What Is The Positive Evidence For Atheism?

False. The penis and the vagina are not the only sexual organs present in the human body, nor are they the only types of sexual organs found throughout life.In fact, the vast majority of life reproduces asexually. Fungi have well over two sexes. In fact, the only thing needed for sexual reproduction is the ability to have your genes mix with your mates genes and in the process form a fertilized egg. In many cases of sexual reproduction, this involves little more than putting your stuff out there--such as with spores and pollen, or with the fish who expel their egg and sperm. Expelling these things require holes. How great a jump is it to imagine one sex expelling there stuff into the hole of the opposite? Especially if this leads to increased rates of reproductive success. And then, how great a jump is it to have one side start developing a bumb that fits over or into the hole a little better? Again, especially if this leads to greater reproductive success?All the penis does is allow the sperm to get relatively close to the egg, and both the penis and vagina have other uses. There is no compelling reason to think that the penis and vagina had to be intelligently designed or that they are the only two sexual organs.Oh, and evolution is not exactly 'unguided', nor is it completely random. Since evolution is not 'unguided', just what is left of your argument?

wow, how many things can you get wrong in a single post, ray? How is saying "God Did it" without any explanation of how god did it a useful answer? What does it tell us about the world? Does it explain how thinks work?Imagine:
Son: Daddy, why is the sky blue?
Dad: God did it.
Son: How did god do it?
Dad: God did it.
Son: But how?
Dad: Cause God can and he did.
Son: can you answer the question meaningfully?
Dad: yes; god did it.In reality, we know the sky is blue because of refraction of light hitting water (and other substances) molecules and the absorbtion of specific spectrums of light (visible and otherwise) by those molecules. Understanding how colors are created can be important for any number of fields, having applications fromp physics to painting.The purpose of science is to understand how and why things happen with meaningful answers. By removing god from the explanation, you remove the easy, non-meaningful answer and false answers and it allows you to get to the heart of the matter. God in the picture allows for any possibility to be true (if the god is omnipotent and/or omniscienient and/or all-knowing) or no answer whatsoever, allowing no furtherance of useful knowledge. This does not mean that god (if you believe in him) is not at the controls or the cause of what is happening, but rather, the naturalistic or materialistic explanations are how god does it. False. Good contradiction. Not only is your argument wrong logically (not all atheists are evolutionists and you are missing a second premise to draw your conclusion) but you have contradiction yourself in claiming that evolution is evidence and then saying it isn't. Happy?

actually, it is absolutely inaccurate to label all atheists as evolutionists if there is a fair sized group that isn't evolutionist.Further, since you have claimed that assumptions are not evidence, and since you have claimed evolution is an assumption, you cannot state that evolution is positive evidence for atheism.So ray, what is the posistive evidence for atheism, since you have so masterfully excluded evolution?

of course, what you missed is that I'm not advocating a blank, non-meaningful answer.I explained how and why the sky is blue. Without resorting to non-answers, non-meaningful answers (and hopefully) false answers. This is in opposition to the typical "god did it" (or in your case "evolution did it"), which doesn't contain any meaninful answers.by the way, why is your son asking how god did it?now then, how about responding to your contradiction?

This is the "god did it" answer. The answer that doesn't really answer anything, the answer which science avoids like the plague.What interests science, in this case, would be how the species were specially created (if indeed they really were/are).To me it seems like your real problem is that science isn't really interested in learning about the words that come from your god's mouth, but rather, that science wants to know about the world your god created, whereas you would rather science be interested in learning your god's words.