Hmpf. I went into this thread expecting links to some cool shirts. Instead I find people with an opinion. How disappointing and utterly irrelevant.
Well, no need to worry guys, I have the link to the shirts right here!
http://controversy.wearscience.com/

WIN

"The bottom line is if you staunchly believe in evolution than no matter what is presented it will not be seen as valid at any level. There really is little middle ground."
That depends on a person's reasons for the belief. If a person believes because the evidence supports evolution, then chances are that same person will believe in a new, better theory if new evidence supports it. At the moment the evidence supports evolution. Scientists can demonstrate and teach it to anyone who is willing to study it and they will even teach you how to never just accept anything and to always strive for better answers.
If you believe in evolution just because your highschool science teacher told you so, then it might be correct that you are believing it on faith. You'd happen to be correct, but still it's only faith. But once you see how the principles of evolution affect our everyday lives by way of how it is implemented, saying one has to have faith in evolution is like saying one has to have faith in electrons. You can see the result of our understanding of the electron on the very monitor you are reading and you can see the result of our understanding of evolution in something like your flu shot.
"In the end both beliefs (Evolution or Intelligent Design) are a matter of faith since there is no empirical proof for either in regard to how the universe came to be."
Although I hope you understand that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe began. It is an entirely separate field of study and they are in no way related whatsoever. Evolution only has evidence that supports what it explains about the universe. To say evolution doesn't explain the beginning of the universe is like saying the rules of baseball don't tell you how to use a dishwasher.
"but the fact remains there is no proof. If there were this would not be a debate, would it now."
A person's inability to understand something does not make that something false. It simply means they have not been appropriately educated in that something. But if that person does not want to study that something and instead insists on asserting an alternate idea, then there will be debate. The only way to reach the answers that most likely resemble reality is to go over the evidence and see which claim best describes observation.
"Take the classical and utterly ridiculous argument that the human eye is too complex and therefore proves the existance of god."
Better still, the human eye is so poorly 'designed' that you'd almost think that the 'creator' didn't care for us to have decent vision at all. Instead 'he' thought that honour should befall the octopus and the owl.
"it seems to me that atheism is like a stubborn teenager, and indeed it seems to be the trend for 15-year olds here.
I considered myself as atheist five years ago, but I find that I actually have gotten some sort of belief back. Or rather, I believe in the doubt, because it most likely will be an endless discussion, but I don't really like the idea of clinging too much to the atheism thing, because you might lock yourself in, and close your eyes to some aspects of life."
The problem there is that this is almost trying to assign a personality to atheism or equate it to a belief system, or as some falsely say a religion in itself. Atheism is only the rejection of theistic claims. Any worldview an atheist has outside of this basic rejection of theism has nothing to do with Atheism. Atheism isn't meant to be anyone's compass if they're feeling lost, it's not meant to answer life's question, it is only a simple statement to say you don't believe others' claims of god.
I for example don't wear atheism on my sleeve as a badge. I hardly mention it at all. The important issues are theistic claims, whether they are true and whether they are harmful. My lack of belief in theism is actually irrelevant to this end. One can seek answers to so-called spiritual matters and still be atheist.
"This all Boils down to the existance of God, which (admittedly) cannot be Directly proven by scientific means."
But doesn't that mean that something not of science should not be taught in a science classroom, which is really the original point of the thread? Also, theistic claims can be disproven scientifically. Theistic claims are supported by books with various claims of events that have happened and their god's interactions with humans. If the bulk of the best historic literature does not agree with these events or if no evidence can be found via scientific means, then a claim can be reasonably dismissed in the same way we can dismiss any piece of literature.
On top of this certain gods can be disproved philosophically. In the Christian traditions there are things like the 'problem of evil' and several others that can disprove the god out of existence due to their own claims about their deity's attributes.
Okay, I've a couple more pages to get through and comment on since I last visited, and I'll be sure to do that, but I need to get me some pizza before I start babysitting Aliasalpha's sorry butt in some Splinter Cell Conviction co-op.

This is a really interesting thread to read.
I am always curious where people find the faith to believe so deeply that The Bible contains the word and will of God and was not written by individuals who sought power and control. Didn't they pick and choose 2000 odd years ago which prophecies would be included to form the bible and which were bunk?
What i find disturbing is when people who do worship that book preface statements with 'God said this...God said that...' It will take more than a 2000 year old book to make me think i know the mind and will of The Creator and can speak for him/her/them.

The Bible (I omit the word holy er, as it is not holy in any perceivable way) as it exists today was contrived up by the Romans, and was at the time subject to heavy censorship. In short, what would and what would not make it into the bible was handpicked by a very select (and very biased) group of individuals.
We know this because we've since discovered multiple sources that paint the picture in a ... slightly different way. For example, there exists gospels which do not paint Jesus in any divine light. He is simply described as what he was, an ordinary, if prophetic, man. Obviously, such realistic descriptions were not suitable for the shock effect the original bible creators went for, and they were omitted from the bible (and every copy which was found was destroyed, in true religious fashion).
That people, with this knowledge, can continue to believe in that piece of hooey is beyond me. We humans have a perplexing capability to start believing ... whatever. I've heard a reason for this behaviour put in a very nice way.
We were, and still are, potential targets for various carnivores, like lions. Picture this scene. It's back when early humans roamed the earth, and Human #1 is standing in a field along with his good hunting pal, Human #2. Suddenly they hear some commotion in the high grass. Now, this commotion can have several sources:
1. It's just the wind.
2. It's some harmless animal.
3. It's a dangerous predator, poised for the strike.
Human #1 decides it's probably nothing, and stay. Human #2 however is a bit more fearful and legs it. Turns out it's #3, and Human #1 subsequently gets devoured (and has not yet passed on his genes). Human #2 goes on to live a happy and ... fruitful life.
The crucial ability that Human #2 possessed in the above situation is the ability to see a pattern where there might not be a pattern. In most cases, it's #1 or #2. However, in a few cases it's #3, and thus humans with a stronger ability to abstractualize and connect points which may or may not be present are slightly more likely to survive. Over time, as evolution progresses, this effect increases.
What it leads to is a duality of what is both a blessing and a curse; our intellect. The ability to abstractualize such situations would have been (one of) the reasons Man developed a high intellect. However, it comes at a price; we are astoundingly good at seeing patterns and connections where there are none, leading to today's world of conspiracy theorists, creationists, religious nutjobs of all hues, people who believe in DRM, nazis, racists, and of course the select few who try to remain calm in the face of the attempt at gradual retardation of our society by the aforementioned parties.

Hmm now thats an interesting thought. Assume for a moment we have an apocalypse of some sort (nuclear war, plague, new paris hilton cd) and the only written material that survived was a cache of old comics. It'd be interesting to see a society built out of religions based on judge dredd, xmen & batman.
And where the hell are you? I had faith that you'd show up and help but you were nowhere to be seen.
Who do you think you are, yahweh?

[url=http://web.math.hr/~veky/T/T1/historylesson.txt]Or what aliens might think of us.[/url]

In a more geeky way...

Another version, also with questionable morality . . . =)
Two hikers turn to see a huge bear running up the path behind them. Hiker # 1 immediately sits down, pulls off his hiking boots and puts on his Nikes. Hiker # 2 says "What are you crazy, you can't out run a bear". Hiker # 1 says "I know but . . . I don' have to out run the bear . . . I only have to out run you" and tears off up the path.
Edit: More variables but same conclusion.

The issue of the Bible and which is God’s true word is a very much debated subject. I do not think it is possible to really have this discussion with someone without them being willing to accept the truth and doing some very important study. I know what I believe and why. I have studied the issue and would be happy to have this discussion but the back and forth of a forum is probably not the place. Let me know if you would care to dig deeper into this issue. If you are truely seeking to know then I would be more than willing to have this discussion with you via e-mail (loumarion(at)aol(dot)com). As a note – remember Satan is the author of confusion, if there is confusion in an issue (Bible Version – Faith / Works) he is probably close to the center of the discord.

Ok then, That was from someone MUCH more qualified than I. Dont take my word for it... Look up secularism. See what they believe, and dont just use the dictonary/encyclopedia.

Why the heck should it be either 'believe in god and you believe in happiness' or 'don't believe in god and live in despair'? I don't believe God or afterlife exists (and I don't believe in the opposite either) and yet I am very positive and optimistic person, oh how is that even possible?

Ok this quote stuff is messing around with me......
Post 189a:
"The geocentric view is an ideal example, for centuries it was assumed that earth was the centre of the universe which eventually became taught as fact. Then a succession of clever, observant and brave people examined the skies and began charting the passage of the stars, eventually figuring out that it's simply impossible that they rotated around the world. They developed calculations to explain it and discovered that we're the ones that are moving, justifying and defending this evidence against the forces of the status quo who denied it based on a lack of understanding or willful ignorance
As an alternative, barry sees a bear eat dave. Then the bear eats mike, then the bear eats chris, then barry comes to the conclusion that bears are carnivores and runs like crazy"
/Post
Incorrect, If that were true (to use your bear example) then bears would probably be singing Kum-bah-yah before one was observed to eat mike.
Post 189b:
"Exactly, teaching any of that stuff outside of philosophy is counterproductive. Science is about science and nothing else."
well I have found that athiests/pluralists/secularists/ect. tend to be pretty pushy when it comes to their beliefs (not saying you are in this case but a lot of them here are) (ironic, if they really believed in a pluralistic stance)
Post 208:
"Why the heck should it be either 'believe in god and you believe in happiness' or 'don't believe in god and live in despair'? I don't believe God or afterlife exists (and I don't believe in the opposite either) and yet I am very positive and optimistic person, oh how is that even possible?"
It's a philosophical term "philosophy of despair" go look it up
or mabye I should try this if there is no God or no afterlife, what does life amount to? (sorry poorly worded the first time

There have been some pretty defensive posts in this thread, but if you're talking about atheists in general, US culture at least is pretty saturated by organized Christianity, and there's a sort of general hostility towards further secularization (even though secularity protects Christians, too). Hell, politicians in both parties still bank heavily on their Strong Christian Faith to help them win elections. There isn't much room for atheists to be pushy.
People don't like atheists very much, mainly because many people don't actually know what an atheist is. I've suffered a lot of ill-considered judgments from people who think they know better than I do what I believe, and they think I believe some pretty repugnant things. I'm more open on the net, but in the real world, I keep it to myself unless I'm directly asked. I know I'm not the only one.
Most of us non-religious types just want to be left alone, both by the government and by our neighbors, and we're happy to leave everyone else alone as well. I'm secure in my world view - I don't need to challenge yours (though I might find it interesting to discuss).
Moreover, there's a psychological difference to be observed here, as well. While many if not most Christian sects are embedded with the mandate to bring others into the same system of beliefs - which believers generally look upon with the best of intentions, I should add - there's nothing inherent in my world view that compels me to do the same. My neighbor might understandably fret because he thinks I'm going to hell, but I have no reason to care how he spends his Sunday mornings.
As for this one, the answer is easy. Life is just life, and if you ask me, life is actually pretty cool. I'm in no hurry to give it up.

I really don't care who the source was; when it comes to what I believe I'm the most qualified source out there, just as when it comes to what you believe you're the most qualified source out there. The attitude you are taking is why it is often so difficult to have any kind of proper discussion on this issue (or many other issues, for that matter)- instead of actually taking the time to listen to what other people believe you simply grasp hold of a broad label then try to associate a highly specific set of beliefs with it. Don't do that. Seriously, just don't. If you're interested in what individuals believe, then ask them. If you're not then just save everyone a bunch of time and don't get involved in any discussions about beliefs to begin with.
Also, with respect to secularism, it is an incredibly broad label that can refer to a great number of beliefs. Hell, the term itself wasn't even coined until the mid-1800s, while many of the concepts that fall under the label have been expressed in numerous ways since ancient Greece. Additionally, with respect to the "Philosophy of Despair" you keep touching on, that seems to be more associated with existentialism than with than the atheism/theism divide. The full term seems to have been primarily used by Shestov, a fairly minor existentialist philosopher, although a concept of Despair was also a central part of Kierkegaard's philosophy (something to note here is that Kierkegaard was most certainly not an atheist, but a Christian, although also an existentialist). Somewhat similar concepts can also be found in Heidegger's concept of Dread, and Sartre's concept of the Absurd. Of course, there's also numerous more recent folks of little note who have used the term "Philosophy of Despair" to describe various other specific beliefs.
And in these two examples we see the problem with trying to use broad labels to assign specific beliefs to people- those labels, while possessing some general meaning, specifically can mean many different things to many different people. Trying to use these broad labels to ascribe specific beliefs is typically either someone being intellectually lazy, or deliberately trying to deceive.