• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

rocketman

Out there...
Do atheist think that evolution theory proves that there is no God?
I think many atheists do, at least in part. Let's be honest, large numbers of people cite evolution as one reason for not believing in a creator. I've heard it said many times: "There is no creator. We came from monkeys(sic), so there...." and so on. It's one thing to say I don't believe, but it's something else again to offer a reason as proof.

The doyen of evolution-as-a-popular-philosophy summed it up best:

"...although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

-Richard Dawkins; The Blind Watchmaker.


Are there any here who actually believe in creation as magic from God (Allah/Krsna/Osirus/Zeus) or what ever book ye be readin?
Everyone believes in some kind of 'magic', whether it's a created universe or one that (inexplicably) has always been there. Think about it.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
*natural in this post means non-divine.
If I may ask, what does "divine" mean (in this post)?

Psychologically speaking, we do not believe things because they are true but because we have been conditioned to believe them.
Maybe it's just me, but I believe the opposite. We believe in things because they are determined true --we do not believe in a thing if we find it to be false. Once it is determined "false" belief turns to disbelief.
 

Fluffy

A fool
Willamena said:
If I may ask, what does "divine" mean (in this post)?
An act of God.

Willamena said:
Maybe it's just me, but I believe the opposite. We believe in things because they are determined true --we do not believe in a thing if we find it to be false. Once it is determined "false" belief turns to disbelief.
I disagree for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I think that "determined to be true" is too vague. When is something determined to be true? It can't be when you have accepted its truth because then "We believe in things because they are determined true" is the same as saying "We believe in things when we accept their truth" which is trivial. On the other hand, it can't be when a belief is measured against a standard apart from yourself because then there is no guarantee that the standard is actually measuring truth. For example, plenty of people will say that one way of determining something to be true is if it can be found in scripture. Other people say that its whatever the pixie on their shoulder tells them. More still will tell you that science or reason has the answers. And whilst all these situations are very different, what they all have in common is a claim of a mechanism of truth without a clear explanation of how that mechanism works. So "We believe in things because they are determined true" would mean "We believe in things because we believe them to be true" which, again, is trivial.

Secondly, once we accept that beliefs are as much of an agent as we are (memetics), it becomes apparent that there is only one attribute that matters, survivability, and that only the humans and the beliefs that have that trait are the ones who will dominate. Is truth the same as survivability? No because there are thousands of religions most of which are mutually exclusive (and so clearly can't all be true) and therefore are very survivable without being true. It is not just religion either. Look back to when everyone knew that Newton was right. Look back to the 60s when everyone assumed that no other object than the sun could possibly emit radio waves that would reach the earth.
 
Last edited:

xmakina

New Member
Personally, although agnostic, I don't quite get why this has to be a point of contention.

if you will, surely evolution could be argued as Proof God exists. Look at evolution as a process. It's so incredibly simple and yet can create vast and inspiring complexities. From the amoeba, to the human, to the elephant, to the blue whale. All these came from the most simple of principles. "Do what works." is pretty much evolution. it is the ultimate in engineering. Everything has been stripped away until all that is left is one simple mantra. And that created everything we see in nature.


How that Isn't an argument in some small way for an increibly powerful being is beyond me.
 

crystalonyx

Well-Known Member
If I may ask, what does "divine" mean (in this post)?


Maybe it's just me, but I believe the opposite. We believe in things because they are determined true --we do not believe in a thing if we find it to be false. Once it is determined "false" belief turns to disbelief.


The existence of of the supposed Jesus cannot be detemined historically to be true, yet there are boatloads of people that believe in this mythical man. I think belief and truth are separate entities.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
That's a good question many might wish to discuss.

Why would any theist think that evolution is a tool to discount the idea of God?

I'm not sure. Aren't there plenty of scientist out there who are theists? I'm not sure why certain religious groups feel that people who support evolutionary theories must be out to prove a god does not exist.

Why would not believing in a God as the religions keep trying to describe; have anything to do with evolution?

Again, not sure. I was an atheist before I actually understood what the theory of evolution was all about.

That no man was actually 'created' from dust and "poof" they became a man and then "poof" a rib was ribbed out and then a women was born?

Nope!

Are there any here who actually believe in creation as magic from God (Allah/Krsna/Osirus/Zeus) or what ever book ye be readin?

I don't believe in gods so I guess that would be a....No...
 

Bishadi

Active Member
One problem here is defining exactly what "creation" means. Is it creating something (the universe or multiverse) from nothing, or is it merely creating order out of chaos i.e. "causing" matter to come to a singularity to explode in the big bang. Big differences there.

you created an idea; and to know what an idea is within the mind, physically as in physiologically; then find it was 'light'...

an idea is what mankind can create.

and in the beginning; there was light..

the quesiton I see within that suggests

'it depends on if you believe man or God?'

well mankind 'created' all definitions of God.

every word, every sound, every symbol, that is used to define God was created by people.

God is all of existence; nature does not fib, man does!

Keeping an eye on the truth offers each to know God, personally... not theoretically.

Heck if you all know the name of God, then you have the math to back it up.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
I don't know about all athiests but the ones I know have plenty of other reasons for not believing in God.

As a thiest I have no problem with evolution. I'm rather fond of it and as my career as a scientist develops I plan on devoting more of my time to it's study.

wa:do
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Evolution and the existence of god are not mutually exclusive. However some religious folk think you cannot separate the concept of God from the ridicilous creation stories and other myths attributed to it.
 
Last edited:

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Just on that last sentence of yours, I would like to point out that there are untold numbers of very gifted sound-minded scientific/technical types in this world who believe in some sort of creator based on personal religious experience, and frankly, ranking the weight of their testimony on par with that of a clinically diagnosed schizophrenic is a distortion.

I beg to differ. What we're talking about is an experience that is not shared with anyone else. When they talk about their religious experience, it's always purely subjective. Usually it's a "sense of presence." If you were in the room with them, you would see, hear, smell, feel, absolutely nothing. It's exactly the same as a hallucination. I'm not saying it has no evidentiary value, but in all other areas we have a word for purely subjective experiences that are not shared with anyone else, and it's not "reality."

btw, intelligence is no inoculation against irrationality.
 
Last edited:

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
I beg to differ. What we're talking about is an experience that is not shared with anyone else. When they talk about their religious experience, it's always purely subjective. Usually it's a "sense of presence." If you were in the room with them, you would see, hear, smell, feel, absolutely nothing. It's exactly the same as a hallucination. I'm not saying it has no evidentiary value, but in all other areas we have a word for purely subjective experiences that are not shared with anyone else, and it's not "reality."
Are you saying every single religious person is, on some level, clinically insane?
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Are you saying every single religious person is, on some level, clinically insane?

No. I'm saying that using your personal internal subjective experience of "the Holy Spirit" or whatever is resting your belief on an insubstantial foundation.

It would be more accurate to say that (certain forms of) insanity are an analogy for certain religious experiences and beliefs.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
An act of God.
I can see this clarification going nowhere fast. :) So I'll reply despite it.

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.
I disagree for a couple of reasons. One, the idea that "God" is an explanation (for natural phenomena) in no way hinders or is compromised by a natural explanation provided "God" is a supernatural aspect of that very same nature (as is held by some) for example, the idea that God "lives" or "resides", metaphorically speaking, in every event, every thing. And second, as I understand it naturalism ignores the supernatural aspect; it does nothing to disprove or even disuade it. It doesn't even attempt to do that, as it's happily discounting it.

A non-naturalistic phenomena should properly never be discovered, since if it was it would nave no nature by which to know it.

I disagree for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I think that "determined to be true" is too vague. When is something determined to be true? It can't be when you have accepted its truth because then "We believe in things because they are determined true" is the same as saying "We believe in things when we accept their truth" which is trivial.
Is that true, what you said? Is it true that you think "determined to be true" is too vague? Is it trivial? The point at which we determine a thing to be true is the point at which it is "true to us", and since we're the ones doing the believing, that's the significant point.

On the other hand, it can't be when a belief is measured against a standard apart from yourself because then there is no guarantee that the standard is actually measuring truth. For example, plenty of people will say that one way of determining something to be true is if it can be found in scripture. Other people say that its whatever the pixie on their shoulder tells them. More still will tell you that science or reason has the answers. And whilst all these situations are very different, what they all have in common is a claim of a mechanism of truth without a clear explanation of how that mechanism works. So "We believe in things because they are determined true" would mean "We believe in things because we believe them to be true" which, again, is trivial.
Somehow, I suspect that whatever "standard" apart from oneself that one uses to judge what is true is their standard because it's true to the individual who uses it.

Again with the belief in the trivial. :)

Secondly, once we accept that beliefs are as much of an agent as we are (memetics), it becomes apparent that there is only one attribute that matters, survivability, and that only the humans and the beliefs that have that trait are the ones who will dominate. Is truth the same as survivability? No because there are thousands of religions most of which are mutually exclusive (and so clearly can't all be true) and therefore are very survivable without being true. It is not just religion either. Look back to when everyone knew that Newton was right. Look back to the 60s when everyone assumed that no other object than the sun could possibly emit radio waves that would reach the earth.
Newton was not wrong --his models still work and are still in use. Motion is still being measured relative to the rate of change in position of a body at a particular speed. It doesn't become untrue just because we have more accurate ways of measuring or more information available by which to formulate new equations. The truth of Newton's laws remains truth in its context.

I won't comment on the truth of religions, though --that depends on what a person is holding about the religion to be true.
 

Laughing Man

1337 |-|4(|<3R
Just a little FYI insanity is not a medical term it is a legal one.
ALL HAIL LAUGHING MAN THE KEEPER OF USELESS KNOWLEDGE!!!
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
How do you determine insanity?
It's a broad category and probably not the best terminology. Here I'm talking about conditions in which the person perceives things that the rest of us don't, such as schizophrenic hallucinations and the like.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
I've heard it said many times: "There is no creator. We came from monkeys(sic), so there...." and so on. It's one thing to say I don't believe, but it's something else again to offer a reason as proof.

Then you're hearing it from uninformed atheist then.....I have never heard my atheist friends say we come from monkeys.

That's not the reason we say we don't believe in gods.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
What do you consider to be the strongest pro-God argument?
The idea that we are not "mind" separate from the universe (as in Cartesian dualism), which has in it inherent the understanding that "I am" (one with) the universe. With that idea intact, the world-as-we-know-it is made of the forms by which we know it; whatever form it has apart from what we know (formlessness to us) is "God".
 
Top