It should be pointed out that evolution in no way, shape or form explains the origin and creation of the universe. It has nothing to do with physics, astronomy or cosmology.

Evolution is a biological process where life gradually changes over generations.

Science proves evolution in every way scientific.

Creation is only proved by people pointing their finger in their "Holy Books". In the field of science, the creationist "point of view" or "understanding" is not acceptable, since it has absolutely no evidence. Those who support and propagate it lack the most basic understanding of physics and biology. Most of them have no clue what evolution even is, meanwhile sticking to their own fantasy definitions of scientific terms that their pastors taught them and brainwashing children.

NO, science hasn't, and probably never will prove creation since it is illogical and empty of evidence.

-not following the rules of a god, SINCE YOU DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN ONE-

My whole point was, as I wrote a whole paragraph about it, that atheists have no need of the Talmud, or any other "Holy Rule Book", because not believing in a god concludes not caring about the rule books he's "supposedly" written.

By the way, following the Chinese culture, eating the Chinese cuisine, speaking a Chinese tongue is also what Chinese people do.

What you explained is the rule for EVERY culture and ethnicity in the world.

Being a part of the Russian culture makes you Russian.

Being a part of the Greek culture makes you Greek.

Being a part of the Jewish culture makes you Jewish.

Has nothing to do with atheism.

Isn't most of the Jewish culture based upon the worship of God?

The whole point of being atheist is rejecting the idea of a divine figure. Atheists do not care about what the Talmud says. That's the whole point of being an atheist - not following the rules of a god, since you don't even believe in one!

What a ridiculous claim to state that Muslims cannot be atheists because they don't follow the Talmud. In that sense ALL atheists can't be called such because a good number of them (99.99%) don't give a single crap about what the Talmud has to say.

A MUSLIM ATHEIST is nonsense. The whole point of being a Muslim is believing and worshiping [rather, submitting to] Allah, who is the absolute god of Islam (a monotheistic religion). Therefore, you cannot be an atheist if you are a Muslim.

How hard is it to understand, people?

The term "Jewish" can be used as an ethnicity, as well as a follower of Judaism.

Islam comes from Arabic, which means submission.

A Muslim is someone who has submitted to Islam.

"Muslim" cannot be used as an ethnicity.

Muslim - a follower of the religion of Islam (the religious faith of Muslims including belief in Allah as the sole deity and in Muhammad as his prophet);

Atheist - a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods;

The term "Muslim Atheist" is contradictory itself. There cannot be such thing. Either you are Muslim (theist) or atheist.

It is ridiculous as to say "I am a meat eating vegan".

Either you meant "Arab Atheist" or your statement makes absolutely no sense.

Firstly, I support the Bulgarian side of the argument, since it is a fact that Macedonian history today is artificially written by borrowing famous faces from Greek and Bulgarian history. It is a fact that the Macedonians called themselves Bulgarians until the 20th century before the creation of Yugoslavia.

My problem does not come up from ancient and medieval history until the Ottoman liberation, rather it focuses on more recent history.

The Macedonian Question, as it came up during the national uprisings against the long standing Turks, started popularising between many Bulgarians. The most famous is Krste Petkov Misirkov, who wrote "On the Macedonian Matters" where he clearly states the view that all nations from the region of Macedonia, Including Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs (as he calls them Macedonian Slavs), Albanians, Aromanians etc. should unite into one nation (Macedonian) and one motherland (Macedonia), since uniting the entire region into either Bulgaria, Serbia or Greece would ignite various problems. The idea of a separate Macedonian entity was, and still is, the best choice for the region.