I have been simply trying to say that someone doesn't have to feel that they have to fully believe what science says to be completely true, because it isn't always the case. A lot of people say they have to be atheist because science is fact, but one shouldn't base their beliefs or non-beliefs on what other scientists say in theory. Instead, take all things into account and make your own conclusive belief and whether one is more correct is just an ongoing debate that will doubtfully ever be ended.

__________________

That is exactly what they do.

That is what I do, and I'm not even an atheist.

Sure, you don't necessarily need science to prove certain thing is true and fact, but science will always come in to distinguish if it is or not, and with that said; I believe we have come far enough in our time to dismiss the claim of there being a god and religion being useful.

__________________

If you'd ever taken a college level science class, you'd know that as soon as you learn something in class, you empirically test it in the lab. You aren't supposed to take what you learn as fact. Your ignorance amazes me. It's not an insult, it's a fact.

Ignorance is bliss.
I dropped my pen to the floor, it rolled over my desk and it fell on the floor. I'm pretty sure that has to do with gravity. Not some "god" making it move.

I dont say I'm athiest becuase of science. I remember how I was on the bus to school when I was in elementary and I thought about "god". It struck me, its pure bull and its nonsense. I was a little kid making rational thoughts. It wasnt science making me think about that. Science backs it up, it doesnt command us to be athiest.

I dont call myself an athiest. I always use my fingers to quote it while I say it, "athiest".
Rational is the proper term.

Good Day.

__________________



^^
OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree completely. It's absurd to label someone for something they don't believe in. It's just the Christian's way of identifying people who don't agree with them, and they can't categorize any other way.

Atheism is good to identify a position, nothing more

__________________

It definitely is not and I could go into depth about how wrong and miscontrued it is.

I got my idea out of Sam Harris':



This had been posted already but it suits this argument alot better in here. It's somewhere in the middle.

__________________

I just ordered Letters to a Christian Nation the other day.

__________________

GT: torwizzle

add for customs and all that crap.

This may be a change in the subject but I have some questions.

I do believe in micro-evolution and natural selection obviously because they have been proven. I may not know every detail about evolution but I want to try to understand.

I do not believe in macroevolution and the common ancestor part of evolution. To me there is no proof good enough for me to believe it (maybe like atheists or agnostics with Christianity or any other religion) there is no fossil proof that I've heard or seen of but if there is please correct me. And my biology teacher said that we don’t see evolution because it happened so slowly but how come we don’t have fossils of species when they are evolving into others like fish into snakes, she said that we don’t have those fossils because the process happens to fast and fossils are hard to come by.

So my questions are

Are there fossils when a species is evolving into another?
and
What do you think about my teacher’s explanation for no fossils?

__________________

There is absolutely fossil evidence during evolution, it's common sense - they have to die some time do they not?

Your teacher's impression on no fossils is completely misinformed and immature.

I would love to provide evidence, but I can promise E Nomini Patri has that at hand; it may even be in this section, I remember seeing it.

__________________