Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Review the thread. Crystalonyx and logician have both asserted this. Getting them to support it, now, that's taking some effort.
-
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?
- Thread starter Bishadi
- Start date
Hmm... I remembered their claims as being more nuanced, but looking things over again, it seems you're right.
However, we're still several atheists shy of rocketman's "many atheists", IMO. The predominant view is that evolution does not disprove the existence of God.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
Theres an entire organization of them here at my University. The non-theist society. I thought it would be a fairly neat organization and was going to attend some of their meetings till I started reading their facebook posts. Basically, its just a bunch of angry athiests who think theists are mentally retarded.
Sounds like they should rename their group The Irreligious Society.
I thought we agreed that 'nontheist' covers just about anything ...
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
You know I thought it was just me that thought that. I remeber in some thread long ago saying that....
It's great to see it written once again......
logician
Well-Known Member
The claims were well supported, but in reality, the onus is on god believers to proves their god exists - as made clear by Dawkins, Russell, etc.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Where were they supported at all?
Yerda
Veteran Member
Only if they want to convince the non-god believers.
logician
Well-Known Member
No one is really expecting these proofs to be submitted, so no worry.
There is a difference between saying that we do not need to prove that “God” does not exist (which I agree with) and saying that we have proven that “God” does not exists (which is incorrect). That was the whole point of Russell’s teapot analogy. The point is that we cannot disprove the existence of a celestial teapot in orbit around Mars. The lack of disproof does not make it logical to assume the existence said teapot. Now you and crystalonyx are claiming that you can disprove “God”, essentially shattering the whole teapot analogy.
There is no harm in showing a little intellectual integrity on this issue. The idea of “God” is an unfalsifiable position. That is why the burden of proof is on the believer because some positions cannot reasonably be expected to be disproved.
But when you or crystalonyx claim that the “God” idea is not unfalsifiable (sorry for the double negative) and further claim that you can demonstrate it to be false, you shift the burden of proof to yourselves. Not a very wise thing to do in my opinion.
rocketman
Out there...
Maybe you've heard of Dawkins, whom I quoted earlier, who said that it may have been possible to be a logical atheist before evolution, but not necessarily an intellectually fullfilled one? I like his use of the word 'may'; pity he never backed it up. His reliance on evolution as some kind of intellectual proof for his atheism is pretty obvious. Anyways, I've been trying to show the degrees to which various atheists take evolution to be proof of no-God. Compare all of this to Gould: "Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us." Is he saying that Darwin caused atheism? Of-course not, but the implication that 'Darwin makes it right' is certainly there, and many who read these statements will take them literally. I know because I've met many who do. Provine, Gould and Dawkins are typical of atheist opinion leaders who imply directly or indirectly by varying degrees that evolution rules out God and/or religion. I couldn't imagine them arguing against theism/for atheism for very long without invoking biological change over time. I do sincerely believe that they are representative of the way a lot of atheists think, I've met many like this, but I don't know the exact numbers.
I sincerely believe I did, although I'm happy to be proven wrong. My source was actually another site that is favourable to ID apparently, but that's ok as it was a formal debate with witnesses and Provine has never sought to challenge the transcript to the best of my knowledge, and it is wholly consistent with other things he has said and published. The source included both sides and you can read that part of the debate in context here:
Provine/Johnson Stanford Debate Excerpts. Origins Research 16:1
And this is what he said for those who have just joined us, emphasis mine:
"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. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea."
Wow, all that from evolution.This leading pro-atheist public debater does think that evolution rules out God. It's a theme that runs through much of his work. Here are some more random quotes from him, emphasis mine:
"As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism." - No Free Will (p123)
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them."
http://eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/Archives/1998ProvineAbstract.htm
Last edited:
I believe its well established that god can not be proven and the burden of proof argument should be argued by those claiming god does exist. Analyze this argument... read this quote again... God? Which god? Concepts of god? Note the careful "does not mean god does not exist".. which implies what? That there is proof that god exists?
No one has to disprove anything. Its their belief.
Some feel evolution disproves creation. There is no evidence for creation so there is nothing to disprove. We are still trying to figure out what happened and saying god did it is just a cop out.
Burden of proof arguments are pointless. Many people marry the argument of evolution with theism so its fairly silly to suppose evolution disproves the general concept of god. Maybe very certain gods that could not exist if evolution were true... but not god in general. (And I cant think of any example gods right now that are disproven by evolution hehe)
I personally dont even like the word god... its meaningless and unprovable. God did it, god watches us and god loves you. So does Santa Claus go sell crazy somewhere else. People always want to claim this god is real despite centuries of no proof and a history of repression, violence and hatred.
Last edited:
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
"
Wrongo, there are those in this thread that claimed evolution does not prove there is no god. They are the one that must prove their claim."
Wrongo, there are those in this thread that claimed evolution does not prove there is no god. They are the one that must prove their claim."
Rubbish. Those who assert the existence of a 'proof' should supply it. To demand that others 'prove' a negative is ignorant (if not cowardly) diversion.
Last edited:
Are you actually suggesting that I need to prove to you that I cannot prove something? LOL!:biglaugh:
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
fantôme profane;1229130 said:
And are you and others honestly wanting me to prove a negative, that a god does not exist? That's the whole point here.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
No, we want you to admit that there is no such proof, since we all know it. But you keep insisting you CAN prove it, you just don't want to.