Do atheists think that evolution theory proves that there is no God?

[logician]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

I have read “The God Delusion”, “The End of Faith”, “God is Not Great” and “Breaking the Spell”. And there are no arguments in any of them that prove the statement you have made. At best you can show that Dawkins, Hitchens, and other writers on atheism agree with your position, but that is not evidence. You still have not supported your position.


I might suggest you read Kenneth Miller’s “Finding Darwin'sGod”

You must have been speed reading Dawkins, the entire Chapter 4 in "The GOD Delusion" "Why there almost certainly is no god" uses evolution as the counter to ID etc. to make the assertion that the probability of a creator, intervening god (ID?) is next to zero. Strange how people miss these things.

[Storm]

OK, make the argument.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by logician

You must have been speed reading Dawkins,

No, just the opposite. I read his book very carefully and applied critical analysis to his arguments. Some of his arguments are very good, some not so good. I disagree with some of Dawkins conclusions. I know that is sacrilege to some people, but let’s not make this another thread about Dawkins.

Please understand that I do not believe in an intervening creator deity. I don’t believe in such a thing because there is no evidence for such a thing (that I am aware of). But not because evolution has somehow proved that it is impossible. There is a difference between saying something is not necessary and saying that it is not possible.

I think Storm is being quite reasonable to ask crystalonyx to substantiate his position with more than just “Dawkins said so.” If you want to make the argument, please by all means go ahead and do so. But don't try to tell me it is true just because Dawkins says it is true.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Storm

Well it's been a while, but as I recall, the distinguishing feature is altered functioning in the occipital parietal lobe, specifically the area that regulates your awareness of your body's spatial boundaries and orientation.

If you're interested in the topic, I highly recommend Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief, by Dr.s Newberg and D'Aquili, two pioneers in the field. Obviously, they explain it better than I.

That sounds very interesting, Storm, I'll reserve it at the library. Thanks.

But...nuerotheology?!? Do they really call it that?

[Storm]

Yeah, the name is weird. Not that I can think of a better one....

[crystalonyx]

I think the argument goes more or less as follows:

Evolution is a much more elegant solutiuon than ID, which is a heavy-handed magic-wand solution that most thinking people reject. This removes the need of an interfering god in how we came about, the creator aspect really being superflous to the whole issue. Thus we are left with either no god, or an impersonal non-interfering god which really amounts to the same thing.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

I think the argument goes more or less as follows:

Evolution is a much more elegant solutiuon than ID, which is a heavy-handed magic-wand solution that most thinking people reject.

ID is only one, rather aberrant, minority theory regarding God. It is rejected by theologians as well as science.

This removes the need of an interfering god in how we came about, the creator aspect really being superflous to the whole issue.

That does not mean that such a GOd does not exist, merely that the diversity of life can be explained without one. It can also be explained with one, without contradicting science, as in theistic evolution.

Thus we are left with either no god,

No, we're not.

or an impersonal non-interfering god which really amounts to the same thing.

Drivel.

[crystalonyx]

Originally Posted by Storm

1.ID is only one, rather aberrant, minority theory regarding God. It is rejected by theologians as well as science.


That does not mean that such a GOd does not exist, merely that the diversity of life can be explained without one. It can also be explained with one, without contradicting science, as in theistic evolution.


2.No, we're not.


3.Drivel.

1. Theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms, as theistic implies god's personal interference in the process, which is definitely not the case in evolution.

2. First possibility.

3. ANother possibility.

Best possibility is no god exists, given the current evidence.