Why do some atheists think that evolution disproves a creator?

No, being religious in itself is obviously a form of mental illness. That's beyond dispute.

My education was questioned, so I replied.

All religious people are, by definition, zealots.

I'm sorry if the facts are uncomfortable for you.

 

They sure as hell weren't atheists. Unless you're just going to use the argument that they were really "closet" atheists and didn't know it (which would be like saying the Spanish Inquisition was really atheistic since true Christians "don't kill people").

 

Nope, studies show atheists have a higher rate of mental illness, and psychology shows that believing in myths, even ones which are incorrect isn't a form of mental illness in itself.

This is all psychological science - so you're flat out denying science.

It's still very much in question.

You're stating myths/lies as facts, which makes you a zealot by definition.

 

Thanks, I take that as a complement as being like everyone else would make me a lemming. Strange is relative to the one making the assessment and to that which it is being compared to.

Just because my point eludes you does not mean that I did not make a point. Perspective is an amazing thing that is relative to the individual.

An equally important question would be why would any logical person jump to the conclusion that a power greater than ourself aka God did not create it all? One either has a scientific mind that objectively remains open to all plausible scenarios or a biased mind that is closed to all but what makes sense to them at the time.

You will have to ask one who has done so. But I also argue that it is just as ridiculous to jump to a conclusion that does not consider God as a possible explanation.

Christians hold no monopoly on God. IMO Christianity is a man made religion that likely has little to do with any actual God, if one even exists.

Lots of qualifiers there, do you see yourself as an authority on the subject? Because to me you are just someone on the Internet with an opinion. One of the best minds is physics identifies as an agnostic as he cannot base an argument for or against God upon insufficient evidence. That is the sign of an objective scientist to me.

I would assume all those who do believe have a reason. I argue that the hypothesis that relies upon the fewest assumptions is that a power greater than ourselves created the universe and sparked life. I do not know what is the nature of that power greater than I, but I am not willing to irrefutably argue that it was or was not a God as there is not enough evidence either way to base the claim upon.

A better question would be why do you assume that it was? I was born an atheist thus atheism was my first port of call.

 

That's pretty much a moot point since a specific set of mythology's totally irrelevant to the question of God. I'd say there's no reason to think that if the universe was "sparked" that it was sparked by something magical, or a fairy - just like it'd not make any sense to assume "if alien life exists" that the aliens are little green men.

I'd bet that if alien life exists it won't resemble any of the stereotypical alien (ex. little green men, flying saucer, etc) - the same with a God. Plus I don't think God could have a physical form at all, since God would be something meta-physical to begin with.

 

What measure of intelligence are you using?

 

Nope.

Christianity is a specific religion, making specific claims, and these specific claims are easily demonstrated as inaccurate and false.

Yoda and Spock are specific characters from specific franchises, and can easily be demonstrated as fictional.

A general beliefs in extraterrestrial life is a general claim and make mostly general claims, many of which are unfalsifiable.

 

Then just remove all of the mythology and replace it with a generic form of theistic/deistic philosophy and you can't refute it just by saying "the myths aren't real".

 

That argument fails because you're using naturalistic measures of intelligence to define something un-empirical.

That's why most of the New Atheist arguments like problem of evil, problem of design, etc fail, because they're just the opposite of creationist arguments (ex. trying to use naturalistic evidence to "disprove" a metaphysical thing instead of trying to prove it).

 

Remove all of the theology then you have an unfalsifiable premise for god. The person making the claim to the affirmative still carries the burden of proof, however, and atheist cannot go to a specific holy book and point out all of the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to counter a general theistic/deistic claim. Christianity is easy to dismiss.

 

you are clueless when it comes to Christianity
It burns my ass for an atheist or a non Christian to tell me what my religion is and what one should believe to be considered part of that faith
there is only one requirement to be a Christian and that is to believe Jesus Christ was the son of God and he died on the cross for our sins rose from the dead and all that believes shall go to heaven that is all that is required
I personally believe in evolution I don't take the story of Genius literally evolution just explains how God created animals and man

 

I was a Christian, so we are not going to play the "you can only understand the Bible if you are a Christian" game.

So Genesis explains how god created man and animals, while contradicting itself and reality? How does that work?

 

How intelligent is a designer that crams a snoutful of teeth into a flat-faced skull, so that the alleged pinnacle of it's design can bite the inside of its own mouth while eating?

 

Yes they were non-believers, they both admitted it. As I said Einstein was actually mad that people kept assuming he was religious. Darwin was more careful. If you know anything about history and religion you would know telling the truth about being an atheist was detrimental to your existence in more ways than one. But in their own words like in the letters they both wrote they admit to not being believers. You might suggest that Darwin was a pantheist but that's not a win for your argument.

 

If we cannot argue against the idea of God because we are limited in the way you suggest than we cannot even comprehend God making the very idea of believing in God impossible and his existence useless.

 

Atheists have a point here.

How can you expect a God not to reveal His message to mankind? If He created man, then He obviously knows what is good and bad for man- hence revelation.

 

Youve got nothing....jibberer....

 

That was part of my point. If our level of intelligence which is just short of an all powerful God I assume (sarcasm) allows us to see the non-intelligent design of things like the laryngeal nerve of a Giraffe, how intelligent can this designer be? If we cannot determine that this design and many others are in fact not that intelligent then how can we determine the design to be intelligent?

 

The evolution of that creature is ongoing. I fail how this proves that there in no intelligent design. There is a facinating NOVA documentary on patterns in nature that makes an good argument for intelligent design. I do not see intelligent design as the Christians do, I see it as Mother Nature metaphorically doing her business.

 

I argue no determination can be made either way. As evolution is not static does it really matter the route the laryngeal nerve takes? My argument is not of a perfect God, nor an argument that God exists, my argument is that it is a plausible that an intelligent designer has/had a hand in creation. I leave the agument of a perfect God to the dogmatic, my argument is one of questioning rather than making absolute statements.

Man is intelligent but makes mistakes often, why is it that a God has to be infallible?

 

of course. but I'm aware of a different motivation than either threats or 'positive' coercion, and that is empathy. those who are able to effectively 'walk a mile' in someone else's shoes, are often more motivated and frequently more generous. if you hurt when others hurt, you could elect to call the result (charity) selfishness, and there are some psych 101 elements of self-interest, but it's considerably less selfish than not caring as long as the self okay.

there's also 'tainted' charity, when provision of largesse is conditional. there's a warehouse church not far from me which gives out fresh fruit or vegetables (only ever one variety at a time - whatever's cheap. usually it's oranges, potatoes, or carrots) a couple of mornings per week. loads of locals turn up to get their freebies (and oddly, they're almost always enormously fat), but the deal is you have to listen to a pastor tell you about his favourite sky deity before you can take your bag of oranges. I use this example because it's a good demonstration of how badly it can go. a) they're effectively selling the fruit in exchange for new cult memberships, and b) a few oranges is a poor exchange for what they're actually selling, and c) there are children literally starving to death while these fat westerners pretend to love jesus so they can get some free grub.

On the other hand, I'm an atheist to my bootstraps, but I've been giving $100 a week each, in cash - every week, to two Christian charities (one the Salvation Army, because they do great work without asking for your soul - the other a Jesuit organisation) for the past 5 years. I have no desire whatsoever to seek Christian acquiescence to my atheism in exchange for this money. The single 'condition' was choosing non-evangelising organisations in the first place.

 

Wow sorry to hear about that - maybe NHS will give you free plastic surgery.

 

The best that that argument would touch on anyway is the idea that there's a designer who isn't literally "omnipotent" but is still quite intelligent.

Even if a design had "imperfections" that wouldn't automatically equate to "bad" - just like the Beatles writing a few bad songs wouldn't make them a "terrible band". So viewing it all as "bad" is just a deliberate choice.

---

The "God is unintelligent" argument fails unless you're a nihilist - since by the axioms that we consider individual humans intelligent (ex. we consider Darwin intelligent despite his theory having had a lot of flaws and being revised over time) - God would be highly intelligent if judged by the same axiom. (You could also argue that if any intelligent humans exist at all and were created, then this "proves" that God is intelligent since he created them).

So if "God is unintelligent" then by that same axiom of intelligence, "no one who's ever existed is intelligent" - aka a form of nihilism.

 

If you take that one step further, then you get nihilism:

"We can't argue for or against existence itself since there's no way to "prove" or "disprove" that existence is even real - therefore believing in existence itself is useless"

 

no, you don't. the next step is not nihilism, the next step is not concerning oneself with unanswerable questions (to feel you ought to have answers is a vanity anyway), while getting on with the business of getting as much out of this life as possible. the very opposite of nihilism.