If you do not believe in God, does that automatically mean you believe in evolution and the big bang?

Question

Or is that just another misconception about atheism?

wanzanna, interesting that you say it's a misconception since you just said when I asked did it take faith to not believe in god, that yes it took faith to believe in evolution etc. As if not believing in god mean you believed in evolution. Interesting indeed.

Answer 1

It is a misconception; atheists existed long before the theory of evolution.

Answer 2

If you don't believe in a God or Gods or Deities then you are an atheist,
then I would assume you believe only that which you can "prove" with empirical evidence.

Atheist is defined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

If you follow the definition that atheists need empirical evidence to "believe" in something like the
Big Bang or Evolution
Then logic would follow they can't "believe" in these theory's because they are not supported by definitive empirical evidence.
Since they are both "Theories"
Then I would conclude that the answer to your question...

" does that automatically mean you believe in evolution and the big bang? >( if you are an atheist?)"

would be
NO

Answer 3

It's misconception.

An Atheist can believe in anything regarding origin of universe except god. He may not believe in god but may believe in aliens or an eternal universe. Anything logically possible.

So yes it's a misconception about all atheists being evolutionists.

Answer 4

Technically yes. It is another misconception. Though most Atheists are probably going to believe in evolution and the big bang theory, there is no rule that says we have to.

I do.

Answer 5

When a person says they are an atheist, then, by process f elimination, that means they don't believe creation occurred because of God.

If intelligent life didn't make us, then the only other possible choice is that life had to be created by something un-intelligent. And this is the challenge for the atheist, how do you start with a random or unintelligent beginning and evolve or develop to life as we know it today? This question is the very foundation of atheist's belief and if it can't be proven at this point, it is not an intelligent solution to the problem of why we are here.

Answer 6

It is a misconception, socrates was accused of being an atheist long before those theories existed. However today, I think that those theories often cause people to turn to atheism, or are used for a support of atheism. However, still not 100% of atheists today probably believe in them.

Answer 7

No, withdrawal from any religion does not automatically mean that you conform to "secular" or otherwise "ungodly" beliefs. There are plenty of Christian biologists who indomitably argue in favor of the theory of evolution. Everybody believes differently, because truthfully nobody can really assert which theories are accurate and which are flawed. The infallibility of the Bible, in some cases can also be applied to this as well.

Answer 8

I think it's safe to say there's a lot of theists that also acknowledge the big bang and evolution (I hope so anyway). But yeah, I've never met an atheist who would deny either.

Just be careful how you use the word "believe". Asking if one "believes" in evolution is akin to asking if they "believe" in gravity. Neither requires "belief", only observation.

Answer 9

That's a misconception yes. Atheism is dated back in ancient times (Greece - Plato), before theory of evolution and the big bang of course. But most atheists tend to accept those theories because they do not include a supernatural being

Answer 10

It really comes down to parsimony, economy of explanation. It is possible that your car engine is driven by psychokinetic energy, but if it looks like a petrol engine, smells like a petrol engine and performs exactly as well as a petrol engine, the sensible working hypothesis is that it is a petrol engine. Telepathy and possession by the spirits of the dead are not ruled out as a matter of principle. There is certainly nothing impossible about abduction by aliens in UFOs. One day it may be happen. But on grounds of probability it should be kept as an explanation of last resort. It is unparsimonious, demanding more than routinely weak evidence before we should believe it. If you hear hooves clip-clopping down a London street, it could be a zebra or even a unicorn, but, before we assume that it's anything other than a horse, we should demand a certain minimal standard of evidence.