Is it possible for an Atheist to not believe in evolution

Ironically, Satanics are not atheists, since they worship the devil, which means they believe God exists.

From what I've gathered Satanists don't really believe in a god either, more like their buddhists that like the carnal pleasures of life. isn't their whole religion just one big metaphor for free will and what not?

Unless your talking about the made up satanist cult that christian propagandists like to spout about that kill animals and rape babies.

Ironically, Satanics are not atheists, since they worship the devil, which means they believe God exists.

From what I've gathered Satanists don't really believe in a god either, more like their buddhists that like the carnal pleasures of life. isn't their whole religion just one big metaphor for free will and what not?

Unless your talking about the made up satanist cult that christian propagandists like to spout about that kill animals and rape babies.

snap crafter wrote

From what I've gathered Satanists don't really believe in a god either, more like their buddhists that like the carnal pleasures of life. isn't their whole religion just one big metaphor for free will and what not?

Unless your talking about the made up satanist cult that christian propagandists like to spout about that kill animals and rape babies.

No, you're right. They actually indulge in all pleasures forbidden by God, hence encouraged by Satan.

And, really, if you believe in God, why would you screw yourself over and worship the Devil.

Peace.

snap crafter wrote

From what I've gathered Satanists don't really believe in a god either, more like their buddhists that like the carnal pleasures of life. isn't their whole religion just one big metaphor for free will and what not?

Unless your talking about the made up satanist cult that christian propagandists like to spout about that kill animals and rape babies.

No, you're right. They actually indulge in all pleasures forbidden by God, hence encouraged by Satan.

And, really, if you believe in God, why would you screw yourself over and worship the Devil.

Peace.

[psyadam]

i don't believe that man necessarily came from the apes. So where did we come from then? I don't know. Count that as one of the many things I don't know.

[psyadam]

i don't believe that man necessarily came from the apes. So where did we come from then? I don't know. Count that as one of the many things I don't know.

[psyadam]

ArchyDeluxe wrote

I say yes. But they sure as fuck can't believe in ID

It depends how ID is presented. If ID doesn't mention God or religion, there's no real bite to it. At that point all it's saying is that it doesn't think evolution is correct. Technically, Intelligent Design doesn't really make any claim to God or Religion. Practically, it's a tool for right-wingers.

[psyadam]

ArchyDeluxe wrote

I say yes. But they sure as fuck can't believe in ID

It depends how ID is presented. If ID doesn't mention God or religion, there's no real bite to it. At that point all it's saying is that it doesn't think evolution is correct. Technically, Intelligent Design doesn't really make any claim to God or Religion. Practically, it's a tool for right-wingers.

[psyadam]

never mind again sorry

[psyadam]

never mind again sorry

[psyadam]

whoneedscience wrote

I don't know. I know a couple atheists who are just as stupid as theists in that they accept whatever they are told but never really think about it. They were raised without any mention of God, so they never questioned it either way. To them evolution is some silly science thing they had to learn in high school, but have long since forgotten about completely.

I used to think a lot of intellectual things were impossible to believe, but that was back when I was a Republican and struggling agnostic, and that whole part of my life just makes me feel bad about existence. Leave it to theists to prove that the human brain is capable of believing any amount of nonsense.

I used identify myself as a republican too... when I was 14. Sure I look back and think, wow that was stupid, but I can forgive myself. I was 14 and both my parents were and are strong republicans. I realized I was gay around 15-16. I realized I was gay, that there was no god, and became democrat all at once. Talk about a good deal. The bad thing is though that the guy I had the hots for didn't magically fall in love with me at the same time.

[psyadam]

whoneedscience wrote

I don't know. I know a couple atheists who are just as stupid as theists in that they accept whatever they are told but never really think about it. They were raised without any mention of God, so they never questioned it either way. To them evolution is some silly science thing they had to learn in high school, but have long since forgotten about completely.

I used to think a lot of intellectual things were impossible to believe, but that was back when I was a Republican and struggling agnostic, and that whole part of my life just makes me feel bad about existence. Leave it to theists to prove that the human brain is capable of believing any amount of nonsense.

I used identify myself as a republican too... when I was 14. Sure I look back and think, wow that was stupid, but I can forgive myself. I was 14 and both my parents were and are strong republicans. I realized I was gay around 15-16. I realized I was gay, that there was no god, and became democrat all at once. Talk about a good deal. The bad thing is though that the guy I had the hots for didn't magically fall in love with me at the same time.

[Philboid Studge]

BEAJ wrote

When you say "who knows" you are agnostic only. When you say there is absolutely no proof that god has ever existed, so why believe there is a god, you are an atheist.

I see the distinction you're making, but I say an agnostic won't simply ask 'Who knows?' An agnostic will affirm that this realm -- for want of a better term -- is unknowable. As for your second statement above, that is one possible way to arrive at atheism -- by determining for yourself there is no proof. And it does not conflict in any way with the agnostic position.

MosslemA wrote

In other words, an agnostic is someone who does not believe the evidence favors either position, regardless of the fact that he's right...

Not quite. An agnostic is someone who does not believe that any such evidence exists; or if it does exist, it cannot be known. (hence the 'without knowledge' etymology -- thanks, Cal)

If we use your approach, theists become atheists because they cannot prove their beliefs and atheists become theists because they cannot quite refute the claim of a God.

No, if we use my approach, then all are recognized as agnostics -- theists and atheists alike. Atheists can certainly 'refute' specific god-concepts -- e.g., showing logical contradictions in the Xian god -- and that may inform their beliefs. What they cannot do is 'know' or prove that all possible god-concepts (an infinite set) are refutable.

More to the point, if we use my approach, we'll all stop trying to apply the terms 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' as competing expressions. Atheism means no belief(s) in god-concepts; Agnosticism means that knowledge of god-concepts is impossible, whether you believe in God or not.

I don't understand why this distinction is so difficult to understand. I suspect that many Ravers feel agnosticism has a connotation of wishy-washiness, or that it leaves the door open to theism. All I can say is au contraire. In a way, the (atheist) agnostic is taking a stronger position. The atheist says 'I don't believe in God; there is no proof.' The agnostic says, 'Neither do I, and there can never be proof.'

Maybe I should resign myself to the fact that 'agnosticism' will be understood differently by different people. Though it really shouldn't be ...

Piece.

[Philboid Studge]

BEAJ wrote

When you say "who knows" you are agnostic only. When you say there is absolutely no proof that god has ever existed, so why believe there is a god, you are an atheist.

I see the distinction you're making, but I say an agnostic won't simply ask 'Who knows?' An agnostic will affirm that this realm -- for want of a better term -- is unknowable. As for your second statement above, that is one possible way to arrive at atheism -- by determining for yourself there is no proof. And it does not conflict in any way with the agnostic position.

MosslemA wrote

In other words, an agnostic is someone who does not believe the evidence favors either position, regardless of the fact that he's right...

Not quite. An agnostic is someone who does not believe that any such evidence exists; or if it does exist, it cannot be known. (hence the 'without knowledge' etymology -- thanks, Cal)

If we use your approach, theists become atheists because they cannot prove their beliefs and atheists become theists because they cannot quite refute the claim of a God.

No, if we use my approach, then all are recognized as agnostics -- theists and atheists alike. Atheists can certainly 'refute' specific god-concepts -- e.g., showing logical contradictions in the Xian god -- and that may inform their beliefs. What they cannot do is 'know' or prove that all possible god-concepts (an infinite set) are refutable.

More to the point, if we use my approach, we'll all stop trying to apply the terms 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' as competing expressions. Atheism means no belief(s) in god-concepts; Agnosticism means that knowledge of god-concepts is impossible, whether you believe in God or not.

I don't understand why this distinction is so difficult to understand. I suspect that many Ravers feel agnosticism has a connotation of wishy-washiness, or that it leaves the door open to theism. All I can say is au contraire. In a way, the (atheist) agnostic is taking a stronger position. The atheist says 'I don't believe in God; there is no proof.' The agnostic says, 'Neither do I, and there can never be proof.'

Maybe I should resign myself to the fact that 'agnosticism' will be understood differently by different people. Though it really shouldn't be ...

Piece.

Philboid Studge wrote

I don't understand why this distinction is so difficult to understand. I suspect that many Ravers feel agnosticism has a connotation of wishy-washiness, or that it leaves the door open to theism. All I can say is au contraire. In a way, the (atheist) agnostic is taking a stronger position. The atheist says 'I don't believe in God; there is no proof.' The agnostic says, 'Neither do I, and there can never be proof.'

Maybe I should resign myself to the fact that 'agnosticism' will be understood differently by different people. Though it really shouldn't be ...

Piece.

I see what you're getting at, but I have a problem with the reasoning behind it.

Your definitions of agnosticism and atheism are not based on the same foundation. You’re comparing apples to oranges. You are defining agnosticism as a position of knowledge not belief. Atheism and theism have everything to do with belief and nothing to do with knowledge. When you use knowledge as the measuring stick, nobody knows shit, and the term theism becomes meaningless.

When using faith or belief as the measuring stick, agnosticism becomes the “belief” that the existence of God is unknowable, hence you lack belief in God, which, in turn, makes you an atheist.

To sum up, in the world of faith, agnosticism is a derivative of atheism, and in the world of knowledge, agnosticism is the only position.

As far as etymology goes, agnosticism is also defined as the position opposite to gnosticism, which generally entertained the god and spirituality concepts. This is the definition related to faith. Cal’s etymology is the definition related to knowledge. If you look the word up in Merriam-Webster, it is defined as the “view” that God is unknowable.

Peace.