Hullo! My first post.

[The Grand Nudger]

Welcome aboard.

 I have absolutely no faith in tomorrow’s sunrise.

One of my pet peeves as well.  I hear what a theist describes as their faith.....and regardless of what argument they want to have the truth remains that my "x" in the sun rising tomorrow is not the same thing as their faith in a god.  They can call it the same thing from here until the next sunrise....but that won;t change just because of their insistence or persistence.

2. Evolution by natural selection v. Abiogenesis
In my experience, evolution is almost only ever raised during theist/atheist dialogue by the theists. I have never first broached the subject myself. Though, being a big fan of Darwinian evolution, I am only too happy to dive in if someone else brings it up. Then, all too often, both parties show their imperfect understanding of the concept when the theist asks, “Then how do you explain where life came from?“ And the atheist responds, “You’re talking about the origin of life, or ‘abiogenesis.’ That has nothing to do with evolution.“
 
Wrong. 

In the face of the constant chorus "life can;t come from nothing!" from people who think they have a problem with evolutionary theory..it;s both accurate and necesarry to inform them that the one has nothing to do with the other.  They have issues with some hypothesis of abiogenesis.  Modern synth is the combination of darwinian selection and mendelian genetics.  While some form of selection may be at play in whatever hypothesis of abiogenesis is true (if any)...mendelian genetics is most certainly not.  Modern synth would stand even if god poofed the first bit of life into existence, just to really drive the futility home.  It stands on it;s own merits, not on the merits of any particular notion of how life initially came to be.  It;s what happens to life, not how life happened.

Truth be told..they usually have a whole basket full of problems with both...but those problems are, ofc, their own problems, lol. 

Don’t ever let anybody tell you you can’t get morals or “good” or “evil” from the laws of nature. It’s the only place they DO come from.

Agreed, they find their origins and their ultimate observations there...but it;s useful to point out that they don;t find their justification there in an ethical sense.  What is natural is not always right, and what is unnatural ( a slippery term but it gets employed alot) is not always wrong.  It may be more accurate to state that we derive our moral apparatus from evolutionary biology...but that doesnt imply or require that we conform to the strictures of our biological imperatives when we go about setting the rules of the system.   In that sense, we don;t get morals from the laws of nature.

 But generally speaking, I don’t think atheists/skeptics/materialists insist that theists take this crushing burden of proof squarely upon their shoulders as they truly deserve.

You;re gonna like it here, then.  This place ties that rock around the neck of the people who own it and never lets loose, lol.