Question for atheists

[Wiccan_Child]

1) Do most or all atheists believe in evolution?

It's a matter of accepting countless observations of Evolution, rather than belief.
But for the record, I've yet to encounter a single person who rejects Evolution as scientifically defined.

2) How do atheists believe the universe and all life on earth came into being?

Matter and energy originated ex nihilo in a singularity and rapidly expanded ('The Big Bang'), and all subsequent events governed by logic and the physical laws.

 

[Shemjaza]

Since most of the responses appear to agree, could we explore the flip side of this question for a minute?

Can a Christian believe in evolution?

If one believes that Christ is the son of God and died on the cross for our sins, then wouldn't they also have to believe the whole creation and original sin story laid out in Genesis?

I'm pretty sure most of them don't believe that. I don't have exact figures, but I'm pretty sure that YECs are a minority amongst Christians, even in the USA.

 

[ReverendDG]

Since most of the responses appear to agree, could we explore the flip side of this question for a minute?

Can a Christian believe in evolution?

If one believes that Christ is the son of God and died on the cross for our sins, then wouldn't they also have to believe the whole creation and original sin story laid out in Genesis?

I think so, you don't need to believe that god did it how genesis says, i've never read anything by the early fathers or in the bible that says this
all a person needs to do to be saved is believe in jesus and he died to bring us back to god
creationists like to have you believe that in order to be a christian you have to believe in genesis, because of original sin,which they claim jesus came to cleanse us of, but its funny, its not in the bible, wouldn't you think jesus would talk about it if it was so important? all jesus talks about is the sins we commit, jesus considers them actions, not something we are born with
they also like to claim that inorder for you to be a christian you have to accept genesis, or jesus's lineage is invalid, because jesus has to be the messiah too, thus genesis has to be true as the linage leads to adam, which if adam didn't exist means jesus is not the messiah, because david didn't eather
the funny thing is people like to ignore how the texts conflict and lead to someone who isn't even blood related to him, so he can't be the messiah, which doesn't seem to be that important for the most part

it always boggles my mind how people can consider one thing importent one moment and the next ignore it in the next

whether the flood happened or genesis happened is irrelevent to being a christian at the basic level, at least thats what christians tell me, you only need to accept christ as your lord and savior, well why is genesis important then?
if its not then god starting life and letting evolution take its course is workable with christians

but some people have built this mythology that genesis and the flood and the stories are vital to the NT, when its not, prehaps a creationist can explain to me, where jesus talks about original sin and were he says he's here to take that away rather than what i've read, which is that he's here to lead us to god again and to teach us how not to sin

 

[ranmaonehalf]

It's a matter of accepting countless observations of Evolution, rather than belief.
But for the record, I've yet to encounter a single person who rejects Evolution as scientifically defined.


Matter and energy originated ex nihilo in a singularity and rapidly expanded ('The Big Bang'), and all subsequent events governed by logic and the physical laws.

I would disagree with the ex-nihlo bit for atheists. How it came to be is yet unknown.

 

[arunma]

Since most of the responses appear to agree, could we explore the flip side of this question for a minute?

Can a Christian believe in evolution?

If one believes that Christ is the son of God and died on the cross for our sins, then wouldn't they also have to believe the whole creation and original sin story laid out in Genesis?

It is certainly possible for one to reject the literality of the creation account, and believe in original sin. In fact I imagine that it would be easy to believe this, since proponents of allegorical interpretation say that the message of the story is more important than its degree of literal truth. More than anything else, the creation account's message is the doctrine of original sin.

Of course, I believe in the literal truth of the creation account (while also recognizing the scientific validity of evolution). So this discussion is largely academic for me.

 

[ENominiPatri]

all a person needs to do to be saved is believe in jesus and he died to bring us back to god

If religion is about morality then why are there no moral standards for people to be saved? The criteria you mention allow even the worst of the worst to be saved.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I would disagree with the ex-nihlo bit for atheists. How it came to be is yet unknown.

True, I was summarising. My apologies. Indeed, I personally subscribe to the view that our universe is the result of a collision between two rather large m-dimensional 'planes' (qv. String Theory) (akin to two sheets colliding at a point on each surface, and the resulting ripple is our universe, and the epicenter is the Big Bang )

 

[Beastt]

1) Do most or all atheists believe in evolution?

All atheists believe no gods exist. In that the vast majority recognize the diversity of life on Earth, and in that I know of only two explanations for this which are considered plausible, it would seem evolution is the prime choice.

2) How do atheists believe the universe and all life on earth came into being?

Thanks.

Life on Earth? Abiogenesis seems most plausible to me.

The universe? Why would I think it "came" into being? It has always been.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

If religion is about morality then why are there no moral standards for people to be saved? The criteria you mention allow even the worst of the worst to be saved.

That's not a flaw, imho. The worst aspect is the theology condemns good people who are not believers.

 

[ENominiPatri]

That's not a flaw, imho. The worst aspect is the theology condemns good people who are not believers.

Forgot to mention that thank you. It is a flaw still, a loophole for undeservers to slip into heaven.

 

[AirPo]

All atheists believe no gods exist.

No. All atheists lack a belief in any god.

You should be careful, you have a good reputation around here. The last thing we need is someone posting ...

Atheists believe that there is no God! I know becuse Beastt said it so it must be true!!!111

 

[ENominiPatri]

No. All atheists lack a belief in any god.

What do you call someone who believes no gods exist? An anti-theist?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What do you call someone who believes no gods exist? An anti-theist?

evangelical atheist?
prostelyzing atheist?
Dawkins?

 

[TheBellman]

What do you call someone who believes no gods exist? An anti-theist?

An atheist.

An atheist is someone who lacks belief in any gods. Someone who also believes that no gods exist is (obviously) an atheist; they are commonly known as a 'strong' atheist (as opposed to a 'weak' atheist).

In much the same way you can say that a theist is someone who has belief in a god. Subsets of theist are Christian theist, Muslim theist, etc.

An atheist is someone who lacks belief in a god. Subsets of atheist are strong atheist and weak atheist.

 

[RedAndy]

An atheist is someone who lacks belief in any gods. Someone who also believes that no gods exist is (obviously) an atheist; they are commonly known as a 'strong' atheist (as opposed to a 'weak' atheist).

In much the same way you can say that a theist is someone who has belief in a god. Subsets of theist are Christian theist, Muslim theist, etc.

An atheist is someone who lacks belief in a god. Subsets of atheist are strong atheist and weak atheist.

Your model, however, makes no distinction between what is normally called "theism" and deism - the former being the belief in an interventionist entity (such as that found in the Abrahamic religions), the latter being the belief in a non-intervening Creator.

 

[TheBellman]

Your model, however, makes no distinction between what is normally called "theism" and deism - the former being the belief in an interventionist entity (such as that found in the Abrahamic religions), the latter being the belief in a non-intervening Creator.

I am not familiar with that usage of theism. Deism is a subset of theism, to my knowledge. If you are a theist, the deity(ies) in which you believe may be interventionist (as in Christianity or Judaism) or non-interventionist (as in deism).

 

[Skaloop]

Your model, however, makes no distinction between what is normally called "theism" and deism - the former being the belief in an interventionist entity (such as that found in the Abrahamic religions), the latter being the belief in a non-intervening Creator.

I'd suggest that deism is a subset of theism.

 

[ENominiPatri]

An atheist.

I was asking airpo because he said that someone who is an atheist doesn't believe no gods exist, rather, lacks belief in [a] god.

 

[AirPo]

I was asking airpo because he said that someone who is an atheist doesn't believe no gods exist, rather, lacks belief in [a] god.

No I didn't.

 

[ENominiPatri]

No I didn't.

Umm QFT:

Beastt: "All atheists believe no gods exist."
AirPo: "No. All atheists lack a belief in any god."

I was just confused because another definition was brought up by Beastt and I wanted clarification on what you would call someone who fits his classification.