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

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Interesting. I'm not familiar with the theory, and doubt that I've ever understood a word that Dr. Hawking has written, which will not stop me from making my ignorant comment.

If God is an unnecessary hypothesis in science, then isn't that the response to the strongest pro-God argument, which is that you need a God to account for the existence of the universe?

You consider the God of the Gaps to be the strongest po-God argument?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by camanintx

I guess it depends on how you define God. Since my general definition includes creator of the universe, then a theory that doesn't allow for creation automatically disproves God.

Your definition does not work generally. In the vast spectrum that is religion, monotheistic creator gods are not the only type of god.

[Apex]

Originally Posted by Storm

You consider the God of the Gaps to be the strongest po-God argument?

So I wasn't the only one who noticed that.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Atheists say that evolution explains biodiversity.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Atheists say that evolution explains biodiversity.

Biologists say that evolution explains biodiversity.

[logician]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Interesting. I'm not familiar with the theory, and doubt that I've ever understood a word that Dr. Hawking has written, which will not stop me from making my ignorant comment.

If God is an unnecessary hypothesis in science, then isn't that the response to the strongest pro-God argument, which is that you need a God to account for the existence of the universe?

Here is the reason I keep saying the onus is on god believers to provide evidence why their god exists, not on the rest of us to say why it doesn't:


"Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.
The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so."
-- Richard Dawkins

[Fluffy]

The theory of evolution makes atheism more of a viable position than it was previously.

If every phenomenon in existence is explained naturally then the only room left for God would be the margin of error in the mass of evidence supporting those explanations. Currently, God has a lot more room than this but clearly every naturalistic discovery makes this room smaller. Naturalism can never disprove God for sure. It can only continue to make atheism appear more likely than theism.

If and when a non-naturalistic phenomenon is discovered, this trend will be completely reversed and atheism will be shown false.

*natural in this post means non-divine.

Originally Posted by logician

Here is the reason I keep saying the onus is on god believers to provide evidence why their god exists, not on the rest of us to say why it doesn't:

That argument is flawed. It fails to account for the mechanism which carries with it impetus. Why should we have to justify the things we claim to be true? Psychologically speaking, we do not believe things because they are true but because we have been conditioned to believe them.

Heya Storm,
What do you consider to be the strongest pro-God argument?

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Heya Storm,
What do you consider to be the strongest pro-God argument?

I don't know, but it sure as hell isn't the God of the Gaps.