What Is The Positive Evidence For Atheism?

Since, like I said, every worldview relies on sense apparatus and reasoning, you have said nothing, except that Atheism has no positive evidence to justify its existence; therefore, according to you - an Atheist - Atheism operates on blind faith (as opposed to Biblical faith which is based on the facts of God's word as written in the Bible). Rhetoric (= the misuse of logic), the tool of lawyers, who we know are professional liars.Ray

Rhetoric.This comment attempts to exempt Atheists from having positive evidence to justify its existence because the writer does not want to admit "we have none, we operate on blind faith."Yet you do have faith that there is no God and that the alleged evidence for God is false. Your faith is perfectly blind without positive evidence, unless you want to admit that evolution is positive evidence for Atheism, but that would slap Christian evolutionists in the face rather hardly. But again it IS NOT a matter of opinion: Atheists believe evolution is their positive evidence. That is the objective truth of the matter and your refusal (I did not say inability) to recognize this axiomatic truth publicly is because that makes your "colleagues" ("Christian" evolutionists) fools of the highest order. This opinion says Atheists have faith that the positive evidence for God is not evidence or it is false, while silently admitting that Atheism has no positive evidence to justify its existence; therefore Atheism, according to Bluegenes, operates on blind faith.We know evolution is the positive evidence for Atheism worldview, rhetorically speaking, why else are all Atheists evolutionists? Here we have an Atheist attempting to fit in within Christians. Why would an Atheist align them self with persons who believe in God?Answer: because the Atheist knows that these Christians are fools who have no source for their Creator views. Atheists accept evolution because it claims to refute the existence of God.Then why doesn't the Atheist cite evolution as positive evidence for his worldview?Answer: Atheists need these Christians or their theory is just Atheist ideology packaged as science.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

So a presupposition is the positive evidence or are you saying that Atheism has none?Ray

I am asking for the evidence supporting Atheism. If it is entirely negative then just say so. Then I will promptly point out that all Atheists are evolutionists (= the positive evidence for Atheism).Ray

Then what is the evidence supporting your worldview, evolutionist?Ray

....like Crashfrog, who brag day and night how true evolutionary theory is, but when it comes time to say, "Yeah, it is the positive evidence for our worldview" they are no where to be found.Crashfrog has said many times that evolution supports the non-existence of God, has he changed his view? Has he departed from his hero Richard Dawkins?Or has he finally seen "the light" and come to understand that he must deny the obvious because Atheism needs TEists to run cover for their ideology packaged as "science"?Ray

I did. I pointed out that a crackpot First Cause belief (space aliens) do not negate their evolutionism thereafter. Your question is also a rhetorical point silently attempting to act like the vast majority of Atheists are not evolutionists when they are, silly. You evidently cannot refute.Ray

Why don't you just say that we have no positive evidence and hope that the average person ignores the fact that the vast majority of Atheists are evolutionists and scientists are Atheist-evolutionists.Evolution claims to be the positive evidence for Atheism. Denial is about as credible as the DI claiming that ID has nothing to say about God. Both theories are all about God in the extreme opposite directions.Ray

They were materialists who subscribed to whatever type of transmutation theory existed, whether it was proto-scientific or philosophical like David Hume did.Ray

Crashfrog: you are on record, in a lengthy topic that you authored ("People - I /was /a Christian") blasting Christians for having an imaginary relationship with them self via delusion. Conversely you were also saying that the evidence for evolution sealed the deal concerning the falsity of Theism. Do you now deny?Do I need to dredge up these messages?Moving on....Q. How could Atheists and Christians accept the same biological origins theory? This makes no sense since one party denies the existence of God while the other affirms. Are TEists deluded, Crashfrog?Are you now subordinate to TEists? Since when do Atheists like yourself need a Theist to buttress your position?Where is your objectivity in all of this?Or are you going to act like you do not understand?If you are suddenly uncomfortable concerning TEists then just say so and that will answer all of my questions and points?Ray

This is a typical lazy reply by Jar. Axioms and syllogisms need no support. Evolution is based on materialism, which in essence says causation is perpetually material and never Divine. This is 101 stuff. Since you claim to be a TEist your question is a rhetorical point and a declaration that you intend to defy the undisputed and objective intent of transmutation: the God of Genesis does not exist.Ray

Hey, thanks for your interest.I have missed several deadlines and admitted as much. I do not expect any particular person to keep track of my status reports, and there are persons (at other sites) who have deliberately misrepresented these reports.My latest deadline, before 2008, will be missed. Previously, I have admitted that I underestimated the task before me. Then I admitted that it took me at least a year to learn how to write. I have also always said that I underestimated how much time research takes. These reasons were the cause of my missed deadlines, and the reason I am going to miss the current deadline is because of time consuming research and organizing the evidence. I also have some copyright problems but they will be solved.It took Darwin, who was wealthy, twenty years to write the Origin and he had no impediments except health. James Secord has admitted that it took him "a large part of his life" to write Victorian Sensation a book about Vesitges. It took Harvard Professor Janet Browne seven years to write the second half of Darwin's biography after the first was published (1995 to 2002).In case you did not know I have had a Eureka! moment and I am in possession of original scientific evidence that will refute evolution. I agonize daily over the fear of being scooped but there is nothing I can do until I am completely finished. Finishing is my only concern in life.I suppose that I will announce another due date ASAP (but it will be worth the wait).Ray

I am also in my mid-40s and I am very glad to hear you are excited to see this evidence.Other posters, here and elsewhere, have urged me to release a short abstract, which would ensure priority, and satisfy curiosity. The reason I cannot is because the evidence, disattached from the entire argument would diminish its shock value. Since this evidence was discovered ABOUT 18 months ago, which was ABOUT 18 months into the project, it needs the surrounding structure of my entire paper.When I am done I will post the link to my work here at EvC Forum and one other discussion site simultaneously. These posts will include a short excerpt announcing my discovery and the claim I make in behalf of it. The surrounding text of my paper will evidence the claim to be a scientific fact.But for now, what is the big deal? Evolution is already false. Nobody has refuted IC, the geological crust of the Earth shows no signs of macroevolution, the Cambrian explosion is real, and all molecular phylogeny studies show a discordancy equal to an interval of time from the present to the CE.Ray

I have read your post, but it is off topic.Why don't you create a topic on the meaning of Materialism and I will address your points. I usually have about one hour every two days to devote to posting messages on the Internet.

....Or we can take it to Great Debate, if not I can assure you that your post is based on illogical assertions that demand trust. When said trust is asked for by IDists, evolutionists ignore and cry "Creationism" anyway. Now apply to your materialism distinctions.Ray