Blind faith and evolution

[Fidel_Castronaut]

i disagree, although that may be your definition of an atheist and that may be the way you approach things and I would congratulate you for that you may want to reconsider your classification as atheist. most atheists do profess to know and they get into long ridiculous arguments with mono-theists about how it all began... neither know and there is not very many that can admit it, scroll up to maelstroms last post to see an example of my statement.

I am an agnostic atheist. I haven't proof that there is no god (nonsensical) but I can reject claims of existence based on their lack of evidence.

Atheism = lack of belief in a god or gods.

Nowhere in that description does it also invoke a sudden predisposition to be an expert in abiogenesis, quantum mechanics, string theory and so on. It's simply the above.

Re: arguments about 'how it all began' (nonsensical). You'll notice very few atheists flinging the idea of 'we know x definitely happened' whilst using nothing but a holy book as evidence in which to back it up. Indeed, the very nature of the scientific method to which I, as a skeptic and a rationalist, profess to follow means that I would be a hypocrite if I simply agreed with x because it also agrees with my personal biases and/or beliefs.

This is what separates the theory of evolution and abiogenesis out from creation mythology. The former is very much a testable and verifiable proposition. Do we know 'all' the answers to all the mysteries that exist with this theoretical underpinning? No, and nobody on here is claiming as such except you by strawmanning that we are.

Now creationism on the other hand. Well, you don't have to look too far to see theists proclaiming that their ideas on origin are true. But based on what? A holy book and a belief. There's the difference in layman terms.

Re: maelstrom's comment. I can only assume you mean this?

The Big Bang caused by a singularity, which led to the creation of planet earth, which led to the eventual evolution of life from single celled organisms.

You appear to indicate that this is somehow dogmatic? I'm not following. What maelstrom describes above, whilst parsimonious to the extreme (nothing wrong with that in this instance), is our current best understanding of how "it" began. Note that this is not all based on guesswork. The conclusions of the above have been reached by our current best modelling methodologies and through experiments that have yielded repeat results that conform through correlation.

Saying the above is precisely not the same as saying 'god made us' and then using a holy book to back up that claim. And it's not the same because the former has evidence to back it up, whilst the latter has nothing but personal faith.