Only 15% of Americans accept evolution.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Also, who sired the sexiest son of a virgin this side of Jordan.

Yah, that guy. Never one of my favorites.

He always seems a little... angry. I could never get over his genocidal streak.

[The Lone Alliance]

Government doing anything at all to aid prayer is endorsing religion under your self imposed definition.
Therefore the government isn't allowed to set aside a room.

Sure it is endorsing religious institution however since it harms no one: assuming there is free room, it is fine to give religious what the want.

Actually if setting aside a moment of silence at a time when no one is having lessons to begin with harms atheists then having one less school room for learning because it's set aside for Prayer is harms atheists who believe that the room could be used for a more educational purpose.

Furthermore there's the supposed peer pressure that you seemed to speak of. I mean if seeing someone pray in the morning will convert you to religion by peer pressure, wouldn't people peer pressure atheists for not going to the prayer room?

I mean obviously if children are so weak willed that they'll suddenly declare they believe in god simply because they hear someone praying then how would they not be weak willed to be pressured by their friends to go to the prayer room with the same result?

Hey I'm just using your own argument against you, don't fault me.

[Sociobiology]

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that God does exist in the first place. For example, I could say there's a walrus in another room in your house, but when you go to that room, there is no walrus. However, I insist that you prove that there wasn't a walrus instead of me proving that there was one in the first place. It just doesn't work.

The OP made the claim, therefore he has the burden of proof. I am not claiming that God exists, I merely wish that he acknowledge the possibility that God exists if he cannot prove he does not.

your god has exactly the same chance of existing as every other god, dragons, fairies, Santa, talking pants wearing mice, Jedi, and Harry Potter wizards.
The problem is EVERYTHING has a possibility to exist, however the probability of gods existing is asymptotic to zero, so there is no reason to act as though they could exist, or treat them as 'possible' in common usage.

[Individuality-ness]

Oh, you know, Yahweh of Edom, he who set a shrubbery on fire to impress some nomads in the desert of Sinai. That one.

Also, who sired the sexiest son of a virgin this side of Jordan.

He was the ONLY son of a virgin this side of Jordan. :/

[Farnhamia]

Yah, that guy. Never one of my favorites.

That hurts, Farn. Right in the crucifixion holes.

No, silly, not the son, the father. I never met the son, if that's who you're claiming to be. I was living in the West at the time, dividing the time between Gallaecia and Italia.

[Farnhamia]

Electricity is a whole other debate I'll have with you when you've studied Nikolai Tesla and direct and free energy for a year.

Who the tuck is Nikolai Tesla?

Nikola. It's an easy typo, Dya.

[West Angola]

But you don't prove a negative. The claim "God doesn't exist" is the starting position, not the claim. "God exists" is the claim, and there is no evidence for it.

But more to the point, as by most religions definitions, "God" cannot be proven, being supernatural and beyond the bounds of science. But claims of what God DOES that relates to science can be shown to be irrelevant.

All I am saying here is that the OP cannot prove God (or any other deity) does not exist. The tone of his premise is that it has been proven that a deity does not exist, and this is not true. He acts as though those who do not believe that there is no deity are denying factual proof or scientific evidence, and none exists.
I am not demanding that anyone believe or not believe in God, I am simply saying that until his existence is proven one way or another, no one acts as though there is no way their beliefs on the matter could be wrong.

[Individuality-ness]

But you don't prove a negative. The claim "God doesn't exist" is the starting position, not the claim. "God exists" is the claim, and there is no evidence for it.

But more to the point, as by most religions definitions, "God" cannot be proven, being supernatural and beyond the bounds of science. But claims of what God DOES that relates to science can be shown to be irrelevant.

All I am saying here is that the OP cannot prove God (or any other deity) does not exist. The tone of his premise is that it has been proven that a deity does not exist, and this is not true. He acts as though those who do not believe that there is no deity are denying factual proof or scientific evidence, and none exists.
I am not demanding that anyone believe or not believe in God, I am simply saying that until his existence is proven one way or another, no one acts as though there is no way their beliefs on the matter could be wrong.

And unfortunately, this isn't the thread to debate on whether God himself exists, we do have a thread for that.

[Tlaceceyaya]

But you don't prove a negative. The claim "God doesn't exist" is the starting position, not the claim. "God exists" is the claim, and there is no evidence for it.

But more to the point, as by most religions definitions, "God" cannot be proven, being supernatural and beyond the bounds of science. But claims of what God DOES that relates to science can be shown to be irrelevant.

All I am saying here is that the OP cannot prove God (or any other deity) does not exist. The tone of his premise is that it has been proven that a deity does not exist, and this is not true. He acts as though those who do not believe that there is no deity are denying factual proof or scientific evidence, and none exists.
I am not demanding that anyone believe or not believe in God, I am simply saying that until his existence is proven one way or another, no one acts as though there is no way their beliefs on the matter could be wrong.

They are denying scientific evidence.
The simple lack of evidence. We have evidence that unicorns do not exist, and that is their absence.
But that's beyond the point. What you're doing does not justify believing in god any more than in believing that giving someone a lethal dose of radiation will give them superpowers.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

That hurts, Farn. Right in the crucifixion holes.

No, silly, not the son, the father. I never met the son, if that's who you're claiming to be. I was living in the West at the time, dividing the time between Gallaecia and Italia.

His son? You mean that one chap who got born on Christmas Day, shot his mouth off about everything under the sun, and then came a cropper with a couple of rum coves on top of a hill in Johnny Arab Land?

[Ceannairceach]

That hurts, Farn. Right in the crucifixion holes.

No, silly, not the son, the father. I never met the son, if that's who you're claiming to be. I was living in the West at the time, dividing the time between Gallaecia and Italia.

Ah. Easy mistake.

[West Angola]

And unfortunately, this isn't the thread to debate on whether God himself exists, we do have a thread for that.

I’m not trying to debate the existence of God, I’m not even making a point one way or another, all I’m saying is that both sides of the issue are possibly true, and no one can say that their side of the argument has been “proven” correct.

[Farnhamia]

But you don't prove a negative. The claim "God doesn't exist" is the starting position, not the claim. "God exists" is the claim, and there is no evidence for it.

But more to the point, as by most religions definitions, "God" cannot be proven, being supernatural and beyond the bounds of science. But claims of what God DOES that relates to science can be shown to be irrelevant.

All I am saying here is that the OP cannot prove God (or any other deity) does not exist. The tone of his premise is that it has been proven that a deity does not exist, and this is not true. He acts as though those who do not believe that there is no deity are denying factual proof or scientific evidence, and none exists.
I am not demanding that anyone believe or not believe in God, I am simply saying that until his existence is proven one way or another, no one acts as though there is no way their beliefs on the matter could be wrong.

Should evidence appear that show that there is a supernatural being who is at once part of the universe and not part of it and who, in fact, created it and may, or may not, guide it in general terms or possibly in such detail as the fall of every sparrow, I am willing to reconsider my stance. Believers have the burden of proof, however, since theirs is the more extraordinary claim. I also consider the possibility of that being existing to be so small as to be effectively zero.

[Individuality-ness]

No, silly, not the son, the father. I never met the son, if that's who you're claiming to be. I was living in the West at the time, dividing the time between Gallaecia and Italia.

His son? You mean that one chap who got born on Christmas Day, shot his mouth off about everything under the sun, and then came a cropper with a couple of rum coves on top of a hill in Johnny Arab Land?

That's the one.

[Enadail]

But you don't prove a negative. The claim "God doesn't exist" is the starting position, not the claim. "God exists" is the claim, and there is no evidence for it.

But more to the point, as by most religions definitions, "God" cannot be proven, being supernatural and beyond the bounds of science. But claims of what God DOES that relates to science can be shown to be irrelevant.

All I am saying here is that the OP cannot prove God (or any other deity) does not exist. The tone of his premise is that it has been proven that a deity does not exist, and this is not true. He acts as though those who do not believe that there is no deity are denying factual proof or scientific evidence, and none exists.
I am not demanding that anyone believe or not believe in God, I am simply saying that until his existence is proven one way or another, no one acts as though there is no way their beliefs on the matter could be wrong.

What you're saying is we should assuming anything is possible until its disproven, which is the ass backwards way of doing it. You assuming you're wrong until you have something to support your claim.

And I don't see the OPs tone saying there is no deities.

And yes, someone who denies evolution is denying factual proof. Because this thread is about how many many many Americans deny evolution.

[Tlaceceyaya]

And unfortunately, this isn't the thread to debate on whether God himself exists, we do have a thread for that.

I’m not trying to debate the existence of God, I’m not even making a point one way or another, all I’m saying is that both sides of the issue are possibly true, and no one can say that their side of the argument has been “proven” correct.

Then how about you learn statistics, or grant the flat earth society equal teaching time for their material in classrooms?

[Merriwhether]

These are the sort of things that make me embarrassed to be American. This is 2013, not 1500. You would think that by now, most people would be able to accept basic science. I feel like if the religious right isn't stopped soon, we could be almost a theocracy in 20 or 30 years. Hopefully, something can change drastically. However, it's an understatement to say that I'm more than a little worried about the future of my country.

Now, there are a lot of things here that would offend many people who believe in God (or other deities). You treat the theory of evolution without a guiding process as "basic science" as if it were proven. Can you, categorically and right now, prove that God (or another force which might guide evolution) does NOT exist? Because if you cannot, then you cannot act as though evolution without a guiding hand is proven fact.

You cannot disprove of a diety's existence, but you can't prove it, either, because any evidence could be countered with a scientific theory.
It's impossible to prove or disprove that a God exists, therefore, agnosticism is the only reasonable viewpoint: That God doesn't exist, but at the same time can't not exist, because both scientific and religious theories are just that, theories.

Although, evolution is proven. We've seen the ability to manipulate ginetics to produce such creatures as the "Liger," or "Tigon." If that and evolution were irrelevant, then they wouldn't have been created because the ginetics of Lions and Tigers would not have enabled the breeding of a middle species.
So, unless we're the only ones that can manipulate genetics to create new things, this occurs naturally among isolated groups of a single species over hundreds or thousands of years to adapt to ecological changes.

[Farnhamia]

No, silly, not the son, the father. I never met the son, if that's who you're claiming to be. I was living in the West at the time, dividing the time between Gallaecia and Italia.

His son? You mean that one chap who got born on Christmas Day, shot his mouth off about everything under the sun, and then came a cropper with a couple of rum coves on top of a hill in Johnny Arab Land?

Same fellow. From what I hear, he dined with thieves and prostitutes and all sorts of disreputable people.

[Great Nepal]

I merely wish that he acknowledge the possibility that God exists if he cannot prove he does not.

Of course there is a possibility of his existence.
There is also possibility that as I am typing this, internal circuits of laptop is being rearranged and as soon as I press "summit", quantum barriers breaks down in my room and I can travel to any dimensions.

Doesn't mean we should take either of those seriously.

[Dyakovo]

But you don't prove a negative. The claim "God doesn't exist" is the starting position, not the claim. "God exists" is the claim, and there is no evidence for it.

But more to the point, as by most religions definitions, "God" cannot be proven, being supernatural and beyond the bounds of science. But claims of what God DOES that relates to science can be shown to be irrelevant.

All I am saying here is that the OP cannot prove God (or any other deity) does not exist. The tone

Not relevant to the discussion.

[Individuality-ness]

And unfortunately, this isn't the thread to debate on whether God himself exists, we do have a thread for that.

I’m not trying to debate the existence of God, I’m not even making a point one way or another, all I’m saying is that both sides of the issue are possibly true, and no one can say that their side of the argument has been “proven” correct.

But for the moment, I have yet to see evidence that there is a creator, let alone evidence that said creator would have a hand in shaping our universe. As such, I deny that said creator exists.

Either way, the scientific theory of evolution via natural selection works without supernatural creators, and any implication that a creator is involved is factually incorrect and not supported by the evidence.

[Enadail]

And unfortunately, this isn't the thread to debate on whether God himself exists, we do have a thread for that.

I’m not trying to debate the existence of God, I’m not even making a point one way or another, all I’m saying is that both sides of the issue are possibly true, and no one can say that their side of the argument has been “proven” correct.

Mostly because science doesn't call for proof, it calls for evidence. And in the question of evolution, which is what this thread is about, not God, both sides are not equally possible. Evolution is one of if not the most well supported theory in science, evidence for God or creation is non-existant. They are not equal.

[Sociobiology]

These are the sort of things that make me embarrassed to be American. This is 2013, not 1500. You would think that by now, most people would be able to accept basic science. I feel like if the religious right isn't stopped soon, we could be almost a theocracy in 20 or 30 years. Hopefully, something can change drastically. However, it's an understatement to say that I'm more than a little worried about the future of my country.

Now, there are a lot of things here that would offend many people who believe in God (or other deities). You treat the theory of evolution without a guiding process as "basic science" as if it were proven.

It is proven, by every scientific guideline. it is as proven as the most well proven thing in science. Evolution does not need guidance, it is completely explained without it, adding it offers no predictive advantage, nor does it have any evidence, therefor guided( aside from human guided of course) evolution CANNOT be treated as true in science.
The only principles in science that are more well proven in science are more well proven only because they were discovered earlier and thus have had more physical time to be tested in.

Can you, categorically and right now, prove that God (or another force which might guide evolution) does NOT exist?

In so much as I can prove rain is not made by faeries, yes I can prove it.

[Mavorpen]

And unfortunately, this isn't the thread to debate on whether God himself exists, we do have a thread for that.

I’m not trying to debate the existence of God, I’m not even making a point one way or another, all I’m saying is that both sides of the issue are possibly true, and no one can say that their side of the argument has been “proven” correct.

Which doesn't matter because the fact that you have no evidence is enough to not take your claims seriously, nor incorporate them in any of our scientific theories that seek to explain observations about the universe.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

His son? You mean that one chap who got born on Christmas Day, shot his mouth off about everything under the sun, and then came a cropper with a couple of rum coves on top of a hill in Johnny Arab Land?

Same fellow. From what I hear, he dined with thieves and prostitutes and all sorts of disreputable people.

That bastard. He always ruins the New Testament story. Frankly I don't know why they put him in.