to, though.

If it is a mutation, then what is one mutation that is currently around that is benificial.

If it is a mutation, then what is one mutation that is currently around that is benificial.

I don't understand your question??

I don't understand your question??

How are human mutations that currently occur, that is right now, benificial. None of them are. A-T, Downs, Sickle Cell Anemia

If it is a mutation, then what is one mutation that is currently around that is benificial.

They cannot because there simply is none. Developing a resistance to anitbiotics through mutation is obviously useless to viruses. And any mutations in the human population that makes people immune to disease? Worthless.

Will I have to give you the Babel Fish paradox?

i wondered when douglas adams would come up...

How are human mutations that currently occur, that is right now, benificial. None of them are. A-T, Downs, Sickle Cell Anemia

you just don't hear about the beneficial mutations because, well, they're not scary bad
if i have a mutation that means my liver functions a little better, i'll never know about it - it's only the mutation that makes it function worse that gets attention because we want to prevent weak livers if we can

How are human mutations that currently occur, that is right now, benificial. None of them are. A-T, Downs, Sickle Cell Anemia

A quick google search also yields the following:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

but obviously these are lies.

No mutations in humans are helpful, show me one that is. Secondly, evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, according to which we should be devolving...

Sickle cell disease is a helpful mutation, since it provides partial resistance to malaria, a far worse disease. See http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/scd_background.html for an explanation.

"Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics" has got to be the funniest argument against evolution I've ever heard. The second law of thermodynamics states, "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics) In other words, in a closed system, heat can't go from cold to hot. This is constantly misinterpreted to mean that complex cannot arise from simple, but the simple fact is that complex does develop out of simple in biology. Look at the "miracle" of life. Look at the cell creating amino acids out of simple atoms and then making proteins out of those amino acids. Simply put, thermodynamics deals with heat, work, and energy; evolution deals with the adaptation of populations.

How are human mutations that currently occur, that is right now, benificial. None of them are. A-T, Downs, Sickle Cell Anemia

Sickle Cell Anemia is beneficial mutation if you happen to live in area with malaria, as long as the gene itself remains recessive.

And on natural selection, around 10% of europeans are resistant to HIV because genes that helped people to survive Black Death also make them more resistant to AIDS. Those with beneficial mutation were more likely to survive and breed while their neightbours were busy vomiting their lungs out.

If you want a proof of evolution, look at modern medicine. In the 1950's, if you were sick and needed an antibiotic, they gave you penicillin. For everything. Penicillin cured just about anything. Nowadays, penicillin is all but useless. The only reason new and more powerful antibiotics are being developed is because current ones are quickly becoming worthless. The reason why? Evolution. The antibiotic kills off all of the bacteria that aren't resistant to it, leaving the ones that are to be dealt with by the body. Unfortunately, people don't follow instructions and stop taking the antibiotics when they start to feel better, not when they've finished the prescription, and some of the non-resistant bacteria survived, though they're in much lower numbers than the resistant bacteria. However, the total amount left is too much for the body to quickly destroy. As evolution explains, the most well adapted population (the resistant type) is the fittest (able to create the most offspring), thus the resistant type are able to reproduce and spread outside the body before being eliminated by the body. Thus, antibiotic resistant bacteria. Evolution, bitches.

More proof needed? Look up the famous case of the moths during the industrial revolution. Or try Origin of the Species. There's a novel idea.

More proof needed? Look up the famous case of the moths during the industrial revolution. Or try Origin of the Species. There's a novel idea.

I don't actually think these are very good examples, there's some debate whatever it was the industrial revolution that caused the color change or if it was example of evolution at all. My info about it is bit outdated though, I might be wrong.
Also, while Origin of the Species is not a bad book, it is old and some of the ideas from it have been revisited.

=/

How are human mutations that currently occur, that is right now, benificial. None of them are. A-T, Downs, Sickle Cell Anemia

What about the blue people of Kentucky? Honestly - where do the benefits end in being blue?

http://www.everything2.net/index.pl?node_id=1762860

What about the blue people of Kentucky? Honestly - where do the benefits end in being blue?

http://www.everything2.net/index.pl?node_id=1762860

Whoa!! :eek:

That's crazy ... I thought that eating silver salts was the only way to turn you blue, but I guess that's a different phenomenon.

(Somewhere down the line this turned into a rant sorry…)

Actually that’s a case in point for evolution, inbreeding lead to the emergence of the blue skin phenomena. If they were actually reproducing in a more bountiful gene pool the trait could have been selected against.

That raises another question? If human anatomy if perfect and divinely inspired then how can bad genetic variations happen? Evolution allows for a bell curve of mutations, the lowest of which don’t reproduce. It is through this slow process that you see benefit.

And if you are going to be so obtuse as to you the ‘can’t prove it argument’ then I guess you don’t believe in gravity either. Can you prove gravity to me? Can you point to gravity and say there it is? We know gravity exists because the apple falls, not because the apple hit gravity and Newton said “Oh look at that beside the apple there.” The Theory of Evolution is a scientific inference and humans let them occur all the time. I can’t show you evolution I can only show you a series of mammals which eventually ends today with humanity. I can show you bacteria growth which supports my claim and I can raise critiques about why a designer would have made Chlamydia. I cannot ever show you evolution though.

If you must question certain scientific theories please ask why you are doing it? Is it merely because it contradicts your faith or do you truly need to apply this heavy burden of proof? If so are you prepared to reject the majority of human understanding? I can’t show you gravity, atomics, quantum physics or any other number of sciences. I can split an atom, introduce certain radiations and craft a theory that explains all possible results but we are not perfect in our understanding. You have faith, congratulations. I am quite happy for you. In fact you probably possess a certain gene we have recently discovered. I – and others like me – however cannot find faith. We cannot abide the idea of you Christian God. Some of us are atheists, agnostics, absurdists, deists, or any other form of belief that reject the omnipotent loving personal deity. Pity us if you must but what we have works for us. It builds cities, drives growth, and I hope someday it will answer this silly question in a concrete and scientific manner.

People of science might be able to debate issues just as hotly as the religious but there is no one debate in the scientific community that has raged on for as long as the religious community has carried on its debate. Just remember for all of the authority that book grants, you used to use it to argue the geocentric universe.

If you want a proof of evolution, look at modern medicine. In the 1950's, if you were sick and needed an antibiotic, they gave you penicillin. For everything. Penicillin cured just about anything. Nowadays, penicillin is all but useless. The only reason new and more powerful antibiotics are being developed is because current ones are quickly becoming worthless. The reason why? Evolution. The antibiotic kills off all of the bacteria that aren't resistant to it, leaving the ones that are to be dealt with by the body. Unfortunately, people don't follow instructions and stop taking the antibiotics when they start to feel better, not when they've finished the prescription, and some of the non-resistant bacteria survived, though they're in much lower numbers than the resistant bacteria. However, the total amount left is too much for the body to quickly destroy. As evolution explains, the most well adapted population (the resistant type) is the fittest (able to create the most offspring), thus the resistant type are able to reproduce and spread outside the body before being eliminated by the body. Thus, antibiotic resistant bacteria. Evolution, bitches.

More proof needed? Look up the famous case of the moths during the industrial revolution. Or try Origin of the Species. There's a novel idea.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Either you have never read The Origin of Species, or when you did you didn't try very hard.

What you are talking about is not evolution, it is natural selection. Stronger strains of bacteria may become more dominant, and darker species of moth may be harder to find in post industrial Brittish forests, but they are still the same species. When you talk about evolution, you are talking about transitions from species to species, not changes within them.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Either you have never read The Origin of Species, or when you did you didn't try very hard.

What you are talking about is not evolution, it is natural selection. Stronger strains of bacteria may become more dominant, and darker species of moth may be harder to find in post industrial Brittish forests, but they are still the same species. When you talk about evolution, you are talking about transitions from species to species, not changes within them.

But those transitions don't occur without the mutations within the species. I understand you know this but I think that is what he was getting at. Even if it is not concrete proof of evolution it is still part of the evolutionary process.

Erm. Right?

But those transitions don't occur without the mutations within the species. I understand you know this but I think that is what he was getting at. Even if it is not concrete proof of evolution it is still part of the evolutionary process.

Erm. Right?

I doubt very much that that was what he was getting at. Anyone who has actually read The Origin of Species would be accutely aware that natural selection is not evolution, and that difference should be emphasised.

You are right, of course, that natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. However, you cannot say that because transitions and changes occur within a species (I believe this is called microevolution), species must therefore evolve into other, seperate species (macroevolution).

He has not been scientifically proven because he chooses not to.

I have a question. What the fuck is the point of debating this with you?

What is the meaning of life?

What is the meaning of life?

To play World of Warcraft, of course. Duh.

We know not the meaning of life, just try to make this world a better place for your descendants.

That's the best I've got.

I doubt very much that that was what he was getting at. Anyone who has actually read The Origin of Species would be accutely aware that natural selection is not evolution, and that difference should be emphasised.

You are right, of course, that natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. However, you cannot say that because transitions and changes occur within a species (I believe this is called microevolution), species must therefore evolve into other, seperate species (macroevolution).

You believe in Microevolution? But you do not believe in Evolution.

You believe in natural selection? But you do not believe in evolution.



Natural Selection is where differences make certain individuals propagate better. They are different from their peers. That is a mutation. Over a time, this will happen enough times, that the group at the end of the sample, is different from the group at the start by a number of mutations. That is evolution. And that does happen according to you.

This is in response to the religion threads that are currently gracing this message board, bringing their misconceptions and nuttiness on both sides with them.

So I'm going to let the religious ask me, an atheist, about why I chose my beliefs over, say, theism.

I respect religious viewpoints and will respond to them as non-antagonistically as I possibly can.

Thank you.

Only one question comes to mind:

Boxers or briefs? :)

Only one question comes to mind:

Boxers or briefs? :)

Commando.

How are human mutations that currently occur, that is right now, benificial. None of them are. A-T, Downs, Sickle Cell Anemia

this may have been mentioned already, but I read an interesting article on this a while ago:

It turns out that sickle cell anemia (a genetic disorder that causes the normally round red blood cells to be crescent shaped, decreasing the amount of oxygen they can transmit) is increasingly prevalent in malaria-heavy regions of the world.

It turns out that the malaria virus is unable to attack the misshapen red blood cells, and that in some situations, people with sickle cell anemia have a better chance of survival than 'normal' people, who are vulnerable to malaria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria#Evolutionary_pressure_of_malaria_on_human_genes

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Either you have never read The Origin of Species, or when you did you didn't try very hard.

What you are talking about is not evolution, it is natural selection. Stronger strains of bacteria may become more dominant, and darker species of moth may be harder to find in post industrial Brittish forests, but they are still the same species. When you talk about evolution, you are talking about transitions from species to species, not changes within them.

Apparently you have no idea what you are talking about. If you did, you'd know that evolution doesn't "talk about transitions from species to species", instead it deals with the changes that occur within populations of species. Moreover, with enough changes in a given population, that population can no longer successfully reproduce with its original species, thus a new species is formed.

Commando.

YAY! :D

Commando.

wait...

Zarakon = god in the other thread

God = commando

also God = wearing skirt like clothing

Therefore, GOD'S SCOTTISH! :eek:

I'm an agnostic. Where religion is concerned, you can't prove anything. It is independent of logic. You can't prove god exists, you can't prove god doesn't exist. Belief or disbelief, both are a matter of faith.

I'm an agnostic. Where religion is concerned, you can't prove anything. It is independent of logic. You can't prove god exists, you can't prove god doesn't exist. Belief or disbelief, both are a matter of faith.

Entirely and completely correct. In fact, that's what freaks out a lot of believers - Atheists have no need of faith at all.

Well, as much as it is a comforter for theists to say "you can't disprove god, NA NA NA-NA NA!!" (while putting their monkey inherited opposable thumb to their mamalian nose and waving their separate primate fingers), the burden of proof lies directly at THEIR doorstop. You see, you cannot disprove something that has never been in any way theorized scientifically, while they still must provide at least some evidence of its' existence to base a theory (and make me not laugh at them as I walk by their temples).
Now, about the benefit of mutations, there's the sickle cell story. Then, there's heterozygous Cystic Fibrosis which can protect you from TB. There are CD44 (I think, studied that last year, dammit...) mutations which render you completely immune to aids while never harming you. some mutations in your immune receptors might make you survive the bird flu while 60% of the world population croaks, pun intended.
But evolution works slowly, its the amazing luck of bacteria to have had a protein that, when mutated somewhat, could take apart penicillin (and they had it only because they evolved next to the fungus that produces it for millions of years), and from there they could spread it to one another in a non-mutational non-evolutional way. But to change the protein from penicillinase to vancomicinase required mutations. this is natural selection, and the only process we can see with our tiny lifespans and huge religiously quacking roadblocks.
So, I implore all you theists out there, to come up with a plausible theory regarding your god and any proof what so ever to negate the well thought through, theories about evolution while successfully explaining why the nerve to your taste buds runs through your ear (reptiles have those parts in their mouth), while the nerve to your vocal cords and throat makes a loop under the big arteries of the heart (makes so much sense when your heart is in your head, like that of invertebrates though). Then, you should probably explain the buries multi ton skeletons of dinosaurs dating millions of years back by scientifically proven methods...
I really can't understand those people. You say there is light and they say "darkness" and when you show them all the proof they pluck out their eyes.

wait...

Zarakon = god in the other thread

God = commando

also God = wearing skirt like clothing

Therefore, GOD'S SCOTTISH! :eek:

:eek:

A couple of thoughts

- One point which I rarely see raised in this debate is the fact that cetaceans (such as whales and dolphins) have feet.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/dolphin_hind_limbs.html

- One of the misconceptions which 'anti-evolutionists' rely on is the idea that evolution=improvement. I doubt that any reputable scientist has ever made that claim. To test this, try getting into a fight with a 30ft crocodile.

- How can anyone who believes in God not accept evolution? The environment changes, with or without human meddling, so we have to change as well.

You believe in Microevolution? But you do not believe in Evolution.

You believe in natural selection? But you do not believe in evolution.



Natural Selection is where differences make certain individuals propagate better. They are different from their peers. That is a mutation. Over a time, this will happen enough times, that the group at the end of the sample, is different from the group at the start by a number of mutations. That is evolution. And that does happen according to you.

I do believe in evolution, always have.

How's this for a story:

I was brought up in a devout Catholic household where science and religion played equal parts in my upbringing. I can remember asking my father at an age of no more than five how evolution worked arround Adam and Eve. He told me that the stories in the Bible were made by people who did not have a scientific understanding of how the universe began, and that while they were still important when talking about God, the creation story was not a factual account of how the universe began. I had heard of creationism, but I was always under the impression that it only existed in isolated circumstances. It was only after I started coming on NS General that I found out creationism still existed.

I do believe in evolution, always have.

My mistake, If I quoted you and said that either I a: Misquoted, or B: Quoted you under the impression you did not believe in Evolution, but did believe in Natural Selection.

I believe you did point out that there is a difference between Natural Selection and Evolution, something to which I agree. As much as mixing an egg and a cup of flour is different than baking a cake, being that the second option makes a cake.

How do you explain creation without a God.

The same way I would explain it if I were not an atheist.

Faith in God will not bring any understanding as to how the universe was created, becuase God, and his ever so mysterious ways, are unfathomable by the very dogma of most Abrahamic religions.

The same vague and half-assed answer can be attributed to science as well.

"We only know a few things for certain, and guess at the rest".

One can just as easily cop-out and say "well...God created everything", or "a series of chemical changes occured in some gigantic energy ball, wich exp-loded, starting the formation of planets and stars etc.."

Both of wich are nearly useless answers, that are far too vague and more than likely incorrect to a reasonable degree.

Well, as much as it is a comforter for theists to say "you can't disprove god, NA NA NA-NA NA!!" (while putting their monkey inherited opposable thumb to their mamalian nose and waving their separate primate fingers), the burden of proof lies directly at THEIR doorstop. You see, you cannot disprove something that has never been in any way theorized scientifically, while they still must provide at least some evidence of its' existence to base a theory (and make me not laugh at them as I walk by their temples).
Now, about the benefit of mutations, there's the sickle cell story. Then, there's heterozygous Cystic Fibrosis which can protect you from TB. There are CD44 (I think, studied that last year, dammit...) mutations which render you completely immune to aids while never harming you. some mutations in your immune receptors might make you survive the bird flu while 60% of the world population croaks, pun intended.
But evolution works slowly, its the amazing luck of bacteria to have had a protein that, when mutated somewhat, could take apart penicillin (and they had it only because they evolved next to the fungus that produces it for millions of years), and from there they could spread it to one another in a non-mutational non-evolutional way. But to change the protein from penicillinase to vancomicinase required mutations. this is natural selection, and the only process we can see with our tiny lifespans and huge religiously quacking roadblocks.
So, I implore all you theists out there, to come up with a plausible theory regarding your god and any proof what so ever to negate the well thought through, theories about evolution while successfully explaining why the nerve to your taste buds runs through your ear (reptiles have those parts in their mouth), while the nerve to your vocal cords and throat makes a loop under the big arteries of the heart (makes so much sense when your heart is in your head, like that of invertebrates though). Then, you should probably explain the buries multi ton skeletons of dinosaurs dating millions of years back by scientifically proven methods...
I really can't understand those people. You say there is light and they say "darkness" and when you show them all the proof they pluck out their eyes.

(falls in love)

So I'm going to let the religious ask me, an atheist, about why I chose my beliefs over, say, theism. Do you believe that science has provided answers to every question man has posed?

Entirely and completely correct. In fact, that's what freaks out a lot of believers - Atheists have no need of faith at all.

No need for faith in god/God, but they do have faith in other things.

The same way I would explain it if I were not an atheist.

Faith in God will not bring any understanding as to how the universe was created, becuase God, and his ever so mysterious ways, are unfathomable by the very dogma of most Abrahamic religions.

The same vague and half-assed answer can be attributed to science as well.

"We only know a few things for certain, and guess at the rest".
Um, no... science is more like "We don't really know anything, but have reasonable conclusions about it all, most of which we are certain of."

One can just as easily cop-out and say "well...God created everything", or "a series of chemical changes occured in some gigantic energy ball, wich exp-loded, starting the formation of planets and stars etc.."

Both of wich are nearly useless answers, that are far too vague and more than likely incorrect to a reasonable degree.
And in no way scientific.

How's this for a story:

I was brought up in a devout Catholic household where science and religion played equal parts in my upbringing. I can remember asking my father at an age of no more than five how evolution worked arround Adam and Eve. He told me that the stories in the Bible were made by people who did not have a scientific understanding of how the universe began, and that while they were still important when talking about God, the creation story was not a factual account of how the universe began. I had heard of creationism, but I was always under the impression that it only existed in isolated circumstances. It was only after I started coming on NS General that I found out creationism still existed.

I too grew up in a devout Catholic household. My father was not Catholic and taught me how to drink. You got the better education by far. Your father was a very bright man.

Do you believe that science has provided answers to every question man has posed?

I Know science has provided only a few of the many answers man seeks. It has done so very eloquently and with stunning accuracy, but the more it discovered, the more man asked.
Funny thing though, I haven't seen even the tiniest question asked by man - answered by religion...

Funny thing though, I haven't seen even the tiniest question asked by man - answered by religion... Really? How about... "Am I satisfied with my place in life?"

Do you believe that science has provided answers to every question man has posed?

No, but neither has religion.

As far as I'm concerned, religion deals with the spiritual and the ethical aspects of society and life, while science deals with our "place in the universe" in a purely physical sense.

It's blind to totally ingore our physical relation to the universe, because that is what affects us in the most objective sense.

No, but neither has religion.

As far as I'm concerned, religion deals with the spiritual and the ethical aspects of society and life, while science deals with our "place in the universe" in a purely physical sense.

It's blind to totally ingore our physical relation to the universe, because that is what affects us in the most objective sense.

And religion deals with our spiritual "place in the universe" from an entirely subjective viewpoint.

Are there then questions that religion is more suited to answer than science, which must necessarily remain objective? I am asking in the context of the OP, where you requested people of religious inclination to ask you questions to determine why you choose atheism over "say theism".

No. Only questions that religion itself asks. Otherwise religion wouldn't be like it is: faith-based.

No. Only questions that religion itself asks. Otherwise religion wouldn't be like it is: faith-based.

Well, I may be wrong but everything after the "No" sounds like a "yes."

So why do you choose atheism over "say theism"?