Atheists who accept the theory of Evolution.

[fantome profane]

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

 

[Alceste]

Not related. I approach theistic belief from a psychological, vaguely Jungian frame of reference. My understanding of theistic and other religious beliefs doesn't focus primarily on the content of those beliefs, but on how they are constructed and defended. That the details of this or that mythical creation story are utterly incompatible with what we actually know about deep history is not surprising. In fact, I'd be far more surprised if this was not the case. The truth about the history of the universe is much more bizarre than the human imagination could ever have guessed. I don't fault our ancestors for getting it wrong, although I am sometimes frustrated with my contemporaries for still adhering to incorrect origin stories.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

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

I am not an atheist, yet I accept the theory of evolution. I think the two aren't related per se. You do not have to be an atheist to accept the theory of evolution, and not all atheists accept the theory of evolution either, although a majority of them do. (along with most other freethinking philosophies ex: Agnosticism, Pantheism, Deism, etc.)

 

[LuisDantas]

No true relation.

 

[metis]

No true relation.

Ditto.

 

[Ouroboros]

No relation to me.

I became an atheist before I got myself more educated in evolution. Evolution had nothing to do with my change of belief.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I guess an increased knowledge of the sciences increased my scepticism of the religious narrative I was brought up with, and evolution was certainly an element of that. But there is no dichotomy, broadly speaking, between accepting evolution and religious beliefs.

 

[Nymphs]

I am an atheist.

I accept the theory of evolution because it has more facts, proof and objective evidence behind it than creationism does.

They really aren't connected in my mind as I accepted evolution even before I was an atheist.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I don't call myself an Atheists but I don't really label myself at all. I don't believe in a god, but I don't think it's a complete impossibility.

But I agree with Evolution and I don't think that and the concept of god simply existing have much relation, strictly speaking.

Now the gods of certain specific scriptures is a different story.

 

[Skwim]

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

Never gave it any thought, but I'd say that both are grounded in an objective approach to the evidence, or lack thereof.

 

[Willamena]

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

Not causally.

 

[columbus]

I learned grammar, evolution, trinitarianism, and algebra from the same people.

They also taught me to think.
Tom

 

[Bunyip]

I can understand why evolution is seen as so confronting for some Christians, and why they imagine it to so catastrophically undermine their faith. But evolution does not play any role in my perception that there appears to be no god. Were I a believer and evolution conflicted with my theology, I would assume simply that my interpretation of that theology was in error.

 

[Riverwolf]

They're generally unrelated to me, except that I regard evolution as an aspect of the Horned One. (Pan/Cernnunos/Hern/etc., not Satan).

 

[sun rise]

My belief is "God is who. Evolution is how."

 

[johnhanks]

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

Atheism is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for acceptance of "evolutionism"; evolutionism is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for adopting atheism. Neither is both a necessary and sufficient condition for the other.

 

[Willamena]

...evolutionism is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for adopting atheism.

How do you figure?

 

[johnhanks]

... evolutionism is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for adopting atheism.

How do you figure?

If you're going to profess atheism you need a non-supernatural explanation for human origins (not to mention the rest of biodiversity). In practice, that means accepting evolution. (OK, in principle, other naturalistic explanations of biodiversity are possible; but I don't know of one.)

 

[Willamena]

If you're going to profess atheism you need a non-supernatural explanation for human origins (not to mention the rest of biodiversity). In practice, that means accepting evolution. (OK, in principle, other naturalistic explanations of biodiversity are possible; but I don't know of one.)

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

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

 

[Gjallarhorn]

If you're going to profess atheism you need a non-supernatural explanation for human origins (not to mention the rest of biodiversity). In practice, that means accepting evolution. (OK, in principle, other naturalistic explanations of biodiversity are possible; but I don't know of one.)

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.