Does Atheism need evidence?

Atheism in the dictionary is described as “ the theory or belief that God does not exist.”, many atheist in the web are misinformed however. The idea that atheism is the lack of believe in a god or gods and that it is the default position that every person starts from is completely wrong. if this was true then we should be able to see some cultures in the world that are completely atheistic, but there are non. China, Russia, and Cuba have tried to get rid of belief in God but that is not the same thing. Furthermore where was a study done in the UK that supports the idea that people are born believing in God
All of the atheist i know believe that their position doesn't need to be defended because they don't consider their world view a "belief".

Now lets take a look at this for a moment, If a person doesn't have evidence for something, and also doesn't have a belief (for or against) it, then the best you can say is that you are an agnostic. Atheism does not claim this at all, in the contrary
atheism is not lack of belief because there is a lack of evidence . It is the belief that lack of evidence (or perceived lack of evidence) is evidence of absence. in other words, an
atheist has faith that everything in the universe from physics to energy to life (DNA) can be explained away without God therefore they believe there is no God.
This is as close to any kind of evidence that an atheist can produce for their believe, and it doesn't even lead to a believe in no God.

Whenever i have seen an atheist try to answer the question "what evidence is there for the belief that there is no God?" it is always some rant against theism and not actually evidence for atheism. The reason for this is because there is no evidence! It is illogical because infers that information can come from nothing and order comes from disorder out of random change, things that are not scientifically accurate.

However if a theist is asked "what evidence there is for God? ", a Theist can say that the fact that the universe has physical laws and that there is order in the universe and that there is information in DNA, that is evidence that it was arranged by a mind - since there is nothing else we know of that can create information and order. Therefore the hypothesis that there is a God is logical .

there are other people that can better explain this issue than me. for more information please check out
William Lane Graig's site at www.reasonablefaith.org

Haeckel's Fraudulent drawings rediscovered by Evolutionist?

So an evolutionist friend of mine posted on facebook an article/picture of Ernst Haeckel’s drawing of embryos. the Article from sciencedaily.com had Ernst Haeckel’s infamous drawings with the following caption below

“The astonishing similarity in the appearance of embryos from different animal species was observed as far back as the 19th century by scientists such as Karl von Baer, Charles Darwin and Ernst Haeckel. Such observations prompted the hypothesis that the individual development of an organism reflects”

I was Surprised to know that he was not the only person out there in the web that did not know That these drawings are completely inaccurate (to say the least). Also the idea that a embryo (of whatever species) goes though stages of re-enacting it’s evolutionary heritage is right out of the 18 hundredths. Is this what evolutionist are resorting to? posting deceptive drawings from a bygone era where drawings were considered a scientific discovery. Needless to say, when i posted a picture (the one below) comparing Haeckel’s drawings to of an actual photograph of those embryos, the discussion took a completely different turn into his understanding of Christian theology.

I can only speculate the resent interest in Haeckel’s drawings is the fact that evolution has nothing new to report. Feeding on the gullibility of it’s followers is the only refuge evolution has in the face of the facts.

Richard Dawkins and Eugenics

Richard Dawkins, the popular atheist had recently introduced some more of his venomous ideas to an unsuspecting public with the endorsement of eugenics calling it “practical and desirable”. Of Course in his evolutionary atheistic world view that holds humans completely in nature (without a soul or spirit) he can value a human life as equal to that of any living creature such as horses, mosquitos, tuna fish trees ect. Giving this monstrous world view which he operates from it would be only logical to come to the conclusion that the world would benefit from breeding programs like the ones used by the nazi party to create “Super Humans” for specific application.

In a 2006 interview, he expressed some small and timid support fro eugenics by endorses the slightly less shady side of this pseudo-science, that of offering some perceived potential benefit to humanity. By the use of human breeding programs for the purpose of creating humans with mathematical, or musical abilities.

“if you can breed cattle for milk and horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skills, why on earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical,musical, or athletic ability?”

as horrible as it seems to create breeding programs for humans is, in essence creating classes or breeds of people and of-course creating some way to physically separate the two. As horrible as that seems Dawkins is oddly silent about the other darker and inevitable side of eugenics. that of removing the unwanted humans that are not seen as contributing to the advancement of the species or at least the ‘breed’.

When I say that removing the people that are thought of as unwanted is inevitable in eugenics is not only because that is what history has shown us with the Nazi party, but also because in order for the useful ‘superior humans’ to breed superior children the ‘less fit’ MUST be impeded from breeding all together or at least with the ‘useful’ humans in order for the desired genes to develop. Now it should be noted that Dawkins thinks it is child abuse to call a child growing up in a certain faith such as Christianity a Christian, yet he does not see anything wrong with the idea of breeding children with the sole outcome of developing a stronger, smarter, more skilled athlete, musician, or whatever. I wonder what is the means he would use to make sure the child born to especially gifted runners to take up running and not music or painting or whatever that child would want?
Naturally a strong athlete is strong because of training and conditioning not because his/her parents are strong athletes. Dawkins cautiously sidesteps the messy details of his eugenic ideology just to make it seem appealing. in order for the cattle to be bread for milk and horses for speed and dogs for herding we control their environment and behavior. I wonder how this man would like to control these conditions for humans. What is he not disclosing about his ideology in order to get his stronger, faster,smarted, better human?
Is he just testing out the waters to see just how acceptable the idea of eugenics has become more than 60 years after the Nazi party? and if not, if he really would like to see some kind of human breeding program how does he not consider this abuse? after all he thinks even calling a child in a christian family a christian is abuse?