Faith is believing something without evidence, there is a ton of evidence for evolution and none for God.

Pascal's wager is proof that religious dogma can cloud even great minds. It assumes that there is only one possible God, and it happens to be the one you believe in. But as there is no evidence of any God, much less a specific one, you could be in just as much trouble as an atheist. If you believe Jesus is Lord but it's Allah, you are going to burn. Mormon's burn if Joseph Smith was wrong. Muslim's burn if Mohammad was wrong. Etc... But what if God hates people who believe stuff without reason? Well then, I'm just fine, but you are going to suffer. Or maybe God's not an egomaniacal douche. Then everybody's fine.

What is the evidence that the universe is intelligent?

Really? By who's definition? Sounds like an assertion without any evidence.

Whoa... I feel like I just attended a lecture by the great American philosopher known as Ted 'Theodore' Logan.

Yes, but I don't understand how your post was moderated "Interesting." It's two assertions that try to define something into existence followed by two leading, but completely irrelevant, questions.

You're kidding right? I used to work for a huge hardware/software company back in the day. My "real job" was to work on the OS, but I was also sent all over the world to "save" $50-150 million dollar sales on multiple occasions. I busted my ass and did some pretty damn good work - if I say so myself. Know what I got? $500, a plaque and a pat on the back for going above and beyond. I also got to keep my job and got a minor promotion. Which is exactly what would happen to the union guy - he'd get a few hundred bucks, and a bump to his pay grade (aka, a promotion.)

I had the same thought. And to make the sample really meaningful, the N drives from each vendor would ideally come from production different lots.

True, but that's mostly because the summaries are total crap.

Yeah, but have you read Slashdot's comments?

What makes you think that scientists have hidden this discrepancy? They haven't, and every anti-AGW promoter has been shouting it from the rooftops (while they ignore or misrepresent all the evidence that supports AGW.)

Who claims to know everything? Certainly no scientist does. If they knew everything they wouldn't have anything to figure out and figuring out "how life, the universe and everything" work is the what science is about.

I have a friend that believes that if he lets go of a lead ball and wishes really hard, he can make it hover. I do not believe that. These are not equivalent positions, he is believing something without evidence, I am not.

By that definition, here are some other religions: American Football, Soccer (the rest of the world Football), Cricket, Baseball, Capitalism (aka The Free Market), Communism, Social Justice, NASCAR, Basketball, World of Warcraft, Cheese making, Software Development, Science, Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll, Photography, Hiking, Fitness, Health, Nutrition, Hiking, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Star Trek, Cosplay, Comics, The Second Amendment (of the US Consitution), Politics, and every other interest, belief, or activity that is very important to a person or group...

In other words, calling atheism a religion by that definition is meaningless and still does not equate atheism to an actual religion.

That knife cuts both ways I wonder which god will speak to him first...

That would be a great analogy if people used their stamp collections to justify homophobia and misogyny. Or if people used their stamp collections to justify wars. Or if people insisted that stamp collecting be taught in school in place of actual science while constantly spreading anti-science propaganda. Or if people were using the tale of the impending stampocalypse to justify ignoring environmental threats. Or if people were constantly insisting that non-stamp collectors are evil and will spend eternity being tortured while promising collectors of the correct stamps will get ever lasting bliss in a land of unicorns and rainbows. Or if stamp collectors ran huge non-profit corporations that meddled in the social policies and laws of states and governments. If stamp collectors did any of those things on a massive scale, that would be a really good analogy. And if stamp collectors did all those things, then it would be an excellent analogy because some of us non-stamp collectors would probably get vocal and tell people where to shove their stupid stamps...

Because the Chromebook is basically a web-browser wrapped in hardware. You wouldn't want to compile code or run VMs on it. That doesn't mean the Chromebook is useless.

The spirit of the proposed law is made clear in Jefferson's letters discussing what will be made into the First Amendment:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

So while the constitution does not use the words, it is clearly the intent of the amendment. Or do you think the Second Amendment only applies to supporting a well regulated militia? Fair is fair. No?

This old canard? Stalin's policies were in support of political power and dogma, not religious ones. He killed everyone that he saw as a threat to the State or his power, including other communists and atheists. The entire canon of atheism is "I don't believe the assertion there is a God." That's it, anything beyond that is not relevant to atheism. But there are strong theological arguments supporting the Inquisition, slavery, and killing homosexuals in the Bible if you want to play that game.

No, anti-theist think religion is a really bad idea and are verbally opposed to it. Anti-theist don't think it's a sin to believe in God, they don't believe in sin. They think that we make up the rules and that taking religious doctrine seriously has real world consequences. Like denying people rights - today the gays, in the past, women, minorities, holders of other religious beliefs. Like spreading lies about the efficacy of condoms and withholding information on safer-sex practices. I won't list all of it, you get the idea. And yes, I know there are plenty of loving, peaceful, accepting religious people. Unfortunately, the major religions' actual canon provide plenty of theologically justifiable ammo to do great harm and say "God demands it!"

But somehow having a strong opinion and trying to get the government out of the business of endorsing a specific religion is "just the same" as trying to force everyone to conform to religious law through supposedly secular institutions.