They dismiss God because there is no scientific proof of His existence. However, if something in evolution cannot be explained and creationists say "God did it," then atheists fight back by saying we just don't understand that aspect of evolution. Why don't they hold both examples with the same amount of weight? Maybe someday in the future we will have the knowledge to better prove the existence of God. This is the same reasoning many atheists use when dealing with an unexplained issue concerning evolution or the big bang (both of which I believe in). And I am not a creationist.
2007-12-14 05:46:14 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Some say that the body is material like everything else. So, we are just "There. No purpose. No reason." So, If I have no purpose, or reason that first thing I would latch on to is other materials. I mean, there is no other reason for me not to do this, right?
But if there is nothing there, then why do we worry about it when we die? We all do. Whether your Atheist or not.
2007-12-14 13:05:49 · answer #1 · answered by Da Mick 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
'They dismiss God because there is no scientific proof of His existence. However, if something in evolution cannot be explained and creationists say "God did it," then atheists fight back by saying we just don't understand that aspect of evolution.'
If a person has already dismissed the concept of God because there is no scientific proof of God's existence, it would be illogical to accept, as an answer to a problem, the notion that "God did it." If God's existence cannot be proven by science, then actions or events cannot be attributed to God in a scientific explanation, either.
2007-12-14 13:59:53 · answer #2 · answered by Chantal G 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I understand your point but it is kind of a misapplication.
atheists say there is no proof so do not believe...and there is NO proof, at all, in any way of a God. I personally believe in a God (since in an infinite universe there are infinite possibilities) and not because I need to feel better or I have proof...but it is what makes sense to me and I don't ask anyone to understand let alone believe what I do
Evolution has lots of proof behind it...may have gaps but overall is very solid and validated.
So they are 2 totally different situations, totally different areas, and for most part SHOULD NOT come into contact with each other.
Granny Annie> Since no one is attacking and saying that stackoladan is a creationist your little rant is not only silly but actually a waste of time,space and resources
2007-12-14 13:55:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I'm not so wedded to evolutionary theory that if facts and evidence overturn it I would be unwilling to accept it. I don't take it on faith. While we may still have areas we need to learn more about the theory is broadly supported and continues to be supported by evidence and extremely useful. While people on here are going on about how weak it is scientists in the real world are publishing on the unexpected signs of more rapid than expected evolution in humans and ground breaking research into disease treatment based on evolutionary research. So the theory is well supported and continues to be quite useful to those in the field. When it is not scientists will discard it for what better evidence indicates. This may seem arbitrary but it is how humans have made huge progress in the world. As far as God goes the evidence is none existent in the sense of any scientific standard. You have faith (people have faith in all sorts of things like aliens, Allah, Ganesh, its not proof), ancient texts that could be inaccurate or exagerated mythologies of real events, and personal subjective revelation. I don't think the two situations are analogous.
2007-12-14 13:58:53 · answer #4 · answered by Zen Pirate 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That is an interesting idea, but is dishonest.
Claiming ignorance of a subject is honesty. We don't know what caused abiogenesis yet. However we have 200 years of the scientific process providing success and understanding and knowledge which has led to tremendous progress and benefit to mankind.
That type of evidence supports the belief that, although we don't currently know everything about evolution, or the genesis of life, we have a darn good track record of uncovering facts and creating supportable theories.
The belief that science is beneficial and will one day provide answers to questions we don't currently have is supported by history and the facts.
The belief that religion holds answers is not at all supported by history or the facts. It remains an issue of faith, which has been used to detriment mankind sinced inception.
2007-12-14 13:54:18 · answer #5 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's not just a question of who can prove what ? Creationists base everything on belief , but all of their belief is supernatural.
This Atheist believes in nothing that is not of the natural world . Angels , devils , gods are all supernaturals , therefore are just so much stupid superstitions to me.
We are all just part of nature . What becomes of one living thing , plant or animal , after death happens to all living things . This requires no supernatural superstitions . It's easy to explain , easy to understand , easy to believe . No imaginry "souls" are necessary . No fairy-tale "gods" are necessary . No magic wands, no three-in-one's , no people made of mud , no virgins having kids. When you lean back in a recliner and think deeply about religious beliefs , looking for explanations and possibilities , what do you come up with ? s-u-p-e-r-s-t-i-t-i-o-n .
2007-12-14 14:08:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
A true scientist will not say "I know it isn't true because I don't have proof in front of me" but they will say "I'm not going to believe it until I have proof or at least some evidence in front of me."
Apparently scientists don't need a warm and fuzzy feeling about God like I do. I am a Christian but I do believe evolution and the big bang happened, and that it didn't take 6 days, but 6 billenia (Kind of a concidence that one, isn't it?)
2007-12-14 13:54:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I've never required proof of God. I choose to be atheist because the evidence we have so far makes his chances of existing vanishingly small. I don't believe in pixies, either.
Good luck with that proving God thing. Let us know how you're getting on. Surprised you actually need some, I thought faith was the key to it all?
2007-12-14 13:50:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Nope. It's an example of creationist ignorance. Scientists concede, when they don't have all of the facts, that they don't have all the facts. Creationists just say "God did it" without attempting to reason or explain anything,. or look further. Which is ignorant.
2007-12-14 13:51:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
"Maybe someday in the future we will have the knowledge to better prove the existence of God."
bird in the hand is worth two in the bush
2007-12-14 13:50:26 · answer #10 · answered by GEISHA 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋