See, this is a good example why I wouldn't consider myself an atheist. Just like the religious folk out there insist they know that god exists atheist insist that there can't be one.
The only thing we know as a fact is that many, if not all, the things people think they know about gods and the bigger questions of philosophy are wrong.
Atheism is, like it or not, a belief. Sure, it's guided by scientific fact and therefore much more acurate than most religions (yup, went there, called atheism a religion) but certain concepts (like the idea of divine creators) haven't been proven wrong so far. Maybe some day we will but the important part is this: we haven't yet. I don't even think we ever will. Somehow many people considering themselves atheist seem to think that since we have proven most religious texts to be false and/or unreliable is a proof of the nonexistence of any god. It is certainly not. We proved the bible to be wrong, that's all.
Personally I don't belief in any gods either. Heck, I even reject the concept of "souls". IMO were just happen to be self-aware machines of biological technology (for a lack of a better word) that are here because of whogivesafuckIdontknow. I am probably best characterised as an apatheist. Asking yourself and arguing about the question of any gods existence or possible life after death or even if we have a soul is pointless. At this point there is no answer that can be scientifically proven in sight. Why even bother asking? If the answer to such pressing questions (cause you have at best only 120 years until you die) is out there, it'll find us on it's own. We'll stumble over it if it's necessary.
I certainly support the fight against religious ignorance that has plagued mankind so far (and won't stop any time soon) but I just can't get past the irony of people who know to trust science (science is nothing you can believe in, just like math you accept it's as true or live as the fool who thinks 2+2=4 is a dirty lie) but still think they know answers to questions science can't answer yet.
I don't believe in a white, old, bearded dude living in the clouds watching me masturbate but I'm also not foolish enough to think I know more than the scientists of the world do. Somehow many atheist seem to be that kind of fool.
Let us just appreciate the fact that Pat Robertson of all people embraces the truth of evolution. Who cares if he thinks God is responsible? I doesn't matter. We can't prove him wrong. What matters is that he is siding with the smart people in this debate.

Pat Robertson has been in denial in his permanent loop of on-air senility that HE'S 6000 years old!

When you defend Phil Robertson, here's what you're defending.

If you leave out the digression about the rings, this was pretty reasonably by Pat Robertson standards. Not entirely accurate, of course, but pretty good for Pat.

As Hitchens said about Robertson's buddy Jerry Falwell the day Falwell died : "If you give him an enema you can bury him in a matchbox."

For those confused about the "wants the video deleted from the Internet" title, they removed it from their show and tried to file copyright claims to force it off Internet sites, but Right Wing Watch managed to get it back on under Fair Use.
http://gawker.com/pat-robertson-has-lost-his-fight-to-keep-gay-aids-ring-1314509544

See? Yoga is demonic, Pat Robertson said so!
Jesus wants you to stay on that couch. Potato chips are good for your soul.

Oh come on now... pour description... When is Pat Robertson NOT at his finest...

Anderson Cooper forgot the classic "Is Mac And Cheese a Black Thing?" http://videosift.com/video/Pat-Robertson-Is-mac-and-cheese-a-black-thing

Pat Robertson is an idiot... so give him more air time?

^ the ^ one ^ up ^ there ^

jebus phreak = Pat Robertson @1:21. did you watch what you posted?

Pat Robertson can almost do 2 of these.

Hey, @shinyblurry, do you even know what Pat Robertson is referencing here?

Some guy added up all the begats in the Bible and worked his way back to Adam and Eve. That is your biblical basis? That is what you would have to "compromise scripture" in order to accept an older age?

Oh dear.

Well, I shall take comfort that Pat Robertson is not rejecting science, and that the Vatican has priests devoted to studying actual science, and let you and your fellow "believers" have your "beliefs."

Oh dear.

You'd think that if shinyblurry was correct that scientists would agree with him. Scientists aren't trying to "prove" anything -- they want an orderly universe just as much as shiny does. What do they gain from insisting on the universe being older? Shiny and his ilk have an agenda -- scientists don't.

They have been known to be blinded by their egos, but that doesn't last that long. (Lots of new discoveries and theories have been poo-poo'd before they become accepted wisdom. Because the data is more important. Ego doesn't win in the long run.)

If a scientist could prove the existence of god, a scientist would.

Plenty of scientists do see the hand of god in the orderliness of the data, the elegance of the math, the clockwork of the mechanisms of the universe. They just don't insist on it for everyone.

PAT ROBERTSON THINKS SHINYBLURRY IS MISGUIDED. See link to vid above.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Even-Pat-Robertson-Denies-the-Earth-is-6-000-Years-Old

Even Pat is turning his back on this nonsense....