ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS: Have you considered the possibility that a supreme being evolved?
492205
You make a very interesting argument, and you write far better than I have become accustomed to reading around here.\n\nHowever, you are omitting one crucial fact. There is still a dearth of evidence supporting this claim. Design implies a designer. I have yet to see evidence supporting the existence of said celestial draughtsman. For every instance of, "look at how elegant this is," there are thousands of "if this is a matter of design, it was a very poor choice."\n\nYour claim is certainly possible, then again, so is the idea that we are all brains in jars in some laboratory in the 1890's. It is, however, based on the evidence available, so improbable that I can comfortably say that it is not a viable explanation.\n\nThat said, I am very happy to see someone trying to work with new worldviews when it comes to a discussion of creation, rather than trying to conform the known universe to fit the molds cast in the scriptures.
513828
Whoa! Thanks so much for the LOGICAL information against evolution, especially the lie about us being 99 percent identical to chimps. I knew about some of the other forgeries, but thanks. What's disturbing, though, is that some of these things are still promoted by biology teachers in school as fact. For example, the industrial melanism and peppered moth example has still been used in high school biology courses, even AP Biology. Thanks for all the information; it definitely strengthens the idea of a God who wouldn't let this all happen by chance. \nThe only question that remains for the evolutionists, though, is why. Why would they want to support an idea that says we are related to monkeys? Why would they want to downgrade the status of man like this? I simply don't understand it. Though, according to classification, we are primates, we are much greater than that. We are humans. It mystifies me as to why evolutionists can't accept this idea.
1019658
Agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to know wether there is a God.\nSo he would have to be referring to Creation. Since Evolution has nothing to do with creation.
807048
I don't "persist in NOT believing in a higher power".\n\nI came to that belief after many years of committment to, believing in, living and studying Christiainity.\n\nIt was knowledge, not ignorance, that led me to become an atheist.  And it wasn't easy.\n\nThe nature of the world, from cosmology to sub-atomic physics to the structure of the human body was one strand,  the history of the bible and the church another.\nThe world as I see it fits rather better with a framework of NO god than a framework including one.\n\n(Though many details can be made to fit either model.  It's there that the a lot of the confusion and conflict occurs, as each side can point to one "fact" but derive completely different implications from it.)
614004
Do you have any evidence to support this theory or is it just wishful thinking? As an atheist I'm open to hearing about different interpretations of scripture, not buying into it wholesale. What is your support for this marriage and "vegan community life."\n\nAlso, what is your evidence for the "polechange?"
529829
God and evolution are not an antithesis.  God spoke life into existence but he also placed within each creature the ability to adapt and evolve.  \n\nI do not believe there is life out there. However, even if there were it wouldn't change my belief in Christ.  I'd say what a wonderful Creator we have and move on.
58719
Be sure you understand the meaning of the term Atheist.  Atheists generally denouonce the existance of any type of superior diety.  I myself am Agnostic, I am comfortable with the idea that I'm not sure what happened, what will happen, why things are.  I tend to follow the current scientific theories (note the term theory).  Science is continually improving upon itself, realizing that very few things can be proven as fact.  Science often corrects previous assumptions of many things, a few hundred years ago, the world was flat, and the Earth was the center of the universe...tell someone that now and youll get looked at like you didnt make it through Kindergarten.  My opinion on the beginning of time, the "first" human and what not tends to follow the theroy of evolution as it can be demonstrated in everday life, however through out my travels toplaces that i would rather not have gone, I have fouond little evidence for an all powerful and caring god as I watched my friend burn alive while his wife, daughter, and future son were waiting his return home in less than one month.  Sorry.....those are some of my thoughts, I am not a violent man, and I live a very moral life, however, I don't believe in God....but on the same hand, I would be open to believe if I had ever seen any evidence of him/her, I firmly accept the fact that I don't know.
716247
That is called theistic evolution.
508160
Well, it's actually a lot more "great's" than that.  The first single-celled organism has had a *lot* of time to evolve into us.  And that doesn't rule out the existence of God any more than gravity does.\n\nHere's my counter-question:  what sort of evidence would you accept as proof that we evolved from a single-celled organism?\n\nThere's a lot of evidence -- but what would it take to convince you?
801933
Sigh...this is the sort of thing that makes me twitch.  Okay, here goes:\n\nAn atheist believes that there is a logical contradiction inherent in the idea of a/the God.  Because it is otherwise impossible to prove that something doesn't exist (for example, try to prove that there is now or never was any such thing as a unicorn), atheists hold that the idea of God is logically impossible.  Atheism is usually opposed to the traditional omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God of monotheists.  In other words, atheists find it impossible to believe that a being can be all-knowing, all-powerful and all good at the same time.  They usually cite something like the problem of pain.  (If God is all-good and all-powerful, how can He let bad things happen?)\n\nI realize that there are atheists that are complete materialists and reject the idea of anything that can't be perceived through the senses.  However, usual usage of the term "atheist" is one who doesn't believe in the Christian/Muslim/Jewish God.  (Let's be honest:  how often do you see atheists and Hindus duking it out?)\n\nAs for agnostics, there are two kinds:  1) those who think that it is impossible to know if God exists and 2) those who think it is possible, but aren't convinced one way or the other.\n\nHere is an example to clarify.  You're walking down the road, and a big light from the sky suddenly shines on you.  You hear your name and are told to repent.  Would you acknowledge the possibility that you had just witnessed a miracle, or would you immediately assume that you've done one too many acid trips?\n\nThe 2) kind of agnostic would believe that it is possible and that it might even be the proof they were looking for.  The 1) kind of agnostic would lay off the drugs for a while; he doesn't believe that a God, even if He/She/It exists, can interfere in such a way in human affairs.\n\nI realize that this might not be the simple answer you were looking for.\n\nThe quick answer is that atheists say no and that agnostics say maybe.\n\nSome agnostics are convinceable, and some are not.
803709
Why should they be mutually exclusive?  The concept of God is in many religions, not just Judeo-Christian ones.  He/She/It is believed in in Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, by the ancient Hermetics and by Hindus just to name a few.  So, if there is a God, it's certainly possible that He/She/It DID indeed cause evolution to take place.  In fact, there are many Christians, Jews and probably a large number of Muslims who believe that.\n\nBelief in God is separate from the literal belief in a holy book.  First of all, a holy book can be interpretted metaphorically.  I think the concept that the six "days" of creation in Genesis may be longer than days now is a perfectly good one.\n\nAlso, many believe that God is ineffable and mysterious and therefore that no words and no book can accurately express who He/She/It is, but only provide us with metaphors that approach but never really get to that understanding.  If that's true, than it's meaningless to say that some holy book rules out evolution.  Science has proven evolution (the only reason we say "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" is that Darwin explained the fact of evolution by the notion of natural selection and it's only that explanation, not the fact of evolution itself, that scientists ever dispute - and even then they only point out that mutation plays a role AS WELL AS natural selection - but I digress).  So, it seems to me that it makes more sense for anyone who believes in God to believe that God caused evolution to take place.\n\nMoreover, there are other ways to look at God besides purely literal ones.  The mythologist Joseph Cambell believed that all myth is metaphor and saw God as a metaphor for whatever is best for humanity.  One can look at God in terms of gnosis, too, rather than knowledge.  Knowledge is the objective truth of science.  Gnosis is how we experience our universe, which is different from objective truth, because of psychology and also because of our own perspectives as living beings trying to make the most out of life.  Many people of many religions have had experiences of the Divine (some of various Deities or and others of a One God).  That doesn't mean that the Divine is literally true, only that they had powerful experiences.  But, if those experiences make us better people, maybe this gnosis of the Divine is still worthwhile even if it's NOT literal truth.\n\nSo, in summary, I think you need to figure out what you mean by "God" and what exactly you believe about God before you can know whether or not evolution is mutually exclusive with that concept.
1143148
Evolutionists argue that life of all forms evolved from primitive to more complex forms in response to the environment.\n\nIntelligent designers argue that none of this evolution stuff would work without a higher intelligence (read God) to get it all going in the first place.  Generally seen as another attempt to inject fundamentalism into the government so we can enjoy the same kind of life as our muslim brothers.......\n\nDisclaimer:  None of the above was researched anywhere on the web.  100% original Steve
1021262
There is ample physical evidence that proves that evolution has taken place and continues to take place to shape the development and genetic variability of life on this planet.  \n\nSo evolution definitely exists.\n\nThe fact that evolution exists, however, does NOT mean that god does not exist.\n\nIf you believe in god (I don't, but evolutionary biology has no part in that belief), then there is no reason that god cannot be the hidden driving force behind the physical laws of the universe that work together to cause biological evolution to take place, and eventually lead to the evolution of sentient creatures such as human beings who are capable of a measure of understanding of god's universe.\n\nThe only discrepancy between a belief in god and an understanding of biological evolution is reconciling the hard, verifiable evidence of geology and paleontology with a literalist, fundamentalist reading of the first two chapters of Genesis.\n\nIt is only if you insist that Genesis MUST be absolutely, physically true that there is any conflict between the two.  Note that a literalist reading of Genesis also requires that the Earth be flat.  \n\nJust as the fact that the Earth is round doesn't disprove the existence of god, the fact that evolution occurs and has occurred to form the diversity of life seen today does not disprove god's hand in that process.
89036
dear ash,\n\nIf you say that you believe in a supreme being then technically you are not an atheist.\n\nTo be an Atheist means that one do not believe in the idea of a supreme being (God); hence, the word A-theist (A="without" theist="Theos" = "God")\n\nIf you say that you are not sure of God's existence, but still open with the idea of the supreme being then you are an Agnostic.\n\nIf you believe in God, then you are a "Theist"
591399
Wow:  Thanks for the info about the DNA.  For those readers that wondered how the world comes into being without God creating what He alone is able and willing, such info as the DNA, let alone the rest of the whole complex of Created mass and masterpieces, it rests on this issue.  You see, you think, and you understand.  OR you see, and refuse to see, you think and you refuse to think, and you refuse to understand.  Part of that matter of Free choice.  The simple fact is, what you choose to believe is also part of the gift you were given in Creation.  You believe or not, and amazing, it gives you a part in the rest of the community.  There are adequate numbers of unbelievers, that will all affirm your faithlessness, just as there are adequate numbers of believers who will affirm your believe in pagan cult, just as there are adequate numbers of believers in Islam, or Christianity or any other form religion.  Numbers however, doesnt affirm factuallity.  Flat world theorists believe it.  Round world hanging in space believe it.  Sun circling the earth believers affirm it, as do earth circling the sun believers affirm their bit of observation.  \n   Did Noach go searching for the animals?  No, the Text says, according to Moses, affirming that GOd instructed him to write, that God caused the animals to come to the ark.  Noachs job was to build it and stock it with grain and grass, as all the animals would eat vegetarian while aboard, including Noach and family.  Is that possible?  Depends on how you view and believe.  Impossible for those who refuse to believe that GOD was involved.  Possible for those that choose to believe in such miracle process or natural process.   It is all amazing, no matter what you believe.  If you believe God created, thats amazing.  From my point of view thats acceptable.  What would be more amazing is to try to figure out how all this world in all its complexity came into being without a Creator God, since it is obviously more complex than any human can contrive.  Heck,,,we cant even create a blade of grass from nothing, let alone a human eye..or the rest of a human being.\n   The story of the group of scientists who were all working on a grand assignment, to duplicate life...and one day they all agreed, they had done it.  Accomplished the grand impossible,  they had developed a life form in a petri dish.   Eureka they shouted...we did it.  We dont need GOD any more.   THEN GOD SAID :  Now, try it without anything:  No dirt, no fire, no water, no air and no petri dish.
1143395
Sure... Ta for asking.\n\nI have come to this decision based on my upbringing, education, research, and experience.  I have found no evidence to support the claims outlined by any religion (and I have researched most of them), and infact find stacks of evidence that questions the validity and even the source of all the 'divinely inspired' books.  For me  science has plausible, logical & evidenced based answers to how we have developed by impersonal means.\n\nNatural disasters are impersonal, viruses and diseases kill all the time, and of course people kill people and animals.  Nature has many examples of downright evil design like parasitoids or just plain stupid design like the blind spot in our eye.\n\nA study of history shows the development of religion and it is plain to see how it is borne out of fear of the unknown, and for the main religions they have been spread alot by blood.  I also find the concept of god illogical, and find the holy book versions to be mean and sadistic.\n\nI have never ever witnessed anything I can't explain naturally.\n\nSo quite simply I have nothing to suggest a god exists -so to me it is a non concept up there with santa and the tooth fairy, therefore I am atheist.
488517
First you would have to find an evolutionist, whatever that is. And second you need to prove the existance of some alleged temporal hell.