Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?

The scientific method was developed to try to prevent errors in reasoning. It is by no means a perfect system, but the stipulation that science be able to reproduce hypotheses before they might be accepted is what allows us to have confidence that our reasoning is valid. If we were just a random collection of atoms and molecules organized by random chance, then the Theory of Evolution would have been falsified years ago (If we were viable creatures made up of random atoms, then I'd have to agree there is a creator!).GDR. Really. Think about it. If you believe that the Theory of Evolution allowed for the random conglomeration of atoms to produce viable living organisms, then I think you might want to study upon it a bit more. The reason the scientific method is used by scientists is because it works. We know we can make mistakes. The scientific method helps us to correct them. You don't truly believe that scientists can just spout out hypotheses without being able to back up those claims with experimentation, do you?

Are you not the author of this statement? -> You seemed to be suggesting that our ability to understand through the scientific method is flawed from the get-go, and you appeared to me to be using a caricuture of the Theory of Evolution as an example of this supposed fundemental flaw. Of course it starts with reasoning? Yet, we have reasoned that testing hypotheses to determine their validity is a good way to determine the strength of the argument put forth. That doesn't mean we test our hypotheses by determining which one "sounds like a good argument". We attempt to test them by looking for experiments which might possibly falsify them.You seem to be suggesting that 'reasoning' (as you put it) lays outside the human brain, that it is some metaphysical power or object.

How can you say this? Where do you get the idea that atheists believe that our ability to reason and examine evidence comes from blind random chance? That just tells me you have little knowledge about where our ability to think comes from. DO you think that Crows solving puzzles or Elephants finding water or Chimps sharing food or becoming upset at unfairness are products of some outside intelligence and not the 'reasoning' ability of those animals brains?I don't think you understand how the brain works. If you did, you might have realised that it makes mistakes in reasoning quite a bit. That it isn't and doesn't have to be a product of some intelligence, especially since you would have to question why a superior intelligence would craft such a faulty product (not just humans but animals as well being faulty).The point is, we reason and animals reason because our brains have connections between nuerons that send signals to each other through chemical and electrical impulses. These connections are reinforced and built upon the base pattern we are born with, that includes the ability to learn and process information, and to hunger and move. Many of these basic impulses we share with all animals...ex. The desire to mate, hunger/thirst, aversion to danger, etc. The complexity of our brains are the product of millions of years of evolutionary history. You can see that in the development of our human lineage. We don't just pop into existence with these brains. Our environment and social needs have weeded out those ancestors of ours who could not compete. We are the byproducts of this variation and selection.As far as evidence being a product of random chance, I would sincerely question your ability to reason if you believed that evidence just came to be randomly. Besides the fact that you a ppear to me to contradict yourself when you say, "I agree that evidence and reasoning make our subjective opinions more reliable than blind random chance. I'm just saying that if our evidence and reasoning are only products of blind random chance..."Who is saying Nature is consistent? or Natural Laws? Are you? Do you think that scientists randomly choose what evidence to pursue when using the scientific method? How do scientsists choose what experiments to run? Do you know? That leads us to the path of scientific anarchy. Who is to say what is true then or who is right? Without the scientific method, how does a scientist correct mistakes made by himself or others? If you believe that humans are falible, then surely you believe that we should compare notes and investigate claims..I would hope. Evolution is a consequence of nature and physical laws. There is only so much food....there are only so many mates...there is only so much energy....the environment changes with changes in orbital patterns...etc.

Why does it seem so hard (for some) to place the spark of creativity in man's own brain? Why does it have to be "outside" of ourselves? You give yourself, and all other humans, too little credit.

Therein lies the problem. By limiting yourself and humans to a power that is outside of ourselves, and attributing to this power the collectively reasoning and creativity of humans, you limit your philosophy to that ONE power. By ascribing good deeds and evil deeds to the power of [an] omnipotent entity[ies] you actually reduce your philosophical argument to one notion: Everything is due to IT or the ultimate plan of IT.Ultimately it is the end of the argument.