Atheists who accept the theory of Evolution.

[johnhanks]

Ah, I see. It is "necessary" if one eliminates all but one possibility.

If there are other viable naturalistic explanations of biodiversity, I'm happy to be educated about them...

 

[johnhanks]

Not necessarily. Just because there are no gods doesn't mean the supernatural is off the table. Atheists can un-hypocritically believe in an afterlife, spirits, demons, angels, aliens, fairies, etc.

OK, I was defining atheism more narrowly then you. Perhaps you have met a self-professed atheist who believes in supernatural entities with the power to create species but which are not gods; I confess I never have, nor do I expect to.

 

[Uberpod]

There is an undeniable moderate correlation between atheism and acceptance of evolution as valid.

 

[Willamena]

If there are other viable naturalistic explanations of biodiversity, I'm happy to be educated about them...

Evolution is the scientific explanation of biodiversity. :yes:

I'm still waiting to hear how accepting this is a necessary condition for adopting atheism.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

OK, I was defining atheism more narrowly then you. Perhaps you have met a self-professed atheist who believes in supernatural entities with the power to create species but which are not gods; I confess I never have, nor do I expect to.

I have. They're weird, but I have.

 

[johnhanks]

What of the person who comes to atheism by denial of knowledge claims of god?

I don't see how their route to atheism matters. A person who rejects the existence of gods (and pace Gjallarhorn other equivalently powerful supernatural beings) still needs an answer when asked "So where did humans (and other species) come from?" If you know of a good non-supernatural answer other than the ToE, I'd love to hear it.

On edit: from post 24, I wonder if our wires are crossed. I'm not claiming that accepting evolution is the necessary path to becoming an atheist; simply that it's not feasible to adopt atheism without implicitly accepting that humans and other species arose by natural means - i.e. for all practical purposes by evolution.

 

[Willamena]

I don't see how their route to atheism matters.

You made it matter when you drew a condition of necessity.

 

[Willamena]

I don't see how their route to atheism matters. A person who rejects the existence of gods (and pace Gjallarhorn other equivalently powerful supernatural beings) still needs an answer when asked "So where did humans (and other species) come from?" If you know of a good non-supernatural answer other than the ToE, I'd love to hear it.

On edit: from post 24, I wonder if our wires are crossed. I'm not claiming that accepting evolution is the necessary path to becoming an atheist; simply that it's not feasible to adopt atheism without implicitly accepting that humans and other species arose by natural means - i.e. for all practical purposes by evolution.

Alright.

Although it is feasible...

 

[johnhanks]

... it's not feasible to adopt atheism without implicitly accepting that humans and other species arose by natural means - i.e. for all practical purposes by evolution.

Alright.

Although it is feasible...

I suspect I'm defining atheism more narrowly than you or Gjallarhorn would like - as a complete (Dawkins-like) rejection of the supernatural. If you have rejected any idea of a supernatural explanation for the origin of species, then you need a naturalistic one.

 

[Willamena]

I suspect I'm defining atheism more narrowly than you or Gjallarhorn would like - as a complete (Dawkins-like) rejection of the supernatural. If you have rejected any idea of a supernatural explanation for the origin of species, then you need a naturalistic one.

If you've never been exposed to any learning about the Theory of Evolution, though, it is still possible to reject the supernatural explanation in favour of a naturalistic explanation. It doesn't have to be an alternative scientific theory, it can just be your own common sense opinion about magic, or even, "I don't know."

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm a theist, if one takes the Bible in any literal sense, there is a conflict.

Theism in general is at odds with evolution, as there is 'practicality' issue.

 

[Revoltingest]

I suspect I'm defining atheism more narrowly than you or Gjallarhorn would like - as a complete (Dawkins-like) rejection of the supernatural. If you have rejected any idea of a supernatural explanation for the origin of species, then you need a naturalistic one.

No. I know this because I was an atheist long before I even considered the origin of species.
The supernatural (as was presented) just made no sense to me. Even today we have questions
without answers yet. Meh....it's good to be comfortable with not knowing the answers.
It keeps one from leaping to facile ones.

 

[McBell]

If you're going to profess atheism you need a non-supernatural explanation for human origins (not to mention the rest of biodiversity).

Only if you change the definition of atheism...

Atheism is about the belief in or lack of belief in deities.

 

[Penumbra]

I understood evolution to be true while I was a theist.

 

[LuisDantas]

Evolution is the scientific explanation of biodiversity. :yes:

I'm still waiting to hear how accepting this is a necessary condition for adopting atheism.

It isn't, but the choice is often perceived as being between atheism by way of evolution and theism.

There is an undeniable moderate correlation between atheism and acceptance of evolution as valid.

Only because there is a sizeable segment of theists who make a point of rejecting Evolution for no good reason.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm a theist, if one takes the Bible in any literal sense, there is a conflict.

Theism in general is at odds with evolution, as there is 'practicality' issue.

It is? How and why so?

 

[ArtieE]

I don't see how their route to atheism matters. A person who rejects the existence of gods (and pace Gjallarhorn other equivalently powerful supernatural beings) still needs an answer when asked "So where did humans (and other species) come from?" If you know of a good non-supernatural answer other than the ToE, I'd love to hear it.

Raëlism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gordian Knot]

Are the two ideas related in you mind? If so how?

What a bizarre question. What does one have to do with the other that would suggest to you that there was any sort of connection in the first place?

 

[fantome profane]

What a bizarre question. What does one have to do with the other that would suggest to you that there was any sort of connection in the first place?

I agree that it is bizarre. But it is a common belief among many creationists that there is a strong connection between the two.

 

[viole]

Evolution is the scientific explanation of biodiversity. :yes:

I'm still waiting to hear how accepting this is a necessary condition for adopting atheism.

It isn't a necessary condition.

But it is a sufficient one, in my opinion.

Ciao

- viole