Can anyone help me with how atheists and evolutionists believe?
595788
You have a hole in your bucket.  Native American philosophy worships and respects the earth, beauty, life, and death, but you wouldn't accept it because it isn't EXACTLY what you believe.  You have presented no meaningful criteria.  I like all that stuff too, and it is more beautiful and amazing without being a product of a personality.
715140
Let me preface my thoughts by stating that I am not an Evangelical Christian, so I have a broader interpretation of Christianity.  With that said, let me answer your questions.\n\n******\n"Do you not believe in EVOLUTION and SCIENCE?\n(dinosaurs, man came from the ape..etc)"\n\nEvolution and science are not necessarily contradictory to religion.  For example, evolution could be considered *how* the Divine created the "what."  This is my argument, as I do believe in both evolution and science, as well as the Divine.  There are many who denounce evolution saying that it is theory--it is not.  Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" (a term that was not coined by him) is theory, but opponents of evolution have lumped the two together.  While evolution is not simply "man came from the ape," it does lead us to observe microcosmic and macrocosmic changes in the world.  Theologically, evolution can be considered the "tool" the Divine used to create everything.\n\nIn general, religion can be considered to be similar to philosophy--both of which are humankind's attempt to, through mythology and ideology, understand the world in a way that is more meaningful than a scientific approach.  Actually, the science of today originated from philosophy and religion.\n\n******\n\n"Do you not think the bible is full of CONTRODICTIONS?\n(adam and eve were the only two people so where did everybody else come from)"\n\nOf course, but contradictions can be found in any field, including that of science.  There are three main problems that can be found with the Bible, though:\n\nFirst, the text was written over many years by a handful of people.  This could easily lead to contradictory content.  Of course, you must be sure what you are reading is correct, which leads to the next problem.\n\nSecond, the majority of the Bible has been transliterated, which means it was translated from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek/Latin to English/French/etc.  This means that much meaning has been lost.  The only way you can honestly say the Bible is full of contradictions is to read it in the original languages.  Much insight can be found by doing so.\n\nThird, the Bible is incomplete.  There are many "books" and documents that have not been included in the text.  This is due to the watchful eye of papal administration.\n\nI personally don't take too much stock in the stories of the Bible--they are simply written in the mythological/archetypal language of the human psyche.  They are wonderful stories and can speak to a person in very meaningful ways, but they are just stories.  It must be noted, however, that an increasing number of these stories are being backed-up by archaeological evidence.\n\n******\n\n"Do you not think its something that people choose to believe in in order to feel that life has meaning?"\n\nNot necessarily.  Unfortunately, there are many who "believe" in Christianity just because that is what their parents (or parental figures) believed.  All mythology (Christian mythology not excluded) speaks to our base understanding, which relies on symbols and archetypes.  All humans use myth to create their realities (Atheists not excluded).  These myths can be a Creator God, a Sacrificial God, Science, or no God at all--the same archetypes are there.\n\nSince pre-history, human beings have strived to better understand the world in which they live.  This brought meaning to their lives.  However, they have had many "tools" to accomplish this task, tools such as science, religion, mathematics, and philosophy.  Each of these tools were created to bring meaning and understanding to a person's life.
412335
A belief in god and evolution is mainly a problem for closed-minded bible literalists...typically fundamentalists, who believe that every word in the bible is written as god intended.\n\nThe problem you face is this. If the bible isn't taken as a literal document of belief, how do you choose which bits to believe and which bits not to believe? So, is execution right or wrong...because the bible is both "for" and "against". Same for homosexuality (although not in modern terms).\n\nMost scientists I know who are christians accomodate this dilemma by using the bible as a broad belief framework - which is perfectly acceptable - and they talk about how they are able to draw their values from this position, but they keep an open mind about what science discovers and how science can help. \n\nBible literalists have a hard time trying to present their ideas without attacking science, as though science is some kind of enemy - the kind of enemy that will end up saving their lives from cancer or serious accident someday. The greatest disservice these people play in society is to present the idea to children that science is somehow seriously flawed and that nothing can ever be proven - unlike their belief system, however, which has a complete video record of god creating the earth in 6 days (sorry, that was sarcasm...something bible literalists will have a hard time understanding).\n\nTo Vangyblue below - that's the biggest pile of nonsense I've read for for at least 30 minutes. All the evidence of the failure of American education is present in your response.
740871
Atheists have to turn a blind eye to logic.\n\nThey cannot answer the following:\n1) How did something arise from nothing?\n2) Order arose from chaos?\n3) Life arose from non-life?\n4) Intelligence arose from non-intelligence?\n\n3 things evolutions cannot explain: 1) Consciousness 2) Increasing Information and 3) The very first life\n\nThey do a good job of name calling, but they HAVE NO ANSWERS.\n\n** Checkmate, God **\n\nPerfect example: Christians can look at the science of a 747 jet and conclude that the plane will fly.  Christians have faith to get on the plane and fly it.  Science only proves the plane will fly, faith gives us wings.  Atheists will be left on the ground.\n\n.
250966
Hey hun.  Unfortunately, there are no sure answers to any of your questions -- at least, none that the general population agrees with.  Most scientists agree that evolution is how we came to look the way we do and that yes, we did evolve from primates.  But many of them do not find comfort in God and are skeptical about His existence.\n\nDo you think creationism makes sense?  Are you a religious person?  Think it out for yourself, see what you think is most valid.  Look up research about evolution if you want, and ask your religious leader questions.  All I can tell you is, you are going to get conflicting information from all those different sources out there.  You just have to process all of it and figure out wich stuff makes the most sense to you.\n\nGood luck!
568570
The fact that evolution is a theory that makes sense and that has evidence that supports it.\n\nCreationism is an irrational belief of those who are afraid of science and do not wish to get in their any more information than  "god created and controls everything, that is all i need to know", personally i think shows weakness of mind.  Creationist thinking has no way to even theorize how "god", "heaven", "hell", etc. might exist, while evolution has facts that supports it.
238663
It is truly absurd. \n\nI don't know if I can completely, 100% believe in creation, but evolution is even more impossible to believe. Even true science doesn't stand behind it. \n\nCheck out: 2nd law of thermodynamics, and Chaos theory.
413545
Make sure you are prepared before you get into a discussion with an atheist.\n\ndba_gregg,Here is something for you\nhttp://www.godandscience.org
1157187
Your question is a very reasonable one --and brave, since you'll certainly get answers from religious zealots who have completely closed their minds.  Let me start by saying my *only* personal agenda is a search for the truth, no matter where it leads me.  Unlike many, I'm not here to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. \n\nThe short answer is that I doubt it's possible in this kind of forum to get into enough details to convince a confirmed *creationist* that humans evolved from simpler life forms.  But I hope to encourage an open-minded person to continue with their own research, and not be tempted by overly "easy" answers.   \n\nThe long answer (most of it written by me, some of it transcribed manually; none of it pasted)...\n\nI, too, was unclear about the evolutionary process for a long time.  While I'm not an expert (and *nobody* has *all* the answers) I think I can help you get to a place where it makes *sense* to you as it now does to me, since you appear to have an open mind.  (Agnosticism is good!)  \n\nAfter hearing people's arguments and questions for many years, I am convinced that there are six huge factors getting in the way of a general acceptance of the *overwhelming* scientific evidence for evolution.  \n\n1 - the common misconception that evolution claims apes or chimpanzees changed to human beings, and the perceived indignity -- and indignation -- that goes along with that idea... or with *any* suggestion that we evolved from a lower form.  It's nothing but ridiculous human arrogance!\n2 - the lack of human conception for the vast time life has had on Earth to evolve\n3 - the human temptation to rush things and jump to ridiculous (and therefore naturally hard to believe) conclusions.  Evolution involves not three or four steps, like fish to amphibian to ape to human!)... not hundreds, or even thousands of big, visible steps... but perhaps hundreds of millions of minute, subtle changes in a life form.  Remember, we have had the time!\n4 - the mistaken notion that creatures evolved because they "decided" to, or "wanted" to.  When we say, for example, that fish needed to absorb oxygen more efficiently from the water, so they evolved gills, that's not to imply it was a choice.  Evolution is about mutations... changes that were random from one generation to the next, over long periods of time.  Those changes that happened to be good for the creature meant that creature survived long enough to reproduce, which meant there would now be lots of little babies with that same feature.\n5 - a fearful and/or stubborn refusal to abandon faith in a Creator, since doing so might condemn the unbeliever to eternal suffering\n6 - It's just *easier* to think about a Creator.\n\nI know you want to see some details of our "life's path" to make sense of it, and I will provide that, below.  Just a bit more, first.\n\nThe central ideas of evolution are that all life shares a common ancestor, and that it has changed over time (obviously, if we are to explain getting from A to B).  While it's hard for many people to imagine the changes that would result in, for example, human beings from lifelessness, the first thing to keep firmly in mind is that we are talking about an *unimagineable* amount of time to play with... the earth having been around for some 4.5 billion years, as you said.\n\nUnderstandably, few people can appreciate how much a billion is.  Do you realize that roughly a billion *seconds* ago, "The Godfather, Part 2" was about to win the Academy Award for Best Picture?... that Richard Nixon was President of the U.S.?... that Hank Aaron had just broken Babe Ruth's record of 714 career home runs?  1974 was drawing to a close -- one billion seconds ago.\n\nIt's a lack of appreciation for this vast amount of time which, I think, makes people skeptical.  They wonder how, in any amount of time they can envision, an ape can c
723854
... Hrm. Good question and. Yeah, I think you would be an atheist. Atheism is the unbelief of god or anything above. If you just don't believe in the christian, Catholic, islamic etc etc, with all the "founded" religions, but believe in a greater power you are an agnostic, I think. \n\nEvolution is not part of Atheist belief, it's just a label. Somehow believing in evolution means not believing in god. But there are those who believe in both so why not someone who doesn't believe in either? \n\nAlthough I would like to know if you have any belief about how we got here. or "came to exist" The only other possibility that popped into my head was "aliens dropped us here like my dad suspected" but I'm sure there's more than three explanations as to how humans came to be humans.
1125043
Most atheist are like a lot of evolutionist. Their mind is made up before they investigate. They refuse to look at any contrary factual evidence against their belief. They will only engage in debate with people who don't know what they are talking about. Its almost as though they are saying: 'don't confuse me with the facts-my mind is already made up'.
418415
evolution is just mans way of trying to understand how life got here and is how it is. Its a theory and not a proven fact. People just refuse to believe a higher power created them.\nI believe in breeding and that's it. God created basic life on the planet and then through breeding of those animals we got several different species in one classification of such.
991994
Could you clarify your question?\n\n\nEDIT:\nRead the answer carefully from Leviter_atin... It is good.\n\nReally look at the website s/he provided.\n\nAlso, I recommend you look at at least one book about evolution- "Finding Darwin's God," by Ken Miller.  Miller is a Christian and a cell biologist.  He does a VERY good job of explaining how science/evolution are NOT incompatible with Christianity.
342516
I'm an atheist.  I'll be the first person to admit that I could be wrong.  Science is constantly changing as we learn more about our reality.  That may be why scientists are reluctant to state more than "I believe, it is possible, I claim that", etc.\n\nFor what it's worth... you shouldn't be convinced of your hubbie's arguments without proof (or at least a solid rational/logical framework).  That's what is so great about science!  You can prove every aspect.  If you find evidence that contradicts a theory, you are more than welcome to come up with a new theory that explains all the evidence!!\n\nFor what it's worth, young earth creationism is not science and does not explain all the evidence.
298194
Because they have blind faith in creationism.  Nothing you say or do will ever change that.  You could show  mathmatical proof or facts to back up evolution (which I believe exist).\nThey have faith is something they cannot prove.  End of story.
642658
I find it interesting how everyone ASSUMES the writer is religious just because he disagrees with evolutionary theory.  Actually, belief in God (yes, it's capatilized) is more reasonable than belief in no higher being.  See the gamble in philosophy: if there is a God and you believe you get your reward, if you believe and there is no God then the same thing happens to you that happens to everyone, if you don't believe and there is no God you have the same situation as above. Finally, if you don't believe and there is a God you're SCREWED - yes, that's the technical term).  \n\nEvolution is definitely NOT proven, in fact, I have not seen any convincing evidence for the theory and it has turned out to not be very predictive. Unlike the theory of Gravity, which has not had any evidence against it yet and therefore is a good theory, evolution is a bad theory because it does not explain the observed facts.  Yes, here comes the wailing about the fossil record, finches in the Galapagos, etc...\n\nConsider this for a minute:\nThe Miller Experiment produced a racemic mixture of amino acids whereas living systems take almost primarily L-amino acids.  It is also extremely difficult to produce polypeptides in the lab without the required enzymes.  Plus, it has been accepted that oxygen was in the early atmosphere.\n\nThere are no known transition forms in the fossil record (maybe the winged lizard which I don't know how to spell).  If Darwinian evolution occurred the fossil record should be full of transition forms, but it's not.  Instead, it is characterized by rapid appearance of fully-formed organisms (like the Cambrian explosion or the appearance of flowering plants).  This led to theories like puntuated equilibrium, which is just an evolutionary form of intelligent design/abrupt appearance.\n\nThere is not a single proven mechanism by which ANY biological system has formed from inorganic matter.  How did an eye form?  What about just a bacteria?  These are much more complex than previously thought and is not a "lower" organism.\n\nFinally, most (if not all) mutations are either harmful or have no affect on the organism due to junk DNA.  It is unlikely that the great diversity present at this time could have occurred due to accumulation of mutations.  The age of the earth as accepted by most scientists do not give enough time for this to have occurred (I think it's about 4 billion years or something like that).\n\nYou want to know why it is still taught?  It is a pseudo-religion of materialistic atheists and allows atheists to comfortably believe there is not a God.  This is the same reason why there was resistance to the helocentric model of the solar system depsite the accumulating evidence.  People liked the earth and our civilization having a special place in the universe.
1087456
Evolution has scientific evidence. Creationism has none. Progressive creation is a poor compromise that favors religion and there is no evidence for it. Evolution has never been falsified in 150 years.