Atheism does not make any ontological claims - not even on any supernatural being. It's merely a lack of belief in deities - nothing more, nothing less. For an atheist to make ontological claims, or any claims for that matter, they have to reside outside atheism.
Not all atheists subscribe to the theories of evolution. Not all atheists accept the big bang. Not all atheists are pro-choice. Pro-gay marriage. Eat babies. Pastafarians. Dawkins fan boys. Etc. Etc.
Tasdik wrote:Peradventure atheists are correct, they must explain two things with regards to evolution: the formation of cell and the formation of the proteins to create that cell.
There are hypotheses and perhaps a couple of theories that deal with these. However, they are not conclusive and require more research. Does the fact that we don't know the answer yet, invalidate atheism?
Tasdik wrote:Now, to say that they randomly formed requires a leap of logic much greater than any creationist as the odds of that happening are highly improbable. Considering that scientists are still desperately attempting to explain how such a thing could have developed naturally, most agree that as our knowledge of the universe stands right now, there must have been some type of an out-of-this world force to create it. Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges this. However, he claims that the out-of-this world force is most likely some type of alien.
As our knowledge of the universe stood more than two thousand years ago, trees created birds and haystacks created snakes. As our knowledge of the universe stood in the seventeenth century, fire was attributed to the elusive element called phlogiston. As our knowledge of the universe stood a hundred years ago, electrons orbited the nucleus like planets orbiting the sun.
As our knowledge of the universe stands right now, there must have been some type of an out-of-this world force to create it.
Tasdik wrote:With regards to science being a basis for the denial of God, consider that spontaneous generation was once considered scientific "law." If anyone says science has "proven" anything, they're simply wrong in that science can only help draw reasonable conclusions based on known data and can in fact prove nothing as there is an infinite amount of data available. In addition, consider the model of the atom that most of you learned about. I can almost guarantee you that the model you learned about in your high school science class has now been shown to be inaccurate. Consequently, science has thus far even failed to provide an explanation for the most fundamental building block of life, yet atheists claim it can prove the nonexistence of God? Who is really making logical fallacies here?
All the knowledge that science has accumulated is primitive compared to the real information in nature, but it is the best that we have. We could be wrong about it. We could be right. We can never know. But again, this is what we have right now, and we can only do so much with it.
How comfortable does it feel to know that almost everything that has supported you up to now is based in theories, hypotheses, mere relative ideas? It's probably not comforting, but I have gotten over it. If you really want absolute truths, the best I can offer you is in mathematics.
Tasdik wrote:Who is really making logical fallacies here?
You and your so called argument.
Science has no word on supreme beings and their existence. You can't just say it does and make a gross general statement that all atheists adhere to such beliefs.
