Is atheism predicated partially on the belief in evolution and the current prevailing views of science.
If so, then such a belief is subject to drastic changes as discoveries and theories
have recently arose that shatter the paradigm that is the foundation of such a belief:
Discoveries keep pushing back the inception of civilization, indefinitely back in time
Evidence of coastal civilizations existing during the ice age are arising in now inundated coastal region due to rising seas.
The concept of a missing link is no longer postulated as a bush of hominids lineages walked the earth. With what was once considered ancestors, actually being contemporary with postulated descendants. A bush of hominids actually existed as recently as 30,0000 B.C.E.
Though theories of evolution abound no working scientific model exists for the emergence of life.
Our very existence is interwoven with the anthropic principle. As such this has required scientist to postulate the multiverse to explain how the anthropic principle is mindlessly satisfied by nature. However this just substitutes one unfalsifiable believe for another.
In truth, Darwin's world has been shattered and the truth has become intractable. Even as we cope with dark matter and energy. Terms that falsely connote that we have defined them, when in fact they are no more apparent than God. As such new scientific theories continue to emerge based on the inadequacy of the standard model. This will continue into infinitum since, as God there is no means to detect these alleged entities with scientific instrumentation.
RE: "Every murmur will have to be acounted for" - Would the title of that be, Murmur He Wrote?
Hehehehehehehe! interesting statistics
I have just came across this. The title seems appropriate: Denying Evolution Won't Make Your God Any More Real
Atheism is lack of faith in gods, no more no less. Evolution is a separate issue, which many atheists tend to accept but don't have to. And evolution is not a belief its a scientific fact.
This would be a very nice way to organize a chocolate fountain for a conference of evolutionary biologists, or a teaching moment at a creationist's 'believe-in'.
I thank you for the review.
No, Michael, it is not 'pure speculation'. Pure speculation would be something like, "I believe you have blond hair, blue eyes, are 5 foot ten and 5 eighths of an inch tall and speak with a lisp." That is pure speculation because I have absolutely no basis for believing any of those physical traits about you.
We are continually finding that the evolutionary tree is bushier than previously thought but DNA still ties everything together nicely. It hasn't all been sequenced yet, but with each passing year another species or two gets fully sequenced and so far there haven't been any surprises - nothing 'paradigm shifting', at least.
No... You're born an atheist, so what interest does evolution and science hold in the mind of infancy? This does not make them any less atheist. We are all born atheist. It's not a choice. You're saying atheism is a belief system built upon specific facts. Atheism is too natural to be defined in that way.
Really, there are several different types of atheists. For those who never were exposed to a religion, or were exposed to too many for one to take root, there is one type, which I will call type A. Then there are the “de-converted” atheists, who were at one point indoctrinated into a faith. These I will call type B. Type A atheists do not have a higher interest in the sciences, accepting atheism as a matter of course; it’s something that just is. Type B atheists, on the other hand, will likely have arrived at atheism by seeing and rejecting the fallacies and contradictions in the tenets of their former faith. However, the release of a faith leaves a “god-shaped hole” in them, which in turn must be filled by something. The sciences, especially evolution, fill this hole as an explanation. Evolution especially because it is (by a very loose definition) a creation story. So, for type A, science holds no particular interest, but type B already has a sort of “obsession slot” programmed in, which science fills quite nicely.
This is just speculation, mind you, but it seems to fit.
@ Nate Townsend - Seeing and rejecting fallacies and contradictions - absolutely, very easy if one studies religion - all religions, not one particular type, if one educates onself with all the myths and fables, then extrapolates that to the jewish OT then onward and upward to the christian NT - then also coming to the knowledge that there were so many versions, opinions and translation - that nobody, even if they were in the business, could agree. Therefore, more and more religions than one could poke a stick at - were born.
This is where you really show your ignorance - However, the release of a faith leaves a 'god-shaped hole" - I am starting to think, you are 'Not Really" serious are you? No god, therefore no hole to be formed, just more and more knowledge, seeing how imaginative the human mind is, to make up stories like the garden of eden, noah's ark, quite interesting stories, showing how inadequate, dumb, envious, jealous, this particular god is. Not a nice person at all - coming to that knowledge, which people are actually pushing as "True" Now, that is amazing.
And sad, that there are so many people, who are so full of fear, and just not very bright, that they actually believe these imaginations are true, and live their life in fear.
No god, no allah, no noah, no ark, no adam, no eve, no talking snake,
Why don't you say which religion you are - are you embarrassed, ashamed, or have you gone off on your own, made yet another sect or cult - because you disagree about 'something' the last religion you were in. Seems to be the pattern with religious types :)
Perhaps I used the wrong wording. I said “God shaped hole” meaning the absence of the church and an ordered belief system in a former theist’s life. The point is that having had a religion changes a person even after they reject it. And that this change in their personality makes them wish to search for things to “replace” the belief system. What is used to replace the belief system is very important. When it is replaced with the sciences, then you have created an atheist.
Interestingly enough, that’s my story. I was born into a religious family, but I’m an atheist heavily interested in the sciences, as well as theology (ironic, no?) which is why I’m not vicious to people i think are theists who showed up to make comments.
I think, Nate, that if I understood you correctly, you were saying that people who were born into secular families are whole from the onset, but that those who were born into religious families, were indoctrinated from youth, and later became atheists, have lost something - whether valid or invalid - upon which they once depended, and that that can leave a psychological hole that they will need to fill with something, if only stamp collecting (yes, I'm simplifying). Close?