BrendenG wrote:Hear him. this man knows and doesnt know what he is talking about. he is only a beginner i can tell.

Actually, if you're referring to the OP, he manifestly doesn't know what he's talking about. As I illustrated at length in this post. This individual erected the wollowing blind assertion:

havefaith001 wrote:evolution is obviously not correct

despite knowing nothing of substance about the topic, including the fact that evolution has been observed taking place in real living organisms, as well as in laboratory experiments. Indeed, he later admitted in a subsequent post, after I schooled him with respect to the actual valid science of evolution, that he had no specialist knowledge in the field, and had in effect erected his assertion on the basis of manifest ignorance of even basic knowledge of evolutionary theory. To say that this individual is a "beginner" is taking charity to faintly silly limits.

BrendenG wrote:thats all you people ever go after is spelling errors. but no evidence for your atheism. hhmmm.

Oh, so you manifestly didn't read my previous post, in which I presented citations for over a hundred scientific papers providing the supporting evidence for evolution and related processes? Or, for that matter, thisw post, in which I dealt with a number of other substantive issues?

BrendenG wrote:Saying you are a athiests] [sic] does not mean atheistheism [sic] is real.

Oh dear. Someone else who is manifestly in need of the requisite education.

First, atheism as a principle is very definitely real, even if supernaturalists would like to pretend otherwise. And that principle, in its rigorous form, consists, in short, of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions". Second, if you intend to suggest that there is no evidence supporting the postulate that invisible magic men don't exist, well providing evidence that something doesn't exist is not the usual approach in rigorous work - the usual approach is to try and find evidence that a specified entity does exist, and is the approach that has been adopted by the physical sciences for 300 years. However, that same 300 years of diligent effort in the realm of the physical sciences, has established conclusively that testable natural processes are sufficient to account for vast classes of real world observational phenomena. Consequently, as a corollary of this, supernatural entities are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. As a consequence of this, I would contend that reality supports the postulate that invisible magic men from mythology don't exist, rather than the converse.

BrendenG wrote:Ok then. Then when i say that the christain [sic] god exists therefore he is real. based on what your saying.

Wrong, and a duplicitous bait and switch of the other poster's words. As I explained above, atheism consists of the position of NOT accepting uncritically unsupported blind mythological assertions. This position plainly exists, as do people who adopt this position. The moment someone questions the assertions of mythology, the existence of this position is empirically demonstrated, as is the existence of at least one person who adopts this position.

On the other hand, your assertion that an invisible magic man, as specified in a particular mythology, exists, is merely that - an assertion. You have no evidence to support this. All you have is your assertion. Your assertion does not equal established fact.

Now, do you have something resembling substance to bring to this forum, or are you merely here to post the sort of one-line posts that the educated membership here associate with 11 year old boys in secondary school, who consumed too much tartrazine in their soft drinks during their formative years?