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

[painted wolf]

Sorry, I wasn't. I just thought it was cute.

You didn't disappoint me... rather than speak to the substance of my post, you went for the obvious misspelling.

Anyway, using the words of a few vocal 'spokespersons' to make inferences as to the position of all Atheists makes as much sense as taking the statements of a few vocal televangelists as 'spokespeople' for all Christianity.
It's ludicrous.

wa:do

 

[rocketman]

You didn't disappoint me... rather than speak to the substance of my post, you went for the obvious misspelling.

It reminded me of your signature! I couln't help but point it out, sorry:sorry1:. But your post was fine actually, I didn't argue becasue it's reasonably true, although I'm not sure it shows that Darwin's work resulted in anything less than I said, but I know what you meant.

Anyway, using the words of a few vocal 'spokespersons' to make inferences as to the position of all Atheists makes as much sense as taking the statements of a few vocal televangelists as 'spokespeople' for all Christianity.
It's ludicrous.

Well I'm glad I didn't make that inference. My posts have spoken to the OP, that is to say that, yes, some of them do. As for how many, I'm happy for them to work that out amongst themselves.

 

[painted wolf]

You seem to have been holding up a few shining examples and proclaiming... "See he thinks evolution disproves god!"
Add to this the argument that Atheists were somehow waiting quietly or non-existently for Darwin to arrive on the scene, and its no wonder I thought you were arguing such a thing.

Alfred Russel Wallace also developed the theory of natural selection... and while he isn't as famous as Darwin outside of the scientific set, he firmly believed that evolution/natural selection was the work of God.

wa:do

 

[rocketman]

You seem to have been holding up a few shining examples and proclaiming... "See he thinks evolution disproves god!"

I quoted one who said that, one who implied that and one whose words allow for that. I didn't use an exclamation mark.

Add to this the argument that Atheists were somehow waiting quietly or non-existently for Darwin to arrive on the scene,

I never once made that argument thank you.

and its no wonder I thought you were arguing such a thing.

You seem to be the only one.

 

[logician]

ACtually, the converse is true, because there is no god, the process of evolution is the elegant way that life has changed thru time.

 

[Apex]

ACtually, the converse is true, because there is no god, the process of evolution is the elegant way that life has changed thru time.

Unsupported opinion.

 

[logician]

Unsupported opinion.

LOL, true of all posts on this forum.

 

[Sententia]

obvious misspelling.

I occasionally post from my iphone... it happens...

 

[painted wolf]

I quoted one who said that, one who implied that and one whose words allow for that. I didn't use an exclamation mark.

Its true there wasn't an exclamation mark... that was my addition, but it wasn't meant to be a direct quote.

I never once made that argument thank you.

I felt it implied by this.

I don't disagree, but I'm talking about degrees here. Science and religion have never been so opposed as when Darwin started his work. Before that there was very little in the way of 'culture wars' as we know them. Evolution armed the atheist masses with a popular comeback answer that touched on the very nature of the human animal - whether or not it had anything to say about the existence of God went over most people's heads, as it still often does today.

You seem to be the only one.

Forgive me for expanding your "most" into something apparently more than you intended it to be.

From my perspective in talking with Atheists 'most' of them found other arguments against god well before they looked into evolution. Evolution is just another tool they tossed into their bag of 'evidence'.
'Most' I've talked with started with contradictions in the Bible and Christian theology.

wa:do

 

[rocketman]

I felt it implied by this.

Forgive me for expanding your "most" into something apparently more than you intended it to be.

You're forgiven. That passage of mine you quote was more about the side-discussion that has developed regarding the historical causes and not a direct response to the OP. As you show by quoting me I wasn't saying that all or even most atheists think TOE disproves God.

I have been making two overall points, namely, that yes, some or perhaps even many (who knows how many?) atheists do think TOE disproves God in part or in whole...

... and secondly that (as part of the side-discussion) the rise of evolutionary science saw one of the biggest corresponding rises in atheism (at least in the west - I was basically wondering out loud if atheism and evolution are connected; not that it matters to the OP, which only really requires a yes or a no answer and a citation.)

And while I'm well aware of all of the important people in the history of atheism and gradualism, I mentioned Darwin's work because he is, for better or worse, the modern icon for many atheists: Darwin-fish bumper stickers, Darwin-Day, Dawkins constantly using Darwin to justify atheism, and so on.

But no, even then, I am in no way saying to the OP that all or even most atheists think that TOE disproves God. So yes, you have 'over-expanded' me.

 

[Autodidact]

I would not say that ToE disproves God, but that it effectively (helps to) refute(s) one of the most powerful arguments in favor of the existence of God, the "watchmaker" argument.

 

[Storm]

I don't see how it refutes the Watchmaker argument.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't see how it refutes the Watchmaker argument.

Climbing Mount Improbable does a wonderful job addressing this ...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see how it refutes the Watchmaker argument.

The Watchmaker argument implies that we are so complex and unlikely that we must have been deliberately designed by an intelligent creator. The theory of evolution describes a way by which complex living things can arise from simpler forms in very small, naturally-occurring steps that do not require deliberate actions by an intelligent creator.

I realize that evolution doesn't address abiogenesis, but it takes us from a way of thinking that basically had a void of explanation that stretched from non-life all the way to humans, puppies and very specialized interdependent species, and filled it in except for that initial gap from non-life to very simple forms of life, which, presumably, is almost infinitely more likely to be crossable in a single step than the chasm between non-life and people would be.

 

[Storm]

Climbing Mount Improbable does a wonderful job addressing this ...

Well, since I don't have the book handy, would you summarize?

 

[Storm]

The Watchmaker argument implies that we are so complex and unlikely that we must have been deliberately designed by an intelligent creator. The theory of evolution describes a way by which complex living things can arise from simpler forms in very small, naturally-occurring steps that do not require deliberate actions by an intelligent creator.

I realize that evolution doesn't address abiogenesis, but it takes us from a way of thinking that basically had a void of explanation that stretched from non-life all the way to humans, puppies and very specialized interdependent species, and filled it in except for that initial gap from non-life to very simple forms of life, which, presumably, is almost infinitely more likely to be crossable in a single step than the chasm between non-life and people would be.

It can be taken to imply such, I'll grant you. And I do agree that evolution refutes ID and YEC.

However, my understanding of the Watchmaker argument has always been much broader.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, since I don't have the book handy, would you summarize?

No, I won't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It can be taken to imply such, I'll grant you. And I do agree that evolution refutes ID and YEC.

However, my understanding of the Watchmaker argument has always been much broader.

Then I have a feeling we're talking about different things. What do you consider the Watchmaker argument to be?

 

[Storm]

Then I have a feeling we're talking about different things. What do you consider the Watchmaker argument to be?

I get that feeling too.

I consider the Watchmaker argument to be about the universe, possibly life in general, but not any particular life form. It goes hand-in-hand with the Fine Tuned Universe.

I guess it depends on what you intend the watch to represent. If it's humanity, then I agree that ToE refutes it. If it's the cosmos, otoh, ToE doesn't touch it.

 

[Storm]

No, I won't.

Well, that was helpful.

Do you actually have anything to contribute?