Much as I don't think Dasa's posts really deserve to be responded to, Dasa brings up some common misconceptions
about Atheism, Atheists, and Science...
As well as forcing the English language to do and mean things it was never intended to.
First, Atheism is not inherently a belief system.
Atheism has been defined many different ways, but the most useful, and I think most used by those who would wear the label, Is simple.
If you answer the question 'do you believe in god/god's/insert deity of choice here?' with the answer 'no' then you are an atheist.
Note that you could also be an agnostic, if you answer the question, 'is there a god/god's/ect?' with 'I don't know'.
There is also a thing often called 'strong atheism' where you state that you either believe, or know, god does not exist.
The first of these [two strong atheism positions], may still be compatible with agnosticism, where you say, 'I don't believe god exists,
but I don't know for sure', (my position) or something similar.
Claiming you 'know' god doesn't exist however definitely removes the agnostic label.
Strong atheism, unlike strait/regular/plain atheism does have a burden of proof, as it is a positive belief, rather than a lack of one.
People may have the position of being an atheist for many reasons, some, particularly those from highly non-theistic society's
may never have really thought about it (which isn't particularly rigourus, but is no more or less so than those brought up in
a religion who have never really thought about it. In the case of atheism I suspect it isn't particularly common).
Others, I suspect the majority, would have considered the question [carefully] at some point, and typically, will hold the position because
they aim to only hold positions and beliefs that are 'true', and can be backed up by evidence.
[or at the very least apply this standard to religious positions, not all atheists will reject the supernatural entirely, and you don't
have to to hold this label, but the significant majority, will I suspect, reject the rest of spirituality for the same reasons as they
reject the existence of god]
Thus atheism, in its most intellectually rigourus form, has as its 'platform' simply the desire to justify all beliefs with evidence and
As you can see, Evolution does not feature [and is not required] as even part of atheism's rational basis.
Atheists can, and do, have beliefs. But the label of atheist doesn't tell you what they are.
You can be an atheist, agnostic, rationalist, materialist, liberal, capitalist, secular humanist... for example (for reference, NOT necessarily
my personal belief set).
In that list, the atheist and agnostic are the least informative and mostly redundant labels.
Evolution is a theory of Science. It has nothing to do with religion, or atheism.
As there is no evidence, or experiment that can test for or verify god, and testable prediction that can be made by any hypothesis
that invokes god as an explanation.... God and religion do not feature in science. (other than objects of study for people studying the
workings of humans and human societies)
The fact that science can provide a solid explanation for the existence and diversity of life is a blow for religion, and I am sure has
caused many people to question their faiths (which is why it is hated and singled out by the religious so much) but even if evolution
had not been discovered and we did not have an explanation for how life came about. That still would not mean that the only, or
most reasonable explanation for life and our existence would be god.
God is inherently the least likely and least reasonable explanation for anything.
And it would still require proving, to be justified as a positive belief.
Again, evolution is an aid to those arguing against theism... but it isn't the root basis for atheism, without which it all comes tumbling
As for the rest of Dasa's ramblings...
He makes many statements without any evidence or justification.
Claiming he speaks for an authority.
Religions all have at their root a belief in authority of one kind or another. Be it some holy book (purporting to be the word of god or his prophets),
or the teachings of people high in the churches hierarchy (who are (purport to be) better in tune with the word of god and his teachings).
This is the tyranny of religion, unquestionable authority.
Both science and Atheism are, in part (that is not all they are), rejections of authority and tyranny.
They both require positions and beliefs to be justified with observation, evidence and reason.
Any position held by science that is shown to be wrong is changed or thrown out, this is how science constantly gets better.
If you believe in an unquestionable authority, and that authority is wrong, (like saying the sun goes around the earth) then
you are stuck. You can't progress beyond that mistake because the authority wont let you.
Dasa also makes many, many, straw men, claiming things never said by any scientist, and then poring scorn on them, with no understanding.
This is, as has been said many times, what dishonesty Actually means.
I apologise If I have feed the beast.
But I feel that in this case dasa has been making untrue claims that many others believe, and need correcting.
Note: to save space, where I say 'god' please read as god/god's/insert deity here/ect. I am not singling out monotheism specifically, but simply
saying god saves a lot of typing.
EDIT: edits in italics.