Must atheists believe in evolution?

[Shadowfax]

I do not myself, believe that the answer is definitely beyond our comprehension either. Neither do I believe that the answer is as simple as evolution or creation.

The key lies in my opinion in reaching the level where people are aware enough to comprehend what caused the origin of life.
Right now you can see that most people are a lot more conscious about life than they were a few centuries ago. So it's most likely that people will keep following that path; that people will be more aware about life in a few centuries than they are now.
But even right now you see differences between people; some people are more aware than others. The most important factor here is having an open mind. Be open to new ideas, to other opinions. think more about causes, ie. WHY is something happening? why happened it one way, and not another?
Try to think differently, try to look at things from a different angle, from another perspective.

If we only try hard enough, it will give us more insight in reasons, instead of just looking at the effects.
That kind of thinking will eventually lead to more open minded thinking, making people more aware, and more conscious of things.

And at a certain point people will reach a certain level of awareness, and they will realise WHY things are happening, or WHY things have happened. And that will eventually lead to more possible answers to the fundemental questions that we are asking right now.
So basically no questions should be beyond our comprehension, if only we are able to push ourselves to a higher level of awareness.

 

[outside looking in]

First, you must define "Evolution" to answer that question RD.

Assume for the moment that you are talking about the specifid type of Evolution that Darwin described: descent with modification by inherited mutations.

In that case, no, an atheist isn't compelled to believe in it simply because it is the only alternative to Creationism. There are other forms of evolution, but they just aren't supported by evidence. For instance, Larmarkianism is a type of evolution in which an organism can pass on acquired charactistics to its offspring. For example, on some planets, organisms might have a genetic structure that actively adapts itself to match the physical condition of the organism. Such as, if an organism somehow manages to lose a leg, then it's genetic structure would represent that physical change and its offspring would be a leg short of other similar organisms.

However, there are serious logical problems with such an explanation of evolution, not the least of which is how changes towards progress occur. You inevitably have to conjure up mutations, which places you back at Darwinism.

I suppose, however, that there are other forms of evolution in which species can differentiate themselves without passing down mutations to offpsring. We just haven't thought of them yet, and for a good reason - we have no evidence to suggest that any form other than Darwinian evolution happened on this planet.


Now, if you're talking about evolution in general, then the answer becomes a bit more difficult. It would seem, on the surface, that you have to choose between evolution of some sort that produced life from non-life, or Creationism of some sort. As unclehobart pointed out though, we could simply be the dream of a timeless being, who had no beginning and will have no end. This would seem to be much closer to Creationism than Evolution, however.


Also, while we're discussing along these lines, I think it's important to point out that an Atheist doesn't necessarily reject the possibility of God or of Creation, but simply acknowledges that there is no compelling evidence to believe in either. There is compelling evidence to believe in alternative explanations, so that is what they choose to believe.

 

[Ardsgaine]

I did not say believe. I said consider. Do not imply that I wanted someone to believe anything. I am the last person in the entire world who would do that.

My bad. In that case, why should I consider that something is beyond human comprehension unless you've proven that it is? And if you're capable of proving that it is, then it's not.

What I said makes logical sense.

What's logical about considering something to be beyond human comprehension? That's just giving up.

I would never let my mind settle on one or the other.

Dogmatic uncertainty.

 

[Ardsgaine]

As unclehobart pointed out though, we could simply be the dream of a timeless being, who had no beginning and will have no end. This would seem to be much closer to Creationism than Evolution, however.

I don't know whether someone who believed in that could be rightly called an atheist. He certainly believes in a "creator" whether he worships it or not. It's possible that an atheist could believe that humans create reality, a la Kant or Schopenhauer. He might even believe that he is the only person who exists, and that he creates reality. I think in that case he would still be an atheist.

Also, while we're discussing along these lines, I think it's important to point out that an Atheist doesn't necessarily reject the possibility of God or of Creation, but simply acknowledges that there is no compelling evidence to believe in either. There is compelling evidence to believe in alternative explanations, so that is what they choose to believe.

It's really difficult to talk about what atheists believe, because there's only one common belief entailed by the term: the belief that there isn't a god.

I do reject the possiblity of the Judeo/Christian/Muslim god, because, as he is defined, he involves numerous contradictions. I don't know of any definition of God that doesn't involve contradictions, and if someone came up with a description of a god who was consistent with natural law, I would have to question whether such a creature could really be considered a god. A god who is bounded by natural law isn't much of a god, as I understand the term.

 

[Scanty]

My bad. In that case, why should I consider that something is beyond human comprehension unless you've proven that it is?

Why not? Why don't you want to be open to suggestion? - no one's asking you to believe in something that isn't proven. I'm not asking you to give any precious time to the thought. Just acknowledge the possibility.

What's logical about considering something to be beyond human comprehension?

The logical part of my argument was in reference to what RD was saying. Not about human comprehension.

Dogmatic uncertainty.

That's just giving up.

This is the type of attitude that frustrates me so much about people today. Why is being uncertain and keeping an open mind considered to be less valid than choosing a specific view point? What exactly, is wrong with considering that maybe you cannot understand all of the answers or reasons behind the things you see in the world? That is not giving up. At no point would I dream of letting people 'give up' as you put it. I didn't say, "let's all just not discuss things, because there's no point - we couldn't understand the answers anyway." Because it's through things like discussion that people become more aware in the first place.
Just because a person can accept that they may not understand everything there is to understand in the universe, it doesn't mean that they just float through life. I may not form conclusions, and I may not hold beliefs but it only makes me more open to possibilities I might not have considered otherwise.

Of course I am uncertain. I wouldn't have it any other way. Dogmatic? I find that quite funny. Seeing as not having any specific beliefs would mean that I wouldn't be arrogantly steadfast on any type of viewpoint.

 

[outside looking in]

He might even believe that he is the only person who exists, and that he creates reality. I think in that case he would still be an atheist.

He would also be a solopsist, and I doubt that anyone has ever truly been of that belief.

I do reject the possiblity of the Judeo/Christian/Muslim god, because, as he is defined, he involves numerous contradictions.

Yes, but an athiest doesn't necessarily have to reject the possibility of a God, or more powerful being, or something of that sort. A specific description of God, such as the Christian God, yes, because as you said it isn't logical. It doesn't follow though that all possible descriptions of a God-type entity are illogical. There just isn't any evidence of such a being, therefore athiests have no compelling reason to believe one might exist.

IMO, an agnostic believes there is a God, just that there is no evidence, while an athiese believes there is no God because there is no evidence, but doesn't reject the idea that one could exist if there was evidence. Subtle point, but that is my opinion.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Just acknowledge the possibility.

Show me that it is a possibility.

This is the type of attitude that frustrates me so much about people today. Why is being uncertain and keeping an open mind considered to be less valid than choosing a specific view point?

Being uncertain when you have good reason to be uncertain is fine. It's being uncertain as a policy, regardless of how much evidence is offered to support a conclusion one way or another, that is a problem. That's the type of attitude that frustrates me so much about people today.

What exactly, is wrong with considering that maybe you cannot understand all of the answers or reasons behind the things you see in the world?

There's nothing wrong with me saying I can't understand quantum physics. In that case, I'm just confessing to a limit of my own intellect. It's saying that something is, in principle, beyond the comprehension of humankind that I have a problem with. How would you know that something was beyond human comprehension. Why would you suppose that, because you hadn't figured it out yet, no one ever would?

I may not form conclusions, and I may not hold beliefs but it only makes me more open to possibilities I might not have considered otherwise.

No, in truth, you're not open to possibilities, precisely because you believe that you should keep an open mind. That means you will never settle on any particular belief, meaning that you are actually closed-minded towards all beliefs. None of them can be the truth, because all of them have to be "possible".

Of course I am uncertain. I wouldn't have it any other way. Dogmatic? I find that quite funny. Seeing as not having any specific beliefs would mean that I wouldn't be arrogantly steadfast on any type of viewpoint.

Except the viewpoint that one must be open to all viewpoints. Anyone who decides that one viewpoint is in fact true, is doing something wrong, according to you.

 

[Ardsgaine]

He would also be a solopsist, and I doubt that anyone has ever truly been of that belief.

As Schopenhauer said, it's a position more in need of a cure than a refutation.

Yes, but an athiest doesn't necessarily have to reject the possibility of a God, or more powerful being, or something of that sort.

No, not necessarily. I was just saying that I do.

It doesn't follow though that all possible descriptions of a God-type entity are illogical.

You're expressing a particular philosophical understanding of the term "possible" that I don't agree with. (Not that I want to pursue that discussion, just pointing out why I'm differing from you on this.)

IMO, an agnostic believes there is a God, just that there is no evidence,

Taken literally, agnostic means "no knowledge," so I would say that an agnostic is someone who says he has no knowledge of whether God exists or not. When I was an agnostic, that's all I would have said: maybe he exists, maybe he doesn't. I don't know.

while an athiese believes there is no God because there is no evidence, but doesn't reject the idea that one could exist if there was evidence. Subtle point, but that is my opinion.

It is a subtle point, and while an atheist might take that position, it's not possible to say that all atheists take that position. The only thing that can be said about all atheists is that they don't believe in god. An atheist could hold that position as a mindless prejudice, irregardless of evidence, logic or reason. It is possible for an atheist to be less rational than a theist. Take Karl Marx and Thomas Jefferson, for example. Though he believed in the existence of a God, Jefferson was far more rational than Marx, far more reliant on reason as his means of knowledge.

 

[outside looking in]

Yes, I suppose just as the definitions for "proof" and "faith" can vary depending on context, opinion, and a host of other things, so can "athiest" and "possible." And I agree, a discussion of what "possible" means is a bit deeper than I care to go as well at this point.

I'll agree with you that not all athiests take the view that I defined. I thought you were suggesting that they couldn't, that's all. The lines between agnostic and athiest, and what each person believes and what category he places himself, is probably less than clear.

 

[RD_151]

I'm not sure exactly what Scanty meant when it said maybe we can't comprehend the true nature of things, but I will explain how I interpreted it. I thought he meant that at THIS point we can't comprehend it. Just as a member of some 'primative,' tribe say thousands of years ago, or even today for that matter couldn't comprehend quantum physics, or some equally challenging problem. Indeed, they COULD understand it, given that they had some concepts, and some language to describe it clearly to them. However, my thought is that we are lacking concepts, and language to solve many complex problems that SEEM to be beyond human comprehension. Maybe the limitation to our understanding is not our own intelligence, but rather the framework we use to develop our theories and explainations. Maybe this is still a excuse, and an easy out, but clearly there is some merit in this line of reasoning. If a 'primative' lacks the knowledge of most of what we 'know' today, he can hardly try to explain the same ideas and concepts as us in a 'reasonable' and 'rational' manner, at least relative to our rationality. However, for him or her, it may be completely rational or reasonable. In time, we may find that there are similar limitations in our concept of the world around us, and the concepts, ideas, and language we NEED to think about these things. I don't think it was meant that it will ALWAYS be beyond our comprehension, but only for the time being it MAY be.

Clearly, much of what Outside looking in and I differd on in the evolution thread was purely a semantic disagreement. In general, we are in agreement, its just that we consider the definition to be different, we have a different concept (based on our definiton of the words), even if we both share the same reasoning. Take the 'faith' 'proof' and 'atheist' as examples. I think we agree on the use, and under NORMAL conditions, whatever those may be, we would choose to view these words with exactly the same definitions. However, when 'faith' is used as something 'negative' as like when it is refered to religious belief, people take offense at being used to compare it to science. You have 'faith' in your methods, your techniques etc etc, and if someone would say this in any other context it wouldn't be a problem. There would be no discusion of the definition of the word faith. Faith is synonymous with, confidence, reliance, and conviction. Well, these all apply in both cases, to religion and scientific methods. Ok, maybe if you consult webster you can argue that its not EXACTLY the same. At the same time, the world 'proof' is synonymous with evidence, verifacation, and confirmation. Clearly we are only getting into sematic arguments. I will be the first to admit that. I did this in the evolution thread, and honestly, it was probably an invalid approach. I think we are confusing the matter with sematic arguements generally, or not conveying or meanings as accurately as we intend. Maybe our limitations are indeed language, at least with the respect to truly understanding something.

 

[Aunty Em]

LL,

Nah, I don't consider myself to be an athiest, far from it really. I'm not a religious person, not at all, but I'm not an atheist either. I guess we aren't so different in that.

I know, from my posts, I always sound atheist. That I'm not gonna argue religous values with people, after all, I'm not religious. Logic and reasoning are more fun, even if they make me sound like an atheist, or a communist, or whatever...

I'm sure its an easy mistake to make from my posts. I would assume that I was too

I consider myself agnostic although I may also sound athiest at times - I do believe in some form of higher power, just not that spouted by organised religions. I did take a look at Humanist beliefs - based on rational thinking, but they're not really me either.

To me the concept of God in human form is too restrictive, but I do believe something exists just that it is beyond the comprehension of my limited human perceptions at this time.

 

[freako104]

an agnostic can sound atheistic in that they dont know whether or not there is a god. so they question it. lets not confuse the two as i have been seeing on here happening. and lets not forget we all have separate beliefs on evolution,god,religion and all should be respected. understand that not everyone will agree as there are too many theories and all have some flaw or another.

 

[Scanty]

Being uncertain when you have good reason to be uncertain is fine. It's being uncertain as a policy, regardless of how much evidence is offered to support a conclusion one way or another, that is a problem. That's the type of attitude that frustrates me so much about people today.

Again - being uncertain does not mean disregarding any evidence that you may be presented with. You can lean strongly towards a certain viewpoint, and put that viewpoint into practice in your every day life without stamping your foot down and saying that it is DEFINITELY the right viewpoint and not accepting any others. You're assuming too much about what being 'uncertain' entails. I do not disregard any evidence in support of any conclusion. If I did I would walk around like an open, empty shell without any guidance or templates influencing the way I live my life.
As for that being what frustrates you about people - you must not be that frustrated as most people in this world hold some kind of belief or another.

There's nothing wrong with me saying I can't understand quantum physics. In that case, I'm just confessing to a limit of my own intellect. It's saying that something is, in principle, beyond the comprehension of humankind that I have a problem with. How would you know that something was beyond human comprehension.

When did I say that I KNEW it was beyond human comprehension? I DON'T know. How would I know? Do you understand the concept of not picking a side? Not choosing black or white? I merely present it as a possibility. One which doesn't have to be believed in at all.

Why would you suppose that, because you hadn't figured it out yet, no one ever would?

I DON'T SUPPOSE THAT NO ONE WOULD EVER FIGURE IT OUT. So now you're either telling me what I think, or filling out the gaps with your own assumed ideas. Quite the contrary, I have a lot of faith in the progression of human awareness and understanding. And just like we became aware of things we didn't know of before, in the past - the same is most likely to occur in the future.

No, in truth, you're not open to possibilities, precisely because you believe that you should keep an open mind. That means you will never settle on any particular belief, meaning that you are actually closed-minded towards all beliefs. None of them can be the truth, because all of them have to be "possible".

No. You are confused. Having an open mind, does not mean that you cannot absorb all the aspects that there might be to one particular belief, without actually believing it. Which basically means that you can take into account all the things you have learned, without fixating yourself on 'definite' answers you see before you. Quite the opposite to your notion of 'closed-mindedness' which seems to imply you simple turn away at the slightest hint of a belief system and not take in any of it's values. I cannot see how it is better to believe in one thing, closing yourself off to endless possibility all around you. Than to consider everything there is ABOUT a certain perspective, therefore gaining the same amount of insight into it, without limiting yourself to further suggestion.
Of course I am open to possibilities. If I wasn't, then NOTHING would influence me at all - and I'm talking about everything from deep philosophical theory, to the simple comment of a friend.

Except the viewpoint that one must be open to all viewpoints. Anyone who decides that one viewpoint is in fact true, is doing something wrong, according to you.

Really? And how have you come up with this little insight into my psyche? At no point did I say that anyone MUST do anything. This is merely a discussion that presents different people's suggestions and musings, which no one has to adopt if they choose not to.

Wrong.
Anyone who decides that one viewpoint is true, is NOT doing something wrong, according to me. I respect and accept that people have beliefs. You have again, assumed that because I do not hold any myself, I apply my way of thinking to everyone else and judge them by the way I choose to conduct my own thoughts. Please refrain from telling me how I evaluate other people, because - in truth - you know jack all about what I do.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Anyone who decides that one viewpoint is true, is NOT doing something wrong, according to me.

You said that it's an attitude which really frustrates you.

Please refrain from telling me how I evaluate other people, because - in truth - you know jack all about what I do.

I only know what you say.

I am open to any rational argument. I am not open to every baseless assertion that someone throws into a debate without evidence or proof. I will consider a possibility when I'm actually shown that it might be possible. That's all I had to say, and now I've said it.

 

[Scanty]

You said that it's an attitude which really frustrates you.

No I didn't. I said that it is the attitude that it's somehow less valid to be uncertain than certain - that frustrates me. In reference to this quote:

That's just giving up.

I only know what you say.

Then don't take liberties with what I don't say.

I am not open to every baseless assertion that someone throws into a debate without evidence or proof. I will consider a possibility when I'm actually shown that it might be possible. That's all I had to say, and now I've said it.

The amount of attention that I pay to someone's viewpoint will also be influenced by how much they can support their claim. I see no major disagreement here. Although I think our interpretation of the word consider differs a lot.

 

[whoreable]

what if we beleive god evolved form a monkey? does that count?

 

[Gonz]

From now on, when someone starts a serious thread, in the very first section, we need to define our terms. Atheist, agnostic, God, god, monkey, ape, ...this is worse than a friggin UN meeting.

It's gotten awfully deep in here over what should be a relatively simple question. In one form or another, evolution has taken place. It's viewable outside our kitchen windows. Whether man evolved from a primate source or whether he was placed by by a vengeful, loving God is irrelvent to the main question. That thread got destroyed

 

[Aunty Em]

...this is worse than a friggin UN meeting.

Surely NOTHING is worse than that!?

 

[freako104]

gonz i thank you for that post and we should all do that here and try to avoid controversy. try to watch what you say as i will too as you are dealing wiht peoples beliefs and that can hit a nerve.

 

[Shadowfax]

defining the terms is a larg part OF the discussion


it's what makes it interesting...to see how people have different views on the same terms