Atheists, Why Do You Believe That Christians Cannot Accept Evolution?

[Caliban]

I say I can't believe it because God makes more sense. How would you feel if somebody told you that squirrels are descended from raccoons? (I still can't fathom how we got Chihuahuas from wolves and dogs are ninety-nine percent man-made due to breeding.)

God does not make more sense once you weigh the scientific evidence against the missing evidence for a god. Just because you don't understand the science, does not make the supernatural likely.

 

[eleos1954]

Your answer shows that you don't.

A scientific theory provides an explanatory framework of the body of available facts.

In this case, the Theory of Evolution provides an explanation for the observed heritable changes in biological populations over time (ie evolution).



No. Just, no.

I wonder, have you actually formally studied anything concerning the underpinnings of the ToE?

If not, I can recommend some free text books and (university level) online courses that cover the basics.



The scientific usage of the word theory is different from the colloquial usage of the word theory. If you don't like that word or phrase then talk to them about it.







That's fine.

Do you have a rational, evidentially supported reason for believing this, or is this a theological commitment?

What alternative do you offer?

I have the evidence within my own life .... I have an on-going relationship with the Lord .... something that is beyond a non-believers understanding.

We (christians) are to let people know there is ever lasting life available through Him (Jesus), believing this or not is up to the individual ... those who don't believe it won't receive it.

It is a spiritual commitment.

1 Corinthians 2:14

Berean Study Bible
The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

So ... now ... every unbeliever who reads this and other posts regarding our Lord and savior has been informed .... what one believes is up to the individual .... and yes God is ok with that ... he doesn't violate anyones freewill to believe what they want.

The alternative is eternal life with the Lord ;o)

You and others may not want that ..... so be it.

 

[eleos1954]

It is rude despite your intention.

Facts are not ever changing. Facts are true and remain true. Science continues to make new discoveries and models change based on new discoveries--that does not change the facts. A basic 100 level science class covers this. You misrepresent the scientific method when you propagate this idea.



You are talking to a skeptic; I'm always going to agree that people be skeptical. That's good science and critical thinking.

Atheists, Why Do You Believe That Christians Cannot Accept Evolution?

 

[Caliban]

Atheists, Why Do You Believe That Christians Cannot Accept Evolution?

What does this seemingly random link have to do with our conversation? At least write a summary of what claim this is supposed to support.

 

[Gene2memE]

I have the evidence within my own life .... I have an on-going relationship with the Lord .... something that is beyond a non-believers understanding.

What bearing does your "on-going relationship with the Lord" have on the substance and validity of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?

How does it invalidate the facts of disparate populations of organisms developing through hereditary mechanisms over time?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Are you actually aware of what a theory is in scientific terms?

back at ya.

 

[Occams Barber]

At least we've circled back to the origins of the thread, with blanket statements about what atheists/agnostics believe or do not, or in this case whether they understand faith.

Generally I would put atheists/agnostics in a few, broad "experiential" categories regarding their experience with religion.

1. The "never religious" who grew up without any religion or god beliefs. They likely *don't* understand the faith you speak of but have seen it in others. This is still a fairly small group, but will increase as more children are raised without religion.

2. Those who were formerly fervent believers and for various reasons started to question their faith until they ultimately rejected it. These people understand the kind of faith you and many others on this site speak of because they felt it themselves. A lot of the prominent/vocal atheists fall in this category.

3. Then there are those who had a more modest or subdued faith and fell out of it. They believed but were the kind who were unlikely to tell you about it in line at the grocery store. Their experience of faith may be less intense, but they did believe. Eventually they too lost their faith.

I was in the 3rd category. I believed the teachings of the Church, but outside my obligations, didn't put much consideration into it. So though I've seen a lot of the faith you describe, I haven't personally experienced it.

I'm a Category 1, "never religious".

While i can understand where belief in gods comes from in an academic sense, I have difficulty understanding how the myth persists in a modern educated society although I think that a mix of culture and a deep seated insecurity are in there somewhere. I suspect Christian 'spirituality' is an emotional reaction associated with an intense need for reassurance.

I also find Christian speak (like sermonising) incomprehensible. It seems to often consist of a list of truisms, Bible quotes and in-house formulaic jargon strung together in some random order. It reminds me of a Website which produced essays on philosophy by stringing together philosophical jargon. The result was something which sounded impressive but actually said nothing.

OB

 

[Strathos]

God does not make more sense once you weigh the scientific evidence against the missing evidence for a god. Just because you don't understand the science, does not make the supernatural likely.

One should believe in God because they have faith, not just because God "makes sense", IMO.

 

[Caliban]

I also find Christian speak (like sermonising) incomprehensible. It seems to often consist of a list of truisms, Bible quotes and in-house jargon strung together in some random order. It reminds me of a Website which produced essays on philosophy by stringing together philosophical jargon. The result was something which sounded impressive but actually said nothing.

This is often what Dan Dennette calls deepities; they sound profound, but are in fact uninspiring and sound like the philosophical ramblings of a dilettante.

 

[Caliban]

One should believe in God because they have faith, not just because God "makes sense", IMO.

That is a tautology.

 

[Strathos]

That is a tautology.

I'm saying that if you simply believe in God because it's the most logical option to you, that's fine, but it kind of misses the point of why you should believe in Him.

 

[Caliban]

I'm saying that if you simply believe in God because it's the most logical option to you, that's fine, but it kind of misses the point of why you should believe in Him.

I know what you are saying, but it is a tautology. It doesn't work.

 

[April_Rose]

One should believe in God because they have faith, not just because God "makes sense", IMO.

True, I completely agree with you, but doesn't it also make more sense than being descended from monkeys?

 

[Occams Barber]

I'm saying that if you simply believe in God because it's the most logical option to you, that's fine, but it kind of misses the point of why you should believe in Him.

I find your statement honestly confusing.

Apart from seeing belief in God as a rational thing to do based on reasonable evidence, what other reason could I possibly have? Wanting to believe is not, in itself, a valid reason to believe.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

True, I completely agree with you, but doesn't it also make more sense than being descended from monkeys?

Saying humans are descended from monkeys is the same as saying you are descended from your cousin. Primates, including monkeys and humans, are descended from common ancestors who lived several million years ago. Think of monkeys as (very) distant cousins and your common ancestors as the great, great, great, great .... grandfathers and grandmothers you share with them.

OB

 

[April_Rose]

Wanting to believe is not, in itself, a valid reason to believe.

OB

Why not?

 

[April_Rose]

Think of monkeys as (very) distant cousins and your common ancestors as the great, great, great, great .... grandfathers and grandmothers you share with them.

OB

Umm,.. no. I'd rather not.

 

[Occams Barber]

Why not?

Because you can't make something factually true by simply wishing it were true. God either exists or He doesn't. Wanting to believe will have no impact on His existence (or not).

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Umm,.. no. I'd rather not.

I don't understand why you find this uncomfortable. There's plenty of evidence showing that primates descended from a common ancestor. There are loads of Christian scientists, ordinary Christians and Christian denominations which have no problem with this.

OB

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Because you can't make something factually true by simply wishing it were true. God either exists or He doesn't. Wanting to believe will have no impact on His existence (or not).

OB

I'm with @Rose2020 and @Strathos on this one. Wanting something does not mean it has to be true. I can want God to exist, I can want to believe in God - it makes no difference if God exists or not. If it gives me comfort, is that not a good enough reason?