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

[Bishadi]

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".

and since we are One with existence; all inclusive; a part of all that exists

then we are of existence, never separate with God.

Consciousness is that window to experience existence; we can think in preconception and understanding of what we experience.

These perceptions become words, in which many can share the same knowledge of the universal awareness. Literally, mass understanding its experience within existence.

Then with that understanding, mass can create an ever lasting life.

Simply go do something to 'support life' (Good) and live within that contribution.

Basically what all the religions have been suggesting but with no material foundation but in faith to the observed and described phenomenon as being from God (other) rather than being simply of what we have yet to UNDERSTAND.

That 'non-local' affect is simply entangled energy.

ie.... many can read a book from 1400 years ago and be of similar mind based in belief; the knowledge entangles the mass.

 

[Storm]

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.

It's not exactly the same as a hallucination, neurotheology shows it to be entirely distinct.

 

[rocketman]

btw, intelligence is no inoculation against irrationality.

I never cited intelligence per se, rather sound-minded gifted scientific/technical types. If someone who was very well versed in say, neurological effects, and who was adept at filtering out known hallucinogenic triggers still insisted to me that they had encountered some kind of religious experience I would certainly have to take that testimony pretty seriously, far more so than I would an unfortunate schizophrenic person, especially if the latter lacked any understanding of what can cause certain hallucinations.

 

[rocketman]

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

Do you know what '(sic)' means?

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

Not all of you, but it is for many. It certainly goes a long way to helping Richard Dawkins, as I've shown.

And from super-atheist Dr. William Provine, Professor of the history of evolutionary biology and population genetics at Cornell University:

“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear, and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life....”

Ironically his position is largely unscientific of-course, in contrast to the much sharper heads around here at RF, nevertheless I maintain that his logic is common amongst atheists.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ironically his position is largely unscientific of-course, ...

True.

 

[Bishadi]

And from super-atheist Dr. William Provine, Professor of the history of evolutionary biology and population genetics at Cornell University:

“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear, and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life....”

Ironically his position is largely unscientific of-course, in contrast to the much sharper heads around here at RF, nevertheless I maintain that his logic is common amongst atheists.

and what happens when you find that "Darwin' never used the word evolution in the book origins of species...

that there is not isolating form called "GOD" sitting on a thrown; what will you say to that?

the purpose of life; is to continue..... which is you understand evolutionary progressions coupled with procreation then you will find, that this purpose is real and the only thing left is the math to prove it.

but that math shares life abusing entropy.....

and then to comprehend that life is simply 'light upon mass', then find that when a life makes a choice (what consciousness "people do')... that in each choice; we contribute our energy for that choice to impose upon existence

our after-life is living in the choices we make; left upon existence

as death is as simple as sleeping as it is the reoccuring time, that you (your conscious experience) is not 'doing' anything of choice.

death is no difference; the mass is not experiencing choice..... but what was left is still moving forward in time (like a splash on a pond).......


evolution does not prove there is no God and God is all of existence that we live within...... that trinity.... all mass, all energy, all time; One; the total....

nothing magical about it, just the truth in a literal sense.

 

[oldcajun]

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?

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

We all know each person who we ever knew was born from a women, correct? (fell on our heads)

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?

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

"In other words, it's Natural Selection or a Creator. There is no middle ground.
This is why prominent Darwinists like G. G. Simpson and Stephen Jay Gould, who are not secretive about their hostility to religion, cling so vehemently to natural selection.
To do otherwise would be to admit the probability that there is design in nature—and hence a Designer."

G. S. Johnston,
The Genesis Controversy, Crisis, p. 17, May 1989​

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

:yes:

 

[rocketman]

and what happens when you find that "Darwin' never used the word evolution in the book origins of species...

You'll have to take it up with Provine, he's the one who made the linkage.

that there is not isolating form called "GOD" sitting on a thrown; what will you say to that?

Unsubstantiated assertion.

the purpose of life; is to continue..... which is you understand evolutionary progressions coupled with procreation then you will find, that this purpose is real and the only thing left is the math to prove it.

but that math shares life abusing entropy.....

and then to comprehend that life is simply 'light upon mass', then find that when a life makes a choice (what consciousness "people do')... that in each choice; we contribute our energy for that choice to impose upon existence

our after-life is living in the choices we make; left upon existence

as death is as simple as sleeping as it is the reoccuring time, that you (your conscious experience) is not 'doing' anything of choice.

death is no difference; the mass is not experiencing choice..... but what was left is still moving forward in time (like a splash on a pond).......

Ah yes, splashes on a pond, why didn't I think of that???

evolution does not prove there is no God

That's what I said dude. But it's not what Provine and some other leading atheists say.

 

[Bishadi]

In other words, it's Natural Selection or a Creator. There is no middle ground.

not even close

it is honesty that has no middle ground. Meaning to ever maintain a complacent belief without being able to perfect the knowledge and then represent something without having pure fact as the foundation; is baring false witness...

so since we know that a women could never come from the rib of a man, then we need to reassess what it means; i.e..... no woman ever was born or created from a rib, but in all life, in order for continuance to exist, the original life had to give up a portion of itself to make the second cell...

so the words of the bible have meaning but that comprehension is what knowledge assists with which in reality combines the sciences with much of all the religious opinions and conveyances.



the assertion that good common sense will reveal what is true is pretty well substantiated.....

Originally Posted by Father Heathen
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.

We live within existence (God) so by writing and comprehending we are contributing for the understanding of God (nature) to live within his own creations.

 

[Storm]

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.

Upon further reflection, probably the Fine Tuned Universe, but even that has its flaws. I don't really think that any arguments concerning God's existence (for or against) are compelling.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

so the words of the bible have meaning but that comprehension is what knowledge assists with which in reality combines the sciences with much of all the religious opinions and conveyances.

Damn, I wish I had said that. :no:

 

[Sunstone]

"In other words, it's Natural Selection or a Creator. There is no middle ground.

What bunk.

 

[Sunstone]

Damn, I wish I had said that. :no:

I thought it was the prose equivalent of a tourist bus I'm on plunging off a cliff. It will be weeks before I get my screams out of my head.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Do you know what '(sic)' means?

Yea, I know...but I just hate when people throw that out there to actually suggest that is what we think.

Not all of you, but it is for many.

Well as I have said...those that come at you so strong may be ill informed. Some are more militant in than views concerning religion but they in no way speak for all of us.

You and I have had long debates over the nature of Yeshua but If I didn't tell you, you'd think I was a theist. As I engage in a discussion/debate on this forum or anywhere else I treat others as though they actually believe the stuff in their books so I meet them on their level to discuss what they believe. In our discussions I never say that their prophets or deity(s) don't exist or never have. When a theist meets me on my level to discuss my views then you may hear me say some thing like that. As athiest we should respect your lifestyle.....but we reserve the right disagree with you.

It certainly goes a long way to helping Richard Dawkins, as I've shown.

Dawkins is not a spokes person for atheism. His views are his own. We just so happen to agree with a lot of them....:cover:

And from super-atheist Dr. William Provine, Professor of the history of evolutionary biology and population genetics at Cornell University:

“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear, and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind.

So far I don't see that there is any problem with this part of his quote.

There is no life after death.

Since he made this statement while being alive how would he know?

Some of his statements, I wouldn't have said, but again....these are his statements. Again, some atheist are more militant in their views and it is not nor should it be the way (All) atheist judged.

Ironically his position is largely unscientific of-course, in contrast to the much sharper heads around here at RF, nevertheless I maintain that his logic is common amongst atheists.

Some.......but not all of us think or feel this way.

 

[Autodidact]

It's not exactly the same as a hallucination, neurotheology shows it to be entirely distinct.

Tell me more.

 

[Autodidact]

I never cited intelligence per se, rather sound-minded gifted scientific/technical types. If someone who was very well versed in say, neurological effects, and who was adept at filtering out known hallucinogenic triggers still insisted to me that they had encountered some kind of religious experience I would certainly have to take that testimony pretty seriously, far more so than I would an unfortunate schizophrenic person, especially if the latter lacked any understanding of what can cause certain hallucinations.

Is any person on earth "adept at filtering out known hallucinogenic triggers?" If so, has any such person testified to a personal vision of God?

 

[Storm]

Tell me more.

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.

 

[Embrace]

What are the flaws in Richard Dawkin's beliefs?

 

[UnTheist]

That religion is the root of all evil?