Why do some atheists think that evolution disproves a creator?

That wasn't actually "religion" at the time it was invented - in that day and age it was the closest to "science" that ancient people had, since they had limited method of observation.

It only became "religion" in the dogmatic sense because some people insisted on literal interpretations.

Most of those scientists were religious, not atheists.

Atheism can't take credit for science simply because science is secular - anymore than "atheism" can take the blame for school shootings, since "scientific technology" led to the development of the firearms used in those shootings.

Religion: Yeah that's what we meant, whatever science discovers God did it which is why you can't use it as an argument against God.[/QUOTE]
Except there's no "religious"

Other than Marquis De Sade's writings, and the New Atheist books like the God Delusion, I can't think of much if anything that atheism can take credit for contributing too (and I'm not even counting Stalinist regimes either) - science in the West pretty much belongs to God.

 

or maybe you haven't spent any time studying higher social mammals. wolf packs are a good start.

 

Suggests = assumption thus not solid ground to make an absolute claim.

 

why would you believe in god/s? if you don't believe in leprechauns and Thor, why would you believe in other supernatural entities long rumoured to exist by many people - why would you make an exception for a particular (lo and behold ... the very god you were raised with and who is favoured by your tribe) god?

 

" Why do some atheists think that evolution disproves a creator? "

it doesn't, it just disproves the story of Genesys

 

surely, you jest! TWO options, Spacepants?

gimme a break. no one alive or dead knows how many squizillion possibilities there are. such vanity .....

 

It is ignorant. Whether or not it is silly I guess depends on the context of their statement.

 

that's great, Spaceduds, but you can't have 'known him' if he doesn't exist.

 

What is the story of 'Genesys'?

 

By 2 options I simply mean was there some type of higher purpose behind existence itself, or did it simply "just exist" for no reason.

IMO anything within the observable universe itself is more or less irrelevant, since no matter how far back you go you can only explain "what is here" versus "why it's here" - and since you can't prove or disprove why "existence exists" itself, then you can make a judgment call.

 

It's never superfluous to insert the caveat that one's personal superstitions are just that - personal. Your god's whacky and terrible rules only apply to you, Spooks. Unless you're saying Hindu rules apply to you? In which case you'd better set up a shrine to Shiva in your living room right now - before it's too late!

 

I think the problem is that some of us do understand. That's why we keep chipping away. We care about our fellows, and hate to see them slaves to primitive and dark superstitions.

 

I guess there's also technically a 3rd option - that nothing really exists at all (aka nihilism) as well.

 

No I have to admit, I have never taken the time to 'study' wolf packs. There aren't many wolf packs where I live. I went to school to study in the health field. I used extremely sophisticated instruments to measure tiny, tiny amounts of chemicals in blood, or to look at blood cells and determine if they are normal, etc. My point is: humans have the ability to conceive of and perform calculations and to think critically. Animals can not. I love wildlife, and would like to nuke the elephant poachers, but they are not capable of performing calculations. The fact that humans can may be evidence of Godly interference in the evolution of mankind.

The Book of Genesis:
" . . . let us go down and make man in our image." Not proselytizing, just saying. . .

 

gods can certainly be an option. the problem is that we will likely never know if they are, and almost certainly will never know WHICH, if there is only one. the idea that we humans not only know which god it is (and it's always - no matter which god it is - the very god one's parents or tribe prefers), but know his name and his likes and dislikes, is a vanity so spectacular that it defies sensible description.

 

Genesis - lol

 

Going just by science there's no reason to "care" about people in general - that's still a faith-based belief - there are people who've used actual science to support ideas such as eugenics or scientific racism

 

is odd that the book used the word "us" and "our" isn't it?

.

 

I'd say "which" isn't really important since for all intents and purposes there's no actual difference, even if you strip away all of the mythology.

Gods and religions just serve identical purposes to any other philosophy or belief:

Monotheism = moral objectivism

Polytheism = moral relativism

(Strong) Atheism = moral nihilism

---

Strip away the mythology and all religions are more or less identical in function to secular beliefs, philosophies, etc

So arguing over which god is "real" isn't any different than arguing for veganism or non-veganism, or anything else...

...but at the same time a person isn't obligated not to argue their position simply because they don't know beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not they could be "wrong" on it - I'd merely say that the onus is on them to know if they're being intellectually honest, or being anti-intellectual and ignoring all facts that contradict their view

 

200 years ago (and even more recently than that), they didn't just deny the science, they flat out demonised it. That was when they still held the power to frighten people into submission. Now that they now longer have that power, and science has taken advantage of the freedom to actual start discovering stuff, they have no choice but to go 'yeah, I was just gonna say that!'

 

Nope Darwin, Einstein, etc were religious.

And there are secular groups which more or less demonize science or evidence or mis-quote it to support their agenda - PETA being one example.

 

you conveniently overlooked the fact that up until very very recently, EVERYONE was religious. or pretended to be. where were all these non-contributing atheists you refer to? oh that's right ... they didn't exist.

whatever you want to attribute to the humans of history, you're going to have to factor in that they were 99.9% certain to have been religious.

meantime, science in the west no more belongs to a random middle eastern tribal deity than it does to druidism, or ancient greek philosophy. actually probably less than that last.

 

Even if it meant 1,000s of people dying from disease PETA would rather this happen than anyone experiment on a lab rat, and no evidence would convince them to change their mind - so this belief is more or less identical to a "religious" belief, though PETA would probably loosely skim for facts to claim their belief is supported by "science" rather than flat-out admit they don't care about science (like some religious fundamentalist groups do).

 

indulging the why is another vanity, Spacechops. why is red? (incidentally, one of my sons once asked me that, aged 4. I was stumped)

 

you really ought to have a closer look at higher mammals (particular social ones, like wolves - there are many good studies on same). also, it's probably worth mentioning that parrots are known to calculate in exactly the same way we do.