Re: Atheism
Oh hello kprasad welcome to the discussion 
My first contention with your post is that you have not read my post which you replied to … I am indeed not conflating science and religion … Rather I have been asked to conflate the two by queer … I have indeed made it very clear that it is my scientific conclusion that a), b) is the case in fact and c) is a valid conclusion that I draw from the evidence.
Furthermore it is a fallacy if you hold that ‘belief’ does not require evidence … Yes it does … That evidence is called textual/scriptural reference. That evidence is by authority of transmission and character profiling of the one who is passing on the message. I am also scientific in my approach to most things in life and when it comes to evolution I make no reservations but to be perfectly fair and honest regarding the subject. Evolution fails at the stage of experimentation for a surety. Next you first say that evolution is a fact then you piece up the puzzle, but the contention is on the claim of it being a fact … For something to be a fact - it has to be seen to occur … Observed - otherwise it is only a theory.
For example a scientific community look at a wreckage … As you say … The assumption being made here is the part where you say wreckage … Just because it looks like a wreckage can you establish that it was a wreckage and not anything else? The way to do that is to eliminate the possibility that someone may be playing a prank by scattering the parts of plane across the floor.
So to claim evolution to be fact you need to disprove that creation occurs … This is the sort of science I am looking for from the pro-evolutionists.
Lastly … The question posed by Sam Haris … The question I can think of is this:
“How did life evolve?” … Answer “Darwinian evolution” … This has now been replaced by the religious answer … “Neo-Darwinian evolution” personally I feel “Deity” as the answer is better than than both of these attempts …
The reality of Sam’s ‘fantastic quote’ is that it is a logical fallacy … Because it begs the question … The nature of science is that in its modern form it has split away from religious dogma … Before there was no distinction … So the time order is all wrong … Secondly … Science can be used to support religious ideas … So the question assumes that science always creates a conflict with religious beliefs.
If Sam can provide a question that had a scientific answer before a religious opinion had been formed regarding it then we may continue to the next part … of his challenge … Besides the end result will be a battle of whims … I always see the purest answer as the cause of all things as Deity … There is nothing that is better than that response on many levels.